The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Can Archie evidence this claim?

viewtopic.php?p=23088#p23088

Let me restart with the most basic point: In the postwar period, there were multiple governments (plus Jewish groups) engaged in producing witnesses to gassings and other atrocities. There was never any counter-effort to search for contrary witnesses.

Archie seems to think that there would need to be two teams of investigators, one whose task it was to find witnesses to mass killings and one to find witnesses to something else happening. Instead, war crimes investigators, journalists and historians traced people who worked inside the camps and ghettos, to establish what they saw. Their aim was to find eyewitnesses, rather than those whose evidence is hearsay. They would not know what the eyewitness would tell them, until they take the statement.

That those eyewitnesses 100% agree certain camps were used for mass killings and none claimed another process took place, is, to Archie, a sign that no effort was made to trace eyewitnesses to that other process. In reality, it means that after decades of tracing eyewitnesses, not one single person has been found, who speaks to another process. It is not evidence that no effort was made to trace contrary witnesses.

Stubble claims that contrary witnesses were suppressed;

Archie, it isn't just that they weren't sought out. I've read that counter testimony was actually suppressed and expressed interest in reviewing the testimony that was thrown out at Nuremberg.

I'll see if I can grab the thread and link it.

Yet again, the last relevant trials, that of senior Nazis accused of war crimes, are concentrated on. Why not concentrate on the SS death camp staff trials run in West Germany? They are relevant, as they are of eyewitnesses to what happened. It is notable that 100% of the death camp staff did not dispute the mass murder narrative, with none claiming those camps had a completely different, non-homicidal purpose and process. Instead, they concentrated on diminishing their knowledge, role and responsibility for what took place.

Stubble will not find an example of any SS from the death camps, whose testimony is of a non-Homicidal process, and whose testimony was ignored or suppressed. I am sure he will think that is evidence of a conspiracy, rather than it is for the simple reason no such witness exists, as the camps were death camps.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2026 5:29 pm Can Archie evidence this claim?

viewtopic.php?p=23088#p23088

Let me restart with the most basic point: In the postwar period, there were multiple governments (plus Jewish groups) engaged in producing witnesses to gassings and other atrocities. There was never any counter-effort to search for contrary witnesses.

Archie seems to think that there would need to be two teams of investigators, one whose task it was to find witnesses to mass killings and one to find witnesses to something else happening. Instead, war crimes investigators, journalists and historians traced people who worked inside the camps and ghettos, to establish what they saw. Their aim was to find eyewitnesses, rather than those whose evidence is hearsay. They would not know what the eyewitness would tell them, until they take the statement.

That those eyewitnesses 100% agree certain camps were used for mass killings and none claimed another process took place, is, to Archie, a sign that no effort was made to trace eyewitnesses to that other process. In reality, it means that after decades of tracing eyewitnesses, not one single person has been found, who speaks to another process. It is not evidence that no effort was made to trace contrary witnesses.

Please comment on this point:

"The Soviet Katyn investigation boasted of "over 100 eyewitnesses," and unsurprisingly these witnesses were unanimous in affirming German guilt."

Do you accept the conclusions of the Soviet Katyn investigation? If not, how can you reject such high volume of unanimous witness testimony?

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2026 6:27 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2026 5:29 pm Can Archie evidence this claim?

viewtopic.php?p=23088#p23088

Let me restart with the most basic point: In the postwar period, there were multiple governments (plus Jewish groups) engaged in producing witnesses to gassings and other atrocities. There was never any counter-effort to search for contrary witnesses.

Archie seems to think that there would need to be two teams of investigators, one whose task it was to find witnesses to mass killings and one to find witnesses to something else happening. Instead, war crimes investigators, journalists and historians traced people who worked inside the camps and ghettos, to establish what they saw. Their aim was to find eyewitnesses, rather than those whose evidence is hearsay. They would not know what the eyewitness would tell them, until they take the statement.

That those eyewitnesses 100% agree certain camps were used for mass killings and none claimed another process took place, is, to Archie, a sign that no effort was made to trace eyewitnesses to that other process. In reality, it means that after decades of tracing eyewitnesses, not one single person has been found, who speaks to another process. It is not evidence that no effort was made to trace contrary witnesses.

Please comment on this point:

From the forum rules ""No Dodging" If you make a controversial claim without support, others have the right to request support. You must respond in some fashion, either by explaining your basis for the claim (whatever it may be) or by conceding that support is lacking."

Do you accept that you have no evidence that there was no effort made to find counter witnesses and that the efforts made to find witnesses who worked inside the camps or Kremas, would have found counter witnesses, if there were any?

You constantly run away from my points on evidencing and methodology.

"The Soviet Katyn investigation boasted of "over 100 eyewitnesses," and unsurprisingly these witnesses were unanimous in affirming German guilt."

