The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 17, 2026 11:56 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 17, 2026 4:14 pm I see Archie has backed off from his lie, that I said critiquing evidence is a fallacy.

I retract nothing.

You are tactically conceding that it is theoretically permissible for revisionists to critique the evidence, but you are only doing that temporarily because you know you would sound like a buffoon if you argued for that explicitly. In practice, you continue to handwave EVERY. SINGLE. POINT. that is brought up with your lazy little trump cards.

You are doubling down with your lie, by admitting that it is possible to critique the evidence and then claiming I challenge every point you make. As is normal, you provide no examples, to prove you are correct.

I can provide an example. It is not just acceptable, it is essential to critique every single witness. It needs to be established if they were where they said they were, and how credible, reliable, accurate and truthful they are. Historians, the war crimes investigators and journalists do that by use of corroboration and taking into account the scientific studies of witness behaviour, memory, recall and estimation.

Revisionists and deniers just default to claiming the witness lied, because they find their claims too unbelievable to accept as truthful. The witnesses are dismissed as liars, or their credibility is so lacking, that their claims can be dismissed, because you do not believe their descriptions of the gas chambers, the gassing process, and how the corpses were disposed of. Your critiquing is based on your belief that if a witness describes something that is physically possible to do, in a way that cannot be physically possible, that means they lied. For example, if the witness describes 2000 people fitting inside a space that cannot have held so many, that means their testimony can be dismissed. Or, if they say they ran a marathon a day dragging corpses to the graves, they can be dismissed as not credible. Then, when it is the Nazi witnesses, who are not so easy to hand wave away, you have to switch to they were tortured or subject to other forms of coercion, that in most cases, you cannot evidence happened.

Mine is not a lazy little trump card, it is the application of a far more sophisticated and rigorously tested method of critiquing witnesses, than the one you use. You are in effect making the extraordinary claim that the commonly used method is wrong and your method is more reliable.

When you start engaging with revisionist arguments (i.e., real counterarguments) instead of handwaving, then I will believe you are serious about critiquing the evidence. Until then I will justifiably criticize you.

By real counterargument, you mean, for example, that I engage the science of gassings, with the science of gassings. However, having seen scientists engage with the revisionists, it is clear that nothing will change their minds. They will never accept the reasons given to explain the lower than expected levels of HCN residue and the apparent absence of Prussian blue staining.

What you are wanting to censor, is my pointing out that your methodology is logically and evidentially flawed. You are the scientists who are conducting flawed experiments and because you are so committed to the result you got, you refuse to see or accept the flaws.

It is an absolute fact that just because you cannot work out why residue is low and PB is absent, does not mean there cannot have been mass gassings. Evidentially, your argument is flawed, because you cannot evidence limited or no gassings having taken place and there is evidence gassings did take place.

It is your inability to defend the methodology you use to critique the evidence, that is why you lie about, misrepresent and censor me.

Nesserto wrote: ↑Wed Feb 18, 2026 9:22 am As is normal, you provide no examples, to prove you are correct.

Nesserto:

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

As is normal, Nesserta provides no examples to prove that she is correct.

Remember, critiquing the evidence is not a fallacy. If a witness makes a claim that is physically impossible, or the physical evidence appears not to fit the narrative, it is quite right to look for reasons as to why that is.

Nesserta wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 3:54 pm If a witness makes a claim that is physically impossible, or the physical evidence appears not to fit the narrative, it is quite right to look for reasons as to why that is.

Is it - True. - or False. - that; It is common for juries in the U.S. to be given instructions that include some form of the following: “If you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said.” - ??