Gl0spana and his Holocaust Antics - The last eulogy

[Lamprecht]

Cockerill has discussed this thread in some interview on April 14th alleging he isn't Gl0spana.

Make of this what you will.

So this guy's video description is:
Why are revisionists who have "debunked" the Holocaust, so elusive when it comes to even having a discussion with a historian? Why do they feel so insecure in their positions and points?

So he's saying that revisionists are afraid to debate him? Why doesn't he join this forum and prove his ridiculous conspiracy theory?

[Archie]

Cockerill has discussed this thread in some interview on April 14th alleging he isn't Gl0spana.

Make of this what you will.

Taking the posts on Kiwifarms at face value, Chugger=gl0spana=Cockerill. "I posted that lol. I'm gl0spana" indicates that Chugger=gl0spana. Plus the posts about the livestream on YT indicating Chugger=Cockerill as well.

Is Cockerill claiming that Chugger is an imposter?

His posting career here at CODOH was so dreadful he probably no longer wishes to be associated with it.

[Otium]

Is Cockerill claiming that Chugger is an imposter?

Yes, that's what he's claiming. From the way Gl0spana and Cockerill act, they seem pretty similar. But this doesn't prove anything, all these exterminationists do appear to act just as emotionally irrational and underhanded.

[borjastick]

So this guy's video description is:
Why are revisionists who have "debunked" the Holocaust, so elusive when it comes to even having a discussion with a historian? Why do they feel so insecure in their positions and points?

So whoever this guy is in reality does he actually think he's an historian? What makes him self pronounce as an historian, why is he qualified to claim such a thing? I think I know quite a lot on the subject of the holocaust and twentieth century history but I wouldn't ever describe myself as an historian.

[Hektor]

Cockerill has discussed this thread in some interview on April 14th alleging he isn't Gl0spana.

Make of this what you will.

So this guy's video description is:
Why are revisionists who have "debunked" the Holocaust, so elusive when it comes to even having a discussion with a historian? Why do they feel so insecure in their positions and points?

So he's saying that revisionists are afraid to debate him? Why doesn't he join this forum and prove his ridiculous conspiracy theory?

He omits the fact that Revisionists are persecuted for their views. So in many countries there will be repercussions for what is said in a discussion. Now why are exterminationists still insisting on this practice, despite lip services to freedom of expression, aren't they the ones being elusive and insecure in their position.

[borjastick]

I've been persecuted this very morning. Yes indeed.

I have yet another (boring) Facebook notice from some jewish group or another or a WW2 history lesson from some jewish group or another. In it there was a picture of a jewish family taken just before the war, they are named and then we are told they were all 'murdered' in the holocaust at Auschwitz.

Oh the pain of it all, when reading the comments which are the usual assemblage of terror and crying snowflakes, I added mine which was to ask for some context and details please. Of course none was forthcoming. What I did get was a lecture by some woman telling me to go to my public library and read up on the subject and read witness and survivor statements and some buffoon who called me a 'clown'.

My reply was very simple and polite. I stated that no evidence of this family being murdered has been given, and that thankfully the science and reality of the holocaust shows that 6m jews were not murdered or deaded or missing and that must be good news.

What is clear to me is that when any questions are raised about the validity of the holocaust claims we are screamed at with spiteful bile and vitriol. These people at that point lose the ability to be rational and measured and become complete idiots, angry and discombobulated.

Much the same as this bloke Glowplug or whatever he likes to call himself.

[Lamprecht]

Cockerill has discussed this thread in some interview on April 14th alleging he isn't Gl0spana.

Make of this what you will.

So this guy's video description is:
Why are revisionists who have "debunked" the Holocaust, so elusive when it comes to even having a discussion with a historian? Why do they feel so insecure in their positions and points?

So he's saying that revisionists are afraid to debate him? Why doesn't he join this forum and prove his ridiculous conspiracy theory?

He omits the fact that Revisionists are persecuted for their views. So in many countries there will be repercussions for what is said in a discussion. Now why are exterminationists still insisting on this practice, despite lip services to freedom of expression, aren't they the ones being elusive and insecure in their position.

He didn't omit that, he just said he doesn't believe that revisionists should be persecuted. As if that somehow negates the reality of it. Either way it's a bit silly for this guy to claim that revisionists are refusing to debate with him when he is quite aware of this forum and therefore knows that he can make an account any time and debate here.

[Otium]

So he's saying that revisionists are afraid to debate him? Why doesn't he join this forum and prove his ridiculous conspiracy theory?

