The CODOH Revisionist Forum

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 3:12 pm

Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 11:05 am Actually, testimonies of people that claim to have had extraterrestrial experiences are remarkably congruent on many details.... There seem to have been plenty more of this as well....

This is an excellent point, and shows a much stronger degree of convergence of evidence than Holocaust activists would care to admit.

I doubt that claim, and suspect that few of the descriptions of the aliens, what happened during abductions and their craft match. The claim also ignores where many of the AR camp witnesses are congruent on the details.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 3:12 pm

Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 11:05 am Actually, testimonies of people that claim to have had extraterrestrial experiences are remarkably congruent on many details.... There seem to have been plenty more of this as well....

This is an excellent point, and shows a much stronger degree of convergence of evidence than Holocaust activists would care to admit.

If the Holocaust Activists would apply convergence of evidence they would become Holocaust Revisionists pretty quickly.

Converging evidence shows the following:
1. That there was a campaign against Germany to frame them as cruel, genocidal maniacs. And this is actually older than Jewish orgs and activist pushing this. It was done during World War One already. And it included the chopped off children's hands.
2. That during WW2 nobody knew about an extermination program, except some obscure sources and folks listening to them (rumors).
3. That there were epidemics, which necessitated fumigation of buildings and clothing through Zyklon B as well as cremation.
4. That conditions in Germany deteriorated dramatically leading to the scenes shown in video material like "Nazi Murder Mills".
5. That the hard testimony at Holocaust related trials commonly had almost blatant marks of being made up sado-masochistic phantasies.

Now a reasonable person would pretty quickly conclude that there must at least be something fishy with the Holocaust narrative. And they do. But Holocaust apologists commonly seem to have some prejudicial commitments, where the Narrative has to be true as it otherwise would upset their world view and ideology.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 11:33 am

Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 11:05 am Actually, testimonies of people that claim to have had extraterrestrial experiences are remarkably congruent on many details.... There seem to have been plenty more of this as well....

Even better, I suppose.

But my point is not just to make the obvious ET comparison but to demonstrate the major fallacy in Nessie's favorite argument. Witnesses agreeing on a "main event" can easily be the result of a shared delusion or deception. We don't need to search in vain for opposing witnesses who would admit there was no alien visit. Perhaps none of them would ever admit to that. The witnesses' claims and other information we have is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of how plausible the main event is.

Nessie just dismisses opposing witnesses (those who denied the gas-chamber story like Josef Kramer, those who denied having known that Auschwitz was an extermination camp like Robert Mulka, and 97.3% of SS-men interrogated about that) and embarrassing witnesses (those who got it all wrong like Rudolf Vrba) by claiming that they were in no position to know what was "really" going on inside the crematoria. It's a convenient evasion since all those who operated the Auschwitz crematoria (i.e. by definition, highly biohazardous places during epidemics) were of course inmates. And he simply ignores the too divergent & irreconcilable witnesses like Ada Bimko, Sofia Litwinska and Regina Bialek.

Robert Mulka

Robert Karl Ludwig Mulka (12 April 1895 – 26 April 1969) was an SS-Hauptsturmführer (captain) and later demoted to Obersturmführer (first lieutenant or lieutenant). At Auschwitz concentration camp, he was adjutant to the camp commandant, SS-Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Höss, making him second in command of the camp.

Robert Mulka was arrested in November 1960. He was remanded in custody from then until March 1961, from May until December 1961, from February until October 1964, and then from December 1964.

At the time of his trial, Mulka was 69 years old and married with a daughter and two sons.[1] The court noted that he had played a major role in the transformation of Auschwitz from a concentration camp into an extermination complex from mid-1942, in the planning and construction of the four Birkenau crematoria and gas chamber complexes, and the selection of arriving transports of Jews on the Alte Rampe (old ramp) for extermination, respectively occurred and began during his tenure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mulka

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 3:12 am

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 11:33 am

Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 11:05 am Actually, testimonies of people that claim to have had extraterrestrial experiences are remarkably congruent on many details.... There seem to have been plenty more of this as well....

Even better, I suppose.

But my point is not just to make the obvious ET comparison but to demonstrate the major fallacy in Nessie's favorite argument. Witnesses agreeing on a "main event" can easily be the result of a shared delusion or deception. We don't need to search in vain for opposing witnesses who would admit there was no alien visit. Perhaps none of them would ever admit to that. The witnesses' claims and other information we have is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of how plausible the main event is.

