Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

This board is open for all subject matters. Post information and discussion materials about open-debate and censorship on other boards (including this one) here. Memory Hole 2 is a RODOH subforum for alternate perspectives.
Locked
Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by Roberto »

Lily wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:18 pm
Hilarious, Roberto cites the thoroughly discredited phony Zionist database for this Rothstein that the CODOH Forum has easily debunked. Roberto just pretends it didn't happen.
In the end Roberto got hoisted by his own petard, yet again. :lol:

Then there's Roberto Muehlekamp & Andy Mathis's gay obsession over this 'Hannover' guy. Seriously, while I certainly own Mathis & Muehlnkamp, this 'Hannover' not only owns them, but has them going crazy 24/7, he has them eating out of his hand.
Andy Mathis & Roberto Muehlenkamp really should get new boyfriends. :lol:

And OUCH!!, here's the CODOH Forum's Moderator's recent scolding of Roberto:
Roberto:
You continue to post redundant text, even irrelevant text, all the while you generally ignore what has been posted and the specific challenges put to you.
Please debate in good faith, please review our simple guidelines.
Thanks, M1
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11224

I guess in the end what Mathis & Roberto say here is useless since so very few people actually read their silliness at RODOH anyway; but tons of readers per day read their smackdowns at the CODOH Forum. :lol:
http://forum.codoh.com/index.php

Life is good. :D
More senile shit from cowardly and dishonest CODOH moderator "Lily", not worth a comment.

Meanwhile, I've submitted the posts on the CODOH forum's thread https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11231. Quite surprisingly, both were approved (meaning that Hannover Lily was either drunk and hit the wrong key or was replaced by a moderator with more sense and guts, the latter of which would be great. Just in case the latter is not the case and Hannover changes his mind after recovering from his hangover, I have taken a screenshot of the thread as it looks like.

After reproducing the posted messages, I'll have a look at the silly excuses invoked by "Lily" to disapprove my previous posts.
Roberto wrote:
Hannover wrote:Roberto in response to my questions said:
[,,,] [Responses to questions not quoted, please look them up in my previous post on this thread.]
Hannover wrote:1. The aerial photos show no such thing.
Should one necessarily expect the relatively few air photos taken to show movements of people or vehicles in the direction of the crematoria? Such would only be the case if by coincidence an air photo was taken at a time when there were such movements, or if such movements occurred all day on a day on which one or more air photographs were taken so that an air photo taken at any time of that day would have captured them. The former (coincidence) need not have happened, the latter (constant movement all day) is unlikely to have happened.
Hannover wrote: Of course other inmates would have seen them supposedly go in alive and not come out or according to Roberto, come out dead. Some 'secret' operation that would have been.
Who said that mass extermination could be kept secret from inmates? It could not even be kept secret from the local population. Höss wrote about the problem in the already mentioned notes attached to the autobiography he wrote in Polish captivity (Rudolf Höß: "Die »Endlösung der Judenfrage« im KL Auschwitz", Staatliches Auschwitz-Museum (Hg.), Auschwitz in den Augen der SS. Rudolf Höß, Pery Broad, Johann Paul Kremer. Warszawa: Verlag Interpress, 1992, pp. 75–94):
Schon bei den ersten Verbrennungen im Freien zeigte es sich, daß auf die Dauer dies nicht durchzuführen sei. Bei schlechtem Wetter oder starkem Wind trieb der Verbrennungsgeruch viele Kilometer weit und führte dazu, daß die ganze umwohnende Bevölkerung von den Juden-Verbrennungen sprach, trotz der Gegenpropaganda von Seiten der Partei und Verwaltungsdienststellen. Es waren zwar alle an der Vernichtungsaktion beteiligten SS-Angehörigen besonders streng verpflichtet, über die gesamten Vorgänge zu schweigen. Spätere SS-Gerichtsverhandlungen aber zeigten, daß von Seiten der Beteiligten doch nicht geschwiegen wurde. Auch erhebliche Strafen könnten die Schwatzhaftigkeit nicht verhindern.
My translation:
Already during the first incinerations in the open it became apparent that things could not be done this way in the long run. When there was bad weather or strong wind the smell of burning spread over many kilometers and led to the whole surrounding population talking about the burning of Jews, despite the counterpropaganda by party and administration entities. It is true that all SS-men participating in the extermination action were under especially rigorous obligation to keep silent about these events. However, later SS-trial proceedings showed that the participants didn’t keep silent after all. Even considerable penalties could not impede the chattiness.
And this was Oswald Kaduk at the Franfurt Auschwitz Trial (Herman Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozess, pp. 101f., my translation:
[Langbein:]Anger gets hold of Kaduk when one elegant gentleman after the other, former SS-Obergruppenführer who now can remember nothing anymore, is allowed to leave the witness stand unhindered:
Kaduk: When the ovens were burning there was a darting flame five meters high, which could be seen from the station. The whole station was full of civilians. Nobody said anything. Trains with soldiers on leave were also there. My wife arrived, and I pushed her away. I have no time for you, I told her. Often the trains with soldiers on leave had stopovers at Auschwitz, and the whole station was covered by a smoke screen. The Wehrmacht officers looked out of the window and asked why the smell, so sweet. But none of them had the courage to ask: What is going on here? This is no sugar factory, after all. Why the chimneys?
The Allies also knew. All they had to do was to demolish the railway connection. The thing with the Jews was the greatest of crimes. But unfortunately nobody knew anything. All the Gruppenführer and Obergruppenführer who testified here know nothing anymore. Well, then I say, then the Jews went to Auschwitz on their own free will.
Hannover wrote:2, Indeed the storyline says an SS man stood on top of the crematorium / 'gas chambers' roof and dropped the alleged Zyklon-B into the alleged 'gas chambers'. Of course that would have been in front of the alleged next batch of Jews, thereby seen by them and the camp in general. Some 'secret surprise' that would have been.
I don’t care about any "storyline" (whatever that is supposed to mean), I only care about evidence. That the mass extermination couldn’t be concealed even from the local population let alone "the camp in general" I have already mentioned above. The only ones who didn’t know what was going on were the new arrivals. A scenario in which the "next batch of Jews" might be waiting outside while the previous batch was being gassed might only occur on days on which the number of arriving deportees required more than one gassing cycle per crematorium, and then only if the "next batch of Jews" could not be kept in a secluded part of the camp, from which the crematoria could not be seen, until there was sufficient room in the gas chamber(s). Another defendant at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, Stefan Baretzki, stated that there was such a secluded part of the camp in the summer of 1944, called "Mexiko", during the peak time of gassing and cremation operations at Auschwitz-Birkenau:
Baretzki: Im Sommer 1944 wurden sehr viele Leute nach Auschwitz geschickt. Sie sind alle nach Mexiko hineingeschickt worden; dort gab es keine Verpflegung, kein Licht, und sobald Platz in der Gaskammer war, sind sie von dort in die Gaskammer gekommen. Mexiko, das war offiziell ein Ausweichlager. Tausende sind dort hineingestopft worden.
(Langbein, as above, p. 89.)

My translation:
Baretzki: In the summer of 1944 very many people were sent to Auschwitz. They were all put into Mexiko; there they had no food, no light, and as soon as there was place in the gas chamber, they were sent from there into the gas chamber. Mexiko was officially a reserve camp. Thousands were stuffed in there.
SS-man Pery Broad, in the report that bears his name ("Broad-Bericht ", Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, pp. 95-139) mentioned occasions during the Hungarian operation in the summer of 1944 when the next contingent was taken into the undressing room right after the gas chamber had been emptied from the last contingent, but he did so in connection with crematoria III (IV) and IV (V), in which the gas was introduced not through the roof but through openings on the side of the building, and cremation was not done in cremation ovens one floor above but in open-air pyres behind the crematorium, which meant that the corpses could be removed from the gas chambers more quickly. Broad wrote:
Es ging pausenlos. Man hatte kaum die letzte Leiche aus den Kammern gezogen und über den mit Kadavern übersäten Platz hinter den Krematorien zur Brandgrube geschleift, als schon in der Halle die nächsten zur Vergasung ausgezogen wurden ...
My translation:
It was going on without a break. One had barely dragged the last corpse from the chambers and dragged it over the square covered by corpses to the burning pits behind the crematoria, when in the hall the next in turn were undressed for gassing ...
In crematoria III(IV) and IV(V) operation was probably organized in such a manner that the new arrivals could see neither the introduction of the gas nor the dragging-out of corpses to the burning pits, which took place on the other side of the building. What they would see and smell was the smoke from the burning of corpses behind the crematorium. Also, the next contingent wouldn’t have to be taken from the trains or from "Mexiko" to the crematoria before the previous contingent had been moved to the burning pits. It was all a matter of coordination. According to Broad about 10,000 people per day arrived in the summer of 1944, and the camps roads were crammed with new contingents being taken to the crematoria as the reinforced Sonderkommando inmates feverishly worked to empty the gas chambers. But Broad’s estimate of daily arrivals is exaggerated, as is his estimate whereby a total of about half a million people were exterminated at Birkenau within a few weeks in the summer of 1944. According to Höss (as above) the highest number of people gassed and cremated within 24 hours at Birkenau was about 9,000, and that he stated to have happened only on one single day in which, due to train delays, 5 instead of the expected 3 transports arrived and these were also fuller than usual. But that number is probably also exaggerated. According to Pressac’s calculations (Les Crematoires d’Auschwitz. La Machinerie du Meurt de Masse, Portuguese translation by Editorial Notícias, Lisbon 1993, p. 215), the Birkenau gas chambers, crematoria and open air pyres could kill up to 300,000 people within 70 days with a daily capacity of 3,300, which could be enlarged to 4,300 if necessary, using the following installations:
• Crematorium I(II) and II(III): 1,000 per day each, one single gassing run possible per day.
• Crematorium V - 1,000 to 2,000 per day, two daily gassing runs possible because the block of three gas chambers was ventilated and the cremation was done in open-air pits.
• Bunker 2 - 3,000 per day [the total numbers mentioned above suggest that Pressac meant to say "300" instead of "3,000"), non-ventilated gas chamber and cremation in pits.

