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

[Nessie]

I presume most, if not all, of you have a job. Imagine someone arrives at your work, with no training, or experience, and they assert you are doing it all wrong and you have made a huge mistake.

That is what happens when so-called revisionists, assert to historians, lawyers, criminal investigators and journalists, who have investigated the Holocaust, that they have got it horribly wrong. When so-called revisionists critique intelligence reports, witness statements and archaeological surveys, they do so as unskilled amateurs. That means, they are more likely to be wrong, they are the ones who have made the big mistakes. When people pitch themselves as sceptics, critiquing the evidence, it seems reasonable that they should have some experience. Otherwise, as the new person at work, with no experience or training, is dismissed, then should they be.

When so-called revisionists do try to revise the history of the Holocaust, they fail, dreadfully. Some argue it is fine to have no conclusion, the Jews just went where they went! Some even argue asking them to revise the history, is reversing the burden of proof! Some do try to revise the history, but when they do so, they fall apart into disagreement and often flat out contradiction. The Kremas gas chambers were never used for any gassing or they were used as delousing chambers. None of the various claims about the actual function of the Kremas, or AR camps, is well enough evidenced, to be convincing to the majority of so-called revisionists. That failure to produce an evidenced chronology of events, should be a red flag to cause people to think again.

If so-called revisionists got some training in the core subjects used by those who have investigated the Holocaust, I say they would start to see where they have gone wrong. Until that happens, they are doomed to be the new person at work, who has just made a complete fool of themselves in front of the far better trained and more experienced colleagues.

[HansHill]

[Wahrheitssucher]

der Forumstrottel schrieb:
Imagine someone arrives at your work, with no training, or experience, and they assert you are doing it all wrong and you have made a huge mistake.
That is what happens when so-called revisionists, assert to historians, lawyers, criminal investigators and journalists, who have investigated the Holocaust, that they have got it horribly wrong.

This is more trite and false argument from arrogant and unashamed ignorance.

Q: What kind of imbecile would categorise the following as people with “no training or experience”???

Prof Ernst Nolte
Education: University of Münster; University of Berlin; University of Freiburg (BA, PhD); University of Köln
Occupation: Philosopher, historian.
Employers: University of Marburg (1965–1973); Free University of Berlin (since 1973, Emeritus since 1991)
Ernst Nolte was professor emeritus of modern history at the Free University of Berlin, where he taught from 1973 until his 1991 retirement. He was previously a professor at the University of Marburg from 1965 to 1973.

Prof Nolte revised and questioned the consensus ‘holocaust’ and WW2 narrative.
He was criticised, smeared, castigated, vilified for it.

To some, he was a whitewasher of genocide. To others, he was a scholar with the courage to ask unpermitted questions. To me, he was simply a man trying to follow a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. That this conclusion often led straight into taboo territory may have been precisely the attraction.

Prof. Joel Hayward.
New Zealand-born British historian, academic and published author.
Education: University of Canterbury in Christchurch — Bachelor of Arts degree in Classics and History + Master's Degree thesis, analysising the historiography of Holocaust revisionism (jewish-controlled wikipedia FALSELY describes its subject matter as ‘Holocaust denial’.

Prof Hayward is another highly qualified scholar of history who courageously reanalysed and questioned the consensus ‘holocaust’ narrative and the irrational, unhistoric disdain for genuine, rigorous, historical research by promoters of it.
Prof Hayawrd received death threats to himself and his infant girls from hateful, jewish holocaust-narrative defenders. He was also castigated, vilified and smeared. He had to leave his home-country and move his family to the middle-east in order to gain employment as a historian as jews made it impossoble for any university in Europe, USA and Australasia to employ him.

Prof. Anthony Hall.
Occupation: Professor Emeritus at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada.
In 1984 he earned a Ph.D. in History from the University of Toronto
Likewise vilified, smeared, lied about and forced out of his profession by hate-filled and outraged jews and jewish organisations for merely encouraging an open investigation and debate of holocaust revisionist claims.

Prof Robert Fauurisson
Occupation: lecturer, and then professor at the University of Lyon
Likewise, but much worse. Was vilified, criminalised, fined and violently attacked by hateful jews who were never punished.

Henri Rocques PHd.
Educated: Nantes University in France.

