Holocaust Revisionism vs. Flat-Earth Theory

[Archie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence

Here you go. So eg, saying that prior plans existed, is not direct evidence that they were resettled. The Korherr report is direct evidence of population movement I guess, your only piece of such evidence, but it is a highly problematic document that revisionists widely take issue with. You can make whatever claims you want, but it is true that in history (let's limit to past 2000 years) mass events are not asserted without direct evidence, and now the ball is in your court to show otherwise.

That link does NOT support your claim that historical conclusions can only be based on "direct" evidence. It is not about historical method at all.

In law, a body of facts that directly supports the truth of an assertion without intervening inference. It is often exemplified by eyewitness testimony,[1][2] which consists of a witness's description of their reputed direct sensory experience of an alleged act without the presentation of additional facts.[3][1] By contrast, circumstantial evidence can help prove via inference whether an assertion is true,[4] such as forensics presented by an expert witness.

Historians rely on "intervening inference" all the time.

The direct/indirect distinction does not even correspond to strength of evidence. Witness testimony is the most "direct," yet it is generally the weakest form of evidence.

Historical conclusions about mass events in the past 1000 years or whatever ALWAYS follow this pattern. That's why I said if your claims become accepted, this would be a singular occurrence.

What is a "mass" event?

Who cares if the evidence is "direct" or indirect?

Actually, disagreement over "mass events," including recent ones, is common. Only "the Holocaust" is unique in that significant disagreement is basically not allowed. With Stalin's crimes there is a huge range in estimates of the numbers killed. Robert Conquest claims huge numbers in his books. At the other extreme you have certain Stalin apologists who claim it's all fake propaganda.

[Callafangers]

The ash was mixed with sand. Kola distinguished between "body ash" and "charcoal" which would be the wood ash remains. Many graves don't contain charcoal.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... camps.html

I don't know where you are getting trace amounts from this. Why don't you quote from the actual studies. Kola found thousands of cubic meters of crematory layers. While it's possible these layers were like 1/1000th human ash, I don't see why the Nazis would have done this.

Yes, it was mixed with sand... which is even more of the volume occupied by non-corpse material -- that's a problem for you. Sand (and lime) are also reminders of the sanitation-based focus of these graves and operations.

Trace amounts is a fact. Bodies in wax-fat transformation take up lots of the volume, sand and soil makes up much of the rest. Of the areas we find actual crematory remains, these are by necessity some 98%+ wood and other materials (likely closer to 99.5%+, given how much property is found underground, suggesting property destruction/burials were common). The fact of these burials being spread out is strong evidence for the revisionist position -- 'extermination' implies a more or less ongoing process (same gigantic grave, same uninterrupted location), whereas occasional (once a week, few times per month, etc.) influxes of corpses and Jewish property would mean graves were dug in one place, burials made, then refilled and not dug there again (for sanitary reasons). We know further that these grave sites were robbed frequently and dug up post-war, further spreading things out.

The fact that we find mostly soil and sand/lime and wax-fat corpses or even whole corpses, with only very slim and widely dispersed crematory contents is not reasonably in dispute. The descriptions and photo evidence available confirm this and align with the revisionist position. I've posted some specifics based on measurements taken at these locations in some of our past conversations. I have other analysis to wrap-up and share once I get around to it. Suffice to say for now, Mattogno's analysis remains the most thorough and evidence-based.

[Keen]

I don't think we can say definitively how much ash is in there, but it would be silly to expect the Nazis to have distributed trace amounts of ash across an enormous quantity of crematory mixture.

Sorry, are you making a distinction between 'ash' and 'crematory mixture', here? I think for our purposes, we could treat them as one-in-the-same, unless we're talking about human-to-wood ash ratios. In any case trace amounts across a large area is exactly what we would expect from occasional, sporadic burials. What we are missing -- and what should be there if your position were true -- is astronomical graves with millions' of dead Jews' worth of corpse ash accompanied by about 50x as much wood ash (required to cremate them). Instead, we find not one-tenth this amount -- not one one-hundredth. The amount we find aligns well with epidemic corpse and property disposal as ghettos were cleared, at most, and not at all with your fantasy 'extermination' claims.

The ash was mixed with sand. Kola distinguished between "body ash" and "charcoal" which would be the wood ash remains. Many graves don't contain charcoal.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... camps.html

I don't know where you are getting trace amounts from this. Why don't you quote from the actual studies. Kola found thousands of cubic meters of crematory layers. While it's possible these layers were like 1/1000th human ash, I don't see why the Nazis would have done this.

1 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 33 alleged Belzec graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

2 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 21 alleged Chelmno graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

3 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 7 alleged Ponary graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

4 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 24 alleged Sobibor graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

5 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 15 alleged Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

[Keen]

The bodies aren't where "I" need them to be? Based on the archeological studies, the graves show what I would expect. Callafanger's notion of "trace" amounts of ash is not evidenced. I don't think we can say definitively how much ash is in there, but it would be silly to expect the Nazis to have distributed trace amounts of ash across an enormous quantity of crematory mixture.

