No Sources, No History

[Stubble]

....

You should be more neutral and look to see what he claimed, is corroborated by other evidence. Take your opinion out of the equation. You previously said:

"The method of execution at treblinka is of note as well, because both the source testimony and the method of execution make no sense and are not physically possible."

Every single eyewitness to the gassings (so not people who may have worked at the camp, but who did not see gassings) agrees that an engine was used to produce exhaust fumes. No one said it was a diesel engine. What is physically impossible about that method?

Let me get this straight here, I want to be as clear as possible about this particular piece of the lore.

Are you, here and now, telling me that the method of execution was not a Soviet tank engine that was diesel powered? You are going to stand by that, and say that it was an engine, not specifically a diesel engine from a Soviet tank?

The witnesses to gassings, as in those who worked at the gas chambers, Jewish and Nazi, agree it was a Soviet engine, but not specifically one from a tank, though that is what Wiernik said and none of them said it was diesel. They either, like Wiernik did not say what fuel it used, or they said it was petrol.

The "piece of lore" is revisionists, started by FP Berg, who picked up on hearsay descriptions, by people who thought it was a diesel engine, but they did not work at the chambers, or on the engine. It is inaccurate hearsay, which led to a mistaken conclusion. You can maybe see a theme here, of inaccuracy by revisionists.

The drinking water/burial pit correlation comes from the map of the plots and the physical location of the water head.

Which map? This one has a well (5) as far from the graves as it was possible, with a water pump (37) situated nearer the graves, probably for washing down the gas chambers and if the prisoners got to drink it, the Nazis would not have cared about that.

http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/pic/bmap9.jpg

'Through those pipes the exhaust gas from a single diesel engine was led into the cabins.'

Eliahu Rosenberg’s 1947 deposition on Treblinka

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... t.html?m=1

There is also his testimony from the eichmann trial, which is slightly incongruous with the 1947 testimony, but, none the less specifies diesel exhaust.

Of course, now we know the various eye witnesses and documentarians were all wrong, because the condemned were of course killed with cyclone gas from pellets. Talk about revisionism...

https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2012 ... lon-b-gas/

That map will service my point just fine, although, the one I saw was slightly different, hand drawn, and had another pit even closer to the well head.

[SanityCheck]

Then let's look at the original source for Auschwitz, because if someone says bunker and concentration camp together, that means execution

No, it doesn't.

using cyclone pellets (not disks mind you) in a cold damp room with no heat to execute the greatest number of people physically able to fit in the room phone booth style.

Because 'the first killings took place in the bunker at Auschwitz' evolved into 'an experimental gassing'. Because that's how we understand history you see. It 'evolved'. Well, why didn't this 'evolve'? Because it was on the allied side of the iron curtain and could have been investigated, like dachau.

Auschwitz I's detention block, Block 11, was the site of the first gassing there, as reported in contemporary Polish underground reports, wartime fugitive reports, and many subsequent witness accounts, involving Soviet POWs and selected mostly Polish KZ inmates who were deemed too sick/weak to work. Block 11 was indeed known as a 'Bunker' and its register is known as the Bunkerbuch.

This was the only reported gassing to take place in Block 11 of the Auschwitz main camp. Far more inmates were hauled out of Block 11 to be executed by shooting at the 'death wall' outside the block.

Subsequently, when peasant houses near the Birkenau camp were converted to gas chambers, one of the informal names for them was also the 'Bunkers' (which also shows up in a German document or two), but more usually the sites were referred to in German documents as Sonderkommando I and II, or Sonderaktion 1 and 2. From there the term 'Sonderkommando' stuck to the Jewish prisoner workforce in the Birkenau crematoria (also showing up in German documents occasionally), but this was not the case with the workforces in pure extermination camps like Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Chelmno-Kulmhof, the term Sonderkommando there referred to the camp staffs and guard forces. The term 'Bunker' was understood by some late arriving Sonderkommandos as referring to open air pyres, which illustrates quite well how the Tower of Babel in multi-lingual Auschwitz prisoner society worked.

Amazing how flexible language usage can be, and how little is left of your weird desire to credit Buchenwald with a gas chamber, or imply that witnesses who don't discuss gassing at Buchenwald actually do. So there was no 'evolution' here, soz.

[SanityCheck]

Terry invokes the "Schiessbefehl" as somehow being a piece of evidence for the Holocaust, but gets fact checked immediately and lo and behold, turns out he wasn't being quite honest.

There is no planet on which the Schiessbefehl isn't a piece of evidence for the Holocaust as conventionally understood, i.e. referring to the persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its allies between 1933-1945. It is after all a piece of evidence for a formal policy of executing Jews found outside their 'Jewish residential districts'.

