The CODOH Revisionist Forum

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 9:17 pm Dude I'm not debating you, this a research question.

So let's create a plausible narrative for Mr. Mayer. I couldn't find anything about him so we might say he was a more or less average German veteran, living and working at that time, likely with a family, perhaps grandchildren. He do we get from that to knowingly participating in the "'Wetterkommando' lie"

Of course, bombsaway, this is no formal debate, we're all just learning here.

As for your scenario, it's moot to elaborate further unless we gather more details about his life. Based on what we know of him, the assessment in my previous response stands.

Are you going to address it at all? Or is, "I'm not gonna debate" another way of saying "I'm going to dodge your points"?

Dude I'm not debating you, this a research question.

So let's create a plausible narrative for Mr. Mayer. I couldn't find anything about him so we might say he was a more or less average German veteran, living and working at that time, likely with a family, perhaps grandchildren. He do we get from that to knowingly participating in the "'Wetterkommando' lie"


We should also create a biographical sketch of a plausible West German Authority figure who decided on handling witnesses like this (if coercive).

I find your assertions (he lied about it on his own initiative or a west german body coerced him to ) to be deeply implausible, mostly from a psychological standpoint. I don't think people would go about something like this in such a coordinated manner without an extensive conspiracy, and then I doubt on top of that that such a conspiracy would be able to maintain itself with no whistleblowers. You have a different view, which I want to understand. I think constructing a counter narrative will be helpful, even if speculative in nature due to the dearth of surrounding factual information. You can have your AI do it, I don't mind, as long as you vet it.

And maybe if no revisionist is up for the task I'll make a good faith effort at it.

Are these the einsatzgruppe trials? If so, was this part of the defense legal strategy to argue there were orders? Remer warned those guys...

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 10:23 pm I find your assertions (he lied about it on his own initiative or a west german body coerced him to ) to be deeply implausible, mostly from a psychological standpoint. I don't think people would go about something like this in such a coordinated manner without an extensive conspiracy, and then I doubt on top of that that such a conspiracy would be able to maintain itself with no whistleblowers. You have a different view, which I want to understand. I think constructing a counter narrative will be helpful, even if speculative in nature due to the dearth of surrounding factual information. You can have your AI do it, I don't mind, as long as you vet it.

And maybe if no revisionist is up for the task I'll make a good faith effort at it.

Yes, your usual MO -- mention you find something "implausible" as though your opinion is likely to be shared by most.

My "counter narrative" is already explained, here:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=24564#p24564

It doesn't require a 'big secret conspiracy', so your demand for whistleblowers makes no sense. Even if it did, what "whistle" is there? If a former Nazi comes out and says "the trials aren't fair, I felt pressured/coerced", this would simply paint themselves as more of a Nazi, which is what they (e.g. Mayer) sought to avoid in the first place.

These were a defeated, frightened people just wanting to move on with their lives. They said what they needed to appease the bloodthirsty victors and the puppet government installed at war's end. End of story.

We're talking about 1967, 22 years after the war. Is this the puppet government situation, that's how most Germans saw it?

Basically I'm not seeing the incentive for someone like Mayer to knowingly slander his country in an official court of law.

My speculative but plausible narrative about Mayer would go something like this. SK 1005 trials are going on, prosecution is doing research and witnesses are being called. Mayer's name comes up as someone who learned about SK 1005 activities and he is called on to make a statement, which he does.

So far from what I hear from you is Mayer knew he was living a dystopian "False state", democratically elected but really controlled by other powers principally concerned with the rewriting of history. Consequences for not going along with them were dire, even though he wasn't one of the accused, so he dutifully repeated whatever the prosecutor told him to say in court, despite knowing full well it was a slanderous lie.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 4:48 pm We're talking about 1967, 22 years after the war.
Is this the puppet government situation…?

…from what I hear from you is Mayer knew he was living a dystopian "False state", democratically elected but really controlled by other powers principally concerned with the rewriting of history.
Consequences for not going along with them were dire, even though he wasn't one of the accused, so he dutifully repeated whatever the prosecutor told him to say in court, despite knowing full well it was a slanderous lie.

OMG! Your ignorance or attempt at dishonest justification is abhorrent and completely disreputable.

Germany STILL has US military bases NOW, you utter ignoramus.
There are currently 40 military installations in Germany, hosting approximately 36,400 U.S. troops as of 2026.

The UK had numerous military bases up to the 2010s.

So, yeah, in 1962 German civilians had ample reason to still be afraid of saying the ‘wrong’ thing about WW2.

Don’t you know what happened in the 1970s to decent, noble, honest people like Wilhelm Stäglich and Thies Christophersen for narrating their wartime experiences at Auschwitz which REFUTED the enforced and compulsory, holyhoax mass-gassing narrative?

Of course “consequences for not going along with them were dire”.

Jeeze! Don’t you know what happened to Walter Lüftl who as a distinguished Swiss engineer refuted certain holyhoax impossibilities in the 1990s?

You have surpassed yourself with this particular idiotic holyhoax attempt at defence.

Genuine question: how old are you?

Wahrheitssucher, I don't really want to talk to you since you're making this antagonistic in light of a good faith effort on my part to establish a revisionist narrative.

That revisionists continued to speak up despite threat of losing employment or being imprisoned is a testament to human willingness to stand up for yourself and the perceived truth, even if that puts you in immediate danger. I'm not saying people do this all the time, but it is a demonstrable human behaviour. Most people who were burned at the stake for being witches, denied those allegations, despite knowing they would likely die, despite knowing that if they falsely confessed they would be freed and get to go back to their regular life. I think this is something that should be grappled with in any revisionist narrative.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 4:48 pmBasically I'm not seeing the incentive for someone like Mayer to knowingly slander his country in an official court of law.

