The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 2:29 pm
This is going to be a general Holocaust debate on a podcast for general audience. It's not going to be a PhD-level deep-dive into the chemistry.

Nessie knows this, just nitpicking as usual.

joshk246 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 12:51 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 9:39 am

joshk246 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:59 am

The debate isn't down to your ridiculous rules Nessie its pretty simple, Holocaust denier Vs Holocaust exterminationist.
Jake will be moderating the debate so he's not involved, so again don't know why him not being an academic is relevant to this. You're mentioning how Rudolf is only going to mention chemistry, that's not true you know his knowledge is much broader than that and he could argue on any topic holocaust related.

Rudolf, the chemist, argues that the residue of HCN in the walls is too low for them to have been exposed to repeated gassings as alleged. A historian cannot technically argue against that. As you have seen, they are also not prepared to debate a chemist on the subject of the history of the Kremas. Rudolf is certainly knowledgeable on the history, but the bottom line is that he is not a historian. There are no rules, but academics prefer to remain within their field of expertise. The historian already knows, from Rudolf's books, that he cannot produce an evidenced narrative of what did happen inside the Kremas, and what happened to the people he claims were not gassed. He spend a lot of time at the camp, and in camp archives, but he still failed to find anything that evidences the actual events 1943-4 and hundreds of thousands not being gassed and leaving the camp.

It is interesting that the aim is not to find a chemist to, in effect, peer review Rudolf's chemistry. Do revisionists not think his findings will stand up to expert scrutiny?

Not really, no exterminationist chemist would take this debate either as we all know there would be massive reprocussions for them if they did. One historian has already been threatened.

That is one reason why no chemist is backing Rudolf up. The other is that he is wrong.

The burden of proof isn't for us to prove they weren't gassed, its on them to prove they were, no autopsies have ever indicated HCN.

No autopsies are possible, the Nazis saw to that at A-B by cremating the dead. When revisionists claim no gassings took place inside the Kremas, they are making a positive claim that they need to prove. They fail to do so. Some have tried, but they cannot even agree on what did take place, with suggestions of mass showering, corpses storage, bomb shelters and delousing clothing. Rudolf avoids the issue. He just argues gassing did not happen.

Germar is well versed on the whole holocaust, including AR camps where he can't possibly argue about chemical analysis because no 'gas chambers' were found post war,

He has failed to find any evidence as to what did take place. Not being able to produce an evidenced, contemporaneous chronological history greatly weakens revisionism.

.... we argue against the ridiculous cremations methods and techniques, also lack of millions kg of wood, no wood storage, open air cremation pyres right next to flammable fences, frozen ground at Belzec during the supposed digging up of bodies, millions of teeth missing.

The revisionist arguments from incredulity are logically flawed. Just because you cannot work out how the pyres burnt so many corpses etc, does not therefore prove it did not happen. The ground at Belzec was not subject to permafrost and it could be dug up. There is evidence of corpses being rendered after cremation, hence the lack of teeth. Your opinion, on the possibility, is not a reliable determinant. Evidence as to what took place is.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 3:56 pm The revisionist arguments from incredulity are logically flawed. Just because you cannot work out how the pyres burnt so many corpses etc, does not therefore prove it did not happen. The ground at Belzec was not subject to permafrost and it could be dug up. There is evidence of corpses being rendered after cremation, hence the lack of teeth. Your opinion, on the possibility, is not a reliable determinant. Evidence as to what took place is.

No chemist is backing Rudolf publicly because their Phd would be stripped.

Lol! Bodies being rendered? Any evidence for such claim? Teeth don’t even burn completely in modern crematoriums and the enamels have to be crushed up into powder and added to ashes, no where in Treblinka to they allow space for this.And still no plausible explanation to 0 evidence of weather tight wood storage units, massive amounts of wood being at any camps. No air photos showing massive cremations taking place yet these took place constantly? I mean that is the only way they can claim the ridiculous numbers like 750,000 and 600,000. Flammable fence surrounding the camp, not believable.

