About two or three years ago, i was confronted at the comment section of an islamic motivational video. By being direct and providing me with authentic islamic narrations, this person, has awakened a level of cognitive dissonance that lasted for 1 or 2 years. Going deeper into the rabbit hole, i found myself lying and living by the satisfaction of finding a pathetic rebuttal to an argument ive seen and telling myself its been refuted. To me the only other choice was suicide, it was my world view! Well after last summer were ive finally left islam, i still kept going down the rabbit hole. Ive researched everything from climate change, creationism, flatearth and now holocaust deniel.

To me, these are by far the most irrational, but the deadliest in terms they have lack of evidence to look forward to.

Anyway, i guess you all are just dying to know what i started this thread for. If feel there is a distinct lack of discussion of revisionist arguments especially in the skeptical field. As such, i feel this is a good place to start.

I guess I should start with a question:
Death by Hydrogen Cyanide is a result of inhalation, and absorption through the skin. How come none of the eye witnesses mention any gloves or special clothing?
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MMG/MMG.asp?id=1141&tid=249

Far play to you mate - that's quite a journey!

Here's to hoping that journey, now begun, never ends!

Wenlok wrote:Death by Hydrogen Cyanide is a result of inhalation, and absorption through the skin. How come none of the eye witnesses mention any gloves or special clothing?
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MMG/MMG.asp?id=1141&tid=249

Not clear what you mean here. Which eye witnesses?

Sparhafoc wrote:Far play to you mate - that's quite a journey!

Here's to hoping that journey, now begun, never ends!

Thanks mate.

Surprisingly, I remember where that comment is still there. I go back once in a while to see how pathetic i was.

Ps. Sorry for the PM im still new at this.

Sparhafoc wrote:

Wenlok wrote:Death by Hydrogen Cyanide is a result of inhalation, and absorption through the skin. How come none of the eye witnesses mention any gloves or special clothing?
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MMG/MMG.asp?id=1141&tid=249

Not clear what you mean here. Which eye witnesses?

The holocaust survivors/victims. People who were in concentration camps. The point being that the chemicals, atleast according to revisionists, would have killed the guards whos job it was to clear out the rooms, carry the bodies, remove gold from teeth etc.

Over the last decade or so, a few of us here have seen some people undergo a dramatic frame-shift. It's rare, but some people will never be satisfied with a half-truth, even if it means stripping themselves of things they hold dear.

Interestingly, there are many parallels to this in the most ancient narrative myths from around the world: the Hero's Journey!

Wenlok wrote:The holocaust survivors/victims. People who were in concentration camps. The point being that the chemicals, atleast according to revisionists, would have killed the guards whos job it was to clear out the rooms, carry the bodies, remove gold from teeth etc.

Ah I see.

Well, several answers spring to mind.

The first is that eye-witnesses might not think it worth saying. It's like an eye-witness to a spaceshuttle disaster might not feel it necessary to point out that people were wearing their spacesuits.

Secondly, dosage is everything. There are all manner of highly toxic things that you can easily bear without harm if they're in small enough doses.

Thirdly, presumably most eye-witnesses died. For example, why would the guards carry the bodies when they have subhumans to carry the subhuman remains?

Fourthly, there are other records (such as bills of sale) which show that at least some concentration camps bought protective gear.


I can probably come up with a dozen more such reasonable explanations, but it's really a question as to whether the original notion is valid. Why would it ever be simply accepted that the Nazis in the 40's were somehow sufficiently knowledgeable to design complex systems to murder people with gas on an industrial level but would then blindly and naively expose themselves to that same gas? The notion just makes no sense, it's an appeal to ignorance where the best that can be said is that they don't know how the bodies were disposed of, but they've opted to draw fictional conclusions from their ignorance.

Sparhafoc wrote:The first is that eye-witnesses might not think it worth saying. It's like an eye-witness to a spaceshuttle disaster might not feel it necessary to point out that people were wearing their spacesuits.

Secondly, dosage is everything. There are all manner of highly toxic things that you can easily bear without harm if they're in small enough doses.

Thirdly, presumably most eye-witnesses died. For example, why would the guards carry the bodies when they have subhumans to carry the subhuman remains?

Fourthly, there are other records (such as bills of sale) which show that at least some concentration camps bought protective gear.

I think the first and the third reasons are the main ones. People tend to forget specifics in such conditions, they just remember the events and what they felt at that time.

WilliamTimmons wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:The first is that eye-witnesses might not think it worth saying. It's like an eye-witness to a spaceshuttle disaster might not feel it necessary to point out that people were wearing their spacesuits.

Secondly, dosage is everything. There are all manner of highly toxic things that you can easily bear without harm if they're in small enough doses.

Thirdly, presumably most eye-witnesses died. For example, why would the guards carry the bodies when they have subhumans to carry the subhuman remains?

Fourthly, there are other records (such as bills of sale) which show that at least some concentration camps bought protective gear.

I think the first and the third reasons are the main ones. People tend to forget specifics in such conditions, they just remember the events and what they felt at that time.

Right, and it's not like eye-witnesses are expected to have some kind of ubiquitous observation and reporting training.

It's quite a strange notion at the outset - I recall this particular form of distorted logic from the most rabidly deranged deniers of mass-shootings where they claim it's all staged and that the survivors are 'crisis actors'. Why didn't the 17 year old kid who just watched their class-mates gunned down say what footwear the shooter was wearing? Well, how about the fact that they just survived a mass-shooting, they were terrified, focused solely on not being shot, and weren't thinking about observing and recording every single detail for posterity?

If anything, one might consider it more dubious if everyone did remember all these details - it would suggest they'd been trained, or even instructed what to say.

I think the problem we're collectively running into at the moment is the power of the internet and modern media to promulgate voices beyond their traditional (and valid) power and remit. It's a hard fact of life that some 15% of any population is dramatically below the mean intelligence of that population, with nigh on another 15% slightly below the mean. This goes a long way to explaining the apparent rise of gibbering moronism; they've always been there, but only a few people ever had to listen to them before, now they can club together and form idiot vox populi platforms.