Slightly more than 300,000 Hungarian Jews were killed in the late spring and summer of 1944 according to the research of German historians Christian Gerlach and Götz Aly (Das letzte Kapitel, pages 275 ff., 286 ff.) About 425,000 Jews arrived at Auschwitz within 16 May and 11 July 1944 (57 days), of which about 110,000 were selected as laborers according to Gerlach and Aly. The remaining 315,000 were gassed, though not necessarily within those 57 days. The "Mexiko" reserve camp mentioned by Baretzki made it possible to keep arrived non-laborers "in store" until there was enough gassing and cremation capacity for them. Pressac, see above, considers the killing to have been done within 70 days.

The above means that even during the Hungarian Operation, the most intensive killing period at Auschwitz-Birkenau, a scenario in which a next contingent was led to a crematorium before the dead from the previous gassing had been wholly removed from the gas chamber(s) would be a rare occasion, if it happened at all. No such case is held to have happened in crematoria I(II) and II(III), which had only one gassing run per day, so a scenario in which a "next batch" would watch an SS-man pouring Zyklon B into an underground gas chamber is unlikely.

The Hungarian Operation aside, arriving transports were quite manageable with only one gassing run per crematorium, and sometimes without even having to use more than one crematorium, during most days of the camps’s operation. According to a compilation of transports available under http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/ ... t1806.html, the most intensive period bar the Hungarian Operation was between 1 and 6 August 1943, when 25,071 Jews were gassed – about 4,200 per day, requiring Pressac’s enlarged capacity scenario mentioned above, with more corpses being burned in the open if the crematoria were not working at full capacity. As the next transport arrived only on 10.8.1943, gassing and cremation could also be done at a more leisurely pace provided that there was a place in the camp to keep "excess" deportees until there was room for them. Also in this period, however, there would be no more than one gassing per day in each of crematoria I(II) and II(III).
Hannover wrote:3. Yep, the current narrative says about half an hour, but Roberto denies there is an actual narrative. Roberto simply dodges what the story he's tying to defend actually claims.
Problem is that there are 'witnesses' that claim a few minutes, utterly impossible, as is the current laughable narrative.
And how would so called 'witnesses' have known when the alleged 'screaming' stopped? If they knew then those allegedly waiting outside would have known.
The witnesses were SS-men and members of the Sonderkommando, and a scenario of "those waiting outside" was improbable even at peak times, as mentioned above. As to the gassing times, Hannover refers to a "storyline" or "current narrative" as if there were a single generally accepted narrative regarding every detail of the gassing and body disposal process. Actually there are several secondary sources on these subjects, and Hannover has identified none of them. A primary source mentioning a 30-hour period is Rudolf Höss, who in his above-mentioned notes stated that within 20 minutes at maximum after the gas was introduces no one was moving anymore and after 30 minutes the doors were opened and the forced ventilation was turned on.
Hannover wrote:4. Roberto's own previously cited Nyiszli said 20,000 a day. Laughable impossibility
Straw-man, as no historian or court of law based any findings of fact on Nyiszli’s numbers (Höss mentioned 9,000 per day on a single occasion, and even that is probably too high) , and Nyiszli was referred to not as concerns numbers but as concerns the dumping of cremation remains into the Vistula, regarding which he was in all probability right, as he was regarding other details according to Pressac , even if his numbers were widely exaggerated ("The description is entirely accurate, EXCEPT for certain FIGURES which are very WRONG indeed. "AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, p. 473 (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0473.shtml)
Hannover wrote:He has no proof that others were "gassed on occasion".
Actually one such occasion is mentioned in the diary of Dr. Johann Paul Kremer ("Tagebuch Johann Paul Kremer", Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, pp. 140–207.) The entry of 5 September 1942 includes the following information:
Heute mittag bei einer Sonderaktion aus dem F.K.L31 (»Muselmänner«): das Schrecklichste der Schrecken. [Rand: *Truppenarzt] Hschf. Thilo* hat Recht, wenn er mir heute sagte, wir befänden uns hier am anus mundi.
My translation:
Today at noon present at a special action from the F.K.L31 (»Muselmänner«): the horror of horrors. [marginal note * troop doctor Hschf. Thilo* is right when he told me that here we are at the anus mundi.
At his trial in Cracow Höss explained what he had meant in the above diary entry
Besonders unangenehm war die Vergasung von ausgemergelten Frauen aus dem Frauenlager, die allgemein als «Muselmänner» bezeichnet wurden. Ich erinnere mich, dass ich einmal beim Vergasen einer solchen Frauengruppe am Tage teilnahm. Wie gross diese Gruppe war, kann ich nicht angeben. Als ich in die Nähe des Bunkers kam, sassen sie angekleidet auf der Erde: Da sie in abgetragener Lagerkleidung waren, wurden sie nicht in die Ausziehbaracke gelassen, sondern sie zogen sich im Freien aus. Aus dem Benehmen dieser Frauen schloss ich, dass sie sich darüber klar waren, welches Schicksal sie erwartete, da sie bei den SS-Männern um Gnade flehten und weinten; jedoch wurden alle in die Gaskammer gejagt und vergast. Als Anatom hatte ich viele schreckliche Sachen gesehen, ich hatte viel mit Leichen zu tun gehabt, jedoch das, was ich damals sah, liess sich mit nichts vergleichen. Unter den Eindrücken, die ich damals empfing, schrieb ich am 5. 9. 1942 eben in mein Tagebuch: Das Schrecklichste der Schrecken. Hauptscharführer Tilo hat recht, wenn er mir heute sage, wir befänden uns hier am anus mundi, an der «Aftermündung der Welt». Diese Bezeichnung gebrauchte ich deshalb, weil ich mir gar nichts Abscheulicheres und Ungeheuerlicheres vorstellen konnte.
(Quoted under http://www.vho.org/D/atuadh/II24.html)

My translation:
Especially unpleasant was the gassing of emaciated women from the women’s camp, which were generally called «Muselmänner». I remember that I once took part in the gassing of such a group of women during the day. How large this group was I cannot tell. When I came close to the bunker, they were sitting dressed on the ground: as they were in worn-out camp clothing, they were not let inside the undressing barracks, but had to undress in the open. From the behavior of these women I concluded that they were aware of what fate awaited them, as they begged the SS-men for mercy and cried; however they were all chased into the gas chamber and gassed. As an anatomist I have seen many horrible things, had to a lot to do with corpses, but what I saw back then could not be compared with anything. Under the impressions that I got at that time I wrote the following in my diary on 5.9.1942: the horror of horrors. Hauptscharführer Tilo is right when he told me today that here we were at the anus mundi, at the «anus opening of the world». This designation I used because I could not imagine anything more abominable and monstrous.
Hannover wrote:5. Roberto continues to cite the forced 'confessions' & horrific torture of commandant Hoess and the laughable things that Hoess said during his 'interrogations', again, Robert is in denial of the well known torture of Hoess.
In fact he has ignored my citations to that torture.
see: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10182
I’m not saying that Hoess was never tortured. He was, by his British captors in March 1946, an experience he vividly described in his memoirs. But he didn’t mention having been tortured afterwards, and there’s no evidence that he was, especially as concern his period in Polish captivity. My source are notes attached to the autobiography, which were obviously written pursuant to his pre-trial interrogations as they suggest answers to questions. If you claim that Höss was in any way coerced by the Poles, you are hereby challenged to do the following:

a) Provide any evidence for such coercion,

b) Explain why, despite such claimed coercion, Höss had the cheek to tell his captors the following and record it in the aforementioned notes (Rudolf Höß, "Die »Endlösung der Judenfrage« im KL Auschwitz", Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, pp. 75–94):
Ich selbst wußte nie die Gesamtzahl, habe auch keine Anhaltspunkte, um sie wiedergeben zu können.

Es sind mir lediglich noch die Zahlen der größeren Aktionen in Erinnerung, die mir wiederholt von Eichmann oder dessen Beauftragten genannt worden waren.

Aus Oberschlesien und GG [Generalgouvernement] 250000

Deutschland und Theresienstad 100000

Holland 95000

Belgien 20000

Frankreich 110000

Griechenland 65000

Ungarn 400000

Slowakei 90000


Die Zahlen der kleineren Aktionen sind mir nicht mehr in Erinnerung, sie waren aber im Vergleich zu obigen Zahlen unbedeutend.

Ich halte die Zahl 2½ Millionen für viel zu hoch. Die Möglichkeiten der Vernichtung hatten auch in Auschwitz ihre Grenzen. Die Zahlenangaben ehemaliger Häftlinge sind Phantasiegebilde und entbehren jeder Grundlage.
My translation:
I myself never knew the total number, and also have no indications that would enable me to reproduce it.

I only recall the numbers of the larger actions, which were repeatedly mentioned to me by Eichmann or his representative.

From Upper Silesia und GG [General Government] 250,000

Germany and Theresienstadt 100,000

Holland 95,000

Belgium 20,000

France 110,000

Greece 65,000

Hungary 400,000

Slovakia 90,000


The numbers of the smaller actions I no longer recall, but they were insignificant in comparison with the above numbers.

I consider the number 2½ million to be much too high. The possibilities of extermination had their limits even in Auschwitz. Numbers stated by former inmates are products of fantasy and lack any foundation.
(Emphasis added.)

