Challenge to bombsaway on allegedly convincing "confession"

[Lamprecht]

In the following thread:

Simple challenge to bombsaway on alleged physical "evidence of a genocidal program"
viewtopic.php?t=14850

Bombsaway has dodged simple questions about the physical evidence at 3 so-called "extermination camps" with the remains of an alleged 1.5+ million combined dumped into pits at these locations. He simply cannot show that these pits exist. Because they don't.

A standard trick the exterminationists do is to ignore the fact that they do not have physical evidence (which really, is all they need) and instead focus on weaker forms of evidence such as documents (which can be faked/lost) or even party testimony, the most unreliable form of evidence that exists. Review my post on the "Hierarchy of evidence" viewtopic.php?t=14847&p=107598#p107598

Bombsaway:

Typically with crimes are considered closed if the accused confesses and does not recant. By the time the USSR folded and these sites became available for excavation, hundreds of perpetrators had confessed across all the camps (west german trials) without a single recanted testimony, nor protest from their families.

Q: What "confession" regarding 100s of thousands of Jews being dumped into pits at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and/or Belzec do you find so convincing to justify ignoring the complete lack of verifiable physical evidence for any of these pits?

[bombsaway]

In the following thread:

Q: What "confession" regarding 100s of thousands of Jews being dumped into pits at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and/or Belzec do you find so convincing to justify ignoring the complete lack of verifiable physical evidence for any of these pits?

To be clear, I believe the remains could be verified to your standards, they just haven't yet. Kola's descriptions evidence the graves, at least to a limited extent, so it's not in any way an obstacle for me.

Broadly speaking, I find all the confessions made during the West German trials to be convincing. In terms of specifics, less so. 2 or 3 decades later, memory is fuzzy, witnesses have tendency to downplay their role, etc. This is well acknowledged in the literature and applies to any historical event https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-have-it/

Before I started looking into the Holocaust I read a lot of WW2 military history, particularly on the German side. Post-war, German generals put down their experiences and its stunning to see how contradictory they are. Scholars looking into the war on a certain level of detail have to do detective work sussing out which accounts are correct or not (often all are partially incorrect). So unreliability in terms of details is something I expect. Less likely (and I've seen no data backing this up) is people creating false memories about events that happened to them over a period of months.

There are other aspects of witness statements that I find compelling. re gas vans, the orthodox narrative during the 60s were diesel engines were primarily used. Yet the actual drivers of these cars went against the narrative and identified these vehicles as having gasoline engines in all cases where such a distinction was made. Possibly the conspirators, now embedded in the German governments prosecution efforts, had the foresight to realize the diesel engines made less sense from a scientific standpoint. But revisionists hadn't even raised this issue at the time, so this seems unlikely to me.

Finally the biggest reason the West German testimonies are convincing to me is that not a single person sentenced recanted, not even on their death beds (or nothing has been shown). No private documents have surfaced where they spoke of making false confessions. No protests were ever made by their family, even anonymously, so ostensibly these SS guards went to their deaths without telling their families that their involvement in one of the greatest crimes in human history was a farce.

Needless to say, there is no evidence of coercion, torture in the West German trials. So you can pick any testimony, and I'll probably find it convincing in a general sense.

If I had to select one confession, it would be Eichmann's recorded pre-capture interviews to Sassen. I find revisionist explanations for why he gave these confessions very unconvincing, but I suppose we can continue the discussion in this thread if you are so inclined viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14609&p=105344#p105344

[hermod]

A standard trick the exterminationists do is to ignore the fact that they do not have physical evidence (which really, is all they need) and instead focus on weaker forms of evidence such as documents (which can be faked/lost) or even party testimony, the most unreliable form of evidence that exists. Review my post on the "Hierarchy of evidence" viewtopic.php?t=14847&p=107598#p107598

Bombsaway:

Typically with crimes are considered closed if the accused confesses and does not recant. By the time the USSR folded and these sites became available for excavation, hundreds of perpetrators had confessed across all the camps (west german trials) without a single recanted testimony, nor protest from their families.

