Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210 
|
Post by Nessie on May 31, 2022 13:36:33 GMT
... There is nothing simple about the holohoax. The Holocaust, to be a hoax, requires the coaching of hundreds of witnesses to speak in courts, to historians and jounrnalists. It needs the planting of evidence for gassings and the hiding of all the evidence as to what did happen. It needs international cooperation between governments, universities and the media. It would be an incredibly complex hoax to run. Holocaust denial is very simple. Think up excuses to dismiss the evidence for mass gassings and claim there is no need to evidence what did happen.
Occam's Razor tells us that means denial is the hoax.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 31, 2022 15:01:15 GMT
... There is nothing simple about the holohoax. The Holocaust, to be a hoax, requires the coaching of hundreds of witnesses to speak in courts, to historians and jounrnalists. No it doesnโt. That has been explained to you using the writings of Bernays and Chomsky. You are in denial or lying or both. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on May 31, 2022 15:20:20 GMT
The Holocaust, to be a hoax, requires the coaching of hundreds of witnesses to speak in courts, to historians and jounrnalists. No it doesnโt. That has been explained to you using the writings of Bernays and Chomsky. You are in denial or lying or both. Yes it does. Hundreds of witnesses appeared in the numerous trials, and their role in the mass deception was to knowingly lie. You regard them as liars, as according to you, they lied about seeing gas chambers when they were inside the AR camps or A-B Kremas. Those people also lied to historians and journalists when they were interviewed about what had happened to them.
For the hoax to work requires both Jewish prisoners and Nazi camp staff lied about mass gassings.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 1, 2022 9:36:03 GMT
The key element of the Holocaust was mass gassings. Mass gassings is the one part of the Holocaust that revisionists dispute.
Mass mistreatment of Jews, mass shootings by the EG, terrible death tolls in the camps due to disease, are all acknowledged by revisionists. The only part of the Holocaust that revisionists say was hoaxed, is the mass gassings.
1. Revising is a verb, not a noun. 2. People who seek a fair and rigorous revising of this particular, protected, fixed, off-limits narrative are not one fixed body. 3. Therefore there is no unanimous โrevisionistโ fixed position or crede. Do we agree? Yes to 1. No to 2. The revising revisionists propose, is not fair and rigorous. It is based on arguments using logical fallacies and is designed to promote a hoax. A partial yes to 3. Whilst there is some variance in the revisionist position, its core is that there were no mass gassings. Mass gassings either took place inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas, or they did not. There is no middle ground to that. Denial is inherently bad, since it is anti-Semitic and based on fallacious arguments. Show an example of me flipping 180 degrees on an argument. You have repeatedly claimed mass gassings as described by witnesses, were a physical impossibility. That argument is also used by other revisionists, who deny that mass gassings took place and who say all the witnesses lied. From Mattogno, to Rudolf, to Berg, to the regular posters here, that is how you all try to argue that there were no mass gassings. |
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 1, 2022 17:25:53 GMT
... There is nothing simple about the holohoax. The Holocaust, to be a hoax, requires the coaching of hundreds of witnesses to speak in courts, to historians and jounrnalists. It needs the planting of evidence for gassings and the hiding of all the evidence as to what did happen. It needs international cooperation between governments, universities and the media. It would be an incredibly complex hoax to run. Holocaust denial is very simple. Think up excuses to dismiss the evidence for mass gassings and claim there is no need to evidence what did happen.
Occam's Razor tells us that means denial is the hoax.
It already has half of that and doesn't need the other half. Witnesses were liars and propaganda was already rife before wars end. No evidence of gassing was planted. And if nothing happened then there's no need to hide what did happen. So you're wrong and ive just shown you how. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 1, 2022 18:22:12 GMT
The Holocaust, to be a hoax, requires the coaching of hundreds of witnesses to speak in courts, to historians and jounrnalists. It needs the planting of evidence for gassings and the hiding of all the evidence as to what did happen. It needs international cooperation between governments, universities and the media. It would be an incredibly complex hoax to run. Holocaust denial is very simple. Think up excuses to dismiss the evidence for mass gassings and claim there is no need to evidence what did happen.
Occam's Razor tells us that means denial is the hoax.
It already has half of that and doesn't need the other half. Witnesses were liars and propaganda was already rife before wars end. No evidence of gassing was planted. And if nothing happened then there's no need to hide what did happen. So you're wrong and ive just shown you how. The only thing the denier hoax needs is a few arguments that some people find convincing. It does not rely on any evidence. |
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 2, 2022 11:21:42 GMT
It already has half of that and doesn't need the other half. Witnesses were liars and propaganda was already rife before wars end. No evidence of gassing was planted. And if nothing happened then there's no need to hide what did happen. So you're wrong and ive just shown you how. The only thing the denier hoax needs is a few arguments that some people find convincing. It does not rely on any evidence. It relies on extensive evidence in numerous books and this is shown even in the one real life debate that has occurred. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 2, 2022 11:33:31 GMT
The only thing the denier hoax [revisionist position] needs is a few arguments that some people find convincing. It does not rely on any evidence. It relies on extensive evidence in numerous books and this is shown even in the one real life debate that has occurred. Which debate are you referring to, MrO? ๐ค |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 2, 2022 12:02:04 GMT
There is no evidence to support the denier lies. Instead, deniers lie that there is no evidence of the mass gassings. The denier hoax merely needs people to fall for a few simple lies.
|
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 2, 2022 18:36:38 GMT
It relies on extensive evidence in numerous books and this is shown even in the one real life debate that has occurred. Which debate are you referring to, MrO? ๐ค Weber vs Shermer. If there's another one that'll be cool |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 2, 2022 19:21:12 GMT
Which debate are you referring to, MrO? ๐ค Weber vs Shermer. If there's another one that'll be cool Ok. Thatโs the only genuine debate I know of too. And Shermer was not an expert. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 8:30:59 GMT
Weber vs Shermer. If there's another one that'll be cool Ok. Thatโs the only genuine debate I know of too. And Shermer was not an expert. Shermer is an expert in spotting hoaxes and why people believe in them. Webber is one of the few historians who have fallen for the denier hoax. |
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 3, 2022 11:53:30 GMT
Ok. Thatโs the only genuine debate I know of too. And Shermer was not an expert. Shermer is an expert in spotting hoaxes and why people believe in them. Webber is one of the few historians who have fallen for the denier hoax. Michael Shermer was unable to demonstrate any problems with revisionism in this debate. In fact the best he could manage was to rest his case on an aggregate of points. Much like Pressac's incompetence. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 12:10:08 GMT
Shermer is an expert in spotting hoaxes and why people believe in them. Webber is one of the few historians who have fallen for the denier hoax. Michael Shermer was unable to demonstrate any problems with revisionism in this debate. In fact the best he could manage was to rest his case on an aggregate of points. Much like Pressac's incompetence. He pointed out the greatest weakness in denier claims, they cannot evidence what did happen instead. |
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 3, 2022 16:36:17 GMT
Michael Shermer was unable to demonstrate any problems with revisionism in this debate. In fact the best he could manage was to rest his case on an aggregate of points. Much like Pressac's incompetence. He pointed out the greatest weakness in denier claims, they cannot evidence what did happen instead. Ive got that debate in one of my hard drives. Where does he say that or where does he make this point? Do you have a time frame? Even a rough one will do. Or are you just bull shitting again? |
|
