Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28903
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Nessie »

The multiple witnesses who speak to mass cremations (Jewish prisoners, Nazi guards and local Polish workers and residents) are corroborated by the large area of cremated remains found in 1945 and even in 2011 bits of bone were still being found on the surface of the ground. Only people with an agenda to push fake history would dismiss that amount of evidence and demand belief in a version of events that they cannot evidence.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7211
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote: The multiple witnesses who speak to mass cremations (Jewish prisoners, Nazi guards and local Polish workers and residents) are corroborated by the large area of cremated remains found in 1945 and even in 2011 bits of bone were still being found on the surface of the ground. Only people with an agenda to push fake history would dismiss that amount of evidence and demand belief in a version of events that they cannot evidence.
Multiple witnesses of course being a maximum of three. There are no large areas of cremated remains, this is wishful thinking based on google earth photos of ploughed fields. People have been throwing the bones of their dead relatives here for years, this is what Juden do; they make a myth and do everything to make the myth real.

Even if there were bones, in a war where 70 million died, there are dead everywhere from bullets and typhus, genetic disorders. The only bones found were from a nearby Christian Cemetery.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Gestapo

Turnagain
Posts: 8037
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Turnagain »

Lupus wrote:
Sorry pal but you've been busted, like the big bullshitter you are.
Lupus apparently wants us to believe that he is a psychic and can read my thoughts via his mental powers. We know that you believe in magical powers since you obviously believe in the magic Jew barbeque so mind reading isn't a stretch for you, Lupus.
Yep, 70% of a sheep in a relatively piddly little fire would obviously result in 100% of a human corpse being consumed in more tailored experiment that resembled the Treblinka cremations more. Turnagain knows this but he dismisses it as a 'non-sequitur'. But he even gets this wrong as the term means no logic has been deployed from step 1 to step 2 , but there is plenty of logic in my claim. The irony here is that Turnagain produces a pointless video of a clam shell to arrive at his own 'woulda coulda ' scenario , which is also a 'non-sequitur', so as well as being wrong he is also a hypocrite.
You betcha', Lupus, 70% of a sheep's carcass was burned in a car fire so obviously 100% of 2,000 to 3,000 of naked human cadavers would be totally cremated on an open air grill using nothing for fuel. Holyhoaxer logic at its finest.

Of course the clamshell in the video would operate differently when exhuming cadavers, The operator would be much more selective and delicate in closing the bucket so it would only pick up whole cadavers. More holyhoaxer logic.
So Turnagain tries to claim that Finkelstein only referred to rags being soaked in gasoline but this isn't neccessarily so . The way its worded could mean either both materials were soaked or just rags. Now considering Matthes mentions wood was soaked then it is likely this was what Finkelstein meant to. I mean, why would rags be soaked in petrol and not wood ?
LOL! Lupus displays more of his psychic powers. What Finklestein and Matthes actually said is unimportant. Lupus can mentally reach back along the timeline and divine their actual thoughts. Lupus' mental powers include not only mind reading but the ability to travel in time. What wonderful gifts you have, Lupus.
But as I keep reminding him, even the conductor of the experiment compared the similarity of the experiment to Treblinka, so Turnagain's basically left with nothing but his rants and warped logic. This leaves him stuck up to his neck in sheep shit as he coughs and splutters his weasely way through proceedings
The experiment was conducted in 1966 when Steiner's book was still being taken as the gospel truth. IOW, the conductor of the experiment was using the phony claims of a charlatan as his model for how his sheep partially burned in his experimental car fires. There is no data on how much char and ash was under the car seat or how far the animal's fat had to "drip" before contacting the char and ash. There is nothing definitive about whether the sheep's wool itself acted as the wick. You are still left with the 30%, actually 29.4% but using Lupu's special rounding techniques, 30% of the sheep's unburned carcass. Lupus then "coughs and splutters" his "weasely way" to 2,000 to 3,000 naked human cadavers completely cremating themselves on the magic Jew barbeque. As I said, a fine example of holyhoaxer logic.
We have enough witnesses who mention gasoline so we don't need Wiernik and Rajchmann to confirm something that was obviously true. You can nit-pick all you like about the specifics of what each witnes said about the fuel. What people with common sense do is review all of the testimony to arrive at the most likely conclusion. But guess this counts you out , so that's your problem, not mine.
Finklestein stated that the rags were soaked in gasoline. He did NOT say that the wood was soaked in gasoline. Matthes claimed that the brushwood was doused with gasoline. Here is the definition of "douse" from the Cambridge Dictionary:
DOUSE
verb
(also dowse)
us daʊs uk daʊs
to make something or someone wet by throwing a lot of liquid over it, him, or her:
"We watched as demonstrators doused a car in/with gas and set it alight".
So, Lupus has one (1) witness who unequivocally states that the brushwood had gasoline thrown on it and two (2) who make no mention of gasoline with one (1), Wiernik, claiming that no kindling was used at all. Another example of that fine holyhoaxer logic. Well, perhaps Lupus can come up with more witnesses to the gasoline scenario. Don't forget that the charlatan, Steiner, described how Floss arrived at Treblinka and how he was adamant about no gasoline or other acelerants were used to light his little campfires. Steiner was the clown who Ettling based his speculations about Treblinka on.

