List of "direct" eyewitnesses to gassings.

[Callafangers]

Therefore, the person authorizing the travel remains Glücks. The SS-Hauptsturmführer is acting in a subordinate administrative capacity related to the paperwork of that authorization.

So this is the argument you have to refute now. We can also look at the document. There's zero indication that's it's authorizing the Hauptsturmführer (at the bottom). There's only one signature anyway, and that's the Hauptsturmführer who is also the Adjudant. Maybe there's two, that's the Adjudant? AI doesn't seem to think that's likely but I'm no expert.

Irrelevant. It doesn't mention Hoess, it doesn't mention Blobel. It is more likely to do with kitchen or culinary equipment than Jewish 'gassing'.

You also have to define what you believe really happened, that there were two separate trips on the same day out of Auschwitz to "special" and "experimental" sites around Litzmandstadt, what Blobel's role is, why he had a flame thrower, what Hoess and co were really doing there ... I'm curious if you have an elegant explanation for all of this.

---

And once this is done we can get back to central question of Hoess's testimony. Though it's interesting to me and you're kind of showing your hand by spending so much time on this. If Hoess's visit to Blobel/the Reinhard field furnaces doesn't help the Holocaust case one iota, why not just concede it and we can move on. But you know it does, deep down probably.

More clownery from you, BA. Two trips, at least one of which on a document that doesn't even appear especially secretive and explicitly mentions 'field ovens' does not suit your case. Sometimes, people went on trips they didn't explicitly state the purposes of in the document, perhaps simply due to the purposes being wide ranging or complex (if not deliberately being kept secret, for any number of reasons), rendering further description irrelevant to the purposes of the documentation. None of this supports your extraordinary claims about 'gassing'.

[bombsaway]

In relation to the dating of this travel permit, Mattogno was able to document a case of a fire damaging a building in Auschwitz only days before the permit was issued, indicating that the permit could have been issued in relation to a need for a safe way of incinerating garbage materials in the camp. All of this is so obvious that even exterminationists have a hard time denying it. There's even a Sobibor witness, Thomas Blatt, who testified to having been in charge of a "paper and clothing incineration furnace" at Sobibor!

Regarding the participants, Hoess wrote about the trip in one of his texts, and there is also a report written up by Walter Dejaco immediately after the trip, wherein the participants are named as Hoess, Hoessler and Dejaco, and they also supposedly met with Blobel. But what is actually borne out by Dejaco's report is the fact that a ball mill was to be delivered to Auschwitz, further strengthening the case that all this trip was about was to inspect field garbage incineration devices and ball mills at Litzmannstadt, for later use at Auschwitz, and that these devices were being utilized to incinerate waste and grind down useless garbage left behind by Jews at the Reinhard camps.

It's interesting because this would mean that Hoess, in his testimony, super creatively replaced garbage incineration with corpse incineration. It strains credulity to believe the incentives would be such that he would lie like this. It also strains credulity that Blobel would be the one tasked with heading the garbage disposal unit (destroying garbage with a flame thrower, ok?). There are civilian mechanisms and research for all this, no reason for someone to go to spend almost a year there working on this (see this letter to Sonderkommando Kulmhof in 1943 https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... tml#_doc75 )

[bombsaway]

Therefore, the person authorizing the travel remains Glücks. The SS-Hauptsturmführer is acting in a subordinate administrative capacity related to the paperwork of that authorization.

So this is the argument you have to refute now. We can also look at the document. There's zero indication that's it's authorizing the Hauptsturmführer (at the bottom). There's only one signature anyway, and that's the Hauptsturmführer who is also the Adjudant. Maybe there's two, that's the Adjudant? AI doesn't seem to think that's likely but I'm no expert.

Irrelevant. It doesn't mention Hoess, it doesn't mention Blobel. It is more likely to do with kitchen or culinary equipment than Jewish 'gassing'.

You also have to define what you believe really happened, that there were two separate trips on the same day out of Auschwitz to "special" and "experimental" sites around Litzmandstadt, what Blobel's role is, why he had a flame thrower, what Hoess and co were really doing there ... I'm curious if you have an elegant explanation for all of this.

