Evidence and Implementation

[ConfusedJew]

If you were here to GENUINELY understand an alternative viewpoint your question SHOULD have been: “what numerous evidence of that has been posted here recently?”

But you aren’t here to learn, are you.

I asked you a question. I don't look through every thread and post on here, I simply don't have the time.

[Wahrheitssucher]

If you were here to GENUINELY understand an alternative viewpoint your question SHOULD have been: “what numerous evidence of that has been posted here recently?”

But you aren’t here to learn, are you.

I asked you a question. I don't look through every thread and post on here, I simply don't have the time.

You’ve used that bogus excuse before, even on topics you were heavily involved in.

It doesn’t wash. You are exposing yourself as a disingenuous time-waster.

You don’t have to have read “every thread” to ask to be pointed to evidence recently presented.
Plus some of it was posted in reply TO YOU! So to say you didn’t read it is a dishonest dodge.

[ConfusedJew]

You’ve used that bogus excuse before, even on topics you were heavily involved in.

It doesn’t wash. You are exposing yourself as a disingenuous time-waster.

You don’t have to have read “every thread” to ask to be pointed to evidence recently presented.
Plus some of it was posted in reply TO YOU! So to say you didn’t read it is a dishonest dodge.

Please point me to the thread in question. People have done that to me before though and there were dozens and dozens of posts that were confusing to me but I would like to look through that if it isn't super convoluted.

[Wetzelrad]

You aren't actually right about this, but even if you were, I'm not sure why it would matter.

It's irrelevant to the discussion except that it's a false claim you made. It demonstrates once again that you and your AI are making unfounded statements.

The NYT article appeared in the November 25, 1942 morning edition, page 10, and was attributed to a “Special Cable” — meaning it was filed the previous day (November 24) from Washington.

But that is a different article which does not concern electric floors. Link. The Nov 26 article does. Besides this, I gave other examples, plus we should expect London to have reported on this before New York did anyway. So you are wrong again.

Some governments weaponize 'blood libel' during times of war to mobilize their base and channel anger towards their enemies.

Not just governments, but Jews as individuals weaponize blood libel with regularity, and not just in war but also in peace. Not just in hoaxing things like "40 beheaded babies" and "mass rape", but also in accusing people of libel for stating the facts. Recently Jews have taken to saying that coverage of dead Palestinian children is itself blood libel. Link. Really, it couldn't be any more obvious that the entire purpose of bringing up "blood libel" with such regularity is, exactly as you say, a weaponization of history to channel anger against non-Jews.

You offer no justification for what you are saying here. Anyone in the criminal justice system today would agree that early recollections are more accurate than those months removed.

This is sort of true in the criminal justice system but things are very different for war. Criminal trials involve specific details about singular events while war involves chaotic and imprecise details about many events. Also, you still have to do the investigation in a criminal trial to corroborate evidence and filter out the false or mistaken testimony just like in any historical account.

It's highly true and well established in the criminal justice system. If a witness does contradict his own earlier statement, it's typical that either he defers to the earlier statement or he loses credibility. When a defendant is forced to adapt his story after something proves it false, it can be devastating because it looks like he's lying.

There is no basis to say this heuristic is "not very applicable to the Holocaust". That a person lived through more chaos and more events does not mean that his recall of those events will improve years after the fact. That's nonsense.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. It was not just a single flawed testimony that confirmed the existence of gassings.

My point is that you're sweeping the obvious witness bias under the rug. Archie's point is that you're ignoring contamination of witnesses by propaganda. No one has said that there is just one witness.

Some of the high profile Nazi testimonies that didn't involve coercion include: [...] Höss [...] Bauer [...] Broad [...] Stark [...] Boger [...]

Considering the occupation of Germany at the end of the war, I'm not sure how you could say any of these were not under coercion. Was Höss not under coercion when they beat him and threatened his family? His Jewish attackers admitted to that much. That aside, I know you're just reading off an AI list and you've already received plenty of witness criticisms, so I won't waste my time. Let's just consider Richard Bauer for a moment.