So there we have it folks, some fine examples of holyhoaxer logic and a show of psychic powers including time travel from Lupus. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

Turnagain
Posts: 8037
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Turnagain »

Lupus wrote:
Why would Stangl lie about this ?
Stangl was entangled in the marsupial escapades of the witchcraft trials of the 60s. Why wouldn't he lie about anything he was told to lie about in an attempt to save himself from a lifetime in prison?
Obviously something happened that resulted in the corpses in the pit catch fire.
There weren't any pits/graves. That's why the alleged eyewitness accounts varied so widely. Pits/graves, hundreds of thousands of corpses were all imaginary so the tales all came from imaginations not direct observation. That's why Wiernik imagined 5 graves, Rajchman imagined 11 graves and Finklestein imagined 21 graves. Rajchman claiming that the blood of 250,000 Jews caught fire and burned for an entire night and the next day wasn't a "mistake" or due to the fact that he didn't know that blood wasn't flammable. He simply lied just as Czarny lied about blood having a chemical in it that rendered it flammable. Rachel Auerbach, the Jewess historian supported those fantasies by declaring that blood was a "first rate combustible".

Stangl said that there was essentially an explosion from the corpse gasses with flames shooting up and a mushroom cloud of smoke. Rajchman said that the blood burned for an entire night and the next day. Czarny said that blood was the fuel that was used to cremate the cadavers in the lazarett grave. Auerbach lent her name to support those cockamamie claims. None of those claims bear any relationship to reality. All were pure imaginations. Your weak suck attempts to rationalize such fantasies is a FAIL, Lupus.
Twigs are the same as branches, and branches were used as fuel. So what's your argument ? Turnagain does his own 'cherry picking' with the 'twigs like toothpicks' testimony, yet he has the nerve to accuse me of cherry picking :roll: ~As well as a liar
Turnagain demonstrates his hypocrisy
Definition of a twig:
twig twĭg►
noun
A young shoot representing the current season's growth of a woody plant.
noun
Any small, leafless branch of a woody plant.
Definition of a branch:
Tree Branch
noun
Any of the main branches arising from the trunk or a bough of a tree
Well, Lupus' attempt to conflate "twigs" with "branches" just fell on it's arse. Same as his claim that they were used for fuel. They were supposedly used as kindling to set the cadavers ablaze whereupon the cadavers continued burning until they were completely cremated; nothing left but ash and carbonized bone. Once again, Lupus' fantasies get debunked. He should be getting used to it by now.
1) I understand it to mean that if 70% of a sheep can be thoroughly consumed in this experiment, then more or 100% of a human would be thoroughly consumed in a more tailored experiment
So, if 70% of a sheep, an animal covered in flammable wool, can be burned in a car fire, then 100% of 2,000 to 3,000 naked humans piled 20 to 30 layers deep on a grate of 6 inch railroad rail 50 to 70 cm off the ground can be totally cremated using nothing but twigs or brush (brushwood) for kindling. How is that experiment "tailored", Lupus? Care to explain your reasoning behind that claim?
2) No
3) No human was cremated in the experiment so a silly question. However he concludes it would be possible for a human to be rather thoroughly consumed based on this experiment.
Well, at least one straightforward answer to a question. Ettling doesn't claim that the sheep was completely cremated. Then we have a "No" with conditions. No humans were completely cremated in the car fire. Now all that we need is a definition for "rather thoroughly consumed". Does that mean completely 100% cremated, Lupus? He also claims that "A" human could be rather thoroughly consumed. Does that include a pile of 2,000 to 3,000 cadavers? You should employ your psychic skills and search back through time to ferret out what Ettling actually meant.
Are you saying Ettling was wrong in his conclusion ?
Yep, Ettling was basing his assumption on Steiner's fraudulent account of Treblinka.
Is this supposed to be your answer to my query who this 'Steiner' geezer was ? So, now we have established he was a writer, why did you try and pass him off as some sort of eye witness when you said he claimed that "Floss only used matches to set fire to his little campfires" ?
Because Steiner wrote in the first person. He even went so far as to quote what Floss supposedly said. I thought that you were aware of Steiner's chicanery. I underestimated your actual ignorance of the orthodox narrative of Treblinka. Mea culpa.
