Originally Posted by
Budly
The reason we're talking about Wiernik is he's the subject of episode 1. It's not me just picking a favorite fraudulent eyewitness. "Physical Evidence" happens to be a later chapter in the video.
Criminey. It's not about any one witness being right or wrong, or the subject of a given episode of a video peddling fraudulent alt-history. The whole point is that you can't overturn history by merely picking apart isolated elements. Not when you don't consider the context that has been built over the years from the massive accumulation of evidence. That context provides shape and boundaries to the narrative, and those boundaries cannot be exceeded simply because an isolated issue is in dispute. That's the point Nick Terry was making: You separate out whole reams of accumulated knowledge in your minute focus on individual points. And without allowing those reams of accumulated knowledge to shape your understanding, conclusions drawn from that minute focus fade into irrelevancy. Yes, it's legitimate to
begin criticism by discussing isolated issues, but that goes nowhere fast when they
stay isolated.
That's the central failure you and other holocaust deniers make. It's the same failure 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy peddlers for other myths make: You all hone in on isolated points as if they overturn the entire narrative, yet you all to a man (or woman) fail to demonstrate how even a legitimate and accurate refutation of any given isolated point shapes context. You all merely state that an isolated refutation equals an overall refutation, and willingly leap to the conclusion that the entire narrative must be junked. That's sloppy reasoning.
Everyone here can see the emphasis on isolated points. But we see absolutely no explanation relating how those points impact the overall narrative, not anything built on more than mere "See, this is wrong, that means it's all wrong" implication.
Even what little you provide goes nowhere and does nothing. Given that, why are we supposed to watch those videos? If all they are are yet continued retailing of isolated facts and contextless points, then there's zero reason to view them. And if you cannot even establish in posts here that there is some legitimate analysis of the impact your claims have on the established narrative, then you fail to sell any of us on the notion that the video is worth watching.
Sell better. You're doing badly.
----
Oh, yeah: Holocaust revisionism is every bit as contrived and ill tasting as
government cheese. And spins a narrative every bit as ersatz as "
vegan cheese".