No one to debate? [Rudolf vs Vann on Jake Shields]

[Nessie]

.....

Agreed, despite it being an obvious fallacy, revisionists use implausibility as one of their main arguments that gassings, mass graves and cremations did not happen.

Revisionists do not “use implausibility as one of their main arguments.”

Archie tried to claim that about Rudolf, but a succession of AI responses contradicted him!

Revisionist arguments are bolstered by the absence of forensic evidence, spotty documentary evidence, and by cursory analysis of a bevy of near-worthless, cartoonishly embellished eyewitness accounts.

That is just your biased opinion on the evidence, which you maliciously misinterpret, ignore and lie about.

Revisionist argumentation is much more scientifically and academically sound than what Exterminationists offer—even taking into account the massive disparity of funding, access to historical records, and lack of social acceptability in being neutrally inquisitive about this supposed systemic mass extermination.

You miss out referencing evidence. Revisionism is a unique to the Holocaust assessment of events, whereby all the evidence in favour is dismissed, with a series of spurious excuses and arguments from incredulity and then no evidence is presented to prove an alternative and no conclusion as to what happened reached.

Implausibility is fundamental to the ever-changing, inconsistent, and embellished mainstream Holocaust narrative, and implausibility is often pointed out by Revisionists in discourse—however it doesn’t serve as a “main” argument.

Yes it does. It is how you treat 100% of the witnesses. According to you, not one single witness gives a plausible description of gassings, mass graves or cremations, all of them lied. Therefore, no mass gassings, graves or cremations. The evidence from documents that corroborate the witnesses is either dismissed as faked, or claimed to be misinterpreted. The archaeological evidence that corroborates, is dismissed as insufficient or otherwise flawed. Revisionist regularly lie, claiming there is no evidence other than the witnesses, or that nothing was found at the mass grave sites.

[Nessie]

....

Revisionists do not “use implausibility as one of their main arguments.” Revisionist arguments are bolstered by the absence of forensic evidence, spotty documentary evidence, and by cursory analysis of a bevy of near-worthless, cartoonishly embellished eyewitness accounts.

Revisionist argumentation is much more scientifically and academically sound than what Exterminationists offer—even taking into account the massive disparity of funding, access to historical records, and lack of social acceptability in being neutrally inquisitive about this supposed systemic mass extermination.

Implausibility is fundamental to the ever-changing, inconsistent, and embellished mainstream Holocaust narrative, and implausibility is often pointed out by Revisionists in discourse—however it doesn’t serve as a “main” argument.

The Holocaust narrative is implausible,

Yes, revisionists do use implausibility as a main plank for their beliefs.

.... but it's the lack of evidence that should be there however isn't that affirms the falsity of the narrative/thesis.

There is the big revisionist lie, the supposed lack of evidence. There is significantly more evidence for gassings, graves and cremations, than there is for mass resettlement. 100% of the witnesses who worked at the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas say they were used for gassings. Revisionists have zero witnesses to any of their suggested alternatives. 100% of the archaeological evidence states that there are large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. Revisionists have zero evidence the ground is undisturbed. 100% of transport documents record mass arrivals at the AR camps. Zero record mass transports back out, or arrivals anywhere else.

The big revisionist lie, is to deflect from their complete lack of evidence of millions of Jews alive at the end of the war.

You summarize the issue very well here, while the exterminationist tactic seems to be to conflate the issue by turning it into endless debate....

Most debate revisionists by showing them all the evidence for gassings, with some comment on the flaws in revisionist methodology. I concentrate more on the flaws in revisionist methodology. Claiming that an evidenced event is too implausible to be believed, so instead believe in an unevidenced event, is illogical.

[Hektor]

....

Revisionists do not “use implausibility as one of their main arguments.” Revisionist arguments are bolstered by the absence of forensic evidence, spotty documentary evidence, and by cursory analysis of a bevy of near-worthless, cartoonishly embellished eyewitness accounts.

Revisionist argumentation is much more scientifically and academically sound than what Exterminationists offer—even taking into account the massive disparity of funding, access to historical records, and lack of social acceptability in being neutrally inquisitive about this supposed systemic mass extermination.

Implausibility is fundamental to the ever-changing, inconsistent, and embellished mainstream Holocaust narrative, and implausibility is often pointed out by Revisionists in discourse—however it doesn’t serve as a “main” argument.

The Holocaust narrative is implausible,

Yes, revisionists do use implausibility as a main plank for their beliefs.
...