A shared delusion, or deception, between Jews and Nazis. When did they get together to plot that?

Nessie just dismisses opposing witnesses (those who denied the gas-chamber story like Josef Kramer, those who denied having known that Auschwitz was an extermination camp like Robert Mulka, and 97.3% of SS-men interrogated about that)

What main event did Kramer, Mulka etc claim happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau, that can account for the 1.1 Jews who went to the camp and then went missing?

...and embarrassing witnesses (those who got it all wrong like Rudolf Vrba)

Vrba's intelligence gathering was pretty accurate.

.... by claiming that they were in no position to know what was "really" going on inside the crematoria. It's a convenient evasion since all those who operated the Auschwitz crematoria (i.e. by definition, highly biohazardous places during epidemics) were of course inmates. And he simply ignores the too divergent & irreconcilable witnesses like Ada Bimko, Sofia Litwinska and Regina Bialek.

Where are they divergent and irreconcilable?

Robert Mulka

Robert Karl Ludwig Mulka (12 April 1895 – 26 April 1969) was an SS-Hauptsturmführer (captain) and later demoted to Obersturmführer (first lieutenant or lieutenant). At Auschwitz concentration camp, he was adjutant to the camp commandant, SS-Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Höss, making him second in command of the camp.

Robert Mulka was arrested in November 1960. He was remanded in custody from then until March 1961, from May until December 1961, from February until October 1964, and then from December 1964.

At the time of his trial, Mulka was 69 years old and married with a daughter and two sons.[1] The court noted that he had played a major role in the transformation of Auschwitz from a concentration camp into an extermination complex from mid-1942, in the planning and construction of the four Birkenau crematoria and gas chamber complexes, and the selection of arriving transports of Jews on the Alte Rampe (old ramp) for extermination, respectively occurred and began during his tenure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mulka

Why did Mulka not provide any evidence to prove what really took place inside the Kremas and what happened to the Jews?

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 3:12 am

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 11:33 am
Even better, I suppose.

But my point is not just to make the obvious ET comparison but to demonstrate the major fallacy in Nessie's favorite argument. Witnesses agreeing on a "main event" can easily be the result of a shared delusion or deception. We don't need to search in vain for opposing witnesses who would admit there was no alien visit. Perhaps none of them would ever admit to that. The witnesses' claims and other information we have is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of how plausible the main event is.

A shared delusion, or deception, between Jews and Nazis. When did they get together to plot that?

When some Nazis were told that the Holocaust was "a fact of common knowledge" (sic) that was pointless to dispute, that is, at so-called war crime trials where that "Nazi conspiracy" (sic again) was allegedly being exposed by the victors of 1945 for PR & political purposes.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

Nessie just dismisses opposing witnesses (those who denied the gas-chamber story like Josef Kramer, those who denied having known that Auschwitz was an extermination camp like Robert Mulka, and 97.3% of SS-men interrogated about that)

What main event did Kramer, Mulka etc claim happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau, that can account for the 1.1 Jews who went to the camp and then went missing?

Forced labor for Germany's war effort and further deportations. And those Jews didn't go missing. They were just claimed to have gone missing.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

...and embarrassing witnesses (those who got it all wrong like Rudolf Vrba)

Vrba's intelligence gathering was pretty accurate.

Yeah, that's why he had to concede that his alleged report was just a work of "poetic license" (sic) when counter-interrogated for the 1st time, at the Zündel trial of 1985.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

.... by claiming that they were in no position to know what was "really" going on inside the crematoria. It's a convenient evasion since all those who operated the Auschwitz crematoria (i.e. by definition, highly biohazardous places during epidemics) were of course inmates. And he simply ignores the too divergent & irreconcilable witnesses like Ada Bimko, Sofia Litwinska and Regina Bialek.

Where are they divergent and irreconcilable?

There, 4 pages ago in this thread.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

Robert Mulka

Robert Karl Ludwig Mulka (12 April 1895 – 26 April 1969) was an SS-Hauptsturmführer (captain) and later demoted to Obersturmführer (first lieutenant or lieutenant). At Auschwitz concentration camp, he was adjutant to the camp commandant, SS-Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Höss, making him second in command of the camp.

