Comments on other threads.

[Nessie]

All of those newspaper reports and people claiming there were gassings at Dachau, and the historians at USHMM say there is no credible evidence of gassings at Dachau. So much for a coordinated hoax.

Getting rid of the most untenable parts of a lie doesn't invalidate the coordinated nature of a hoax. On the contrary, it's a common way to save a lie by protecting it from its biggest inconsistencies and most patently false components. Just a damage control strategy. Also happened to the kitsch Nazi soap hoax, a classic of any good Holocaust tale for 5 decades, which was liquidated by Holohoaxers in 1990 for no apparent reason.

That is your hypothesis, which of course, lacks evidence. Not that that bothers you.

[Keen]

Nesserto:



Nesserto sees dozens and dozens of "huge mass graves" containting the remains of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jews where no mass graves exist, yet when it is presented with irrefutable evidence that debunk its absurd unsubstantiated allegations, it sees nothing.

[Keen]

[Nessie]

Callafangers states,

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21170#p21170

SC seems to give little acknowledgement to the reality that a prohibition or extreme suppression of revisionist views by the establishment (includes governments, media, academia -- the key information sources, period) equates to an assertion of 'infallibility' of the orthodox narrative. Ironically, such prohibition/suppression also renders the Holocaust narrative unfalsifiable (see: Popper, Sagan), which logically/scientifically invalidates it.

TII as a death camp could be falsified by eyewitnesses who worked there, who state it was a transit camp. The Holocaust in its entirety could be falsified with documentary evidence proving millions of Jews were still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944. The so-called revisionists cannot find such evidence, so they excuse themselves with pseudo-arguments.

[Nessie]

Archie states;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21125#p21125

Goebbels Diary, 24 Sep 1941

I also have some important things to discuss with Heydrich when dealing with the Jewish question. We will drive away the desire of the Jews in Berlin to hide their new badges; and besides, I am of the opinion that we must evacuate the Jews from Berlin as quickly as possible. This will be the case as soon as we have settled the military issues in the East.

https://archive.org/details/JosephGoebb ... 3/mode/2up

I notice that BA has placed "resettlement" in scare quotes. But I can't help but notice that in many German documents, the euphemistic reading doesn't really make sense. In the above example, is the theory that "evacuation" is being used here euphemistically? If not, is it your theory that the resettlement referred to here by Goebbels was meant literally? If you do believe it is euphemistic, why does he bother referring (in his private diary) to the military situation in the East? Would that not suggest he means this quite literally?

Archie ponders as to what should be taken literally about Goebbels diary entry. The answer is that he literally meant evacuate, as that is what happened in 1941. The Jews of Berlin were arrested and removed from the city. Whether something is said literally or euphemistically, is determined by the evidence as to what happened.

[Nessie]

HansHill, in a reply to Sanity Check states;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21198#p21198

...All of that being said, and since there are people who are evidently much more interested in the technical arguments (criticisms as you call them), as it stands for those keeping score, the "criticisms" on a technical level have not been addressed adequately and therefore, at bare minimum, the murder weapon, process, and disposal, require revising.

Hans wants to debate Sanity Check on how the gas chambers, mass graves, ovens and pyres functioned, as he thinks that if that cannot be adequately answered, to his satisfaction, that somehow is evidence there were no gas chambers, mass graves and cremations. Sanity Check, who is a historian, understands that is not how history is normally investigated. As he said;

There's nothing stopping a revisionist from writing actual history, except it seems their inability to recognise what a historical narrative looks like and how to write one, instead of just criticising and whining and producing A-Z encyclopedias (the format is obviously NOT a narrative history). Maybe the criticisms can add up to a revisionist narrative. Maybe not.

HansHill's form of argument is akin to me arguing that I cannot work out how the British could have flown planes to Dresden, and dropped bombs causing a huge fire, therefore that did not happen. Which ignores all the evidence it did happen.

[Keen]

TII as a death camp could be falsified by eyewitnesses who worked there, who state it was a transit camp.

TII has been falsified by the utter lack of physical evidence.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

The Holocaust in its entirety could be falsified with documentary evidence proving millions of Jews were still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944.

The holohoax in its entirety has been falsified by the very fact that the "huge mass grave" allegations are proven lies.

No mass graves = no extermination centers = no gas chambers = no mass murder

The so-called revisionists cannot find such evidence, so they excuse themselves with pseudo-arguments.

No evidence of mass graves is not only evidence of no mass murder, it is proof.

