He may not have noticed that you have to enter the security code in the box before your registration will actually be entered. I forgot to do that the first time and I got an email verification of my registration but it did not actually register me. I had to start over and voila, here I am
To: holocaustcontroversies@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Welcome to The CODOH Revisionist Forum Forums
From: noreply@codoh.com Add to Address Book
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:53:04 -0400
Welcome to The CODOH Revisionist Forum Forums
Please keep this email for your records. Your account information is as
follows:
----------------------------
Username: nickterry
Password: ************
----------------------------
Your account is currently inactive, the administrator of the board will
need to activate it before you can log in. You will receive another
email when this has occured.
Please do not forget your password as it has been encrypted in our
database and we cannot retrieve it for you. However, should you forget your
password you can request a new one which will be activated in the same
way as this account.
Thank you for registering.
--
Thanks, Moderator
speaking about debate, is true that terry does not allowed to join the forum?
Terry has never registered.
M1
To:
holocaustcontroversies@yahoo.co.uk
Subject:
Welcome to The CODOH Revisionist Forum Forums
From:
noreply@codoh.com Add to Address Book
Date:
Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:41:32 -0400
#message46501081946890178977401710 { overflow:auto; visibility:hidden }
Welcome to The CODOH Revisionist Forum Forums
Please keep this email for your records. Your account information is as
follows:
----------------------------
Username: Nick Terry
Password: ***************
----------------------------
Your account is currently inactive, the administrator of the board will
need to activate it before you can log in. You will receive another
email when this has occured.
Please do not forget your password as it has been encrypted in our
database and we cannot retrieve it for you. However, should you forget your
password you can request a new one which will be activated in the same
way as this account.
Thank you for registering.
--
Thanks, Moderator
* Note *
which is pretty remarkable, since currently there is absolutely no one who accepts the "standard storyline" over at CODOH. More's the pity, since there are many at CODOH who utter some basic factual errors concerning this subject, and there is no one around to set them straight.I even salute those who promote the standard storyline at this forum
I used to write book reviews for Germar Rudolf's Revisionist before his rendition to the Bundestablishment, and I wrote a couple of movie reviews for Ted O' Keefe before the JHR got closed down.
I started the RODOH message forum back in 2003.
www.rodoh.us
Basicaly I've known Dr. Mathis for a few years now. I used to post on the old CODOH bbs and he was a reliable opponent.
Then the CODOH board was shut down and some of us started our own message boards. I didn't like the censorship policies at Hannover's "Revisionist Forum" so I started my own, called "Real Open-Debate On the Holocaust," since the CODOH bbs was defunct. I didn't invent the title but I find it ironic and even a tribute to Bradley Smith's ideas and what CODOH stands for: Open Debate.
Even though Andrew Mathis is vulgar and no friend of Revisionism or Revisionists, we have an understanding and a mutual respect, and for freedom-of-speech. I let him speak his mind on my forum and he hasn't disappointed me yet. Real debate lets the opposition have its fair say.
This has made me unpopular with some Revisionists. CODOH eventually acquired Hannover's forum as its own, and in addition to banning the opposition I am now banned from using Hannover's, now CODOH's, message board because I allow Mathis to post on mine. The two have a mutual vendetta going on.
Other than refusing to try to conceal Hannover's real name, it is not true that I collect personal information about Revisionists to make it public, which is what is said about me. Some of the anti-Revisionists that do post on my forum regularly might do so in their own personal blogs, however, which I have nothing to do with, and no control over.
Long story short--I think Dr. Mathis is quite serious in debating Hannover. Back in 2003-04 he and Paul Grubach were going to debate, but they couldn't agree on a format. Mathis did not want it published in the Revisionist and Grubach didn't want to publish it online at RODOH. So it fell though.
However, Dr. Robert Countess stepped up to the plate and agreed to debate Mathis. Eventually Mathis declined but he did arrange to have another anti-Revisionist take his place, Steve Mock, who did a fine job indeed. This was called the "Scholars' Debate" at RODOH and everybody said that it couldn't be done. Only a couple of Revisionists agreed to help me.