This was not "his" country at all. He served under Adolf Hitler. Post-war Germany was deliberately anti-Hitler. Mayer would not likely have any true affinity for postwar Germany, while also having much to fear of it.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 9:51 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 4:48 pmBasically I'm not seeing the incentive for someone like Mayer to knowingly slander his country in an official court of law.

This was not "his" country at all. He served under Adolf Hitler. Post-war Germany was deliberately anti-Hitler. Mayer would not likely have any true affinity for postwar Germany, while also having much to fear of it.

So Mayer was likely someone who wasn't very negative about Hitler or the previous leadership (and had opposite feelings about new leadership)?

'Why would they lie about it'...

I don't know bombsaway, maybe to, you know, dodge the noose.

Eichmann- 20m high geysers of blood

Hoess- 2,500,000 murdered at Auschwitz

It just goes on and on and on...

Oh, but, you can't 'prove' this guy lied about this one thing...

Well, I guess you've got me there, i don't know what the people on the receiving end of these 'weather reports' thought about them, so, anything I would say about what it was would be subjective. I still think it is convoluted and stupid, especially when the OSR's, you know, exist.

We're discussing 1960s West Germany where the death penalty had been abolished. I'm just asking for a narrative.

Anyway I still don't find it convincing that even if the deal is lie or be hanged, that would have worked so completely.

the salem witch trials will figure into my essay but I'll leave this here for you to peruse in the meantime.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a0a8e5e-cbbc ... 13c44f9f89

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 7:38 pm …in light of a good faith effort on my part to establish a revisionist narrative.

Yeah, yeah.
I think you are a dishonest charlatan.

The only alternative explanation that I can see for your consistent posting of weak justification/defence of holyh, plus with repeated avoidance arguments, and then with nonsense posts like the above is that you are of extremely low IQ.
. . . . . . .

BACK ON TOPIC:
The answer to this topic-thread’s question is that Sanitycheck AVOIDS dealing with any of the empirical evidence that refutes the WW2 mass-gassing narrative because he is a professional promulgator of the mythology. It’s his means of livelihood. Therefore if he were ever to acknowledge here some of the many fundamental flaws in that mythology he would be out of a job.

Why other people — like Bombsaway, the only other regular defender here at CODOH and elsewhere — avoid addressing the empirical evidence is an interesting subject-matter.
It appears to be because they are brainwashed and are psychologically too insecure to think it through by themselves, for themselves. Solomon Ash’s experiments on ‘group conformity’ provided empirical, repeatable proof of how that works.
Alternatively, Bombsaway knows how ‘group conformity’ works and his mission here is be a presence that drives any easily-influenced, undecided, casual visitors back to conforming and believing in the hopelessly flawed, ironically racist, politically useful, holyH mass-gassing narrative.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 7:38 pm That revisionists continued to speak up despite threat of losing employment or being imprisoned is a testament to human willingness to stand up for yourself and the perceived truth, even if that puts you in immediate danger.

The fact being either i.) deliberately obscured or ii.) stupidly missed is that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the risks of refuting the narrative by someone accused of being complicit in the alleged war-crimes and someone not implicated.

If engineers, chemists, skeptics and revisionists are persecuted and criminalised in Germany to this day, it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that the risks of refuting the narrative existed in 1962 — especially for those accused of complicity.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 7:38 pm …Most people who were burned at the stake for being witches, denied those allegations, despite knowing they would likely die, despite knowing that if they falsely confessed they would be freed and get to go back to their regular life. I think this is something that should be grappled with in any revisionist narrative.

The fact that if people falsely accused of witchcraft ‘confessed’, then provided they offered signs of devoted, submissive obedience to the Church, Christ and the Christian God, their lives were spared and they were allowed back into the community, EXPLAINS why those accused of alleged holyH atrocities did likewise.
That the exact same is what happened in the three decades after 1945 to the accused in the holyH quasi-religion, you were in denial of.
Now you’ve changed your tune.

The difference is that accused people who refuted the holyH allegations were ‘suicided’. E.g. Richard Baer, Heinrich Himmler, Kurt Gerstein, etc.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2026 1:15 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 9:51 pm This was not "his" country at all. He served under Adolf Hitler. Post-war Germany was deliberately anti-Hitler. Mayer would not likely have any true affinity for postwar Germany, while also having much to fear of it.

So Mayer was likely someone who wasn't very negative about Hitler or the previous leadership (and had opposite feelings about new leadership)?

We will not know this with certainty but it stands to reason that a German man would have considered the independent German government led by Adolf Hitler as more representative of Germans than they would a postwar 'denazifying' government that was sanctioned by people who hated Germans.

Please keep feigning confusion and incredulity, bombsaway. I enjoy your theatrics. Bravo.

If he thought they were representative of Germans than this *would* be his country. I guess it's a past tense thing. He would be slandering a government that Germans chose and supported and was representative of them. What's a plausible incentive to do this? You haven't provided specifics. They say they're going to jail him?

Also do you think this is accurate, or what changes would you make to it?

"So far from what I hear from you is Mayer knew he was living a dystopian "False state", democratically elected but really controlled by other powers principally concerned with the rewriting of history. Consequences for not going along with them were dire, even though he wasn't one of the accused, so he dutifully repeated whatever the prosecutor told him to say in court, despite knowing full well it was a slanderous lie."