The CODOH Revisionist Forum

HansHill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 8:42 am Is there any particular reason for not engaging with the literature directly and finding out?

Read? He didn't even read the Vrba report, it was apparently 'too long'...

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 7:32 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 8:42 am Is there any particular reason for not engaging with the literature directly and finding out?

Read? He didn't even read the Vrba report, it was apparently 'too long'...

Straw man fallacy.

I merely pointed out to HansHill, who clearly did not read, or did not understand the reports he linked to. To prove that someone subjected to coercion, has made a false claim, you have to evidence they were subjected to coercion and that the claim they made was false.

There is corroborating photographic and eyewitness evidence that Hoess was subjected to coercion. Where is the corroborating evidence his claims about gas chambers and mass murder are false?

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 6:24 am There is corroborating photographic and eyewitness evidence that Hoess was subjected to coercion. Where is the corroborating evidence his claims about gas chambers and mass murder are false?

cor·rob·or·ation

Evidence which confirms - OR - supports a statement or theory

When you use the word "corroboration" - do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

I decided to wait 24 hours before responding to your slop, so the edit window has now closed so you will continue looking foolish in perpetuity for everyone to see and point and laugh. You’ve spent this entire exchange demanding “evidence” that the Hoess testimony is false.

I’ve spent this entire exchange explaining why that’s the wrong standard and a fool’s errand (but i guess if the shoe fits…?) because it by definition and scientific rigour is unreliable.

The question isn’t whether every statement made under torture by Hoess is false. The question is whether testimony extracted under torture is reliable and in turn can be part of your circular “””corroboration””” matrix that you fall back on when being ragdolled in every other thread.

The literature you didn’t read says “no”.

Not “sometimes no.” Not “maybe no.” Not “no because muh Holocaust”. No. Torture is a contamination event. It destroys confidence in the evidence it produces, rather than strengthen it or leave it considered as neutral. It render’s Hoess’s tortured confession as reliable as a Nessie slopbucket post.

Your moronic position ultimately boils down to this:

“Yes, he was tortured. Yes, torture is known to produce false confessions, false memories, and factual errors. Yes he made a myriad of inexplicable misstatements. But because its inside my “””corroboration””” matrix, I have defined it as a priori correct and true”

That’s moronic, circular, fallacious, and did I say moronic?

And after all your slop, you’ve produced exactly zero reasons why Hoess should be considered as an exception to the energent pattern from the literature.

You’ve simply assumed he is an exception because muh Holocaust. Niw you understand the gigantic problem you are facing when defending Hoess because “muh Kula” and defending Kula with “muh Chazan” and defending Chazan with “muh Vrba” and defending Vrba with “muh Tauber”.

Because they are all individually unreliable and contradictory, daisy chaining them together into your “””corroboration””” matrix is circular, begging the question, deus ex machina, a priori, confirmation Nessie-coded slop of the highest order.

Stop embarrassing yourself for God’s sake.

HansHill wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 4:13 pm I decided to wait 24 hours before responding to your slop, so the edit window has now closed so you will continue looking foolish in perpetuity for everyone to see and point and laugh. You’ve spent this entire exchange demanding “evidence” that the Hoess testimony is false.

I’ve spent this entire exchange explaining why that’s the wrong standard and a fool’s errand (but i guess if the shoe fits…?) because it by definition and scientific rigour is unreliable.

To prove that Hoess lied about gas chambers and mass murder, you need evidence of that, such as other camp staff who contradict him and said that the Kremas were not used as gas chambers, or evidence to prove those not selected for work, left the camp alive.

You know that you have no such evidence, so you create a false standard whereby you do not need to evidence and prove your claims, claims such as Hoess lied and there was no gas chamber at A-B.

The question isn’t whether every statement made under torture by Hoess is false. The question is whether testimony extracted under torture is reliable and in turn can be part of your circular “””corroboration””” matrix that you fall back on when being ragdolled in every other thread.

The literature you didn’t read says “no”.

Not “sometimes no.” Not “maybe no.” Not “no because muh Holocaust”. No. Torture is a contamination event. It destroys confidence in the evidence it produces, rather than strengthen it or leave it considered as neutral. It render’s Hoess’s tortured confession as reliable as a Nessie slopbucket post.

