The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 3:01 pm
The majority of the evidence from eyewitnesses and the vast majority of the documentary, physical and circumstantial evidence comes from Nazi sources and is confirmed by them.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 3:43 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 3:01 pm
The majority of the evidence from eyewitnesses and the vast majority of the documentary, physical and circumstantial evidence comes from Nazi sources and is confirmed by them.

For all newcomers: If it weren't obvious enough, but when our good friend Nessie says things like the above, what he means are things like:

- "Evidence from eyewitnesses" = wild claims which often contradict each other and are not supported by the physical evidence
- "documentary" = Inventory sheets from Krema II saying "mesh device" as the murder weapon
- "physical" = Lidar findings of human remains and craters at known transit camps like Treblinka
- "circumstantial" = nobody claimed there wasnt gassings, therefore there were

Nessie also conveniently begins from the position that gassings did occur, and the """""""evidence""""""" listed above is self-evident and therefore anything contradicting this is a logical fallacy.

Welcome to Codoh, you're going to see alot of this!

By “convergence of evidence” Shermer means a situation in which data from a variety of different fields all point to a specific factual conclusion. Shermer argues that there are eighteen kinds of data that converge on the fact of the Holocaust: five testimonies, four Nazi speeches, blueprints of the crematoria, photos of dead inmates, more testimonies, Zyklon B orders, Eichmann’s confession, postwar statements of the German government, and many missing Jews (p. 118). No, the list does not add up to eighteen, and no, we are not making fun of Shermer’s argument: this is exactly what he says, except that by the end of his litany the eighteen kinds of data have become eighteen proofs “all converging on one conclusion.”

There are at least three things wrong with Shermer’s argument. The first problem is that if we accept the word “Holocaust” as a rubric to describe everything that happened to Jewish people in the Second World War we immediately run into a problem of relating the disparate parts to each other. For example, it is well known that thousands of dead persons were photographed by the Americans and the British in such camps as Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, and Dachau: these photographs prove that there were many dead, Jews and others, in these camps when they were captured, nothing more. Sophisticated exponents of the Holocaust are in agreement with revisionists that such evidence has no bearing on what did or did not happen in alleged “extermination” camps such as Auschwitz or Treblinka.

The second problem is that the evidence does not necessarily converge on the stated conclusions. For example, when discussing the mass gassing claim, Shermer argues that we know mass gassings took place because of (1) testimonies, (2) blueprints of crematoria, (3) Zyklon B traces, (4) photographs, ground level and (5) aerial, and (6) existing ruins. But these categories of evidence provide distinctly different levels of evidentiary value. The testimonies, as is well known, are frequently implausible, were generated at a time when gassing stories had been widely disseminated, and were given before courts committed to upholding the gassing claim. The blueprints, on the other hand, only show that crematoria were planned. The existence of Zyklon B traces, in camps where the product was widely used for disinfection, is automatically moot. The ground level photos show piles of dead bodies. The aerial photos prove that crematoria were built. The ruins provide evidence that delousing stations, as well as crematoria, were built. None of the non-testimonial classes of evidence would necessarily lead to a conclusion that mass gassings took place, while the testimony itself remains unreliable.

Shermer’s “convergence of evidence” argument appears to be rather that, if various classes of evidence do not contradict the central assertion, these other classes of evidence corroborate, or converge, on that central conclusion. In the same way, an old woman in the seventeenth century could have been shown to have gamboled in a midnight glade with Satan — and then been burned at the stake, so long as a broom and a cat were produced.

The third problem with Shermer’s “convergence” model is that by returning again and again to rather weak categories of evidence — such as eyewitness stories, aerial photos, cans of Zyklon, the use of the word “Ausrottung” (extirpation) in public speeches — he passes over the enormous gap in the documentary record. It is precisely this documentary gap — the absence of any reliable documentation at any level that points to homicidal gassing, and the absence of documentation to indicate that the Third Reich was pursuing a policy of exterminating all Jews — that leads people to the revisionist perspective.

Two pieces of false or irrelevant evidence do not “corroborate” each other. It doesn’t matter if they are two pieces of the same type, or different types. There could be a million witnesses and a million photographs: if each piece of evidence is false or irrelevant, then the whole mass of them is no better than any individual piece. This applies equally to ESP, UFOs, and gas chambers.

This is the heart of the matter.

Michael Shermer presents eyewitness reports, each of which is questionable. This is the only evidence for the gas chambers. To “corroborate” this testimony, Dr. Shermer presents many other pieces of evidence which prove conclusively that Hitler and the other Nazis hated the Jews enough to kill them, that concentration camps existed, and that many Jews died in the camps and were cremated. But none of this evidence corroborates what the witnesses said about the gas chambers. Dr. Shermer gives us photographs which do not show gas chambers, documents which do not mention gas chambers, reports of brutal treatment of prisoners, and so forth: the “18 bits of evidence.” This whole mass of evidence taken together is supposed to prove that there were gas chambers. No, it doesn’t.

According to Dr. Shermer, this is how “convergence” works: First you construct a picture of the whole thing, the Holocaust — the menacing speeches, the trains, the unloading platforms, the gas chambers, the ovens, the burning pits, the mass graves, the starving prisoners in the camps at the end of the war. Then you say that any evidence for any part of this picture is a “proof” of the whole thing; and if you have 18 “proofs,” they “converge” to the conclusion that the whole picture is true, even if you don’t have a proof of every part.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 11:25 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 11:16 am
How many references to wood ordering and delivery do you need, to prove wood could be ordered and delivered? Weirnik said about his work at TII;

https://web.archive.org/web/20220309084 ... iernik.htm

"The next job for my colleague and myself was to cut and process lumber."
"I happened to be working in the woods in between the two camps, dressing lumber."
"I brought in some of the new lumber from the woods myself."

