"Revisionists cannot work out how the Holocaust happened"...

[HansHill]

...we have to remember that there are people out there who think that 6 million Jews were systematically gassed in Auschwitz, so what is discussed on this forum is way beyond the knowledge of the masses. If you were to ask the majority of people who know about the Holocaust what happened at Treblinka, they might not even recognize the name of the camp. The reason they might believe the orthodox claims about Treblinka is because they have been emotionally conditioned to reject "Holocaust denial". Any objective use of logic, reasoning, and research into these claims will show that they are simply ridiculous....

There are three categories of people as I see it

1) Revisionists - This category understand the Holocaust to the highest degree, of all three categories and apply critical thinking to the various aspects and advance probing questions.

2) Mild & casual affirmers - This category understand the Holocaust to the smallest degree objectively speaking, mostly due to never being prompted or otherwise interested in finding out more; this leads to, as you rightly say, wild misunderstandings like 6 million gassed at Auschwitz from fake (or real?) showers.

3) Rabid affirmers - This category is the redheaded stepchild, who recognise and regurgitate names, dates, maps, and other surface level prompts much like an AI output generator, however they completely misunderstand the Holocaust by you know, affirming it.

Our friend Nessie here is category 3, obviously. If you think the "AI" line was a cheap low blow, check out some threads from recent months involving a poster named "Confused Jew". No really, that was his actual name. And he chose it himself, I assume. His whole persona revolved around feigning interest in X-topic, receiving Y-answer, and rebutting with Z-ChatGPT copy pasta. He was honest about his use of AI, so i don't think anybody could call that a misrepresentation. Although I can't prove it, I also suspect our friend Nessie here asks for AI assistance via prompts about debate strategies and how to rebut arguments, leading him to hilariously misdiagnose winning arguments as """"fallacies"""" that don't make sense.

But yes, even in the small number of exchanges in just this thread alone, Nessie has been embarrassed, any onlooker will view Cowboy's rebuttal as superior, Nessie will return with some slop, and Cowboy, Sirius, Stubble and Archie will embarrass him again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Cowboy]

Our friend Nessie here is category 3, obviously. If you think the "AI" line was a cheap low blow, check out some threads from recent months involving a poster named "Confused Jew". No really, that was his actual name. And he chose it himself, I assume. His whole persona revolved around feigning interest in X-topic, receiving Y-answer, and rebutting with Z-ChatGPT copy pasta.

I remember when he posted his first thread on here a while ago. I could tell pretty immediately that his first few rebuttals were AI because of the content and the way it was formatted. It was sort of funny seeing such basic arguments be posted in a serious manner on here when they've been dealt with countless times before, but I can't really blame him if he was truly confused. I haven't seen him post anything significant in a while though, so hopefully he has actually taken up the advice given to him and is actually doing real research on revisionism. No guarantees.

3) Rabid affirmers - This category is the redheaded stepchild, who recognise and regurgitate names, dates, maps, and other surface level prompts much like an AI output generator, however they completely misunderstand the Holocaust by you know, affirming it.

I do think that the overloading of date, maps, and other niche information can look really intimidating to people who are doing deep dives into the subject for the first time. But, again, the claims that form the Holocaust narrative just don't hold up under intense scrutiny, and mental gymnastics are needed to demonstrate how they could "technically" be possible and have happened. I find that revisionists generally provide a more logical proceeding about what actually occurred given the context of the situation. The pushback is then "well they don't all agree on everything, so there is no consensus among them, which means I'm right." My primary rebuttal to this point is that revisionists agree on the big details, such as there were no homicidal gas chambers, no "final solution" order, and that there was a program of deportation taking place (which I think affirmers believe to an extent). These seem to be the core principles of revisionism. After these core principles have been established, then they are able to take a closer look and quibble with the smaller details. Disagreements and alternative explanations about little details are bound to happen, but that's just the process of research. The most important thing is that they are working towards the truth.

[Nessie]

Thank you for another thread that proves "revisionists" are not really revisionists at all, as they cannot evidence a chronological narrative of what happened to the millions of Jews the Nazis arrested during WWII.

Huh? My god. What definition of “revisionist” are you referencing? The definition of revisionism isn’t what you purport, the purpose of revisionism is to verify, or analyze, or critique, or disprove the orthodox narrative through scientific inquiry, study of historical artifacts, archeology, and analyzing witness testimony.

None of which so-called revisionists can actually do. For example, how can they critique archaeological evidence, when none have any relevant training? All they can do is make layman comment, which lacks any authority. How can witnesses be analysed, when no cognisance is taken of the numerous studies into witness behaviour, memory or recall?

