The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Replying to this inane post here.



Nessie claims he's interested in ""evidence"" regarding whether there were gassings in the Birkenau crematoria, but he very obvious isn't. When we bring up the most important evidence he DODGES every single time. Revisionists are the only ones interested in actual hard evidence on this question.

1) Blueprints - The blueprints indicate the buildings were built as crematoria with underground morgues. The blueprints show no intention to use the facilities as gas chambers. Holocaust promoters have no choice but to advance a conspiracy theory about how the Germans secretly converted the rooms into gas chambers with any technical plans or engineering.

2) Chemical testing - Tests of the walls are not consistent with the claim that Zyklon B was used extensively in these rooms. Holocaust apologists just make up a bunch of speculative excuses to explain away this inconvenient data. They have been reduced to simply assuming that there was some unknown condition must have that somehow prevented Prussian blue formation.

3) Ventilation - The ventilation for Kremas II and III was typical of a morgue, not a Zyklon B chamber. Kremas IV and V had no ventilation; it would have taken hours to clear the rooms.

4) Holes in the roof - Not in the plans and can't be shown to have existed. The holes in the roof of Krema I are confirmed to be postwar fakes.

All of the above is highly relevant evidence and it all goes against the gas chambers.

What you have to remember is that when Nessie says "evidence," he means testimonies. Why anyone would weight laughable testimonies more strongly than objective data is beyond me.

Archie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 2:55 am Replying to this inane post here.



Nessie claims he's interested in ""evidence"" regarding whether there were gassings in the Birkenau crematoria, but he very obvious isn't. When we bring up the most important evidence he DODGES every single time. Revisionists are the only ones interested in actual hard evidence on this question.

1) Blueprints - The blueprints indicate the buildings were built as crematoria with underground morgues. The blueprints show no intention to use the facilities as gas chambers. Holocaust promoters have no choice but to advance a conspiracy theory about how the Germans secretly converted the rooms into gas chambers with any technical plans or engineering.

The work to convert the morgues into the gas chambers is evidenced from camp construction office documents, Topf & Sons and Polish workers. Historians do not dodge that the original design was for morgues. The Austrian trial of the original building designer, accepted his defence that he designed a morgue and had no knowledge what it would subsequently used for.

2) Chemical testing - Tests of the walls are not consistent with the claim that Zyklon B was used extensively in these rooms. Holocaust apologists just make up a bunch of speculative excuses to explain away this inconvenient data. They have been reduced to simply assuming that there was some unknown condition must have that somehow prevented Prussian blue formation.

We do not know what level of residue is consistent with the homicidal gassing process. We do with delousing and for various common sense reasons, such as length of exposure, the level is lower with homicidal gassings than it is with delousing. Revisionists assume PB was not present in Kremas II to V and the farmhouse bunker chambers, as there is limited or no access to the original inner walls.

3) Ventilation - The ventilation for Kremas II and III was typical of a morgue, not a Zyklon B chamber. Kremas IV and V had no ventilation; it would have taken hours to clear the rooms.

Karl Schultze, the Topf & Sons engineer responsible for the ventilation, was confident it would be sufficient for the task, and eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas reported that it was not strong enough to full extract all the gas. Blueprints show a ventilation system, a document records a gas detection device and part of a gas mask was found in the ruin of Krema II. That is all corroborating evidence to prove gassings took place.

4) Holes in the roof - Not in the plans and can't be shown to have existed. The holes in the roof of Krema I are confirmed to be postwar fakes.

There is corroborating photographic and documentary evidence of covers, which is indicative of holes, along with eyewitness and physical trace evidence of those holes.

All of the above is highly relevant evidence and it all goes against the gas chambers.

What you have to remember is that when Nessie says "evidence," he means testimonies. Why anyone would weight laughable testimonies more strongly than objective data is beyond me.

Your claims that certain evidence is dodged and that the only evidence is testimonies, are blatantly false. There is documentary, photographic, physical and circumstantial evidence, which you dodge.

As for "what is evidence?" it is eyewitness testimony, documents, physical items, forensics, archaeology, imagery and circumstances.

Eyewitness evidence is the weakest when it comes to details, but the strongest when it comes to narrative. People are good at remembering the main events, but poor at the details and estimations. Documents and imagery provide snapshots and along with the other forms of evidence, need context. Circumstantial evidence provides the context, as a chronological narrative is pieced together, establishing what took place, motive, opportunity and conduct.