Do you accept the conclusions of the Soviet Katyn investigation? If not, how can you reject such high volume of unanimous witness testimony?

Katyn had a counter narrative. The Nazis produced evidence the Soviets were responsible, the Soviets had their evidence the Nazis were responsible. The reason why I reject the Soviet evidence, is because the Nazi claim is better evidenced, so much so that the Soviets ended up accepting the Nazi version was true.

It is the same process as to why I accept TII was a death camp. The historians produce a better evidenced case than the revisionist's multiple claims, and the Nazis accept the historical version as the correct one. They cannot produce an evidenced alternative.

The reason why the Soviets found contrary witnesses, was because they made up the story for those witnesses to tell. The reason why no contrary witnesses to the death camp process have been found is because there are none and no one has faked contrary ones, even the Nazis.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:49 am Katyn had a counter narrative. The Nazis produced evidence the Soviets were responsible, the Soviets had their evidence the Nazis were responsible. The reason why I reject the Soviet evidence, is because the Nazi claim is better evidenced, so much so that the Soviets ended up accepting the Nazi version was true.

It is the same process as to why I accept TII was a death camp. The historians produce a better evidenced case than the revisionist's multiple claims, and the Nazis accept the historical version as the correct one. They cannot produce an evidenced alternative.

The reason why the Soviets found contrary witnesses, was because they made up the story for those witnesses to tell. The reason why no contrary witnesses to the death camp process have been found is because there are none and no one has faked contrary ones, even the Nazis.

How are you able to miss the relevant point EVERY SINGLE TIME? It's really rather amazing.

There were competing Katyn investigations only because the territory changed hands. The German investigation was done in 1943 and the Soviet investigation was done in 1944. Both found what they wanted to find and got witnesses to support their story. That supports what I'm saying. At Nuremberg there was no competing investigation, not really.

At Nuremberg, it was stated that common facts did not need to be proved. The Soviet reports on Auschwitz and Majdanek (USSR-8 and USSR-29) were accepted into evidence by the tribunal and were referred to in the opening indictment. This, under the charter, was sufficient to "prove" millions were killed at Auschwitz. Later Hoess also testified to the same thing, and the defendants did not have any practical way to dispute this, nor would that have been wise to attempt. The defense tactics were to mitigate individual guilt without trying to contradict the Allies on their overall narrative.

Here are the comments by Charles R. Wennerstrum who as a judge at the NMT 7 case. His critical comments were published in the Chicago Tribune, much to the consternation of Telford Taylor.

“If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here.

Obviously, the victor in any war is not the best judge of the war crime guilt. Try as you will, it is impossible to convey to the defense, their counsel, and their people that the court is trying to represent all mankind rather than the country which appointed its members.

What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals applies to the prosecution. The high ideal announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been evident.

The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world to avoid future wars.

The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed.

The Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.

The trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders.

They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.

Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution.

The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.

Our tribunal introduced a rule of procedure that when the prosecution introduced an excerpt from a document, the entire document should be made available to the defense for presentation as evidence. The prosecution protested vigorously. General Taylor tried out of court to call a meeting of the presiding judges to rescind this order. It was not the attitude of any conscientious officer of the court seeking full justice.

Also abhorrent to the American sense of justice is the prosecution’s reliance upon self-incriminating statements made by the defendants while prisoners for more than two and a half years, and repeated interrogation without presence of counsel. Two and one-half years of confinement is a form of duress in itself.

The lack of appeal leaves me with a feeling that justice has been denied.

[…] You should go to Nuremberg. You would see there a palace of justice where 90 per cent of the people are interested in prosecution.

[…] The German people should receive more information about the trials and the German defendants should receive the right to appeal to the United Nations.”

"The reason why I reject the Soviet evidence, is because the Nazi claim is better evidenced, so much so that the Soviets ended up accepting the Nazi version was true."

The real reason Nessie accepts the German version is simply because that's what the mainstream now says. Nessie defers to whatever they say and does not think for himself. That is his real "methodology." He lets the establishment organs tell him what to believe and then offers post hoc justifications for it.

And lol at the idea that the German version won out because of "evidence." The Russians conceded the point only in the late 80s as the Soviet regime was collapsing. "Oh, they were finally convinced at that that point 'by the evidence'." No, dummy. It was a lie that collapsed as soon as the regime responsible for the lie collapsed.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 2:55 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:49 am Katyn had a counter narrative. The Nazis produced evidence the Soviets were responsible, the Soviets had their evidence the Nazis were responsible. The reason why I reject the Soviet evidence, is because the Nazi claim is better evidenced, so much so that the Soviets ended up accepting the Nazi version was true.