You must understand how cold it is in Poland winter time? As for Treblinka, summer months offer the most amount of rain, again no-body mentions rain ever being an issue with these 24/7 open air cremations that tended themselves with invisible wood and cremated thousands of bodies stacked up right down to brittle bone and ash.

joshk246 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 4:31 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 3:56 pm

joshk246 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 12:51 pm

The revisionist arguments from incredulity are logically flawed. Just because you cannot work out how the pyres burnt so many corpses etc, does not therefore prove it did not happen. The ground at Belzec was not subject to permafrost and it could be dug up. There is evidence of corpses being rendered after cremation, hence the lack of teeth. Your opinion, on the possibility, is not a reliable determinant. Evidence as to what took place is.

No chemist is backing Rudolf publicly because their Phd would be stripped.

They would be heavily criticised, but that is because Rudolf is wrong.

Lol! Bodies being rendered? Any evidence for such claim?

https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/belzec1/bel100.html

"Another innovation that emerged to assist in the obliteration of evidence was a specially constructed machine to destroy the burnt human bones. Initially, the SS looked to the Jews in the Lódz ghetto to supply such a machine and it is not surprising that they failed.[73] Blobel eventually found a machine from the Schriever Company in Hamburg and after much use in his gruesome work, recommended it to Hoess at Auschwitz. The Auschwitz commandant declined the offer as he found his Jewish workers were doing an adequate job with hammers and special mortars.[74]

In their efforts to destroy the evidence, in particular any large bone material, the camp command at Belzec sought outside help from the Janowska concentration camp by borrowing their bone crushing machine and an operator, a Hungarian Jew named Szpilke. The machine resembled a cement mixer with heavy iron balls inside the revolving drum; as the drum revolved at high speed, the metal balls crushed the bone material into small fragments.[75] At the base of the bone mill there was a sieve which acted as a filter for the bone material - the fine dust was expelled while larger pieces of still uncrushed bone were retained inside the drum."

Teeth don’t even burn completely in modern crematoriums and the enamels have to be crushed up into powder and added to ashes, no where in Treblinka to they allow space for this.

https://www.schillingfuneralhome.com/bi ... s-answered

"Do teeth burn during cremation? Teeth usually burn up during the cremation process. Tooth fragments that are not burnt up will be ground during the ash processing."

What do you mean by a lack of space in TII?

And still no plausible explanation to 0 evidence of weather tight wood storage units, massive amounts of wood being at any camps.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

"I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka. First of all, I went with Hackenholt to a sawmill near Warsaw. There Hackenholt ordered a big consignment of wood for reconstruction in Sobibor."

Poland was covered in forests and had plenty of sawmills and wood merchants. Why do you think the Nazis could not arrange deliveries when they needed wood for the pyres?

No air photos showing massive cremations taking place yet these took place constantly?

The AR camps were out of range when they were operating in 1942-3. There were aerial photos of Birkenau in 1944 that showed smoke from open air cremations.

I mean that is the only way they can claim the ridiculous numbers like 750,000 and 600,000. Flammable fence surrounding the camp, not believable.

Why do you think that Germans could not organise a pyre, without setting the fence on fire? Your incredulity is a logical fallacy.

You must understand how cold it is in Poland winter time?

There is no perma frost, the ground can be excavated all year round.

As for Treblinka, summer months offer the most amount of rain, again no-body mentions rain ever being an issue with these 24/7 open air cremations that tended themselves with invisible wood and cremated thousands of bodies stacked up right down to brittle bone and ash.

Just because you find the claims about mass pyres hard to accept, does not therefore mean they did not happen. Your opinion does not determine what happened, evidence does.

AI overview "An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that assumes something is false because it's difficult to believe, imagine, or understand"

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 5:35 pm Just because you find the claims about mass pyres hard to accept, does not therefore mean they did not happen. Your opinion does not determine what happened, evidence does.

lol, “evidence does” what evidence! That’s the whole point we don’t believe these ridiculous theories and how many times you have to move the goal posts.

I love your choice of word by using “permafrost”, the top water in soil that is hit with temperatures below -0 will completely freeze and can be meters deep, you should search up what the average temperature is in Lublin December, January and February.
You cannot just cut down trees and now that’s acceptable firewood, trains full of wood are not documented at all, even still you would need a storage facility.
“Janowska bone crushing machine”, evidence submitted by the soviet “extraordinary state commission”.

joshk246 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 6:13 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 5:35 pm Just because you find the claims about mass pyres hard to accept, does not therefore mean they did not happen. Your opinion does not determine what happened, evidence does.

lol, “evidence does” what evidence!

Every single eyewitness for a start. Then there is the corroborating documentary, physical, forensic, archaeological and circumstantial evidence, along with an established motive, opportunity and conduct after the crime. Revisionists like to pretend there is not much evidence, to deflect from their total lack of evidence.

That’s the whole point we don’t believe these ridiculous theories and how many times you have to move the goal posts.

You need to learn about logical fallacies, in particular the fallacy from incredulity and strawman.

I love your choice of word by using “permafrost”, the top water in soil that is hit with temperatures below -0 will completely freeze and can be meters deep, you should search up what the average temperature is in Lublin December, January and February.

The average is just below freezing, so there will be plenty of days when it above freezing, so your incredulity that the Nazis could dig pits in the winter is just your desire to disbelieve.

You cannot just cut down trees and now that’s acceptable firewood, trains full of wood are not documented at all, even still you would need a storage facility.

The lack of evidence of transports of wood to the camps, does not therefore mean no transports. Again, your incredulity is not evidence. If I don't believe something happened, that does not mean therefore it did not happen.

“Janowska bone crushing machine”, evidence submitted by the soviet “extraordinary state commission”.

Why don't you evidence what happened? Or do you know how to?

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 2:16 am There don't seem to be any active anti-revisionists on Twitter to speak of.

The only one I've seen on there so far who has any clue about the subject is Jeff (from Skeptics) and he seems distracted with politics. The others are all like "parker" who rely exclusively on substance-free ad hominem and well poisoning tactics. I have seen a few who do a very low-effort debating style where they have some basic point which they just keep repeating while ignoring counterpoints, almost like a bot.

I'm hoping that Tuesday will clear up the politics issue and I can focus on history again. Or it will get cleared up at some point next week.

History Speaks got backlash from historians like Waitman Beorn so he pulled out. I find that odd, I used to debate deniers on his timeline and he didn't seem to care. Of course I'm just an amateur so I guess that doesn't matter.

History bores most people and Holocaust denial is a niche issue. White nationalists/separatists, antisemites (or to be "PC" the "Jew aware"), Christian Nationalists/Militant Catholics, racists....they got modern issues to grind on. The Holocaust happened a long time ago so who cares? When they engage in denial it's part of the meme wars.

Jeff 8675309 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:03 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 2:16 am There don't seem to be any active anti-revisionists on Twitter to speak of.

The only one I've seen on there so far who has any clue about the subject is Jeff (from Skeptics) and he seems distracted with politics. The others are all like "parker" who rely exclusively on substance-free ad hominem and well poisoning tactics. I have seen a few who do a very low-effort debating style where they have some basic point which they just keep repeating while ignoring counterpoints, almost like a bot.

I'm hoping that Tuesday will clear up the politics issue and I can focus on history again. Or it will get cleared up at some point next week.

History Speaks got backlash from historians like Waitman Beorn so he pulled out. I find that odd, I used to debate deniers on his timeline and he didn't seem to care. Of course I'm just an amateur so I guess that doesn't matter.

History bores most people and Holocaust denial is a niche issue. White nationalists/separatists, antisemites (or to be "PC" the "Jew aware"), Christian Nationalists/Militant Catholics, racists....they got modern issues to grind on. The Holocaust happened a long time ago so who cares? When they engage in denial it's part of the meme wars.

Hi Jeff, good to see you. Will you not be using the other fake revisionist account you made anymore?