In a modern day court scenario, the answer is no. For modern day historians, the answer is yes, Hoess's evidence, whilst lacking in credibility and often unreliable, is still an important piece of evidence.

Your moronic position ultimately boils down to this:

“Yes, he was tortured. Yes, torture is known to produce false confessions, false memories, and factual errors. Yes he made a myriad of inexplicable misstatements. But because its inside my “””corroboration””” matrix, I have defined it as a priori correct and true”

That’s moronic, circular, fallacious, and did I say moronic?

Under torture, Hoess admitted that A-B had gas chambers and there was mass murder. Under no evidence of torture at the West Germany trials in Frankfurt, many other camp staff admitted the same. Jewish prisoners said the same. Documents were found that proved gas chambers were constructed for a special action at the Kremas. Documents also prove that for hundreds of thousand of Jews, their existence ends on arrival at the camp.

The vast majority of evidence was not obtained using torture and much of it came from documentary and circumstantial evidence.

And after all your slop, you’ve produced exactly zero reasons why Hoess should be considered as an exception to the energent pattern from the literature.

You’ve simply assumed he is an exception because muh Holocaust. Niw you understand the gigantic problem you are facing when defending Hoess because “muh Kula” and defending Kula with “muh Chazan” and defending Chazan with “muh Vrba” and defending Vrba with “muh Tauber”.

Because they are all individually unreliable and contradictory, daisy chaining them together into your “””corroboration””” matrix is circular, begging the question, deus ex machina, a priori, confirmation Nessie-coded slop of the highest order.

Stop embarrassing yourself for God’s sake.

You have correctly identified issues with the witness statements, but incorrectly you think those issues prove lying. You have failed to produce evidence to prove Hoess, Kula, Chazan, Vrba and Tauber all lied and what the Kremas were really used for and that the hundreds of thousands of Jews who disappeared from the records after arriving at the camp, were still alive.

HansHill if,

"your “””corroboration””” matrix is circular, begging the question, deus ex machina, a priori, confirmation Nessie-coded slop of the highest order"

Then what methodology should be used to assess witness claims?

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 6:56 am You have failed to produce evidence to prove Hoess, Kula, Chazan, Vrba and Tauber all lied and what the Kremas were really used for and that the hundreds of thousands of Jews who disappeared from the records after arriving at the camp, were still alive.

Logical fallacy.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 4:09 pm HansHill if,

"your “””corroboration””” matrix is circular, begging the question, deus ex machina, a priori, confirmation Nessie-coded slop of the highest order"

Then what methodology should be used to assess witness claims?

Invert each node to its counterpart, genius.

Independent justification > Circular reasoning
Open ended inquiry > Begging the question
Falsified claims are discarded > falsified claims are salvaged deus ex machina
A posteriori > a priori
Popperian inquiry > confirmation bias
Putting down the keyboard > posting slop

Google these terms please, before you embarrass yourself.

HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 8:23 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 4:09 pm HansHill if,

"your “””corroboration””” matrix is circular, begging the question, deus ex machina, a priori, confirmation Nessie-coded slop of the highest order"

Then what methodology should be used to assess witness claims?

Invert each node to its counterpart, genius.

Independent justification > Circular reasoning
Open ended inquiry > Begging the question
Falsified claims are discarded > falsified claims are salvaged deus ex machina
A posteriori > a priori
Popperian inquiry > confirmation bias
Putting down the keyboard > posting slop

Google these terms please, before you embarrass yourself.

It is 1945, you are in charge of investigating what took place inside Birkenau's Kremas because of reports that during 1943-4, they were used as gas chambers. What do you do? How would you go about determining if the reports are true or not?

This is embarrassing. This thread is about you attempting and failing to defend your indefensible position. Re-read the OP again if you have forgotten why you are here. Since you can’t defend your position it would be much more fitting for the mod team to lock this thread and put you out of your misery rather than issuing your own rubbish challenges.

I’m not your friend, i’m not here to discuss alternate history whataboutisms with you about what I would do if I was in charge of Nuremberg or whatever else you are prattling on about. I’m here to discuss the Holocaust being fake.

HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 10:16 am This is embarrassing. This thread is about you attempting and failing to defend your indefensible position. Re-read the OP again if you have forgotten why you are here. Since you can’t defend your position it would be much more fitting for the mod team to lock this thread and put you out of your misery rather than issuing your own rubbish challenges.

What you suggest is my, and my alone, position, is the way historians, journalists, the police and lawyers assess witness evidence. If my position is indefensible, then so is how history, crimes and news stories have been investigated indefensible. That is quite a claim for you to make, so of course I have questions for you.

I did pick a witness to analyse in detail, Krzepicki, but Archie got upset because his testimony is long.

I was asked a loaded question about witnesses to other events in history, which ignores that revisionists treat Holocaust witnesses based on their biased opinion, and that somehow, none are believable. They reach that conclusion, based on a methodology that is indefensible, as it is based on opinion and logically flawed arguments.

I am not prepared to write and essay, but I did name three witnesses and explained, very simply, how their evidence has been assessed to be truthful, but varying in credibility and accuracy. Witness assessment is not complicated.

I’m not your friend, i’m not here to discuss alternate history whataboutisms with you about what I would do if I was in charge of Nuremberg or whatever else you are prattling on about. I’m here to discuss the Holocaust being fake.

I think you do not want to explain how you would investigate the reports of the use of gas chambers and mass murder at A-B, because you don't know what to do, because of your lack of experience. You do not know how to evidence the Holocaust was faked. I do.

What I do or don’t know about a fictional scenario you coined is irrelevant, we are talking about the Holocaust as presented.

If you are not up to the OP as presented, politely ask the mod team to close the thread.

HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 1:52 pm What I do or don’t know about a fictional scenario you coined is irrelevant, we are talking about the Holocaust as presented.

The thread is about witness assessment. You do not know how to assess witnesses accurately.

If you are not up to the OP as presented, politely ask the mod team to close the thread.

I don't need to write an essay to say that corroboration determines how truthful, accurate and credible a witness is.

For example, Zabecki estimated that c3 million arrived on transports at TII. However, transport documents and records of arrivals at the camp, suggest it was 800-900,000. Documents, especially the likes of the Hofle Telegram, where someone of in charge of AR lists detailed numbers of arrivals are inherently more accurate the estimations. Studies of people trying to estimate, especially large numbers, find that people are poor and tend not to be that accurate. Therefore, the documents corroborate Krzepiki's claim of mass arrivals, so he is being truthful, but find he is not that accurate, which reduces his credibility as a witness to the mass transports.

There's not much point in trying to moderate threads where Nessie is involved. The guy is constitutionally incapable of coherent argument.

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 2:49 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 1:52 pm What I do or don’t know about a fictional scenario you coined is irrelevant, we are talking about the Holocaust as presented.

The thread is about witness assessment. You do not know how to assess witnesses accurately.

If you are not up to the OP as presented, politely ask the mod team to close the thread.

I don't need to write an essay to say that corroboration determines how truthful, accurate and credible a witness is.

For example, Zabecki estimated that c3 million arrived on transports at TII. However, transport documents and records of arrivals at the camp, suggest it was 800-900,000. Documents, especially the likes of the Hofle Telegram, where someone of in charge of AR lists detailed numbers of arrivals are inherently more accurate the estimations. Studies of people trying to estimate, especially large numbers, find that people are poor and tend not to be that accurate. Therefore, the documents corroborate Krzepiki's claim of mass arrivals, so he is being truthful, but find he is not that accurate, which reduces his credibility as a witness to the mass transports.

No. Anytime someone points out a problem with a number you respond reflexively and without thought that "estimations" are often inaccurate. But if that were really all this was we would see a range of estimates with some being high and some being low. We would not get ALL the witnesses giving extremely high numbers and we would not get MULTIPLE witnesses giving the EXACT SAME number. Check through some of pilgrim's Treblinka threads. Multiple witnesses gave this same exact 3 million figure. This is not "inaccurate estimations." This is people REPEATING a false number. And that demolishes your argument about how these testimonies all supposedly corroborate themselves. You can't see these sorts of things because you are very bad at this. Get a new hobby.