Where Myths Meet Their Demise
https://codohforum.com/
Is that because the revisionists here do not understand enough about methodology to answer the question?Can any revisionist here explain to me, why I should dump the methodology used by historians all over the world, to investigate the Holocaust and switch to their method?
Because your question is in bad faith and is based on false premises. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" sort of question. You're just flinging an empty insult at revisionists based on nothing more than your own biased assertions.Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 2:29 pm This question remains unanswered;
Is that because the revisionists here do not understand enough about methodology to answer the question?Can any revisionist here explain to me, why I should dump the methodology used by historians all over the world, to investigate the Holocaust and switch to their method?
What false premise is my question based on? Fact is that historians gather evidence to establish what happened, whereas so-called revisionists dispute that evidence and then fail to produce a revised history. For example, historians have evidenced the use of gas chambers in the Birkenau Kremas, whereas Rudolf and Mattogno dispute their existence, whilst failing to evidence what the buildings were used for. Why should I dump an evidenced history, for a non-history that does not tell me what happened?Archie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2026 6:51 pmBecause your question is in bad faith and is based on false premises. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" sort of question. You're just flinging an empty insult at revisionists based on nothing more than your own biased assertions.Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 2:29 pm This question remains unanswered;
Is that because the revisionists here do not understand enough about methodology to answer the question?Can any revisionist here explain to me, why I should dump the methodology used by historians all over the world, to investigate the Holocaust and switch to their method?
A historian would not include a source they have rejected as unreliable in their history. Their histories are determined by sources that are tested, verified and regarded as generally reliable. There are numerous examples of Holocaust witnesses who historians do not use, such as Elie Wiesel and Lale Sokolov, as their testimony is in the form of story telling, mixing hearsay with what they maybe saw. You do not find their testimony in histories of Auschwitz. If a famous to the public Holocaust witness is not in any history book, that is because historians do not regard their evidence as reliable.Nessie, I would like to invite you to do a little exercise. Pick a history book, preferably on something somewhat controversial or where there is notable scholarly disagreement. Find some examples of where historians reject sources as unreliable.
Roberto Muehlenkamp's Psychopathy:Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2026 7:57 pmWhat false premise is my question based on? Fact is that historians gather evidence to establish what happened, whereas so-called revisionists dispute that evidence and then fail to produce a revised history. For example, historians have evidenced the use of gas chambers in the Birkenau Kremas, whereas Rudolf and Mattogno dispute their existence, whilst failing to evidence what the buildings were used for. Why should I dump an evidenced history, for a non-history that does not tell me what happened?
A historian would not include a source they have rejected as unreliable in their history. Their histories are determined by sources that are tested, verified and regarded as generally reliable. There are numerous examples of Holocaust witnesses who historians do not use, such as Elie Wiesel and Lale Sokolov, as their testimony is in the form of story telling, mixing hearsay with what they maybe saw. You do not find their testimony in histories of Auschwitz. If a famous to the public Holocaust witness is not in any history book, that is because historians do not regard their evidence as reliable.Nessie, I would like to invite you to do a little exercise. Pick a history book, preferably on something somewhat controversial or where there is notable scholarly disagreement. Find some examples of where historians reject sources as unreliable.
Non-responsive (and does not follow from what I said).
Historians will discuss the reliability of sources, for example Gerstein. He is reliable enough to be used by historians, but he is not considered to be credible. I gave you two examples of sources, Wiesel and Sokolov, that are not used at all. Hoess, because of his position as Auschwitz commander, is used, but his evidence is recognised as being tainted as much of it came under duress. Various documents have been rejected, most famously the Hitler diary scandal. When documents are assessed, they are assessed within context. For example, the use of the term special for actions at the Kremas. That term is assessed with evidence from the Kremas. Hence it has been logically and evidentially deduced that special referred to gassings.Archie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2026 6:40 amNon-responsive (and does not follow from what I said).
Are you claiming historians never discuss sources they find to be unreliable? They do. All the time. Some sources are rejected by some historians but accepted by others and it's often necessary (especially on more controversial matters) to explain/justify what weight you give to various sources (and that includes what sources should be rejected). People often disagree about the value of sources.
