John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

[Nessie]

Nessie trots out another load of his debunked bullshit. Tiresome.

Supposedly debunking the evidence I produce and then demanding belief in something you cannot evidence happened, is an idiotic methodology that only deniers use. The existence of one event cannot be proved by disproving the existence of another event. You cannot prove that by the end of 1944 the Nazis were accommodating millions of Jews, by disproving gassings. You have to prove that by the end of 1944, the Nazis were accommodating millions of Jews. There is no evidence that happened.

Mattogno falls for it, Rudolf falls for it, so does Wear who is the subject of thread, so do you and the rest of the deniers. Only deniers fall for that stupid methodology. No one else does.

[Werd]

Both Ressac and Mattogno use documents

Good so far.

Mattogno then stops and he ignores the rest of what is evidenced or not evidenced to have happened. Pressac does NOT stop, he continues on and looks at the rest of what is evidenced or not evidenced to have happened.

In other words, Pressac finds a document he claims means homicide such as "special action" or "special treatment." Mattogno then steps in and says no, there are other things that mean special treatment. So for Pressac to point to say an August 13 1943 document with Bischoff in it mentioning special action DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE GASSING JEWS. Mattogno finds other documents within the same August timeframe and finds out that they were building simple barracks, engaging in disinfestation measures, bathing facilities, etc. In fact there is a SLEW of things that mean "special action" or "special treatment." Observe:



Since Mattogno takes these documents, puts them into the proper context by viewing OTHER DOCUMENTS that the other side DID NOT MENTION OR WORSE, DID NOT EVEN LOCATE IN THE ARCHIVES, Nessie panics. Then he thinks 'well even if there wasn't special treatment in those rooms on August 13 1942, there was later because that's what witnesses say.' But in other words, what this means is that Pressac CAN'T USE THAT DOCUMENT FROM AUGUST TO CLAIM A CRIMINAL ACTION WAS GOING ON IN AUGUST! So if Pressac is correct that something happened LATER, it's IN SPITE of those documents and NOT because of the documents he selects. How do we know? Because we have to fall back on witnesses.

[Turnagain]

You have "misunderestimated" Nessie's capacity for self-delusion, Werd.

[Nessie]

Both Ressac and Mattogno use documents

Good so far.

Mattogno then stops and he ignores the rest of what is evidenced or not evidenced to have happened. Pressac does NOT stop, he continues on and looks at the rest of what is evidenced or not evidenced to have happened.

In other words, Pressac finds a document he claims means homicide such as "special action" or "special treatment." Mattogno then steps in and says no, there are other things that mean special treatment.

You are again being dishonest and misrepresenting what I said. Pressac looks at all of the evidence to determine what special treatment or action means. Mattogno ignores the rest of the evidence and claims if he can find a document that shows "special" means showering, that means all documents referring to "special" also refer to showering. Or delousing.

So for Pressac to point to say an August 13 1943 document with Bischoff in it mentioning special action DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE GASSING JEWS.

If that document was at the same time there were mass arrivals at Birkenau, without mass departures and all of the witnesses say there was mass gassing, then Pressac is correct.

Mattogno finds other documents within the same August timeframe and finds out that they were building simple barracks, engaging in disinfestation measures, bathing facilities, etc.

It is not a reliable or credible method to only select certain evidence and ignore the rest.

In fact there is a SLEW of things that mean "special action" or "special treatment." Observe:

That "slew" consists of showering and or delousing.

So, why can Mattogno not find any supporting evidence from witnesses to back up his claims?
Why can he not find any references to numbers showered or clothing deloused?
Why did the Nazis apply a code word to sanitation measures for Jews?
Why can he find no documents about what happened to those Jews after they had supposedly showered and had their clothing deloused?

Since Mattogno takes these documents, puts them into the proper context by viewing OTHER DOCUMENTS

That is only a partial context. He ignores the evidence that does not suit him. That is not a methodology used by any historian or academic discipline. Ignoring evidence that does not suit is ridiculed in the academic community.