Callafangers and you unsurprisingly snipped my point on how the Schiessbefehl was used to point to further explicit decrees laying down that Jews who avoided 'evacuation' (i.e. the deportation actions) as well as Poles who aided them in any way were to be summarily executed. There are a whole series in 1942-3 of placards and ordinances at county level as well as the district SSPFs in the Government-General saying as much, as well as further placards confirming that Poles involved in sheltering Jews (Judenbeherbergung) had been executed.

As I wrote, the Schiessbefehl "set up the formal policy of threatening Jews and Poles with death for non-compliance, evasion or helping and sheltering evaders during the deportations, with further evidence that this policy was carried out in German documents as well as non-German sources. Additionally, there are German documents noting the execution of Jews often due to sickness or immobility prior to deportations, such as the police report on the Kolomea-Belzec deportation of September 1942."

I further pointed to one of several documents showing that as of the time of the Schiessbefehl, the civilian administration in the GG had reached the mental threshold of contemplating genocide.

the onset of the Schiessbefehl also saw officials in the GG in October 1941 state bluntly, "There are only two ways. We sentence the Jews in the ghetto to death by hunger or we shoot them." There was a third way - gassing - but these officials did not know about that option yet. The reports of hunting down fugitive Jews across Poland and executing them, or executing Jews found in forest camps, confirm the bluntness of the decrees, either the Schiessbefehl or the subsequent placards issued during deportation actions. Those Jews were to be killed as a matter of policy. This also extended in the documentation to reports of shooting train-jumpers and transport escorts expending their entire ammunition supply shooting at Jews breaking out of deportation trains, and other reports noting bodies of Jews shot down when trying to break out littering railway tracks in 1942. An example of the latter type of report was cited as long ago as Hilberg's first edition in 1961.

On the same weekend as the health officials of the GG met in conference where the bolded remark was according to the protocol greeted with applause (VEJ-PMJ 9/14), Ludwig Fischer, the Governor of the District of Warsaw, discussed the problems of food supply to the Warsaw ghetto and ensuing mortality from hunger, then immediately connected this with the conflict with 'world Jewry' and welcomed this as striking a 'devastasing blo (VEJ-PMJ 9/15).

Even these foodstuffs provide too little sustenance. Where possible, the ghetto needs to be provided with special allocations. The mortality figures will undoubtedly rise over the winter. But this war is, after all, a conflict with Jewry in its entirety. The American Jew Kaufmann’s publication has shown us what we would have to expect from the Jews if they were victorious.4 I believe this can be justified if [illegfible] of Jewry, from which the whole of world Jewry is constantly being replenished, is dealt a devastating blow by us.

The 'illegible' word in the copies used for this edition can be seen in the scanned original - Brutstaette (breeding ground, hotbed)
https://www.szukajwarchiwach.gov.pl/jed ... ka/5519530

Hans Frank repeatedly stated either side of this shift that he hoped the GG would be freed of Jews by deporting them farther to the east, in one case referring to a thousand miles to the east, and was rather famously disappointed to be told this wasn't possible, and to "liquidate them yourselves", as he announced to his cabinet on 16 December 1941, when indicating the new policy course of destroying/annihilating the Jews (VEJ-PMJ 9/26 and 2233-D-PS in the IMT-NCA volumes). Frank referred several times more, in December 1942 and June 1943, to the difficulties the policy of Vernichtung caused for the labour supply and economy. He also referred to the cessation of food supply to 1.2 million Jews in late August 1942, who were being deported, leaving only 300,000 as workers, which was exactly how many were officially left in the GG at the end of 1942 (VEJ-PMJ 9/123 and 2233-E-PS in the IMT-NCA volumes). Note also how the 1.2 million figure is close to the Korherr-Hoefle figure of 1.297 million deported.

The difference between the 1.297 million + 297,000 officially alive in ghettos and earlier regional totals had either starved to death, been shot before, during or after deportation actions, or were in hiding (and at risk of discovery or murder in 1943-44).

Decreeing the death penalty for being found outside narrowly defined 'residential districts' for *one* ethnic group is not a neutral measure to combat epidemics or smuggling. Welcoming increased mortality from starvation of *one* ethnic group confined to ghettos is not a generic economic policy or food management strategy. Both are quite obviously racist measures, they show an officialdom at the threshold or tipping-point to genocide. "There are only two ways. We sentence the Jews in the ghetto to death by hunger or we shoot them." became "liquidate them yourselves" just two months later when it became clear there would not be 'resettlements to the east' of the largest Jewish population under Nazi rule.

[Stubble]

You know what, I'm not even going to argue. I'll take it on the chin. I had bad sources, not once, but twice. My apologies.