Bauer was supposedly the "gas master" at Sobibor. He said that:
- Contrary to other witnesses, the gas chamber was a wooden building.
- Contrary to other witnesses, the gas chamber's roof was covered in a camouflage net.
- Contrary to the current consensus of 180k victims, the actual number was 50-100k (1950) or 350k (1962).
- Contrary to various witnesses and court verdicts which put the per-chamber capacity as high as 250 persons, Bauer put it at 50-60.

I'm sure that you will have some excuses for why this man whose job it was to operate the gas chamber misremembered so much about it, but they won't convince me. It is also a problem that Erich Bauer was not accused of anything to do with gas chambers until 1950, and the two witnesses who were responsible for his arrest and conviction made multiple lies including the claim that there were actually a million victims at Sobibor.

[Wetzelrad]

...

Personally I don't think we have to throw whole testimonies out.

You throw out 100% of the eyewitness evidence from those who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas.

Oh, do I? Tell me more about what I do.

It's enough just to recognize that their most extraordinary and unsupported claim -- that of mass homicidal gassings --

The eyewitnesses are variously corroborated by documentary, physical, forensic, archaeological and circumstantial evidence. You know about that evidence, so you have been caught lying that they are not supported.

Nessie, you are a joke. All those forms of evidence contradict what witnesses claim about mass gassings.

... is discredited when the witness is shown to have lied in a way that demonstrates an anti-German bias.

The largest single group of eyewitnesses were German. You have failed to prove the witnesses lied and that those places were used for a purpose other than gassings.

Again you are a joke. Even if I go along with your goofy claim that there were more German than Jewish witnesses, this would not impact my statement in any way because the context of this argument was Jewish witnesses. Go back and read from the beginning if you're having trouble following along.

Don't think I didn't notice how you totally sidestepped the issue. People who lied about flaming chimneys would obviously be willing to lie about bigger matters.

[Nessie]

...

Personally I don't think we have to throw whole testimonies out.

You throw out 100% of the eyewitness evidence from those who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas.

Oh, do I? Tell me more about what I do.

You do not believe any witness, who worked in those places, who states he saw gassings. That leaves you with no witnesses.

It's enough just to recognize that their most extraordinary and unsupported claim -- that of mass homicidal gassings --

The eyewitnesses are variously corroborated by documentary, physical, forensic, archaeological and circumstantial evidence. You know about that evidence, so you have been caught lying that they are not supported.

Nessie, you are a joke. All those forms of evidence contradict what witnesses claim about mass gassings.

Please give me an example of that. An example of corroboration, are the documents recording mass arrivals, agreeing with witness descriptions of mass arrivals.

... is discredited when the witness is shown to have lied in a way that demonstrates an anti-German bias.

The largest single group of eyewitnesses were German. You have failed to prove the witnesses lied and that those places were used for a purpose other than gassings.

Again you are a joke. Even if I go along with your goofy claim that there were more German than Jewish witnesses, this would not impact my statement in any way because the context of this argument was Jewish witnesses. Go back and read from the beginning if you're having trouble following along.

List of eyewitnesses here, the largest single group are German;

viewtopic.php?t=372

Don't think I didn't notice how you totally sidestepped the issue. People who lied about flaming chimneys would obviously be willing to lie about bigger matters.

How do you know they lied about flaming chimneys? Flames can come out of chimneys, and witness descriptions are likely exaggerations, or repeating hearsay. Witnesses from inside the Kremas speak to the heavy use of the ovens and trying to cause smoke and damage them.

[Archie]

Witnesses A, B, and C claim X
X is impossible (or is impossible as far as we know)

In this case, if we are confident in the premise that X is impossible, we would be justified in concluding that A, B, and C must be wrong about X. But you can't go the other way. Just because X is possible doesn't mean that therefore A, B, C must be right. It just means they COULD be right which doesn't get us anywhere.

If X is impossible, we are indeed correct to conclude A, B and C lied. Women flying broom sticks and casting magic spells are impossible. Therefore the witnesses were incorrect. Germans designing gas chambers, mass cremation ovens and digging mass graves are not impossible, they are acts well within their design and engineering capabilities. Therefore, no matter how badly A, B and C describe the gassings, cremations and graves, they are describing what is a physical possibility.

