BA's thoughts on resettlement

[bombsaway]

I think the point they are making is that you are claiming millions of Jews were "resettled" in the ground. You are unbothered by your inability to demonstrate this, even though you only need to search a few acres even as you demand that we search the entire world.

No, I said what my point was lol, you just proved that point again with the attempted thread derail.


"My point with the resettlement issue is again, not to prove they were killed/gassed but to show you that there are deep, likely psychological issues at play with your belief system that don't exist for mine. If the evidence for the Holocaust was as non-existent as the evidence for resettlement, I would not believe or assert it being real"

Can you specify exactly what should be done to w regards to "Searching a few acres"? What can I do here?

And yet you vigorously defend but one side and duck, dodge and obfuscate from the very real and pressing problem.

After I get done, I'll come back. In the mean time you can't show me the dead, and I can't show you the living, so, I suppose we are at an impasse, although, to be fair, it should be much easier for you to show me where millions were buried...

No I've spent thousands of words addressing your arguments about this "problem" and have given it a lot of thought and research. You've maybe put in work behind the scenes but so far nothing has materialized.

[Archie]

This is really just a question of baseline expectations. Here's the game that is being played.

Step 1: Play DOWN the baseline expectations for the actual Holocaust

What's that? No Hitler order? Why of course there's no Hitler order. Only a complete idiot would expect there to be a Hitler order. No blueprints showing gas chambers? Obviously, they jerry-rigged some gas chambers together during construction. Etc.

Notice that they consistently downplay the amount of evidence we should expect to see, claiming that the Germans destroyed it all, etc.

Step 2: Play UP the baseline expectations for resettlement

They insist that it's IMPOSSIBLE for lots of Jews to have survived without abundant documentation. Here are my main objections to this.

-Some of their arguments I think are just silly, like their idea that all the resettled Jews would have published testimonies to set the record straight. (Set aside for a moment that Jews would not have had an incentive to destroy their own myth that they benefit from). Testimonies aren't collected at random. They are generally only collected for legal proceedings. Very, very few people publish memoirs, and usually only if there is some commercial interest. Those that have been published are obviously biased toward the "Holocaust" market. But let's say I find a memoir of some Polish Jew who was resettled during 1942. Would this cause bombsaway to revise his thinking? No. He would brush it off as an exception.

-There have been numerous trials for the express purpose of bolstering the Holocaust narrative. There have been no real efforts to compile contrary data, aside from the efforts of revisionists which, in terms of resources, have been modest compared to e.g. the IMT prosecution. This battle is literally a handful of independent researchers going up against multiple governments. This incidentally is one of the main divisions in opinion between believers and revisionists. The believers think that in the post-war period the Allies honestly investigated the evidence and reached the correct conclusion whereas revisionists judge these investigations to have been biased, propagandistic, and unreliable.

-This is ultimately a statistical argument and bogus stats are, if any, the most trivial part of "the hoax."

They wouldn't need to bother with all of this if the Holocaust were actually true. These sorts of baseline games are what you have to do when you are arguing a weak case.

[bombsaway]

They insist that it's IMPOSSIBLE for lots of Jews to have survived without abundant documentation.

Abundant documentation, no

To answer these questions

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?

It should be easier to find evidence of survival than a one time execution. We know that when people are alive they continuously are active in the world, perceived by others, need food/lodging, represent security threats, communicate amongst themselves and to others. Even if the expectation is as much evidence generated or less, revisionists have put forward next to nothing, so even this is a fail. In the manner of Callafangers, you must argue that the expectation is many thousands of time less evidence could be expected to be generated, and even here you would expect something to slip through. But it hasn't.

I said even if you argued the amount of evidenced generated would be hundreds times of less than what we see for the Holocaust, this is still a fail, because there is precisely no evidence. You have speculation, nothing more.

[Archie]

To answer these questions

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?

It should be easier to find evidence of survival than a one time execution.

You really think this?

