The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 6:10 am
Grok reveals the issues with making conclusions from witness perception and a lack of documentary evidence. Mass pyres have the appearance of implausibility. But, if wood was delivered and not just cut locally and witness perception about the pyres is wrong, that explains the implausibility. Grok does not say it is impossible, rather than the scale is likely exaggerated, based on the limited evidence.

Hence, since mass pyres are evidenced by witnesses, circumstantial and archaeological evidence, revisionist incredulity is logically flawed.

Without reliable accounting for the wood, without Holocaust

What is evidenced to a witness is not evidenced to me. Jews are like that, they testify to something that only they saw and pass it on to their generations, just like the revelation at Sinai

But we are rational, we will not take refuge in the subjectivity of witnesses and anecdotal testimonies.

A Jew reading Luke 1 to disbelieve in Jesus would say that the witnesses were emulating, you cannot trust the eyeball, it is the brain that sees, you cannot trust transmission because each one saw in a different way and interpreted in a different way, putting it in order would not make a difference because it is the order of subjectivity and so there is no way to be completely certain, that is why Luke is thrown out. But for the Holocaust all this is valid.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 10:36 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 6:10 am
Grok reveals the issues with making conclusions from witness perception and a lack of documentary evidence. Mass pyres have the appearance of implausibility. But, if wood was delivered and not just cut locally and witness perception about the pyres is wrong, that explains the implausibility. Grok does not say it is impossible, rather than the scale is likely exaggerated, based on the limited evidence.

Hence, since mass pyres are evidenced by witnesses, circumstantial and archaeological evidence, revisionist incredulity is logically flawed.

Without reliable accounting for the wood, without Holocaust

What is evidenced to a witness is not evidenced to me. Jews are like that, they testify to something that only they saw and pass it on to their generations, just like the revelation at Sinai

But we are rational, we will not take refuge in the subjectivity of witnesses and anecdotal testimonies.

A Jew reading Luke 1 to disbelieve in Jesus would say that the witnesses were emulating, you cannot trust the eyeball, it is the brain that sees, you cannot trust transmission because each one saw in a different way and interpreted in a different way, putting it in order would not make a difference because it is the order of subjectivity and so there is no way to be completely certain, that is why Luke is thrown out. But for the Holocaust all this is valid.

The majority of death camp witnesses were Nazis. Their evidence is eyewitness and it is corroborated.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 3:04 pm
The majority of death camp witnesses were Nazis. Their evidence is eyewitness and it is corroborated.

No one takes Hoss seriously, what is the superiority of these Nazi testimonies from Reinhardt? Bring up his statements here about the process of extermination and disposal of bodies and let's debate the sustainability of these testimonies.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 3:36 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 3:04 pm
The majority of death camp witnesses were Nazis. Their evidence is eyewitness and it is corroborated.

No one takes Hoss seriously, what is the superiority of these Nazi testimonies from Reinhardt? Bring up his statements here about the process of extermination and disposal of bodies and let's debate the sustainability of these testimonies.

For all the issues with how Hoess statement was obtained, his evidence is corroborated, there were gas chambers and mass murders at the camp. The same is true for the rest of the SS and civilian staff. That means their testimony is proven to be, in the main part, truthful.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 5:58 pm
For all the issues with how Hoess statement was obtained, his evidence is corroborated, there were gas chambers and mass murders at the camp. The same is true for the rest of the SS and civilian staff. That means their testimony is proven to be, in the main part, truthful.

The Allies corroborated what they thought they corroborated against the defendants, but the trial itself is null and void before any court in a democratic state governed by the rule of law. Remember:

“The Tribunal shall not require evidence of facts commonly known and shall consider them as proven. The Tribunal shall also accept without evidence official government documents and reports of the United Nations, including protocols and documents of committees established in several Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, proceedings and judgments of military or other tribunals of each of the United Nations.”

If something like this were used against you in an oppressive state, you would feel what they felt.

You simply take refuge in the argument of authority and have no desire whatsoever to scrutinize any statement or material evidence. Arguing with you is like shouting at a wall.

Hoess claimed 2,500,000 killed at Auschwitz, with 4,000,000 total deaths. This is not even remotely corroborated.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 6:10 am Grok reveals the issues with making conclusions from witness perception and a lack of documentary evidence. Mass pyres have the appearance of implausibility. But, if wood was delivered and not just cut locally and witness perception about the pyres is wrong, that explains the implausibility. Grok does not say it is impossible, rather than the scale is likely exaggerated, based on the limited evidence.

Nessie, let's just be honest that "if, then this... then, if this... then this..." is not a kind of argumentation you would normally try to defend. The truth is, if documents were ever discovered that showed massive logging shipments by truck or by rail for 'Holocausted Jews' (either from the source, destination, or the transports, or even witness statements for that matter), it would be all over the 4 o'clock news. But alas, nothing.

The usual suspects could still attempt forgeries but, at this stage, such documents 'magically' appearing would be nearly as suspicious as them never appearing at all. It's quite the hole you (and others) are in, on this one. Its pretty irreconcilable with not just your overall position but also the kind of investigation and arguing you've leaned into over the years ("no speculation", "we must go only off of what witnesses/documents say").

