The CODOH Revisionist Forum

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 9:48 am For Holocaust historians I would guess this question is regarded similarly to how 9/11 historians view the objections of 'controlled demolition' believers. Would be very shocked if most of them devoted considerable time to this.

Irrelevant to the question at hand. Comparison is strained at best. "Don't have enough time" is weak.

For historians, pretty much any theory about a mass event is going to be automatically disqualified if the positive evidence isn't there. Holocaust revisionists don't have it, they only have weak circumstantial evidence. The same applies to 9/11 revisionists.

Same strained comparison as above, avoids the addressing the key issue.

It's not considered a serious debate. You're viewed as curiosities at best, most don't even care this much.

Again irrelevant. Same energy as "I can do 1000 pushups I just don't feel like it". It's also blatantly not true. The establishment cares deeply about Holocaust denial lol. What even is this argument.

SanityCheck is one of the few mainstream historians interested enough to devote considerable time to revisionist objections. I don't know specifically where the interest lies for him, but doesn't seem like it's in the science - which lies outside his core knowledge base and experience.
[/quote]

His time and attention are appreciated, and I am always careful to address him with the title and respect his position warrants. In fact it was the same for Dr Patru. If it emerges you are also a professor of history, I will call you Dr Away or something. Yet none of this addresses the key questions. If Dr Terry is "uninterested" in the science or perhaps unqualified, fine. However he has stated an opinion about it being unsupported, and I can only assume he is basing this opinion on the ~30 year old arguments of Markiewicz et al.

I will wrap this up by saying, this sort of blase approach to Holocaust revisionism is not going to work. Especially as we enter the post-gaza, post-Epstein era. Skepticism of Israel and Jewish power is skyrocketing. People don't like what is happening, why it is happening, and how it is allowed to happen. "You are so far beneath me goy, you don't even deserve an answer now go to jail" is increasingly tonedeaf to a growing audience of skeptics.

These are all quotes from his book chapter/article "Holocaust denial in the age of web 2.0."

He clearly expresses what he thinks of revisionism and revisionists, and what he teaches to students about it.

He thinks the physical evidence arguments are a pseudoscientific propaganda offensive.

This ‘forensic turn’ in negationism, exemplified by the infamous Leuchter report and its tests of cyanide traces in the ruins of the gas chambers of Birkenau, marked a shift from the pseudohistory of Rassinier and Faurisson towards pseudoscientific argumentation. After the errors of the Leuchter report were swiftly exposed, German negationists tried to improve on the gambit with a new forensic report by a young German doctoral student of chemistry, Germar Rudolf, whose ‘Rudolf Report’ helped sustain a prolonged propaganda offensive in reunified Germany during the first half of the 1990s.

He's also the real victim. You're waging war against him! Stop waging war against him!

While ‘Revisionists’ hailed the internet as the ideal medium to promote their ‘counterhegemonic discourse’ and wage guerrilla warfare against mainstream consensus, from the outset, denier ideas on the internet were contested.

Also, you're too old. You're not hip like him. You probably don't even like The Beatles, which are all the rage among young people like him!

The reasons for the commercial decline of ‘Revisionism’ in print form were multiple. First, the audience for ‘Revisionism’ had been steadily ageing since the 1980s, and was not significantly rejuvenating itself.

You're out of fashion, blasé, passé. Nothing like The Beatles!

More disturbing for the true believers is the manner in which ‘Revisionism’ has fallen out of fashion on much of the extreme right as a whole.

Again, you're too old for him to respond to. You probably don't even listen to The Beatles!

The most striking hallmark of the CODOH forum membership is their age profile; the majority are evidently middle-aged or older still, with few members claiming to be in their teens or twenties.

He's the victim here! You're ruthlessly censoring him! Stop censoring him with your Hitler worship!

Disagreements among members, either over tactics, the validity of other conspiracy theories, Hitler-worship, overt anti-Semitism or historical facts, flare up routinely. The forum is noticeably rigged in favour of a small inner circle of posters with any visiting non-deniers ruthlessly censored.

