The CODOH Revisionist Forum

The reason why you want to reject eyewitness claims, is because you know it is 100% in my favour. 100%? Really? 100% of the “eyewitness” claims? One Hundred Percent? Even the fantastical anecdotes peddled in mainstream media that are contradictory with each other, or physically impossible, or found ...

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.

I’ll share a scene from a film that I saw before I decided to look into the flimsiness of the mainstream Holocaust narrative. This scene involves discussion about the Holocaust but stuck out to me because it appeared to be inorganically inserted, and felt out of place. It’s an awkward clip that int ...

.... The quality and scientific sound argumentation is likely why revisionism is perceived as so dangerous by entrenched centralized authorities. A big part of revisionism is simply informing people of what the story actually is, showing what sources it's based on, presenting the claims in terms of ...

History degree and I was in the police where I was a detective for a few years and completed various witness interview courses, which is why I talk a lot about witness behaviour. What kind of history degree? A bachelors? To be honest I was expecting you to describe some fantastic pedigree or list ...

My original point has not been refuted. Those without relevant qualifications and experience need to accept they are more likely to make mistakes than those with. Revisionists need a bit more self awareness. So is it like a UK bachelors which only requires 3 years of study? Are you aware that the ...

What training and expertise do you possess? History degree and I was in the police where I was a detective for a few years and completed various witness interview courses, which is why I talk a lot about witness behaviour. What kind of history degree? A bachelors? To be honest I was expecting you ...

What training and expertise do you possess?

What revisionists call evidence, is their opinion on the technical feasibility of gassings and cremations. What historians, lawyers, journalists and other investigators call evidence, are contemporaneous witnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology, forensics, imagery and circumstances. I ...

I would like revisionists to learn more about witness testimony, memory and recollection, so that they do not make so many mistakes regarding the assessment of witness evidence. I would like exterminationists to learn more about the fallibility of witness testimony, memory and recollection—and also ...

https://imgur.com/mZHDcLY.png Utterly amazing! Agreed, despite it being an obvious fallacy, revisionists use implausibility as one of their main arguments that gassings, mass graves and cremations did not happen. Revisionists do not “use implausibility as one of their main arguments.” Revisionist ar ...

Not to diminish Germar’s intensive efforts with his encyclopedia (which proudly sits on my bookshelf), but could we theoretically just take and post the whole Holocaust Encyclopedia here as a jumping off point and see where things go regarding people’s ongoing contributions and research?

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 9:39 am Here are the reasons why revisionism, or Holocaust Denial, is wrong.

Revisionism is not denialism. The fact that you conflate the two is lazily sloppy and clearly shows you are incapable of approaching study of this historic event in a dispassionate, neutral, factual, academic manner.