The logical flaws in denial.

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
blake121666
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by blake121666 »

In searching for records for Treblinka I came across this picture at the Polish wikipedia entry for Treblinka:

Image

Image searching for this picture has it identified as corpses removed from gas chambers at either Treblinka or Sobibor.

I've never come across this picture. There are no pictures of gassed Jews at AR camps. What is this picture?

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
blake121666
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by blake121666 »

PrudentRegret wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:48 pm
blake121666 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:12 pm
What "evidence of shipment of other goods to the camp"?
The "evidence for the shipment of other goods to the camp" refers to the claimed eyewitness account of Samuel Willenberg in Surviving Treblinka. From CODOH:
In his book Surviving Treblinka, witness Samuel Willenberg never mentions firewood in connection with the cremations in the “upper camp.” He speaks of a “woodcutter commando” working inside the camp, splitting tree trunks with axes, and also describes himself and another prisoner having a conversation behind “a large pile of cut logs,” but no deliveries of wood to the “upper camp” are mentioned.[34] Likewise, Willenberg does not report on any transports of wood fuel to Treblinka II from the outside, despite describing in detail transports of other material to the camp.[35] The only kind of fuel mentioned by Willenberg in connection with the cremations – which he did not witness firsthand – is crude oil.[36]

It is worth noting that Glazar and Willenberg contradict each other when describing how the rails used for the “grills” (cremation grates) were procured. When interviewed by Gitta Sereny, Glazar stated that prisoners, possibly including him, were sent “into the countryside to forage for disused rails.”[37] Willenberg on the other hand writes that the rails were delivered to the camp with a train.[38]

Yankiel Wiernik, in his 1944 pamphlet A Year in Treblinka describes constructing stock houses and fences from trees apparently felled in the vicinity of the camp, but never mentions any tree-felling activity in connection with the cremations, which he claims to have witnessed first-hand. Wood is not even mentioned as a fuel by Wiernik.[39]

No tree felling in order to procure wood fuel for cremations is mentioned in Sereny’s book Into that Darkness, which contains alleged transcripts of interviews with Treblinka commandant Franz Stangl as well as statements by the Jewish witnesses Richard Glazar, Berek Rojzman, and Samuel Rajzman.

I have managed to find no testimonial evidence contradicting Glazar’s statement that the firewood used for cremations at Treblinka II was taken from wooded areas in the vicinity of the camp.
CODOH Source, p. 107, 137 of Willenberg's account.
Well here is a Sept. 2, 1944 German aerial photo of the area (T2 is to the right of the rail line - not exactly where pointed to in the picture):

Image

And here is a screen capture from google maps I took just now:

Image

There are an awful lot more trees today than in late '44. That's not to say that there were trees then though.

Roughly figuring 100 lb per corpse and a 1:1 ratio of corpse weight to wood weight (about 1/4 of Mattogno's estimate of your link), 850,000 corpses would require about 42,000 tons of trees. Figure a gallon of the crude oil mentioned in your post to be equivalent to something like 10-20 lb of wood in heat energy. A barrel is 42 gallons. So a barrel of oil would be the heat equivalent of about 420-840 lbs of wood. And so a combination of wood and oil equivalent to 42,000 tons of wood or 1-200,000 barrels of oil is along the lines of what would've been needed.

Your link is using 500 tons wood per hectare. So up to 84 hectares would be required for an all wood cremation. About 1,000 barrels oil for each hectare less than that. For reference, the cleared-out area of T2 as seen in the current google maps image there is about 3 hectares.

PrudentRegret
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:11 pm
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by PrudentRegret »

blake121666 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:26 pm
Roughly figuring 100 lb per corpse and a 1:1 ratio of corpse weight to wood weight (about 1/4 of Mattogno's estimate of your link)
A 1:1 ratio of corpse weight to wood weight is extremely low. Even 2:1, with green wood, is a conservative estimate. There is no way they had time to season the wood for the operation. In any case, I think a better image analysis for estimating the scope of tree felling activity is to compare the 1944 Luftwaffe aerial photographs (left) with a 1936 map of the area (right). Other than the area of the camp site itself, the treeline in the 1944 photograph appears to pretty much resemble the treeline of the 1936 map.

