This is not a /pol/ thread

Anti UFO shills BTFO !!!

So, Nazi used gas to poison jews and then burn their bodies one by one in a single crematory oven...
Frankly, this is the most retarded way of mass murder i've ever heard of.

Where the hell did you get "one by one" from?

>word of mouth
>science
this is why history is a laughable pursuit, it lacks basic rigor.

Also those sources are shit:
the soldiers just fought a war and would be quick to demonize their opponents who killed their friends in combat
the prisoners would obviously also be quick to demonize and exaggerate what they went through for pity and revenge
guards and officers could be easily manipulated by the tribunal to spin the story for a lighter sentence

that said they found residues of Zyklon B, that is what real evidence is. Word of mouth is utter shit evidence and only gullible brainlets resort to it.

He got it from the Big Book of Strawmen That Can Easily Be Burned

I said that it wasn't scientific. This entire thread is not scientific. That said, you can't just dismiss overwhelming consensus of primary sources by waving your hands. This is basic logic.

Also another note on prisoners, the malnutrition they faced in the camps could make them hallucinate events.

This is why we need hard evidence, not people's accounts.

Ad fucking populum. Most people believe in some skywizard thus I guess they're right then? No it doesn't work like that.

> overwhelming consensus of primary sources
The consensus is people don't believe things without evidence. If you're counting retards as well then yeah, there's an overwhelming consensus on the existence of God, jesus, the truth on christianity, islam and judaism as well.

No evidence means no evidence. Semantics doesn't count as evidence.

Fucking hell you're retarded. It's not a consensus of belief, it's a consensus of sources. Either there were gas chambers or there is a massive conspiracy to make them up. Believing the latter over the former just shows everyone you're retarded. Conspiracy logic can be applied to anything but it's conveniently only applied to things which you do not wish to believe. If you were actually being logical instead of justifying a preconceived conclusion, you would be a complete solipsist. So which is it?

You'd have a good point if you didn't have to assume three conspiracies to support it.
>the soldiers just fought a war and would be quick to demonize their opponents who killed their friends in combat
>the prisoners would obviously also be quick to demonize and exaggerate what they went through for pity and revenge
>guards and officers could be easily manipulated by the tribunal to spin the story for a lighter sentence
This is far more ridiculous than believing that chemicals were used in a genocide. Congratulations on being "redpilled." Remember to fight the patriarchy.

>The consensus is people don't believe things without evidence.
The issue is not a lack of evidence, it's your deliberate ignorance of the evidence.

> gas chambers
> which automatically proves everything I've been forced to accept about WW2 events

It's literally like seeing lights in the sky and thinking its the evidence of alien spaceships and anyone who doesn't buy it is just a denier.

You know there is a creation museum right ? You can actually go and see the "evidence" for creation as well.

> gas chambers
> which automatically proves everything I've been forced to accept about WW2 events
What are you talking about moron? Are we not talking about the existence of gas chambers?

It's sad that how lightly you use the word evidence and how easy you resort to namecalling like a retard. Historical evidence for the gas chambers are ridiculusly inconsistent and aside from a few biased sources nobody really confirmed your claims.
You seem very insecure for someone who's supposed to have lots of evidence.

That's not an argument

Spinning your sources as hard evidence won't change the fact it's word of mouth. Thus it is a consensus of sources that are beliefs.

Also the fact that you won't even consider the possibility that a conspiracy could be involved in a power struggle like this is laughable. The Allies could've made this whole thing up to guilt trip the German populace into submission making it easier to dismantle years of Nazi propaganda. It's funny that you accuse me of looking for a preconceived conclusion when I'm the one being critical here. Your whole MO has been "hurr durr they said it I believe it that settles it". So please pot, calm yourself.

>That's not an argument
That's not an argument (and it's false).

I'm not assuming those, I'm just not ruling them out. You are aware shady things happen right?

Are you really saying that just because there were gas chambers, we should automatically believe everything else you said ? I didn't address OP, if you read my post I said everything else about WW2

No, it's like seeing pictures of earth from space and hearing testimonies from people who went to space and accepting that the planet is not flat.