Why are you using individuals who werent even at Treblinka to back up your claims ? I know you tried it with Rachel Auberch a while back re hermetically sealed chambers, but after I caught you out I thought you'd learn your lesson by now . Obviously not
I am NOT responsible for your inability to comprehend the meaning of plain English, Lupus.
No Turnagain, it IS known about contact with ash and char. It was NOT in contact.
According to your interpretation of what Ettling said. Could the sheep be 1 millimeter off the char or over 350 millimeters as claimed for the magic Jew barbeque? Did Ettling mean that the sheep's carcass was suspended but the wool was in contact with the ash and char? Ettling's indefinite ruminations aren't the equivalent of rigorous scientific testing. The purpose of his experiment was, in fact, to develop techniques for detecting the presence of acelerants in cases of arson. His speculations about the viability of the magic Jew barbeque were apparently the result of his reading Steiner's phony account of Treblinka.
Most of them bodies on the grate would have been decomposed and therefore flammable. The witnesses even commented on how better the decomposed corpses burnt compared to the fresh bodies. So once you got the fat dripping onto the dry wood and rags , both soaked in gasoline , then you got one serious mother fucker of a fire. Left overnight the bodies would all be consumed and the fire would sustained from the fat dripping down onto the char and ash, just like some experiment I heard about 8-) .
WOW! Lupus' imagination has just had a complete runaway. He has gone from one (1) partially cremated sheep in an experiment concerning the detection of acelerants in arson cases to the complete cremation of an average of 5,000 cadavers per day on the magic Jew barbeques. Do I have that right, Lupus?
You can imagine whatever you want regarding the size of the roasts, your back of a cigarette packet calculations mixing inches and meters (typical of you to muddle everything up) would need to be checked as they're bound to be way off the mark, just like everything else you do.
Well, why don't YOU check my calculations, Lupus? Oh, that's right, you're an ignorant innumerate fool that has to take off his shoes and unzip his pants to count to 21. Best leave those number thingies alone. Leave that checking chore up to someone who made it through 4th grade arithmetic.

As far as mixing metric and imperial, that's something that we Yanks do all the time. Consider ammunition. The 9 mm parabellum is the 9 mm but the 9 mm short is called the .380. The 7.62X54 R is obviously metric while the .30-06, an equivalent cartridge, is obviously imperial measurement. Just as gauge is calculated in avoirdupois. There's no problem with converting back and forth except for the terminally stupid (such as yourself, Lupus).

Oh well, so it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28903
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Nessie »

Denier claims of "There are no large areas of cremated remains..." and "There weren't any pits/graves." need to be evidenced and proved.

Please provide the archaeological/geological/forensic evidence to back those claims up.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7211
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote: Denier claims of "There are no large areas of cremated remains..." and "There weren't any pits/graves." need to be evidenced and proved.

Please provide the archaeological/geological/forensic evidence to back those claims up.
This nonsense is the same as someone claiming there are the remains of Roman Soldiers in the Antarctic. Simply unless that someone provides evidence to establish there were Roman Soldiers in the Antarctic that notion is simply dismissed. No one would provide any of the archaeological/geological/forensic time to investigate it. The world is full of such nonsense such as the existence of El Dorado; I am sure that no one is going to send in a team of archaeological/geological/forensic experts to prove El Dorado does not exist. Once again the poster, Nessie is reversing the burden of proof.

When a poster (like Nessie) keep repeating regurgitated text with the expectation that somehow saying the same thing a thousand times over makes it all true is delusional; that aside the poster is a part of this forum even if he is an echo of himself. We hear the sound of a distant drum, Nessie confuses drum beats with pulse and hypertension.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Gestapo

The Jewish Man
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by The Jewish Man »

What is the evidence that Treblinka was a transit camp?

