The CODOH Revisionist Forum

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 6:53 am Here are Sagan's nine key tools to steer clear of "clueless guile and deliberate manipulation":

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

[*] Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

[*] Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

[*] Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

[*] Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

[*] Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

[*] If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

[*] Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

[*] Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.[/list]

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:05 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 6:53 am Here are Sagan's nine key tools to steer clear of "clueless guile and deliberate manipulation":

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

AKA corroboration.

[*] Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Revisionists need to be aware that they bring little to no relevant knowledge to the debate.

[*] Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Supposed revisionist experts are usually working outwith their field of expertise.

[*] Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

There are two hypotheses, the Nazis mass murdered the millions of Jews they arrested 1939-44, or they did not. Revisionists should spend more time trying to evidence millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944 and prove their hypothesis. When they invariably fail, they should accept their hypothesis is wrong.

[*] Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

It is a laugh when revisionists come up with individual hypothesis and declare that the Kremas were used as delousing chambers, or they cannot have been used as delousing chambers, or they were mass showers, corpse stores or air raid shelters. Those revisionists never step back and think, why can we not agree?

[*] Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

Quantification is very difficult for mass gassings, cremations and graves, since the Nazis destroyed so much evidence and we are so reliant on witness memory and estimations.

[*] If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

Revisionist hypothesis never have a premise, evidence of occurrence and come to a conclusion as to what happened.

[*] Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

The Nazis mass murdering millions of Jews, is simpler than them hiding them and pretending they mass murdered them.

[*] Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.[/list]

Revisionists need to be better at testing their claims. The claims about mass gassings can be falsified by tracing evidence of the millions of Jews claimed to be gassed, still alive in 1944. Revisionists cannot do that.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:42 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:05 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 6:53 am Here are Sagan's nine key tools to steer clear of "clueless guile and deliberate manipulation":

AKA corroboration.

Nessie, you missed the key word, there: independent (and perhaps also confirmation).

[*] Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Revisionists need to be aware that they bring little to no relevant knowledge to the debate.

This was decided before-the-fact. This is obviously in violation to Sagan's principle.

[*] Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Supposed revisionist experts are usually working outwith their field of expertise.

What?

[*] Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

There are two hypotheses, the Nazis mass murdered the millions of Jews they arrested 1939-44, or they did not. Revisionists should spend more time trying to evidence millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944 and prove their hypothesis. When they invariably fail, they should accept their hypothesis is wrong.

In what ways have you tried to systematically disprove the 'Holocaust'?

[*] Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

It is a laugh when revisionists come up with individual hypothesis and declare that the Kremas were used as delousing chambers, or they cannot have been used as delousing chambers, or they were mass showers, corpse stores or air raid shelters. Those revisionists never step back and think, why can we not agree?

There is no question that the amount of 'Holocaust' belief in the world is far more emotion-driven than is belief in the Revisionist hypothesis (whether by proportion or overall sum). Go knock on your neighbor's door. They know nothing of WW2 or the 'Holocaust' and yet will throw punches or slurs at anyone who tells them 'gassing' is questionable.

[*] Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

Quantification is very difficult for mass gassings, cremations and graves, since the Nazis destroyed so much evidence and we are so reliant on witness memory and estimations.

You have no proof this 'evidence' was destroyed. You believe it was there, then because it is not, you say it was among things that were 'destroyed'.

[*] If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

Revisionist hypothesis never have a premise, evidence of occurrence and come to a conclusion as to what happened.

Until you can prove Jews are necessarily buried in the places you claim they were, or that they (and the victors) necessarily could not have had enough power and networking to fudge numbers and narratives, you're in a tough rut.

[*] Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

The Nazis mass murdering millions of Jews, is simpler than them hiding them and pretending they mass murdered them.

"The dead men who tell no tales gassed millions of people and I have no evidence for it - they destroyed it all", is not so simple. It sounds very complex.

[*] Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.[/list]

Revisionists need to be better at testing their claims. The claims about mass gassings can be falsified by tracing evidence of the millions of Jews claimed to be gassed, still alive in 1944. Revisionists cannot do that.

