The CODOH Revisionist Forum

viewtopic.php?p=2812#p2812

Now, the case against gassings is abundant, against shootings not so much...

Is that opinion due to a stronger acceptance of the evidence for shootings, than gassings? Or do revisionists genuinely believe that they have the evidence to prove there were no gas chambers, but they accept that there were at least some mass shootings?

How is the case against gassing abundant? What makes up the case?

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:25 am viewtopic.php?p=2812#p2812

Now, the case against gassings is abundant, against shootings not so much...

Is that opinion due to a stronger acceptance of the evidence for shootings, than gassings? Or do revisionists genuinely believe that they have the evidence to prove there were no gas chambers, but they accept that there were at least some mass shootings?

How is the case against gassing abundant? What makes up the case?

Look at the mentally ill pathologically lying POS HC cult member run away from all the "huge mass grave" lies it's been caught in.

Why are you running from this:

viewtopic.php?p=24672#p24672

and this:

viewtopic.php?p=24673#p24673

you coward?

The mentally ill pathologically lying POS HC cult member nesserto:

I do not avoid discussing the empirical evidence.

I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof.

Shootings are common during war. Mass executions in gas chambers are not. The latter requires special planning, engineering, and equipment. Hard evidence for these gas chambers has never been produced. The mainstream history is a conspiracy theory that alleges that routine rooms were secretly converted into gas chambers and then dismantled after the war.