The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Candace Owens recently posted this on X:



Here is the post from the Museum:

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/education/ ... -the-camp/

It's a transcript of a podcast which you can listen to yourself. The Auschwitz Museum has indeed admitted that the stories of Mengele sewing twins together are false and therefore that such testimonies are false. Although this is not exactly a completely new concession. From Mengele: Unmasking the "Angel of Death" by David G. Marwell:

For the same reason, it is difficult to accept testimony about some of his experiments and their rationale, such as claims that Mengele attempted to create a Siamese twin by "sewing together" two twins, or that he sought to "make boys into girls and girls into boys" through "cross transfusions," or even "connected the urinary tract of a 7-year-old to her own colon."

This book was published before Candace made her statements, so everyone pouncing on her for that when a mainstream book already conceded this wasn't real is especially ridiculous.

A side note, the part about trans operations on kids may make him a modern progressive hero, so better take that out!

Another win for revisionism. That podcast actually went up on December 9, but everyone missed it.

Anyway, what must be remarked on here is what I am calling the Cope Argument. The unnamed author of this podcast and article admits that Vera Alexander was wrong when in her sworn testimony she described seeing twins "sewn together", but his speculation is that she saw twins connected by blood transfusion tubes. Did Vera Alexander describe the twins having a blood transfusion? No, she described them as having their veins, wrists, and backs sewn together. Like "Siamese twins", she said. She did it on multiple occasions, so there can be no mistake.

The author's purpose in writing that paragraph was to defend the legitimacy of Alexander's testimony by coming up with some less ridiculous version of it, something that defenders of the Holocaust can point to as a thing that proves Mengele was bad, even though this new claim is totally speculative and unevidenced. This kind of motte and bailey defense is a trend we've seen repeatedly in Holocaust literature. Whenever a witness is discredited, the authorities react with a Cope Argument to try to save their legitimacy. For example:

• When witnesses falsely claimed the Ovitz family was killed by Mengele or others, the adhoc excuse for one witness was that she "was compressing a number of events, and attributed to the dwarfs two common occurrences in the daily life of the camp" (Giants, p.174).
• Sergey Romanov, embarassed by Adolf Eichmann's claim that people were gassed with diesel engines, responded by claiming - opposite to Eichmann's testimony - that Eichmann never saw them. He likewise claimed that Kurt Gerstein did not see the diesel engine at Belzec - again opposite Gerstein's testimony.
• We have also seen on CODOH that even when witnesses were laughably false on the details their testimony still qualifies as proof of gassings as long as they agreed there was a gas chamber. This is considered proof "on [the] macro level".

Finally, consider this passage from Pressac, which comes right after he makes Cope Arguments for several false witnesses in a row.

What can we say about former Krematorium III Sonderkomanndo member David Olere coolly telling me in 1981 that the SS made sausages of human flesh ["Kremawurst"], except that he was still living in the nightmare that had been imposed on him and recounted anything that came into his head, whereas I held in my hands his own drawings of 1945-47 which are masterpieces of authenticity. What can we say about so many singular or fanciful testimonies, other that we must not act like Henri Roques [read Faurisson] with the "confessions" of Kurt Gerstein and conclude that the witness is not a true witness.
Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989) by Jean-Claude Pressac, p.554

To the contrary, we must conclude the witness is a false witness. Revisionists have done an insufficient job of holding these people's feet to the fire. The point at which they bring out a Cope Argument should be the point at which they are forced to concede defeat.