At a Nuremberg show trial, U.S. prosecutor Baucum Fulkerson complained in 1947 that all the SS men on trial had repudiated the incriminating statements they had previously made in order to try to ingratiate themselves with their Soviet-Allied captors through a servile collaboration. The phenomenon was so widespread Fulkerson even called it a "coordinated defense strategy." Visibly annoyed by so many SS recantations, he finally deplored:"today it is impossible to find an SS man who knew of anything [about the Holocaust & concentration camp atrocities]." No need to explain why court historians always "omit" to mention those numerous inconvenient recantations.

https://postimg.cc/MnXWsm5M

[Lamprecht]

bombsaway - you do not seem to understand what a confession is, or what coercion is
You said that the existence of alleged enormous pits at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and/or Belzec can be proven by something other than actually showing the pits. This is, however, absolute nonsense and shows only your desperation.

You claim that the massive pits full of human remains exist, but have not been verified to exist -- again, falsely claiming these standards are mine, when they are not, nor are they unreasonable in the slightest. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for these pits except so-called "testimony" by the aggrieved party. The weakest form of evidence that possibly exists.
Please post an example of an alleged "confession" regarding massive pits at any of these camps.

As for:

Finally the biggest reason the West German testimonies are convincing to me is that not a single person sentenced recanted, not even on their death beds (or nothing has been shown).

That is incorrect. Kurt Bolender allegedly operated the claimed homicidal gas chambers at Sobibor (called a "transit camp" by Himmler). During the trial, in prison, he hanged himself and left a suicide note claiming his innocence.

"Died. Kurt Bolender, 54, onetime Nazi SS sergeant who was working under an assumed name in a Hamburg brewery in 1961 when he was arrested as a war criminal, accused of having murdered some 360 inmates and assisted in the deaths of 86,000 more at Sobibor, a World War II extermination camp in Poland, charges he denied throughout his long, still uncompleted trial; by his own hand (he hanged himself in his cell, leaving a suicide note insisting that he was innocent); in Hagen, West Germany."

- Time magazine obituary. Milestones: Oct. 21, 1966
https://archive.is/hlT37

The expectation of an absolute requirement of recanting after show trials for massive pits that have never been shown to exist to actually not exist is, again, ridiculous. False confessions are common, especially in coercive conditions. That would include anyone under arrest or in prison.

The Sassen tapes regarding Eichmann likely were just his attempt to make a case for himself. That's besides the point of this thread unless you're trying to argue that Eichmann's statements prove the existence of enormous pits at Treblinka, Sobibor, and/or Belzec.

[fireofice]

Bombsaway doesn't seem to realize that people make false confessions for nonsense all the time. And especially with a big hoax like this, we should expect an even higher amount of false confessions from people who just want attention. The holocaust is like the perfect place for someone who wants attention to claim all kinds of nonsense.

Alternatively, people sometimes confess to a notorious crime because of the attention they receive from such a confession. About 250 people confessed to the 1932 kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby which received headlines around the world. Approximately 500 people confessed to the murder of Elizabeth Short (known as the "Black Dahlia") in 1947 which also received enormous media attention—some of those who confessed were not even born when she died.

A more recent example of a voluntary confession occurred in 2006, when John Mark Karr confessed to the murder of six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey in the United States. Karr had become obsessed with every detail of the murder and, ten years after her death, he was extradited from Thailand based on his confession. But his account did not match details of the case, and his DNA did not match that found at the crime scene. His wife and brother also said he was home in another state at the time of the murder, and had never been to Colorado, where the murder occurred. His confession was so clearly false that prosecutors never charged him with the crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

There are other aspects of witness statements that I find compelling. re gas vans, the orthodox narrative during the 60s were diesel engines were primarily used. Yet the actual drivers of these cars went against the narrative and identified these vehicles as having gasoline engines in all cases where such a distinction was made. Possibly the conspirators, now embedded in the German governments prosecution efforts, had the foresight to realize the diesel engines made less sense from a scientific standpoint. But revisionists hadn't even raised this issue at the time, so this seems unlikely to me.

What do the "gas vans" have to do with the Reinhard camps? The witnesses for the camps never say anything about the coloration of the bodies being red or pink, which would be more consistent with diesel than gasoline.

