Where Myths Meet Their Demise
https://codohforum.com/
Come on HansHill, you know it is incapable of doing anything in good faith.
Avoiding simple questions is what it does as it cravenly runs from its burden of proof.
What eyewitnesses, documents etc are you referring to? You said "best revisionist arguments", but where is your evidence?Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 5:08 pmYou are now denying that evidence is evidence..
Which I answered, as you now quote.... while avoiding a very simple question.
Why did the Nazis extensively document shooting executions but not gassings?
It is not an opinion. It is a fact that the EG were more open about killing Jews in their documentation. They did not use euphemisms or coded language. As to the retention of documents, that appears more to be due to oversight, with documents being missed, when so many were being destroyed.So, in your opinion, what the Nazis chose to document and retain documents of was a matter of how secure they felt and how much local support they got.Nessie wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 6:43 am In 1941, the EG felt secure shooting Eastern European Jews. They had total control of the territory and a lot of local cooperation and support. The Nazis were already euthanising the disabled by gassing, but by 1942, they had to officially stop due to objections. They also knew that many in the West would object to killing Western Jews, so gassing operations needed a higher level of security.
Euthanising the disabled in hospitals in Germany and Austria was kept very secret and officially it had to be cancelled, when it became public knowledge.In that case, euthanasia gassings would be a perfect case for something that should have been documented, but it wasn't!
In 1941-2, Auchwitz was not a death camp, instead, it was part of the euthanasia programme, for disabled prisoners.Further, if a feeling of security and the cooperation of locals are the relevant factors in documentation, then there is no reason why the Nazis would not have documented countless other alleged killings and gassings in 1941 and 1942, including those at Auschwitz. Where are all these documents?
The Nazis knew they had more support for killing eastern Jews, than killing disabled German children. That the EG failed to destroy some documents, will be down to oversight, just as some documents regarding AR and the construction of gas chambers at Birkenau were missed.Alternatively, you might suggest documents would be destroyed after the feeling of security was lost. But if so, we return to the original problem of all these documents attesting to shootings being preserved 3-4 years later. They did not burn the incriminating documents.
In sum, your explanation is totally incoherent, nonsensical, and contradicted by the evidential record.
Is that it? You accept shootings as proven, because documents are more explicit than those which pertain to the AR camps and Birkenau in 1943-4? Are you arguing the case against gassing is down to its more coded language and lack of specific references to the use of gas?
Where is your "proof"?
Two simple foundational questioins for the mentally ill pathological liar:Nesserto:
My standard of proof is the same as historians or the courts use, whereby an event is proven when there is sufficient corroborating verified evidence to prove it.
A mass grave is defined as a grave containing multiple human corpses, or the remains of multiple people.
Only a determined denier, who has lost grip on reality, will pretend that the corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses who describe mass graves, the aerial photo that shows disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and the site surveys that identified disturbed ground and pits in the areas of the camp that the witnesses said contained the mass graves, is not evidence to prove mass graves.Nessie, how many actual mass graves did CSC actually prove actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp?
Nessie's answer:
12 - G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54.
You doubt and deny the evidence I produce.
I am both a trained historian and police officer.
The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.
ALL the mass graves dug by the Nazis, AND the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.
Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.
Proof, from multiple sources of corroborating evidence, has been produced.
You ignore corroboration. You deny the gathered evidence.
Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove mass graves, is denial of reality.
I can point to them in the ground.
I do not avoid discussing the empirical evidence.
I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof.
#1: When you use the word "corroboration", do you mean "confirm" or "support"?cor·rob·or·ation
evidence which confirms or supports a statement or theory
Arranged from lowest to highest, the standards of proof in American law follow a rough hierarchy:
Reasonable suspicion: Enough specific facts to justify a brief police stop, but well short of what’s needed for an arrest or a search warrant.
Probable cause: A fair probability that a crime occurred or evidence will be found, sufficient for an arrest or warrant.
Substantial evidence: Enough that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate, used when courts review agency decisions.
Preponderance of the evidence: More likely than not, the default for most civil lawsuits.
Clear and convincing evidence: Highly probable, reserved for civil matters with serious consequences like fraud claims or termination of parental rights.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: Firm conviction of guilt, required for all criminal convictions.
Absolute certainty: A state of knowledge or proof so complete that there is no possibility of doubt or uncertainty