The CODOH Revisionist Forum

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 4:20 am You can't "prove" anything except for math

Are you 100% certain about that?

If you told me that there was an elephant in my basement and I didn't see an elephant in my basement, I would be 100% certian that there was no elephant in my basement.

My not having visual confirmation of an elephant in my basement would meet the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard that there was no elephant in my basement, the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard that there was no elephant in my basement and the Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard that there was no elephant in my basement, as well as my personal 100% certainty standard.

And, if not seeing an elephant in my basement meets the Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard, then it can be said that I proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no elephant in my basement.

It's a thing called the convergence of the lack of physical evidence method CJ.

It appears that you don't have the mental capacity to understand.

It's better at this point to stick to the numbers and things that can be quantified because that's more objective.

You brought up a numerical argument and I agreed that your argument was valid, in that the math worked out, but it was not a sound argument in that what you are saying actually isn't controversial so it doesn't even weaken the widely accepted historical narrative.

So to be clear, I agree with your argument as does pretty much anybody else, but what is the point of your argument other than to say that cremation alone couldn't have been enough? Nobody really disputes that.

I've been succinct. One of the major problems with alternative disposal and disposition of bodies is lack of any physical or contemporary evidence to support the thesis, other than witness testimony, which is incongruent with the physical state of the ground near the Kremas.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 6:18 am It shows that historians are guided by the evidence and revisionists are not...

The revisionist failure to evidence what did happen inside the AR camps, Chelmno... I really do hope you are in ernest and that you will actually look at the evidence.

Nessie, let's see the physical evidence that this site asks to see:

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

The Ipso facto / convergence of the lack of physical evidence method has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the largest of the 100 fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of B, C, P, S & T II contained the remains of only 5 people - i.e - it has been proven that there are no "huge mass graves at these sites.

And everyone knows, including you Nessie, that:

No mass graves = no mass murder = no mass gassings = no holocausts at these sites.

But it appears that you lack the mental capacity to understand that.

Keen wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 1:11 pm If you told me that there was an elephant in my basement and I didn't see an elephant in my basement, I would be 100% certian that there was no elephant in my basement.

My not having visual confirmation of an elephant in my basement would meet the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard that there was no elephant in my basement, the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard that there was no elephant in my basement and the Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard that there was no elephant in my basement, as well as my personal 100% certainty standard.

And, if not seeing an elephant in my basement meets the Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard, then it can be said that I proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no elephant in my basement.

It's a thing called the convergence of the lack of physical evidence method CJ.

It appears that you have the mental capacity to understand.

Here's the issue laid out very clearly for you. My point about the elephant in the basement is that you can't be 100% certain about anything just as I always might be wrong about my belief in the Holocaust. But you need to look at all the evidence and weigh the evidence and make a decision for yourself. Some people have a better ability to judge the evidence than others. But real truth seekers are always seeking out disconfirming evidence rather than the opposite which is quite the opposite.

The convergence of evidence from documents, witness accounts, archaeological findings, and photographs paints a consistent and coherent picture of mass extermination during the Holocaust, even when certain pieces of physical evidence are difficult to find or have been destroyed. The absence of certain pieces of evidence does not invalidate the entire narrative.

While it is true that much physical evidence doesn't exist, many would argue that it was because the Nazis destroyed the evidence to conceal their crimes, there is still significant physical evidence that has been recovered and studied extensively by historians, forensic experts, and archaeologists.

Personally, I need to do a lot more research to evaluate the forensic physical evidence that does exist but I will do that much later. Right now I am equipped to do the forensic accounting of all of this.

Evidence that the Nazi's Destroyed Evidence

[*] One of the most telling pieces of evidence is the orders issued by Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, to destroy evidence of mass murder. In April 1944, Himmler issued a directive to SS officials to begin destroying the crematoria and gas chambers at extermination camps to eliminate any traces of the crimes. Himmler himself was concerned that the Allies would eventually discover the atrocities and used the term "liquidate" to describe the systematic destruction of the evidence.

[*] In 1941, the Nazis implemented a policy known as “Night and Fog,” which was intended to suppress resistance activities. Prisoners arrested under this policy were often executed or sent to secret death camps where there were attempts to hide evidence of mass executions. Many prisoners were simply executed and buried without any trace.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 1:18 pm I've been succinct. One of the major problems with alternative disposal and disposition of bodies is lack of any physical or contemporary evidence to support the thesis, other than witness testimony, which is incongruent with the physical state of the ground near the Kremas.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"In 1965, Hydrokop, a chemical mining enterprise based in Krakow, was commissioned by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum to carry out Geological tests at Birkenau aimed at determining the locations of burning pits and pyres. Specialists of Hydrokop bored 303 holes up to 3 meters deep. Traces of human ashes, bones, and hair turned up in 42 sites. Documentation of all the holes and diagrams of their distribution are preserved in the Conservation Department of the Museum." (Franciszek Piper)"

And, no, before you ask, I cannot find a link to the original report.