I know of people who lost their relatives at Treblinka.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9238
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by been-there »

The Jewish Man wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 1:46 pm
I know of people who lost their relatives at Treblinka.
How do they know their relatives were “lost” at Treblinka? What evidence do they have for that?
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28903
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Nessie »

The Jewish Man wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 1:46 pm
What is the evidence that Treblinka was a transit camp?

I know of people who lost their relatives at Treblinka.
There is no evidence it was a transit camp. That is why your question will be dodged.

Not one single person who worked at TII claimed it was a transit camp, instead they all say it was a death camp. There are documents to prove mass daily arrivals at the camp, but none to evidence mass daily departures or arrivals anywhere else. There are Polish rail workers who report trains full of people arrived at TII, but none report full trains of people leaving the camp. There is no evidence at all of some sort of process inside TII whereby the mass arrivals were sorted, showered or something else happened, other than gassings.

If c840,000 left TII over 13 months to go elsewhere, that would have left witnesses from the trains, documents recording movements and arrivals and then some massive camps or ghettos to accommodate that number of people.

Deniers do not understand chronology and so you will get them claiming those people were accommodated somewhere in the east, or after the war they changed their names. But that misses out step number 1, they have to have been processed inside and then left TII first. Denial cannot even get over step 1.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Lupus Rothstein
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Lupus Rothstein »

Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 10:53 pm
Lupus wrote:
Sorry pal but you've been busted, like the big bullshitter you are.
Lupus apparently wants us to believe that he is a psychic and can read my thoughts via his mental powers. We know that you believe in magical powers since you obviously believe in the magic Jew barbeque so mind reading isn't a stretch for you, Lupus.
Turnagain has got so flustered over my exposure of his gasoline inflation that he bizarrely starts referring to me as being 'psychic'. Looks like he's reverting to plan Z in the holocaust deniers handbook of excuses - ie if you get caught with your panties down, pretend you've gone mad and start talking nonsense. :x
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 10:53 pm
Yep, 70% of a sheep in a relatively piddly little fire would obviously result in 100% of a human corpse being consumed in more tailored experiment that resembled the Treblinka cremations more. Turnagain knows this but he dismisses it as a 'non-sequitur'. But he even gets this wrong as the term means no logic has been deployed from step 1 to step 2 , but there is plenty of logic in my claim. The irony here is that Turnagain produces a pointless video of a clam shell to arrive at his own 'woulda coulda ' scenario , which is also a 'non-sequitur', so as well as being wrong he is also a hypocrite.
You betcha', Lupus, 70% of a sheep's carcass was burned in a car fire so obviously 100% of 2,000 to 3,000 of naked human cadavers would be totally cremated on an open air grill using nothing for fuel. Holyhoaxer logic at its finest.
Thanks for agreeing me. You've now lost the argument. Goodnight :lol:
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 10:53 pm
Of course the clamshell in the video would operate differently when exhuming cadavers, The operator would be much more selective and delicate in closing the bucket so it would only pick up whole cadavers. More holyhoaxer logic.
Turnagain reverts to lying about my claims. This time he has fantasised that I claimed only whole bodies would be exhumed in the clamshell, when the reality is that I claimed a mixture of both whole and non-whole bodies , including body parts would be included. Here is my exact quote viewtopic.php?p=171022#p171022
As I told you before the bodies would be a combination of whole and not-so-whole. Even the witnesses confirm body parts and heads were present after the clam shell had done its job.
So why are you lying, Turnagain ?
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 10:53 pm
So Turnagain tries to claim that Finkelstein only referred to rags being soaked in gasoline but this isn't neccessarily so . The way its worded could mean either both materials were soaked or just rags. Now considering Matthes mentions wood was soaked then it is likely this was what Finkelstein meant to. I mean, why would rags be soaked in petrol and not wood ?
LOL! Lupus displays more of his psychic powers. What Finklestein and Matthes actually said is unimportant. Lupus can mentally reach back along the timeline and divine their actual thoughts. Lupus' mental powers include not only mind reading but the ability to travel in time. What wonderful gifts you have, Lupus.
Maybe you would care to explain what is so pyschic about quoting witnesses mentioning wood doused with gasoline ? If you think that is psychic then basically you're mental. Hope you make a quick recovery soon :(
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 10:53 pm
But as I keep reminding him, even the conductor of the experiment compared the similarity of the experiment to Treblinka, so Turnagain's basically left with nothing but his rants and warped logic. This leaves him stuck up to his neck in sheep shit as he coughs and splutters his weasely way through proceedings
The experiment was conducted in 1966 when Steiner's book was still being taken as the gospel truth. IOW, the conductor of the experiment was using the phony claims of a charlatan as his model for how his sheep partially burned in his experimental car fires. There is no data on how much char and ash was under the car seat or how far the animal's fat had to "drip" before contacting the char and ash. There is nothing definitive about whether the sheep's wool itself acted as the wick. You are still left with the 30%, actually 29.4% but using Lupu's special rounding techniques, 30% of the sheep's unburned carcass. Lupus then "coughs and splutters" his "weasely way" to 2,000 to 3,000 naked human cadavers completely cremating themselves on the magic Jew barbeque. As I said, a fine example of holyhoaxer logic.
Firstly you will have to provide evidence that Steiner was a charlatan who made phony claims. Considering he would have only being relaying the information from witnesses for his book, then good luck with that. Considering you throw the 'charlatan' accusation around quite loosely, like with Charles Provan , then it appears this is just a case of you getting hysterical and reverting to rants.

