/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16088841
it can, sorta.. or disturbances of subsurface strata (trench, buried hole, or void), depending on the soil conductivity, depth, material, and size of the object you're looking for.

If you want to know how it works, watch a youtube video on it. It's boring af.

also learn how Snell's Law works.

>geologist who uses gpr on the daily.

>>16088901
Fear of communism, oil dollar, 11 million not 6 million.

>>16088919
>6 million
kek okay. not a very scientific number but okay

>>16088911
so could ground penetrating radar discover 6 million dead jews if they were buried?

don't waste your time looking into this stuff, on either side. I did and it's impossible to actually make good determinations either way. From the pic you posted I'm sure the Polish government afterwards went back to 'prove' this guy wrong, and they claimed they did but refused to disclose any of their findings. There's blogs where people argue this stuff and it's the most mind numbingly autistic places you'll ever see

What exactly is the holocaust denier / "revisionist" claim here? That the Nazis didn't hate Jews and weren't sadistically punishing them? Mein Kampf, Kristalnacht, the ghettos, and concentration camps are not disputed.

>>16088928
Not if they incinerated all 18 million of them in their... wait how many ovens was it?

>>16088911
>also learn how Snell's Law works.
What does that apply

>>16088952
I think the general point is just that we've been fed propaganda on the holocaust for a long time. For example we are told one site are where a large amount of cremated bodies were buried but with no evidence to support it, and you aren't really allowed to question it would facing some kind of social repercussion. Most obviously believe the actual historical event itself happened, just that a lot of information afterwards can sometimes be obvious lies

It's a problem caused by the event happening so long ago and evidence not being available to make such conclusive statements

>>16088952
None of which are a source of shame for me. Whites have been enslaved throughout history too, it’s just a human thing.
What I want to know is why the nazis hated Jews so much, what did they do wrong? Is it possible that Jews were using usury to enslave them and infiltrating their education system?
Makes you wonder why they went to such great lengths to remove them if they were so harmless..

>>16088841
You should watch some old episodes of Time Team. You get to see how it works from the user’s perspective. https://youtube.com/c/TimeTeamClassics

Key takeaways:
>GPR detects irregularities in the ground
>colan pick up big rocks, old wall foundations, tree roots, or a hole that has been dug and filled
>the resolution is blobby
>you HAVE to dig to be sure what, if anything, is really down there

since you asked about bones: no, bones are too small. but if the bones are buried in a hole, it should detect the hole. no hole = probably no grave. but even if you find a hole , there are lots of kinds of holes, you have to dig to see if something is buried there. this means you, canada

>>16088928
Jews being buried there is a recorded fact so this has shown that, no, it can not.

>>16088841
You should watch some old episodes of Time Team. You get to see how it works from the user’s perspective. https://youtube.com/c/TimeTeamClassics

Key takeaways:
>GPR detects irregularities in the ground
>can pick up big rocks, old wall foundations, tree roots, or a hole that has been dug and filled
>sometimes just picks up “funny dirt” where if you dig, you don’t see anything interesting
>the resolution is blobby
>you HAVE to dig to be sure what, if anything, is really down there

since you asked about bones: no, bones are too small. but if the bones are buried in a hole, it should detect the hole. no hole = probably no grave. but even if you find a hole , there are lots of kinds of holes, you have to dig to see if something is buried there. this means you, canada

>>16088986
picrel, I think it’s from the Time Team show, showing GPR from the British countryside, and then what they dug up there

>>16088977
>why the nazis hated Jews so much
Mainly feelings of inferiority / jealousy. See the made up "Race Science".

>>16088952
We need to learn from their mistakes and exterminate that vermin for good this time.

>>16088986

>>16088977
There's a reason why you'll never see hitler's speech with subtitles whenever they show one of the clips of his speeches in movies, news , or any kind of media.

>>16088841
THE GOYS ARE FINDING OUT, WE NEED TO FIND AN EXCUSE QUICK!!! ERRRM...THEY'RE, SYMBOLIC GRAVES! BECAUSE THE REAL JEWS WERE TURNED INTO ASHES, YES...THAT'S IT!

>>16089018
Some internet place with subtitles for Hitler speech.

>>16088841
The only source I can find for the claims in your OP picture is a semi corrupted text file on archive.org full of gibberish. There one other link that goes to /pol/. Yet I can easily find many sources saying the opposite, that they have found many bones and soforth. So ground penetrating radar is not returning any results in your infographic because it never happened, if they actually looked they would find something

jews used to be buried but in the end of ww2 germans went back and digged them out thats why theres nothing
https://youtu.be/vHO8hsB688Y?si=AWFtXuhLhaEI-z50

>>16089114
So somehow they had the time, money and manpower to not only gather together 6+million jews, but to also kill them, bury them all across germany and then go back, dig them up and move them somewhere else where noone has ever found them?

>>16089114
That absurd story was manufactured to hide american's war crimes. They say the german civilians killed were jews exterminated by the nazis.

>>16088961
"Snell" is German for "quickly". You need to be fast when you use radar or else the beams will get away from you.

>>16089121
they burned them, then turned the bones to dust with grinders and it blew away on the wind.

>>16088841
Unless the bones have the same conductivity as the surrounding soil, yes because the waves will reflect at different power levels, just like a non-ground penetrating radar.

Dixie hicks are Jew lovers

>>16088977
Don't listen to the jews here trying to mud the waters. Jews here hated because:
>they had just killed the russian tsar and established a communist rule.
>they were doing the same with Germany (just like they're doing today with USA)
>Given that they have no country, they try to debilitate the culture of the country that takes them, and push for multiculturalism so they can thrive.
>they lie, cheat, gaslight and trick people
>they play zero-sum games with people who is being kind to them

>>16088977
yeah it makes you think doesnt it

>>16089276
How many of the 90s journalists were female?

>>16089762
A few, like Orla Guerin

>>16088958
Even cremation leaves behind bones which should show up on a ground penetrating radar scan

>>16088841
I get all my information from screenshots of tweets that include blurry images from who knows where.

>>16088841
What's the source? What was the methodology? Can holocaust deniers be trusted to report their findings accurately? Did they really exhaustively comb the entire surroundings of two massive camps or just take a few pictures to be able to show people they were there? How do you square these supposed findings with the excavations which did find mass graves near Treblinka in 2010?

Like all conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers love to believe that they are privy to special knowledge that the public isn't aware of. But the alternative may just be that they're stupid.

>>16090908
The anus of proof is on the jews, they should provide evidence of these 6 million murders.

>>16091143
Firstly, no it's not. We all have the same responsibility to the truth. It's not "the Jews" making this claim, it's the entire global community of historians and academics. Secondly, the holocaust is by now the most well-documented event in history and every single question you may have about it has an accepted answer. The evidence is overwhelming.

>>16091185
>it's the entire global community of historians and academics.
who are controllled by jews, those who dispute their claims are excluded from the incestuous club of academia

also given the billions they've guilted out of the world and continue to scam the onus is on them to actually prove it

>>16090908
>excavations which did find mass graves near Treblinka in 2010?
that never happened

>>16088952
It's the usual narcassist's prayer, with a twist
>it didn't happen
>it didn't happen but it should have
>it happened, so what?
>I'm glad it happened and it should happen again

>>16088952
Truth for the sake of truth. At least for the sane revisionist. No reasonable person denies the mass persecution and killing of Jews, it's just the manner, amount, and reasons. From what I can tell it was closer to 100k and most deaths were from disease and famine. mass impoverishment and forced relocation is always going to cause mass death.

>>16091185
>Secondly, the holocaust is by now the most well-documented event in history
I dont believe this meme. Theres in fact pretty much zero evidence, you only have some testimonials after the fact.

>>16091185
it's not well documented, because Germans left no documents that mention mass killings, only establishing work camps
you are being intellectually dishonest
and I do believe it did happen (though many victims were Slavs, Romanians, etc unlike what jews would like you to think), but why fucking lie

>>16092099
>everyone is a narcissist except me
nice projection

the most documented genocide in history is going on in Gaza as its streamed live on tik tok

If the holocaust was real, what made Hitler want to do it?

>>16091615
>who are controllled by jews
Convenient. Weird how Jews are able to control the global narrative and yet they were unable to prevent anti-Semites from conquering half of Europe. You'd additionally think there would be SOME evidence of this global decades-spanning conspiracy, some slip-up, somewhere. I mean, going "some dude with a vested interest in holocaust denial totally says he used a super mass grave detecting device and didn't find anything anywhere" isn't exactly compelling evidence to the contrary.

>>16092255
Fascists are actually all narcissists, and all anti-Semites are fascists

>>16092363
He means world control.

>>16088988
>Evolution exists
>But not for humans
And here I thought Christians were retarded.

I was raised Mormon, that church believes in doing genealogy and doing proxy baptisms for the dead so they can go to heaven. Their goal was to find the name of every person for which records existed and doing this ordinance for. But they ran into some problems, the historical European records did not indicate so many jews existed before, during or after the war. While seeding help in understanding this problems the Jews freaked the fuck out on religious grounds, how dare you say some prayers and claim our Jewish ancestors are now Christian, in heaven... Quite an absurd claim, but the Mormons changed curse and now you are only supposed to do the genealogy and ordinances for your own ancestors.

The holocaust was over stated, the Jews claimed 6 million multiple times in the 18 and 19 centuries. They also clamed 6 million Jewish boys were rolled up in Tora's and burned alive by the romans. They have some fetish with the notion of 6 million Jews dying regardless of fact or evidence. It's just this time we are all supposed to pretend like it's true.

>>16092363
"world peace" to hebes means they get whatever they want because no one is strong enough or organized enough to fight their tyranny

>>16092387
>jewish projection
every time

>>16093066
source on the roman rolling jews?

>>16093102
Mouf. Now.

>>16093112
You know what you have to do.

>>16093102
Google is worse than useless and I cant find that source about burning Jewish boys in toras but I know I have read it.

>>16093237
>oy vey six million again!!!
if they really are god's chosen people how come god keeps on letting six million of them get zapped over and over and over again?

>>16088952
>What exactly is the holocaust denier / "revisionist" claim here?
David Irving's work is probably the best to look in to if you want to go down the rabbit hole.
>There's no evidence mass killings were carried out at Auschwitz and most of the other infamous camps
>For some reason it was decided that Auschwitz was to be the holocaust mecca, ground zero for the foundation myth
>there was mass killing of jews but most of it happened during Operation Reinhard and there is a decent evidence to back up a number iirc less than 2 million.
He also says claims the below which makes them reeee even more
>Hitler wasn't aware of the "final solution" (there's no "hard" evidence of this)
>Hitler wanted to deport jews out of Germany not exterminate them
>When there is evidence of Hitler being aware of mass killings by soldiers like killing jewish prisoners he intervened to prevent it
Another interesting tidbit is he was one of the first people to be "cancelled/banished" by Jewish interest groups, going from one of the most respected historians in the world to having his lifes work destroyed, his life savings seized and being ostracised from polite society.

>>16093083
I'm not a Jew but you are a fascist so it's clear who's projecting here

>>16094197
>>16093083
PS Israel's government is fascist

>>16094024
Amazing that the top minds of holocaust denial can at best say the mass murders weren't THAT bad and for "some reason" (handwaved, ofc) it had to be made worse. Like genocide isn't just bad?

also lmao @ Hitler not knowing about the Final Solution, like, bro, wtf are you doing

>>16094203
>Like genocide isn't just bad?
a bigger genocide is worse than a little genocide

>>16094203
>say the mass murders weren't THAT bad and for
all Irving says is that the evidence he gathered suggests something different to the mainstream take.
In fact he thinks it's a tragedy that the people mass murdered in operation reinhard aren't given the recognition and reverence they deserve because it's all about muh Auschwitz

>>16094203
>also lmao @ Hitler not knowing about the Final Solution, like, bro, wtf are you doing
there is no single document or other piece of evidence that explicitly proves Hitler knew about the mass killing of jews.
That's pretty remarkable considering how autistic the germoids were about record keeping.

>>16095034
And record burning.
Like, come on here, people are actually trying to clear the name of the guy who wrote a book about how much he hates Jews and campaigned on the platform of hating Jews and who ran an administration that systematically targeted Jews by suggesting he actually had no idea that the entire country of which he was the sole dictator was mass killing Jews? How stupid do you think people are?

how is this possible?

>>16095230
by lying

>>16095230
You'd think if it was a globally coordinated conspiracy they'd get the numbers straight.

It wouldn't be illegal to question if it wasn't real.

>>16088901
What's the Vietnam lie?

>>16096074
It wouldn't be illegal to deny if holocaust denial did not have the inherent ulterior purpose of preparing another genocide. It's how fascists work in general: deny the value of expertise, turn accepted fact into mere opinion, and then their bullshit copium has equal standing with material reality in public discourse. This way they completely disrupt the normal liberal democratic and academic processes, leading to an information crisis wherein no one can know what to believe any more. Finally, fascists seek to resolve the crisis by backing their opinion with violence and simply eliminating the competing ones.

>>16096196
wrong

>>16096196
B-B-B-BASED.

>>16096196
You're giving holocaust deniers way too much credit. They aren't nearly that cool

It's just radar that penetrates the ground and builds up pictures with the rays reflected.
One thing about is that it can not detect jewish ashes or graves.

>>16092242
How many holocaust films were made last year alone?

>>16096196
i am of the opinion that jews ought to just lie low until people forget they exist. A kind of genocide for attention seekers.
Like zoroastrians, you never really see these around but they still exist

>>16096648
>i am of the opinion that jews ought to just lie low until people forget they exist. A kind of genocide for attention seekers.
I mean if they where born in between 1799 and 1969, they barely escaped Auschwitz as a baby.

>>16088952
Core revisionist claims include:

> The "death camps" were forced-labor, transit, or internment camps for unwanted civilians

At least 2/3rds of German-run concentration camps are acknowledged to have belonged to one of those three categories.
Revisionists claim all of them did.

> The "final solution" was ultimately population transfer to Russia of jews in the conquered territories

Ethnic population transfer is a common historical occurrence. Many empires have done it. It may be a crime against humanity, but it's not genocide.

> There is no physical evidence of gas chambers or mass shootings at "death camps"

Claims about how the gas chambers operated or mass executions were performed at the camps cannot stand up to archeological scrutiny. Which is why such investigations are banned. Those who have performed them have been subjected to legal and extra-legal persecution. This is why Germar Rudolf was sentenced to prison for chemical analysis of Auschwitz buildings and no paper was published by the Australian team who performed the GPR shown in OP's image.

