Challenge to Believer NFrNJ : When did "Final Solution" become extermination?

[NFrNJ]

I would like to know how he justifies this claim

Either:
(1) The huge mass graves could be shown, because they exist, but they have not been shown
(2) They do exist and have been shown to exist
(3) They do not exist, and therefore they cannot be shown to exist
(4) ???

Please post the alleged human remains you claim have been proven to exist. There was already a thread created for this:

Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations
viewtopic.php?t=13095

You said: viewtopic.php?p=95602#p95602

the treblinka Gold Rush was a real problem for them, as it exposed the mass graves.

How about you show us the claimed mass graves supposedly "exposed" at Treblinka?
You can make a brand new thread, or post it in the one created for the purpose.

EDIT:

Maybe you can submit something of value to this thread I just created:

Photographs of mass graves from "Extermination camp" Treblinka II
viewtopic.php?t=13692

sorry is it just me or did you entirely fail to answer the question?

You are quite right about your three options. 1 is a possibility. given your attempt to narrowly define what can be taken to show that they exist (specific photographs of a specific type of excavation° which has not been done then yes they exist, but have not been shown in that way to exist.

this does not justify your claim that "there is literally no physical evidence"

(2) is of course the actual state of affairs. They exist, and have been shown to exist by multiple archaeological surveys using multiple techniques and beyond all reasonable doubt.

but you have shown no reason at all for anyone to think (3)

so here we have three atomic statements, not connected by any logical argument or any inference. So this is not an argument, it is just some unrelated statements. And you have not given any reason to choose which, if any, is correct. There is no justification for your claim here.

Just in case you are under the illusion that these statements are actually a logical argument, please do realise that (3) is not a conclusion. it is just another unjustified assumption. You have not shown how to derive it from 1 and 2, or indeed any logical connection between these statements.

so could you please answer my question before you start the gish gallop?

I just want to know why you claim " there is also literally no physical evidence at any of these "extermination camps" that can be shown to support the claim of mass exterminations."

To help you understand what you actually claimed, perhaps I should point out that this is a claim about the existence of the physical evidence. Not a claim about the existence of a particular type of photograph of the evidence.

So, how do you justify this claim?

[NFrNJ]

Lamprecht wrote:

"And there is also literally no physical evidence at any of these "extermination camps" that can be shown to support the claim of mass exterminations."

He frequently claims this or something like it. I would like to know how he justifies this claim.

Revisionists do not claim that there is no evidence, as that would imply we're claiming something doesn't exist when it actually does.

...

Typical Jewish behaviour.

Sorry, but Lamprecht does claim this. So your contribution is not relevant.

And the final line - shameful. Anyone implying that I am Jewish merely because I do not support your favourite delusion is not worth debating. You have neither integrity nor any regard for the truth.

[NFrNJ]

Blah Blah Mitchell, Blah blah some irrelevant argument not to supply photos of recent crime sites, blah blah

still no argument to justify your claim.

can we stick to one point at a time please?

And thank you Moderator. As I said if you would like to transfer this to new thread please do so, but of course delete the irrelevant posts by Hannover and Endeavour.

[Otium]

YOU CANNOT, YOU HAVE FAILED.

He has not failed yet, give him a chance. Maybe he can contact Mitchell and convince him to produce the "vital evidence [of Treblinka mass graves] to prove the deniers wrong" that he has been bragging about, see: viewtopic.php?t=13050

Of course Lamprecht. I was a bit hasty. These Believers are very good at their job, and rigorous in their approach to the facts, in my daze of befuddled denier outrage I forgot that.

I suppose that any day now we will be given the evidence for all their claims on a silver platter that the world has been waiting for the past 70 years. It's coming!! But it just takes time, effort and patience.

I'm sure NFrNJ has all the truth bombs we "deniers" need to realise how trivial and offensive our pursuit for truth is.

-----------------------

Seriously though, when I said he had failed, that he couldn't produce the evidence - I don't think I was being obtuse. Nor do I think I am far off the mark. He has been challenged before, and this thread and others like it have existed for 9 months. If the evidence existed, and he failed to present it in all this time, I dare say he was given a pretty fair chance, and indeed failed to prove what it is he has been claiming on CODOH and in his scurrilous 4chan posts.

I also agree that the Moderator should perhaps be more lenient in this instance. Because I too would like to see what he can bring to the table now that he has been given more room to operate. That he seemingly isn't capable of following the rules without the guiding hand of the Moderator to move his threads, or create new ones is regrettable. Since this to me shows NFrNJ lacks the ability to focus his efforts in any manageable way in order to provide proof of his claims, what does such incompetence in following the simple rules of a forum say about someone who is researching history? Who has to rationally weigh, evaluate and synthesise evidence accurately?

