The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Bonesjones]

Yet they were so horrendously sloppy with the evidence that basic mathematics invalidates the casualty figures, and simple things like photographs of the supposed death camps, which are still standing and publicly viewable, poke massive holes in the official narrative. This conspiracy seems ludicrously mismanaged to the point where its almost comedic. Why was there not more effort put in place to cover up the evidence, so people like us could never examine it for inconsistencies?

Once the narrative was set, all they have to do is reinforce it. The facts don't matter. Everyone knows publicly questioning the holocaust will get your life ruined. The only people willing to stick their necks out are crazy people on the fringe which just reinforces the narrative.

 

[L50LasPak]

Once the narrative was set, all they have to do is reinforce it. The facts don't matter. Everyone knows publicly questioning the holocaust will get your life ruined. The only people willing to stick their necks out are crazy people on the fringe which just reinforces the narrative.

Its not sustainable though. Every other conspiracy in history is covered up better than this one. We hypothetically shouldn't even be here discussing it right now if it was done properly. Instead they've left a mountain of garbage evidence for the entire world to sift through and draw its own conclusions, supposedly because criminalizing discussion of it is all they need to make themselves safe. That's a stunning level of overconfidence.

Anyone with the resources to perpetrate a conspiracy of this measure would logically have the resources to cover their tracks better than this. They also wouldn't be stupid enough to not do that. Its much easier to just destroy all but the cherrypicked evidence than it is to just cry about it in court for the next 80 years until all of the Holocaust survivors (or "survivors" if you prefer) die out and people stop giving a shit about it anyway.

 

[BEz939]

I’ve actually been to Treblinka.

 

[Bonesjones]

Have you not watched the news for the past 4 years? Facts don't matter when you control the media. You set the narrative and then punish anyone who breaks rank, eventually inertia alone will stop anyone from exposing in the truth in a way that matters.

 

[BEz939]

Have you not watched the news for the past 4 years? Facts don't matter when you control the media. You set the narrative and then punish anyone who breaks rank, eventually inertia alone will stop anyone from exposing in the truth in a way that matters.

That’s cool, what are the implications of what isn’t the narrative?

 

[Bonesjones]

That’s cool, what are the implications of what isn’t the narrative?

If you follow the same trend through other obvious well known conspiracy cover ups like JFK assassination. Nothing.

 

[BEz939]

If you follow the same trend through other obvious well known conspiracy cover ups like JFK assassination. Nothing.

What’s at stake politically?

 

[L50LasPak]

Have you not watched the news for the past 4 years? Facts don't matter when you control the media. You set the narrative and then punish anyone who breaks rank, eventually inertia alone will stop anyone from exposing in the truth in a way that matters.

That's not how human beings work. If you suppress a piece of information for long enough, people will begin to assume that its true just by default, even if its a hilarious lie in the first place. And again, that does not address my original point, that what you are describing takes much more effort, much more energy, and far more organization than simply destroying the evidence properly in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why were these people incapable of realizing this?

 

[Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes]

I'm forced to ask the obvious question. If the Holocaust was faked, why was any of the evidence left standing at all for people to examine independently? If I was perpetrating a scam of this magnitude, I would have taken pictures, taken artifacts, taken film, and then moved in with demolition teams and leveled every single camp brick by brick. Then dug up the foundations, then flat out re-terraformed the location altogether, so nobody could visit the site and make even basic estimates as to how large the camps would be based on the area they took up or their foundations.

Don't tell me that would be suspicious, I could easily justify it as the camps not needing to stand because they're a monument to genocide or something. There are a hundred different ways you could spin doctor it. All of the victorious powers of World War 2 were apparently in on this, so why was their plan so terrible? Why is so much of the evidence still around for us to examine? If the camps were destroyed and certain photographs selectively edited out of history, the authorities would have had total control over the narrative.

