Who is to Blame for the Orthodox Historical Narrative?

[Nessie]

I believe the Orthodox historical narrative, because it is evidenced. I do not believe so-called revisionist alternative versions, because they cannot evidence any of them took place. Primarily, they cannot evidence millions of Jews alive in camps and ghettos in 1944, which is what there would have been, if millions were not killed.

[HansHill]

I believe the Orthodox historical narrative, because it is evidenced. I do not believe so-called revisionist alternative versions, because they cannot evidence any of them took place. Primarily, they cannot evidence millions of Jews alive in camps and ghettos in 1944, which is what there would have been, if millions were not killed.

"I believe"

You don't have the murder weapon
You don't have the bodies
You don't have the remains
You don't have the physical record

Cope more.

[ConfusedJew]

I actually agree with this. You gave it a shot, and it's not for you! Consider your curiosity sated as to what Holocaust Denial is all about then.

If you can't persuade me, somebody who is here to actually figure out what's going on with what you are thinking, then you aren't going to have much luck convincing other informed or intelligent people. If that's OK with you, then we can just agree to disagree.

There are like 100 people on this planet that are going to believe the millions of the recorded people in the archives just vanished off the grid (while still living) after being transported to concentration camps.

The technical details are a bit more interesting but it does require people with real expertise and intelligence to pull apart all of the nuances. Rudolf isn't a trusted source by almost anybody so to really go through this, I'd need to look at the original papers and experiments to review the conditions holistically.

A lot of what Holocaust deniers, and other conspiracy theorists do, is exploit information gaps by filling in places where there is no information or vague information with the most extreme possible scenarios.

https://gregmorris.co.uk/2021/12/16/con ... ry-to.html

I wouldn't expect there to be 100% thorough details reported about every factor in the process, especially when a ton of documents and physical evidence was destroyed. There still is plenty enough for me, but there will always be gaps. For whatever reason, people seem really motivated to try and disprove the Holocaust, maybe they were anti-semitic to begin with, and they will look at every minute imperfection or gap in the evidence to come up with some creative but convoluted explanation for how it didn't exist.

[ConfusedJew]

I believe the Orthodox historical narrative, because it is evidenced. I do not believe so-called revisionist alternative versions, because they cannot evidence any of them took place. Primarily, they cannot evidence millions of Jews alive in camps and ghettos in 1944, which is what there would have been, if millions were not killed.

"I believe"

You don't have the murder weapon
You don't have the bodies
You don't have the remains
You don't have the physical record

Cope more.

We have plenty of these.

Traces of cyanide were found in the chambers.
Zyklon B canisters were found at the camps, far in excess of what was necessary for delousing.
Many of the bodies were cremated so I'm not sure how you would expect to recover one million humans worth of ashes that were scattered in the environment.
The Nazis kept a ton of records in the archives. Nobody here has yet to tell me that they've been to any of the archives and Archie even closed my thread about the archives.
The ruins of the buildings are there. Why else would they be destroyed?

You can say that you don't think the evidence isn't strong enough, your personal opinion, but there's definitely a ton of evidence that is compelling to the vast majority of humans across many disciplines, nationalities, backgrounds, religions etc.

[AreYouSirius]

I actually agree with this. You gave it a shot, and it's not for you! Consider your curiosity sated as to what Holocaust Denial is all about then.

If you can't persuade me, somebody who is here to actually figure out what's going on with what you are thinking, then you aren't going to have much luck convincing other informed or intelligent people. If that's OK with you, then we can just agree to disagree.

Spare the condescension, coming from you it is feebly pathetic. You have thoroughly embarrassed yourself over the past few weeks on this forum.

You did not arrive to this forum with curiosity or a willingness to look at stuff. You didn’t read anything people here provided you. This forum is full of scholarly and dense forensic work and you are incapable of ingesting any of it.

You have acted neither “informed” nor “intelligent.” You sloppily copy and pasted AI goop without even reading its output. You acted worse than a hungover college freshman cobbling together an essay 15 minutes before it is due.

You may report back to your genocidal Mossad handlers that you failed on this forum more spectacularly than Alex Berenson did this past Saturday in a Holocaust “denial” debate against comedian Dave Smith.

