The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Larry Sunday]

I think its probably the case that the holocaust happened but 6 million is just ridiculous. Nothing really adds up with the story. I've read through a bit of this but nobody really talks much about it in any of the discussions I see online.

If we know 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust BECAUSE the nazis kept so good of records:
Why did they claim 4 million were killed at Auschwitz?
Why did that number have to get adjusted down to 1 million?
Why did that number have to get further adjusted down to 100,000?
If the amount of jews that died at Auschwitz was 4 million in 1945 and the records were kept by the nazis so well, and that's how we know, why did the number get adjusted down? Surely that makes the numbers kept by the nazis inaccurate does it not?

The other thing is the claim of Zyklon B as being used in gas chambers. Why would the nazis use a pesticide like Zyklon B, not only to gas jews in the camps, but also in their mobile jew gassing trucks when it was safe, but irritating, to inhale? It seems like a stretch that they would use this instead of the up to 12,000 tons of sarin gas they had stockpiled through the war, especially when sarin gas is deadly in way smaller doses than Zyklon B, which again, you can safely inhale.

I don't outright deny the holocaust, slave labor did happen in ww2 out of desperation, and the execution of POWs on the eastern front was commonly done by both sides, mostly because of lack of food as I've read in several memoirs.

 

[John.Doe]

@John.Doe In light of our previous conversations, what do you make of this "process of elimination" method of doing history?

I don't know why you'd phrase it this way, nothing you've said is enlightening, illuminating, or even informative. Your posts have a negative information value, they are a social weapon designed to waste time and energy through response only. I also don't know what you mean by 'process of elimination' either, you don't start with conclusions and them winnow them out - that is the fast track to confirmation bias.

You have to start with the evidence and then build toward conclusions.

I personally don't care about any resettlement theories, and they don't matter because they aren't the point of contention. The real issue is that you are making some pretty extraordinary claims and not backing that up with evidence. If you want to claim that 6 million Jews were put on death coasters, killed with trained bears/eagles, masturbation machines, gas chambers, etc, and then all vaporized, then you need to present proof of these facts. The burden of proof is on you, my dude, to demonstrate that the Holocaust happened, in the way described.

You keep playing these insipid word games while trying to reverse the burden of proof like "account for the movement of every Jew in Europe, oh you can't? Guess I win" or conjuring up tinfoil conspiratard logic to try and explain how some Hauptmann's receipt for blotter paper combines with some photocopied Soviet interrogation notes to prove the existence of a Voltron style Holocaust mecha.

"All the evidence that might have proved a billion Jews were cremated at the Reinhard camps was completely destroyed, therefore proving me correct forever and ever, you cannot possibly attack my theory that a billion Jews were Holocoastered!"
"Meanwhile, your stupid resettlement theory has no evidence for it, therefore it must be false! Man, you deniers are so stupid, you can't even defend the strawmen I assign to you!"

What matters is the proof presented to support the Holocaust narrative, and telling me that some other theory is bullshit doesn't prove your theory correct. Proof of burden matters.

 

[Chugger]

You keep playing these insipid word games while trying to reverse the burden of proof like "account for the movement of every Jew in Europe, oh you can't? Guess I win"

Nah I've never said this. Revisionists like Mattogno Graf and kues say 2 million Jews were sent east and maintained in German occupied USSR. Why don't you account for a single community maintained there, say 20 people? That's one out of every 100,000 Jews believed to have been resettled.


The reason I believe again is the many hundreds of documents and witness statements pointing to mass killing by gas bullets , intentional starvation. Every aspect of the Holocaust has a foundation in this direct evidence, and it's obvious, no convoluted reasoning necessary (that's your side actually). Your statement about "conspiratard logic" doesn't fly, you simply think the witnesses are lying and the documents are forged. You think the detailed forensic reports which describe large graves full of crushed bone at specific sites are fabricated as well.

That you guys can't back up any of your assertions or beliefs isn't a reason for me to believe in the orthodox narrative. Most historians aren't familiar with your fringe history and still believe, after all. I bring it up because I want you to face up to your hypocrisy, the incredible amount of scrutiny you place on one narrative, vs the uncritical acceptance of another one. This is the most blatant way I can show revisionism is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[fresh pair of socks]

you simply think the witnesses are lying and the documents are forged.