Even one straight forward murder, witnessed by a few people, that leaves physical and forensic traces, can generate a lot of evidence, and to ask for the best evidence, misses that all the evidence plays a role in proving what happened. One witness cannot usually be trusted to be accurate and reliable, but that person may be able to describe the entire murder. Does that make them the best evidence? Or would it be the weapon used? But what if that weapon was disposed of or destroyed? Would some video of what took place, that captures a snapshot of the events, be the best evidence? How about an admission by the accused, where does that stand as best evidence?

Holocaust revisionists repeatedly show themselves up over their ignorance of how major investigations are conducted and the process of evidence gathering. They think that argument and belief are important to the process, but they just introduce bias. It is best to keep it simple and let the evidence lead.

All of that is wrong. We have threads discussing these specific points, so I will not repeat what has already been said many times.

Birkenau Crematoria construction
viewtopic.php?t=315
Vienna Trial
viewtopic.php?t=157
Ventilation
viewtopic.php?t=162
Numerous chemistry threads

The point here is a broader one. Revisionists obviously do consider evidence. You are simply lying when you claim that we do not. It is the mainstream that fails to consider the crucial evidence.

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2026 4:34 am All of that is wrong. We have threads discussing these specific points, so I will not repeat what has already been said many times.

Birkenau Crematoria construction
viewtopic.php?t=315
Vienna Trial

How is what I said about the Vienna trial wrong? The original designers were not held responsible for the subsequent construction of gas chambers. That the buildings were originally designed without gas chambers, is not evidence to prove they were never converted and never had gas chambers.

viewtopic.php?t=157
Ventilation
viewtopic.php?t=162
Numerous chemistry threads

Just because you cannot work out how the gas chambers functioned, to your satisfaction, has no evidential value. When there is evidence gas chambers did function, then that leads to the logical conclusion, your conclusion on functionality is wrong. A major reason why you cannot work out how the gas chambers functioned, is the Nazi destruction of evidence. This is not a murder where an intact gun, or blood covered knife has been recovered and preserved. It is one where a few parts of a destroyed gun or a cleaned knife have been recovered.

The point here is a broader one. Revisionists obviously do consider evidence. You are simply lying when you claim that we do not. It is the mainstream that fails to consider the crucial evidence.

That depends on what you mean by consider. Your main aim is to dismiss evidence, as so much of it is obviously in support of the gas chamber narrative. Hence, I debate many deniers who claim there is no evidence, when there clearly is.

Then there is the issue of how evidence is considered. Your methodology is unique to Holocaust denial/revisionism, it relies on arguments, many of which are logically flawed, it is not evidence led, and it fails to produce an evidenced history of events.

Historians and other investigators have investigated the Holocaust in the same way all history or crimes are investigated. Evidence is gathered and a chronology of events is produced, proving what took place.

For example, how Weirnik's testimony is considered. Revisionists consider how he described events at TII and conclude, because of his descriptions, that he lied. Gassed corpses are not yellow. He cannot have run so far each day taking the corpses to the graves. Corpses cannot burn on pyres as he claims. A bullet cannot have bounced off him. Historians do not take the way he describes what he saw as literal. Instead, they look to see if what he describes is corroborated, and the mass arrivals, gas chambers, mass graves and pyres are. Therefore, they conclude he is telling the truth, but his descriptions are not reliable or accurate. The corpses were not actually yellow, he cannot have run so far each day etc.

If historians are wrong to use the corroboration methodology when assessing Wiernik, then revisionists need to explain why that is and have very good reasons, as that methodology is not just used by historians, it is commonly used by all sorts of investigators all over the world.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 6:50 am Even one straight forward murder, witnessed by a few people, that leaves physical and forensic traces, can generate a lot of evidence

If one murder "leaves physical and forensic traces" and "can generate a lot of evidence" - just think how much evidence the murder of 2.145 million murders would leave. In fact, it would be impossible NOT to to prove with absolute certainty.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 6:50 am Holocaust revisionists repeatedly show themselves up over their ignorance of how major investigations are conducted and the process of evidence gathering. They think that argument and belief are important to the process, but they just introduce bias. It is best to keep it simple and let the evidence lead.

Yes, and nobody in the world keeps things simpler than Mr. Gerdes:

BELZEC, CHELMNO, PONARY, SOBIBOR and TREBLINKA II

Are the remains of 2.145 million Jews really buried in the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves?

(The labeling of asking this legitimate adjudicable question as “hate / antisemitic” is your first clue that they do not want you to know what the answer is.)

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational scientific question: Can archaeologists prove, with 100% certainty, if millions of pounds of bones and tens of millions of teeth actually exist in a precisely known location?

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are actually buried in the 100 specifically and precisely identified locations in question?

