Holocaust Revisionism vs. Flat-Earth Theory

[ConfusedJew]

.
HolyH believers are actually the ones most comparable to religious flat-earthers

There is a well-known observation encapsulated in the phrase "every accusation is an admission" which applies here.

Confused jew is accusing those who have questioned, considered, investigated, read, researched, checked and double-checked of being as ill-informed and as impervious to reason as a ‘flat-earther’.

Is this true? Is every accusation an admission?

Did I ever accuse anyone here of being ill informed or being impervious to reason? I disagreed with the reasoning here but I don't think I ever did either of those things. But even if I did, would that have been a confession on my part? You are accusing me of things, are you just confessing to what you are alleging?

[bombsaway]

re Sobibor "Coup de grace", yawn
Kues is just plain wrong (7 years later!), study was published in 2001 and it's a similar story to Belzec

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocau ... t1071.html

I think you are not posting in good faith BA.



MGK are clearly aware of this research report from Kola and have referenced it themselves as shown above. Likewise the translation you sent to me appears to be blogger-commissioned translation. I won't attack the veracity of the translation or call it amateur, I'm sure it's just fine but... that is kind of the point that MGK are making, isn't it Bombsaway?

Why is this not good faith?

You referenced Kues saying in 2008: Despite seven years having passed since the drills and diggings were reportedly made, not a single article, paper or scientific report has appeared on them, neither in English, Polish, nor in any other language."

And you said:

"No articles, papers or scientific reports have been published because A. Kola and his team had nothing to report that would benefit the claim that Sobibor was an extermination camp."

If you and Kues are confused, it's not up to me to stay on track of that. The study was clearly published, and whadya know a scan of the original is in the link I sent you.

Nevertheless all this is a diversion from the point that I'm making which is the similarity of revisionists and flat earthers in terms of asserting historical realities with no positive evidence. In both cases, the mainstream story is deemed impossible, therefore, in process of elimination fashion, these events must have occurred. For flat earthers, this is a mass cover up of flat earth by scientific and governmental institutions, for revisionists this is mass resettlement / coverup / plus conspiracy to fabricate evidence (witnesses and documents and archeological studies).

You actually diverted here https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14346#p14346

It makes sense to divert, because your own evidentiary case is so bad. Just like the flat earthers, you can only critique. But for your own good you should reckon with the singular nature of your positive claims - every other established mass event in recent history is backed by a large amount of direct evidence, even minor events are substantiated, you have nothing.

[Wahrheitssucher]

HolyH believers are actually the ones most comparable to religious flat-earthers

There is a well-known observation encapsulated in the phrase "every accusation is an admission" which applies here.

Confused jew is accusing those who have questioned, considered, investigated, read, researched, checked and double-checked of being as ill-informed and as impervious to reason as a ‘flat-earther’.

Did I ever accuse anyone here of being ill informed or being impervious to reason?

Yes you did. Repeatedly.
Likening revisionists to flat-earthers is obviously suggesting that.
Are you now in denial about even this?

One of your great weaknesses is that your replies are not actually ‘yours’. That is because you appear to just cut and paste from an Ai-answer most of the time. Consequently you don’t recall what you have posted.
This would also explain why others have noted that your posts make statements diametrically contradicting each other, on occasion.

Here’s where you pasted from Ai alleging holocaust revisionists aren’t really revising nor do they apply logical reasoning:

…In short, pseudo-revisionists violate every principle of critical historical methodology: proper source evaluation, context, cross-checking, logical reasoning, and impartiality.

Do you concede?

I suggest to you that the main flaw in your attitude to discussion on the jewish WW2 narrative is that you are unable to understand what revisionists are actually arguing.
You don’t study but instead rely on strawman misrepresentation. And also ludicrously false accusations.
E.g. Like this:

Ways in which Holocaust denial is similar to Flat Earth Theorizing:
1. Both involve dismissing overwhelming evidence and expert consensus. Holocaust deniers ignore extensive historical documentation, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence. Flat-Earth believers reject centuries of astronomical observation, satellite imagery, and physics.

That is an example of an “accusation that is a confession”.
You yourself (and holocaust promoters generally) are the ones who do that.
Its you guys who have to “dismiss overwhelming evidence” to maintain your belief.
You (and they) routinely “ignore extensive historical documentation, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence” if and when it refutes your cherished belief system.
I’m not aware of ANY serious revisionists doing that. On the contrary.

[HansHill]

re Sobibor "Coup de grace", yawn
Kues is just plain wrong (7 years later!), study was published in 2001 and it's a similar story to Belzec

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocau ... t1071.html

I think you are not posting in good faith BA.



MGK are clearly aware of this research report from Kola and have referenced it themselves as shown above. Likewise the translation you sent to me appears to be blogger-commissioned translation. I won't attack the veracity of the translation or call it amateur, I'm sure it's just fine but... that is kind of the point that MGK are making, isn't it Bombsaway?

Why is this not good faith?

You referenced Kues saying in 2008: Despite seven years having passed since the drills and diggings were reportedly made, not a single article, paper or scientific report has appeared on them, neither in English, Polish, nor in any other language."

And you said:

"No articles, papers or scientific reports have been published because A. Kola and his team had nothing to report that would benefit the claim that Sobibor was an extermination camp."

If you and Kues are confused, it's not up to me to stay on track of that. The study was clearly published, and whadya know a scan of the original is in the link I sent you.

Nevertheless all this is a diversion from the point that I'm making which is the similarity of revisionists and flat earthers in terms of asserting historical realities with no positive evidence. In both cases, the mainstream story is deemed impossible, therefore, in process of elimination fashion, these events must have occurred. For flat earthers, this is a mass cover up of flat earth by scientific and governmental institutions, for revisionists this is mass resettlement / coverup / plus conspiracy to fabricate evidence (witnesses and documents and archeological studies).

You actually diverted here https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14346#p14346

It makes sense to divert, because your own evidentiary case is so bad. Just like the flat earthers, you can only critique. But for your own good you should reckon with the singular nature of your positive claims - every other established mass event in recent history is backed by a large amount of direct evidence, even minor events are substantiated, you have nothing.

1) I think you're not arguing in good faith because you are not addressing the substance of the point being made. I'm not going to sit here and mock the good people of "Past and Memory" because I'm sure they are very nice and do good work but... really? Is there a DOI code for this paper that I can use to index and scrape with all my other papers? Has this just not hit Western audiences aside from *checks notes* a blog translation?

Additionally just look at the snippets you pulled from the blog - i tallied them all, including the ones you omitted: Of the 7 "mass graves", the descriptions run to 700 words including headers. That averages out to 100 words per "mass grave", again including headers. Are you serious Bombsaway? This is to be taken as your paper on the remains of 250,000 people?

If it were anybody else I would probably just move on and chalk this down to semantics over what a "published paper" means but because its you, and this thread is all about Holocaust Revisionism VS Flat Earth, i think it's delicious that you are passing this blog post off as your winning argument.

2) Technically yes off topic, but as explained in my paragraph immediately above, I think Callafangers will allow this to remain.

3) "Single nature of your positive claims"

Get over yourself, you know the nature of our positive claims:

- You don't have the bodies
- You don't have the murder weapon(s)
- Your witnesses are contradictory and not credible

[bombsaway]

I think you are not posting in good faith BA.



MGK are clearly aware of this research report from Kola and have referenced it themselves as shown above. Likewise the translation you sent to me appears to be blogger-commissioned translation. I won't attack the veracity of the translation or call it amateur, I'm sure it's just fine but... that is kind of the point that MGK are making, isn't it Bombsaway?

Why is this not good faith?

You referenced Kues saying in 2008: Despite seven years having passed since the drills and diggings were reportedly made, not a single article, paper or scientific report has appeared on them, neither in English, Polish, nor in any other language."

And you said:

"No articles, papers or scientific reports have been published because A. Kola and his team had nothing to report that would benefit the claim that Sobibor was an extermination camp."

If you and Kues are confused, it's not up to me to stay on track of that. The study was clearly published, and whadya know a scan of the original is in the link I sent you.

Nevertheless all this is a diversion from the point that I'm making which is the similarity of revisionists and flat earthers in terms of asserting historical realities with no positive evidence. In both cases, the mainstream story is deemed impossible, therefore, in process of elimination fashion, these events must have occurred. For flat earthers, this is a mass cover up of flat earth by scientific and governmental institutions, for revisionists this is mass resettlement / coverup / plus conspiracy to fabricate evidence (witnesses and documents and archeological studies).

You actually diverted here https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14346#p14346

It makes sense to divert, because your own evidentiary case is so bad. Just like the flat earthers, you can only critique. But for your own good you should reckon with the singular nature of your positive claims - every other established mass event in recent history is backed by a large amount of direct evidence, even minor events are substantiated, you have nothing.

1) I think you're not arguing in good faith because you are not addressing the substance of the point being made. I'm not going to sit here and mock the good people of "Past and Memory" because I'm sure they are very nice and do good work but... really? Is there a DOI code for this paper that I can use to index and scrape with all my other papers? Has this just not hit Western audiences aside from *checks notes* a blog translation?

Additionally just look at the snippets you pulled from the blog - i tallied them all, including the ones you omitted: Of the 7 "mass graves", the descriptions run to 700 words including headers. That averages out to 100 words per "mass grave", again including headers. Are you serious Bombsaway? This is to be taken as your paper on the remains of 250,000 people?

If it were anybody else I would probably just move on and chalk this down to semantics over what a "published paper" means but because its you, and this thread is all about Holocaust Revisionism VS Flat Earth, i think it's delicious that you are passing this blog post off as your winning argument.

2) Technically yes off topic, but as explained in my paragraph immediately above, I think Callafangers will allow this to remain.

3) "Single nature of your positive claims"

Sticking to the thread topic, what's a comparable event to *mass resettlement* that has been accepted in history? Select one and then we can compare the evidence to what you have for the thing you believe in. I will show you that it is closer to flat earth theory than accepted history.