Jo Fo, an anonymous “beginner” with the CODOH Forum asks a core question:
“I am a newcomer to this forum and a relative newcomer to this subject in general so if my comments or questions seem a bit academic, please indulge me. Where does the burden of proof in this debate lie? Many in the "exterminationist" camp scoff at the notion that they should have to further substantiate what they already consider established fact. Is it the revisionist's task to disprove their conclusions or could they be fairly required to offer more credible evidence in the first place?”
After a dozen posts replying to this interesting thread, Jo Fo writes:
“So philosophically the answer is fairly straight forward: The burden of proof should fall on those who make the initial claim of deliberate mass murder. But in practice, it doesn't seem to play out that way. That it should allegedly take place during a devastating world war doesn't simplify the matter!
“Kingfisher's idea of getting people to "step back" and re-examine the entire issue is constructive. I would hope that this could one day be treated solely as the murder investigation that it never was. Discard all previous conclusions and invite an unbiased, disinterested third party with sufficient technological prowess (the Chinese or Indians?) to conduct a thorough forensic and historical investigation. Focus on primary documentary evidence and use modern forensic science to find out what really happened. I understand that limited ventures toward this end have already been attempted in the past, but they always seem to run into issues of credibility and integrity.
“Considering the opposition to such an undertaking, this is all pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; and even if it were to take place, it probably wouldn't put an end to the controversy. I am grateful to all who have commented so far.”
For my part, the burden of proof lies first with those who accuse another of a specific murder. That would be the American Way if we were to ask the Fox talkers and most everyone else in media and the university. Of course, there must be exceptions made here and there, depending on your political, religious, or ethnic identifications. These exceptions must be, and are, defended with every contrivance available.