List of Holocaust topics the Believer Brigades won't touch.

[borjastick]

I have noticed since the re-launch of this web site that the Nessie types have a clever knack of changing the subject and swerving certain questions and areas that presumably they feel uncertain of their position on or realise that these will get them roasted and exposed should they get involved.

I ask you for any examples of these Swervy Moves because I think this is an important part of the inevitable and ongoing winning by the Truth Troopers here. I will add some of those that I have noticed once this thread gets going as I would like to see if anyone else has noticed those same issues I have.

Let's get this list going chaps.

[HansHill]

Great topic, and I too hope to add some value to this thread once it gets going.

I will start with the obvious ones we have seen a million times: talking about some technical aspect of a gassing (ie HcN concentrations, no Kula columns, no holes etc) and the immediate retreat to:

1) This detail is confirmed by X-eyewitness therefore is self-evident and any observation to the contrary is by definition not possible
2) You cannot evidence where they were after the war, therefor Occams Razor Hay Presto they were gassed
3) misuse of logical fallacies such as circular reasoning, appeal to consensus, appeal to authority, misunderstanding the scientific method

As a side note, i started two previous threads addressing similar hopefully all threads together can offer value:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=143
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=166

[Callafangers]

I will add here:

The meaning and implications of such extraordinary propagandizing and mass censorship-and-persecution campaigns against everyone who disputes their narrative, insofar as the credibility we should expect such a narrative (one upheld significantly through such underhanded tactics) to entail.

I'd suggest this thread for further reading:

'Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit'
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=308

[Callafangers]

One more to mention, from the thread linked in my last post (I think page 6, statement to SanityCheck):

Your aversion to technical analysis highlights your preference for weaker, narrative-based 'evidence' which is spoken rather than measured, and is much easier to fabricate and re-interpret as needed. The topic of hierarchy of evidence has been discussed many times, to the point that the debate between revisionists and exterminationists on this has, like the question of technical analysis in general, all but 'moved on' entirely from this, since the logic is so clearly in favor of revisionism that not much else needs to be said.

(the hierarchy of evidence being another topic heavily evaded by exterminationists)

[curioussoul]

Some topics they, to this very day, refuse to engage with in any serious way:

• The cremation fuel problem.
• The cremation time problem.
• The refractory brickwork problem.
• The open-air incineration pits problem.
• The Sonderkommando/Aktion 1005 logistics absurdity.
• The Operation Reinhard extermination of workable Jews problem.

In fact, most technical/physical aspects of the logistics of the Holocaust, especially cremations and gassing.

[Archie]

In no particular order,

1) They really do not like having to defend any of the classic eyewitnesses like Hoess, Gerstein, Nyiszli, etc. As these have all been thoroughly debunked, they will just try to shift to something else. They tend to get upset when revisionists bring these up. They also don't like being confronted with the actual texts of these testimonies, nor when any sort of analysis is done. They prefer to keep things as vague and obscure as possible.

2) A big sticking point is that they are generally unwilling to acknowledge any sort of lying or dishonesty (or really even bias) on the part of the Allies or Jews, nor do they acknowledge that atrocity propaganda is a thing. When they reluctantly admit errors, as a rule they will spin these as "honest mistakes." Witnesses get things wrong because of "hearsay," memory lapses, or innumeracy but never lying. That is a no-go area for them. And the same with official investigative bodies. "Mistakes" perhaps but no lying. HC claims that the wildly inflated Soviet death tolls were the result of "miscalculation." They say the 4M Auschwitz number was an earnest attempt to get an accurate number. They have to argue this because they know that to acknowledge all these things would be a systemic threat to their position.

3) They really don't like discussing the six million. Many of them try to gaslight people into thinking that the six million has never been of any particular importance and this is merely an obsession of revisionists. Here is a quite brazen example of this.
https://rodoh.info/thread/686/don-under ... bsession-6

[borjastick]

Brilliant stuff chaps and I agree with all your points. As Corporal Jones would say 'They don't like it up 'em Sir, they don't like it up 'em'.

I would add two subjects where the Believers are all at sea; Firstly Treblinka which in my opinion it is an epic fail for them. They simply cannot square the circle on that one and make themselves look very foolish in the process.