It turns out that Dr. Countess didn't contribute a lot and in November of 2004 told me that he was terminally ill and dropped out. That was devastating news but I was planning on continuting myself to wrap it up but then I was hit by a car while riding my bicycle home from work. Anyway, the effort was a good learning experience for me but I'm not 100 percent satisfied with our performance. One flaw in my plan was that our moderation panel couldn't get along in setting the rules (especially as to length) and I had to abandon that hat and join the Revisionist team myself or nothing would have happened.
You can read the Scholars' Debate here if you are interested:
http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23.showMessage?topicID=2.topic
I'm also not pleased that so many Revisionists refused to help debate when they have been making such noises about precisely this for so long.
The best way to prove Mathis wrong is for Hannover (and any Revisionists that want to help him) to engage Dr. Mathis in the challenge. Mathis is bending over backwards to make it fair. Yes, there is a personal element at work here, but Dr. Countess wasn't afraid to help the Revisionist cause.
I really think that Revisionists ought to consider this one. I don't want to get involved myself this time but I would be willing to host the matter--although Hannover may not agree to that aspect since there is some bad blood between us on account of my being banned at his forum. Dr. Mathis is flexible on the terms and it need not involve RODOH at all.
Feel free to forward this as you wish.
Best,
Scott Smith
Goebbels GuysTake that, Romanov!!!
Poem dedicated to Y I Mukhin
Defending Goebbels Lies is the task of anti- communist guys
The anti-Russian Katyn Guys - Sergei Romanov being one
Well they were having so much fun
That Goebbels himself smiled
Until a a man called Mukhin gave them all a surprise
Because 20 million dead Russians said don't bend your knee to Nazi lies
Mukhin heard this and his "Katyn Detective" nailed the lies of these Goebbels Guys
For that Mukhin wins the seeker after truth prize
Now Goebbels is feeling down and wears a frown
For Mukhin kicked him in the balls
He told the truth to us all !
There will be no 21st Century Goebbels Pall
Thanks Mukhin from us all
There are also personal attacks against Mukhin saying that he associates with anti semites - well I think you should read a summary in English of the Mukhin's Katyn Detective of 1995 to understand the basis of Mukhin's criticisms of the Russians who did it theory and see what Y I Mukhin's thinks of anti semites in his own words. This might also help you make up your own mind about the veracity of Mr Sergei Romanov.Except if you search my article for "semit", you'll come up empty. What I do is show a photo of Mukhin in company of well-known Holocaust deniers Graf and Mattogno - and Mukhin is a denier himself. This should help you make up your own mind about the veracity of Haisanlu.
I also give you an extract from Goebbel's Diary entry 8th May 1943 " unfortunately German ammunition has been found in the graves at Katyn .. it is essential that that this incident remains top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would be dropped "Um. Hello? Sure Goebbels would be concerned about the German ammo found in the graves, because common sense would've told him that this would give the Soviets a very great weapon against the German claims, and Goebbels' propaganda campaign would lose some force. As we know, though, the Germans did not hide the fact that they had found German ammo in the graves. And if Goebbels knew all along that it was the Germans who did it, why was the find such a shock to him?
Again reading Y.I.Mukhin we can see why Goebbels was so concerned about the German munitions found at Katyn.
For Roberto Muehlenkamp / aka Cortavagatas, simply use our search function for Muehlenkamp and read, there's plenty of debate with him here. The poor man never had a chance.
I agree, Herr Muehlankamp, those guys over there are not entirely honest. Banning you and others and then performing victory dances is beyond even chutzpah. Hopefully this new poster, if he is new, will soon realize that dissenting views, if you will, are verboten.
As far as pointing him to RODOH, the name can not be mentioned, it is deleted. One of my posts was totally distorted, I dared mention RODOH, should have copied it, which almost made me quit that forum. Anyway, who knows, perhaps this lost sheep will find its way.
