So-called revisionists do not know what they are doing.

[Nessie]

Do you get a lot of ad hominems Nessie? How does you shtick get received on X? Do you get called ad hominems there by low information people, or do they give you any meaningful discussion?

>Offtopic
>Don't care, this thread is a dumpster fire as well as being redundant

I hardly get any abuse on X. I get far more here. This thread proves my point, you lot have no relevant training or experience, and none of you admit that makes you far more likely to be wrong. You cannot counter that argument, with one which would prove that people with no relevant training or experience, are more likely to be correct than those with relevant training and experience.

Interesting, i seem to remember you saying the opposite relatively recently about your experiences here:

My feedback is that Stubble and this forum is conducted in a generally polite and respectful way.

You then go on to describe who I assume is Keen / Greg Gerdes as being aggressive towards you etc, so I can only infer that the "more" abuse you get here is from 1 poster, as opposed to the infinite Groypers on X. Interesting!

Neither place is particularly abusive. Of the two, there is more abuse here.

[Nessie]

Covid effectively shattered the illusion of the expert class. The experts embarassed themselves by pushing authoritative measures that they later came to regret. Laymen were able to ask simple questions -- like why were toddlers made to wear masks, or how does plexiglass protect you in a swimming pool, or why did the CDC and WHO downplay the danger and transmissibility of covid at the start -- that pierced right through the veil of control.

Fewer people died in the Covid pandemic, than any previous equivalent, because of the vastly increased knowledge about how to deal with spreading respiratory viruses.

Laymen were able to get things right that experts were not, while only engaging casually with the subject.

Laymen also got things horribly wrong. You have clearly cherry-picked where you think they got it right and the experts were wrong, and declared laymen to be more expert than experts! Will you be applying that to your work? Will you ditch the experts in favour of new, untrained, inexperienced staff?

Likewise, laymen are able to easily see through central aspects of the Holocaust -- like why do its adherents cite Rudolf Hoess's confession if he is admitted to have been tortured, or why should the current camp death tolls be trusted if they have already been reduced by millions, and how did anyone believe in the nonsense about human soap?

The expert class failed on these questions while non-experts got it right, hence the latter has earned credibility over the former. Sorry if you don't like that.

Historians still quote Hoess, because he was a key figure due to his rank and role and crucially, his evidence is corroborated. We also know that he was subject to duress, but it is possible to torture someone and get generally accurate information.

After the war, there were two death tolls. The more accurate Western one, supported by evidence from the Nazis, such as Hoettl's 6 million, and the exaggerated Soviet death toll, which resulted in the plaque at Auschwitz claiming 4 million died there. When the SU collapsed, the exaggerated death toll was ditched by those who had been using it, hence the Polish changed the plaque. The more accurate Western death toll remained generally unchanged, at 5 to 6 million. Hence, many deniers on X express their confusion about why the death toll was reduced, but at the same time it stayed the same. They are laymen who do not know about, or understand the detail.

The nonsense about human soap, had a kernel of truth, in that some soap was made using an ingredient from human sources.
It was otherwise an atrocity story, which is not uncommon during a war. Both experts and laymen got it right about human soap. Laymen, as you admit, lack understanding about how atrocity stories develop. Indeed, it is the Holocaust denier/revisionists who dwell and puzzle over the human soap story. The experts understood and ditched it decades ago.

I see laymen here and on X, making mistake after mistake after mistake. For example, claims wooden doors cannot be made gas tight, or that the door into the gas chambers at Krema I seen now, is the one that was used in 1941. Or mixing hearsay with eyewitness evidence. Or the constant use of illogical arguments and failure to evidence what actually happened. Only the experts can produce an evidenced chronology.

[Nessie]

....

Yes.

Additionally it must be stated that the expert class on the Holocaust have been running around with their pants around their ankles for decades - Dr Bailer's blue paint, Dr Green's cyanide mop leaning against the wall, Dr Roth's 10 Microns of reaction etc etc etc*

*All PhDs in Chemistry

If anything, the expert class has been roundly embarrassed on this issue.

