Is it possible for our minds to be changed?

[Wahrheitssucher]

Yes, it is possible to have our views and understanding corrected and amended.
It is possible for ‘minds to be changed’.

All it requires is an attitude of intellectual honesty.

We can ALL have our ‘minds changed’, but ONLY if we are interested in truth and accuracy ABOVE personal aggrandisement.

That will require not minding being wrong.
And not being overly concerned to be shown to be wrong in the opinion of others.
That is perhaps the biggest obstacle for the majority of humanity, whatever the topic.

Egocentricity prevents people from admitting error.

That is because a vain person sets more store in ‘appearing’ right, in being seen to be ‘winning’ an argument, than in collectively building factual accuracy.
To such people being ‘right’ in their own mind — and the minds of others — is MORE IMPORTANT than ascertaining truth.

[HansHill]

We can all get off our high horses about how logical we think we are and how the other side is completely illogical. One of either the exterminationist or revisionist camp is completely incorrect about what happened as it relates to the Holocaust. This is binary, the Holocaust can't have happened a little bit. In that sense it is ironically just like Flat Earth. The earth can't be a little flat sometimes.

If the exterminationists are wrong, it is likely due to the intense propagandising and guiltfarming since the tail end of WW2 which has only increased in recent decades. A subset of these might be holding onto political or ethnic grudges, who knows. This category is completely different than the "normie" holocaust affirmer, who likely doesn't know much about it at all. Auschwitz, 6 million, gas from shower heads and so on. I remove them from any meaningful discussion because they are not relevant necessarily.

If revisionists are wrong, it is likely due to following a pipeline of incomplete data, arriving at conclusions without necessary due diligence, or a stubborn defiance against status quo & contrarianism. A subset of these may also be holding political or ethnic grudges, again who knows.

It's really not looking great for whichever camp is incorrect

[Keen]

The "winner" should be the side with the best evidence.

The "winner" is the side that has PROVEN their case.

CONCLUSION / STATEMENT OF FACT: Applying legal standards used in U.S. courts along with the information presented on this website, Greg Gerdes has LEGALLY PROVEN that the above alleged “huge mass grave discoveries” are fraudulent charades, the Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II mass murder / holocaust allegations are false, and the orthodox holocaust story did not happen as alleged.

NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - PROVES - NO MASS MURDER

https://www.thisisaboutscience.com/

Did you just soil yourself again Nessie?

[Wahrheitssucher]

Q. Is it possible for people to “change their minds” and concede openly and publically that the holyH narrative of approx 4 million jews murdered in gas chambers in places designed and built as ‘extermination camps’ is no longer credible to them?

A. yes.
It is happening in increasing numbers right now. As anyone who has access to social media plaforms such as tiktok, bitchute, instagram etc., can attest.

They may be a bit ‘wooly’ and imprecise in their understanding of the detail refuting the brainwashing we have all undergone for decades, but they are definitely ‘changing their minds’ about the reliability of the enforced, compulsory narrative.



is an obviously

Yes, it is possible to have our views and understanding corrected and amended.
It is possible for ‘minds to be changed’.

All it requires is an attitude of intellectual honesty.

We can ALL have our ‘minds changed’, but ONLY if we are interested in truth and accuracy ABOVE personal aggrandisement.

That will require not minding being wrong.
And not being overly concerned to be shown to be wrong in the opinion of others.
That is perhaps the biggest obstacle for the majority of humanity, whatever the topic.

Egocentricity prevents people from admitting error.

That is because a vain person sets more store in ‘appearing’ right, in being seen to be ‘winning’ an argument, than in collectively building factual accuracy.
To such people being ‘right’ in their own mind — and the minds of others — is MORE IMPORTANT than ascertaining truth.

[Nessie]

Q. Is it possible for people to “change their minds” and concede openly and publically that the holyH narrative of approx 4 million jews murdered in gas chambers in places designed and built as ‘extermination camps’ is no longer credible to them?

A. yes.

Credibility is not a very good test, since people can be easily fooled by a credible person, who may be lying through their teeth. Too many people, nowadays, are falling for hoaxes, not because of the evidence, but because of credibility. Many well evidenced things, from the earth being round, to man landing on the moon, to hijacked planes taking out the Twin Trade Towers, are being disputed, for credibility reasons.

