Website "debunking" holocaust denial?

[goyim terror alarm]

I found this website which claims to have a lot of content "debunking" revisionists, and I do not think I have the patience to go through all of it right now.
The URL is: https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/
(Sorry if this has been posted here before)

[fireofice]

Holocaust Controversies is a well known website and has been known by revisionists for a while. They sometimes make good points and it's useful for not falling into groupthink. But in my opinion, they have not demonstrated that the holocaust happened. Their "white paper" was responded to by revisionists here:

https://armreg.co.uk/product/the-exterm ... -part-1-2/

[Archie]

Hi GTA. Welcome to the forum.

Yes, that is Holocaust Controversies. It is probably the most extensive website for Holocaust apologetics/anti-revisionism. One problem with it is that it's a blog going back a long time, so it's a lot to slog through for a new reader. It doesn't really present the anti-revisionist case in a concise way. It seems more designed to give the impression that revisionism has been debunked.

The post below would be one of their more accessible ones. We had a thread on the old forum with rebuttals to that page, but I don't know if it survived. We might have to recreate that at some point.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... pular.html

Here was a recent discussion about HC.
viewtopic.php?t=147

Their specialty is to present voluminous, often arcane research that usually misses the point, served with a thick layer of bluster on top. A lot of their stuff is responding to highly specific points from Mattogno's books.

[Stubble]

Of note, their apologetics are not attributed directly to pre planned or ad hoc orthodoxy and I feel that merits mention. They apologize for 'the holocaust' without making a coherent argument of what that is or was.

Of course, that's my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.

[TlsMS93]

Wasn't it the Nizkor Project that claimed to have the smoking gun against the revisionists?

[Nessie]

This is an excellent example of HC evidencing;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

It is an index of documentary, witness and forensic evidence of the designing, construction and use of the undressing rooms, gas chambers and multiple corpse ovens in the A-B Kremas.

Normally, that volume of corroborating evidence, showing a chronological historical narrative, would be sufficient to prove what happened. Revisionists are unable to provide an evidenced history, so they think they can argue what happened, or in a strange, unique to them non-history, argue what did not happen.

HC shows that history is evidenced, not argued.

[TlsMS93]

This is an excellent example of HC evidencing;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

It is an index of documentary, witness and forensic evidence of the designing, construction and use of the undressing rooms, gas chambers and multiple corpse ovens in the A-B Kremas.

Normally, that volume of corroborating evidence, showing a chronological historical narrative, would be sufficient to prove what happened. Revisionists are unable to provide an evidenced history, so they think they can argue what happened, or in a strange, unique to them non-history, argue what did not happen.

HC shows that history is evidenced, not argued.

On the contrary, exterminationists argue based on what exists, an extrapolation. We revisionists are only content with what actually exists, we do not make speculations to arrive at a certain preconceived result.

[Nessie]

This is an excellent example of HC evidencing;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

It is an index of documentary, witness and forensic evidence of the designing, construction and use of the undressing rooms, gas chambers and multiple corpse ovens in the A-B Kremas.

Normally, that volume of corroborating evidence, showing a chronological historical narrative, would be sufficient to prove what happened. Revisionists are unable to provide an evidenced history, so they think they can argue what happened, or in a strange, unique to them non-history, argue what did not happen.

HC shows that history is evidenced, not argued.

On the contrary, exterminationists argue based on what exists, an extrapolation. We revisionists are only content with what actually exists, we do not make speculations to arrive at a certain preconceived result.

Revisionists ignore 100% of the eyewitness evidence and can only theorise about what could have happened inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas, without being able to evidence, let alone agree.

[TlsMS93]

This is an excellent example of HC evidencing;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

It is an index of documentary, witness and forensic evidence of the designing, construction and use of the undressing rooms, gas chambers and multiple corpse ovens in the A-B Kremas.

Normally, that volume of corroborating evidence, showing a chronological historical narrative, would be sufficient to prove what happened. Revisionists are unable to provide an evidenced history, so they think they can argue what happened, or in a strange, unique to them non-history, argue what did not happen.

HC shows that history is evidenced, not argued.

On the contrary, exterminationists argue based on what exists, an extrapolation. We revisionists are only content with what actually exists, we do not make speculations to arrive at a certain preconceived result.

