Sobibor investigation

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).
ralphgordon
Posts: 350
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by ralphgordon » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:20 am

rollo the ganger wrote:Yoram Haimi's time and the money he is using could be better spent investigating Israeli's own concentration camps:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/israel-%E2%8 ... s%E2%80%9D

The "Shvugees" don't rate in Israeli and the excuses and methods of keeping them out sound awfully familiar.
Surely, though, the Zionists are giving a good example, here, as far as working against miscegenation is concerned, which is really no good for anyone of any race in the long run, because if the coloured races are essentially parasitical on the white races, and if the white races are breed out of existence, then society will retrogress to the Stone Age.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/aft ... 6451209132
Certainly in Australia we have a problem with illegal immigrants, and the reformist parties are dealing with it in their ineffective ways; but, of course, the only way to stop illegal immigrants is to employ lethal force, whether they come by land or sea, despite what UNO bodies like The International Court say, as, of course, many Third World peoples now realise that their best way to have a good life is to be parasites in what are at present mostly white nations, because, clearly, the very nature of the Third World non-white nations shows that non -whites are essentially inferior in relation to the ability to nurture scientific and cultural progress.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/52008
The policy of Australian newspapers to demand payment for content over the internet makes it difficult to give citations. If you make a link from Google you can make a free connection, but the truncated nature of links in this forum makes it impossible now to make a free link tothe newspaper articles.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by Roberto » Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:45 am

rollo the ganger wrote:Haimi has made quite a show of displaying this particular object to students, i.e. young impressionable people, as an indictiment for murder. Therefore I find it important to verify exactly what this object is. Is it an identification tag worn by the person in question at the time? Or is it something placed there later, possibly a commemorative by a relative, friend, etc.? Or is it a recent manufacture with a misrepresentative purpose other than the truth? I won't take your's or Haimi's explanation on simple faith.
Possibility 1 (identification tag worn by the person in question at the time) is by far the likeliest. The person in question has been identified as a person deported to Sobibór and killed there. Dutch tracing authorities established the date on which that person was deported to Sobibór and the date on which that person arrived at a place that all known evidence shows to have been a place of mass murder, where only a reduced number of adults were kept alive for some time as workers due to their physical strength or on account of particular skills. The person in question, a six-year-old girl, didn't fit into any of these categories, so there is no room for reasonable doubt that she was murdered upon arrival, even if there are no direct eyewitnesses who saw here being taken to the part of the camp where the killings took place.
Possibility 2 (commemorative object placed by a relative, friend, etc.) is negligible. Such object would have been visibly placed at or near a monument, not hidden somewhere in the ground where only archaeological digs would find it.
Possibility 3 (a fake) is merely theoretical and also negligible, also because the supposed faker would have completely left it to chance whether archaeologists found the object on site or not, which would have been rather stupid. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that Haimi himself may have been the forger. Then you would be accusing him of a criminal action and bear the burden of proof for such accusation.

Therefore, whoever argues for the extremely remote to negligible possibilities 2 or 3 should at least provide some substantial indications that cast suspicion on the object's being what it appears to be, despite its having been matched with the name of a person recorded as having been deported to Sobibór and murdered there. In the absence of such indications, there is no reason to question the object's authenticity.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by Roberto » Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:14 am

rollo the ganger wrote:Roberto said: "Questions about the tag may be valid, but if there's no doubt that a girl by this name was sent to Sobibór, they don't call into question the authenticity of the object. The mere theoretical possibility that someone could have planted the tag is not sufficient to call the tag's authenticity into question."

The fact is that no one said there is no doubt that a girl by this name was sent to Sobibor. At least I didn't. I only claimed I was not proclaiming doubt on that matter and that was not the issue. My question to you Roberto is what do you mean by "authenticity of the object"? Also, exactly what proof is there that someone of that name was taken to Sobibor? You seem sure of it so what is it that makes you so sure? What facts do you have on this Roberto?
Funny to see you now questioning that Lea Judith de la Penha was taken to Sobibór. You earlier stance was the following:
I'm not doubting that there was in fact a girl of this name sent to Sobibor and that this was knowledge prior to Haimi's discovery of this tag, what I am questioning is the tag itself.
Haimi obtained confirmation of her deportation from Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. Yad Vashem presumably obtained their information from Dutch tracing authorities, who established the fate of every Dutch citizen deported east during World War II. On the Yad Vashem website one finds the following information:
Lea Penha de la was born in Amsterdam, The Netherlands in 1937. During the war was in The Netherlands. Lea was murdered in 1943 in Sobibor, Camp. This information is based on a List of murdered Jews from the Netherlands found in In Memoriam - Nederlandse oorlogsslachtoffers, Nederlandse Oorlogsgravenstichting (Dutch War Victims Authority), `s-Gravenhage (courtesy of the Association of Yad Vashem Friends in Netherlands, Amsterdam).