>shady things happen
THEREFORE JEWS AND EX-NAZIS MADE THE WHOLE THING UP LOOK AT ME I'M OUTSIDE THE MATRIX

It's not his fault really. Historical evidence is always impossible to prove by scientific standards. It's not testable, measurable or anything.
Everything is word of mouth and documents and pictures which can be easily manufactured and no way to test of their validity. At the time there were a propaganda competition between both the german and jewish newspapers and its a trail that went on for a real long time.

So the Allies didn't involve themselves in propaganda to "denazify" Germany?

this.

its a little known fact that these were actually feeding camps. The Nazi regime noted an unusually high fatality rate among the jewish population due to starvation. In an effort to feed the millions that they transported to readily available food, they also faced the problem of making a lot of it. quickly. This is somewhat recurring as their solution required the Jewish people to be transported to specific locations.

Their solution? Giant ovens. bread is a cheap food source compared to other foodstuffs. The Nazi regime erected giant ovens to bake massive loaves of bread for the jewish population they had transported. For a while it was ok, but people quickly became bored of bread for breakfast lunch and dinner, and started stealing potatoes and stuff from officers. In one such altercation, a jewish man was shot and killed in a struggle. This led to a collective hatred of the Nazis by the jewish people, and they all vowed to tarnish their name for centuries to come.

I actually feel bad for you all. how you can get your history so misconstrued is beyond me.

This thread is about the existence of gas chambers.

Please go to /pol/ if you wish to discuss the WW2 conspiracy in general.

> ask for evidence
> only get meme responses
every time lol

>ask for evidence of a myth
>actually wait for evidence

Oh yeah there were gas chambers. Who knows what they're used for.

>THIS IS NOT A /POL/ THREAD
>becomes a /pol/ thread

why cant trump just lose and get it over with? i dont even care about the election, I just want these retards to quit leaking.

No.

>Spinning your sources as hard evidence won't change the fact it's word of mouth.
I didn't spin it as hard evidence, you liar.

>Thus it is a consensus of sources that are beliefs.
What does that even mean. If I make a claim of directly witnessing something, this is not a belief, it's a claim. Either this claim is true or I am lying. To say that every source is lying requires a massive coordinated conspiracy which is far more implausible than the simple fact that the Germans used gas chambers to kill large amounts of people.

It is the confluence of sources saying the same thing which is the proof, not simply the individual sources.

>Also the fact that you won't even consider the possibility that a conspiracy could be involved in a power struggle like this is laughable.
I just did consider it, retard. It's implausible and you have no evidence for it. You hypocrite.

>The Allies could've made this whole thing up to guilt trip the German populace into submission making it easier to dismantle years of Nazi propaganda.
And they could have been telling the truth. Wow, it's almost like simply stating that something could have happened doesn't make it true!

>It's funny that you accuse me of looking for a preconceived conclusion when I'm the one being critical here.
If you were critically thinking you would consider both sides fairly. You are just saying X is possible therefore X happened (because I want X to be true). I am saying, we have plenty of evidence Y happened, and no evidence that this evidence is false. Therefore Y probably happened. If you do not accept this reasoning, then you should apply such hyper-skepticism to all facets of human knowledge. But you won't, because you only want to be skeptical of this particular piece of human knowledge. You completely avoided the point I was making. So again, which is it?

Well there are tons of evidence for propaganda for both sides that went on for years and no evidence for the actual claims. I don't know why you would so desperately cling to meme-tier word of mouth sayings. History is full of bullshit.

What else did I say retard? Do you not see no one has any idea what you're talking about? Read the thread.

> I don't have or need evidence
> anyone who questions me is /pol/
why are you still here ?

i actually met a 90 or so woman in my middle school back in 2010 who came in as a guest who was a holocaust survivor.

I had the same thing in my school around 100 people. although they were UFO witnesses

you know exactly what you are doing.

i want /pol/ to STOP FUCKING LEAKING ONTO THE SCIENCE AND MATH BOARD

>I didn't spin it as hard evidence, you liar.
The reason you're calling it a primary source is to give yourself credibility. Sure it qualifies, but it is the worst primary source possible. So lets just call it what it is: word of mouth.

