The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

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
Huntinger
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
You are happy with the witnesses who say they left TII to work at other camps. But some say they were at TII for up to 8 days, others got off and then back onto the trains. Those who describe staying at TII do not mention its most distinctive feature, the train station inside the camp. Those witnesses vary in how many they left with and what camps they went to. There are numerous inconsistencies and doubts about their evidence. But you happily accept it.

Your double standard is clearly driven by your agenda to promote your desired version of events. No academic or investigatory method uses the denial method of examining witness evidence.
Some witnesses who wrote memoirs without an axe to grind are credible; such witnesses are Peter Lantos, Shlomo Pivnik, Pierre Berg and perhaps Christopher Browning; other witnesses are simple too incredible to believe. There is also the issue of who to believe when there is totally conflicting evidence and fabrications such as the electrocutions at Belzec, with floors that glowed white hot for incinerations; opening up to dump ashes in automated carts below to take them into some
graves. Then there are the ray guns and atomic bombings of juden at Auschwitz.

Of course the poster Nessie believes in all of these. A common denominator to jüdische thinking is that they can hold completely opposite views at the same time, considering both to be true. Science or rational thinking has little bearing onto a belief system.

Die soziale Heimatpartei
𝖀𝖒𝖆𝖗𝖒𝖊 𝖉𝖆𝖘 𝕷𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓, 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙 𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖇𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖊𝖓.
Amt IV

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9621
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by been-there »

a holocaust-narrative believer wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
Fuchs possibly misidentified an engine, when giving testimony in 1966 at the Sobibor trial, about a camp he was at in 1942.
Erich Fuchs was a mechanic who SUPPOSEDLY installed, repaired and then operated an engine over a long period of time supposedly to MASS-MURDER hundreds of thousands of civilians. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that he would DEFINITELY know and remember what type of engine it was and how many cylinders it had, even decades later. It is not a casual, everyday thing he was admitting to, the mass-murder of crores of people using an engine.
Only a person who is suffering from Dunnings-Kruger syndrome and who knows nothing about engines would think for a second that Erich Fuchs wouldn’t remember correctly the specific details that he ‘confessed’ to of the strangely very SPECIFIC yet non-existent Soviet engine that he FALSELY ‘confessed’ he installed, fixed and operated at Sobibor.
If he could be forgiven for not remembering what engine he installed and operated and maintained, then he only had to say “sorry, I don’t remember”.
But any honest person knows that would NOT have been accepted. THAT response would NOT have been believed. How could anyone seriously believe he could forget something extrordinary like that?
He supposedly installed a weapon of mass-murder and he doesn’t remember what it was exactly? :?
He claimed he remembered certain very specific details that were incorrect?? :lol:
Pfuhhhh! C’mon. Don’t be ridiculous.

So... let us apply some critical, reasonable, rational analysis:
why would a man in captivity, facing trial for mass-murder, confess to the crime but invent very specific details that — being an expert — he presumably KNEW didn’t match any Soviet engine?
Hmmmm? Could it have been part of a plea bargain?
Could he have been offered the following alternative: ‘Lie for us. Confess to the crime and get a reduced sentence.
OR, tell the truth, deny you were involved in any mass-murder and definitely get a death sentence plus your family will suffer consequences and repercussions’.

Was that the choice?
We know he did get a very light sentence for allegedly mass murdering so many alleged people.

Did he choose to lie, but gave specifics that he hoped posterity would discover were bogus?
Just like Eichmann did, when he ‘confessed’ to the ludicrous, non-existent, captured Soviet U-boat diesel engine being the murder weapon at an unidentifiable, vague description of an ‘extermination camp’ ?

Erich’s testimony is analysed here

a holocaust-narrative believer wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
Most of the surviving Jewish witnesses worked elsewhere in the camp and not at the gas chambers, so they could not know for certain how they worked.
Then those Jews were not “eye-witnesses”. (Duh! :roll: )
They are instead lie-witnesses.
Which is the premise that this topic-thread is detailing.
So thanks for further proving and supporting this premise.

a holocaust-narrative believer wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
You are happy with the witnesses who say they left TII to work at other camps.
Because that witness testimony does NOT deny the realms of physical possibility. It does not require us to believe nonsense. It does not require a suspension of normal critical faculties.
If a witness says they walked 100 metres to a small corner shop and bought a loaf of bread with a credit card, we all know that is within the realms of human and physical possibility. So we have no reason to doubt their testimony.
But... if the same witness said they were teleported into a hovering, gigantic, invisible space-ship and given a loaf of bread by aliens, we are permitted to express some doubt.