But there's no reason to believe there was some kind of "top down" enforcement of the diesel story. That's just something you made up in your head. So someone testifying to gasoline as a poison source means absolutely nothing.

[Lamprecht]

Bombsaway doesn't seem to realize that people make false confessions for nonsense all the time. And especially with a big hoax like this, we should expect an even higher amount of false confessions from people who just want attention. The holocaust is like the perfect place for someone who wants attention to claim all kinds of nonsense.

There's also the issue of these "confessions" not even being actual confessions.

You bring up the Jon Benét Ramsey case. The alleged perpetrator was accused of personally committing murder. These individuals were not. Even if the charge was "murder" officially, they were being charged for following orders as part of a military in a war. Often they were conscripts. Even if we assume they actually did force Jews into the gas chamber, this wasn't something they decided to do on their own accord, like in the case of someone murdering someone in cold blood. It was following orders. That is why "yes, they were gassed, but it wasn't my fault" was not a confession, it was a defense.

But yes, people confess to crimes they did not commit all the time, even in the USA. What percent of cases even go to trial, like 5% or less? People will often plead guilty because if there's any chance they will lose their case, the guilty plea is a much better deal.

The Psychology of False Confessions / Why people confess to crimes they did not commit
viewtopic.php?t=12804

These cases should be considered very suspicious if the person gets a light sentence. Which would be anything that isn't execution or a life sentence. Family must be taken into account as well. To consider these trials to be anything but Show Trials when concentration camp guards are being charged with murder for merely following orders is absolutely laughable. Also it must be understood that Germany at the time was not a free country, but under US military occupation. It still is, actually.

What do the "gas vans" have to do with the Reinhard camps?

Nothing, although one may be able to find such testimonies, just as there are gas van testimonies from Auschwitz.
I think his point is that the diesel testimonies were only by non-experts, so this somehow lends credibility to the other testimonies. That is complete nonsense though. Experts would know that diesel is extremely inefficient. But yes, gas vans is completely irrelevant to this.

He brought up confessions in a thread about alleged huge mass graves at Treblinka 2 / Sobibor / Belzec. These pits and their existence appear to be the most important factor on whether or not the so-called "Holocaust" happened as alleged. It would take perhaps a week to get to the bottom of this with the proper motivation, but it's not allowed. Instead, all we are given is excuses and told we should instead just believe whatever "eyewitnesses" claim, or something typed on a piece of paper.

[Hektor]

.....
You bring up the Jon Benét Ramsey case. The alleged perpetrator was accused of personally committing murder. These individuals were not. Even if the charge was "murder" officially, they were being charged for following orders as part of a military in a war. Often they were conscripts. Even if we assume they actually did force Jews into the gas chamber, this wasn't something they decided to do on their own accord, like in the case of someone murdering someone in cold blood. It was following orders. That is why "yes, they were gassed, but it wasn't my fault" was not a confession, it was a defense.

But yes, people confess to crimes they did not commit all the time, even in the USA. What percent of cases even go to trial, like 5% or less? People will often plead guilty because if there's any chance they will lose their case, the guilty plea is a much better deal.

The Psychology of False Confessions / Why people confess to crimes they did not commit
viewtopic.php?t=12804

These cases should be considered very suspicious if the person gets a light sentence. Which would be anything that isn't execution or a life sentence. Family must be taken into account as well. To consider these trials to be anything but Show Trials when concentration camp guards are being charged with murder for merely following orders is absolutely laughable. Also it must be understood that Germany at the time was not a free country, but under US military occupation. It still is, actually......

You'll put yourself in jeopardy as well, if you dispute things the court (judge, prosecutor, defense) is already believing (as part of a consensus), And yes, false confessions are a huge problem. Any experienced investigator can tell you that. If false confessions fit the narrative, they will go unnoticed. Confessions are entirely useless in the Holocaust complex. So consider that those trials and investigations aren't exactly normal crime investigations. There is two things to consider in this. The early trials and investigations were essentially a form of vengeance to disparage the enemy, the later ones are based on created narratives and with time passing from alleged events the memories are fading.