If your mainstream narrative could withstand one iota of verification, a lot of us would be orthodox believers.

When the method of "verification" is flawed, it produces incorrect results.

Do you receive remuneration to uphold the mainstream Holocaust narrative? Like are you funded by a Jewish “education” NGO or something? Methinks you are in some form!

No.

[Nessie]

I only joined this forum about a month ago, but I've been browsing it since the start of the year. This "argument from incredulity" point that I have seen repeatedly since I started lurking is an obvious cop-out, for lack of a better term.

This is basically how I see it:
1: "Hey man, I made 300 three pointers in a row today at the gym!"
2: "I don't think that's feasible. You aren't that great of a shooter, and you were playing on a double rim."
1: "Well, just because you can't work out how I made 300 shots in a row, doesn't mean I didn't do it."
2: "What? I mean, I guess that's fair to an extent, but I've never seen you make more than 7 in a row..."
1: "Yeah well it happened, and you just have to believe me because it's technically possible."

How are reasonable conversations supposed to be had with this attitude?

False analogy. You are comparing something that is physically impossible, to something that is not. There is no doubt that in the 1940s, the Germans had the design and engineering skills to build gas chambers, dig mass graves and cremate corpses on pyres and in ovens.

My point was to demonstrate how ridiculous the "argument from incredulity" looks from an outsider's perspective. I used the 300 number to demonstrate how hyperbolized the claims of the Holocaust are. Also, I notice that nobody can ever seem to give you an analogy to this argument that fits your criteria (maybe it's because you used some flawed logic?). Most of the analogies I see posted against this point would make sense to lurkers.

You think your incredulity is justified, and comparable to be incredulous about known impossible claims.

I actually don't think it's possible or feasible to bury the population of Seattle, unbury them, cremate them on pyres that are several meters of bodies high, bury the ashes and bones, in a limited amount of time, in a limited area in one camp, especially when there is scarce amount of physical evidence that a massacre on this scale occurred. This is simply an absurd claim to make.

Is your incredulity enough to justify the claim it did not happen? You say yes, I say no. I say evidence is the best determinant of possibility. If something is evidenced to have happened, then your incredulity is misplaced.

To put it into context, we have to remember that there are people out there who think that 6 million Jews were systematically gassed in Auschwitz, so what is discussed on this forum is way beyond the knowledge of the masses. If you were to ask the majority of people who know about the Holocaust what happened at Treblinka, they might not even recognize the name of the camp. The reason they might believe the orthodox claims about Treblinka is because they have been emotionally conditioned to reject "Holocaust denial". Any objective use of logic, reasoning, and research into these claims will show that they are simply ridiculous. "B-b-but just because you can't work out how it happ.." I literally couldn't care less. As someone who has been seriously researching revisionism for only 6 months, thank you for being one of the reasons that I no longer believe the official narrative.

There is indeed a lot of ignorance about the Holocaust. The best way to reduce that ignorance, is to look at what is evidenced to have happened, rather than so-called revisionists arguing it cannot have happened and then failing to evidence what did.

Your analogy would be closer to reality if you changed 300 three pointers in a row, to 30.

I think the Holocaust would be closer to reality if we changed the 6,000,000 to 600,000.

It does not matter what you, or I, think. It matters what is evidenced to have happened. You cannot evidence only 600,000 out of the c7 million Jews the Nazis arrested and sent to camps 1939-44, were killed and that in 1945, over 6 million Jews were liberated.

[Nessie]

....

1) Revisionists - This category understand the Holocaust to the highest degree, of all three categories and apply critical thinking to the various aspects and advance probing questions.

...

Ok then. Using contemporaneous evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents, imagery and circumstantial evidence, along with any post-war archaeological evidence, prove what happened to the millions of Jews the Nazis and their allies arrested, 1939-44 and how many were in the camps and ghettos in 1944 and how many were liberated in 1945.

[Archie]

None of which so-called revisionists can actually do. For example, how can they critique archaeological evidence, when none have any relevant training?

I learned how to do division in the 4th grade, so I do have the relevant training, thank you very much. Basic arithmetic is sufficient to know that there were certainly not 109 bodies per square meter of area buried at Belzec.

[Archie]

....

1) Revisionists - This category understand the Holocaust to the highest degree, of all three categories and apply critical thinking to the various aspects and advance probing questions.

...

Ok then. Using contemporaneous evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents, imagery and circumstantial evidence, along with any post-war archaeological evidence, prove what happened to the millions of Jews the Nazis and their allies arrested, 1939-44 and how many were in the camps and ghettos in 1944 and how many were liberated in 1945.