A state-sanctioned mass extermination program would require high-level decisions to pursue such a policy. The technical means to accomplish it would have to be discussed and implemented. And then of course you have the actual killing and body disposal of six million people. Not only would this leave loads of documentation and physical evidence, I would argue that it would not be possible to keep secret. It would have been known essentially in real time during the war itself. And then in the early post-war, when German internal documents were captured and all the "death camps" were taken over, this should have proved it all with absolute confidence (with only perhaps some questions over exact numbers).

I do not know why you are so fond of ill-defined "evidence ratios" and the like. But by my scorecard, the evidence for the Holocaust would be maybe -90 (out of 100), i.e., the evidence goes strongly against the Holocaust. While there is a lot of purported evidence for it, it just doesn't hold up, and an examination of the sources reveals the whole thing was based from the beginning on false testimonies, bogus reports, and so forth. For resettlement, I would have to score this fairly low due to lack of available information (say 10 or something). But so what? I'm not going to ignore everything else I know about the topic just because we don't have outbound train records or whatever.

On your scorecard, you presumably say the evidence for the Holocaust is 100/100 (anything less would be blasphemy). And then you give resettlement 0/100. Again, it seems to me that the real disagreement is over the Holocaust evidence.

[Nessie]

... you are claiming millions of Jews were "resettled" in the ground. You are unbothered by your inability to demonstrate this, even though you only need to search a few acres even as you demand that we search the entire world.

Archaeologists and historians say that they can evidence and prove millions of Jews were buried in mass graves all over Eastern Europe, from the cremated remains at the AR camps, to the mass graves from Einsatzgruppen shootings. A lot is known about the graves and Action 1005, which prevented body counts and is evidence of a cover-up and criminal activity.

You just chose not to believe that and then dodge evidencing those people were still alive in 1944, when they were not all over the world, they would have still been in Nazi captivity. Millions of Jews were identified, arrested and sent to camps and ghettos. If they were not being killed, then those camps and ghettos would have been packed with millions of Jews in 1944. You know that not only is there no evidence of that, the evidence is contrary. By autumn 1944 all the ghettos had closed. A-B's population was lower in 1944 than it had been in 1943.

You pretend it is the historians who lack evidence, when you really know, it is you.

[Nessie]

This is really just a question of baseline expectations. Here's the game that is being played.

Step 1: Play DOWN the baseline expectations for the actual Holocaust

What's that? No Hitler order? Why of course there's no Hitler order. Only a complete idiot would expect there to be a Hitler order. No blueprints showing gas chambers? Obviously, they jerry-rigged some gas chambers together during construction. Etc.

Notice that they consistently downplay the amount of evidence we should expect to see, claiming that the Germans destroyed it all, etc.

There is a ton of evidence of a cover up. There was secrecy around Actions T4, 14f13 and AR, when they took place. There was a wholesale destruction of evidence and we even know about that, with Action 1005. For some strange reason, you expect that if the Nazis had murdered millions of Jews, they would have left all of the evidence to be found. You think Hitler would keep a signed order explicitly stating, gas Jews, in Berlin. That the AR camps would leave the mass graves untouched, so that there could be body counts. That A-B would keep records stating how many had been gassed each day. In what world do organised criminals commonly preserve evidence to prove their guilt?

Step 2: Play UP the baseline expectations for resettlement

They insist that it's IMPOSSIBLE for lots of Jews to have survived without abundant documentation. Here are my main objections to this.

-Some of their arguments I think are just silly, like their idea that all the resettled Jews would have published testimonies to set the record straight. (Set aside for a moment that Jews would not have had an incentive to destroy their own myth that they benefit from). Testimonies aren't collected at random. They are generally only collected for legal proceedings. Very, very few people publish memoirs, and usually only if there is some commercial interest. Those that have been published are obviously biased toward the "Holocaust" market. But let's say I find a memoir of some Polish Jew who was resettled during 1942. Would this cause bombsaway to revise his thinking? No. He would brush it off as an exception.

-There have been numerous trials for the express purpose of bolstering the Holocaust narrative. There have been no real efforts to compile contrary data, aside from the efforts of revisionists which, in terms of resources, have been modest compared to e.g. the IMT prosecution. This battle is literally a handful of independent researchers going up against multiple governments. This incidentally is one of the main divisions in opinion between believers and revisionists. The believers think that in the post-war period the Allies honestly investigated the evidence and reached the correct conclusion whereas revisionists judge these investigations to have been biased, propagandistic, and unreliable.

-This is ultimately a statistical argument and bogus stats are, if any, the most trivial part of "the hoax."

They wouldn't need to bother with all of this if the Holocaust were actually true. These sorts of baseline games are what you have to do when you are arguing a weak case.

You miss out 1944. The Nazis left a ton of evidence of camps and ghettos, so much so that even so-called revisionists do not deny their existence. So, when is the evidence of camp and ghetto populations for that year? The Nazis knew that they were being accused of mass murder. It would be in their interests to preserve evidence of millions of Jews still alive, so proving the murder claims false. So-called revisionist fret over the logistics of coke and wood supplies to the camps, but not the logistics of accommodating, feeding, clothing and guarding millions of Jews. Where did the manpower to guard the camps come from?

You cannot name the department responsible for that huge network of camps and ghettos, or name any Nazi who ran that department. You cannot locate where it was in Berlin. Instead, you demand we believe that happened, with no evidence. You claim that yes, the Nazis ran a network of camps and ghettos, but then you go quiet when asked to show it in 1944.

You expect others to believe that the Nazis would hide millions of Jews, and pretend they were dead.

[Nessie]

....

A state-sanctioned mass extermination program would require high-level decisions to pursue such a policy. The technical means to accomplish it would have to be discussed and implemented.

So would a program of mass resettlement.

And then of course you have the actual killing and body disposal of six million people. Not only would this leave loads of documentation and physical evidence, I would argue that it would not be possible to keep secret. It would have been known essentially in real time during the war itself. And then in the early post-war, when German internal documents were captured and all the "death camps" were taken over, this should have proved it all with absolute confidence (with only perhaps some questions over exact numbers).

It would be the same for the mass resettlement of 6 million people. That would leave loads of documents and physical evidence, so much so, it could not be kept secret.

I do not know why you are so fond of ill-defined "evidence ratios" and the like. But by my scorecard, the evidence for the Holocaust would be maybe -90 (out of 100), i.e., the evidence goes strongly against the Holocaust. While there is a lot of purported evidence for it, it just doesn't hold up, and an examination of the sources reveals the whole thing was based from the beginning on false testimonies, bogus reports, and so forth. For resettlement, I would have to score this fairly low due to lack of available information (say 10 or something). But so what? I'm not going to ignore everything else I know about the topic just because we don't have outbound train records or whatever.

On your scorecard, you presumably say the evidence for the Holocaust is 100/100 (anything less would be blasphemy). And then you give resettlement 0/100. Again, it seems to me that the real disagreement is over the Holocaust evidence.

That explains your belief. You think that it was both possible and likely that the Nazis would hide their innocence and millions of Jews still alive in 1944, leaving no evidence.

[Stubble]

For resettlement, I would have to score this fairly low due to lack of available information (say 10 or something). But so what? I'm not going to ignore everything else I know about the topic just because we don't have outbound train records or whatever.

>yet<

I'm virtually certain that we will either find the records or be able to show the gap in the record. That's part of why I want to plug the logistical data into a 2d model. If trains unloaded persons anywhere they did not unload goods, there will be a 'hiccup' in the model where the train tries to arrive early because the time spent unloading isn't reflected.

Even if they were transported by truck, there will be logistical debris, and there appears to be. Maybe I'm 'misreading' documents, but, I see references to working jews all the way down to 4 years old in Ostland and Ukraine in '43-'44.

Something everyone keeps missing is the amount of data that is accessible now far exceeds anything accessible 20 years ago. It seems well worth the time to ruminate over source again and see what shakes out.