The only sensible reason why people should dispute the Holocaust narrative of c3 million Jews gassed, is if new, contemporaneous evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents or other source, appeared, that meant a new chronology could be developed. Primarily amongst the possible sources of evidence, would be evidence to prove that the AR camps had an alternative usage and that there were mass transports of people back out, or that there is evidence of millions of Jews, who had been arrested by the Nazis, still alive in 1944. That evidence would mean it would be sensible to doubt the mass gassing narrative.

It is happening in increasing numbers right now. As anyone who has access to social media plaforms such as tiktok, bitchute, instagram etc., can attest.

Social media is awash with people believing the most blatantly idiotic claims. It is frightening how easy it is, to get so many people to believe in obvious hoaxes. For example, X is full of people who genuinely believe that the Germans during WWII, were incapable of making a gas tight door, that used wood as part of its construction and how many have been fooled into thinking the wood and glass door that presently leads into where people can view the inside of Krema I, is the door that originally led into the gas chamber. Another example, is how many people have been fooled into thinking a Red Cross death toll, that only lists 13 camp and none of the ghettos, is the death toll of Jews for the entire of WWII. Social media platforms have allowed some people, such as Uncommon Sense, to repeat debunked lies about the Holocaust every few weeks, attract hundreds of thousands of views, so that they can make money. That person repeatedly posts about the Auschwitz swimming pool, whilst ignoring the camp had c8000 German staff and prisoners with privileges, such as British POWs, who had access to camp facilities. Social media has proved that it is easy to fool people and there are a frightening number who lack critical thinking skills.

They may be a bit ‘wooly’ and imprecise in their understanding of the detail refuting the brainwashing we have all undergone for decades, but they are definitely ‘changing their minds’ about the reliability of the enforced, compulsory narrative.

Someone who has had their mind changed, by repeated posting about wooden doors, the Red Cross death toll and the Auschwitz swimming pool, is not just being "wooly". They are being too easily fooled.

[HansHill]

The only sensible reason why people should dispute the Holocaust narrative of c3 million Jews gassed, is if new, contemporaneous evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents or other source, appeared, that meant a new chronology could be developed. Primarily amongst the possible sources of evidence, would be evidence to prove that the AR camps had an alternative usage and that there were mass transports of people back out, or that there is evidence of millions of Jews, who had been arrested by the Nazis, still alive in 1944. That evidence would mean it would be sensible to doubt the mass gassing narrative.

Just so everyone understands the mental gymnastics on display here:

Gassings being demonstrably not possible in the manner described, is not enough for this person. He needs to be told for example, by a Jew who was standing there, that the room was full of corpses.

The same person will then gaslight you about credibility, and 9/11 planes and the earth being flat.

Think about this for a second. The reason we reject flat earth is because the various phenomenon that the sphere model predicts and models, renders the flat model impossible. Not because of an eyewitness. Just like Revisionists do with the Holocaust myth.

[bombsaway]

The only sensible reason why people should dispute the Holocaust narrative of c3 million Jews gassed, is if new, contemporaneous evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents or other source, appeared, that meant a new chronology could be developed. Primarily amongst the possible sources of evidence, would be evidence to prove that the AR camps had an alternative usage and that there were mass transports of people back out, or that there is evidence of millions of Jews, who had been arrested by the Nazis, still alive in 1944. That evidence would mean it would be sensible to doubt the mass gassing narrative.

Just so everyone understands the mental gymnastics on display here:

Gassings being demonstrably not possible in the manner described, is not enough for this person. He needs to be told for example, by a Jew who was standing there, that the room was full of corpses.

The same person will then gaslight you about credibility, and 9/11 planes and the earth being flat.

Think about this for a second. The reason we reject flat earth is because the various phenomenon that the sphere model predicts and models, renders the flat model impossible. Not because of an eyewitness. Just like Revisionists do with the Holocaust myth.

The issue that is "not possible" is not demonstrated, eg even as Archie said the lack of high HCN readings in the crema structure is not definitive, "it couldn't have happened". You have nothing definitive.

