Introducing Revisionist Topics to a friend

[HansHill]

I had a productive Holocaust conversation with a friend this weekend who is somewhat sympathetic to dissident politics, having been previously vocal about adjacent topics like vaccine skepticism, gamergate, Israel, opposition to woke politics etc

The discussion came about as he knows my position on this and asked a few questions, giving me a few days to prepare material and resources for him. The topics we discussed ranged from Nuremberg to the Prussian Blue of Birkenau. I found it most useful to isolate from each topic, the top 3 - 5 talking points, and avoiding getting bogged down on any
one point. Demonstrate familiarity and mastery over the content, and if a point began to drag on, i politely said he is welcome to help himself to the literature to become more familiar with the nuance, and i can address any informed questions from there.

As a sort of Introduction to Holocaust Revisionism to an interested dissident, the topics covered, along with the central arguments were:

Nuremberg: Judicial Notice, tortured confessions, fantastical claims - sources; Porter, Irving, Irebodd, Scotland

Reinhardt: CO contents of diesel exhaust, airpressure within hermetically sealed chambers, wood requirements & mechanics of cremation, failed excavations (1945 abandoned, 2012 laughing stock) - sources; Mattogno, Irebodd, Berg

Auschwitz: Absent Prussian Blue, absent holes, museum fabrications, mechanics of cremation - sources: Rudolf, Irebodd,

General: Typhus and Starvation in the camps, Dachau claims all dropped, Buchenwald sideshow of horrors, holocaust of bullets, Katyn frame-up

======

Thread about successful or unsuccessful strategies while talking to beginners!

[TlsMS93]

He will end up asking about the scratches inside Krema I, which he was told were from the victims in despair, but the camp museum itself admitted that they were vandalism by tourists. Worse still, to this day they still maintain this as evidence somewhere.

[HansHill]

He will end up asking about the scratches inside Krema I, which he was told were from the victims in despair, but the camp museum itself admitted that they were vandalism by tourists. Worse still, to this day they still maintain this as evidence somewhere.

Hopefully not, he was asking high quality questions like "maybe you're wrong about the Treblinka chamber being hermetically sealed, who said it was?" He might show up here one day

[Nessie]

He will end up asking about the scratches inside Krema I, which he was told were from the victims in despair, but the camp museum itself admitted that they were vandalism by tourists. Worse still, to this day they still maintain this as evidence somewhere.

Hopefully not, he was asking high quality questions like "maybe you're wrong about the Treblinka chamber being hermetically sealed, who said it was?" He might show up here one day

Hopefully he will. I can explain to him that witness comments about hermetic sealing, referred to the closing up of the chambers with hermetically sealed doors, to stop leaks, and if they thought the entire chamber was now hermetically sealed, that was a mistake, or else, how did the gas get in? Witnesses make mistakes and say odd things, and that is not proof they lied.

[TlsMS93]

He will end up asking about the scratches inside Krema I, which he was told were from the victims in despair, but the camp museum itself admitted that they were vandalism by tourists. Worse still, to this day they still maintain this as evidence somewhere.

Hopefully not, he was asking high quality questions like "maybe you're wrong about the Treblinka chamber being hermetically sealed, who said it was?" He might show up here one day

I believe that the question that weighs most heavily on a layman is the argument that once he visits the camps he will be certain that it happened, or the argument that the Germans accept it, so who are we to doubt it? That argument exists.

So the best approach is prophylactic, anticipating what they will show and preparing him so that he does not swallow everything that is shown, and if he has already gone, present what they failed to tell.

I am Brazilian and the president condemned Israel's actions in Gaza, classifying it as genocide, and the Israeli government called the Brazilian ambassador there to go to Yad Vashem as if to kneel in the corn, as if to say, "nothing we do will be worse than what they did to us."

[HansHill]

He will end up asking about the scratches inside Krema I, which he was told were from the victims in despair, but the camp museum itself admitted that they were vandalism by tourists. Worse still, to this day they still maintain this as evidence somewhere.

