Holocaust Revisionism vs. Flat-Earth Theory

[Keen]

We never made a bet and the bet that I proposed was very different from what you think I proposed.

Speaking of bets Cj, we're still waiting for you to fill in the blanks:

A $1,000.00 bet - can be made for each one of the 100 fraudulently alleged / insinuated - mass graves / cremation pits - of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - wagering that you can conclusively prove that they have been scientifically proven to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of at least 21 people.

To accept - THE $100,000.00 HOLOCAUST ARCHAEOLOGY HOAX CHALLENGE - simply challenge Greg Gerdes (see contact information below) to accept the following - Prove That It Has Been Proven - Wager:

I, _?_, am so confident that the so-called Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II “holocausts within the holocaust” happened as alleged in orthodox historiography, and that the scientific / archaeological / forensic investigations of these five sites were legitimate, and that the alleged “huge mass grave discoveries” were conclusively validated; that I am willing to bet Greg Gerdes $1,000.00 that I can definitively prove - in a publicized debate and in a U.S. civil court - that there is a preponderance of conclusively documented and substantiated scientific / archaeological / forensic evidence which proves, with 100 % certainty, that _?_ grave number _?_ currently contains the remains of no less than _?_ people. Furthermore, I agree that if I refuse to answer any question or get caught lying during our debate or while in court - I lose the bet / case right then and there.

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

What are you waiting for Cj?

What are you so afraid of?

[bombsaway]

If you ask what I believe then fine, I'll bite. We know that the gulag network in Stalinist SU was in operation during exactly this period in question, and we know that Jews were the exact kinds of people who would have been Gulagged. I am phone posting right now and I don't have access to my trusty Solzhenitsyn (so someone from either side feel free to correct me if this is inaccurate), but I seem to remember the number of people run through the Gulag network being as high as 26 million people, most never to be seen or heard from again. Now I can't prove this, but if you are arguing that it was patently impossible for one or two or three million Jews to have contributed toward that 26 total number, then you are going to need some very robust rationalisations. In fact, Occam's Razor alone tells us this is far more probable than not.

Yes so you are asserting a historical reality - many hundreds of thousands of Jews, families, children, elderly survived in Nazi hands and then were ingested by the Soviet system. You've come to this not through any positive evidence (this would be of something happening) but through some process of elimination type argument. They weren't killed so they were maintained. Are you aware that history is not written along these lines? Maybe you have to go back thousands of years and then you can find an example. In the absence of anything the best you can offer is a question mark. Even this is bad historical practice, because all of the evidence we have of what happened to Jews in occupied USSR is they were killed or enslaved where they died or were eventually brought west. Some escaped the ghettos during liquidation but this is only a tiny amount. Otherwise everywhere you look they are being killed, including the Jews that actually were resettled from Germany and Austria. This refusal to engage in acceptable historical practice (conclusions based on positive evidence) is what puts you guys in the camp of conspiracy theorists. Historical theories stop becoming theories when they are evidenced. I would probably reframe this thread, Holocaust revisionism vs conspiracy theories

[ConfusedJew]

The logical standards here are inconsistent!

One standard against the Jews and another standard for the Jews.

Jewish people do that to other Jews all the time but it's also bad when non-Jews do it.

[Nessie]

I have quoted what the various reports said about the volumes found, such as the 2 hectares up to 7m deep at TII and the 21,000m3 at Belzec. That is not trace!

What percentage of the 21,000m3 you keep blaring on about was human corpse material? Show your work.

The rest of your last reply was generic excuses, not worth the time.

I have not tried to guess the percentage. You have. But your aim is to minimise how much is there, to support your beliefs, and you are not calculating based on any relevant expertise, so your results are biased and really just guesswork.

What was found, is only like what was found at TII and Sobibor. A mix of earth, ash, cremains and decomposed remains. Chelmno is similar, but more regular, as that cremation operation returned the cremains to the original graves, leaving them largely intact. Those four camps are unlike anywhere else in history.

You use uncertainties and unknown, on which to base an incredulity, that you illogically argue means no mass graves consistent with mass cremations. That is the kind of bad argument, rather than evidence, that flat earthers rely on. The evidence you need, you do not have.