If you would kindly explain the earliest reference to an exhaust fan at krema I being in the 1990's, the treblinka museum handing out literature claiming use of zyklon b in homicidal gas chambers at treblinka and the black liberators hoax, I'd appreciate that.

I'll add, I didn't have a 'weird desire to credit Buchenwald with a gas chamber'. I was pointing out what I considered an error. I still don't know how what we have covered thus far negates the 'eli weisel was going to be gassed at buchenwald' headline and corresponding article, but, I'm not even going to argue it. I'll just say 'I was wrong, I apologize'.

It's worth mentioning the liberators hoax is being given a fresh coat of paint.

https://forward.com/community/395196/th ... ion-camps/

[TlsMS93]

The Holocaust is nothing more than someone shooting an arrow and then drawing a target. The switch from diesel to gasoline is a reflection of this.

[Nessie]

.....

'Through those pipes the exhaust gas from a single diesel engine was led into the cabins.'

Eliahu Rosenberg’s 1947 deposition on Treblinka

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... t.html?m=1

There is also his testimony from the eichmann trial, which is slightly incongruous with the 1947 testimony, but, none the less specifies diesel exhaust.

He mentions the engine once, gives no indication he saw it and so his evidence is more than likely hearsay. Odd you link to a source for the quote that explains the problems with the revisionist diesel claims. Yet again, revisionists make the mistake of taking witnesses literally and with no consideration for even common witness errors, especially when the witness is recalling events from years, if not decades before.

Of course, now we know the various eye witnesses and documentarians were all wrong, because the condemned were of course killed with cyclone gas from pellets. Talk about revisionism...

https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2012 ... lon-b-gas/

Yet again, you make the same mistake and link to a poor quality source that you just accept, without checking. The supposed pamphlet the author was sold was wrong. History does get revised, as new evidence comes to light, or mistakes in past evidence are corrected. If you check other secondary sources for TII, you will find the evidence that both chambers operated using engines and that another engine was used as a generator. Confusion as to what engine was what, when witnesses are relating events years later, easily explains errors.

That map will service my point just fine, although, the one I saw was slightly different, hand drawn, and had another pit even closer to the well head.

That is not evidence to prove the drinking water was at risk from the mass graves. No map gives a precise measured location for the well, or the graves and how far they were from each other. I note your acceptance of poor quality evidence is constant. You need to learn to differentiate between sources and to check them. Please stop blindly accepting what you want to believe and be more neutral and thorough.

[Stubble]

.....

'Through those pipes the exhaust gas from a single diesel engine was led into the cabins.'

Eliahu Rosenberg’s 1947 deposition on Treblinka

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... t.html?m=1

There is also his testimony from the eichmann trial, which is slightly incongruous with the 1947 testimony, but, none the less specifies diesel exhaust.

He mentions the engine once, gives no indication he saw it and so his evidence is more than likely hearsay. Odd you link to a source for the quote that explains the problems with the revisionist diesel claims. Yet again, revisionists make the mistake of taking witnesses literally and with no consideration for even common witness errors, especially when the witness is recalling events from years, if not decades before.

Of course, now we know the various eye witnesses and documentarians were all wrong, because the condemned were of course killed with cyclone gas from pellets. Talk about revisionism...

https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2012 ... lon-b-gas/

Yet again, you make the same mistake and link to a poor quality source that you just accept, without checking. The supposed pamphlet the author was sold was wrong. History does get revised, as new evidence comes to light, or mistakes in past evidence are corrected. If you check other secondary sources for TII, you will find the evidence that both chambers operated using engines and that another engine was used as a generator. Confusion as to what engine was what, when witnesses are relating events years later, easily explains errors.

That map will service my point just fine, although, the one I saw was slightly different, hand drawn, and had another pit even closer to the well head.

That is not evidence to prove the drinking water was at risk from the mass graves. No map gives a precise measured location for the well, or the graves and how far they were from each other. I note your acceptance of poor quality evidence is constant. You need to learn to differentiate between sources and to check them. Please stop blindly accepting what you want to believe and be more neutral and thorough.

You tell me to use 'trusted sources' so I link to one that not only confirms what I said, contains more than one reference and is from a source you approve of, that source also says 'it's no big deal'. Then you tell me it's odd to use that source? Such is life I suppose. In the future, I'm going to limit sources I use to 'my jewish learning' or something. Maybe 'Yad Vashim' and 'The American Holocaust Museum'.

I don't have the pamphlet referenced in my hand, you are right. Such a thing seems to me to be something worth investigating. I've been working on vetting the claim. I will continue to, amid my 6,000,000 page assignment.

So far as simply accepting these as given facts, if I did, I wouldn't venture a question and ask for explanation, now would I? I appreciate your explanations thus far, and our dialogue, which do do not consider to be non constructive, even if we do not agree.

