No, it is recognising that the "technical arguments" are the reasons why you express your incredulity. It is logically and evidentially correct, to dismiss any argument gassings or cremations were technically impossible, when they are evidenced to have happened.Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 4:37 pm 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.
It is not deflection to point to the body of evidence that gassings happened, as you try to argue they were technically impossible.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.
That is not true. I agree, there is a lot we do not know about, such as the amount of wood needed for the pyres and where it came from.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.
You grossly exaggerate, misrepresent and plain lie about supposed problems with the "orthodox narrative" to deflect from the huge problems with the so-called revisionist narrative, of which, there is none!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'.
Most of the problems you find, are with witnesses that can be explained by known issues with memory, recall and estimations. Or, they are due to unknowns, such as the amount of wood used in the pyres and where it came from.