a holocaust-narrative believer wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
Your [MY] double standard is clearly driven by Your [MY] agenda to promote Your [MY] desired version of events...
Some very revealing Psychological projection on display here. :ugeek:
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Turnagain
Posts: 8825
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by Turnagain »

I said that I would give you a mulligan on Fuchs. I'm still waiting for you to name the witnesses who give a reasonable account of how the killing operation was accomplished and the bodies were disposed of. You obviously haven't any intention of doing that.
Nessie wrote:
No court demands that witnesses know precisely how something works.
Most courts have a great deal of interest in the murder weapon or how the murder was done. They also have a great deal of interest in how the murderer disposed of the body. Claiming that a court wouldn't try to determine precisely what the murder weapon was is asinine.

You can stamp your feet and shriek from now til forever but your claim that 2-3,000 cadavers could be piled on a 2X30 meter grate and set ablaze with some minor kindling and left to cremate themselves is rank bullshit. Present a witness who states that adequate amounts of fuel was used to cremate the cadavers.
Those who describe staying at TII do not mention its most distinctive feature, the train station inside the camp.
Only one person mentions the train station at T-II. None of the other witnesses say anything about it at all whether or not they said that they spent anymore than one day at T-II. Your weasel dodge doesn't fly, Nessie. Only a few of the witnesses mention how much time they spent in T-II. You only assume that they spent a day or less waiting in the Treblinka camp.

At any rate, you've still not presented any actual witnesses and quoted their stories. As stated before, you obviously have no intention of doing that. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29922
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:53 pm
a holocaust-narrative believer wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
Fuchs possibly misidentified an engine, when giving testimony in 1966 at the Sobibor trial, about a camp he was at in 1942.
Erich Fuchs was a mechanic who SUPPOSEDLY installed, repaired and then operated an engine over a long period of time supposedly to MASS-MURDER hundreds of thousands of civilians. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that he would DEFINITELY know and remember what type of engine it was and how many cylinders it had, even decades later. It is not a casual, everyday thing he was admitting to, the mass-murder of crores of people using an engine.
Only a person who is suffering from Dunnings-Kruger syndrome and who knows nothing about engines would think for a second that Erich Fuchs wouldn’t remember correctly the specific details that he ‘confessed’ to of the strangely very SPECIFIC yet non-existent Soviet engine that he FALSELY ‘confessed’ he installed, fixed and operated at Sobibor.
If he could be forgiven for not remembering what engine he installed and operated and maintained, then he only had to say “sorry, I don’t remember”.
But any honest person knows that would NOT have been accepted. THAT response would NOT have been believed. How could anyone seriously believe he could forget something extrordinary like that?
He supposedly installed a weapon of mass-murder and he doesn’t remember what it was exactly? :?
He claimed he remembered certain very specific details that were incorrect?? :lol:
Pfuhhhh! C’mon. Don’t be ridiculous.

So... let us apply some critical, reasonable, rational analysis:
why would a man in captivity, facing trial for mass-murder, confess to the crime but invent very specific details that — being an expert — he presumably KNEW didn’t match any Soviet engine?
Hmmmm? Could it have been part of a plea bargain?
Could he have been offered the following alternative: ‘Lie for us. Confess to the crime and get a reduced sentence.
OR, tell the truth, deny you were involved in any mass-murder and definitely get a death sentence plus your family will suffer consequences and repercussions’.

Was that the choice?
We know he did get a very light sentence for allegedly mass murdering so many alleged people.

Did he choose to lie, but gave specifics that he hoped posterity would discover were bogus?
Just like Eichmann did, when he ‘confessed’ to the ludicrous, non-existent, captured Soviet U-boat diesel engine being the murder weapon at an unidentifiable, vague description of an ‘extermination camp’ ?

