The HC Blog 'Auschwitz Index'

[Nessie]

Whole volumes and tomes have been written.the evidence abounds for a firm rebuke of the official narrative.

Name one witness who worked inside the Kremas, who you say was telling the truth.

Articles from the IHR and CODOH, while not in a blog format, also represent this effort from revisionists.

Revisionists cannot agree on what happened!

I'm going to start a thread on the demographics of the Auschwitz Complexes, focusing on 'sick' detainees and 'healthy' detainees. We will see how that fits with the orthodox narrative...

It is a topic for another thread an thus I will not be getting into it here.

None the less, evidence for a genocidal campaign against the jews, specifically using homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms is scant. Hence the use of these innocuous documents to support the claim. Which is disingenuous and leaves me even less inclined to trust the source.

/shrug

Show me a crematorium that has a gas chamber and ovens to cremate multiple corpses at the same time, inside it. The documents recording construction and operation of the Kremas is far from innocuous. It is unlike any crematorium ever.

[TlsMS93]

“It is unlike any crematorium ever”. Yes, they were contraptions that came out of the perverted mind of the SS black magic, they cremated without sufficient fuel and allowed the principle of the impenetrability of matter to be broken. They forgot to tell Odilo Globočnik's team in Operation Reinhardt.

[Nessie]

“It is unlike any crematorium ever”. Yes, they were contraptions that came out of the perverted mind of the SS black magic, they cremated without sufficient fuel and allowed the principle of the impenetrability of matter to be broken. They forgot to tell Odilo Globočnik's team in Operation Reinhardt.

Germans had the engineering skills to convert the Kremas as the documents describe. No other crematorium can be found that had anything like the conversions made to the Kremas. Revisionists arguing that because they cannot figure out how exactly they would work, therefore they did not work, and something else they cannot evidence happened, is a logically flawed argument.

The HC Blog is a list of evidence that the Kremas were used for mass gassings and cremations.

[AreYouSirius]

What revisionists call evidence, is their opinion on the technical feasibility of gassings and cremations.

What historians, lawyers, journalists and other investigators call evidence, are contemporaneous witnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology, forensics, imagery and circumstances.

I applaud this dizzying display of pilpul — it must be exhausting to so acrobatically contort oneself to prop up a dying narrative spun from WWII-era atrocity propaganda. Analysis of “technical feasibility" is not the way to go about propping up opinions, it is far easier to prop up a pre-set opinion by clinging to grandiose witness statements instead of objectively examining forensics.

“Technical feasibility” is an important aspect of forensic analysis when studying past atrocities. It involves examining whether the alleged wrongdoing could have been carried out with the tools, technologies, resources, and methods available at the time.

If a crime is described in a way that surpasses the technical capabilities available, then such an incongruity raises questions about the validity of the narrative.

Witness testimonies or historical accounts are not edicts from prophets—they are accounts that should be cross-referenced with what was technically feasible. Serious researchers work to ensure that atrocity claims are consistent with local physical and historical realities.

If, from what I understand, you value anecdotes over the analysis of “technical feasibility,” then perhaps the pursuit of religion might align more closely with your interests—rather than academia or historical research.

[Stubble]

What revisionists call evidence, is their opinion on the technical feasibility of gassings and cremations.

What historians, lawyers, journalists and other investigators call evidence, are contemporaneous witnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology, forensics, imagery and circumstances.

I applaud this dizzying display of pilpul — it must be exhausting to so acrobatically contort oneself to prop up a dying narrative spun from WWII-era atrocity propaganda. Analysis of “technical feasibility" is not the way to go about propping up opinions, it is far easier to prop up a pre-set opinion by clinging to grandiose witness statements instead of objectively examining forensics.

“Technical feasibility” is an important aspect of forensic analysis when studying past atrocities. It involves examining whether the alleged wrongdoing could have been carried out with the tools, technologies, resources, and methods available at the time.

If a crime is described in a way that surpasses the technical capabilities available, then such an incongruity raises questions about the validity of the narrative.

Witness testimonies or historical accounts are not edicts from prophets—they are accounts that should be cross-referenced with what was technically feasible. Serious researchers work to ensure that atrocity claims are consistent with local physical and historical realities.

If, from what I understand, you value anecdotes over the analysis of “technical feasibility,” then perhaps the pursuit of religion might align more closely with your interests—rather than academia or historical research.

He's obviously already found his religion.

[Nessie]

What revisionists call evidence, is their opinion on the technical feasibility of gassings and cremations.

What historians, lawyers, journalists and other investigators call evidence, are contemporaneous witnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology, forensics, imagery and circumstances.

I applaud this dizzying display of pilpul — it must be exhausting to so acrobatically contort oneself to prop up a dying narrative spun from WWII-era atrocity propaganda. Analysis of “technical feasibility" is not the way to go about propping up opinions, it is far easier to prop up a pre-set opinion by clinging to grandiose witness statements instead of objectively examining forensics.

“Technical feasibility” is an important aspect of forensic analysis when studying past atrocities. It involves examining whether the alleged wrongdoing could have been carried out with the tools, technologies, resources, and methods available at the time.

Germans certainly had the design and engineering capability to build gas chambers that used CO from an engine, or modify buildings so that Zyklon B could be dropped in and then cremate bodies in ovens and on mass pyres. The way revisionists behave, German technical ability was still back in the stone age.

If a crime is described in a way that surpasses the technical capabilities available, then such an incongruity raises questions about the validity of the narrative.

Since what is described is within German design and engineering capabilities, that is not an issue. Revisionists try to make it an issue, as if a witness's ability to describe what they saw, is an accurate way to assess their truthfulness. That fails to take into account well known and studied issues with memory and recollection.

Witness testimonies or historical accounts are not edicts from prophets—they are accounts that should be cross-referenced with what was technically feasible. Serious researchers work to ensure that atrocity claims are consistent with local physical and historical realities.

If, from what I understand, you value anecdotes over the analysis of “technical feasibility,” then perhaps the pursuit of religion might align more closely with your interests—rather than academia or historical research.

Revisionist assessment of technical feasibility starts from the biased position of not believing gassings and mass cremations happened. They then use normal witness errors and gaps in knowledge caused by the Nazi destruction of evidence, as excuses to claim the witnesses are all lying, 100% of them. Revisionist witness assessment is designed to cause all witnesses to fail. If a witness cannot be disputed over the technicalities of their claims, then it is suggested, with no evidence, that they were subject to coercion.

As revisionists, with no relevant experience, nitpick over surviving documents, ruined buildings and witness descriptions given years after the event, they erroneously give themselves the wrong impression about the evidence and so fall for the Holocaust denial hoax.

[Nessie]

....
He's obviously already found his religion.

You have this the wrong way round. My belief is based only on the evidence. Your belief is contrary to what is evidenced and you cannot evidence that millions of Jews had not been killed and were still alive in 1945. That makes your belief more like a religious belief, as it not evidence based.