The strongest argument Weber and Irving ever had against holocaust revisionists was blown apart by a single essay from Thomas Dalton--https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/2/2/3109 --and on this forum at: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3491&hilit=Blown+Apart BTW, it was the title to Bob's OP from November of this past year which grabbed my attention. I had not read or noticed Dalton's excellent essay until then which shows-to-go-us that "catchy" titles are really important--take a lesson from that Germar Rudolf.
As to the technical issues which have been critical to unravelling the hoax for people such as myself, both Irving and Weber have been totally clueless and far too lazy to ever try to learn. Do either of them understand anything about diesel engines, for example, or why that might be important? Of course, not! Nearly 2 million Jews were supposedly murdered with diesel exhaust in the AR camps. That never happened!
I will try to keep reminding people of just how vile, shameless and grossly incompetent both Irving and Weber truly are with my simple questions and reminders by email. They should learn how to make money by "earning it" and NOT by simply LYING for the Jews.
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!
Nobody who was in a position to see the engines claimed diesel. Only people who were never nearby. That is why holocaust controversies is correct that talking about diesel engines these days is beating a dead horse.
I have not checked lately but the last time I did check, not that long ago, the US government and the USHMM still claim "diesel exhaust" was the source of the carbon monoxide for mass murder at the AR camps. Kurt Gerstein was supposedly in an excellent position to see everything at Belzec, even with a stopwatch in his hands, when he "claimed" five times that diesel exhaust was the source of the deadly gas. Also, the Soviets insisted in 1943 during the show trials at Kharkov and Krasnodar that the murderous gas vans used diesel engines as the source for the CO.
Werd wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:29 amThe gas chamber mongers have figured out years ago and that diesel issue is dead because ANYONE who was in a position to actually see the engine up close NEVER CLAIMED diesel.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... evant.html
Summary from codoh discussion years ago called Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor TransportKurt Gerstein.
some exaggerations. Not reliable source about diesel engine. No one knows if he saw one himself.
spoke to Rassinier about Belzec. Claimed he saw diesel gassing experiment. Gave size dimensions of engine as well as cylander numbers (six).
But he was an outsider, "and a hygienist, not a technician" he still could have gotten the type of engine wrong.
Karl Alfred Schluch
quoted in Mattogno's book on Belzec. Claimed a diesel engine was used based on how it sounded. He never saw it.
A Belzec inmate who described an engine as running on petrol. But that's problematic. It only could be diesel or petrol at Belzec. Not certain yet.
SS-Scharfuehrer Erich Fuchs (april 8 1963 testimony)
claims at Sobibor, "we unloaded the motor. It was a heavy Russian benzine engine, at least 200 horsepower." This is regarded
as evidence of a non diesel, actual petrol engine at Sobibor by the extermination theorists.
Eli Rosenburg (1047 affidavit)
talked about "exhaust fumes of a single diesel engine
Ukrainian guard - Leleko
claimed diesel engines were used.
Ukrainian guard - Malakon
claimed diesel engines were used.
Yankel Wiernik author of A YEAR IN TREBLINKA
motor from a Soviet tank used in Treblinka. He does not say it was diesel. So this looks promising in the eyes of extermination theorists.
Erich Fuchs (Sobibor)
claimed that his engine was also from a Soviet tank (though this was disputed by Erich Bauer, who said it was a Renault engine), and yet it was a petrol engine. In fact, quite a lot of Soviet tanks had petrol engines.
"I have also seen claims that T-34 tank's engine was used. I have seen this claim ascribed to Kurt Franz, though I can't tell if the reference is true. I've seen deniers argue that since T-34 tanks had diesel engines, the Treblinka engine had to be diesel too. For the sake of the argument, let us assume that Treblinka engine was indeed from T-34 tank. Now, it is simply not true that all T-34s were diesels. Because of shortage of V-2 diesels in the autumn of 1941 it was ordered to implement the ways to install old carburetor engines M17-T in T-34 tanks (I. Shmelyov, "Tank T-34", Tekhnika i vooruzhenije, no. 11-12, 1998). Another author confirms that some T-34s had M-17, a powerful aviation motor, installed (E. Zubov, Dvigateli tankov (iz istorii tankostrojenija), 1991).
