The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 8:09 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 7:11 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:45 am ...

• What other events in history have had so little cross-examination and accountability for so much indisputable lying?

Your claim of mass lying, such that you dismiss 100% of those who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas as liars and you cannot find a single eyewitness who you believe, is disputed. You have not proved mass lying. The witnesses have been subject to scrutiny and many were cross-examined in court, it is a fiction by you to suggest otherwise.

Given there is documentation showing AR camps had benign roles (see here: https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26) and that there are only relatively trace amounts of corpse ash underground, and given our 'missing Jews' are most certainly not where you said they are, it logically follows that the well-documented, official policy of mass resettlement persisted.

Your claim that there is only trace amounts of cremains is a deception. Like a flat earther, you are only fooling yourself.

Witnesses appear because some feared the worst for their families (Germans), and others sought to continue the war effort to ensure the German idea of freedom from Jewish tyranny could not persist (post-war 'denazification'). The pattern of false, mendacious testimony as a non-Holocaust aligns neatly with these proven circumstances.

Another deception. There is no evidence the majority of SS camp staff, most of whom were tried in Germany, were subjected to coercion.

Nessie wrote:

[*] What other investigations and narratives have so little regard for conflicts of interest, source criticism, and chains of custody?

Your assertion that the Holocaust has not been investigated, checked and verified to the same standard as other historical events, is untrue. Much of the evidence comes from Nazi sources, so where is the conflict of interests there? Initially, the claims of mass murder, were treated with scepticism, such as flat out disbelief by British intelligence in 1942-3. As for chains of custody, that is used as an excuse to dismiss so many documents that the revisionists just do not want to accept.

The conflicts of interest are obvious, Nessie. If you have my family tied up in your garage, I will say or do whatever you ask of me.

But you do not have any evidence of pressure on SS camp staff families. You just made that up!

Nessie wrote:

[*] How much physical evidence is typically required to convict a single murder (e.g. in a police investigation) and, scaling this to the numbers alleged for the 'Holocaust', what percentage is actually evidenced versus what should be expected?

When there is evidence of a massive cover-up and destruction of evidence, then of course, less evidence will be found. Nazi conduct, when they knew they were accused of mass murder, destroying evidence, is, in itself, evidence of criminality. If TII was not a death camp, then why not leave the buried corpses to be exhumed, counted and cause of death established? If the Kremas were never used for gassings, why not leave them intact, when the rest of A-B was left intact? If millions had been accommodated in camps and ghettos in 1944, why not preserve the documentation that would have generated?

When there is evidence of group motives and a pattern of deception, then the group's testimony cannot be trusted at face value -- no matter how large the group (and especially with the kind of enmity that war entails). Such testimony being 'corroborated' by people at gunpoint means a zero, zilch, nada.

100% of the eyewitnesses agree. You cannot find anyone who disagrees, so you allege coercion, which you cannot prove. You are making up a false narrative.

Nessie wrote:

[*] Perhaps above all for the current thread's topic: how much has science been shown to support the 'Holocaust' narrative versus to refute it?[/list]

So-called revisionist use of science, is to argue that because they cannot work out how gassings etc were possible, using the evidence we have, therefore it did not happen.

Nessie: can you work out how they were scientifically possible? You have failed every attempt thus far. So has Richard Green. So has Jan Markiewicz.

In your biased opinion.

Nessie wrote:

Your position is eyeballs-deep in 'flat earth-style' arguments and narrative -- revisionists are clearing the waters.

No, you have fooled yourself into believing something so impossible, that it is akin to fooling yourself into believing the earth is flat.

Yet here you are, the fool.

I can evidence what happened, you cannot. Like a flat earther, you deceive yourself into believing a hoax.

Wahrheitssucher wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 5:15 am .... revisionist are like flat-earthers and impervious to reason was subconsciously a confession of YOUR OWN approach.

You have made a mistake. It is so-called revisionists are impervious to evidence. They are shown the evidence for mass killings, they reject it and then fail to evidence what happened.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 7:11 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:42 pm 1) He thinks that you are not allowed to make historical claims without "direct" evidence. He thinks this is some sort of absolute rule in history.

