"Revisionists cannot work out how the Holocaust happened"...

[HansHill]

....

Bluffing is also an apt term. If you say you have the archeological proof, that is a claim. A claim is not proof. When you are pressed on this, there is always a huge difference between your overconfident rhetoric about "overwhelmingly" physical evidence and what you actually end up presenting. In the end, you guys essentially settle for arguing that the story is not impossible. Under ridiculous assumptions. This is a very watered-down argument compared to the opening rhetoric you all employ (especially Nessie).

...

We are pointing out to you that we have eyewitness, and archaeological and other evidence, that all corroborates and in response, all you can do is try and argue it was physically impossible.

Did you just forget that Revisionists don't consider the eyewitnesses credible? And that we are here to independently validate their testimony? And that independent critical thinking of the physical record is kinda our whole thing?

Eyewitnesses corroborating each other means less than nothing when the physical record renders their testimony and alleged methods as impossible.

Have you been going around in circles for so long you have forgotten the entire purpose of why we are all here?

[Nessie]

....

Bluffing is also an apt term. If you say you have the archeological proof, that is a claim. A claim is not proof. When you are pressed on this, there is always a huge difference between your overconfident rhetoric about "overwhelmingly" physical evidence and what you actually end up presenting. In the end, you guys essentially settle for arguing that the story is not impossible. Under ridiculous assumptions. This is a very watered-down argument compared to the opening rhetoric you all employ (especially Nessie).

...

We are pointing out to you that we have eyewitness, and archaeological and other evidence, that all corroborates and in response, all you can do is try and argue it was physically impossible.

Did you just forget that Revisionists don't consider the eyewitnesses credible?

I have not forgotten that so-called revisionists dismiss 100% of the eyewitnesses to gassings, mass graves and cremations. Indeed, I often reference that.

And that we are here to independently validate their testimony? And that independent critical thinking of the physical record is kinda our whole thing?

The issue is that your idea of independent critical thinking, is flawed, biased and it produces the unlikely result of 100% of eyewitnesses lied and none can be traced who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas, who told the truth.

Eyewitnesses corroborating each other means less than nothing when the physical record renders their testimony and alleged methods as impossible.

Have you been going around in circles for so long you have forgotten the entire purpose of why we are all here?

When groups of people, who would not cooperate, or speak different languages, or they are made up of both victims and accused, all state the same thing, that is strong corroborating evidence. So, for example, when Topf & Sons engineers, SS camp staff and Jewish prisoners of multiple nationalities, all say that the ovens coped with mass cremations of hundreds of thousands of corpses, that is strong corroborating evidence.

The physical record does not render their claims about the ovens impossible. You have no evidence to prove that the ovens only cremated the camp dead and far fewer than the witnesses estimated.

[Keen]

I have not forgotten that so-called revisionists dismiss 100% of the eyewitnesses to gassings, mass graves and cremations. Indeed, I often reference that.

Have you forgotten that even you have admitted that more than half of the 15 alleged "huge mass graves" of Treblinka II are not mass graves?

Nessie, what is 925,000 divided by 7?