1MDA🌈△

Some people view this through the macro lens of suspicion toward state narratives, repeatedly claiming that his main point was asymmetry, and thereby subtly covering up the fact that he mixes lies into his argument. He claimed that a proper forensic investigation of the Holocaust has never been conducted, but regardless of his point, this is a lie. Forensic investigations were carried out between 1945 and 1947, as well as in 1990, by professional investigation teams and forensic institutes. ​​​(You can find the facts of the investigation through a search) Actually, I don't have much interest in what label to attach to him—whether to call him a denialist, a revisionist, or a skeptic. What matters is whether his claims are true or false. Neither his underlying point nor the pretext of suspicion toward state narratives can magically turn the lies he told into truth. Furthermore, he claimed that the evidence has "huge holes" and that lots of "lies" are mixed into things that are true; since it is ambiguous what he specifically considers to be holes and lies, I will not refute that directly here, but he definitely lied about the Holocaust investigations.