The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2026 3:01 pm I am making the point that no matter what the claim is, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

nesserto:

A mass grave is defined as a grave containing multiple human corpses, or the remains of multiple people.

Nessie, how many actual mass graves did CSC actually prove actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp?

Nessie's answer:

12 - G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54.

nesserto:

You doubt and deny the evidence I produce.

The evidence TII was a death camp, far exceeds the evidence it had a different function. Only a determined denier, who has lost grip on reality, will pretend that the corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses who describe mass graves, the aerial photo that shows disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and the site surveys that identified disturbed ground and pits in the areas of the camp that the witnesses said contained the mass graves, is not evidence to prove mass graves.

I am both a trained historian and police officer.

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.

Proof, from multiple sources of corroborating evidence, has been produced.

You ignore corroboration. You deny the gathered evidence.

Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove mass graves, is denial of reality.

I can point to them in the ground.

No matter what the claim is, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 3:25 pm You have to remember, he isn't very bright.

#2 on the list of all time understatements.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2026 12:09 am "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." - Saint Augustine, Sermon 43

Excellent. Thank you for that.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 1:37 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 12:46 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 12:29 pm Thank you for providing more examples of claims made that have since been evidenced to be false. So you are wrong to claim you cannot prove a negative.

Well tried, but those things were not evidenced to be false. Propagandists just stopped telling those lies because the victorious powers didn't select them for posterity after the end of the wars in which they were used as weapons of psychological warfare, and time did the rest to more or less erase them from public memory.

They were evidenced to be false, or there was no evidence to substantiate them. The Dachau gas chamber is a very good example of how evidence determined if there had been mass killing and gas chambers at a camp.

You couldn't possibly have chosen a worst example!! The victors of WW2 retracted the Dachau gas chamber in the 1960s for damage control purposes, NOT for a reason of democratic [alleged] honesty and free inquiry as too many people wrongly believe or for a reason of compelling counter-evidence as Nessie falsely claims out of desperation.

The Anglo-American propagandists were/are no less liars than the Soviet propagandists. But in the 50s, the Dachau fake gas chamber was increasingly becoming a big source of embarrassment, disbelief and defiance in American-occupied Germany. Consequently, the victors of WW2 decided to shelter their dear gas-chamber lie behind the seemingly-everlasting Iron Curtain by dropping the claim that many people had been mass murdered in gas chambers located on the western side of the Iron Curtain.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 12:29 pmIf there had been no gas chambers and mass murders, there would be both evidence and a lack of evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and other sources to prove that. For example, if the Kremas were not used for gassings, there would be evidence from people who worked there, who stated there were no gas chambers and you would not find a witness who said that there were gas chambers.

Too bad witness testimonies never proved anything.

They all corroborated and proved the use of gas chambers. You underestimate how all courts find that when an accused and witnesses agree with each other, that is strong corroboration.

Proves nothing. Making an accused confess untrue things is not rocket science. It was the standard procedure at the Soviet show trials, including the ones held in Nuremberg after WW2 in collaboration with the Anglo-American All-Lies.

From the British Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg parody of justice :





From another angle, you don't believe that some Zionist Jews in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia conspired against the Czechoslovak Republic (Slansky Trial) or that Jews murdered Christian kids in order to use their blood for Jewish rituals (blood libel) despite the fact that some Jews confessed to it, do you ?

pilgrimofdark wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 3:15 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 2:26 pmIt is that sort of error, which makes the claim a mass conspiracy involving the cooperation of the Soviets, Polish, British and the Nazis, possible, all the more incredible.

You consoling yourself by affirming your incredulity is not my problem

Was the purpose of this post passive aggressive abusive bullying? Or was there a point? What was that point? I didn't mention anything about a "massive hoax" and don't care about "massive hoaxes" at all. Such goofy mischaracterizations.

At first glance, Tremblinka seems to be a British corruption of Treblinka. But then in September 1944, the Soviets repeat that misspelling for 12 days -- but not before or after -- during the joint Soviet-Polish investigation/interrogations of the camp.

My questions, which don't have enough evidence (yet?) for an answer:

• Is this an independent, accidental corruption of the camp's name?
• Or was there some contact between British and Soviet-Polish sources that resulted in the perpetuation of the misspelling?
• Or does it originate from some third-party source common to each but independent?

This is a "what actually happened" issue that probably doesn't have a 100% concrete answer, but only more-or-less plausible explanations.

The most plausible being human error that was repeated. The type of human error that makes a conspiracy on the size of the Holocaust implausible, especially when you cannot produce any evidence and all you have is obsessing over details like this.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 3:55 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 3:25 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 2:35 pmLiar.