Robert Mulka was arrested in November 1960. He was remanded in custody from then until March 1961, from May until December 1961, from February until October 1964, and then from December 1964.

At the time of his trial, Mulka was 69 years old and married with a daughter and two sons.[1] The court noted that he had played a major role in the transformation of Auschwitz from a concentration camp into an extermination complex from mid-1942, in the planning and construction of the four Birkenau crematoria and gas chamber complexes, and the selection of arriving transports of Jews on the Alte Rampe (old ramp) for extermination, respectively occurred and began during his tenure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mulka

Why did Mulka not provide any evidence to prove what really took place inside the Kremas and what happened to the Jews?

Because the orthodox/antirevisionist narrative of the Holocaust claims that the Nazis didn't record their alleged criminal activities inside those crematoria and anyway left no tangible evidence for those alleged criminal activities behind, and because the Nazi insiders who worked there and disputed that orthodox narrative were just disbelieved and treated accordingly (heavier prison sentences for being "unrepentant Nazi criminals" and similar BS).



Note that all the SS who first admitted it later repudiated their older false confessions, when they finally realized that it was not the perfect defense strategy they had thought at first. An American prosecutor even complained about it at a Nuremberg show trial in 1947.



Also note that after the First World War no German veteran talked about what had really happened in the German army's kadaververwertungsanstalten portrayed by WW1 Allied propagandists as gruesome corpse factories where the bodies of dead German soldiers were allegedly being turned into soap, fertilizer, explosive, pigs' food and other industrial products. But no historian (except for one Israeli one) still believes that those corpse factories were anything else than an atrocity propaganda lie.

It is important to note that because of the evidentiary process at Nuremberg, the defense was not allowed to contest certain aspects of the charges or to enter evidence.

Once the 'holy h' was established by 'judicial notice' there, it became impossible for anyone to mount a defense there after.

I've heard it said that there was 'agreement' from the defense about the charges. Much like Borat selecting a wife, agreement not necessary...

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 11:53 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 3:12 am

A shared delusion, or deception, between Jews and Nazis. When did they get together to plot that?

When some Nazis were told that the Holocaust was "a fact of common knowledge" (sic) that was pointless to dispute, that is, at so-called war crime trials where that "Nazi conspiracy" (sic again) was allegedly being exposed by the victors of 1945 for PR & political purposes.

What about during the war, when the Nazis had the perfect opportunity to disprove the claims? Or Nazis tried by German prosecutors, or safe in South America? When did they cowardly agree to support a Jewish plot?

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

Nessie just dismisses opposing witnesses (those who denied the gas-chamber story like Josef Kramer, those who denied having known that Auschwitz was an extermination camp like Robert Mulka, and 97.3% of SS-men interrogated about that)

What main event did Kramer, Mulka etc claim happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau, that can account for the 1.1 Jews who went to the camp and then went missing?

Forced labor for Germany's war effort and further deportations. And those Jews didn't go missing. They were just claimed to have gone missing.

Account for the Hungarians transported to A-B in 1944. All of them. Then explain why Kramer and Mulka failed to do that.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

...and embarrassing witnesses (those who got it all wrong like Rudolf Vrba)

Vrba's intelligence gathering was pretty accurate.

Yeah, that's why he had to concede that his alleged report was just a work of "poetic license" (sic) when counter-interrogated for the 1st time, at the Zündel trial of 1985.

He conceded much of his book was hearsay, in a court, at a trial, where hearsay evidence is not usually accepted.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

.... by claiming that they were in no position to know what was "really" going on inside the crematoria. It's a convenient evasion since all those who operated the Auschwitz crematoria (i.e. by definition, highly biohazardous places during epidemics) were of course inmates. And he simply ignores the too divergent & irreconcilable witnesses like Ada Bimko, Sofia Litwinska and Regina Bialek.

Where are they divergent and irreconcilable?

There, 4 pages ago in this thread.

She describes a gassing and has different details to other descriptions. So-called revisionists ignore the agreement and consistency amongst the witnesses about gassings and cherry-pick details that vary. Irreconcilable witnesses would diverge far more than over details.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

Robert Mulka

Robert Karl Ludwig Mulka (12 April 1895 – 26 April 1969) was an SS-Hauptsturmführer (captain) and later demoted to Obersturmführer (first lieutenant or lieutenant). At Auschwitz concentration camp, he was adjutant to the camp commandant, SS-Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Höss, making him second in command of the camp.

Robert Mulka was arrested in November 1960. He was remanded in custody from then until March 1961, from May until December 1961, from February until October 1964, and then from December 1964.

At the time of his trial, Mulka was 69 years old and married with a daughter and two sons.[1] The court noted that he had played a major role in the transformation of Auschwitz from a concentration camp into an extermination complex from mid-1942, in the planning and construction of the four Birkenau crematoria and gas chamber complexes, and the selection of arriving transports of Jews on the Alte Rampe (old ramp) for extermination, respectively occurred and began during his tenure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mulka

Why did Mulka not provide any evidence to prove what really took place inside the Kremas and what happened to the Jews?

Because the orthodox/antirevisionist narrative of the Holocaust claims that the Nazis didn't record their alleged criminal activities inside those crematoria and anyway left no tangible evidence for those alleged criminal activities behind, and because the Nazi insiders who worked there and disputed that orthodox narrative were just disbelieved and treated accordingly (heavier prison sentences for being "unrepentant Nazi criminals" and similar BS).

Wrong, the historical narrative is that the Nazis left many records of their activities, such as all the Construction Office and Tpof & Sons documents recording the construction work inside the Kremas, that corroborate the witness statements. Faced with that evidence, no Nazi could come up with an alternative, non-homicidal usage for the Kremas 1943-4.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:20 pm It is important to note that because of the evidentiary process at Nuremberg, the defense was not allowed to contest certain aspects of the charges or to enter evidence.

Once the 'holy h' was established by 'judicial notice' there, it became impossible for anyone to mount a defense there after.

I've heard it said that there was 'agreement' from the defense about the charges. Much like Borat selecting a wife, agreement not necessary...

Agreed evidence is common place in courts and trials. For example;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... d-evidence

"Agreements and admissions as to evidence.
(1)In any trial it shall not be necessary for the accused or for the prosecutor—
(a)to prove any fact which is admitted by the other; or
(b)to prove any document, the terms and application of which are not in dispute between them,"

If the Nazis had come together, to say that they could evidence what took place inside the AR camps, Chelmno, A-B Kremas, and prove that millions of Jews they sent to those places, were still alive in 1944, then the defence would not have had to agree to the evidence mass murders had taken place.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 11:53 am ....

Note that all the SS who first admitted it later repudiated their older false confessions, when they finally realized that it was not the perfect defense strategy they had thought at first. An American prosecutor even complained about it at a Nuremberg show trial in 1947.



...

So, the Nazis could change their evidence and challenge allegations made against them.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:20 pm It is important to note that because of the evidentiary process at Nuremberg, the defense was not allowed to contest certain aspects of the charges or to enter evidence.

Once the 'holy h' was established by 'judicial notice' there, it became impossible for anyone to mount a defense there after.

Yes, true. It was article 20 of the London Charter of August 8, 1945. Anything challenging the victors' narrative was called irrelevant and just dismissed.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:20 pm I've heard it said that there was 'agreement' from the defense about the charges. Much like Borat selecting a wife, agreement not necessary...

Yes, the so-called defense agreed about the charges after watching a horror movie full of typhus victims and in which there was not a single picture from an alleged "death camp." You can't make it up.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:41 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:20 pm It is important to note that because of the evidentiary process at Nuremberg, the defense was not allowed to contest certain aspects of the charges or to enter evidence.

Once the 'holy h' was established by 'judicial notice' there, it became impossible for anyone to mount a defense there after.

Yes, true. It was article 20 of the London Charter of August 8, 1945. Anything challenging the victors' narrative was called irrelevant and just dismissed.

Article 16 stated;

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-t ... activeTab=

"During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him."

"A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defence, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution."

Allied 'evidence' in the form of 'expert reports', like the one submitted by the Soviet spinning the Germans for Katyn, were also 'unimpeachable'. There was effectively no defense for the accused. It is a sham, a farce, a ruse, a kangaroo court, a mockery of the judicial process, a legal lynch mob.

It was also 'victors justice' and basically just slander.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:53 pm Allied 'evidence' in the form of 'expert reports', like the one submitted by the Soviet spinning the Germans for Katyn, were also 'unimpeachable'. There was effectively no defense for the accused. It is a sham, a farce, a ruse, a kangaroo court, a mockery of the judicial process, a legal lynch mob.