Comment: He is not able to define what he means by "direct." It is false in any case. This rule of his is something he made up himself. Often you can safely conclude things based on deduction for example or other "indirect" means. In some cases, it might be reasonable to argue that if X is sufficiently large scale that we should expect commensurate evidence for it. But revisionists make those sorts of arguments as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence

Here you go. So eg, saying that prior plans existed, is not direct evidence that they were resettled. The Korherr report is direct evidence of population movement I guess, your only piece of such evidence, but it is a highly problematic document that revisionists widely take issue with. You can make whatever claims you want, but it is true that in history (let's limit to past 2000 years) mass events are not asserted without direct evidence, and now the ball is in your court to show otherwise.

Here is where the already strained Holocaust Denial = Flat Earth comparison falls apart.

The view according to its proponents looks something like this:

Holocaust Denial = Flat Earth
Holocaust Orthodoxy = Globe model

If anyone's paying attention they will see the glaring problem, as BA has kindly demonstrated to us here. Holocaust Orthodoxy argues primarily (if not entirely) on the testimony of witnesses, and scientific investigation is criminalised and marginalised. Just for fun, here's what this might look like were the "Globists" to follow this format:

We know the earth is round because Neil Armstrong testified that he saw the curvature. So too did Buzz Aldrin, and their testimonies were quite similar! In addition, the staff of the Red Bull weather balloon all wrote memoirs mentioning obliquely or directly the curvature, and while they differed on details like the size and colour, they were all somewhat consistent on the curve! Finally, my uncle was on a plane on a particularly clear day, and he said he saw the curve from 35,000 feet. This means the curve is corroborated.

Why do NASA avoid arguing it's case in this manner at all costs? Well, firstly you will note how utterly deranged it would be for them to do so, inviting all sorts of skepticism (real or imaginary). Secondly, as Archie has already noted, this form of reasoning is based on the weakest kind of evidence. And lastly.... they don't need to! They don't need to because they have better evidence, they have actual evidence - scientific evidence.

HansHill wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 9:47 am ... Holocaust Orthodoxy argues primarily (if not entirely) on the testimony of witnesses,

Wrong. Witness evidence is the best narrative evidence, but all claims are verified with evidence from other sources. That gives those with no investigative training, the wrong impression. They think the reliance is on witnesses, when in many cases, it is evidence from other sources that gets primacy. For example, how many people were transported to the AR camps, when and where they came from, comes from documents.

... and scientific investigation is criminalised and marginalised.

Wrong. One of the first investigative actions at the end of the war, was physical examinations of the AR camp sites and ruins of the A-B Kremas. That yielded archaeological and forensic evidence. Neither Leuchter not Rudolf were criminalised or marginalised, for gathering forensic evidence from the Kremas.

What you call a "scientific investigation" is mere argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy, that you use to claim gassings and cremations were not physically possible.

Just for fun, here's what this might look like were the "Globists" to follow this format:

We know the earth is round because Neil Armstrong testified that he saw the curvature. So too did Buzz Aldrin, and their testimonies were quite similar! In addition, the staff of the Red Bull weather balloon all wrote memoirs mentioning obliquely or directly the curvature, and while they differed on details like the size and colour, they were all somewhat consistent on the curve! Finally, my uncle was on a plane on a particularly clear day, and he said he saw the curve from 35,000 feet. This means the curve is corroborated.

Why do NASA avoid arguing it's case in this manner at all costs? Well, firstly you will note how utterly deranged it would be for them to do so, inviting all sorts of skepticism (real or imaginary). Secondly, as Archie has already noted, this form of reasoning is based on the weakest kind of evidence. And lastly.... they don't need to! They don't need to because they have better evidence, they have actual evidence - scientific evidence.

No one, who argues the world is round, relies solely on eyewitness evidence. Neither do the historians, journalists and lawyers who have investigated the Holocaust.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 10:20 am What you call a "scientific investigation" is mere argument from incredulity

Remarkable! After almost 2,500 posts Nessie has finally made a coherent point about logical fallacies!

Of course, being true to form he has gotten it completely backwards, but he is right: The Markiewicz 1994 study was indeed an exercise in incredulity as demonstrated thus:

It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physico-
chemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in
that place.