Revisionists ignore 100% of the eyewitness evidence and can only theorise about what could have happened inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas, without being able to evidence, let alone agree.

This is why anti-Semitism is growing. They think we are complete idiots who believe everything. If the coal deliveries to the Kremas in AB are insufficient for the canonical 1.1 million, it is we who do not offer evidence to the contrary to support the idea that less than 200,000 ended their days there. This goes on ad infinitum. I could spend hours here citing the inconsistencies. In order to cremate 1.1 million people in AB, the refractory masonry of the same would have to be renovated at least 7 times, but none of this has been documented, except once for the 6 muffles of the Stammlager, and this in a field where even a screw was registered as having been ordered.

Mentioning open-air cremations, the Allied aerial photos have removed any doubt in this regard and the Sonderkommando witnesses citing the process of these burning graves sounds very similar to biblical musings.

[Archie]

This is an excellent example of HC evidencing;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

It is an index of documentary, witness and forensic evidence of the designing, construction and use of the undressing rooms, gas chambers and multiple corpse ovens in the A-B Kremas.

Normally, that volume of corroborating evidence, showing a chronological historical narrative, would be sufficient to prove what happened. Revisionists are unable to provide an evidenced history, so they think they can argue what happened, or in a strange, unique to them non-history, argue what did not happen.

HC shows that history is evidenced, not argued.

On the contrary, exterminationists argue based on what exists, an extrapolation. We revisionists are only content with what actually exists, we do not make speculations to arrive at a certain preconceived result.

Revisionists ignore 100% of the eyewitness evidence and can only theorise about what could have happened inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas, without being able to evidence, let alone agree.

Do 100% of eyewitnesses claim gas chambers?

We in fact dispute a small fraction of testimonies that give contradictory, often ridiculous descriptions of "gas chambers" that cannot be otherwise confirmed.

[goyim terror alarm]

Holocaust Controversies is a well known website and has been known by revisionists for a while. They sometimes make good points and it's useful for not falling into groupthink. But in my opinion, they have not demonstrated that the holocaust happened. Their "white paper" was responded to by revisionists here:

https://armreg.co.uk/product/the-exterm ... -part-1-2/

This seems to be selling a PDF and I don't exactly want to link this kind of thing to my credit card information

Hi GTA. Welcome to the forum.

Yes, that is Holocaust Controversies. It is probably the most extensive website for Holocaust apologetics/anti-revisionism. One problem with it is that it's a blog going back a long time, so it's a lot to slog through for a new reader. It doesn't really present the anti-revisionist case in a concise way. It seems more designed to give the impression that revisionism has been debunked.

The post below would be one of their more accessible ones. We had a thread on the old forum with rebuttals to that page, but I don't know if it survived. We might have to recreate that at some point.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... pular.html

Here was a recent discussion about HC.
viewtopic.php?t=147

Their specialty is to present voluminous, often arcane research that usually misses the point, served with a thick layer of bluster on top. A lot of their stuff is responding to highly specific points from Mattogno's books.

Thanks Archie, I will check that out. Something which interested me about that website is that I saw the owner (?) responding to everyone in the comments and claiming that he doesn't want deniers censored, which definitely isn't a common position for someone like him. Or he was just did that to counter the guy saying something along the lines of "why is it censored if it can be so easily refuted".

[Stubble]

Holocaust Controversies is a well known website and has been known by revisionists for a while. They sometimes make good points and it's useful for not falling into groupthink. But in my opinion, they have not demonstrated that the holocaust happened. Their "white paper" was responded to by revisionists here:

https://armreg.co.uk/product/the-exterm ... -part-1-2/

This seems to be selling a PDF and I don't exactly want to link this kind of thing to my credit card information.

Price is 0.00. Put it in the cart, go to checkout, it doesn't ask for an account or any information.

Wait, that one is ten pound. My bad. Most of the pdf files are free.

[Archie]

Holocaust Controversies is a well known website and has been known by revisionists for a while. They sometimes make good points and it's useful for not falling into groupthink. But in my opinion, they have not demonstrated that the holocaust happened. Their "white paper" was responded to by revisionists here:

https://armreg.co.uk/product/the-exterm ... -part-1-2/

This seems to be selling a PDF and I don't exactly want to link this kind of thing to my credit card information

Hi GTA. Welcome to the forum.