It was this fellow Sergey Romanov who posted on the other board in all seriousness, that the reason, why the remains of the hundreds of thousands of dead Jews who were allegedly killed in Babi Jar could not be found, was because the big flood came and washed it all away!Of course, there were never "hundreds of thousands of dead Jews" in Babij Jar, so I couldn't have made such a claim. And, of course, there was a well-known Kurenyovka tragedy in 1961, when a dam broke and the resulting massive mudslide buried not only numerous victims alive, but also destroyed the ravine. That is exactly the reason why Babij Jar no longer exists. (The official contemporary documents of investigation of the tragedy can be found in Babij Jar: chelovek, vlast', istorija, vol. 1, compiled by T. Yevstafjeva, Vitalij Nakhmanovich; Kiev, Vneshtorgizdat Ukrainy, 2004).
What a clever "Holocaust historian"!
They sure have some quality hoaxsters on that forum.
Sergey Romanov told the AHF that he hails from Russia. He is probably an "Ostjude" (East-Jew) who are flooding at this time Germany by the hundreds of thousands, demanding full welfare instantly and hate Germans.
See the contrived documents used at Nuremberg 'proving' soap was made from Jews:Except none of these documents suggest that the soap was made from Jews. The only fraud is Hargis himself.
!!! Human Soap - Official Nuremberg Documents !!!
http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?t=676
Yet another example of the Nuremberg fraud.
This is just too easy.
Let's look at the testimony about "poetic license", the grounds on which Faurisson and our esteemed opponents insistently call Vrba a “self-perjuring liar”. Unlike the Negationists, who are content to draw their conclusions based on paraphrases from their friends, we would prefer to examine the court testimony itself, and highlight the passages from which it becomes clear that if there are “self-perjuring liars” around, Vrba is not one of them. We will even take the transcription of the trial records from a "Revisionist” site, www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/vrba3.html :Note how he doesn't give a link to the Veritas team statement, and instead chooses to misrepresent it. Perhaps this is because all links to RODOH are censored at CODOH forum? Actually, even the name "RODOH" is censored. It is automatically turned to "shills", as you can witness in the posting in question. This just shows how the CODOH bunch and Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis are afraid of the open debate.Q. I suggest, also, that you falsified to some extent as well, because throughout the book you referred to someone by the name of Rudolf Vrba, and you attribute the name Vrba to the conversations, and Rudi, meaning you, and in fact, there was nobody by that name in the camp, sir. Is that right?
A. That is perfectly so, but I would take a great objection against your word "falsify", because I would say, then, that the artist drawn my moustache in a different way has falsified something. This is not a document, but literature, and literature has been meant mainly for young people and it would be for young people a considerable confusion to explain to them all the methods of clandestine work and how it came that the names have to be changed. Moreover, I would have to explain my real ground and reasons why I changed my German name to the name of my native language, and this would have transferred, perhaps, a national hatred to the reader, which I wanted to avoid, against the Germans.
In other words, I used my licence of a poet, it is called licensia poetarium, to put in the book only those facts and events which will enable a young person to understand the general situation.
Q. Mm-hmmm. So for you it's poetic licence?
A. Poetic licence in this particular case.
Q. Yeah.
A. In other words, I am not bound to make of it a document, but re-creates the situation as close as possible to the truth without complicating it.
So Vrba never testified to using "poetic license" in the 1944 report, as Faurisson and our opponents would have us believe. He openly admitted to having used it in a personal memoir written twenty years after the report, where it was perfectly legitimate for him to do so, and that in regard only to details which in no way affected the accuracy of his description of events at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Apart from trying to make a fly into an elephant (another well-known “Revisionist” tactic) our opponents and their source seek to mislead their readers about the occasion, contents and object of Vrba’s statements.
vincentferrerGiven that Finkelstein is an atheist, only his ethnicity is meant. "Vee arr not antisemitic!" Yeah, yeah.
