The CODOH Revisionist Forum

HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 7:48 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 7:33 pm
After that confident assertion there is no evidence....you go on to discuss the evidence....

....All the witnesses agree that there were columns. That they then vary with how they describe the columns, is to be expected.....

Here we have it again, friends: When eyewitness testimony is i) demonstrably contradictory,

ii) operationally unfeasible

and iii) unsupported by the material record,

.. our exterminationist friends will favour the testimony above all else.

You don't have a murder weapon, and no amount of kvetching will conjour one up.

Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:09 pm Well Mr Hill, you just don't understand how eyewitness testimony works you see.

Nessie was in the Police Service, so, he has the credentials to examine witnesses testimony critically, while you don't, so, he can tell you what to believe, because that's how his credentials work.

Now, if you have credentials or can notice something like the fact that a ventilation system is backwards, that's not worth anything.

That's just the way it is.

Witnesses don't have to agree on what something they saw repeatedly everyday looked like, how it worked or even what it was made of, because they all said it was there, and that everyone was gassed.

That's what's important...

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 8:47 am

Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:09 pm Well Mr Hill, you just don't understand how eyewitness testimony works you see.

Nessie was in the Police Service, so, he has the credentials to examine witnesses testimony critically, while you don't, so, he can tell you what to believe, because that's how his credentials work.

I bring relevant experience and training, something that no revisionist has. A lack of relevant training and experience does not put revisionists off making definitive assertions, but they should be more self-aware that makes their conclusions inherently unreliable.

Now, if you have credentials or can notice something like the fact that a ventilation system is backwards, that's not worth anything.

The witness descriptions are not backwards. You are misrepresenting all the witnesses, by cherry-picking parts of the testimony and applying you own biased interpretation.

That's just the way it is.

Witnesses don't have to agree on what something they saw repeatedly everyday looked like, how it worked or even what it was made of, because they all said it was there, and that everyone was gassed.

The witnesses are consistent when they describe the process inside the Kremas. They then vary in the details, how they describe things and what they do and do not describe. That is what happens when multiple witnesses describe a major event. There is nothing unusual or unique to the witness testimony. Your zero experience of witnesses has led you to fall for the revisionist hoax.

That's what's important...

Don't believe me. Look up the easy to find studies about witness reliability, memory and recall and learn about corroboration and the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Revisionists do not want to do that, because they know learning more would result in their having to ditch their beloved opinionated, logically flawed assessment of witness evidence, that is designed to result in the conclusion that 100% of them are lying.

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:10 am....

You don't know shit about ventilation, yet, you feel imminently qualified to disregard my credentials and experience in this regard.

Forgive me if I don't find you excuse about witness testimony here convincing because of your credentials and experience.

I mean, you honestly expect me to believe people who worked around these things can't even properly recall their shape (round or square), their construction (wire mesh or perforated metal), or whether or not the touched the floor?

Blow it out your ass Nessie. I'd have to be an absolute throwback to buy that line of crap.

Hell, at the very least they should agree on whether or not the damn things threw the pellets or collected them...

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:00 pm Nessie, you have no idea what I have and haven't read. I have yet to find an honest witness.

I feel like Diogenes at noon with a lantern.

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:19 pm Dude, that's not how I work things out, at all.

Do you think I just woke up one day, sat up, and said to myself, the holocaust is a lie...

No, no I didn't. I didn't form a conclusion and work backwards.

FFS I started out BELIEVING the holocaust and without any critical examination of the witnesses, the evidence or anything else.

It was a kind of, well, no matter what happens, I've got that whole holocaust thing handled...

I got high marks, I was a good student.

Then, I noticed something, if you make the slightest, and I mean the absolute slightest pull at any single thread of the official narrative, the thing will absolutely unravel in front of you.

The truth doesn't do that. You cannot unravel the truth like that. I know people are trying to with common core and this gender dysphoria crap, but, you just can't hide the truth and it doesn't evaporate under critical evaluation.

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:42 pm Dude, I don't even use a lot of revisionist sources. I read the primary stuff...

You have a radical misconception of my journey.

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:43 pm Whatever. I didn't hoax myself, I read testimony and statements. Then I read early 'supporting evidence'.

I also looked at required reading that contradicted the official narrative.

Then I looked at camp demographics and statistics for the Auschwitz Complexes.

Somewhere in there, I investigated claims about homicidal gassings with zyclon b.

You, unironically, sit here and tell me that people who worked in a building who can't describe a feature of that building coherently all worked in that building and that that feature was present.

That's not how reality works.

FFS, they can't even determine in they had to clean the pellets up off the floor because it distributed them, or if there was a system for retracting them.

This is beyond ridiculous. But, since I don't believe it, I hoaxed myself...

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 7:07 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:43 pm

FFS, they can't even determine in they had to clean the pellets up off the floor because it distributed them, or if there was a system for retracting them.

This is beyond ridiculous. But, since I don't believe it, I hoaxed myself...

Yes, you have fallen for the argument from incredulity and erroneously think that if you believe something is ridiculous, therefore it did not happen.

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 7:07 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:43 pm Whatever. I didn't hoax myself, I read testimony and statements. Then I read early 'supporting evidence'.

I also looked at required reading that contradicted the official narrative.

Then I looked at camp demographics and statistics for the Auschwitz Complexes.

Somewhere in there, I investigated claims about homicidal gassings with zyclon b.

You, unironically, sit here and tell me that people who worked in a building who can't describe a feature of that building coherently all worked in that building and that that feature was present.

That's not how reality works.

How do you know that? You have zero experience of and done no research into witness evidence. Your argument is akin to claiming that unless someone can provide an error free, detailed description of the car they claim to own, and how it works, they are lying and they have never owned that car.

FFS, they can't even determine in they had to clean the pellets up off the floor because it distributed them, or if there was a system for retracting them.

This is beyond ridiculous. But, since I don't believe it, I hoaxed myself...

Yes, you have fallen for the argument from incredulity and erroneously think that if you believe something is ridiculous, therefore it did not happen.