Sunday, October 25, 2015


By Mike King 

The sport of Judo teaches one how to use an adversary's own weight and strength against him. There is as much of a philosophical component to the sport as there is an athletic. The Judo response is to give way, to not meet force head-on, but to use the enemy's force in your favor for the purpose of beating him.
As it is in Judo, so it when debating liars. Whenever you can utilize a deceitful opponent's own concessions to build your case and throw it right back at him; it deals a devastating blow from which he cannot recover. The harder he attacks, the stronger YOU become.
Use Judo moves on liars.

One thing you will notice about professional liars is that, when cornered, they will concede a point for strategic purposes, but never give up the argument. Those conceded points should form the basis of your "Judo" response. For example; imagine that an accused car thief is confronted with evidence of his past record of stealing. Forced to concede the point, the thief will say: "Yes. It is true that I stole 7 cars over the past 5 years, but to suggest that I stole this particular car is ridiculous."
We then press the thief on the fact that several witnesses just saw him driving the same color, make & model of the stolen car in question. He again concedes: "Yes. It is true that I was seen driving a vehicle fitting that exact description, but that was a rented car which coincidentally matched the description of the car that you claim I just stole."
When challenged on his ability to rent a car when he has no credit cards, the artful liar, without skipping a beat, retorts: "Yes. It is true that I have no credit cards, but that's because my cousin, who just moved to Brazil, let me use his credit card."
Now, let us review what we have just learned from our thieving friend, as confirmed from his own big mouth!
1. He is in fact a repeat car thief
2. He was in fact driving a vehicle fitting the description of the recently stolen car.
3. He did not possess a credit card, which would have been needed had he really rented a similar car, as claimed.

Those concessions are known as 'hard data points'. The rest is just fluff. Considered individually, none of those concessions will clinch the prosecution's case. But taken cumulatively, such self-admitted concessions clearly indicate that the accused is lying. That's logical Judo for you! And it is precisely why Defense Lawyers advise that suspects should always remain silent when questioned by police. You know, the so-called 'Miranda Rights' warning; "Anything you say can and will be used against you."

With this logical principle in mind, let us similarly expose one of one of Holohoaxianty's High Priests,Timothy Ryback, by using the accumulation of his own 2004 written concessions, as published by the oh-so-"prestigious" Wall Street Journal, against him. This is 'gonna' be fun!
(Your cross-examining reporter's comments in bold italics).,timothy-1239.jpg?itok=ufuH8mtv,204,203,200_.jpg

Forensic Evidence Of the Holocaust Must Be Preserved
Ryback:  Last month, Jarek Mensfelt, spokesman for the Auschwitz memorial site, announced plans to preserve the ruins of the gas chambers and crematoria in the notorious death camp at Birkenau near the Polish town of Oswiecim (Auschwitz). "This is an attempt to keep it as it is now -- in ruins -- but not let the ruins go," he said. "It was meant to be here forever as a warning."
So, Mr. Ryback, both you and Mr. Mensfelt now admit that what you claim was a gas chamber lies in ruins. That means the "gas chambers" that are still being shown to tourists are Soviet-era "reconstructions"; a fact that "Holocaust Deniers" were once attacked for claiming. Thanks for confirming that for us in the Wall Street Journal.
Images 1 & 2 are of the Soviet-era reconstruction of the "gas chambers". Image 3 depicts the ruins of the what is said to the original "gas chambers". Ryback and the Polish curators concede that what is shown to gullible tourists are NOT the actual "gas chambers".

Ryback: In the coming weeks, as the Auschwitz preservationists begin their work, they should be guided by the knowledge that these heaps of dynamited concrete and twisted steel are not only historic artifacts but among the few remnants of untainted, forensic evidence of the Holocaust.
How exactly do these bombed out remnants constitute "forensic evidence" of mass gas chambers? Have traces of poisonous gas been detected in the stones?
Ryback:  Of course, the historical and circumstantial evidence of a premeditated Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe is overwhelming.
This is what I call "the-evidence-is-overwhelming" rhetorical trick. Such a bold statement may sway the weak-minded, but it proves nothing. Talk is cheap, as they say. My. Ryback, please share with us this "overwhelming evidence".
Ryback: There are the watch-tower-girded enclosures of Nazi concentration camps ....
"Watch-towers"? Well, duh! They were internment camps, after all. No one is denying the Jewish internment of World War II. What we want is evidence of a genocide campaign. Continue.
Ryback: ... and the extensive testimonials of Holocaust survivors.....

Yes, "testimonials" which, as even some of your Jewish colleagues now openly admit, are often unreliable. "Speaking of "testimonials", what do you have to say of the former Auschwitz inmates who later told of spirited soccer games and fun activities for the children? If the German were out to commit genocide, why were so many "survivors" allowed to live? Auschwitz alone had 9,000 survivors when the Soviets liberated it." 
Yakov Tzur testimony, March 2009: "I played soccer games at Auschwitz in 1944"
(Other camps had actual Jewish soccer leagues.)

