Disclaimer: I make no claim the holocaust did or didn't happen. But when you look at facts beyond the official narrative things get questionable. When you look at those same facts with the mindset that we've been hoodwinked for millennia, the official narrative gets questionable.
https://www.realhistorychan.com/holohoax-scholar-puts-foot-in-mouth.html
Making statements of "not true" when there is reasonable evidence presented to the contrary is not a rebuttal, it is a denial of the evidence.
If you don't want to address the evidence presented that's perfectly fine, but don't say "it's not true" when you haven't even looked. The only honest response if you won't address the evidence is to say nothing at all. If you want to engage, point out, piece by piece (or even just ONE piece) what is wrong with the evidence presented.
Did you even read the article linked to in the OP? It is compelling. If there is evidence to the contrary of that Holocaust Rebuttal, then show it.
Talk is cheap. Evidence is king. The Debate is All.
Yes I read the article. Having a recreation of a camp is not a sign of it being all faked, the ruins that were bombed not having evedence of an active gas being present is also not evedence of it all being fake.
I considered this to be the least convincing evidence in the article. Did you read the whole thing?
Actually, that's pretty fucking huge. The science of chemistry suggests this is a massive red flag. They found signs of it in the delousing room, but none in the kill chambers.
No fucking way.
That is massive. There would be clear signs of any chemicals used in any chamber, because stone soaks up these small gaseous chemicals like a sponge, The triple cyano bond is very strong (cyanide was a component of the gas), and even if it bonded to something else, it would leave a clear signal of a cyanide group in anything else it bonded to. It is impossible from a chemistry perspective to get rid of such a signal entirely, even if you tried really, really hard. You would basically have to drop an actual nuke to get rid of it entirely from a stone building.
This also was no where near the total of the evidence. Some of the best evidence was in what the official narrative said. It sounded exactly like a fact checker, using all sorts of fraudulent argument techniques.