You are correct to say that just because X is possible, it does not mean A, B and C are right that X happened. To establish that, we need to look at the evidence to establish what happened. By far the best evidenced event, is mass killings. The suggested mass resettlement has no evidence to support it. Instead, resettlement was a term used to hide the mass killings and some Nazis may have genuinely thought Jews were being resettled in their millions, 1941-4, but by 1945, they would have known that was not the case.

You are somewhat contradicting what you said previously. You have repeatedly said that the Holocaust is proved to have happened and that therefore we know that it is possible and any revisionist arguments pointing out for example problems or absurdities with the gas chamber stories can be dismissed automatically. But there is a lot of purported evidence for many supernatural phenomena, so according to your previous logic this would "prove" that these things happened and also, as a corollary, that they are therefore possible.

Say I have 300 "direct eyewitnesses to women flying on broomsticks." And there are zero alternative witnesses who can say "what those broomsticks were really doing" during these supposed flights. According to your usual methodology, would not these eyewitnesses "corroborate" each other and constitute proof that this actually happens? And wouldn't you usually say it is unreasonable to claim that "100% of the witnesses are lying"? This is what you accuse revisionists of doing.

Really, you are once again begging the question and engaging in special pleading. Remember that people who believe in lots of supernatural things often claim there is evidence for it. Here is an interesting comment Arthur C. Clarke made in a retrospective foreword written in 2000 for his classic 1953 novel Childhood's End.

When this book was written in the early 1950s, I was still quite impressed by the evidence for what is generally called the paranormal and used it as a main theme of the story. Four decades later, after spending some millions of dollars of Yorkshire Television's money researching my Mysterious World and Strange Powers programs, I became an almost total skeptic. I had seen far too many demonstrations exposed as fakes. It had been a long, and sometimes embarrassing, learning process.

Keep in mind that Clarke was extremely smart, scientifically literate, and firmly secular, yet he was for a time convinced of the reality of the paranormal based on the volume and seeming strength of such stories. It was only slowly once he was able to see that most of the stories didn't hold up that he came to disbelieve. When he realized that, the great "volume" of evidence became unimpressive.

Your premise that a large number of "corroborate" witnesses cannot be wrong is incorrect in any case. If doesn't matter if a false story is false and impossible, false and improbable, or false and highly plausible.

[Nessie]

Witnesses A, B, and C claim X
X is impossible (or is impossible as far as we know)

In this case, if we are confident in the premise that X is impossible, we would be justified in concluding that A, B, and C must be wrong about X. But you can't go the other way. Just because X is possible doesn't mean that therefore A, B, C must be right. It just means they COULD be right which doesn't get us anywhere.

If X is impossible, we are indeed correct to conclude A, B and C lied. Women flying broom sticks and casting magic spells are impossible. Therefore the witnesses were incorrect. Germans designing gas chambers, mass cremation ovens and digging mass graves are not impossible, they are acts well within their design and engineering capabilities. Therefore, no matter how badly A, B and C describe the gassings, cremations and graves, they are describing what is a physical possibility.

You are correct to say that just because X is possible, it does not mean A, B and C are right that X happened. To establish that, we need to look at the evidence to establish what happened. By far the best evidenced event, is mass killings. The suggested mass resettlement has no evidence to support it. Instead, resettlement was a term used to hide the mass killings and some Nazis may have genuinely thought Jews were being resettled in their millions, 1941-4, but by 1945, they would have known that was not the case.

You are somewhat contradicting what you said previously. You have repeatedly said that the Holocaust is proved to have happened and that therefore we know that it is possible and any revisionist arguments pointing out for example problems or absurdities with the gas chamber stories can be dismissed automatically. But there is a lot of purported evidence for many supernatural phenomena, so according to your previous logic this would "prove" that these things happened and also, as a corollary, that they are therefore possible.

So-called revisionist arguments pointing out absurdities, are ignorant arguments that fail to show any understanding of witness recall and memory. Witnesses over estimating the number of people gassed, under estimating how long a gassing took, getting dates wrong, making mistakes over the dimensions of rooms or graves, or how a ventilation system worked, is normal witness behaviour.

What the Nazis were accused of doing, building gas chambers, digging big pits for mass graves, or mass cremations, are not accusations of supernatural phenomina.

