Why do revisionists evade the physical evidence question?

[Nessie]

Callafangers coined the phrase physical evidence question here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=716

He asked "Why does SanityCheck (anti-revisionist 'Holocaust' academia's leading man) so strongly avoid all matters of physical evidence with regard to 'Holocaust' evidence?". The physical evidence question, is what revisionists regard as their strongest argument. A classic example of it is found here, in a thread titled the "Implausibility of gassing as a method for mass killing"

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=290

PangaeaProxima puts forward various arguments as to why he finds the use of gas chambers too implausible to accept as part of the evidenced history of the Holocaust.

Fact is that carrying out mass killings by gassing are generally highly implausible. You seem to agree, since you don't challenge this assertion. Of course, this does not totally rule out that it is done anyway, but it further strengthens the revisionist position: Something that is highly unlikely and implausible to have happened in the first place, really did not happen.

Others join in. Archie states;

Things I do find implausible:

1) That the German government would have had no discussion or planning to determine the best method and that this would be left to Hoess and the other camp commandants.

2) That they would end up with such a diversity of different "gas chamber" designs, all with an ordinary/mundane interpretation (showers, morgues, fumigation chambers).

3) That they would have custom built a state-of-the-art mass gassing facility yet put the gas chamber and ovens on different floors and had to move all the bodies manually. (Along with other points along these lines).

TIsMIS93;

So is it entirely plausible, or even proven, that wood was available in abundance for a handful of Germans in a remote region to cremate 2 million people, or that gassing 2,000 people in a room as if they were robots in complete obedience to behave like perfect cubes and expecting 52 ovens to cremate 4,756 bodies per day was entirely proven by forensic and verifiable tests?

HansHill correctly states that;

Its not a logical fallacy to describe something as implausible, and generate a discussion around its plausibility and the details of its history and process.

But, he misses the point. Revisionists believe that when they find something implausible, that means it cannot have happened. When the physical evidence questions they have about gassings, cremations and graves cannot be answered to their satisfaction, they believe that is evidence to prove they did not happen. That is the logical fallacy. It is not enough to argue that because you cannot work out how something took place, to your satisfaction, that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

The evasion by revisionists, is their refusal to defend their use of the physical evidence question as a means to justify their incredulity and how that can work as evidence to prove there were no gas chambers, mass cremations and graves involving millions of Jews. How is PangaeaProxima's incredulity about gassings, or Archie's issue over the layout of Kremas II and III, or TIsMIS93's implausibility over the numbers gassed and cremated, proof that there were no gassings?

This is an issue I have raised before and I know it is hated by the revisionists here, since, if they admit to their argument being logically and evidentially flawed, their entire belief system will collapse.

[Hektor]

But, he misses the point. Revisionists believe that when they find something implausible, that means it cannot have happened. When the physical evidence questions they have about gassings, cremations and graves cannot be answered to their satisfaction, they believe that is evidence to prove they did not happen. That is the logical fallacy. It is not enough to argue that because you cannot work out how something took place, to your satisfaction, that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

Well, it is a bit more than just being a bit odd or implausible. The issue is the frequency of problems and their concentration within the narrative. And it isn't just Revisionist's satisfaction that is the threshold here, it's what should be sufficient to a reasonable person. And there exterminationist claims happen to be wanting and often obviously dubious.


That said, I think you should first answer the initial question instead of simply reacting with a counter-question that is obviously evasive.

[Nessie]

But, he misses the point. Revisionists believe that when they find something implausible, that means it cannot have happened. When the physical evidence questions they have about gassings, cremations and graves cannot be answered to their satisfaction, they believe that is evidence to prove they did not happen. That is the logical fallacy. It is not enough to argue that because you cannot work out how something took place, to your satisfaction, that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

Well, it is a bit more than just being a bit odd or implausible. The issue is the frequency of problems and their concentration within the narrative. And it isn't just Revisionist's satisfaction that is the threshold here, it's what should be sufficient to a reasonable person. And there exterminationist claims happen to be wanting and often obviously dubious.

How is your argument, that because revisionists find a claim to be odd, implausible, unsatisfactory, wanting or dubious, the claim is proven to be false, logically and evidentially sound?