The partial figures mentioned by Höss add up to 1,130,000, a number considerably lower than the 2.5 million he claimed at Nuremberg, not to mention the 4 million claimed by a Soviet investigation commission, which had official status in Poland until the fall of the Iron Curtain. What is most important, however, is that Höss dismissed numbers stated by former inmates as "products of fantasy" that "lack any foundation". By "former inmates" he obviously meant inmates interrogated by the Poles, such as Henryk Tauber (Pressac, as above p. 501, http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0501.shtml) - with whose testimonies (conforming with the aforementioned Soviet investigation commission's estimate) he was probably confronted.

My questions to you are the following:

If - as you seem to be claiming - Höss was coerced or otherwise pressured by his Polish interrogators, why did he not obligingly confirm the 4 million figure they would have wanted him to confirm, or at least the 2.5 million figure he had stated at Nuremberg? Why did he openly challenge the credibility of figures suggested by his interrogators, even to the point of dismissing the four million figure stated by Tauber and others as a product of fantasy?

Please explain this obvious contradiction between your claim of coercion and Höss' everything-other-than-obliging statements quoted above.
Hannover wrote:Roberto is in denial of the current narrative is that up to 2000 were 'gassed ' per batch. yet he tries to defend the current narrative. Funny stuff.
I’m not in denial of anything, I just consider it unreasonable to assume that so-and-so-many Jews per "batch" were gassed at all times during the camp’s operation. How many were gassed depended on how many transports arrived on a given day or over a given number of days. If the number exceeded the capacity of one crematorium’s gas chamber(s) (or, more importantly, the daily capacity of the respective cremation ovens, which was the bottleneck in mass extermination) , gas chamber(s) of one of more other crematoria would be used. However, as the mentioned list of transports shows, there were also many days in which the number of gassed deportees was well below 2,000, or even below 1,000. Plus there were many days on which no transports arrived, and on which a backlog from earlier transports could be processed. Examples:

2.2.43 Oranczyce (Pj 105) 1265 Jews (866 gassed)
2.2.43 Theresienstadt 1001 Jews (783 gassed)
4.2.43 Westerbork 890 Jews (790 gassed)
4.2.43 Berlin (Da 15) 1000 Jews (713 gassed)
5.2.43 Zamosc (Po 65) 1000 Jews (417 gassed)
11.2.43 Westerbork 1184 Jews (1005 gassed)
11.2.43 Drancy (46. Tpt) 1000 Jews (832 gassed)
13.2.43 Drancy
(47. Tpt) 998 Jews (802 gassed)
15.2.43 Drancy
(48. Tpt) 1000 Jews (689 gassed)
18.2.43 Westerbork 1108 Jews (847 gassed)
20.2.43 Berlin 1000 Jews (775 gassed)
23.2.43 Breslau 1000 Jews (994 gassed)
25.2.43 Westerbork 1101 Jews (1014 gassed)
27.2.43 Berlin 913 Jews (651 gassed)

So putting a fixed number on the people gassed "per batch" makes no sense. The size of each "batch" depended on the size of the transport(s) that arrived on a given day. On 11.2.1943, for instance, the 1,005 arrivals from Westerbork might be gassed while the 832 from Drancy had not yet arrived or were undergoing the selection process. If the gas chamber in which the former "batch" had been gassed was not yet available when their successors had undergone the selection process because the bodies had not yet been removed (which took a long time), the 832 from the latter "batch" would be directed to another gas chamber.
Hannover wrote:6. Oh my. Supposedly up to 2000 corpses, a few at a time, were placed on ONE 4 ft. X 9 ft. hand drawn elevator and hoisted above to the typhus abatement crematorium. This would have taken hours / days to accomplish and simply blows away the alleged batch times & rates.
Yes, it took hours to remove the corpses from the underground gas chambers of crematoria I(II) and II(III). Days I don’t think, and I don’t know of any evidence in that direction (if Hannover thinks there is, he is hereby challenged to show it by quoting from a primary source, e.g. an eyewitness testimony). That was one of the reasons why, as pointed out by Pressac, neither of these crematoria could do more than one gassing run per day – unlike crematorium IV(V) during the Hungarian Operation and on other occasions when corpses were burned in the open.
Hannover wrote:Roberto still ignores the claims that copses were allegedly piled up outside, not seen in the aerial photos
Who exactly (meaning what primary or secondary source) "alleges" that bodies were "piled up outside" (which obviously refers to the times when open-air cremation complemented the cremation ovens)? The available photographs, shown on pp. of 422 of Pressac’s AUSCHWITZ Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0422.shtml), don’t show any piled-up bodies, as opposed to bodies lying side by side on the ground. And assuming that bodies were piled up, please explain why they should be visible on air photographs. Would they be so silhouetted against the ground on which they were piled up that a photo taken from several thousand meters above would necessarily show them, and that even where there was smoke from the open-air cremation sites? And what are such piled-up bodies supposed to look like on air photographs? Please explain.
Hannover wrote:7. Again Roberto ignores the fact that the storyline says that corpses were piled up outside for everyone to see.
Again, what "storyline" are we talking about? What primary or secondary source? Where exactly are the bodies supposed to have been piled up? If behind crematorium IV(V) or at the "bunkers" reactivated during the Hungarian Operation, who (other than the SS and the Sonderkommando prisoners) is supposed to have seen them there, and why so?
Hannover wrote:8. The ventilation method would have been impossible because the vents in the crematorum alleged to be 'gas chambers' were at the bottom of the crematorium, they would have been blocked by the alleged masses of corpses.
Here we go:
Image
What the 'gas chambers' supposedly looked like upon completion of the alleged 'gassings'.
Try 'venting' that from below.
Ventilation may have been difficult if the bodies were piled up filling the whole chamber as in the model shown. But that was rarely if ever the case. Höss wrote that the gas chambers of crematoria I(II) and II(III) were never filled to capacity because the transports were not that strong. Pressac, see above, considers a gassing run of no more than 1,000 per day (corresponding to the daily capacity of the cremation ovens) even during the Hungarian Operation. Tauber’s description of his first view of a gas chamber after a gassing also doesn’t suggest that the chamber was filled to capacity:
We found heaps of naked bodies, doubled up. They were pinkish, and in places red. Some were covered with greenish marks and saliva ran from their mouths. Others were bleeding from the nose. There was excrement on many of them. I remember that a great number had their eyes open and were hanging on to one another. The bodies were most crushed together round the door. By contrast, there were less around the wire mesh columns. The location of the bodies indicated that the people had tried to get away front the columns and get to the door.
(Pressac, Auschwitz, p. 489, http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0489.shtml)

The fact that there were less bodies around the wire mesh columns and the bodies were most "crushed" together round the door doesn’t exactly suggest a gas chamber filled to capacity. Upon realizing that they were meant to be gassed those who hadn’t succumbed already would move towards the door and try to get out. They wouldn’t move towards the gas chamber’s walls (where the ventilation openings were installed) unless there was no room for them to move elsewhere. But this obviously not the case on the occasion described by Tauber, and also need not have been the case on any other occasion.
Hannover wrote:Roberto tries to deflect from the current storyline which says that an SS man on the roof lifted still out-gassing cyanide containers from inside the alleged gas chambers .... thereby releasing the gas which would have been a massive danger to those allegedly waiting, and people at the site in general. Some surprise operations those would have been.
Again the unidentified "current storyline".

The theory that still out-gassing Zyklon B pellets were removed from the underground gas chambers to streamline the process goes back to three witnesses IIRC, Michal Kula (whose account Pressac’s drawing on page 487 of Auschwitz - http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0487.shtml - is based on), Henryk Tauber (as before, p. 484, http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0484.shtml) and Josef Erber (quoted in the article under http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... o-columns/, which contains some mistaken assumptions as concerns the configuration and function of the Zyklon B introduction columns in the underground gas chambers) .

As to the notion of a "massive danger" that the Zyklon B out-gassing in the open would have posed to the SS-men withdrawing the pellets' recipient (who would have worn gas masks) and to people at the site in general (what people are supposed to have been at the site of the crematoria when such withdrawal took place?), it is based on a misconception of how cyanide gas behaves in the open. As can be read under https://web.archive.org/web/20041020040 ... d/AC.shtml, the French used cyanide gas a chemical weapon during the First World War, but found it to be rather ineffective:
Its poisonous properties led to its early consideration as a chemical warfare agent, but during the First World War, hydrogen cyanide was employed only occasionally, primarily by the French. who dubbed it Forestite. Because of its high vapor pressure and low vapor density it tended to dissipate rapidly, and its low flash point meant that it would often (about half the time) ignite when released from artillery shells, limiting its military effectiveness. The French attempted to produce hydrogen cyanide-containing mixtures that would be more persistent, and so more useful. The best known of these is probably Vincennite, which was a mixture of 50% hydrogen cyanide with the smoke producers arsenic trichloride (30%) and stannic chloride (15%) along with chloroform as a stabilizer. Despite their best efforts, however, they were never able to produce a hydrogen cyanide munition that answered the needs of the period, and in a war in which the chemical industries of the world strained to produce enough deadly chemicals, usage of hydrogen cyanide was a relatively paltry 4000 tons.
(Emphases added.)