Erich’s testimony is analysed here

a holocaust-narrative believer wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
Most of the surviving Jewish witnesses worked elsewhere in the camp and not at the gas chambers, so they could not know for certain how they worked.
Then those Jews were not “eye-witnesses”. (Duh! :roll: )
They are instead lie-witnesses.
Which is the premise that this topic-thread is detailing.
So thanks for further proving and supporting this premise.

a holocaust-narrative believer wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
You are happy with the witnesses who say they left TII to work at other camps.
Because that witness testimony does NOT deny the realms of physical possibility. It does not require us to believe nonsense. It does not require a suspension of normal critical faculties.
If a witness says they walked 100 metres to a small corner shop and bought a loaf of bread with a credit card, we all know that is within the realms of human and physical possibility. So we have no reason to doubt their testimony.
But... if the same witness said they were teleported into a hovering, gigantic, invisible space-ship and given a loaf of bread by aliens, we are permitted to express some doubt.

a holocaust-narrative believer wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
Your [MY] double standard is clearly driven by Your [MY] agenda to promote Your [MY] desired version of events...
Some very revealing Psychological projection on display here. :ugeek:
What is revealing is that I replied to this post and that reply has gone. That is the second time in the past week. I see you have altered the change of user name from the original "a troll". Here is my reply from yesterday.
been-there wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:53 pm
a troll wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
Fuchs possibly misidentified an engine, when giving testimony in 1966 during the Sobibor trial, about a camp he was at in 1942
Erich Fuchs was a mechanic who SUPPOSEDLY installed, repaired and then operated an engine over a long period of time supposedly to MASS-MURDER hundreds of thousands of civilians. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that he would DEFINITELY know and remember what type of engine it was and how many cylinders it had, even decades later. It is not a casual, everyday thing he was admitting to, the mass-murder of crores of people using an engine.
Give a mechanic an engine that they have never seen before, made in another country, which, if there is any lettering on it, it is in a language they do not know and cannot read and they will only be able to make guesses as to what exactly it was.

Fuchs also worked at Sobibor, TII and Belzec, each camp with an engine that we know little to nothing about. We have little of his testimony available to read online. At Belzec he said he installed the shower heads in the gas chambers. At Sobibor he said he helped unload and install the engine, which he got working by repairing the ignition. The only things that would be obvious about the engine are its origin, Russian, it was petrol and that it had 8 cylinders. He guessed its origin and HP. At TII he helped build and run the gas chamber.

Why would he, over 20 years later, when faced with the enormity of his actions and the numbers he killed, be expected to remember in minute accurate detail, the specifics of an engine used in one of the camps he worked in?
Only a person who is suffering from Dunnings-Kruger syndrome and who knows nothing about engines would think for a second that Erich Fuchs wouldn’t remember correctly the specific details that he ‘confessed’ to of the strangely very SPECIFIC yet non-existent Soviet engine that he FALSELY ‘confessed’ he installed, fixed and operated at Sobibor.
If he could be forgiven for not remembering what engine he installed and operated and maintained, then he only had to say “sorry, I don’t remember”.
But any honest person knows that would NOT have been accepted. THAT response would NOT have been believed. How could anyone seriously believe he could forget something extrordinary like that? He supposedly installed a weapon of mass-murder and he doesn’t remember what it was exactly? He claimed he remembered certain very specific details that were incorrect?? Pfuhhhh! C’mon. Don’t be ridiculous.
Your use of the logical fallacies of poisoning the well and incredulity, without realising you are using such fallacies, says more about your intelligence than mine. At least I am intelligent enough to recognise logical fallacies and to not rely on them :roll:
So... let us apply some critical, reasonable, rational analysis:
why would a man in captivity, facing trial for mass-murder, confess to the crime but invent very specific details that — being an expert — he presumably KNEW didn’t match any Soviet engine?
Hmmmm? Could it have been part of a plea bargain?
Could he have been offered the following alternative: ‘Lie for us. Confess to the crime and get a reduced sentence.
OR, tell the truth, deny you were involved in any mass-murder and definitely get a death sentence plus your family will suffer consequences and repercussions’.