I know right! If he can stick to the rules there's no good reason he cannot debate here and prove us all wrong. It would be more fruitful to debate here than do a bunch of streams/interviews in which two people just say things to each other in a way nobody can really check. He can present his evidence here in detail.

He will not do that. Or at least I have zero faith in that he will.

Buy why only expect Cockerill to debate seeing as he is clearly so eager to "refute" any revisionists who are willing to converse with him? The people who hosted his interview in the previous video I posted should also come on here if they truly believe that the Holocaust narrative is unimpeachable and that "deniers" have no credibility whatsoever.

[Hektor]

So this guy's video description is:
Why are revisionists who have "debunked" the Holocaust, so elusive when it comes to even having a discussion with a historian? Why do they feel so insecure in their positions and points?

So he's saying that revisionists are afraid to debate him? Why doesn't he join this forum and prove his ridiculous conspiracy theory?

He omits the fact that Revisionists are persecuted for their views. So in many countries there will be repercussions for what is said in a discussion. Now why are exterminationists still insisting on this practice, despite lip services to freedom of expression, aren't they the ones being elusive and insecure in their position.

He didn't omit that, he just said he doesn't believe that revisionists should be persecuted. As if that somehow negates the reality of it. Either way it's a bit silly for this guy to claim that revisionists are refusing to debate with him when he is quite aware of this forum and therefore knows that he can make an account any time and debate here.

Then he is contradicting himself. Asking why Revisionists are elusive or insecure, while knowing they are being persecuted is intellectually dishonest. I'm quite aware that such games are played by Exterminationists, though. They have to argue like this, to keep the boat afloat.

[Iris]

Cockerill has discussed this thread in some interview on April 14th alleging he isn't Gl0spana.

Make of this what you will.

So this guy's video description is:
Why are revisionists who have "debunked" the Holocaust, so elusive when it comes to even having a discussion with a historian? Why do they feel so insecure in their positions and points?

So he's saying that revisionists are afraid to debate him? Why doesn't he join this forum and prove his ridiculous conspiracy theory?

So Gl0spana believes that revisionists are "elusive" and "insecure in their positions and points" and that they are afraid to debate him? I don't believe I've ever heard such delusional nonsense. I would like to see Gl0spana put his money where his mouth is and debate Greg Gerdes:

A $1,000.00 bet - can be made for each one of the 100 fraudulently alleged / insinuated - mass graves / cremation pits - of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - wagering that you can prove they have been scientifically proven to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of at least 21 people.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

This seems to have been written just for people like Gl0spana:

Are you now beginning to understand why the true-believers are so afraid of debating critical thinking skeptics who have taken the time and have made the effort to investigate all these unsubstantiated mass grave allegations? How can anyone with an IQ above 60 not see through this criminally fraudulent charade? Are you now beginning to understand why all these big-lies require - LAWS - to protect them? (What you have learned on this website is just the tip of the iceberg.) Do you have the common sense to understand that all lies are told for a reason? Do you have the intelligence to EDUCATE YOURSELF about why these big-lies are being told? Do you have the courage, integrity and character to admit to yourself that these fraudulently alleged “huge mass grave discoveries” are in fact blatantly fake news? If you don’t, then why are you so afraid to put your money where your mealy-mouth is and accept a - HOLOCAUST ARCHAEOLOGY HOAX CHALLENGE?

Belief is the enemy of knowing. Show me that which you allege I deny.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[hermod]

So Gl0spana believes that revisionists are "elusive" and "insecure in their positions and points" and that they are afraid to debate him? I don't believe I've ever heard such delusional nonsense.

Delusional nonsense or skilful bluff? Most of time, posturing is enough to fool ignorant observers, especially when the other side is systematically called "deniers" by complicit mass media, politicians and even academics.

[Lamprecht]

Check the comments in the YT video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKQdruzK9oY

People are asking why Cockerill doesn't go on CODOH and debate, where he has been challenged by multiple posters. The response is that "high profile deniers" (whatever that means) refuse to debate with him
At least 2 of the individuals he specifically named have accounts here, anyone else can register.

What's even more rich is that they are making these claims from the safety of YouTube, where "Holocaust denial" is a completely bannable offense. If you even post a link to CODOH in the YouTube comments, your reply will be shadow-deleted.

And I really don't understand what he means by "High profile" either. He's just focusing on streamers rather than the revisionists who have been writing books and articles on the topic for over a decade.

lol cox
Why don't you debate on the CODOH forum?