---

And once this is done we can get back to central question of Hoess's testimony. Though it's interesting to me and you're kind of showing your hand by spending so much time on this. If Hoess's visit to Blobel/the Reinhard field furnaces doesn't help the Holocaust case one iota, why not just concede it and we can move on. But you know it does, deep down probably.

More clownery from you, BA. Two trips, at least one of which on a document that doesn't even appear especially secretive and explicitly mentions 'field ovens' does not suit your case. Sometimes, people went on trips they didn't explicitly state the purposes of in the document, perhaps simply due to the purposes being wide ranging or complex (if not deliberately being kept secret, for any number of reasons), rendering further description irrelevant to the purposes of the documentation. None of this supports your extraordinary claims about 'gassing'.

There is no indication of two trips. We don't know who the permit is for from that document alone, but then there's a report of a trip from Auschwitz to Lodz the same day. I am making this crazy assumption that the permit is for that trip yeah.

[Callafangers]

So this is the argument you have to refute now. We can also look at the document. There's zero indication that's it's authorizing the Hauptsturmführer (at the bottom). There's only one signature anyway, and that's the Hauptsturmführer who is also the Adjudant. Maybe there's two, that's the Adjudant? AI doesn't seem to think that's likely but I'm no expert.

Irrelevant. It doesn't mention Hoess, it doesn't mention Blobel. It is more likely to do with kitchen or culinary equipment than Jewish 'gassing'.

You also have to define what you believe really happened, that there were two separate trips on the same day out of Auschwitz to "special" and "experimental" sites around Litzmandstadt, what Blobel's role is, why he had a flame thrower, what Hoess and co were really doing there ... I'm curious if you have an elegant explanation for all of this.

---

And once this is done we can get back to central question of Hoess's testimony. Though it's interesting to me and you're kind of showing your hand by spending so much time on this. If Hoess's visit to Blobel/the Reinhard field furnaces doesn't help the Holocaust case one iota, why not just concede it and we can move on. But you know it does, deep down probably.

More clownery from you, BA. Two trips, at least one of which on a document that doesn't even appear especially secretive and explicitly mentions 'field ovens' does not suit your case. Sometimes, people went on trips they didn't explicitly state the purposes of in the document, perhaps simply due to the purposes being wide ranging or complex (if not deliberately being kept secret, for any number of reasons), rendering further description irrelevant to the purposes of the documentation. None of this supports your extraordinary claims about 'gassing'.

There is no indication of two trips. We don't know who the permit is for from that document alone, but then there's a report of a trip from Auschwitz to Lodz the same day. I am making this crazy assumption that the permit is for that trip yeah.

You're making multiple assumptions of implied or intended meaning which altogether don't come close -- not remotely -- to converging as any extraordinary evidence for your position. And yet, you make extraordinary claims. Do you see no problem with this? Logic, reason, and most judicial proceedings certainly would.

"Fred was at Sally's house doing special actions."

You can argue the statement above is supporting evidence of the claim that Fred cremated Sally, Bob, or anyone else, but it's so far from sufficient as substantiation for such a claim that it's barely worth mentioning at all. It's not really evidence of this claim as it has many other innocuous meanings which fit perfectly well within the known context of the period and location (e.g. construction, transportation, disinfestation, dispossession, etc. -- all of which were expected in the Warthegau at that time). But in your case, it's all you've got in your effort to chalk up hundreds of thousands of deaths you otherwise cannot prove at all.

[bombsaway]

Irrelevant. It doesn't mention Hoess, it doesn't mention Blobel. It is more likely to do with kitchen or culinary equipment than Jewish 'gassing'.


More clownery from you, BA. Two trips, at least one of which on a document that doesn't even appear especially secretive and explicitly mentions 'field ovens' does not suit your case. Sometimes, people went on trips they didn't explicitly state the purposes of in the document, perhaps simply due to the purposes being wide ranging or complex (if not deliberately being kept secret, for any number of reasons), rendering further description irrelevant to the purposes of the documentation. None of this supports your extraordinary claims about 'gassing'.

There is no indication of two trips. We don't know who the permit is for from that document alone, but then there's a report of a trip from Auschwitz to Lodz the same day. I am making this crazy assumption that the permit is for that trip yeah.

You're making multiple assumptions of implied or intended meaning which altogether don't come close -- not remotely -- to converging as any extraordinary evidence for your position. And yet, you make extraordinary claims. Do you see no problem with this? Logic, reason, and most judicial proceedings certainly would.

