Holocaust Revisionism vs. Flat-Earth Theory

[Nessie]

...

BOTTOM LINE:
Holocaust orthodoxy IS comparable to flat-earth orthodoxy at the time of Copernicus and Galileo. It is similar in that it maintains belief amongst the ignorant masses by persecution, censorship and quasi-religious, pseudo-historical tyranny.

...

"Holocaust orthodoxy" has been reached by historians, because of the evidence. It is that evidence that maintains the belief of the historians, rather than any "persecution" etc. If a historian diverts from what is evidenced, and they cannot revise the history with evidence, then they can find themselves ostracised. That is not because of "persecution" etc, it is because they have made unevidenced claims.

So-called revisionism, is variously driven by anti-Semitism, conspiracy and hate. It is not evidence based, proven by the fact that so-called revisionists cannot even agree on a revision, evidencing what really happened. That is why it has been made illegal in some countries. Fake news and conspiracies have become a major problem, causing people to be driven by what they want to believe, and to ignore normal standards of evidencing.

[Keen]

the issue with revisionism is not that you haven't proven "resettlement" comprehensively or in its entirety, it's that you haven't evidenced a single aspect of it . For instance, if you could point to records of food/fuel/supplies being delivered en masse to settlement zones (as exists for ghettos) this would be an aspect of it. But there's zip. There aren't even any rumors or second hand information. There's no transport records or witness testimonies that evidence the transport, again like there is to the Reinhardt camps/Chelmno/Auschwitz. Zeros across the board.

...

It's why I think you guys are pathological. You're not properly grappling with the enormous flaws in your belief system, which is a sign of derangement of some kind. By grappling, I mean writing about it, formalizing research and arguments.

I've set up a separate thread for the two of us to debate this issue.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14575#p14575

I hope you don't chicken out and run away like Nessie and Confused jew have done.

This is a datebate forum after all.

[ConfusedJew]

Is it easier to prove that millions of Jews were executed at a small number of precisely known locations?

Or is it easier to prove whether they survived?

Imo, the former should be quite easy while the latter is extremely difficult. So it is strange to attempt to prove the former by way of an argument from ignorance regarding the latter point (along the lines of "you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them.")

The overwhelming majority of people who look at the available evidence have determined that there is overwhelming evidence that millions of Jews were murdered in concentration camps.

If they had been imprisoned in gulags, there most definitely would be a lot of evidence showing that, but there isn't.

Here is where your logic starts imploding.