Ryback: .... as well as the court protocols of Nazi war criminals,
So-called "Nazi war criminals" were tortured and the Nuremberg Trials were a joke.
Ryback: .... but there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent.
Hold it! What did you just say???
Ryback: ...but there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent.
That's what I thought you said. Thank you! After just having talked about "overwhelming evidence", now you say "there is little forensic evidence". How can that be?
Ryback: The Nazis were scrupulous when it came to obscuring the "Final Solution" in bureaucratic euphemism and also dismantling or obliterating their machinery of death.
Yet they left the remains of the "gas chambers" on the camp grounds along with 9,000 "witnesses" behind for the Soviets to interview. That doesn't sound like too "scrupulous" of a cover up now, does it?
Ryback: The dearth of hard evidence has fueled a growth industry in Holocaust-denial.
A "dearth (complete lack) of hard evidence". Thank you!
In other words, just because there is no hard evidence, it is still wrong to question the Holocaust? This is known as "circular logic". It is like a prosecutor saying to a jury: "Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, do not let the "dearth" of hard evidence influence your verdict. The only reason why there is no hard evidence is because the defendant covered his tracks so well."
Absurd, to say the least. But thank you so very much for conceding that hard evidence is lacking.
Open mouth, insert foot. "The dearth of hard evidence". Thanks,Timmy!

Ryback: The revisionists' plaint is simple: They demand a proverbial "smoking gun" to prove that the Nazis deliberately and systematically designed an industrial system of extermination.

Well, excuuuuuse us "anti-Semites" for being so impertinent as to simply ask for evidence of this "industrial system of extermination". But thanks for admitting that there is no "smoking gun".
Ryback: Auschwitz has been a particular target of Holocaust deniers -- in particular, the gas chamber in Auschwitz I, the original base camp a mile east of Birkenau. It was here that some of the first experiments with poison gas were undertaken in a converted air-raid shelter refitted with air-tight doors and special ducts for homicidal purposes. Dynamited by the Nazis in the autumn of 1944, the gas chamber was reconstructed after the war.
Why did the "Nazis" dynamite the "gas chamber". Did they suddenly decide to stop "gassing" people?And thanks again for conceding that the current "gas chamber" is a Soviet reconstruction, a fake.
Ryback: As one revisionist notes: "The official view holds that the Soviets and Poles created a 'gas chamber' in an air-raid shelter that had been a 'gas chamber.' The revisionist view holds that Soviets and Poles created a 'gas chamber' in an air-raid shelter that had been an air-raid shelter. While most serious historians refuse to dignify such statements with a response, Polish administrators have taken the bait.
Ah yes! The "No Serious Person" Logical Fallacy and the old "I-refuse-to-dignify-that-with-a-response" rhetorical trick. It is the sure sign of an empty case, and an empty mind, when one has to resort to such pathetic debating tactics.
Ryback: In response to revisionist charges, they (the Poles) tested the gas chamber walls for residual traces of cyanide gas but found none.
They found no residual traces of cyanide gas.  THANK YOU! 
Ryback: Unlike the delousing chambers whose walls still show cyanide "staining,".....
And thanks for admitting that there were "delousing chambers" at Auschwitz. In so doing, you have confirmed the fact that the Germans were trying to prevent the inmates from dying of typhus. I suppose they had to save the Jews in order to kill them?

Ryback: ..... the gas chambers betrayed no residual traces of Zyklon B.
So, in addition to your concession that there is no hard evidence, you now concede that the forensic analysis shows no traces of poison gas in the stone walls. Stone is like sponge, Timmy. Any poison gas would have been absorbed and preserved for posterity. Can you explain, or should I say, 'rationalize' that bit of scientific reality away for us, Timmy?
Go ahead, Timmy Two-Face. Tell us why not a single trace of deadly chemicals was found in the analysis. I gotta hear this!
We're still waiting, Timmy.

Ryback: The homicidal process was so murderously brief that the cyanide never penetrated the interior surface.
Mass-murder gassings were too "murderously brief" to leave a trace, but the delousing of clothes did leave a trace. That's a good one!

Ryback:  Similarly, it was found that repeated postwar "cleaning" had leached the last traces of cyanide from the heaps of human hair, one of the most damning pieces of Holocaust evidence.
Let me get this straight, Timmy. You're saying that the "Nazis" killed all those Jews in poison-gas chambers; then they shaved the heads of the dead bodies; and finally they cremated the hairless bodies? The hair has since been repeatedly shampooed so the poison traces are now gone? Are you flippin' serious? What were the "Nazis" planning to do with the "heaps of human hair"? Make wigs?