[Callafangers]

The only sensible reason why people should dispute the Holocaust narrative of c3 million Jews gassed, is if new, contemporaneous evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents or other source, appeared, that meant a new chronology could be developed. Primarily amongst the possible sources of evidence, would be evidence to prove that the AR camps had an alternative usage and that there were mass transports of people back out, or that there is evidence of millions of Jews, who had been arrested by the Nazis, still alive in 1944. That evidence would mean it would be sensible to doubt the mass gassing narrative.

Just so everyone understands the mental gymnastics on display here:

Gassings being demonstrably not possible in the manner described, is not enough for this person. He needs to be told for example, by a Jew who was standing there, that the room was full of corpses.

The same person will then gaslight you about credibility, and 9/11 planes and the earth being flat.

Think about this for a second. The reason we reject flat earth is because the various phenomenon that the sphere model predicts and models, renders the flat model impossible. Not because of an eyewitness. Just like Revisionists do with the Holocaust myth.

The issue that is "not possible" is not demonstrated, eg even as Archie said the lack of high HCN readings in the crema structure is not definitive, "it couldn't have happened". You have nothing definitive.

OK you did possibility, now do probability.

[Wetzelrad]

Social media is awash with people believing the most blatantly idiotic claims. It is frightening how easy it is, to get so many people to believe in obvious hoaxes. For example, X is full of people who genuinely believe that the Germans during WWII, were incapable of making a gas tight door, that used wood as part of its construction and how many have been fooled into thinking the wood and glass door that presently leads into where people can view the inside of Krema I, is the door that originally led into the gas chamber.

So you consider it "blatantly idiotic" for people to accept the Auschwitz Museum's presentation of a gas chamber? The museum is responsible for having a cheap wooden door in the room, not anyone else. Probably over 99% of visitors have no idea that this door belongs to a different room because the museum is too embarassed by this error to tell them so or to fix it. Robert Jan van Pelt, who is no friend to revisionists, has made stark admissions about the museum's lack of honesty on this.

People on X are also rightly concerned about why a room used for mass executions would be equipped with a door of wooden construction. They wonder, how are wooden planks going to hold back not only gas but hundreds to thousands of people? It's absurd on its face. The door could not remain airtight with a mass of people fighting for their lives to destroy it. Since a mass of humans can destroy concrete walls, they could definitely damage a wooden door. Skepticism in this area is well warranted.

You already know all this but want people to forego critical thinking.

It is certainly true that the world is full of people vulnerable to belief in hoaxes. The average person does not investigate things but merely adopts whatever they are told, even when the evidence is false or scanty. That is exactly how the Holocaust Narrative took power, with its human soap, its electrocution chambers, its 20 million deaths, and other such nonsense. If people can be convinced of things like that, things which we could describe as "the most blatantly idiotic claims", it is relatively easy to convince them of gas chambers.

[bombsaway]

Just so everyone understands the mental gymnastics on display here:

Gassings being demonstrably not possible in the manner described, is not enough for this person. He needs to be told for example, by a Jew who was standing there, that the room was full of corpses.

The same person will then gaslight you about credibility, and 9/11 planes and the earth being flat.

Think about this for a second. The reason we reject flat earth is because the various phenomenon that the sphere model predicts and models, renders the flat model impossible. Not because of an eyewitness. Just like Revisionists do with the Holocaust myth.

The issue that is "not possible" is not demonstrated, eg even as Archie said the lack of high HCN readings in the crema structure is not definitive, "it couldn't have happened". You have nothing definitive.

OK you did possibility, now do probability.

Well I think the suggestion that it is "not probable" rings hollow in the face of revisionist claims like hundreds of Germans would be pressured into falsely admitting crimes (in great detail eg with Suchomel) without a single mention of any such conspiracy, or resettlement of millions leaving no trace.

I think that's deeply unlikely.

We can quantify and qualify here but the double standard becomes evident when you realize that not only is your narrative arguably quite improbable, it is wholly unevidenced.

The orthodox version is evidenced, in a thousand different ways. There's no evidence of even a single community of Jews being resettled and maintained in German occupied USSR.