[HansHill]

If you ask what I believe then fine, I'll bite. We know that the gulag network in Stalinist SU was in operation during exactly this period in question, and we know that Jews were the exact kinds of people who would have been Gulagged. I am phone posting right now and I don't have access to my trusty Solzhenitsyn (so someone from either side feel free to correct me if this is inaccurate), but I seem to remember the number of people run through the Gulag network being as high as 26 million people, most never to be seen or heard from again. Now I can't prove this, but if you are arguing that it was patently impossible for one or two or three million Jews to have contributed toward that 26 total number, then you are going to need some very robust rationalisations. In fact, Occam's Razor alone tells us this is far more probable than not.

Yes so you are asserting a historical reality - many hundreds of thousands of Jews, families, children, elderly survived in Nazi hands and then were ingested by the Soviet system. You've come to this not through any positive evidence (this would be of something happening) but through some process of elimination type argument. They weren't killed so they were maintained. Are you aware that history is not written along these lines? Maybe you have to go back thousands of years and then you can find an example. In the absence of anything the best you can offer is a question mark. Even this is bad historical practice, because all of the evidence we have of what happened to Jews in occupied USSR is they were killed or enslaved where they died or were eventually brought west. Some escaped the ghettos during liquidation but this is only a tiny amount. Otherwise everywhere you look they are being killed, including the Jews that actually were resettled from Germany and Austria. This refusal to engage in acceptable historical practice (conclusions based on positive evidence) is what puts you guys in the camp of conspiracy theorists. Historical theories stop becoming theories when they are evidenced. I would probably reframe this thread, Holocaust revisionism vs conspiracy theories

Nice try Bombsaway.

The Holocaust is a crime scene first, and historic event second. You don't get to somersault over the crime scene investigation to poof your required number of Jews up a chimney never to be addressed again.

"B-b-but that's not how History works!"

That's exactly how the Holocaust works and you know it. I can give any number of examples but I'll just use the most famous one: the collapse of Auschwitz death toll from 4 million to 1 million. This is an example of the narrative collapsing due to its support structure literally disintegrating*, that support structure mostly being State power and State narrative.

*In the East. It continues its current collapse in the West.

[Wahrheitssucher]

So Confusedjew didn’t reply, nor would answer another questioning of his ‘argument’.

This is confirmation that it is Confusedjew and those like him who are impervious to reason when the falsity of their beliefs are presented to them.

Consequently this shows it IS faithful and true holyH believers who are most like flat-earthers.

Thus confirming that this accusation against revisionists WAS actually a confession.

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.

[Nessie]

... I can give any number of examples but I'll just use the most famous one: the collapse of Auschwitz death toll from 4 million to 1 million. This is an example of the narrative collapsing due to its support structure literally disintegrating*, that support structure mostly being State power and State narrative.

*In the East. It continues its current collapse in the West.

From 1945 onwards, after Hoettl used 6 million as the overall death toll in a statement he provided for the IMT at Nuremberg, that toll has pretty much stuck as the death toll, in the West. The Soviet Union provided more exaggerated death tolls, such as the 4 million for Auschwitz. Western historians claimed it was 1 to 2 million. When the SU collapsed, the Poles changed the death toll from the exaggerated Soviet one, to the more accurate Western one, settling in c1.1 million as the best evidenced.

So, the death toll for A-B, did not collapse in the West, instead it aligned with the Eastern figure, in the early 1990s, after the ending of Soviet influence. That is why the A-B museums reduction, from 4 to 1.1 million, did not cause the 6 million figure to reduced, as it was a static Western figure.

[Nessie]

...

This is confirmation that it is Confusedjew and those like him who are impervious to reason when the falsity of their beliefs are presented to them.

I am indeed impervious to the reasoning provided by so-called revisionists. That is because it is logically flawed and they cannot evidence what actually happened.

Consequently this shows it IS faithful and true holyH believers who are most like flat-earthers.

Historians and geophysicists have evidence on their side, to prove their claims. So-called revisionists and flat earthers do not. At least flat-earthers agree the earth is flat. So-called revisionists cannot agree on what did happen to the Jews arrested by the Nazis during WWII.

[bombsaway]

If you ask what I believe then fine, I'll bite. We know that the gulag network in Stalinist SU was in operation during exactly this period in question, and we know that Jews were the exact kinds of people who would have been Gulagged. I am phone posting right now and I don't have access to my trusty Solzhenitsyn (so someone from either side feel free to correct me if this is inaccurate), but I seem to remember the number of people run through the Gulag network being as high as 26 million people, most never to be seen or heard from again. Now I can't prove this, but if you are arguing that it was patently impossible for one or two or three million Jews to have contributed toward that 26 total number, then you are going to need some very robust rationalisations. In fact, Occam's Razor alone tells us this is far more probable than not.

