Is any specific 'testimony' or 'confession' a challenge?

[Hannover]

Having reviewed countless absurd & impossible 'testimonies' & 'confessions' I would to know if anyone knows of any specific example of either that presents a real challenge to Revisionists?

Thanks, Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Thames Darwin]

Having reviewed countless absurd & impossible 'testimonies' & 'confessions' I would to know if anyone knows of any specific example of either that presents a real challenge to Revisionists?

Your question is absurd on its face. You don't consider testimonies or any kind of evidence in isolation in history. A college freshman knows that.

[Hannover]

Your question is absurd on its face. You don't consider testimonies or any kind of evidence in isolation in history. A college freshman knows that.

So IOW, you have no such specific testimony / testimonies that you think present any problem for the revisionist position that says there were no '6M & gas chambers'?
That is exactly what I thought.

That is odd quite though coming from someone, you, who said in this thread: Oskar Schindler :

...we have numerous former SS and Nazi officials on the record about Nazi war crimes.

Thames Darwin, your inability to defend your silliness is noted.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[hermod]

Testimonies are a challenge of gullibility...

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Is there a single testimony? I never really thought of it that way. That's not absurd on it's face at all: a person who talks about Nazi gas chambers and ovens who is believable. That's a pretty reasonable request Thames.

Dario Gabbai is good at relating the standard story. But the standard story at one time in Stalinist Poland is that 4 million were killed at Auschwitz. So alleged eyewitnesses have to build their testimony around that, and that's why you get the 3-4 people into an oven at same time, and takes 30-40 minutes to burn them. When the standard story changes, it's very hard to go back, with affidavits already from people like Heinryk Tauber, and change the cremation part to fit the new lower numbers. So the level-headed Gabbai is forced to relate something clearly false when he tells the standard story.

For the same reason Hoess' testimony goes out too. He gives a ridiculously high figure, and he would have been somebody to know. In other words, he was forced to confirm a 3-4 million propaganda figure that no one believes anymore.

In the 60's to late 70's when many alleged witnesses came forward, there was virtually no opposition to the myth, so what the *Media Hoax Complex* wanted was sensationalism, testimony that would shock people around the world, say on the World At War television program, and the shock was usually something so absurd, that someone like Thames is at a loss to offer up a single person, because we're going to mention something unbelievable about their testimony.

The changing story, and the sensational aspect of the story, are two reasons why Thames Darwin is likely not going to offer the name of any alleged witness. He could mention Adolf Eichmann. Oh yeah, the fountain of blood he saw in the field. How hard to come up with a believable person!

[Creox]

Having reviewed countless absurd & impossible 'testimonies' & 'confessions' I would to know if anyone knows of any specific example of either that presents a real challenge to Revisionists?

Your question is absurd on its face. You don't consider testimonies or any kind of evidence in isolation in history. A college freshman knows that.

The culmination of evidence would, with time, advance the believers case. That there is possibly not one testimony that can be considered probable or possible would be fatal to that case.

[Hannover]

Creox:

The culmination of evidence would, with time, advance the believers case. That there is possibly not one testimony that can be considered probable or possible would be fatal to that case.

Bingo! There is not one "testimony" or "confession" which Thames Darwin / Andrew Mathis or anyone else can defend. The lack of response (aka: dodging) reveals the utter bankruptcy of the impossible 'holocaust' narrative.

Have a good laugh here:
Alleged "mass graves" according to T. Darwin / Andrew Mathis

To actually believe in the 'holocaust' storyline one must want to believe in the 'holocaust' storyline.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[borjastick]

Whilst neither testimony nor confession the biggest threat to revisionism is the growing legal pressure against free speech that is being played by the jews to suit their needs. These needs are to ensure that any criticism of jews, the holocaust and of course israel is neatly wrapped up under the catch all blanket called HATE SPEECH.

IMO the clock is ticking against us. We can cross the finishing line triumphant in exposing the mass con trick that is the holocaust but we need to do this work soonest.

Ironically the biggest ally of the revisionist is the zionists who seek to shield themselves from any observation by law and suppression. The more they are just being jews the more they trip themselves up and ensure the holocaust is disbelieved by the masses, us silly goys.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Borjastick wrote

the biggest threat to revisionism is the growing legal pressure against free speech that is being played by the jews to suit their needs....HATE SPEECH

But that's not the topic of this thread.

[borjastick]

Well given that earlier posts have clearly established there is no threat from confession and testimony I extrapolated the thought to another area of threat. That's all. If the Mod doesn't like my response he will delete it but the validity of my post remains.