He may actually believe that a policy to bring inmates to the morgue of krema I before the Kremas at Auschwitz II were operational may have continued to be carried out 'with hand carts' in '43.

You have to remember, he isn't very bright.

You have to use Hanlon's Razor here. For the 'Benefit of Charity'.

Yes fair, but what he believes is his own business. He doesn't get to say "there is no evidence the morgues were morgues" then ignore where he is corrected!

There is evidence they were designed as morgues, and then there is evidence they were converted to gas chambers. You then produce evidence of corpses from around the camp being transported to the Kremas, but no evidence those corpses were stored. There is evidence of 24 hour cremation operations.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 9:44 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 1:37 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 12:46 pm

Well tried, but those things were not evidenced to be false. Propagandists just stopped telling those lies because the victorious powers didn't select them for posterity after the end of the wars in which they were used as weapons of psychological warfare, and time did the rest to more or less erase them from public memory.

They were evidenced to be false, or there was no evidence to substantiate them. The Dachau gas chamber is a very good example of how evidence determined if there had been mass killing and gas chambers at a camp.

You couldn't possibly have chosen a worst example!! The victors of WW2 retracted the Dachau gas chamber in the 1960s for damage control purposes, NOT for a reason of democratic [alleged] honesty and free inquiry as too many people wrongly believe or for a reason of compelling counter-evidence as Nessie falsely claims out of desperation.

The claims of mass gassing at Dachau were investigated and the evidence was found that proves they were not used for mass gassing. That proves, again, your claim that it is impossible to prove a negative is wrong.

The Anglo-American propagandists were/are no less liars than the Soviet propagandists. But in the 50s, the Dachau fake gas chamber was increasingly becoming a big source of embarrassment, disbelief and defiance in American-occupied Germany. Consequently, the victors of WW2 decided to shelter their dear gas-chamber lie behind the seemingly-everlasting Iron Curtain by dropping the claim that many people had been mass murdered in gas chambers located on the western side of the Iron Curtain.

...

That is evidence that if the entire Holocaust was a hoax, it would have collapsed by now. Using examples of attempts to claim the use of gas chambers that failed, is not the win you think it is. You are forgetting about the gas chambers on the Western side, that remain evidenced, Mauthausen, Natzweiler-Struthof and at the euthanasia hospitals.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 12:29 pmIf there had been no gas chambers and mass murders, there would be both evidence and a lack of evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and other sources to prove that. For example, if the Kremas were not used for gassings, there would be evidence from people who worked there, who stated there were no gas chambers and you would not find a witness who said that there were gas chambers.

Too bad witness testimonies never proved anything.

Go and watch some trials and you will see how often witnesses prove crimes. Your claim is ridiculous as the nonsense that it is impossible to prove a negative and you have no burden of proof when you claim gassings were a hoax.

They all corroborated and proved the use of gas chambers. You underestimate how all courts find that when an accused and witnesses agree with each other, that is strong corroboration.

Proves nothing. Making an accused confess untrue things is not rocket science. It was the standard procedure at the Soviet show trials, including the ones held in Nuremberg after WW2 in collaboration with the Anglo-American All-Lies.

....

You would flip and accept witness evidence if they said what you wanted to believe. If, as you claim, witnesses cannot prove anything, then you have collapsed every single police, journalist and historical investigation ever conducted.

From another angle, you don't believe that some Zionist Jews in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia conspired against the Czechoslovak Republic (Slansky Trial) or that Jews murdered Christian kids in order to use their blood for Jewish rituals (blood libel) despite the fact that some Jews confessed to it, do you ?

...

Examples of witnesses lying does not prove all witnesses lied. If you witnessed a crime, would you accept that your testimony is not evidence and should be dismissed?

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 8:31 amThe most plausible being human error that was repeated. The type of human error that makes a conspiracy on the size of the Holocaust implausible, especially when you cannot produce any evidence and all you have is obsessing over details like this.

Lot of words to admit "yes, passive aggressive abusive bullying was the point."

Is this all you're interested in?

• spreading antisemitism online
• passive aggressive abusive bullying

pilgrimofdark wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 1:47 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 8:31 amThe most plausible being human error that was repeated. The type of human error that makes a conspiracy on the size of the Holocaust implausible, especially when you cannot produce any evidence and all you have is obsessing over details like this.

Lot of words to admit "yes, passive aggressive abusive bullying was the point."

Is this all you're interested in?