They are backed by the evidence of what happened. Rudolf and Leuchter are not.

[Keen]

I hardly get any abuse on X. I get far more here.

That's because you get caught lying more here.

It's so funny that you equate getting caught lying with "abuse."

BTW Nessie, is it - True. - or - False. - that:

It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the one hundred graves / cremation pits that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY FIVE PEOPLE.

If you're answer is "False." then can you show us a "huge mass grave" that containsthe remains of at least 6 people?

[Archie]

For those reading who may not be familiar with this Nessie character and his tactics, he is an eager Holocaust promoter who has been obsessively spamming revisionist boards for about 15 years by now. He had over 30,000 posts on the old RODOH board before it went down. Despite this colossal investment of time, he is surprisingly poorly read on the topic. It is clear from interacting with him that his knowledge is superficial and he has nothing insightful or interesting to say about anything, instead relying on a stable of lame, generic talking points that he repeats over and over.

I recall one time I was making the point that the orthodox books pretty much take the fundamentals of the story for granted and do not attempt to prove any of it, and hence these are not really adequate counters to revisionism. He claimed I was wrong and that orthodox histories by Cesarani and Rees do present the necessary evidence. I asked him to quote a single sentence from these books to show this. The reason I made this request was that I suspected that he was bluffing and had not read either book. This was confirmed when he refused to quote anything or even to describe from memory something from these books. Pathetic. Here was Nessie's explanation for his inability to quote even a single word from either of the books that he brought up.

I no longer have any Holocaust books, after a huge clear out of books a few years back. What with so much being online, books, (along with DVDs as we can now stream everything) all went to charity shops.

There is no such thing as a quote that can prove mass gassings! Proof cannot be reliably described in one quote. Proof is determined by evidence and there is a lot of evidence pertaining to the building and running of the Kremas, from dozens of witnesses, to the numerous documents about construction and functioning, to the circumstantial evidence of the functioning of the camp.

You have a rather odd view of proof, in that you think it can be produced in one quote, about a massive and complex mass murder that was the subject of a cover-up to hide or destroy as much evidence as possible. If you had done any history to any standard, even at school, you would realise major events, that happened over a period of years and at multiple locations, cannot be proved in the manner you want, with enough evidence to prove they happened, but not so much that it becomes a document dump you find overwhelming and cannot cope with.

In our other discussion, you poo-pooed Wikipedia, but it is exactly what you are asking for. Bite sized articles, that include primary evidence and link to sources. No document dumps, but there are plenty of original documents to look at.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... 2&#p913082

He tries to save face here by saying he "no longer" has any books, implying that perhaps he did at some point. Ha, nice try. This guy has read nothing. Just forums and websites. Remember this the next time you hear this bozo go on about the supposed deficiencies of revisionists. If you have read even one relevant book on the topic, you are more qualified to opine than Nessie.

Another observation is that after all this time, Nessie has never produced a single article or essay or anything. Nor does he even have any quasi-article "effort posts" like you sometimes see (the closest would be link dumps or lists that he cribbed from someone else). He has spewed millions of words of text on the forums and apparently thinks very highly of himself and his purported expertise, yet he seems incapable of distilling any of his material into any sort of coherent long-form argument. When I pointed this out to him once, here was his reply.

The deceptions and illogical arguments made by revisionists do not need a 5 or 10,000 word essay. I can point them out in a single post.

He claims a 5,000 word essay would be overkill. So instead he has opted for a 50,000 post posting career. There is no logic to this as you would think he would want to say his piece and not repeat himself ad nauseum. The reality is that he doesn't really have much to say and his style is calibrated toward disrupting revisionist discussions. He would never attempt to write an essay because he knows it would be complete schlock. Now, there is no shame in being unable to write essays. Long-form writing is much harder than choppier forum-style posting. But such an unimpressive person has no business being condescending towards everyone else about credentials, qualifications, and the like. It's frankly embarrassing to see him attempt this.

[HansHill]

He will also make bizarre and disjointed posts that will contradict each other and his over all position. For example, a common theme here is that the hard sciences are very inconvenient to the gassing story, and rather than acknowledge this in good faith, he will say the scientists themselves do not and cannot understand the science or their own research:

I do not think anyone understands the science. Even the trained chemists cannot agree.

Markiewicz does indeed argue his incredulity, hence he used a test for HCN that would rule out it came from the compound that caused the staining.

Or that a position can be asserted without anyone understanding the reasoning behind why:

I do not fully understand the chemistry behind Green (or Rudolf's) reasoning. I know Green is correct, because there is evidence mass gassings took place.

So it's abundantly clear that our friend Nessie has omitted himself as a competent interlocutor on the topic of science, and particularly chemistry - and since the Holocaust for the most part, is an alleged mass murder by chemical means, he is telling us he does not understand the murder weapon that we are looking for and discussing.

But it gets much better! A recent banana peel our friend Nessie has slipped on, was hilariously attempting to assert that the building remains were somehow not present or accessible for investigation:

Only a small part of Krema II can be accessed, and has no staining;

When it was pointed out to him that the building materials are still there and perfectly accessible, he pivoted to the blue staining must be on the "inside" of the bricks first:

The staining would form inside first, as seen at Majdanek. You do not know how long, or how much exposure it takes to get the staining to show all the way through the walls, to the outside.

He seems to be arguing that any blue staining will be on one side of the bricks and that they cannot be flipped over and viewed. Of course, as noted above, Nessie has admitted incompetence on this topic and so it's not really worth reminding him that we do in fact understand the diffusion properties of the materials in question, were flipping them over to investigate them thoroughly somehow not possible for us.

[Wahrheitssucher]

For those reading who may not be familiar with this Nessie character and his tactics, he is an eager Holocaust promoter who …has nothing insightful or interesting to say about anything, instead relying on a stable of lame, generic talking points that he repeats over and over.

…This guy has read nothing. Just forums and websites. Remember this the next time you hear this bozo go on about the supposed deficiencies of revisionists. If you have read even one relevant book on the topic, you are more qualified to opine than Nessie.

Another observation is that after all this time, Nessie has never produced a single article or essay or anything. Nor does he even have any quasi-article "effort posts" like you sometimes see (the closest would be link dumps or lists that he cribbed from someone else). He has spewed millions of words of text on the forums and apparently thinks very highly of himself and his purported expertise, yet he seems incapable of distilling any of his material into any sort of coherent long-form argument. When I pointed this out to him once, here was his reply.

The deceptions and illogical arguments made by revisionists do not need a 5 or 10,000 word essay. I can point them out in a single post.

He claims a 5,000 word essay would be overkill. So instead he has opted for a 50,000 post posting career. There is no logic to this as you would think he would want to say his piece and not repeat himself ad nauseum. The reality is that he doesn't really have much to say and his style is calibrated toward disrupting revisionist discussions.
He would never attempt to write an essay because he knows it would be complete schlock.
Now, there is no shame in being unable to write essays. Long-form writing is much harder than choppier forum-style posting. But such an unimpressive person has no business being condescending towards everyone else about credentials, qualifications, and the like. It's frankly embarrassing to see him attempt this.

Excellent observations.
I would like to amplify them from my own observations.

This is the holyH believer and ‘defender’(?) who not only hasn't read anything NOR written anything of consequence, but hypocritically this person used to routinely accuse me of plagiarism whenever I DID write long essays.

This ‘plagiarism’ accusation had started when I was debating a true-believer regarding Wannsee on old RODOH. In the course of that debate I had used a quote that I presented in total AND in “quote marks”, but didn’t initially specify who it came from. This was intentional, as I didn’t want the quote disregarded straight-away because of WHO had made it.
Nick and-the-numbers Terry recognised it was from Mark Weber and on Skeptics they mocked me as a ‘plagiarist’ for using the quote WITHOUT a reference.

