The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 3:43 pm
History degree and I was in the police where I was a detective for a few years and completed various witness interview courses, which is why I talk a lot about witness behaviour.

A detective is just a designation, you were never an investigator. I think you were a wannabe detective with just average intelligence.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 8:58 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 8:43 am Revisionists have completed some testing regarding residues in the Krema I and II walls, hence it is a theory.

Typically for revisionists, their level of evidence gathering and academic work, is to a poor standard and that even applies to revisionists who have some training.

A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation of a natural phenomenon that has been tested and verified. It's based on observations and evidence, and it can be used to make predictions. When discussing science do not use the layman term of "theory". You do not understand what a "theory" is but use the layman term. You clearly have no scientific education. How can you say, with no training, no academic credentials apart from history, to state that the work is to a poor standard. Your opinion has a very low value as you have limited acumen to process such information. It reminds me of a 12 year old saying calculus is dumb when he can barely count to 10.

Kollerstrom called for testing to "measure the cyanide in the walls", which has been done by Leuchter, Rudolf, Markiewicz and Green. Is it a theory or a hypothesis that the lack of residue means no mass gassings took place? I say theory is a correct description. The scientific theory of no residue is met, as it is well-supported by evidence from repeated testing. The "layman" definition of theory is also met, it is a theory the lack of residue means no gassings took place.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 9:21 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 3:43 pm
History degree and I was in the police where I was a detective for a few years and completed various witness interview courses, which is why I talk a lot about witness behaviour.

A detective is just a designation, you were never an investigator. I think you were a wannabe detective with just average intelligence.

Your relevant qualifications and experience is....?

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 3:47 pm

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 12:20 pm “[…] for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German labor camp in World War II, let’s just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”

Nicholas Kollerstrom

That is the theory. Any scientist knows that no matter how compelling the theory, it then needs to be tested. That means exposing Zyklon B to walls as found in the Kremas, replicating as closely as possible the descriptions of gassings, to see what the residue is.

And that was what he exterminationists did do, before they asserted to everybody that "Jews were gassed in Auschwitz"?

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:29 am
Your relevant qualifications and experience is....?

Certainly not a fake historian and policeman.

Hektor wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:42 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 3:47 pm

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 12:20 pm “[…] for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German labor camp in World War II, let’s just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”

Nicholas Kollerstrom

That is the theory. Any scientist knows that no matter how compelling the theory, it then needs to be tested. That means exposing Zyklon B to walls as found in the Kremas, replicating as closely as possible the descriptions of gassings, to see what the residue is.

And that was what he exterminationists did do, before they asserted to everybody that "Jews were gassed in Auschwitz"?

Revisionists and chemists agree, there is little to no residue in the Krema I and II walls. Very little of the Krema II Leichenkeller is accessible. Residue was found on vents recovered from the ruins of Krema II. The different groups disagree on what those results mean. Revisionists, with their lack of relevant training & expertise, are far more likely to come to an icorrect conclusion.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:34 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:29 am
Your relevant qualifications and experience is....?

Certainly not a fake historian and policeman.

IOW, you have none, which is not surprising, considering your posts!

If Nessie has a history degree what more proof do we need that formal credentials cannot be relied upon?

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:28 am If Nessie has a history degree what more proof do we need that formal credentials cannot be relied upon?

I think you may have misspelled 'indoctrination certificate' boss.

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:28 am If Nessie has a history degree what more proof do we need that formal credentials cannot be relied upon?

Archie it is official now.

Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:33 am

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:28 am If Nessie has a history degree what more proof do we need that formal credentials cannot be relied upon?

I think you may have misspelled 'indoctrination certificate' boss.

While some universities and colleges do indeed teach some skill. Real insight, intelligence, understanding and knowledgeability are not necessary to get a degree. Heard that from plenty of other courses that while the institution can be demanding to some students, time and time again mediocre students get degree, because those calling the shots there like them....Motives can be multiple...

Hektor wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 10:06 am

Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:33 am

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:28 am If Nessie has a history degree what more proof do we need that formal credentials cannot be relied upon?

I think you may have misspelled 'indoctrination certificate' boss.

While some universities and colleges do indeed teach some skill. Real insight, intelligence, understanding and knowledgeability are not necessary to get a degree. Heard that from plenty of other courses that while the institution can be demanding to some students, time and time again mediocre students get degree, because those calling the shots there like them....Motives can be multiple...

A diploma does not really guarantee specialization. Look at a career in medicine. What doctor has time to update his/her knowledge or does he/she think he/she doesn't need it, that once he/she graduates he/she is a doctor for life?

It may be on the certificate or in an admission exam, but it will be left in the dust of those who continue studying or who have not even graduated but study because they can buy books, which was not always possible before. Books were generally restricted to those who attended university. Today, information has become more democratic, and patients can know even more about their illnesses than doctors themselves.

So this aura of the diploma is only useful for those who use the argument of authority, but it does not guarantee victory in a more in-depth debate.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 10:42 am ...

So this aura of the diploma is only useful for those who use the argument of authority, but it does not guarantee victory in a more in-depth debate.

It is not the argument to authority to say that someone with training & expertise is less likely to make mistakes than someone with no training or expertise. Think about your own jobs & what would happen if someone with no training or expertise started to critique you.

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 1:11 pm

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 10:42 am ...

So this aura of the diploma is only useful for those who use the argument of authority, but it does not guarantee victory in a more in-depth debate.

It is not the argument to authority to say that someone with training & expertise is less likely to make mistakes than someone with no training or expertise. Think about your own jobs & what would happen if someone with no training or expertise started to critique you.

Do you think that a 20-year-old doctor who only works in his office and has a family knows more about medicine than someone who studies 10 hours a day about the subject, the new discoveries, and the new treatments? No, it will become obsolete. Today, people are more demanding. If you look at many old-fashioned doctors, they feel embarrassed when patients tell them things they read in a book or learned on the Internet.

So no, education says very little about a person's knowledge of the subject. How much they continue to study is the determining factor.

In the case of the Holocaust, how many historians have really looked into the gas chamber in its most detailed aspects? Pressac is the only one I can remember, and even so, he left more doubts than answers. I think even for him, even returning to revisionism at the end of his life was bold, and that was because he had no training in the technique of executing people.

So claiming that forensic science supports the Holocaust is, at the very least, dangerous for those who sign this event.

I think even for him, even returning to revisionism at the end of his life was bold, and that was because he had no training in the technique of executing people.

He did no such thing.