"Fred was at Sally's house doing special actions."

You can argue the statement above is supporting evidence of the claim that Fred cremated Sally, Bob, or anyone else, but it's so far from sufficient as substantiation for such a claim that it's barely worth mentioning at all. It's not really evidence of this claim as it has many other innocuous meanings which fit perfectly well within the known context of the period and location (e.g. construction, transportation, disinfestation, dispossession, etc. -- all of which were expected in the Warthegau at that time). But in your case, it's all you've got in your effort to chalk up hundreds of thousands of deaths you otherwise cannot prove at all.

I think my claim here is just that the trip Hoess and co made to Chelmno is well corroborated, and it's also heavily indicated through the documentary sources that the point of the journey was to inspect and understand the work Blobel was doing there, which was about destruction of materials. The witness testimonies make clear that this was about body destruction. If you're good on that we can move on and get back to Hoess's strength as a witness. I don't know if you're still caught up with the travel permit, it's clearly not evidence of a second trip being make there without Hoess.

[Callafangers]

I think my claim here is just that the trip Hoess and co made to Chelmno is well corroborated, and it's also heavily indicated through the documentary sources that the point of the journey was to inspect and understand the work Blobel was doing there, which was about destruction of materials. The witness testimonies make clear that this was about body destruction. If you're good on that we can move on and get back to Hoess's strength as a witness. I don't know if you're still caught up with the travel permit, it's clearly not evidence of a secondary trip being make there without Hoess.

There is nothing to 'move onto', bombsaway. You're at square zero, you remain there. You are not a giving an informed walkthrough of quality evidence, despite how hard you try to seem this way. You're a conspiracy theorist presenting documents which speak only of general events which in no way highlight nor even seemingly imply any of the inferences and conclusions you are attempting (desperately) to draw from them. You're repeating that I seem 'caught up with the travel permit', but this is a document that you presented here, proposing it as evidence for your position. That's laughable, and I simply hope you would admit that.

"Field ovens" are not 'cremation experiments'. 'Field ovens' are not a flamethrower. Does this travel permit even have a top secret designation? Do you have any direct documentation showing it pertains to Hoess at all? Anything, bombsaway?

The 'witness testimonies' came postwar under duress. Spare me.

Beyond that, you have a mention of a "special facility" -- that's literally it. We've now combed through your best sources on the 'Holocaust cover-up' at Chelmno (thanks to Hans) and it seems we've reached the bottom of the barrel, scraped the sides. Your case has been exhausted and invalidated. Unless you have something new to add then, yes, let's "move on" to "Hoess' strength as a witness", so that I can continue experiencing secondhand embarrassment as you feign confidence while delivering one bad argument after another.

[bombsaway]

I think my claim here is just that the trip Hoess and co made to Chelmno is well corroborated, and it's also heavily indicated through the documentary sources that the point of the journey was to inspect and understand the work Blobel was doing there, which was about destruction of materials. The witness testimonies make clear that this was about body destruction. If you're good on that we can move on and get back to Hoess's strength as a witness. I don't know if you're still caught up with the travel permit, it's clearly not evidence of a secondary trip being make there without Hoess.

There is nothing to 'move onto', bombsaway. You're at square zero, you remain there. You are not a giving an informed walkthrough of quality evidence, despite how hard you try to seem this way. You're a conspiracy theorist presenting documents which speak only of general events which in no way highlight nor even seemingly imply any of the inferences and conclusions you are attempting (desperately) to draw from them. You're repeating that I seem 'caught up with the travel permit', but this is a document that you presented here, proposing it as evidence for your position. That's laughable, and I simply hope you would admit that.

"Field ovens" are not 'cremation experiments'. 'Field ovens' are not a flamethrower. Does this travel permit even have a top secret designation? Do you have any direct documentation showing it pertains to Hoess at all? Anything, bombsaway?

The 'witness testimonies' came postwar under duress. Spare me.

Beyond that, you have a mention of a "special facility" -- that's literally it. We've now combed through your best sources on the 'Holocaust cover-up' at Chelmno (thanks to Hans) and it seems we've reached the bottom of the barrel, scraped the sides. Your case has been exhausted and invalidated. Unless you have something new to add then, yes, let's "move on" to "Hoess' strength as a witness", so that I can continue experiencing secondhand embarrassment as you feign confidence while delivering one bad argument after another.