> There is no documentary evidence that the Germans ordered, planned, or built death camps

This is acknowledged by mainstream holocaust historians. So instead of producing documents that contain explicit instructions for, plans for, or records of death camps they rely on a hermenutical interpretation of "coded language", whereby they read such things into mundane documents. This approach was pioneered by Raul Hilberg and still used today.

For more revisionist arguments I recommend reading "Debating the Holocaust" by Thomas Dalton.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/debating-the-holocaust

Free for download as PDF or ePUB. You can also buy a paperback.

There are over fifty books in the Holocaust Handbooks series. They are all meticulous academic works. Most have never been refuted. The few extant refutations are superficial gish-gallops. See >>16092099

>>16088841
It should be noted that after the publication of results for this study were supressed, large swathes of the Treblinka campground were covered over with concrete and jagged stones, to prevent any future attempts at forensic archeology.

This was passed off as a "monument", even though there already was a monument at the site.

Similar large "monuments" have been installed at Auschwitz, where burning pits were claimed to have been.

>>16096793
we have moved stone before.

>>16096796
I'm not saying it's foolproof. Just that this is why it was done.

The polish government also prevents archeological study of the site through legal measures. To get clearance to study there you need permission from a Rabbi.
That's not a joke.

If you want to see how bad modern, sanctioned "archeology" at Treblinka is, watch the documentary "The Treblinka Archeology Hoax" by Eric Hunt

https://archive.org/details/thetreblinkaarchaeologyhoax_201906

>>16096779
I never knew about this, interesting. I regretted ever getting involved debating with people about this stuff as they constantly attribute the 'denier' tag on me, conversations became tense even when I was trying to walk on eggshells with my analysis, it got pretty brutal. Still very tempted to look into this again though from some morbid autistic curiosity

What always interested me and what I think actually is rather easy (but very time consuming) to analyse is the logistical side. We know that Germany had more than enough coal to carry this out, but how much was dedicated to the furnaces... how many train tracks (to transport this coal) were in commission after allied bombing runs. What impact did oil synthesis have on remaining coal for the German army needs on the eastern front. What kinds of smoke stacks would be required in order to fit the required numbers. I'd be interested if the books get into that side of things

>>16096807
The quantities of coal coke needed to burn that many bodies don't appear in aerial reconnaissance photography of the camps, nor in German requisition documents pertaining to the camps.

There are two sets of very good aerial photos of Auschwitz taken at the time the gas chambers were claimed to have been in operation. The prerequisite fuel stores simply weren't there.

All fuels in were in very short supply for the Reich. So much so that civilian vehicles were converted to wood-gas (CO) burning engines. Enormous numbers of conversion kits and new vehicles of this type were manufactured for the civilian market.

A carbon-monoxide-burning vehicle not only has the engine tuned for wood gas, it also has a generator: a device that burns cellulose in an oxygen-poor environment to produce high concentrations of CO. The upside is you get a car or truck that can run on wood chips, sticks, and leaves. The downsides are that they're less reliable and the risk of suffocation is high for the user.

At Treblinka it was claimed that the detainees were executed by exhaust from the diesel engine of a capture soviet tank. A ridiculous claim for several reasons, but this was the official story at the Nuremberg trial, and it remains so to this day. The most obvious refutation is:

>why would the Germans have used precious diesel fuel in an engine they had no spare parts or mechanical manual for, when there was a cheap poison-gas generator in every German garage

Forget Zyklon, too. The Nazis could have gassed all those jews with a few hundred pounds of dry twigs.

>>16096631

>>16096830

>>16096807
They actually forced Jews to dig for coal themselves, and once they had dug enough up enough of it, the Nazis would close the exit of the mineshaft they were in and lit the coal on fire, burning them alive.

>>16096196
> If you refute my lies you're guilty of pre-genocide
> Now shut up while I exterminate these Palestinians

It's funny how jews coined "chutzpah" because they needed a word for 'superlatively audacious hypocrisy'.

>>16096918
What do you think any of the words in your picture mean

like do you think calling someone Jewish gives them money and intelligence

>>16097005
The man in the image is Tim Wise, a Jewish public intellectual. The text is a sardonic summary of the ideology he espouses, condensed to make the hypocrisy of his position clear.

It's characteristic of the ideology of virtually all jews in Academia, and has been adopted en masse by status-seeking gentiles as well.

You may know of the ideology as "woke", which is a word used to obfuscate its racial nature.

>>16096832

>>16095230
>how is this possible?

Easy peasy.

>>16088841
um, WRONG, sweaty. actually, in april 1943 (approx 9 months after they started mass killings at T2) they decided to dig up all of their mass graves (approx 500,00 bodies) and cremate them all, along with any new bodies, on massive open air pyres the ashes were then mixed with sand and spread over a 5.4 acre area so there wouldn't be any mass graves left to find with radar duh you should really read the official historical record before embarrassing yourself like this!

>>16097232
They used pedal-powered bone-smashing machines to break up the cremains, too, so there would never be a trace of their awful crimes. But thankfully one brave jew named Yankel Wiernik came forward and exposed the whole thing with his eyewitness testimony!

Also pic related happened in Treblinka's sister camp in the Operation Reinhart programe.

I'm glad they put you in prison in most European countries for being skeptical about these facts.

>>16097232

>>16097114
>The text is a sardonic summary of the ideology he espouses, condensed to make the hypocrisy of his position clear.
Or, in layman's terms, a strawman

>>16097250
I bet the LA Coliseum could save space if instead of seats they just piled people on top of each other

>>16097250
>dood you're telling me that they fit 200 people in two buses? when it normally takes a whole street to fit them??? idk sounds fake

>>16096779
>At least 2/3rds of German-run concentration camps are acknowledged to have belonged to one of those three categories.
So why does it need to be more?
>The "final solution" was ultimately population transfer to Russia of jews in the conquered territories
Then why did most of the victims come from those conquered territories? They wouldn't have had to be relocated.
>Claims about how the gas chambers operated or mass executions were performed at the camps cannot stand up to archeological scrutiny.
Yes they do, and such investigations are not banned, although the sites are carefully guarded because of course they're not going to let some revisionist with an agenda tamper with the evidence. Legitimate research is still carried out and produces new findings. Ironically, whenever it does, revisionists complain that the narrative changes.
>There is no documentary evidence that the Germans ordered, planned, or built death camps
Much of the documents have been destroyed but we have some, like the building plan for Auschwitz and an order for cremation equipment.

Literally every single denier claim has been refuted, they just don't acknowledge it because ultimately it all comes down to this one claim: there is a global Jewish conspiracy to fake the holocaust that has managed to fool most of the world for the better part of a century. Unfalsifiable conspiracy theorist cope.

>>16097461
>So why does it need to be more?
Because it's the truth.

>Then why did most of the victims come from those conquered territories? They wouldn't have had to be relocated.
The Reich didn't want Jewish populations in the territories they acquired. If you weren't aware, the Reich didn't like jews. At the very least they were partisans or partisan-supporters who hindered the war effort with guerrilla resistance.

Jews continue to insist that Germans not wanting them around is clear evidence of genocidal intent. This is how jews think about people they themselves don't like, as we see today in Gaza. But the Germans merely wanted to deport them or exploit them for wartime labor. The Genocidal motive was projection.

>Yes they do, and such investigations are not banned, although the sites are carefully guarded because...
Examination by sanctioned parties is allowed when it's clear what conclusion they will come to. These inquires are also only sanctioned *in response* to investigations which have found evidence contradicting genocide allegation.

Again, Gemar Rudolph was sentenced to prison for publishing his paper on the Chemistry of Auschwitz. Ernst Zundel was imprisoned for reprinting the Leuchter report on Auschwitz gas chambers — along with other publications. Archeology purporting to support the existence of gas chambers was only performed *in response to* the Leuchter Report and the Rudolph paper.

This research is addressed and soundly refuted by Rudolph's book, which you can download here:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz/

You can watch a basic video summary here if you wish to simply familiarize yourself with the claims you're making
https://holocausthandbooks.com/video/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz/

>Literally every single denier claim has been refuted
Wrong. The overwhelming majority have not.

In fact, revisionist arguments have forced mainstream Holocaust historians to quietly retire many of their claims.

>>16096122
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

>>16093050
>evolution applies to humans too
>therefore hyperborean aryan moloch usury blablablablablabla

>>>/pol/

>>16097681
Also

>We totally aren't bombing or running operations in Laos or Cambodia

>The war is winnable

>>16097687
Straw-man arguments back in fashion are they?

>>16097666
>Jews continue to insist that Germans not wanting them around is clear evidence of genocidal intent. This is how jews think about people they themselves don't like, as we see today in Gaza. But the Germans merely wanted to deport them or exploit them for wartime labor. The Genocidal motive was projection.
Here we already see the inherent anti-Semitism required to make sense of the denialist narrative. All Jews are just projecting genocidal murderers, every single one! It's in their blood! But those poor maligned Germans are good boys who dindu nuffin', Aryans aren't capable of such cruelty towards even inferior people...
>Examination by sanctioned parties is allowed when it's clear what conclusion they will come to.
Cope. You know they're not going to let some rando with an agenda destroy valuable historical evidence and then claim there was nothing to be found. If you have a problem with their methodologies, maybe dispute their findings on those grounds. Like people do with purported denialist "findings" all the time.
>Wrong. The overwhelming majority have not.
Pretend all you like. You still can't address the elephant in the room: holocaust denial inherently requires a conspiracy theory narrative of an incredibly implausible scope implicating an entire race of people as well as the global scientific community. There is literally no way to be a holocaust denier without also ultimately making the claim that Jews have manipulated the historical narrative for decades for their own nefarious purposes. You can hide behind "scepticism" but this will always be at the heart of it.

>>16096779
The purpose of having all these books is to have an arsenal of bullshit too big for most people to refute. Most people are not Holocaust scholars, and will not know the refutations to many of the spurious claims made here. That does not mean that no refutation exists. But of course, Holocaust deniers like to prey on people's ignorance. They bring up the most obscure details which hardly anyone would know anything about whether true or false in order to plant the seed of doubt. They will write a dissertation on this shit and expect one in return from a layman or consider it unrefuted. The fact that Holocaust scholars have refuted all their claims, somewhere, at some point, in some equally obscure place is quietly ignored or, if it can be shown, attributed to the grand conspiracy. And in that case, it once again comes down to one word against another. They say we lie, but we say they lie! Who's telling the truth? The layman won't be able to tell. And just like that, Holocaust denial is suddenly on equal footing with the scientific and academic consensus and demands equal consideration.

That's why I decided to stop playing this stupid game with them and focus on their main, unstated claim: Jews are all nefarious liars who managed to fool the entire world for the better part of a century. An extraordinary and untenable claim. Let the deniers actually try to prove something for once. Where is the positive evidence of the conspiracy? Where's the documentation? Where are the whistleblowers and witnesses? It's all well and good to disingenuously act the sceptic and cast doubt on minutiae, but how was this gigantic bamboozle actually accomplished? Seems like it would take a massive logistical effort far beyond the actual Holocaust in scope, and there you say that the absence of evidence must always be interpreted as evidence of absence.

>>16097722
>Here we already see the inherent anti-Semitism required to make sense of the denialist narrative.
The other way around, actually.
First you see what an enormous lie the Holocaust is.
Then you see how viciously anyone who questions it is persecuted.
Then you notice that the jews harbor all kinds of genocidal intent themselves: again, see Gaza.
Then finally, grudgingly, you come dislike jews as a group.

This is what happened to me.

>Cope. You know they're not going to let some rando with an agenda destroy valuable historical evidence and then claim there was nothing to be found.
Nice try. Neither Leuchter nor Rudolph caused any damage to the site when they collected samples to test for Zyklon residue.
On the contrary, the Soviets destroyed the two buildings which are claimed to be the Birkenau gas chambers. This was to hide evidence of there *not* being gas chambers.
>If you have a problem with their methodologies, maybe dispute their findings on those grounds
Again I refer you to "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" by Gemmar Rudolph.
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz/
You may also attempt to refute arguments in "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" by Jean Claude Pressac
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/auschwitz-technique-and-operation-of-the-gas-chambers/

>>16097740
>The purpose of having all these books is to have an arsenal of bullshit too big for most people to refute.
Strange. First you claimed
>Literally every single denier claim has been refuted,
Now you complain there's too much to refute.
Which is it?

>That's why I decided to stop playing this stupid game with them and focus on their main, unstated claim: Jews are all nefarious liars
So you're saying you failed to successfully defend the Holocaust fable and now just defend jews.
Neat.

>>16097755
>First you claimed
>>Literally every single denier claim has been refuted,
>Now you complain there's too much to refute.
>Which is it?
Read, motherfucker
>>16097740
>The fact that Holocaust scholars have refuted all their claims, somewhere, at some point, in some equally obscure place is quietly ignored or, if it can be shown, attributed to the grand conspiracy.

>So you're saying you failed to successfully defend the Holocaust fable and now just defend jews.
Yes, this is the game you play. You demand that I, personally, comb through over fifty books of spurious claims, then read at LEAST that much again in order to know how to refute it all, and if I can't do it right here and now, you're "unrefuted" and we have to question the entire Holocaust. You position yourself as an expert on the Holocaust in order to lend your voice authority, but you can only do this because you know that laymen, who likewise are not experts on the Holocaust, won't be able to tell that you're not, or at least not confirm it; and they have to take your word that the refutations, which you are in many cases probably actually more aware of than the laymen, don't exist.

So to sidestep your dishonest bullshit I'm just going to focus on the part where you claim all Jews are complicit in a global decades-spanning nefarious conspiracy, which is obviously ridiculous.

>>16097770
How about you just refrain from talking about things you don't know. That should be sufficient.

>>16097771
I'm not obliged to take the word of a liar just because I can't refute him on the spot. So how about you stop talking about things you pretend not to know.

>>16097773
You are the admitted liar in this discussion, refusing to look at evidence in either direction and asserting whatever makes you feel good.
Sucks to be a faggot.

>>16097771
>>16097776

>reverts to name-calling

Out of gas, are we?