[HansHill]

I actually agree with this. You gave it a shot, and it's not for you! Consider your curiosity sated as to what Holocaust Denial is all about then.

If you can't persuade me, somebody who is here to actually figure out what's going on with what you are thinking, then you aren't going to have much luck convincing other informed or intelligent people. If that's OK with you, then we can just agree to disagree.

...failed on this forum more spectacularly than Alex Berenson did this past Saturday in a Holocaust “denial” debate against comedian Dave Smith.

And worse than Professor of Genocide Studies Dr Vann who deferred to Rudolf on every point of technical detail because he had no clue how to rebut what was being discussed.

[ConfusedJew]

If you can't persuade me, somebody who is here to actually figure out what's going on with what you are thinking, then you aren't going to have much luck convincing other informed or intelligent people. If that's OK with you, then we can just agree to disagree.

...failed on this forum more spectacularly than Alex Berenson did this past Saturday in a Holocaust “denial” debate against comedian Dave Smith.

And worse than Professor of Genocide Studies Dr Vann who deferred to Rudolf on every point of technical detail because he had no clue how to rebut what was being discussed.

Think about this objectively. If you are in a debate with somebody, and they are bringing up pseudo technical arguments against you, you've obviously never studied that before because they are pseudo technical. Unless you are well versed in that technical field, you'll never "win" that debate in front of an audience of people who already support that viewpoint.

You guys have gone really deep down this chemistry rabbit hole and LLMs aren't equipped to deal with pseudoscience. If I had a PhD in chemistry, and I'll be on the lookout for one, I'm sure I could debunk the chemical arguments in like 10 minutes.

The archival and census records are the most damning piece of this whole thing that nobody here has an argument for yet. Give it a shot, I'm curious to see what you can come up with.

[HansHill]

Think about this objectively. If you are in a debate with somebody, and they are bringing up pseudo technical arguments against you, you've obviously never studied that before because they are pseudo technical. Unless you are well versed in that technical field, you'll never "win" that debate in front of an audience of people who already support that viewpoint.

Its a bit like your time here, eh Confused Jew? Except I guess Dr Vann had the dignity to actually defer to Rudolf, and didn't just whip out his ChatGPT app and start reciting rubbish to make a fool of himself.

You guys have gone really deep down this chemistry rabbit hole and LLMs aren't equipped

Correct, which is why we've been begging you for months to ditch the LLMs, this was said to you on day 1 genius - your LLMs will hit guardrails on this, and give you jibberish output which is why this has gone disastrously for you.

pseudoscience.

Nice try. The lab results were provided by accredited laboratories, both in the case of Leuchter and Rudolf. The lab results say what they say. Nobody argues with Leuchther* or Rudolf's numbers or findings. In fact in the case of Leuchter, Dr Roth testified that the results are an accurate assessment of his lab's work and findings.

*in the case of Leuchter there is one sample which is by today's standard omitted as it was taken from a puddle, but is irrelevant to this discussion.

If I had a PhD in chemistry, and I'll be on the lookout for one, I'm sure I could debunk the chemical arguments in like 10 minutes.

You are welcome to this, but it has already been done in the Rudolf / Green exchanges you refused to read.

The archival and census records are the most damning piece of this whole thing that nobody here has an argument for yet. Give it a shot, I'm curious to see what you can come up with.

"if you can't geolocate movements of diaspora people as they moved back and forth across the iron curtain that means they were gassed to death"

Again nice try.

[AreYouSirius]

Think about this objectively. If you are in a debate with somebody, and they are bringing up pseudo technical arguments against you, you've obviously never studied that before because they are pseudo technical.

"You" in this scenario, specifically, is you: ConfusedJew. You aren't even "pseudo technical." You're embarrassingly out of your depth.

Unless you are well versed in that technical field, you'll never "win" that debate in front of an audience of people who already support that viewpoint.

It also doesn't help that you hold onto a myriad of losing positions and cling to falsehoods because you've been conditioned to believe they form the basis for your Jewish identity.

Examples: the exaggerated Holocaust from WWII. Your denial of the current Holocaust underway in Gaza being broadcast 24/7 on social media.