Bombsaway, is it - True. - or - False. - that:

It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the one hundred graves / cremation pits that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY FIVE PEOPLE.

If you're answer is "False." then can you show us a "huge mass grave" that contains the remains of at least 6 people?

Also:

1 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 33 alleged Belzec graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

2 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 21 alleged Chelmno graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

3 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 7 alleged Ponary graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

4 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 24 alleged Sobibor graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

5 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 15 alleged Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

If you refuse to answer the above questions, I'll assume you are falling back on the "magically disappearing teeth" theory.

[bombsaway]

The ash was mixed with sand. Kola distinguished between "body ash" and "charcoal" which would be the wood ash remains. Many graves don't contain charcoal.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... camps.html

I don't know where you are getting trace amounts from this. Why don't you quote from the actual studies. Kola found thousands of cubic meters of crematory layers. While it's possible these layers were like 1/1000th human ash, I don't see why the Nazis would have done this.

Yes, it was mixed with sand... which is even more of the volume occupied by non-corpse material -- that's a problem for you. Sand (and lime) are also reminders of the sanitation-based focus of these graves and operations.

Trace amounts is a fact. Bodies in wax-fat transformation take up lots of the volume, sand and soil makes up much of the rest. Of the areas we find actual crematory remains, these are by necessity some 98%+ wood and other materials (likely closer to 99.5%+, given how much property is found underground, suggesting property destruction/burials were common). The fact of these burials being spread out is strong evidence for the revisionist position -- 'extermination' implies a more or less ongoing process (same gigantic grave, same uninterrupted location), whereas occasional (once a week, few times per month, etc.) influxes of corpses and Jewish property would mean graves were dug in one place, burials made, then refilled and not dug there again (for sanitary reasons). We know further that these grave sites were robbed frequently and dug up post-war, further spreading things out.

The fact that we find mostly soil and sand/lime and wax-fat corpses or even whole corpses, with only very slim and widely dispersed crematory contents is not reasonably in dispute. The descriptions and photo evidence available confirm this and align with the revisionist position. I've posted some specifics based on measurements taken at these locations in some of our past conversations. I have other analysis to wrap-up and share once I get around to it. Suffice to say for now, Mattogno's analysis remains the most thorough and evidence-based.

Bodies in wax-fat transformation =/= body ashes

those would be intact bodies at the bottom of the graves which they weren't able to excavate.

That link does NOT support your claim that historical conclusions can only be based on "direct" evidence. It is not about historical method at all.



Historians rely on "intervening inference" all the time.

The direct/indirect distinction does not even correspond to strength of evidence. Witness testimony is the most "direct," yet it is generally the weakest form of evidence.

Historical conclusions about mass events in the past 1000 years or whatever ALWAYS follow this pattern. That's why I said if your claims become accepted, this would be a singular occurrence.

What is a "mass" event?

Who cares if the evidence is "direct" or indirect?

Actually, disagreement over "mass events," including recent ones, is common. Only "the Holocaust" is unique in that significant disagreement is basically not allowed. With Stalin's crimes there is a huge range in estimates of the numbers killed. Robert Conquest claims huge numbers in his books. At the other extreme you have certain Stalin apologists who claim it's all fake propaganda.

Somebody just went to jail for challenging Soviet crimes. I would say events involving tens of thousands of people would qualify as mass events. Reinhardt alone is pitched 2 orders of magnitude above this.

[Keen]

Jewish mass resettlement by the Nazis, during WWII is indeed unique, in that it has no evidence and there is plenty of evidence, mainly from Nazi sources, that contradicts it happened. Instead, mass killings are evidenced, which explains that lack of evidence of mass resettlement.

Another lie.

There is not only evidence, but it has been proven that the jews didn't end up where the delusional true-blievers alleged them to have ended up.

The issue isn't "resettlement" per se, it's that 2.145 million jews were not permently "resettled" at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary,
Sobibor and Treblinka II.

It has been proven that the orthodox holocaust story is a lie. That is a proven fact. If you deny it, then refute this:

It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the one hundred graves / cremation pits that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY FIVE PEOPLE.

What are you waiting for Nessie?

What are you so afraid of?

[Keen]

re Sobibor "Coup de grace", yawn

Kues is just plain wrong

Bombsaway, can you show us a mass grave at Sobibor in which verified human remains have been tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, which contained more human remains than this one:



Yes. - or - No. - ??

[ConfusedJew]

And the total disregard for the thousands of eyewitness reports.

No, we do NOT disregard them. On the contrary! THEY are the most powerful proof that this allegation —of an attempted genocide of ALL jews in Axis-occupied Europe, principally via mass-gassing — does not withstand close scrutiny!

Do you want me to elucidate?

Or are you — like a flat-earther — impervious to reason?

You are welcome to elaborate but the vast majority of unprejudiced humans would wildly disagree with that. That's where you might be considered impervious to reason.

When you say that the tens of thousands of eyewitness reports is "proof" that the Holocaust was not real, that's where you go way into flat earth territory.

