The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 6:29 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 6:19 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 6:16 pm This thread however should be about gas vans.

Ok. Why is material evidence so important for you when it comes to gas vans? Why aren't documents and witness statements enough?

BTW I can't even say no material evidence exists for the T4 gassings. We have alleged gas chambers like here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernburg_ ... sia_Centre but I don't have any information about their current state, whether the rooms are clearly gas chambers from a technical perspective etc. Wasn't able to find any revisionist writing here. For the purposes of this discussion then we can put a question mark here or go with, no material evidence (from the orthodox perspective the several chambers that were used were modified by Nazis to reduce culpability, hide their crimes)

Well Bombsaway, you have a slight misconception here. There are t4 documents that I have evaluated and I have weighed and don't find them to be convincing. This is because they are receipts for cylinders run through a 3rd party or testimony after the war.

Primary witnesses state injection with morphine or ingestion of barbatol tablets, not gas.

This is all t4 stuff however, and if we are going to expound on this, I'd like to do it in the appropriate thread.

There is more I could say here, but honestly, in an effort to keep the thread clutter free, I'd like to ask again that we try not to drift the topic, please Sir.

With the gas vans, what is presented by Holocaust Controversies in your various linked blogs appears quite damning. If I trusted the source further than I could throw it, I wouldn't be spending so much time vetting it. It has been my experience that that particular source misrepresents what they display. If they haven't in this particular instance, I'll tell you, I'll be shocked.

In the mean time, I am going through it with a fine comb and I am looking at every square micron with a microscope.

That's fine. I think you have the wrong impression about the T4 evidence, but if that was your impression your view is reasonable.

I think my first point (bolded above) is important to think about. Re HC blog you will probably disagree with their interpretations but that does not mean they are being dishonest, trying to fool you and other revisionists. Bias is real, it happens on both sides. But you could also be incorrect in your interpretation.

Here's something that they wrote about material evidence https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... -vans.html (Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: Material Evidence section)

Let me frame this appropriately for you, as I get the impression I have failed in doing so to this point.

Without material evidence, the bar for acceptance of documentary evidence I hold is very high. Some, like you, may consider this bar excessive. Frankly, without the murder weapon, to rely on paper, I'm going to need to see a very strong case.

If I find the documentary evidence provided in your first post, the first rattle out of the box, to be both true and authentic, then I will be forced to find a Homicidal Gas Van to cut up and eat on camera.

Hopefully this post lacks any opacity and is crystal clear like the water in the chain of lakes in Florida.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 6:55 pm

Without material evidence, the bar for acceptance of documentary evidence I hold is very high. Some, like you, may consider this bar excessive. Frankly, without the murder weapon, to rely on paper, I'm going to need to see a very strong case.

Why do you prioritize material evidence to such a greater extent than documentary or witness? I'm not attacking you here, just wondering why, what your thought process is.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 6:57 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 6:55 pm

Without material evidence, the bar for acceptance of documentary evidence I hold is very high. Some, like you, may consider this bar excessive. Frankly, without the murder weapon, to rely on paper, I'm going to need to see a very strong case.

Why do you prioritize material evidence to such a greater extent than documentary or witness? I'm not attacking you here, just wondering why, what your thought process is.

Because unlike words from someone's mouth tangible material evidence can be examined and evaluated with ones hands. It is harder to fake. It isn't subject to 'pliability'.

I hold the same bar for murder charges, and given the record, I don't find that unreasonable. Many murder convictions based on confession and testimony have been overturned with a critical evaluation of evidence, and DNA technology has helped, a lot, with this endeavor.

I don't have a critical inconsistency with regard to the shoah. This is a consist standard for me.

Now, I do have bias, strong bias, with regard to these particular events. Again, I don't feel this is unwarranted given the volume and scope of lies I have been presented as truth by the orthodoxy and those in a position of authority as educators or historians.

Going to my distrust of the Holocaust Controversies Blogs, look, we are talking about people reviving shrunken heads and lampshades as totally a real thing.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 7:06 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 6:57 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 6:55 pm

Without material evidence, the bar for acceptance of documentary evidence I hold is very high. Some, like you, may consider this bar excessive. Frankly, without the murder weapon, to rely on paper, I'm going to need to see a very strong case.

Why do you prioritize material evidence to such a greater extent than documentary or witness? I'm not attacking you here, just wondering why, what your thought process is.

Because unlike words from someone's mouth tangible material evidence can be examined and evaluated with ones hands. It is harder to fake. It isn't subject to 'pliability'.

I hold the same bar for murder charges, and given the record, I don't find that unreasonable. Many murder convictions based on confession and testimony have been overturned with a critical evaluation of evidence, and DNA technology has helped, a lot, with this endeavor.