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 6:15 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 5:58 pm
For all the issues with how Hoess statement was obtained, his evidence is corroborated, there were gas chambers and mass murders at the camp. The same is true for the rest of the SS and civilian staff. That means their testimony is proven to be, in the main part, truthful.

The Allies corroborated what they thought they corroborated against the defendants, but the trial itself is null and void before any court in a democratic state governed by the rule of law. Remember:

“The Tribunal shall not require evidence of facts commonly known and shall consider them as proven. The Tribunal shall also accept without evidence official government documents and reports of the United Nations, including protocols and documents of committees established in several Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, proceedings and judgments of military or other tribunals of each of the United Nations.”

If something like this were used against you in an oppressive state, you would feel what they felt.

It is common for courts to agree on evidence. For example;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... d-evidence

"256 Agreements and admissions as to evidence.

(1)In any trial it shall not be necessary for the accused or for the prosecutor—

(a)to prove any fact which is admitted by the other; or

(b)to prove any document, the terms and application of which are not in dispute between them,

and, without prejudice to paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to this Act, copies of any documents may, by agreement of the parties, be accepted as equivalent to the originals.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above, any admission or agreement shall be made by lodging with the clerk of court a minute in that behalf signed—

(a)in the case of an admission, by the party making the admission or, if that party is the accused and he is legally represented, by his counsel or solicitor; and

(b)in the case of an agreement, by the prosecutor and the accused or, if he is legally represented, his counsel or solicitor.

(3)Where a minute has been signed and lodged as aforesaid, any facts and documents admitted or agreed thereby shall be deemed to have been duly proved."

You simply take refuge in the argument of authority and have no desire whatsoever to scrutinize any statement or material evidence. Arguing with you is like shouting at a wall.

Wrong. Evidence is only accepted, or to use the court term agreed, if it has been has established as fact, and that is done by corroboration.

HansHill wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 6:25 pm Hoess claimed 2,500,000 killed at Auschwitz, with 4,000,000 total deaths. This is not even remotely corroborated.

The actual total is not corroborated. That over a million were killed, many in gas chambers, is corroborated. You try to use one over-estimation that was wrong, as an excuse to ignore all the evidence in its entirety.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 1:00 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 6:10 am Grok reveals the issues with making conclusions from witness perception and a lack of documentary evidence. Mass pyres have the appearance of implausibility. But, if wood was delivered and not just cut locally and witness perception about the pyres is wrong, that explains the implausibility. Grok does not say it is impossible, rather than the scale is likely exaggerated, based on the limited evidence.

Nessie, let's just be honest that "if, then this... then, if this... then this..." is not a kind of argumentation you would normally try to defend. The truth is, if documents were ever discovered that showed massive logging shipments by truck or by rail for 'Holocausted Jews' (either from the source, destination, or the transports, or even witness statements for that matter), it would be all over the 4 o'clock news. But alas, nothing.

The usual suspects could still attempt forgeries but, at this stage, such documents 'magically' appearing would be nearly as suspicious as them never appearing at all. It's quite the hole you (and others) are in, on this one. Its pretty irreconcilable with not just your overall position but also the kind of investigation and arguing you've leaned into over the years ("no speculation", "we must go only off of what witnesses/documents say").

Erwin Lambert said "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."

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

It would be easy to order wood to be delivered by rail.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 6:15 am Erwin Lambert said "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."

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

It would be easy to order wood to be delivered by rail.

...but would it be documented? And wouldn't this be a central operation of the camps, necessitating some reasonable frequency of eyewitness reporting on these massive, extraordinary shipments?

Coulda, woulda, shoulda - is this where you're at, now?

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 6:21 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 6:15 am Erwin Lambert said "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."

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

It would be easy to order wood to be delivered by rail.

...but would it be documented? And wouldn't this be a central operation of the camps, necessitating some reasonable frequency of eyewitness reporting on these massive, extraordinary shipments?

Coulda, woulda, shoulda - is this where you're at, now?

You are the one asking woulda? I provided evidence that the camps got large deliveries of wood from local sawmills.

Wood deliveries to the camp is one of many aspects of the running of the AR camps, that little evidence survives, which is consistent with the temporary, secretive nature of those camps. Missing evidence is used by revisionists to suggest coulda, woulda, shoulda, but when asked to evidence what the camps were, they fall apart, speculate and contradict each other.

Found this. Strange they would let off a man supposedly who made the gas and shipped it to Auschwiz, he even claimed compensation for all the hassle aferwards.


⁨⁨J. Jewish News of Northern California (Emanu-El, Jewish Community Bulletin)⁩, 3 June 1955⁩

slob wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 12:39 pm Found this. Strange they would let off a man supposedly who made the gas and shipped it to Auschwiz, he even claimed compensation for all the hassle aferwards.


⁨⁨J. Jewish News of Northern California (Emanu-El, Jewish Community Bulletin)⁩, 3 June 1955⁩

The German courts were lenient and rather forgiving. Many revisionists never even spot that the majority of Auschwitz camp staff were tried by courts in Germany, mainly West Germany.