Holocaust Revisionism vs. Flat-Earth Theory

[bombsaway]

The best you can offer >currently< is, as I said, a giant question mark.

For fucks sake, do you have any idea the sheer volume of documents I'm currently wrestling with? How difficult this is with my 'cursory' German? The amount of digital tools I am using to transcribe from microfilm reels into text, to verify fidelity to original and then to translate into English and verify verbatim translation?

Have you found anything, even a single document, that evidences non-working Jews were being maintained in Occupied USSR? Until you do I don't think it's reasonable to hold this belief.

[Stubble]

The best you can offer >currently< is, as I said, a giant question mark.

For fucks sake, do you have any idea the sheer volume of documents I'm currently wrestling with? How difficult this is with my 'cursory' German? The amount of digital tools I am using to transcribe from microfilm reels into text, to verify fidelity to original and then to translate into English and verify verbatim translation?

Have you found anything, even a single document, that evidences non-working Jews were being maintained in Occupied USSR? Until you do I don't think it's reasonable to hold this belief.

A series. The orthodoxy refers to these inconvenient documents as support for the exterminationist position saying that 'evacuation' is a euphemism for murder, now, let me get back to it.

I say good day to you Sir. Good day.

[bombsaway]

For fucks sake, do you have any idea the sheer volume of documents I'm currently wrestling with? How difficult this is with my 'cursory' German? The amount of digital tools I am using to transcribe from microfilm reels into text, to verify fidelity to original and then to translate into English and verify verbatim translation?

Have you found anything, even a single document, that evidences non-working Jews were being maintained in Occupied USSR? Until you do I don't think it's reasonable to hold this belief.

A series. The orthodoxy refers to these inconvenient documents as support for the exterminationist position saying that 'evacuation' is a euphemism for murder, now, let me get back to it.

I say good day to you Sir. Good day.

I'd be interested to see the documents. The euphemism thing could be easily shown to be non-homidical if we have say the slightest detail about where they were being evacuated to. I'm sure there were some legit evacuations, especially when ghettos were being consolidated, during 41/42. Past this, the ghettos and all family camps were liquidated, with non-working inhabitants being killed or deported to Auschwitz where the evidence trail ends for them.

[HansHill]

I'm tagging out from this abortion of a thread too

[Keen]

This isn't debate. It really isn't even an argument. But no one is forced to participate.

There should be a distinction between threads like this and real debate threads.

And the real debate threads should require that when an allegation is made, and the poster is challenged on it, it must be substantiated or an admission of such be required. People who are caught in a lie or who refuse to answer questions about their unsubstantiated allegations should not be allowed to post in that thread again. I think that would make the trolls think twice about posting their lies.

The problem, as I see it, is that it would require a lot of moderation.

We've seen how the hasbara trolls have no interest in actual debate. In fact, they absolutely refuse to engage in real debate when challenged. I'm VERY anti censorship, and don't like the idea of banning someone from the site, but if a person refuses to substantiate an allegation or answer a relevant question, then they shold not be allowed to participate in that thread.

[ConfusedJew]

You're both utterly deranged.

As Archie has told you both ~5 pages ago, the analogy you are straining to make with Flat Earth is a scientific one. Flat Earth is a scientific conspiracy. You got caught with your pants down already once Bombsaway by glossing over this little doozey, probably because you've both been utterly embarrassed in any of the half a dozen chemistry threads.

Flat Earthers claim there is a scientific conspiracy while Holocaust deniers assert that there is a historical conspiracy. There is a ton of scientific evidence against the Flat Earthers while there is a ton of historical evidence against Holocaust deniers.

Many of the arguments are even very similar in style.

Selective Use of Evidence
Flat Earthers: Point to visual impressions like a flat horizon while ignoring overwhelming scientific data (satellite images, physics, navigation).
Holocaust deniers: Focus on tiny details (like blue stains on walls, or witness contradictions) while ignoring mountains of evidence (documents, testimonies, photographs, physical remains).