It is the same process as to why I accept TII was a death camp. The historians produce a better evidenced case than the revisionist's multiple claims, and the Nazis accept the historical version as the correct one. They cannot produce an evidenced alternative.

The reason why the Soviets found contrary witnesses, was because they made up the story for those witnesses to tell. The reason why no contrary witnesses to the death camp process have been found is because there are none and no one has faked contrary ones, even the Nazis.

How are you able to miss the relevant point EVERY SINGLE TIME? It's really rather amazing.

You are the one who missed the point. There is no counter narrative for the death camps, because no evidence has been found to produce one. There was a counter narrative for Katyn, because the Soviets hoaxed one. It was not because they found evidence to produce a genuine counter narrative that revised the history of what took place.

There were competing Katyn investigations only because the territory changed hands. The German investigation was done in 1943 and the Soviet investigation was done in 1944. Both found what they wanted to find and got witnesses to support their story. That supports what I'm saying. At Nuremberg there was no competing investigation, not really.

You are mixing apples and pears. Katyn was the subject of a hoax, by the Soviets. A hoax is not a counter narrative, as in a historical revision. It is a hoax and it is what Holocaust denier/revisionists are perpetrating, making them comparable with the Soviets.

There is an evidenced history of what happened at Katyn and inside TII and there are hoaxes perpetrated by the Soviets and revisionists. In both cases, no evidence has been found to produce a historical revision.

At Nuremberg, it was stated that common facts did not need to be proved. The Soviet reports on Auschwitz and Majdanek (USSR-8 and USSR-29) were accepted into evidence by the tribunal and were referred to in the opening indictment. This, under the charter, was sufficient to "prove" millions were killed at Auschwitz. Later Hoess also testified to the same thing, and the defendants did not have any practical way to dispute this, nor would that have been wise to attempt. The defense tactics were to mitigate individual guilt without trying to contradict the Allies on their overall narrative.

Here are the comments by Charles R. Wennerstrum who as a judge at the NMT 7 case. His critical comments were published in the Chicago Tribune, much to the consternation of Telford Taylor.

“If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here.

Obviously, the victor in any war is not the best judge of the war crime guilt. Try as you will, it is impossible to convey to the defense, their counsel, and their people that the court is trying to represent all mankind rather than the country which appointed its members.

What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals applies to the prosecution. The high ideal announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been evident.

The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world to avoid future wars.

The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed.

The Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.

The trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders.

They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.

Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution.

The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.

Our tribunal introduced a rule of procedure that when the prosecution introduced an excerpt from a document, the entire document should be made available to the defense for presentation as evidence. The prosecution protested vigorously. General Taylor tried out of court to call a meeting of the presiding judges to rescind this order. It was not the attitude of any conscientious officer of the court seeking full justice.

Also abhorrent to the American sense of justice is the prosecution’s reliance upon self-incriminating statements made by the defendants while prisoners for more than two and a half years, and repeated interrogation without presence of counsel. Two and one-half years of confinement is a form of duress in itself.

The lack of appeal leaves me with a feeling that justice has been denied.

[…] You should go to Nuremberg. You would see there a palace of justice where 90 per cent of the people are interested in prosecution.

[…] The German people should receive more information about the trials and the German defendants should receive the right to appeal to the United Nations.”

The problems with your Nuremberg narrative are;

1 - the Holocaust was barely part of the IMT trials, which were of senior Nazis for war crimes.
2 - those senior Nazi provided no narrative or other evidence to prove that millions of Jews who had been arrested 1939-44, were still alive in the camps and ghettos in 1944. The Allies knew that in 1945, they had liberated only a few hundred thousand Jews.
3 - by 1945, the claims from Polish Intelligence reports about the existence of death camps had been evidenced and corroborated.
4 - Nazi mass murder by shooting was already well established and evidenced, which along with their policies and open hostility towards Jews, and how they more than any other prisoner had been neglected and starved, meant motive was proven.
5 - the later trails of SS camp staff, the majority of which were run by German prosecutors in West, East and then unified Germany, produced more evidence that death camps had existed.

There has been ample time and investigations, many of which have been by people at least sympathetic towards the Nazis, or who are anti-Semitic, to come up with counter evidence. With digitisation and access to archives, it is easier than ever to find evidence. Plenty of revisionists have tried to produce counter narratives. So, you are wrong to claim that there has been no search for witnesses who have a counter narrative. You just claim that because no such witnesses have been found.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 3:16 pm "The reason why I reject the Soviet evidence, is because the Nazi claim is better evidenced, so much so that the Soviets ended up accepting the Nazi version was true."

The real reason Nessie accepts the German version is simply because that's what the mainstream now says. Nessie defers to whatever they say and does not think for himself. That is his real "methodology." He lets the establishment organs tell him what to believe and then offers post hoc justifications for it.

