Challenge for Believers

[Nessie]

My critique of Nessie would be mainly he is repetitious. I agree with him when he labels revisionism as non-legitimate fundamentally, I've stated my reasons for this before (has to do with the lack of evidence for their assertions), but it's just not very interesting or productive to hammer this home in the same way over and over again.

I can understand why people on your side would critique Nessie's repetition, and I will add here too, his frequent use of fallacies (see the "Request" thread for a recent example). His repetition routinely gives Revisionists very easy lay-ups to dunk on, which for a new comer to this forum, would be very satisfying to see. Similarly his overuse of fallacies to a newcomer would also look extremely weak if representing the Orthodox position!

It is you revisionists who frequently and repeatedly use fallacies, which apparently is not an issue. Me frequently and repeatedly pointing out that use of fallacies is apparently the only issue.

[bombsaway]

My critique of Nessie would be mainly he is repetitious. I agree with him when he labels revisionism as non-legitimate fundamentally, I've stated my reasons for this before (has to do with the lack of evidence for their assertions), but it's just not very interesting or productive to hammer this home in the same way over and over again.

I can understand why people on your side would critique Nessie's repetition, and I will add here too, his frequent use of fallacies (see the "Request" thread for a recent example). His repetition routinely gives Revisionists very easy lay-ups to dunk on, which for a new comer to this forum, would be very satisfying to see. Similarly his overuse of fallacies to a newcomer would also look extremely weak if representing the Orthodox position!

The strength of the orthodox position is the large body of evidence for it, and then the corresponding absence of evidence for the revisionist position. Nessie points this out, but we all know the devil is in the details. It's not really a dunk on orthodoxy because you guys can't effectively rebut this relationship (two hypotheses: one evidenced, one not) but the engagement with Nessie's often leads to the same circular arguments, it's not a great look for anyone, and boring.

[HansHill]

The strength of the orthodox position is the large body of evidence for it, and then the corresponding absence of evidence for the revisionist position. Nessie points this out, but we all know the devil is in the details. It's not really a dunk on orthodoxy because you guys can't effectively rebut this relationship (two hypotheses: one evidenced, one not) but the engagement with Nessie's often leads to the same circular arguments, it's not a great look for anyone, and boring.

No not really. Example: Nessie asserted that "Dr Green rebuts Rudolf". When asked to explain how this is the case, Nessie replied: "Green rebuts Rudolf because of all the other evidence".

This is not only technically circular reasoning on the micro-level, but its is symptomatic of your side's whole problem at the macro-level. Nessie cannot express "why" Dr Green rebuts Rudolf, aside from simply "the Holocaust happened, that's why". Any room temperature IQ person would expect Dr Green's rebuttal of Rudolf to stand independent of the eyewitnesses, and by extension, support them. Not, the other way around in that Dr Green's rebuttal requires support from the eyewitnesses (?).

BA while I find your argumentation style fraudulent, I will compliment you that you seem high IQ, so you clearly must see the problems above.

[bombsaway]

The strength of the orthodox position is the large body of evidence for it, and then the corresponding absence of evidence for the revisionist position. Nessie points this out, but we all know the devil is in the details. It's not really a dunk on orthodoxy because you guys can't effectively rebut this relationship (two hypotheses: one evidenced, one not) but the engagement with Nessie's often leads to the same circular arguments, it's not a great look for anyone, and boring.

No not really. Example: Nessie asserted that "Dr Green rebuts Rudolf". When asked to explain how this is the case, Nessie replied: "Green rebuts Rudolf because of all the other evidence".

This is not only technically circular reasoning on the micro-level, but its is symptomatic of your side's whole problem at the macro-level. Nessie cannot express "why" Dr Green rebuts Rudolf, aside from simply "the Holocaust happened, that's why". Any room temperature IQ person would expect Dr Green's rebuttal of Rudolf to stand independent of the eyewitnesses, and by extension, support them. Not, the other way around in that Dr Green's rebuttal requires support from the eyewitnesses (?).

BA while I find your argumentation style fraudulent, I will compliment you that you seem high IQ, so you clearly must see the problems above.

Yes the devil is in the details, as I said. Similarly revisionists argue that mass resettlement must have happened because the gassings were impossible, so it goes both ways. I would suggest you not engage in these repetitious debates and instead focus on researching the many unanswered questions on your side or looking at aspects that haven't really been evaluated by revisionists, like Stubble did with the engine exhaust.

