The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Callafangers coined the phrase physical evidence question here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=716

He asked "Why does SanityCheck (anti-revisionist 'Holocaust' academia's leading man) so strongly avoid all matters of physical evidence with regard to 'Holocaust' evidence?". The physical evidence question, is what revisionists regard as their strongest argument. A classic example of it is found here, in a thread titled the "Implausibility of gassing as a method for mass killing"

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=290

PangaeaProxima puts forward various arguments as to why he finds the use of gas chambers too implausible to accept as part of the evidenced history of the Holocaust.

Fact is that carrying out mass killings by gassing are generally highly implausible. You seem to agree, since you don't challenge this assertion. Of course, this does not totally rule out that it is done anyway, but it further strengthens the revisionist position: Something that is highly unlikely and implausible to have happened in the first place, really did not happen.

Others join in. Archie states;

Things I do find implausible:

1) That the German government would have had no discussion or planning to determine the best method and that this would be left to Hoess and the other camp commandants.

2) That they would end up with such a diversity of different "gas chamber" designs, all with an ordinary/mundane interpretation (showers, morgues, fumigation chambers).

3) That they would have custom built a state-of-the-art mass gassing facility yet put the gas chamber and ovens on different floors and had to move all the bodies manually. (Along with other points along these lines).

TIsMIS93;

So is it entirely plausible, or even proven, that wood was available in abundance for a handful of Germans in a remote region to cremate 2 million people, or that gassing 2,000 people in a room as if they were robots in complete obedience to behave like perfect cubes and expecting 52 ovens to cremate 4,756 bodies per day was entirely proven by forensic and verifiable tests?

HansHill correctly states that;

Its not a logical fallacy to describe something as implausible, and generate a discussion around its plausibility and the details of its history and process.

But, he misses the point. Revisionists believe that when they find something implausible, that means it cannot have happened. When the physical evidence questions they have about gassings, cremations and graves cannot be answered to their satisfaction, they believe that is evidence to prove they did not happen. That is the logical fallacy. It is not enough to argue that because you cannot work out how something took place, to your satisfaction, that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

The evasion by revisionists, is their refusal to defend their use of the physical evidence question as a means to justify their incredulity and how that can work as evidence to prove there were no gas chambers, mass cremations and graves involving millions of Jews. How is PangaeaProxima's incredulity about gassings, or Archie's issue over the layout of Kremas II and III, or TIsMIS93's implausibility over the numbers gassed and cremated, proof that there were no gassings?

This is an issue I have raised before and I know it is hated by the revisionists here, since, if they admit to their argument being logically and evidentially flawed, their entire belief system will collapse.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 10, 2026 10:33 am But, he misses the point. Revisionists believe that when they find something implausible, that means it cannot have happened. When the physical evidence questions they have about gassings, cremations and graves cannot be answered to their satisfaction, they believe that is evidence to prove they did not happen. That is the logical fallacy. It is not enough to argue that because you cannot work out how something took place, to your satisfaction, that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

Well, it is a bit more than just being a bit odd or implausible. The issue is the frequency of problems and their concentration within the narrative. And it isn't just Revisionist's satisfaction that is the threshold here, it's what should be sufficient to a reasonable person. And there exterminationist claims happen to be wanting and often obviously dubious.


That said, I think you should first answer the initial question instead of simply reacting with a counter-question that is obviously evasive.

Hektor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 10, 2026 12:47 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 10, 2026 10:33 am But, he misses the point. Revisionists believe that when they find something implausible, that means it cannot have happened. When the physical evidence questions they have about gassings, cremations and graves cannot be answered to their satisfaction, they believe that is evidence to prove they did not happen. That is the logical fallacy. It is not enough to argue that because you cannot work out how something took place, to your satisfaction, that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

Well, it is a bit more than just being a bit odd or implausible. The issue is the frequency of problems and their concentration within the narrative. And it isn't just Revisionist's satisfaction that is the threshold here, it's what should be sufficient to a reasonable person. And there exterminationist claims happen to be wanting and often obviously dubious.

How is your argument, that because revisionists find a claim to be odd, implausible, unsatisfactory, wanting or dubious, the claim is proven to be false, logically and evidentially sound?

That said, I think you should first answer the initial question instead of simply reacting with a counter-question that is obviously evasive.

I did answer the question Callafangers asked, my answer is in that thread.

EDIT - I see this thread has been moved to Quarantine, which is further proof that revisionists hate this subject and want to suppress discussion about it.

It was moved to Quarantine where it belongs.

A thread accusing revisionists of "evading the question of physical evidence" (absurd) in which the accuser claims it's a fallacy NOT to evade the physical evidence.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 10, 2026 2:46 pm It was moved to Quarantine where it belongs.

A thread accusing revisionists of "evading the question of physical evidence" (absurd) in which the accuser claims it's a fallacy NOT to evade the physical evidence.

I still cannot work out if you are being disingenuous or if you really do not understand the point I am making.

Revisionists think that their strongest argument, is to doubt the claims made about how the gas chambers worked, the ovens cremated so many corpses, how the pyres were set and how so many corpses were buried in the death camps. I point out that their argument fails both logically and evidentially and they then evade justifying it.

You said;

Things I do find implausible:

1) That the German government would have had no discussion or planning to determine the best method and that this would be left to Hoess and the other camp commandants.

2) That they would end up with such a diversity of different "gas chamber" designs, all with an ordinary/mundane interpretation (showers, morgues, fumigation chambers).

3) That they would have custom built a state-of-the-art mass gassing facility yet put the gas chamber and ovens on different floors and had to move all the bodies manually. (Along with other points along these lines).

How do your doubts about plausibility, evidence that there were no gas chambers?

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 10, 2026 1:29 pm

Hektor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 10, 2026 12:47 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 10, 2026 10:33 am But, he misses the point. Revisionists believe that when they find something implausible, that means it cannot have happened. When the physical evidence questions they have about gassings, cremations and graves cannot be answered to their satisfaction, they believe that is evidence to prove they did not happen. That is the logical fallacy. It is not enough to argue that because you cannot work out how something took place, to your satisfaction, that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

Well, it is a bit more than just being a bit odd or implausible. The issue is the frequency of problems and their concentration within the narrative. And it isn't just Revisionist's satisfaction that is the threshold here, it's what should be sufficient to a reasonable person. And there exterminationist claims happen to be wanting and often obviously dubious.

How is your argument, that because revisionists find a claim to be odd, implausible, unsatisfactory, wanting or dubious, the claim is proven to be false, logically and evidentially sound? ....

Unless you carefully read my argument and present it correctly, there is really no value in conversing with you about any issue. Hint, what Revisionists find odd is completely irrelevant here.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 10, 2026 10:33 am HansHill correctly states