>>16097779
Nice red herring for a lying faggot lol

>>16097770
>You demand that I, personally, comb through over fifty books of spurious claims, then read at LEAST that much again in order to know how to refute it all
Holocaust hoaxers make up a new claim or story every week. They are never expected to provide evidence, and the motives of anyone who questions any claim —no matter how ludicrous— are impugned as malicious.

So yes. There are fifty books of holocaust revisionism because it's a reflection of how many spurious claims there are to refute. I'm sorry the subject is difficult for you. Perhaps you should find another hobby debate topic.

>>16097773
>a liar
Anyone who disagrees with you is a liar?
And here I was treating you like you were arguing in good faith.

>>16097781
Nice cope for a chomo like you lmao!

>>16097776
>You are the admitted liar in this discussion
Nope, you're the conspiracy theorist and admitted anti-Semite trying to obfuscate the fact that he's suggesting a massively implausible global undertaking which has successfully managed to rewrite history, and even if we take your word for it they managed to do this leaving at best a few inconsistencies but no actual evidence of tampering or collusion. Not a single shred. The very foundational myth of Holocaust denial is so unlikely that the alternative seems infinitely more acceptable. So you lie. You baffle with bullshit and insist on being refuted and even if you are you retreat to "well that's a Jewish lie obvs".

>>16097785
The motives of Holocaust deniers are always malicious because as I've shown, it inherently rests upon an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of ludicrous proportions. And I don't call you liars simply because you disagree. I call you liars because either you're lying or the entire archeological and historical community is alongside every Holocaust survivor, Jewish or not, as well as quite a few perpetrators. Those odds aren't in your favour. But of course, you don't like that simple logic so instead you insist that I address whatever obscure bullshit you dredge up from your book collection instead, as if I have any interest in arguing with a disingenuous liar with an obvious agenda.

>>16097790
If you send a messenger to collect money from an Akum and the Akuan pays too much, the messenger may keep the difference . But if the messenger does not know about it, then you may keep it all yourself
oy vey

>>16097005
>like do you think calling someone Jewish gives them money
It does tho, but only if the jews call someone a jew

>>16097796
There are more than two posters at any given time.
I have admitted nothing whatsoever. Go figure the liar wouldn't even deflect from being a lying faggot. Double down, am I right? Nevermind that you have actually admitted to not caring about the topic and to insist on discussing that which you don't know about.
Meanwhile, I have not made any such admissions because I am not a lying faggot.
Are the antisemites in the room with us now?

>>16097804
>I have admitted nothing whatsoever.
Ah, you're showing yourself to be dishonest then, because Holocaust denial is necessarily anti-Semitic. Very well, you're an implied anti-Semite and proven liar, the other guy is the admitted anti-Semite and implied liar.
>Nevermind that you have actually admitted to not caring about the topic and to insist on discussing that which you don't know about.
I used to care, until I realised arguing with Holocaust deniers is pointless.

>>16088961
it's about optics, reflection angles and refractive indexes

>>16097796
>Nope, you're the conspiracy theorist and admitted anti-Semite
>The motives of Holocaust deniers are always malicious because
Ad hominem arguments are still invalid. Admitting that's what you're doing doesn't help.

>The very foundational myth of Holocaust denial is so unlikely that the alternative seems infinitely more acceptable
Arguments from incredulity are also invalid.

>I call you liars because either you're lying or the entire archeological and historical community is alongside every Holocaust survivor,
Most have no idea how little archeology's been done, and no vanishingly few with an academic career want to touch the subject. It's how you lose your post and (in Europe) go to jail.

It's very easy for an entire community of professional academics to simply acquiesce to a hoax. Especially when there are harsh consequences for not doing so.

>>16097819
>Ad hominem arguments are still invalid.
Sothe fact that your objectivity is questionable is irrelevant? The fact that you're trying to tar an entire people and would do so in the same way regardless of the facts is not relevant to any attempt to judge the veracity of your claims?
>Arguments from incredulity are also invalid.
Okay, then I guess you simply have to accept that the Holocaust happened. Maybe you can't believe it but hey :^)
>Most have no idea how little archeology's been done, and no vanishingly few with an academic career want to touch the subject. It's how you lose your post and (in Europe) go to jail.
On the contrary, massive amounts of research has been done and continues to be carried out by respectable scholars.
>Especially when there are harsh consequences for not doing so.
So how did a bunch of starving and diseased prisoners who'd been robbed of wealth and property threaten consequences on their liberators, exactly? How did they manage to clay the foundations for this plot even from within the camps, still, when the war was going on?

It's easy to imply that IF there were a hoax then MAYBE this is the mechanism by which people would have to acquiesce to it, but let's face it... that's not evidence of anything and your claim is, again, incredibly unlikely.

>>16097825
>Sothe fact that your objectivity is questionable is irrelevant?
Yes. Because it is. What matters are the facts.

>Okay, then I guess you simply have to accept that the Holocaust happened.
No, I don't.
I would accept it if the genocide claims weren't contradicted by the available evidence. But they are.

>So how did a bunch of starving and diseased prisoners who'd been robbed of wealth and property threaten consequences on their liberators, exactly?
They aren't diseased and starving now, are they.
Neither are they poor or powerless today.

>How did they manage to clay the foundations for this plot even from within the camps, still, when the war was going on?
This is actually a good question. It's safe to say that the plan to promulgate the holocaust hoax wasn't hatched by prisoners.
What actually happened is that prisoners spread wild rumors amongst themselves, and repeated them once they were liberated. These were added to the other wild slanders invented by partisan propagandists in central Europe, and Allied psych warfare operations.

The atrocity propaganda of the Holocaust hoax accomplished many political goals, including morally legitimizing the Allies, who were guilty of horrendous war crimes against civilians. It's still being used today for the same purpose: to lend moral legitimacy to Israel and the jews, who are currently committing genocide in the Palestinian territories.

>>16097833
>What matters are the facts.
And you can't be trusted to supply them. Oh, sure, you can claim that you have the facts, but how can we know? If I'm not supposed to trust the experts, but I am supposed to trust a handful of agenda-driven grifters? Or even better yet, take your word that they're totally on the level?
>They aren't diseased and starving now, are they.
>Neither are they poor or powerless today.
So you're saying they retro-actively chaged people's perception when those events were still in the public memory?
>What actually happened is that prisoners spread wild rumors amongst themselves, and repeated them once they were liberated.
And not a single one of the liberators thought to question these wild tales? All the impartial gentile researchers that investigated the matter just went along with it to justify the war retroactively, even though it already had plenty of justification without that?

Can't we just like, ask a nazi how they feel about Jews
Think that would clarify a lot

>>16097839
>And you can't be trusted to supply them. Oh, sure, you can claim that you have the facts, but how can we know?
Why don't you pick a specific claim about the Holocaust to support. Maybe then we'll be talking about something real, rather than psychoanalysis and insults.

>So you're saying they retro-actively chaged people's perception when those events were still in the public memory?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Changed who's perception? Which events were "in the public memory" here?

>And not a single one of the liberators thought to question these wild tales?
They received some scrutiny, and still do, but they were useful to allied propaganda so they were repeated ad nauseum by media and government.

You should read some of the claims about the Holocaust made at Nuremberg. There were some real howlers.
The defendants were barred from refuting these "facts". In Germany it is still illegal to defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by trying to refute the supposed facts of the Holocaust with evidence.

>>16097863
>They received some scrutiny, and still do, but they were useful to allied propaganda so they were repeated ad nauseum by media and government.
So you can cast aspersions on the motives of the proponents of the mainstream narrative but if I point out you're an anti-Semite that's just an ad hominem?
> Changed who's perception?
Everyone's
>Which events were "in the public memory" here?
The entire Holocaust
>In Germany it is still illegal to defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by trying to refute the supposed facts of the Holocaust with evidence.
What "evidence" tho lol

>>16097869
>> Changed who's perception?
>Everyone's
>>Which events were "in the public memory" here?
>The entire Holocaust

I'm sorry, but the majority of Westerners, much less the global population, were totally unaware of an event called the Holocaust at the end of the second world war. They were aware of stories of war crimes and genocide, but in 1945 those stories were much different than those told today. For example, the story of the Auschwitz gas chambers didn't become common parlance in America until well after the 1960s. Eli Wiesel's book "Night", which was assigned reading for millions of schoolchildren up until the 90s, doesn't even mention those alleged gas chambers, even though his book was considered the definitive account of Auschwitz. Its eyewitness claims of people being thrown into ovens alive are no longer repeated today, and no Holocaust historian will now tell you this was the method of mass execution at Auschwitz.

If you're setting yourself up to defend "the entire holocaust" you're accepting the burden of Sisyphus, and I don't envy you.

>What "evidence" tho lol
I don't know. If you find some supporting the Holocaust, please let me know.

>>16088977
>None of which are a source of shame for me.
Nor should they be. Why would you feel ashamed for something you didn't do?
>Whites have been enslaved throughout history too, it’s just a human thing.
This is like saying "I'm not the only pedophile in the world, it's a human thing". Not rational

>What I want to know is why the nazis hated Jews so much, what did they do wrong?
Hitler saw how successful white supremacy was in America, and wanted to replicate it.
Only problem is they had no nogs to abuse. So instead they picked Jews, declared "you are not white", and then made them wear yellow stars so they could be identified at a glance. A poor man's nignog, if you will.

>>16097914
"Night" was a personal and dramatised account and no Holocaust scholar ever depended on it to verify the events of the Holocaust. Also, decide what you want to do with it: should we discount it as inaccurate? Then what difference does it make whether or not it mentions gas chambers?

>If you find some supporting the Holocaust
So you are now setting yourself up to deny the entire Holocaust? It is your opinion that there is no evidence?

>>16097937
Jews being put into work camps was his replication of the cotton fields. The work camps were also death camps though.

If a flat earther walks up to you and insists that he can prove that the Earth is flat and he starts to bring up a bunch of astronomical calculations and shit that supposedly prove it, and I don't know enough about astronomy to disprove him... am I obliged to admit that the Earth is flat? Conspiracy theorists are by their nature obsessive and will at least appear to be more knowledgeable than your average layman when it comes to their area of interest (though of course the nature of that knowledge is questionable). When is it fair to say, look, I don't know about that but the entire scientific community disagrees with you and I have at least a couple of good reasons to believe the Earth is round?

>>16097863
He openly admitted to having exactly zero knowledge on the subject. He is a typical lying libshit. His whole goal is to make up faggot bullshit and then cry like a bitch when he gets called out.
>>16097869
Do not eat with idolaters, nor permit them to worship their idols ; for it is written : Make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them. Either turn them away from their idols or kill them

>>16097976
>He openly admitted to having exactly zero knowledge on the subject.
False
>He is a typical lying libshit.
Extra false
>His whole goal is to make up faggot bullshit and then cry like a bitch when he gets called out.
Like any Holocaust denier?

>>16097971
Typical diversion from the fact that you believe the monomyth of the century. But its okay.
Prepare for the eternal kvetch because it only goes downhill mein kike

>>16097982
Yes, I do believe in a round Earth

>>16096122
that we lost to the vietcong on their merit and we didnt just practically hand them the country

>>16097982
See, didn't I call it? >>16096196
He doesn't like that I'm not playing by the rules of debate I'm "supposed" to be playing by, the ones he'll gladly ignore himself but expects to be able to use against others. But when that fails, he'll simply make a veiled threat: we are growing in number, and this debate won't matter when we can simply overpower you and put you in camps for resisting us.

>>16098002
Why shouldn't you be rounded up, put in a camp, and take a ride on the holocoaster?
Do you even have a reason?
I would guess not because you have had no position this entire time besides status quo faggotry. Just another bait and switch topic because you literally have nothing to say. These rhetorical platitudes do nothing for you.

>>16098009
>Do you even have a reason?
Well, I would say, so you can truthfully deny that you did it in the future, but we both know that won't stop you ;)

>>16098009
>>16098016
Alternative answer: I have it on very good authority that it's logistically impossible, so you'll never manage ;)

>>16097461
I think you've made 2 mistakes in your assumptions
Firstly you make out like this is some difficult to accomplish grand conspiracy to weave some narrative about the Holocaust. I don't think so at all, look to the current conflict with Israel and Hamas and how both sides are constantly pushing their own story, that's how things become culturally engrained over time. The constant repetition of 'genocide' and 'free Palestine' makes people start to believe it deeply, it's called the Illusory truth effect. Same for Israel's side where they claim antisemitism and bring up Oct 7th and such.
To cut a long story short, this doesn't require any organization at all and easily could have got started organically as there WERE camps and Jewish people DID have a lot of sympathy from it, it's easy to see how people could have taken quite a few liberties with their descriptions. I'm sure there's even a some author who claimed to be part of the Holocaust afterwards admitted they were lying, it's not some earth shaking revelation

Secondly you say that the only reason people tend towards revisionism is due to antisemitism which is pretty silly. There are genuinely curious people in the world and people who do question things. People don't question the moon landings because they are anti-american, or question 'round earth' because they are anti-Galileo or some shit. People do just question things, will get lambasted for their stance and as usual for human nature they become more entrenched. Obviously some are antisemitic, but certainly not all

>>16098070
>I'm sure there's even a some author who claimed to be part of the Holocaust afterwards admitted they were lying, it's not some earth shaking revelation
Yes, and you know how we find out about these things? Actual research from credible Holocaust scholars. The idea that no one is ever allowed to question a single Jew is a denier strawman. False claims are called out whether they come from Holocaust deniers or Jews.
>Secondly you say that the only reason people tend towards revisionism is due to antisemitism which is pretty silly.
It's not silly, it's an inescapable conclusion. If we assume that the Holocaust is fake, then that automatically implies someone faked it. Unless you haven't given it much thought at all. Your hypothesis for a "spontaneous illusory truth" falls apart when we consider the mountain of evidence we have. Holocaust denial absolutely requires an inherent accusation against Holocaust scholarship, and by extension, Jews.

>>16097755
Btw if you google Rudolf and Leuchter it's incredibly easy to find that their reports have actually been picked apart by real chemists who have done research on Auschwitz. You cannot have been unaware of this when you claimed that they stand unrefuted.