The 'war crimes trials' never serve the purpose of justice or punishing crimes, but pure propaganda purposes (keep the theme in the media). So distortion of past reality is virtually guaranteed.

And yes, being cooperative with the court and investigations is advantageous for the accused. So if one wants to get off lightly, rather tell investigators and court what they want to hear. Especially German courts like it, when one 'shows remorse' and is not defiant. So 'cooperative testimony' shouldn't be surprising in this. And actually the accused and witnesses will be inclined to 'fit their memories' with what is expected of them and what is the present narrative.

[bombsaway]

re Bolender going by wikipedia " At the trial Bolender initially claimed that he had never been in Sobibór, but instead fought against partisans around Lublin, Poland. However, he broke down under cross-examination and confessed to being present at Sobibór.[13]

Prior to the completion of the trial, Kurt Bolender committed suicide by hanging himself in his prison cell. In his suicide note, he insisted that he was innocent.[14]"

Do you have the suicide note? In his testimony did Bolender describe Sobibor functioning as a transit center with no extermination activities? Did he talk about coercion from German authorities -- perhaps his family was threatened etc? If not I might just as easily speculate that he was just some guy accused of heinous crimes (including by co-defendants), and like so many other criminals have done couldn't handle it and killed himself.

Basically I am looking for evidence that defendants were tortured or under extra judicial coercion during the West German trials, or maybe that it was an episode of mass psychosis. So far I've seen nothing but speculation (this seems to be a running pattern here, just being brutally honest). If you can provide hard evidence of course I will reconsider my position on the witnesses.

[Lamprecht]

Do you have the suicide note?

Nope. It doesn't really matter though.

In his testimony did Bolender describe Sobibor functioning as a transit center with no extermination activities?

Not sure. It doesn't really matter though.
The moment he was arrested, anything he provides to the outside world is either heavily filtered or comes as a response to coercion (yes, arrest is a form of coercion).
You're slipping into the folly of "we have to believe what these people say."
We can't even be certain he committed suicide. Maybe he was murdered. Even if a "suicide note" was produced, it could have been written by others. How exactly can we test this? Again, this brings up the issue of falsifiablity.

I wanted to make a thread about a specific concept and probably will at a later date, and that concept is known as:
Falsifiability
Falsifiability means that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable.

In the case of
"These specific Jews who went to [specific location] 70+ years ago with [specific location 2] as an intermediate step"
it would be very difficult to prove if there are no relevant records and they were able to move around. But if that changes to
"They went to [specific location] and never left, and remain there to this day in some form"
it is now an easily testable theory. And that is precisely what is asserted by the "Holocaust" narrative. But the alleged pits are not shown to us. All we are given is pathetic excuses -- all the while those who speak out in Poland, Germany, France, etc are fined and imprisoned for it.

So when asked "Then where did they go?" it is perfectly valid to say "I do not know" - but it is invalid for someone to conclude "therefore, they are in these enormous pits, and no I don't have to show you the pits!"
First, they must show the alleged pits. Until then, they merely have a theory with an artificially contrived consensus based on legal [and social] penalties for those who publicly question it. It can be falsified in the same manner that it can be shown to be correct. They refuse to do such a thing despite having the resources and technology to do so. Therefore, their case is considerably weakened.

It can only be after these thorough archaeological excavations that the truth about these camps will be revealed, whether it is resettled "into mass graves" or "somewhere else." The image below is what we are told actually exists, today, under a layer of soil.



And if the investigations show that they did go "somewhere else" we can try to find out where. But we are unlikely to find new evidence 7+ decades after the fact (unless it was hidden rather than destroyed).
And in such a case, "Jews went wherever Jews are" still is not specific, but it would be perfectly accurate and valid. And I doubt many people would be interested in a more comprehensive answer after the "gassed and burned and dumped into huge pits" theory is completely discredited. Millions of pounds of physical evidence cannot vanish, unlike documents.

