Why does everyone believe in conspiracy theories nowadays?

Sorry but I cant find so much as one iota of material evidence, you are wasting my time with frivolous citations.

I just want to see the 'MATERIAL' evidence you rely upon.
No one has shown me ANY material evidence.
Please post actual material evidence not 50 regurgitations of hearsay.

Like yes we have document number ____
Like yes we have autopsy ____
Like here is the official registrar document ____
Here is an official body count of _____ conducted by _____
Here are official death certs _____

There is a joke going around that is frankly quite embarrassing because of all the propaganda surrounding the camps:




Whats red face frustrating is those loony nutterville stories are true, people (Survivors) actually made those wacky claims.

Do you believe any of that nonsense?

So I need hard evidence and it looks like meagain bailed, I presume because he has none and simply believes it because everyone else does.

You heard the saying? "Im from Missouri, the show me state, so show me!" Post material evidence if you want to convince me the holocaust you are talking about is true.

 

I did pretty well for myself playing attorney

 

I dont think there were 240million Jews in all of history back to the beginning of time?

So you believe that between the years 1850-1945 that 240 million Jews were wiped off the earth by Holocausts as reported in the news papers? Ive seen no evidence of that either, have you?

False pretense. I never 'denied' anything!
I simply said prove it.

So far everyone has failed miserably to present any material evidence.

Why do you persist in accusing me of being a denier?

I treat it no differently than anything else, I have no reason to believe 'anything' unless I see convincing material evidence evidencing the alleged fact. I continue to request it and still nothing.

So I would appreciate it if you cease and desist in accusing me and falsely characterizing me of something I am not guilty. Can you do that?

 

Practicing law without a license?

 

But do you know? What is your evidence? Why the question mark?

Didn't you present it in your collage of NYT articles? Of course, I wouldn't vouch for their accuracy. You're the one who brought them up. And they have little or no relevance to THE Holocaust. Where did this collage come from? I doubt that you put it together, unless you have no life at all.

No one could present enough evidence to satisfy you, princess. "I'm not convinced" is an easy game to play. So far, you haven't presented a shred of your own evidence. You mentioned that judicial opinion in an alleged case involving Faurisson which you said you'd "of course" come up with but so far haven't been able to.

If the shoe fits, wear it!

What is it about the evidence presented in the dozen sources sources I cited that you find unconvincing? Have you read any of them? If you don't, no wonder you aren't convinced. The decision to be unconvinced is personal. I think it's unlikely you could ever be convinced of anything you don't want to be convinced of. That's the nature of your condition. Fortunately, in courts of law, verdicts are reached by jurors in criminal cases on the basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I and most other reasonable people are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence of the Holocaust in the sources I gave you. As in so many areas, you are on the fringe, which is your right. But you must be lonely.

I can do better than that. I'll ignore you, cuz I don't think you're a serious person. I might continue to post about conspiracies, but you're too far out there to bother with. I've wasted too much time with you already. Meagain can have you, if he has the patience. Rave on!

 

And who exactly are these advisors. Here in the UK, less than one in a thousand doctors studied virology and those who did are far too busy running their departments to offer their advice to people who will twist and dilute it to meet their own ends.
Viruses are contagious within species, but mutation is needed to cross over. Therefore viruses in the corona family only affect animals. Due to the age of the virus, most animals have high levels of immunity and since we neither transplant organs or transfuse blood from animals into humans, the virus had not mutated.
Mutation required humans to eat the meat from infected animals raw, so due to testing and people in the west eating very few animal products raw, the virus did not mutate to a human variant.
However, people in China eat raw meat, including chicken and poorer families in the remote areas will eat an animal that dies, rather than incinerate it and kill and kill a healthy one. The virus spread very rapidly, since we had no immunity, so the one in a thousand sufferers who would require ICU treatment during the bacterial stage of their attack COULD have overwhelmed the hospitals.
Unfortunately, rather than asking people to limit social contact and avoid crowded public transport to slow the virus spread, the government's panicked. This resulted in thousands of people rushing to hospitals, rather than taking paracetamol and spending three days in bed. Hospitals had to triage these people and send them home, thus delaying getting the one in a thousand who needed treatment admitted. While this was happening, surgery for conditions such as cancers was being put on hold, so while front line staff were working up to 60 hours a week, specialist consultants and surgeons were drinking tea.
To fully understand the complexity, you need to realise that viruses do not kill directly. It is when they shut the immune system down that bacterial infections in the respiratory system lead to pneumonia, then septicemia which can result in death. Likewise, when the digestive system is attacked, renal damage can lead to multi organ failure. These are where ICU specialists stabilise the patient and hit with antibiotics at the correct moment. However, doctors and particularly dentists were wrongly prescribing antibiotics early, thus making the work of the ICU units more difficult and in some cases futile. They were the people who prompted the series of TV adverts that confused most people.
The final saga was that over isolation had dragged the whole situation on, by preventing people recovering from the virus sharing their immunity.

