Very good, a link to the list of my posts. That means you cannot evidence your claims, which is typical, as evidence does not drive your beliefs. It also means you are conceding to having misrepresented me.
Your version of revisionism, is not to revise history by presenting an evidenced alternative chronological narrative, as you cannot do that. Instead, you present reasons why you do not believe the existing evidence, as set out here;
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=443
1) the "final solution to the Jewish question" was not a plan to kill all the Jews, 2) the Germans did not execute millions of people in gas chambers, 3) the total number of Jewish dead during the war years was far less than six million.
You do not have evidence to prove 1, 2 or 3, so you have to argue.
Revisionists by and large have focused on fact-checking the Holocaust claims. If these claims can be shown to be factually incorrect of doubtful, then we have done most of our job.
To genuinely do that job, you would evidence millions did not die on gas chambers, by proving what the places supposedly used for gassings were used for, and millions of Jews still alive after they were supposed to have been killed. But you cannot do that.
Revisionists point out that the evidentiary basis for the Holocaust (to the extent there has even been any attempt to justify it in terms of evidence) largely consists testimonies collected after the war, a surprisingly weak and unreliable foundation for such extraordinary claims. These witnesses simply do not hold up under scrutiny as their stories are full of serious contradictions, errors, and absurdities.
The story falls apart even more when we consider physical evidence....
The documentary evidence is large and difficult to summarize. But at a very high level, revisionists argue that the German documents fail to support or even contradict the idea of a formal extermination program or mass gassing program.
The demographic evidence is more inconclusive due to uncertainties over Jewish population statistics.
All of the above is wrong. The eyewitnesses are consistent, they do hold up to scrutiny and they are not full of errors, that would prove they all lied. The physical evidence, which has been the subject of a lot of destruction by the Nazis, which in itself is evidence they committed a crime, is far stronger than you will admit. The demographic evidence, most of which comes from Nazi sources, proves huge drops in the Jewish population and Jews disappearing, by their millions, in only a few specific camps.
The claim is that almost all of these millions of bodies were burned which is highly implausible for technical reasons.
Your favourite, the argument from implausibility, which is a logical fallacy. But you still rely on it, heavily.
