|
Post by been_there on Dec 14, 2022 11:19:56 GMT
...there is a major inconsistency in your comment. You say: "What it proves is that historians have checked the evidence critically and weeded out any false claims." Go ahead and (unconvincingly) spin Dachau that way if you want. You could not possibly spin an Auschwitz retraction that way. If the Auschwitz story is false, that means the "Holocaust revisionists" had it right the whole time and the court historians upheld an enormous lie for over 75 years. It would mean that they FAILED utterly to "weed out false claims." The only way "Holocaust revisionists" had it right the whole time, would be if evidence was found as to what happened... Oh boy! ๐คฆโโ๏ธ This is a quite insane true-believer position. As has been explained to this comprehension-challenged person before, if evidence refutes ANY claim, it is obviously (๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ) not required for those presenting that evidence to provide evidence for an alternative scenario (in Nessie speak: โwhat happened insteadโ). E.g. 1. If evidence of rabbit fossils from the pre-cumbrian era are discovered, that blows the theory of macro-evolution out of the water! It proves it to be WRONG! An alternative explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is not required to sustain that refuration of the currently consensus view. Only a retard or a troll intent on winding people would not understand and accept this simple logic. Similarly if it could be empirically proven that someone in jail for the last thirty years for rape was not the culprit, it is OBVIOUSLY not necessary to prove who was the rapist, for the falsely convicted person to be released and paid compensation. Only an idiot or someone intent on disruption would not concede this simple fact. Consequently when it is eventually conceded that empirical evidence already exists refuting the currently accepted, enforced and legally-protected holocaust mass-gassing claim โ at Auschwitz Birkenau and every other alleged extermination camp besides Chelmno โ it is onbiously, obviously, obviously (๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ) not required for those presenting that evidence to give some alternative scenario. That will be the embarrassing task of the die-hard, brain-dead, holyhoax true-believers who are too stubborn and stupid to accept reality and are ironically the ones who are actually in denial of it. ๐
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,834
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 14, 2022 12:28:16 GMT
The only way "Holocaust revisionists" had it right the whole time, would be if evidence was found as to what happened... Oh boy! ๐คฆโโ๏ธ This is a quite insane true-believer position. As has been explained to this comprehension-challenged person before, if evidence refutes ANY claim, it is obviously (๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ) not required for those presenting that evidence to provide evidence for an alternative scenario (in Nessie speak: โwhat happened insteadโ). E.g. 1. If evidence of rabbit fossils from the pre-cumbrian era are discovered, that blows the theory of macro-evolution out of the water! It proves it to be WRONG! An alternative explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is not required to sustain that refuration of the currently consensus view. Only a retard or a troll intent on winding people would not understand and accept this simple logic. Similarly if it could be empirically proven that someone in jail for the last thirty years for rape was not the culprit, it is OBVIOUSLY not necessary to prove who was the rapist, for the falsely convicted person to be released and paid compensation. Only an idiot or someone intent on disruption would not concede this simple fact. Consequently when it is eventually conceded that empirical evidence already exists refuting the currently accepted, enforced and legally-protected holocaust mass-gassing claim โ at Auschwitz Birkenau and every other alleged extermination camp besides Chelmno โ it is onbiously, obviously, obviously (๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ) not required for those presenting that evidence to give some alternative scenario. That will be the embarrassing task of the die-hard, brain-dead, holyhoax true-believers who are too stubborn and stupid to accept reality and are ironically the ones who are actually in denial of it. ๐ Whilst theoretically, revisionism does not need to present evidence as to what happened, it greatly weakens the claims of revisionism to not be able to evidence what did happen, to the point that revisionist claims can be logically, evidentially and correctly rejected. I do not need to resort to childish abuse or censoring replies by removing them, to explain the problem with the revisionist position of claiming they have no need to present an alternative scenario, because the logic and evidence speaks for itself. Only weak arguments need to be bolstered with comments about sanity, stupidity or idiocy and protected by removing replies.
