His scientific evidence is debunked by photographs according to the link. His scientific evidence is also deemed as false because of claims that the grounds kept being dug up. Krege's results show that the ground was never disturbed by a human.
Sounds like (((they))) want to keep this guys books unpublished and buried.
Your link reminds of a link some other user presented to me here when trying to convince me that the official narrative for Auschwitz is correct. In the two replies I made to his comment I tried to go through the individual points within the article and show why they are not solid enough to be used to debunk the revisionist claims.
In your article the only two claims they have against Krege's results are 40s photographs and claims from Jews. I've seen enough doctored photographs from the 40s and I've heard enough Jews lie through their teeth about the Holocaust (while other Jews from the same camps directly contradicted the) to not be willing to accept either claims or photographs as solid evidence for anything concerning that time period. They can be considered and discussed, but I won't accept them as proof.
Your article also says that a newer use of GPR technology found different results than Krege -- but this study was never published, while Krege's study was (though at a holocaust denial group, and not anything large or formal -- as if anything large or formal would publish it even if it was accurate).
In short your article is meaningless and the only evidence I'm interested in seeing is the raw data Krege gathered and the raw data the team in 2010 gathered.
I'm seeing a rise of anti-revisionism concerning the Holocaust (it's been around for a while but I'm only seeing it now) and so it's interesting to see what they have to say to the strongest points against the Holocaust. They speak in a way that suggests they are "obviously right" (like everyone in their position does) but the actual evidence and explanations they cite are admittedly weak, and they don't even account for a small fraction of everything there is to discuss.
view the rest of the comments →
Mr_Wolf ago
I had to look up Richard Krege, I thought the guy was dead
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/or7-krege-investigation/
His scientific evidence is debunked by photographs according to the link. His scientific evidence is also deemed as false because of claims that the grounds kept being dug up. Krege's results show that the ground was never disturbed by a human.
Sounds like (((they))) want to keep this guys books unpublished and buried.
10047143? ago
Your link reminds of a link some other user presented to me here when trying to convince me that the official narrative for Auschwitz is correct. In the two replies I made to his comment I tried to go through the individual points within the article and show why they are not solid enough to be used to debunk the revisionist claims.
In your article the only two claims they have against Krege's results are 40s photographs and claims from Jews. I've seen enough doctored photographs from the 40s and I've heard enough Jews lie through their teeth about the Holocaust (while other Jews from the same camps directly contradicted the) to not be willing to accept either claims or photographs as solid evidence for anything concerning that time period. They can be considered and discussed, but I won't accept them as proof.
Your article also says that a newer use of GPR technology found different results than Krege -- but this study was never published, while Krege's study was (though at a holocaust denial group, and not anything large or formal -- as if anything large or formal would publish it even if it was accurate).
In short your article is meaningless and the only evidence I'm interested in seeing is the raw data Krege gathered and the raw data the team in 2010 gathered.
Crensch ago
Stellar work in that link bud.
If I knew you IRL I'd offer to buy you a pint.
10047442? ago
I'm seeing a rise of anti-revisionism concerning the Holocaust (it's been around for a while but I'm only seeing it now) and so it's interesting to see what they have to say to the strongest points against the Holocaust. They speak in a way that suggests they are "obviously right" (like everyone in their position does) but the actual evidence and explanations they cite are admittedly weak, and they don't even account for a small fraction of everything there is to discuss.