There is a ton of information about the Holocaust that I consider exaggerated, often laughably, but it also doesn't change the basic fact that this is one incredibly dimwitted conspiracy if such glaring evidence was left behind. Where did they go wrong anyway? Was it disagreements between the Allies that caused the official narrative to shift? Shoddy record keeping? Were not enough people in the know about it to be trusted with covering it up properly? Did different factions have different levels of how they planned on covering things up? How far up the chain of command did this plan even reach? Did we (we being the Big Three Allied powers) include the governments of less important nations in on the plan? Whose idea was it to make any of the sites open to the public to go examine at their leisure?

You seem to be deluding yourself into some sort of fallacy where the lack of evidence and the incompetency and ridiculousness of the narrative is somehow a point against revisionism. When most people talk about the holocaust as a conspiracy, we're not talking about all Jews having meetings or email lists where they lay out the exact narrative that everyone is going to tell. The holocaust narrative, especially in the beginning around the Nuremberg trials, was a wild west. Every Jew that was in a camp (and some that were never near any of them) wanted to tell incredible stories and get a book published. Many of these Jews might have even believed the Germans were killing Jews and lied purely for selfish reasons and not for the benefit of Zionism. Not everyone understood what the Zionists were trying to accomplish. To add yet another story that I haven't posted yet, here's Yankel Wiernik talking about how he escaped Treblinka by flashing a gold coin at the greedy, gold obsessed gentile guard (nice projection there, Jew). The guard dropped his machine gun to fist fight for the coin as if he's some sort of üntermensch goblin who can't control himself.

Spoiler: A YEAR IN TREBLINKA by Yankel Wiernik

"We leaped to our feet. Everyone fell to his prearranged task and performed it with meticulous care. Among the most difficult tasks was to lure the Ukrainians from the watchtowers. Once they began shooting at us from above, we would have no chance of escaping alive. We knew that gold held an immense attraction for them, and they had been doing business with the Jews all the time. So, when the shot rang out, one of the Jews sneaked up to the tower and showed the Ukrainian guard a gold coin. The Ukrainian completely forgot that he was on guard duty. He dropped his machine gun and hastily clambered down to pry the piece of gold from the Jew. They grabbed him, finished him off and took his revolver. The guards in the other towers were also dispatched quickly."

Calling these Jews out on their lies would have made Jewish testimonies seem less reliable, which is why they very rarely do it even today. Testimonies is the only evidence they have. They will revise the history and elements of the narrative without throwing shade on the witnesses. There are a shit-ton of witnesses that said the gas came from showerheads for instance, but Yad Vashem and historians never call these witnesses out on it or remove their testimonies from their websites. They just say 'gas from showerheads was an urban legend' in one of their many books, say they have addressed the issue and move on. Only when gentiles try to get in on the action do they call them out on it, as in the case of Misha Defonseca. Incredibly her story of sneaking into Nazi Germany at the age of 7 and getting raised by wolves wasn't questioned until they found out she's a gentile. Her book was translated into 20 languages and sold millions of copies (most of these books are bought by governments, not privately btw. Most people don't give a shit and very rarely read holocaust books on their own accord). They were planning on making a film about her until they found out she wasn't chosen by God himself and they cancelled her. Notice how no one questioned the story, no matter how retarded it was, as long as they thought she was Jewish.

This leaves holocaust "historians" with a problem. They need to somehow make retarded and conflicting Jewish testimonies into a believable narrative. This is why you get so many inconsistencies. Similarly they cannot revise the number 6 million, which is where many of the problems of the narrative come from. For a lot of people it's too big of a number to be believable. 6 million is a religious number in Judaism and is thrown around constantly (see my two previous posts or the attached text file for the entire list between 1850 to 1945. The pastebin died last time so I've attached it this time). In the Torah it says 'you shall return [to Israel] minus 6 million.' The definition of the word holocaust is 'a sacrifice consumed by fire.' Hence 6 million Jews was sacrificed by fire to create the state of Israel. And creating the state of Israel is exactly what they used the holocaust narrative for. This locked them in. They could not decrease the amount of deaths to make it more believable since Zionists insisted on the number 6 million. This is one of the reason why they've removed so many gentile deaths like poles from Auschwitz or entire camps with mostly gentile deaths. They had to get the amount of deaths down to make it seem more plausible while leaving the holy 6 million be.