“If I can’t explain it, it must be false”
Flat Earth: “If the Earth is spinning, why don’t we feel it?”
Holocaust denial: “If the Nazis destroyed records, how do we know the exact number of victims?”
→ Both use gaps in personal understanding as if they disprove the whole body of evidence.

Misunderstanding or Misrepresenting Science/History
Flat Earthers: Misuse physics (like misunderstanding gravity or perspective).
Deniers: Misuse historical or forensic methods (misstating what documents or testimonies mean).

Conspiracy Thinking
Flat Earth: Argue that NASA, scientists, and governments all hide “the truth” for money or control.
Holocaust denial: Claim historians, governments, or “the Jews” fabricated or exaggerated the Holocaust for political reasons.

Demanding Impossible Standards of Proof
Flat Earthers: Won’t accept photos from space unless they can personally verify them.
Deniers: Won’t accept survivor testimony, Nazi records, or physical ruins unless they meet unrealistic “perfect evidence” standards.

If you were debating on a Flat Earther forum, what do you think it would take in order to persuade them that the Earth is in fact, round?

[Keen]

You're both utterly deranged.

As Archie has told you both ~5 pages ago, the analogy you are straining to make with Flat Earth is a scientific one. Flat Earth is a scientific conspiracy. You got caught with your pants down already once Bombsaway by glossing over this little doozey, probably because you've both been utterly embarrassed in any of the half a dozen chemistry threads.

Flat Earthers claim there is a scientific conspiracy while Holocaust deniers assert that there is a historical conspiracy. There is a ton of scientific evidence against the Flat Earthers while there is a ton of historical evidence against Holocaust deniers.

Many of the arguments are even very similar in style.

Selective Use of Evidence
Flat Earthers: Point to visual impressions like a flat horizon while ignoring overwhelming scientific data (satellite images, physics, navigation).
Holocaust deniers: Focus on tiny details (like blue stains on walls, or witness contradictions) while ignoring mountains of evidence (documents, testimonies, photographs, physical remains).

“If I can’t explain it, it must be false”
Flat Earth: “If the Earth is spinning, why don’t we feel it?”
Holocaust denial: “If the Nazis destroyed records, how do we know the exact number of victims?”
→ Both use gaps in personal understanding as if they disprove the whole body of evidence.

Misunderstanding or Misrepresenting Science/History
Flat Earthers: Misuse physics (like misunderstanding gravity or perspective).
Deniers: Misuse historical or forensic methods (misstating what documents or testimonies mean).

Conspiracy Thinking
Flat Earth: Argue that NASA, scientists, and governments all hide “the truth” for money or control.
Holocaust denial: Claim historians, governments, or “the Jews” fabricated or exaggerated the Holocaust for political reasons.

Demanding Impossible Standards of Proof
Flat Earthers: Won’t accept photos from space unless they can personally verify them.
Deniers: Won’t accept survivor testimony, Nazi records, or physical ruins unless they meet unrealistic “perfect evidence” standards.

If you were debating on a Flat Earther forum, what do you think it would take in order to persuade them that the Earth is in fact, round?

[Archie]

The best you can offer >currently< is, as I said, a giant question mark.

For fucks sake, do you have any idea the sheer volume of documents I'm currently wrestling with? How difficult this is with my 'cursory' German? The amount of digital tools I am using to transcribe from microfilm reels into text, to verify fidelity to original and then to translate into English and verify verbatim translation?

Have you found anything, even a single document, that evidences non-working Jews were being maintained in Occupied USSR? Until you do I don't think it's reasonable to hold this belief.

You are making a textbook argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance,[a] is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.

The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. If a proposition has not yet been proven true, one is not entitled to conclude, solely on that basis, that it is false, and if a proposition has not yet been proven false, one is not entitled to conclude, solely on that basis, that it is true.[1][2] Another way of expressing this is that a proposition is true only if proven true, and a proposition is false only if proven false. If no proof is offered (in either direction), then the proposition can be called unproven, undecided, inconclusive, an open problem or a conjecture.

