A Proposal

[Keen]

Do you not realise how demeaning and dismissive you are, of the trained people, historians, archaeologists and criminal investigators, whose evidence gathering you hand wave away as inadequate? What about the witnesses you insult by suggesting they are lying? Why should I hold back when you don't?

EVERY "eyewitness" the the fraudulently alleged "body disposal" was lying. That is a legally proven fact.

EVERY archaeologist that has alleged discovering mass graves at B, C, P, S & TII is a proven liar. That is a legally proven fact.

See for yourself here:

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Cowboy]

I am sceptical of claims of geysers of blood and self burning corpses. I am not so arrogant to think that my scepticism has any evidential value. Instead, based on research into witness behaviour and recall, I regard such claims as hyperbole, emotive descriptive, likely atrocity story or rumour, which is quite common with witnesses, especially to traumatic events.

So, by this logic, we should be able to be skeptical of the gas chamber story/rumor? Skeptical that witnesses are repeating rumor and hyperbolizing death count claims? We know that intelligence agencies were planting rumors of all sorts throughout the war via black & gray propaganda in psychological operations. OSS documents provide instructions on how to create effective rumors, and they align very well with the many atrocity stories that came out of the war.

What is a rumor?

• The successful rumor is a simple, brief, concrete, and vivid story, purporting to come from inside sources and concerning persons and events familiar to all members of the group.

I don't want to de-rail the topic of the thread, but I felt this should be pointed out.

[Stubble]

It's looking like frozen bunnies.

https://rodentpro.com/categories/frozen-foods/rabbits

It is Sunday, so, that might change after talking to some python breeders about sourcing, but, dollar per pound, frozen bunnies seem to be the cheapest.

Nobody wants to be involved with this? This is a just Stubble deal?

(Outline of the experiment is located on page 5 of the thread)

[Nessie]

...
Hence the experiment Nessie, of course if the experiment validated the claim I would put that in my conclusion. 3 days would actually exceed the claim, by a full day.

As a 1/20th scale experiment, the change over time, or delta t should bear out 1/20th of the time however, all things being equal, so, if it didn't even burn for two and a half hours, my conclusion would reflect that as well.

I am going to say that no matter what the result of the experiment is, you will declare it is evidence Blobel lied and the mass cremations were impossible. I say that because of the way you treat evidence generally.

You are still dodging my point about how insulting you have been to others and my question about why do you not use corroboration to check if something is possible or not?

[Nessie]

I am sceptical of claims of geysers of blood and self burning corpses. I am not so arrogant to think that my scepticism has any evidential value. Instead, based on research into witness behaviour and recall, I regard such claims as hyperbole, emotive descriptive, likely atrocity story or rumour, which is quite common with witnesses, especially to traumatic events.

So, by this logic, we should be able to be skeptical of the gas chamber story/rumor?
Skeptical that witnesses are repeating rumor and hyperbolizing death count claims?

Yes, and there were many, including British Intelligence during the war, who were sceptical of the claims about gas chambers.

It is not really a matter of logic. The ABC of investigation, to ensure fairness and thoroughness, is to Assume nothing, Believe nothing, and Challenge everything. That is done by evidence gathering and corroboration.

We know that intelligence agencies were planting rumors of all sorts throughout the war via black & gray propaganda in psychological operations. OSS documents provide instructions on how to create effective rumors, and they align very well with the many atrocity stories that came out of the war.

What is a rumor?

• The successful rumor is a simple, brief, concrete, and vivid story, purporting to come from inside sources and concerning persons and events familiar to all members of the group.

I don't want to de-rail the topic of the thread, but I felt this should be pointed out.

It is not a derail, because it is clear that this experiment can easily be designed to fail and get a desired result. So-called revisionists know that traditional methods of enquiry by historians and criminal investigators, gathering evidence to establish a chronology of events leading to a corroborated, proven conclusion, does not work for them. So, they look for other ways to supposedly investigate the Holocaust.

[Stubble]

...
Hence the experiment Nessie, of course if the experiment validated the claim I would put that in my conclusion. 3 days would actually exceed the claim, by a full day.

As a 1/20th scale experiment, the change over time, or delta t should bear out 1/20th of the time however, all things being equal, so, if it didn't even burn for two and a half hours, my conclusion would reflect that as well.

I am going to say that no matter what the result of the experiment is, you will declare it is evidence Blobel lied and the mass cremations were impossible. I say that because of the way you treat evidence generally.

You are still dodging my point about how insulting you have been to others and my question about why do you not use corroboration to check if something is possible or not?

I will evaluate the evidence, honestly, I'm more interested in another party with proper credentials performing the experiment however. The local college seemed disinterested and I got an earful. The professor over there knew exactly why I wanted to perform this carcass experiment and he also knew it had nothing to do with a cheaper method of disposal in agriculture management. (From what I could gather from the rather brief and very hot exchange, he didn't think it was possible by the way, take that for what you will. He was 'incredulous' about the idea)

Still, perhaps there is someone credentialed that is willing to bite the bullet on this one.