So if anyone has the right to ask the question "where did they go then?" it is the revisionists. The exterminationists claim to know where the 1.5+ million Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and Belzec victims went. Ask them to show you and they might provide a map with shapes on it they call "mass graves". Perfect, so they know exactly where they went down to the meter? Then they can show us a pit full of burnt human remains. If they can't do that, why believe them?

Did he talk about coercion from German authorities -- perhaps his family was threatened etc?

The fact that he was arrested, imprisoned, and forced into a trial at all means there was coercion at play. We don't have access to every word that he said. If all we have is transcripts, that itself is problematic.

If not I might just as easily speculate that he was just some guy accused of heinous crimes (including by co-defendants), and like so many other criminals have done couldn't handle it and killed himself.

OK. It seems you're starting with a conclusion and trying to make excuses for it. Instead of going by the evidence we absolutely can confirm (such as pits; or the lack thereof). There's also the issue of falsifiability I posted above. So what if someone said something? Especially if there's another form of evidence (such as pits) that can confirm whether what he is saying is accurate. That's why the hierarchy of evidence is important:

Remember the hierarchy of evidence. Here's a basic outline, in order of most definitive first:

1. Laws of nature – If someone contradicts the laws of nature, it did not happen. For something to have happened, it must first be possible. Simple

2. Common sense - If something makes absolutely no sense, it probably did not happen. For example, someone claims they avoided the gas chamber many times by being the 201st person in line but it only fit 200. That's just silly

3. Physical/material evidence - If someone says "Below my feet is a mass grave of 10,000 people" and then we dig and find nothing, it is not true. Even if 10 people agree with him, it just is not there

4. Documents - documents are generally more reliable than testimony, but even documents can be faked/forged: something the Soviets were notorious for. So when looking at them we must keep this in mind. Also, documents can be destroyed (both incriminating and exonerating) so relying solely on documents is problematic, but they do in general have more weight than testimony.

5. Neutral testimony - testimony of someone who has no skin in the game. A person who can not benefit or lose out no matter what they say. These people can lie, but are less likely to

6. Party testimony - a victim, a perpetrator, a prisoner, a vengeful enemy. These sorts of testimonies are the weakest forms of evidence imaginable. A victim or enemy may lie just for revenge. A perpetrator may lie just to seem innocent, and that may be denial or a "Yes it happened but I couldn’t stop it!" confession (whether you consider that a "confession" is a matter of semantics). A prisoner’s testimony is also very weak because he may just be saying whatever he thinks will get him out of jail.

We should never assume a testimony is false just because of who says it, but we should be very skeptical about testimony and make an honest effort to combine it with something more genuine, ideally physical evidence but if that is not possible then we should preferentially use documents.

As for:

Basically I am looking for evidence that defendants were tortured or under extra judicial coercion during the West German trials, or maybe that it was an episode of mass psychosis. So far I've seen nothing but speculation (this seems to be a running pattern here, just being brutally honest). If you can provide hard evidence of course I will reconsider my position on the witnesses.

You're always doing this flipping of the hierarchy. Evidence of torture? As if it would be announced outside of rare circumstances. You do not seem to understand that torture is known to invalidate testimony. Oh, but you do, and you expect it to be advertised? Any testimony that takes place in a prison, by someone that is arrested, is coerced. There's a reason why there are so many false confessions exist even today (again, in this case, "confession" is usually an inappropriate term). These are not people that are free deciding to visit the police station and admit to a crime out of nowhere. It's people being arrested and charged with all sorts of things and taking a deal, usually.

And all I was asking for was evidence of the alleged enormous pits. Just one pit with 1/10th of 1% of the alleged remains. You can't even show this at any of the 3 sites listed that have known archaeological investigations. And what a coincidence that this evidence does not exist when it is the only type that cannot be acquired via coercion or outright faking.

You constantly shift the burden. You're making the case for pits, remember. That's really all that matters. You refuse to show the pits, however, because they don't exist, making it very difficult for you.
You claim we must somehow provide all sorts of direct evidence of torture or else we must accept unquestioningly, no matter how preposterous, the testimony. That's not actually the case. These were quite clearly show trials as they came about as a result of show trials where the conclusions were not able to be questioned. Also, these countries were under foreign occupation. Can you name a single victim eyewitness in any "Holocaust" trial that was charged with perjury? If not, do you agree that the only conclusion we can make here is that they were all 100% truthful? That's laughable.