It was also 'victors justice' and basically just slander.

The Articles allowed for a defendant to introduce evidence. Why did none of them introduce evidence to prove what really happened inside the death camps and that millions of Jews, the Nazis had arrested, were still alive in 1945?

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:31 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 11:53 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am
A shared delusion, or deception, between Jews and Nazis. When did they get together to plot that?

When some Nazis were told that the Holocaust was "a fact of common knowledge" (sic) that was pointless to dispute, that is, at so-called war crime trials where that "Nazi conspiracy" (sic again) was allegedly being exposed by the victors of 1945 for PR & political purposes.

What about during the war, when the Nazis had the perfect opportunity to disprove the claims?

They repudiated the story, but they were just as disbelieved as their predecessors when they repudiated the corpse-factory lie.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:31 pm Or Nazis tried by German prosecutors,

Useless and even dangerous. Mulka got a prison sentence of 14 years just for saying that he knew nothing about an extermination policy in Auschwitz.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:31 pm or safe in South America?

As safe in South America as Eichmann?

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:31 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am What main event did Kramer, Mulka etc claim happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau, that can account for the 1.1 Jews who went to the camp and then went missing?

Forced labor for Germany's war effort and further deportations. And those Jews didn't go missing. They were just claimed to have gone missing.

Account for the Hungarians transported to A-B in 1944. All of them. Then explain why Kramer and Mulka failed to do that.

Acount for the 13.5-17 million ethnic Germans brutally expelled from Eastern Europe during WW2, or else they all died (or at best, six million of them died as Konrad Adenauer claimed after WW2).

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:31 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am Vrba's intelligence gathering was pretty accurate.

Yeah, that's why he had to concede that his alleged report was just a work of "poetic license" (sic) when counter-interrogated for the 1st time, at the Zündel trial of 1985.

He conceded much of his book was hearsay, in a court, at a trial, where hearsay evidence is not usually accepted.

No, he didn't hearsay. He said an "artistic picture," that is, fiction, when cornered by Zündel's tenacious lawyer (Douglas Christie) because of the too big inconsistencies and obvious falsities in his testimony.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:31 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am Where are they divergent and irreconcilable?

There, 4 pages ago in this thread.

She describes a gassing and has different details to other descriptions. So-called revisionists ignore the agreement and consistency amongst the witnesses about gassings and cherry-pick details that vary. Irreconcilable witnesses would diverge far more than over details.

Details? A yellow fume, or big tanks full of poison gas, or poison gas hissing from a hole in the ground, instead of blue pellets of Zyklon B dropped through wiremesh columns from holes in the ceiling are details?!?

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:31 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:45 am

Why did Mulka not provide any evidence to prove what really took place inside the Kremas and what happened to the Jews?

Because the orthodox/antirevisionist narrative of the Holocaust claims that the Nazis didn't record their alleged criminal activities inside those crematoria and anyway left no tangible evidence for those alleged criminal activities behind, and because the Nazi insiders who worked there and disputed that orthodox narrative were just disbelieved and treated accordingly (heavier prison sentences for being "unrepentant Nazi criminals" and similar BS).

Wrong, the historical narrative is that the Nazis left many records of their activities, such as all the Construction Office and Tpof & Sons documents recording the construction work inside the Kremas, that corroborate the witness statements. Faced with that evidence, no Nazi could come up with an alternative, non-homicidal usage for the Kremas 1943-4.

Another big lie of yours. The Construction Office and Topf & Sons documents show no criminal activities in those crematoria. Just the storage and cremation of dead bodies. And witness statements are just alien-abduction-like useless junk and you know it.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 12:53 pm Allied 'evidence' in the form of 'expert reports', like the one submitted by the Soviet spinning the Germans for Katyn, were also 'unimpeachable'. There was effectively no defense for the accused. It is a sham, a farce, a ruse, a kangaroo court, a mockery of the judicial process, a legal lynch mob.

It was also 'victors justice' and basically just slander.

True. Over 100 witness statements, numerous forensic reports, a lot of physical evidence and a big pile of documents. The nonexistent German guilt for the Katyn massacre was so much more solidly evidenced than the now famous Nazi gas chambers, it seemed.

Irrefutable!! As irrefutable as Colin Powell's U.N. presentation on Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in 2003!