>>16098088
There's a plausible case to be made that some falsehoods will never truly be known at this point or in the future. Some things may yet to be uncovered. Both Holocaust scholars and the revisionists have a part to play in chiselling away at the absolute truth, or whatever is left to be figured out at least. Also even questioning can get the person in some form of trouble, be it socially or legally, 'denial' as a term and concept I find strange, I think the term revisionist is more accurate

>Your hypothesis for a "spontaneous illusory truth" falls apart when we consider the mountain of evidence we have
Yes we do have a lot of evidence, but none of these are cold hard factual evidential factors which prove the entire endeavour of the Holocaust itself from top to bottom. They are typically smaller documents, camp sites, etc, which in themselves don't actually prove a total death toll, or they don't in themselves prove state of mind or intent wholly. It is absolutely undeniable that our societies mental imprint of the Holocaust is different in some ways than the actual historical event as it occurred in reality

Holocaust denial would be an inherent accusation against scholarship yes, but that's "Holocaust denial", when I look on the sites provided earlier in this thread it is very much in the realm of revisionism and blandly nit picking facts, rather than some whole cloth 'denial' of the event even occurring. Yet you put all of these people in the same bucket, and condemn them of antisemitism or having hatred for Jewish people. I can understand why you feel like that as maybe 99% of people are antisemitic (just for arguments sake, i have no idea), but not everyone is and it's important to keep that in mind or the conversation always turns into a bad faith clusterfuck

>>16088841
>can it really find bones deep underground without any digging?
It just can't, okay?

>>16098142
All right, that's genuinely more nuance than I was expecting from anyone here, and perhaps you're right. As I've said before, Holocaust deniers love to spout a lot of bullshit to baffle laymen, and of course the point is to sow doubt and make people question the narrative. These people we might term "revisionist". Although I maintain that genuine inquiry will eventually lead to the conclusion that virtually every denier claim has been refuted, despite their insistence to the contrary.

Last summer I was visiting Geneva and passed by the cemetery. There I saw a peculiar looking grave and I went to take a closer look.
It was that of a certain Gerhard Riegner, "Secretary of the World Jewish Congress". And there was a plaque there explaining that he was one of the first, during the war, to alert the Allies of an impending genocide, by way of this telegram, which was quoted on the plaque.

It mentioned that in german-controlled europe, there was only 3.5 to 4 millions jews.

And wikipedia tells me that of them,
>nearly six million people were annihilated, so that by the end of the war in Europe in May 1945, about 3.5 million of them had survived.[1][10]

I must admit, that got me thinking.

>>16098226
There's absolutely no way that Gerhard Riegner could have been off the mark.

>>16098236
I don't deal in absolutes, but seems weird that the secretary of the World Jewish Congress could give an estimate of the jewish population off by 6 millions.
He doesn't even give just an estimate of the mark, but also an honest estimate of how off the mark he expects to be : 0.5 millions. He's unaware that he could be off the mark by 6.

>>16097955
>"Night" was a personal and dramatised account and no Holocaust scholar ever depended on it to verify the events of the Holocaust. Also, decide what you want to do with it: should we discount it as inaccurate? Then what difference does it make whether or not it mentions gas chambers?

And yet it was assigned to tens of millions of schoolchildren in the USA for decades. It was promulgated and promoted as a factual account. If tomorrow you were to go on TV or publish a book in Germany refuting "Night" you would be arrested and tried for Holocaust denial.

You have just displayed one the ready tactics of hoax affirmers: Choose Your Own Holocaust.

>So you are now setting yourself up to deny the entire Holocaust?
If by "the entire Holocaust" you mean a German plan to genocide, exterminate, or mass-murder the Jews, then yes. I can confidently do that.

You seem to think it's too hard to go through volumes of arguments, and also find debating the topic intimidating. I don't.

>>16097976
>He openly admitted to having exactly zero knowledge on the subject. He is a typical lying libshit.
Assuming he's not arguing for his own ethnic tribe, there is hope for such people. I was one of them. Being liberated of my cognitive dissonance on the founding myth of the Western geopolitical order was liberating. I want to help people who were where I was.

Holding so many contradictory notions was actually driving me to hysteria when I thought about politics. Finding that I couldn't argue coherently for the genocide myth, despite my deep indoctrination into the subject (Holocaust museum visits, History Channel Documentaries, Victor Frankel, Eli Wiesel, Miklós Nyiszli) was a rude awakening, but one I desperately needed.

>>16098330
>If tomorrow you were to go on TV or publish a book in Germany refuting "Night" you would be arrested and tried for Holocaust denial.
No you wouldn't. Fucking wikipedia mentions it's "unclear" how much of the book is historical fact. You yourself mentioned that one of the book's depictions of executions is not accepted by historians. You have just displayed one the ready tactics of deniers: imaginary persecution.
>If by "the entire Holocaust" you mean a German plan to genocide, exterminate, or mass-murder the Jews, then yes. I can confidently do that.
That is false confidence, then.
>You seem to think it's too hard to go through volumes of arguments, and also find debating the topic intimidating.
I don't find it too hard, and I don't find you intimidating in the slightest. I just find it a drag.

>>16095230
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html#survivors
>the Time article's definition of a survivor is simply inconsistent; the total number of the survivors, depending on the year, is 400-500 thousand in the articles, depending on the year, and the 100 thousand who were in the camps, ghettos etc. are a subset of this total. No actual contradiction, just bad editing in one article.

>>16098330
>Finding that I couldn't argue coherently for the genocide myth
What, did you find it too hard? Or too intimidating?

>>16098392
Because of the lack of ANY evidence besides witness testimonies I assume.

>>16098409
You must be joking. Setting aside the incredible consistency between numerous eye witness accounts, we have photographic, documentary, and material evidence.
Funny that you people are confabulating a "confession" on my part of supposedly not knowing anything, when this is tantamount to a confession on your part of having zero knowledge on the subject.

>>16098426
>incredible consistency
And I'm joking?

>>16098268
Dr. Aurthur Butz, author of "Hoax of the Twentieth Century", made a good point in his Y2K speech to the I.H.R.

>No matter how the death tolls are revised at this or that camp, it seems to be the rule that the total should still always work out to be about six million.

Six million is a totemic number when it comes to jewish claims about genocide. But it's hardly the only ludicrous number bandied about.

The first extra-biblical jewish genocide claim comes from Philo Judaeus's account of the Alexandrian Pogrom in 38 A.D. He wrote that 40 million jews were stuffed into buildings with smouldering wood, which suffocated them. Then the buildings were burned so nothing remained but ashes.

Sounds familiar.

>>16098355
>No you wouldn't. Fucking wikipedia mentions it's "unclear" how much of the book is historical fact.
It sounds unbelievable, but you would. People have gone to prison in Germany for repeating official, historical-consensus opinions about the holocaust.

>>16098392
>What, did you find it too hard? Or too intimidating?

Nope. I gave it my best shot. I discovered that despite reading three canonical books about the holocaust, spending over ten hours in the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C., and attending lectures by supposed survivors, my actual knowledge about the holocaust was utterly superficial. I had all kinds of personal horror-stories in my head. I knew all about the children who didn't die of gas and so were killed by chloroform injection at the hands of Mengele. About how the mad doctor directed prisoners to work or death with a wave of his finger whilst listening to Wagner. About tattoos and shaven heads and starvation in the cold.

But I didn't have a historical timeline. I didn't know how the camps were laid out. I couldn't name an Auschwitz subcamp, or tell you how many there were. I didn't know what Operation Reinhardt was. Or how Zyklon was used in commercial delousing.

>>16098426
>Setting aside the incredible consistency between numerous eye witness accounts
They are astonishingly inconsistent. Many are insane. You merely believe they're consistent because Holocaust historians repeat that assertion ad nauseam.

>>16098433
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html#firstholocaust
Damn, another one straight out of my list of stupid nazi twitter meme debunkings. You're making this easy.

>People have gone to prison in Germany for repeating official, historical-consensus opinions about the holocaust.
Name one, and exactly what they said.
>my actual knowledge about the holocaust was utterly superficial.
Sounds like a you problem. But I see you then coped by doubling down and increasing your ignorance. From the looks of you repeating easily debunked bullshit, you either did find it too hard to get to the bottom of things, or you're just dishonest to the very core.

>>16098440
No, what you're doing is finding one outlier and claiming that disproves everything. Again, no Holocaust scholar relies on novels to determine the veracity of the Holocaust, and this one is admitted fiction. That doesn't mean the Holocaust is fiction, any more than it means that WWII is fiction.

>>16098443
To paraphrase your rebuttal:

>there are so many wild jewish claims about their genocides that "six million" as a figure doesn't even stand out amongst them

Neat.

>>16098451
>Holocaust denier can't read but expects people to read an entire bookshelf for him
It doesn't list "wild Jewish claims", in fact your list of articles mentions six million Jews because that was the estimated Jewish population of the Russian empire, who were facing persecution at the time. Searching for different numbers yields different results because they are talking about different things. As for the term "holocaust" - it used to be a far more generic term that could refer to anything from a calamitous disaster to a minor setback. There is no special significance to the six million number; estimates varied more in the early days after the war, and most estimates tend to be a range around six million. Here's an Israeli source mentioning the following:
>One of the earliest researchers, Raul Hilberg, came up with a figure of 5.1 million in his 1961 classic “The Destruction of the European Jews.” In the third edition, from 1985, he provides a lengthy appendix explaining how he calculated the estimate.
>Lucy Dawidowicz, in her “The War Against the Jews” (1975), used prewar birth and death records to come up with a more precise figure of 5,933,900. And one of the more authoritative German scholars of the subject, Wolfgang Benz, offered a range of 5.3 to 6.2 million. Each used his or her own method to arrive at the totals.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-01-27/ty-article/6-million-where-is-the-figure-from/0000017f-da74-dea8-a77f-de761f480000
Six million is obviously not a precise number and no Holocaust scholar will tell you it is.

>>16098471
>>Holocaust denier can't read but expects people to read an entire bookshelf for him
That's funny, considering your previous complaint:
>>16097740
>The purpose of having all these books is to have an arsenal of bullshit too big for most people to refute.
>That's why I decided to stop playing this stupid game with them and focus on their main, unstated claim: Jews are all nefarious liars who managed to fool the entire world for the better part of a century.

Strange that " the estimated Jewish population of the Russian empire" just happens to be the alleged Holocaust tally. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

>Six million is obviously not a precise number and no Holocaust scholar will tell you it is.
And yet that's the number published in every newsprint article about the Holocaust.

>>16098480
>That's funny, considering your previous complaint:
If you could read (lol) you'd see that it's still my same complaint: you demanding I read a mountain of bullshit.
>Strange that " the estimated Jewish population of the Russian empire" just happens to be the alleged Holocaust tally. Just a coincidence I'm sure.
Literally yes. The Jewish population of 19th century Russia and the death toll of the Holocaust are unrelated. This is some schizo tier pattern seeking.
>And yet that's the number published in every newsprint article about the Holocaust.
No precise number exists. It doesn't matter because there is no particular significance to it. Only you pretend that there is.

>>16098480
>>16098490
Also, notice how this argument is going exactly like I said it would? You come up with some bullshit claim about the number of six million having some special mystical significance in Judaism and should therefore be distrusted. You expect no one to have the specific knowledge of Jewish mysticism to refute you and so people will have to take your word for it. But when someone does actually come along and cites respected scholars refuting your specific claim in detail, you just retreat endlessly and accuse them of lying.

>>16098490
>Literally yes. The Jewish population of 19th century Russia and the death toll of the Holocaust are unrelated. This is some schizo tier pattern seeking.
And yet somehow the six-million figure appeared in reams of newsprint articles about Jewish persecution in the 1910s, 20s, and 30s, and then again in uncountable numbers of newsprint articles about the Holocaust after the 1940s.

Anyone who sees a pattern there is insane, obviously.

>No precise number exists. It doesn't matter because there is no particular significance to it. Only you pretend that there is.
I admit, I did allow you to drag me into the weeds on this one. So far it's the only point you tried to vigorously defend.

I am happy to agree that the reality of the alleged Holocaust doesn't hinge on whether "six million" is totemic, or even the offical tally.

We're also agreed that the official tally was revised to something else. Thanks largely to the work of Holocaust revisionists, but that's a minor detail.

The assertion you actually have to defend is that the Germans had a plan for widespread, systemic genocide of jews, which they carried out in concentration camps with special facilities dedicated to that purpose.

>>16098528
>Anyone who sees a pattern there is insane, obviously.
Yes. Wow, you've selected every instance of "six million" you could find and it turns out every single one of them mentions six million! So strange!
>I admit, I did allow you to drag me into the weeds on this one. So far it's the only point you tried to vigorously defend.
I happened to have the refutation readily at hand. Not the first, though. You just ignored the rest. But that's exactly the thing with these rapid-fire bullshit memes, isn't it? You don't expect someone to have a refutation at hand for every single one of them.
>We're also agreed that the official tally was revised to something else. Thanks largely to the work of Holocaust revisionists, but that's a minor detail.
So which is it? You're not allowed to question it? Research is forbidden? Or are you just claiming the efforts of legitimate scholarship as "revisionism" because it (unsurprisingly) ended up with a more accurate picture?
>The assertion you actually have to defend is that the Germans had a plan for widespread, systemic genocide of jews, which they carried out in concentration camps with special facilities dedicated to that purpose.
Yes. I can just refer you to wikipedia for this one. The Holocaust Museum also has a website about it.

>>16098545
>Research is forbidden?
In Europe? Yes.

>ground penetrating radar
It's simple. Boeing manufactures the AWACS. Do the math.

>>16098592
And yet it keeps being doing, legitimately, above board. It's almost as if it's not research that's forbidden, but being a nazi fucktard.

>>16098597
>Announce the conclusion of your research
>Imprisoned
wow

>>16088966
So do you also believe the Nazis didn't also murder 3,500,000 Russian civilians?
Do you also not believe the Nazis killed 250,000 homosexuals?
Or the 500,000 Gypsys?

So do you just believe that Nazis left all the Jews alone and didn't murder any of them while exterminating Russians, Gypsys and homosexuals?

This makes no sense. holocaust denialism makes no sense.

>>16098545
>i-i-i-i c-c-could refute you
>but my ass is sore
This guy is still here without a shred of evidence, really? Tiny out there on google fu dropping wikipedia lmao

how does ground penetrating radar work at the bottom of the Ashokan Reservoir where West Hurley, NY used to be?

>>16098545
It's impressive how you tried to turn "it wasn't really six million after all" into a win for Holocaust hoaxers.

