So-called revisionists do not know what they are doing.

[Nessie]

Do you get a lot of ad hominems Nessie? How does you shtick get received on X? Do you get called ad hominems there by low information people, or do they give you any meaningful discussion?

>Offtopic
>Don't care, this thread is a dumpster fire as well as being redundant

I hardly get any abuse on X. I get far more here. This thread proves my point, you lot have no relevant training or experience, and none of you admit that makes you far more likely to be wrong. You cannot counter that argument, with one which would prove that people with no relevant training or experience, are more likely to be correct than those with relevant training and experience.

Interesting, i seem to remember you saying the opposite relatively recently about your experiences here:

My feedback is that Stubble and this forum is conducted in a generally polite and respectful way.

You then go on to describe who I assume is Keen / Greg Gerdes as being aggressive towards you etc, so I can only infer that the "more" abuse you get here is from 1 poster, as opposed to the infinite Groypers on X. Interesting!

Neither place is particularly abusive. Of the two, there is more abuse here.

[Nessie]

Covid effectively shattered the illusion of the expert class. The experts embarassed themselves by pushing authoritative measures that they later came to regret. Laymen were able to ask simple questions -- like why were toddlers made to wear masks, or how does plexiglass protect you in a swimming pool, or why did the CDC and WHO downplay the danger and transmissibility of covid at the start -- that pierced right through the veil of control.

Fewer people died in the Covid pandemic, than any previous equivalent, because of the vastly increased knowledge about how to deal with spreading respiratory viruses.

Laymen were able to get things right that experts were not, while only engaging casually with the subject.

Laymen also got things horribly wrong. You have clearly cherry-picked where you think they got it right and the experts were wrong, and declared laymen to be more expert than experts! Will you be applying that to your work? Will you ditch the experts in favour of new, untrained, inexperienced staff?

Likewise, laymen are able to easily see through central aspects of the Holocaust -- like why do its adherents cite Rudolf Hoess's confession if he is admitted to have been tortured, or why should the current camp death tolls be trusted if they have already been reduced by millions, and how did anyone believe in the nonsense about human soap?

The expert class failed on these questions while non-experts got it right, hence the latter has earned credibility over the former. Sorry if you don't like that.

Historians still quote Hoess, because he was a key figure due to his rank and role and crucially, his evidence is corroborated. We also know that he was subject to duress, but it is possible to torture someone and get generally accurate information.

After the war, there were two death tolls. The more accurate Western one, supported by evidence from the Nazis, such as Hoettl's 6 million, and the exaggerated Soviet death toll, which resulted in the plaque at Auschwitz claiming 4 million died there. When the SU collapsed, the exaggerated death toll was ditched by those who had been using it, hence the Polish changed the plaque. The more accurate Western death toll remained generally unchanged, at 5 to 6 million. Hence, many deniers on X express their confusion about why the death toll was reduced, but at the same time it stayed the same. They are laymen who do not know about, or understand the detail.

The nonsense about human soap, had a kernel of truth, in that some soap was made using an ingredient from human sources.
It was otherwise an atrocity story, which is not uncommon during a war. Both experts and laymen got it right about human soap. Laymen, as you admit, lack understanding about how atrocity stories develop. Indeed, it is the Holocaust denier/revisionists who dwell and puzzle over the human soap story. The experts understood and ditched it decades ago.

I see laymen here and on X, making mistake after mistake after mistake. For example, claims wooden doors cannot be made gas tight, or that the door into the gas chambers at Krema I seen now, is the one that was used in 1941. Or mixing hearsay with eyewitness evidence. Or the constant use of illogical arguments and failure to evidence what actually happened. Only the experts can produce an evidenced chronology.

[Nessie]

....

Yes.

Additionally it must be stated that the expert class on the Holocaust have been running around with their pants around their ankles for decades - Dr Bailer's blue paint, Dr Green's cyanide mop leaning against the wall, Dr Roth's 10 Microns of reaction etc etc etc*

*All PhDs in Chemistry

If anything, the expert class has been roundly embarrassed on this issue.

They are backed by the evidence of what happened. Rudolf and Leuchter are not.