Please quote the alleged testimony describing the massive pits you claim exist but cannot show.

[bombsaway]

You do not seem to understand that torture is known to invalidate testimony. Oh, but you do, and you expect it to be advertised? Any testimony that takes place in a prison, by someone that is arrested, is coerced. There's a reason why there are so many false confessions exist even today (again, in this case, "confession" is usually an inappropriate term). These are not people that are free deciding to visit the police station and admit to a crime out of nowhere. It's people being arrested and charged with all sorts of things and taking a deal, usually.

Of course there's an element of coercion present, but this doesn't negate the value of all confessions. Every judicial system in the developed world places probative value on confessions.

West Germany was one of the most free and open societies in the world in the 1960s. If there was foul play during the trials I would expect defense teams to have brought it up. This is a common legal tactic that has led to cases, even strong ones, being dismissed or heavily compromised (eg OJ Simpson trial).

You refuse to show the pits

I feel like these sort of accusatory comments are very unproductive to our conversation, and make me disinclined to continue talking to you. I already think I answered your questions here, so it seems like you're beating a dead horse. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14850&start=15#p107686 If you want me to clarify anything I can of course.

[fireofice]

without a single recanted testimony, nor protest from their families

This is false. Rudolf Hoss's family, apart from one of his grandsons, are holocaust deniers and believe Hoss is innocent despite his "confession". Other families of the Nazis also don't believe in the holocaust.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/6L9l23GKVZ5h/

And I see bombsaway hasn't commented on the fact that hermod destroyed his "no one recanted" claim. Does he still believe this?

[bombsaway]

without a single recanted testimony, nor protest from their families

This is false. Rudolf Hoss's family, apart from one of his grandsons, are holocaust deniers and believe Hoss is innocent despite his "confession". Other families of the Nazis also don't believe in the holocaust.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/6L9l23GKVZ5h/

And I see bombsaway hasn't commented on the fact that hermod destroyed his "no one recanted" claim. Does he still believe this?

Here was my original claim.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14852#p107704

I was talking about the trials in West Germany which give the most detailed testimonial evidence about the Reinhard camps + Chelmno.

You can see the accused here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka_trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobibor_trial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che%C5%82mno_trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belzec_trial

As far as I know, no one here admitted to the exterminationist purpose of these camps and then recanted their testimony. No German witnesses recanted either.

[fireofice]

without a single recanted testimony, nor protest from their families

This is false. Rudolf Hoss's family, apart from one of his grandsons, are holocaust deniers and believe Hoss is innocent despite his "confession". Other families of the Nazis also don't believe in the holocaust.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/6L9l23GKVZ5h/

And I see bombsaway hasn't commented on the fact that hermod destroyed his "no one recanted" claim. Does he still believe this?

Here was my original claim.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14852#p107704

I was talking about the trials in West Germany which give the most detailed testimonial evidence about the Reinhard camps + Chelmno.

You can see the accused here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka_trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobibor_trial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che%C5%82mno_trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belzec_trial

As far as I know, no one here admitted to the exterminationist purpose of these camps and then recanted their testimony. No German witnesses recanted either.

"today it is impossible to find an SS man who knew of anything" referring to an extermination program

This would include the Reinhard camps. These specific trials are irrelevant. Do you admit your claim is false?

And looking at your list of defendants, it looks like whatever strategy they used worked out pretty well for them. Why rock the boat and take everything back?

[Lamprecht]

Of course there's an element of coercion present, but this doesn't negate the value of all confessions. Every judicial system in the developed world places probative value on confessions.

What you are describing as "confessions" are often not confessions at all. Someone saying that Jews were gassed at a camp and they weren't the one responsible for it is not a "confession" - even saying they were the one shoving them into the gas chamber isn't a "confession" necessarily if that's their defense. And it is a defense, "just following orders." The reality is that these post-war trials took judicial notice of an alleged extermination policy, so by default they were show trials.