Out of curiosity, how do you explain famed holocaust survivor and serial liar Simon Wiesenthal? The man lied about everything from his own experiences in concentration camps (of which he survived five) to the number of casualties.

It seems silly to claim someone merely thinks witnesses lied, when one of the most famous witnesses was caught lying multiple times.

 

[Chugger]

Out of curiosity, how do you explain famed holocaust survivor and serial liar Simon Wiesenthal? The man lied about everything from his own experiences in concentration camps (of which he survived five) to the number of casualties.

It seems silly to claim someone merely thinks witnesses lied, when one of the most famous witnesses was caught lying multiple times.

To say witnesses lie is one thing, this is obviously true. There are reliability issues with witness testimony, nobody working in the legal field is going to deny that.

But revisionists are saying more than this. They're saying eg about gas chambers, every witness, without exception, was lying. Even people who were going to go to jail or likely be executed lied about it, besmirching their country and their own name. Forget the Jews, there are literally hundreds of perpetrators who, to revisionists, lied and falsely implicated themselves.

Now false self implication does happen, but revisionists claim it happened in every case where perpetrators attested to witnessing or being involved in mass gassings.

This might be believable if there was a known campaign of prosecutorial coercion where people were being instructed to lie about gas chambers with eg their families being threatened and so forth. But there's no compelling evidence of this. Revisionists may speculate that it is possible there was and we just don't know about it, but possibility doesn't = it happened. They might point to a picture of Hoess with a bloody nose, or talk about crushed testicles (this is false actually), but abuse of prisoners isn't evidence of a program to coerce people into admitting Holocaust crimes. Prisoner abuse is a universal thing, and if their side was indeed committing war crimes, prisoner abuse is going to follow from this.

AI version of the above for clarity

I understand your concern about unreliable witnesses like Simon Wiesenthal. It's true that witness testimony can be problematic, and no one in the legal field would deny this. However, the revisionist claim goes far beyond acknowledging occasional false testimony.

Revisionists argue that every single witness to gas chambers was lying, including hundreds of perpetrators who implicated themselves despite facing severe consequences. This is highly implausible.

While false self-implication can occur, there's no evidence of a widespread campaign to coerce false confessions about gas chambers. Revisionists might point to isolated incidents of prisoner abuse, but this doesn't prove a systematic program of forcing false confessions.

Prisoner abuse, unfortunately, is a common occurrence in many contexts, especially in the aftermath of war. If the German side was indeed committing war crimes during the Holocaust, it's not surprising that some of their own personnel might face abuse when captured. The presence of prisoner abuse doesn't necessarily indicate a specific campaign to fabricate Holocaust confessions; rather, it could be seen as an extension of the brutal environment created by the war crimes themselves. In other words, the existence of prisoner abuse doesn't prove or disprove the reality of the Holocaust; it's a separate issue that often occurs in the context of war and its aftermath.

In essence, the revisionist argument requires us to believe in an enormous conspiracy to elicit false testimony, without sufficient evidence to support such an extraordinary claim.

 

[Chugger]

Since people love my AI so much, I thought I would show you guys this analysis I had it do about some popular conspiracy theories. We know LLMs will always represent consensus positions, but they are capable of probabilistic reasoning. I asked it to assess the likelihood of each conspiracy theory being true. Interestingly enough it is kind of anti semitic, in that it rates certain events as somewhat probable (Israel responsible for 9/11 and intentional attack on Liberty) . No dice for Holocaust deniers though, it thinks you are truly whack.

Here is my analysis of the probabilities for the various conspiracy theories you mentioned, along with brief justifications:

Epstein was murdered 1 in 5 The circumstances around Epstein's death were highly suspicious and convenient for many powerful people. However, incompetence and negligence in prison are also plausible explanations.

JFK killed by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald 1 in 10 There are still many unanswered questions and odd coincidences around the assassination. But the case for a conspiracy is not definitive and Oswald remains the likely sole perpetrator based on the available evidence.

9/11 inside job (they were trained by the CIA) 1 in 1,000 While there are some curious links between the hijackers and US intelligence, the evidence is far from conclusive. Such a vast conspiracy would be very difficult to coordinate and conceal.