Roberto, pretending that no physical evidence is not evidence:

[Keen]

Sanity Check, who is a historian

Nick is a craven, pathological liar who lacks the courage, integrity and character to answer the foundational legal question about the fraudulently allged pure extermination centers:

Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

IOW, he's just like you Roberto.

[Keen]

Nick Terry:

The problems with the earlier revisionist authors are twofold... Firstly, they simply didn't consider enough of the evidence... Secondly, the failure to provide substantial counter-evidence: vague handwaves about 'Jews went were Jews are' and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories lacking any direct proof.

And Nick's counter-evidence for: "the jews went went were jews are" is?

What is his "substantiated" theory for where 2.145 million of them went that he backs up with "direct proof"?

Why he has the retarded convergence of unsubstantiated allegations theory and "proofs" like this:



What more do we have to consider Nick? All the physical evidence for the "pure extermination centers" has been considered, and this is the substantial counter-evidence for your childish allegations:

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: 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, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

Here's Nick considering the counter-arguments to his retarded convergence of unsubstantiated allegations theory:

[Keen]

Here is a photo of Treblinka II's "huge mass grave" F16.

If you see trash in a small depression, Nick thinks you're a "conspiracy thoerist."

But if you see the remains of tens of thousands of jews, then you could earn an A+ in one of his "history" classes.

[Keen]

BTW, did you know that if you take one of Nick's "history" classes, it is required that you wear a pair of these in his class:



They help you see "evidence" where none exists.

[Nessie]

Callafangers makes a passionate and detailed defence of so-called revisionists use of the argument from incredulity;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21204#p21204

Kindly answer the question: why do you completely avoid the technical debate?

The answer is that the so-called technical debate is logically flawed.

[Nessie]

Archie, who asked for essays to be submitted, providing the best case for the Holocaust, turns hypocrite;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21214#p21214

One could of course write an article summarizing many of the key arguments, but imo this is not usually the right approach.

He cannot produce a best case for Holocaust revisionism/denial.

If I were to write a "best evidence" for revisionism article, it would be fairly different from the above articles. But again I don't think blitzing people with tons of stuff is the best approach for an introduction.

[Nazgul]

HansHill, in a reply to Sanity Check states;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21198#p21198

...All of that being said, and since there are people who are evidently much more interested in the technical arguments (criticisms as you call them), as it stands for those keeping score, the "criticisms" on a technical level have not been addressed adequately and therefore, at bare minimum, the murder weapon, process, and disposal, require revising.

Hans wants to debate Sanity Check on how the gas chambers, mass graves, ovens and pyres functioned, as he thinks that if that cannot be adequately answered, to his satisfaction, that somehow is evidence there were no gas chambers, mass graves and cremations. Sanity Check, who is a historian, understands that is not how history is normally investigated. As he said;

There's nothing stopping a revisionist from writing actual history, except it seems their inability to recognise what a historical narrative looks like and how to write one, instead of just criticising and whining and producing A-Z encyclopedias (the format is obviously NOT a narrative history). Maybe the criticisms can add up to a revisionist narrative. Maybe not.

HansHill's form of argument is akin to me arguing that I cannot work out how the British could have flown planes to Dresden, and dropped bombs causing a huge fire, therefore that did not happen. Which ignores all the evidence it did happen.

critique alone doesn’t rewrite history; a coherent narrative supported by evidence does.

[Nessie]

HansHill, in a reply to Sanity Check states;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21198#p21198

...All of that being said, and since there are people who are evidently much more interested in the technical arguments (criticisms as you call them), as it stands for those keeping score, the "criticisms" on a technical level have not been addressed adequately and therefore, at bare minimum, the murder weapon, process, and disposal, require revising.

Hans wants to debate Sanity Check on how the gas chambers, mass graves, ovens and pyres functioned, as he thinks that if that cannot be adequately answered, to his satisfaction, that somehow is evidence there were no gas chambers, mass graves and cremations. Sanity Check, who is a historian, understands that is not how history is normally investigated. As he said;

There's nothing stopping a revisionist from writing actual history, except it seems their inability to recognise what a historical narrative looks like and how to write one, instead of just criticising and whining and producing A-Z encyclopedias (the format is obviously NOT a narrative history). Maybe the criticisms can add up to a revisionist narrative. Maybe not.

HansHill's form of argument is akin to me arguing that I cannot work out how the British could have flown planes to Dresden, and dropped bombs causing a huge fire, therefore that did not happen. Which ignores all the evidence it did happen.

critique alone doesn’t rewrite history; a coherent narrative supported by evidence does.

Agreed.