Source: In Memoriam - Nederlandse oorlogsslachtoffers, Nederlandse Oorlogsgravenstichting (Dutch War Victims Authority), `s-Gravenhage (courtesy of the Association of Yad Vashem Friends in Netherlands, Amsterdam)
Last Name: de La Penha
First Name: Lea
First Name: Judith
Date of Birth: 11/5/1937
Place of Birth: Amsterdam, Noordholland, The Netherlands Search for all victims registered as born in this place Shows location on the map and info about the place (when available)
Place during the war: The Netherlands Search for all victims registered as present in this place during the war Shows location on the map and info about the place (when available)
Place of Death: Sobibor, Camp Search for all victims registered as having died in this place Shows location on the map and info about the place (when available)
Date of Death: 9-7-1943
Type of material: List of murdered Jews from the Netherlands
Item ID: 4278916
The date of death means that the girl was on the transport that left the Westerbork transit camp on 6 July 1943 and arrived at Sobibór three days later. The list of the people on that transport is available here. In List A Nr. 40, you find the names and birth dates of the following three members of the de la Penha family:

- de la Penha David, born 12.8.1909
- de la Penha-Rodrigues Pareira Judith, born 27.9.1903
- de la Penha Lea, born 11.5.1937.

Lea Judith de la Penha is also mentioned here.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6207
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:04 pm

You fail to mention the disclaimer at the bottom of the Yad Vashem webpage that states:

The Names Database is a work in progress and may contain errors that will be corrected in the future.

Therefore this source, by its own admission, is suspect. A lot of questions exist regarding this source but that can be left for a later discussion. Your response to my inquiry is nothing but conjecture on your part. Your logical constucts are flawed and the only real means by which the possible scenarios can be eliminated is from the facts themselves. Something you have woefully failed to provide.

First of all, I'm not accusing Haimi of anything. I'm simply asking questions that any peer review panel may ask. Questions that may include:

1. Are there any other such ID tags known to exist of this style and manufacture?
2. What's on the reverse side of the tag?
3. What is the alloy of the metal the tag is made of?
4. Who manufactured the tag?
5. Where was the tag made? In Holland? Germany? Poland? or...?
6. Are there other metal stampings using the same particular metal types from the same time frame?

And many more questions who's answers are not subjective. You need to do better Roberto.

Clark
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by Clark » Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:20 pm

Look at the coward run from the simple quesitons:

"How many of the 11 fraudulently alleged “graves” of Sobibor can you prove contain the remains of at least 19 bodies?"

RM / mentally ill one:
7
Well then RM / mentally ill one, fill in the 5 blanks:


To date, I have submitted __?__ Sobibor “mass graves / buried remains” - “proofs” to Michael Shermer on The Skeptics Society’s forum for his endorsement. And, to date, __?__ of those submittals have been deemed ineligible for a reward by the N.A.F.H. due to my noncompliance with their posting rules. Regardless of my eligibility status for a $1,000.00 reward, __?__ of my Sobibor submittals have been endorsed by Michael Shermer as meeting his own, Skeptic Magazine’s and The Skeptics Society’s expressed and implied standards of proof. Also, to date, the total combined number of skeptical organization members, professional forensic anthropologists, employees of Archaeology Magazine, PHD professors currently teaching forensic anthropology and/or archaeology classes at a university in the United States and members of The American Academy of Forensic Sciences who have publicly and explicitly endorsed my alleged - “proven with 100 % certainty” - Sobibor - “mass graves / buried remains” - “proofs” submitted on The Skeptics Society’s forum is - __?__. Also, to date, the total number of those same alleged - “proven with 100 % certainty” - Sobibor - “mass graves / buried remains” - “proofs” that I submitted for Shermers endorsement that I have been able to get published in Archaeology Magazine is - __?__.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by Roberto » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:47 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:You fail to mention the disclaimer at the bottom of the Yad Vashem webpage that states:

The Names Database is a work in progress and may contain errors that will be corrected in the future.