The deeply delusional person now under discussion, would resort — for years after — to accusing me of plagiarism, just to be annoying and to deflect from some embarrassing annihilation in argument over a flaw or untruth in the holocaust narrative.

SUMMARY: I concur that this particular holyH defender with the female name of a mythological monster neither reads, NOR writes anything of consequence, and agree that her mission is to repetitively accuse and insult others merely to be a nuisance and to provoke.
. . . . . . . . . . . .

BACK ON TOPIC
In contrast to holyH believers and promulgators, holocaust-revisionists DO disagree with each other. Which demonstrates honesty, openness and lack of rigid thought control. Which demonstrates we DO know how to conduct genuine historic research (“know what we are doing” and are open to correction and revision.

THIS topic-thread here [https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=393 ] is a welcome one to me, as I also have thought some revisionists definitely DO repeat commonly-held errors, and by doing so, do not further the cause of accurate history and truth.

One revisionist error that comes to mind was the now less-common one of repetition of Prof.Robert Faurisson’s error that gassing with Zyklonb would have been impossible as described because of risk of explosion. That is not correct and came from Faurisson’s ignorance of HCN chemistry. (HCN is flammable but would not have been “explosive” in the scenarios alleged.

A far greater error in my opinion is the common one of admitting to ‘denying the holocaust’ and/or of being a ‘holocaust denier’. Scott Smith routinely used to do that.
And I noticed the poster with a burning T as avatar has recently done that.
This I regard as a great mistake as it plays into the hands of dimwits and genuine ‘deniers’ like Confusedjew and Prof Debbie Lipstadt who can then credibly convince themselves and the gullible masses that revisionists are not worth a fair hearing as they are ALL loonies who “deny”: concentration camps; films and photos of piles of naked typhus victims; incarcerations and selections of arrested jews for work programmes; tatooed numbers; and all the other undenied aspects of the WW2 jewish experience THAT ARE NOT contested.

[Nessie]

For those reading who may not be familiar with this Nessie character and his tactics, he is an eager Holocaust promoter who has been obsessively spamming revisionist boards for about 15 years by now. He had over 30,000 posts on the old RODOH board before it went down. Despite this colossal investment of time, he is surprisingly poorly read on the topic. It is clear from interacting with him that his knowledge is superficial and he has nothing insightful or interesting to say about anything, instead relying on a stable of lame, generic talking points that he repeats over and over.

The majority of my posts are about the so-called revisionists flawed investigative methodology and they become repetitive because of the repeated use of that flawed methodology. So-called revisionists are not just poorly read on how to investigate, they are incredibly ignorant.

Examples;

Nazgul repeatedly showing dot maps of camps, claiming that is evidence to suggest millions of Jews were alive and in those camps in 1944. He fails to name any of the camps and prove what its Jewish population was in that year.

Keen repeatedly claiming there is no evidence of mass graves and cremations at the AR camps, by demanding to be shown the evidence he knows about, that proves their existence. He fails to understand, it is his job to evidence no mass graves and back up his claim.

All the deniers on X, who think the wooden and glass door that people walk through to enter the Krema I gas chamber now, was the door used when it was a gas chamber in 1942.

All the so-called revisionists who think that because they cannot work out how gassings were possible, based on the existing evidence, therefore no gassings took place.

I recall one time I was making the point that the orthodox books pretty much take the fundamentals of the story for granted and do not attempt to prove any of it, and hence these are not really adequate counters to revisionism. He claimed I was wrong and that orthodox histories by Cesarani and Rees do present the necessary evidence. I asked him to quote a single sentence from these books to show this. The reason I made this request was that I suspected that he was bluffing and had not read either book. This was confirmed when he refused to quote anything or even to describe from memory something from these books. Pathetic. Here was Nessie's explanation for his inability to quote even a single word from either of the books that he brought up.

I no longer have any Holocaust books, after a huge clear out of books a few years back. What with so much being online, books, (along with DVDs as we can now stream everything) all went to charity shops.