• spreading antisemitism online
• passive aggressive abusive bullying

Loaded question fallacy, again to dodge your errors and lack of evidence.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 8:31 am The type of human error that makes a conspiracy on the size of the Holocaust implausible

There is nothing implausable about it.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 8:34 am There is evidence of 24 hour cremation operations.

The so-called "evidence" that you produce is not clear, credible or convincing, and therefore has zero evidentiary value. That is why you cravenly refuse to state what standard of proof your so-called "evidence" allegedly proves:

Arranged from lowest to highest, the standards of proof in American law follow a rough hierarchy:

Reasonable suspicion: Enough specific facts to justify a brief police stop, but well short of what’s needed for an arrest or a search warrant.

Probable cause: A fair probability that a crime occurred or evidence will be found, sufficient for an arrest or warrant.

Substantial evidence: Enough that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate, used when courts review agency decisions.

Preponderance of the evidence: More likely than not, the default for most civil lawsuits.

Clear and convincing evidence: Highly probable, reserved for civil matters with serious consequences like fraud claims or termination of parental rights.

Beyond a reasonable doubt: Firm conviction of guilt, required for all criminal convictions.

Absolute certainty: A state of knowledge or proof so complete that there is no possibility of doubt or uncertainty

pilgrimofdark wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 1:47 pm Is this all you're interested in?

• spreading antisemitism online
• passive aggressive abusive bullying

No, it's most interested in lying and running away from it's burden of proof.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 3:03 pm Loaded question fallacy

Dodging question cowardice.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 8:45 am

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 9:44 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 1:37 pm They were evidenced to be false, or there was no evidence to substantiate them. The Dachau gas chamber is a very good example of how evidence determined if there had been mass killing and gas chambers at a camp.

You couldn't possibly have chosen a worst example!! The victors of WW2 retracted the Dachau gas chamber in the 1960s for damage control purposes, NOT for a reason of democratic [alleged] honesty and free inquiry as too many people wrongly believe or for a reason of compelling counter-evidence as Nessie falsely claims out of desperation.

The claims of mass gassing at Dachau were investigated and the evidence was found that proves they were not used for mass gassing. That proves, again, your claim that it is impossible to prove a negative is wrong.

Nope. The claims of mass gassing at Dachau were not investigated and proven wrong. You're lying once again.
Prove you're not lying by providing the investigation report that allegedly proved there was no mass gassing at Dachau. But you can't do that because that investigation never happened.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 8:45 am

The Anglo-American propagandists were/are no less liars than the Soviet propagandists. But in the 50s, the Dachau fake gas chamber was increasingly becoming a big source of embarrassment, disbelief and defiance in American-occupied Germany. Consequently, the victors of WW2 decided to shelter their dear gas-chamber lie behind the seemingly-everlasting Iron Curtain by dropping the claim that many people had been mass murdered in gas chambers located on the western side of the Iron Curtain.

...

That is evidence that if the entire Holocaust was a hoax, it would have collapsed by now. Using examples of attempts to claim the use of gas chambers that failed, is not the win you think it is. You are forgetting about the gas chambers on the Western side, that remain evidenced, Mauthausen, Natzweiler-Struthof and at the euthanasia hospitals.

Those fake gas chambers were never evidenced. They were just claimed to be former Nazi gas chambers without a proof that they had been gas chambers, like all the alleged gas chambers of the Holohoax.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 12:29 pmIf there had been no gas chambers and mass murders, there would be both evidence and a lack of evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and other sources to prove that. For example, if the Kremas were not used for gassings, there would be evidence from people who worked there, who stated there were no gas chambers and you would not find a witness who said that there were gas chambers.

Too bad witness testimonies never proved anything.

Go and watch some trials and you will see how often witnesses prove crimes. Your claim is ridiculous as the nonsense that it is impossible to prove a negative and you have no burden of proof when you claim gassings were a hoax.

Go and watch the Innocence Project and you will see that testimonies and even confessions don't prove crimes and that testimonies are just series of words without the slightest intrinsic probative value.

They all corroborated and proved the use of gas chambers. You underestimate how all courts find that when an accused and witnesses agree with each other, that is strong corroboration.

Proves nothing. Making an accused confess untrue things is not rocket science. It was the standard procedure at the Soviet show trials, including the ones held in Nuremberg after WW2 in collaboration with the Anglo-American All-Lies.

....

You would flip and accept witness evidence if they said what you wanted to believe. If, as you claim, witnesses cannot prove anything, then you have collapsed every single police, journalist and historical investigation ever conducted.

Police officers, journalists and historians do not base their investigation solely on testimonies. Only alien abduction researchers and Holohoaxers do that.

From another angle, you don't believe that some Zionist Jews in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia conspired against the Czechoslovak Republic (Slansky Trial) or that Jews murdered Christian kids in order to use their blood for Jewish rituals (blood libel) despite the fact that some Jews confessed to it, do you ?

...

Examples of witnesses lying does not prove all witnesses lied.

That's true. Such examples just prove that testimonies have no intrinsic probative value.

If you witnessed a crime, would you accept that your testimony is not evidence and should be dismissed?

If my testimony was the only "evidence" of that crime, I'd be glad to see my testimony dismissed.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where mere words can allegedly prove anything. Sounds too much like a witchcraft trial dystopia to me...

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 4:37 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 8:45 am

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 9:44 pm

You couldn't possibly have chosen a worst example!! The victors of WW2 retracted the Dachau gas chamber in the 1960s for damage control purposes, NOT for a reason of democratic [alleged] honesty and free inquiry as too many people wrongly believe or for a reason of compelling counter-evidence as Nessie falsely claims out of desperation.

The claims of mass gassing at Dachau were investigated and the evidence was found that proves they were not used for mass gassing. That proves, again, your claim that it is impossible to prove a negative is wrong.

Nope. The claims of mass gassing at Dachau were not investigated and proven wrong. You're lying once again.
Prove you're not lying by providing the investigation report that allegedly proved there was no mass gassing at Dachau. But you can't do that because that investigation never happened.

Read any history of the camp, from online summaries by USHMM and Wikipedia to Dachau, The Official History and you will find that the evidence has been gathered, assessed and insufficient corroborating evidence was found to establish any claims of mass gassing at the camp.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 8:45 am

The Anglo-American propagandists were/are no less liars than the Soviet propagandists. But in the 50s, the Dachau fake gas chamber was increasingly becoming a big source of embarrassment, disbelief and defiance in American-occupied Germany. Consequently, the victors of WW2 decided to shelter their dear gas-chamber lie behind the seemingly-everlasting Iron Curtain by dropping the claim that many people had been mass murdered in gas chambers located on the western side of the Iron Curtain.

...

That is evidence that if the entire Holocaust was a hoax, it would have collapsed by now. Using examples of attempts to claim the use of gas chambers that failed, is not the win you think it is. You are forgetting about the gas chambers on the Western side, that remain evidenced, Mauthausen, Natzweiler-Struthof and at the euthanasia hospitals.

Those fake gas chambers were never evidenced. They were just claimed to be former Nazi gas chambers without a proof that they had been gas chambers, like all the alleged gas chambers of the Holohoax.

Evidence was found, primarily from SS camp staff, that there were euthanasia gassings at those camps.

Too bad witness testimonies never proved anything.

Go and watch some trials and you will see how often witnesses prove crimes. Your claim is ridiculous as the nonsense that it is impossible to prove a negative and you have no burden of proof when you claim gassings were a hoax.

Go and watch the Innocence Project and you will see that testimonies and even confessions don't prove crimes and that testimonies are just series of words without the slightest intrinsic probative value.

The entire criminal justice system would collapse, if, as you claim, witnesses cannot prove anything.

Proves nothing. Making an accused confess untrue things is not rocket science. It was the standard procedure at the Soviet show trials, including the ones held in Nuremberg after WW2 in collaboration with the Anglo-American All-Lies.

....

You would flip and accept witness evidence if they said what you wanted to believe. If, as you claim, witnesses cannot prove anything, then you have collapsed every single police, journalist and historical investigation ever conducted.

Police officers, journalists and historians do not base their investigation solely on testimonies. Only alien abduction researchers and Holohoaxers do that.

You are lying now. The evidence for the Holocaust also comes from documents, physical remains, archaeology, forensics, imagery and circumstantial evidence.

From another angle, you don't believe that some Zionist Jews in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia conspired against the Czechoslovak Republic (Slansky Trial) or that Jews murdered Christian kids in order to use their blood for Jewish rituals (blood libel) despite the fact that some Jews confessed to it, do you ?

...

Examples of witnesses lying does not prove all witnesses lied.

That's true. Such examples just prove that testimonies have no intrinsic probative value.

If you witnessed a crime, would you accept that your testimony is not evidence and should be dismissed?

If my testimony was the only "evidence" of that crime, I'd be glad to see my testimony dismissed.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where mere words can allegedly prove anything. Sounds too much like a witchcraft trial dystopia to me...

That is why I emphasise the use of corroboration. The eyewitnesses to gassings are corroborated by other evidence, for example, at A-B, there is the documentary evidence of the construction of gas chambers.