That said, I think you should first answer the initial question instead of simply reacting with a counter-question that is obviously evasive.

I did answer the question Callafangers asked, my answer is in that thread.

EDIT - I see this thread has been moved to Quarantine, which is further proof that revisionists hate this subject and want to suppress discussion about it.

[Archie]

It was moved to Quarantine where it belongs.

A thread accusing revisionists of "evading the question of physical evidence" (absurd) in which the accuser claims it's a fallacy NOT to evade the physical evidence.

[Nessie]

It was moved to Quarantine where it belongs.

A thread accusing revisionists of "evading the question of physical evidence" (absurd) in which the accuser claims it's a fallacy NOT to evade the physical evidence.

I still cannot work out if you are being disingenuous or if you really do not understand the point I am making.

Revisionists think that their strongest argument, is to doubt the claims made about how the gas chambers worked, the ovens cremated so many corpses, how the pyres were set and how so many corpses were buried in the death camps. I point out that their argument fails both logically and evidentially and they then evade justifying it.

You said;

Things I do find implausible:

1) That the German government would have had no discussion or planning to determine the best method and that this would be left to Hoess and the other camp commandants.

2) That they would end up with such a diversity of different "gas chamber" designs, all with an ordinary/mundane interpretation (showers, morgues, fumigation chambers).

3) That they would have custom built a state-of-the-art mass gassing facility yet put the gas chamber and ovens on different floors and had to move all the bodies manually. (Along with other points along these lines).

How do your doubts about plausibility, evidence that there were no gas chambers?

[Hektor]

But, he misses the point. Revisionists believe that when they find something implausible, that means it cannot have happened. When the physical evidence questions they have about gassings, cremations and graves cannot be answered to their satisfaction, they believe that is evidence to prove they did not happen. That is the logical fallacy. It is not enough to argue that because you cannot work out how something took place, to your satisfaction, that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

Well, it is a bit more than just being a bit odd or implausible. The issue is the frequency of problems and their concentration within the narrative. And it isn't just Revisionist's satisfaction that is the threshold here, it's what should be sufficient to a reasonable person. And there exterminationist claims happen to be wanting and often obviously dubious.

How is your argument, that because revisionists find a claim to be odd, implausible, unsatisfactory, wanting or dubious, the claim is proven to be false, logically and evidentially sound? ....

Unless you carefully read my argument and present it correctly, there is really no value in conversing with you about any issue. Hint, what Revisionists find odd is completely irrelevant here.

[HansHill]

HansHill correctly states

[Archie]

Things I do find implausible:

1) That the German government would have had no discussion or planning to determine the best method and that this would be left to Hoess and the other camp commandants.

2) That they would end up with such a diversity of different "gas chamber" designs, all with an ordinary/mundane interpretation (showers, morgues, fumigation chambers).

3) That they would have custom built a state-of-the-art mass gassing facility yet put the gas chamber and ovens on different floors and had to move all the bodies manually. (Along with other points along these lines).

How do your doubts about plausibility, evidence that there were no gas chambers?

Let's start with the first point. You are disagreeing without any proper explanation. Please enlighten everyone.

-When did Hitler order the Jews to be exterminated?
-When and how was the decision reached regarding the means of extermination?

Show your work.

[Nessie]

Well, it is a bit more than just being a bit odd or implausible. The issue is the frequency of problems and their concentration within the narrative. And it isn't just Revisionist's satisfaction that is the threshold here, it's what should be sufficient to a reasonable person. And there exterminationist claims happen to be wanting and often obviously dubious.

How is your argument, that because revisionists find a claim to be odd, implausible, unsatisfactory, wanting or dubious, the claim is proven to be false, logically and evidentially sound? ....

Unless you carefully read my argument and present it correctly, there is really no value in conversing with you about any issue. Hint, what Revisionists find odd is completely irrelevant here.

You claim that a reasonable person would find the claims about gassings and cremations implausible and dubious because of their frequency and concentration.

Please explain to me how that argument is evidence gassings and cremations did not happen. How is it logically and evidentially sound to dismiss the claims as false, based on an argument?