On the subject of advisors. When someone asked me how the introduction of electric cars would affect our electricity demand, I simply looked at fuel sales, converted them into megawatts and concluded that the UK would need 8 additional power stations or wind farms.
The following year, the government spent 2.5 million on consultants to answer that simple question. Their first report suggested 30 additional power stations, but revised it to 10, an additional half a million pounds later.
I REST MY CASE.

 

I KNEW you didnt have any bonafide evidence to present!
Never fails you know.
Every time I ask for material evidence everyone bails out of the debate.
Know why?
There isnt any!

 

Not only are conspiracies real (as shown by the success of the conspiracy theorists who invent and spread the whoppers by QAnon and others), but there is more than a grain of truth to the notion that we live in a world where big decisions affecting our lives are made out of the limelight by shadowy elites nobody elected. During the fifties, New Left sociologist C.Wright Mills warned us of the "Power Elite"--an unholy triumvirate consisting of people holding "command positions" in the dominant institutions of our late industrial society where power was concentrated, and bound together by interlocking interests: the CEOs and board chairs of 2 to 3 hundred giant corporations; the top brass of the military, headed by the JCS, and the heads of major departments and senior heads of the civilian bureaucracy. "Power", he said, "has to do with whatever decisions men make about the arrangements under which they live, and about the events which make up the history of their times." In other words, the big decisions. Nobody would doubt that these folks had much more power than "we the people". These folks had in common preppy educations, college degrees from Ivy League universities, and memberships in upper echelon fraternities which bound them together culturally and gave them a common outlook. A noteworthy characteristic of all three components of the triumvirate is that nobody elected them. This was essentially the leadership of the "military-industrial complex" which President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech.

Notably, Mills differed from conspiracy theorist in two important respects: (1) he acknowledged that the members of the power elite were not necessarily aware they were part of it and were "often they are uncertain about their roles", but "without conscious effort, they absorb the aspiration to be... The Ones Who Decide."; and (2) they did not control every or most major events that happened. "Events that are beyond human decision do happen; social arrangements do change without benefit of explicit decision." But where "such decisions are made, the problem of power is determining who made them, and where they could be made but aren't, the question is "who fails to make them?"

Mills' theory has been criticized for (1) assuming that mere occupancy of positions conveys power, and for (2) generalizing on the basis of an unusual condition in the period when he was writing, when there seemed to be few major differences between the political parties, Democrats and Republicans . Power, say critics like Robert Dahl, requires conscious effort to use political or economic resources to influence decisions. If we accept the latter definition, the picture is that of plural elites, competing with each other for influence in some arenas while sharing a broad consensus on the rules of the game. Dahl, Who Governs. Dahl acknowledges that the U.S political system is not a democracy, not even a representative one, but is best characterized as polyarchy: rule by many through various organized special interest groups, with some being "more equal than others", especially those in those three dominant sectors which Mill identified. It was easy to assume elite consensus in 1950s and early sixties. In the 2020's, not so much.

Conspiracy theorists may sense this political reality and exaggerate it's unity, secrecy, and intentional nature. Thus, we have Q-Anon's "Deep State", run by Satanic Democrat pedophiles drinking the blood of children for the "adrenochrome" that gives them longevity.