The above quote doesn’t exactly suggest that cyanide gas is very dangerous outside closed spaces.
Hannover wrote:9. Roberto continues to change the very narrative that he tries to defend.
As state, the storyline says (in order to meet the time lengths claimed) that the next batch was waiting outside while the alleged 'gassing' operations were underway.
Again, what "storyline" are we talking about? What primary or secondary source(s)? As explained above, there was no reason for a "next batch" to be waiting outside while the previous "batch" was gassed. No would there be any reason to hurry up the gassings, which were the easy part of the process (the difficult part was the bodies’ removal and cremation). And such "waiting outside" would not have been necessary where a day’s arrivals could be processed by one or several gas chambers in one run, and neither possible where further transports arrived hours after the one currently being "processed" and the deportees had to undergo the selection process first.
Hannover wrote:Roberto forgot that he claims that Jews actually heard those inside 'screaming', meaning they were in very close approximation.
I don’t remember having read claims that Jews meant for gassing heard those inside "screaming" (at least as concerns Auschwitz-Birkenau; at Treblinka this is reported to have happened), so again the question is warranted what primary or secondary source claims this. Such source would not be realistic in this respect anyway, for the reasons explained above. The only ones who would hear screaming inside the gas chambers at AB, bar evidence to the contrary, were the Sonderkommando prisoners and SS men supervising their work.
Hannover wrote:10. The usual false strawman argument from Roberto.
I have never seen a correct straw-man argument, and the way Hannover’s question was formulated ("Why don't the very real aerial photos of time show the claimed gassings in progress? ") invited the answer I provided.
Hannover wrote:No one says the aerials can show what occurs inside a structure, but they do not show anything that is alleged. The alleged occurrences would necessarily have been visible, IF they had actually happened.
We do not see actual corpses as alleged, we do not see lines of people as alleged, we do not see flaming chimneys as alleged; but we do see obvious amateur hour tampering with the photos, one even has 'marching Jews' drawn in on a rooftop.
I’ve never quite understood why what is claimed to have been necessarily visible on air photographs should have been necessarily visible on air photographs. Hannover is hereby challenged to provide a consistent demonstration that what he claims would have been viewable would necessarily have been viewable on the comparatively few air photos that were taken during the period in question. This applies especially to the movement of people towards the crematoria, which I think would be seen as thin lines on the road leading to the crematoria at best. As argued above, the capture of such lines would be visible on air photographs only due to a coincidence, unless such movements of people were going on throughout all daylight hours on the day a photograph was taken, which was hardly the case.
Hannover wrote:see here:
Image
and:
'Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt'
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html
and:
'Altered Aerial Photos and the Shadows of Doom'
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3249
and:
Air Photo Evidence
https://archive.org/details/AirPhotoEvidenceAuschwitz

I also refer our readers to this CODOH Forum link for further debunking of Roberto and those like him:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ues#p83723
If Hannover can refer our readers to Revisionist articles or forum discussions as concerns the air-photo issue (which I rather consider a non-issue), then I can also refer our readers to assessments of the issue by my fellow blogger Hans Metzner, who has posted here under his first name, knows a lot more about Auschwitz than I do and addressed the air photo (non-) issue in articles available under the following links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ation.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ce-on.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... sance.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... kenau.html

The second of these articles, if I understood correctly, addresses John Ball’s "marching on the rooftop" claims.
Roberto wrote:
Mortimer wrote:Roberto - As you believe that gassings occurred at Auschwitz can you give a brief explanation as to why you don't consider the Rudolf Report to be credible ?
https://shop.codoh.com/book/55/55
First of all, I don't believe. I accept what becomes apparent from conclusive evidence.

Second, if you want to know why the Rudolf Report is worthless in a nutshell, the reason is that he didn't provide the proof incumbent upon him that, considering all that is known about gassings of human beings in Birkenau crematoria as opposed to disinfestation gassings, Prussian Blue would necessarily have formed on the walls of the homicidal gas chambers.

As concerns the details, there was a long discussion about this issue in 2007 between me and a former Revisionist who posted here as "Wahrheit". I'm currently reproducing this discussion on another forum. If you are interested in reading this discussion, feel free to send me a PM.
Mortimer wrote:Anti revisionists who have critiqued the Leuchter Report often point out that Fred Leuchter was not a registered engineer. If this is a problem then what is wrong with The Luftl Report ? Walter Luftl was a registered engineer, expert court witness and president of the Austrian engineer's association -
http://codoh.com/library/document/2383/
That's great, but did he provide the proof that Rudolf failed to provide (see above)? That would be new to me, but I'm always open to learning something new.
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).


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


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

Re: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by Roberto »

The post reproduced below was disapproved on the following pretexts:
Post disapproved: "Roberto Muehlnkamp's excuse for the lack of human remains at Auschwitz blows up in his face."

Reason: The message contains links to illegal or pirated software. still haven't produced requested report ignored contents of posts trying to deny your own references repeating yourself post saved this comment saved.
"links to illegal or pirated software:
The post contains links to
a) Pressac's book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, as reproduced by The Holocaust History Project and recreated in pdhn
b) WorldCat (http://www.worldcat.org/title/kommandan ... lc/2766879, http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Auschw ... umber_link)
c) The webpage of the Polish company Chemkop Laborgeo (http://www.laborgeo.krakow.pl/eng/about.html.
None of these pages is or uses "Illegal or pirated software", as far as I know. The link mentioned under c) was earlier provided by "Hannover" himself.

"still haven't produced the requested report":
Meaning the Hydrokop report about soil prospections in the Auschwitz-Birkenau area carried out in 1965, which is kept by the Auschwitz Museum and has never yet been made available to the public (only two or three pages have been according to "Revisionists"). So apparently the moderator expects me to do magic and conjure up on the fly a document that is not publicly available. Which suggests that the moderator is lacking not only guts but also brains.

"ignoring contents of posts"
A downright falsehood, as I have addressed every one of Hannover's arguments. And even if I had not, that would be my business and a reason for my opponent to criticize me, but what fuck has the moderator got to do with that?

"trying to deny your own references"
Another downright lie. My references are the primary sources I mentioned (the accounts of Nyiszli and Höss as concerns disposal of cremation remains into the Vistula), and of course I haven't "denied" these. Neither have I denied the existence of the sources invoked by "Hannover" in support of his "ash pond" act. What I did was to state that those are secondary sources at best and thus irrelevant unless backed up by a primary source. "Hannover" may want the articles/photographs he made a fuss about to be my sources, but it's not he who gets to determine what my sources are. And again, even if I denied my own references, that would be a fallacy my opponent could use against me, but it's not the moderator's business.

"repeating yourself"
The posts contains elements of an earlier disapproved post (reproduced under viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2978#p109543) but it differs considerably from that posts as arguments have been refined and further evidence (especially as concerns the independence of Nyiszli's and Höss's accounts from each other) has been added. Besides, how can I repeat myself if the post previously submitted hasn't been published? With this remark the moderator has again shown that he has manure where other people have brains. And again, if I repeated myself, and unless such repetition had the character of spamming (like the multi-colored, multi-sized questions that one of RODOH's posters spams the forum with), why would such repetition (if it existed) be the moderator's business?

Moderator "Hannover" seems to have forgotten about one of his own guidelines
Posts by new or infrequent participants will be spam checked by the Moderator before
they appear on the Forum. They will not be censored for on topic opinions they present.
(Emphasis added).

Moderator "Hannover" is doing just that: censoring post on account of on-topic opinions presented therein (note the telling use of the term "censored", which must have been a Freudian slip).

The actual reasons why Hannover disapproved this posts (as opposed to the flimsy pretexts he invoked to justify his disapproval) are quite obviously the following:
1. He had his ass handed to him on a plate regarding his claim that Nyiszli and Höss were not witnesses independent of each other.
2. He was challenged how the claim that Höss was tortured by the Poles can be reconciled ith the fact that Höss made rather un-obliging, even arrogant statements during his pre-trial interrogations, a challenge he cannot meet.
3. He was challenged to provide a primary source (at least one eyewitness testimony) in support of his "ash pond" act, which he hasn't yet been able to find.
Roberto wrote:
Hannover wrote:As expected, Roberto has dodged the statements by Nyiszli which debunk every thing he says Auschwitz.
ex:
Roberto said:
The figure I accept is slightly below one million.
Yet his very own Nyiszli said 6,000,000 were killed at Auschwitz.
Which is as irrelevant as any death toll estimate by any witness that is not in accordance with or even contradicted by documentary and/or physical evidence. What is the source of your claim about Nyiszli's figure, by the way? Is it the 1946 publication of Nyiszli's account in the Hungarian language, or is it the first translation of that account, into French by Tibère Kremer, referred to by Pressac (see below)?
Hannover wrote:Roberto said:
I remember there's a drawing by Olère showing the wooden logs used to crush the remains. But weren't we talking about what was done with the remains after crushing?
So the Germans organized a 'log bone crushing' parties everyday to make dust out of dead countless Jews? Seriously?
No such sights on the aerial photos.
Laughable, to say the least.
Please explain why bone-crushing teams should be visible on air photos. Is the resolution of these photos so good that it would allow seeing people on the ground even if they are not darker shapes contrasted on the photo against a brighter ground on which they are standing or doing something? Even if that were so, there are only a few air photos taken, and each of them captured only a split second of events in the camp below. So unless bone-crushing teams were active in the open throughout all daylight hours on every single day in the period in which air photos were taken, it would be a matter of coincidence whether they are visible or not on an air photo.
Hannover wrote:And this is the same liar Olere that Roberto cited also who drew this:
Image
Which depicts an impossible 'flaming crematorium, hell on earth' scene, as I stated previously.
Never seen in the aerial photos.
"Never seen on aerial photos" doesn't exclude the possibility that it happened on occasion, e.g. if there were some problems with the chimney, If so, it is possible that Olère was highly impressed by a phenomenon he occasionally observed and thus wanted to depict that phenomenon in one of this drawings. So unless you can rule out the possibility that flames ever came out of the chimney, there's no basis for assuming that Olère indulged in some embellishment here. And even if he had, that wouldn't change the fact that other drawings of his show details that are also mentioned by other witnesses, and neither exclude the possibility of his bone-crushing picture being accurate.
Hannover wrote:Roberto said:
Anyway, whatever it was that Nyiszli got wrong, it doesn't change the fact that his testimony concurs with that of Höss as concerns the disposal of cremation remains into the Vistula. The possibility that one knew about the other's testimony can be safely ruled out, so here we have two independent testimonies mentioning a method to get rid of cremation remains that wouldn't leave many such remains on site. This renders Hannover's comments about the "ash pond" irrelevant bar eyewitness testimonies mentioning such pond.
Only with the 'holocau$t' scam does easily debunking a major part it count as being 'irrelevant'. :lol:
An "ash pond" that is not mentioned by eyewitnesses is no "major part" of anything. So if you claim a contradiction between the "ash pond" and the testimonies of Nyiszli and Höss, you must provide at least one eyewitness testimony according to which cremation remains were only or also dumped into an "ash pond". You are hereby challenged to either provide such eyewitness testimony or drop your "ash pond" argument.
Hannover wrote:"Independent" not.
Why, is there any evidence that Höss knew about Nyiszli's testimony and/or vice-versa, or that Höss war confronted with Nyiszli's testimony during any interrogation? I don't think this was the case for two reasons:

