The CODOH Revisionist Forum

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:02 am

borjastick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 9:11 am Seems to me this is all about twisting the words and asking us to prove a negative.
It is not for us to prove something didn't happen. It is for the proponents of such claims about the holocaust to prove it did happen. Thus far they haven't done so.

No, everyone making a claim has to substantiate it.

FALSE argument! So yet another bogus response.
Here’s why:
- Revisionists on the whole are NOT making a claim.
- they are in general pointing out the flaws in the holyH mass-gassing claim.

So it definitely is holyH promoters who have to prove their mass-gassing claims.
Doubters of their claims DO NOT have to provide an alternative explanation before the flaws in the compulsory, legally-enforced and protected, racist (anti-German) atrocity propaganda is discarded into the dust-bin of false histories.
Borjastick is totally correct.
This is a classic, dishonest, rather desperate, HolyH debating tactic. One that has been rebutted endlessly, but to no avail.

Summary:
A.) The burden of proof is on the one making a claim (not the ones who doubt it).
B.). Extraordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof (evidence).

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:02 am You aren't being asked to prove a negative, you're being asked to provide some evidence for the positive claims that revisionism has demonstrably made (transit camps, resettlement).

Wrong! Actual revisionism is NOT a church. It is a process.

Unlike holyH belief, there is no defined ‘revisionist’ belief-system.
So you are engaging in ignorant or dishonest projection.

E.g. I myself can fairly be regarded as an active and vocal ‘revisionist’. I have NOT EVER “claimed” all the alleged missing jooze were resettled via transit camps.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:02 am…the demonstrable revisionist positive claims…[snip]…

Same fake argument. See above.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:02 am Trying to wiggle out of this by resorting to deduction doesn't solve the problem of needing inductive, empirical evidence.

Wow! This is such a slimy reversal of the burden of proof, Nick.
I assume it is because you know the holyH mass-gassing mythology has been destroyed on the basis of the empirical evidence conclusively refuting it. Therefore it is you are deceitfully trying to switch this around.

Slippery and wiggly was the worm...

My middle son was the university of Exeter but thankfully he didn't have to deal with this fool. He also got out of there without becoming a lying toady woke libtard.

Wahrheitssucher wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:55 am Therefore it is you are deceitfully trying to switch this around.

There's no switch. Butz, Mattogno, Graf and many other revisionist authors have asserted that the AR camps, Auschwitz etc were transit camps and that Jews passed through them to the occupied Soviet territories.

This claim hasn't withstood scrutiny hitherto. It could be substantiated if revisionists located convincing evidence to support it. Such evidence could well include 'contrary witnesses' observing Jews deported to Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc, who turned up elsewhere. But currently, there aren't any.

Anyone making a claim has a burden of proof; your mistake is thinking you're not making a claim, or that playing defense lawyer absolves you from having a burden of proof. This is not so.

Thus, currently revisionists can console themselves by affirming their incredulity and rejection of the conventional account, but they have completely failed to substantiate what happened instead, which means in effect that the fate of most of 2.6 million deported Jews (just focusing on the extermination camps) is unsolved.

You've zapped the deportees from the historical record just the same as the conventional explanation has.

As soon as you start conjecturing or sketching out what might have happened, then you have a burden of proof. If you evade thinking about what might have happened, then you've still zapped the deportees from the historical record.

borjastick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 11:59 am Slippery and wiggly was the worm...

My middle son was the university of Exeter but thankfully he didn't have to deal with this fool. He also got out of there without becoming a lying toady woke libtard.

So foolish you're unable to reply coherently to my argument, and instead resort to childish insults.

For the record, I am completely alienated from every single party on the British political spectrum, and that includes from the Greens, LibDems and Labour precisely because of 'woke', which I reject.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑ .

Misses the point and unresponsive to the argument.

Also, why are we artificially distinguishing between “early” and “late” exaggerations? Your own example of an “early” exaggeration, the Jewish Soap myth, persisted to the end of the war, and indeed post-war it was proudly presented at Nuremberg in the flesh (fat?)

The point remains that all that was required for the most unhinged claims to collapse was for, ya know, to critically analyse them and their viability. Dachau gassings spring to mind here.

Show up
Critically analyse
Claims evaporate

Fancy that.

To repeat the argument; the 40 beheaded babies did not require a contrivance of “replacement historiography to fill in the gaps otherwise the claims stand”. The claims collapsing by themselves under scrutiny is sufficient.

**edit**

Apologies to the forum I have completely botched the formatting of this reply. I will try fix it once I have access to desktop.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 10:25 pm .

Fully agreed. Chazan, Phlishko and Mueller alone describe a process so inoperable and so damaging to the contrived narrative, that Van Pelt’s herculean efforts were barely enough to salvage credibility.

To underscore it, Van Pelt deviates so much from the people who were there, that they effectively describe a different process.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:48 pm

Wahrheitssucher wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:55 am Therefore it is you are deceitfully trying to switch this around.

Anyone making a claim has a burden of proof;

I’ve already replied to this…
Revision is a process not a fixed position. There is no fixed ‘revisionist’ position that is making a sacrosanct claim. This is YOUR mistake.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:48 pm…your mistake is thinking you're not making a claim…

I’m not.
I explained that to you also.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:48 pm[…your mistake is thinking] that playing defence lawyer absolves you from having a burden of proof. This is not so.

It is so.
E.g. If you are accused of a murder that you didn’t commit then a cast-iron alibi proving you were in another country at the time of the murder proves you are innocent. You do NOT have to find who actually did the murder to be declared innocent.