Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 4:15 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 3:38 pm
Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 2:55 pm
Notice that if these jokers find one stray testimony saying something they find useful for their argument du jour they immediately latch onto it and take it as absolute gospel, even if it's not commonly accepted.
Actually, a simple search finds that historians disagree when the cremations start and I pointed out that if they started in October, November or December, what that would mean to the numbers buried. No one single date or number buried has been latched onto, and your claim is false.
But their usual line is that "witnesses are unreliable on dates." They like to say that because it gives them latitude to assume that Hoess, for example, got all of his dates massively wrong yet is somehow still a reliable witness. They just argue whatever is convenient for them in the moment. If it were the case that they needed the burnings to start later, they would be arguing for January as the start.
It is a proven fact that witnesses are unreliable about dates.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/ouco ... §ion=1
"Our ability to provide the correct date for an event may also be poor. Research testing participants’ ability to date episodes they had personally experienced showed that accuracy in dating was dependent on how long ago the episode occurred (known as the retention interval), and that accuracy decreased rapidly as the retention interval lengthened. When asked about experiences that had taken place in the previous week, participants tended to date accurately 85–90% of the time. For experiences that occurred over three months ago, however, accurate dating dropped to 15–20% (Thompson et al., 1996)."
When Gley was interviewed in 1961 and 1963, his chances of accurately remembering the date cremations started, according to the study above, was 15-20% and since that was a gap of months, likely lower.
That annoys you, but it explains why revisionists cannot produce accurate theories about the graves and cremations, because they cannot get accurate data to base the theories on. Without those theories, revisionists have nothing, as they cannot produce archaeological or witness evidence to prove no mass graves and creamtions.
The source you provided doesn't even say that cremations began in October.
USHMM said it began in October. Here it is again, so you cannot dispute it;
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... cle/belzec
"In October 1942, on orders from Odilo Globocnik, camp personnel deployed Jewish forced laborers from various locations in Lublin District to exhume the mass graves at Belzec. They ordered the forced laborers to burn the bodies on open-air “ovens” made from rail track."
You are simply hoping for that to be true because you are pushing this idiosyncratic theory (that only you and bombs believe) that some vastly lower number of bodies were buried than has traditionally been assumed.
The real point I am making, that you are dodging, is that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive as to how many corpses were buried and cremated.
(You can't even explain what they did with these bodies while they were in queue to be cremated).
I said that they would have gone straight from the gas chambers to the pyres. There would not need to be a queue.
Again, I will take that as a concession on your part that the 600,000 figure cannot be defended.
USHMM (same link as used above) states, "German authorities had murdered approximately 434,500 Jews at the site."
The camp's museum site states, "about 450 thousand people were murdered there".
https://www.belzec.eu/en/history/camp_history/2
So, no, I do not defend the 600,000 figure. It is at the top of end of a range, which again, means revisionist theories do not have reliable data to work off, so they cannot be assumed to be accurate. With inaccurate theories about burials and cremations and no witnesses or archaeological evidence, revisionism has little to contribute.