Henri Rocques is a French author and researcher who exposed the Myth of Pope Pius XII's complicity in the Holocaust. His doctoral thesis made world-wide headlines in 1986 when, for the first time in the nearly eight-century history of French universities, a duly awarded doctorate was quickly revoked on French government's orders, after an outcry by the Leftist-Jewish media in France. In a tightly argued dissertation, Rocques came to the stunning conclusion that the allegations of mass gassings of Jews made by SS officer Kurt Gerstein were groundless, and that the supposed Roman-Catholic coverup of this “slaughter” are false. He further concluded that postwar academics deliberately falsified key parts of the already tortured Gerstein testimony.

https://codoh.com/library/document/dr-h ... -has-died/

Prof Arthur Butz
Occupation: Arthur Butz Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at at Northwestern University.
Author of the detailed and extensive re-evaluation of the ‘holocaust’ mythology ‘The Hoax of the Twentieth Century’.
Still smeared, lied about, vilified and hated by jews and jewish organisations who are outraged they couldn’t destroy him and his career.

Paul Rassinier
Occupation: History teacher.
Do a search. I’m losing interest and patience.
_________________________________

SUMMARY:
A: Only a dimwit and someone motivated by mindless, irrational hatred would describe all of the above experts and qualified academics as having “no training, or experience”.

[Nessie]

der Forumstrottel schrieb:
Imagine someone arrives at your work, with no training, or experience, and they assert you are doing it all wrong and you have made a huge mistake.
That is what happens when so-called revisionists, assert to historians, lawyers, criminal investigators and journalists, who have investigated the Holocaust, that they have got it horribly wrong.

This is more trite and false argument from arrogant and unashamed ignorance.

Q: What kind of imbecile would categorise the following as people with “no training or experience”???

Prof Ernst Nolte
Education: University of Münster; University of Berlin; University of Freiburg (BA, PhD); University of Köln
Occupation: Philosopher, historian.
Employers: University of Marburg (1965–1973); Free University of Berlin (since 1973, Emeritus since 1991)
Ernst Nolte was professor emeritus of modern history at the Free University of Berlin, where he taught from 1973 until his 1991 retirement. He was previously a professor at the University of Marburg from 1965 to 1973.

Prof Nolte revised and questioned the consensus ‘holocaust’ and WW2 narrative.
He was criticised, smeared, castigated, vilified for it.

To some, he was a whitewasher of genocide. To others, he was a scholar with the courage to ask unpermitted questions. To me, he was simply a man trying to follow a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. That this conclusion often led straight into taboo territory may have been precisely the attraction.

Prof. Joel Hayward.
New Zealand-born British historian, academic and published author.
Education: University of Canterbury in Christchurch — Bachelor of Arts degree in Classics and History + Master's Degree thesis, analysising the historiography of Holocaust revisionism (jewish-controlled wikipedia FALSELY describes its subject matter as ‘Holocaust denial’.

Prof Hayward is another highly qualified scholar of history who courageously reanalysed and questioned the consensus ‘holocaust’ narrative and the irrational, unhistoric disdain for genuine, rigorous, historical research by promoters of it.
Prof Hayawrd received death threats to himself and his infant girls from hateful, jewish holocaust-narrative defenders. He was also castigated, vilified and smeared. He had to leave his home-country and move his family to the middle-east in order to gain employment as a historian as jews made it impossoble for any university in Europe, USA and Australasia to employ him.

Prof. Anthony Hall.
Occupation: Professor Emeritus at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada.
In 1984 he earned a Ph.D. in History from the University of Toronto
Likewise vilified, smeared, lied about and forced out of his profession by hate-filled and outraged jews and jewish organisations for merely encouraging an open investigation and debate of holocaust revisionist claims.

Prof Robert Fauurisson
Occupation: lecturer, and then professor at the University of Lyon
Likewise, but much worse. Was vilified, criminalised, fined and violently attacked by hateful jews who were never punished.

Henri Rocques PHd.
Educated: Nantes University in France.