In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Stubble]

Have you found anything, even a single document, that evidences non-working Jews were being maintained in Occupied USSR? Until you do I don't think it's reasonable to hold this belief.

A series. The orthodoxy refers to these inconvenient documents as support for the exterminationist position saying that 'evacuation' is a euphemism for murder, now, let me get back to it.

I say good day to you Sir. Good day.

I'd be interested to see the documents. The euphemism thing could be easily shown to be non-homidical if we have say the slightest detail about where they were being evacuated to. I'm sure there were some legit evacuations, especially when ghettos were being consolidated, during 41/42. Past this, the ghettos and all family camps were liquidated, with non-working inhabitants being killed or deported to Auschwitz where the evidence trail ends for them.

[ConfusedJew]

Have you found anything, even a single document, that evidences non-working Jews were being maintained in Occupied USSR? Until you do I don't think it's reasonable to hold this belief.

You are making a textbook argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance,[a] is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.

It's the opposite. There's no reason to believe that's true and there's evidence to believe that it's not true.

There's no evidence in favor of Jews being resettled in the Soviet Union, a lot of evidence against it, and you still insist on the explanation that it happened.

Like I've said before, anything is statistically possible, but the likelihood of this is less than 0.00000001%.

I'm tired of this because I don't think there's any about of evidence or sense that would change your minds but I am curious what you think could be done to change the mind of Flat Earthers or do you think those people are just way too far gone?

We could launch them into space but that would cost want too much money and take way too much effort so nobody would actually do that. And then they would just argue that people don't want to do it because they know it's going to be flat.

[Archie]

Have you found anything, even a single document, that evidences non-working Jews were being maintained in Occupied USSR? Until you do I don't think it's reasonable to hold this belief.

You are making a textbook argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance,[a] is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.

It's the opposite. There's no reason to believe that's true and there's evidence to believe that it's not true.

There's no evidence in favor of Jews being resettled in the Soviet Union, a lot of evidence against it, and you still insist on the explanation that it happened.

Like I've said before, anything is statistically possible, but the likelihood of this is less than 0.00000001%.

I'm tired of this because I don't think there's any about of evidence or sense that would change your minds but I am curious what you think could be done to change the mind of Flat Earthers or do you think those people are just way too far gone?

We could launch them into space but that would cost want too much money and take way too much effort so nobody would actually do that. And then they would just argue that people don't want to do it because they know it's going to be flat.

Is it easier to prove that millions of Jews were executed at a small number of precisely known locations?

Or is it easier to prove whether they survived?

Imo, the former should be quite easy while the latter is extremely difficult. So it is strange to attempt to prove the former by way of an argument from ignorance regarding the latter point (along the lines of "you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them.")

[bombsaway]

Is it easier to prove that millions of Jews were executed at a small number of precisely known locations?

Or is it easier to prove whether they survived?

Imo, the former should be quite easy while the latter is extremely difficult. So it is strange to attempt to prove the former by way of an argument from ignorance regarding the latter point (along the lines of "you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them.")

This is wild Archie, the issue with revisionism is not that you haven't proven "resettlement" comprehensively or in its entirety, it's that you haven't evidenced a single aspect of it . For instance, if you could point to records of food/fuel/supplies being delivered en masse to settlement zones (as exists for ghettos) this would be an aspect of it. But there's zip. There aren't even any rumors or second hand information. There's no transport records or witness testimonies that evidence the transport, again like there is to the Reinhardt camps/Chelmno/Auschwitz. Zeros across the board.

"you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them."

This is ridiculous since I've explicitly said otherwise in this thread: "This is not an argument why orthodoxy is correct. If you're going abscond responsibility from doing proper history, it's an argument about why your thought leaders are fools." It's why I think you guys are pathological. You're not properly grappling with the enormous flaws in your belief system, which is a sign of derangement of some kind. By grappling, I mean writing about it, formalizing research and arguments. How much has Mattogno written about the issue? Maybe a few dozen pages, compared to the many thousands that make up his oeuvre.