There is no such thing as a quote that can prove mass gassings! Proof cannot be reliably described in one quote. Proof is determined by evidence and there is a lot of evidence pertaining to the building and running of the Kremas, from dozens of witnesses, to the numerous documents about construction and functioning, to the circumstantial evidence of the functioning of the camp.

You have a rather odd view of proof, in that you think it can be produced in one quote, about a massive and complex mass murder that was the subject of a cover-up to hide or destroy as much evidence as possible. If you had done any history to any standard, even at school, you would realise major events, that happened over a period of years and at multiple locations, cannot be proved in the manner you want, with enough evidence to prove they happened, but not so much that it becomes a document dump you find overwhelming and cannot cope with.

In our other discussion, you poo-pooed Wikipedia, but it is exactly what you are asking for. Bite sized articles, that include primary evidence and link to sources. No document dumps, but there are plenty of original documents to look at.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... 2&#p913082

He tries to save face here by saying he "no longer" has any books, implying that perhaps he did at some point. Ha, nice try. This guy has read nothing. Just forums and websites. Remember this the next time you hear this bozo go on about the supposed deficiencies of revisionists. If you have read even one relevant book on the topic, you are more qualified to opine than Nessie.

You are showing your ignorance of how history is investigated. If an event has been sufficiently evidenced and is proven to have happened, historians do not continually and repeatedly show that evidence, every time they discuss the event. For example, gassings at A-B. Here is a list of much of the evidence that proves gassings;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

Archie cannot evidence that neither Rees nor Cesarani, never reference any of the documents, or witnesses, in their histories about the camp. They certainly do not need to repeat all the evidence, each time they discuss gassings. Rather than provide evidence for his original claim, he demands I disprove him.

Another observation is that after all this time, Nessie has never produced a single article or essay or anything.

Really! That is quite a claim. Prove it please.

Nor does he even have any quasi-article "effort posts" like you sometimes see (the closest would be link dumps or lists that he cribbed from someone else). He has spewed millions of words of text on the forums and apparently thinks very highly of himself and his purported expertise, yet he seems incapable of distilling any of his material into any sort of coherent long-form argument. When I pointed this out to him once, here was his reply.

The deceptions and illogical arguments made by revisionists do not need a 5 or 10,000 word essay. I can point them out in a single post.

He claims a 5,000 word essay would be overkill. So instead he has opted for a 50,000 post posting career. There is no logic to this as you would think he would want to say his piece and not repeat himself ad nauseum. The reality is that he doesn't really have much to say and his style is calibrated toward disrupting revisionist discussions. He would never attempt to write an essay because he knows it would be complete schlock. Now, there is no shame in being unable to write essays. Long-form writing is much harder than choppier forum-style posting. But such an unimpressive person has no business being condescending towards everyone else about credentials, qualifications, and the like. It's frankly embarrassing to see him attempt this.

I have spent a lot of time, explaining why your investigative methodology is wrong, from noting your use of logical fallacies, to pointing out your errors about witness memory and recall, all of which you refuse to take on board.

[Nessie]

He will also make bizarre and disjointed posts that will contradict each other and his over all position. For example, a common theme here is that the hard sciences are very inconvenient to the gassing story, and rather than acknowledge this in good faith, he will say the scientists themselves do not and cannot understand the science or their own research:

I do not think anyone understands the science. Even the trained chemists cannot agree.

Markiewicz does indeed argue his incredulity, hence he used a test for HCN that would rule out it came from the compound that caused the staining.

You repeatedly evidence your lack of understanding of evidencing. Science cannot evidence the Holocaust, to either prove it happened, or that it did not. Chemists disagree about why there is a low level of HCN residue, and no apparent Prussian blue, in what is left of the gas chambers. That does not prove that gassings did not happen.

Other examples of so-called revisionist misuse of science to disprove gassings are;

- arguing that if a witness states thousands of people were crammed into a space, the gas chambers, that measurements prove they could not fit into, that is evidence the witness lied. Instead, science, as in the psychological study of people estimating the size of crowds and dimensions of rooms, proves were are poor at such estimations.

- arguing that their failure to work out, from the witness descriptions and documentary evidence, how the ventilation system could cope with gassings, is evidence that no gassings could have taken place. Just because they cannot make volumes, airflow rates etc work, to their satisfaction, does not prove no gassings.

Or that a position can be asserted without anyone understanding the reasoning behind why:

I do not fully understand the chemistry behind Green (or Rudolf's) reasoning. I know Green is correct, because there is evidence mass gassings took place.

That is not an assertion. I have used evidence to come to a conclusion. There is a lot in history, that we do not know how it happened, but there is evidence it did. I can assert the pyramids were built, without understanding why or how the Egyptians built them.

So it's abundantly clear that our friend Nessie has omitted himself as a competent interlocutor on the topic of science, and particularly chemistry - and since the Holocaust for the most part, is an alleged mass murder by chemical means, he is telling us he does not understand the murder weapon that we are looking for and discussing.

You assert yourself as a knowledgeable chemist, whose knowledge is so great, that because you cannot work out how gassings were possible, you claim that is evidence to prove they did not happen! That you cannot see the logical flaw in your claim, is why you fall for the Holocaust denial hoax.

If witnesses to a mass shooting disagree about how many shooters there were, what they looked like, how many shots were fired, what guns were used, if the calibre of some bullets found do not match a weapon witness claim the shooter had, and how long the shooting lasted, does that mean it is proved there was no mass shooting? Of course not.

I do understand the murder weapon. Gas was pumped into gas chambers from an engine, to raise the level of CO to fatal. The chamber was vented. Or, Zyklon B was dropped into mesh pillars, that fatally poisoned those inside the chambers with HCN, which was then pumped out.

But it gets much better! A recent banana peel our friend Nessie has slipped on, was hilariously attempting to assert that the building remains were somehow not present or accessible for investigation:

Show me how it is possible to investigate the walls and ceilings of Kremas II to V and the two bunker farmhouse gas chambers.

Only a small part of Krema II can be accessed, and has no staining;

When it was pointed out to him that the building materials are still there and perfectly accessible,

Really! Please do go through each building and show me precisely what is there to be investigated.

...he pivoted to the blue staining must be on the "inside" of the bricks first:

The staining would form inside first, as seen at Majdanek. You do not know how long, or how much exposure it takes to get the staining to show all the way through the walls, to the outside.

That was not a pivot. That was me having to point out the obvious, that staining would start to form from the inside out.

He seems to be arguing that any blue staining will be on one side of the bricks and that they cannot be flipped over and viewed.

Please show me where these bricks are, that can be flipped over and viewed.

Of course, as noted above, Nessie has admitted incompetence on this topic and so it's not really worth reminding him that we do in fact understand the diffusion properties of the materials in question, were flipping them over to investigate them thoroughly somehow not possible for us.

I have not admitted incompetence. Unlike you, I do not assert my expertise, in topics I have no training or experience in.

[Nessie]

For those reading who may not be familiar with this Nessie character and his tactics, he is an eager Holocaust promoter who …has nothing insightful or interesting to say about anything, instead relying on a stable of lame, generic talking points that he repeats over and over.

…This guy has read nothing. Just forums and websites. Remember this the next time you hear this bozo go on about the supposed deficiencies of revisionists. If you have read even one relevant book on the topic, you are more qualified to opine than Nessie.

Another observation is that after all this time, Nessie has never produced a single article or essay or anything. Nor does he even have any quasi-article "effort posts" like you sometimes see (the closest would be link dumps or lists that he cribbed from someone else). He has spewed millions of words of text on the forums and apparently thinks very highly of himself and his purported expertise, yet he seems incapable of distilling any of his material into any sort of coherent long-form argument. When I pointed this out to him once, here was his reply.

The deceptions and illogical arguments made by revisionists do not need a 5 or 10,000 word essay. I can point them out in a single post.

