Fred zz wrote:I was watching a podcast today about Crematoria 1 at the main camp.
One of the guys asked a question that hit me like a Mike Tyson uppercut.
The question was: After the morgue was turned into a gas chamber, where was the morgue for this camp moved to?
Has anyone here heard of a response to this question from the people who believe the hoax?
Logistic
1. the Germans certainly could not use the room in question as a morgue and a gas chamber at the same time.
2. If the morgue were moved, it cannot be located in the same building
3. If true (I know it is not), the people who did not die in the said gas chamber would have to be carted to the crematoria from somewhere? Hospital near the camp Jail?
Has this topic been discussed for Creama 1?
I think we have discussed those logical/logistical issues in the past. But it seems that 'Holocaust Historians' couldn't bother care less about their story having logical or technical flaws. It seems they bet on that people won't notice this.
But lets assume you support the Extermination Thesis. You interpret some of the evidence to support your thesis. There still is room for doubt and there is evidence that's not supporting your thesis, even contradicting it. While one doesn't expect you to depart from your thesis (despite your side demanding this all the time from dissenters), you at least should point out that there are problems with your evidence and arguments. Yet you omit those issues altogether. What you present works like this:
1. The Nazis did gas six million Jews (OK may be not all ot them, but they did).
2. Any evidence I find, I try to harmonize it, interpret it in a way as if it supports point 1.
3. Any evidence that contradicts my thesis I ignore or make it look unimportant.
With that methodologically very sloppy approach i now take the 'moral high ground' and call everybody that questions/disputes my thesis. a "NaziThatWantsToKillSixMillionJews". OK, perhaps not that directly, since this may actually raise suspicion, but lets attack that person's reputation and belittle it in some way. That this approach is actually irrational, illogical and unempirical to follow doesn't bother you the slightest. But of course you will insist that you are an expert that followed an objective, logical approach to arrive at your conclusions (which you mostly copied from others).
If the Holocaust hadn't the Halo of Sacredness around it, it probably would have been kicked from most universities long ago. But those having a vested interest in it do have clout to push it through and that seems to be all that counts in academia nowadays.
Be advised, I'm not holding against you that you are in error on a historical question. I'm holding against you that you never seriously consider to be in error on the issue, while actually not having anything that warrants the conclusions you propose. All you have is political and social power backing your point of view and the fact that the well has been poisoned for decades already. So there is an audience that isn't likely to resist your outlandish claims, as they were essentially raised with those claims via media and the educational system.
Difficult to assess how many people have serious doubt about this of course. But my experience is that after a while, after they can see that one is serious about rational enquiry and objective proof of claims, there is a fair number intellectual minded people that is willing to concede that there should be more than reasonable doubt about the narrative. Typically those people don't have much of a communicative reach. At best they can talk about it with some people at the dinner table. But that is also were change of the public mind ultimately takes place.