[Nazgul]

The orthodox version is evidenced, in a thousand different ways. There's no evidence of even a single community of Jews being resettled and maintained in German occupied USSR.

The issue is that it is highly likely, the Jewish population numbers were highly inflated. You are talking about statistical Jews, not those who were born. You are well aware the Soviets committed huge atrocities on real jews, at Vinnitsia and elsewhere, murdered hundreds of thousands.

[HansHill]

The problem you people have, is that a lot if not most, of what was "evidenced" at Nuremberg has been discarded. It is, as the kids today would say "horseshit".

For example, your most credible witness confessed to the Auschwitz death-toll high score of 3 million people. I appreciate Callafangers making the possible / probable distinction, but sorry Bombsaway, you people don't deserve the good faith distinction he has afforded you - your most credible witness confessed to something that as described, is not possible.

Go back to page 1 of this thread, and I wrote what I consider would be the one thing most likely to change my mind - that is, a Kula Column. If we take the Kula Column as a metaphor (because thats all it is, really) as the thing that ties this whole charade together, the secret sauce - then this would be persuasive. It would answer so many unanswered questions, and provide the technical mechanicism you people are so sorely in need of.

Since it doesn't exist, has never existed, is botched so hilariously by the operators and witnesses, and is therefore a complete fabrication - then we are in the realm of the "impossible".

[Callafangers]

The issue that is "not possible" is not demonstrated, eg even as Archie said the lack of high HCN readings in the crema structure is not definitive, "it couldn't have happened". You have nothing definitive.

OK you did possibility, now do probability.

Well I think the suggestion that it is "not probable" rings hollow in the face of revisionist claims like hundreds of Germans would be pressured into falsely admitting crimes (in great detail eg with Suchomel) without a single mention of any such conspiracy, or resettlement of millions leaving no trace.

bombsaway this is a deflection -- a red herring. We were talking about the significance of the forensics/chemistry of the 'gas chambers' at Auschwitz, specifically.

You pointed out that you and perhaps some revisionists concede that we cannot say it is fully impossible that the chemistry allows for Jewish 'gassings'. But the question to you is: on this matter of forensics/chemistry specifically, which conclusion does this altogether suggest is more probable?

Kindly don't deflect onto other matters, just address this one directly.

[bombsaway]

I don't know with just the chemistry, it's a flawed to look at this in isolated way. I think we can say with the HCN readings issue it leans *did not happen*

But this doesn't necessarily mean the whole theory is in hot water. Now if the orthodox understanding was that the Jews were killed by mechanical bees with laser beams, I would say that would be impossible. But here you're dealing with poisoning people in an enclosed space, something clearly possible. All your concerns lie in debates about details. Any probabilistic determination has to weigh evidence it did happen vs evidence it didn't.

In the case of revisionist theories, I think we're looking at very weak evidence things like resettlement in Russia happened, and lots of factors counting against it. This is counterexample, not the main argument, (first paragraph)

[bombsaway]

The problem you people have, is that a lot if not most, of what was "evidenced" at Nuremberg has been discarded. It is, as the kids today would say "horseshit".

For example, your most credible witness confessed to the Auschwitz death-toll high score of 3 million people. I appreciate Callafangers making the possible / probable distinction, but sorry Bombsaway, you people don't deserve the good faith distinction he has afforded you - your most credible witness confessed to something that as described, is not possible.

Go back to page 1 of this thread, and I wrote what I consider would be the one thing most likely to change my mind - that is, a Kula Column. If we take the Kula Column as a metaphor (because thats all it is, really) as the thing that ties this whole charade together, the secret sauce - then this would be persuasive. It would answer so many unanswered questions, and provide the technical mechanicism you people are so sorely in need of.

Since it doesn't exist, has never existed, is botched so hilariously by the operators and witnesses, and is therefore a complete fabrication - then we are in the realm of the "impossible".

You don't know that it doesn't exist.

It's the same as resettlement camps for Jews in Russia and how revisionists think about them. Just because there is no evidence, witness/documentary/physical, doesn't mean they didn't exist. The Kula columns are evidenced in witness and documentary record (FG report). Witness testimony deviating in the description of their appearance and construction doesn't negate the probative value of that testimony.