"It doesn't matter that every Westerner has heard the six million figure six million times. It was never that important. You're schizo for thinking it was. It doesn't matter that it was used prior to 1940 either. You're just crazy and hateful."

This is called gaslighting. It's also a motte-and-bailey style of argumentation.

>So which is it? You're not allowed to question it? Research is forbidden?
Revisionism is an jailable offense in 18 countries.

>Or are you just claiming the efforts of legitimate scholarship as "revisionism" because it (unsurprisingly) ended up with a more accurate picture?
No, there are two opposing camps in what passes for academic discourse on the Holocaust.

One camp is "the mainstream", which is overwhelmingly jewish. In the other camp are the revisionists, who are overwhelmingly gentiles.

Mainstream historians, by and large, do not make major changes to the Holocaust narrative. Left to their own devices they unearth or invent ever more eyewitness stories about the Holocaust, elaborating on the central mythos. These tall tales tend to be salacious and overly dramatic — and uncorroborated.

However, when Revisionists produce overwhelming evidence refuting a core tennet of the mythos, mainstream historians quietly downplay or retire it.

This is what you're doing with the "six million" figure. It's also what's being done with the gas chamber narrative. The mainstream is pivoting to a "Holocaust by bullets" story. In a generation the mainstream will simply pretend gas chambers were never that important.

>Yes. I can just refer you to wikipedia for this one. The Holocaust Museum also has a website about it.
Whose numerous assertions about the Holocaust wither and dissolve under scrutiny. Much like the six million figure. And then you'll likely pretend any particular claim never mattered.

how come ground penetrating radar can't locate a layer containing the 192 million teeth which wouldn't have burned during cremation?

>>16098664
Never heard of the tooth crushing machines? They were destroyed without trace.

>>16098677
The missing evidence is how you know it happened.

>>16098633
>Do you also not believe the Nazis killed 250,000 homosexuals?
>Or the 500,000 Gypsys?

The mainstream has retired those claims, my friend.
You're behind the curve. Time to update your firmware.

>>16098643
Tookie from the top rope. Dump your holohoax folder.

>>16098664
>he doesn't know
They made large animatronic sharks out of deactivated torpedos and lined the insides of the mouths with hundreds of rows of dead jew teeth. They would use these machines to grind down the bones that didn't fully combust during cremation. Steven Speilberg's grandfather was actually one of the forced laborers who was tasked with brushing out the bonemeal inbetween crushing, shortly before his Treblinka was liberated he stole the only known photograph of the Hai-Zerstörer machines (which when directly translated means 'shark smasher'). He rolled the photo up and inserted it into his anus where he kept it for over a month until the allies released him, storing it in a cigarette case for over 25 years before revealing it to his grandson and becoming the direct inspiration for the 1975 blockbuster 'Jaws'

This thread made me buy two holocaust handbooks. I think I'll buy a few more next month.

>>16098636
You're the one who disagrees with the scientific and academic consensus. That means you must be highly aware of what that consensus is. Why do you need me to formally restate it for you until you can go "ah, THAT is the part I want to comment on"? Just bring out your bullshit and get it over with.

>>16098646
>It's impressive how you tried to turn "it wasn't really six million after all" into a win for Holocaust hoaxers.
>"It doesn't matter that every Westerner has heard the six million figure six million times. It was never that important. You're schizo for thinking it was. It doesn't matter that it was used prior to 1940 either. You're just crazy and hateful."
>This is called gaslighting. It's also a motte-and-bailey style of argumentation.
What the fuck are you on about you raving loon? The point here is that there is no special signifiance to "six million" and that in fact the actual death toll is obviously not exactly six million, although it's estimated to be around six million Jews and millions others besides. This is the official position and I haven't deviated from it once. You are the one who repeatedly insists that six million is totemic, that is has to be exactly six million, and that if I say anything but "precisely six million" that is a concession on my part.
>Revisionism is an jailable offense in 18 countries.
You better tell that to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum, then.
>One camp is "the mainstream", which is overwhelmingly jewish.
Right. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't actually surveyed the demographics of the global historian community.
>This is what you're doing with the "six million" figure.
Nope, you're still an insane schizo.
>It's also what's being done with the gas chamber narrative. The mainstream is pivoting to a "Holocaust by bullets" story.
It really isn't, sorry.
>Whose numerous assertions about the Holocaust wither and dissolve under scrutiny.
Then won't you scrutinise just one? I mean, when I said the same about denier claims, you asked me if it was too hard for me to argue or if I was intimidated. You're afraid to argue with the Holocaust museum?

>>16098708
Go ahead, but in the interest of even-handedness, you might also want to read the many, many refutations available here:
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/
in fact you can probably skip the Holocaust handbooks and just find all the denier claims alongside their refutations and save yourself the trouble.
You know, unless it's not actually about finding the truth and simply about gathering ammunition to ambush unsuspecting laymen with.

>>16098646
By the way, I really have to wonder what goes on in the minds of you conspiracy theorists when you post pictures like that. What would be the point of "quiet admissions"? Pointing out that one particular gas chamber hadn't been taken into use yet is not actually an admission of anything. But if you think it is, why on Earth would a globally coordinated conspiracy just put a fucking sign outside saying "btw we're lying"? You realise how much easier it would be for them to simply not do that? Do you think they are in the least obliged to give you self-important morons even an inch?

>>16098633
nta anon but he very obviously does think that

>>16099143
You can continue to pretend that "six million" is just one number among many, and holocaust historians put no special emphasis on it, and you will continue to sound patently ridiculous to everyone raised in a Western country.

>Nope, you're still an insane schizo.
Ad hominem wasn't a valid argument yesterday and still isn't today. Won't be tomorrow, either.

>>Revisionism is an jailable offense in 18 countries.
>You better tell that to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum, then.
Oh? Have they finally admitted the alleged gas chambers of Stammlager and Birkenau are what their blueprints say they are?
"Leichenkeller" aka Morgues?

>Then won't you scrutinise just one?
I'll bite. You pick a material proof of the holocaust to defend. Chose the most unassailable one in your estimation.

Might want to steer clear of Neuremburg Trial allegations, though.

>>16099414
>You can continue to pretend that "six million" is just one number among many, and holocaust historians put no special emphasis on it, and you will continue to sound patently ridiculous to everyone raised in a Western country.
The only significance the number has with regard to the Holocaust is that it's approximately the number of Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. That's it. It's literally just connected to a single variable and that's how many Jews were killed by the nazis. That's the only thing that number means here.
>Ad hominem wasn't a valid argument yesterday and still isn't today.
Well, the rantings of a schizophrenic also aren't valid arguments, you have to actually make a valid point in there somewhere.
>Have they finally admitted the alleged gas chambers of Stammlager and Birkenau are what their blueprints say they are?
>"Leichenkeller" aka Morgues?
When the building is equipped as a gas chamber and not as a morgue then I think it's safe to say that the blueprint may be mislabelled. Intentionally, of course, because nazi documentation is full of euphemism in this regard. Fortunately we don't rely only on euphemism.
Anyway, that's you deftly sidestepping the fact that the Auschwitz memoral blatantly already did what you strongly imply they would never do: adjust its estimated death toll. (In reality the 4 million figure was only cited East of the Iron Curtain to begin with, was considered a high estimate even there, and was not used to arrive at the six million figure that is accepted today).

>>16099403
What I assert is that the Germans had no overarching plan for systematic mass-murder of civilian populations in any form.

They did not plan to —nor did they attempt to— kill all the Gypsies in any country or territory they controlled.
Nor the homosexuals.
Nor the Poles.
Nor the jews.

They did not build nor use gas-chambers for this purpose. Nor did they build or use murder-chambers with electrified floors. Or filled with moving knife blades. Or any other alleged form of mass-murder contraption.

And yes, each of those were alleged as methods of mass-execution during the Holocaust.

Did the Einsatzgruppen kill all the jews in various villages in the occupied territories?
I will grant that they did.
Did large numbers of jewish/homosexual/Gypsy/Polish civilians die in internment camps built and operated by the Germans?
I will grant that they did.

What the evidence does not support is genocide: neither a conspiracy to, nor an attempt to commit.

The Germans were attempting to ethnically cleanse the conquered territories in the east by means of mass deportation. Where large numbers of civillians perished in any specific instance, it was either due to anti-partisan actions committed by the Einsatzgruppen, or disease and starvation caused by disrupted supply chains at the end of the war.

From the firebombing of Dresden and other German cities, to Hiroshima, to the Rhine-Meadow Camps, the Allies were as culpable for mass civilian casualties as the Germans. Far more so in fact.

The mass-murder story of the Holocaust is the only thing that lends ethical superiority to the victors of the war. Those victors continue to maintain the geopoltical order they established in that era. The Holocaust myth is the only thing propping up the moral legitimacy of the postwar order. Which is why more and more Holocaust films, books, and movies are released every year. And why the myth is protected from criticism by harsh criminal and economic penalties.

>>16099414
>You pick a material proof of the holocaust to defend. Chose the most unassailable one in your estimation.
Nah, I don't think I will. Whatever I pick, you'll have something to say about it, and then a Holocaust scholar will of course have something to say about what you have to say about it, and then in the end you'll just call them a liar and I'll have to call you a liar and nothing is proven. Pointless exercise in futility. I'm not even going to bother to think about what I might consider the most "unassailable" because every single thing is assailable to a conspiracy theorist with no regard for the truth.
Of course what you're hoping I'll do is smugly present a piece of evidence in response to your challenge and present it as genuinely unassailable, then you'll "refute" it somehow, and given that that was supposed to be THE MOST unassailable it then follows that everything else collapses like a house of cards. And then you'll frame whatever I say in response as a convenient excuse. But the veracity of the Holocaust does not depend on a single piece of evidence. The documentary and forensic evidence as well as countless witness testimonies are overwhelming and a couple of unvetted memes you swiped from twitter utterly fail to convince me otherwise.

>>16099466
>>Proof
>Nah, here's another wall of kvetching

>>16099466
The more I argued with them, the more I got to know their dialectics. First they counted on the ignorance of their adversary; then, when there was no way out, they themselves pretended stupidity. If all this was of no avail, they refused to understand or they changed the subject when driven into a corner; they brought up truisms, but they immediately transferred their acceptance to quite different subjects, and, if attacked again, they gave way and pretended to know nothing exactly. Wherever one attacked one of these prophets, one's hands seized slimy jelly; it slipped through one's fingers only to collect again in the next moment. If one smote one of them so thoroughly that, with the bystanders watching, he could but agree, and if one thus thought he had advanced at least one step, one was greatly astonished the following day. The Jew did not in the least remember the day before, he continued to talk in the same old strain as if nothing had happened, and if indignantly confronted, he pretended to be astonished and could not remember anything except that his assertions had already been proved true the day before.
Often I was stunned. One did not know what to admire more: their glibness of tongue or their skill in lying.
I gradually began to hate them

>>16099465
>They did not plan to —nor did they attempt to— kill all the Gypsies in any country or territory they controlled.
>Nor the homosexuals.
>Nor the Poles.
>Nor the jews.
Weird that a lot of them ended up dead, then.
>And yes, each of those were alleged as methods of mass-execution during the Holocaust.
False equivalence. Anyone can write whatever they want. That doesn't mean it's accepted amongst historians. Equating gas chambers with knife rooms is a blatant fallacy.
>Did the Einsatzgruppen kill all the jews in various villages in the occupied territories?
>I will grant that they did.
"Ach Scheisse Hans I made no attempt to exterminate zis village and yet it happened - again! All unplanned! Maybe ze next village- ach Scheisse nein! Wieder!"
>From the firebombing of Dresden and other German cities, to Hiroshima, to the Rhine-Meadow Camps, the Allies were as culpable for mass civilian casualties as the Germans. Far more so in fact.
Dresden has been much exaggerated.

>>16099403
>>16099465
Likewise, the Holocaust myth also contains countless eyewitness anecdotes of excess cruelty inflicted on camp prisoners.

Fantasmagoric accounts of sadistic medical experiments... throwing prisoners into excrement... live mass burials... forced masturbation by milking machines... sewing up children into soccer balls and kicking them across the pitch...

The list of Nazi abuses are as endless as they are uncorroborated. I also assert that events of this sort didn't transpire.

The twin accusations of genocide and unrestrained sadism are the core of the Holocaust mythos. These two categories of fabulism are what revisionists denounce as lies.

>>16099469
Yes. You notice the difference between how Holocaust deniers argue, and how respectable Holocaust scholars argue? Presenting a single "smoking gun" and going "A-HA! Let's see you refute THIS!" is what you lot do. And then you wait for a refutation. And then it's on to the next one. "Ah, very well, but did you count on THIS?". It's sensationalistic pandering to the crowd and it's a waste of everyone's time. Respectable scholars look at the total body of evidence and draw careful conclusions from that. We have records, documents, witness accounts, forensics, statistics that all come together to paint a pretty definite picture. WE don't have to go "oh but Auschwitz had a swimming pool, explain that!" (it was for SS officers btw).
>>16099472
Every time I read this I can't help but get the impression that Hitler got totally corncobbed and was seething about it. It's exactly like some 14-year-old's forum post about how he totally verbally eviscerated his bullies (but no he can't give a specific example) and they still didn't acknowledge his greatness, how unfair! This reading is supported by the argumentative ability generally exhibited by nazis today.

>>16099455
>Well, the rantings of a schizophrenic also aren't valid arguments
Ad homs STILL aren't an argument.

>>16099466
>>You pick a material proof of the holocaust to defend. Chose the most unassailable one in your estimation.
>Nah, I don't think I will. Whatever I pick, you'll have something to say about it,
There are more gracious ways to admit defeat, but thanks. I accept your concession.

>>16099480
Another false equivalence. Holocaust scholars of course fiercely guard against uncorroborated and fantastical accounts of nazi cruelty, precisely because it detracts from the actually established genuine sadism of the SS and Einsatzgruppen.

>>16099481
>he can't give a specific example
>hurrdurr shiftless void suddenly recognizes the importance of having concrete subjects
Alright, what are you holocaust examples then? Name one, ten, a thousand. You are the most assured fool because you won't post anything and again you will behave like the rat. And somehow, in your head, you are just fine.Maybe you think nobody lurks.That your exact filth hasn't been encountered thousands of time. It is always the same.

>>16099481
Yes, "respectable scholars" don't try to argue about the veracity of purported evidence. They call their interlocutors schizophrenic antisemites and run away.