He claims a 5,000 word essay would be overkill. So instead he has opted for a 50,000 post posting career. There is no logic to this as you would think he would want to say his piece and not repeat himself ad nauseum. The reality is that he doesn't really have much to say and his style is calibrated toward disrupting revisionist discussions.
He would never attempt to write an essay because he knows it would be complete schlock.
Now, there is no shame in being unable to write essays. Long-form writing is much harder than choppier forum-style posting. But such an unimpressive person has no business being condescending towards everyone else about credentials, qualifications, and the like. It's frankly embarrassing to see him attempt this.

Excellent observations.
I would like to amplify them from my own observations.

This is the holyH believer and ‘defender’(?) who not only hasn't read anything NOR written anything of consequence, but hypocritically this person used to routinely accuse me of plagiarism whenever I DID write long essays.

This ‘plagiarism’ accusation had started when I was debating a true-believer regarding Wannsee on old RODOH. In the course of that debate I had used a quote that I presented in total AND in “quote marks”, but didn’t initially specify who it came from. This was intentional, as I didn’t want the quote disregarded straight-away because of WHO had made it.
Nick and-the-numbers Terry recognised it was from Mark Weber and on Skeptics they mocked me as a ‘plagiarist’ for using the quote WITHOUT a reference.

The deeply delusional person now under discussion, would resort — for years after — to accusing me of plagiarism, just to be annoying and to deflect from some embarrassing annihilation in argument over a flaw or untruth in the holocaust narrative.

SUMMARY: I concur that this particular holyH defender with the female name of a mythological monster neither reads, NOR writes anything of consequence, and agree that her mission is to repetitively accuse and insult others merely to be a nuisance and to provoke.
. . . . . . . . . . . .

I caught you plagiarising back on RODOH. I would put phrases you used into a search engine and found the exact same, or very similar words being used in articles and even Wiki entries. I also pointed out that you did not use the standard format for quoting, making it appear that posts were your own words, with a reference source below. I linked you to articles about plagiarism, that you clearly ignored.

BACK ON TOPIC
In contrast to holyH believers and promulgators, holocaust-revisionists DO disagree with each other.

Historians do disagree with each other over numerous aspects of the Holocaust, from how it was planned, to the death tolls.

Which demonstrates honesty, openness and lack of rigid thought control. Which demonstrates we DO know how to conduct genuine historic research (“know what we are doing” and are open to correction and revision.

Disagreement does not evidence honesty, open-mindedness, or knowledge of how to investigate. For example, the so-called revisionists, Leuchter and Rudolf are unable to evidence that the Kremas cannot have been used for gassings, sufficiently enough to get a consensus, such that many so-called revisionists still claim that they were used for delousing clothing.

THIS topic-thread here [https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=393 ] is a welcome one to me, as I also have thought some revisionists definitely DO repeat commonly-held errors, and by doing so, do not further the cause of accurate history and truth.

One revisionist error that comes to mind was the now less-common one of repetition of Prof.Robert Faurisson’s error that gassing with Zyklonb would have been impossible as described because of risk of explosion. That is not correct and came from Faurisson’s ignorance of HCN chemistry. (HCN is flammable but would not have been “explosive” in the scenarios alleged.

A variation of that error is used regularly on X, with claims that the light bulbs in Krema I, would have caused it to explode, when exposed to gas. They were light bulbs installed by the museum authorities, to light the otherwise totally dark gas chambers, for visitor safety.

A far greater error in my opinion is the common one of admitting to ‘denying the holocaust’ and/or of being a ‘holocaust denier’. Scott Smith routinely used to do that.
And I noticed the poster with a burning T as avatar has recently done that.
This I regard as a great mistake as it plays into the hands of dimwits and genuine ‘deniers’ like Confusedjew and Prof Debbie Lipstadt who can then credibly convince themselves and the gullible masses that revisionists are not worth a fair hearing as they are ALL loonies who “deny”: concentration camps; films and photos of piles of naked typhus victims; incarcerations and selections of arrested jews for work programmes; tatooed numbers; and all the other undenied aspects of the WW2 jewish experience THAT ARE NOT contested.