[HansHill]

Yes the devil is in the details, as I said. Similarly revisionists argue that mass resettlement must have happened because the gassings were impossible, so it goes both ways. I would suggest you not engage in these repetitious debates and instead focus on researching the many unanswered questions on your side or looking at aspects that haven't really been evaluated by revisionists, like Stubble did with the engine exhaust.

I don't disagree in principle - however, finding evidence of the "missing jews" whereabouts should not be the shoulder that determines whether the holocaust happened or not. There are many complexities that makes up why that cannot easily (or ever) be done as has been discussed to death. Especially when the Orthodox side's evidence is in such abysmal condition as to not even have a viable murder weapon.

Rather, as an example of what should be a slam dunk for your side to do, is to account for and explain the missing Prussian Blue residues. To reappropriate a phrase from Rudolf/Green "Chemistry is not the science" to debunk the Holocaust, but there is absolutely no reason why it (and the other hard sciences) cannot be used to prove the Holocaust.

[bombsaway]

I don't disagree in principle - however, finding evidence of the "missing jews" whereabouts should not be the shoulder that determines whether the holocaust happened or not. There are many complexities that makes up why that cannot easily (or ever) be done as has been discussed to death. Especially when the Orthodox side's evidence is in such abysmal condition as to not even have a viable murder weapon.

Sure, and these arguments have been roundly countered in this very thread (the correspondingly large amount of evidence for every other mass movement, including mass movement of Jews into Occupied USSR during this period - German Jews into Belarus, Romanian Jews into Transnistria). The honest answer here is, I dunno, or pointing to a conspiracy which is similarly unevidenced. I'm committing the crime of repetition here but saying saying the cover up here is evidenced by Soviets mangling death tolls or trying to pin Katyn on the Germans, would be like orthodoxy evidencing mass gassings by pointing to shootings that took place in the USSR.

The failure here by revisionists does not directly evidence the orthodox account, but it strengthens it in terms of circumstantial evidence. In science or anything if you have a hypothesis for something with no viable counter hypotheses being extensively sought for but not presented, that makes it stronger.

[Stubble]

I must concede error on my part attempting to disprove the Operation Reinhardt murder weapon.

It is feasible, if not practical, to use the gasoline engine from a t34 to execute persons in a facility of the size described.

This doesn't have anything to do with the marked absence of iron blue.

I just felt the need to make a clarification.

[bombsaway]

This doesn't have anything to do with the marked absence of iron blue.

I meant to respond to this, from Hill's post, but I don't think it's a slam dunk either way. If there was staining revisionists might claim the chambers were used as delousing rooms, which Mattogno does I believe. From the orthodox side, no staining does not mean no use of HCN. There are dedicated delousing rooms that have no HCN staining, likely some kind of paint was used that prevented it.

[HansHill]

I must concede error on my part attempting to disprove the Operation Reinhardt murder weapon.

It is feasible, if not practical, to use the gasoline engine from a t34 to execute persons in a facility of the size described.

This doesn't have anything to do with the marked absence of iron blue.

I just felt the need to make a clarification.

Curiosity killed the cat it seems, Mr Stubble! Fortunately, diesel exhaust did not kill any cats

[HansHill]

This doesn't have anything to do with the marked absence of iron blue.

I meant to respond to this, from Hill's post, but I don't think it's a slam dunk either way. If there was staining revisionists might claim the chambers were used as delousing rooms, which Mattogno does I believe. From the orthodox side, no staining does not mean no use of HCN. There are dedicated delousing rooms that have no HCN staining, likely some kind of paint was used that prevented it.

It seems like we are long overdue a "Prussian Blue" thread. What you are getting at above, with the observable absence of Prussian blue in other dedicated delousing facilities used in the 3R, much like the execution chambers in USA, can be explained by them being purpose-built (by Degesch) facilities which would not have any exposed Iron for the reaction to occur. That would be an hilarious design flaw on Degesch's part.

[bombsaway]

This doesn't have anything to do with the marked absence of iron blue.

I meant to respond to this, from Hill's post, but I don't think it's a slam dunk either way. If there was staining revisionists might claim the chambers were used as delousing rooms, which Mattogno does I believe. From the orthodox side, no staining does not mean no use of HCN. There are dedicated delousing rooms that have no HCN staining, likely some kind of paint was used that prevented it.

It seems like we are long overdue a "Prussian Blue" thread. What you are getting at above, with the observable absence of Prussian blue in other dedicated delousing facilities used in the 3R, much like the execution chambers in USA, can be explained by them being purpose-built (by Degesch) facilities which would not have any exposed Iron for the reaction to occur. That would be an hilarious design flaw on Degesch's part.

Why were they designed this way? https://i0.wp.com/erraticengineeress.bl ... 752%2C2022

[Stubble]

This doesn't have anything to do with the marked absence of iron blue.

I meant to respond to this, from Hill's post, but I don't think it's a slam dunk either way. If there was staining revisionists might claim the chambers were used as delousing rooms, which Mattogno does I believe. From the orthodox side, no staining does not mean no use of HCN. There are dedicated delousing rooms that have no HCN staining, likely some kind of paint was used that prevented it.

It seems like we are long overdue a "Prussian Blue" thread. What you are getting at above, with the observable absence of Prussian blue in other dedicated delousing facilities used in the 3R, much like the execution chambers in USA, can be explained by them being purpose-built (by Degesch) facilities which would not have any exposed Iron for the reaction to occur. That would be an hilarious design flaw on Degesch's part.

viewtopic.php?t=122

[HansHill]

Why were they designed this way? https://i0.wp.com/erraticengineeress.bl ... 752%2C2022

What are you asking me?

[bombsaway]

Why were they designed this way? https://i0.wp.com/erraticengineeress.bl ... 752%2C2022

What are you asking me?

You explained the lack of staining by them being "purpose built", I am asking you to expand on this rationale and giving you the specific example of delousing chambers at Dachau. You can talk about the execution chambers in the US as well.

[Nessie]

The strength of the orthodox position is the large body of evidence for it, and then the corresponding absence of evidence for the revisionist position. Nessie points this out, but we all know the devil is in the details. It's not really a dunk on orthodoxy because you guys can't effectively rebut this relationship (two hypotheses: one evidenced, one not) but the engagement with Nessie's often leads to the same circular arguments, it's not a great look for anyone, and boring.

No not really. Example: Nessie asserted that "Dr Green rebuts Rudolf". When asked to explain how this is the case, Nessie replied: "Green rebuts Rudolf because of all the other evidence".

This is not only technically circular reasoning on the micro-level, but its is symptomatic of your side's whole problem at the macro-level. Nessie cannot express "why" Dr Green rebuts Rudolf, aside from simply "the Holocaust happened, that's why".

Your disregard for evidence, and favouring of argument, is why you think that way. You cannot rebut the evidence of gassings, with evidence of something else taking place. All you can do is present arguments as to why you think the evidence of gassing fails, which is why you are really a denier, not a revisionist. You do not revise the history of Birkenau 1943-4 from a death camp to another form of camp. You are wholly reliant on arguments, such as there is not enough reside in the Leichenkeller, for mass gassing to have happened.

Any room temperature IQ person would expect Dr Green's rebuttal of Rudolf to stand independent of the eyewitnesses, and by extension, support them. Not, the other way around in that Dr Green's rebuttal requires support from the eyewitnesses (?).

BA while I find your argumentation style fraudulent, I will compliment you that you seem high IQ, so you clearly must see the problems above.

It is quite common place for there to be competing, different scientific theories and for those theories to need experimentation to establish which one is correct. There is no way that you will accept any scientist who states that Rudolf is wrong, you are so biased in favour of Rudolf and against mass gassings having happened. That is why you are desperate to dismiss the evidence.

Anyone with any understanding of scientific theory, which is what Green and Rudolf present, needs to be proven by scientific practice. Obviously, neither Green or Rudolf have been able to run experiments, gassing people inside chambers as constructed like the Leichenkellers, with Zyklon B, to see if the walls stain or not. However, it has been done, by the Nazis and it turns out, there is no staining. Therefore, Green is correct.

Bear in mind, the science came after the evidence. It is not as if Green and Rudolf were asked to predict what would happen, but if that could have happened, Green would, have predicted correctly.

Green is independent of the witnesses, he does not need them to produce his reasons why there is no blue staining, as found in the delousing chambers.