>>16099486
Established where, in what book, by whom and which members of the SS?

>>16099486
>Holocaust scholars of course fiercely guard against uncorroborated and fantastical accounts of nazi cruelty
Oh sure they do.

>>16099484
>Ad homs STILL aren't an argument.
So are you going to explain the reason to me then that you still cling to your boneheaded idea that there is special significance to the number of dead?
>I accept your concession.
I concede nothing. Dissecting the entire Holocaust one single piece of evidence at a time, having to hear your conspiratard take on it, having to take you to school on it, only for you to move on to the NEXT one and repeat it all again sounds to me like the most tedious thing. You can't attack the entire body of evidence, so instead you attempt to chip away at the edges. You can't deny all the eye witness accounts, but you can attempt to discredit the validity of eye witness accounts by pointing out some perceived oddities in a handful of them, or allege that acknowledged fiction is presented as a real eye witness account. You can't deny all the dead, so you make a big deal alleging that the official number has been inflated for this or that purpose. You can't disprove the gas chambers so you point out that one of them was non-functional. And every time it's pointed out what you're doing you just pivot to the next one. Tiresome individual. And yes, I say that in all my long-winded grandiloquence.

>>16099490
>Yes, "respectable scholars" don't try to argue about the veracity of purported evidence.
They do, actually. Perhaps you should find one if that's what you want. I know for a fact that they have refutations for every single issue you may raise. So far it hasn't been too hard for me to find them.
But you won't do that because you're a schizophrenic anti-Semite, and arguing with laymen is the only hope you have of attaining something resembling a victory.

>>16099496
Yes, they do. Notice how all your screenshots are poorly sourced and quite often deliberately misrepresented? Starting to be a bit of a pattern.

>>16099491
Jesus Christ, yes, of course, I am a walking encyclopedia of war crimes, it is entirely reasonable to ask me to provide you with a full itemised list of nazi war criminals.

>>16099491
>Ingrao, Christian (2011). The SS Dirlewanger Brigade – The History of the Black Hunters. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1616084042
Here's a book you can read on the Dirlewanger brigade, for one. Now, can I give you a full list of the names of every member of the brigade and every single one of their crimes, by individual perpetrator? No, of course not, and that's an absolutely ridiculous standard of proof. Can you tell me the names of all the soldiers who crossed the Rubicon with Caesar, and exactly whom they killed? No? Are we to suppose it didn't happen, then?

>>16099497
>So are you going to explain the reason to me then that you still cling to your boneheaded idea that there is special significance to the number of dead?
You keep dredging it back up, not me.
Seems to have special significance for you. You talk like the truth of the Holocaust hinges on the issue.

Does it?

>>16099516
>You keep dredging it back up, not me.
Actually, no, you had already said
>I am happy to agree that the reality of the alleged Holocaust doesn't hinge on whether "six million" is totemic, or even the offical tally.
posts ago >>16098528, but then you actually proved yourself unhappy to agree one reply later >>16098646, brought it up again for no reason, and continue to insist upon it since. I've simply repeated my stance: there is no special significance and I don't understand why you're still hammering on it, especially after supposedly agreeing that it didn't matter.
>Seems to have special significance for you. You talk like the truth of the Holocaust hinges on the issue.
Is this why you can't let it go? Is this what you were going for? The truth of the Holocaust does not "hinge" on the estimated number of dead; the estimated number of dead is a consequence of the Holocaust having happened.

>>16099532
Yet here you are, still harping on "muh six million".

The holocaustcontroversies.blogspot page you linked to attempts to make the case the number is arbitrary, just one of many population counts. To demonstrate this they show other tallies of jews in newsprint:

• 11 examples of "five million"
•18 examples of "three million"

Yet I was able to post over 34 examples of the "six million" number, many of which had nothing to do with either the Holocaust nor the Russian empire; which is where they claim the six million number comes from.

>>You pick a material proof of the holocaust to defend. Chose the most unassailable one in your estimation.
>Nah, I don't think I will.
But "six million"? You're all over that like flies on shit.

What's going on, big guy?

>>16099549
>Yet here you are, still harping on "muh six million".
You mean you are. You're doing it now, as you were in the previous reply, still demanding that I respond, even though you already know my answer thrice over. What is this projection?
>Yet I was able to post over 34 examples of the "six million" number, many of which had nothing to do with either the Holocaust nor the Russian empire
So what? That just makes it LESS significant. You additionally provide zero evidence for your claim that it has Talmudic significance or any motivation for gentile historians to adhere to the Talmud for that matter.
>But "six million"? You're all over that like flies on shit.
Yes, you make a claim, I refute it. Seems simple enough. I have refuted it a few times over by now. And you proceed to demonstrate the futility of me doing so. So why would I introduce yet more pointless grist for this mill of tedium when you haven't even conceded your last defeat? I've already explained my reasoning that, unlike you, I don't think the Holocaust hinges on a single piece of evidence.

>>16099569
Just can't let it drop, can you? Even when the argument you borrowed from a discredited blog is demolished before your eyes.

It's like you have a compulsion to chant that number. Even while you deny it's significant.

>>16099583
>JUST CAN'T LET THIS THING DROP THAT I HAVE AN ENTIRE FOLDER DEDICATED TO??? OH WELL I GUESS YOU'VE FORCED MY HAND TO POST YET ANOTHER SHITTY MEME, WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED, ANSWER ME AGAIN! SEEMS LIKE A COMPULSION ON YOUR PART!!!
Get help, seriously. This isn't even about the Holocaust denial any more. There is something wrong in your brain.

To anyone still reading this thread, a comprehensive new revisionist work just came out. It has some minor issues with editing, but in all it's worthwhile. Summarizes the mainstream opinion on just about every topic in the Holocaust wheelhouse, then gives the revisionist response.

Available for purchase on
https://armreg.co.uk/product/holocaust-encyclopedia

Previews of its articles can be read on
https://nukebook.org/product/holocaust-encyclopedia

>>16099587
A very sane post.

>>16099597
Who manufacturers the mainstream opinion and the revisionist response?

>>16099600
>Who manufacturers the mainstream opinion
Yad Vashem, et al.

>and the revisionist response
The hundred-odd authors who make up the academic revisionist community. Many of whom are now deceased.

The Encyclopedia itself is written by Germar Rudolph, who also wrote "The Chemistry of Auschwitz", and has edited tens of thousands of pages of other revisionist's works. His summaries are based on familiarity with their theses.

>>16099611
You can easily find the refutation of the "Rudolf Report" on wikipedia btw, you don't have to buy a whole book for it

>>16099616
"The Chemistry of Auschwitz" addresses the refutations in detail. It turns out that the criticisms of the Rudolph Report were a gish-gallop.

And yes, you don't have to buy it. It can be downloaded for free at

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz

It's of note that for publishing his PhD thesis on chemical analysis of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers Rudolph was kicked out of the postdoc chemistry program at the Max Planck institute, and sentenced to 15 months prison in Germany.

Because that's what you do when you find methodological flaws in a scientific paper.

>>16099655
But a >>16098597 Jew in this very thread said that "research is not forbidden"? Did he lie?

>>16099655
>"The Chemistry of Auschwitz" addresses the refutations in detail.
"The Chemistry of Auschwitz" has itself been refuted. Here's an article from a chemist who did manage to obtain a PhD, incidentally also titled "the Chemistry of Auschwitz": https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
>Because that's what you do when you find methodological flaws in a scientific paper.
No, it's what they do when you produce a fraudulent paper with the intent to use it to defend Holocaust denial in court and then the court finds your attempt seriously flawed.
>>16099675
I'm not a Jew and of course neither did I lie. Research is conducted on the Holocaust to this day, but because it only further affirms what we already know, deniers claim it's biased and "real" research (which would agree with them) is what's banned. And then they cry persecution when known Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites aren't allowed onto sensitive historical sites to piss all over them and claim they found nothing, but when accredited institutions carry out the same research deniers claim to want to do and actually find evidence further supporting the accepted version of events, they don't trust it. Well then, why should anyone trust them to do it better, with their obvious agenda and flawed methodology?

>>16099675
How dare you accuse a Jew of lying?
Haven't they suffered enough?

>>16099683
>No, it's what they do when you produce a fraudulent paper with the intent to use it to defend Holocaust denial in court and then the court finds your attempt seriously flawed.

I didn't follow the case, but I know that in German courts arguments which question facts of the Holocaust are simply disallowed. They have been since the Nuremberg Trials, which set the precedent.
So there's no way the court that sentenced Rudolph could have found flaws with his paper. They can't examine its merits in the first place.

I think you're just making shit up at this point.

>>16099683
>No, it's not banned
>It's just banned because... that's a good thing
>So yeah you've been debunked

>>16099736
reminds me of this >>16092099

Except what a real person actually said, and not some character in your head.

>>16099719
>How dare you accuse a Jew of lying?
>Haven't they suffered enough?
See, now that's funny, isn't it? My ethnicity is not only utterly irrelevant to the veracity of the Holocaust, you, of course, even got it wrong. But you're just unable to keep your clear anti-Semitic bias from spilling out. If you're going to cast aspersions on my motives, it's only fair to point out that you have a blatant agenda here, isn't it?

>I didn't follow the case, but
>I'm sure they didn't look into it
Sure bro. Fortunately, other people (linked above) have done so since so it doesn't matter.

>>16099736
Research isn't banned; bad faith actors are prevented from pretending to do research.

>>16099739
Weird because that post was more accurately describing the Holocaust deniers (and they have, in fact, displayed that exact behaviour ITT, simultaneously denying the Holocaust and threatening another one).

>>16099745
And another one
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html#auschwitzplaque
Could you maybe try to scroll through the list first to see if they haven't all been debunked yet?

Gradually I began to hate them.

>>16099751
Yes, like Hitler getting dunked on by Jews, you too resent getting dunked on and vow to come back to school with a gun. Pathetic.

>>16099741
>Sure bro. Fortunately, other people (linked above) have done so since so it doesn't matter.
No you said the court did.
Now you're walking that back.

So yes, you're just making shit up.

>Research isn't banned; bad faith actors are prevented from pretending to do research.
If this isn't some Kafka-tier, party-line parroting I don't know what is.

>>16099747
>blogspot
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>16099757
>No you said the court did.
I said the court was unconvinced by his report. You're the one claiming, whilst admitting to not knowing about the case, that they refused to consider his report as evidence. So you're the one making shit up.
I also independently of the discussion of the court case already linked to a paper debunking the Rudolf Report above, which is what I was referring to.

>If this isn't some Kafka-tier, party-line parroting I don't know what is.
So how would you have it, then? Let a big burly neo-nazi take a sledgehammer to Auschwitz, write a paper about how there's nothing to be found among the rubble, and leave the entire place inaccessible in the name of "research"? They don't just let any yahoo touch historically important sites and artefacts. They won't let you do it to a cave painting, or a medieval manuscript, or a Roman mosaic. You're just sore about this one because you have an agenda pertaining to it.

>>16099761
M8 you're on 4chan and your source is memes, you're in no position to throw stones

>>16099756
Everyone hates them but it's never ever their fault.

>>16099762
All I hear is more whinging about not being allowed o do some simple tests to prove the claims made about millions of bodies buried and cremated there

>>16099762
neo-Nazis are big and burly

>>16099766
>I hate 4chan, everything on 4chan is garbage
why are you here?

>>16099768
Who, nazis? Nah, definitely their fault.
>>16099770
Those tests have, in fact, been done
>>16099775
At this point? Habit. I suppose I don't so much hate the place as I hate you idiots who've ruined it. But that's besides the point. You dismiss a well-sourced and detailed rebuttal for the sole reason that it's published on a particular website, but you expect the original, a dumb meme with red boxes you got from /pol/ or twitter or facebook or somesuch, to be considered fairly. That's the point here, my opinions on 4chan notwithstanding.

>>16099793
>Everyone I don't like is a nazi
I expected nothing less from you.

>>16099793
>Those tests have, in fact, been done
At treblinka they dug up the edge of a christian cemetry and claimed it proved it was a death camp

you stand on a midden of lies and deceit

>>16099809
You started calling people Jews randomly, but it's unfair to assume that open anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers who, I should mention, are quoting Hitler are nazis?
>>16099811
That's a nice claim you got there. Would be nicer if it came with a source.

>>16099775
>>16099766
From "The Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt" by Mattogno, Kues, & Graff

> Although Terry, Muehlenkamp, Harrison and Romanov have authored hundreds of articles since the creation of their [Holocaust Controversies] blog in 2006, as a group they have never published anything in print. Mainstream Holocaust historians persistently ignore them. The collective volume Neue Studien does not even name them in a footnote. And while the anti-revisionist Aktion Reinhard Camps (ARC) website does indeed mention the Holocaust Controversies group, it is only to deliver a scathing rebuke to its members:

>> "Unauthorized links to our website from the controversial and grossly inaccurate hate blog posting of the following persons: Roberto Muehlen- kamp, Sergey Romanov, Dr. Nick Terry, are not condoned by ARC. We maintain no connection to Holocaust hate blogs, and would caution all to avoid being misled by these individuals.

> Why this black ingratitude? Why are these tireless fighters against denialism either ignored or reviled by their fellows? Why do the narrow-minded Holocaust historians stubbornly refuse to recognize their titanic struggle?

> [...] people like Roberto Muehlenkamp are an embarrassment, allies whom they can do without. That isn't to say that the defenders and beneficiaries of Holocaust Orthodoxy need no allies at all - just allies of a different type. They need politicians who promulgate laws against revisionism. They need judges who enforce these laws and send revisionists to prison or ruin them with heavy fines. They need journalists who insult and defame revisionists without ever having read any of their writings. They need court historians who rehash the traditional Holocaust wisdom without ever giving a thought to the question whether the alleged events were physically possible. But they certainly do not need "helpers" who get them into a mess by inadvertently exposing the overwhelming absurdity of accepted Holocaust lore.

>>16099813
I am totally "everyone".
>>16099813
>source
Eyewitnesses. Done.

>>16099813
>That's a nice claim you got there. Would be nicer if it came with a source.
Source is "The Treblinka Archeology Hoax", a documentary by Eric Hunt. His source was Google Earth, and what he found when filming at the site.

>>16099683
>"The Chemistry of Auschwitz" has itself been refuted.
Sure and when a scientific work is found to be flawed, the author goes to jail. Perfectly normal, not censorship at all.