[Nessie]

Things I do find implausible:

1) That the German government would have had no discussion or planning to determine the best method and that this would be left to Hoess and the other camp commandants.

2) That they would end up with such a diversity of different "gas chamber" designs, all with an ordinary/mundane interpretation (showers, morgues, fumigation chambers).

3) That they would have custom built a state-of-the-art mass gassing facility yet put the gas chamber and ovens on different floors and had to move all the bodies manually. (Along with other points along these lines).

How do your doubts about plausibility, evidence that there were no gas chambers?

Let's start with the first point. You are disagreeing without any proper explanation. Please enlighten everyone.

-When did Hitler order the Jews to be exterminated?
-When and how was the decision reached regarding the means of extermination?

Show your work.

There is no specific, documented date, or Hitler order that Jews were to be killed. You know that. Historians have not found any such evidence and base any claims they make on circumstantial evidence, such as Himmler's report to Hitler from 1942 that lists Jews being executed.

As for the when and how the means of execution were decided, dates are known about the use of gas for the T4 euthanasia project, the first use of mass shootings by the Einsatzgruppen and the starting of AR and construction of the AR death camps. Historians know the names of the personnel in charge of each operation and who they reported to.

Now, back on topic and my question, how is your finding it implausible that senior Nazis left the planning over the means of mass execution to others lower down the command train, evidence to prove that there were no such mass executions?

How is the implausibility argument you are using, logical and evidentially sound?

[Archie]

How do your doubts about plausibility, evidence that there were no gas chambers?

Let's start with the first point. You are disagreeing without any proper explanation. Please enlighten everyone.

-When did Hitler order the Jews to be exterminated?
-When and how was the decision reached regarding the means of extermination?

Show your work.

There is no specific, documented date, or Hitler order that Jews were to be killed. You know that. Historians have not found any such evidence and base any claims they make on circumstantial evidence, such as Himmler's report to Hitler from 1942 that lists Jews being executed.

As for the when and how the means of execution were decided, dates are known about the use of gas for the T4 euthanasia project, the first use of mass shootings by the Einsatzgruppen and the starting of AR and construction of the AR death camps. Historians know the names of the personnel in charge of each operation and who they reported to.

Now, back on topic and my question, how is your finding it implausible that senior Nazis left the planning over the means of mass execution to others lower down the command train, evidence to prove that there were no such mass executions?

How is the implausibility argument you are using, logical and evidentially sound?

We can determine whether my point is sound by analyzing it, which you have not done. You have dismissed my points by invoking "fallacy" which is itself fallacy.

Let's see. There is no extermination order, and you don't know when this extermination order might have been given. Okay.

And there were no orders and no meetings and no engineers assigned to look into how all these people were to be executed. It did not occur to them what to do with all the bodies.

Here's the part of this that you aren't seeing. We are being sold a story about millions killed in gas chambers. This story is heavily based on testimonies, one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Is it possible to improvise gas chambers to kill millions of people? Eh, perhaps. You reason that as long as it not categorically impossible and as long as there's some "evidence" for gas chambers, that we must accept the gas chambers. No. That is wrong. The "evidence" can be false, a possibility that you fail to consider. Accepting a totally outlandish story based on the weak evidence is NOT sound thinking.

It would be unusual, to put it mildly, for a formal extermination program ordered by the state, to come off without orders, without organization, without any technical team figuring out how to do it, etc. If you want to say that this was done but everything was destroyed, or that the local authorities were able to improvise it successfully, okay, you can run with that desperate scenario if you wish. But as you stack more and more of these improbabilities up, at some point we must conclude that the story simply isn't working and should begin to consider some alternative hypothesis.

[Hektor]

.....
Here's the part of this that you aren't seeing. We are being sold a story about millions killed in gas chambers. This story is heavily based on testimonies, one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Is it possible to improvise gas chambers to kill millions of people? Eh, perhaps. You reason that as long as it not categorically impossible and as long as there's some "evidence" for gas chambers, that we must accept the gas chambers. No. That is wrong. The "evidence" can be false, a possibility that you fail to consider. Accepting a totally outlandish story based on the weak evidence is NOT sound thinking. ...