Henri Rocques is a French author and researcher who exposed the Myth of Pope Pius XII's complicity in the Holocaust. His doctoral thesis made world-wide headlines in 1986 when, for the first time in the nearly eight-century history of French universities, a duly awarded doctorate was quickly revoked on French government's orders, after an outcry by the Leftist-Jewish media in France. In a tightly argued dissertation, Rocques came to the stunning conclusion that the allegations of mass gassings of Jews made by SS officer Kurt Gerstein were groundless, and that the supposed Roman-Catholic coverup of this “slaughter” are false. He further concluded that postwar academics deliberately falsified key parts of the already tortured Gerstein testimony.

https://codoh.com/library/document/dr-h ... -has-died/

Prof Arthur Butz
Occupation: Arthur Butz Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at at Northwestern University.
Author of the detailed and extensive re-evaluation of the ‘holocaust’ mythology ‘The Hoax of the Twentieth Century’.
Still smeared, lied about, vilified and hated by jews and jewish organisations who are outraged they couldn’t destroy him and his career.

Paul Rassinier
Occupation: History teacher.
Do a search. I’m losing interest and patience.
_________________________________

SUMMARY:
A: Only a dimwit and someone motivated by mindless, irrational hatred would describe all of the above experts and qualified academics as having “no training, or experience”.

I made it VERY clear, in the OP, that I was referring to people with NO training or experience. That does not cover all Holocaust deniers or revisionists. Scott also has a history degree. Why they fall for the Holocaust denial/revision hoax, is another topic.

[Keen]

[Keen]

I made it VERY clear, in the OP, that I was referring to people with NO training or experience. That does not cover all Holocaust deniers or revisionists.

Nessie, of the 100 freaudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblink II, how many does the average "holocaust denier" deny?

[Keen]

AR camps, is well enough evidenced, to be convincing to the majority of so-called revisionists.

Until they see this:

It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the one hundred graves / cremation pits that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of -

ONLY FIVE PEOPLE.

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Cowboy]

shutitdown.jpg (92.53 KiB) Viewed 158 times

[Archie]

Appeals to authority go over like a lead balloon with most people, especially younger people. It would be a terrible argument even it it were true, which it isn't. Most of us don't discuss our educational and professional backgrounds on here, and everyone knows why that is.

Nessie spams fallacy allegations in every post, and then he starts a whole thread that is nothing but a textbook ad hominem fallacy.

It is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[7] Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

And it's the second time he's made this exact same thread. Lame.
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=179

It is hilarious to me to hear Nessie of all people bragging about his "training." Dude, get over yourself. You are not impressive. Your only function on this forum is as a punching bag/lolcow. Even your own side regards you as an embarrassment.

I can scarcely comprehend the lack of self-awareness that is required to brag repeatedly about being a retired police officer, as if this were some ideal background for what we are doing. Nothing against cops, but the average IQ for a policeman is around 104, i.e., bog standard. Some police departments go so far as to screen out candidates for being too smart. (Just saying).
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-bar ... y?id=95836

[Nessie]

Appeals to authority go over like a lead balloon with most people, especially younger people. It would be a terrible argument even it it were true, which it isn't. Most of us don't discuss our educational and professional backgrounds on here, and everyone knows why that is.

It is not an appeal to authority, to point out that people with relevant training and expertise are more likely to be correct, than those without. It is common sense and obvious.

Nessie spams fallacy allegations in every post, and then he starts a whole thread that is nothing but a textbook ad hominem fallacy.

It is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[7] Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

And it's the second time he's made this exact same thread. Lame.
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=179

It is hilarious to me to hear Nessie of all people bragging about his "training." Dude, get over yourself. You are not impressive. Your only function on this forum is as a punching bag/lolcow. Even your own side regards you as an embarrassment.

I can scarcely comprehend the lack of self-awareness that is required to brag repeatedly about being a retired police officer, as if this were some ideal background for what we are doing. Nothing against cops, but the average IQ for a policeman is around 104, i.e., bog standard. Some police departments go so far as to screen out candidates for being too smart. (Just saying).
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-bar ... y?id=95836

How ironic, you quote ad hominem, as you rely on that fallacy to attack me.

You do that because you know that the argument I have presented here, is self-evidently correct. It is a fact in all walks of life and occupations, that people with training and experience, are better at the task in hand, than those without.

I can easily point out where so-called revisionists make mistakes, such as their repeated use of logically flawed arguments, failure to evidence what happened and mistaken analysis of the evidence, witnesses in particular.

[HansHill]

How ironic, you quote ad hominem, as you rely on that fallacy to attack me.

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

[Nessie]

How ironic, you quote ad hominem, as you rely on that fallacy to attack me.

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.

[Wetzelrad]

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

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.

[HansHill]

How ironic, you quote ad hominem, as you rely on that fallacy to attack me.

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!

[HansHill]

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

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.

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.