>>16099762
>So how would you have it, then?
Dude your people are sending people to jail for liking tweets. You are going to hell.

>>16099822
>I am totally "everyone".
Okay? So, what, you're taking offence on behalf of others?
>Eyewitnesses.
Who?
>>16099824
>His source was Google Earth, and what he found when filming at the site.
loool
>>16099828
No, that is more related to his persistent support for nazis.
>>16099836
Wish we could send people to jail for shitposting, too.

>>16099818
Re: your post: I'm not sure what makes them controversial or inaccurate, given their adequate sourcing, but if there are even more accurate sources available I am of course happy to trust them. The insinuations from deniers are, of course, hastily drawn conclusions from a biased perspective.

Re: your pic: why would we expect the SS to make continuous reference to exterminations, a process that could quite well sustain itself once established and does not need explicit mention? Troop movements, positions, enemy movements, these are the things that need continuous updating. But when they write "such and such went to Camp Treblinka" there is no reason to add "WHERE WE ARE EXTERMINATING JEWS BY THE WAY, IN CASE YOU FORGOT, HEINRICH" every time.

>>16099883
Now you're just arm-flailing.

Here. Have an unguarded admission from a mainstream Holocaust historian.
Someone who won't go to jail because it was an unintended slip-up, and he's jewish.

>Wish we could send people to jail for shitposting, too.
When that day comes bro, better hope you're jewish.

>>16099902
Right, so when hundreds of people say one thing you don't believe them, but when one of them, once, says something you agree with, suddenly that's the actual truth? Why should I take the one man more seriously than the hundreds? What prompted him to say it?
Also, I can think of two more good reasons that he won't go to jail in Germany, one being that he's American, another being that he's dead.

>>16099902
>There is still considerable uncertainty about the total number of Jewish victims at Auschwitz. There is a similar uncertainty about the percentage of these victims who died of so-called "natural" causes (sickness, disease, undernourishment, hyperexploitation) and those who were gassed or otherwise murdered in cold blood. Admittedly, my claim that "more Jews were killed by so-called 'natural' causes than by 'unnatural' ones" (p. 365) is open to debate. But the opposite assertion may be said to be no less so. As for the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" death, it is heuristically worth making, since it calls attention to the lethal nature of even the "ordinary" regimen at Auschwitz, which was partly, but only partly, a function of its being a redoubt of pseudorational and urgent war production. However, it is no less important to insist, as I do, that this distinction should be neither "pressed too far" nor allowed "to be used to extenuate and normalize the mass murder at Auschwitz" (p. 365), the Nazis being directly and deliberately responsible for both the "natural" and the "unnatural" deaths. To note such uncertainties and to make such distinctions is not to negate, question, or scale down the Jewish suffering at Auschwitz, or elsewhere.

>>16099920
HEY GUYS I WIKIPEDIA AND HE DIED IN DECEMBER YOU SO DUMB

>>16100032
Well you also "wikipedia" so what's your excuse
Why is that the only part of the refutation that you'll touch?
I fucking swear, this is the only way Holocaust conspiratards know how to argue. It's how they approach the entire thing. "OH YEAH WELL IGNORE THE BODY OF EVIDENCE, WHAT ABOUT THIS MINOR THING HERE". It's like a reddit pop-sci headline approach to history.
>THIS ONE REVOLUTIONARY THING RESEARCHERS MISSED FOR DECADES COULD CHANGE YOUR ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING OF THE HOLOCAUST
But then you read on past the headline. And it doesn't. Every time.

>>16100047
>EVIDENCE
Which is yet to be posted in this thread. Lol.

>>16099899
>there is no reason to add "WHERE WE ARE EXTERMINATING JEWS BY THE WAY, IN CASE YOU FORGOT, HEINRICH" every time.
And there is zero record of anyone ever saying that a first time.

In case you've forgotten, the official story is there were no explicit orders for mass extermination, and it was all approved and orchestrated by winks, nods, and euphemisms. This is the conclusion of Raoul Hilberg in his opus "The Destruction of the European Jews". Its narrative is official canon.

All Reich documents alleged to support the genocide story must be interpreted euphemistically, with arbitrary words in them assigned "secret" meanings which only Holocaust hoaxers can identify.

>>16100115
This is the same thing they were saying about Trumps call to violence.

>>16100047
>"OH YEAH WELL IGNORE THE BODY OF EVIDENCE,
The same way you ignore the body of Revisionist evidence?

As you did here? >>16097740
And here? >>16099466

You've yet to pick a single peice of material evidence for the Holocaust to defend.

Why don't you do that instead of spewing generalities about nebulous "bodies of evidence" or muh wikipedia or muh six million or whatever?

>>16100132
Shame he's a ZOG puppet like the rest.

>>16100047
everyone knows wikipedia is fake news, even the founder admits it

>>16100427
Good post. Everyone who's not an idiot knows Wikipedia is a shill playground. The Holocaust hoax defender in this thread has to know it too.

Geologist here. I’m actually managing a project right now where we’re looking for unmarked graves in a proposed development. Radar should waves up to 20 feet below ground. A lot of times tree roots can create anomalies that can be mistaken for graves.

Also worked on projects where we used GPR to look for underground storage tanks and didn’t find them and also a pipeline.

Its really easy work to oversee

>>16100448
>jews pretending to be a guy named "Cross" a Christian name.
common jewish manipulation tactic.

when did unironic nazis start coming to this board?

>>16100478
Should've made your story more convincing .

Excerpt from a recent interview with Germar Rudolph where he discusses the chemical and engineering impossibility of Auschwitz gas chambers.

https://files.catbox.moe/oxehsu.mp3

>>16100134
>The same way you ignore the body of Revisionist evidence?
You mean the exact way I haven't? I've picked apart countless of your bullshit claims and every time you just pivot to the next one. Ï've explained to you before that I think "defend one single thing at a time" is a fool's errand. Why shouldn't I just refer you to wikipedia, considering they represent the consensus view well enough? And once you can debunk the entirety of wikipedia's articles on the Holocaust then maybe I'll have reason to be interested. But going "oh hey here's a quote from a book! Oh that's acknowledged to be historical fiction. Well here's an Auschwitz plaque! Oh that was Soviet-era propaganda and never featured in the calculation of the death toll. Well here is..." is just tiresome and pointless. Who the fuck cares if a plaque at a museum was inaccurate? Holocaust scholars don't depend on museum plaques.

You're someone who thinks people learn history from statues, aren't you

>>16100525
Rudolf has already been debunked, above >>16099683
This was never addressed or even acknowledged by any denier in the thread

>>16100115
We have no direct evidence that Osama Bin Laden explicitly ordered 9/11 but the towers are still gone

>>16100888
he didn't do it, theres plenty of direct evidence that mossad did it, including photos of them planting explosives

>>16088841
https://files.secure.website/wscfus/10348600/26113734/hoax-of-the-20th-century-by-arthur-butz-542p.pdf

>>16100885
Intriguing. I wonder if you even read the debunk.
>The obviously specious reasoning here is typical of Leuchter's style. No one has claimed that six million people were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The number is closer to one million.
LMFAO

>>16101003
Read this book very good goes in full details of nearly everything,the only problem is the camps that USSR took over.
https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/other-butz-hoax.pdf

>>16098690

The point made in this article is that in the 1980s or '90s, the Simon Wiesenthal Center reduced the number of dead jews just at Auschwitz by more than 2,000,000. This 100% jew-owned and jew-operated center is the de facto bottom line authority on the jewish version of the history of the holocaust. The reason one is able to infer that the story about the 6,000,000 must be bullshit, which is to say that the story about the "holocaust" must be bullshit, is that the numbers said to add up to 6M before this revision are still said to add up to 6M after subtracting 2M. Keep in mind that this is a revision *only* to the numbers at Auschwitz, so one expects that all of the camps were overcounted, and the 4M which is never cited would still be a gross exaggeration.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-07-9202100662-story.html

>>16100885
"The Chemistry of Auschwitz" addresses Green's criticisms at length. You can read Rudolph's refutations in section 8.4.4 (p.703-717) of that book.

In prior sections he also demolishes the arguments of the other chemists that Green cites.

>>16100888
OBL proudly took credit for WTC while free and unmolested.

Reich officials had to be tortured or threatened with death before they made false confessions, and that didn't work on all of them.

>>16090743
bone can be crushed, and isn't indestructible. they erode away with time, y'know?

>>16101003
Yes, dude. Approximately six milion is the entire Holocaust death toll, not just Auschwitz. This is the level of reading comprehension we can expect from deniers? Explains a lot.

>>16101015
>"The Chemistry of Auschwitz" addresses Green's criticisms at length. You can read Rudolph's refutations in section 8.4.4 (p.703-717) of that book.
>In prior sections he also demolishes the arguments of the other chemists that Green cites.
All right, so now it's just two different people both claiming to be experts both claiming that they are right and the other is wrong and lying. You have to admit that is, at best, an impasse.

>OBL proudly took credit for WTC while free and unmolested.
And ISIS claims every attack under the sun even when there's no possible way to plausibly connect it to them. It helps their cause. Nazis in custody facing trial would try to hide their crimes. This helps their cause.

>>16101085
>even when there's no possible way to plausibly connect it to them.
Exemple ?

>>16101012
That's not actually what your article says. The Simon Wiesenthal Center never held up the four million in the first place. Like I said before, that number came from Soviet investigators who calculated it using the maximum capacity of the incinerators at Auschwitz based on nazi documentatiopn, i.e. the maximum amount of corpses that it could possibly have processed during its operational time. The number was disputed even behind the Iron Curtain, but was maintained officially to emphasise nazi cruelty. This was possible in the USSR due to the strong central control it exercised over all its territories and client states.
Western Holocaust scholarship never relied on these calculations and instead arrived at an estimate of around 1.3 million not long after the end of the war through various methods (demographic comparisons, records of transportation, camp records of inmates, etc.). So when the USSR fell (that corresponds to your timeframe of "in the 1980s or 90s"), the plaque at Auschwitz was adjusted to conform to the scientific and academic consensus. The four million number was never used to arrive at the six million total. Your argument is rooted in ignorance.

>>16100971
Same deal with the Fukushima reactor.
It wasn't some earthquake and tsunami is was a fucking bomb blast planted by an israeli maintenance engineering crew who also planted a virus to disable the pump systems

Also, why is it that Holocaust deniers appear to be operating under the logic that they can be wrong about a hundred things, but they just have to be right about one thing to debunk the entire Holocaust? I.e. Holocaust scholars only have to be wrong about one thing?
I haven't seen them disprove one thing, mind. But with every attempt they seem convinced that even though all their previous attempts were proven lies, if they can stick just THIS one it will surely be the one to bring down the house of cards. Kinda gives away the game that it's about coming up with reasons, any reasons, to arrive at a foregone conclusion.

>>16101093
>ISIS will credit "a soldier of the caliphate" for an attack, regardless of whether it was planned by ISIS or just carried out in the group's name.
>"You can have somebody who had no direct ties to ISIS whatsoever, at least that we're aware of — someone who was inspired by the Islamic State but not actually directed by them at all,"
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/24/529685951/what-does-it-mean-when-isis-claims-responsibility-for-an-attack
I admit that the article paints a slightly more nuanced picture due to the nebulous nature of ISIS, but this is what I was referring to. They want to make themselves look powerful.
See also the recent Moscow attack which Putin blamed on Ukraine but ISIS also claimed. Ownership of an attack can be a political tool in both directions. Point is, the fact that criminals in custody don't readily admit to their crimes whereas criminals beyond the reach of the law brag about them to puff themselves up is not an inconsistency at all.

>>16101125
I don't have anything to say in regards to nazis confessions, but I want to argue that point :
If ISIS manages to inspire attacks, even without directing them centrally, that is a power that they have. It doesn't make them look powerful; it makes them powerful.

>>16101158
Very well. So then if nazi officials at the Wannsee conference could plan an extermination using euphemisms, they are directly responsible. Same as a mob boss who wants someone "taken care of".

>>16101173
>euphemisms
damn, imagine being reduced to relying on this as your evidence for the use of homicidal gas chambers...

>>16101182
No, this in particular is just evidence for genocidal intent. The method was ascertained independently.

>>16101085
>All right, so now it's just two different people both...
Obfuscation, mystification, & goalpost moving.

>And ISIS claims every attack under the sun even when...
False equivalence of the highest order.

>>16101114
Total projection and reversal of roles.

>>16101173
>Very well. So then if nazi officials at the Wannsee conference could plan an extermination using euphemisms
They couldn't. The idea that industrialized mass-murder could be designed and implemented across an entire region using nothing but insinuation is ludicrous. But you can't support a genocide story without it.

>>16101182
Just imagine...

>>16101190
>Obfuscation, mystification, & goalpost moving.
Anon, dearest, if I myself am not a chemist, how can I judge the competing claims of two people who both claim to be experts in chemistry yet vehemently disagree? They cannot both be correct. This is, as we've seen, part of the denier strategy. They have to attempt to level the playing field first. That's why they try to argue small conflicts. Once you look at the bigger picture, you realise just how unequally matched both sides are. But individually taken, they hope their claims are at least plausibly defensible enough to come to an impasse.
>Total projection and reversal of roles.
Here, too, of course, it is you who is projecting and reversing the roles, which is both fitting for such an accusation and fits in with the same strategy of attempting to level every argument. But here, too, when we consider the evidence objectively, there is no other conclusion than that you people have been presenting memes about plaques and passages from novels, and I have referred to the academic consensus in its entirety which is based on many compounding factors.
>They couldn't. The idea that industrialized mass-murder could be designed and implemented across an entire region using nothing but insinuation is ludicrous.
Weird, considering the idea that it could be faked without any form of communication at all doesn't strike you as ludicrous. Of course, the fact that they used euphemisms during one conference does not at all imply that euphemism was used at every stage and every level of implementing the Final Solution (itself, of course, a euphemism). You're attempting to appeal to incredulity by implying something that was not said.

>>16101190
>False equivalence of the highest order.
Oh, I missed this one. You think Bin Laden and ISIS are incomparable?

>>16101227
No, and you do in fact know I mean 9/11 vs the Holocaust.

9/11 was a real crime Bin Laden took credit for.

The Holocaust genocide is a fake allegation that Germans had to be violently coerced into confessing.

Comparing the two is a facile category error and you're being obtuse on purpose. You think it's clever. It's not.