9/11 inside job (controlled demolition) 1 in 10,000 Scientific analysis has consistently debunked controlled demolition theories. The collapse of the towers matches what would be expected from the plane impacts and fires.

9/11 inside job (holographic planes) 1 in 1,000,000,000 This theory completely defies Occam's razor and is not remotely supported by any credible evidence. It would require absurdly advanced technology and a near-impossible scale of deception.

9/11 (Israel Responsible) 1 in 1,000 This theory lacks credible evidence and is often rooted in anti-Semitic tropes. While some individuals have claimed Israeli involvement, thorough investigations have found no supporting evidence.

Flat Earth theory 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 Every line of scientific evidence, from photos from space to the easily observable curvature of the Earth, conclusively disproves flat Earth theory. It has zero factual basis.

Hollow Earth theory (technological civilization underground) 1 in 1,000,000,000 Seismic data clearly shows the Earth is not hollow. A massive underground civilization is not consistent with any geological or scientific evidence.

Moon Landing Hoax 1 in 1,000,000 The sheer scale of evidence for the moon landings, from independent verification by other countries to analysis of moon rocks, makes a hoax absurdly implausible. The "evidence" for a hoax does not withstand scrutiny.

Jesus Never Existed 1 in 100 While the supernatural claims about Jesus are debatable, his existence as a historical figure is supported by most scholars based on independent extra-biblical sources. However, the evidence is limited enough to leave room for some doubt.

The Nazi Death Camps were hoaxed (No mass gassings, no Jews gassed) 1 in 1,000,000,000 The historical evidence for the Holocaust, including documents, material remains, meticulous Nazi records, and thousands of corroborating eyewitness testimonies, is overwhelming. Holocaust denial defies all facts and reason.

Jews were mass resettled in USSR in WW2 and there was a cover up there 1 in 1,000,000,000 Millions of Jews are simply missing from Europe based on all available demographic data. Any mass resettlement program of that scale would be impossible to cover up and there is zero credible evidence for it.

6 million is a magical number for Jews 1 in 1,000,000,000 The figure of 6 million Jewish Holocaust victims comes from meticulous documentation and demographic analysis. Earlier unrelated uses of this symbolic number by Jews do not undermine the factual basis of the Holocaust toll.

Katyn was a German crime 1 in 100,000 Russian documents released after the fall of the USSR clearly show that Katyn was a Soviet NKVD crime, which Russia has now admitted. The evidence clearly contradicts the Soviet narrative blaming Germany.

Rape of Nanking was 99% hoaxed 1 in 1,000,000 The scale and brutality of the Nanking massacre is attested by numerous eyewitnesses, photographs, foreign observers' reports, and even some Japanese veterans. Any exaggerations do not discount the essential facts of the atrocity.

Armenian genocide didn't happen 1 in 100,000 There is ample contemporaneous documentation by diplomats, missionaries and journalists corroborating the basic facts of the genocide. There is no serious historical debate about the reality of the event, only its qualification as a genocide.

WW1 "stab-in-the-back myth" is true 1 in 1,000 German military leaders spread this myth to deflect blame, but the German army was genuinely collapsing by late 1918. Desertions and uprisings had started before the armistice. The myth was propaganda, not reality.

Bigfoot 1 in 1,000,000 No credible physical evidence, such as a body or genetic material, has ever been found for Bigfoot despite intensive searches. Hoax photos and misidentifications are more plausible than a real undiscovered ape species in North America.

Israel Blew Up USS Liberty on Purpose 1 in 50 The attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli forces during the Six-Day War has been subject to controversy and conspiracy theories. While the official Israeli explanation was that it was a case of mistaken identity, some believe it was deliberate. However, there is no definitive evidence to prove intentionality beyond doubt.

2020 Election Fraud (Trump actually won) 1 in 1,000 Extensive investigations, including by Republican-led state governments and Trump-appointed officials, found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have changed the outcome. Multiple recounts and audits confirmed the results. Courts, including those with Trump-appointed judges, dismissed over 60 lawsuits alleging fraud due to lack of evidence.

Pizzagate 1 in 1,000,000,000 This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked. It originated from misinterpretations of hacked emails, with no credible evidence supporting its claims. Law enforcement investigations found no basis for the allegations. The restaurant at the center of the theory had no basement, contrary to claims. The theory led to real-world harm when an armed man fired shots in the restaurant based on these false beliefs.