As for why they left the camps open instead of destroying them, who knows. Both have pros and cons. Interestingly they have discussed it before and recently. Robert Jan Van Pelt, leading expert on Auschwitz and perhaps the most famous """debunker""" of holocaust revisionism, essentially argued for closing the camp after admitting they have no physical evidence of Auschwitz being a death camp:

By allowing nature to take over the site, do we run the risk of allowing humanity to forget what happened and set the stage for future questioning of the Holocaust? Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge . . . In 1959, a proposal was made to let nature take over the camp. The museum wanted to seal the gates and let everything fall into disrepair. The idea was that this spot represented a place where humanity failed in such a monumental way that we really have no business maintaining it. At that time the survivors opposed that proposal. They said `You cannot lock us out of our own experience. We suffered here; we need to be able to return to the site where we suffered.'

The way I read what Van Pelt is saying here is that they are no longer able to defend Auschwitz from revisionists and that leaving the museum up does them more harm than good.

I’ve actually been to Treblinka.

Ah, Treblinka. Where they claimed about 1 million Jews were killed with carbon monoxide via diesel engine exhaust. I assume they showed you picture of the bodies/ash they found during an excavation, right? After all they claim the bodies were buried there, then dug back up to be burned and then the ashes were put back into the mass graves:

Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols., Macmillan, New York 1990, vol. 4, p. 1481-87

“The mass graves were opened and the corpses were taken out, to be consumed by the flames of huge pyres (the ‘roasts’). The bones were crushed and, together with the ashes, were reburied in the same graves.”

The wood needed to burn these bodies would have been immense. If we assume for simplicity 100kg wood per body, which is extremely generous considering these 'ovens' were open-air where the heat isn't contained inside a container and escapes into the air. On many days there was even rain and snow (wet wood burning wet bodies in open-air takes a lot of energy if it's even possible). Roughly one million Jews died there requiring (more than) 100kg of wood each which is 100.000 metric ton of wood. According to Wikipedia on wood ash "typically between 0.43 and 1.82 percent of the mass of burned wood results in ash" so let's say 1 percent for ease which means we're left with 1k metric ton of ash from the wood alone. The bodies would have produced a lot of ash as well. Surely they would have dug this up and taken lots of picture and video as you do in any excavation, and especially this one since you're providing evidence for something that is so important that it's illegal to question it. Yet no such photos or video exists.

The killing method is also impossible. Diesel engine exhaust contains too little carbon monoxide to be lethal and deaths from its exhaust is extremely rare. Griffin 2008 goes over 10 years of medical history and could only find one case that might have been due to CO. From the study:

An extensive literature review produced no scientifically reported cases of fatal CO poisoning attributed to diesel fuel exhaust . . . Lethal CO poisoning from inhalation of diesel fumes from any make or model of on‐road vehicle is virtually unheard of and contemporary medical literature does not report it.

And yet this is the gas that the Germans decided to employ at Treblinka to commit genocide. Older models of diesel engines did not produce a lot more CO either. We have Hartenstein 1895, the earliest exhaust composition for diesel engines, as cited on Wikipedia showing a CO level of 0.1 percent (or 1000 ppm). And according to the CDC:

1-hour exposure to 1,000 to 1,200 ppm [of carbon monoxide] would cause unpleasant, but no dangerous symptoms

So 1 million people were gassed to death with a non-lethal gas, then the bodies were buried, then dug back up, burned and put back into the graves (for some reason) and then the ash magically disappeared. Makes sense

 

[BEz939]

You seem to be deluding yourself into some sort of fallacy where the lack of evidence and the incompetency and ridiculousness of the narrative is somehow a point against revisionism. When most people talk about the holocaust as a conspiracy, we're not talking about all Jews having meetings or email lists where they lay out the exact narrative that everyone is going to tell. The holocaust narrative, especially in the beginning around the Nuremberg trials, was a wild west. Every Jew that was in a camp (and some that were never near any of them) wanted to tell incredible stories and get a book published. Many of these Jews might have even believed the Germans were killing Jews and lied purely for selfish reasons and not for the benefit of Zionism. Not everyone understood what the Zionists were trying to accomplish. To add yet another story that I haven't posted yet, here's Yankel Wiernik talking about how he escaped Treblinka by flashing a gold coin at the greedy, gold obsessed gentile guard (nice projection there, Jew). The guard dropped his machine gun to fist fight for the coin as if he's some sort of üntermensch goblin who can't control himself.