>>16101247
Bin Laden was a cia asset he also died in Torabora in december 2021.
It's thought that one of the many men used to play Bin Laden between his actual death and the obama seal raid was in fact obama himself.
It's all just so fake.

>>16088952
the nazis were jews
their main purpose was to kill slavs and pretend that jews are a victim so they get their free from jail card and israel on top of that

>>16101247
What, exactly, do you think the comparison I made was? Maybe go back and read it again.

Holocaust deniers are sloppy thinkers.

>>16101321
>I'm not playing fast and lose with analogies, you're just dumb!

Nice try.

>>16088841
Depends, for that you need a ground sample, ashes may look like dirt or mix with due to worms and the like is not that simple also there's many disposal methods, including hiding the burial place

>>16101359
You are just dumb.

The analogy I made was that the crime was committed even if we don't have a slip of paper that reads "go fly a plane into the Twin Towers, signed, Osama Bin Laden", the towers being destroyed being one of the dead giveaways. You then insist that that's different because he admitted to doing it afterwards, but immediately of course also have to insist that the confessions of the nazis don't count because they were made under different circumstances. I then pointed out that, indeed, under those circumstances it would be entirely expected that they would be more reluctant to confess, so their reluctance relative to Bin Laden's eagerness does not at all imply innocence.

And now here you are ranting about how it's unfair to compare 9/11 and the Holocaust and you're totally onto me. You're a paranoid bad faith actor who is fond of repeating himself even after your points have already been addressed. "Just dumb" is frankly the most charitable appraisal you could hope for at this point.

>>16101359
Also note yet another instance of "here is a questionable Holocaust anecdote, therefore the whole thing is fake"

It didn't happen, but maybe it should have happened.

>>16101374
>. . .There is no count in the Indictment that cannot be proved by books and records. The Germans were always meticulous record keepers, and these defendants had their share of the Teutonic passion for thoroughness in putting things on paper. . .
Chief of Counsel for the United States, made his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal.
topkek

>>16101374
>ranting about how it's unfair to compare 9/11 and the Holocaust
Since we're talking about paper proofs of the event, it is completely retarded to compare a one time event involving a small number of people orchestrated by a terrorist organization that has to operate in secrecy, to a three years long genocide involving a whole bureaucracy organized by a modern state already engaged in an all out war and public anti-jewish policies.

>>16101385
This is what passes for logic among Holocaust deniers, huh?

>>16101410
It is an analogy regarding guilt and historical fact vs. evidence. Obviously there are differences between both instances and it's unnecessary to point them out because they aren't relevant to this comparison.
The nazis, for their part, also intended to hide the genocide.

It did find them in my mind. This should be evidence enough.

>>16101415
It surprises me most of all that among such a great diarist people like the germans not even one journal of some meagre guard has emerged that gives one iota of legitimacy to the whole holocaust narrative.
This charade has gone on for too long, hurry up and pay back the literally billions or trillions in debts you have accrued.

>>16101411
Provide evidence that it happened.
Why were there no description of red/purple skin of the supposed victims of zyklon-b?
Wooden doors to "gas chambers".
Chimneys that are constructed long after that are not part of any building.
Please explain this and the testimonies of kikes saying they were murded by masturbation machines.

>>16101410
He knows the comparison is a gross category error. He's making a blatantly specious argument on purpose.

>>16101385
Likewise, if it's fake, then the enormity and maliciousness of the slander should also be addressed with some kind of collective punishment.

Maybe Israel and jewish diaspora enclaves should get the same treatment as Gaza.

>>16101424
>Provide evidence that it happened.
There's plenty.
>Why were there no description of red/purple skin of the supposed victims of zyklon-b?
Ignored
>Wooden doors to "gas chambers".
You're probably a flat earther too.
>Chimneys that are constructed long after that are not part of any building.
Doesn't matter.
>Please explain this and the testimonies of kikes saying they were murded by masturbation machines.
Doesn't matter.

Another denier debunked.

>>16101436
This is pathetic

I hope you're actually jewish because otherwise I don't understand how you can have such cognitive dissonance

>>16101424
Yeah, this guy's a jew. He told us he wasn't, and I tried arguing in good faith, but he can't keep his mask up any longer. He's degenerated to ad homs, insults, and arrogant dismissals.

The Germans were right. We can't live with these people. They need to be isolated somewhere.

>>16101422
There is one quite famous diary that you of course deny the legitimacy of, what would be the point of finding you more diaries so you can also deny their legitimacy?
>>16101424
>Why were there no description of red/purple skin of the supposed victims of zyklon-b?
There were
>Wooden doors to "gas chambers".
Yes, wood doors can be made airtight, or close enough for the purpose
>Chimneys that are constructed long after that are not part of any building.
The reconstruction was partly botched but the ventilation was also partly underground.
>>16101425
You're accusing everyone who disagrees with you of deliberate malice because that is, of course, your own motivation

>>16101441
>Yeah, this guy's a jew.
That guy is not who you've been arguing against for the better part of the thread. There is also no telling whether or not he is a Jew, or whether he is even arguing genuinely. It is irrelevant to your case and anti-Semitic assumptions only tarnish your veneer of impartiality. It really makes me wonder, why can't you help yourself?
>I tried arguing in good faith
Try harder.

>>16101436
>There's plenty.
>Provides nothing.
It really goes to show how fake and gay it all is.
If it happened and there a plenty of evidences, then please show them.

>>16101458
>There were
Sauce

>>16101458
>You're accusing everyone who disagrees with you of deliberate malice because that is, of course, your own motivation
You've demonstrated it over the course of two days. I gave you every opportunity to have a civil argument. During this time you have

• Refused to offer evidence for your position
• Used obvious specious arguments
• Insulted your interlocutors with childish invective
• Advocated imprisoning people for speech
• Bad-jacketed your opponents
• Attempted to gaslight your interlocutors

You've spent the whole thread meeting civil discourse with histrionics and dissembling. I don't think you're dumb or unbalanced. I think you know when you're arguing in bad faith and don't care because of your ideology.

>>16101458
>There is one quite famous diary that you of course deny the legitimacy of, what would be the point of finding you more diaries so you can also deny their legitimacy?
you mean the girl who died of typhus in some camp not accused of being a death camp?
seems irrelevant

>>16101470
I incidentally came across it the other day whilst researching another bunk claim of your side but I don't remember my search term then. I'm sure if you have all the witness testimonies, though, which you surely must have in order to confidently state that nobody mentioned skin discolouration, then maybe you can help me out and provide them? Be sure to also include some proof that your compilation is exhaustive.

>>16101484
>You've demonstrated it over the course of two days.
By not rolling over and giving in to your bad faith arguments and brow-beating?
>Refused to offer evidence for your position
I've provided plenty of evidence.
>Used obvious specious arguments
So obvious they need no mention, of course
>Insulted your interlocutors with childish invective
Well, in the interest of childishness, then, "you started it".
>Advocated imprisoning people for speech
You've advocated putting me in a camp for my speech
>Bad-jacketed your opponents
Again, not unlike you, then
>Attempted to gaslight your interlocutors
No, rather, you insist on strawmanning me.
>meeting civil discourse with histrionics and dissembling
Oh, great, more projection? "Histrionics", really? Accusing me of lying for the crime of disagreeing is, of course, to be expected, but this is a particularly sad attempt at framing the argument.

You're quite the little hypocrite all in all, aren't you?

>>16101464
>There is also no telling whether or not he is a Jew, or whether he is even arguing genuinely. It is irrelevant to your case
What a jewish thing to say

The interesting thing about the eagerness of Holocaust deniers to accuse their interlocutors of being secret Jews is that the hidden implication is that surely if someone is arguing so fervently against them, they must be motivated by self-interest and some ulterior motive. It's interesting because they themselves, of course, argue with equal if not greater fervour. And, indeed, their own ulterior motive is obvious. If this were a mere squabble about a perceived discrepancy in the historical record, they would not be so obsessive about it. Villifying Jews is not some incidental result of Holocaust denial, it is the aim. That explains the inevitability in these discussions of the feigned realisation that "wow I guess the nazis were right and you really do belong in an extermination camp which did not exist".

In that sense, calling their interlocutors Jews also fits in with their established tactic of implicit threats of violence. They decide who is or isn't a Jew for the purposes of putting people on the trains.

>>16101513
Everything is a "Jewish" thing to say when an anti-Semite disagrees with it. This is because anti-Semitism exists to scapegoat.

>>16101522
Holocaust hoax affirmers start off every debate with an attempt to shame their opponent into submission.

When this doesn't work they grudgingly engage in discourse with the least effort they can manage. Sometimes they dissemble. Sometimes they move goalposts. Sometimes they gish-gallop. They never stop with the ad homs though.

Finally they tire and return to base name-calling. As has happened in this thread.

The one thing they never do is provide credible for their assertions that can survive scrutiny.

Often they can't even explain what their position is. Revisionists often find ourselves holding Holocaust-affirmer's hands as we attempt to lead them to a rational discussion. We have to define basic terms like "holocaust" and "revisionism" for them.

>>16101553
>Holocaust hoax affirmers start off every debate with an attempt to shame their opponent into submission.
Where did I do that? I merely pointed out that Holocaust denial inherently implies a global conspiracy theory of an implausible size.
>When this doesn't work they grudgingly engage in discourse with the least effort they can manage.
I must admit that the futility of arguing with fools wears on me.
>Sometimes they dissemble.
How did you judge that? Seems like more projection.
>Sometimes they move goalposts.
I have not wavered from my position once.
>Sometimes they gish-gallop.
This really coming from the people flooding the thread with bad /pol/ memes that can each be debunked with a quick google search?
>They never stop with the ad homs though.
Let's see, I've been called a lying faggot libshit kike in this thread, and even if you yourself stick to simply calling me a "Jew" I'm sure it means much the same coming from you. Oh, yes, and of course "hoaxer", which does not at all suggest the good faith on your part that you pretend to have. What have I done? I've implicitly called someone a nazi for quoting Hitler in an argument (whilst also implying I'm a Jew, mind), and I've called you a schizo for your display of apophenia and insane capacity for projection.

I've been mostly ignoring the litany of hypocritical accusations out of you in favour of arguing your points but now you've devolved to whining about the tone of the debate entirely I'll address it as well.

The irony is furthermore that not one of your assertions has survived scrutiny when I bothered checking. It's almost as if I can pick a denier claim at random and find out that it has been debunked (because I can, of course). Can you blame me for not bothering after a point? So we return to my initial position: it's pointless to argue with a conspiracy theorist about the details of their conspiracy, if the overall implication of their conspiracy theory is itself utterly ridiculous.

>>16101527
No, you really have specific ways of thinking and arguing.
No one else would think of dismissing considerations of honesty.

>>16101590
Nor would most gentiles devote two days to defending jews, as he admits his motive here: >>16097722

I also notice he started posting today right after brunch-time in Israel.

A coincidence I'm sure.

>>16101424
>Wooden doors to "gas chambers".

>>16101436
>>Wooden doors to "gas chambers".
>You're probably a flat earther too.


>>16101572
>>Holocaust hoax affirmers start off every debate with an attempt to shame their opponent into submission.
>Where did I do that?

Where indeed.

>>16101508
>then maybe you can help me out and provide them? Be sure to also include some proof that your compilation is exhaustive.
It's on you to prove the holohoax happened.
The same way it's on the theist to prove god or gods exist, not the vice versa.

>>16101723
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_and_documentation_for_the_Holocaust

>>16101187
>The method was ascertained independently.
>world's first industrial scale genocide aided by IBM computers
>actually it was just improvised locally based on inspired antisemites

>>16101761
> Here's every claim about the Holocaust genocide on Wikipedia.
> How about you pick just one claim you think is strong and we'll go from there?
>"Nah, I don't think I will. Whatever I pick, you'll have something to say about it"

Most low-effort gish gallop I've ever seen.

>>16101819
It's quite fortunate the holocaust story is a mishmash of ludicrous claims dreamed up by ignorant Jewish peasants. If the psyop wasn't so half-assed, if they'd put effort into research and making the lore plausible, it would be quite difficult to debunk.

>>16101761

>>16101890
see also:
>>16100427
>>16100448

>>16101723
proving god exists would very much depend on how you define what you mean by god, I'm not the holocoaster believer but the inhrent beauty of this world is where I see proof of what I consider god your conception likely differs.
the holocaust is just a jumbled perverted mass of lies as the often misquoted goebbels talked of the big lies such is this case. We must take these lies and shove them back to the liars, it is the only path forward.

>>16101961

>>16098633
>Or the 500,000 Gypsys?
In school, we learned 2 million Gypsies were killed. Later I saw historians state that any talkabout Gypsy genocide was antisemitic. I never really understood that logic.

>>16102072
You should watch the documentary "Defamation"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_(film)

There's a segment where an Isreali ambassador visits the Ukrainian VP and tells him Ukraine has to shut up about the Holodomor.
And they comply.

>>16101691
You admit that you're attacking Jews, then?
>brunch-time in Israel
lmao, careful with those straws, they're not very sturdy
I fail to see the part you interpret as an "admission"

>>16101719
>Quoting the guy who's doing a poor impression of me
Makes sense, you've already demonstrated that you're unable or unwilling to distinguish between genuine testimony and fabrication when it suits your purposes

>>16101859
>If the psyop wasn't so half-assed, if they'd put effort into research and making the lore plausible, it would be quite difficult to debunk.
Funny, that's how I feel about your feeble attempts to debunk the Holocaust with cries of "wooden doors! The plaque! Muh six million! Masturbation machiiiiiinesssss!!!"

>>16101723
>It's on you to prove the holohoax happened.
Just like it's on the globeheads to prove that the Earth is round.
No, you blatantly made a claim and provided no evidence.

>>16102319
>>16102309
>>16102351
Death to Israel.

>>16102383
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
The Holocaust still happened, though. It's not an excuse for another genocide.

Holocaust deniers btfo as per usual.
But don't think that stops them from conveniently forgetting everything and making another thread like nothing happened.

>>16102426
There's an appropriate quote for that...

>>16102388
It didn't happen.

The function of the Holocaust myth is to brainwash Whites into never criticizing the jews or throwing off thier yoke — if we do we'll mutate into vile mass murderers who eat babies and throw grandmas into ovens.

Which is a lie, past and present.

>>16102426
>>16102430
Death to Israel.