The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2026 7:13 pm Having tried 'the Blobel method' with rat carcasses, I can tell you that it plays out exactly as you would expect.

It's amusing to think they sent Hoess on a special trip to Chelmno just to watch Blobel's "expert" cremation methods ... aaaaand he's using flamethrower, one of the most idiotic methods imaginable. If I were Hoess I would have been highly annoyed.

Don't expect bombs to understand these points. Remember, this is the guy who thinks gasoline was the primary fuel source for the AR cremations.



viewtopic.php?t=563

If a flamethrower was employed, it was to touch off the primary fuel at a distance. Probably from around 10 meters. Likely for safety reasons if gasoline was in any way involved.

I wouldn't put that out of the realm of possibility.

A flamethrower being the primary? Absolutely fucking ridiculous.

The point is that when asked to say what happened, actually or plausibly, you RUN

As I said earlier, this applies to flamethrowers but also the resettlement of 1.5 million Polish Jews in Occupied USSR etc . You can't do it, you can only offer diversions in the form of nitpicks or counter questions. On the other hand, I can answer any question you ask about what happened.

For anyone reading this thread, because it will feature in my essay, this is the difference between our two sides, and I think it is enough to invalidate revisionists. Saying what happened is the definition of doing history :

"History is the study, interpretation, and chronological record of past events, particularly concerning human affairs, developments, and societies. It involves analyzing evidence to understand changes over time, encompassing everything from written documents to oral traditions and artifacts. "

Source criticism is not only valid, but, is its own field. It is absolute fine to critique the record as it has been handed down, and that is indeed a very real part of history, though, not representative of the whole of the study.

You continue to gnash and flail, spitting about 'well, where'd they go!' Like that is a fucking 'gotcha'. It ain't. It should be many times easier to show me where the dead are than for me to show you where a footprint was. For the last 80 years the other side of the coin has adamantly refused to investigate where the dead ended up. The closest we have to a proper dig is Sobibor, and from an exterminationist position, it is an utter failure.

These monuments of twisted rebar, concrete and jagged rocks, over, many of the supposed killing sites, they are obfuscation, plain and simple.

I will find your damn missing jews, and I will name them, and I will disposition them, since the orthodoxy refuses to do the fucking job. Until then, the fact that I haven't accounted for them shouldn't be your only damn pivot.

For fuck's sake, I can't even prove that Blobel ever took possession of the flamethrower and 2 200 liter drums of fuel, and neither can you. Because Hoess mentioned it, much later, you think that is a smoking gun that proves the guy murdered > 3,000,000 people at Auschwitz without leaving a damn trace.

That's not history either Bombs, don't be a fucking muppet.

My wager would be that if you were to try to construct a narrative, even a "plausible" one (you will have to speculate because of lack of evidence - but you should explain that lack of evidence), what you would come up with would be laughable compared to the orthodox version of events. This hasn't really been attempted, I think, because on some level you are afraid of doing this.

This applies to Reinhardt resettlement of 1.5 million people but also a micro issue like the flamethrower. You'll even look silly trying to explain the flamethrower. After continued provocations in this thread, still there has been nothing (from the revisionist side) about what happened during Hoess's meeting with Blobel, or if it even happened.

Sir, this thread isn't about what ifs regarding your opinion about what I might write. This is a thread about a flamethrower.

Did Blobel actually possess one? Do you actually have any documentation that he took possession of the unit? A transfer of the unit to another band after he tested it? Recurrent fuel requests if he kept it? What was the disposition of it? Where did it go bombsaway? If you can't tell me where the flamethrower went, then he obviously gassed it with diesel exhaust, buried it for a few months, and then cremated it on a fucking BBQ grill.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2026 3:11 am Sir, this thread isn't about what ifs regarding your opinion about what I might write.

You can see that Archie forked this thread based on my comment, which was definitely about challenging you guys to explain Hoess's flamethrower comment from the revisionist perspective. If you don't want to answer that's fine with me, but it is what this thread was originally about.

Well, then I will say that your strawman of what I am putting together is dead fucking wrong. I'm gathering the facts, such as they can be ascertained 80 years after the fact, and I lament that we have been on the receiving end of a pack of lies for almost a century, and that no one ever bothered to fully correct the record. To be fair, the revisionists have been a plucky bunch and have made the problems with the orthodox historiography patently obvious, and the have moved the ball damn near to the goal line. Those last few yards will be the hardest, and I will carry the ball as far as I can.