But whether he was a phony or not, it is irrelevant. All that happened here was Ettling's memory was jogged after he saw the results of the experiment. He was probably surprised how a fire lasted for 3 hours under a suspended sheep resulting in 70% combustion, but when he recalled the contents of the book, then it all fell into place. Simple.

Ha Ha - look at Turnagain scrambling around trying to find ways of explaining the inconvenient results. Obviously Ettling and his sheep are very troubling for him so he's trying to conjure up possible scenarios that might explain why 70% of a sheep would be consumed by a fire sustained by it's own fat on char/ash acting like a wick. Turnagains hoping that if the gap between sheep and ash was only 1mm , then this would explain the high levels of combustion :roll: :roll: What difference this would make he doesn't say. Maybe he doesn't know himself, and its another case of reverting to plan Zas I mentioned earlier.

He then quibbles about me using 30% as opposed to 29.4% :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Wow, cos that's really gonna make a difference aint it ? :roll: He then tries to suggest that the wool of the sheep acted as a wick !!!!! I suggest he reads Ettlings conclusion again, where he informs us that the wick was the ash and char, not the wool !! But hey, maybe Turnagain is more qualified than Ettling and can even use his 'psychic' powers to determine what the results of his experimets actually were, as opposed what Ettling witnessed with his own eyes :roll: :roll:
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 10:53 pm
We have enough witnesses who mention gasoline so we don't need Wiernik and Rajchmann to confirm something that was obviously true. You can nit-pick all you like about the specifics of what each witnes said about the fuel. What people with common sense do is review all of the testimony to arrive at the most likely conclusion. But guess this counts you out , so that's your problem, not mine.
Finklestein stated that the rags were soaked in gasoline. He did NOT say that the wood was soaked in gasoline. Matthes claimed that the brushwood was doused with gasoline. Here is the definition of "douse" from the Cambridge Dictionary:
DOUSE
verb
(also dowse)
us daʊs uk daʊs
to make something or someone wet by throwing a lot of liquid over it, him, or her:
"We watched as demonstrators doused a car in/with gas and set it alight".
So, Lupus has one (1) witness who unequivocally states that the brushwood had gasoline thrown on it and two (2) who make no mention of gasoline with one (1), Wiernik, claiming that no kindling was used at all. Another example of that fine holyhoaxer logic. Well, perhaps Lupus can come up with more witnesses to the gasoline scenario. Don't forget that the charlatan, Steiner, described how Floss arrived at Treblinka and how he was adamant about no gasoline or other acelerants were used to light his little campfires. Steiner was the clown who Ettling based his speculations about Treblinka on.

So there we have it folks, some fine examples of holyhoaxer logic and a show of psychic powers including time travel from Lupus. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
Finkelstein said "A grate was set on fire with a little amount of wood or rags soaked in petrol " - so he is saying that wood or rags were soaked in petrol . You therefore cannot claim he was just referring to rags.

Turnagain decision to provide a definition of the word 'douse' is rather baffling, as it doesn't help him one bit.

Nope, I have two witnesses who mention gasoline so stop lying. But even one is more than you'll ever have for any of your claims. Where are your witnesses Turnagain who back up your claim. Have you got any ?

Ha Ha - look at Turnagain quoting the 'phony' and 'charlatan' Steiner , like the hypocrite he is. Where is the passage in Steiners book that makes this claim re Floss ? What witness claimed that Floss was adamant about not using gasoline or other accelerants ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MrOlonzo and 13 guests