Where Myths Meet Their Demise
https://www.codohforum.com/
100%? Really?
I move to have 'contributors' like Mrs Nessie Pants removed from commenting on this site. They add nothing, have no intention of learning anything or possibly even changing their position and come here ad nauseam simply to lie, frustrate, convolute, obstruct and be a pain in the arse. What's the benefit of these people being able to comment here? In my view this forum should be for Revisionists only so we can associate and gather and share information which we would generally, though perhaps not always, agree with.AreYouSirius wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 7:26 pm100%? Really?
100% of the “eyewitness” claims? One Hundred Percent?
Even the fantastical anecdotes peddled in mainstream media that are contradictory with each other, or physically impossible, or found to have been faked?
100%!
Your past college elective class related to detective work sure is proving to be invaluable to this discourse.
But that would be making him a martyr. “See?” “They are intolerant and don’t like to debate.”borjastick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 6:48 am
I move to have 'contributors' like Mrs Nessie Pants removed from commenting on this site. They add nothing, have no intention of learning anything or possibly even changing their position and come here ad nauseam simply to lie, frustrate, convolute, obstruct and be a pain in the arse. What's the benefit of these people being able to comment here? In my view this forum should be for Revisionists only so we can associate and gather and share information which we would generally, though perhaps not always, agree with.
Maybe, perhaps, sort of, as well as and all that. I don't care if he and they see themselves as martyrs, I really don't care. They bring nothing, add nothing and will never give up because they are a)paid to do this and b)too dumb to work it all out. Truth is not important to them, quite the opposite in fact.TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 11:59 amBut that would be making him a martyr. “See?” “They are intolerant and don’t like to debate.”borjastick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 6:48 am
I move to have 'contributors' like Mrs Nessie Pants removed from commenting on this site. They add nothing, have no intention of learning anything or possibly even changing their position and come here ad nauseam simply to lie, frustrate, convolute, obstruct and be a pain in the arse. What's the benefit of these people being able to comment here? In my view this forum should be for Revisionists only so we can associate and gather and share information which we would generally, though perhaps not always, agree with.
The best thing would be to ignore comments that are empty of verifiable content until he gets tired of it, either changing his stance or going to talk to himself.
I think we are the ones who give too much weight to what he says, the problem lies more with ourselves when we lower ourselves to his pamphleteering.
Yes, 100% of those who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or an A-B Krema, states it was used for gassings. There is no witness who states there was a different process to gassings.AreYouSirius wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 7:26 pm100%? Really?
100% of the “eyewitness” claims? One Hundred Percent?
Even the fantastical anecdotes peddled in mainstream media that are contradictory with each other, or physically impossible, or found to have been faked?
100%!
Your past college elective class related to detective work sure is proving to be invaluable to this discourse.
Absolute slop. All of this slop has been thoroughly addressed elsewhere.Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:51 am
Yes, 100% of those who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or an A-B Krema, states it was used for gassings. There is no witness who states there was a different process to gassings.
There is no contradiction about mass murder inside chambers. There is minimal disagreement as to how people died inside the chambers, but that is explained by hearsay and not all AR camp witnesses worked at the gas chambers. What revisionists call contradictions are just expected differences in how witnesses describe the gassing process. The physical impossibility claim is merely the argument from incredulity. None of the witnesses who gave testimony at the numerous trials, or by historians, have been proved to be faked.
Wrong. It is a factHansHill wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 6:00 pmAbsolute slop. All of this slop has been thoroughly addressed elsewhere.Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:51 am
Yes, 100% of those who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or an A-B Krema, states it was used for gassings. There is no witness who states there was a different process to gassings.
There is no contradiction about mass murder inside chambers. There is minimal disagreement as to how people died inside the chambers, but that is explained by hearsay and not all AR camp witnesses worked at the gas chambers. What revisionists call contradictions are just expected differences in how witnesses describe the gassing process. The physical impossibility claim is merely the argument from incredulity. None of the witnesses who gave testimony at the numerous trials, or by historians, have been proved to be faked.
I do not think gassings were the issues for trials. Marian Olszuk at Treblinka was not hearsay, he saw nothing, that is not incredulity except in your cognition. Interesting he was never asked to testify at the Treblinka trials.