𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸
🕵️
𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎
Posts: 1,457 
|
Post by 𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸 on Mar 29, 2023 0:29:23 GMT
Now, Gibson, this hurts my feelings. I thought I was being warm and hospitable.  The Holocaust is a hoax link |
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on Mar 29, 2023 2:00:28 GMT
Now, Gibson, this hurts my feelings. I thought I was being warm and hospitable. The Holocaust is a hoax linkBecause it is too hard for Gibson to understand. FFS, work on your reading comprehension skills. |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 29, 2023 2:27:06 GMT
If you want books that go through the primary evidence for the Holocaust rather than online sources, then there are plenty of them by historians such as David Cesarani and Lawrence Rees. Your attempts to claim there is little evidence of mass gassings, is mere deflection from your total lack of evidence to show what happened instead. You are so full of it. Let's take a look at the Cesarani book. -1,000+ pages. About half of it covers the pre-Barbarossa period (i.e., mostly irrelevant) -Passages on the gas chambers merely tell you the harmonized current version of the story without explaining how any of it was determined. The footnotes generally point you to other secondary sources and/or Jewish memoirs. -From what I can see, there is no discussion of forensics or physical evidence. -It does not even acknowledge much less respond to any revisionist arguments. He has a couple of footnotes for Pressac and Van Pelt. If we look at his treatment of Treblinka (p. 503-511), we see that he just tells you the standard story. The footnotes point you to ... Wiernik and Arad. It is utterly laughable that you would recommend something like this as a summary of your "best evidence." I am very close to putting you on ignore since you are such a waste of time. |
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 29, 2023 7:34:29 GMT
If you want books that go through the primary evidence for the Holocaust rather than online sources, then there are plenty of them by historians such as David Cesarani and Lawrence Rees. Your attempts to claim there is little evidence of mass gassings, is mere deflection from your total lack of evidence to show what happened instead. You are so full of it. Let's take a look at the Cesarani book. -1,000+ pages. About half of it covers the pre-Barbarossa period (i.e., mostly irrelevant) That you think that is more evidence that you do not understand evidencing. The early period, before the mass killings, gives context and provides circumstantial evidence, along with motive and opportunity. Proving the Nazis hated the Jews, saw them as the enemy, differentiated them from others and their policies of identification and isolation, is the first step before mass killings. Prior to Barbarossa, everything was in place for the mass killings to start, including gassings in the euthanasia project. The type of response you are looking for, has been catered for online, with sites like HC and HDOT. Historians do not write with deniers in mind, since the majority think deniers a waste of time due to their intransigence. Why try to convince someone who will never accept they are wrong and change their mind? |
|
𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸
🕵️
𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎
Posts: 1,457
|
Post by 𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸 on Mar 29, 2023 12:25:19 GMT
It is utterly laughable that you would recommend something like this as a summary of your "best evidence." I am very close to putting you on ignore since you are such a waste of time. He will dismiss this with a claim of no evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 30, 2023 5:38:24 GMT
I should clarify that although Nessie does post on Skeptics, I do not really associate him with that forum and his "methods" are different. He mostly just spams the same comments over and over and very persistently tries to bait people into arguing with him. I would be shocked if he has won over any converts with this approach, but it works for dragging down the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 30, 2023 5:47:34 GMT
Cross-post from Skeptics where I made the same points as the OP but in different words. The main point I was getting at in the OP is that there are certain tells for which side of the debate has a stronger case.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 30, 2023 8:50:11 GMT
I should clarify that although Nessie does post on Skeptics, I do not really associate him with that forum and his "methods" are different. He mostly just spams the same comments over and over and very persistently tries to bait people into arguing with him. I would be shocked if he has won over any converts with this approach, but it works for dragging down the discussion. I repeat myself, because you repeatedly rely on fallacious arguments. If you stopped that, I would not need to repeat myself. |
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 30, 2023 8:55:14 GMT
Cross-post from Skeptics where I made the same points as the OP but in different words. The main point I was getting at in the OP is that there are certain tells for which side of the debate has a stronger case. The best tells are evidence and argument. If one side has evidence as to what happened, and the other side can only argue against that evidence, and it cannot evidence what happened instead, then you know which side is correct.
You think your first point is argument, but evidence is a more reliable and credible method for determining what happened.
Your second point is an odd argument, that because the evidence is in your opinion complicated, therefore, it is weak. It is more likely that you find it hard to evaluate and cope with the volume, becuase of your lack of intellect.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 31, 2023 7:58:17 GMT
When all you have left is to pick up on a typo, you have nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 1, 2023 17:06:29 GMT
At Skeptics, they have predictably reacted very defensively to my observations. They continue to claim that mainstream Holocaust books (like Cesarani) + Holocaust Controversies is an adequate response to revisionism. This is delusional, and imo they are essentially losing the debate by forfeit. Which is why they've had to turn to increasingly authoritarian methods to "win."
