The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Jan 18, 2026 12:03 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 17, 2026 5:15 pm All of those newspaper reports and people claiming there were gassings at Dachau, and the historians at USHMM say there is no credible evidence of gassings at Dachau. So much for a coordinated hoax.

Getting rid of the most untenable parts of a lie doesn't invalidate the coordinated nature of a hoax. On the contrary, it's a common way to save a lie by protecting it from its biggest inconsistencies and most patently false components. Just a damage control strategy. Also happened to the kitsch Nazi soap hoax, a classic of any good Holocaust tale for 5 decades, which was liquidated by Holohoaxers in 1990 for no apparent reason.

Nesserto wrote: ↑Sun Jan 18, 2026 9:28 am

SC seems to give little acknowledgement to the reality that a prohibition or extreme suppression of revisionist views by the establishment (includes governments, media, academia -- the key information sources, period) equates to an assertion of 'infallibility' of the orthodox narrative. Ironically, such prohibition/suppression also renders the Holocaust narrative unfalsifiable (see: Popper, Sagan), which logically/scientifically invalidates it.

Goebbels Diary, 24 Sep 1941

I also have some important things to discuss with Heydrich when dealing with the Jewish question. We will drive away the desire of the Jews in Berlin to hide their new badges; and besides, I am of the opinion that we must evacuate the Jews from Berlin as quickly as possible. This will be the case as soon as we have settled the military issues in the East.

https://archive.org/details/JosephGoebb ... 3/mode/2up

I notice that BA has placed "resettlement" in scare quotes. But I can't help but notice that in many German documents, the euphemistic reading doesn't really make sense. In the above example, is the theory that "evacuation" is being used here euphemistically? If not, is it your theory that the resettlement referred to here by Goebbels was meant literally? If you do believe it is euphemistic, why does he bother referring (in his private diary) to the military situation in the East? Would that not suggest he means this quite literally?

...All of that being said, and since there are people who are evidently much more interested in the technical arguments (criticisms as you call them), as it stands for those keeping score, the "criticisms" on a technical level have not been addressed adequately and therefore, at bare minimum, the murder weapon, process, and disposal, require revising.

There's nothing stopping a revisionist from writing actual history, except it seems their inability to recognise what a historical narrative looks like and how to write one, instead of just criticising and whining and producing A-Z encyclopedias (the format is obviously NOT a narrative history). Maybe the criticisms can add up to a revisionist narrative. Maybe not.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 7:33 am TII as a death camp could be falsified by eyewitnesses who worked there, who state it was a transit camp.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 7:33 am The Holocaust in its entirety could be falsified with documentary evidence proving millions of Jews were still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 7:33 am The so-called revisionists cannot find such evidence, so they excuse themselves with pseudo-arguments.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 4:16 pm Sanity Check, who is a historian

Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

The problems with the earlier revisionist authors are twofold... Firstly, they simply didn't consider enough of the evidence... Secondly, the failure to provide substantial counter-evidence: vague handwaves about 'Jews went were Jews are' and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories lacking any direct proof.

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 legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

Kindly answer the question: why do you completely avoid the technical debate?

One could of course write an article summarizing many of the key arguments, but imo this is not usually the right approach.

If I were to write a "best evidence" for revisionism article, it would be fairly different from the above articles. But again I don't think blitzing people with tons of stuff is the best approach for an introduction.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 4:16 pm HansHill, in a reply to Sanity Check states;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21198#p21198

...All of that being said, and since there are people who are evidently much more interested in the technical arguments (criticisms as you call them), as it stands for those keeping score, the "criticisms" on a technical level have not been addressed adequately and therefore, at bare minimum, the murder weapon, process, and disposal, require revising.

Hans wants to debate Sanity Check on how the gas chambers, mass graves, ovens and pyres functioned, as he thinks that if that cannot be adequately answered, to his satisfaction, that somehow is evidence there were no gas chambers, mass graves and cremations. Sanity Check, who is a historian, understands that is not how history is normally investigated. As he said;

There's nothing stopping a revisionist from writing actual history, except it seems their inability to recognise what a historical narrative looks like and how to write one, instead of just criticising and whining and producing A-Z encyclopedias (the format is obviously NOT a narrative history). Maybe the criticisms can add up to a revisionist narrative. Maybe not.

HansHill's form of argument is akin to me arguing that I cannot work out how the British could have flown planes to Dresden, and dropped bombs causing a huge fire, therefore that did not happen. Which ignores all the evidence it did happen.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 8:22 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 4:16 pm HansHill, in a reply to Sanity Check states;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21198#p21198

...All of that being said, and since there are people who are evidently much more interested in the technical arguments (criticisms as you call them), as it stands for those keeping score, the "criticisms" on a technical level have not been addressed adequately and therefore, at bare minimum, the murder weapon, process, and disposal, require revising.

Hans wants to debate Sanity Check on how the gas chambers, mass graves, ovens and pyres functioned, as he thinks that if that cannot be adequately answered, to his satisfaction, that somehow is evidence there were no gas chambers, mass graves and cremations. Sanity Check, who is a historian, understands that is not how history is normally investigated. As he said;

There's nothing stopping a revisionist from writing actual history, except it seems their inability to recognise what a historical narrative looks like and how to write one, instead of just criticising and whining and producing A-Z encyclopedias (the format is obviously NOT a narrative history). Maybe the criticisms can add up to a revisionist narrative. Maybe not.

HansHill's form of argument is akin to me arguing that I cannot work out how the British could have flown planes to Dresden, and dropped bombs causing a huge fire, therefore that did not happen. Which ignores all the evidence it did happen.

critique alone doesn’t rewrite history; a coherent narrative supported by evidence does.