 

[fresh pair of socks]

To say witnesses lie is one thing, this is obviously true. There are reliability issues with witness testimony, nobody working in the legal field is going to deny that.

But revisionists are saying more than this. They're saying eg about gas chambers, every witness, without exception, was lying. Even people who were going to go to jail or likely be executed lied about it, besmirching their country and their own name. Forget the Jews, there are literally hundreds of perpetrators who, to revisionists, lied and falsely implicated themselves.

Now false self implication does happen, but revisionists claim it happened in every case where perpetrators attested to witnessing or being involved in mass gassings.

This might be believable if there was a known campaign of prosecutorial coercion where people were being instructed to lie about gas chambers with eg their families being threatened and so forth. But there's no compelling evidence of this. Revisionists may speculate that it is possible there was and we just don't know about it, but possibility doesn't = it happened. They might point to a picture of Hoess with a bloody nose, or talk about crushed testicles (this is false actually), but abuse of prisoners isn't evidence of a program to coerce people into admitting Holocaust crimes. Prisoner abuse is a universal thing, and if their side was indeed committing war crimes, prisoner abuse is going to follow from this.

Thanks ChuggerGPT

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Hahahah, Matthew Cockrill @History Speaks is now trying to use being ordered by the jews not to try and challenge those who tell the truth about the 'Holocaust' lie, as an excuse for not challenging the truth. He's claiming he's being 'selfish', not just pussying out because none of the evidence is on his side. A likely story.

https://x.com/History__Speaks/status/1820249344735576291

https://archive.is/wip/d16zI

 

[Bonesjones]

Hahahah, Matthew Cockrill @History Speaks is now trying to use being ordered by the jews not to try and challenge those who tell the truth about the 'Holocaust' lie, as an excuse for not challenging the truth. He's claiming he's being 'selfish', not just pussying out because none of the evidence is on his side. A likely story.

As shown in this thread, they know the people who try to argue against deniers are total retards and do them a disservice by openly showing how fake it all is. They known the holocaust narrative is totally fake but the only way they can keep it going is by ignoring the facts, when you start talking about it, it shows just how weak their cause is.

 

[Chugger]

As shown in this thread, they know the people who try to argue against deniers are total retards and do them a disservice by openly showing how fake it all is. They known the holocaust narrative is totally fake but the only way they can keep it going is by ignoring the facts, when you start talking about it, it shows just how weak their cause is.

Lol, this is a great response to the theory that the many thousands of Holocaust historians that are currently active know the story is false, but continue to devote their lives to "studying" it and protecting the lie.

#3 is probably the most informative to revisionists, who generally have a cartoon understanding of how history works

The theory that all Holocaust historians know the Holocaust is fake but are collectively maintaining this deception is implausible for several key reasons:


1. Scale and diversity of the field

Holocaust studies is a vast, international field involving thousands of researchers from diverse backgrounds. The sheer number and variety of people involved makes a coordinated deception extremely unlikely:

• Historians come from different countries, cultures, and political systems
• They work in various institutions: universities, museums, research centers
• Many entered the field at different times over multiple generations
• They often have competing theories and disagree on many details

For all these diverse individuals to maintain a unified lie over decades, across language and cultural barriers, without a single credible whistleblower, defies logical explanation.


2. Motivation and incentives

The theory fails to provide a plausible motivation for why all these historians would participate in such a deception:

• Many Holocaust historians are not Jewish and have no personal stake
• Academic careers are built on challenging established narratives, not maintaining them
• Exposing such a massive fraud would bring immense fame and recognition
• There's no clear financial incentive - most Holocaust historians are not highly paid

The potential rewards for exposing a hoax of this magnitude would far outweigh any benefits of maintaining it, especially for non-Jewish historians with no personal connection to the events.

3. Incompatibility with how historical research actually works

The theory misunderstands the nature of historical research:

• Historians constantly uncover new evidence and revise understanding of events
• There are ongoing debates about many aspects of the Holocaust
• Errors and misinterpretations in earlier work are regularly corrected
• The field encourages critical examination of sources and questioning of assumptions

This dynamic, self-correcting nature of historical research is incompatible with maintaining a static, coordinated lie. If the Holocaust were fake, decades of intense scrutiny and new discoveries would have exposed this by now.