... that the other side DID NOT MENTION OR WORSE, DID NOT EVEN LOCATE IN THE ARCHIVES, Nessie panics. Then he thinks 'well even if there wasn't special treatment in those rooms on August 13 1942, there was later because that's what witnesses say.' But in other words, what this means is that Pressac CAN'T USE THAT DOCUMENT FROM AUGUST TO CLAIM A CRIMINAL ACTION WAS GOING ON IN AUGUST! So if Pressac is correct that something happened LATER, it's IN SPITE of those documents and NOT because of the documents he selects. How do we know? Because we have to fall back on witnesses.

There are lots of documents from 1942 and 1943 about the construction work at the Kremas for the special treatment of the Jews. It is the documentary record of modifying the Kremas for gas chambers to kill Jews. How do we know? Because every single witness who worked there said that is what happened and there is no evidence that the mass transports to the camp then left. Gassing is evidenced, the suggested alternatives are not.

[Nessie]

You have "misunderestimated" Nessie's capacity for self-delusion, Werd.

I believe what is evidenced and do not believe what is not evidenced.

You believe what is not evidenced and do not believe what is evidenced.

It is clear from that it is you who is deluded.

[Turnagain]

Nessie wrote:

I believe what is evidenced and do not believe what is not evidenced.

You believe anything and everything told to you by the kikes. No matter how ridiculous the fantasy, there your are saying, "Yup, yup that's the gospel truth and I believe". Giddoutahere with your mindless (and debunked) bullshit.

[Depth Check]

Nessie will be sitting in the dugout until 00:01hrs Jan 13th for insulting his opponents.

[Nessie]

Nessie wrote:

I believe what is evidenced and do not believe what is not evidenced.

You believe anything and everything told to you by the kikes. No matter how ridiculous the fantasy, there your are saying, "Yup, yup that's the gospel truth and I believe". Giddoutahere with your mindless (and debunked) bullshit.

The Jewish witnesses are corroborated by the German and Ukrainian witnesses who worked inside the Kremas and AR camps and the Polish people who lived and worked near to the AR camps. They are corroborate by Nazi documentation showing the gas chambers were built inside the Kremas and transport documents showing many arrived and very few left the camps. There is also circumstantial evidence that the Nazis said they wanted to liquidate the Jews and then they covered up what had happened at the AR camps and Kremas.

Then there is what is not evidenced. If denial was correct, by the end of 1944 there would have been millions of Jews in Nazi camps. But, as the first camps were liberated at the end of 1944, few if any Jews were found and the largest liberation in 1945 was c60,000 from Bergen-Belsen and not all of them were Jewish.

I believe what is evidenced to have happened and I do not believe your unevidenced version of events. You demand belief of what you cannot evidence. That you think I am the mindless one shows just how far off the track you have gone.

[Turnagain]

Nessie wrote:

I believe what is evidenced to have happened and I do not believe your unevidenced version of events.

Name one Jew eyewitness who is a credible eyewitness to the alleged atrocities at Treblinka. Name, quote, source.

[Nessie]

Nessie wrote:

I believe what is evidenced to have happened and I do not believe your unevidenced version of events.

Name one Jew eyewitness who is a credible eyewitness to the alleged atrocities at Treblinka. Name, quote, source.

Please stop turning every thread to TII. I gave you a name and links to his evidence here;

viewtopic.php?p=179892#p179892

I regard all of the eyewitnesses listed here for TII as credible, since they are corroborated and any issues with their evidence is normal for eyewitnesses. Your imagined super eyewitness who has a photographic memory for every detail does not exist.

viewtopic.php?p=151220#p151220

As for Birkenau, I regard Kremer and Bender as credible, as they corroborate each other and the other evidence. That is the best test of witness credibility, which is why it is used by historians and the courts.