Now, if you visually compare petrol M-17 and diesel V-2, both used in T-34s (though the latter used in the majority of them), you will see why some people might confuse the two. Further source of confusion might stem from that incorrect belief that T-34s had only diesel engines.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... evant.html
I agree with Sergy that as a logical principle, strictly in the realm of relations of idea, the people who did not operate or install the engine could have been mistaken about the type of engine. In other words, if you don't see it and only hear it, like Karl Alfred Schluch who was in Belzec, then you can't know for sure.
Sergy goes on to quote historian Peter Witte who lists three German officers as the gas masters of the camp. Keep in mind that earlier in the blog, Fuchs is stated to have been a witness in regards to SOBIBOR, not Treblinka.
"In this case even three former Gasmeister (“Gasmasters” / Erich Bauer, Erich Fuchs, and Franz Hödl), who must have really have known the facts, since they all killed with the same motor, confirmed in court that it was definitely a petrol motor. Bauer and Fuchs, having been professional motor mechanics, simply quarrelled during the trial about whether it was a Renault motor or a heavy Russian tank motor (probably a tank motor or a tractor motor) having at least 200 PS. They also disputed whether the method of ignition was a starter or an impact magnet, which diesel motors obviously do not have, being self-igniting...
Hödl reported that they once tried a Diesel motor for the the gas chambers, but it did not work!"
"Witte's claims should be checked, of course, but in any case Berg's diesel arguments simply don't work for Aktion Reinhard(t) camps - the people that really mattered apparently testified only about petrol engines. All the witnesses who mentioned diesels would be simply mistaken, and there's nothing surprising or sinister about that."
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... evant.html
This is the main thrust of their argument. That anyone who talks of diesel engines didn't actually see them and made mistakes. The ones who saw the engines and made contact with them never spoke of diesel engines.
So in other words, it was not diesel. Witnesses were mistaken or simply not credible as they were nowhere close enough to actually see it and figure out it was diesel. The real witnesses mention petrol. Case closed for the extermination theorists.
Which explains why those scholars were wrong. According to HC, these scholars didn't do enough due diligence to see that Gerstein's testimony is so problematic that apparently he can't be relied on to give an accurate description of the type of engine.
Holocaust Controversies are thus apparently touting themselves as among the first group of holocaust believers to figure out that the field of holocaust research should not try to pin any tail on the Gerstein/diesel donkey.The point of this posting is that if Berg is correct about technical infeasibility of using diesel engines for mass gassings, this in no way constitutes an argument against the historicity of the gas chambers in which these engines were supposed to be used.
First of all, one must explore the source of the identification of homicidal engines as diesels.
The most prominent source is, of course, Kurt Gerstein's testimony. Or, rather, testimonies. His testimonies certainly contain the core of truth. Yet, they contain many implausible details and internal contradictions as well. One simply cannot take any detail of Gerstein's testimony and use it without corroboration - as has been done (unfortunately) by some historians. Christopher Browning characterizes Gerstein thus:
Many aspects of Gerstein's testimony are unquestionably problematic. Several statements he attributes to Globocnik are clearly exagerrated or false, and it is not clear whether Gerstein or Globocnik was the faulty source. In other statements, such as the height of the piles of shoes and clothing at Belzec and Treblinka, Gerstein himself is clearly the source of exaggeration. Gerstein also added grossly exaggerated claims about matters to which he was not an eyewitness, such as that a total of 25 million Jews and others were gassed. But in the essential issue, namely that he was in Belzec and witnessed the gassing of a transport of Jews from Lwow, his testimony is fully corroborated by Pfannenstiel. It is also corroborated by other categories of witnesses from Belzec.
It is not even clear if Gerstein ever saw the engine himself. So Gerstein's testimony alone cannot be used to establish the type of the engine.
But even if the diesel is replaced by a gasoline engine, how does anyone explain the the total absence of any mention at all of BRIGHT CHERRY RED corpses among the huge piles, supposedly, of totally naked corpses. Either way, the AR gassing tale fails except for depraved idiots like Nessie and the "holocaust Controversies" gang and money grubbing "screwballs" like Mark Weber and David Irving.
It doesn't. No matter what engine is chosen, the story is still a lie. Nessie lost on the corpse colour issue long ago.
Agree 100%. Even Alexander Baron has exposed David Irving. So have others.Either way, the AR gassing tale fails except for depraved idiots like Nessie and the "holocaust Controversies" gang and money grubbing "screwballs" like Mark Weber and David Irving.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests