The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 4:13 pm The Ai is just pulling lots of old arguments from random websites and CJ is copy-pasting it all without knowing any of the context. That's why his arguments are confused and contradictory.
This is what happens when you have a guy that hadn't heard of any of this until ten minutes before he started posting about it and who thinks Ai can make up for his complete ignorance.

Ha ha. Yes, that explains it.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 6:13 am I've done the research with ChatGPT and then I edit and modify it to make it easier to read to match your level of reading comprehension.

What kind of condescending, childish shit is this?

On the topic of Auschwitz Chemistry, here is a new Wiki article:

'Auschwitz Chemistry'
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... _Chemistry

Archie wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 4:51 pm Here is Hilberg, 1961 edition, page 570.

The amounts [of Zyklon] were not large, but they were noticeable. Almost the whole of the Auschwitz supply was needed for the gassing of people; very little was used for fumigation.

Then in 1989, Pressac, sensing the problem with this narrative post-Leuchter, says the complete opposite, that something like 95% of the Zyklon was for ordinary, hygienic purposes.

Checking now, that passage from Hilberg remained unchanged in the 1985 edition. By 2003 it had changed, p.955:

The amounts required by Auschwitz were not large, but they were noticeable. At various times sizable portions of these deliveries were used for gassing people.

The rest of the paragraph was left unchanged. Amusingly, the citation was also left unchanged except that the 2003 edition adds Hoess as a source. Are we supposed to believe that Hilberg's understanding of Zyklon usage changed without any new supporting evidence? No, he obviously revised his statement in reaction to either the Zundel trials or Pressac's book. Add this to the list of wins for revisionism.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 3:31 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 3:12 pm I do not think anyone understands the science. Even the trained chemists cannot agree.

Let's test this. Nessie - do Johannes Meeussen and Tim Mansfeldt et al understand the science of observing, measuring and explaining the Prussian Blue phenomenon in the soil at city gas plants? If no, why not?

I don't know. I am not a chemist.

If yes, what does this mean for your side to not understand the same phenomenon at Birkenau?

That the evidence of usage supports "my side", suggests that "my side" has a better understanding than "your side".

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 6:27 am I don't know. I am not a chemist.

Claim: nobody understands the science of Prussian Blue
Challenge: Do these people understand the science of Prussian Blue?
Claim: I don't know

The absolute state of anti-revisionists.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 6:27 am "my side"

How infantile. The "truth" is of little use to you. I doubt if you would recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit the sporan.