Nessie, your position isn't even legally falsifiable.

Carl Sagan on Alien Abduction

In this interview, the renowned astronomer speculates on why belief in alien abduction persists.

Tuesday, February 27, 1996

Carl Sagan was captivated by the notion of life beyond Earth. Yet in this interview, conducted shortly before the well-known champion of science died in 1996, Sagan says that extraterrestrial intelligence is "a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence." Sagan doubted that the various proponents of so-called "alien abduction" making headlines in the 1990s had met those scientific standards.

[...]

Could you please comment on the part of the quality of the evidence that is put forward by these so-called "abduction proponents?"

Well, it's almost entirely anecdote. Someone says something happened to them, and people can say anything. The fact that someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean they're lying, but it doesn't mean it's true.

To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: a scraping of the whole ship, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that aren't present on Earth, chemical elements from the so-called island of stability, very heavy elements that don't exist on Earth. Or material of absolutely bizarre properties of many sorts—electrical conductivity or ductility. There are many things like that that would instantly give serious credence to an account.

But there's no scrapings, no interior photographs, no filched page from the captain's log book. All there are are stories. There are instances of disturbed soil, but I can disturb soil with a shovel. There are instances of people claiming to flash lights at UFOs and the UFOs flash back. But, pilots of airplanes can also flash back, especially if they think it would be a good joke to play on the UFO enthusiast. So, that does not constitute good evidence.

"Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

A very interesting example of this sort of thing is the so-called crop circles in England in which wheat and rye and other grains—these beautiful immense circles appeared and then—this was in the '70s and '80s—and then over progressive years, more and more complex geometries. And there were lots of people who said that these were made by UFOs that were landing and that it was too complex or too highly mathematical to be a hoax.

And it turns out that two blokes in Southern England, at their regular bar one night, thought it would be a good idea to make a kind of hoax to see if they could lure in UFO enthusiasts. And they succeeded every time—every time an explanation was proferred: a peculiar kind of wind, they then made another one which contradicted that hypothesis. And they were very pleased when it was said that no human intelligence could do this. That gave them great satisfaction. And for 15 years, they succeeded in these nocturnal expeditions using rope and board—all the technology they needed.

And in their 60's, they finally confessed to the press with a demonstration of how it was done. And, of course, the confession received very little play in the media. And the claims of alien influence had received prominent exposure.

[...]

"If I were speaking to a group of abductees, I think the first thing I would do would be to tell them that I'm sure to many of them the pain that is expressed is genuine."

Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now, I know that Budd Hopkins responds that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations. And I have two kinds of responses to that.

There is a claim that a brontosaurus is tramping through the jungles today in the republic of Congo. Should a massive expedition be mounted with government funds to find it, or it is so implausible as not to be worth serious sustained systematic attention?

My second point is that to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations, those investigations must be true to the spirit of science. And that means highly skeptical, demanding, rigorous standards of evidence. There's not a hint of that from alien abduction enthusiasts. I think that the alien abduction enthusiasts understand the need for physical evidence. It's the pathway to some degree of respectability. And for 40 years, they've been telling us that real evidence is just around the corner, it's about to be released, it's being studied at this moment. And nothing ever comes of it.

[...]

According to Hopkins and others, the main evidence for these stories — in the absence of other evidence — is the similarity of details. In your opinion, what other explanations might account for the similarity and the details of the stories or hallucinations of these abductees?

The culture contaminates. Movies, television programs, books, haunting pages of aliens, and television interviews with passionate abductees—all communicate to the widest possible community the alien abduction paradigm. So, it's not as if each abductee has been hermetically sealed from the outside world and has no input about what others are saying. It's all cross contaminated, and it has been for decades. I think that's the clearest evidence for it not being good evidence—that many people tell the same story.

If you could speak directly to the multitudes of people who believe they're going to bed and perhaps being abducted by aliens, what is it you would like to say to them?