>source is lying requires a massive coordinated conspiracy
Which could be the case or as I said malnutrition and shit living conditions make people hallucinate and not think very clearly. Each time someone was close to death from illness in the camp and were dragged off to never to return a panic over gassing could've sprung up and snowballed.

>It is the confluence of sources
Which is prone to groupthink.

>I just did consider it, retard.
You brushing over possibilities while having your answer ahead of time isn't worth anything.

>And they could have been telling the truth.
Sure, but until there is hard evidence it's just word of mouth.

>You are just saying X is possible therefore X happened
You're hallucinating, go eat something.

>we have plenty of evidence Y happened
That evidence is shit and I explained to you why, each of those groups have something to gain with the story they sell.

>But you won't, because you only want to be skeptical of this particular piece of human knowledge.
LMAO, from the guy who isn't even skeptical about this.

As I said you're just desperately trying to justify: "they said it, I believe it, that settles it."

>Sure, but until there is hard evidence it's just word of mouth.
And until there's any evidence of the contrary, your belief is just bullshit.

Also it really doesn't help that questioning this historical event can land you in jail in some countries. If the holocaust story is so airtight there would be no fear of scrutiny. And fuck feels, there have been other horrible events throughout recent history where such criticism isn't punishable by jail.

> i know ur pol because you disagree with my porpaganda tier bullshit
> even though i have provided zero evidence
how to lose any argument instantly : call your opponent pol

That's the thing, I don't believe either way. I have no hard evidence to.

Just like how denying christianity and not giving yourself up to god lead to thousands of peoples inprisonment and torture in the era of spanish enquisition. Pretty much shows how this myth is dragged on by intimidation and fascism rather than evidence and free will of people.

Yes, pure memetic cancer.

Yup, nothing should be free from scrutiny. Truth is found in what is left after all scrutiny has been exhausted.

How to get detected instantly: defend /pol/.

You'd be better taking something like this to /pol/. Veeky Forums is notorious for being a liberal board that take mainstream sources of information at face value without question.

I defend truth and evidence, not fascist propaganda bullshit, and you resorted to namecalling. if that makes me pol, then I'm pol.

We take our blue pills every day and we like it that way. Please don't make us think outside of our safe spaces.

>if that makes me pol, then I'm pol.
then get back over to /pol/ already.
shit.

> Veeky Forums is notorious for being a liberal board
ahahahahahaha. nice meme

sorry but your tasteless unscientific propaganda don't belong to a science board. feel free to continue shitposting in

It seriously is though.

There's no serious discussion of contrary or contradicting evidence that goes against what the government and the scientific consensus constantly spouts off in order to influence policy and popular opinion. That is pretty clear.

>evidence
ah, see
I knew you forgot to bring something.

why cant you check like if theres left over ions and shit in the walls and floors?

They brought evidence into this thread, it was brushed aside and people simply took others who started these gas chamber ideas at their word.

Fuck off, cancer. People like you are a form of pollution, you poison everything with your cancerous bullshitting.

You could die in your sleep, and society would be improved. And that is 100% your own fault.

>They brought evidence into this thread
things that are missing aren't evidence unless it's very well established that they shouldn't be.

If you don't have a hard evidence, then your opinion is just a belief. If you argue for a belief without a proof, then you are a retard. If you blindly defend something only because you believe in it, then you are a retard.
This is simple logic, user. Don't be a retard

in all honesty, only retards think mouth of word is evidence. as retards don't know what kind of high standards an evidence must have.

>gas chambers and ovens for mass murder

Inefficient use of resources and energy.

Why didn't the nazi's use better methods of mass murder like simple starvation or drowning them in the ocean?

This is what empiricists actually believe.

gb2

I really appreciate you typing that all out

>Nazis are rational and pursue rational goal maximization.
lol

Because using something like gas chambers in their propaganda is a lot more sensational. Too bad they forgot the manufacture the proper evidence and it's too late to convince people now.