Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Keen]

With the locking of the thread discussing the differences between the methodologies used by historians and revisionists, is that whole topic now forbidden? Is revisionist methodology now not to be subjected to any form of scrutiny?

Of course not you pathologicaly lying coward. Your pretending that "revisionists" are not historians and your incessant lies and refusal to follow basic forum rules is the core reason for the thread being locked. (I'm not speaking for Archie, that's just my opinion.)

How about you pledging to accept your burden of proof and defining your standards of proof at the begining of any new thread you start - starting with this one?

[borjastick]

Example of believer methodology - because it cannot be shown exactly where every resident of every German work/transit/concentration camp went after the war they must have been killed in the camps. Jeez. And this twat wonders why we cannot be arsed to talk to him.

[Nessie]

Example of believer methodology - because it cannot be shown exactly where every resident of every German work/transit/concentration camp went after the war they must have been killed in the camps. Jeez. And this twat wonders why we cannot be arsed to talk to him.

One of the reasons why Archie is so restrictive of debate over how revisionists argue and evidence their claims, is how easy it is to critique them. The above is a classic example of the straw man fallacy.

"AI Overview. A straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents, exaggerates, or fabricates an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of addressing the actual, more nuanced position, they defeat a flimsy, fake version (the "straw man")."

No historian, or anyone who accepts the Holocaust narrative, including myself, has argued that because revisionists cannot show exactly where every Jew who was arrested and sent to a camp during WWII, was in 1945, that proves they were killed in the camps. Borjastick has misrepresented, and is attacking a flimsy, fake version of what historians have done, in terms of evidence and conclusion.

Historians can evidence that millions of Jews were murdered, 1939-45 and only a few hundred thousand of those arrested survived the war and were liberated in 1945. Revisionists cannot evidence the millions of Jews arrested and sent to the camps and ghettos, were still alive in 1945. They don't need to find everyone. They do need to find way more than the few hundred thousand that the historians accept survived.

Borjastick is trying to excuse the revisionist failure to find large numbers of Jews still alive in the camps and ghettos, or to deal with the evidence that by 1944, all the ghettos had closed, along with many of the camps and the largest camp of all, A-B, had a smaller population in 1944, than it had in 1943. His straw man is a way for him to justify to himself, why he should not bother with his need to evidence his claim of millions of Jews were not murdered.

[Nessie]

With the locking of the thread discussing the differences between the methodologies used by historians and revisionists, is that whole topic now forbidden? Is revisionist methodology now not to be subjected to any form of scrutiny?

Of course not you pathologicaly lying coward.

Your most commonly used logical fallacy, is ad hominem.

"AI Overview. An ad hominem fallacy (Latin for "to the person") is a logical error where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. It is a fallacy of relevance that improperly shifts focus from evidence to personal flaws"

Your abuse and bullying is why I very rarely interact with you.

Your pretending that "revisionists" are not historians...

It is not a pretence, it is a fact. Holocaust revisionists have failed to revise the history of the Jews, in Europe, 1939-45, to produce an evidenced chronology of events leading to a proven conclusion. They suggest millions were not killed, but they fail to evidence that, with proof of millions still alive in 1945.

... and your incessant lies and refusal to follow basic forum rules is the core reason for the thread being locked. (I'm not speaking for Archie, that's just my opinion.)

Unevidenced, asserted opinion.

How about you pledging to accept your burden of proof and defining your standards of proof at the begining of any new thread you start - starting with this one?

I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof and producing evidence from witnesses, documents, archaeology, forensics, physical and circumstantial sources. My standard of proof is the same as historians or the courts use, whereby an event is proven when there is sufficient corroborating verified evidence to prove it. A very good example of that, is the eyewitness and documentary evidence that comes from Topf & Sons, that they designed and constructed the gas chambers and mass corpse cremation ovens inside the Birkenau Kremas. The written exchanges between the company and the camp's construction office results in a corroborated chronology for the usage of the buildings, 1943-4. That evidence is further corroborated by every single eyewitness, SS camp staff and Jewish Sonderkommandos from multiple countries, who worked inside the buildings. The circumstantial, physical and photographic evidence provides more corroboration.

You do not want to debate anything other than your belief, that is backed by no evidence, that the AR camps and Chelmno lack evidence of mass graves and the witness descriptions of the cover-up as the Nazis exhumed and cremated hundreds of thousands of corpses. You think that you can just refuse to accept the numerous archaeological surveys that have found evidence of large areas of disturbed ground containing buried cremated remains.

I am merely responding to this one post, as it acts as evidence, along with Borjastick's post, why revisionist methodology is so flawed, due to its reliance on logical fallacies, denial of the evidence and failure to produce a revised history.

[Keen]

I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof

[Keen]

Example of believer methodology - because it cannot be shown exactly where every resident of every German work/transit/concentration camp went after the war they must have been killed in the camps.

Exactly, which is a logical fallacy and the foundation of their delusional argument.

[Keen]

They suggest millions were not killed, but they fail to evidence that, with proof of millions still alive in 1945.

Logical fallacy and shameless attempt to avoid your burden of proof.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[Archie]

With the locking of the thread discussing the differences between the methodologies used by historians and revisionists, is that whole topic now forbidden? Is revisionist methodology now not to be subjected to any form of scrutiny?

If a thread is locked, don't start an immediate replacement thread or a thread to whine about the other thread being locked. That defeats the whole point of the lock. If you wish to appeal the lock, send me a PM. Be sure to explain what vital information remains to be shared.

To answer your question, no, discussion of methods is not forbidden. This thread was locked because it was poor quality and had grown too long and had very little worthwhile information. It's mostly just you making vague and repetitive ad hominem attacks against revisionists.