Or perhaps he isn't incapable, and it is just an excuse to dodge debate about his claims, because they're untenable. This to me seems rather likely.

[Moderator]

NFRNj said:

can we stick to one point at a time please?

And thank you Moderator. As I said if you would like to transfer this to new thread please do so, but of course delete the irrelevant posts by Hannover and Endeavour.

Sorry, but it is you that has raised more than "one point at a time" that Hannover and Endeavor have responded to.
Hannover has even asked for you for photos / proof of what you claim exists. Please show this forum what you claim exists.
This is an opportunity for you to support your position, why do you hesitate? Why do you dodge?

You also said:

If mods think this is worthy of a new thread I would be happy to take part in a debate with the great man. But as I say, one point at time please, and straw man attacks by all Lamprecht's buddies should be weeded out by the mods, not encouraged.

This forum is for everyone, we do not have one-on-one debates. Those with confidence in their position should not be afraid of input from others.
M1

[Lamprecht]

sorry is it just me or did you entirely fail to answer the question?

What question? There is no direct question to me in your post. There are two question marks and they are quite obviously rhetorical questions. Why don't you post some actual evidence for these alleged huge mass graves that you believe exist?

You are quite right about your three options. 1 is a possibility. given your attempt to narrowly define what can be taken to show that they exist (specific photographs of a specific type of excavation° which has not been done then yes they exist, but have not been shown in that way to exist.

Drawing a shape on a google earth map of a site and labelling the shapes "mass graves" is not very convincing evidence. You're going to need to provde something better. So far, I have posted more actual evidence of human remains at these supposed "extermination camps" than you have.

this does not justify your claim that "there is literally no physical evidence"

The full quote is:

"literally no physical evidence at any of these 'extermination camps' that can be shown to support the claim of mass exterminations."

If there is evidence that can be shown, please show us. If you have a theory that it is being hidden for some reason, please make a thread about this theory.

(2) is of course the actual state of affairs. They exist, and have been shown to exist by multiple archaeological surveys using multiple techniques and beyond all reasonable doubt.

Please make a post/thread showing us the alleged huge mass graves that you claim "have been shown to exist"

but you have shown no reason at all for anyone to think (3)

You have shown no reason at all for anyone to think these alleged huge mass graves "have been shown to exist" - you clearly know how to make a post, so please make a post (or even create a new thread) showing us the alleged huge mass graves you claim "have been shown to exist"

so here we have three atomic statements, not connected by any logical argument or any inference. So this is not an argument, it is just some unrelated statements. And you have not given any reason to choose which, if any, is correct. There is no justification for your claim here.

Please justify your claim that the alleged huge mass graves "have been shown to exist"

Just in case you are under the illusion that these statements are actually a logical argument, please do realise that (3) is not a conclusion. it is just another unjustified assumption. You have not shown how to derive it from 1 and 2, or indeed any logical connection between these statements.

so could you please answer my question before you start the gish gallop?

What question? Can you show us the alleged huge mass graves at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and/or Belzec that you claim "have been shown to exist" - YES or NO?

I just want to know why you claim " there is also literally no physical evidence at any of these "extermination camps" that can be shown to support the claim of mass exterminations."

Because such physical evidence cannot be shown. Go ahead and prove me wrong by showing it.

To help you understand what you actually claimed, perhaps I should point out that this is a claim about the existence of the physical evidence. Not a claim about the existence of a particular type of photograph of the evidence.

So, how do you justify this claim?

Your continual dodging is quite illustrative that the alleged huge mass graves in precisely known locations that you claim "have been shown to exist" have, in fact, not been shown to exist.

Blah Blah Mitchell, Blah blah some irrelevant argument not to supply photos of recent crime sites, blah blah

Mitchell claims he has "vital evidence to prove the deniers wrong" - but he does not show us this evidence. I wonder why?

can we stick to one point at a time please?

So far, you have not shown us these alleged huge mass graves. Every time you make a post that does not contain any actual evidence for the alleged huge mass graves that you claim "have been shown to exist" you are confirming my point.

[Lamprecht]

If you have a problem with whatever you think Lamprecht is saying about physical remains, then you should be able to refute him, and the rest of us with evidence that these physical remains EXIST and prove the exterminationist myth.

Indeed, NFrNJ should actually post evidence for these alleged huge mass graves instead of continually making a fool of himself. There was a thread created for this very purpose:

Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations
viewtopic.php?t=13095

[Otium]

All of this is rather frustrating, it's just going around in circles.