If I were speaking to a group of abductees, I think the first thing I would do would be to tell them that I'm sure to many of them the pain that is expressed is genuine, that they're not just making this up. And it's very important to be compassionate. At the same time, I would stress that hallucinations are a human common place, and not a sign that you are crazy. And that absolutely clear hallucinations have occured to normal people, and it has a compelling feeling of reality, but it's generated in the head.

"I don't think that scientists are prejudiced to begin with. Prejudice means pre-judging. They're post-judice."

That being the case, I would ask them to try to be as objective as they can and see if anything like that might, in fact, explain what they said happened to them. And I'd remind them that children, universally, have terrible nightmares, especially around [the ages of] 7 to 11, and wake up from sleep absolutely terrified about a monster, a witch, a goblin, a demon, and why shouldn't some of us retain that? I mean, there's no question that those monsters don't exist, and they're [not] hiding in the closet or under the bed. That's something generated in the mind. Why should it all go away when we grow up? We should retain some of that. And could not something like that be an explanation?

I would try to simply ask them to adopt the scientific method of multiple working hypothesis. Right now, they have only one hypothesis and their minds are, in many cases, closed to the alternative. I would ask them to do a serious consideration of the alternative, see if it makes sense.

Can you tell us how you feel if someone came to you with good evidence that there was, in fact, alien life trying to communicate with us? How would that make you feel as a scientist?

If someone came to me with compelling, bona fide evidence that we're being visited, my reaction would be "Whoopee!" And I'd want to play a role in analyzing the evidence. I would try very hard to bring in the absolute best scientists in the world to study it, depending on what the evidence is like. And I don't doubt that there would be a lot of cooperation from the scientific community. I don't think that scientists are prejudiced to begin with. Prejudice means pre-judging. They're post-judice. After examining the evidence they decide there's nothing to it. There's a big difference between prejudice and post-judice.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/s ... abduction/

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:13 pm It's the same nonsense with you, Nessie. I'm not going to bother with another line-by-line. You're asking for an historical narrative of an insignificant building(s) among hundreds of camp buildings, when the only reason you have anything to say about that building is because propagandists and beneficiaries of deception have told stories about them. That is absurd.

If I, in hopes of getting a paycheck, say that Elon Musk tried to gas me to death in his restroom, Musk doesn't need to prove who was brushing their teeth or dropping turds in there, instead. I need to prove what I am claiming he did there, not expect him to prove some opposing narrative.

What you're doing is such an obvious, obnoxious effort to switch the burden of proof that it doesn't warrant much further direct engagement (it never has).

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Apr 20, 2025 7:22 am The A-B Kremas are not insignificant buildings. They are central to the Holocaust narrative. You are just embarrassed by so-called revisionist attempts to produce an evidenced history of what took place in those buildings during the operation of A-B.

It is a joke that Holocaust deniers here and other forums get upset about being called deniers, when they fail to revise the history of key events and places.

You don't know what to do when someone is accused of attempt murder. There would be an examination of the restroom and contemporaneous evidence around its use, such as witnesses who were inside at the time it was alleged to have been used. There would be an investigation to gather evidence about the usage of the restroom.

If Musk destroyed the restroom, but left documents by a company that had been employed to modify the room to be used as a gas chamber, and employees of that company were interviewed and admitted it was converted for use for gassings, that would prove your claim. Add to that staff at the building where the restroom was located admitting to its use as a gas chamber and Musk is going down, no matter how good his legal team is.

If Musk was innocent, when he was interviewed he would, under advice from his legal team, sensibly produce evidence to prove his restroom was never repurposed to be used as a gas chamber. He would produce people who built the restroom, who say it was only ever used as a restroom and witnesses who used the building, who also say it was only used a restroom. He would not have destroyed the restroom, which could then be examined to establish if there had been any work to modify it.

The burden of proof is moot to the criminal investigation.

An allegation is made and evidence, including exculpatory evidence is gathered to establish if the crime alleged has been committed and who committed it. Investigations are evidence gathering processes.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 20, 2025 9:58 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Apr 20, 2025 7:22 am The A-B Kremas are not insignificant buildings. They are central to the Holocaust narrative. You are just embarrassed by so-called revisionist attempts to produce an evidenced history of what took place in those buildings during the operation of A-B.