I'd say your actions and stances are "pathetic," however a more apt term is "demonic."

You guys have gone really deep down this chemistry rabbit hole and LLMs aren't equipped to deal with pseudoscience.

What about chemistry and forensics is "pseudoscience?" You have not been presented with any pseudoscience. You keep generating pseudoscientific AI hallucinations, however.

If I had a PhD in chemistry, and I'll be on the lookout for one, I'm sure I could debunk the chemical arguments in like 10 minutes.

Uh, no. "I could debunk the chemical arguments in like 10 minutes." Honey. No. LOL. Just... no.

Germar Rudolf has a Masters in chemistry and submitted a PhD thesis in theoretical crystallography. He has done his homework and everyone on this forum (much more capable than I) have brought the receipts. Receipts which are indecipherable to you.

What have you accomplished, queen? An internship at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem? A Birthright trip indirectly subsidized by my family's tax money? Whaddya got? Show us your impressive chemist or forensic credentials.

You can barely style an adequate prompt for the heavily censored ChatGPT LLM, and you are wholly incapable of understanding its output before you diarrhea it all over this forum.

The archival and census records are the most damning piece of this whole thing that nobody here has an argument for yet. Give it a shot, I'm curious to see what you can come up with.

No you are not curious. Stop pretending. I don't dance for you. You are unserious and you're shocked that the Jewish supremacist hypnosis that has controlled the Western world since WWII is shattering.

We see you, you're naked.

[AreYouSirius]

If you can't persuade me, somebody who is here to actually figure out what's going on with what you are thinking, then you aren't going to have much luck convincing other informed or intelligent people. If that's OK with you, then we can just agree to disagree.

...failed on this forum more spectacularly than Alex Berenson did this past Saturday in a Holocaust “denial” debate against comedian Dave Smith.

And worse than Professor of Genocide Studies Dr Vann who deferred to Rudolf on every point of technical detail because he had no clue how to rebut what was being discussed.

For sure! That podcast debate was BONKERS in the best way. Didn't Dr. Vann insist this was a "conversation" and not a debate because he was so out of his depth? Link for those who haven't seen:

[ConfusedJew]

Its a bit like your time here, eh Confused Jew? Except I guess Dr Vann had the dignity to actually defer to Rudolf, and didn't just whip out his ChatGPT app and start reciting rubbish to make a fool of himself.

Rudolf doesn't deserve deference and he's wrong about the formation of Prussian Blue anyway. The limiting factor was the significantly exposure time and exposure intensity compared to the delousing chambers.

[ConfusedJew]

"You" in this scenario, specifically, is you: ConfusedJew. You aren't even "pseudo technical." You're embarrassingly out of your depth.

You guys are welcome to keep insulting me but it doesn't make your case any more compelling, in fact it does the opposite. I'm not embarrassed. Yes, I am out of my depth when it comes to forensic chemistry but so are all of you and Rudolf and Leuchter. I could spend the time to really parse it, but it's not really worth it unless you present me with primary source documents that are relevant without just regurgitating what Rudolf and Leuchter have said about this.

[ConfusedJew]

For sure! That podcast debate was BONKERS in the best way. Didn't Dr. Vann insist this was a "conversation" and not a debate because he was so out of his depth? Link for those who haven't seen:

I haven't watched this, but it would be like somebody debating a flat earthed. They would be so well versed in pseudoscientific arguments and fake experimental data that an average person, even properly a well trained physicist, would struggle to debunk it.

[ConfusedJew]

You guys seem triggered that you weren't able to convince me. I gave you guys an attentive audience for quite a long time but still you have no answer for where all the millions of recorded Jews went if they weren't killed or how a conspiracy could have originated with Catholic Poles and then transmitted to Soviets, Germans themselves, Jews and the entire world.

I really wanted to get to the bottom of the disagreement to see where we couldn't go any further and I'm glad that we did. But don't get upset that you weren't able to convince me.

I laid out what you need to do in order to develop more thorough research and communicate it to the mainstream public in a more credible way. You have a lot of work to do to have a shot.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…I gave you guys an attentive audience for quite a long time…

I really wanted to get to the bottom of the disagreement…