1. Nyiszli's eyewitness account was published only in 1946 (the same year in which Höss wrote his autobiography), and then only in the Hungarian language and obviously in Hungary. The first translation of this account seems to have been a translation into French by Tibère Kremer, published in 1973 (Jean-Claude Pressac, AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers , p. 473, online under http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 473.shtml ). So it's extremely unlikely that Höss or his interrogators should have been aware of that Nyiszli had written.

2. The autobiography of Rudolf Höss and the notes attached thereto seem to have been made available by the Poles only in 1958, which was the year in which the first edition of Kommandant in Auschwitz. Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen der Rudolf Höss, edited by Martin Broszat, was published. See also the WorldCat information under http://www.worldcat.org/title/kommandan ... lc/2766879. The earliest publication of the collection Konzentrations-Lager Auschwitz in den Augen der SS or KL Auschwitz in den Augen der SS: Höss, Broad, Kremer (title later changed to Auschwitz in den Augen der SS) occurred in 1973, according to a WorldCat search for "Auschwitz in den Augen der SS" (http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Auschw ... umber_link). So it's extremely unlikely that Nyszli should have been aware of Höss' writings when he wrote his eyewitness account, first published in 1946.

However, if you think there is any evidence that Höss was aware of Nyszli's account and/or vice versa, you are hereby challenged to provide such evidence.

In case you should not be able to provide such evidence, you are challenged to at least provide evidence that both Höss' and Nyszli's account were based on a common source, namely regarding the detail here in question (the dumping of cremation remains into the Vistula).

In case you can provide neither, I ask you to drop your claim that Höss' and Nyiszli's accounts are not independent of each other.
Hannover wrote:There was no problem in getting Hoess to say whatever the 'Allies wanted, torture works like a charm. Off topic to this thread, but see here for demolition of the Hoess's' forced 'testimony':

'How to explain Rudolf Höss' Nuremberg testimony'
forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10182
I was not referring to Höss' Nuremberg testimony but to notes attached to his autobiography, which he wrote in Polish captivity obviously after pre-trial interrogations by his captors (this because the wording of said notes suggests answers to questions). If you claim that Höss was in any way coerced by the Poles, you are hereby challenged to do the following:
a) provide any evidence for such coercion,
b) explain why, despite such claimed coercion, Höss had the cheek to tell his captors the following and record it in the aforementioned notes (Rudolf Höß, "Die »Endlösung der Judenfrage« im KL Auschwitz", Staatliches Auschwitz-Museum (Hg.), Auschwitz in den Augen der SS.
Rudolf Höß, Pery Broad, Johann Paul Kremer
, Warszawa: Verlag Interpress, 1992, ppl 75–94):
Ich selbst wußte nie die Gesamtzahl, habe auch keine Anhaltspunkte, um sie wiedergeben zu können.

Es sind mir lediglich noch die Zahlen der größeren Aktionen in Erinnerung, die mir wiederholt von Eichmann oder dessen Beauftragten genannt worden waren.

Aus Oberschlesien und GG [Generalgouvernement] 250000

Deutschland und Theresienstad 100000

Holland 95000

Belgien 20000

Frankreich 110000

Griechenland 65000

Ungarn 400000

Slowakei 90000


Die Zahlen der kleineren Aktionen sind mir nicht mehr in Erinnerung, sie waren aber im Vergleich zu obigen Zahlen unbedeutend.

Ich halte die Zahl 2½ Millionen für viel zu hoch. Die Möglichkeiten der Vernichtung hatten auch in Auschwitz ihre Grenzen. Die Zahlenangaben ehemaliger Häftlinge sind Phantasiegebilde und entbehren jeder Grundlage.
My translation:
I myself never knew the total number, and also have no indications that would enable me to reproduce it.

I only recall the numbers of the larger actions, which were repeatedly mentioned to me by Eichmann or his representative.

From Upper Silesia und GG [General Government] 250,000

Germany and Theresienstadt100,000

Holland 95,000

Belgium 20,000

France 110,000

Greece 65,000

Hungary 400,000

Slovakia 90,000


The numbers of the smaller actions I no longer recall, but they were insignificant in comparison with the above numbers.

I consider the number 2½ million to be much too high. The possibilities of extermination had their limits even in Auschwitz. Numbers stated by former inmates are products of fantasy and lack any foundation.
(Emphasis added.)

The partial figures mentioned by Höss add up to 1,130,000, a number considerably lower than the 2.5 million he claimed at Nuremberg, not to mention the 4 million claimed by a Soviet investigation commission, which had official status in Poland until the fall of the Iron Curtain. What is most important, however, is that Höss dismissed numbers stated by former inmates (by which he obviously meant inmates interrogated by the Poles, such as Henryk Tauber (Pressac, as above p. 501, http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0501.shtml), with whose testimonies (conforming with the aforementioned Soviet investigation commission's estimate) he was probably confronted, as "products of fantasy" that "lack any foundation". My questions to you are the following:

If - as you seem to be claiming - Höss was coerced or otherwise pressured by his Polish interrogators, why did he not obligingly confirm the 4 million figures they would have wanted him to confirm, or at least the 2.5 million figure he had stated at Nuremberg? Why did he openly challenge the credibility of figures suggested by his interrogators, even to the point of dismissing the four million figure stated by Tauber and others as a product of fantasy?

Please explain this obvious contradiction between your claim of coercion and Höss' everything-other-than-obliging statements quoted above.
Hannover wrote:Roberto dodges again:
What "contradictions"? The sources referred to by Hannover are secondary sources at best. Nyiszli and Hoess are primary sources, so what they said counts for more than what is claimed by any secondary source. If there were eyewitnesses who mentioned an "ash pond" as the main destination of cremation remains, we could talk about contradictions.
IOW, the official Auschwitz Theme Park citation I gave just doesn't count, the actual photos just don't count, the NY Times just doesn't count, so called "Auschwitz survivors" just don't count .... to Roberto that is.
Only the religious fail to see what is right before their eyes.
I am not "dodging". I am arguing that secondary sources count for very little if anything unless they are backed up by primary sources, which in this case would be eyewitness testimonies stating that cremation remains were only or also dumped into an "ash pond". Being religious implies accepting claims that are not supported by evidence. I'm doing the exact opposite.
Hannover wrote:Here's another challenge to Roberto. He said:
Regarding cremation remains found in the former camp's soil, my source is Piper, as above, note 39 on page 179:
"In 1965, Hydrokop, a chemical mining enterprise based in Krakow, was commissioned by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum to carry out geological tests at Birkenau aimed at determining the locations of incineration pits and pyres. Specialists of Hydrokop bored 303 holes up to 3 m deep. Traces of human ashes, bones, and hair turned up in 42 sites. Documentation of all the holes and the diagrams of their distribution are preserved in the Conservation Department of the Museum."
No surprise here, Roberto is citing another fraud.
At the 'Hydrokop' website:
http://www.laborgeo.krakow.pl/eng/about.html
There is no mention of this alleged Auschwitz 'Hydrokop' Report. It would be a big deal IF it true.
I don't think this is a pertinent argument, as the current successor company of Hydrokop, Chemkop-Laborgeo, would hardly see any advantage in mentioning a reference more than 50 years old (public tenders I have seen require references no older than 5 years), moreover one of a predecessor entity, and one that would also be of no interest to current potential customers.

A more pertinent argument, which I would make in your place, is the following:

On the webpage http://www.laborgeo.krakow.pl/eng/about.html it is stated that the company's roots "go back to Hydrokop Experimental Station established in 1967". What was the "Hydrokop Experimental Station"? Was it an experimental station created or installed by a company named Hydrokop? Or was it the full name of the company Hydrokop, which in this case would only have been founded in 1967, meaning that it could not have carried out in 1965 the prospection mentioned by Piper? This is something worth clarifying, and I shall contact Chemkop-Laborgeo to find out.
Hannover wrote:The 'Hydrokop Report' is a fraud. If it had any merit at all we would be seeing it, not merely hearing about it. If it had any merit we would find it readily available.
I don't think that is so. Many detailed reports about all sorts of investigations are not made available to the public but rather kept in archives that may make them available to persons interested in the details of such reports. This is also due to the fact that the contents of a longer technical paper or a report about a geological prospection will hardly be read let alone understood by the public, which is only interested in the final results of such work, if at all.
Hannover wrote:So Roberto, produce your claimed Auschwitz 'Hydrokop Report'.
No dodging.
I'm not "dodging". I hereby accept the challenge to produce the Hydrokop Report, which is not "my" claimed report but a report mentioned in an article by Polish historian Franciszek Piper, who provides information about where the report can be found. I shall as soon as possible write to the Auschwitz Museum requesting a copy of the full report, and if the museum should comply with my request I shall provide for a translation at my own expense (I presume the report is written in Polish language) and post that translation, along with a digital copy of the report.