Revisionism rejects claims as to what happened inside certain camps, but it cannot evidence what did happen. Logically, that means the revisionist rejections of the existing evidence, is wrong. To paraphrase Conan Doyle, when there is one evidenced outcome, however improbable it is, it must be the truth. It does not matter that revisionists do not believe and cannot work out how gassings, mass graves and pyres or mass cremations in ovens were done, if there is evidence that is what happened. Obviously, revisionist doubts and calculations are flawed. Alternatively, just because I believe and can work out how gassings, mass graves and pyres etc were done, does not therefore mean it was done. It is the contemporaneous evidence from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology and circumstances, that determines if something was done or not. The evidence as to what happened inside certain camps is that mass murders took place. There is no evidence something else happened and those people left the camps. Simple logic and evidencing means the revisionist position is wrong.
Some revisionists, such as Mattogno understand that, as they try to evidence what did happen. But, much of the evidence presented by Mattogno, is evidence that is for the historical narrative of mass killings, which he tries to spin into meaning something else happened, for example, the Kremas were used for mass showering. Various alternatives for what happened inside the Kremas has been suggested. Butz suggested they were used as air raid shelters. Mattogno also suggested they were used for delousing. Those alternatives fall down because of a lack of evidence to support the claims and a failure to evidence those supposedly not gassed even left the camp.
Regarding the examples provided about rabbit fossils and an overturned rape conviction, the problem is that scientists and the police would consider it their duty, on finding out that a mistake had been made, to establish what had happened. Leaving both open-ended would mean never knowing what happened, and that is hardly a satisfactory position. Revisionists may be happy not knowing, but they are alone in revelling in their ignorance. Rational people want to know what did happen.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Dec 14, 2022 12:46:55 GMT
Oh boy! ๐คฆโโ๏ธ This is a quite insane true-believer position. As has been explained to this comprehension-challenged person before, if evidence refutes ANY claim, it is obviously (๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ) not required for those presenting that evidence to provide evidence for an alternative scenario (in Nessie speak: โwhat happened insteadโ). E.g. 1. If evidence of rabbit fossils from the pre-cumbrian era are discovered, that blows the theory of macro-evolution out of the water! It proves it to be WRONG! An alternative explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is not required to sustain that refuration of the currently consensus view. Only a retard or a troll intent on winding people would not understand and accept this simple logic. Similarly if it could be empirically proven that someone in jail for the last thirty years for rape was not the culprit, it is OBVIOUSLY not necessary to prove who was the rapist, for the falsely convicted person to be released and paid compensation. Only an idiot or someone intent on disruption would not concede this simple fact. Consequently when it is eventually conceded that empirical evidence already exists refuting the currently accepted, enforced and legally-protected holocaust mass-gassing claim โ at Auschwitz Birkenau and every other alleged extermination camp besides Chelmno โ it is obiously, obviously, obviously (๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ) not required for those presenting that evidence to give some alternative scenario. That will be the embarrassing task of the die-hard, brain-dead, holyhoax true-believers who are too stubborn and stupid to accept reality and are ironically the ones who are actually in denial of it. ๐ Whilst theoretically, revisionism does not need to present evidence as to what happened... blah, blah, blah, [nonsense, avoidance waffle snipped]
Regarding the examples provided about rabbit fossils and an overturned rape conviction, the problem is that scientists and the police would consider it their duty, on finding out that a mistake had been made, to establish what had happened. Leaving both open-ended would mean never knowing what happened, and that is hardly a satisfactory position...
[more avoidance and nonsense due to miscomprehension of the point, removed]. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ
HERE IS A TEST TO SEE WHETHER A Holocaust-DEFENDER IS APPROACHING THIS MASS-GASSING CLAIM AS A RELIGOUS TRUE-BELIEVER OR NOT. Q1a. Does a solitary rabbit fossil from the pre-Cumbrian era totally refute the current macro-evolution theory? Yes or No? Q1b. If it does refute it, does the person pointing to that irrefutable, empirical fossil evidence have to explain โwhat DID happen, thenโ to a stubborn, die-hard, unintelligent, evolution-theory true-believer, for that evidence to be acceptable? Yes or No? โโโโโโโโโโโ Q2a. Is it conceivable that chemical, biological and forensic empirical evidence could be provided which totally refutes the currently claimed death totals and methodologies that form the legally enforced mass-gassing belief-system alleging attempted genocide at Birkenau, Treblinka, Sobibor and Majdanek ? Yes or No? Q2b. If such evidence refuting it could be produced, does the person pointing to that irrefutable, empirical evidence have to explain โwhat DID happen, then?โ to a stubborn, die-hard, unintelligent, holyhoax true-believer, for that evidence to be acceptable? Yes or No?
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,834
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 14, 2022 13:58:11 GMT
Whilst theoretically, revisionism does not need to present evidence as to what happened... blah, blah, blah, [nonsense, avoidance waffle snipped]
Regarding the examples provided about rabbit fossils and an overturned rape conviction, the problem is that scientists and the police would consider it their duty, on finding out that a mistake had been made, to establish what had happened. Leaving both open-ended would mean never knowing what happened, and that is hardly a satisfactory position...
[more avoidance and nonsense due to miscomprehension of the point, removed]. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ
What you have censored, by removing it, is my reply to your claim that, "if evidence refutes ANY claim, it is obviously (๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ) not required for those presenting that evidence to provide evidence for an alternative scenario". I have pointed out that whilst you do not need to evidence an alternative scenario, the failure to do so, logically and evidentially destroys your claims that the evidenced scenario did not happen. You cannot refute my point, so you dodge it by removing it and calling it "nonsense" etc. I don't know a huge amount about the subject, by I would think the most likely answer is no, because a single piece of evidence from one fossil would not be enough to bring down an entire theory. No, that person does not have to evidence a new theory of evolution, but it would be odd for them not to draw alternative conclusions from the new evidence. I explained that to you above, in the answer you have snipped as "nonsense". It is normal practice, for open-minded, curious, scientists to come up with alternative theories, when a previous theory is found to be wrong. If scientists did not do that, there would be no scientific advancement. Your version of science would be a strange, backward one, where scientists are only interested in what did not happen, rather than what did happen. It is normal, when a scientific claim is refuted, to present a new alternative claim. You clearly do not know that. The same happens with the study of history. Historians will dispute claims and put forward their alternative claims. Rational, curious, open-minded people want to know what happened. You are unable to argue against that, so you censor the point by removing and dodging it. The answer is no, with regards to the arguments presently used by revisionists, which fall under the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Just because they do not believe how the mass gassings are described are possible, does not therefore mean they did not happen. That Rudolph does not believe it was possible to mass gas people, based on his calculations of the chemistry of the plaster found in the Krema walls, does not therefore mean no mass gassings. That Mattogno does not believe mass gassing people was possible, based on witness estimations as to how many were gassed or cremated at the Kremas, does not therefore mean it did not happen. The answer is yes, with regards to archaeological and forensic evidence, if the sites at the AR camps and Chelmno were surveyed and found to have ground that was largely undisturbed, with no trace of large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. A-B is more problematic, as much of the cremains were thrown into a local river. Majdanek may be possible, because of the cremains that were gathered and placed in the memorial. How accurate a death toll could be established from a pile of cremains is another issue. I have already answered that question, no, they do not have to present an alternative, but most scientists and historians would use the new evidence to put forward a new, alternative theory as to what happened, as their job is to move forward in our understanding, not to stand still as you suggest. Your suggestion that it is not required to evidence an alternative is backward and close minded thinking. You will not find many, if any scientists or historians who would agree with you that the refutation of one claim is the end of the matter and no further enquiry is needed.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Dec 14, 2022 14:28:32 GMT
[more idiotic irrelevant nonsense from Nessie was removed]
...I would think the most likely answer is no, because a single piece of evidence from one fossil would not be enough to bring down an entire theory. WRONG! One single, solitary rabbet fossil from the pre-Cumbrian position WOULD irrefutably refute the macro-evolution theory. This wrong answer is further proof we have a person with a โreligiousโ true-believer approach, arguing stubbornly from a position of wilful ignorance. CORRECT! Proving Nessieโs insistence that this same logic does not apply to the Holyhoax mass-gassing Jew-genocide narrative is idiotic. It also proves Nessie is aprroaching that narrative with a quasi-religious, cult-like, true-believer mind-set. Wow! A self-contradictory, nonsense answer that fails to comprehend the simple question. Further proof of the religious obstinacy of Nessieโs mind-set. CORRECT. Proving that your years-long arguing that they do was false argument, and dishonest! MISREPRESENTATION & MISCOMPREHENSION! I never claimed it would be the โend of the matterโ. Nor that โno further enquiry is needed.โ So this is further proof of a stupid and dishonest approach by Nessie to the holocaust debate.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,834
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 14, 2022 15:39:55 GMT
[more idiotic irrelevant nonsense from Nessie was removed]
...I would think the most likely answer is no, because a single piece of evidence from one fossil would not be enough to bring down an entire theory. WRONG! One single, solitary rabbet fossil from the pre-Cumbrian position WOULD irrefutably refute the macro-evolution theory. This wrong answer is further proof we have a person with a โreligiousโ true-believer approach, arguing stubbornly from a position of wilful ignorance. I did admit to being ignorant of the subject and am happy to be corrected and accept my error. So, your "religious true-believer approach" claims are wrong. I am open-minded to being wrong, and my acceptance of where my knowledge is lacking and my error is proof of that. You are wrong and dishonest to cut and so censor my replies. You are censoring what you will respond to, because you cannot counter my point that by failing to produce an evidenced alternative, you have undermined your argument to the point it is logically and evidentially worthless. You are dodging that your argument goes against scientific and historical discovery principles, where their job is to find out what happened and when a position is refuted, scientists and historians put forward a new theory based on the new and refuted evidence. That you have decided that revisionists do not need to evidence an alternative, does not therefore mean you are correct and they do not need to. That is mere assertion on your part and you are unable to counter my argument as to how such a refusal totally undermines your claims. You have also finished off your post by contradicted yourself. You claim it is correct that an alternative does not have to be produced and then you say that you have not claimed it would be the end of the matter and no further enquiry is needed. If it is not the end of the matter and no further enquiry is needed, then it is wrong to claim no alternative needs to be produced. You cannot rationally hold both positions at the same time. You either hold the position of no alternative is needed, or you hold the position of it is not the end of the matter and further enquiry is needed. You are dodging that since revisionism cannot evidence what did happen, logically its claim that the present evidence for mass killings is wrong, is in itself wrong. If only one alternative is evidenced, not matter how unlikely that alternative is, it is the truth.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by nazgul on Dec 14, 2022 19:24:17 GMT
I think you have answered your own question. No one can hold a truly intermediate or compromise position. The responses from others here, so far, suggest they do not understand the issue you are raising. It is you and your kind at the big top that has created a false dichotomy.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by nazgul on Dec 15, 2022 3:43:38 GMT
I did admit to being ignorant of the subject and am happy to be corrected and accept my error. So, your "religious true-believer approach" claims are wrong. I am open-minded to being wrong, and my acceptance of where my knowledge is lacking and my error is proof of that. Holy moly! ๐ฎ Only in a deranged true-believer mind-set can admitting you failed a test question mean you passed the test. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ This person is arguing from ignorance the whole time, and even when she is proved to be wrong, in her mind that still somehow makes her right. You canโt win. Her cult-like true belief in the holyhoax mass-gassing narrative resists all evidence, logic and proof. ๐ Theories as you know are the highest proof possible of a scientific position. Nessie may confuse, theory with hypothesis e.g. "I have a theory on this". Newtonian physics which is still used today to get man to the Moon can be explained by quantum gravitational theory for a large part. This enables mobile phone communication and GPS to be understood to the point of functionality fit for purpose. For someone like Nessie to understand the reasoning behind Germar's work in chemistry would take some scientific literacy which he is devoid; he truly argues from ignorance. His ignorance blissfully allows him to accept bizarre situations which are impossible; this is childlike and childish. He says he is open minded to being corrected, he has done this recently in the post on Korherr so long may it continue. Hold your breath.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Dec 15, 2022 4:32:52 GMT
.... Nessie, there is a major inconsistency in your comment. You say: "What it proves is that historians have checked the evidence critically and weeded out any false claims." Go ahead and (unconvincingly) spin Dachau that way if you want. You could not possibly spin an Auschwitz retraction that way. If the Auschwitz story is false, that means the "Holocaust deniers" had it right the whole time and the court historians upheld an enormous lie for over 75 years. It would mean that they FAILED utterly to "weed out false claims." The inconsistency would only be if evidence was found that meant claims about mass gassings at A-B had to be retracted. At this time, there is no such evidence, so the claims are not being retracted, so there is no inconsistency. The only way "Holocaust deniers" had it right the whole time, would be if evidence was found as to what happened, so eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas who would say what really happened, or for historians to come forward and explain how the gassing claims were faked, and evidence the witnesses to gassings were planted and those who knew what had happened kept quiet, which would mean tracing the c900,000 supposedly killed and proving they were still alive late 1944 into 1945. You are ignoring the role of psychological and political barriers to acceptance of ideas. Correct but controversial ideas often take a long time to gain acceptance. Even if the evidence has long been available and is sitting right under our noses that doesn't mean people will instantly process and acknowledge it. One example that has been cited by revisionists is that the Donation of Constantine was shown conclusively to be a forgery around 1440 ( the Latin is anachronistic and so forth). However the inauthenticity wasn't broadly or officially acknowledged until the late 16th century and even after this there were diehards who continued to maintain it was authentic. Your model of human knowledge and of acceptance of ideas isn't realistic (instantaneous and perfect assessment of evidence with no political/psychological/financial constraints).
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by nazgul on Dec 15, 2022 8:28:07 GMT
Your model of human knowledge and of acceptance of ideas isn't realistic (instantaneous and perfect assessment of evidence with no political/psychological/financial constraints). The reason why this discourse on the holocaust has entered the phase of psychological and philosophical discussion is because the facts, the hard evidence of genocide by elimination is not there. the witnesses are all compromised; the transport chains have been broken enough to provide sufficient doubt as to the initial integrity. Nessie is not a trained philosopher, others here are.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,834
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 15, 2022 8:58:08 GMT
..... For someone like Nessie to understand the reasoning behind Germar's work in chemistry would take some scientific literacy which he is devoid; he truly argues from ignorance. His ignorance blissfully allows him to accept bizarre situations which are impossible; this is childlike and childish. He says he is open minded to being corrected, he has done this recently in the post on Korherr so long may it continue. Hold your breath. Rudolph's argument is that because there is not as much cyanide residue in the plaster in the remains of the gas chambers at Krema II as he thinks there would be, if it had been used for repeated mass gassings, therefore there were no mass gassings. He uses the argument that is popular with revisionists, whereby evidence, primarily from witnesses, is interpreted in a way, to make it appear the claim is physically impossible. Rudolph thinks it was physically impossible for repeated mass gassings to leave the level of residue he found. The logical and evidential flaws in his argument have been explained to you and others here, but clearly, none of you are able to understand.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,834
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 15, 2022 9:12:17 GMT
The inconsistency would only be if evidence was found that meant claims about mass gassings at A-B had to be retracted. At this time, there is no such evidence, so the claims are not being retracted, so there is no inconsistency. The only way "Holocaust deniers" had it right the whole time, would be if evidence was found as to what happened, so eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas who would say what really happened, or for historians to come forward and explain how the gassing claims were faked, and evidence the witnesses to gassings were planted and those who knew what had happened kept quiet, which would mean tracing the c900,000 supposedly killed and proving they were still alive late 1944 into 1945. You are ignoring the role of psychological and political barriers to acceptance of ideas. Correct but controversial ideas often take a long time to gain acceptance. Even if the evidence has long been available and is sitting right under our noses that doesn't mean people will instantly process and acknowledge it. One example that has been cited by revisionists is that the Donation of Constantine was shown conclusively to be a forgery around 1440 ( the Latin is anachronistic and so forth). However the inauthenticity wasn't broadly or officially acknowledged until the late 16th century and even after this there were diehards who continued to maintain it was authentic. Your model of human knowledge and of acceptance of ideas isn't realistic (instantaneous and perfect assessment of evidence with no political/psychological/financial constraints). The earliest claims of mass murder, especially the mass gassing claims, were often disbelieved. It took time for the claims to gain acceptance. It was the Eichmann trial in 1961 that started the process of acceptance, such as the Germans accepting they had mass murderers living normal lives in Germany and that they should be tried for their roles at the AR camps.