West Germany was one of the most free and open societies in the world in the 1960s.

It was not a free society at all. It was a vassal state of the USA, under military occupation. So-called "National Socialism" was completely banned. The USA installed a puppet government there in the "denazification" program. You must be trolling.

If there was foul play during the trials I would expect defense teams to have brought it up.

Absolutely laughable. Again, judicial notice was taken of the so-called "Holocaust" in these show trials. The most effective defense was for the accused to tell them everything happened as they claimed, but that he wasn't responsible. Outright "denying" the hoax was a recipe for disaster. There were enough convenient "suicides" in prison to suggest this.

This is a common legal tactic that has led to cases, even strong ones, being dismissed or heavily compromised (eg OJ Simpson trial).

Except the OJ Simpson trial is completely different. OJ was not being charged with allegedly "following orders"
A better example would be, if they said there were no gassings, it would be treated as if OJ said that his wife actually never died.
Saying "it did not happen" simply was not an effective defense, because of judicial notice.

You refuse to show the pits

I feel like these sort of accusatory comments are very unproductive to our conversation, and make me disinclined to continue talking to you. I already think I answered your questions here, so it seems like you're beating a dead horse. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14850&start=15#p107686 If you want me to clarify anything I can of course.

You didn't actually. There were 10 questions. Please reread them and answer in the appropriate thread.

[Archie]

There are other aspects of witness statements that I find compelling. re gas vans, the orthodox narrative during the 60s were diesel engines were primarily used. Yet the actual drivers of these cars went against the narrative and identified these vehicles as having gasoline engines in all cases where such a distinction was made. Possibly the conspirators, now embedded in the German governments prosecution efforts, had the foresight to realize the diesel engines made less sense from a scientific standpoint. But revisionists hadn't even raised this issue at the time, so this seems unlikely to me.

Did you survey these gas van testimonies and come to that conclusion yourself or did you read Holocaust Controversies and are taking their claims as gospel? They are not necessarily giving you a complete picture and much of their argument is very strained. The fact remains that many prominent witnesses such as Gerstein refer to a diesel engine over and over. All they can do is speculate that he must not have had a good look at the engine. Or maybe he "heard" it was a diesel.

In the early Soviet material the gas vans are described as diesel (or not specified). From the Krasnodar and Kharkov trials in 1943,
https://archive.org/details/peoplesverdictfu00unse

The accused was questioned about the “murder vans,” i.e., the motor vehicles specially equipped for the purpose of brutally putting Soviet citizens to death. Tishchenko answered in great detail showing that he was quite familiar with the whole business. These vans were five-ton or seven-ton motor trucks, he said, with bodies built over them. These had double walls and false windows which gave them the appearance of motor buses. At the rear of each vehicle there was a door which closed hermetically. The floor consisted of a grating under which ran the exhaust pipe from the Diesel engine by which the vehicle was driven. The exhaust gas penetrated the interior of the vehicle. When the vehicle was standing with the engine running, death ensued within seven minutes ; when it was in motion death ensued in ten minutes. The prisoners learned that a horrible death awaited them in these vans and, therefore, strongly resisted when they were being forced into them and shouted for help. When that happened the Gestapo officials grabbed their victims and bundled them into the vans by main force. The loading of these “murder vans” was usually supervised by Colonel Christmann, Chief of the Gestapo, Rabbe, and other German officers. Tishchenko stated that one day he was present when 67 adults and 18 children were bundled into a “murder van.” (pg 17--18)

These vans, as testified by the German defendants in the present case and also by witnesses who witnessed the crimes committed by the Germans, are large closed trucks of dark grey colour, driven by Diesel engines.

The vans are lined inside with galvanized iron and have air-tight folding doors at the back. The floor is equipped with a wooden grating under which passes a pipe with apertures. This pipe is connected to the exhaust pipe of the engine. The exhaust gases of the Diesel engine, containing highly concentrated carbon monoxide, enter the body of the van, causing rapid poisoning and asphyxiation of the people locked up in the van. (pg 50)

Given the richness of the detail provided (galvanized iron etc) by these witnesses, it seems they were claiming to be intimately familiar with these vans.