[Stubble]

You are welcome to elaborate but the vast majority of unprejudiced humans would wildly disagree with that [...]

Really though? A 'vast majority'?

47% doesn't seem like a 'vast majority'.

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/ ... aust-myth/

Another 30 percent of young people said they didn’t agree or disagree with the statement, while the remaining 47 percent disagreed [...]

Better than half think the event as described is either exaggerated, or a myth...

Personally, I think it's a bit of both [to be 100% crystal clear, I believe there were indeed some reprisals and decimations during the counter terrorism operations in the East]. Problems start when you try to separate what truth there is from the lies...

Then I become a 'holocaust denying antisemite'...

A 'flat earth' or 'elvis is alive' equivalent apparently.

The problem still stands though CJ...

'Where'd they go?'...

Where are the missing persons CJ? Where are they?

Please, do start a thread and show me on the map, where they goed.

[bombsaway]

People are generally ill informed, these polls mean very little in terms of proving anything, eg

Just 66% of millennials firmly believe that the earth is round

https://today.yougov.com/society/articl ... -religious

And I'm sure flat earthers were giddy to learn this

[Stubble]

People are generally ill informed, these polls mean very little in terms of proving anything, eg

Just 66% of millennials firmly believe that the earth is round

https://today.yougov.com/society/articl ... -religious

And I'm sure flat earthers were giddy to learn this

https://today.yougov.com/society/articl ... -religious

While an overwhelming majority of Americans (84%) believe that the Earth is round, at least 5% of the public say they used to believe that but now have their doubts.

On the other hand;

https://www.claimscon.org/country-survey/

Across countries, a sizeable share of the population does not believe the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust has been accurately described.

Something about, apples and potatoes...

[It's worth noting that the 6,000,000 figure is symbolic in nature and not based on actual findings, people attribute it to 'rounding'. Even if I took 5,100,000 seriously, I wouldn't round that to 6,000,000, so, that sizable share, they are right, demonstrably. They are seen as 'antisemitic deniers' though, because, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE 6,000,000]

[bombsaway]

"Across countries, a sizeable share of the population does not believe the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust has been accurately described."

Yeah I would be one of these "'antisemitic deniers" as you say, though I disagree with that characterization. It applies to people who downgrade the numbers way more than I would, or are Nazi apologists in some way.

[ConfusedJew]

People are generally ill informed, these polls mean very little in terms of proving anything, eg

Just 66% of millennials firmly believe that the earth is round

https://today.yougov.com/society/articl ... -religious

And I'm sure flat earthers were giddy to learn this

Why do more people believe in the Holocaust than a round earth when the evidence is already so obvious that the earth is round in my opinion?

[Wetzelrad]

Why do more people believe in the Holocaust than a round earth when the evidence is already so obvious that the earth is round in my opinion?

They don't. YouGov reports 84% of U.S. adults are certain the Earth is round but only 69% are certain the Holocaust is not a myth. If you're going to make a comparison, do it using equal terms.
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/d ... f#page=103

[Wahrheitssucher]

And the total disregard for the thousands of eyewitness reports.

No, we do NOT disregard them. On the contrary! THEY are the most powerful proof that this allegation —of an attempted genocide of ALL jews in Axis-occupied Europe, principally via mass-gassing — does not withstand close scrutiny!

Do you want me to elucidate?

Or are you — like a flat-earther — impervious to reason?

You are welcome to elaborate but the vast majority of unprejudiced humans would wildly disagree with that. That's where you might be considered impervious to reason.

When you say that the tens of thousands of eyewitness reports is "proof" that the Holocaust was not real, that's where you go way into flat earth territory.

1. You’ve exaggerated and slightly moved the goalposts (from “thousands” to “tens of thousands”).
CJ, listen now: there aren’t tens of thousands of eye-witnesses to mass-gassings.
So… another Question for you: approximately how many are there, according to the official narrative? Do you know? Will you answer?

2. I did not write that their testimony proves “the Holocaust was not real”. You have yet again misunderstood and argued against your own confused understanding of what is actually being debated. Which is a logical fallacy (called a ‘strawman argument’).

3. You implied that because a majority hold a particular view therefore it is a correct view.
This is another obvious logical fallacy (called Argumentum ad populum).

4. I offered to explain something to you: a specific reasoning regarding evaluation of eye-witness testimony. You replied that it would be incorrect reasoning, because it currently isn’t popular. You decided this BEFORE even receiving and considering it.
Do you really not see that this demonstrates YOU definitely are “impervious to reason”.
Er… just like a flat-earther.

Recapitulation:
ironically, the claimed eye-witness testimonies are actually the most powerful proof that this allegation — of an attempted genocide of ALL jews in Axis-occupied Europe, principally via mass-gassing — does not withstand close scrutiny!

PREMISE:
A. Someone open to reason would be willing to receive, investigate and fairly consider this proposition BEFORE concluding whether it was false or not.
B. Someone who is impervious to reason would not.

CONCLUSION:
You have again proved that YOUR accusation that revisionist are like flat-earthers and impervious to reason was subconsciously a confession of YOUR OWN approach.