Say I have 300 "direct eyewitnesses to women flying on broomsticks." And there are zero alternative witnesses who can say "what those broomsticks were really doing" during these supposed flights. According to your usual methodology, would not these eyewitnesses "corroborate" each other and constitute proof that this actually happens? And wouldn't you usually say it is unreasonable to claim that "100% of the witnesses are lying"? This is what you accuse revisionists of doing.

You repeatedly fail to understand that the accusation against the Nazis, does not fall into the category of supernatural phenomina. Therefore, comparisons with supernatural phenomina, are false analogies. Yet again, you are making a logical error.

A witness who describes 1000 people being gassed in a space that could not hold 1000 people, does not make the gas chamber supernatural. It just means that the witness, like most people, is poor at estimating how many people are in a crowd.

Really, you are once again begging the question and engaging in special pleading. Remember that people who believe in lots of supernatural things often claim there is evidence for it. Here is an interesting comment Arthur C. Clarke made in a retrospective foreword written in 2000 for his classic 1953 novel Childhood's End.

When this book was written in the early 1950s, I was still quite impressed by the evidence for what is generally called the paranormal and used it as a main theme of the story. Four decades later, after spending some millions of dollars of Yorkshire Television's money researching my Mysterious World and Strange Powers programs, I became an almost total skeptic. I had seen far too many demonstrations exposed as fakes. It had been a long, and sometimes embarrassing, learning process.

Keep in mind that Clarke was extremely smart, scientifically literate, and firmly secular, yet he was for a time convinced of the reality of the paranormal based on the volume and seeming strength of such stories. It was only slowly once he was able to see that most of the stories didn't hold up that he came to disbelieve. When he realized that, the great "volume" of evidence became unimpressive.

Your premise that a large number of "corroborate" witnesses cannot be wrong is incorrect in any case.

That is not my premise. You are now guilty of the Strawman fallacy. Yet again, you have made a mistake. I have said that even when multiple witnesses claim something that is physically impossible, such as flying broomsticks and casting spells, that does not mean those actions are possible.

If doesn't matter if a false story is false and impossible, false and improbable, or false and highly plausible.

Germans designing and building gas chambers and ovens for mass cremations, or digging mass graves and constructing pyres, do not fall into the category of supernatural, impossible or implausible. That we have some poor witness descriptions to go on, does not mean, therefore, gas chambers etc did not happen.

You keep on making logical errors and show an inability to follow a logical argument.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I'm seeing two big issues come up that hopefully you guys can help me understand better.

1. There is a ton of different pieces of evidence, in my opinion, all pointing to the same narrative. What I see happening here is that people cherry pick issues with individual pieces of evidence that don't fully invalidate those individual artifacts or testimonies, let alone the entire body of evidence.

In general, how do you guys think about inconsistencies in evidence and how to interpret that? I just think these issues are blown out of proportion again and again so I'm looking for some kind of meta heuristic to be more objective about these things and reduce the bias in discussions, which we all have to some extent.

2. If this is just a hoax or postwar narrative, how is it possible for all these different fake sources to have come up with different people that were mostly disconnected during and after the war? I don't see how it's physically possible for so many different people to fabricate so much evidence and testimonies without coordinating. Can you explain that to me? I don't think anything like that has ever happened before in the history of the world.

To understand what Confused Jew appears to be up to on the CODOH forum I recommend watching this short clip of Bassem Yousef the Egyptian comedian exposing the modus operandi of a professional Israeli gas-lighter to his face:

[ConfusedJew]

My point is that you're sweeping the obvious witness bias under the rug. Archie's point is that you're ignoring contamination of witnesses by propaganda. No one has said that there is just one witness.

Some of the high profile Nazi testimonies that didn't involve coercion include: [...] Höss [...] Bauer [...] Broad [...] Stark [...] Boger [...]

Considering the occupation of Germany at the end of the war, I'm not sure how you could say any of these were not under coercion. Was Höss not under coercion when they beat him and threatened his family? His Jewish attackers admitted to that much. That aside, I know you're just reading off an AI list and you've already received plenty of witness criticisms, so I won't waste my time. Let's just consider Richard Bauer for a moment.

I'm not ignoring contamination of witnesses through abuse or coercion. But if you want to pick apart the credibility of witnesses and testimonies, it has to be done surgically. Let me ask you this - which of the witnesses were coerced and how might that have rendered their testimonies unreliable?