 

Quote what you think is evidence so we can examine it.
Im not going to read the whole internet trying to figure out what you think is evidence.

Sure Ive read them for the last 50 years.

Thats not true, for a jury to convict they need more than hearsay.

You didnt give me any material evidence, and I am sure you wont.

I dont know, I am not claiming it is true you are, burden of proof is clearly on you.
All I asked for is you to prove up the claim by citing material evidence, you failed and continue to fail.

 

NO! I did not deny anything!

You just made that up!

Nowhere on the page is there any denial!



If you see anything point it out since I am NOT denying anything. I merely ask for proof!

Whats that supposed to mean, that you would vouch that its inaccurate?

Yes I did, I wanted to give you the opportunity to pick one of the 40 holocausts since 6 million Jews were victims in every one of them.

THE holocaust is listed on there so it most certainly does have something to do with it.

Im trying to figure out where all the Jews came from that there could be so many Holocausts in 100 years that it wiped out 240 million?

That was about the population of the united States back then!

The title is on top, The New York Times, didnt you even look at it?

LOL

 

Im sure you are WRONG again!



Its even notarized

See thats not 50 times regurgitated hearsay like the sites you threw at me, that official 'material' evidence.

I have access to lots more material evidence wanna see?

 

Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz

You wanted more info on that faurisson trial/court issue
I by pure chance stumbled across some interesting stuff.

"[...] the existence of the gas chambers, such as usually described since 1945, conflict with an absolute impossibility, which suffices by itself to invalidate all the existing testimonies or, at the least, to stamp them with suspicion."

The judge had to take some heat for that decision and was interviewed by France-Soir Magazine (May 7, 1983, p. 47), "We shall take note of this concession: there is neither proof, nor traces, nor witnesses to the gas chambers."

Just cuz and a cute lil JAP gurl doesnt mean I will sell my soul to anything but the 'facts'.


Oh and when I wrote to webster and explained to them their definition of exterminate was defective they added this:

Did you know?
Originally, to exterminate something was to banish it or drive it away. And it is this meaning that can be found in the Latin origin of "exterminate." "Exterminate" comes from "exterminatus," the past participle of exterminare, meaning "to drive beyond the boundaries." The Latin word exterminare was formed from the prefix ex- ("out of" or "outside") and "terminus" ("boundary").

Not much more than a century after its introduction to English, "exterminate" came to denote destroying or utterly putting an end to something. And that's the use with which the word is usually employed today.


and the use of exterminate is proven by wannasse convention where that is exactly what Hitler penned.

Wannsee Conference - Wikipedia

A good question would be how and why was the definition changed in America?

Thank you webster for clarifying that matter.

 

With this in mind, we might revisit the subject of Holcaust Denial, considering some items in the mountain of evidence against it, while ignoring background noise from mindless chatter. This monologue will go on for some time, but of course serious HF viewers are welcome to jump in at any time, and I'd be happy to address serious questions or comments.

Let's start with a leftover issue--the use of Zyklon B. There is an abundance of evidence that the Germans used the Zyklon B gas chambers in Auschwitz and Majdanek to kill Jews. Zyklon B, AKA hydrogen cyanide, was used to kill over a million people in the Polish death camps: Auschwsitz and Majdanek.
Inside Auschwitz, the Infamous Death Camp
Gassing Operations
The Aktion Reinhard Camps, Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec, as well as the gas vans used in Chelmno and by Einsatzgruppen gassing facilities did not use Zyklon B but used carbon monoxide gas generated by diesel engines instead. Gassing Operations

At Auschwitz where Zyklon B was used, we have evidence in the form of German documents and witnesses supplying testimony that it was used to kill people instead of lice there; and it has been proven forensically that the chambers were used to kill humans instead of lice. You can listen to the testimony of eyewitness Leo Schneiderman, and Auschwitz inmate, about his observations.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/asset/f04d44be-b33e-4723-a038-1054f7ab7ba1.mp4
SS officer Kurt Gerstein who was involved in ordering Zyklon B , testified as to its homicidal use (Shermer and Grobman, p. 59). Holocaust denier Faurisson thought he spotted an flaw in the testimony. He claimed that they couldn't possibly have packed that many people into the gas chambers, based on the number of people who could comfortably fit into a sub way car--an estimate which has been disproved by numerous experts. Pierre Vidal -Naquet (1992) Assassins of Memory, 65-74.

