Definition of and evidence for the holocaust

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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.

---

PRESENT and defend whatever you wish. You are doing nothing different from the theist saying READ THE BIBLE when asked for evidence of their god. The same rules apply to all.

---

You would think with all those mountains of evidence they could find at least one thing.

First of all, some people have actually read the bible. You can't deconstruct arguments without knowing what they are. If I were to present every piece of evidence for the holocaust here, I would write a book.

So you imply I said EVERY and then beg off being unable to present everything. Pick the best evidence that convince you back when you were a skeptic. One or two of the best. Just start there instead of trying to excuse yourself from defending anything.

It is a well established historical fact that the holocaust happened.

That is what believers say about Jesus and the resurrection. You play by the same rules demanded of Christians.

This is not the same as theism at all in that people don't agree on much in theism other than that there is a god (between religions). There is physical evidence, unless you are suggesting that all of the survivors rescued from camps all decide to make up the same story (for whatever reason) and plant tons of corpses in the area just to make it look more believable.

You continue to claim there is physical evidence but you do not have the slightest idea what it is. Were you never skeptical? Did you never demand evidence? Did you ever read an autopsy establishing cause of death? Are you unaware of the most elementary requirements?

[BTW: If the murdered were cremated, where did all the corpses come from?]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...nial1.html

It appears you are going to continue to refuse to present any evidence whatsoever. There is no point in you posting anything more.

[catfish]

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?
.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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.

[Darkstar]

So...everyone rescued from concentration camps are part of a big conspiracy fabricating their testimonies...
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?...d=10007147

In order to avoid any accusation of exclusive reliance on personal testimony, which later generations might perceive to be biased, prosecutors decided to base their case primarily on thousands of documents written by the Germans themselves. These masses of documents were translated into the court's four official languages, analyzed for their significance, and reproduced for distribution to defense attorneys and other trial participants. The prosecution presented other evidence through artifacts, diagrams, and photographs taken by Nazi photographers in concentration camps.
Nineteen investigative teams scoured German records, interviewed witnesses, and visited the sites of atrocities to build the case.
Eyewitness testimony presented at the Nuremberg trials laid the foundation for much of what we know about the Holocaust including details of the Auschwitz death machinery, atrocities committed by the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units), the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto, and the original statistical estimate of six million murdered Jews.

[cratehorus]

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

here's a pretty famous website dedicated to holocaust revisionism, and refuting wackjobs and purposefully lying nazis, both neo and old fashioned flavor

filled with testimonies photographs and as they say 'definitions'

http://www.nizkor.org/

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.

who's your favorite holocaust denier let's start there

The Nazis tried to destroy communism. At least give them credit for doing something right.

no luck there silly im a communist me self

They tried to destroy a system many times worse than their own by every measure.

communism never existed and there is no way you can describe nazism as worse than communism... try....go ahead.... i'll wait

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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.

[catfish]

Predictable...

[A_Nony_Mouse]

So...everyone rescued from concentration camps are part of a big conspiracy fabricating their testimonies...
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?...d=10007147

In order to avoid any accusation of exclusive reliance on personal testimony, which later generations might perceive to be biased, prosecutors decided to base their case primarily on thousands of documents written by the Germans themselves. These masses of documents were translated into the court's four official languages, analyzed for their significance, and reproduced for distribution to defense attorneys and other trial participants. The prosecution presented other evidence through artifacts, diagrams, and photographs taken by Nazi photographers in concentration camps.
Nineteen investigative teams scoured German records, interviewed witnesses, and visited the sites of atrocities to build the case.
Eyewitness testimony presented at the Nuremberg trials laid the foundation for much of what we know about the Holocaust including details of the Auschwitz death machinery, atrocities committed by the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units), the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto, and the original statistical estimate of six million murdered Jews.

To repeat there is no question of concentration camps IF that is all you are claiming.

IF you are claiming more than that PLEASE define what you are talking about.

PICK what convinced you before you were a believer and just post it and tell us why it convinced you whatever you define really happened in the manner you believe it happened.

Come now. It has been many posts back and forth and you are doing everything you can to avoid doing the obvious, posting what you know to be evidence that convinced you.

There was a time you were not a believer was there not?

If not why not?

[Darkstar]

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

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?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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.