Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Keen]

Historians gather evidence to find out what happened. Revisionists deny that evidence claiming it is too improbable to believe.

“HUGE MASS GRAVES”

are easily identifiable physical entities.

I refuse to believe in the existence of any

physical entity that I am not allowed to see.

If you want me to believe, then simply:

Show me that which you allege I deny.

* * * * *

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.

(No matter how much other so-called "evidence" is proffered to the contrary.)

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

[Nessie]

Bombsaway is spot on when he states;

Your confirmation bias hits because you are literally unable to critically examine your narrative of "witnesses lying"

So far, attempts to get revisionists here to explain and justify their methods of analysing witness evidence, have failed. They cannot do it.