Yes, that is Holocaust Controversies. It is probably the most extensive website for Holocaust apologetics/anti-revisionism. One problem with it is that it's a blog going back a long time, so it's a lot to slog through for a new reader. It doesn't really present the anti-revisionist case in a concise way. It seems more designed to give the impression that revisionism has been debunked.

The post below would be one of their more accessible ones. We had a thread on the old forum with rebuttals to that page, but I don't know if it survived. We might have to recreate that at some point.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... pular.html

Here was a recent discussion about HC.
viewtopic.php?t=147

Their specialty is to present voluminous, often arcane research that usually misses the point, served with a thick layer of bluster on top. A lot of their stuff is responding to highly specific points from Mattogno's books.

Thanks Archie, I will check that out. Something which interested me about that website is that I saw the owner (?) responding to everyone in the comments and claiming that he doesn't want deniers censored, which definitely isn't a common position for someone like him. Or he was just did that to counter the guy saying something along the lines of "why is it censored if it can be so easily refuted".

Here's a version of it on archive.org. It used to be part of Holocaust Handbooks.
https://archive.org/details/carlo-matto ... a/mode/2up

But it's well over a thousand pages, so depending on how much research you've done you might want to start with something else.

ARMREG/Castle Hill gives a lot away for free. But if you can it's good to buy stuff from them just to support them. There are probably thousands of people who have purchased materials from there, including our opponents. It's unlikely that your info would be leaked an you would be targeted, but if you are really concerned about it you can stick with the free sources.

[goyim terror alarm]

Holocaust Controversies was picked as name in order to compete with codoh forum on google. So it's literally a reaction to codoh to prevent people from visiting the page. While they at least posted some documents, they turned out to be rather an embarrassment pretty quickly. Some people in the Holocaust Industry did even distance them from them.

This is the "haystack" method of argumentation. They present you with a haystack and promise there are some needles in there.

The first time I saw that page, I laughed out loud. It looks designed to overwhelm and impress the reader by sheer volume. If they had anything good, they would be giving you those highlights along with some sort of coherent argument, not doing this sort of gish gallop/wild goose chase. That they sourced so much of it from Mattogno originally is quite funny. Although quite long, the vast majority of the documents cited are very vague, and a lot of the testimonies are obscure.

Yep, this seems to explain what I thought. He seems to present himself as the "exterminationist" version of CODOH, so that's why he would claim to want open holocaust discussion. When you click on the website you see "What part of the word Genocide do you not understand?" which seems to try to pass off the idea that there are people saying that everything happened but it technically wasn't a genocide, or try to shame revisionists (we said it's a genocide goy, do you not understand?). Not to mention the flood of links to articles that one would take weeks to read.

I found this old article from them and I'd be interested to hear "the other side of the story":

The contributors here met online at the RODOH forum, the only place on the internet where there is Real Open Debate On the Holocaust. Other internet forums have either censored denial, or censor its rebuttal, but RODOH has allowed deniers and anti-deniers to argue with each other freely and openly.
[...]
Yet we also intend to have fun here. So much of what is posted on the internet as 'Revisionism' is so ludicrously absurd that we will also respond with laughter. In part, we were compelled to set up this blog in order to maintain a record of the illogicalities, inanities and insanities to be found on the heavily censored, hyper-moderated circle-jerk known as The Revisionist Forum over at the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust website. That we informally call this The Cesspit will persist so long as this forum remains censored and inaccessible for us. Most contributors here have either been banned from CODOH forum or have not even bothered trying to post there, knowing full well they would not survive much longer than.... well, you can probably guess.

What was this RODOH forum? Was it actually "real open debate on the holocaust"? And was the old CODOH forum in 2006 banning people for not being revisionists or is there something that they're not telling us?

[Stubble]

I don't think it was deniers being banned but some exterminationists. This is a touchy subject and exterminationists seem to lose objectivity.

To my knowledge bans are rare, and if revisionists or deniers have been banned it was likely for verbal abuse, failure to follow forum guidelines, being unduly disruptive and not contributing to debate.