Valued contributor
[...]
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:13
[...]
He [Finkelstein - SR] cast a little bit of doubt on the holocaust. The Jews who control the place denied him tenure.
Personally, as a Catholic, I support this since I think Jews should not teach at private Catholic colleges.
The man was booted off the forum when he lost his cool and abused people who did not agree with his views on Babi Jar.Take away the spin, and there is the core of truth. I was debunking the deniers' guru John Ball regarding the Babij Jar issue (see the full debunking here), and my last posting, which addressed the insane ramblings of some "Turpitz", who was making some rather outrageous claims like "why did the Zionist not intervene as one of their sacred burial sites was destroyed" ("Zionists"? "Intervene"? In Soviet Union? During Stalin's reign? The boy is a babbling ignoramus) - was deleted and I was banned. When a person describes this as a matter of "disagreement", rather than outright censorship by Hargis, who is always afraid of good debunkings, you can say that the person is severely deluded, or full of it. This Eschen guy is known to be a Mattogno fan, but he never addressed the refutations of Mattogno's stuff on our blog. All he can do is whine in online forums. Same applies to Hannover-Hargis, who is simply pathetic.
When I was passing by the two larger stores in Camp 2, I detached the cart and pushed it towards Camp 3. I was supposed to leave it near the gate, but I could not hold the vehicle back. The gate opened and it pushed me inside. Since I knew I would not get out alive from there, I began to run back at top speed and managed to reach my place of work without anyone noticing.So he was there for a few seconds, he was at a distance from the gas chambers, in a state of great panic, and later misinterpreted what he had seen in these few moments as a hollow "underneath" the chambers. Big deal! One must be a total loon to think that this "proves" anything. Besides, Biskowitz mentioned nothing about the method of murder. So he is irrelevant in this case!
However, only a severely retarded person could remain ignorant of what went on there. The smoke and the smell said it all and we occasionally heard a terrified "Shma Yizroel" echo over to us from there."Dahl", you're even stupider than I thought.
Sergey Romanov (hello Sergey! since you are reading this) claims that Biskowitz did not see the collapsing floor and that anyway it's "irrelevant since the collapsing was not the murder agent". He is lying.Note how Chicken Dahl does not deal with a simple fact that since the floor was not claimed to gave been a murder weapon, it is a non-example when it comes to the issue at hand. Worse yet, he accuses me of lying, but then cannot support his accusation. Let's see. What is my claim?
This is what Biskowitz actually attested to:Q. Please understand me. You are somewhat familiar with these matters. Did you see the floor when it had opened up?So what he claims that he did not see was the process of the floor opening up. What he claims he saw was corpses in a pit underneath the gas chamber. Which means that he claimed to have seen the floor of the gas chamber in its opened up state.
A. I did not see that ? I merely saw that underneath the gas chamber, there was a hollow which already contained bodies.
Presiding Judge Thank you, Mr. Biskowitz, you have concluded your testimony. I know you have not told us everything. But there was no alternative.
Biskowitz explicitly said that he did not see the collapsing floor.How does the witness answer the question "Did you see the floor when it had opened up?"?
I did not see that - I merely saw that underneath the gas chamber, there was a hollow which already contained bodies.So once again: he did not see the "collapsing floor" itself. I.e. exactly what I have claimed. Game, set, match. I.e., it is Chicken Dahl who is lying through his teeth, especially when he claims that Biskowitz "claimed to have seen the floor of the gas chamber in its opened up state". Biskowitz mentioned nothing about "the floor in the opened state" and nowhere in his testimony it is implied. Indeed, to have seen the bodies in a supposed pit underneath a chamber through an already opened floor, Biskowitz would have to be near the gas chambers. However, he said that he saw the pit and the hollow "from a distance". This implies that he has interpreted what he thought he had seen to be two "levels" at once, i.e. a chamber and what is underneath a chamber, which would not imply that the "collapsing floor" had to be in an open state at that moment. Taken at face value, his testimony implies that the pit underneath a chamber was exposed and could be seen from the outside (he also mentions a little train that carried the bodies, implying that the bodies would have to be unloaded from the exposed pit). The "hollow" was supposed to be visible by itself, from a distance, with or without the flooor in the open state. Now, what he really did see we will probably never know. To repeat:
So he was there for a few seconds, he was at a distance from the gas chambers, in a state of great panic, and later misinterpreted what he had seen in these few moments as a hollow "underneath" the chambers. Big deal!Possibly, it was a heap of corpses in some small pit near the chambers, which Biskowitz, in those few panicky moments, interpreted to have a "continuation" underneath the building. Or whatever. Anyway, Chicken Dahl, you fail again. And you did not even try to address the rest of it...