That is not my understanding. You just made that up, straw man. How historians assess sources, or evidence, is far more reliable, accurate and credible than the revisionist method. The result is that historians can produce accurate, chronological, corroborated, historical narratives. Revisionists cannot do that. Instead, they come up with non-histories about what they say did not happen, with the reasons why they do not believe the historical narrative.Your understanding of how history is done--looking at "the evidence" and then everyone immediately knows exactly what happened--is simplistic and uninformed.
That is one way to evidence there were no gassings. The responses;eg someone saying I worked at the Crematoria in Auschwitz from 42-43 and never saw anyone get gassed there.
But We are talking about your argument. And there:
"…There's no testimony from anyone stationed in extermination areas who said no extermination took place there…"
that statement simply is not true.
Bombsaway has not used an argument, he has used evidence. Argument does not determine history, evidence does. It is true that no one who worked inside an AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Krema states no extermination took place. It is evidentially significant that the only evidence from the eyewitnesses, is that gassings took place inside those places. That evidence, is part of the proof of what took place. Bombsaway understands how to evidence there were no gassings, something that revisionists have no idea about, hence they try to argue there were no gassings.I conclude these people like Bombsaway (what a disgustingly mass-murderous name to call yourself) ONLY reply so that any ‘unconvinced-either-way’, drive-by, casual visitors will think there ACTUALLY IS a credible argument supporting the mass-gassing Allied-propaganda deception.
Says the mentally ill HC cult member who alleges that 2.145 million jews are buried in 100 "huge mass graves" within the boundaries of the Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II camps, yet cannot prove, using the lowest standard of proof, that a mass grave containing the remains of any more than 6 people exists, or ever existed, in those camps.
Nessie, I would like to point out that in all of your blather, you have failed my "challenge." And it was not even really a challenge since it's so trivially easy.Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2026 7:22 am Historians will discuss the reliability of sources, for example Gerstein. He is reliable enough to be used by historians, but he is not considered to be credible. I gave you two examples of sources, Wiesel and Sokolov, that are not used at all. Hoess, because of his position as Auschwitz commander, is used, but his evidence is recognised as being tainted as much of it came under duress. Various documents have been rejected, most famously the Hitler diary scandal. When documents are assessed, they are assessed within context. For example, the use of the term special for actions at the Kremas. That term is assessed with evidence from the Kremas. Hence it has been logically and evidentially deduced that special referred to gassings.
When revisionists discuss the reliability of sources, they are coming up with reasons to reject evidence they just do not want to believe. The result is, they have zero eyewitnesses who worked inside the death camps, that they accept as truthful or credible. As for assessing documents, with regards to the use of the term special, evidence is taken from places other than the Kremas. If the term special is found to mean something innocuous elsewhere, that meaning is then applied to the Kremas. That is an illogical deduction, which relies on an assumption, that fails to prove what special refers to.
I am not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.
I do not know of any history books, where a historian discusses a source that they reject as unreliable, in that book. That is work completed, before the book is written. For example, Cesarani in the "Final Solution The Fate of the Jews 1933–1949", does not discuss why he does not use Wiesel as witnesses, he just does not use him. I am quite sure Cesarani was aware of Wiesel and he may well have read "Night", and I am quite sure that Wiesel is not used, because as a witness, he is not that credible, as he mixes story telling and hearsay throughout his narrative.Archie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2026 3:28 pmNessie, I would like to point out that in all of your blather, you have failed my "challenge." And it was not even really a challenge since it's so trivially easy.Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2026 7:22 am Historians will discuss the reliability of sources, for example Gerstein. He is reliable enough to be used by historians, but he is not considered to be credible. I gave you two examples of sources, Wiesel and Sokolov, that are not used at all. Hoess, because of his position as Auschwitz commander, is used, but his evidence is recognised as being tainted as much of it came under duress. Various documents have been rejected, most famously the Hitler diary scandal. When documents are assessed, they are assessed within context. For example, the use of the term special for actions at the Kremas. That term is assessed with evidence from the Kremas. Hence it has been logically and evidentially deduced that special referred to gassings.
When revisionists discuss the reliability of sources, they are coming up with reasons to reject evidence they just do not want to believe. The result is, they have zero eyewitnesses who worked inside the death camps, that they accept as truthful or credible. As for assessing documents, with regards to the use of the term special, evidence is taken from places other than the Kremas. If the term special is found to mean something innocuous elsewhere, that meaning is then applied to the Kremas. That is an illogical deduction, which relies on an assumption, that fails to prove what special refers to.
I am not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.