Markiewicz et al - 1994

Markiewicz tells us he doesn't understand how cyanide could possibly react with iron, and so conducts his sham of an investigation based on incredulity.

Mods! Does this belong in the Hall of Fame?

Nessie wrote:Your claim that there is only trace amounts of cremains is a deception.

I have made an effort to measure the remains. You believe in them regardless of the measurements. There is a reason you have made no attempt to provide any quantified estimate at any particular camp. You know revisionists will tear it apart with ease.

Nessie wrote:There is no evidence the majority of SS camp staff, most of whom were tried in Germany, were subjected to coercion.
[...]
But you do not have any evidence of pressure on SS camp staff families.

The pressure is inherent to the circumstances. If your enemy just killed half your family and now they have the other half under their control, you are afraid.

This is reflected in a statement from former senator Robert Taft (son of former US President William Taft):

The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial, no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice.

Explain it away, Nessie.

Nessie wrote:100% of the eyewitnesses agree. You cannot find anyone who disagrees, so you allege coercion, which you cannot prove.

100% of the people involved in show trials agree.

100% of the one-hundred signatories of the fraudulent 'Katyn report' also agreed in the lie they signed their names on.

You keep thinking this '100%' claim is some powerful proof, some 'gold star' for your flailing position. Your star is dying, you have no Jew-ash swimming pools, and all signs show Europe's Jews went East before high-fiving the other global Jews (and anyone they convinced to hate Germany) as they all reconstructed this post-war Weimar-world together.

It would all be great if only evil schemes and Bolshevik tyranny weren't such a non-negotiable for them.

HansHill wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 10:36 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 10:20 am What you call a "scientific investigation" is mere argument from incredulity

Remarkable! After almost 2,500 posts Nessie has finally made a coherent point about logical fallacies!

Of course, being true to form he has gotten it completely backwards, but he is right: The Markiewicz 1994 study was indeed an exercise in incredulity as demonstrated thus:

It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physico-
chemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in
that place.

Markiewicz et al - 1994

Markiewicz tells us he doesn't understand how cyanide could possibly react with iron, and so conducts his sham of an investigation based on incredulity.

Mods! Does this belong in the Hall of Fame?

Markiewicz does indeed argue his incredulity, hence he used a test for HCN that would rule out it came from the compound that caused the staining. That test proved the Kremas had come into contact with HCN. He does not then argue, therefore mass gassings are proven. That is the difference.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 11:05 am

Nessie wrote:Your claim that there is only trace amounts of cremains is a deception.

I have made an effort to measure the remains. You believe in them regardless of the measurements. There is a reason you have made no attempt to provide any quantified estimate at any particular camp. You know revisionists will tear it apart with ease.

I have quoted what the various reports said about the volumes found, such as the 2 hectares up to 7m deep at TII and the 21,000m3 at Belzec. That is not trace!

Nessie wrote:There is no evidence the majority of SS camp staff, most of whom were tried in Germany, were subjected to coercion.
[...]
But you do not have any evidence of pressure on SS camp staff families.

The pressure is inherent to the circumstances. If your enemy just killed half your family and now they have the other half under their control, you are afraid.

When the West German trials were being run, in the 1960s, the Western Allies were aligned to West Germany and a key part of its defence from the Soviets. You have zero evidence that any former SS camp staff family, who were under the protection of the West, were also being threatened by them. You offer no evidence, from any family member, to back up your claim.

This is reflected in a statement from former senator Robert Taft (son of former US President William Taft):

The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial, no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice.

Explain it away, Nessie.

Trials run by Germans, of Germans, are not trials of the vanquished by the victors!

Nessie wrote:100% of the eyewitnesses agree. You cannot find anyone who disagrees, so you allege coercion, which you cannot prove.

100% of the people involved in show trials agree.

It is 100% of all witnesses, since you cannot produce a single witness who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas, who states something else happened.

100% of the one-hundred signatories of the fraudulent 'Katyn report' also agreed in the lie they signed their names on.

Using an example of a failed hoax, does not exactly help your claims!

You keep thinking this '100%' claim is some powerful proof, some 'gold star' for your flailing position.

There you go again, proving you do not understand evidencing. My point is that 100% of the witness evidence favours my position and 0% yours. That shows how strong my position is, compared to yours.

Your star is dying, you have no Jew-ash swimming pools, and all signs show Europe's Jews went East before high-fiving the other global Jews (and anyone they convinced to hate Germany) as they all reconstructed this post-war Weimar-world together.

It would all be great if only evil schemes and Bolshevik tyranny weren't such a non-negotiable for them.

You cannot even evidence what happened, therefore you fail at the basic task of any investigation. Like flat earthers.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:27 am

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 2:41 am Why do more people believe in the Holocaust than a round earth when the evidence is already so obvious that the earth is round in my opinion?

They don't. YouGov reports 84% of U.S. adults are certain the Earth is round but only 69% are certain the Holocaust is not a myth. If you're going to make a comparison, do it using equal terms.
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/d ... f#page=103

From that poll, only 2% of those polled "strongly agree" that the Holocaust is a myth while another 5% tend to agree. Most people breeze through those polls and don't respond accurately or care to be accurate.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 2:52 pm

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:27 am

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 2:41 am Why do more people believe in the Holocaust than a round earth when the evidence is already so obvious that the earth is round in my opinion?

They don't. YouGov reports 84% of U.S. adults are certain the Earth is round but only 69% are certain the Holocaust is not a myth. If you're going to make a comparison, do it using equal terms.
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/d ... f#page=103

From that poll, only 2% of those polled "strongly agree" that the Holocaust is a myth while another 5% tend to agree. Most people breeze through those polls and don't respond accurately or care to be accurate.

It would be a good idea to abandon this fools' errand of chasing public opinion to uphold the merits of the Holocaust. Firstly, you used this as a get-out-of-jail card for your bet when (i assume) you realised you need the pellets to be evacuated immediately from the room and that the difference matters; de facto offsetting the lack of care to "the public at large" is unverifiable and lazy. I still consider you as having lost that bet and whilst I don't particularly want or need your money, i would have pledged half to the upkeep of this forum and this past week has shown that that would be money well spent. And secondly, even when faced with examples of people at scale rejecting the Holocaust, it's just unreliable because they are "breezing through it".

Anecdotally from my own life, the Holocaust is collapsing at freefall speed. While this is anecdotal, its supported by the polls you have been shown and the article from 2014 (!) that was given to you. It's also supported by people like Nessie who say things like they debate Holocaust deniers / nazis on Twitter all day**, and people like Jonathan Greenblatt who won't stop blathering about antisemitism.

"Im right because everyone agrees with me" will soon become "everyone is wrong because they are antisemitic". You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, by outsourcing the merits of the Holocaust to the public at large.

** I am also led to believe that those deniers are generally speaking quite low-information people. Should they ever, God forbid read a book about actual Holocaust Revisionism, they will become completely iron-clad in their disbelief and equipped with actual arguments, the kinds of which are used here to dismantle people like Nessie, which he doesn't encounter on Twitter beausse they are not knowledgeable or informed enough. But i digress.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 11:32 am Markiewicz does indeed argue his incredulity, hence he used a test for HCN that would rule out it came from the compound that caused the staining. That test proved the Kremas had come into contact with HCN. He does not then argue, therefore mass gassings are proven. That is the difference.

????

He still isn't getting it. But this will be good for the SEO and the lurkers, so thanks Nessie for the platform, and here we go again

How exactly can the presence of free-associated cyanide which is not stable, and non-iron bound, be shown to have been put there in 1943? Do you still not understand what "long-term stable" means in the context of chemistry?

HansHill wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 9:47 am

Here is where the already strained Holocaust Denial = Flat Earth comparison falls apart.

The view according to its proponents looks something like this:

Holocaust Denial = Flat Earth
Holocaust Orthodoxy = Globe model

If anyone's paying attention they will see the glaring problem, as BA has kindly demonstrated to us here. Holocaust Orthodoxy argues primarily (if not entirely) on the testimony of witnesses, and scientific investigation is criminalised and marginalised. Just for fun, here's what this might look like were the "Globists" to follow this format:

We know the earth is round because Neil Armstrong testified that he saw the curvature. So too did Buzz Aldrin, and their testimonies were quite similar! In addition, the staff of the Red Bull weather balloon all wrote memoirs mentioning obliquely or directly the curvature, and while they differed on details like the size and colour, they were all somewhat consistent on the curve! Finally, my uncle was on a plane on a particularly clear day, and he said he saw the curve from 35,000 feet. This means the curve is corroborated.