To your accusation that I dodged, I didn't.

You unironically said you are sceptical about self immolating corpses. Your previous statements on the matter ring with the truth that you are not. You think you can cremate a body in a Topf oven with some twigs, straw and some scraps of paper...

[Keen]

I am sceptical of claims of geysers of blood and self burning corpses. I am not so arrogant to think that my scepticism has any evidential value. Instead, based on research into witness behaviour and recall, I regard such claims as hyperbole, emotive descriptive, likely atrocity story or rumour, which is quite common with witnesses, especially to traumatic events.

So, by this logic, we should be able to be skeptical of the gas chamber story/rumor?
Skeptical that witnesses are repeating rumor and hyperbolizing death count claims?

Yes, and there were many, including British Intelligence during the war, who were sceptical of the claims about gas chambers.

It is not really a matter of logic. The ABC of investigation, to ensure fairness and thoroughness, is to Assume nothing, Believe nothing, and Challenge everything. That is done by evidence gathering and corroboration.

We know that intelligence agencies were planting rumors of all sorts throughout the war via black & gray propaganda in psychological operations. OSS documents provide instructions on how to create effective rumors, and they align very well with the many atrocity stories that came out of the war.


I don't want to de-rail the topic of the thread, but I felt this should be pointed out.

It is not a derail, because it is clear that this experiment can easily be designed to fail and get a desired result. So-called revisionists know that traditional methods of enquiry by historians and criminal investigators, gathering evidence to establish a chronology of events leading to a corroborated, proven conclusion, does not work for them. So, they look for other ways to supposedly investigate the Holocaust.

Nessie:

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves, as they knew that is impossible.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps and Chelmno.

Mass graves are proven.

By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

Nessie, of the 100 alleged "scientifically proven huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II, how many have actually been proven to exist, currently contain at least an iota of human remains and that you can literally point to.

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Archie]

I mean these people lived in the town. You don't need rumors, you could just ask your dad what he saw, concerning the thing that made his town famous.

Can I bet on myself being a gentile and make some money? How do I prove this

Somehow I missed this post. I think this is the first time bombs has actually said he's not Jewish. He's always refused to say one way or the other (which is one of the main reasons I've tended to assume he's Jewish). Technically, even here he didn't say "I'm not Jewish," he just very strongly implies it (pragmatics vs semantics).

If we are going to bet, we would need some odds.

60% Jew
30% Marginal/Borderline case (half or quarter Jewish, Jewish spouse, etc)
10% Gentile (self-hating)

Under these odds, that'd be a 10 to 1 payout on Gentile since it seems so unlikely.

But it's all hypothetical since I don't think there's any way to settle this proposed bet. Bombs would need to dox himself which I assume he doesn't want to do.

[Stubble]

I'm going to bet 𝔐𝔦𝔰𝔠𝔥𝔩𝔦𝔫𝔤.

[bombsaway]

I mean these people lived in the town. You don't need rumors, you could just ask your dad what he saw, concerning the thing that made his town famous.

Can I bet on myself being a gentile and make some money? How do I prove this

Somehow I missed this post. I think this is the first time bombs has actually said he's not Jewish. He's always refused to say one way or the other (which is one of the main reasons I've tended to assume he's Jewish). Technically, even here he didn't say "I'm not Jewish," he just very strongly implies it (pragmatics vs semantics).

If we are going to bet, we would need some odds.

60% Jew
30% Marginal/Borderline case (half or quarter Jewish, Jewish spouse, etc)
10% Gentile (self-hating)

Under these odds, that'd be a 10 to 1 payout on Gentile since it seems so unlikely.

But it's all hypothetical since I don't think there's any way to settle this proposed bet. Bombs would need to dox himself which I assume he doesn't want to do.

10 to 1's not bad. I wonder why the refusal to humor this request is so suspicious.

I don't know what I've said that would make you think I was a self-hating gentile. I think I've also voiced my anti-Israel opinions here before. I don't like ethnocentrism, so insofar as Jews are more ethnocentric than other groups (which I think the evidence suggests), I don't like that and I think it plays a role in the disaster re Israel.

[HansHill]

To be clear: I have no interest in Bombaway doxing himself or knowing any of his personal details. In fact the opposite is true, I urge him to remain anonymous, lest he can ever report to authorities that he was "bullied" online by "nazis" to dox himself.

The "Bombsaway is not White Jar" is a humorous gag, when Bombsaway will inadvertently say or do something subversive, that a self-aware, racially conscious White person would never naturally say. They are a reminder, that racially conscious White people notice subversion, and subversive language will be noticed and addressed.

For what it's worth, my mind didn't immediately go to "Jew", but rather to some sort of weird Westernized non-White, """integrating""" into White society and while he truly never will belong, he's doing his best gosh darnit.