Spoiler: A YEAR IN TREBLINKA by Yankel Wiernik

"We leaped to our feet. Everyone fell to his prearranged task and performed it with meticulous care. Among the most difficult tasks was to lure the Ukrainians from the watchtowers. Once they began shooting at us from above, we would have no chance of escaping alive. We knew that gold held an immense attraction for them, and they had been doing business with the Jews all the time. So, when the shot rang out, one of the Jews sneaked up to the tower and showed the Ukrainian guard a gold coin. The Ukrainian completely forgot that he was on guard duty. He dropped his machine gun and hastily clambered down to pry the piece of gold from the Jew. They grabbed him, finished him off and took his revolver. The guards in the other towers were also dispatched quickly."

Calling these Jews out on their lies would have made Jewish testimonies seem less reliable, which is why they very rarely do it even today. Testimonies is the only evidence they have. They will revise the history and elements of the narrative without throwing shade on the witnesses. There are a shit-ton of witnesses that said the gas came from showerheads for instance, but Yad Vashem and historians never call these witnesses out on it or remove their testimonies from their websites. They just say 'gas from showerheads was an urban legend' in one of their many books, say they have addressed the issue and move on. Only when gentiles try to get in on the action do they call them out on it, as in the case of Misha Defonseca. Incredibly her story of sneaking into Nazi Germany at the age of 7 and getting raised by wolves wasn't questioned until they found out she's a gentile. Her book was translated into 20 languages and sold millions of copies (most of these books are bought by governments, not privately btw. Most people don't give a shit and very rarely read holocaust books on their own accord). They were planning on making a film about her until they found out she wasn't chosen by God himself and they cancelled her. Notice how no one questioned the story, no matter how retarded it was, as long as they thought she was Jewish.

This leaves holocaust "historians" with a problem. They need to somehow make retarded and conflicting Jewish testimonies into a believable narrative. This is why you get so many inconsistencies. Similarly they cannot revise the number 6 million, which is where many of the problems of the narrative come from. For a lot of people it's too big of a number to be believable. 6 million is a religious number in Judaism and is thrown around constantly (see my two previous posts or the attached text file for the entire list between 1850 to 1945. The pastebin died last time so I've attached it this time). In the Torah it says 'you shall return [to Israel] minus 6 million.' The definition of the word holocaust is 'a sacrifice consumed by fire.' Hence 6 million Jews was sacrificed by fire to create the state of Israel. And creating the state of Israel is exactly what they used the holocaust narrative for. This locked them in. They could not decrease the amount of deaths to make it more believable since Zionists insisted on the number 6 million. This is one of the reason why they've removed so many gentile deaths like poles from Auschwitz or entire camps with mostly gentile deaths. They had to get the amount of deaths down to make it seem more plausible while leaving the holy 6 million be.

As for why they left the camps open instead of destroying them, who knows. Both have pros and cons. Interestingly they have discussed it before and recently. Robert Jan Van Pelt, leading expert on Auschwitz and perhaps the most famous """debunker""" of holocaust revisionism, essentially argued for closing the camp after admitting they have no physical evidence of Auschwitz being a death camp:

The way I read what Van Pelt is saying here is that they are no longer able to defend Auschwitz from revisionists and that leaving the museum up does them more harm than good.