Neither can I, although I need it for a completely different reason.

At some point I may call the museum and ask for a copy.

Firstly Nessie, i am aware that this was technically Bombsaway's argument and i know its not fair to hold one man accountable or answerable for another man's opinions. That said however BA isn't present currently so I will ask you in the event you have an answer, and if not that's fine too.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=171

Does your post above about the burning pits, render BA's line of argumentation here as redundant? That is, the throughput issue of the Birkenau Kremas is now redundant because you can offset the difference to burning pits?

Is that fair to say? Additionally, because your source is claiming 42 separate pits, this must mean the throughput discrepancy for the Birkenau Kremas is significant, correct?

I know you said you cannot find the original report, fair enough, but what do you estimate was the total number of bodies per each of the 42 sites?

HansHill wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 3:43 pm Firstly Nessie, i am aware that this was technically Bombsaway's argument and i know its not fair to hold one man accountable or answerable for another man's opinions. That said however BA isn't present currently so I will ask you in the event you have an answer, and if not that's fine too.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=171

Does your post above about the burning pits, render BA's line of argumentation here as redundant? That is, the throughput issue of the Birkenau Kremas is now redundant because you can offset the difference to burning pits?

Is that fair to say? Additionally, because your source is claiming 42 separate pits, this must mean the throughput discrepancy for the Birkenau Kremas is significant, correct?

I know you said you cannot find the original report, fair enough, but what do you estimate was the total number of bodies per each of the 42 sites?

42 samples. I'm guessing they were around Krema V, were there was a burning pit, and near where the dead were buried that contaminated the water supply prompting disenterment and disposal. The 2 known open air corpse burnings.

Without the report however, this is impossible to confirm. Convenient, ain't it?

HC Blog says "42 sites" - i inferred 1 site = 1 pit, rather than 1 site = 1 sample.

Agreed we need more - Nessie any insights here?

HansHill wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 3:43 pm Firstly Nessie, i am aware that this was technically Bombsaway's argument and i know its not fair to hold one man accountable or answerable for another man's opinions. That said however BA isn't present currently so I will ask you in the event you have an answer, and if not that's fine too.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=171

Does your post above about the burning pits, render BA's line of argumentation here as redundant? That is, the throughput issue of the Birkenau Kremas is now redundant because you can offset the difference to burning pits?

Is that fair to say? Additionally, because your source is claiming 42 separate pits, this must mean the throughput discrepancy for the Birkenau Kremas is significant, correct?

I know you said you cannot find the original report, fair enough, but what do you estimate was the total number of bodies per each of the 42 sites?

The pits look pretty big https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ped%29.jpg

Almost the size of barracks

Those slit trenches were probably for collection and disposal, the open air pyre is nowhere near so large.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 4:39 pm Those slit trenches were probably for collection and disposal, the open air pyre is nowhere near so large.

Collection and disposal of what? What do you mean by probably?

Does this have to do with Hoess s visit to chelmno to inspect the "field ovens Aktion Reinhard"? https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... m=1#_doc62

Collection and disposal of the dead.

Because I don't know and can only venture a guess.

No, in no way related.

Obviously they are not pyres however, that's certain.

I didn't think you had the mental capacity to understand.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 1:56 pm Here's the issue laid out very clearly for you. My point about the elephant in the basement is that you can't be 100% certain about anything

Here's the issue laid out very clearly for you CJ:

You say:

You can't be 100% certain about anything.

Are you 100% certain about that?

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 1:56 pmThe convergence of evidence from documents, witness accounts, archaeological findings, and photographs paints a consistent and coherent picture of mass extermination during the Holocaust, even when certain pieces of physical evidence are difficult to find or have been destroyed.

Ah yes, the "magically disappearing jew" theory.

CJ,

III - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The alleged “eyewitnesses” to the alleged Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II holocausts - allege that jews were murdered, buried, dug up, stacked in huge piles and burned like cordwood, and their remains were then reburied into the same “huge mass graves” and covered over with “a thick layer of sand” - ??

IV - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Covering millions upon millions of pounds of bones and teeth with “a thick layer of sand” makes them magically disappear - ??