(May 8, 2013 at 11:52 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(May 8, 2013 at 11:29 pm)catfish Wrote: Ummm, I think we should just get a list of "acceptable" sources before we continue. Predicatable Bob is well, predictable...

Bob? What sources would you accept ?

As the charge is mass murder I find the standards being the same as those in a simple murder trial to be acceptable. Acceptable sources would be those acceptable in such a trial. But of course the same rules would apply. Beyond a reasonable doubt for one. And then first the physical evidence a crime has been committed and then only sworn testimony to the physical evidence. Most of it everyone who watches TV has seen enough of it to speak the lines before the actors. Mass murder being a greater crime than a single murder there is no excuse for lesser standards.

If this really bothers anyone the Nuremberg trial transcripts are online to start with. If it were a US trial it would have been overturned on appeal as not being justice at all but it is a place to start.

What is not acceptable is anonymous words or people who spoke without oath and penalty of perjury, third party books talking about what anonymous sources said. Also not camp rumors, not hearsay, not communist war propaganda, not sources lying in part, not sources under duress, things unacceptable in a US court.

Will you accept that in US court, a confession, although solely testimony, is sufficient evidence?
.

(May 8, 2013 at 11:47 pm)cratehorus Wrote: all this evidence exists in hundreds of thousands of different websites online you can easily google them all........

the only point to holocaust denial or holocaust revisionism is to make nazism (or "national socialism" as the fuhrer lovingly called it)a legitimate political system once again....... sooooo is this your one and only goal?

the biggest question is who faked all this evidence?...... was it Chef, Officer Barbrady... or the 1996 Denver Broncos?

You claim it exists but you can't find any of it to post and defend here.

You asked who faked the evidence buy you can't find any evidence nor even define what constitutes evidence nor even define this holocaust thing you keep ranting about.

The Nazis tried to destroy communism. At least give them credit for doing something right. They tried to destroy a system many times worse than their own by every measure. Give credit where credit is due.

(May 9, 2013 at 12:03 am)catfish Wrote:

(May 8, 2013 at 11:52 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: As the charge is mass murder I find the standards being the same as those in a simple murder trial to be acceptable. Acceptable sources would be those acceptable in such a trial. But of course the same rules would apply. Beyond a reasonable doubt for one. And then first the physical evidence a crime has been committed and then only sworn testimony to the physical evidence. Most of it everyone who watches TV has seen enough of it to speak the lines before the actors. Mass murder being a greater crime than a single murder there is no excuse for lesser standards.

If this really bothers anyone the Nuremberg trial transcripts are online to start with. If it were a US trial it would have been overturned on appeal as not being justice at all but it is a place to start.

What is not acceptable is anonymous words or people who spoke without oath and penalty of perjury, third party books talking about what anonymous sources said. Also not camp rumors, not hearsay, not communist war propaganda, not sources lying in part, not sources under duress, things unacceptable in a US court.

Will you accept that in US court, a confession, although solely testimony, is sufficient evidence?
.

You mean you are going to present evidene of the crime having been committed in the first place so there would be a trial? After you have done that are you going to present the complete allocution to the manner and means of the crime? You are aware "I did it" is unacceptable.

After you provide a DEFINITION of what the crime is supposed to have been then I will be happy to evaluate the allocution of the crime. I cannot apriori agree to accept what I have not read. One cannot allocute to the impossible. One cannot allocute to what did not happen. Such things discredit the allocution and make it unacceptable.

No one knows why people confess to things they did not do, unless you believe there really were witches. Yes the majority were voluntary without even the threat of torture. A very strange fact found in the records along side records of torture so they were not hiding anything. That is why allocution is so important. That is why pertinent details of a crime are withheld to screen out the people confessing.

Predictable...

(May 9, 2013 at 12:28 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: After you provide a DEFINITION of what the crime is supposed to have been then I will be happy to evaluate the allocution of the crime.

The Holocaust

wikipedia Wrote:The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt")[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory.[3][4]

---

So we're still going with "all the testimony is fake", huh? I can't physically post aushwitz to this forum, but you can visit it. I could post photos, but you would claim they were fake or something...right?

(May 9, 2013 at 12:32 am)catfish Wrote: Predictable...

One would hope normal court procedures are predictable. What else would you expect?

Excuse me. I see what you are saying. There is no allocution to present. Therefore there is no valid confession. Thank you for saying so.