Where are the Goalposts?

[Callafangers]

And MGK did "demolish" it, or so it has been claimed. They withdrew their critique though, I don't know how you feel about that.

They never 'withdrew their critique'. They reigned in the derails by highlighting the core evidence which exterminationists consistently evade (black propaganda history, forensic precision), published as 'The Operation Reinhard Camps', which has gone unchallenged and was effective at silencing Muehlenkamp (and all other exterminationists attempting to challenge the forensic arguments) for good.

[bombsaway]

And MGK did "demolish" it, or so it has been claimed. They withdrew their critique though, I don't know how you feel about that.

They never 'withdrew their critique'. They reigned in the derails by highlighting the core evidence which exterminationists consistently evade (black propaganda history, forensic precision), published as 'The Operation Reinhard Camps', which has gone unchallenged and was effective at silencing Muehlenkamp (and all other exterminationists attempting to challenge the forensic arguments) for good.

this book? https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 8-torc.pdf

Hc blog isn't even mentioned, therefore it's not a critique I would say.

[Callafangers]

this book? https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 8-torc.pdf

Hc blog isn't even mentioned, therefore it's not a critique I would say.

That book (TORC) was a replacement regarding the AR camps within the Holocaust Handbooks series, once it was realized that its predecessor (TECOAR) left open ample opportunity for massive derails which HC bloggers would use as a means to distract the debate from the core areas which revisionists had clearly dominated. TORC has replaced TECOAR and therein it boils down the key areas which exterminationists have evaded. It was apparently a bulletproof case, as the HC bloggers have not since published any follow-up books. They also did not do this for TECOAR (instead cherry-picking 'gotchas') but TORC is refined enough that I think they would struggle to even attempt a blog series against it.

[EDIT: FYI, TECOAR was explicitly a point-by-point response to the book you linked previously, here: viewtopic.php?p=21385#p21385

Here is TECOAR, archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20201101233 ... tecoar.pdf ]

[bombsaway]

Yes, and TECOAR is nowhere to be found on the HH website, therefore my statement of them withdrawing the critique is fair.

[Archie]

Yes, and TECOAR is nowhere to be found on the HH website, therefore my statement of them withdrawing the critique is fair.

You think your totally dishonest statement is "fair." Because of course you do. The book was not withdrawn, and there was no reason to withdraw or retract it since it was never rebutted. If anyone should have retracted it should have been HC.

Here is the book you claim was "withdrawn" available at the ARMREG.
https://armreg.co.uk/product/the-exterm ... -part-1-2/

Germar wanted it removed from the Holocaust Handbooks series and had it replaced with a more concise work on the AR camps. Germar thought it was too long and that it was basically unreadable/not a proper stand-alone book because it's a bunch of point-by-point responses to another book. And it was a pain to print. They had to split it into two volumes.

[bombsaway]

Yes, and TECOAR is nowhere to be found on the HH website, therefore my statement of them withdrawing the critique is fair.

You think your totally dishonest statement is "fair." Because of course you do. The book was not withdrawn, and there was no reason to withdraw or retract it since it was never rebutted. If anyone should have retracted it should have been HC.

Here is the book you claim was "withdrawn" available at the ARMREG.
https://armreg.co.uk/product/the-exterm ... -part-1-2/

Germar wanted it removed from the Holocaust Handbooks series and had it replaced with a more concise work on the AR camps. Germar thought it was too long and that it was basically unreadable/not a proper stand-alone book because it's a bunch of point-by-point responses to another book. And it was a pain to print. They had to split it into two volumes.

Nah you can think that, but it's also plausible to say they withdrew it because they could see it made them look bad.

I think it's because they chose to do a point by point critique, missing very little, and in effect that forced them to cite hundreds of pieces of Holocaust evidence. The HC Blog book , from a narrative perspective, the first 200 pages especially (leading from 1941 to when the killing machinery was fully in place), is really impressive to me. It's just document after document of Nazis talking about killing Jews in various ways. When you read it this way, and then you get to the section on resettlement, where they're forced to defend the Herman Kruk diary entry as evidence, you really see the sorry state of affairs. There's more evidence in one page of that HC blog section than there is for the whole of resettlement. The response to HC blog on resettlement is missing entirely from the "updated" version. I think this was embarrassing too, with Mattogno speculating (completely, no evidence) about massive top secret camps exclusively for resettled Jews within the gulag system or parallel to it.