Yes so you are asserting a historical reality - many hundreds of thousands of Jews, families, children, elderly survived in Nazi hands and then were ingested by the Soviet system. You've come to this not through any positive evidence (this would be of something happening) but through some process of elimination type argument. They weren't killed so they were maintained. Are you aware that history is not written along these lines? Maybe you have to go back thousands of years and then you can find an example. In the absence of anything the best you can offer is a question mark. Even this is bad historical practice, because all of the evidence we have of what happened to Jews in occupied USSR is they were killed or enslaved where they died or were eventually brought west. Some escaped the ghettos during liquidation but this is only a tiny amount. Otherwise everywhere you look they are being killed, including the Jews that actually were resettled from Germany and Austria. This refusal to engage in acceptable historical practice (conclusions based on positive evidence) is what puts you guys in the camp of conspiracy theorists. Historical theories stop becoming theories when they are evidenced. I would probably reframe this thread, Holocaust revisionism vs conspiracy theories

Nice try Bombsaway.

The Holocaust is a crime scene first, and historic event second. You don't get to somersault over the crime scene investigation to poof your required number of Jews up a chimney never to be addressed again.

"B-b-but that's not how History works!"

That's exactly how the Holocaust works and you know it. I can give any number of examples but I'll just use the most famous one: the collapse of Auschwitz death toll from 4 million to 1 million. This is an example of the narrative collapsing due to its support structure literally disintegrating*, that support structure mostly being State power and State narrative.

*In the East. It continues its current collapse in the West.

I'm not trying to show the Holocaust happened by countering your theory, that's your approach to your beliefs about *what happened*, an entirely ahistorical approach and one common to conspiracy theorists. One negative doesn't = a positive, that's your entire issue here, which you've been avoiding to a pathological degree. I just gave you critique for turning things around and you did it once again.

[HansHill]

I'm not trying to show the Holocaust happened by countering your theory, that's your approach to your beliefs about *what happened*, an entirely ahistorical approach and one common to conspiracy theorists. One negative doesn't = a positive, that's your entire issue here, which you've been avoiding to a pathological degree. I just gave you critique for turning things around and you did it once again.

"Pathological degree"

Holy sh*t these people are insufferable. You asked me my opinion on where these people are liable to have wound up, given that I have reasons to believe they weren't A) murdered or B) in the ground.

Take your armchair psychology somewhere else dude.

[bombsaway]

I'm not trying to show the Holocaust happened by countering your theory, that's your approach to your beliefs about *what happened*, an entirely ahistorical approach and one common to conspiracy theorists. One negative doesn't = a positive, that's your entire issue here, which you've been avoiding to a pathological degree. I just gave you critique for turning things around and you did it once again.

"Pathological degree"

Holy sh*t these people are insufferable. You asked me my opinion on where these people are liable to have wound up, given that I have reasons to believe they weren't A) murdered or B) in the ground.

Take your armchair psychology somewhere else dude.

This seems like an open acknowledgement that you're using a process of elimination approach to determine what happened. Are you aware that this approach is not used by historians, even when asserting events involving hundreds or thousands of times less people than supposed resettlement? What do you think about this?

[HansHill]

This seems like an open acknowledgement that you're using a process of elimination approach to determine what happened. Are you aware that this approach is not used by historians, even when asserting events involving hundreds or thousands of times less people than supposed resettlement? What do you think about this?

Pull the other one, Bombsaway:

Me: Let me put it this way. Suppose revisionists were to uncover some smoking gun evidence that proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the gas chambers were a hoax. Would you accept that conclusion? Or no because we must produce evidence of resettlement to whatever arbitrary standard you insist upon?

bombsaway: Of course I would accept it. And in that case the fate of the resettled Jews would be an unknown, with room speculate about, similar to what you see with historians and the 9th legion.

For the hundredth time, I'm not making an argument by elimination. No matter how bad revisionist arguments are, or how weak their hypothesis is, belief in the orthodox position should independent of this, and rather based on positive evidence. I'm just asking you what you believe happened, and what historians should believe happened. A question mark, or something more firm like what Callahan or Nazgul assert? Once you answer this question we can think about what the implications for revisionism are.

