Brive1987 wrote: ↑
No Vicky. Your endless assertions are not an argument to current consensus. They don’t even approach “winning”
But I am watching YOU duck and weave dear boy. That's why I am reply to you here and not taking it to the holocaust thread. Obviously we have the usual suspects here who pick a side, cheer it on with and throw insults because they haven't actually bothered to look at the subject. But the cheerleaders don't much effect the results on the field.
Putting all the holocaust propaganda from the First World war to one side, your 'story' starts with the American Military displaying tables of curiosities including shrunken heads.
Shrunken heads for fucks sake!
This is just the tip of a very large iceberg, which isn't just emotional "Jewish Internationalists", but an international fit-up. The "conspiracy" isn't even a secret, nobody denies that this is all part of the denazification effort, it's just that they claim the propaganda is true. Then you have the disgrace which is Nuremberg just to drive the point home.
You know this, and you know that pretty much all the holocaust history done for the next 50 years is a complete embarrassment to you, you have pretty much admitted this. You don't even have to pick apart the details, you have read enough history to know that this doesn't even have the smell and feel of real history.
The "current consensus" doesn't tend to admit this, but you know as well as I do they have had to do some serious back peddling, even to the point of revising the figures at the flagship Auschwitz. You may argue that this doesn't affect the overall picture, but I won't believe you if you tell me this wasn't a painful embarrassment. It would NOT have been done if it weren't for revisionists snapping at their heels.
I have let you pick the battles and what you have
brought alluded to is convoluted theories built on thin evidence... most of which requires a subjective reading and the rest has dubious provenance. THAT'S an assertion in reply to your assertions. Neither of us has scratched the surface but that's a problem for you, not for me.
Why should I care? Oy vey. Actually I don't, I just come here for an argument, especially if I can join the side of the underdog. But I want to ask you a favour, I want you to elaborate...
Denialism has a role to play in encouraging detailed research.
Thanks for that.
It has done WAY more than that hasn't it? If it hadn't we would still be hearing about Jewish Soap and 4 million dead at Auschwitz (just to pick a couple of the better known and irrefutable examples). In fact it would be fair to say the
denialists revisionists were right!
Who's really like the creationists? It is your side that keeps losing the battles yet your conclusion stayed the same. Your side had all it's witnesses exposed as fantasists yet the conclusions stay the same.
So tell me, why is it okay to jump all over gurugeorge when he expresses doubt, when in the past those doubts have been well founded? Why is it haram to question the consensus, when like me, you are questioning the questionable methodology which wouldn't be accepted if we were talking about any other subject?
And this is highly topical because it comes at a time when half the forum is arguing that the Russians are trying to influence US and UK elections, and the other half is arguing that you can't trust the CIA either. But the Russians, Poles, Americans + the Israelis are feeding us a narrative (and evidence) through the major years of the cold war... for some reason this is all to be taken on face value. Oh, but it's the revisionists who have an agenda.
Ideally I'd like to hear you make some admissions... possibly elaborate when you say that "denialists" have had a role to play. Looks to me like you are dancing to their tune, no longer running away with a narrative but shoring up defenses against their assaults.
And that was some fancy footwork you did over the witness testimony, what was it you called it? "non-nuanced"? Duck and Weave Brive!
Admissible in court my arse. I'd like you to admit that in any court which wasn't packed full of kangaroos, these witnesses would probably be laughed out or charged with perjury. And that any half competent defence lawyer would tear them to pieces, and any half competent historian would do the same without being called a "denier". Which of course is what the orthodoxy has quietly done.... I am sure you are well aware of this.
I don't expect any admissions, but I think you are too honest to deny it either.
It seems that something I have downloaded is blocking a lot of holocaust related material, but it doesn't block Youtube. I stumbled across the following video which I am going to post here. I have only watched the first hour, but the first hour does a pretty good job of demonstrating the calibre of the people who built the orthodox narrative. It goes way beyond the normal inaccuracies and elaboration you find with witness testimony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kTEF8_g-Vg
I know this is encroaching on people's safe spaces, and it might actually be illegal for some of people on this forum to watch this. It is probably illegal for me to watch this. Which is probably why you should watch this, after all we wouldn't want to be in a bubble would we? I have never argued for teaching both sides of the controversy, but we should at least be aware of what the controversy is.
That's my last word on the subject.