Regarding the map, the decomposing bodies and contamination of groundwater, I'd like to remind you that the water table is quite shallow there and the proposed masses of rotting flesh are quite large which would lead to contamination of drinking water located so close to the mass of bodies assuming it was a shallow well and not a pipe from the tower.

Now, I make an assumption there, I make a couple of assumptions. That isn't because I am not considering evidence and it's also not me blindly taking something on its face.

For me, when considered together, the problems I have with 'A Year in Treblinka' become irreconcilable. That is what would be referred to as an opinion.

When I consider the Treblinka Museum disseminating a pamphlet asserting the use of cyclone pellets as the instrument of death a treblinka, it strikes me as what I would refer to as 'revisionist' history. The same way I view the black liberators hoax.

I'm going to go bury my face in labor for a while and then one of the encyclopedia given as the source for the 6,000,000 claim.

I'll leave you with some digital media:

https://odysee.com/@historicalRecord:0/ ... fHistory:b

[Nessie]

.....

You tell me to use 'trusted sources' so I link to one that not only confirms what I said, contains more than one reference and is from a source you approve of, that source also says 'it's no big deal'. Then you tell me it's odd to use that source? Such is life I suppose. In the future, I'm going to limit sources I use to 'my jewish learning' or something. Maybe 'Yad Vashim' and 'The American Holocaust Museum'.

I don't have the pamphlet referenced in my hand, you are right. Such a thing seems to me to be something worth investigating. I've been working on vetting the claim. I will continue to, amid my 6,000,000 page assignment.

So far as simply accepting these as given facts, if I did, I wouldn't venture a question and ask for explanation, now would I? I appreciate your explanations thus far, and our dialogue, which do do not consider to be non constructive, even if we do not agree.

I appreciate you talking on board my comments about better sources. Surprisingly, I have used Mattogno a lot as a source of evidence, as in the links he provides to witness statements and original documents, I just ignore his opinions and conclusions.

Regarding the map, the decomposing bodies and contamination of groundwater, I'd like to remind you that the water table is quite shallow there and the proposed masses of rotting flesh are quite large which would lead to contamination of drinking water located so close to the mass of bodies assuming it was a shallow well and not a pipe from the tower.

Now, I make an assumption there, I make a couple of assumptions. That isn't because I am not considering evidence and it's also not me blindly taking something on its face.

My assumption is that the Nazis knew what they were doing and since they knew the camp was going to be temporary, were not too worried about the mass graves contaminating the well they used.

For me, when considered together, the problems I have with 'A Year in Treblinka' become irreconcilable. That is what would be referred to as an opinion.

I fear you are falling for the fallacy of argument from incredulity.

When I consider the Treblinka Museum disseminating a pamphlet asserting the use of cyclone pellets as the instrument of death a treblinka, it strikes me as what I would refer to as 'revisionist' history. The same way I view the black liberators hoax.

I'm going to go bury my face in labor for a while and then one of the encyclopedia given as the source for the 6,000,000 claim.

I'll leave you with some digital media:

https://odysee.com/@historicalRecord:0/ ... fHistory:b

[Stubble]

.....

You tell me to use 'trusted sources' so I link to one that not only confirms what I said, contains more than one reference and is from a source you approve of, that source also says 'it's no big deal'. Then you tell me it's odd to use that source? Such is life I suppose. In the future, I'm going to limit sources I use to 'my jewish learning' or something. Maybe 'Yad Vashim' and 'The American Holocaust Museum'.

I don't have the pamphlet referenced in my hand, you are right. Such a thing seems to me to be something worth investigating. I've been working on vetting the claim. I will continue to, amid my 6,000,000 page assignment.

So far as simply accepting these as given facts, if I did, I wouldn't venture a question and ask for explanation, now would I? I appreciate your explanations thus far, and our dialogue, which do do not consider to be non constructive, even if we do not agree.

I appreciate you talking on board my comments about better sources. Surprisingly, I have used Mattogno a lot as a source of evidence, as in the links he provides to witness statements and original documents, I just ignore his opinions and conclusions.

Regarding the map, the decomposing bodies and contamination of groundwater, I'd like to remind you that the water table is quite shallow there and the proposed masses of rotting flesh are quite large which would lead to contamination of drinking water located so close to the mass of bodies assuming it was a shallow well and not a pipe from the tower.

Now, I make an assumption there, I make a couple of assumptions. That isn't because I am not considering evidence and it's also not me blindly taking something on its face.

My assumption is that the Nazis knew what they were doing and since they knew the camp was going to be temporary, were not too worried about the mass graves contaminating the well they used.

