Is an intermediate/compromise position viable?

What you have censored, by removing it, is my reply to your claim that, "if evidence refutes ANY claim, it is obviously (🙄🤦‍♂️) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.