I don't have a critical inconsistency with regard to the shoah. This is a consist standard for me.

Now, I do have bias, strong bias, with regard to these particular events. Again, I don't feel this is unwarranted given the volume and scope of lies I have been presented as truth.

Going to my distrust of the Holocaust Controversies Blogs, look, we are talking about people reviving shrunken heads and lampshades at totally a real thing.

"It is harder to fake". Here I disagree with you. You might have an argument about fabricating documents, which I think is hard to do. Looking at the HC blog analysis you see that the documents in question are consistent in terms of signature, formal characteristics, writing style, etc. They are obviously super sophisticated forgeries, if so. But on top of that you need to get witnesses to affirm them as authentic, even the writers and recipients of the letters to view them as authentic. Beyond this there are so many gas van witnesses, many of who are German. You have to get these witnesses to impugn themselves or their country, go to jail even, for crimes they didn't commit. I don't this is easy. The Soviets tried to get Germans to falsely confess to Katyn, and ONE did, and he later recanted his testimony. This was in the heart of the beats, he was literally in Soviet captivity. But Germans in West Germany, decades later were repeating the same (as you would assume false) stories. No recantations of any testimonies. No evidence of any extra judicial coercion, like authorities threatening their families, etc. You think this is easy to do, for power projecting a false narrative?

On the other hand your standard is met if the Soviets take a humdrum German transport vehicle and pipe the exhaust back into the chassis. A couple hundred hours of manpower at most.

This notion of "difficulty" doesn't check out for me.

Re them trying to "revive shrunken heads and lampshades", maybe you refer to this https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... pdate.html

they say the Shrunken Head was fake after forensic tests, but the lampshade tested positive. This is exactly what you were asking for with "material evidence" but it isn't sufficient anymore?

Again you misunderstand. Physical evidence in a vacuum is no more convincing than documentary evidence without correlating physical evidence.

You have a conflation going on here.

You seem to think it is one or the other, when it is not.

So far as manipulation of human beings, again, look at overturned criminal convictions. The people that made these statements never recanted. This suprises you? Even if some did, who would listen, certainly not the media.

So far as the patents on the documents you have provided regarding gas vans, you do understand, I'm still looking at it. It's not that I have just swept it under the rug never to be seen or touched again. I understand you consider it iron clad. I fully understand and appreciate your position in this regard. I have not yet reached a conclusion. What more can I say about that?

So far as faking a Homicidal Gas Van, well, there would be the problem of corroboration and patents, then the chain of custody. Currently, the corroboration you appear to have in spades. There would still be problems with patents and of course physical confirmation of the vehicle as congruent with description.

Now, here is one for you to chew on, there was a guy, said he worked on one. This fella, he says 'the motor was enormous, much larger than it needed to be' and 'it used about twice the fuel it needed to'. I'm going to ask you, can you tell me the problems here? Do you understand the various problems with this eyewitness and his testimony?

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 7:51 pm Now, here is one for you to chew on, there was a guy, said he worked on one. This fella, he says 'the motor was enormous, much larger than it needed to be' and 'it used about twice the fuel it needed to'. I'm going to ask you, can you tell me the problems here? Do you understand the various problems with this eyewitness and his testimony?

I don't understand your above arguments. There is a ton of corroboration as you acknowledge. The difficulty angle is still convincing to me, I don't know why it's so necessary to have an actual recovered gas van. The witnesses, not just one, but dozens would be much more impressive to me from a conspiracy point of view.

As for your testimony, is that a hypothetical? Show me a real testimony that you have issues with and I can pull it apart a bit.

It's also true, as I see it, that revisionists cherry pick testimonies going for ones that are more problematic. But many are sound and can't be easily critiqued.

That mention of fuel use and a 'large engine' probably came from Jozef Piaskowski, Bronisław Mańkowski, or Bronisław Falborski.

I've been looking for their testimonies for a bit so I can get you the relevant excerpt. If I recall, whoever said it was asked 'and did you get a chance to see the engine' and there is mention of the security detail that was watching them work on the truck going to lunch, where upon they looked at it.

Again, I'll try to get the pertinent excerpt.

I guess I really do need to file this crap so I can recall the exact quote on a dime or whatever.

So far as the rest goes, I'm unsure how to be more clear.

Also, I'm going to start threads on some of these documents from the HC blog. I've started finding some issues.

All I would ask for is one document or testimony at a time. Choose the most problematic evidence you can find

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:01 am All I would ask for is one document or testimony at a time. Choose the most problematic evidence you can find

I'm going to spin them off as new threads and link them here for the benefit of future readers.