The only real difference between my actual position here and this hypothetical situation you were working within, is that I'm comfortable to substitute in the HCN readings + CO emissions + analysis of holes & columns + cremation throughput + lack of grave space capacity + all manner of other things, to substitute for "smoking gun" in this phrased sentence, and you aren't.

[bombsaway]

This seems like an open acknowledgement that you're using a process of elimination approach to determine what happened. Are you aware that this approach is not used by historians, even when asserting events involving hundreds or thousands of times less people than supposed resettlement? What do you think about this?

Pull the other one, Bombsaway:

Me: Let me put it this way. Suppose revisionists were to uncover some smoking gun evidence that proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the gas chambers were a hoax. Would you accept that conclusion? Or no because we must produce evidence of resettlement to whatever arbitrary standard you insist upon?

bombsaway: Of course I would accept it. And in that case the fate of the resettled Jews would be an unknown, with room speculate about, similar to what you see with historians and the 9th legion.

For the hundredth time, I'm not making an argument by elimination. No matter how bad revisionist arguments are, or how weak their hypothesis is, belief in the orthodox position should independent of this, and rather based on positive evidence. I'm just asking you what you believe happened, and what historians should believe happened. A question mark, or something more firm like what Callahan or Nazgul assert? Once you answer this question we can think about what the implications for revisionism are.

The only real difference between my actual position here and this hypothetical situation you were working within, is that I'm comfortable to substitute in the HCN readings + CO emissions + analysis of holes & columns + cremation throughput + lack of grave space capacity + all manner of other things, to substitute for "smoking gun" in this phrased sentence, and you aren't.

History has never been written this way, based on negative arguments. Other mass killing events (of civilians by communist regimes, Japan genocide against China, Armenian genocide) are less evidenced in all aspects than the Holocaust. This is why your theories about what happened are deemed to be ahistorical, nothing to do with the specific beliefs or your ideological slant. Same could be said about Katyn revisionists https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... abel/Katyn , and what these people are saying is more believable honestly because the conspiracy they allege would be hundreds or thousands times of times smaller than the one you believe one.

[Stubble]

Mr Hill is not writing history bombs. You asked for an opinion/supposition and he provided one.

Of course update/revision of the historical record will require more than supposition. It will require documentation of reality.

Currently the orthodox position is based on faulty consensus and nothing more. One need only look at the Hungarian Aktion for proof of this.

When a thorough accounting of the Hungarian cohort is done, the number of missing persons presumed gassed is insufficient to support the claimed number of Hungarians murdered in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms by a wide margin.

Are jews still missing? Yes. Is it 330,000 of them? No.

I don't know how else to put this.

The murder weapon isn't supported by physical evidence, Kula's columns don't exist and wouldn't solve the pellet problem at Kremas I, IV or V. The grave space at the Bug river camps is wildly insufficient, the outdoor cremations were hygienic and not to conceal evidence or cover up the crime (the grave space is still identifiable and Kola found samples of soft tissue, bone and hair).

The historiography needs revision. The facts of the matter need to be representative of reality. We have been sold a false bill of goods, constructed from lies and misrepresentations and we are called names for asking basic questions.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Mr Hill is not writing history bombs. You asked for an opinion/supposition and he provided one.

Of course update/revision of the historical record will require more than supposition. It will require documentation of reality.

Currently the orthodox position is based on faulty consensus and nothing more. One need only look at the Hungarian Aktion for proof of this.

When a thorough accounting of the Hungarian cohort is done, the number of missing persons presumed gassed is insufficient to support the claimed number of Hungarians murdered in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms by a wide margin.

Are jews still missing? Yes. Is it 330,000 of them? No.

I don't know how else to put this.

The murder weapon isn't supported by physical evidence, Kula's columns don't exist and wouldn't solve the pellet problem at Kremas I, IV or V. The grave space at the Bug river camps is wildly insufficient, the outdoor cremations were hygienic and not to conceal evidence or cover up the crime (the grave space is still identifiable and Kola found samples of soft tissue, bone and hair).

The historiography needs revision. The facts of the matter need to be representative of reality. We have been sold a false bill of goods, constructed from lies and misrepresentations and we are called names for asking basic questions.

Excellent response!
Well said.