For me, when considered together, the problems I have with 'A Year in Treblinka' become irreconcilable. That is what would be referred to as an opinion.

I fear you are falling for the fallacy of argument from incredulity.

When I consider the Treblinka Museum disseminating a pamphlet asserting the use of cyclone pellets as the instrument of death a treblinka, it strikes me as what I would refer to as 'revisionist' history. The same way I view the black liberators hoax.

I'm going to go bury my face in labor for a while and then one of the encyclopedia given as the source for the 6,000,000 claim.

I'll leave you with some digital media:

https://odysee.com/@historicalRecord:0/ ... fHistory:b

The crux of our disagreement is that you assume these things are true because the German Authorities did these things.

I don't assume that the German Authorities did these things because the claims are fantastical and don't make sense.

It's like your response about the coal problem earlier.

'No coal, no problem, an engineer said you can burn bodies more efficiently in their furnaces because the bodies burn one another' (basically, I'm loosely quoting you).

See, you believe this engineer because you are not critically thinking. You are just saying, 'well they did it, so, it's possible, and this is how, of course'.

The requirement for coal may have been 'lowered' by collectivising flue gasses, and leaving hot bones in the oven. It doesn't negate the necessity for coal. A lot of it. A whole lot of it. Enough of it to cut into production of the material of war. Enough of it to leave a trail of evidence in the form of massive deliveries, dumps and distributions that there simply isn't a record of.

We talk about the math and it boiling down to 15 minutes for a body, you say, well, in this opening that is roughly the size for 1 body, you can shove 3 bodies in there.

You unironically look at testimony that speaks of the conditions of the camps being 'fit for a human life' (again, paraphrasing) and a court official finding evidence of murders in death certificates, but somehow think that the other 1.1 million death certificates are missing?

Then there is the red cross presence to consider. Of course, you will say, 'the red cross lied then'. But you think they are being truthful now?

I could go on and on and on.

It wouldn't matter though, because you will pick one single misstep from my post here, or some slight misconstrued detail, and you will showcase that while completely missing my point. Which is unfortunate.

If you don't address the deeper points that I'm driving at, you aren't going to get me to walk over to your side of the line. Simply dismissing them with a single line and a link to a statement is not properly addressing them. When I do the same thing regarding the engine type at treblinka for example, oh, well, that's completely unacceptable...

/shrug

Well, that's it for lunch.

[Nessie]

....

The crux of our disagreement is that you assume these things are true because the German Authorities did these things.

No, I do what historians, the courts and journalists do, and look for corroborative evidence.

I don't assume that the German Authorities did these things because the claims are fantastical and don't make sense.

Which is the very definition of the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

It's like your response about the coal problem earlier.

'No coal, no problem, an engineer said you can burn bodies more efficiently in their furnaces because the bodies burn one another' (basically, I'm loosely quoting you).

See, you believe this engineer because you are not critically thinking. You are just saying, 'well they did it, so, it's possible, and this is how, of course'.

No, I say that because of the corroborating evidence from documents and multiple witnesses. The evidence determines what happened, not what I think.

The requirement for coal may have been 'lowered' by collectivising flue gasses, and leaving hot bones in the oven. It doesn't negate the necessity for coal. A lot of it. A whole lot of it. Enough of it to cut into production of the material of war. Enough of it to leave a trail of evidence in the form of massive deliveries, dumps and distributions that there simply isn't a record of.

We talk about the math and it boiling down to 15 minutes for a body, you say, well, in this opening that is roughly the size for 1 body, you can shove 3 bodies in there.

The evidence of multiple corpse cremations beats your opinion on what is not possible.

You unironically look at testimony that speaks of the conditions of the camps being 'fit for a human life' (again, paraphrasing) and a court official finding evidence of murders in death certificates, but somehow think that the other 1.1 million death certificates are missing?

There are c1 million people who arrived at A-B, for whom the documentary trail ends. That is part of the circumstantial evidence.

Then there is the red cross presence to consider. Of course, you will say, 'the red cross lied then'. But you think they are being truthful now?

The Red Cross were limited in what they were shown at the camp and they were let nowhere near the Kremas.

I could go on and on and on.

It wouldn't matter though, because you will pick one single misstep from my post here, or some slight misconstrued detail, and you will showcase that while completely missing my point. Which is unfortunate.

If you don't address the deeper points that I'm driving at, you aren't going to get me to walk over to your side of the line. Simply dismissing them with a single line and a link to a statement is not properly addressing them. When I do the same thing regarding the engine type at treblinka for example, oh, well, that's completely unacceptable...

/shrug

Well, that's it for lunch.

I have answered and explained, and if I have missed something, please let me know what it is.

