Werd wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:15 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:05 am
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.