Why do NASA avoid arguing it's case in this manner at all costs? Well, firstly you will note how utterly deranged it would be for them to do so, inviting all sorts of skepticism (real or imaginary). Secondly, as Archie has already noted, this form of reasoning is based on the weakest kind of evidence. And lastly.... they don't need to! They don't need to because they have better evidence, they have actual evidence - scientific evidence.

I'm sure you can argue that flat earth is similar to orthodoxy (and to every other historical event whose specifics are known to us primarily through witness testimony) but this thread is a comparison of flat earth theory to revisionism. THe analogy is not perfect, and to be honest every conspiracy theory has this issue (the no positive evidence thing). I mean conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense, this is a defining aspect of these. When evidence is found, they cease to be conspiracy theories, eg Nixon's connection to Watergate.

You've been dancing around this whole thing by attacking the other side. That's the revisionist MO and probably a self defense mechanism. You don't want to look in the mirror. Orthodoxy fears no such self reflection, we'll engage with you on any topic and have done so.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 3:46 pm
I'm sure you can argue that flat earth is similar to orthodoxy (and to every other historical event whose specifics are known to us primarily through witness testimony) but this thread is a comparison of flat earth theory to revisionism. THe analogy is not perfect, and to be honest every conspiracy theory has this issue (the no positive evidence thing). I mean conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense, this is a defining aspect of these. When evidence is found, they cease to be conspiracy theories, eg Nixon's connection to Watergate.

I actually agree with all of this except the no positive evidence line. You know well that HR advances positive evidence such as cyanide readings, analysis of the holes, analysis of CO emissions, Nuremberg proceeding analysis, witness statement assessment, and so on and so forth.

You've been dancing around this whole thing by attacking the other side. That's the revisionist MO and probably a self defense mechanism. You don't want to look in the mirror. Orthodoxy fears no such self reflection, we'll engage with you on any topic and have done so.

Not really. I haven't danced around anything, i have a post-count nearing 1,000 and if someone were to analyze my post history they would find the items I am personally invested in, in order:

1 - The chemical analyses
2 - The hole / introduction column mechanism
3 - The Reinhardt operation of gassing, burial & cremation
4 - The lawfare of Nuremberg
5 - The social and memetic nature of the Holocaust along with WW2 and National Socialism
6 - And way at the bottom of my list of interests is "where did they all end up?".

Despite my lack of particular interest here, I have indeed engaged with you and others on this point - you'll remember our robust discussion on the early cold war North Korean defectors and how I view that as a somewhat compatible analogy to the missing Jews.

Additionally there is a "no dodging" rule in the Forum Rules. If you continue to feel strongly about this, go knock yourself out by reporting my posts for dodging (!)

HansHill wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:09 pm
I actually agree with all of this except the no positive evidence line. You know well that HR advances positive evidence such as cyanide readings, analysis of the holes, analysis of CO emissions, Nuremberg proceeding analysis, witness statement assessment, and so on and so forth.

Well your assertion with cyanide is "No gassing" so this a negative assertion. When it comes to resettlement, do you believe millions or many hundreds of thousands of Jews were kept somewhere in occupied USSR and maintained in some way prior to their "liberation"? This is where you run into issues.

HansHill wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 3:24 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 11:32 am Markiewicz does indeed argue his incredulity, hence he used a test for HCN that would rule out it came from the compound that caused the staining. That test proved the Kremas had come into contact with HCN. He does not then argue, therefore mass gassings are proven. That is the difference.

????

He still isn't getting it. But this will be good for the SEO and the lurkers, so thanks Nessie for the platform, and here we go again

How exactly can the presence of free-associated cyanide which is not stable, and non-iron bound, be shown to have been put there in 1943? Do you still not understand what "long-term stable" means in the context of chemistry?

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... port.shtml

"The present study shows that in spite of the passage of a considerable period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B have been preserved. This is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers..."

Note, he does not argue, therefore mass gassings. You dodged that.