In conclusion, while this theory might seem to explain the consensus among historians, it actually raises far more logical problems than it solves. A simpler explanation is that the consensus exists because the evidence overwhelmingly supports the historical reality of the Holocaust.

Sorry in advance for the AI but tbh the theory is so dumb it doesn't merit a human response.

 

[gay fae]

I can't believe I wasted 2 hours reading this thread's highlights. What a joke.

Even the Jews must follow the laws of thermodynamics.
The amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 Kelvin is 4184 joules.

 

[Bonesjones]

Lol, this is a great response to the theory that the many thousands of Holocaust historians that are currently active know the story is false, but continue to devote their lives to "studying" it and protecting the lie.

You mean people do things they know are wrong or lies to protect themselves and their livelihood? I wonder who could do that? Oh you mean millions of lawyers, every single day? Those people.

Sorry in advance for the AI but tbh the theory is so dumb it doesn't merit a human response.

No you aren't, you keep shitting up the thread because you've ran out of holocaust controversy blog posts to quote.

 

[Chugger]

Even the Jews must follow the laws of thermodynamics.
The amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 Kelvin is 4184 joules.

The average adult holds 42 kgs of water, the people supposedly killed were half starved and consisted of many children so I'm going to lower that to 25 kgs. Maybe it could be higher. So how much energy is needed to vaporize 25 kg of water and give that answer to me in terms of coal.


Chat GPT

Let's recalculate the energy required to boil away 25 kg of water from the human body, starting from 37°C.

1. Heating Water to Boiling Point​

The specific heat capacity of water is 4184 J/kg·K.
ΔT=100−37=63 K\Delta T = 100 - 37 = 63 \, \text{K}ΔT=100−37=63K
Energy=25 kg×4184 J/kg\cdotpK×63 K\text{Energy} = 25 \, \text{kg} \times 4184 \, \text{J/kg·K} \times 63 \, \text{K}Energy=25kg×4184J/kg\cdotpK×63K

2. Vaporizing the Water​

The latent heat of vaporization of water is approximately 2260 kJ/kg.
Energy=25 kg×2260 kJ/kg\text{Energy} = 25 \, \text{kg} \times 2260 \, \text{kJ/kg}Energy=25kg×2260kJ/kg
Let's calculate these values and the amount of coal required.
To boil away 25 kg of water from the human body:

• Energy required to heat the water to 100°C: 6,589,800 joules
• Energy required to vaporize the water at 100°C: 56,500 kJ (56,500,000 joules)
• Total energy required: 63,089,800 joules

To achieve this, approximately 2.63 kilograms of coal would be needed, assuming an average energy content of 24 MJ/kg for the coal.

Claude:

To solve this problem, we need to calculate the energy required to boil 25 kg of water and then convert that energy into an equivalent amount of coal. Let's break this down step by step:

1. Calculate the energy needed to boil water:
   • We need to heat the water from room temperature (assuming 20°C) to boiling point (100°C) and then vaporize it.
   • Specific heat capacity of water: 4.18 kJ/(kg·°C)
   • Latent heat of vaporization of water: 2,260 kJ/kg
2. Energy to heat water to boiling point: E1 = mass × specific heat capacity × temperature change E1 = 25 kg × 4.18 kJ/(kg·°C) × (100°C - 20°C) E1 = 8,360 kJ
3. Energy to vaporize water: E2 = mass × latent heat of vaporization E2 = 25 kg × 2,260 kJ/kg E2 = 56,500 kJ
4. Total energy: E_total = E1 + E2 = 8,360 kJ + 56,500 kJ = 64,860 kJ
5. Convert to coal equivalent:
   • The energy content of coal varies, but on average, bituminous coal contains about 24 MJ/kg (24,000 kJ/kg)
   Coal equivalent = Total energy / Energy content of coal Coal equivalent = 64,860 kJ / 24,000 kJ/kg Coal equivalent ≈ 2.70 kg

Therefore, the energy needed to boil away 25 kg of water is equivalent to burning approximately 2.70 kg of coal.

So it seems like 2.7 kg is the answer. But if someone wants to correct the math they can.

Now destroying 4 million bodies, at the major extermination sites, means that at least 10 million kgs of coal had to be used. This is a minimum. The actual equivalent amount, accounting for inefficiency may have been 5x higher, I don't know. So let's 50 million kgs of coal. Sounds like a lot eh. Well Nazi Germany's production was 200 million tons of coal per year, so over the 3 years of the Holocaust let's give it 600 million tons of coal.

Now what percentage of 600 million tons is 50 million kg?

Let's solve this step-by-step:

1. First, we need to convert all units to the same scale. Let's convert everything to kilograms (kg). 600 million tons = 600,000,000 tons 1 ton = 1,000 kg So, 600 million tons = 600,000,000 * 1,000 = 600,000,000,000 kg
2. Now we have: 600,000,000,000 kg (total) 50,000,000 kg (the part we're comparing)
3. To calculate the percentage, we use the formula: Percentage = (Part / Whole) * 100
4. Let's plug in our numbers: Percentage = (50,000,000 / 600,000,000,000) * 100
5. Simplify: = (1 / 12,000) * 100 ≈ 0.00833333...%

Therefore, 50 million kg is approximately 0.00833% of 600 million tons.
To round this to a more manageable number, we could say it's about 0.0083% or 8.33 thousandths of a percent.

0.0083% of their total coal production, and maybe half of that to be honest.

Oh fearsome mighty Holocaust deniers, I can finally go toe to toe with you on corpse math. Let's see what you've got. Is my math wrong, or what does it mean that they were willing to sacrifice this amount of their energy supply to conceal the amount of people they had just genocided (about 3-4 million at the major extermination sites)

 

[Bonesjones]

The average adult holds 42 kgs of water, the people supposedly killed were half starved and consisted of many children so I'm going to lower that to 25 kgs. Maybe it could be higher. So how much energy is needed to vaporize 25 kg of water and give that answer to me in terms of coal.

You don't know anything about who they were nor what state they were in, you only have assumptions. If you are going to pretend to do work, show it. You also assume malnourished people contain significantly less water than normal people.

So it seems like 2.7 kg is the answer. But if someone wants to correct the math they can.

Look at you starting with conclusions instead of starting with the facts.

Now destroying 4 million bodies, at the major extermination sites, means that at least 10 million kgs of coal had to be used. This is a minimum. The actual equivalent amount, accounting for inefficiency may have been 5x higher, I don't know. So let's 50 million kgs of coal. Sounds like a lot eh. Well Nazi Germany's production was 200 million tons of coal per year, so over the 3 years of the Holocaust let's give it 600 million tons of coal.

So show us 10 million kilos of coal stockpiles at the sites. You've got aerial photos and camp diagrams. Stockpiles leave piles of evidence even with thorough cleanup. So you can talk about what they used when you can prove what they had.

Oh fearsome mighty Holocaust deniers, I can finally go toe to toe with you on corpse math. Let's see what you've got.

You can't go toe to toe with a poorly written chat bot, how do you think you can argue against actual people?

Is my math wrong, or what does it mean that they were willing to sacrifice this amount of their energy supply to conceal the amount of people they had just genocided (about 3-4 million at the major extermination sites)

Yes your math is wrong. You've again started with a conclusion and tried to manipulate what little information you can glean into supporting it.

 

[Chugger]

You don't know anything about who they were nor what state they were in, you only have assumptions. If you are going to pretend to do work, show it. You also assume malnourished people contain significantly less water than normal people.

Double the amount of water and it's still a negligible quantity lol. A hundredth of 1% (.016%)

It's not believed that coal was used exclusively, they also used wood and gasoline, but this is just to give an idea of the massive amounts of fuel NS Germany was producing.

So show us 10 million kilos of coal stockpiles at the sites. You've got aerial photos and camp diagrams. Stockpiles leave piles of evidence even with thorough cleanup. So you can talk about what they used when you can prove what they had.

I've answered this before but here's Claude:

To directly address the question: The absence of complete evidence for one specific aspect (in this case, fuel usage) does not invalidate the overwhelming body of evidence from multiple sources that confirms the Holocaust occurred. Historical events, especially of this scale and complexity, are established through diverse types of evidence including:

1. Survivor testimonies
2. Perpetrator confessions and testimonies
3. Documented Nazi orders and communications
4. Physical evidence at concentration camps
5. Mass graves and forensic evidence
6. Demographic data
7. Photographic and film evidence
8. Contemporaneous accounts from witnesses, including liberating forces

Focusing solely on one detail like fuel records while ignoring this vast body of evidence is not a sound historical approach. It's a tactic often used by deniers to cast doubt on established historical facts.

 

[Bonesjones]

Double the amount of water and it's still a negligible quantity lol. A hundredth of 1% (.016%)

Yeah man if you just play with math and fractions you can pretend anything means anything, no one cares. We deal with hard evidence here. You said it would take millions of kg of coal. So put the coal at the scene of the crime. If you can't then just say so.

I've answered this before but here's Claude:

No you didn't. A chat bot that won't deny the holocaust won't support any argument that does. So either post proof of stockpiles or fuck off. These are unassailable facts. It doesn't matter how much coal exists on earth if you can't put it on the scene of the crime you mongoloid.

 

[Chugger]

Yeah man if you just play with math and fractions you can pretend anything means anything, no one cares. We deal with hard evidence here. You said it would take millions of kg of coal. So put the coal at the scene of the crime. If you can't then just say so.

No you didn't. A chat bot that won't deny the holocaust won't support any argument that does. So either post proof of stockpiles or fuck off. These are unassailable facts. It doesn't matter how much coal exists on earth if you can't put it on the scene of the crime you mongoloid.

That's mr. LLM to you. Claude is just calling your arguments illogical and fallacious and pointing out why and you can't really respond except with inane blustering.

Yeah man if you just play with math and fractions you can pretend anything means anything, no one cares. We deal with hard evidence here. You said it would take millions of kg of coal. So put the coal at the scene of the crime

Claude:

1. False premise: It assumes that a lack of evidence for one specific detail (coal at the scene) negates all other evidence. This is a logical fallacy known as the "argument from ignorance."
2. Cherry-picking: It focuses on one narrow aspect while ignoring the vast body of other evidence. This is selective attention to data that seemingly supports a predetermined conclusion.
3. Unreasonable expectations: It demands a level of evidence preservation that is unrealistic given the passage of time and efforts to conceal crimes.
4. Misunderstanding of historical methodology: Historians use multiple lines of evidence to corroborate events, not just physical remains at a site.
5. Moving the goalposts: Even if this specific evidence were provided, deniers would likely find another detail to question, as their goal is not genuine inquiry but denial.
6. False equivalence: It equates the absence of one type of evidence with the absence of all evidence, which is not logically sound.

 

[Bonesjones]

That's mr. LLM to you. Claude is just calling your arguments illogical and fallacious and pointing out why and you can't really respond except with insipid blustering.

I noticed you didn't provide an appropriate factual response with marked photos or diagrams. I'll take that as you being unable to find the information. The rest is your own ducking and dodging yet again.

It's just the sad ramblings of a subhuman intellect entertaining himself with word games. I've literally given you the outline to prove the holocaust is real beyond any reasonable doubt, all you have to do is get the information together. Unless you admit that the information doesn't exist, why else wouldn't you have done so?

 

[Armor of God]

Listen Giga Faggot, Bones has a point.

If hundreds of tons of charcoal were need for alleged cremations then where is the evidence of stockpiles at the sites of the cremation ? If you're going to make a claim then you have to show evidence.

You're using your faggot tier AI to talk in circles about the principles using in the argument but you never, ever provide any direct evidence.

You truly are a disgusting little kike.

 

[Chugger]

Listen Giga Faggot, Bones has a point.

If hundreds of tons of charcoal were need for alleged cremations then where is the evidence of stockpiles at the sites of the cremation ? If you're going to make a claim then you have to show evidence.

You're using your faggot tier AI to talk in circles about the principles using in the argument but you never, ever provide any direct evidence.

You truly are a disgusting little kike.

I've provided a ton of direct evidence in this thread. If you tell me, chugger I hereby commit to an honest investigation with you of the supposed direct evidence, and will stay razor focused on this supposed evidence without going off on silly tangents like muh newspapers, I'll show you. I just think the well has been poisoned too much for you to commit to anything like this.

Regarding missing records, what if I told.you that a million or 2 million people had been resettled, but there was no direct evidence of this whatsoever. No witness statements, no fuel records, no food supply or transport records, not even any specific locations where they went. Would this total absence of direct evidence render such a resettlement impossible?