Yet this is what Holocaustians do. For all practical purposes.
1. They ignore that there was an atrocity propaganda campaign against NS-Germany and the axis.
2. They ignore that that specific atrocity propaganda is even a remake of gassing allegations from WW2 put in circulation by the same publication.
3. They ignore that there were major problems with epidemics in and outside concentration camps and that showering, delousing gassing and cremation are all measures to combat such epidemics.
4. Further is the absence of supportive evidence explained away in a very infantile way.
5. Essentially, they are frontloading the argument. They assume their pet thesis is true. And hence interpret anything that way.

[Nessie]

Let's start with the first point. You are disagreeing without any proper explanation. Please enlighten everyone.

-When did Hitler order the Jews to be exterminated?
-When and how was the decision reached regarding the means of extermination?

Show your work.

There is no specific, documented date, or Hitler order that Jews were to be killed. You know that. Historians have not found any such evidence and base any claims they make on circumstantial evidence, such as Himmler's report to Hitler from 1942 that lists Jews being executed.

As for the when and how the means of execution were decided, dates are known about the use of gas for the T4 euthanasia project, the first use of mass shootings by the Einsatzgruppen and the starting of AR and construction of the AR death camps. Historians know the names of the personnel in charge of each operation and who they reported to.

Now, back on topic and my question, how is your finding it implausible that senior Nazis left the planning over the means of mass execution to others lower down the command train, evidence to prove that there were no such mass executions?

How is the implausibility argument you are using, logical and evidentially sound?

We can determine whether my point is sound by analyzing it, which you have not done. You have dismissed my points by invoking "fallacy" which is itself fallacy.

The implausibility argument, you are using, is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Just because you are incredulous about a planned operation to gas millions of Jews, that did not leave any explicit gassing orders, does not therefore mean there were no mass gassing operations.

Let's see. There is no extermination order, and you don't know when this extermination order might have been given. Okay.

In the same way there is no evidence of a specific Hitler extermination order, there is also no evidence that no such order was given and the evidence of it was destroyed. Logically and evidentially, you cannot prove that there never was any form of gassing, extermination order.

And there were no orders and no meetings and no engineers assigned to look into how all these people were to be executed. It did not occur to them what to do with all the bodies.

There is evidence, of a meeting and experimentation over the use of gas to euthanise disabled people and there is a Hitler order allowing euthanasia. Both evidentially and logically, you are wrong to ignore that, as it chronologically fits with what was to come later. There are also orders regarding Jews being treated as partisans and the work of the Einsatzgruppen. You are wrong to cherry-pick the lack of specific orders, with regards to gassing Jews.

Here's the part of this that you aren't seeing. We are being sold a story about millions killed in gas chambers. This story is heavily based on testimonies, one of the least reliable forms of evidence.

It is not as reliant on witnesses as you make out. There is a ton of other evidence from other sources (for example, transport documentation) to corroborate them. Your methodology for assessing witnesses is biased towards a desired result, flawed (for example, you conflate hearsay with eyewitnesses) and ignores the scientific studies. That so many witnesses corroborate each other and they come from disparate groups who would not normally cooperate, means their evidence is strong, not weak. When accused and accuser agree, that is strong corroboration.

Is it possible to improvise gas chambers to kill millions of people? Eh, perhaps.

It was well within German design and engineering capability to construct gas chambers. For you to suggest that was only a possibility, when they were able to fire rockets at London and build the best armoury, is a nonsense.

You reason that as long as it not categorically impossible and as long as there's some "evidence" for gas chambers, that we must accept the gas chambers. No. That is wrong. The "evidence" can be false, a possibility that you fail to consider. Accepting a totally outlandish story based on the weak evidence is NOT sound thinking.

Investigators did consider the claims were false. Victor Cavendish-Bentick is widely quoted expressing his disbelief that gassings were taking place. The Polish War Crimes Commission took witnesses to the AR sites, to see if what they claimed was corroborated by the physical evidence. West German prosecutors were given access to the camp sites. Such investigations are why the claims about mass gassings at Dachau and Bergen-Belsen were dismissed. The staff at Dachau denied there had been gassings. No eyewitness to mass gassings was traced. Camp records did not record mass arrivals, selections and those not selected to work disappearing from the documentary trail. That evidence led approach is far more reliable than your outlandish story, plausibility methodology.