Ryback: In the battle against Holocaust deniers, Birkenau's extermination facilities remain important forensic evidence.

Timmy! You're gonna give a friggin' heart-attack! What forensic evidence?! You just admitted that there are no traces of poison in neither the stones nor the hair. There you go again with that quintessentially Jewish circular reasoning. "The gas chambers existed. Although there is no hard evidence; that doesn't disprove anything because we already know that the gas chambers existed."
Ryback:  Between 1942, when they were first put into operation, and 1944, when they were dynamited, more than a million human beings -- mostly Jewish -- were fed into these extermination plants, forced into subterranean chambers and gassed, their corpses removed and transported by mechanical conveyance to the crematoria ovens.
More than one-million were gassed, yet you said earlier that "the cyanide never penetrated the interior surface" because the episodes were "so murderously brief". Timmy, even if the "brief" mass gassing episodes were just 10 seconds long, when multiplied 1000's of times to reach that one million number (an average of 30,000 "gassing deaths per month", (right under the noses of Red Cross inspectors!) we're talking about many hours of poison gassing. Why no traces of this in the forensic analysis?
And Timmy, one more thing; for nearly 50 years, you and your gang told us that 4,000,000 died at Auschwitz. Then, after "Holocaust Deniers" began poking around Auschwitz, the official number was suddenly chopped down to 1,000,000. How do account for such a drastic reduction? And if the 4,000,000 was wrong, why should we now take your word now on the 1,000,000?"

Cue the sound of crickets, please....
Ryback: The chimneys belched smoke into the air.
Chimneys emitting smoke? No way!
Perhaps you were expecting little white doves to come out?
Ryback: The remnant ash was scattered in the surrounding fields, or dumped in a nearby pond whose muddied bottom, even today, is of a sticky gray viscosity ...
So, after 60 years of natural forces at work in the pond (article written in 2004), the "sticky gray viscosity" never went away; but the cyanide traces completely disappeared from the untouched remnants of the stone walls and the "heaps of human hair". Bend that "science", Timothy, bend it hard!
Ryback:....laced with matchstick-size splinters of human bone.
"Match-like splinters"? Seriously, Tim? Fish and geese bone splinters and the bottom of a pond, if that. Go figure. But thanks for conceding the fact that there are no actual bodies. No forensics, no documents, no direct witnesses, no bodies. With a "prosecutor" like you, Timmy, who even needs a defense lawyer!

Ryback: The horrors of this machinery have been preserved in the classic memoirs of survivor-authors like Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi...
The good ole 'Appeal to Authority' Fallacy. If it's in a book, written by other proven liars who continue to cash in on book sales and speaking fees, it must be true, eh Timmy?
Ryback: But, as with any account filtered through human memory, this "evidence" is subject to challenge and rebuttal. There is no arguing with presence of the Birkenau gas chambers. Here the proof of the Holocaust is written in concrete and steel.
"There is no arguing"? Says who, Timmy? Says you? This is the old, "Case Closed" debating trick; a variation of the "I-refuse-to-dignify-that-with-a-response" trick. You're right Timothy. There is "no arguing" with lunatics and liars. But thanks for inadvertently conceding the case by repeatedly admitting that there is no evidence.

  • Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers' shown to tourists are actually a "reconstruction"
  • Germans used delousing chambers to prevent death by typhus
  • Remains of alleged "gas chambers" tested negative for poison gas
  • Original Auschwitz death toll of "4 million" was a massive exaggeration
  • No documentary evidence of the "Holocaust"
  • No "smoking gun" evidence / "dearth of hard evidence"
  • No bodies

Keep making concessions like that and soon they'll be calling you a "Holocaust Denier". Timmy, you have lost the Jewdo match. Next time; know your Miranda Rights.

 Full Wall Street Journal Article:


C.L. Sulzberger
The "gas chambers" claim originated in a report issued by a Soviet Committee just hours after Germany had unconditionally surrendered (and thus, could not rebut)

Deborah Lipstadt
German documents never refer to a genocide campaign and the story of Jews being used to make soap is a hoax. (here)

Simon Weisenthal
Contrary to Eisenhower's propaganda films, there was no "gas chamber" at the Dachau Concentration Camp.(here)

Elan Steinberg, Peter Novick and others
The testimony of Holocaust survivors is often unreliable. (here)  (here)

The Jewish Virtual Library
The International Red Cross inspected the German POW and concentration camps and gave passing grades(but, of course, remained silent about the Jews)(here)

The New York Times
The '6 Million Dead' was proclaimed before a single camp had been liberated. (here) 
It's time for the Holohoaxers to raise the White Flag of surrender! 

No comments:

Post a Comment