If you look at the centre right graphic of the first image below, the one in the middle the fourth point admits that there isn't enough tangible evidence to prove the Holocaust.
The Nazi's cover-up also had one last unintended benefit. While the enormous amount of documents, testimonials and witnesses provide a grand picture proving the reality of the holocaust beyond a doubt, holocaust deniers and historical revisionists could use the lack of immediate hard evidence of the death camps to mislead laymen into believing it never happened
This to me is not an insignificant admission. And probably why the argument quality in these images seems to come down to the reader having to accept unsourced predictions for the debunking to even be relevant such as the idea that the Nazis hid their tracks, of course that's very convenient even though in the same point apparently we still have documents...So, either the Nazis did it so well or not so well, there doesn't seem to be an answer. The points about testimonials and witness reports seems laughable. If I write a novel painting a 'grand picture' it's still just a fiction, even if gullible people for whatever reason started to believe it.
This one strikes me as odd. The idea that hearing about '6 million jews' would've been normal because that was the rough total number of Jews in europe seems off simply because the Holocaust is supposed to have killed 6 million jews, leaving millions more alive, and more millions receiving reparations. I can't help but think some of these images are so bad they might've been created by revisionists as a tactic to attack even though I'm yet to see anyone make rebuttals.
Here are the other images.
This one makes me laugh simply because somehow it's "selective' (no shit) to criticize laughable stories touted to be true. Of course exterminationist hate this because of how ridiculous we know it all is.
I know that all of these arguments are probably very basic and have been refuted to death elsewhere on the forum. But I think that this thread can be an antidote to such graphics when those questioning look online, especially since these graphics on our side or theirs seem to exist within their own niche. I also think it'd be useful to debunk them here so anyone looking for answers can find them quickly without digging for hours and hours through tons of information that create an overwhelming experience. I know I've personally been overwhelmed when I go into a rabbit hole.
Maybe creating our own graphics as supplements to the Holocaust Handbooks could provide some use, less conspiratorial looking graphics that would put off those wondering about the truth. Unfortunately we have to be a lot more careful than the other guys. Anyway.
I'm just particularly interested in responding to these points, especially those about the oven capacity and the zyklon residue, how it works in different weather, apparently that Polish team cited in a few of the graphs found traces, but traces also have been lost because the Auschwitz 'homicidal gas chambers' were open and subject to the conditions??
I'm interested to, because of the non-revisionist historians which are now questioning Auschwitz or throw it off entirely. Particularly Gitta Sereny.
Her ruthless desire to stick to the facts -- that, say, Auschwitz was not a "death camp" -- has not always won her friends. She is particularly scathing about the identification of Hitler's evil with the death of the Jews and only the Jews. She deplores the use of the word "holocaust", she says.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Observer/Ser ... 90801.html
"Untruth always matters," she writes, "and not just because it is unnecessary to lie when so much terrible truth is available. Every falsification, every error, every slick rewrite job is an advantage to the neo-Nazis." She is puzzled, too, by what she perceives as a reluctance to confront the truth by those who seem to have the most interest in it: "Why on earth have all these people who made Auschwitz into a sacred cow. . . why didn't they go and look at Treblinka (which was an extermination camp)? It was possible. There were survivors alive when all this started. Nobody did. It was an almost pathological concentration on this one place. A terrible place -- but it was not an extermination camp." Then she sighs; and suddenly the fierceness leaves her. "The distinctions are important," she says more quietly. "But -- death is death.http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Observer/Ser ... 90801.html
And also Fritjof Meyers report http://www.vho.org/GB/c/Meyer.html about the lower Auschwitz death toll to around the 400,000 mark, the number used in 1947 by the poles themselves. But not only that, the idea that Jews were actually gassed in farm houses outside of Auschwitz itself. Even though that simply creates more unfalsifiable claims, it's still a huge step in the right direction in my mind. And those exterminationists know this as I'm sure many know there was some controversy around Meyer's study.
Irving has made a post on his website documenting some of the controversy.
And there's also this article published in the Journal for Genocide research written by John Zimmerman which I haven't seen a thorough response to from the revisionist side.
I think this would be a useful thread to respond to these graphics specifically as I haven't come across anyone resisting them with revisionist arguments. These Exterminationists are running wild and they need to be stopped.