[TlsMS93]

There are c1 million people who arrived at A-B, for whom the documentary trail ends. That is part of the circumstantial evidence.

Evidence of failure to deliver sufficient coke and failure to refurbish the Kremas firebrick proves that 20% of this total perished in the camp.

The population of all occupied Germany in October 1946 was 65,000,000, according to the census prepared under the ACC. Returning prisoners who were added to the population in the period October 1946 to September 1950 amounted to 2,600,000 (rounded up), according to records in the archives of the four main Allies. Births according to the official German statistical agency, Statistisches Bundesamt, added another 4,176,430 new arrivals to Germany. Expellees who arrived totaled 6,000,000. Thus the total population in 1950 before the losses would have been 77,776,430, according to the Allies themselves. Officially recorded deaths in the period 1946-50 were 3,235,539, according to the UN Yearbook and the German government. Emigration was about 600,000, according to the German government. So the population should have been 73,940,891. But the 1950 census taken by the German government under Allied supervision found only 68,230,796. There was a shortage of 5,710,095 people, according to official Allied figures (rounded up to 5,700,000).

Was there a Holocaust in post-war Germany? It is amazing how similar even the numbers are.

[Stubble]

'No, I do what historians, the courts and journalists do, and look for corroborative evidence.'

Show me.

'Which is the very definition of the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.'

No, I'm arguing that people can't just piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You can call that a fallacy if you want to, but by all means, quit pissing on my leg.

'No, I say that because of the corroborating evidence from documents and multiple witnesses. The evidence determines what happened, not what I think.'

Show me.

'The evidence of multiple corpse cremations beats your opinion on what is not possible.'

Show me.

'There are c1 million people who arrived at A-B, for whom the documentary trail ends. That is part of the circumstantial evidence.'

And the other parts? Elaborate if you find some time.

'The Red Cross were limited in what they were shown at the camp and they were let nowhere near the Kremas.'

I'll do some digging, I seem to recall reading about inspection of the crematoria. I could be mistaken.

'I have answered and explained, and if I have missed something, please let me know what it is.'

Well, there is the liberators hoax. Another thing is the question about parading Irine Zisblatt around to lie to impressionable school children. See, when that kind of stuff is promoted, it erodes trust. Goes back to don't piss on my leg. Along with don't tell me 6,000,000 jews were gassed in homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, you know?

Some food for thought.

https://odysee.com/@Qwinten:b/The-Impos ... Mawdsley:6

[Nessie]

'No, I do what historians, the courts and journalists do, and look for corroborative evidence.'

Show me.

For example, the Topf & Sons engineers, who say they constructed gas chambers and developed fast multiple corpse cremation ovens for the Kremas, are corroborated by documents that record their construction found in the A-B Construction Office and by even other person, SS and Jewish, who worked inside those buildings. Evidence that is separate from the engineers, confirms what they say.

Jewish prisoners inside TII state that it received regular mass transports by train. They are corroborated by the SS staff who say the same and by various German documents that recorded the transports and by the circumstantial evidence of the closure of the ghettos and clearing people from them. Each piece of evidence is separate from the other, all are evidence of mass transports to the camp.

'Which is the very definition of the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.'

No, I'm arguing that people can't just piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You can call that a fallacy if you want to, but by all means, quit pissing on my leg.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ncredulity

"Argument from Incredulity
(also known as: argument from personal astonishment, argument from personal incredulity, personal incredulity)
Description: Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed."

Please read the rest of the link.

'No, I say that because of the corroborating evidence from documents and multiple witnesses. The evidence determines what happened, not what I think.'

Show me.

There is evidence from multiple sources, witness and documents, that record transports from Westerbork to Sobibor in 1943, taking 34,0000 Dutch Jews to the camp.

'The evidence of multiple corpse cremations beats your opinion on what is not possible.'

Show me.

Topf & Sons engineers stated, and recorded in documents, that the ovens could be used for more than one corpse. Jewish Sonderkommandos who worked in the Kremas stated that they cremated more than one corpse at a time.

'There are c1 million people who arrived at A-B, for whom the documentary trail ends. That is part of the circumstantial evidence.'

And the other parts? Elaborate if you find some time.

The other circumstantial evidence is;

- the lack of any evidence for the use of the Kremas for anything other than mass gassings
- the lack of any evidence those people left the camp and arrived anywhere else.
- the theft of their remaining possessions, if they were being transported onwards, what were they even wearing?
- the motive to kill Jews not needed for work, as they were an enemy and a burden, useless eaters, untermensch.
- the subsequent destruction of the Kremas, an action to get rid of evidence.

'The Red Cross were limited in what they were shown at the camp and they were let nowhere near the Kremas.'