Image

The white boundary on the right image shows the are where trees were felled for the camp site itself.

Looking at more forested areas further away shows a similar result:

Image

The northern most part of the camp is visible on the left photograph. There is evidence of limited tree felling, certainly not enough here to prove an operation at the alleged scale.

They had to have received shipments of wood for the alleged operation to have been physically possible, and I'm not aware of evidence for any such shipments.

Werd
Posts: 10307
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by Werd »

PrudentRegret wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:22 pm
blake121666 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:26 pm
Roughly figuring 100 lb per corpse and a 1:1 ratio of corpse weight to wood weight (about 1/4 of Mattogno's estimate of your link)
A 1:1 ratio of corpse weight to wood weight is extremely low. Even 2:1, with green wood, is a conservative estimate.
Exactly. Mattogno may believe it's 4:1 and he may be wrong on that, but THAT doesn't mean Muehlenkamp, or ANYONE is correct to say 1:1 ratio is accurate! I'm so sick of hearing this 1:1 nonsense.
PrudentRegret wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:22 pm
They had to have received shipments of wood for the alleged operation to have been physically possible, and I'm not aware of evidence for any such shipments.
Oh that doesn't matter. Documents showing shipments to the camp, plus some cremation remains, plus an inability to track all Jews proves the gas chamber holocaust. The documents confirm the witnesses, who corroborate each other and the cremation remains, and the cremation remains confirm the witnesses and the remains and witnesses both don't contradict the documents showing shipments of people to camps. It's all fabulous circular reasoning.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9537
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by been-there »

PrudentRegret wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:22 pm
blake121666 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:26 pm
Roughly figuring 100 lb per corpse and a 1:1 ratio of corpse weight to wood weight (about 1/4 of Mattogno's estimate of your link)
A 1:1 ratio of corpse weight to wood weight is extremely low. Even 2:1, with green wood, is a conservative estimate. There is no way they had time to season the wood for the operation. In any case, I think a better image analysis for estimating the scope of tree felling activity is to compare the 1944 Luftwaffe aerial photographs (left) with a 1936 map of the area (right). Other than the area of the camp site itself, the treeline in the 1944 photograph appears to pretty much resemble the treeline of the 1936 map.

Image

The white boundary on the right image shows the are where trees were felled for the camp site itself.

Looking at more forested areas further away shows a similar result:

Image

The northern most part of the camp is visible on the left photograph. There is evidence of limited tree felling, certainly not enough here to prove an operation at the alleged scale.

They had to have received shipments of wood for the alleged operation to have been physically possible, and I'm not aware of evidence for any such shipments.
Excellent! Thanks for this. :)
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29694
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by Nessie »

Whilst the discussion about wood is off topic, it is an example of how denial is reliant on logical fallacies.

The denier claim is that mass pyres need lots of wood (which is contrary to what witnesses said as they said surprisingly little wood was needed), there is no evidence of mass transports of wood to the camp (there are lots of reasons for that, in particular, no records from TII exist at all, so the records for wood transports disappeared with all the other records), therefore mass pyres were impossible (which ignores the contradictory evidence that they did happen).

None of deniers here understand the irony that, in a thread about their constant use of logical fallacies, they repeatedly use logical fallacies!
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: 8708
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
The denier claim is that mass pyres need lots of wood (which is contrary to what witnesses said as they said surprisingly little wood was needed), there is no evidence of mass transports of wood to the camp (there are lots of reasons for that, in particular, no records from TII exist at all, so the records for wood transports disappeared with all the other records), therefore mass pyres were impossible (which ignores the contradictory evidence that they did happen).
So, "no records" isn't proof that quantities of wood weren't delivered to Treblinka but "lack of records" is proof that the deportees didn't leave Treblinka. Excepting, of course, the "few thousand" who were "selected for work" so they don't count. More consistency from Nessie. I'm sure, though, that Nessie will explain that anyone who points out such inconsistencies is just indulging in a "logical fallacy". So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29694
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:54 am
Nessie wrote:
The denier claim is that mass pyres need lots of wood (which is contrary to what witnesses said as they said surprisingly little wood was needed), there is no evidence of mass transports of wood to the camp (there are lots of reasons for that, in particular, no records from TII exist at all, so the records for wood transports disappeared with all the other records), therefore mass pyres were impossible (which ignores the contradictory evidence that they did happen).
So, "no records" isn't proof that quantities of wood weren't delivered to Treblinka but "lack of records" is proof that the deportees didn't leave Treblinka.
No. You really do not understand! You only look at evidence in isolation and not how it fits with all the other evidence to see what corroborates and what contradicts. What an absence of evidence shows varies depending on the reasons why there is no evidence. There are two main reasons why there is an absence of evidence;

