The first item I read was an intro text that contained a material error in a subject I had researched.

The second item I read was an FAQ that linked a book on that same material error. I quoted where the book undercut its entire argument.

Before I read the details of a claim I use Wikipedia to get background, not on the truth of the claim, but on what has been published by whom about it. I find that there exists a report credibly debunking the Leuchter report and point out questionable facts about the latter's provenance. I'm not interested in learning a lot about cyanide today, I'm interested in how I can make a quick judgment whether the subject is worth my time. When I was introduced to 9/11 theory I was told I would be very happy to learn a lot about structural steel; I put off reading the material for months but, having no extraordinary reasons to doubt what I was told, eventually read it, and it was true that I was very happy to learn the details. Here you're trying to make the same claim about the interest level I should find in your material, and I have a free day, and yet the material itself is repelling me at every turn. Because of that, I limit myself to what you present on its face rather than read every link. Why should I read a Leuchter report when it won't deny that Leuchter had the rock pulverized, obscuring the surface traces, and it won't tell me why this method is superior to analyzing the surface only, and you don't have anything later on this subject either?

You're not indicating that Leuchter's results, given his methods, have any basis for reaching the conclusion that the main method of execution at Auschwitz was not a poisonous gas that they had plenty of, along with the crematoria that CODOH admits they had. I told you that a report with different methods found plenty of cyanide residue in the "gas chambers" but not in the residences. To reject the later report, more extraordinary evidence is necessary than has been presented. And you have an open forum and are presenting to an open mind, and you do not have the data. If I wanted to write 500 words on 9/11, I could present very credible and tangible lines of evidence for my conclusions, and would submit them to scrutiny, acknowledge and answer critics, and not overcome listeners with links until they were ready for more. (I have been doing exactly that as to affirming the traditional reading of the Bible at c/Christianity all year.) If you and this movement are facing such a Big Lie, there ought to have been developed a simple way to express the truth in a short period; that's what CODOH's intro pamphlet is supposed to do (which you didn't reference but I did). But it doesn't.

Incidentally, this is a narrowly-defined forum for Q support. You have received the tolerance of all readers for an off-topic post, because you claim your view of the subject is suppressed. You are yourself providing reasons why this happens.

Add: I have great respect for Murray Rothbard, and just discovered that you mentioned him in the midst of the OP. National Review found him "culpably indulgent" of the view which "specifically denies that the Holocaust actually happened or holds that it was in some way exaggerated". That's somewhat different from your direct claim that "Murray also claimed that the Holocaust was a hoax propagated to justify the war afterwards," which you'd think Wikipedia would mention if said claim was so obviously made rather than indirectly. But out of honor for Murray and Austrian economics, try me again with a data point or argument.

The first item I read was an intro text that contained a material error in a subject I had researched.

The second item I read was an FAQ that linked a book on that same material error. I quoted where the book undercut its entire argument.

Before I read the details of a claim I use Wikipedia to get background, not on the truth of the claim, but on what has been published by whom about it. I find that there exists a report credibly debunking the Leuchter report and point out questionable facts about the latter's provenance. I'm not interested in learning a lot about cyanide today, I'm interested in how I can make a quick judgment whether the subject is worth my time. When I was introduced to 9/11 theory I was told I would be very happy to learn a lot about structural steel; I put off reading the material for months but, having no extraordinary reasons to doubt what I was told, eventually read it, and it was true that I was very happy to learn the details. Here you're trying to make the same claim about the interest level I should find in your material, and I have a free day, and yet the material itself is repelling me at every turn. Because of that, I limit myself to what you present on its face rather than read every link. Why should I read a Leuchter report when it won't deny that Leuchter had the rock pulverized, obscuring the surface traces, and it won't tell me why this method is superior to analyzing the surface only, and you don't have anything later on this subject either?

You're not indicating that Leuchter's results, given his methods, have any basis for reaching the conclusion that the main method of execution at Auschwitz was not a poisonous gas that they had plenty of, along with the crematoria that CODOH admits they had. I told you that a report with different methods found plenty of cyanide residue in the "gas chambers" but not in the residences. To reject the later report, more extraordinary evidence is necessary than has been presented. And you have an open forum and are presenting to an open mind, and you do not have the data. If I wanted to write 500 words on 9/11, I could present very credible and tangible lines of evidence for my conclusions, and would submit them to scrutiny, acknowledge and answer critics, and not overcome listeners with links until they were ready for more. (I have been doing exactly that as to affirming the traditional reading of the Bible at c/Christianity all year.) If you and this movement are facing such a Big Lie, there ought to have been developed a simple way to express the truth in a short period; that's what CODOH's intro pamphlet is supposed to do (which you didn't reference but I did). But it doesn't.

Incidentally, this is a narrowly-defined forum for Q support. You have received the tolerance of all readers for an off-topic post, because you claim your view of the subject is suppressed. You are yourself providing reasons why this happens.