He also wrote here that he must be a masochist for continuing to engage with Hitler-worshiping pseudoscientific propagandist cheerleaders.

You guys seem like masochists a lot of the time, although I admit the same could be said about me bothering to see what you're up to these days...

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 9:48 am For Holocaust historians I would guess this question is regarded similarly to how 9/11 historians view the objections of 'controlled demolition' believers. Would be very shocked if most of them devoted considerable time to this.

For historians, pretty much any theory about a mass event is going to be automatically disqualified if the positive evidence isn't there. Holocaust revisionists don't have it, they only have weak circumstantial evidence. The same applies to 9/11 revisionists.

This is not true at all though, I know a structural engineer with no interest or consciousness in 9/11 theories who went to a lecture by an expert dedicated to explaining the structural processes that caused the collapse of the Towers in the way they did (from the design of the building through the sequence of events all the way through the collapse)- he went purely out of professional curiosity, not because he doubted the mainstream story at all. I'm not saying that analysis is correct, but defenders of the traditional 9/11 absolutely field a detailed scientific case for their claim of what physically caused the towers to fall the way they did. There is no similar explanation that has ever been offered for the technical feasibility of the cremation of 5,000 people every single day in these small camps with the methods attested to.

Because even structural engineers who don't doubt the story still have an intellectual curiosity for exactly how it happened. You see nothing like that at all for the physical realm of the Holocaust, there is nobody except Moolenkamp to even dare to offer a partial explanation.

Honestly, it's why I don't really dabble in 9/11 stuff... I am not a structural engineer I cannot possibly understand or engage or criticize their case... but when it come to the Holocaust I became a Revisionist because I learned they offer no case for it at all, they rely on authoritarian tactics at every layer of our institutions to maintain consensus, and the reason for that is the Revisionist criticism is insurmountable for them.

Like if 9/11 truthers were the only ones to present a case for how the towers fell, and 9/11 proponents- every single one of them, refused to provide any explanation and claimed it was unnecessary to even explain it because it was so obviously true, that would be more like the Holocaust vs Revisionists. But the proponents of mainstream 9/11 do what Holocaust proponents do not dare- actually try to explain what happened with a high degree of scientific rigor.

W.r.t Dr. Terry's constant heralding of the end of Revisionism, he could not be more wrong. He doesn't understand, for better and worse, Collective Consciousness is now propagated through different means than gatekeepers like himself, because his institutions have rightly lost all trust from the public, with Dr. Terry being an example for why trust in those institutions has collapsed.

There is growing awareness that EVEN IF Revisionists are right, which they are, Dr. Terry and his colleagues would never acknowledge it. Consciousness of Revisionism is the highest it ever has been by at least an order of magnitude. Dr. Terry can take solace in the fact his department will never be taken over by Revisionist Scholars, and ultimately I think that's all he cares about- his vapid status games and defending the status-value of his own credentials, but public trust in what he is trying to teach is rapidly dissipating even as he declares the end of Revisionism.

Revisionism isn't "aging", it is younger than ever and more energetic than ever. Its method of expression and propagation is different, but it's not controllable by the institutional antics that have brought us here.

pilgrimofdark wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 3:00 pm He thinks the physical evidence arguments are a pseudoscientific propaganda offensive.

This ‘forensic turn’ in negationism, exemplified by the infamous Leuchter report and its tests of cyanide traces in the ruins of the gas chambers of Birkenau, marked a shift from the pseudohistory of Rassinier and Faurisson towards pseudoscientific argumentation. After the errors of the Leuchter report were swiftly exposed, German negationists tried to improve on the gambit with a new forensic report by a young German doctoral student of chemistry, Germar Rudolf, whose ‘Rudolf Report’ helped sustain a prolonged propaganda offensive in reunified Germany during the first half of the 1990s.

This is such a blatant cop-out that I feel secondhand embarrassment for him (SC/Terry) upon even reading it.

"All of the physical evidence is a branch of pseudoscientific argumentation... and that's why myself and all of my anti-revisionist partners have appeared to fail persistently in every physical evidence debate against these deniers."

Yikes.