Foundational legal principles that easily expose this transparent archaeological hoax: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION & BURDEN OF PERSUASION & BURDEN OF PROOF.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

Archie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 2:55 am Replying to this inane post here.

Inane is all we can expect from the insane.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 6:36 am Historians do not dodge that the original design was for morgues.

Lol, yes they do. Your top guy wrote this:

It was in the course of all this construction that a new kind of edifice made its appearance. Four massive buildings containing gas chambers and crematoria were erected in Birkenau. They were to be the answer to Himmler’s admonition that more and more transports would arrive in Auschwitz.

The Destruction of the European Jews (2003) by Raul Hilberg, p.944

Hilberg thought the crematoria morgues were built as gas chambers, because that was needed to carry out Himmler's goal of killing incoming transports. The much more plausible scenario, that a camp of 200,000 people might need a morgue, was not given any consideration in the text, not a single word.

In a later sentence, after getting some other facts wrong, he did add that one morgue went through "transformation", but this contradicts the above.

Furthermore, this section appeared very differently in the original version of the book. There, Hilberg claimed Crema II and III were "built as units, each containing a huge underground gas chamber called Leichenkeller" (1967, p.566). He believed then that the word "morgue" was actually "verbal camouflage" for "gas chamber" (p.619). AKA a codeword. Nothing about the room's conversion. This is because Pressac had not yet invented the conversion theory. It was Pressac that Hilberg cited above, in 2003.

In other words, the conversion theory you are using as a defense is a relatively recent invention, created in response to revisionists, who pointed out the obvious truth that it was called a morgue because it was a morgue.

Also worth adding here is that top witness Rudolf Höss had no idea about this supposed conversion. Instead, he claimed he personally "designed" the gas chambers of Crematorium II, which only came after he was sent to Treblinka to learn from gas chamber operations there (Commandant of Auschwitz, p.203 among others). He also personally designated Auschwitz as an extermination site already in 1941 (p.138). There is nothing in any of this that supports the conversion theory. As a result, any historians who do believe in conversion theory are forced to ignore or discredit Höss's confessions.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 1:25 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 6:36 am Historians do not dodge that the original design was for morgues.

Lol, yes they do. Your top guy wrote this:

It was in the course of all this construction that a new kind of edifice made its appearance. Four massive buildings containing gas chambers and crematoria were erected in Birkenau. They were to be the answer to Himmler’s admonition that more and more transports would arrive in Auschwitz.

The Destruction of the European Jews (2003) by Raul Hilberg, p.944

Hilberg thought the crematoria morgues were built as gas chambers, because that was needed to carry out Himmler's goal of killing incoming transports. The much more plausible scenario, that a camp of 200,000 people might need a morgue, was not given any consideration in the text, not a single word.

In a later sentence, after getting some other facts wrong, he did add that one morgue went through "transformation", but this contradicts the above.

Which means you are wrong to claim he ignores that the Kremas were not originally designed as gas chambers and that they needed transformation. Instead, Hilberg clearly does not think that detail is important, so he does not dwell on it. You do dwell on it, because you want to claim that because the Krema was not originally designed to contain gas chambers, that is somehow evidence it never contained them, which is not logical.

Furthermore, this section appeared very differently in the original version of the book. There, Hilberg claimed Crema II and III were "built as units, each containing a huge underground gas chamber called Leichenkeller" (1967, p.566). He believed then that the word "morgue" was actually "verbal camouflage" for "gas chamber" (p.619). AKA a codeword. Nothing about the room's conversion. This is because Pressac had not yet invented the conversion theory. It was Pressac that Hilberg cited above, in 2003.

In other words, the conversion theory you are using as a defense is a relatively recent invention, created in response to revisionists, who pointed out the obvious truth that it was called a morgue because it was a morgue.

Or, it is because it not an important detail. Whether the buildings were originally designed or not, with gas chambers in mind, does not affect the evidence that in 1943-4, they were used for gassings.

Also worth adding here is that top witness Rudolf Höss had no idea about this supposed conversion. Instead, he claimed he personally "designed" the gas chambers of Crematorium II, which only came after he was sent to Treblinka to learn from gas chamber operations there (Commandant of Auschwitz, p.203 among others). He also personally designated Auschwitz as an extermination site already in 1941 (p.138). There is nothing in any of this that supports the conversion theory. As a result, any historians who do believe in conversion theory are forced to ignore or discredit Höss's confessions.