If NFrNJ thinks Lamprecht, or the rest of us is unreasonable in our demands for evidence, perhaps he can illustrate to us why the evidence we're asking for is "unreasonable"? At the same time he can provide his evidence and explain why it is more than reasonable and we can all proceed from there.

All you're doing NFrNJ is accusing revisionists of things, and offering vague sophistry in place of arguing the point. We have answered your questions, but you have repeatedly avoided answering our questions.

still no argument to justify your claim.

You haven't made a single argument or provided a single piece of evidence, other than assertions like:

You are quite right about your three options. 1 is a possibility. given your attempt to narrowly define what can be taken to show that they exist (specific photographs of a specific type of excavation° which has not been done then yes they exist, but have not been shown in that way to exist.

You have said they exist. Show us, and tell us in what way they exist, according to you. Or you could do one better and show us by what professional criteria they exist. Lamprecht, unlike you, has rigorously shown how experts explain the process of archaeological investigation and has based his arguments against you on that basis. All YOU have done NFrNJ is complain that the standards are "too high" because you and the Holocaust Industry cannot meet them. Hence your admission about such evidence not existing because the proper investigations for the evidence "has not been done".

So you admit we're correct but try to wiggle out of it with the caveat that the the "definition is too narrow"...Meaning, the demand for evidence is too high because we're asking for more confirmatory evidence than you or anyone else can provide, so you believe that we must only satiate ourselves by what you "define" as evidence - that being, next to nothing at all. Maybe some unfalsifiable ground disruption, or fragments of bone that offer nothing in the way of confirmatory evidence for the crimes you allege were committed by the Germans.

All of this is why you cannot provide any evidence of your claims. It is YOU who is forced to lower the standard of evidence that would otherwise be accepted to prove such events took place. Yet because you or anyone else who believes in the Holocaust cannot prove what you claim, it's just easier to rely on unfalsifiable information and declare the rest of us are crazy because we demand falsifiable, irrefutable, proof of what you're claiming.

If I'm wrong, then please go ahead and prove to me that by a reasonable standard of evidence applied elsewhere that what you consider to be "evidence" meets the most basic of criteria.

And the final line - shameful. Anyone implying that I am Jewish merely because I do not support your favourite delusion is not worth debating. You have neither integrity nor any regard for the truth.

It's not because you don't support the historical facts regarding the mythical Holocaust. But because you're so obsessed by it, anyone would think you're a Jew with behaviour like that. I wonder, why are you so invested? The only other delusional people who have an interest defending the Holocaust myth are Marxists who wish to obfuscate the criminal nature of their own ideologies history by taking up the banner of moral indignation over the alleged crimes of others. It wouldn't surprise me if you were Communist a, such people are equally ignorant on issues of economics as they are issues of history.

[Lamprecht]

All YOU have done NFrNJ is complain that the standards are "too high" because you and the Holocaust Industry cannot meet them

The sad fact of the matter is that, unlike other [real or alleged] mass graves, people have been [and in some cases still are] imprisoned for questioning the existence of these, or some other aspect of the "Holocaust" conspiracy theory. There is also the fact that reparations have been paid as a result of this alleged genocide, along with talk of reparations for "second generation survivors" - so actually it is imperative that they meet reasonable demands of evidence. Drawing shapes on a map is not convincing; in fact, it weakens their case considerably. If nobody ever went to these camps to do an "Archaeological investigation" then we could say that nobody attempted to prove the existence of these mass graves. But they actually have gone to these places, and then they write up reports and these reports make claims of enormous pits full of human remains but they do not show us anything of the sort. It has been almost a year since William Mitchell's article where he claims to posses "vital evidence to prove the deniers wrong" -- yet we still have not seen it. Why? Do these "experts" actually have photographs of excavated mass graves from these sites that they refuse to share? I don't see why they would just sit on this damning evidence instead of showing it to the world.

Nobody cares about the guy with his hand in his shirt declaring that he is Napoleon, so you wouldn't expect anyone to attempt to prove him wrong. But "Holocaust deniers" are routinely banned from social media, imprisoned, fired from their jobs, and more. So they might as well just go ahead and show us the evidence if it truly exists. They would if they could, otherwise they wouldn't be complaining that that "Holocaust denial" is on the rise.

[Otium]

Do these "experts" actually have photographs of excavated mass graves from these sites that they refuse to share? I don't see why they would just sit on this damning evidence instead of showing it to the world.

Sorry Lamprecht, your demand for photographs isn't necessary, nobody needs to meet such a narrow standard of evidence

So they might as well just go ahead and show us the evidence if it truly exists. They would if they could, otherwise they wouldn't be complaining that that "Holocaust denial" is on the rise.

