Where are the Goalposts?

[Nessie]

How does Popper's Principle apply to Holocaust revisionism? The biggest hurdle in answering that question, is what is Holocaust revision? It is not like standard historical revision, that produces an evidenced, revised chronology of events. Instead, it produces various, conflicting theories, such as the Kremas were delousing chambers, corpse stores, showers and bomb shelters, or combination thereof. Those competing theories make revisionism highly compliant with Popper, as each theory can be falsified by another theory. The theory about delousing chambers inside the Kremas, can be falsified by the evidence of lower than found in delousing chamber HCN residues and traces of Prussian Blue. The shower claim is supported by an inventory that lists shower fittings and the physical find of a shower head in the ruins of Krema II. It is falsified by the lack of any witnesses to the use of showers, or other evidence to prove actual showering took place. The logical conclusion is that showers was a modification to the Krema that was considered, but never progressed.

Holocaust revisionism results in a series of dead ends, the most significant of which is what happened to the people sent to the Kremas? Those not selected for work, not registered at the camp and for whom there is no record of their existence after arriving at Birkenau and no evidence they left the camp. That must make Holocaust revisionism compliant with Popper, as the claim of mass resettlement can be falsified, with the inability to evidence mass resettlement. The evidence of all the closed down ghettos and camps in 1944 and only a few hundred thousand Jews being liberated in 1945, means that claims of millions of Jews still alive, having not been mass murdered, is eminently falsifiable.

In principle Holocaust revisionism is compliant with Popper's Principle, in practice, that ease of compliance means it is simple to prove revisionism to be historically wrong and not a revision at all. It renders it down to be Holocaust denial, a non-history, that argues certain events did not happen, without being able to evidence what did.

[Callafangers]

How does Popper's Principle apply to Holocaust revisionism? The biggest hurdle in answering that question, is what is Holocaust revision? It is not like standard historical revision, that produces an evidenced, revised chronology of events. Instead, it produces various, conflicting theories, such as the Kremas were delousing chambers, corpse stores, showers and bomb shelters, or combination thereof. Those competing theories make revisionism highly compliant with Popper, as each theory can be falsified by another theory.

Nessie does not provide an evidenced, revised chronology of events against my claim that his kitchen pantry was stuffed with human corpses last week. Instead, Nessie produces various, conflicting theories that his pantry was "only used for food" and "storage of potatoes."

[HansHill]

Nessie does not provide an evidenced, revised chronology of events against my claim that his kitchen pantry was stuffed with human corpses last week. Instead, Nessie produces various, conflicting theories that his pantry was "only used for food" and "storage of potatoes."

Me mum was storing potatoes

[Nessie]

How does Popper's Principle apply to Holocaust revisionism? The biggest hurdle in answering that question, is what is Holocaust revision? It is not like standard historical revision, that produces an evidenced, revised chronology of events. Instead, it produces various, conflicting theories, such as the Kremas were delousing chambers, corpse stores, showers and bomb shelters, or combination thereof. Those competing theories make revisionism highly compliant with Popper, as each theory can be falsified by another theory.

Nessie does not provide an evidenced, revised chronology of events against my claim that his kitchen pantry was stuffed with human corpses last week. Instead, Nessie produces various, conflicting theories that his pantry was "only used for food" and "storage of potatoes."

You are making fun of yourself with that response, as you try to minimise the significance of your inability to produce a revised history. I have pointed out that Holocaust revision is eminently falsifiable, in theory and practice, meaning, it is easily proven to be wrong.

Your claim my pantry was stuffed with corpses is falsifiable with evidence from forensic testing and eyewitnesses, that it did not and cannot have contained corpses and instead it contained food. My claim that TII was a death camp with gas chambers and mass graves, which are both evidence, cannot be falsified by you, with evidence of another different usage and large areas of undisturbed ground where the mass graves were supposedly located.

[HansHill]

...I have pointed out that Holocaust revision is eminently falsifiable, in theory and practice, meaning, it is easily proven to be wrong.

Falsifiable =/= proven wrong.

I'm not sure how much more CF is willing to commit to this, or indeed make it any simpler for you, but it is evident you don't know what you are talking about from this one sentence alone. On that note, I am probably done with your slop on this topic, too.

[Nessie]

...I have pointed out that Holocaust revision is eminently falsifiable, in theory and practice, meaning, it is easily proven to be wrong.

Falsifiable =/= proven wrong.

I'm not sure how much more CF is willing to commit to this, or indeed make it any simpler for you, but it is evident you don't know what you are talking about from this one sentence alone. On that note, I am probably done with your slop on this topic, too.

In theory, Holocaust revisionism is falsifiable. In practice, it is proven wrong.

[curioussoul]

In theory, Holocaust revisionism is falsifiable.

Give us concrete examples of what would falsify the Holocaust.

[Wahrheitssucher]

...I have pointed out that Holocaust revision is eminently falsifiable, in theory and practice, meaning, it is easily proven to be wrong.

…[this] is evident you don't know what you are talking about from this one sentence alone.
I am probably done with your slop on this topic, too.

Yes, this dimwit has again demonstrated what an ignoramus they are.

Falsifiability is the very foundation of the empirical paradigm.
If a theory, argument or position is NOT falsifiable, it is regarded as unempirical and therefore unscientific.
I.e. an unfalsifiable position is a belief-system that is impervious to logic, reason and empirical evaluation.

So the very fact that holocaust revision is falsifiable proves it is a scientific historical study based upon empirical analysis.

And conversely, the very fact the holyH mass-gassing mythology is NOT open to being falsified PROVES it is an irrational, quasi-religious, pseudo-historical belief-system. One who’s core allegations do not withstand rigorous, empirical scrutiny.

Therefore — on this point alone — is the holyH mass-gassing allegation, something which all rational, intelligent, honest people should be able to see through as deeply flawed.

This has all been patiently explained to this dimwitted one with the feminine-named avatar, numerous times but all to no avail.

See more on this here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/criter ... ifiability

and here: https://www.simplypsychology.org/karl-popper.html