I don't think it is possible for all of the records to have been obliterated. The sheer volume and detail of extant records seem to attest to this. One of the problems seem to be (as it has always been) the scale of the task.

Some food for thought, the allies asked the Germans to bring the jews into Germany proper under the crushing advance of the Soviet. Anyone care to venture a guess as to why? Why didn't the western allies want the jews falling into Soviet hands...

[Nessie]

...

Some food for thought, the allies asked the Germans to bring the jews into Germany proper under the crushing advance of the Soviet.

Can you evidence that claim please?

[Keen]

If you say the proof has been located, I'm all ears, this thread is a great place for it.

Here's an even better place for it:

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=493

[Keen]

Archaeologists and historians say that they can evidence and prove millions of Jews were buried in mass graves all over Eastern Europe, from the cremated remains at the AR camps, to the mass graves from Einsatzgruppen shootings. A lot is known about the graves and Action 1005, which prevented body counts and is evidence of a cover-up and criminal activity.

A lot is alleged, but this is what is known:

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: 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 uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY FIVE PEOPLE.

...

$100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged graves / cremation pits in question that is proven - with the same standard of proof applied in U. S. civil courts - to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of - at least 2 people.

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Keen]

So this is the problem. This is a thread about resettlement not the graves. There are other threads for that. Instead of looking at the documents that quote resettlement and finding context that actually support that occurring you focus on a critique of the other sides hypothesis. As I said, there are other threads for this. You show your hypocrisy by scrutinizing only one narrative. All narratives should face equal scrutiny I say.

bombsaway, can you tell us were the jews who were sent to Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II were resettled - Yes. - or - No - ??

[bombsaway]

So this is the problem. This is a thread about resettlement not the graves. There are other threads for that. Instead of looking at the documents that quote resettlement and finding context that actually support that occurring you focus on a critique of the other sides hypothesis. As I said, there are other threads for this. You show your hypocrisy by scrutinizing only one narrative. All narratives should face equal scrutiny I say.

bombsaway, can you tell us were the jews who were sent to Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II were resettled - Yes. - or - No - ??

I don't think they were resettled, you made a big mistake here because it's clearly a topic you're not interested in.

[Keen]

So this is the problem. This is a thread about resettlement not the graves. There are other threads for that. Instead of looking at the documents that quote resettlement and finding context that actually support that occurring you focus on a critique of the other sides hypothesis. As I said, there are other threads for this. You show your hypocrisy by scrutinizing only one narrative. All narratives should face equal scrutiny I say.

bombsaway, can you tell us were the jews who were sent to Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II were resettled - Yes. - or - No - ??

I don't think they were resettled, you made a big mistake here because it's clearly a topic you're not interested in.

What do you mean you "don't think they were resettled."?

If they weren't "resettled", then where did they go?

You're not suggesting that they magically disappeared, are you?

[bombsaway]

To answer these questions

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?

It should be easier to find evidence of survival than a one time execution.

You really think this?

A state-sanctioned mass extermination program would require high-level decisions to pursue such a policy. The technical means to accomplish it would have to be discussed and implemented. And then of course you have the actual killing and body disposal of six million people. Not only would this leave loads of documentation and physical evidence, I would argue that it would not be possible to keep secret. It would have been known essentially in real time during the war itself.

Yeah it was known, see the Polish Underground reports. https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... _8672.html

But wait, how would mass resettlement have been conducted? We know the Jews in question must be secured, fed, etc. Possible to do this without coordination. For Stubble you can see the data concerning German Jews who were transported in Belarus. There are transport records, witness and documentary evidence of their ghettoization, and debates about whether they should be kept alive or not. They were killed, all the non working ones at least.

But by my scorecard, the evidence for the Holocaust would be maybe -90 (out of 100), i.e., the evidence goes strongly against the Holocaust.

The ratio is reference to your question of how much evidence would be expected to be generated for both events. 1:1 would mean as much evidence generated for mass killing as resettlement. What does it mean to say evidence goes strongly against the Holocaust? Do you have any evidence of non-working Jews being maintained in the USSR?