Absolutely. If they could they would've done it instead of misleading people on 4chan and dodging questions that require them to provide evidence in a debate thread.

[NFrNJ]

NFrNJ says

He knows of core samples, GPR and LIDAR results, probing with metal poles, test pits dug, field walking revealing masses of human remains on the surface, that every pit excavated at Treblinka has human remains in it even far from the mass graves, adn that the Treblinka Gold rush was a recorded problem, and that the site was surveyed and mass graves opened and reclosed in the past.
To claim there is no physical evidence (Indeed "literally no physical evidence") needs some justification surely?

Really NFrNJ?. He "knows" or you wish?
Please show all of that to us.

Given that Lamprecht has (as he claims in many threads) posted all of that material, and links to the archaeologists reports, and claims to have read far more widely than I, including reports I cannot find, and he has claimed to have posted many more pictures of the mass graves and he has recently posted a link to Sturdy Colls PhD that contains multiple maps and photos and a summary of other reports. He also commented recently on this web page when it was linked in a discussion on another site, so I presume he read it.
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... eview.html

.... so yes, he knows. Unless he is lying about being so well read. And of course the same must apply to many posters here. One would expect those who have made hundreds or thousands of posts to be pretty well read on the subject by now, adn they should know about those things.

Which is why this tactic, boring unoriginal and as it is, of constantly asking for the same material to be posted, is really quite silly. You yourself have posted multiple photos of the graves at Treblinka and elsewhere. You chose to post low resolution versions of the picture and to ridicule them by pretending they were pictures of sticks, and of course to use your usual tactic of saying that since the picture only shows a few human remains it is not evidence of mass murder on a large scale. So asking me to produce material which is already contained in dozens of threads on the site, and which you yourself have posted, is at best disingenuous. You don't actually need me to do it, you just want me to waste my time. You want to turn every thread into a demand for anyone who disagrees with you to reproduce all the material you have already dismissed, rahter than discuss why you have dismissed it.
and then of course you can throw up all sorts of hard to answer, but let us be honest, ridiculous, claims like

And of these:
1. we don't even know that they are Jews
2. we don't even know that they were murdered vs. dying of disease
3. we don't even know that they are from the period
4. And recall there is no proof for the scientifically impossible diesel gas chambers that are alleged to be the murder weapon at Sobibor.

NFrNJ, we eagerly await seeing photos of what you claim.

- Hannover

Aside from the fact that the historians and the actual eyewitnesses that maintained the engines at Sobibor say they were benzene (petrol, gasoline) engines not diesel... Again I wonder why you are waiting, when you know I have already said that I do not have any photos so show you. And that I know you would in any case just ask the same silly questions, which no photo could answer.

You are shown a photo of bodies excavated on the site, and which the experts have said are from a period, and you ask that question anyway? You see photos of bodies from a concentration camp (you do agree it was one don't you) and ask if they are not victims of the people who ran the camp? Have you any real reason to ask those questions?

given you keep making claims that you have not been able to provide any proof for, I have to ask.

[Hannover]

NFrNJ:
- Once again you dodge challenges to show the human remains you claim. Cut the nonsense, fish or cut bait.

- Merely citing empty claims from others that such remain exist won't cut it.
Imagine if such remains actually existed, there would photos everywhere, but you say "don't have them" because there are no such remains, because there were were no such murders.

- It's claimed that '6M Jews & 5M others' were murdered by the 'Nazis', that's about the size of the population of London, England, yet you nor anyone else can show the alleged remains that are claimed to exist in known locations, The narrative is simply ridiculous.

- Imagine trying your desperation in court.

NFrNJ in court:
'Please your honor, there really are millions upon millions of human remains buried in huge mass graves, I know where the mass graves are, ... but, but, well, umm, I can't show the court. You must just trust me'.

- And guess what, you apparently do not know about the narrative you are attempting to defend. i.e.;

"Eyewitness" Wiernik claimed a Russian [b]diesel tank engine was used for gassings.[/b]

American citizen John Demjanjuk. Demjanjuk was accused of having murdered at least 875,000 Jews with [b]diesel exhaust at the alleged extermination camp at Treblinka in 1942/43. [/b]

and:
According to Léon Poliakov, a French-Jewish historian who has written at length in support of the 'holocaust' story.

"[...] there is little to add to this description [the Gerstein Statement], which holds good for Treblinka and Sobibor as well as for the Belzec camp. The latter installations were constructed in almost the same way and also used the exhaust carbon monoxide gases from [b]Diesel motors as death agents."[/b]

and see:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... mMYNYXF9ac

during the first stage, three gas chambers were in operation, each of them,much like those in Sobibor,4 x 4 m. in size and 2.6 m. high.
A diesel engine producing poisonous carbon monoxide, as well as a generator which supplied the whole camp with electricity, were housed in a built-on room

No offense, pal, but you're in over your head.

