How Can Such a Strong Consensus Be So Wrong for so Long?

[Stubble]

I looked at that video and it didn't have very much context and didn't look at all to me like you were accurate.

Did you, uh, read the title of the video? Which was, uh, the title of the reel it was on?

I mean, man, I said it was a fake gas chamber, set up for propaganda purposes, and the video calls it a gas chamber supposedly located at the Gestapo torture chamber.

Anybody, uh, claim there ever was a homicidal gas chamber at the Gestapo torture chamber in Paris? Anybody at all?

I'll see if I can track down some surrounding memoranda or maybe some materials billing. It is a longshot, but, something of that nature may he extant.

[ConfusedJew]

???

It is titled - Exhumation; Inspection of gas chambers; Lt. Hodges

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1000177

I'm not so inclined to engage with incoherent arguments

[Stubble]

I beg your pardon? The argument is both coherent and concise. Allow me to be a bit more clear, I apologize for the clutter folks.

Now, to he very clear here, let's break down the issue. We have before us, linked, a video capture of a reel compiled near the end of ww2. It purports to be an inspection of a homicidal gas chamber at the Gestapo torture chamber in Paris France.

There is an issue here. The main issue is that there never was a homicidal gas chamber located there. No one claims this now. The film is a hoax.

This issue is further compounded by the Dachau homicidal gas chamber, never used as a gas chamber.

You see, both of these, when taken in isolation, what's less when considered together, point to a deception. A deception put to film and propagated during the close of the war.

When you add to this the table at Buchenwald and the propaganda surrounding that whole fiasco, that image doesn't get any better.

As you pan out, you find this type of thing (outright deception and misrepresentation of evidence) time and time again.

Consider the images of Nordhausen and Bergen Belsen used to provide impact to narration often, in documentary films shown to children. These images do not show what is described, jews, gassed in homicidal gas chambers. They show internees that died at the end of the war either directly (Nordhausen) or indirectly (Bergen Belsen) from allied terror bombing. Without contextualization, this is used to convince children of the narrative material being presented. It is dishonest, and when found out, it leads to distrust.

Perhaps this is a bit more clear for you.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…A deception put to film and propagated during the close of the war.

…As you pan out, you find this type of thing (outright deception and misrepresentation of evidence) time and time again.

Consider the images of Nordhausen and Bergen Belsen used to provide impact to narration often, in documentary films shown to children. These images do not show what is described, jews, gassed in homicidal gas chambers. They show internees that died at the end of the war either directly (Nordhausen) or indirectly (Bergen Belsen) from allied terror bombing. Without contextualization, this is used to convince children of the narrative material being presented. It is dishonest, and when found out, it leads to distrust.

Perhaps this is a bit more clear for you.

Well said!

The fact that deeply disturbing film of multiple, emaciated corpses is shown to very young, impressionable children — and in some countries has become a compulsory part of their school curricula — is deeply reprehensible, institutionalised behaviour. It would be that even if the narrative being conveyed was fair and accurate. That it isn’t but instead is — as you demonstrated — a deliberate deception, is another evidence of how the predominance of this a-historic deception is like a cancer within society.

[Nessie]

....

There is an issue here. The main issue is that there never was a homicidal gas chamber located there. No one claims this now. The film is a hoax.

Evidence of hoaxes failing, is evidence a hoax the size of the Holocaust could not be pulled off.

This issue is further compounded by the Dachau homicidal gas chamber, never used as a gas chamber.

You see, both of these, when taken in isolation, what's less when considered together, point to a deception. A deception put to film and propagated during the close of the war.

When you add to this the table at Buchenwald and the propaganda surrounding that whole fiasco, that image doesn't get any better.

As you pan out, you find this type of thing (outright deception and misrepresentation of evidence) time and time again.

Consider the images of Nordhausen and Bergen Belsen used to provide impact to narration often, in documentary films shown to children. These images do not show what is described, jews, gassed in homicidal gas chambers. They show internees that died at the end of the war either directly (Nordhausen) or indirectly (Bergen Belsen) from allied terror bombing. Without contextualization, this is used to convince children of the narrative material being presented. It is dishonest, and when found out, it leads to distrust.

Revisionists cherry-pick the known atrocity stories, disputed evidence and actual hoaxes, ignoring all that is well evidenced and proven to have happened. Cherry-picking is fallacy, because it causes false results.

[HansHill]

Evidence of hoaxes failing, is evidence a hoax the size of the Holocaust could not be pulled off.

Multiple aspects of the holocaust collapsing over the course of years, decades, and up to half a century, is cataclysmic for the narrative. Not signs of its strength.

The absolute state of anti-Revisionists.

[Nessie]

Evidence of hoaxes failing, is evidence a hoax the size of the Holocaust could not be pulled off.

Multiple aspects of the holocaust collapsing over the course of years, decades, and up to half a century, is cataclysmic for the narrative. Not signs of its strength.

The absolute state of anti-Revisionists.

That many camps did not have the gas chambers they were rumoured to, was established decades ago. The reductions in death tolls are most explained by Eastern European countries, in particular Poland, dropping Soviet overestimates, after the collapse of communism. That the AR camps used petrol, rather than the more commonly cited diesel engines, is not a collapse. There is no sign of any cataclysm, you are exaggerating.

[Hektor]

In general, rejecting consensus requires extraordinary evidence and a valid alternative framework, not just doubt.