Please understand, however, that it is not reasonable to expect that I produce the report right away, as it is not publicly available and no one seems to have so far succeeded (assuming that corresponding requests were made) in obtaining the complete report from the Auschwitz Museum.
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: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by Roberto »

The post reproduced below was disapproved on the following pretexts:
Post disapproved: "Challenge to supporters of the "transit camp" theory"

Reason: The reported message does not fit into any other category, please use the further information field. still not showing requested remains at alleged mass grave sites still not giving requested names for specific camps ignoring posted information.
So let's see:

"still not showing requested remains at alleged mass grave sites":
Fist of all, mass graves are a topic that has nothing to do on a thread about the existence or non-existence of evidence regarding a massive resettlement in the "Russian East" that "Revisionists" claim to have occurred. Bringing up mass graves in this context is an obvious attempt to change the subject and derail the thread,
Second, "Hannover" didn't even demand to be "shown" (whatever that is supposed to mean) remains at the mass grave sites of Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka. His question, which I answered precisely, was "Where are the claimed mass graves for Roberto's "Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka"?". If "Hannover" had written some crap like "show me the mass graves", I would have led him to all evidence regarding these mass graves that I'm aware of, including all related photographs that are in public domain. I'll do just that when resubmitting the post, in order to forestall this lame excuse. Needless to say, my not having "shown" what he didn't even demand is not one of Hannover's reasons for disapproving the post. The reason in this context is my challenge to him to demonstrate the judicial relevance of his demand in a hypothetical trial before a demanding court of law in a democratic country, a challenge he cannot meet.

"still not giving requested names for specific camps":
Now this is really a hoot. "Hannover" is not able to provide one single name with proof that would match my challenge and support his "transit camp" theory, yet he demands that I provide (moreover on an internet forum) the names of all ca.1.5 million people that were deported to the Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka. This is further evidence that the fellow has manure inside of brains inside his skull.

What I did was to refer him to two databases, the Yad Vashem database and the German Federal Archives database (the latter regarding German Jews only), where he can find names of people deported to these camps whose identity has been established (the identity of many deportees remains unknown). And I asked him why, considering that the German Federal Archives alone managed to establish the names of at least over 10,000 German Jews who died at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór or Treblinka, "Revisionists" have not been able to establish the name of even one single Jews supposedly transported from these places to the "Russian East". A question he can obviously not answer, which is another reason why he doesn't want this post to see the light of day.

"ignoring posted information"
Another filthy lie. I addressed each and every one of "Hannover's" points. I challenged his "Jews went where Jews are", etc. BS, demanding that he substantiate it by evidence. I explained to him in detail the criteria according to which a Jews is considered a survivor, in response to his question why there are "so many" survivors. I explained to him why the "evidence" invoked by Mattogno, Graf and Kues to support their "transit camp" pipe dream is no evidence at all, or why it is evidence so poor and inconclusive that "Revisionists" would (in this case rightly) throw it out of the window if the Holocaust narrative were based on it. I provided a quote from Jürgen Graf in which he admitted that he and his peers were "unable to produce German wartime documents about the destination and the fate of the deportees", which is a declaration of bankruptcy. And I busted "Hannover"'s canard about Mr. Rothstein, the only name that "Revisionists" have so far been able to produce in support of their "transit camp" theory.

So I didn't ignore posted information, but addressed it in a manner that was all two comfortable for "Hannover" (especially the last two points). Hence his panicked disapproval and the lame excuses invoked to justify it.

When I come back (it's a wonderful day outside) I will submit complaints in the above sense (worded a little more politely) to the CODOH moderator regarding this disapproved post and the previous one. Just for the fun of it.
Roberto wrote:
Hannover wrote:Oh yawn, Roberto's "challenge" is so yesterday's newspaper.
I don't think so, as no Revisionist has yet provided a single name that would comply with the challenge - even though Revisionists should be wading in such names, for the reasons explained in my OP.
Hannover wrote:Often the most ridiculous, illogical questions are best answered in the most direct manner:
If Jews are so sure that millions of Jews were murdered, then why do they ask such dumb questions like "what happened to them"?
This is just the old 'If the Jews were not gassed, then where did they go?' canard.
First of all, it's not "Jews" but historians and criminal investigators, largely if not mostly non-Jewish and largely German.

Second, the reason for the challenge is not that anybody has reasonable doubts (I don't consider Revisionist "doubts" reasonable) about the factuality of events that are borne out by all available evidence and contradicted by none. The point of the challenge is to demonstrate that Revisionists don't have a shred of what they should have if they want to make their case, which is evidence supporting an alternative explanation of what Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka were about and what happened to the people taken there. Rewriting history (which is what Revisionists obviously mean to do) is not done by picking at one or the other piece of evidence (especially when no historical or judicial findings of fact have ever been based on that piece of evidence) and making easily refutable claims of physical or logistical impossibility. It requires a competing narrative substantiated by evidence, which is what Revisionists don't have.
Hannover wrote:Jews claim they we all murdered and dumped into enormous mass graves.
So what were their names?
You mean the names of people murdered at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka? They have been largely found out. The Yad Vashem database (http://www.yadvashem.org/archive/hall-of-names/database, https://www.ushmm.org/online/hsv/source ... ceId=32961, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39062221 , http://www.yadvashem.org/press-release/ ... 2005-11-07) has, according to various sources, collected over 3 million to about 4.7 million names of Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide. Let's take the lower figure. Let us further assume, for the sake of argument, that one-third of these names are mistaken entries, double-counts etc. (an unlikely proposition given the various sources that contribute to the database and the fact that every submission is checked and appears in the database only months after submission). That would leave 2 million identified Jewish victims, out of about 5.3 - 5.5 million (my estimate). Equal probability provided, at least one third of those identified should be Jews who perished at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór or Treblinka.

Moreover there are databases regarding Jewish nationals from several countries, for instance the database of the German Federal Archives under http://www.bundesarchiv.de/gedenkbuch/directory.html.de, which contains names of Jewish victims of Nazi persecution and mass murder who had been living in Germany when the Nazis came to power. Check "Todesort" and insert "Chelmno". You get 5,182 names, which you can all look up with date of birth, place of last domicile and places they were deported to until they reached their place of death. With "Belzec" you get 163 names, with "Sobibor" you get 4,494 names, and with "Treblinka" you get 255 names. You get more entries with "Deportationsort", place of deportation: 5,196 for Chelmno, 352 for Belzec, 6,440 for Sobibor and 7,968 for Treblinka. The difference is due to the fact that in some biographies it is not expressly stated that the deportees died at these places, but the final destination stated in all of these cases that I have checked is a "Vernichtungslager", an extermination camp. If you think you can find someone in the database who is stated to have been taken from one of the aforementioned places to somewhere else, please feel free to give it a try. You might find one or the other deportee who was taken from Sobibór to a labor camp, as up to 1,000 such deportees are mentioned by Sobibór historian Jules Schelvis, who was one of these deportees. Good luck!

For now let's stick with the "Todesort" entries, which add up to 10,094. Here's my challenge to you:

Please explain why, if the German Federal Archives alone have managed to establish the names of at least 10,094 people who died at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór or Treblinka, how come that Revisionists have been unable, in more than 70 years after the end of World War II, to provide proof that even one single named individual was transported from Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór or Treblinka to what Korherr called the "Russian East" in his amended report, as claimed by Mattogno. Graf, Kues and other Revisionists?

Hannover wrote:So where did all those people go?
Mostly mass graves then cremation pyres, in some cases directly cremation pyres, in other cases (according to archaeological core drilling finds at Belzec and Sobibór) the corpses remained inside the mass graves.
Hannover wrote:Where are the claimed mass graves for Roberto's "Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka"?
At the sites of the former Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka extermination camps. At Chelmno 4 mass graves and 11 dumping pits for cremation remains have been identified by archaeologists in 2003/04. At Belzec partial excavations of some mass graves were carried out in 1945, 33 mass graves were identified by archaeological core drilling in 1997/-98, and it is possible that further mass graves visible on an air photograph were not identified in that archaeological survey. At Sobibór 7 mass graves were identified by core drilling in 2001 (the shapes of at least some of them, as drawn in the related archaeological report, are even visible on air and satellite photographs taken long after the 2001 archaeological survey), and an 8th was discovered in subsequent archaeological investigations that started in 2007 (along with one or more small and shallow pits containing a few corpses that are probably not from the time when Sobibór was an extermination camp). At Treblinka there were partial excavations in November 1945, recorded in publicly available crime site investigation reports illustrated by publicly available photographs. More recently there was a partial archaeological survey using non-invasive geophysical methods that identified a number of pits considered to be mass graves or parts of mass graves, though the bulk of the camp's mass grave areas, probably located below the memorial, remains to be explored.

You may complain that there has never been a comprehensive excavation of the mass graves, that remains found have not been quantified, etc.
To a certain extent I can even understand these complaints, for I think historical knowledge would benefit from a more comprehensive and invasive examination of the aforementioned mass graves (which however is unlikely to occur to the influence of Orthodox Jews and their religion-based objections to any form of invasive archaeology including even core drilling).

