don't hate on me because you're ignorant, brainwashed, lazy, or all three thereof.
hey, let's see what ADL (Anti-Defamation League, a NGO founded to defend child rapists and murderers from vigilante justice) has to say on the matter of 'eyewitnesses':
For Holocaust deniers to be correct in their assertion that the Holocaust did not happen, all Holocaust survivors would have to be wrong.
Now, there are very few people who would claim the Holocaust did not happen. Most people who don't believe the story believe it is exaggerated, not fabricated, instead with parts of it, including eyewitness testimony, being fabricated rather than the whole thing.
so, really, thanks for pointing out:
The idea that you can’t accept eye witness accounts of historical events is nonsense, that is what history is, we only know about history because of the record of accounts given by those people who observed or experienced it.
---
A credible eyewitness who states that genocide did not take place at Birkenau is the Austrian-born Canadian Maria Van Herwaarden, who was interned at Birkenau from December 2, 1942 to January 1945. Van Herwaarden testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that she saw nothing at Birkenau that resembled mass murder. The Jewish prisoners she saw at Birkenau were not treated differently from the other prisoners. She also testified that many of the inmates at Birkenau died of diseases, and some inmates committed suicide. [1]
Joseph G. Burg, a Jewish author who wrote several books on the Holocaust story, testified at the 1988 Zündel trial that he had spoken to hundreds of people who had been at Auschwitz-Birkenau when he visited the camp in the fall of 1945. Burg formed the opinion that there were no German extermination camps, the gas chambers had never existed, and there was no plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe.
Joseph Burg also testified at the 1988 Zündel trial that he spoke to hundreds of people who serviced and operated the crematoria, but he could not find anyone who had operated homicidal gas chambers. Burg testified that the crematoria had been established for hygienic purposes as a result of typhus and other diseases. Burg also testified that he attended the Nuremberg trials in 1946 and met Ilya Ehrenburg, who had visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, as well as a Jewish publisher who had been interned in Auschwitz for several years. Both Ehrenburg and the Jewish publisher said they did not see any homicidal gas chambers while at Auschwitz-Birkenau. [2]
Thies Christophersen was another witness who said the alleged genocide of Jews during the war never happened. Christophersen supervised about 300 workers, many of them Jewish, at Auschwitz from January to December 1944. On a number of occasions during this period he visited Birkenau where allegedly hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed to death. In The Auschwitz Lie, a memoir first published in Germany in 1973, Christophersen wrote that during the time he was at Auschwitz he did not notice the slightest evidence of mass gassings. He also successfully answered numerous pointed questions by the prosecuting attorney at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial about his experiences at Auschwitz. [3]
The prosecutors in the 1985 and 1988 Ernst Zündel trials were not able to find any credible witnesses. In fact, the prosecution witnesses in the 1985 Zündel trial were so bad that the prosecutors did not call any witnesses in the 1988 Zündel trial. Even Sabina Citron, a Jewish Auschwitz survivor who originally filed the criminal complaint against Zündel, did not take the witness stand in either of these two trials. [4]
The failure of the prosecutors in the Ernst Zündel trials to find credible witnesses caused Robert Kahn to write: [5]
“If the concept of ‘symbolic victory’ is sometimes difficult to apply precisely, the 1985 prosecution of Ernst Zündel clearly backfired. What had been an attempt to silence Zündel, and possibly use the legal system to repudiate denial, became instead a public relations coup for the Toronto publisher and his supporters.”
Alan Dershowitz concurs, calling the Zündel trials “a total victory for Holocaust deniers and a total disaster for Holocaust survivors and the Jewish people.” [6]
Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich also wrote that he did not see any evidence of genocide of the Jews at Auschwitz. Stäglich, a German judge, visited Auschwitz several times during the Second World War as a German orderly officer of an anti-aircraft detachment. Dr. Stäglich published an account of his visits to Auschwitz in which he stated that on none of these visits did he see gassing installations, instruments of torture, or similar horrors. Stäglich wrote: [7]
“None of the inmates behaved as though they were in fear of mistreatment, let alone death.”
Violette Fintz, a Jewish woman who had been deported from the island of Rhodes to Auschwitz in mid-1944, and then to Dachau and then to Belsen in early 1945, said that from her experience Belsen was worse than Auschwitz. Fintz is another Jew who survived Auschwitz and lived to describe her experiences at the camp. [8]
[1] Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. 253-255.
[2] Ibid., pp. 259-262.
[3] Christophersen, Thies, “Reflections on Auschwitz and West German Justice,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 1985, p. 118.
[4] Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. i-1.
[5] Kahn, Robert A., Holocaust Denial and the Law: A Comparative Study, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004, pp. 86f.
[6] Ibid., p. 119.
[7] Stäglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, p. 293.
[8] Weber, Mark, “‘Extermination’ Camp Propaganda Myths” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, AL: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 2000, p. 303.
---
The verypremise of the flow chart is illogical, it is conspiracy-based speculation withno logic to it at all. You don’t look atevidence and draw logical conclusions from it, you look at evidence and speculatethat the evidence is either manufactured as part of a conspiracy, or unprovenas part of a conspiracy. Youstart with your biased conclusion and speculatively back into a flow chart thatsupports your agenda, your primary conclusions aren’t conclusions, they are non-sequiturs.
You ask why heads were shaven -- to delouse or disinfect, why – to prevent thespread of typhoid –therefore Gas Chambers were never used, that conclusion isnothing but a non-sequitur, there is no chain of reasoning whatsoever thatmight lead to that conclusion, it is not logical, and it’s profoundly stupid to think anyonewould think it made any sense at all. Itmight suit the mentality of a dumb shit antisemitic holocaust denier, but thereis no reason or logic behind dumb shit antisemitic holocaust denial.
To quoteWolfgang Pauli, “It’s not even wrong”. It’s just some kind of mental masturbation that has nothing to do withlogic.
then I asked a question about that fact "why shave the hair of gas-chamber victims?" (the evidence was presented as the hair of gas-chamber victims at trial) and drew logical routes from there until all routes ended at the same conclusion.
the fact that you actually reached the conclusion without escaping the chart by making a logical argument shows me, either:
A) you couldn't find a logical fallacy; or
B) you are ignorant to how logical flowcharts work; or
C) you agree that the conclusion given is the only one that can be drawn.
A essentially means C, though.
your opinion on it doesn't matter and neither does mine. all that matters is the logic, which I suggest you go and research the definition of. it's nothing to do with what's real or what's not real or what's believable etc. it's to do with what's possible and what is not possible in a relationship between two or more objects or concepts.
e.g. arguably the simplest form of logic is called Boolean logic, which is what is used in binary code. true/false; 1/0; on/off (the logic is that if something is true it cannot be false; if something is 1 it cannot be 0; if something is on it cannot be off)
or, in your case, if something is dumb, it cannot be smart.
you get it now, I hope.
now go find me a logical fallacy in the fucking flowchart