I have seen lots of deniers on there and very few anti-revisionists. Only a handful and most of them were bottom of the barrel.

I would assume that Jews are working on getting it shut down and censored like everything else. That's probably where the efforts are going. In the meantime they seem to be mostly ignoring it, hoping not to draw attention to it.

I think we have a big advantage with the Twitter format because we can make a lot of sharp, immediately understandable points that will startle much of the general public and which can't be refuted. Your side's explanations tend to be lengthy exercises in sophistry which just doesn't work on Twitter.

Btw I followed you briefly but the political stuff was just too much. I had to tap out.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:34 pm

Jeff 8675309 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:03 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 2:16 am There don't seem to be any active anti-revisionists on Twitter to speak of.

The only one I've seen on there so far who has any clue about the subject is Jeff (from Skeptics) and he seems distracted with politics. The others are all like "parker" who rely exclusively on substance-free ad hominem and well poisoning tactics. I have seen a few who do a very low-effort debating style where they have some basic point which they just keep repeating while ignoring counterpoints, almost like a bot.

I'm hoping that Tuesday will clear up the politics issue and I can focus on history again. Or it will get cleared up at some point next week.

History Speaks got backlash from historians like Waitman Beorn so he pulled out. I find that odd, I used to debate deniers on his timeline and he didn't seem to care. Of course I'm just an amateur so I guess that doesn't matter.

History bores most people and Holocaust denial is a niche issue. White nationalists/separatists, antisemites (or to be "PC" the "Jew aware"), Christian Nationalists/Militant Catholics, racists....they got modern issues to grind on. The Holocaust happened a long time ago so who cares? When they engage in denial it's part of the meme wars.

Hi Jeff, good to see you. Will you not be using the other fake revisionist account you made anymore?

I have seen lots of deniers on there and very few anti-revisionists. Only a handful and most of them were bottom of the barrel.

I would assume that Jews are working on getting it shut down and censored like everything else. That's probably where the efforts are going. In the meantime they seem to be mostly ignoring it, hoping not to draw attention to it.

I think we have a big advantage with the Twitter format because we can make a lot of sharp, immediately understandable points that will startle much of the general public and which can't be refuted. Your side's explanations tend to be lengthy exercises in sophistry which just doesn't work on Twitter.

Btw I followed you briefly but the political stuff was just too much. I had to tap out.

I did follow CODOH. Did that today, in fact.

I pretty much ignore the morons who think memes are the height of intelligence. If I find some fairly knowledgeable denier then I'll give them a few minutes of my time. But after a while it just turns boring.

I'll tell ya what, I'll post some history...."Archie."

And the damned Soviets in 1943-44 failed to photograph Aktion 1005 in progress from the air. Why? Ockham's Razor, nothing happened.

Here ya go:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1853 ... 38177.html

I'll add more when I get a chance. Don't worry....I'll put some denial in for you.

Shields says he found someone. Although he doesn't seem to say who.

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:36 am Shields says he found someone. Although he doesn't seem to say who.

Was this you, SanityCheck?

fireofice wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:40 am Was this you, SanityCheck?

No. I posted a review of Germar Rudolf's recent book here and at RODOH so it's not like I'm against discussing his ideas and claims, or indeed talking to revisionists more generally. I would actually enjoy the chance to sit down and talk to Germar Rudolf and perhaps get him on the record for comments about the history of revisionism, which he has done before with academics.

But a debate on a podcast, however informal, is going to be blown out of proportion, much as other debates have been in the past. Both-sidesism, rights to reply, and other tilting devices can be distorting (in both directions), while there is a basic craving for legitimacy, recognition and attention behind the 'debate me, bro' stance. Plus it's not like we're not all familiar with the Gish Gallop tactic, which can be used by either side.

I assume this unnamed orthodox historian is somebody stateside. Jake wanted to do it in-person in studio. He said something about Germar flying out for it. Europe to Los Angeles is a pretty long way. The Simon Wiesenthal center is based in L.A. but they of course have a no debate stance.