It is simply a shamelessly-blatantly-false portrayal that revisionists have no arguments on physical evidence worth seeing or considering. It's the ultimate, "Trust me, bro..."

What do his students think of this?

PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 4:47 pmThere is growing awareness that EVEN IF Revisionists are right, which they are, Dr. Terry and his colleagues would never acknowledge it. Consciousness of Revisionism is the highest it ever has been by at least an order of magnitude. Dr. Terry can take solace in the fact his department will never be taken over by Revisionist Scholars, and ultimately I think that's all he cares about- his vapid status games and defending the status-value of his own credentials, but public trust in what he is trying to teach is rapidly dissipating even as he declares the end of Revisionism.

Exactly. The two areas I have seen SC/Terry evade debate outright are:

• Anything regarding physical evidence, period
• Anything about conflicts of interest in the historiography (e.g. the fact that he is heavily-funded [cushy career] to engage in the same topic we all have interest in [the Holocaust], while we [his opponents] are persecuted, stigmatized, defunded, etc.)

Does he think this isn't noticeable? Does he think nobody will agree that physical evidence matters and that there is no one on the establishment side fit for challenging the current revisionist position, here?

Does he think no one notices the massively 'tilted table' in this debate, and that they'll agree it's a trivial matter that censorship appears a necessity to keep "Holocaust denial" from breaking its way out into the masses?

Sometimes I think to myself that Nick is here in ernest. He drops some legitimate jewels on occasion. He has also linked me to a vast collection of documents and has kindly pointed in directions for finding others.

Other times I see some of his posts as obfuscatory spaghetti.

Of course, he thinks I'm a simpleton and prone to gish gallop.

/shrug

I'm genuinely glad he frequents the board though, and would actually like to see more posts from him.

Although, I'd like at least some of those posts to address, you know, where they goed. It's at the crux of disagreement.

Ultimately, they aren't where he and his fellows said they would be.

Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 10:19 pm Sometimes I think to myself that Nick is here in ernest. He drops some legitimate jewels on occasion. He has also linked me to a vast collection of documents and has kindly pointed in directions for finding others.

Other times I see some of his posts as obfuscatory spaghetti.

Of course, he thinks I'm a simpleton and prone to gish gallop.

/shrug

I'm genuinely glad he frequents the board though, and would actually like to see more posts from him.

Although, I'd like at least some of those posts to address, you know, where they goed. It's at the crux of disagreement.

Ultimately, they aren't where he and his fellows said they would be.

I agree regarding appreciation for his input; I don't mean to simply 'bash' on him here but there's some due attention and calling-out on his persistent evasions, hence my reason in making the thread.

Why are you all so desperate to debate a historian on technical/scientific issues to do with how the gas chambers and cremations worked? Why are you not wanting to debate people with more relevant qualifications?

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 06, 2026 7:45 am Why are you all so desperate to debate a historian on technical/scientific issues to do with how the gas chambers and cremations worked? Why are you not wanting to debate people with more relevant qualifications?

Who, Nessie? Who since Roberto Muehlenkamp is even attempting any diligent effort to challenge the revisionist presentation on physical evidence?

Dr Terry made the following positive assertion.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 1:02 am while there were good reasons to disregard the Prussian Blue claim as unconvincing.

According to Forum Rules i requested this to be substantiated in some way:

If you make a controversial claim without support, others have the right to request support. You must respond in some fashion, either by explaining your basis for the claim (whatever it may be) or by conceding that support is lacking.

Which has yet to be forthcoming.

To summarize, you complain you are being censored, you complain when you are given the spotlight, you complain when forum users follow the rules and you complain when Historians are prompted to expand their ideas in a public setting. In short, you are a clown.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Feb 06, 2026 8:02 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 06, 2026 7:45 am Why are you all so desperate to debate a historian on technical/scientific issues to do with how the gas chambers and cremations worked? Why are you not wanting to debate people with more relevant qualifications?

Who, Nessie? Who since Roberto Muehlenkamp is even attempting any diligent effort to challenge the revisionist presentation on physical evidence?

