The case against gassing compared to shooting.

[Keen]

Instead of that evidence based approach, you try to argue that gassings cannot have happened.

No mass graves = no mass murder = no mass gassings.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[Nessie]

Reported.

Unresponsive to the argument
Shifting the goalposts
Whataboutism
Meandering
Irrelevant
Slop

You break numerous forum rules. My point is about evidencing a claim, as opposed to revisionist argument. "The case against gassing compared to shooting" is the revisionist argument that gassing cannot have happened. But that is not how to prove gassing did not happen. Investigations proved there was no mass gassing at Dachau, which has a gas chamber, by interviewing staff, prisoners and checking camp records. The staff denied mass gassings took place. Some prisoners claimed it happened, but none were eyewitnesses to it. Camp records did not show mass arrivals and then disappearance of prisoners.

My point about the Isle of Man is the same. To prove no gas chambers, you cannot merely arguing they are unbelievable. You need to gather evidence from staff, prisoners, documents and physical evidence. Revisionists cannot do that and hate that being pointed out.

A strong case against gassing, would be all the camp staff denying there was a gas chamber, not an argument that all the staff are lying there was a gas chamber. Revisionists don't understand that.

[HansHill]

This is so dishonest lol.

invoke Dachau
immediately gets pie-in-face
pivot & deflect

The absolute state of Holocaust enjoyers.

[Nessie]

This is so dishonest lol.

invoke Dachau
immediately gets pie-in-face
pivot & deflect

The absolute state of Holocaust enjoyers.

Historians use evidence to establish the case against mass gassings at Dachau. Like much of the evidence for gassings, it is not clear-cut and definitive, there are unknowns and gaps. Hence, there is some disagreement whether anyone was gassed there or not.

When revisionists put forward the case against mass gassings at TII, they do not use evidence from staff, prisoners, documents, physical remains, archaeology or circumstances. Instead, they deny that evidence and claim mass gassings were an impossibility.

Rather than explain and defend their methodology, they abuse and censor the debate.

[Archie]

Historians agree that no mass gassings took place there. Dachau was never a death camp like Birkenau or Belzec. There is some disagreement about how many, if any, were gassed there.

Many mainstream authorities claim there were ZERO gassings while some still to this day maintain there were gassings. That is not a minor disagreement. Your continuing to suggest unanimity of opinion is dishonest. You have resorted to weasel words to pretend like there is no disagreement or that it is only trivial (well, they agree there were no mass gassings, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). No. "The historians" do not agree on Dachau. They can't agree on whether anyone was gassed there. You didn't know that, so you tried to use it as an example of how "real" historians are supposedly able to easily distinguish such things.

[Nessie]

Historians agree that no mass gassings took place there. Dachau was never a death camp like Birkenau or Belzec. There is some disagreement about how many, if any, were gassed there.

Many mainstream authorities claim there were ZERO gassings while some still to this day maintain there were gassings. That is not a minor disagreement. Your continuing to suggest unanimity of opinion is dishonest. You have resorted to weasel words to pretend like there is no disagreement or that it is only trivial (well, they agree there were no mass gassings, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). No. "The historians" do not agree on Dachau. They can't agree on whether anyone was gassed there. You didn't know that, so you tried to use it as an example of how "real" historians are supposedly able to easily distinguish such things.

Historians agree that there were no gassings at Bergen-Belsen. They have proved that with testimony from camp staff, prisoners and documents. Why can you not do that with TII?

Historians have used evidence from the same type of sources as was used at Bergen-Belsen, to prove no mass gassings took place at Dachau, even though it had a gas chamber and there may have been some limited gassings under Action 14f13.

The point you are dancing around, it that historians use evidence to prove something did not happen, which is something you cannot do, so you resort to argument.

[Archie]

Historians agree that there were no gassings at Bergen-Belsen. They have proved that with testimony from camp staff, prisoners and documents. Why can you not do that with TII?

Historians have used evidence from the same type of sources as was used at Bergen-Belsen, to prove no mass gassings took place at Dachau, even though it had a gas chamber and there may have been some limited gassings under Action 14f13.

The point you are dancing around, it that historians use evidence to prove something did not happen, which is something you cannot do, so you resort to argument.

So now you are pivoting to Bergen-Belsen. Okay. You think this is a big win the historians? Nope. Gassings were basically never part of the lore Bergen-Belsen (or Buchenwald). You could perhaps find some very obscure, stray gassing claims, but generally this was never claimed, so it never made into the war crimes trials or into the history which overwhelming rely on those same trials. Only in Dachau was there some sort of reversal which, again, not everyone agrees on. At Majdanek the scale has been reduced enormously but they cannot concede the gas chambers there are a hoax because it would destroy everything.

[Stubble]

Scale at Auschwitz has also been greatly reduced over time, although, it still stands at 1,100,000 or there about, which is still inflated and is based on 'counting cars' not on any kind of actual, legitimate tally through documentation or anything else.

Just, 'it was this many' points at chart.

[Nessie]

Historians agree that there were no gassings at Bergen-Belsen. They have proved that with testimony from camp staff, prisoners and documents. Why can you not do that with TII?

Historians have used evidence from the same type of sources as was used at Bergen-Belsen, to prove no mass gassings took place at Dachau, even though it had a gas chamber and there may have been some limited gassings under Action 14f13.

The point you are dancing around, it that historians use evidence to prove something did not happen, which is something you cannot do, so you resort to argument.

So now you are pivoting to Bergen-Belsen. Okay. You think this is a big win the historians? Nope. Gassings were basically never part of the lore Bergen-Belsen (or Buchenwald).

Why was that? Could it be to do with the evidence from staff etc, that proves the camp never had gas chambers?

You could perhaps find some very obscure, stray gassing claims, but generally this was never claimed, so it never made into the war crimes trials or into the history which overwhelming rely on those same trials.

Any gassing of Bergen-Belsen or indeed other labour camp, fell under the Action 14f13 euthanasia of mentally infirm prisoners and they were transported to the euthanasia hospitals.

Only in Dachau was there some sort of reversal which, again, not everyone agrees on.

Dachau is interesting because it had gas chambers. You would think that a hoax would have had those gas chambers in regular use killing hundreds of thousands. But, there is a problem....evidence! The Dachau staff were not prepared to lie and admit to mass gassings and no Jewish prisoner could be found to lie about working at the gas chambers. Then, camp documents recorded that the vast majority of prisoners could be accounted for.

At Majdanek the scale has been reduced enormously but they cannot concede the gas chambers there are a hoax because it would destroy everything.

Say evidence appeared, from someone who had worked at Majdanek, or another source, that proved the delousing chambers were never used for gassing, that would not destroy everything. It would only mean that claims about Majdanek had been found to be false.

So, there is evidence to make a case against mass gassing at Bergen-Belsen and Dachau, but not Majdanek. Each history is driven by the evidence, which is how history is normally determined, except when it comes to Holocaust deniers.

[Nessie]

Scale at Auschwitz has also been greatly reduced over time, although, it still stands at 1,100,000 or there about, which is still inflated and is based on 'counting cars' not on any kind of actual, legitimate tally through documentation or anything else.

Just, 'it was this many' points at chart.

The A-B death toll has been mainly determined by transport and registration records. The gap is who was killed.

[Keen]

The point you are dancing around, it that historians use evidence to prove something did not happen, which is something you cannot do

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.