The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:38 pm
I thought it was clear, what I was saying. I know that Green rebuts Rudolf, because of the evidence that homicidal gassings happened. I cannot make it any clearer or succinct than that. If you still do not understand, then I cannot help you, due to your inability to get to grips with evidencing.

Request from the two PhD holders who frequent this board, to please review Nessie's position here and offer any comments if they have any

The situation is as follows:

Nessie: I believe Dr Green rebuts Rudolf
HH: Why do you believe this?
Nessie: Because of the evidence of gassings

This is from page 22 (!) of the "Challenge for Believers" thread. Anything to add here, gentlemen?

I mean, I’d say that he’s not wrong, although the argument begs the question.

Numar Patru wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:32 pm I mean, I’d say that he’s not wrong, although the argument begs the question.

Of course I am not wrong. If two scientists have opposing hypothesis, the hypothesis that is evidenced wins over the hypothesis that is not evidenced. That is not begging the question, which would assume a hypothesis is correct. I have done the opposite and tested both hypothesis and found only one is supported by the evidence.

Markiewicz and Green state that gassings in the Leichenkellers were possible, Leuchter and Rudolf disagree. That is the opposing hypothesis. So, what should we do to test the hypothesis? The answer is to gather evidence to establish what happened inside the Leichenkellers. There is documentary, witness and circumstantial evidence that the Leichenkellers were used for gassings. There is no evidence to support claims that they were used as delousing chambers, mass showers, bomb shelters or corpse stores. Only one usage is evidenced and that use means that gassings in the Leichenkellers were possible, therefore Markiewicz and Green are correct.

I am not arguing my case, I am evidencing it. Revisionists fail at evidencing, so they have to try and argue their case. The evidence beats the argument.

For anyone on that side with a brain, Nessie is what you might call an "embarrassing ally."

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 7:41 am

Numar Patru wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:32 pm I mean, I’d say that he’s not wrong, although the argument begs the question.

I am not arguing my case, I am evidencing it.

You’re argumentative, for sure.

That said, we're still waiting for you to either make a clear argument or provide solid evidence to support your case.

AreYouSirius wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 1:15 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 7:41 am

Numar Patru wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:32 pm I mean, I’d say that he’s not wrong, although the argument begs the question.

I am not arguing my case, I am evidencing it.

You’re argumentative, for sure.

That said, we're still waiting for you to either make a clear argument or provide solid evidence to support your case.

It is a pretence that historians have not provided ample evidence to prove the Holocaust. Revisionists deny that evidence and then fail to evidence what actually happened, which is why they are really deniers, rather than revisionists.