Therefore this source, by its own admission, is suspect. A lot of questions exist regarding this source but that can be left for a later discussion. Your response to my inquiry is nothing but conjecture on your part. Your logical constucts are flawed and the only real means by which the possible scenarios can be eliminated is from the facts themselves. Something you have woefully failed to provide.
Blah, blah, blah.

The Yad Vashem database may be a work in progress, but the name of Lea de la Penha is there to stay, as it is included in the Dutch government's list of Holocaust victims (which is complete) and in a list of people on a train that departed from Westerbork on 6 July 1943 and arrived at Sobibór on 9 July 1943.

You conveniently forgot to read this:
The date of death means that the girl was on the transport that left the Westerbork transit camp on 6 July 1943 and arrived at Sobibór three days later. The list of the people on that transport is available here. In List A Nr. 40, you find the names and birth dates of the following three members of the de la Penha family:

- de la Penha David, born 12.8.1909
- de la Penha-Rodrigues Pareira Judith, born 27.9.1903
- de la Penha Lea, born 11.5.1937.
rollo the ganger wrote:First of all, I'm not accusing Haimi of anything. I'm simply asking questions that any peer review panel may ask. Questions that may include:

1. Are there any other such ID tags known to exist of this style and manufacture?
2. What's on the reverse side of the tag?
3. What is the alloy of the metal the tag is made of?
4. Who manufactured the tag?
5. Where was the tag made? In Holland? Germany? Poland? or...?
6. Are there other metal stampings using the same particular metal types from the same time frame?

And many more questions who's answers are not subjective. You need to do better Roberto.
All of my hysterical friend's questions may be of interest, but there's not one that would qualify as an indication that the tag was anything other than what it clearly appears to be, an object worn by Lea Judith de la Penha on the day she arrived at Sobibór with two other members of her family and was killed there.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6207
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:59 pm

Oh contraire Roberto. The answers to these questions would prove what this "thing" really is. The other discussion regarding Yad Vashem is what is irrelevant. Can you see any reason why these questions should not be answered? I'm sure no other facts about this tag will be revealed by the Haimi research team.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by Roberto » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:24 pm

Clark wrote:Look at the coward run from the simple quesitons:

"How many of the 11 fraudulently alleged “graves” of Sobibor can you prove contain the remains of at least 19 bodies?"

RM / mentally ill one:
7
Well then RM / mentally ill one, fill in the 5 blanks:


To date, I have submitted __?__ Sobibor “mass graves / buried remains” - “proofs” to Michael Shermer on The Skeptics Society’s forum for his endorsement. And, to date, __?__ of those submittals have been deemed ineligible for a reward by the N.A.F.H. due to my noncompliance with their posting rules. Regardless of my eligibility status for a $1,000.00 reward, __?__ of my Sobibor submittals have been endorsed by Michael Shermer as meeting his own, Skeptic Magazine’s and The Skeptics Society’s expressed and implied standards of proof. Also, to date, the total combined number of skeptical organization members, professional forensic anthropologists, employees of Archaeology Magazine, PHD professors currently teaching forensic anthropology and/or archaeology classes at a university in the United States and members of The American Academy of Forensic Sciences who have publicly and explicitly endorsed my alleged - “proven with 100 % certainty” - Sobibor - “mass graves / buried remains” - “proofs” submitted on The Skeptics Society’s forum is - __?__. Also, to date, the total number of those same alleged - “proven with 100 % certainty” - Sobibor - “mass graves / buried remains” - “proofs” that I submitted for Shermers endorsement that I have been able to get published in Archaeology Magazine is - __?__.
The answers to the deplorable creature's first question can be found in my blog Human remains inside the mass graves at Chełmno, Bełżec and Sobibór, as the deplorable creature well knows.

The answers to the deplorable creature's lengthy and particularly idiotic second question (the one with the "5 blanks") may have been provided on a thread that was later deleted, so here I go again:

I posted 14 submissions on the Skeptics Society Forum, the links to which can be found here.

In these 14 submissions, I deliberately did not fully comply with the creature's imbecilic wording rules because I considered them unacceptable for Mr. Shermer and thus a hindrance to Shermer's endorsement of my submissions.

After I realized that Shermer wouldn't care to respond to my submissions regardless of how they were worded (for the simple reasons that a) the creature never asked him if he wanted to arbiter the creature's imbecilic "challenge", and b) someone of Shermer's standing understandably doesn't want any to have anything to do with something like this), I posted the following four submissions:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17734

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17957

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18286

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18466

in which I tried to comply with the creature's imbecilic wording rules (except, IIRC, on one occasion when the creature refused to send me the latest version because I called it a chimp, or something like that).