However, I challenge you to demonstrate that, considering all available evidence that points to mass extermination at these camps (contemporary German documents, eyewitness testimonies including such from members of the former camp staff and former camp guards, physical evidence discovered in the course of postwar crime site investigation and further physical evidence discovered more recently by archaeologists), a court of law in the US, the German Federal Republic or another democratic country, applying defendant-friendly procedural rules or rules of evidence that are publicly available (and that I challenge you to quote instead of making uninformed claims about them) would dismiss a case for mass extermination at the mentioned camps as insufficiently substantiated by evidence. Instead of or in addition to quoting such rules, you may also refer to publicly known, comparable precedents, e.g. war crimes trials before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (conducted according to US rules of evidence) or NS-crimes trials before courts of the German Federal Republic.
Hannover wrote:Jews obviously went where Jews are.
And that would be where exactly? How many Jews (approximate figure) were there in Europe (or in European countries dominated by Nazi Germany and/or its allies, or at the places from where they were transported to the aforementioned camps - your choice) at the beginning of World War II? What evidence (sourced quote or precise source reference) are your figures based on? Where - if not to mass graves and extermination pits, are how many of these Jews supposed to have gone during or after the war, and what evidence (as before) is there that they went there?
Hannover wrote:They were pouring out of Europe after the war, hence the Displaced Persons camps.
Thanks that leads us to further questions. How many people were in DP camps in Europe after the war, how many of them were Jews according to you, and what are the sources of your figures?
Hannover wrote:They then poured into Palestine, S. America, the US, stayed in Europe, etc.
How many into which of these countries exactly, and what's your evidence?
Hannover wrote:And imagine Jews who had been relocated into the USSR during the war trying to get out soon afterwards, fat chance. Recall the expression: "The Iron Curtain".
Not getting out is one thing, not being registered is another. The first postwar Soviet census in 1959 recorded about 2,268,000 persons who self-identified as Jews. On 22 June 1941, according to estimates made by historians, there had been about 5.1 million Jews on soil of what then was the USSR, including Jews living in territories annexed by the Soviet Union in 1939/40 and refugees from German-occupied areas,
Hannover wrote:However, later, in the 1970s-80s so many 'holocausted' Jews were allowed to go to Palestine/Israel & the USA from the USSR.
The US Congress even passed legislation allowing them into the US without question, of course.
Just how many, and what's your evidence that those being allowed to leave were people thought to have been killed by the Nazis and/or their European allies?
Hannover wrote:If the Germans supposedly 'tried to kill every Jew thy could get their hands on then why are there countless numbers of "survivors".


That's easy to explain.

The narrow definition of "survivor" includes any Jew who lived in a country dominated by Nazi Germany and/or its European allies between 1933 and 1945. If I'm not mistaken, it includes

a) Jews who emigrated after 1933 but before the war to Great Britain, the US or Palestine,
b) Jews who lived in countries like Bulgaria and Denmark, whose gentile citizens kept the Nazis from killing the local Jews,
c) Jews living in the heartland of Romania, which changed its policy towards Jews after having massacred large numbers of Jews in territories of the USSR occupied by Romanian troops,
d) Jews who lived in countries like Italy and Hungary, which came under the domination of Nazi Germany at a relatively late stage in the war and whose Jewish population was therefore only partially exterminated, for lack of time and resources (in Hungary the deportations to Auschwitz were stopped in July 1944 by the collaboration government, and the Germans and Hungarian fascists who took control of the country later in that year didn't manage to kill on site or deport that many Jews anymore for the aforementioned reasons),
e) Jews who were protected from deportation by the Vichy government because they were French citizens (most Jews deported to extermination from France were not),
f) Jews in Germany and throughout Europe who managed to survive in hiding or by concealing their Jewish ethnicity,
g) Jews who were not killed because their labor was needed (plus their families where such were kept alive to keep the laborers motivated, like in some ghettos in Lithuania), including about 104,000 of the about 420,000 Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1944 (which ended up in concentration camps throughout Germany),
h) Jews who managed to flee from German occupation into unoccupied territories of the USSR or other comparatively safe places.

A wider definition of "survivor", proposed by demographer Sergio DellaPergola, even counts as survivors Jews who lived in countries of North Africa or the Middle East during World War II, on account of those countries having implemented Jewish legislation and/or their having been at risk of falling under German control, IIRC.
Hannover wrote:That is a huge & damning aspect to the '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' fraud.
"That" is actually nothing at all, especially no evidence of a claimed "fraud", for which there is no evidence at all while all known evidence points to mass murder on an enormous scale. And what applies to the about 5.3-5.5 million Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide applies all the more to the well over 5 million non-Jewish victims of Nazi crimes (mainly Soviet prisoners of war, inhabitants of Leningrad who perished during the German siege and civilians killed in reprisals or massacres within the scope of anti-partisan warfare, to a lesser extent disabled people and Gypsies, and to a much lesser extent members of other minority groups). For regarding none of these groups of victims, with the possible exception of the Gypsies, did Nazi Germany pursue a policy of total extermination.
Hannover wrote:The proof that Jews were shipped east to work sites other than "Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka" is overwhelming.
see:
Evidence for the Presence of “Gassed” Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territories, Part 1
http://codoh.com/library/document/3111/?lang=en
and:
Evidence for the Presence of "Gassed" Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territories, Part 2
http://codoh.com/library/document/3127/?lang=en
and:
Evidence for the Presence of “Gassed” Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territories, Part 3
http://codoh.com/library/document/3166/?lang=en

Also search http://codoh.com/
transit camps for a veritable blizzard of work debunking the 'Jews were all killed' Big Lie.

And the fact that the outbound records has curiously gone 'missing' is also another nail in the 'holocau$t' coffin.
see:
J. Graf and the illogical canard: 'Where did Jews go then?' / & more
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272
Lot's of "survivor" names.
also see:
'AR Survivors / Treblinka'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6534
Actually the "proof" you claim is non-existing, however many Revisionist sites you link to. Mattogno, Graf and Kues go out of their way trying to conjure up shipments "east to worksites" out of mistaken wartime newspaper reports, testimonies of people in the "east" who claimed to have seen or heard about "western" Jews, Soviet propaganda claims about liberated French Jews (obviously meant to score points with French communists) and other thin air. In other words, the kind of evidence that Revisionists would (in this case rightly so) throw out of the window if the Holocaust narrative were based on it. It speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy of Revisionists that they set unreasonable high standards of proof (such as no however demanding court of law would apply) when it comes to evidence supporting the generally accepted historical narrative, while on the other hand they rely on the flimsiest of supposed indications (they might as well argue that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction based on 2003 pre-invasion newspaper and secret service reports) when it comes to dreaming up a deportation of about 1.5 million people "east" of the mentioned camps that never took place.

Kues "Evidence" articles, which are still the best of the lot, have been amply debunked in blog articles I have written (links will be provided upon request) and in the Holocaust Controversies critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues (available under https://archive.org/details/BelzecSobib ... .ACritique).

And none of the Revisionist authors invoked has provided even one name with proof that would meet the requirements of my challenge. Not one.

The reference to Graf is particularly unfortunate, for Graf said it all about the absence of a "Revisionist" case for transit to the "Russian East" when, on page 1503 of MGK’s overlong response to the HC critique (https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-tecoar-long.pdf), he wrote the following (emphasis added):
Jürgen Graf wrote:The only chapter where our opponents could hope to come close to a draw was their fourth one, authored by Harrison and Romanov about the resettlement thesis. While we revisionists can easily prove that Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka were transit camps, we are unable to produce German wartime documents about the destination and the fate of the deportees.


Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence where one shouldn’t reasonably expect evidence, but it is evidence of absence where one should reasonably expect abundant evidence, as is the case here, for the reasons stated in my OP.
Hannover wrote:And Roberto, I introduce you to S. Rothstein:
'Translation of Short note on “The Central Database of Shoah Victims’ Names” and the number of deaths reported therein'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10945

Image
The deportation of S. Rothstein (and many others); in dashed lines, the segment hidden by "holocau$t historians".
Rothstein's seems to be the only name presented by Revisionists that is supposed to support their transit camp theory, so some more detail is warranted here.

Rothstein is identified as transferred from Theresienstadt with the transport Br on 26.09.1942. The Yad Vashem database description (http://db.yadvashem.org/deportation/tra ... Id=5091986) states the following (emphasis added):
The transport, designated “Br”, departed from Theresienstadt on September 26, 1942 and was the fourth in a series of eight transports of sick and elderly Jews (“Alterstransporte”). On board were 2,004 inmates of Theresienstadt. It arrived in Treblinka on September 28 or 29. The transport was composed entirely of Jews who had been deported earlier from Germany and Austria, among them 617 deportees from Vienna and 584 from Berlin. Their average age was 72.
However, another page (https://portal.ehri-project.eu/units/il ... 4#desc-eng) contains the following information regarding the same transport (emphasis added):
List of 2,004 Jews deported from the Theresienstadt Ghetto to Maly Trostinec camp (to the East) on Transport Br, 26/09/1942 Br Osten 26.IX.42


So in this source the transport Br on 26.09.1942 is identified as a transport to the extermination camp Maly Trostinets near Minsk in Belorussia.

There are also further internet sources obviously relying on information from either of the above or their sources, but the essential points are the following:

1. Different destinations of the transport Br. Osten on 26.9.1942 from Theresienstadt are given by different sources or sets of sources, so one of these sources or sets of sources must be wrong.

2. The source(s) according to which the transport was bound for Maly Trostinets do(es) not state that the transport had a stopover at Treblinka.

3. There is also no other evidence that any trains bound for Maly Trostinets stopped at Treblinka.

It’s as simple as that. Different information in different sources, which do not complement but contradict each other as concerns the transport’s final destination. It's not a matter of one source claiming that Rothstein was killed at Treblinka an another claiming that he showed up in the "Russian East" after being at Treblinka. It's a matter of sources contradicting each other about the destination of one and same transport on which Rothstein was deported from Theresienstadt. One says that the transport went to Treblinka, another says that the same transport went to Maly Trostinets near Minsk. Both were extermination camps, so Rothstein was a dead man regardless of which of the two places was the train's destination. One of the sources must be wrong regarding the transport's destination, and neither makes Rothstein a person who went from Treblinka to the "Russian East".