The amount of wood we are talking about would require a manual logging operation orders of magnitude higher than anything which has ever taken place, anywhere. It's not possible. So you need to demonstrate deliveries of extraordinary scale, specifically or at least potentially destined for cremation at AR camps.

You don't have this, do you? If not, why not?

InuYasha wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 2:00 pm
.....

Jurgen Graf mentioned in his book, that french communist newspaper in April of 1944 reported about liberation of French Jews in Ukraine by Red Army. How it can be happened, if there's no evacuations of European Jewry?

You talking about criminal investigation. But if the Shoah can be proved, like any criminal case at the court, (that means - beyond reasonable doubts), why then the Nuremberg trials throw out two principles of justice: the presumption of innocence and the evidentiary basis?

For example, let's imagine that i have a conflict with my neighbour, and someday i kidnapped him, lock in the basement, and when police arrested me, he disappeared without a trace. So i would be convicted with aggravated kidnapping and murder.

If the court is fair, since there is no evidence of murder other than the disappearance, I will only be found guilty of kidnapping, at least in the jurisdiction where I live.

But now transfer this to a Holocaust-like situation: I was beaten and tortured to confess to "murder", and the court rejected other evidence. Yet I personally know that I did not kill him, but simply let him go before he went to an unknown destination. This is considered "beyond reasonable doubt".

Obviously, in your eyes I am a murderer. But not in reality. And even after leaving prison after 20 years, I will still be afraid to admit the same thing. This is what could have happened to the Germans, apparently. My lawyers would have had to take a plea bargain so that I would not receive the death penalty. The SS pleaded guilty to get a lenient sentence and stop the torture. While in 1960s they wasn't beaten or tortured, the fear of more harsh penalty will make them confess in the same thing.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 3:09 pm Note how Nessie hopes we'll miss key details. For example, he claims the wood was delivered in "Autumn 1942", yet the camp remained operation until Oct 1943, presumably with cremations right up until the end.

So then Nessie, where exactly was all this wood stored for the year or so in question? Can you show us these enormous wood barns?

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 3:43 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 3:01 pm
The majority of the evidence from eyewitnesses and the vast majority of the documentary, physical and circumstantial evidence comes from Nazi sources and is confirmed by them.

For all newcomers: If it weren't obvious enough, but when our good friend Nessie says things like the above, what he means are things like:

- "Evidence from eyewitnesses" = wild claims which often contradict each other and are not supported by the physical evidence

- "documentary" = Inventory sheets from Krema II saying "mesh device" as the murder weapon

- "physical" = Lidar findings of human remains and craters at known transit camps like Treblinka

- "circumstantial" = nobody claimed there wasnt gassings, therefore there were

Nessie also conveniently begins from the position that gassings did occur, and the """""""evidence""""""" listed above is self-evident and therefore anything contradicting this is a logical fallacy.

Welcome to Codoh, you're going to see alot of this!

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 7:46 am Because the mass pyres are evidenced to have happened. Therefore, revisionist guessing about how much wood was needed is grossly over-estimated and their incredulity about how the pyres work, wrong. Evidentially and logically, I win.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 8:19 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 7:46 am Because the mass pyres are evidenced to have happened. Therefore, revisionist guessing about how much wood was needed is grossly over-estimated and their incredulity about how the pyres work, wrong. Evidentially and logically, I win.

A cremation of a corpse typically uses 400-600 kg of wood per corpse. If you are talking 6 million corpses, then that would require 6 million trees or roughly one per corpse. The most predominent tree in Poland is Scot Pine, with an average mass of 550 kg.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 9:23 am Revisionists exaggerate the amount of wood needed.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 9:50 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 9:23 am Revisionists exaggerate the amount of wood needed.

Mass cremations need the same amount of wood as a single cremation. A typical cremation process requires around 100 MJ of thermal energy to reach the necessary temperatures for combustion, with additional energy needed for the furnace, emissions control, and heat losses.

Of course as you have argued before they could have combusted spontaneously. 6 million bodies would need at least 6 billion MJ of energy. As each cremation needs the same energy as a car travelling 500 km, the totality of the chosen ones would need 6 billion MJ of energy to perform the job, better put into the war effort.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:45 pmUnevidenced assertion, based on back of the envelope calculations and no experimentation or genuine study.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:45 pmIt is likely decomposition and the corpses being crushed in the graves, reduced the water and other liquid content, making the corpse easier to burn.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 3:22 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:45 pmUnevidenced assertion, based on back of the envelope calculations and no experimentation or genuine study.

This is ridiculous. Mattogno's work on this is actually very robust, drawing from multiple authoritative sources on cremation, and it is totally vindicated by the 2018 study aptly named "Experimental Study on the Fuel Requirements for the Thermal Degradation of Bodies by Means of Open-Pyre Cremation". This study proves you are totally wrong.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:45 pmIt is likely decomposition and the corpses being crushed in the graves, reduced the water and other liquid content, making the corpse easier to burn.

Talking about unevidenced assertions. No, decomposition of corpses would mean the loss of the very components that are combustion-positive, like fat and protein.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 3:24 am ....

There hasn't been a reliable survey of Americans' belief in the Holocaust for some time now (perhaps for a reason), but we do have this to go on. Pew found that in recent years the percentage of young Democrats that are negative toward Israel has grown by 9 points, and for young Republicans 15 points. Can the Holocaust narrative survive this upcoming changing of the guard?