Hopefully not, he was asking high quality questions like "maybe you're wrong about the Treblinka chamber being hermetically sealed, who said it was?" He might show up here one day

Hopefully he will. I can explain to him that witness comments about hermetic sealing, referred to the closing up of the chambers with hermetically sealed doors, to stop leaks, and if they thought the entire chamber was now hermetically sealed, that was a mistake, or else, how did the gas get in? Witnesses make mistakes and say odd things, and that is not proof they lied.

The "hopefully not" was in reference to the scratches on the walls in Krema 1. As in, I hope I keep such good company as to not ask such silly questions!

Regarding the hermetically sealed chamber argument, he was satisfied that it came from the horses mouth, so to speak, and it wasn't a strawman by me!

[Nessie]

Hopefully not, he was asking high quality questions like "maybe you're wrong about the Treblinka chamber being hermetically sealed, who said it was?" He might show up here one day

Hopefully he will. I can explain to him that witness comments about hermetic sealing, referred to the closing up of the chambers with hermetically sealed doors, to stop leaks, and if they thought the entire chamber was now hermetically sealed, that was a mistake, or else, how did the gas get in? Witnesses make mistakes and say odd things, and that is not proof they lied.

The "hopefully not" was in reference to the scratches on the walls in Krema 1. As in, I hope I keep such good company as to not ask such silly questions!

Regarding the hermetically sealed chamber argument, he was satisfied that it came from the horses mouth, so to speak, and it wasn't a strawman by me!

The hermetically sealed argument is a misunderstanding of the witness evidence, whereby revisionists take the witnesses literally and fail to understand context, as they try to argue the witnesses made such incredulous claims, they must all be liars. Did you tell your friend that?

[HansHill]

Hopefully he will. I can explain to him that witness comments about hermetic sealing, referred to the closing up of the chambers with hermetically sealed doors, to stop leaks, and if they thought the entire chamber was now hermetically sealed, that was a mistake, or else, how did the gas get in? Witnesses make mistakes and say odd things, and that is not proof they lied.

The "hopefully not" was in reference to the scratches on the walls in Krema 1. As in, I hope I keep such good company as to not ask such silly questions!

Regarding the hermetically sealed chamber argument, he was satisfied that it came from the horses mouth, so to speak, and it wasn't a strawman by me!

The hermetically sealed argument is a misunderstanding of the witness evidence, whereby revisionists take the witnesses literally and fail to understand context, as they try to argue the witnesses made such incredulous claims, they must all be liars. Did you tell your friend that?

He has the source material so will review it himself.

Are there any other eyewitnesses you support us rejecting the literal interpretation of their claims?

[Nessie]

The "hopefully not" was in reference to the scratches on the walls in Krema 1. As in, I hope I keep such good company as to not ask such silly questions!

Regarding the hermetically sealed chamber argument, he was satisfied that it came from the horses mouth, so to speak, and it wasn't a strawman by me!

The hermetically sealed argument is a misunderstanding of the witness evidence, whereby revisionists take the witnesses literally and fail to understand context, as they try to argue the witnesses made such incredulous claims, they must all be liars. Did you tell your friend that?

He has the source material so will review it himself.

Are there any other eyewitnesses you support us rejecting the literal interpretation of their claims?

Pretty much every witness that I have read, at some point or another, says something that should not be taken literally, as it is hyperbole, an estimation, a figure of speech or otherwise mistaken recollection as people relate traumatic events often decades later. If you had taken as many witness statements and spent as much time listening to witnesses in court as I have, you would understand witnesses better.

[HansHill]

The hermetically sealed argument is a misunderstanding of the witness evidence, whereby revisionists take the witnesses literally and fail to understand context, as they try to argue the witnesses made such incredulous claims, they must all be liars. Did you tell your friend that?

He has the source material so will review it himself.

Are there any other eyewitnesses you support us rejecting the literal interpretation of their claims?

Pretty much every witness that I have read, at some point or another, says something that should not be taken literally, as it is hyperbole, an estimation, a figure of speech or otherwise mistaken recollection as people relate traumatic events often decades later. If you had taken as many witness statements and spent as much time listening to witnesses in court as I have, you would understand witnesses better.

I agree with this, and expand these principles to every eyewitness presented by orthodoxy.