Based Takes
I believe Matt does. The question is why high profile deniers wont talk to someone who is an expert on the subject. Well we do know why really. They'd have no explanation for the historical record.

lol cox
@Based Takes "The question is why high profile deniers wont talk to someone who is an expert on the subject"
What are you talking about? They have accounts on the CODOH forum and therefore Cockerill can go there to debate them. Also how do you decide who is "high profile" exactly?

The Alternative Hypothesis
I dunno what you're crying about. The CODOH forum is available. I've made lots of video responses, not quite so many live debates. Like, you think this thing happened, okay, make a video with what you think are the best evidences for it, and maybe someone will show you why you're wrong.

Based Takes
Well sure this has been done before. Live discussions dont happen often and are more interesting but very few revisionists are willing to engage with their counterparts it seems. I mean its obvious to see why. The claims made in your videos are completely at odds with the historical record.

The Alternative Hypothesis
@Based Takes - They engage all the time. Holocaustcontroversies posts something, a response is written on CODOH. There have been several back and forths.

What you're crying about is that nobody is getting suckered into a low-time format that favors authority and thunderstriking.

Based Takes
@The Alternative Hypothesis Yes Matt does engage on CODOH, there's value in engaging live however. Like any topic. Very few seem willing to have a discussion however. Imagine another topic that people talk about, say the Ukraine invasion. Wouldn't it seem weird if a livestreamer that made videos on the subject said, oh I don't engage in live discussions on that, why don't you go to the forums?

lol cox
@Based Takes "very few revisionists are willing to engage with their counterparts it seems"
Except Cockerill has been challenged on the CODOH forum, which he clearly knows about, and he remains unwilling to go there to debate.

lol cox
@Based Takes "Matt does engage on CODOH"
What user name?

[Otium]

Based Takes
I believe Matt does. The question is why high profile deniers wont talk to someone who is an expert on the subject. Well we do know why really. They'd have no explanation for the historical record.

"High profile" means nothing, it's just an excuse to avoid debate. If the historical record "cannot be explained" (what can't Revisionists explain exactly? Revisionists have literally contended with everything from the "historical record") by revisionists, it hardly matters whether the revisionist contending with it is "high profile" or not. This unnecessary stipulation is a poor attempt at two things:

1.) to avoid debate because it's them who cannot explain the "historical record" and

2.) a way for them, like Ryan said, to engage in a low form debate which is intended to "humiliate" people they don't like, presumably to gain notoriety for themselves and to be able to posture their cause as "true" and their enemies as "wrong and dumb" without actually having to actually prove anything, let alone commit to any arguments they can't wiggle out of

In a stream you can commit the "Holocaust of the gaps" fallacy as much as you like and completely render any discussion to be pointless and drawn out. It's hard to make points and also recall in exact detail what your opponent has already said and then confront them on it later if they contradict themselves. Even if you manage to do this they can just deny it in the moment and it goes around and around in circles. It's a terrible format.

Seems to me these people are more interested in trying to insult people they disagree with and get clicks on it, rather than actually debate the point. This is because they don't have any respect for revisionists, they don't even take revisionism seriously. To them there is no debate, only people to humiliate. So the 'point' being the historically contentious issue of the Holocaust is actually not their main focus. This is why they won't debate, and probably also because they're scared of being humiliated themselves.

For all their talk of how "scared" and "unable to contend with the historical record" they claim revisionists are, they're not exactly eager to prove these assertions, which in itself says a lot.

[Lamprecht]

"High profile" means nothing, it's just an excuse to avoid debate.

The guy only wants to debate 3 people, and only on his desired format which is an unorthodox form of debate for this topic. He unwittingly calls these 3 individuals "High profile" but I can't imagine that else would ever do that. The majority of debates between revisionists and exterminationists take place in written form, as books or articles. I know of a handful of them in audio format (you can't even share photos or documents in this way) and there's a couple televised. None of them are productive.

If the historical record "cannot be explained" (what can't Revisionists explain exactly? Revisionists have literally contended with everything from the "historical record") by revisionists

I'm sure they're talking about the "But where did they go?" canard. They expect a complete travel itinerary for every single Jew in Europe during WWII. This has been handled though:

Simple question: What happened to the people who were sent to the camps? / 'Where did they go?'
viewtopic.php?t=13204

[Mortimer]

Roberto Muehlenkamp has posted on this forum - I remember specifically asking him his opinion of the Luftl Report.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11231

Would Cockerill care to critique 1939 - The War That Had Many Fathers ?
viewtopic.php?t=7456

Does he deny that in World War 2 France invaded Germany first ?
viewtopic.php?t=11241

Does he deny that the Dutch and Belgian governments were working with their British and French counterparts while claiming falsely to be neutrals ?
viewtopic.php?t=12153