What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 1:44 pm
TreesAreGreen wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:35 am
The Holocaust deniers’ [skeptics’] narrative (which has no evidence to support it) is that over a million people were not murdered in extermination camps but somehow magically were resettled in unknown places and left no evidence.
Wrong!
You don't even understand what you are arguing against, Goody/TreesAreGreen

Concentrate now. I shall try and help you understand.
Ready?
Here it is: skeptics of the protected belief-system have pointed out that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to gass 3 - 4 million people and make the remains DISAPPEAR in the way claimed, with the equipment claimed, at the places claimed.
There!
THAT IS IT!!!!
Ok? Understand now?
The method used to by deniers determine the supposed physical impossibility of mass gassing is flawed and unreliable. It is based on a series of logical fallacies.
There is no need to present an alternative narrative to show that the one being forced on a gullible public defies the realms of practical possibility.
Meaning you do not want to look into your problem of there being no evidenced alternative as you have closed your mind to that issue.
Your pseudo historical belief-system is flawed.
'Aspects' of it make no sense.
The core belief of mass-gassing of millions in extermination camps doesn't withstand scrutiny.
That's all.
You have hoodwinked your self into thinking denier claims withstand scrutiny.
If YOU 'faithful believers' insist it does, then YOU have to prove it. E.g. show us the evidence of ground disturbance for burying all the bodies at Treblinka 2.
That has been done, with contemporary photographs of the camp site and two archaeological/forensic examinations.
Show us some of the tons of ash with bone shards and teeth in the claimed mass graves there.
Explain why the Staffordshire University criminal-archeological research team under Sturdy-Colls couldn't find any of it.
Etc., etc.
Now you just lying. The C S-C team did find cremated remains at the site. Even some 70 years later, they found bits of cremated bone lying on the surface of the ground.
Understand yet?
It's quite simple if you TRY to think it through logically.

Seriously. Try it. Try thinking it through instead of just 'believing'. The principle is that we test our own belief.
That will require that you also stop trying to argue against your own deceitful and illogical strawman distortions of what the actual debate is.

TreesAreGreen wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:35 am
All you have to do is ask one of them to provide evidence for his/her claim and you will see that he/she responds with no evidence and using various fallacies to avoid answering simple questions about his/her alternative history.
See above.
Skeptics and revisionists are not claiming any alternative narrative. They are simply pointing out the empirical reality being denied by 'believers' of those aspects of the protected, off-limits narrative that are not possible.

TreesAreGreen wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:35 am
As been-there himself admitted very earlier on in the thread:
been-there wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:33 pm
No, it is definitely NOT required to provide an alternative.
If a narrative can be irrefutably shown to be false using EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, that is sufficient.
This is basic logic.
No wonder Holocaust deniers never bother to confront any historians with their Holocaust denial claims. :D
WRONG again! I confronted Dr. Nick Terry with this. So you are deceiving yourself. I tried to have rational, reasonable debate with him. He and his cohorts resorted to ad hominem abuse before finally blocking then banning me when they were unable to argue against their irrational, cult-like approach being analysed.

Skeptics and revisionists are not 'denying' anything that is possible of being empirically proven.
We are instead merely pointing out the flaws and impossibilities in the compulsory, belief-system by using the scientific principle of empirical research.
I understand this is hard for people to grasp who prefer to just believe.
But there it is: deal with it.
The empirical paradigm is based on falsifiability.
Not upon belief-buttressing through confirmation-bias cherry-picking (alias a forced 'convergence' of testimonial evidence).

So applying all the logical fallacies you like — as you and every H-believer I have ever discussed with do — will not alter that fact.
I suggest for your own integrity that you try and finally understand this and deal with it.
You cannot claim integrity and rationality when you refuse to look at what did happen, if it was not gassings.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:58 pm
....
Remember, this isn't about me. Nor you.
It is about truth and what is historically accurate.

A genuine regard for the truth and historical accuracy, would not show a complete disinterest in establishing what did happen.

Claiming something did not happen and then leaving it at that, is naturally an incomplete investigation.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:13 pm
TreesAreGreen wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:31 pm
Been-there’s narrative:
I claim that “revisionists” have proven that it was physically impossible to have gassed millions of Jews...
CORRECT. Well done. :D Only I clarify by saying "in the way claimed, using the equipment claimed, at the sites claimed". Of course it is and therefore WAS humany possible to have gassed millions. Just not in the way the eye-witnesses allege.

.....
Which is not a recognised means of determining the truth as to what happened. No academic discipline, art or science uses that method to reach a conclusion. That form of argument is unique to denial.

Gassings are possible.
Some eye witnesses say things that would not work in a gassing.
Therefore no gassings.

That is an obvious non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The denier claim ignores witness unreliability, what witnesses were asked to give details about and conflates hearsay with eye witness evidence.