It's definitely evidence of the mass body destruction side of things, unless you think the witnesses were lying and Blobel was conducting trash destruction experiments. Did they see bodies being destroyed, or trash? Which is it?

[Callafangers]

It's definitely evidence of the mass body destruction side of things, unless you think the witnesses were lying and Blobel was conducting trash destruction experiments. Did they see bodies being destroyed, or trash? Which is it?

I definitely think many of the witnesses were lying, mainly because the evidence suggests a common and widespread pattern in this regard.

I have little doubt there were some cremation activities happening at some point, since there were people dying regardless of which side of this debate you stand on, and disease control being paramount.

We know that trash destruction was needed in an economic operation. Whether or not one believes in the 'Holocaust', there was certainly trash (lice-infested or unwanted Jewish dispossessions, other waste needing destruction) which undoubtedly accumulated and needed proper disposal, given widespread sanitation challenges in the Warthegau at this time. Any operations meant at 'destruction' of some type make far more common sense in a context of sanitation and the like than they do for Jewish 'extermination' which, again, you have not made a compelling case for.

The documents and stories you are presenting do not overall paint the picture that hundreds of thousands of Jewish corpses (enough to fill half a dozen college football stadiums) were lit ablaze, then dropped through a bone grinding machine, then buried and only ever unearthed in limited archaeological surveys that reflect at most a miniscule fraction of the expected corpse material. And you inevitably run into the same hilarious "wood problem" as with other AR camps, with the total cleared forest accounting for at most some 0.5% of the wood/fuel needed for the alleged 150,000+ cremations.

[bombsaway]

It's definitely evidence of the mass body destruction side of things, unless you think the witnesses were lying and Blobel was conducting trash destruction experiments. Did they see bodies being destroyed, or trash? Which is it?

I definitely think many of the witnesses were lying, mainly because the evidence suggests a common and widespread pattern in this regard.

I have little doubt there were some cremation activities happening at some point, since there were people dying regardless of which side of this debate you stand on, and disease control being paramount.

We know that trash destruction was needed in an economic operation. Whether or not one believes in the 'Holocaust', there was certainly trash (lice-infested or unwanted Jewish dispossessions, other waste needing destruction) which undoubtedly accumulated and needed proper disposal, given widespread sanitation challenges in the Warthegau at this time. Any operations meant at 'destruction' of some type make far more common sense in a context of sanitation and the like than they do for Jewish 'extermination' which, again, you have not made a compelling case for.

The documents and stories you are presenting do not overall paint the picture that hundreds of thousands of Jewish corpses (enough to fill half a dozen college football stadiums) were lit ablaze, then dropped through a bone grinding machine, then buried and only ever unearthed in limited archaeological surveys that reflect at most a miniscule fraction of the expected corpse material. And you inevitably run into the same hilarious "wood problem" as with other AR camps, with the total cleared forest accounting for at most some 0.5% of the wood/fuel needed for the alleged 150,000+ cremations.

Yeah I get that you think that body destruction on this level is impossible. But what do you think Hoess saw when he inspected "the experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard" w Blobel? If it's bodies that is evidence of the 1005 story, whether you like it or not. If he saw trash destruction as curioussoul said, we can interrogate that possibility.

Or we can end this discussion because you don't find it relevant. I brought it up to demonstrate that you guys aren't taking into account the elements in the record that support the orthodox narrative.

[Callafangers]

Yeah I get that you think that body destruction on this level is impossible. But what do you think Hoess saw when he inspected "the experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard" w Blobel? If it's bodies that is evidence of the 1005 story, whether you like it or not. If he saw trash destruction as curioussoul said, we can interrogate that possibility.

Or we can end this discussion because you don't find it relevant. I brought it up to demonstrate that you guys aren't taking into account the elements in the record that support the orthodox narrative.

You seem to keep making assumptions that are not evidenced. Sad.

We have already been over this: you have no credible connection to say even that Hoess was actually traveling to view any 'field ovens'. The travel permit you cited for this does not mention Hoess, nor even Kulmhof/Chelmno. It could very well have pertained to a mobile bakery, bombsaway. There isn't a word about cremation, Hoess, etc., anywhere on this document.

