Comittee for "Open" Debate On the Holocaust

Comittee for "Open" Debate On the Holocaust

-Sobe104839-

In 1987, C.O.D.O.H, or the Comittee for Open Debate On the Holocaust was founded by Bradley Smith. [1] The CODOH "revisionist" forum is allegedly a forum for, as the name itself states, open debate about the Holocaust.
When you hear the name "open" debate on the Holocaust, you expect to be able to debate people regarding the Holocaust openly, meaning that your posts will not be censored unless you committ some sort of serious violation.
After the forum was opened, people with opposing views went there to debate the Holocaust.
After some time, people who went to debate with the Holocaust deniers had their posts censored for no good reason. Before we get into this issue, we must look at the CODOH posting rules: [2]

* Note * We don't allow 'Private Messages (PM)' to new
registrant's by
default.

-The Moderator retains the right to reject a username if he
considers it
offensive, obscene, or deliberately distracting.

-No
namecalling, threats, or personnal attacks; period.

-As The CODOH
Revisionist Forum forbids any threats or personnal attacks
against others,
we will not tolerate links to sites which do enage in such
behaviour. We're
about debate and only debate.

-On topic posts only. The topic of the
Forum is the subject generally
referred to as 'The Holocaust'. Debating it's
credibility, or lack of, is the
reason that The CODOH Revisionist Forum
exists. Associated subjects are bound to
come up, be sure there is a tie-in,
show the tie-in. Each thread represents a
separate point, a post to a thread
must be pertinent to that point.

-Posts by new or infrequent
participants will be spam checked by the
Moderator before they appear on the
Forum. They will not be censored for on
topic opinions they present.

-Keep your posts limited to one point.

-Voluminous, lengthy, and
redundant posts are not welcomed.


-Posts which lack focus or
specifics are not welcomed.

-No 'dodging'. When questioned or
challenged, you must respond or leave the
thread.

-You will address
the poster only by the name that he/she uses at the
Forum.

-Offenders will have their posts deleted, repeat offenders will be
removed.

-Reasons for deletions may or may not be stated. The Moderator
will endeavor to notify the offender and the Forum in general, but not in every case;
especially when it is obvious why the post was deleted.

-Registrants who do not post within 30 days from date of registration are
subject to deletion, they may re-register should they decide to post.

These rules are subject to revision as warranted.
Thank you, The
CODOH Revisionist Forum Moderator.

Don't these "rules" seem a little strange? Why are "voluminous and lengthy posts" unwelcome?
Is there any reason that to delete posts that are not limited to one point?
The second to last "rule" is the giveaway. If somebody debating the deniers' manages to follow all the rules, the moderator(s) can still delete his/her post without any reason.
The above "rules" are just another way of saying:

"Please don't come here if you have hard-to-tackle arguments, I just want to make-believe that my arguments are irrefutable so that I can brag to my friends about it, please don't ruin my party."

But, of course, the give-away rules are not enough evidence to prove that the moderators at CODOH censor posts. Roberto Muehlenkampf, who runs an anti-denial blog with three other anti-deniers, wrote the following in his well-written blog article: [3]