Apparently I didn't succeed in complying with the creature's imbecilic wording rules, or so the creature claims.

No sweat. All the creature has to do is send the latest version of its wording rules to my e-mail address (which it knows), and I will do my best to post in accordance with this latest version when posting my next proof submission on 15 September 2012. Hopefully I will succeed this time in meeting the creature's formal demands, but if not, what the heck. Shermer doesn't care anyway, and I will anyway have provided more information showing that the creature's imbecilic "challenge" can be rather easily met, which is the purpose of this exercise.

As to the "5 blanks", I trust that even the creature has enough gray matter to fill them in itself based on the information provided above. If that should not be so, I'll be glad to help it. All it will have to do is expressly admit that it is to dumb to fill in its "5 blanks" based on the aforementioned information.

If the creature were serious about its "challenge", it would not demand endorsement of proof submissions by Michael Shermer, who (as the creature knows very well) does not and never will care for whatever the creature does. It would find a neutral arbiter who has previously agreed to being an arbiter. But of course the creature is too much a liar and too much a coward for that.

The creature should also know better than to accuse me of running away from questions on account of the demonstrable fact (I kept all the screenshots) that it has run away from several hundred questions I have asked it in previous discussions on another forum.

The creature's running away from questions is not the only reason why the creature is the last (well ...) person who should call anyone a coward. Another reason is the creature's having run away from our appointment at Sobibór on 15.10.2008, as documented here. A film shot on the day before that appointment can be watched here.

That said, the creature is back on ignore until it learns to behave itself like a human being, and not like the scum its mug suggests.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by Roberto » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:26 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:Oh contraire Roberto. The answers to these questions would prove what this "thing" really is. The other discussion regarding Yad Vashem is what is irrelevant. Can you see any reason why these questions should not be answered? I'm sure no other facts about this tag will be revealed by the Haimi research team.
I'm not saying that the questions would not be answered, or that there is no interest in finding out what this thing really is. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no room for reasonable doubt that the thing was an object pertaining to Lea de la Penha on the day she arrived and was murdered at Sobibór.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

Clark
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Sobibor investigation

Post by Clark » Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:34 pm

Only a pathological liar and/or someone suffering from mental illness and/or a pathetic coward would be afraid to fill in the blanks to the following 5 simple questions:

RM / mentally ill one, fill in the 5 blanks:


To date, I have submitted __?__ Sobibor “mass graves / buried remains” - “proofs” to Michael Shermer on The Skeptics Society’s forum for his endorsement. And, to date, __?__ of those submittals have been deemed ineligible for a reward by the N.A.F.H. due to my noncompliance with their posting rules. Regardless of my eligibility status for a $1,000.00 reward, __?__ of my Sobibor submittals have been endorsed by Michael Shermer as meeting his own, Skeptic Magazine’s and The Skeptics Society’s expressed and implied standards of proof. Also, to date, the total combined number of skeptical organization members, professional forensic anthropologists, employees of Archaeology Magazine, PHD professors currently teaching forensic anthropology and/or archaeology classes at a university in the United States and members of The American Academy of Forensic Sciences who have publicly and explicitly endorsed my alleged - “proven with 100 % certainty” - Sobibor - “mass graves / buried remains” - “proofs” submitted on The Skeptics Society’s forum is - __?__. Also, to date, the total number of those same alleged - “proven with 100 % certainty” - Sobibor - “mass graves / buried remains” - “proofs” that I submitted for Shermers endorsement that I have been able to get published in Archaeology Magazine is - __?__.
Is it because heshe is too stupid to understand the simple questions? Is it because heshe is mentally ill? Or is it because heshe is nothing more than a pathetic coward who lacks the courage, integrity and character to defend its fraudulently alleged claims?

Or is heshe all of the above?


RM / the mentally ill one:
Apparently I didn't succeed in complying with the creature's imbecilic wording rules, or so the creature claims.
"Or so he claims?"


RM / the mentally ill one:
Forget it. I don't give a fuck... you can stick that money up your ass... Gerdes will be free to invoke non-compliance... No money then? OK, so be it. I couldn't care less... My submission didn't comply with any of the posting rules... If Gerdes wants to use my wording and/or procedure as a pretext to deny reward payment, that's OK with me... No, I didn't fully comply with the rules... Gerdes is going to make a big fuss about my not having followed his rules and thus not being entitled to the money... And I couldn't care less.
http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1401 ... count=2773


What a liar! What a coward!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], blake121666 and 10 guests