[Stubble]

TECOAR was removed from the Holocaust Handbooks series because it was 1) Large, 2) Intimidating.

There is a release somewhere dealing with this.

It wasn't selling. An approachable more concise version was put in its place. Archie is correct.

It wasn't pulped and eradicated from the earth like the 1960's archeology study of Auschwitz and Auschwitz Birkenau was, apparently.

Hell, you can still get it from ARMREG, right now, today.

[bombsaway]

TECOAR was removed from the Holocaust Handbooks series because it was 1) Large, 2) Intimidating.

There is a release somewhere dealing with this.

It wasn't selling. An approachable more concise version was put in its place. Archie is correct.

It wasn't pulped and eradicated from the earth like the 1960's archeology study of Auschwitz and Auschwitz Birkenau was, apparently.

Hell, you can still get it from ARMREG, right now, today.

It wasn't just a concise version. They removed completely the section about resettlement and there's nothing in there about Nazi policy prior to Reinhardt, which is a substantial part of the HC blog book. I know for a time it wasn't available on Amreg or through any other revisionist source.

[Stubble]

Resettlement needs more refinement and polishing. It still represents a relative unknown.

There are still documents that I can not access. Some of those documents that must be physically accessed are, very specific, and I'm beginning to notice a pattern with regard to their relative unavailability. I can only imagine the sisyphean task faced by those who have come before.

Ultimately, the dead are not where we were told they were, and that alone is damning to the orthodoxy, whether they choose to admit it or not. Just saying 'well you don't know either' doesn't fucking fix that.

If it was ever unavailable it was only briefly and to point at a time when the order button was moving from one website to another as a retraction is just patently false.

[Callafangers]

Resettlement needs more refinement and polishing. It still represents a relative unknown.

There are still documents that I can not access. Some of those documents that must be physically accessed are, very specific, and I'm beginning to notice a pattern with regard to their relative unavailability. I can only imagine the sisyphean task faced by those who have come before.

Indeed. I honestly do not bother much with this rat race that exterminationists insist anyone challenging 'Holocaust' claims is required to endeavor upon. Any establishment promoting and enforcing a 'Holocaust' narrative would no doubt also be working to ensure an appearance of 'missing Jews'. That certain documentation is missing is exactly what should be expected, regardless of whether "the Holocaust happened" or not.

Ultimately, the dead are not where we were told they were, and that alone is damning to the orthodoxy, whether they choose to admit it or not. Just saying 'well you don't know either' doesn't fucking fix that.

Bingo.

[Stubble]

Indeed. I honestly do not bother much with this rat race that exterminationists insist anyone challenging 'Holocaust' claims is required to endeavor upon. Any establishment promoting and enforcing a 'Holocaust' narrative would no doubt also be working to ensure an appearance of 'missing Jews'. That certain documentation is missing is exactly what should be expected, regardless of whether "the Holocaust happened" or not.

Well, I can't not tilt at that windmill.

See, to me it is a giant that would destroy the village if I didn't armor up, mount a nag, and tilt at it.

[Callafangers]

Nah you can think that, but it's also plausible to say they withdrew it because they could see it made them look bad.

I think it's because they chose to do a point by point critique, missing very little, and in effect that forced them to cite hundreds of pieces of Holocaust evidence. The HC Blog book , from a narrative perspective, the first 200 pages especially (leading from 1941 to when the killing machinery was fully in place), is really impressive to me. It's just document after document of Nazis talking about killing Jews in various ways. When you read it this way, and then you get to the section on resettlement, where they're forced to defend the Herman Kruk diary entry as evidence, you really see the sorry state of affairs. There's more evidence in one page of that HC blog section than there is for the whole of resettlement. The response to HC blog on resettlement is missing entirely from the "updated" version. I think this was embarrassing too, with Mattogno speculating (completely, no evidence) about massive top secret camps exclusively for resettled Jews within the gulag system or parallel to it.

What 'bombsaway' finds plausible is meaningless as it relies only on his own assumptions, not facts. As Archie points out, Germar's own explanation was that this replacement was due to the ridiculousness of needing both the massive two volume tome of TECOAR and the HC bloggers' book (combined some ~2,000 pages) together, on-hand, just for a reader to follow along the debate. I actually printed out the entire HC bloggers' book at the time TECOAR came out, just so I could hold them side-by-side and try to read and follow along as TECOAR was intended. It was a ridiculous task, I got tired of it very quickly. TECOAR became only a reference book for me, after that. It simply was not realistic (and certainly not enjoyable) to read through this text, much of which read similar to a forum thread/debate, since MGK were responding to every single point the HC bloggers (SC/Terry et al) made, rather than focusing on the key challenges against -- or support for -- the revisionist position. I can all but guarantee none of us here have read TECOAR in its entirety, for this reason.