1. The crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau were not typical cremation ovens,
but heavy-duty industrial ovens designed to run continuously, using the heat
energy produced by the burning of previous bodies to keep the oven hot for the
next bodies. After they were fired with coke to their proper operating
temperature, they required little or no extra fuel to operate. A considerable
but well-documented technical achievement. The cremation unit that one muffle
was supposed to handle in a given time was a weight unit, which means that one
or several persons adding up to that weight unit could be put into each muffle
simultaneously without increasing the cremation time. Unlike in crematoria ovens
used for civilian purposes, there was no need to wait for one body to have
cremated completely. The practice actually was to put the next body or bodies in
the muffle before the cremation process of the previous was complete. 2. The
patent application was for multi-muffle ovens similar to those supplied for
Auschwitz-Birkenau and working according to the same principles, the outstanding
features of the patent being: i) the method of employing fat corpses to speed up
the rate at which corpses could be burned andii) the fact that no fuel was
required after the initial pre-heating period, because of the amount of heat
generated by the burning corpses. This was how the manufacturers described their
own product in a patent application. The use of the ovens, as described by
eyewitness Henryk Tauber, coincides with this description: "<…>The corpses
of ... wasted people with no fat burned rapidly in the side muffles and slowly
in the center one. Conversely the corpses of people gassed on arrival, not being
wasted, burned better in the center muffle. During the incineration of such
corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for
fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body
fat. <…>"Tauber also mentioned that when a “fat” body "was charged into a
hot furnace, fat immediately began to flow into the ash bin, where it caught
fire and started the combustion of the body." Similar descriptions of the
burning process were made by Filip Müller and camp commander Rudolf Höß. The
fire thus actually needed no tending of its own, in accordance with the
description in the patent application, external fuel supply (coke) being
required only to heat up the oven. 3. Several witnesses testified to the placing
of two or three bodies at a time in each muffle being not occasional attempts,
but standard procedure. Sonderkommando Filip Müller stated that three or four
could be incinerated at a time. Sonderkommando Szlama Dragon testified that
three bodies were incinerated at a time. Two prisoners who escaped in April
1944, whose report was based on information received from Sonderkommandos,
stated that three bodies would be burned at a time. Mieczyslaw Morawa, a worker
in the crematoria, testified that tests done on the Birkenau crematoria before
they became fully operational showed that three bodies could be simultaneously
burned in a period of 40 minutes in each of the 15 ovens in Krema II. He stated
that these tests were conducted with a stopwatch by the SS. The latter
testimonial suggests that, while multiple burnings may take longer than single
burnings (40 minutes vs. 25 minutes, taking the Gusen figures for single
burnings), the time taken by the former is by no means the time taken by the
latter multiplied by the number of bodies. Morawa’s testimonial also points to
the plausibility of the burning speed calculated on the basis of the already
mentioned Bauleitung document.4. As we have seen, the manufacturers’ patent
application and the testimonials of surviving crematoria operators mention
external heating by coke to have been necessary only at the beginning of the
cremation process, never thereafter. There is no evidence that additional
external heating was required at the end of the cremation process to complete it
– the fuel supplied by the bodies themselves seems to have been enough.
Additional external heating at the end of the cremation process may be a concern
in crematoria for conventional body disposal in civilian life. It is not a
concern with heavy-duty industrial furnaces burning large numbers of bodies on a
continuous basis. 5. The scientific data from the British Cremation Society
obviously refer to conventional crematoria, not to heavy-duty industrial
furnaces. However, they show that even with conventional furnaces, most of the
cremation is complete after 30 minutes (the body reduced to the size of a
football), which means that the next body or bodies can be introduced before the
first has been fully cremated. The instructions for the Topf double muffle
furnaces at Gusen envisaged that a body would be added into the oven during the
last twenty minutes that it took to fully cremate the corpse that had been
previously inserted, and there is evidence that this procedure was applied both
at the Gusen and AB crematoria. Add to that the above mentioned practice of
introducing several bodies at a time in certain combinations at the AB
crematoria, and the average of 15 minutes indicated in the Bauleitung document
appears far more compatible with the data from the British Cremation Society
than it seems at first glance.6. I know of no indication that the letter from
the Bauleitung dated June 28, 1943 is a forgery. Who is the forger supposed to
have been, when and how is the forgery supposed to have been made? The same
applies to the information on the fuel efficiency of the triple and eight muffle
ovens provided to the Bauleitung by Topf on March 17, 1943, where it is
estimated that, if used on a continuous basis, the three muffle ovens of Kremas
II and III would each use 2,800 kilograms of coke in a period of twelve hours,
whereas the eight muffle ovens of Kremas IV and V would use only 1,120 kilograms
of coke in the same period. 7. Adding the fuel consumption of the four
crematoria according to Topf’s above mentioned memo (2 x 2,800 + 2 x 1,120 =
7,840 kg) and dividing that figure by the number of people that could be
cremated in a twelve hour period according to the Bauleitung letter of June 28,
1943(4,416 ./. 2 = 2,208), which seems to be realistic according to the above,
we arrive at an average of 3.5507 kg of coke per body. The result of a
remarkable technical achievement by the manufacturers, acknowledged as such by
the AB Bauleitung.

This post, according to my records, was first sent on
27.06.2001 at 18:56 hours GMT. When it did not appear on the thread, I sent it
again on 28.06.2001 at 09:06 hours GMT. When it again did not appear, I knew
what had happened: obviously concerned that my arguments might give my opponent
too much trouble, the moderator (possible "Hannover" himself) had retained my
post. As our readers may appreciate, this cannot have been due to any personal
attacks or other violations of posting guidelines, for the post was soberly
worded and contained nothing other than arguments on the subject under
discussion.

As we can see, there were no insults, personal attacks, violations of any kind, so Roberto's post should have gone up on the CODOH forum. But it didn't. As stressed, whenever there are hard-to-tackle arguments and a moderator can foresee that deniers will have a hard time disproving this post, a moderator(s) censor it. Alas, this is only one example. There are many more.
"Hannover", a.k.a. Jonnie Hargis is one of the moderators at the CODOH forum. [4]
How do we know that "Hannover" is Hargis?
Doing a bit of sleuth work and then trolling him in e-mail, Philip Mathews and Andrew Mathis discovered that "Hannover" is, in fact, Jonnie Hargis. In a lapse that can only be called gigantic, Fritz Berg admits to Scott Smith that Hargis is, in fact, Hannover. [5]

A picture of Jonnie Hargis. [6] Jonnie Hargis is important to the whole CODOH censoring issue because, for all we know, he could be the one censoring the hard-to-tackle opposing posts, which wouldn't surprise me at all. When asked to come to RODOH (Real Open Debate On the Holocaust) or Roberto's blog ("Holocaust Controversies")to debate, Jonnie Hargis insulted Roberto from CODOH were he knew that Roberto was banned. [7]
In other words, Hargis is running away from debate and possibly censoring posts. One minute after that, of course, he turns around and wails about the "revisionists" that are currently jailed, and in effect, censored.
I don't think that the cowardice of Hargis can surpass anybody else's.

In conclusion, if the CODOH moderators want to be cowards by censoring posts and are so afraid of debate in a neutral place where posts aren't censored (RODOH), like Hargis, then they should at least change the name of the forum, because it's misleading. If you're going to be a coward by hiding behind your forum where hard-to-tackle opposition is censored, then at least have the guts to change the name of the forum so that it doesn't trick people into thinking people that the posters and moderators are actually looking for "open" debate.

This sentire essay can be summarized in three words:

"CODOH" my @$$!

Endnote:

[1]According to wikipedia

[2]CODOH posting "rules"

[3]"Hannover" Hargis, the coward, threatens when he is safe by Roberto Muehlankampf

[4]I Intend to be Obscene by Andrew E. Mathis

[5]I Intend to be Obscene by Andrew E. Mathis

[6]Who Owns Whom by Andrew E. Mathis

[7]"Hannover" Hargis, the coward, threatens when he is safe by Roberto Muehlankampf