The closest to a technical debate, is the one between chemists over the presence of PB and HCN levels. It has not changed any minds, that I am aware of. I have never seen any attempt by any revisionist to engage with a relevant expert over ventilation, the holes in the Krema roofs, the pyres etc. Whether experts have declined, or never been approached, I do not know.

It may be because no expert thinks it is worth their time. The revisionist presentation on the physical evidence, is logically and evidentially flawed, yet they stick by it. Is it worth debating someone who is so obviously wrong, when they cannot see how wrong they are? I find it hard to imagine a situation where a ventilation engineer could explain, to your satisfaction, how the Krema gas chambers were vented, from the evidence there is on the ventilation system, such that you would accept they could indeed have worked.

HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 10:38 am

It's not considered a serious debate. You're viewed as curiosities at best, most don't even care this much.

Again irrelevant. Same energy as "I can do 1000 pushups I just don't feel like it". It's also blatantly not true. The establishment cares deeply about Holocaust denial lol. What even is this argument.

I said it's not "considered" a debate. They may care about Holocaust denial, but they don't take any of the claims seriously.

from the HC blog white paper

"It does not mean that we regard deniers as equal debating partners on an intellectual or ethical level; instead, we proceed in the knowledge that deniers operate in ignorance and bad faith."

This is the explanation for the lack of serious attention from the mainstream + the argument of not wanting to give people they believe are racists a platform.

The notion that the mainstream is "scared" because they think good points are being made is not evidenced. Even if "the crazy deniers" were to somehow convince most of the world they were right at that point the camps where remains are still buried (Bezec, Sobibor, Chelmno) to be more thoroughly investigated which would answer any questions, for most at least.

I believe for the posters on this forum, nothing could convince them that it occurred. A conspiracy surrounding investigations is much more viable than the conspiracies everyone here believes in, such as mass confessions being forced or fabricated plus the suppression of evidence of resettlement events that would have involved or been witnessed by millions.

Nessie wrote:It may be because no expert thinks it is worth their time.

bombsaway wrote:"It does not mean that we regard deniers as equal debating partners on an intellectual or ethical level; instead, we proceed in the knowledge that deniers operate in ignorance and bad faith."

This is the explanation for the lack of serious attention from the mainstream + the argument of not wanting to give people they believe are racists a platform.

Both of these are the same cop-out, and this is precisely why revisionism has been gaining ground. It assumes that neutral, curious audiences are stupid and/or will not ever come across revisionist arguments on physical evidence which are clearly compelling and remain unchallenged.

If this is the 'hill exterminationists wish to die on', I'm all for it.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 07, 2026 2:43 am

bombsaway wrote:"It does not mean that we regard deniers as equal debating partners on an intellectual or ethical level; instead, we proceed in the knowledge that deniers operate in ignorance and bad faith."

This is the explanation for the lack of serious attention from the mainstream + the argument of not wanting to give people they believe are racists a platform.

Both of these are the same cop-out, and this is precisely why revisionism has been gaining ground. It assumes that neutral, curious audiences are stupid and/or will not ever come across revisionist arguments on physical evidence which are clearly compelling and remain unchallenged.

Isn't this thread about the rationale of SanityCheck and orthodoxy's decision not to engage?

This has nothing to do with the point that I'm making, which is about the rationale. They aren't concerned the Holocaust might be false. They're concerned false beliefs might gain ground in the public sphere which would lead to more anti semitism.

JFC how many effeminate little jabs and ad homs is everyone going to let bombs get away with cramming in there?

There are enough in there that if I didn't know any better, I'd launch into personal attacks and use the forbidden expletive.

The fellow has a very unsavory style in his arguments.

Bombsaway, the only thing the orthodoxy would have to do to stop revisionists is to honestly engage and offer an explanation that isn't self immollating, magically disappearing jews.

The debate hasn't changed much since 2002. The orthodoxy has had almost 30 years since then to present a valid argument, yet they continue to fumble, failing to explain the unexplainable.

https://odysee.com/@Stubble:4/Robert-Fa ... 82002%29:d

Even you, when pressed, are reduced to saying the jews were hidden under rocks and trees at the Bug River sites...