Ah, Treblinka. Where they claimed about 1 million Jews were killed with carbon monoxide via diesel engine exhaust. I assume they showed you picture of the bodies/ash they found during an excavation, right? After all they claim the bodies were buried there, then dug back up to be burned and then the ashes were put back into the mass graves:

Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols., Macmillan, New York 1990, vol. 4, p. 1481-87


The wood needed to burn these bodies would have been immense. If we assume for simplicity 100kg wood per body, which is extremely generous considering these 'ovens' were open-air where the heat isn't contained inside a container and escapes into the air. On many days there was even rain and snow (wet wood burning wet bodies in open-air takes a lot of energy if it's even possible). Roughly one million Jews died there requiring (more than) 100kg of wood each which is 100.000 metric ton of wood. According to Wikipedia on wood ash "typically between 0.43 and 1.82 percent of the mass of burned wood results in ash" so let's say 1 percent for ease which means we're left with 1k metric ton of ash from the wood alone. The bodies would have produced a lot of ash as well. Surely they would have dug this up and taken lots of picture and video as you do in any excavation, and especially this one since you're providing evidence for something that is so important that it's illegal to question it. Yet no such photos or video exists.

The killing method is also impossible. Diesel engine exhaust contains too little carbon monoxide to be lethal and deaths from its exhaust is extremely rare. Griffin 2008 goes over 10 years of medical history and could only find one case that might have been due to CO. From the study:

And yet this is the gas that the Germans decided to employ at Treblinka to commit genocide. Older models of diesel engines did not produce a lot more CO either. We have Hartenstein 1895, the earliest exhaust composition for diesel engines, as cited on Wikipedia showing a CO level of 0.1 percent (or 1000 ppm). And according to the CDC:

So 1 million people were gassed to death with a non-lethal gas, then the bodies were buried, then dug back up, burned and put back into the graves (for some reason) and then the ash magically disappeared. Makes sense

I wanted to ask a quick question. Do you think it is possible for someone to be unbiased and come in to a place with no motive? I know this is irrelevant to your treblinka story but the vast majority of debate seems to be from people either trying to prove it happened or people trying to prove it didn’t happen. Do you think that it is possible that someone could come in, purely for archeological reasons, unaware of the political correlations, and examine the death camps?

 

[Bonesjones]

I wanted to ask a quick question. Do you think it is possible for someone to be unbiased and come in to a place with no motive? I know this is irrelevant to your treblinka story but the vast majority of debate seems to be from people either trying to prove it happened or people trying to prove it didn’t happen. Do you think that it is possible that someone could come in, purely for archeological reasons, unaware of the political correlations, and examine the death camps?

How do you think most revisionists come to the idea that the narrative of industrialized genocide was entirely fabricated? They objectively looked at the evidence.

 

[BEz939]

How do you think most revisionists come to the idea that the narrative of industrialized genocide was entirely fabricated? They objectively looked at the evidence.

Bones, what opinion do you have on members of the 12 Tribes of Judea?

 

[Bonesjones]

Bones, what opinion do you have on members of the 12 Tribes of Judea?

Their matriarchal upbringing makes them whiney and money obsessed.

 

[BEz939]

Their matriarchal upbringing makes them whiney and money obsessed.

Not a big fan, eh? Understandable. You think your distaste of Jews could factor in to any possible bias that you could have? I will be honest, as someone who spends time around jews and has befriended several, I’m almost certainly biased in favor of them. The point is, everyone who has a stake in this debate is trying to prove something. No one is out there just gathering evidence and presenting it in a non partisan manner. And a non partisan investigation of these camps probably never will occur.

 

[Bonesjones]

Not a big fan, eh? Understandable. You think your distaste of Jews could factor in to any possible bias that you could have? I will be honest, as someone who spends time around jews and has befriended several, I’m almost certainly biased in favor of them. The point is, everyone who has a stake in this debate is trying to prove something. No one is out there just gathering evidence and presenting it in a non partisan manner. And a non partisan investigation of these camps probably never will occur.

Or you can look at objective physical evidence, see it doesn't line up with their allegations, proving they are either mistaken or outright liars.

Why are you so pro-jew? I'm not pro any group of people, only individuals I know and trust. Seems like you project your own feelings to avoid the cognitive dissonance you find.

You are looking to call me antisemitic or a Nazi because its easier than engaging with the facts.