It is a joke that Holocaust deniers here and other forums get upset about being called deniers, when they fail to revise the history of key events and places.

The joke is in pretending an opposing narrative is needed for every closet, pantry, or laundry room Jews claim they were steamed and boiled to death by the trillions inside of.

You don't know what to do when someone is accused of attempt murder. There would be an examination of the restroom and contemporaneous evidence around its use, such as witnesses who were inside at the time it was alleged to have been used. There would be an investigation to gather evidence about the usage of the restroom.

And that witness evidence might be taken seriously up until it is recognized that the statements made by witnesses were characteristic and representative of a global propaganda campaign which is undeniably inconsistent, full of falsehoods, etc., and when the precise pool of witness statements you're pulling from specific to the 'chamber' in question also have an extraordinary proportion of indisputable and exorbitant lies.

If Musk destroyed the restroom, but left documents by a company that had been employed to modify the room to be used as a gas chamber, and employees of that company were interviewed and admitted it was converted for use for gassings, that would prove your claim. Add to that staff at the building where the restroom was located admitting to its use as a gas chamber and Musk is going down, no matter how good his legal team is.

If Musk for some reason had millions of documents on the administration of his facilities, including but not limited to his restroom, from which I could cherry-pick with impunity and in total secrecy, and keeping in mind that I benefit from making claims against him, I just might be able to find a few such documents that ostensibly 'hint' at some vague 'device' or 'apparatus' which I could present as corroboration for my outrageous claims.

If Musk was innocent, when he was interviewed he would, under advice from his legal team, sensibly produce evidence to prove his restroom was never repurposed to be used as a gas chamber. He would produce people who built the restroom, who say it was only ever used as a restroom and witnesses who used the building, who also say it was only used a restroom. He would not have destroyed the restroom, which could then be examined to establish if there had been any work to modify it.

Musk, in this situation, would have no access to his own documents unless I deem them relevant or otherwise allow him access to them (a la Nuremberg, etc.), and he's well-aware of it. There would not be witnesses to his restroom necessarily because its an insignificant room that hardly anyone visited and many who did are in cahoots with me, 100% (they, too, will get paid big $$$ if we succeed in defaming Musk).

The burden of proof is moot to the criminal investigation.

Lol what?

An allegation is made and evidence, including exculpatory evidence is gathered to establish if the crime alleged has been committed and who committed it. Investigations are evidence gathering processes.

Yes, and there is a burden of proof upon those making the allegations. My claim against Musk and his 'gassy restroom' would naturally be thrown out of court because evidence I could or would present for it would be necessarily insufficient (just like your Jewish 'gas chambers' at Birkenau) because such events did not happen (see: Occam's razor). Only with the force of victorious global powers, orchestrated 'de-Muskification' trials, and hypnotic global brainwashing propaganda could I succeed in convincing otherwise.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:08 am So-called revisionists biggest failure, is their inability to evidence what did happen inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas. How can you be a revisionist, when you cannot revise the history of events?

The basic task of any historical or criminal investigation, is to evidence what took place. Revisionists cannot do that and their efforts are a joke.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 6:39 pm
An arbitrary crematory or morgue is not relevant to the broader "history of events" until or unless you can prove it is. Time has shown, you most certainly cannot.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 6:39 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:08 am So-called revisionists biggest failure, is their inability to evidence what did happen inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas. How can you be a revisionist, when you cannot revise the history of events?

The basic task of any historical or criminal investigation, is to evidence what took place. Revisionists cannot do that and their efforts are a joke.

An arbitrary crematory or morgue is not relevant to the broader "history of events" until or unless you can prove it is. Time has shown, you most certainly cannot.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 10:02 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 6:39 pm
An arbitrary crematory or morgue is not relevant to the broader "history of events" until or unless you can prove it is. Time has shown, you most certainly cannot.

The crematoria in AB actually proves more that the Holocaust did not happen than the opposite.