- Hannover

[Otium]

You don't actually need me to do it, you just want me to waste my time. You want to turn every thread into a demand for anyone who disagrees with you to reproduce all the material you have already dismissed, rahter than discuss why you have dismissed it.

Then why don't you try to discuss the merits of the information that has been "dismissed" as I have suggested you to do in a previous post. Define YOUR terms, and make YOUR case, based on whatever evidence you think is fitting. It's about more than just "presenting the same evidence posted on the forum" but actually making a case for why this evidence should be taken to the conclusions your derive from it. YOU have not bothered to do even this NFrNJ - which is what we've been asking for.

and then of course you can throw up all sorts of hard to answer, but let us be honest, ridiculous, claims like

And of these:
1. we don't even know that they are Jews
2. we don't even know that they were murdered vs. dying of disease
3. we don't even know that they are from the period
4. And recall there is no proof for the scientifically impossible diesel gas chambers that are alleged to be the murder weapon at Sobibor.

NFrNJ, we eagerly await seeing photos of what you claim.

- Hannover

These questions are "hard to answer" and somehow "ridiculous" because YOU CANNOT answer them.

That these questions have not been answered, or are difficult to answer, has nothing to do with whether they are "ridiculous". Surely you've heard the phrase "there are no silly questions"? Which applies here, you need to answer all kinds of questions, and you cannot ignore ones that are "hard to answer" let alone dismiss them as "ridiculous" especially if they're of central importance to your thesis. This is to say that these questions are only "ridiculous" to you because they're the at the centre of whether this "evidence" is proof of the Holocaust narrative.

You say it's "ridiculous" because you take it for granted that these questions have already been answered by your own assumptions about what the answers are, not because you actually KNOW the answers. So to you it's ridiculous, because you're jumping to conclusions on no solid basis of evidence or logic.

All the questions Hannover asked you are instrumental, because the miniscule amount of physical remains tell us very little about anything regarding the substance of the alleged Holocaust in and of itself. Fact is, your conclusions about what these remains mean, has been precipitated before you even bothered to try and answer these hard questions before coming to a conclusion.

You only have YOURSELF to blame for why these questions are now inconvenient to answer, you've already dug your own grave by sticking to an illogical conclusion not derived from any facts, but purely based on your own a priori assumptions.

That questions such as these are "hard to answer" is a tacit admission that you have no answer, and that there is no answer. Which makes the Holocaust narrative you wish to push even shakier on its foundations.

[stinky]

I don't want to pile in here, there are many others already contributing that are more informed than I, but I just couldn't go past this;

You chose to post low resolution versions of the picture and to ridicule them by pretending they were pictures of sticks, and of course to use your usual tactic of saying that since the picture only shows a few human remains it is not evidence of mass murder on a large scale.

Perhaps NFrNJ could post some better photos.
A better photo.
A photo.
Further, I don't want to misrepresent our guest here, though it seems fairly straight forward, but is NFrNJ actually dismissively referring to the following logic as a tactic - making the observation that a picture showing few human remains is not evidence of mass murder on a large scale?
If I am following NFrNJ correctly, presumably one should conclude that a photo showing few human remains, is in fact evidence of mass murder on a large scale?
Believers gotta do what believers gotta do.

As HMSendeavour has already highlighted, NFrNJ's characterisation of Hannover's perfectly reasonable caveats regarding photo identification, as ridiculous, only raises doubts as to our guest's seriousness.

and then of course you can throw up all sorts of hard to answer, but let us be honest, ridiculous, claims like

And of these:
1. we don't even know that they are Jews
2. we don't even know that they were murdered vs. dying of disease
3. we don't even know that they are from the period
4. And recall there is no proof for the scientifically impossible diesel gas chambers that are alleged to be the murder weapon at Sobibor.

NFrNJ, we eagerly await seeing photos of what you claim.

- Hannover

I think myself, and others here are coming at things very differently than our guest

[borjastick]

Like all other believers who come here trying to win the game (which I welcome btw) he has continually shifted the discourse away from his position, post after post. To get a straight forward answer to a very straightforward question from believers is always nigh on impossible. When someone asks for proof of Treblinka evidence that is claimed to be able to prove deniers wrong, it suddenly becomes smoke and mirrors, cat and mouse and anything but a simple honest answer.

If you have key evidence that will prove deniers wrong, SHOW IT! It really cannot be much more simple even to a simpleton in Simple Valley, CA,