Here is HC's "summary" of their evidence for Auschwitz. Lol. It's a huge document dump with no context, no argument. This is a good demonstration of their methods. They don't actually expect people to go through all this material. They expect you to NOT to look at it and take their word for it.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 1, 2023 17:50:06 GMT
At Skeptics, they have predictably reacted very defensively to my observations. They continue to claim that mainstream Holocaust books (like Cesarani) + Holocaust Controversies is an adequate response to revisionism. This is delusional, and imo they are essentially losing the debate by forfeit. Which is why they've had to turn to increasingly authoritarian methods to "win." Here is HC's "summary" of their evidence for Auschwitz. Lol. It's a huge document dump with no context, no argument. This is a good demonstration of their methods. They don't actually expect people to go through all this material. They expect you to NOT to look at it and take their word for it. ... You complain there is not enough evidence. Now you complain there is too much. Overarching histories such as Cesarini and online sources such as HC are a compromise, with evidence, without overwhelming the reader. That is not HC's summary, it is one of various lists of sources. |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 1, 2023 18:24:01 GMT
At Skeptics, they have predictably reacted very defensively to my observations. They continue to claim that mainstream Holocaust books (like Cesarani) + Holocaust Controversies is an adequate response to revisionism. This is delusional, and imo they are essentially losing the debate by forfeit. Which is why they've had to turn to increasingly authoritarian methods to "win." Here is HC's "summary" of their evidence for Auschwitz. Lol. It's a huge document dump with no context, no argument. This is a good demonstration of their methods. They don't actually expect people to go through all this material. They expect you to NOT to look at it and take their word for it. ... You complain there is not enough evidence. Now you complain there is too much. Overarching histories such as Cesarini and online sources such as HC are a compromise, with evidence, without overwhelming the reader. That is not HC's summary, it is one of various lists of sources. There's no contradiction. If you think there's a contradiction, then you don't understand. Here is an optional challenge for you, Nessie. YOU can go through all of that stuff, and then write up a paper that explains and highlights the most important evidence in a convincing way. |
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 2, 2023 9:11:27 GMT
You complain there is not enough evidence. Now you complain there is too much. Overarching histories such as Cesarini and online sources such as HC are a compromise, with evidence, without overwhelming the reader. That is not HC's summary, it is one of various lists of sources. There's no contradiction. If you think there's a contradiction, then you don't understand. Here is an optional challenge for you, Nessie. YOU can go through all of that stuff, and then write up a paper that explains and highlights the most important evidence in a convincing way. Your tactic is blatantly obvious. No matter how much evidence you are presented with, it will either be too much for you to read, or not enough to prove mass gassings took place.
The most important evidence for mass gassings, is evidence that directly pertains to the AR camps and A-B Kremas. The people who worked inside, the surviving documents, the physical sites themselves and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals with no corresponding mass departures and theft of property. Add to that the motive and opportunity and there is ample to prove mass murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 2, 2023 15:33:40 GMT
There's no contradiction. If you think there's a contradiction, then you don't understand. Here is an optional challenge for you, Nessie. YOU can go through all of that stuff, and then write up a paper that explains and highlights the most important evidence in a convincing way. Your tactic is blatantly obvious. No matter how much evidence you are presented with, it will either be too much for you to read, or not enough to prove mass gassings took place.
The most important evidence for mass gassings, is evidence that directly pertains to the AR camps and A-B Kremas. The people who worked inside, the surviving documents, the physical sites themselves and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals with no corresponding mass departures and theft of property. Add to that the motive and opportunity and there is ample to prove mass murder.
Show, don't tell. When you say you have all this evidence, that is merely an assertion. If you say the evidence is from "people who worked inside" and "surviving documents" etc., that is nothing more than an introduction to what should be a fuller presentation of evidence and argumentation. You have to then follow through. You rarely venture beyond these generalities, and when you do you fizzle out completely. For instance, you regularly invoke Prufer, but only in a superficial way, and when I posted the actual text of the ridiculous forced statement Prufer made in Soviet custody (which I have done for you multiple times), you've never had any response. Even Jeff admitted that it was probably coerced. If someone links to a big document dump without any argumentation or explanation and tells me that proves the holocaust, I'm calling BS. If someone tells me they have an 800 page book that's out-of-print and costs $400 and which proves the holocaust, I'm calling BS. If someone tells me that Cesarani's is a good summary of the evidence for the holocaust and I know for a fact that it is not, I'm calling BS. If your side had all this evidence, a concise, definitive debunking of revisionism would have been written back in the 1970s (or 1980s at the latest). |
|