Argument from ignorance fallacy and reversal of burden of proof.

[Nessie]

None of which so-called revisionists can actually do. For example, how can they critique archaeological evidence, when none have any relevant training?

I learned how to do division in the 4th grade, so I do have the relevant training, thank you very much. Basic arithmetic is sufficient to know that there were certainly not 109 bodies per square meter of area buried at Belzec.

Kola identified 21,000m3 of grave space. The best estimate of the number killed is 434,500, which is 21 bodies per m3. The highest estimate is 600,000, so 28.5 bodies per m3. You have greatly exaggerated that, to support your disbelief.

As for how so many corpses fitted into the mass graves, is explained by Kola not finding all the grave space, plus potential over-estimation of the number dead, plus the effects of burying naked corpses that are subject to pressure, to the exhumations and cremations beginning before the end of the transports, so not all the dead were buried.

Just because you cannot work out how it happened, does not therefore mean it did not happen.

[HansHill]

.

He's doubling down

[Archie]

...we have to remember that there are people out there who think that 6 million Jews were systematically gassed in Auschwitz, so what is discussed on this forum is way beyond the knowledge of the masses. If you were to ask the majority of people who know about the Holocaust what happened at Treblinka, they might not even recognize the name of the camp. The reason they might believe the orthodox claims about Treblinka is because they have been emotionally conditioned to reject "Holocaust denial". Any objective use of logic, reasoning, and research into these claims will show that they are simply ridiculous....

There are three categories of people as I see it

1) Revisionists - This category understand the Holocaust to the highest degree, of all three categories and apply critical thinking to the various aspects and advance probing questions.

2) Mild & casual affirmers - This category understand the Holocaust to the smallest degree objectively speaking, mostly due to never being prompted or otherwise interested in finding out more; this leads to, as you rightly say, wild misunderstandings like 6 million gassed at Auschwitz from fake (or real?) showers.

3) Rabid affirmers - This category is the redheaded stepchild, who recognise and regurgitate names, dates, maps, and other surface level prompts much like an AI output generator, however they completely misunderstand the Holocaust by you know, affirming it.

Our friend Nessie here is category 3, obviously. If you think the "AI" line was a cheap low blow, check out some threads from recent months involving a poster named "Confused Jew". No really, that was his actual name. And he chose it himself, I assume. His whole persona revolved around feigning interest in X-topic, receiving Y-answer, and rebutting with Z-ChatGPT copy pasta. He was honest about his use of AI, so i don't think anybody could call that a misrepresentation. Although I can't prove it, I also suspect our friend Nessie here asks for AI assistance via prompts about debate strategies and how to rebut arguments, leading him to hilariously misdiagnose winning arguments as """"fallacies"""" that don't make sense.

But yes, even in the small number of exchanges in just this thread alone, Nessie has been embarrassed, any onlooker will view Cowboy's rebuttal as superior, Nessie will return with some slop, and Cowboy, Sirius, Stubble and Archie will embarrass him again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I would propose a division of group 3 to distinguish between HC-style anti-revisionists (or Holocaust apologists) and those who are rabid affirmers but also ignorant of revisionism. There are many who are quite devout believers and who might even be "well read" on the topic but who take a head-in-the-sand attitude toward revisionism (many Jews and even many professional Holocaust scholars probably fall into this category). Anti-revisionists are quite different in that they do engage with revisionist arguments and attempt to provide rebuttals. (Curiously, I have a suspicion that the anti-revisionist scene is slightly more Gentile that one might expect, i.e. more than 0%). Officially, what the anti-revisionists do is somewhat frowned upon. After exposure to revisionism, you can go one of two ways. You can acknowledge the problems and begin heading down the revisionist path, or you can double-down (the fundamentalist reaction). Anti-revisionists like you see coming on here seem to be a small minority of #3.

Dealing with 3a (the devotional believers) vs 3b (the apologists) is vastly different. 3a blithely accepts all of the silliest stories and they have no clue about any of the things we get into here. 3b is aware of the traps so they will try to inb4 the problems with the testimonies and, since they know the revisionist arguments, they will try to pretend e.g. that there is physical evidence to support the story because they know this is a vulnerability. They know revisionists like to hammer them on this so again they try to inb4 it by bluffing about "overwhelmingly archaeological evidence" all the time though you find absolutely nothing about archaeology in any of the classic Holocaust tests (Arad, etc).