Was that the choice?
Did he choose to lie, but gave specifics that he hoped posterity would discover were bogus?
Or, having worked at three different camps, did he, over 20 years later, just not remember the correct details about the engine used at Sobibor?
Like Eichmann and ‘confessing’ to the ludicrous, non-existent, captured Soviet U-boat engine?
Or, was he repeating hearsay about what he remembers being told about the engine?
We know he did get a very light sentence for allegedly mass murdering so many alleged people.
He was acquitted at the Belzec trial. He was never tried for his role at TII. He was given a short sentence for his role at Sobibor. The German courts took the attitude that the soldiers were under orders and to them, what they were doing was right and their duty. Fuchs, like the others, never denied the killings.
a troll wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
Most of the surviving Jewish witnesses worked elsewhere in the camp and not at the gas chambers, so they could not know for certain how they worked.
Then those Jews were not “eye-witnesses”. (Duh! :roll: )
They are instead lie-witnesses.
Which is the premise that this topic-thread is detailing.
So thanks for further proving and supporting this premise.
It is deniers who mix up such witnesses with the eye witnesses to the gassings. Working elsewhere in the camp does not mean that witness is lying.
a troll wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
You are happy with the witnesses who say they left TII to work at other camps.
Because that witness testimony does NOT deny the realms of physical possibility. It does not require us to believe nonsense. It does not require a suspension of normal critical faculties.
If a witness says they walked 100 metres to a small corner shop and bought a loaf of bread with a credit card, we all know that is within the realms of human and physical possibility. So we have no reason to doubt their testimony.
But... if the same witness said they were teleported into a hovering, gigantic, invisible space-ship and given a loaf of bread by aliens, we are permitted to express some doubt.
Deniers happily claim that those witnesses definitely all came from TII, with its showers and mass departures, even though that is not what they said happened and no one who worked in the camp agrees with them. How is that physically possible?
a troll wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:59 pm
YouYour [MY] double standard is clearly driven by Your [MY] agenda to promote Your [MY] desired version of events...
Some very fevealing Psychological projection on display here. :ugeek:
Your childish name calling, blatant breach of forum rules not to change user names, along with your many plagiarised posts containing anti-Semitic tropes and continual use of logical fallacies as you demand belief in what you cannot evidence to have happened, speaks volumes about you.
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
Nessie
Posts: 29922
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:03 pm
I said that I would give you a mulligan on Fuchs. I'm still waiting for you to name the witnesses who give a reasonable account of how the killing operation was accomplished and the bodies were disposed of. You obviously haven't any intention of doing that.
It has been done on numerous occasions and you dodge them all. Weirnk and Rajchman do not say anything other than is expected from witnesses who saw what they saw. It has been pointed out to you that all of the Jewish eye witnesses are prone to the same use of hyperbole etc. I have presented you with lists of all the Nazis witnesses and all of the actual eye witnesses to gassings and you then sat back and expected me to baby feed you all of the testimony. You ignore my point that you cannot dismiss testimony you have never read, just because you are unhappy with other witnesses.
Nessie wrote:
No court demands that witnesses know precisely how something works.
Most courts have a great deal of interest in the murder weapon or how the murder was done. They also have a great deal of interest in how the murderer disposed of the body. Claiming that a court wouldn't try to determine precisely what the murder weapon was is asinine.
I did not make that claim, strawman. A court would want agreement on the weapon, was it a knife or was it a gun? If it was a gun, the court would not need to know from the witnesses the exact make and model of the gun and precisely how a gun works.
You can stamp your feet and shriek from now til forever but your claim that 2-3,000 cadavers could be piled on a 2X30 meter grate and set ablaze with some minor kindling and left to cremate themselves is rank bullshit. Present a witness who states that adequate amounts of fuel was used to cremate the cadavers.
You can stamp and shriek all you want that mass pyres would not work. There is evidence of large areas of cremated remains at the camps and you dodge explaining how the Nazis did cremate bodies at the AR camps.

I have already pointed out that Heinrich Gley spoke about a wood fire being lit under the bodies. You pretended to forget that.
Those who describe staying at TII do not mention its most distinctive feature, the train station inside the camp.
Only one person mentions the train station at T-II. None of the other witnesses say anything about it at all whether or not they said that they spent anymore than one day at T-II. Your weasel dodge doesn't fly, Nessie. Only a few of the witnesses mention how much time they spent in T-II. You only assume that they spent a day or less waiting in the Treblinka camp.