Hoess would have been one of the first people to learn about the plan to make Birkenau a death camp, possibly from the point of the original design. So, in his mind, the buildings were designed with gas chambers in mind. But, they were also designed with the long term in mind, with a huge expansion to the camp (the section "Mexico") and that once gassing operations had ended, the camp would be used as a forced labour camp, and the Kremas would return to being purely crematoriums. All the death camps were intended to be temporary.

You are not adding anything of worth. Instead, since you have zero experience of researching history, you are puzzling over why different historians have concentrated more on some evidence and details than others. Pressac's research found a lot of evidence about the conversion, whereas Hilberg's did not. As is normal with history, when research traces evidence other historians are not aware of, it often gets incorporated into their work.

All you are doing, is commenting on the developing history of the Kremas, as more and more evidence has been traced. Your commentary wants to suggest conspiracy and deceit, whereas in fact it is open researched evidenced investigation, something that you are not capable of. Hence, you cannot produce a history of usage of the Kremas.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 8:15 am You are not adding anything of worth.

Self-awareness has left the building.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 1:36 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 8:15 am You are not adding anything of worth.

Self-awareness has left the building.

Can you contribute by explaining why Hilberg and Pressac's different approaches to the history of the development of the gas chambers, is of any value?

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 1:25 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 6:36 am Historians do not dodge that the original design was for morgues.

Lol, yes they do. Your top guy wrote this:

...

Nessie is always going on about how "the historians" did X, Y, Z, but he just makes it up. He is in denial about how pathetic the original evidentiary basis for "the Holocaust was, and he hopefully pretends that the landmark trials and histories were far more rigorous than they were.

The plain fact of the matter is that Holocaust historians have never paid any attention to physical and technical evidence. Only relatively recently have these issues been addressed in any way, usually by pro-Holocaust apologists operating outside the mainstream, and only as a belated reaction to revisionist arguments. The only early forensic investigations were communist efforts which were unknown in the West for decades (and which are really only discussed by revisionists).

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 3:40 pm

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 1:25 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 6:36 am Historians do not dodge that the original design was for morgues.

Lol, yes they do. Your top guy wrote this:

...

Nessie is always going on about how "the historians" did X, Y, Z, but he just makes it up. He is in denial about how pathetic the original evidentiary basis for "the Holocaust was, and he hopefully pretends that the landmark trials and histories were far more rigorous than they were.

The plain fact of the matter is that Holocaust historians have never paid any attention to physical and technical evidence. Only relatively recently have these issues been addressed in any way, usually by pro-Holocaust apologists operating outside the mainstream, and only as a belated reaction to revisionist arguments. The only early forensic investigations were communist efforts which were unknown in the West for decades (and which are really only discussed by revisionists).

I still have trouble understanding how Nick takes seriously his 'Oregon Trail' thesis of 'Aktion Reinhardt'.

I know why he has to, it's the part where he does that gets me.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 2:32 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 1:36 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 8:15 am You are not adding anything of worth.

Self-awareness has left the building.

Can you contribute by explaining why Hilberg and Pressac's different approaches to the history of the development of the gas chambers, is of any value?

No, nor is that what this thread is about. This thread is about calling out your incompetence, failings, and laughable debate strategies.

That's why I'm posting here. Stop trying to bait me with your gibberish.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 3:51 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 2:32 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 1:36 pm



Self-awareness has left the building.

Can you contribute by explaining why Hilberg and Pressac's different approaches to the history of the development of the gas chambers, is of any value?

No, nor is that what this thread is about. This thread is about calling out your incompetence, failings, and laughable debate strategies.

That's why I'm posting here. Stop trying to bait me with your gibberish.

Archie started the thread, accusing me of dodging certain evidence, such as;

1) Blueprints - The blueprints indicate the buildings were built as crematoria with underground morgues. The blueprints show no intention to use the facilities as gas chambers. Holocaust promoters have no choice but to advance a conspiracy theory about how the Germans secretly converted the rooms into gas chambers with any technical plans or engineering.

Historians have not promoted a conspiracy theory about the Nazis converting a crematorium into a gas chamber, that is what is evidenced to have happened. That Hilberg largely chose to not acknowledge that evidence, whereas Pressac made it front and central in his work, is in itself not evidence of anything. There is plenty about the Holocaust and even Auschwitz, that Pressac does not cover, that Hilberg does.

As for my supposed incompetence, failings and laughable debate strategies, what are you talking about? I use the same method of enquiry that historians, journalists, the police and other investigators use. Evidence is gathered to build a chronological narrative of events. The evidence does the leading. It determines the conclusion.

The majority of the evidence, of the conversion work to the Kremas, comes from Auschwitz Construction office and Topf & Sons documents, corroborated by the staff who worked there.