The term Holocaust denier is a broad one. It is a mistake to think it means denying everything.

[HansHill]

arguing that their failure to work out, from the witness descriptions and documentary evidence, how the ventilation system could cope with gassings, is evidence that no gassings could have taken place. Just because they cannot make volumes, airflow rates etc work, to their satisfaction, does not prove no gassings.

And the final, tired, desperate play from the Nessie handbook, is to revert to this classic.

The details of the Holocaust don't need to be materially verified, reproducible, or explainable - even better, they should be completely shrugged off because oh well, nobody can understand it. The perfect crime!

[Nessie]

arguing that their failure to work out, from the witness descriptions and documentary evidence, how the ventilation system could cope with gassings, is evidence that no gassings could have taken place. Just because they cannot make volumes, airflow rates etc work, to their satisfaction, does not prove no gassings.

And the final, tired, desperate play from the Nessie handbook, is to revert to this classic.

The details of the Holocaust don't need to be materially verified, reproducible, or explainable - even better, they should be completely shrugged off because oh well, nobody can understand it. The perfect crime!

Again, all you are doing is proving you do not understand evidencing, and that you constantly misrepresent what I have said.

The details of the Holocaust DO NEED to be "verified, reproducible, or explainable" as you put. BUT, if something cannot be verified etc, to your satisfaction, that DOES NOT evidence and prove that detail did not happen.

We do need to know how the Nazis mass murdered people. When an accusation of mass, or indeed any murder is made, how that murder happened, is a key part of the evidencing. But, it is possible to prove murder, without knowing exactly how the victim was killed.

When early reports had Jews being killed in chambers with electricity, or steam, investigators gathered evidence to see if those claims were correct and if they could be verified. They could not, it was hearsay. Some reports had Jews being killed by gassing, either from engines, or by dropping Zyklon B into the chambers. Investigations found corroborating eyewitness, documentary, forensic and circumstantial evidence to prove that was the murder method.

In many cases of murder, there is evidence to prove the murder, but details are missing, or there is uncertainty. That happens because the murderer destroys evidence, or witnesses make mistakes when recollecting what happened, or investigators conduct poor witness interviews, or they mishandle physical evidence.

The result is that there is evidence to prove gas chambers, but we lack the fine details of how they worked. For example, the Nazis destroyed or modified all the buildings that contained gassings. The Polish authorities, responsible for Auschwitz, mishandled the physical evidence that is Krema I. If they had left one wall intact, as it was in 1942, it would have been much clearly what the actual layout of the building was. I have read many witness statements, where the investigators failed to establish what the witness saw and what they heard about. There are clearly many mistakes in the witness statements, such as estimations about duration, size and quantity, that cannot be possible. Those deliberate acts by the perpetrator, missing evidence and investigator errors mean that we cannot know the precise details as to how the gas chambers worked.

The result is that for all we DO NEED to know how the Nazis managed to murder millions of people, we will never know the precise details, particularly to the satisfaction of so-called revisionists. BUT, that is not sufficient for those so-called revisionists to declare gassings did not happen, with any evidential authority, because they are not satisfied with the evidence.

[Wahrheitssucher]

arguing that their failure to work out, from the witness descriptions and documentary evidence, how the ventilation system could cope with gassings, is evidence that no gassings could have taken place. Just because they cannot make volumes, airflow rates etc work, to their satisfaction, does not prove no gassings.

And the final, tired, desperate play from the Nessie handbook, is to revert to this classic.

The details of the Holocaust don't need to be materially verified, reproducible, or explainable — even better, they should be completely shrugged off — because oh well, nobody can understand it.
The perfect crime!

Yes, that's a literally crazy explanation.

I genuinely think this is yet another sign of a form of ‘insanity’ according to the online definition of that word that I recently posted in one of Keen’s threads.
Consequently I have her on ignore and only see her posts if someone replies to them.

I’m sure she must be an embarrassment to the holyH-believer side.