[bombsaway]

Archie, what do you mean by bluffing or pretending? I'm a true believer. I would bet my life on the Holocaust having happened, within some reasonable range -- millions dead, mass gassings

[Archie]

None of which so-called revisionists can actually do. For example, how can they critique archaeological evidence, when none have any relevant training?

I learned how to do division in the 4th grade, so I do have the relevant training, thank you very much. Basic arithmetic is sufficient to know that there were certainly not 109 bodies per square meter of area buried at Belzec.

Kola identified 21,000m3 of grave space. The best estimate of the number killed is 434,500, which is 21 bodies per m3. The highest estimate is 600,000, so 28.5 bodies per m3. You have greatly exaggerated that, to support your disbelief.

As for how so many corpses fitted into the mass graves, is explained by Kola not finding all the grave space, plus potential over-estimation of the number dead, plus the effects of burying naked corpses that are subject to pressure, to the exhumations and cremations beginning before the end of the transports, so not all the dead were buried.

Just because you cannot work out how it happened, does not therefore mean it did not happen.

The number I gave was bodies per SQUARE METER of AREA. Which is exactly what I said in my post. You then, being an idiot, switched to dividing by volume and accused me exaggeration, failing to realize that the numbers are in no way contradictory. The ratio between the two is simply the average depth. I am starting to wonder if maybe you are the one who lacks the necessary training (in school boy arithmetic) to discuss this topic intelligently. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't read my post carefully, but this is not the first time you've confused this.

Can you please provide a reference to a documented mass grave, any mass grave anywhere in the world, that is confirmed to have achieved 80-110 bodies per square meter of area? Or, if you prefer, 21-29 bodies per cubic meter of volume?

Your argument is essentially a) take this volume from Kola and assume it is accurate, b) assume 100% of that volume was packed to the brim with very small bodies to achieve unprecedented, world record corpse density. c) Call this absurd speculation "overwhelming archaeological evidence."

[Nessie]

I learned how to do division in the 4th grade, so I do have the relevant training, thank you very much. Basic arithmetic is sufficient to know that there were certainly not 109 bodies per square meter of area buried at Belzec.

Kola identified 21,000m3 of grave space. The best estimate of the number killed is 434,500, which is 21 bodies per m3. The highest estimate is 600,000, so 28.5 bodies per m3. You have greatly exaggerated that, to support your disbelief.

As for how so many corpses fitted into the mass graves, is explained by Kola not finding all the grave space, plus potential over-estimation of the number dead, plus the effects of burying naked corpses that are subject to pressure, to the exhumations and cremations beginning before the end of the transports, so not all the dead were buried.

Just because you cannot work out how it happened, does not therefore mean it did not happen.

The number I gave was bodies per SQUARE METER of AREA. Which is exactly what I said in my post. You then, being an idiot, switched to dividing by volume and accused me exaggeration, failing to realize that the numbers are in no way contradictory. The ratio between the two is simply the average depth. I am starting to wonder if maybe you are the one who lacks the necessary training (in school boy arithmetic) to discuss this topic intelligently. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't read my post carefully, but this is not the first time you've confused this.

You used square meter, to discuss a volume. I switched to the more appropriate m3 and showed how much you were exaggerating, by using your strange square meter calculation.

Can you please provide a reference to a documented mass grave, any mass grave anywhere in the world, that is confirmed to have achieved 80-110 bodies per square meter of area? Or, if you prefer, 21-29 bodies per cubic meter of volume?

No. That is because the mass graves are either individually buried corpses, such as the vast WWI cemeteries, or they are pits, such as plague graves found during archaeological excavations or building work, where the corpses have decomposed leaving skeletons and maybe some personal effects, or they have not been disturbed.

No mass grave has been treated the way the Nazis treated theirs, by exhuming and cremating the corpses.

Your argument is essentially a) take this volume from Kola and assume it is accurate, b) assume 100% of that volume was packed to the brim with very small bodies to achieve unprecedented, world record corpse density. c) Call this absurd speculation "overwhelming archaeological evidence."

Wrong. I just said that it is possible that the volume found by Kola is not the full volume. I know the volume is not 100% corpses, from what he found. I have not made any absurd speculation, I have merely presented what Kola found.

[Stubble]

Nessie, you don't have a big enough mop to clean all that mess you made up.

We all saw that.

[HansHill]

Your argument is essentially a) take this volume from Kola and assume it is accurate, b) assume 100% of that volume was packed to the brim with very small bodies to achieve unprecedented, world record corpse density. c) Call this absurd speculation "overwhelming archaeological evidence."

Don't forget the required uniformity throughout. No blips. No patches.