Secondly a subject I did a separate thread on and got no takers from the bed wetters. The disposal of cremains in Auschwitz. The claim is they were spread in the local fields and also dumped into the river. If you care to read my thread you will see that these two options would not be possible and or leave massive evidence.

More later...

[Wahrheitssucher]

1) They really do not like having to defend any of the classic eyewitnesses like Hoess, Gerstein, Nyiszli, etc. As these have all been thoroughly debunked, they will just try to shift to something else. They tend to get upset when revisionists bring these up. They also don't like being confronted with the actual texts of these testimonies, nor when any sort of analysis is done. They prefer to keep things as vague and obscure as possible.

2) A big sticking point is that they are generally unwilling to acknowledge any sort of lying or dishonesty (or really even bias) on the part of the Allies or Jews, nor do they acknowledge that atrocity propaganda is a thing. When they reluctantly admit errors, as a rule they will spin these as "honest mistakes." Witnesses get things wrong because of "hearsay," memory lapses, or innumeracy but never lying. That is a no-go area for them. And the same with official investigative bodies. "Mistakes" perhaps but no lying. HC claims that the wildly inflated Soviet death tolls were the result of "miscalculation." They say the 4M Auschwitz number was an earnest attempt to get an accurate number. They have to argue this because they know that to acknowledge all these things would be a systemic threat to their position.

They don’t like talking about the initial ‘holocaust’ allegations and eye-witness testimonies.
I ‘m aware that you’ve covered that with these two points above. But there is another type of testimony which true-believers are adverse to, besides those ‘survivor’ testimonies and tortured German ‘confessions’ that are very clearly FALSE.

It is that they don’t like discussing testimony of ‘eye-witnesses’ who refute the mythology of there being a planned genocide via ‘extermination camps’. E.g. Paul Rassanier and Dr. Russel Barton are excellent examples of that.

They also don’t like discussing camps that were presented as ‘death camps’ or ‘extermination camps’ at the war’s end but are now acknowledged not to have been. In other words they can’t acknowledge the Allies LIED (your point 2).
They can’t admit the Allies lied to the world, to the defeated Germans, to their own populations and to their own soldiers.

Nor can they admit that well-fed, well-cared for jewish survivors gleefully amplified those lies for revenge.
E.g. Hela Goldstein, a Jewish-Polish ‘holocaust survivor’ who is the first to EVER be captured lying on film (24th April 1945).



She is obviously well-fed and healthy but was filmed lying that she spent some unspecified time in the Bergen-Belsen camp with 1,500 in one filthy room with no food or even water. The deceitful intended implication is that these were her conditions there the whole time.

Another example of a vengeful, lying ‘holocaust survivor’ is Hadassah Rosensaft (Bimko). The clearly well-fed and well-cared for Chief Physician of the women's concentration carp at Bergen Belsen.



A good example of an alleged ‘extermination camp’ that is now acknowledged by academia as not being one, but yet which is still used by the holocaust industry to emotionally-deceive simpletons, is the necro-pornographic film of Bergen-Belsen.

That was the film that convinced the gullible, war-weary Allied populations and Allied soldiers of the ‘holocaust’ and the Third Reich’s alleged ‘wickedness’.
Even recently I’ve had gullible, ignorant, simple-minded folk argue that they “know” the “holocaust happened” because they saw some of this footage in their childhood.

That a British camp medical officer Dr. Russel Barton who was there and refuted that Allied propaganda, they don’t know and when told can’t believe.

https://www.goyimtv.com/v/3977772682/AV ... gen-Belsen

The Jewish misinformation machine tries to keep this deception going and has recently colourised the original footage and put it up on Jewish-controlled social-media:



Youtube (jewtube) is saturated with false depictions of this camp plus vengeful film of innocent camp guards being lynched.







This is the actual hate-crime: perpetuating this refuted atrocity propaganda. And yet the draconian censorship and criminalisation is increasing. Which is another FACT the holocaust promoters don’t like to talk about: viz. thought crime legislation outlawing legitimate historical revision.

And the people knowingly perpetuating this mythology, even though they are aware its core precepts have been refuted, I predict will go down in history as wicked people motivated by racist hate.

[Stubble]

A wise man pointed something out to me and I will share it here and now.



Even when an exterminationist gets caught out, vividly, in front of everyone, there is no shame, no humility, just doubling down and explaining away.

'Like grabbing jelly'.