At any rate, you've still not presented any actual witnesses and quoted their stories. As stated before, you obviously have no intention of doing that. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
You criticise me for supposedly failing to provide witnesses, then you ignore that you have never provided any witnesses at all, of those who worked inside any AR camp, to the supposed processing of deportees, showering and mass departures. Why is it acceptable for you to have no witnesses?
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
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9621
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by been-there »

.
‘Holocaust’ eye-witness caught lying. Then caught lying again — on film — about being caught lying! :lol:
JEWISH SOAP OPERA

Image

Arguably, somewhere in the world there might exist a worse human being than Sacha Baron Cohen…but it’s doubtful. This is a guy who’s made millions of dollars by pushing his free-speech rights to the limit and beyond, indulging in racial humor and profiting from the surreptitious recording of duped bystanders, only to reveal himself — when speaking of anyone but himself — as a vocal supporter of anti-speech laws and online censorship.

Cohen believes that while he has the right to profit from racially offensive humour, no one else does, and he’s said as much in talks before pro-censorship orgs like the ADL.

More recently, Cohen’s been on a bender against Facebook for continuing to allow “holocaust denial” material to be posted on the site, a policy that was reversed last week by Facebook CEO and villain Mark Zuckerberg (in part because of Cohen’s tireless hectoring, according to the ADL).

So it was extraordinarily satisfying to see Cohen’s new “Borat” film become embroiled in a Holocaust imbroglio of its own a mere week from its release date.
Cohen is being sued by the estate of Judith Dim Evans, a Holocaust survivor who was interviewed for Cohen’s film before passing on to the big selection ramp in the sky.

Image

Evans’ family claims the survivor was cruelly duped by Cohen, who failed to inform his mark that the interview was “a comedy intended to mock the Holocaust and Jewish culture.” This has put Cohen in the unique and (unlike his films) hilarious position of claiming that a Holocaust survivor lied!

Cohen’s spokesperson said that Evans “was clued in on the gag after it was shot and there is footage of it” (funny enough, not the first time photographic evidence has called a survivor’s claim into question).
The spokesperson even listed a whole bunch of favours the production did for Evans and her family, as thanks for their assistance with the film.

And since every good joke needs a punchline, here it is: on her website — which Cohen claims he set up as thanks for Evans’ help — Evans states that during the war she bathed with soap “manufactured from the marrow of Jews” a long-discredited myth that even the most prominent Holocaust historians agree is patently false.

Talk about a mess! In trying to “fight deniers,” Cohen has exposed a survivor as definitely untruthful about her wartime experiences and possibly untruthful about her claims of being misled by the filmmaker. Nothing in his new movie could possibly be funnier than that.

~~ by David Cole

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-wee ... 3pEjIPYkdA
Image
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29922
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:20 pm
.
‘Holocaust’ eye-witness caught lying. Then caught lying again — on film — about being caught lying! :lol:
JEWISH SOAP OPERA

....

And since every good joke needs a punchline, here it is: on her website — which Cohen claims he set up as thanks for Evans’ help — Evans states that during the war she bathed with soap “manufactured from the marrow of Jews” a long-discredited myth that even the most prominent Holocaust historians agree is patently false.

....
Stupid people with agendas easily fall for myths. That sums up Holocaust denial.
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.

Turnagain
Posts: 8825
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
It has been done on numerous occasions and you dodge them all.
Aha! The old "I already done that" trick. Nessie's preferred weasel dodge for avoiding quoting the lies of the lie witnesses such as Wiernik and Rajchman. Nessie excuses all lies from the witnesses as "hyperbole" or "exaggerations", a common trait amongst Jews. IOW, you can't reasonably expect a Jew to tell the truth. Well, at least you got that part right, Nessie.
I did not make that claim, strawman. A court would want agreement on the weapon, was it a knife or was it a gun? If it was a gun, the court would not need to know from the witnesses the exact make and model of the gun and precisely how a gun works.
Uh-huh, a witness who had seen the murder weapon in operation multiple times would not be expected to give a coherent account of how it worked. It was a hermetically sealed gas/vacuum chamber. Sometimes it was a gas chamber, sometimes it was a vacuum chamber and sometimes it was both. Hey, that's good enough for holyhoax work. The fact that a conventionally built brick building can't be used as a pressure vessel is conveniently overlooked. It was prolly just some "hyperbole" or an "exaggeration" anyway. Besides that has been done on "numerous occasions". You have indeed weasel dodged giving the eyewitness accounts of the gas chamber on "numerous occasions".
You can stamp and shriek all you want that mass pyres would not work. There is evidence of large areas of cremated remains at the camps and you dodge explaining how the Nazis did cremate bodies at the AR camps.
You LIE, Nessie. I do NOT say that pyres wouldn't work for cremating bodies. I have shown photos and given accounts numerous times of the pyres used to cremate bodies in India. I've shown photos and given accounts of animal bodies being burned in both England and the US. What I HAVE said is that it takes fuel and in the case of wood, lots of it to cremate a body. The cremation of a human cadaver is an endothermic process, not exothermic. That is a fact and no matter how much you turn and squirm and lie about what I've said, that fact cannot be avoided.

