Myles write in his
blog post:
"When I previously brought attention to Rudolf’s lewd convictions it was not just because it is hilarious, but because it is a perfect example of how he and his fellow revisionists construct their arguments. They like to get bogged down in the minutiae whilst purposely ignoring the bigger picture. What I am basically saying is that cyanide-based residue is not the only evidence we have of homicidal gas chambers, and by allowing ourselves to get bogged down on the insignificant, we miss the bigger picture. We have warehouses of personal effects that once belonged to the victims, pictures from the camps when they were functional, and witness testimonies not only from people who survived the camps but from those who worked there."
This is a very interesting admission, which essentially boils down to a shallow cop-out and brazen admission that the homicidal gas chambers
don't matter. This is yet again, another shift of the goal posts because the gas chamber story
cannot be defended. Myles knows this but cannot say: "Okay the revisionists are right about the gas chambers".
If we've been lied to about this, then why should we believe anything any of these so-called "historians" and "scientists" say? We shouldn't, especially when they didn't have the integirty to concede to the revisionists in the first place; or better yet, the integrity to do their job objectivly and impartially by conducting the research and asking the questions themselves which would lead them to an honest conclusion.
If it's such a thing as the story of the gas chambers is an "insigificant" and "small part" of the "bigger picture" Myles, then it means you and the whole mainstream academic mafia need to abandon the gas chamber story officially and unambigously.
Myles also says:
"The evidence is in fact so robust and plentiful that those who don’t believe the holocaust happened are choosing to do so! There is no doubt in my mind that Rudolf intentionally set out to disprove the use of Zyklon-B when he traveled to Poland after being commissioned to do so by Hajo Hermann on behalf of Otto Ernst Remer. Unfortunately for Rudolf, scientific discoveries do not happen in a vacuum and if you purposely ignore the mountain of contradictory evidence to reach your distasteful conclusion as he did you are not doing science – you are attempting to excuse away your bigotry."
Myles, there's nothing "distasteful" about conclusions reached by evaluating facts, even if you disagree with the interpretations or the conclusion, this is why topics are debated. That you think any conclusion other than the preconcieved one you believe is "distasteful" says more about your own bias and inobjectivity than it does about the revisionists so-called "bigotry", none of which can be shown to exist, and if it could has
nothing to do with the facts being discussed. Either the facts are facts or they're not. Nobody is the arbiter of what facts in any field, history or science can be discussed because of personal beliefs held by those who study and debate.
More importantly, if the alleged "mountain of contradictory evidence" is that which you just listed: testimony, personal effects, pictures from the camps when they were functional etc. this has nothing to do with the topic at hand which is the chemistry and alleged murder process. Since this is the topic Germar is writing about he isn't obligated to discuss this other "evidence", because it isn't necessarily relevant to what he's arguing. In cases where it is, Germar addresses it in his book which you'd know if you actually read it. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the crux of the argument which is the chemistry.
Myles again:
"When I published my first blog post on Holocaust denial 5-years ago, I had no idea how big of a project it would turn into. This was due in part to revisionists moving the goalposts at every opportunity, but now I feel it’s time to bring this project to a close."
Myles. Revisionists have been making more or less the same arguments for decades upon decades, refining them and correcting them when necessary. In your half a decade stint in half-hearted psudo-"objective" investigating of what revisionsts said all you did was snipe and character assasinate because of your bigoted, self rightous hatred of those men like Germar Rudolf which is not better shown than when you mock the personal trials and tribulations he faced in his life by call his wrongful convictions "hilarious" and mock his cultural differences.
You didn't once engage in an honest debate on the relevant facts discussed by revisionists. You didn't debate here, you didn't offer to debate with the TRS guys on their podcast, you didn't want to be shown for being the liar you are when you could twist and manipulate half-truths in obtuse 45 minute youtube videos on a platofrm that would ban any open discussion on these topics. So much for your feigned love of "objectivity" and "science". When you wouldn't engage in the topics reivsionists called you out on,
you shifted the goal posts and accused revisionists of shifting them when they tried to keep you on track. But you couldn't stay on track, because to do so would mean being forced to answer tough questions you'd rather give opaque responses to, and by association and snide implication dismiss through other irrelevant avenues.