Just because a witness said something that would not apparently work, does not therefore mean it could not work at all. You admit that.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:37 pm
TreesAreGreen totally ignores the impossibilities claimed for Treblinka and wails, "Where did they goooo?". Well, TAG, the Jews for damned sure weren't gassed or asphyxiated in any cockamamie hermetically sealed gas/vacuum chambers at Treblinka so wail away. Your wail is irrelevant.
A hermetically sealed gas chamber makes sense. It would not blow up as you claim, at most the engine would stall or a pipe rupture and that is easily prevented with a simple vent, and we know vents were used in gassing vans.

The claims about use of a vacuum have been explained. It was a rumour based on an apparent attempt to pump the air out of a chamber.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:26 am
.....

And more and more people who investigate it....
Very few deniers have actually investigated the Holocaust. You can count on one hand the number of deniers who have sought out original documents. None have interviewed any witnesses. One attempted a partial physical investigation at one camp site and it was so badly done, other deniers ignore it. Of those who have done some primary research, a few have gone on to admit they were wrong; BRoI, Cole, Irving. The rest have failed to find any evidence to show gassings did not happen and what happened at the AR camps and inside the A-B kremas instead.

Some deniers have had a go at a pretty detailed investigation of secondary sources, such as Thomas Kues, Eric Hunt and FP Berg. But they made mistakes, showed a lack of knowledge of the historical method and again, one has gone on to admit he was wrong.

The majority of deniers are wholly inept at carrying out any form of investigation. Time and again they get caught out plagiarising secondary sources, which proves a lack of understanding. The fall for fallacious arguments and show a total lack of knowledge about witness evidence, even failing to correctly identify hearsay from eye witness evidence. Their idea of an investigation is to read only what suits their desired outcome, ignore the rest and claim that they do not need to establish the truth of what happened.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 8322
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Turnagain »

TreesAreGreen wrote:
Rubbish. I highly doubt you really believe what you posted.
You can stamp your feet and shriek, "Did not, did not" from now til forever but that isn't going to change what the Treblinka eyewitnesses said.
From:
The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

State of Israel
Ministry of Justice

The Trial Of Adolf Eichmann
Volume III

Record of Proceedings in the District Court of Jerusalem
Session 66
(Part 8 of 9)

Presiding Judge: In each such building were there several chambers?

Witness Rosenberg: I have already said that this building had three chambers. Here, there were five on this side and five on that side. Once - and I remember this well - all the gas chambers were operating. Ten thousand people entered all at once, within forty-five minutes. This was a transport of thirteen thousand persons who had arrived on that day.

Q. Was each chamber hermetically sealed?

A. Yes, every chamber was sealed absolutely hermetically.

Q. How?

A. Here, there was a kind of folding door. Before the people went inside, we closed it. This was a door that opened downwards. We extracted the "clins."

Q. What are "clins"?

A. They were pieces of wood that used to hold the doors in place. When the door was folded and fell to the bottom, there were actually two boards there. One was on top of the door and the other at the bottom, and again, with these pieces of wood, these clins, we closed it hermetically and stood to the side. After thirty to forty minutes...

Q. Did you attend to this hermetic closing?

A. Yes, Sir. We closed it from the outside. Before that, the Germans stood on the ramp and watched what was going on inside. When they said "alles schlaeft," we opened it up and stood aside for three minutes until the fumes had dispersed, and then we removed them. We threw them down from this ramp.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Rosenberg, you have concluded your testimony.
That is from the transcript of the Eichmann trial. As you can see, Rosenberg plainly states that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. A conventionally built brick building cannot withstand the effects of a vacuum nor the pressure differential resulting from a 27 liter engine being turned into it. Even at .5 atm there would be tons of pressure exerted on every interior surface of the building.

The Treblinka gas chambers were an impossibility. They could NOT have existed as claimed by the eyewitnesses.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:40 pm
....
That is from the transcript of the Eichmann trial. As you can see, Rosenberg plainly states that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. A conventionally built brick building cannot withstand the effects of a vacuum nor the pressure differential resulting from a 27 liter engine being turned into it. Even at .5 atm there would be tons of pressure exerted on every interior surface of the building.

The Treblinka gas chambers were an impossibility. They could NOT have existed as claimed by the eyewitnesses.
The engine would have stalled or a pipe failed long before the brick, concrete and tiled structure would have imploded or blown apart.

There is documentary evidence the Germans knew about pressure issues and solved it was a simple hinged vent.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 8322
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Turnagain »

Yep, here's Nessie with his "what if" and "coulda, woulda". Never mind what the witnesses said, Nessie has a "what if" for every occasion.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:53 pm
Yep, here's Nessie with his "what if" and "coulda, woulda". Never mind what the witnesses said, Nessie has a "what if" for every occasion.
No, it is a fact that the engine would stall long before the building itself would implode/explode. It is a fact that all references to a vacuum are hearsay and no witness said they saw it actually happen, save for one reported attempt. It is a fact there is a document that records the fitting of a vent to solve pressure issues for gassings.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 8322
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Turnagain »

When Nessie's "what if" doesn't work he simply lies.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 19 guests