Nope, they look at the bigger picture and form a rational opinion based on it. That the Holocaust Narrative is implausible to preposterous is merely circumstantial... And it supports the Revisionist Thesis. But so do other evidences.

[TlsMS93]

We will never deny that there were shootings on the Eastern Front, there are images and videos of this, the only difference from orthodoxy is the scale and the % of groups targeted and their reasons.

Which is different from the gassings for which there is nothing

[Nessie]

The Holocaust narrative is implausible,

Yes, revisionists do use implausibility as a main plank for their beliefs.
...

Nope, they look at the bigger picture and form a rational opinion based on it.

It is not rational to dismiss all the evidence as to what happened at the AR camp and inside the Kremas using a series of illogical arguments, fail to evidence what happened instead of gassings and then believe millions of Jews were resettled in the east, with no evidence of that happening.

That the Holocaust Narrative is implausible to preposterous is merely circumstantial... And it supports the Revisionist Thesis. But so do other evidences.

What other evidence? You have no witnesses, no archaeological evidence, the documents do not support revisionist claims and the circumstantial evidence does not support mass resettlement.

[Nessie]

We will never deny that there were shootings on the Eastern Front, there are images and videos of this, the only difference from orthodoxy is the scale and the % of groups targeted and their reasons.

Which is different from the gassings for which there is nothing

You are being rather dishonest when you suggest there is no evidence for the gassings. The only difference between the evidence for mass shootings and mass gassings, is that mass gassings were never filmed or photographed.

[TlsMS93]

There is no reason why they would have photographed and filmed mass shootings and preserved them so well and not recorded a single gassing that was preserved by a Nazi deserter or prisoner spy like in that bad photo next to the Krema V.

Just as there would be an order from Hitler in countless ministerial bodies of the bureaucracy, some copies would survive or fall into the hands of deserters.

[Nessie]

There is no reason why they would have photographed and filmed mass shootings and preserved them so well and not recorded a single gassing that was preserved by a Nazi deserter or prisoner spy like in that bad photo next to the Krema V.

Just as there would be an order from Hitler in countless ministerial bodies of the bureaucracy, some copies would survive or fall into the hands of deserters.

Hermann Hofle, (the author of the Telegram) issued an order preventing the use of cameras at the camps.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ss ... -july-1942

[TlsMS93]

There is no reason why they would have photographed and filmed mass shootings and preserved them so well and not recorded a single gassing that was preserved by a Nazi deserter or prisoner spy like in that bad photo next to the Krema V.

Just as there would be an order from Hitler in countless ministerial bodies of the bureaucracy, some copies would survive or fall into the hands of deserters.

Hermann Hofle, (the author of the Telegram) issued an order preventing the use of cameras at the camps.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ss ... -july-1942

There are numerous official photos of officers at Sobibor

1. that I may not under any circumstances pass on any form of information, verbally or in writing, on the progress, procedure or incidents in the evacuation of Jews to any person outside the circle of the "Einsatz Reinhard" staff;

So how did Korherr know about the number of Jews who arrived in these camps? Was he or whoever provided him with the information part of Operation Reinhardt?

[Nessie]

There is no reason why they would have photographed and filmed mass shootings and preserved them so well and not recorded a single gassing that was preserved by a Nazi deserter or prisoner spy like in that bad photo next to the Krema V.

Just as there would be an order from Hitler in countless ministerial bodies of the bureaucracy, some copies would survive or fall into the hands of deserters.

Hermann Hofle, (the author of the Telegram) issued an order preventing the use of cameras at the camps.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ss ... -july-1942

There are numerous official photos of officers at Sobibor

1. that I may not under any circumstances pass on any form of information, verbally or in writing, on the progress, procedure or incidents in the evacuation of Jews to any person outside the circle of the "Einsatz Reinhard" staff;

So how did Korherr know about the number of Jews who arrived in these camps? Was he or whoever provided him with the information part of Operation Reinhardt?

Rules were broken and the staff and their accommodation areas were photographed at Sobibor and by Kurt Franz at TII. Obviously Hofle must have authorised Korherr to get the arrivals figure.

[TlsMS93]

Rules were broken by everyone, so since there are countless photos of both officers and even women in civilian clothes in this camp, no one censored these photos?

According to the rule I mentioned there, nothing could be released to anyone who was not involved in Operation Reinhardt and Korherr was not part of it.

So both rules were broken.