The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 6:11 am I think it's safe to say that Kola did take core samples. And he published fairly detailed findings. Are the findings fake? I take some parts of it with a grain of salt, but I don't think the entire report is likely to be an outright fraud. If it's fake data, why not make it really impressive? Why publish fake results that undermine the story?

Have you ever heard of a thing called psychology?

That's what got you to fall for the holocaust archaeology hoax - in a holocaust light kind of way.

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 12:49 am Is it possible Kola has faked everything? I don't think he did,

Do you believe that Kola's "archaeological investigation" of Sobibor was legitimate?

Keen, my position is basically the same as Mattogno's.

Let's assume for sake of argument that Kola's Belzec data is roughly accurate. 2,000 samples. Around 200 samples with some indeterminate amount of human remains. About 5,490 sq meters of grave space. If this is true, do you think this would be devastating for revisionism?

Archie, that's basically where I've been at with it.

Keen, for me, has raised a valid point however. Why concede ANY ground? Especially in light of what has been excavated as Sobibor.

Better to thrust than to parry or pivot.

Why give up ground in the debate? Make exterminationists fight tooth and nail to prove the grave space is inadequate instead.

Keen is abrasive about it, even abusive at times, but, I can't fault his logic.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 9:48 pm Archie, that's basically where I've been at with it.

Keen, for me, has raised a valid point however. Why concede ANY ground? Especially in light of what has been excavated as Sobibor.

Better to thrust than to parry or pivot.

Why give up ground in the debate? Make exterminationists fight tooth and nail to prove the grave space is inadequate instead.

Keen is abrasive about it, even abusive at times, but, I can't fault his logic.

The problem with arguing that the entire report is fake is that this sort of implies that if it were real that it would be a problem for us. I don't want my case to hinge on an assertion that the core samples were faked when that might not be true. And I don't see it as necessary when data is in our favor.

I think it's fine as a lead-off point to say that they have not really proved anything and that we are being asked to basically take their word for it on everything. But from there I quickly move on to saying that even if we assume Kola's data is correct, it still debunks the Holocaust. Keen never moves on to other important arguments because of his monomania.

Overall, I think Mattogno's approach is better, but Keen-style argument can be good as an occasional shock to keep them off balance.

Agreed. I am going to adopt Keen's air quotes 'alleged' argumentation myself. Like you say, keep them on their toes.

Ultimately though, it had to be hard for Kola to pen what he penned, because it is just so very damning. I don't think the man consciously lied.

Looking at basically a shoebox full of ash from grave five at sobibor from the excavation (if I recall correctly), I think he may have been mistaken, however.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 9:20 pm Keen, my position is basically the same as Mattogno's.

Let's assume for sake of argument that Kola's Belzec data is roughly accurate. 2,000 samples. Around 200 samples with some indeterminate amount of human remains. About 5,490 sq meters of grave space. If this is true, do you think this would be devastating for revisionism?

Of course not.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 9:48 pm Archie, that's basically where I've been at with it.

Keen, for me, has raised a valid point however. Why concede ANY ground? Especially in light of what has been excavated as Sobibor.

Better to thrust than to parry or pivot.

Why give up ground in the debate? Make exterminationists fight tooth and nail to prove the grave space is inadequate instead.

Keen is abrasive about it, even abusive at times, but, I can't fault his logic.

There is no "giving up of ground."

And my position has nothing to do with grave space per se. It has to do with the unsubstantiated allegations that the graves have been archaeologically / forensically / scientifically proven to exist. The burden of proof is on those who make said unsubstantiated allegations.

The frauds made a huge tactical error by taking this into the realm of science. My approach is simply to hold them to their burden of proof. It is so unbelievably simple I simply cannot understand how Archie cannot see my position.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 11:08 pm The problem with arguing that the entire report is fake is that this sort of implies that if it were real that it would be a problem for us.

This is nonsense. It implies no such thing.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 11:08 pm Keen never moves on to other important arguments because of his monomania.

Yet more nonsense.

I'm the one that HAS moved on.

They shot themselves in the foot with their grave space errors, and I'm simply taking it to the next level by skepticaly examining the alleged "science" that allegedly "proved" the existence of the "huge mass graves."

YOU Archie, are the one who is not moving on.

This isn't an either / or thing.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Oct 12, 2025 12:22 am Looking at basically a shoebox full of ash from grave five at sobibor from the excavation (if I recall correctly), I think he may have been mistaken, however.

And speaking of Sobibor, when we talk about Kola, we have to look at the big picture and examine all 40 of his alleged "huge mass grave" discoveries - 33 at Belzec and 7 at Sobibor.

I'm going to try and salvage this thread by (for the time being) combining the Belzec and Sobibor mass graves alleged to have been proven to exist by Kola.

Stubble, would you care to assist me by answering some simple questons? (I'm not going to treat you as an adversary.)

B - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; It has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

C - Can you provide credible and convincing evidence that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

D - Can it be conclusively proven that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

E - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; It has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that Andrzej Kola has archaeologically / forensically / scientifically proven the existence of a total of 40 mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

F - Can you provide credible and convincing evidence that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that Andrzej Kola has archaeologically / forensically / scientifically proven the existence of a total of 40 mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

G - Can it be conclusively proven that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that Andrzej Kola has archaeologically / forensically / scientifically proven the existence of a total of 40 mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

VI - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Blacks Law Dictionary defines - Burden of Proof - as: “The necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause.” - ??

VII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The maxims of law found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary include: “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.” - and - “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.” - ??

You're invited to answer them too Archie, but I will not be holding my breath.

Keen wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 12:28 am

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Oct 12, 2025 12:22 am Looking at basically a shoebox full of ash from grave five at sobibor from the excavation (if I recall correctly), I think he may have been mistaken, however.

And speaking of Sobibor, when we talk about Kola, we have to look at the big picture and examine all 40 of his alleged "huge mass grave" discoveries - 33 at Belzec and 7 at Sobibor.

I'm going to try and salvage this thread by (for the time being) combining the Belzec and Sobibor mass graves alleged to have been proven to exist by Kola.

Stubble, would you care to assist me by answering some simple questons? (I'm not going to treat you as an adversary.)

B - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; It has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

T

C - Can you provide credible and convincing evidence that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

T

D - Can it be conclusively proven that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

T

E - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; It has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that Andrzej Kola has archaeologically / forensically / scientifically proven the existence of a total of 40 mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

T

F - Can you provide credible and convincing evidence that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that Andrzej Kola has archaeologically / forensically / scientifically proven the existence of a total of 40 mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

T

G - Can it be conclusively proven that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that Andrzej Kola has archaeologically / forensically / scientifically proven the existence of a total of 40 mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - ??

T

VI - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Blacks Law Dictionary defines - Burden of Proof - as: “The necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause.” - ??

T

VII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The maxims of law found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary include: “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.” - and - “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.” - ??

I'd have to look it up, but, I assume T

You're invited to answer them too Archie, but I will not be holding my breath.

The orthodoxy has made an allegation and has a responsibility to prove it up. The orthodoxy has welched on that responsibility for 80+ years. There is absolutely 0 argument from me on that point.

Thank you Stubble.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:47 am The orthodoxy has made an allegation and has a responsibility to prove it up. The orthodoxy has welched on that responsibility for 80+ years.

Yes, but not only the "orthodoxy" but the individual "archaeologists / forensice investigators / scientists" themselves who have made the unsubstantiated allegations that they have about their alleged PROVEN "huge mass grave" discoveries at Belzec and Sobibor.

Stubble, would you be so kind as to answer some more questions?

Do you see anything at all wrong with someone who asks to see the scientific proof of an alleged scientific discovery?

Are mass graves physical entities?

Do you see anything at all wrong with someone who asks to see the physical evidence that allegedly proves the existence of an alleged physical entity?

Do you see anything at all wrong with someone who becomes skeptical of a scientific claim when the "scientists" who make the claim refuse to show anyone the alleged physical evidence that allegedly proves the existence of an alleged "scientifically proven" physical entity?

Do you see anything at all wrong with someone who becomes skeptical of a scientific claim when the "scientists" who make the claim refuse to debate or answer any questions about their alleged scientific discoveries?

Do you see anything at all wrong with someone who becomes skeptical of a scientific claim when the people who make the claim represent an industry that has a history of telling blatent, shameless lies?

Do you see anything at all wrong with someone who becomes skeptical of a scientific claim when the claim is protected from skeptical inquiry via laws that make it illegal to question the veracity of an alleged "scientifically proven" physical entity?

Do you see anything at all wrong with someone who has a philosophy that is based on the following:

I refuse to believe in the existence of any physical entity that I'm not allowed to see?

Do you believe that Kola discovered a total of 40 mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor?

(And again, I invite Archie to answer the questions.)

You know my answers to these questions Keen, they are obviously, self evident one might say.

Of course the veracity of these claims must be addressed.

Kola's study was at best exploratory. I believe he may have misinterpreted at least some of his data. The excavations do not confirm his samples at Sobibor, if we are being honest, and that is a red flag.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 6:31 pm You know my answers to these questions Keen, they are obviously, self evident one might say.

Right, but just to be clear, you believe that Kola DID NOT discover a total of 40 mass graves at Belzec and Sobibor - correct?

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 6:31 pm Of course the veracity of these claims must be addressed.

Of course indeed. But there are some "revisionists" who believe that investigating the veracity of suspect archaeological / forensic / scientific allegations is somehow damaging to "the revisionist position."

I assume you don't agree with those "revisionists." Why do you think they have come to such an illogical conclusion?

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 6:31 pm I believe he may have misinterpreted at least some of his data.

What do you mean by "data"? What specific "data" did he misinterpret?

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 6:31 pm The excavations do not confirm his samples at Sobibor, if we are being honest, and that is a red flag.

A big red flag indeed.

And remember, the film of the "investigation" of Belzec was never realeased and its existence has been put down the memory hole - just like the NOVA program about Sobibor. That is not just a big red flag - it is ipso facto proof of scientific fraud.

I believe there is an allegation that merits further investigation. Given the digs at Sobibor, I believe Kola's conclusions may be in error.