A few things:

• You're overstating the value of consensus in general. Every religion has a mass consensus, as do many cults. Many consumer product brands have the same.
• The key issue with consensus is its methodology or 'framework', as you acknowledge. But you're mistaken in suggesting one must necessarily provide an alternate framework just to show a given one as invalid.
• You're mistaken about the need for 'extraordinary evidence' in rejecting a given consensus (especially one with an invalid and manipulative framework). Extraordinary claims are what require extraordinary evidence.

We eagerly await the extraordinary evidence for your claims. Meanwhile, we will continue to point out the major problems in your methodology/framework.

Indeed.
"Scientific Consensus" is an oxymoron.
The scientific method doesn't consider consensus as a means of determining veracity at all.
Where it is used validly is perhaps when establishing definitions of terms. But even there it can be problematic.

What needs extraordinary evidence are extra-ordinary are extraordinary claims. And that's a given with the Holocaust narrative. The evidence given is however wanting and consists of dubious claims, hearsay and sources that would have extraordinary motives to lie to broader audiences. And that's actually where the consensus stems from. From what political figures, organizations, movements wanted at the time. And in short this was designed by a number of key tenets:
1. "Nazis Bad" after all they were the key enemy of the Allies and especially the Communist movement.
2. "Innocent Victims" - That counts for Jews, but also for Communists in general. As if there was no reason to intern them based on previous experiences.
3. "Heroic Allies". Since they were neither a brave, numerically inferior nor well-behaved force to let them look heroically blackballing the enemy was the best method.

Appealing to consensus is also a 'ad populum' fallacy. Which can be combined with 'appealing to authority' fallacy in the case of 'scientific consensus'. It's especially the wanting evidence for the Holocaust Narrative that makes it's proponents grasp to fallacies like 'appeal to consensus'.

Since it is a loaded subject and also one of political interest what is researched and what thesis will be formulated is actually rather limited. You can come up with even more outlandish atrocity claims and not facing much repercussions. But dare to question what you would have to proof and this at least will be a career stopper. It's a bit like questioning church dogma in the era where the trad churches were still more serious about what they are teaching.


The reason for the 'consensus' lasting so long is rather simple. It's connected to powerful interest and if it wasn't for the Holocaust Narrative mythical power, those interests would have to face major problems. There is indeed a religious component in this is well... And that can be summarized in "Auschwitz is the Refutation of Christ".

[Nessie]

...

What needs extraordinary evidence are extra-ordinary are extraordinary claims.

That adage applies to revisionism and its extraordinary claim that the Holocaust was hoaxed.

[Hektor]

...

What needs extraordinary evidence are extra-ordinary are extraordinary claims.

That adage applies to revisionism and its extraordinary claim that the Holocaust was hoaxed.

Sorry, but...
- to reject outlandish atrocity propaganda and say it is made up for malicious reason is not an extraordinary claim...

[Stubble]

I'm going to park this here for posterity. This is a documentary called 'The Great Holocaust Trial' which was released in 1985 and it covers contents and coverage of the Zundel Trial.



A lot of the things touched on here still apply today. The holes in the narrative large enough to harbor the USS Liberty, the violence directed at someone saying inconvenient things, the destruction of livelihoods for wrong think etc.

CJ may find this useful if he is making an actual effort regarding understanding. It isn't a book, so, it shouldn't be unduly burdensome like a scant few pages appear to be. It is also broad in depth and concise in nature.

Edit: I'm also going to add 'Proven at Nuremberg'.

[Nessie]

...

What needs extraordinary evidence are extra-ordinary are extraordinary claims.

That adage applies to revisionism and its extraordinary claim that the Holocaust was hoaxed.

Sorry, but...
- to reject outlandish atrocity propaganda and say it is made up for malicious reason is not an extraordinary claim...

It is when you look at the sheer volume of evidence that you are alleging is made up, all those witnesses lying, documents and archaeological reports faked etc. Then there is the issue of if millions were not killed, then by 1944, millions would have been in camps and ghettos, and there is no evidence of that, which is a cover up on an epic scale.

[ConfusedJew]

The Eiffel Tower 'homicidal gas chamber' makes its appearance here in this clip.

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1000177

Notice that's from USHMM, so, nothing up my sleeve.

Of course the mock up of a gas chamber exists and you saw it. Nobody says anything different about that. It was a mock up.

What was the room used for? Read the door, it was a shower room. The OSS and Psywar dropped the ceiling and installed dummy shower heads.

Let me go grab you some receipts. If anyone beats me to them, I won't be upset.


CJ, you do see that the United States faked a gas chamber at the Eiffel Tower on camera, right? And do you remember the claims of gas chambers at Bergen Belsen? Let me ask you, were there any gas chambers at the Eiffel Tower, or at Bergen Belsen?

What are you talking about? You sent me a 10 minute clip with no time stamp for something that I should look at.

[Stubble]

Unfortunately, I feel that simple restatement would be insufficient. You appear to be incapable of understanding that fake gas chambers in the west, refuted after investigation, point to fake gas chambers in the east, never allowed to be properly investigated.

Of course, you also don't want to understand that, at all, for obvious reasons.

[Nessie]

Unfortunately, I feel that simple restatement would be insufficient. You appear to be incapable of understanding that fake gas chambers in the west,

Investigations established gas chambers at Natzweiler-Struthof, Mauthausen and various T4 hospitals in the west.

... refuted after investigation, point to fake gas chambers in the east,

Non-sequitur, as investigations established gas chambers both east and west.

... never allowed to be properly investigated.

In what way were the gas chambers in the east not allowed to be properly investigated? They have been repeatedly investigated, including by German prosecutors.