All of those trials and the histories of the Holocaust that also started to appear in the 1960s, were driven by the evidence. They confirmed what was already known from the immediate post war trials, such as the 1946 trial of the Topf & Sons engineers who designed and built the Kremas and who admitted they were modified for mass gassings. There was no instantaneous and perfect assessment of the evidence of mass murders, it has taken decades to reach the position we are in now and unless significant new evidence is found, that position will remain unchanged.
You are suggesting the in time, the "correct but controversial" revisionist claims of no planned mass murders and no use of mass gassings at A-B, Chelmno and the AR camps, will become accepted. That will only happen if contemporaneous evidence is found to prove what did happen and that millions of Jews survived the war, having not been gassed. That is because we now live in an age, unlike it was in 1440 and the C16th, where evidencing and proof are understood. Many claims from those times have been acknowledged and proven incorrect, because we now have a better understanding of evidence and proof. Revisionists have an understanding of evidence that is similar to people in the C16th. They easily fall for logical fallacies and argument, which they constantly confuse with actual contemporaneous evidence, and are unable to logically and chronologically piece the evidence together.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by nazgul on Dec 15, 2022 9:23:48 GMT
The logical and evidential flaws in his argument have been explained to you and others here, but clearly, none of you are able to understand. This going off topic, but you do not understand the residual effects of cyanide. Here is a real fumigation Auschwitz gaskammer with cyanide seeping through the bricks. Our knowledge of chemistry is far more advanced than yours Nessie. Rudolph's argument is that because there is not as much cyanide residue in the plaster in the remains of the gas chambers at Krema II as he thinks there would be, if it had been used for repeated mass gassings, therefore there were no mass gassings Yet photographic evidence of cyanide stains is produced online to prove the cyanide gassings such as presented below.  Sadly you cannot have it both ways. It is interesting that the images of real fumigation chambers at Auschwitz are being erased by Google.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,834
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 15, 2022 10:24:41 GMT
The logical and evidential flaws in his argument have been explained to you and others here, but clearly, none of you are able to understand. This going off topic.... I do not intend to discuss that specific issue any more. I was replying to a point Gibson raised, where he suggested that a new history will take over from the existing history of the Holocaust, which will not be an intermediate/compromise position, as the history is a binary one, either people were mass gassed in the Kremas and the AR camps, or they were not. Gibson has fallen for the flawed arguments revisionist make, the argument put forward by Rudolph is an example of that.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by nazgul on Dec 16, 2022 2:02:07 GMT
Gibson has fallen for the flawed arguments revisionist make, the argument put forward by Rudolph is an example of that. Germar's work is good science. I do not think a person with your lack of scientific literacy, nor that of the Klowns at the Big Top are qualified to judge. I doubt if you would understand his work enough to curtail his conclusions. That aside if this work was presented as evidence for any other scenario apart from the alleged gassings at Auschwitz or the alleged holocaust this would be regarded as fine scientific work. Germar would have most likely be awarded his PhD. If he had presented similar quality work as a "believer" like you and the Klowns, there would likewise in all probability be no issue. In fact I am sure you would all be quoting him screaming from the roof tops. Dr Terry would be absorbing the information as much as the kilojoules from the many pies and pastries he loves to eat. If one may learn from history, when there is a change of events such as the succession of Charles II. Charles and Parliament granted amnesty to nearly all of Cromwell's supporters in the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, 50 people were specifically excluded; these were the men who ordered or involved the execution of his father Charles I. In the end nine of the regicides were executed: they were hanged, drawn and quartered. With time the status quo will change.
|
|