We were shown pictures of victims of the allied 'victory' over Germany as proof of a propaganda lie concocted and applied like a salve by the jilted. As the years went by, it became more and more, jewish...

At this point, it is 'the Holocaust of the jews by the nazis'. The others a simple prop to be inserted when convenient, but, never given any real light. Hell, the Poles themselves get blamed for 'the nazi holocaust of the jews' at this point somehow.

Regardless of all of that, my point, and analog, still stand. You can't prove Blobel had the flamethrower, and you have no idea what happened to it. Hence, it had to have been gassed by him, buried, then cremated on a BBQ grill...

Do you see how silly that is yet? Or will you just keep repeating 'where'd they go' any time you get painted into a damn corner? You will make any excuse, so long as you never have to make, a single concession.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2026 4:45 pm -IMT (Mar-Apr 1946) - affidavits and testimony - I see no mention of Chelmno or Blobel and the passage from Goldensohn I quoted suggests he wasn't aware of Chelmno gassings at that point.

Hoess was extradited to Poland in May 1946. He was interrogated from Sep 1946-Mar 1947 and was executed in Apr 1947.

Blobel was in American custody. There two affidavits from Jun 1947. He was tried at NMT Einsatzgruppen trial (Sep 1947-Apr 1948) and was executed in 1951. From what I can tell, Blobel does not mention using flamethrowers or explosives to destroy bodies. He seems to just say they burned them.

The Americans were aware of Hoess's statements in Poland and that Hoess's statements were used in the interrogation of Blobel. The interrogator directly references material from Hoess's later statements.

28. Q.: Mr. Blobel, perhaps you can put a few things in writing. I would like to tell you that I know about the Kulmhof incident, as well as the experiments in Litzmannstadt. When Hoess was down there, the facility in Litzmannstadt was inspected. Hoess also said that the bodies could be blown up, but the experiments never worked, and then they got hold of this ball mill.

viewtopic.php?t=438

As Blobel was not interrogated until 1947, it seems unlikely that there was an influence running from Blobel to Hoess.

It would be good to confirm if Hoess if the earliest example of the destroying-bodies-with-dynamite-and-flamethrowers idea or if it was around earlier.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2026 7:13 pm The fact that there is a document indicating that Blobel had a flame thrower, and later Höß claimed to have seen one does not undo the many other impossibilities and errors that rolled out of the man's mouth…

…Just because Mary claimed to have ridden a broomstick and had intercourse with the devil, and later someone else claimed to have seen it, and a receipt surfaced for a broomstick doesn't mean the devil is real and she could fly on one.

Brilliant rebuttal!

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2026 7:41 pm The point is that when asked …I can answer any question you ask about what happened.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2026 7:41 pmSaying what happened is the definition of doing history…

Which is why the holyhoax claim of a planned genocide-of-ALL-Jooze by mass-gassing of 4.5 million of them is NOT a genuine history.
It is a pseudo-history because it maintains things happened which OBVIOUSLY DIDN’T HAPPEN as they defy the laws of nature and which are refuted by basic physics.
It is a quasi-religious, cultish belief-system as it relies upon blind faith, demonises and persecutes disbelievers and skeptics, and insists in belief in events occurring which are paranormal.

BOTTOM LINE:
No serious student of history would believe a flamethrower could eliminate traces of hundreds of thousands of bodies.
Just as no intelligent, well-informed person would believe Eichmann's story of mass-gassings using diesel exhaust from a non-existent, captured, Soviet submarine engine.
Just as no honest person would deny that these people invented nonsense to ‘please’ their interrogators.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2026 7:41 pm "History is the study, interpretation, and chronological record of past events, particularly concerning human affairs, developments, and societies. It involves analyzing evidence to understand changes over time, encompassing everything from written documents to oral traditions and artifacts.”

Ai slop. It omits the fact that genuine history welcomes critical analysis and revision. NO genuine history outlaws that.

“Historical research relies on primary and secondary sources to reconstruct past events and validate interpretations. Source criticism is used to evaluate these sources, assessing their authenticity, content, and reliability. Historians strive to integrate the perspectives of several sources to develop a coherent narrative.”

The promoters of the WW2 atrocity propaganda, which has been enshrined in the holocaust narrative, do not permit “source criticism”, nor do they permit any “perspectives” which undermine the compulsory and protected mythology.