I don't claim to be an expert here, there were thousands of witnesses. My expectation is that maybe there are details within the orthodox narrative that should be questioned or revised, but without going through more, I don't believe that you can throw out the entire body of witness testimony that affirms that thousands upon thousands of Jews were murdered in gas chambers.

[ConfusedJew]

You throw out 100% of the eyewitness evidence from those who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas.

Oh, do I? Tell me more about what I do.

You do not believe any witness, who worked in those places, who states he saw gassings. That leaves you with no witnesses.

I agree with Nessie on this. I'm not ignoring the challenges to the reliability of witness testimony, no single piece of evidence is likely to be perfect, but the consensus on this forum seems to throw out the entire body of witness testimony because some of the Nazis were abused. Witness tampering is a real issue in modern justice systems, but it also still doesn't negate the whole testimony or change the actual truth.

[ConfusedJew]

Nessie, you are a joke. All those forms of evidence contradict what witnesses claim about mass gassings.

I don't see it as necessary or productive to call Nessie a joke. I don't think Nessie has ever done that here, nor have I, and that type of behavior should stop if anybody wants to have a productive conversation on this forum.

[Callafangers]

I don't see it as necessary or productive to call Nessie a joke. I don't think Nessie has ever done that here, nor have I, and that type of behavior should stop if anybody wants to have a productive conversation on this forum.

Let's just cut the crap, ConfusedJew. Your username itself is a lie. You came onto this forum pretending to be curious, totally open-minded, yet just "shocked and confused" at the ideas you found here. Then you immediately began using ChatGPT to defend a position in a debate you admittedly knew nothing about, proving 100% your dishonesty and motivations. Nobody is buying your shtick. You are not here for "productive conversation". You are here to defend your interests, likely Jewish interests, at all costs, truth be damned.

You are as transparent as a squeaky-clean window in a Windex commercial. No one believes you are sincere.

For anyone new (regarding ConfusedJew's behavior):

'Pilpul Activities on the CODOH Forum'
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=339

[ConfusedJew]

Let's just cut the crap, ConfusedJew. Your username itself is a lie. You came onto this forum pretending to be curious, totally open-minded, yet just "shocked and confused" at the ideas you found here. Then you immediately began using ChatGPT to defend a position in a debate you admittedly knew nothing about, proving 100% your dishonesty and motivations. Nobody is buying your shtick. You are not here for "productive conversation". You are here to defend your interests, likely Jewish interests, at all costs, truth be damned.

You are as transparent as a squeaky-clean window in a Windex commercial. No one believes you are sincere.

For anyone new (regarding ConfusedJew's behavior):

'Pilpul Activities on the CODOH Forum'
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=339

I'm not going to defend my intentions to you again so you too will be muted if you continue with this.

I am very clear about why I am here. I obviously believe that the Holocaust happened. I lost many family members to it, I have visited the sites, it is extremely well recorded across many different historians and forms of evidence.

I am Confused Jew because I am truly puzzled as to how somebody in 2025 can still believe that the Holocaust didn't happen.

You aren't a threat to my interests, I am genuinely curious how you believe what you do and how you support those claims. I am not a Holocaust expert but I do strongly believe it happened more or less like the mainstream narrative. I am willing to engage with you if you are serious about this but I do believe that you are basically similar to a Flat Earther. By researching this subject to debate it out with you guys, I am learning a ton about the history, politics, forensics of this whole tragic historical incident. I use AI to help me research, even if I didn't use AI, I would just be much slower and still make mistakes.

Now if you want to make your case in good faith, I am legitimately curious to hear why you believe what you do, but if not then I'll just mute you. I am also fascinated to learn why people hold religious or political beliefs that I think are very unrealistic. So I will leave it up to you if you want to continue or not, but if not then I'll just engage with the other more serious and civil people on this forum.

I am not interested in attacking your character at all, it's just boring to me.

Thanks.

[Nessie]

So-called revisionists do not have evidence to revise the history of the Holocaust. They use argument, including abuse to try and support their hypotheses. The more their evidential and argumental failings are pointed out to them, the more abusive they get.