 

[Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes]

I wanted to ask a quick question. Do you think it is possible for someone to be unbiased and come in to a place with no motive? I know this is irrelevant to your treblinka story but the vast majority of debate seems to be from people either trying to prove it happened or people trying to prove it didn’t happen. Do you think that it is possible that someone could come in, purely for archeological reasons, unaware of the political correlations, and examine the death camps?

It isn't possible to be completely unbiased on this topic today. Fred A. Leuchter went there as objective as one can be. He was essentially the foremost expert on executions in the USA and had designed gas chambers before. He went to Auschwitz after being asked by Zündel to be an expert witness and wrote the first Leuchter Report. He exposed a ton of flaws and came to the conclusion that there's no way the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers were used for what they claimed. Despite this report being as objective as one can be, he got the usually treatment. He lost his job and was slandered by the Jewish press and NGOs to the point where he went from being very financially well off and respected to becoming financially ruined. How can anyone be objective about a topic when this is the consequence for coming to the wrong conclusion even in a country with "freedom of speech"?

You can see the same thing when a polish group made an official response to the testing for cyanide of the walls of the chambers

Markiewichz et al. is the official response by the Polish soviet puppet state. They claim their results disprove the chemical testing commissioned by Leuchter and Germar Rudolf, but you'll see what they've done by first glance. Neither the fumigation chambers, which both sides of the debate agree were gassed with Zyklon nor the homicidal gas chambers had any significant amount of cyanide in the walls in their testing. The reason is simple, they purposefully didn't test for it. Why? Because they were in a puppet state of the Soviet Union and the holocaust was their war propaganda against their sworn enemy. On top of that, this was Zionist propaganda and Bolshevism was a very Jewish system (Lenin was a Jew, Trotsky was a Jew, Stalin was a gentile but was surrounded by Jews and made special rules and laws in favor of Jewry and Zionism, the first flag of the Soviet Union had a 6 pointed star of David instead of the 5 pointed red star and Communism as a whole was invented by a Jew and spread by Jews world wide). You don't need a very vivid imagination to envision what would have happened to those scientists if they gave the wrong result. So they played it safe and simply didn't test for it at all and declared the amount of cyanide in the delousing chambers and homicidal gas chambers to be the same.

As long as there are so many consequences for giving the wrong results, you can never have a completely objective analysis, which is of course the point. As it stands only people with the balls big enough to risk prison time and never working again will be able to do it. When you risk losing everything you have and get arrested and sometimes even beaten by terrorists you will have every incentive to be biased in favor of the orthodox holocaust narrative. But we don't need a completely unbiased or objective team to do an excavation. They merely have to dig up the dirt where they claim the bodies/ash is and take pictures and video of everything and let people review their work. That's it. It would be VERY easy to prove if what they say is true and yet they have nada, nothing, null, absolutely zero physical evidence

 

[BEz939]

It isn't possible to be completely unbiased on this topic today. Fred A. Leuchter went there as objective as one can be. He was essentially the foremost expert on executions in the USA and had designed gas chambers before. He went to Auschwitz after being asked by Zündel to be an expert witness and wrote the first Leuchter Report. He exposed a ton of flaws and came to the conclusion that there's no way the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers were used for what they claimed. Despite this report being as objective as one can be, he got the usually treatment. He lost his job and was slandered by the Jewish press and NGOs to the point where he went from being very financially well off and respected to becoming financially ruined. How can anyone be objective about a topic when this is the consequence for coming to the wrong conclusion even in a country with "freedom of speech"?

You can see the same thing when a polish group made an official response to the testing for cyanide of the walls of the chambers

View attachment 2125554
Markiewichz et al. is the official response by the Polish soviet puppet state. They claim their results disprove the chemical testing commissioned by Leuchter and Germar Rudolf, but you'll see what they've done by first glance. Neither the fumigation chambers, which both sides of the debate agree were gassed with Zyklon nor the homicidal gas chambers had any significant amount of cyanide in the walls in their testing. The reason is simple, they purposefully didn't test for it. Why? Because they were in a puppet state of the Soviet Union and the holocaust was their war propaganda against their sworn enemy. On top of that, this was Zionist propaganda and Bolshevism was a very Jewish system (Lenin was a Jew, Trotsky was a Jew, Stalin was a gentile but was surrounded by Jews and made special rules and laws in favor of Jewry and Zionism, the first flag of the Soviet Union had a 6 pointed star of David instead of the 5 pointed red star and Communism as a whole was invented by a Jew and spread by Jews world wide). You don't need a very vivid imagination to envision what would have happened to those scientists if they gave the wrong result. So they played it safe and simply didn't test for it at all and declared the amount of cyanide in the delousing chambers and homicidal gas chambers to be the same.