"Carmelo A. Lisciotto" wrote:
[1&1 official name omitted],
Our website is registered with the US office of copyright, the confirmation# is
U.S. Copyright Office Confirmation (ORD8368).
http://www.death-camps.org/links/ shows links to Axis History Forum ( a
neo-nazi website)
http://www.death-camps.org/arc/supporters.html <-- is a fraudulent support
page where people who donated to www.deathcamps.org ARC are listed as
donors to this counterfeit website with neo-nazi links.
In addition we've sent by email, fax and postal letters, over 10 pieces of
evidence that validate our authorship and ownership, we've asked what
supporting evidence was provided by the counterfeit website, we were given
no response by 1and1.
We've provided enough evidence to allow the counterfeit website to be
removed. Should the owner of the bogus site Stephan Their wish to contest
our copyright the onus is on him to pursue that in a court of law, 1and1
would be acting in accordance with acceptable use policy by removing this
fraudulent site.
Regrettably, 1and1, and it's German affiliates have handled this matter
poorly, and in direct contradiction to your own posted Terms of Service.
This matter is far from settled, we've sent DMCA notifications to 1and1, we
were ignored, this matter is being referred to our legal counsel for
arbitration in US courts, and EU courts. In addtion we have consulted with
our contacts at the BBC, USHMM, CNN and are making this story public.
By no means will ARC www.deathcamps.org consider this matter settled while a
counterfeit version of our website with links to neo-nazi groups and
fraudulent financial solicitations appears on your servers.
We are fully prepared to take this matter to great lengths until this matter
is brought to an acceptable resolution.
Thus far, 1and1 has by all measures appeared to be sympathetic to this
counterfeit website with nothing but anecdotal statements offered up by the
perpetrators.
We can not allow our supporters and contributors to be so rudely
disrepected.
Sincerley,
Chris Webb and Carmelo Lisciotto
ARC www.deathcamps.org
Von: Chris Webb
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2007 16:08
Betreff: Re: C74876943 Re: 1and1 Germany appearing to be sympathetic to Neo-Nazi and Holocaust revisionists, and website counterfeiters...
Dear [1&1 official name omitted],
Thank you very much for your email.
We thought that we had sent you a plethora of proof, whilst the other party, in the shape of Mr. Their provided you with nothing, as confirmed by your own people.
I attach the catalogue record from the Wiener Library in London, of a book i produced from the ARC website, www.deathcamps.org and material culled from my own privatearchive collected over the past 35 years.
If you type in the online search on the Wiener Library online catalogue, you will see the book i produced on Treblinka, and you will note the link to deathcamps.org
I hope that this provides the sort of proof you are looking for.
We understand there is a natural tendency to support neighbours, but unless Mr. Thier can provide similiar evidence, it would seem to me, that the claims are justified, and you do sympathise with neo-nazis and holocuast revisionists, in the face of a mountain of counter evidence.
Once again we draw your attention to the dates, the original site established in 2002 with 1and 1 and the counterfeit site being established in 2006, this book was produced in 2005.
We rest our case, and we hope you will do the right thing, as outlined in Mr Lisciotto's earlier email.
We are very disappointed in 1and1de stance, but not surprised.
Regards,
Chris Webb