Obviously, if no one reads the book, then the information never gets out. Moreover, if the whole debate comes off as too "noisy", this will not appeal to potential readers or curious minds. To refine and more clearly elucidate the revisionist position would much better fit the HH series, and better advance the revisionist position.

As mentioned earlier, the HC bloggers (SC/Terry et al) only responded to a fraction of the arguments within TECOAR. It was cherry-picking, sometimes with valid criticism, sometimes not so much. And on the other hand, MGK responded to all of the arguments within the HC bloggers' book. If the latter were so confident in their position, this would have been the perfect opportunity to respond in book form and squash 'denial' once and for all. MGK within TECOAR made an implied commitment in TECOAR that they would respond to rebuttals from SC/Terry et al, so long as these were in book format (they emphasized the problems with internet blogs, given the commitment to words written there is minimal, as web content can change or be changed on a whim, whereas books are physically in-hand and thus more binding). But this robust, committed rebuttal to TECOAR never came.

Once TORC came about, it signaled the end of the debate on (1) forensics at the AR camps, and (2) the mega-saturation of black propaganda in the birth and development of major 'Holocaust' claims and narratives of these camps. The HC bloggers (SC/Terry et al) have been radio silent on this entire book, for the most part. Mattogno's assertions/conclusions in this book have remained compelling and valid since its publication, with Roberto Muehlenkamp (the forensic evidence specialist on the HC bloggers' side) quietly sidestepping the AR camp debate indefinitely, and no other exterminationists ever stepping forward to fill his shoes. There has not been anyone on the exterminationist side producing any sort of challenge to the revisionist position, insofar as physical evidence, in almost a decade. Mattogno has no doubt picked up on this silence, prompting his effort to publish recaps and summaries like this one, a reminder of the finality on these aspects of the debate: https://codoh.com/library/document/inco ... ion-camps/

As I have pointed out in a recent thread, the exact evidence we should expect to find if revisionism is indeed true is, in fact, what is actually being found. TECOAR lists dozens of contemporary published news reports of Jewish arrivals into the East from 1942 onward. SC/Terry et al are forced to hand-wave these instances as mistakes or miscommunications of various kinds. However the significance is in the fact that a cover-up could not realistically extend to widely-published contemporary news reports, only to demographic data and records controlled from postwar onward. Yet these news reports speak of literal Jewish evacuation to specific territories in the East. Make of it what you will. In any case, the corpses exterminationists need to be underneath Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, etc. are definitively not there. This is the solidified legacy of revisionism thus far, which is the reason why "Where did Jews go?" has become the sole pillar exterminationists cling to.

[HansHill]

Would your moral calculus change if you were convinced the Holocaust cult was actually right?

I have spent the majority of my life passively believing in the Holocaust and my "moral calculus" has remain unchanged since then.

I meant your moral judgements about the "establishment"

??

What a bizarre line of questioning. I interpret your question to be, would I reverse my distrustful & oppositional opinion on draconian state & institutional over-reach (including the examples I gave of imprisonment & confiscation of children) if the Holocaust was true?

no Bombsaway

There is no roll of the dice where this complex of state & institutional actors come out looking good.

[HansHill]

I'm glad Bombsaway is addressing this, as I have an open question on this exact topic here, and have asked Dr Terry to comment:

viewtopic.php?t=560

BA: while I wouldn't be so bold ask you to answer on behalf of HC bombsaway, would you say the position, as you see it, is that HC considers the matter closed because (in their opinion) MGK have withdrawn their arguments? As in, that is the explanation for no forthcoming rebuttal? HC considers this to be case closed?

[bombsaway]

I'm glad Bombsaway is addressing this, as I have an open question on this exact topic here, and have asked Dr Terry to comment:

viewtopic.php?t=560

BA: while I wouldn't be so bold ask you to answer on behalf of HC bombsaway, would you say the position, as you see it, is that HC considers the matter closed because (in their opinion) MGK have withdrawn their arguments? As in, that is the explanation for no forthcoming rebuttal? HC considers this to be case closed?

My impression was there was a supposed to be a debate, MGK backed out, so they published their research materials. No back and forth intended since MGK backed out initially. This is explained in the white paper.