reason 1 - the evidence was destroyed/lost/went missing
reason 2 - there was nothing to evidence in the first place.

That there are no records of wood deliveries is not evidence that there were no wood deliveries, because all of the camp records are missing, presumed destroyed, so how can there be wood delivery records when there are no delivery records at all? The camp was made of wood, it had a railway station for deliveries, so we know that the Nazis had the means to get wood to the camp. The absence of wood transport records is due to reason 1 above.

That there are no records of mass daily departures is part of the evidence that there were no mass daily departures, because there is evidence from witnesses that there were no mass daily departures. The lack of records and witness evidence corroborates, it does not contradict. The lack of records is not proof, it is part of the evidence. The absence of evidence of daily mass transports is due to reason 2 above.
Excepting, of course, the "few thousand" who were "selected for work" so they don't count. More consistency from Nessie. I'm sure, though, that Nessie will explain that anyone who points out such inconsistencies is just indulging in a "logical fallacy". So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
The few thousand selected to work do count and they further evidence that there were no daily mass departures. We can find witnesses for the few thousand selected to work who went to other camps. But we cannot find any witnesses who were on the far larger and more frequent mass daily transports you allege to have happened.

That we can find evidence of the far smaller and less frequent worker transports, but we cannot find evidence of the what would have been far larger and very frequent mass daily transports, logically tells us that the former did happen, but the latter did not.
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: 8708
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by Turnagain »

Of course none of your so-called witnesses saw any trainloads of wood but they don't count. They don't count because...well...just because. Neither do the three trainloads of deportees count either. There was the guy who only spent a few hours at Treblinka before reboarding the train presumably along with the deportees he arrived with, the trainload of women and the trainload of men, women and children all of whom left Treblinka en masse. Of course there's no mention of the deportees mentioned in the USHMM leaving Treblinka accompanied by an unknown number of other deportees but no doubt, they were just "selected for work" too so they don't count.

The fact is you've got your tit in the wringer and are just trying to weasel dodge out of it. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29694
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The logical flaws in denial.

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:51 am
Of course none of your so-called witnesses saw any trainloads of wood but they don't count. They don't count because...well...just because.
Of the few witnesses you have bothered to read, none mention wood transports. So what?
Neither do the three trainloads of deportees count either.
On the contrary, they VERY much count. That is why you are dodging my point as to how there is evidence of the limited smaller transports of workers, but there is no evidence of the, if they had had happened, far more common mass transports of c850,000 you claim were not gassed.
There was the guy who only spent a few hours at Treblinka before reboarding the train presumably along with the deportees he arrived with, the trainload of women and the trainload of men, women and children all of whom left Treblinka en masse.
As you say, he was at "Treblinka" which is three possible camps. Prove he meant TII.
Of course there's no mention of the deportees mentioned in the USHMM leaving Treblinka accompanied by an unknown number of other deportees but no doubt, they were just "selected for work" too so they don't count.
They do count and you cannot explain why there is evidence of those few thousand people selected to work leaving the camp, but there is no evidence of the rest not selected leaving the camp.
The fact is you've got your tit in the wringer and are just trying to weasel dodge out of it. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
Every time you post in this thread, you prove me correct. You have no evidence and instead you rely on logical fallacies. Thank you for constantly proving me correct.
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 15 guests