Straw man fallacy. You cannot successfully attack my arguments, so you build a false, unevidenced, asserted narrative about me, that is contradicted by what I have said.

What you claim is a deflection. You do not think for yourself and instead, you defer to the Holocaust denier narrative, that you claim is a historical revision, despite its lack of evidence and obviously flawed methodology. You let Holocaust denier organs tell you what to believe and the offer post hoc justifications.

The side with the better evidence, is the historians. They have reached a consensus as to what took place, Revisionists have various poorly evidenced versions that they cannot agree on.

And lol at the idea that the German version won out because of "evidence." The Russians conceded the point only in the late 80s as the Soviet regime was collapsing. "Oh, they were finally convinced at that that point 'by the evidence'." No, dummy. It was a lie that collapsed as soon as the regime responsible for the lie collapsed.

The Soviets conceded, also because of the evidence. You have previously claimed that I do not understand Soviet influence over Poland. The Poles knew all along it was the Soviets, not the Nazis and it was the Poles who lead the first successful major revolt against the Soviet Union. Most of the history of the Holocaust, came from the Poles, not the Soviets and it has not been revised, whether the Poles were closely aligned to them, or had become the source of their downfall. It does not matter how the European countries are aligned, no counter narrative has been produced.

The Nazi version of what happened at Katyn did win, from the start, because of the evidence. The Soviets just pretended that was not the case, as you pretend now.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 2:55 pm How are you able to miss the relevant point EVERY SINGLE TIME? It's really rather amazing.

It's a mentally ill cult member.

What's even more amazing is you continue to try and reason with it.

It's not capable of reason, so why do you persist?

Nesserto wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 4:29 pm TII was a death camp... There has been ample time and investigations

Numerous investigations as a matter of fact.

And they still haven't found a mass grave larger than this:

Nesserto:

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.

I can point to them in the ground.

What are you waiting for roberta?

What are you so afraid of?

roberta wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:49 am From the forum rules ""No Dodging" If you make a controversial claim without support, others have the right to request support. You must respond in some fashion, either by explaining your basis for the claim (whatever it may be) or by conceding that support is lacking."

Low IQ high BMI HC cult member nick terry:

everyone making a claim has to substantiate it... Conventional proof has been abundant, you might not accept it, but you cannot say there aren't witnesses, contemporary reports, diaries, letters, German documents, photographs, etc.

viewtopic.php?p=22968#p22968

What about the nonexistent "huge mass graves" and the millions of pounds of remains and the tens of millions of teeth that you and your mentally ill ilk allege exists within the boundaries of the Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II camps?

This is what your fellow cult member roberta / nessie alleges:

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.

I can point to them in the ground.

Are you going to ask roberta to substantiate that claim nicky?

Are you going to substantiate it yourself?

You say that I "might not accept the abundant conventional proof."

Well then nicky, let's find out what it is I accept or do not accept. If you aren't too busy working on a new box of doughnuts...

“HUGE MASS GRAVES”

are easily identifiable physical entities.

I refuse to believe in the existence of any

physical entity that I am not allowed to see.

If you want me to believe, then simply:

Show me that which you allege I deny.

What are you waiting for nicky?

What are you so afraid of?

Do witness discrepancies prove lies?

viewtopic.php?p=23215#p23215

Sure. To summarize the discrepancies:

"Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets"

- Tauber, via Pressac and repeated by Van Pelt

"The content of a Zyklon can was poured from above in the distributor cone, which allowed for an equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. After the evaporation of the gas, the entire central column was extracted and the evaporated silica [carrier] removed."

- Kula, deposition to Hoss trial

Per Tauber, the can resides inside the innermost column to be removed.
Per Kula, the contents leave the can via pouring and enter the column directly.

How does that discrepancy prove both Tauber and Kula lied and there was no column used to introduce Zyklon B for homicidal gassings, and hence there were no such gassings, in Kremas II and III?

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 1:41 pm Do witness discrepancies prove lies?

What's this? Another attempt at distraction by roberto?



Witness discrpancies have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of physical evidence.

Only a desperate, mentally ill cult member that has zero credibility and is obviously losing every argument that it is engaged in and who has zero physical evidence to show for it's retarded unsubstantiated allegation that 2.145 million jews are buried in 100 "huge mass graves" within the boundaries of the "pure extermination centers" would feel the need to start a thread with this title.

Hektor accidentally makes an admission that is damning to revisionism;

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=23240#p23240

Indeed. There were millions of missing people looked for after WW2. Strangely, virtually no Jews.

So, the claim is millions of people went missing during the war, except the Jews. So, where is the evidence of millions of Jews alive and accounted for, in 1945?