You base your claim that there were large areas of cremains solely on the statement made by Lukaszkiewicz. Lukaszkiewicz took no samples and had no laboratory tests done. There aren't even any photos of what is alleged to be cremains yet here you are, declaring the 5 acres of cremains to be a fact. That despite the testimony of other witnesses that the cremains were buried in the 10+ meter deep graves. Lukaszkiewicz even claims that the mass graves no longer exist. All of that has been pointed out before but you keep reiterating the mantra of 2 hectares of cremains. Such utter bullshit.
You criticise me for supposedly failing to provide witnesses, then you ignore that you have never provided any witnesses at all, of those who worked inside any AR camp, to the supposed processing of deportees, showering and mass departures. Why is it acceptable for you to have no witnesses?
You have been presented with witnesses to deportees being given showers and trainloads of deportees leaving T-II. Allan Seder was one of two witnesses to showering and Helen Schwartz and Sam Kulawy were two witnesses to trainloads of deportees leaving T-II. You simply declare them to be liars; that they weren't in Treblinka. I have named them and quoted them. That's something that you never do for your witnesses. Some, like Gley, you name but you never quote them. Some, like Zabecki, you name and then lie about what they said. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29922
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by Nessie »

Before there is any more discussion with Turnagain, he needs to apologise for and acknowledge that he was wrong here;
Turnagain wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:48 pm

....I have named them and quoted them. That's something that you never do for your witnesses. Some, like Gley, you name but you never quote them. ....
I quoted him in replies to you here;

viewtopic.php?p=164134#p164134
viewtopic.php?p=163888#p163888
viewtopic.php?p=162157#p162157
You then go on to say
Nessie continues to refuse to name the lie-witnesses and quote what they said.
I repeatedly link you to and quote the witnesses. Stop this nonsense of asking for witnesses and quotes, I give them to you and you wait a bit and ask again as if I have never previously provided you with what you have asked for.

The reason why you are dodging Gley is because you know he is a credible witness who does not say anything you can make into an argument from incredulity or ignorance.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

"Heinrich Gley
I was assigned with a big Jewish work brigade to the cremation of the corpses by means of railway lines which served as a grate. About 80-90 Jews then worked under my supervision in three shifts.
The rails were placed on top of big rocks and narrow gauge rails served as a cross-mesh. The cremation surface could take about 200 corpses. First a wood fire was kindled under the iron grate.
During the course of the cremation operation the corpses later served as the only fuel. From time to time the badly twisted rails had to be replaced by new ones."

"From the beginning of August 1942 until the camp was closed in September 1943 I was in Belzec. As I remember, the gassing stopped at the end of 1942, when the snow was already falling.
Then the unearthing and cremation of the corpses began. It lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The cremation was conducted day and night without interruption. At first the burning took place at one site, and later on at two.
One cremating site had the capacity to burn 2,000 corpses in twenty-four hours. About four weeks after the beginning of the cremation operation, the second burning site was erected.
On the average, during five months at the first about 300,000 corpses were cremated and in four months at the second burning site, about 240,000 corpses.
Naturally, these are average estimations."
Last edited by Nessie on Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
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: 8172
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: The 'Achilles heel' of 'THE holocaust' - witnesses!

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:10 pm
If c850,000 left TII, why do the only confirmed witnesses who were at TII, say they left on transports of a few hundred, leaving the rest behind?
This thread is on the credibility of witnesses and this poster uses the same witnesses to bolster their credibility. Quite an astounding piece of circular reasoning.
  • Fred: The witnesses are lying
  • Nessie: they are not because
    the witnesses said so.

Die soziale Heimatpartei
𝖀𝖒𝖆𝖗𝖒𝖊 𝖉𝖆𝖘 𝕷𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓, 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙 𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖇𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖊𝖓.
Amt IV

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests