Reply to "List of Holocaust Topics ..." [retitled]

[Nessie]

This thread proves how reliant so-called revisionists are, on the argument from incredulity;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=400

"List of Holocaust topics the Believer Brigades won't touch.

I have noticed since the re-launch of this web site that the Nessie types have a clever knack of changing the subject and swerving certain questions and areas that presumably they feel uncertain of their position on or realise that these will get them roasted and exposed should they get involved."

There then follows lists and suggestions for the topics supposedly avoided. Of course, none of them are avoided, all have been dealt with. What the suggestions prove, is that so-called revisionists prop up their believe, or should I say disbelief, with events that they cannot work out how they happened, or cannot believe happened. For example;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10852#p10852

"The cremation fuel problem.
The cremation time problem.
The refractory brickwork problem.
The open-air incineration pits problem.
The Sonderkommando/Aktion 1005 logistics absurdity.
The Operation Reinhard extermination of workable Jews problem."

Just because it is not possible to work out, to someone's satisfaction, how the cremations were fuelled etc, is not evidence to prove no cremations.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10857#p10857

"1) They really do not like having to defend any of the classic eyewitnesses like Hoess, Gerstein, Nyiszli, etc. As these have all been thoroughly debunked, they will just try to shift to something else. They tend to get upset when revisionists bring these up."

That is not true. Those eyewitnesses area very easy to defend. It is proven they worked at A-B. They are corroborated. Any issues so-called revisionists find with their testimony can be easily explained by known witness behaviour, memory and recall. They make mistakes, some of the testimony was coerced, they forget etc. The suggestion that they have all been debunked is not true, as all that has been done, is to cast aspersions about their evidence. No evidence has been produced to prove they all, 100% of them, lied.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10994#p10994

"It is that they don’t like discussing testimony of ‘eye-witnesses’ who refute the mythology of there being a planned genocide via ‘extermination camps’. E.g. Paul Rassanier and Dr. Russel Barton are excellent examples of that."

They were not eyewitnesses to what happened inside the AR camps, Chelmno or the A-B Kremas, and they provide no evidence that instead of millions of Jews being killed, millions of Jews were still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944, and were liberated in 1945.

"They also don’t like discussing camps that were presented as ‘death camps’ or ‘extermination camps’ at the war’s end but are now acknowledged not to have been. In other words they can’t acknowledge the Allies LIED (your point 2).
They can’t admit the Allies lied to the world, to the defeated Germans, to their own populations and to their own soldiers."

It was not a lie, in 1945, for soldiers who liberated camps full of dead people, mainly Jewish, to call it a death camp. That is an issue of terminology, whereby over time, death camp has come to refer to the camps specifically run to kill people, such as Chelmno. In 1945, Chelmno was still little known or understood. There was nothing there to see. Bergen-Belsen had a lot to see and its liberation was filmed and broadcast live on the radio, so of course it got all the attention. It was known in 1945, that the Nazis had been mass murdering Jews and others, so to find camps with so many dead, it was not unreasonable to think that all the camps were being used to murder.

It is a so-called revisionist deception that there are problems with the evidence and that certain topics are avoided. Instead, nothing is avoided and everything is easily explained.

[Nessie]

This is pure argument from incredulity;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=11247#p11247

"The absurdity of building Treblinka even after the supposed expansion of the gas chambers in Belzec and Sobibor, which would have been enough to empty the General Government and the entire area of ​​influence of the Reich in a few months, is already absurd. Even more absurd is the lack of consideration for the construction of permanent crematoriums in these camps. As for the absurdity of Blobel traveling through huge areas looking for mass graves to destroy the evidence, without any evidence of Soviet aerial reconnaissance aircraft, no partisans recording these cremations, nothing."

It is also wrong. There are Polish witnesses to the cremations, speaking to months of burning and the smell. "Partisans", or Polish intelligence services, gathered a lot of information about the camps and relayed it back to the Government in Exile in London.

Just because someone finds something too absurd to believe, does not therefore mean it did not happen.

[TlsMS93]

Months of cremation and no clandestine photos or videos, not even aerial images where it would have been impossible for the Germans to hide them and which are more noticeable at night. The only photo they give us is from the Treblinka rebellion and not from the open-air cremations.

Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence are not valid for the Holocaust.

[HansHill]

You already have a containment thread for you to learn all about what is and is not a logical fallacy

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97

[Nessie]

Months of cremation and no clandestine photos or videos, not even aerial images where it would have been impossible for the Germans to hide them and which are more noticeable at night. The only photo they give us is from the Treblinka rebellion and not from the open-air cremations.

Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence are not valid for the Holocaust.

There was a clandestine photo of the pyre at Krema V, as well as aerial photos of smoke. Add that photographic evidence to the eyewitness, documentary and circumstantial evidence and mass cremations at A-B are proven.

Your argument from incredulity is a fallacy and it certainly has no evidential value.

[Nessie]

You already have a containment thread for you to learn all about what is and is not a logical fallacy

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97

It is you who need to learn what a logical fallacy is, not me. I have linked to and I am commenting on a thread that is listing arguments from incredulity!!!!!!!! Sadly, not matter how often I point out when you are using that argument, you keep on using it. You are so dependent on it, that if you dropped it, your whole belief system would collapse, so you carry on regardless!

[TlsMS93]

Here we go again with Alberto Errera and the toothpaste tubes.

[Archie]

Yawn. How many threads do we need debunking this "argument from incredulity" idiocy?

[Nessie]

Yawn. How many threads do we need debunking this "argument from incredulity" idiocy?

Stop using the argument from incredulity and I will stop commenting on your usage of that argument. I have been quoting arguments from incredulity in the OP, in a thread dedicated to so-called revisionists listing why they do not believe in gassings, cremations etc.

[Stubble]

Nessie, using your argumentation, one would have to believe in Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny, after all, you can't question the validity of the eyewitnesses and there is no way they could have all lied.

Regardless of the impossibility of their existence, we would have to accept it because arguing that Santa Claus would be unable to complete his assigned task in the provided timeframe, for example, would simply be an argument from incredulity.

This thread is quite redundant, and monthly you post the same argument using slightly different phrasing. I don't think this is intentional on your part as I feel you lack the attention span necessary to remember the threads you have created or the aptitude to use the search function.

If I were a member of the mod team, I would politely move these threads into a containment thread and mention to you that you already had a thread for these statements. After the 3rd or 4th time doing such, you might catch on, then again, you might not. I fear lead may be less dense than your cranium.

[Nessie]

Nessie, using your argumentation, one would have to believe in Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny, after all, you can't question the validity of the eyewitnesses and there is no way they could have all lied.

The argument from incredulity applies to claims that are physically possible, not claims that are not, like Santa. It is physically possible for the Nazis to have converted Kremas to gas chambers.

Regardless of the impossibility of their existence, we would have to accept it because arguing that Santa Claus would be unable to complete his assigned task in the provided timeframe, for example, would simply be an argument from incredulity.

No, since Santa could not even have got off the ground in his sleigh, let alone fly it round the world. You are guilty of making a false analogy, another logical fallacy! You are comparing something that cannot have happened, namely a flying sleigh that could make it round the world in one night, delivering presents, to something that is possible, which is German engineers building gas chambers.

This thread is quite redundant, and monthly you post the same argument using slightly different phrasing. I don't think this is intentional on your part as I feel you lack the attention span necessary to remember the threads you have created or the aptitude to use the search function.

If I were a member of the mod team, I would politely move these threads into a containment thread and mention to you that you already had a thread for these statements. After the 3rd or 4th time doing such, you might catch on, then again, you might not. I fear lead may be less dense than your cranium.

This thread is pointing out that yet again, so-called revisionists are using the argument from incredulity to prop up their beliefs and have created an entire thread listing why they think gassings etc are impossible to have happened.

[Archie]

The thread has been retitled.

Nessie, if you would like to use this thread to add your rebuttals to the other discussion, okay, but we are not going to have another thread on "argument from incredulity."

[Stubble]

Nessie, not to travel too far from the core of your argument, however, it needs to be said, where I become incredulous is specifically where the orthodox narrative states the impossible is possible, with the caveat it is possible 'only with German methods'.

Examples are many and threads for their discussion are also.

You dismiss this by saying 'it is possible because it happened' and 'just because you can't figure out how it happened doesn't mean it didn't'.

Just because you can't figure out how Martha flew around on her broomstick while engaging in intercourse with the devil doesn't make it not so, there were so many eyewitnesses after all. You are simply being incredulous.

[Nessie]

Nessie, not to travel too far from the core of your argument, however, it needs to be said, where I become incredulous is specifically where the orthodox narrative states the impossible is possible, with the caveat it is possible 'only with German methods'.

Examples are many and threads for their discussion are also.

When a witness states that thousands were gassed in a space that could not fit that many people, that is not evidence to prove no gassings happened. It is explained by people being poor at estimating size.

When Rudolf cannot work out how gassings took place, when he can only find low traces of HCN and no sign of Prussian Blue in what little is examinable of the gas chambers, that is not evidence no gassings took place. It merely means he cannot work out how it happened and as he admits, he may be wrong.

When Mattogno cannot work out how the Krema ovens could have worked, based on some records of coke delivery and witness descriptions of their use, that is not evidence to prove there were no mass cremations. It is just his opinion.

When there is a lack of evidence as to how much wood was delivered to the AR camps and how much the pyres would need, and Mattogno cannot believe the pyres could have worked as described, that is not evidence to prove no mass pyres. It is just his opinion.

You dismiss this by saying 'it is possible because it happened' and 'just because you can't figure out how it happened doesn't mean it didn't'.

Yes, since is something is evidenced to have happened, it does not matter if someone is incredulous about it happening.

Just because you can't figure out how Martha flew around on her broomstick while engaging in intercourse with the devil doesn't make it not so, there were so many eyewitnesses after all. You are simply being incredulous.

No, false analogy. You are comparing something that cannot physically have happened, with something that can. As seen at Dresden and Ohurdruf, the Nazis knew how to build mass corpse pyres using metal rails. Just because some of the eyewitness descriptions of the pyres at the AR camps, are not convincing, or they are clearly emotive, that is not evidence there were no pyres.

[Stubble]

I apologize for this rather brief post, however, I don't want to clutter the thread going back and forth like this is a chat room without making any progress in the thread and simply replying to a restatement over and over ad nauseam.

First, Nessie, you dismiss.

You dismiss any technical argument as invalid and being from incredulity regardless of if you understand it or not. This is juvenile.

You deflect.

You deflect away from the point made by the argument by pointing at a body of evidence that is in no way related to the contention being argued about.

You deny.

You deny that there are any gaps or issues in the orthodox narrative as it is described. You fill in anything that is missing with he said she said and you call everything both obvious and proven.

On the list of things 'proven' about the holocaust, I will link again, for posterity, proven at Nuremberg;



There are fucking problems with the orthodox narrative, big problems, and you can't just patch over them with 'well, you are just incredulous'.