It would be unusual, to put it mildly, for a formal extermination program ordered by the state, to come off without orders, without organization, without any technical team figuring out how to do it, etc. If you want to say that this was done but everything was destroyed, or that the local authorities were able to improvise it successfully, okay, you can run with that desperate scenario if you wish. But as you stack more and more of these improbabilities up, at some point we must conclude that the story simply isn't working and should begin to consider some alternative hypothesis.

I have already pointed out that there is evidence of the most senior Nazis, in the loop and ordering euthanasia and mass shootings. The organisation of AR and the Final Solution are also well evidenced. The one thing that is missing, is an explicit gassing order. There is evidence, from SS camp staff, about experimentation to work out how to best gas people and subsequently, on cremation pyres, which started with attempts to cremated corpses in the graves. Despite decades and a lot of research, Holocaust revisionists cannot produce a revised history. You have had a lot of time to evidence an alternative hypothesis and you have failed. Millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and being liberated in 1945, would leave a lot evidence and there is none.

You are still to explain, logically and evidentially, how your plausibility, improbability methodology, is reliable and credible. How is it, that because you do not think something is plausible or probable, that proves it likely did not happen?

[Keen]

The physical evidence question, is what revisionists regard as their strongest argument.

Gee, I wonder why.

What is the counter argument from the mentally ill HC cult members? Let's take a look:

Here we have Treblinka II's "huge mass grave" F16:



And the only "huge mass grave" ever allegedly discoverd under Treblinka II's monument:



And then there's the largest "huge mass grave" ever proven to exist at Sobibor:



And there is zero physical evidence of mass graves at Belzec, Chelmno and Ponary to show.

Thanks for reminding us about your mental illness nesserto, but we really didn't need any reminding.

If we want a reminder of your mental illness, we just look at this:

Nesserto:

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps. Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits, G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54 and that they exist. But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

Nesserto, is it - True. - or - False. - that; Non-nefarious diggings for such things as garbage pits, cellars, wells, latrines, septic pits, etc. - were dug at Treblinka II - ??

Nesserto's answer:

True

[Nessie]

.....
Here's the part of this that you aren't seeing. We are being sold a story about millions killed in gas chambers. This story is heavily based on testimonies, one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Is it possible to improvise gas chambers to kill millions of people? Eh, perhaps. You reason that as long as it not categorically impossible and as long as there's some "evidence" for gas chambers, that we must accept the gas chambers. No. That is wrong. The "evidence" can be false, a possibility that you fail to consider. Accepting a totally outlandish story based on the weak evidence is NOT sound thinking. ...

Yet this is what Holocaustians do. For all practical purposes.
1. They ignore that there was an atrocity propaganda campaign against NS-Germany and the axis.
2. They ignore that that specific atrocity propaganda is even a remake of gassing allegations from WW2 put in circulation by the same publication.
3. They ignore that there were major problems with epidemics in and outside concentration camps and that showering, delousing gassing and cremation are all measures to combat such epidemics.
4. Further is the absence of supportive evidence explained away in a very infantile way.
5. Essentially, they are frontloading the argument. They assume their pet thesis is true. And hence interpret anything that way.

The Holocaust has been investigated in the same way every historical event has. Evidence has been gathered, to establish what claims made can be corroborated and verified and establish a chronology of events.

You cannot evidence a revised version of events, so, instead, you argue that the existing version could not have happened, using the logically flawed argument from incredulity. You also lie about and misrepresent the evidence and what historians have done.

Historians have identified what was atrocity propaganda and that has not been used to evidence the narrative. They do not ignore that there were epidemics, delousing chambers and cremations. There is a ton of supporting evidence to corroborate the witness claims. There was no assumption that the gassing claims were true, they were investigated and evidenced.

You are poisoning the well, to deflect from your inability to defend the form of methodology you use. You cannot explain, logically and evidentially, why your finding of the evidence to be odd or implausible, is proof there were no gassings.