What you can argue is perhaps that Hoess was meeting Blobel for some specially arranged purpose. But where you fail is in thinking that Hoess' postwar statements can 'corroborate' any homicidal interpretations in this regard, given the circumstances that Hoess is proven to have faced postwar.

Round-and-round we go.

[bombsaway]

We have already been over this: you have no credible connection to say even that Hoess was actually traveling to view any 'field ovens'. The travel permit you cited for this does not mention Hoess, nor even Kulmhof/Chelmno. It could very well have pertained to a mobile bakery, bombsaway. There isn't a word about cremation, Hoess, etc., anywhere on this document.

So your contention is that it is likely that there were two unrelated trips from Auschwitz to Lodz area and back on 9/16/1942? Just a coincidence, hmm. OK.

[Callafangers]

So your contention is that it is likely that there were two unrelated trips from Auschwitz to Lodz area and back on 9/16/1942? Just a coincidence, hmm. OK.

My contention is that if there were two unrelated trips from Auschwitz (which had thousands of individuals who could have traveled in this way) to the Lodz area (which had various facilities, population centers, and overall economic infrastructure warranting visits to/from), we should expect that those fabricating a narrative postwar involving claims pertaining to some location in the greater Lodz area (e.g. Chelmno) would find any documentation of such trips useful to support their claims. Because we should expect that trips between Auschwitz and Lodz would be far from unheard of given regular logistical needs for any number of purposes during this period, having two trips in the same day (for different documented purposes, no less -- visiting a "special facility" vs. inspecting "field ovens") is not any sort of "smoking gun" for Hoess' (or anyone's) otherwise unsubstantiated, coerced postwar storytelling.

[bombsaway]

So your contention is that it is likely that there were two unrelated trips from Auschwitz to Lodz area and back on 9/16/1942? Just a coincidence, hmm. OK.

My contention is that if there were two unrelated trips from Auschwitz (which had thousands of individuals who could have traveled in this way) to the Lodz area (which had various facilities, population centers, and overall economic infrastructure warranting visits to/from), we should expect that those fabricating a narrative postwar involving claims pertaining to some location in the greater Lodz area (e.g. Chelmno) would find any documentation of such trips useful to support their claims. Because we should expect that trips between Auschwitz and Lodz would be far from unheard of given regular logistical needs for any number of purposes during this period, having two trips in the same day (for different documented purposes, no less -- visiting a "special facility" vs. inspecting "field ovens") is not any sort of "smoking gun" for Hoess' (or anyone's) otherwise unsubstantiated, coerced postwar storytelling.

Special facility is a coded term meaning any number of things, so it definitely could mean visiting a site of field ovens. What's in bold is entirely speculative, it's an eight hour round trip, that's a lot for one day lol. But anyway, what do you think Hoess saw when he met Blobel? Body or trash destruction? Seems like an either or sort of thing.

[Nessie]

.... Auschwitz, where no one claims Jews were being ground-up.

David Olere, in one of his drawings, showed bones being ground down.

https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/R ... lere20.jpg

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/au ... s-chambers

"Bones that did not burn completely were ground to powder with pestles and then dumped..."

You should do some simple checking before you make claims.

So, was that with a bone mill, Nessie? Or was it with Olere's drawn method (smashing on cement)? Has this 'mill' ever been confirmed for its alleged use, either via credible documentation or physical evidence of any kind? Or has your 'simple checking' failed you yet again?

The drawing and museum description do not describe a bone mill. You would not find any other evidence that you did not want to believe, credible. Your default position is to deny.

[Callafangers]

The drawing and museum description do not describe a bone mill. You would not find any other evidence that you did not want to believe, credible. Your default position is to deny.

My default position is to inquire. But once a healthy skepticism develops after observing an extraordinary pattern of conspiracy and lies then, yes, you will see that I am more inclined to object to the validity of weak and inadequate evidence for extraordinary claims than, say, you are.

Your position by necessity is one which has to keep pretending that the pool of witnesses has not "cried wolf" so often as to demonstrate the existence of a coordinated, false narrative with obvious motives and extraordinary [post-war victorious] means.

It is you who "wants to believe". This is why your standards for evidence (and critical examination thereof) are so very low.