I'll do some digging, I seem to recall reading about inspection of the crematoria. I could be mistaken.

Concentrate on the period 1943-4, for the Kremas at Birkenau. The Red Cross may have been shown Kremas that did function as crematoriums, but not those being used for gassings.

'I have answered and explained, and if I have missed something, please let me know what it is.'

Well, there is the liberators hoax. Another thing is the question about parading Irine Zisblatt around to lie to impressionable school children. See, when that kind of stuff is promoted, it erodes trust. Goes back to don't piss on my leg. Along with don't tell me 6,000,000 jews were gassed in homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, you know?

Some food for thought.

https://odysee.com/@Qwinten:b/The-Impos ... Mawdsley:6

You have been exposed to a lot of poor sources and false history, so I see now that your overall trust has been eroded. With any history of a large and controversial event, there will be people with agendas, who push false narratives, to support their side. That is why I say be neutral, follow the corroborating evidence and check lots of sources. I use as many revisionist sources as I use historical, to then determine which is the best evidenced.

[Stubble]

Going to the rest of the body of your response, more research is required on my end as I am just some dude that does stuff with his hands. Don't get me wrong, I also troubleshoot complex systems and have experience with large scale industrial and agricultural operations. My deductive reasoning has been an invaluable tool for me over the course of my life experience. I'm not a historian though, so, I've got homework.

For this one, I'm going to present a philosophical argument.

'You have been exposed to a lot of poor sources and false history, so I see now that your overall trust has been eroded. With any history of a large and controversial event, there will be people with agendas, who push false narratives, to support their side. That is why I say be neutral, follow the corroborating evidence and check lots of sources. I use as many revisionist sources as I use historical, to then determine which is the best evidenced.'

The poor sources and false history were presented authoritatively by the apparatus of education initially. This also isn't the only subject I've found where my education was a miscarriage by that apparatus. Forgive me if I don't at this point trust 'their truth'.

Truth, to these people, is a subjective and relativistic thing. I've been told we live in a 'post truth world' unironically by people who hold degrees and have 'valued educations'.

Personally I believe in 3 states of the truth. There is what we perceive, there is what actually is, and there is what we can articulate to others using the tools available like language and logic.

Now, for me, the truth about the holocaust is that it has been propagandized, misrepresented and exploited since its inception. I firmly believe that there is a strong and convincing argument in that.

Because of these misrepresentations and exploitation of whatever events did transpire, and because of the primary evidence I have acquainted myself with thus far, I personally do not believe anyone was killed by homicidal gassing by the German Authorities.

That doesn't mean I don't believe that anyone died. That doesn't mean I don't believe anyone was killed. There are a lot of things that doesn't mean.

What I does mean is that I don't believe what is being presented as the truth, because my life experience has shown me that repeatedly what I have been presented has not been the truth. This has lead me to seriously and rationally question what I've been presented. In your opinion that is a fallacy, because what I am arguing against is established fact.

Well, my argument is that the evidence must be examined critically because it is not an established fact. It is an entrenched narrative. I no longer take this evidence of the holocaust as 'granted' and I critically evaluate the narrative. When I do this, it falls apart. The truth doesn't do that.

That you grant the official story without critical examination doesn't mean that my failure to accept it on its face is a fallacy.

You can invoke that insult all you like, it isn't going to make me uncritically accept that:

1) 6,000,000 jews were murdered by 'the nazis'

2) many of them in purpose built and designed combination homicidal gas chamber crematoria.

3) that jews were murdered at treblinka using a 'motor'.

4) that they were buried, dug up, cremated on open air pyres on bbq grills, crushed with hammers and scattered to the wind.

5) that the allies were incapable of concealing relocated jews using various methods of control.

6) that they wouldn't do this.

7) that the German people did this thing that they are accused of.

I'm going to examine evidence and I am going to hold an extremely high bar for acceptance.

With that said, can you show me pre defeat statements about the crematoria/homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz? And pre defeat statements about multiple body cremation? From the designers and engineers? As is implied?

If you can, that would bolster your position as far as my personal opinion is concerned.

[Nessie]

Going to the rest of the body of your response, more research is required on my end as I am just some dude that does stuff with his hands. Don't get me wrong, I also troubleshoot complex systems and have experience with large scale industrial and agricultural operations. My deductive reasoning has been an invaluable tool for me over the course of my life experience. I'm not a historian though, so, I've got homework.

For this one, I'm going to present a philosophical argument.

'You have been exposed to a lot of poor sources and false history, so I see now that your overall trust has been eroded. With any history of a large and controversial event, there will be people with agendas, who push false narratives, to support their side. That is why I say be neutral, follow the corroborating evidence and check lots of sources. I use as many revisionist sources as I use historical, to then determine which is the best evidenced.'

