The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:12 am

curioussoul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:12 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:47 am Curioussoul does not want to talk about evidence that contradicts his theory that the Kremas operated as morgues, not gas chambers.

Nessie, you're out of control. I've reported your posts because the only way to get you to behave is to have the moderators intervene, which is not what I wanted for this thread.

You've refused to engage in a serious discussion about the actual documents in question, you've constantly dodged my questions and invoked unrelated documents. You've gone so far as to simply lie about the operation of the crematoria, absurdly claiming that the ZBL was responsible for their operation, because you couldn't deal with the contents of the documents and needed any excuse to dismiss the them.

That's not how we behave on this forum. We expect each other to argue in good faith, not make up lies to get out of sticky situations.

I have not dodged any of your questions. I may have missed question first time of asking, or not answered to your satisfaction, but I have dodged nothing.

You are lying that I have claimed the ZBL was responsible for their operation. Check my posts and I have never mentioned the ZBL.

Any document that refers to the Kremas, is related to their operation, in particular documents that refer to the room inside the building that you suggest was being used to store corpses.

What documents do you say I could not deal with? Be specific, stop throwing around vague accusations.

You've consistently dodged my questions and tried to invoke unrelated documents in order to intentionally derail the thread. That's not arguing in good faith, is it? You're still going to have to deal with how these documents fit the orthodox story and why there is seemingly no possible scenario in which they could be made to fit.

I am not lying. Anyone can look for themselves, but I'll help you out and quote your post from just a few pages ago:

"The staff responsible for the construction and operation of the Kremas, at the Construction Office, did not refer to them as being morgues to store corpses. Staff elsewhere in the camp, who sent corpses to the Kremas, did call them morgues."

Claiming that the Construction Office staff was responsible for the operation of the crematoria is a bald-faced lie. Attempting to wiggle your way out of the problem by lying that the Construction Office (who according to you operated the crematoria) said one thing, but other people who supposedly were not responsible for the operation of the crematoria said another thing, is actually outrageous and would get you kicked out from any serious university. Shame on you.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:51 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:07 amWhat do you find shocking about me grading source reliability and assessing what is too unreliable to take at face value?

Because a key feature of your line of argumentation, historically, has been to oddly assert that witness testimony is correct if it is "corroborated" according to your arbitrary critera,...

The use of corroboration is widespread, by the police, courts, historians and journalists. It is an important investigatory principle, since if two independent pieces of evidence agree, that makes the conclusion more certain and reliable

.... regardless of whether the witnesses are reliable. Having you concede that a witness can and should be discarded if found to be unreliable is a major step forward.

I did not say they should be necessarily discarded, it depends on how unreliable they are. You are acting as if this is a learning process for me, but I show a far greater understanding of witnesses than any revisionist. Witnesses can be truthful and unreliable, if they are prone to exaggerations, mistakes or have a poor memory. That type of witness may get the basics correct, but they are hopeless when it comes to the details. It is also perfectly possible for someone who is considered reliable, to come out with an obvious howler, something clearly not right.

Reliability, accuracy and credibility are independent of truthfulness. Revisionists mistakenly think that unreliability, inaccuracy or a lack of credibility mean lying.

The more the inaccurate the details provided are, where that inaccuracy is outwith the bounds of what is to be expected, especially from witnesses, the less reliable the source is and the more it needs to be checked. The threshold is consistent unreliability.

And what are the quantifiable threshholds for these "inaccuracies" and these "bounds"? We have already established that the Soviets obviously failed the test. Who else?

Over the years, journalists and historians have uncovered fake claims by people about their wartime experiences. A number of memoirs are unreliable in their details, hence why Elie Weisel is not used as a witness by historians. The witnesses used to identify John Demjanjuk at his trial, were found to be unreliable and they were dismissed.

Any evidence obtained under duress.
Hearsay and rumour.
Any claim, no matter how credible it is, that cannot be corroborated.

Any witnesses that come to mind from the Holocaust who would meet these criteria and why?

There is evidence Hoess was subject to duress at the hands of his British interrogators. Vrba's testimony about the gas chambers were based on hearsay and rumour, as he never worked at or was inside the Kremas. The claim, I cannot remember the witnesses name, about chambers with an opening floor to dispose of the corpses, is not corroborated by any witness who worked at the chamber.

Wrong thread.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 12:00 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:12 am

curioussoul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:12 pm

Nessie, you're out of control. I've reported your posts because the only way to get you to behave is to have the moderators intervene, which is not what I wanted for this thread.

You've refused to engage in a serious discussion about the actual documents in question, you've constantly dodged my questions and invoked unrelated documents. You've gone so far as to simply lie about the operation of the crematoria, absurdly claiming that the ZBL was responsible for their operation, because you couldn't deal with the contents of the documents and needed any excuse to dismiss the them.

That's not how we behave on this forum. We expect each other to argue in good faith, not make up lies to get out of sticky situations.

I have not dodged any of your questions. I may have missed question first time of asking, or not answered to your satisfaction, but I have dodged nothing.

You are lying that I have claimed the ZBL was responsible for their operation. Check my posts and I have never mentioned the ZBL.

Any document that refers to the Kremas, is related to their operation, in particular documents that refer to the room inside the building that you suggest was being used to store corpses.

What documents do you say I could not deal with? Be specific, stop throwing around vague accusations.

You've consistently dodged my questions and tried to invoke unrelated documents in order to intentionally derail the thread. That's not arguing in good faith, is it? You're still going to have to deal with how these documents fit the orthodox story and why there is seemingly no possible scenario in which they could be made to fit.

Can you link to and provide an example?

I am not lying. Anyone can look for themselves, but I'll help you out and quote your post from just a few pages ago:

"The staff responsible for the construction and operation of the Kremas, at the Construction Office, did not refer to them as being morgues to store corpses. Staff elsewhere in the camp, who sent corpses to the Kremas, did call them morgues."

Claiming that the Construction Office staff was responsible for the operation of the crematoria is a bald-faced lie. Attempting to wiggle your way out of the problem by lying that the Construction Office (who according to you operated the crematoria) said one thing, but other people who supposedly were not responsible for the operation of the crematoria said another thing, is actually outrageous and would get you kicked out from any serious university. Shame on you.

Sorry, that sentence was badly worded. Construction Office staff were not responsible for the operation of the Kremas. I should have said, the staff responsible for the construction of the Kremas, at the Construction Office, and those responsible for its operation, did not refer to them as being morgues to store corpses. I thought I had made that clear here, a post you went on to quote;

viewtopic.php?p=3069#p3069

"Topf & Sons and Construction Office staff were not discussing using the Kremas as morgues to store corpses"

"Elsewhere in A-B, staff referred to the Kremas as morgues. You cherry-pick that reference and assert that is what the Kremas were used for, but it is contradicted by how the staff responsible for the Kremas describe them."

I have separated staff into Construction Office, elsewhere in the camp and those actually responsible for the Kremas. It would have been better to make even that differential clearer. The point stands, only one group of staff, those with no connection to the Kremas, call them morgues and talk about corpses storage.

Wrong thread.