As long as there are so many consequences for giving the wrong results, you can never have a completely objective analysis, which is of course the point. As it stands only people with the balls big enough to risk prison time and never working again will be able to do it. When you risk losing everything you have and get arrested and sometimes even beaten by terrorists you will have every incentive to be biased in favor of the orthodox holocaust narrative. But we don't need a completely unbiased or objective team to do an excavation. They merely have to dig up the dirt where they claim the bodies/ash is and take pictures and video of everything and let people review their work. That's it. It would be VERY easy to prove if what they say is true and yet they have nada, nothing, null, absolutely zero physical evidence

A biased person will be willing to believe whatever they find to be evidence of anything. This can go either way. I agree with you in that the sites need to be fully excavated, but my hunch is that they’re gonna find a lot of ash.

I really don’t think much of the holocaust, not enough to do extensive research. You do, because you have a stake in the game. You hate Jews. Don’t try to deny it, I’m not here to persecute you over it. But it’s clear that you don’t get along well with the fellows with long noses and small caps. My question is, why would one genocide matter?

 

[Bonesjones]

A biased person will be willing to believe whatever they find to be evidence of anything. This can go either way. I agree with you in that the sites need to be fully excavated, but my hunch is that they’re gonna find a lot of ash.

I really don’t think much of the holocaust, not enough to do extensive research. You do, because you have a stake in the game. You hate Jews. Don’t try to deny it, I’m not here to persecute you over it. But it’s clear that you don’t get along well with the fellows with long noses and small caps. My question is, why would one genocide matter?

Like clockwork every time.

 

[BEz939]

Like clockwork every time.

It’s clockwork because nothing ever changes in this conversation. Neither side comes out changed. We dig ourselves deeper into our trenches, look desperately for things to fortify our arguments. Pretty poor and pathetic attempts at arguments have been made many times on either sides.

the meme “it was real in my mind” has been spread around a lot on the internet, but removing the context of the holocaust, it’s actually rather insightful. We choose what evidence we want to believe. We exaggerate, downplay, flat out lie. It’s because the truth doesn’t matter to anyone on earth. Not a single soul. Because ideology matters more, and all people will do anything to prevent their beliefs from changing. No one is exempt from this. Oppressed or Oppressor, Man or Female, Straight or Gay. The question is, when do the facts start to matter, and when do they stop?

 

[Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes]

A biased person will be willing to believe whatever they find to be evidence of anything. This can go either way. I agree with you in that the sites need to be fully excavated, but my hunch is that they’re gonna find a lot of ash.

I really don’t think much of the holocaust, not enough to do extensive research. You do, because you have a stake in the game. You hate Jews. Don’t try to deny it, I’m not here to persecute you over it. But it’s clear that you don’t get along well with the fellows with long noses and small caps. My question is, why would one genocide matter?

I'm sorry, but you're just a religious person at this point. Let me use my atheism priors to ask the same questions I would a religious person. How is the holocaust falsifiable at this point? How do you disprove it? And if there is no way to do so, then at the very least be honest and call it faith, or as Robert Jan Van Pelt would call it "inherited knowledge"

What makes you think they'll find a lot of ash at Treblinka? They've excavated other camps like Sobibór and revisionists are still waiting for video or pictures of massive amount of ash or bodies.

We choose what evidence we want to believe

Oh really, what evidence is it that you choose to believe in then? Provide some examples. And don't be vague and say 'testimonies', say which testimony in particular. You don't believe in the evidence. You believe in authorities. Authorities told you that this is the truth and traumatized you as a kid by telling you horror stories.