The poor sources and false history were presented authoritatively by the apparatus of education initially. This also isn't the only subject I've found where my education was a miscarriage by that apparatus. Forgive me if I don't at this point trust 'their truth'.

Truth, to these people, is a subjective and relativistic thing. I've been told we live in a 'post truth world' unironically by people who hold degrees and have 'valued educations'.

Personally I believe in 3 states of the truth. There is what we perceive, there is what actually is, and there is what we can articulate to others using the tools available like language and logic.

History is pretty straight forward, an event is evidenced to have happened, or it is not. The evidence for Nazi death camps where people were gassed and mass shootings, started to be gathered by the Polish during the war, on account of many of the deaths happened in what had been Poland, since it had such a huge Jewish population.

From the start, the deaths in the camps were inside chambers, but initially there was some confusion and unknowns as to exactly how people died inside the chambers. As more reliable evidence came to light, it was proven that either exhaust fumes or Zyklon B was used. That evidenced narrative has remained fixed since 1945. No evidence has been traced to prove mass resettlement.

Now, for me, the truth about the holocaust is that it has been propagandized, misrepresented and exploited since its inception. I firmly believe that there is a strong and convincing argument in that.

Much of that propaganda has come from those who seek to deny, or diminish what happened. I regularly catch revisionists out, as they lie and misrepresent evidence, to pretend that it is lacking for mass gassings, as they ignore it is seriously lacking for the millions of Jews still alive in 1944.

Because of these misrepresentations and exploitation of whatever events did transpire, and because of the primary evidence I have acquainted myself with thus far, I personally do not believe anyone was killed by homicidal gassing by the German Authorities.

Who is most guilty of misrepresenting? Revisionists, or historians? To you, because of the poor history you have been exposed to so far, it looks like the historians, but the deeper you dig, the more you find it is revisionists, who cannot produce an evidenced chronological history of the Jews in Nazi captivity during WWII.

That doesn't mean I don't believe that anyone died. That doesn't mean I don't believe anyone was killed. There are a lot of things that doesn't mean.

What I does mean is that I don't believe what is being presented as the truth, because my life experience has shown me that repeatedly what I have been presented has not been the truth. This has lead me to seriously and rationally question what I've been presented. In your opinion that is a fallacy, because what I am arguing against is established fact.

Questioning and being suspicious of what you have been told, it not a fallacy. Be suspicious and question revisionist claims, as much as you do for historians. You will see revisionists are all over the place and make many illogical, spurious, dishonest claims.

Well, my argument is that the evidence must be examined critically because it is not an established fact. It is an entrenched narrative. I no longer take this evidence of the holocaust as 'granted' and I critically evaluate the narrative. When I do this, it falls apart. The truth doesn't do that.

That you grant the official story without critical examination doesn't mean that my failure to accept it on its face is a fallacy.

I have critically examined the evidence for mass gassings and revisionist arguments that they did not happen. The evidenced history stands up to scrutiny way better than revisionist arguments.

You can invoke that insult all you like, it isn't going to make me uncritically accept that:

1) 6,000,000 jews were murdered by 'the nazis'

2) many of them in purpose built and designed combination homicidal gas chamber crematoria.

3) that jews were murdered at treblinka using a 'motor'.

4) that they were buried, dug up, cremated on open air pyres on bbq grills, crushed with hammers and scattered to the wind.

5) that the allies were incapable of concealing relocated jews using various methods of control.

6) that they wouldn't do this.

7) that the German people did this thing that they are accused of.

I'm going to examine evidence and I am going to hold an extremely high bar for acceptance.

Please do examine the evidence. You will find that there is no evidence to support revisionist claims that;

1) the A-B Kremas were used as delousing chambers, showers, corpse stores and/or bomb shelters (except latterly Krema I) and never for gassings.
2) the AR camps were used as transit camps, hygiene stations, customs stops and for property sorting and never for gassings.
3) those places sent millions of Jews east to be resettled
4) in 1944, millions of Jews were alive in camps and in 1945, millions of Jews were liberated.

An event like that, if it happened, would leave a lot of evidence. There would also be no reason for the Nazis to cover resettlement up, especially when they knew they were being accused of killing millions.

With that said, can you show me pre defeat statements about the crematoria/homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz? And pre defeat statements about multiple body cremation? From the designers and engineers? As is implied?

If you can, that would bolster your position as far as my personal opinion is concerned.

List of documents from A-B, pertaining to the construction of gas chambers and ovens here;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

Testimony from the Topf & Sons engineers about the construction and functioning of the gas chambers and ovens here;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61650

Topf & Sons history website;

https://www.topfundsoehne.de/ts/en/exhi ... 28724.html