It is worth noting that none of the death camps mentioned in a certain notarized statement by Major Miller of the Allied Committee of Inquiry is included in these reports, so the statement, notarized or nor, is really irrelevant to the overall facts.

That's enough for tonight. I'll continue tomorrow. BTW, I'm trying hard to ignore the braying from our local Holocaust "non-denier" so we can have an orderly discussion of the subject, but I need to point out that when I asked where her collage came from, I was asking who assembled it. I doubt that she did, but if she did, she must have no life.

 

From your link:




A bunch of fat little kids when the camps were liberated that were supposedly gassed is your proof of genocide?

Oh puhlease!
You can breathe diesel all day and not suffocate.

But if you like testimony I have plenty of anecdotal evidence too



How about East Germanys first presidents confession after the war?

 

All I ask is that you prove up the case, I neither deny or confirm, however I will prove to you there is a HUGE controversy that you need to overcome to justify your case.
In part yes, all of it no.

and this will really blow you away!



We sold the high octane gas additive (ethyl) to the Germans that with out it all their planes would have been grounded! We could have grounded the whole lufwaffe, why would America do such a thing?

 

At last, we have more information (sketchy as it is) about that French judge's decision which supposedly refuted the Holocaust in a case involving Faurisson. As expected, like that recently it was a nothingburger--on a par with Major Miller's notarized memo. It is obiter dictum. A real lawyer would know that that is an extraneous statement of personal opinion by a judge that has no bearing on the holding or final decision--the part of the case that is legally binding. Faurisson was fined by the court for having declared that "Hitler never ordered nor permitted that anyone be killed by reason of his race or religion." Certainly the statement has no definitive status on the reality of the Holocaust.

Prof. Faurisson fared no better in subsequent encounters with courts. In 1991, a criminal court in Paris ordered him to pay a fine of 250,000 francs (of which 100,000 was suspended. In a December 1992 decision, the three-judge appeal court (Frangoise Simon presiding) imposed a total penalty of 374,000 francs on Faurisson and his publisher.

 

This is a completely FALSE assessment of this discussion in reference to me.

I clearly requested WHICH Holocaust?

This is in recognition that there were close to 40 of them all which had 6 million Jews claiming to be in peril.

Contrary to your FALSE assessment I recognize all 40 Holocausts.

When someone recognizes 40 Holocausts they are NOT DENYING ANY of them!

Here again I very clearly state my position!

When someone neither confirms nor denies that is known to the world as a NEUTRAL POSITION on the matter.

A neutral position on ANY matter is NOT DENIAL!



I will however point out deficiencies in your claims that require a full rebuttal, and you seem to forget the burden of proof is on the claimant NOT the skeptic questioning the claim.

Pejorative FALSE assessments are both defective logic and reasoning, and also known as poisoning the well fallacy.



.

 

Re that satement by Bruno Baum, it all turns on what he meant by "propaganda" back in the 1940s. Strictly speaking, "propaganda" can include the spreading of true information. The title of the 1949 book is "We inform the world" and the first sentence reads :'in those days we foiled the intentions of the political department by making their plans public."

 

belle

Ah, c'mon ShyOne - prove a negative for the man.

 

Obiter dictum is used to put evidential determinations on the record that do not directly support (answer) the complaint.

In other words he proved to the court that the Holocaust as you present it is impossible, however that did not answer the complaint.

He was still guilty of violating French law and was fined anyway. This happens to a lot of pro se's here in the US.

To be binding one only need to gather up the evidence he entered into the court and refile for a declarative judgement based on the same evidence.

A real legal eagle would know that