So the only example Revisionists could muster for a person supposedly transferred through one of the Aktion Reinhardt camps or Chelmno to the "Russian East" predictably turned out to be a dud. The "transit" theory still has no evidence whatsoever that would support it. Not one bit.
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).

SFinesilver
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by SFinesilver »

CWhite:

Looks good, don't you think Roberto?


My challenge to Revisionists is thus the following:

Please provide the name of at least one jew that you can prove to have been transited via Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór or Treblinka to what Korherr called the "Russian East", i.e. to a destination in the Reichskommissariat Ostland, the Reichskommissariat Ukraine or the Soviet territories under German military administration[/b]. By "transited" I mean that the person in question must have been taken to the respective camp (Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór or Treblinka), then shipped from that camp to a certain destination in the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union as defined above, e.g. to Minsk, Riga, Kovno or Kiev.

One name, with proof.

Just one name.

Please note that this challenge pertains specifically to the - 1,419,467 - jews that I can prove actually set foot in Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor or Treblinka II, and that I can prove were killed and buried in the camps to which they were deported. (Though I have yet to muster the courage, integrity and character to accept the challenge to put up or shut up and prove my unsubstantiated allegations - like any honest / legitimate researcher would.)

Also note that my fellow exterminationist "Nessie" alleges that at least 75 "huge mass graves" have been located / proven to exist - with the utmost certainty via the scientific method - within the boundaries of these four camps, and that he can also prove - with the utmost certainty and using the scientific method - that these four camps contain the remains of at least - 1,796,000 - jews. (Though he has yet to muster the courage, integrity and character to accept the challenge to put up or shut up and prove his unsubstantiated allegations - like any honest / legitimate researcher would.)

Last note: This challenge was born out of an amenable conversation between my old friend Greg Gerdes and me on the threads - $1,000.00 REWARD FOR THE NAME OF JUST ONE GASSED jEW - in which I did not earn so-much-as one sinlge penny in reward money - not one single penny!


CWhite:

When are we going to see the change on your website?



What are you waiting for roberto?

What are you so afraid of?
D - Has it been alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, Germany used "resettlement to the east" as a euphemism for transiting jews to the so-called "top secret" - PURE EXTERMINATION CAMPS - Yes. - or - No. - ?? - Nessie's answer: Yes.

E - Has it been alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the so-called "pure extermination camps" were - THE END OF THE LINE - for virtually everyone transited to those camps - Yes. - or - No. - ?? - Nessie's answer: Yes.

Is it - True. - or - False. - that; during WW II, Germany actually transited jews to labor camps / ghettos - that were located east of the Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II camps - ?? - Nessie's answer: True.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2078&start=210#p65945

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

Re: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by Roberto »

Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:36 pm
Lily wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:18 pm
Hilarious, Roberto cites the thoroughly discredited phony Zionist database for this Rothstein that the CODOH Forum has easily debunked. Roberto just pretends it didn't happen.
In the end Roberto got hoisted by his own petard, yet again. :lol:

Then there's Roberto Muehlekamp & Andy Mathis's gay obsession over this 'Hannover' guy. Seriously, while I certainly own Mathis & Muehlnkamp, this 'Hannover' not only owns them, but has them going crazy 24/7, he has them eating out of his hand.
Andy Mathis & Roberto Muehlenkamp really should get new boyfriends. :lol:

And OUCH!!, here's the CODOH Forum's Moderator's recent scolding of Roberto:
Roberto:
You continue to post redundant text, even irrelevant text, all the while you generally ignore what has been posted and the specific challenges put to you.
Please debate in good faith, please review our simple guidelines.
Thanks, M1
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11224

I guess in the end what Mathis & Roberto say here is useless since so very few people actually read their silliness at RODOH anyway; but tons of readers per day read their smackdowns at the CODOH Forum. :lol:
http://forum.codoh.com/index.php

Life is good. :D
More senile shit from cowardly and dishonest CODOH moderator "Lily", not worth a comment.

Meanwhile, I've submitted the posts on the CODOH forum's thread https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11231. Quite surprisingly, both were approved (meaning that Hannover Lily was either drunk and hit the wrong key or was replaced by a moderator with more sense and guts, the latter of which would be great. Just in case the latter is not the case and Hannover changes his mind after recovering from his hangover, I have taken a screenshot of the thread as it looks like.

After reproducing the posted messages, I'll have a look at the silly excuses invoked by "Lily" to disapprove my previous posts.
Roberto wrote:
Hannover wrote:Roberto in response to my questions said:
[,,,] [Responses to questions not quoted, please look them up in my previous post on this thread.]
Hannover wrote:1. The aerial photos show no such thing.
Should one necessarily expect the relatively few air photos taken to show movements of people or vehicles in the direction of the crematoria? Such would only be the case if by coincidence an air photo was taken at a time when there were such movements, or if such movements occurred all day on a day on which one or more air photographs were taken so that an air photo taken at any time of that day would have captured them. The former (coincidence) need not have happened, the latter (constant movement all day) is unlikely to have happened.
Hannover wrote: Of course other inmates would have seen them supposedly go in alive and not come out or according to Roberto, come out dead. Some 'secret' operation that would have been.
Who said that mass extermination could be kept secret from inmates? It could not even be kept secret from the local population. Höss wrote about the problem in the already mentioned notes attached to the autobiography he wrote in Polish captivity (Rudolf Höß: "Die »Endlösung der Judenfrage« im KL Auschwitz", Staatliches Auschwitz-Museum (Hg.), Auschwitz in den Augen der SS. Rudolf Höß, Pery Broad, Johann Paul Kremer. Warszawa: Verlag Interpress, 1992, pp. 75–94):
Schon bei den ersten Verbrennungen im Freien zeigte es sich, daß auf die Dauer dies nicht durchzuführen sei. Bei schlechtem Wetter oder starkem Wind trieb der Verbrennungsgeruch viele Kilometer weit und führte dazu, daß die ganze umwohnende Bevölkerung von den Juden-Verbrennungen sprach, trotz der Gegenpropaganda von Seiten der Partei und Verwaltungsdienststellen. Es waren zwar alle an der Vernichtungsaktion beteiligten SS-Angehörigen besonders streng verpflichtet, über die gesamten Vorgänge zu schweigen. Spätere SS-Gerichtsverhandlungen aber zeigten, daß von Seiten der Beteiligten doch nicht geschwiegen wurde. Auch erhebliche Strafen könnten die Schwatzhaftigkeit nicht verhindern.
My translation:
Already during the first incinerations in the open it became apparent that things could not be done this way in the long run. When there was bad weather or strong wind the smell of burning spread over many kilometers and led to the whole surrounding population talking about the burning of Jews, despite the counterpropaganda by party and administration entities. It is true that all SS-men participating in the extermination action were under especially rigorous obligation to keep silent about these events. However, later SS-trial proceedings showed that the participants didn’t keep silent after all. Even considerable penalties could not impede the chattiness.
And this was Oswald Kaduk at the Franfurt Auschwitz Trial (Herman Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozess, pp. 101f., my translation:
[Langbein:]Anger gets hold of Kaduk when one elegant gentleman after the other, former SS-Obergruppenführer who now can remember nothing anymore, is allowed to leave the witness stand unhindered:
Kaduk: When the ovens were burning there was a darting flame five meters high, which could be seen from the station. The whole station was full of civilians. Nobody said anything. Trains with soldiers on leave were also there. My wife arrived, and I pushed her away. I have no time for you, I told her. Often the trains with soldiers on leave had stopovers at Auschwitz, and the whole station was covered by a smoke screen. The Wehrmacht officers looked out of the window and asked why the smell, so sweet. But none of them had the courage to ask: What is going on here? This is no sugar factory, after all. Why the chimneys?
The Allies also knew. All they had to do was to demolish the railway connection. The thing with the Jews was the greatest of crimes. But unfortunately nobody knew anything. All the Gruppenführer and Obergruppenführer who testified here know nothing anymore. Well, then I say, then the Jews went to Auschwitz on their own free will.
Hannover wrote:2, Indeed the storyline says an SS man stood on top of the crematorium / 'gas chambers' roof and dropped the alleged Zyklon-B into the alleged 'gas chambers'. Of course that would have been in front of the alleged next batch of Jews, thereby seen by them and the camp in general. Some 'secret surprise' that would have been.
I don’t care about any "storyline" (whatever that is supposed to mean), I only care about evidence. That the mass extermination couldn’t be concealed even from the local population let alone "the camp in general" I have already mentioned above. The only ones who didn’t know what was going on were the new arrivals. A scenario in which the "next batch of Jews" might be waiting outside while the previous batch was being gassed might only occur on days on which the number of arriving deportees required more than one gassing cycle per crematorium, and then only if the "next batch of Jews" could not be kept in a secluded part of the camp, from which the crematoria could not be seen, until there was sufficient room in the gas chamber(s). Another defendant at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, Stefan Baretzki, stated that there was such a secluded part of the camp in the summer of 1944, called "Mexiko", during the peak time of gassing and cremation operations at Auschwitz-Birkenau:
Baretzki: Im Sommer 1944 wurden sehr viele Leute nach Auschwitz geschickt. Sie sind alle nach Mexiko hineingeschickt worden; dort gab es keine Verpflegung, kein Licht, und sobald Platz in der Gaskammer war, sind sie von dort in die Gaskammer gekommen. Mexiko, das war offiziell ein Ausweichlager. Tausende sind dort hineingestopft worden.
(Langbein, as above, p. 89.)

My translation:
Baretzki: In the summer of 1944 very many people were sent to Auschwitz. They were all put into Mexiko; there they had no food, no light, and as soon as there was place in the gas chamber, they were sent from there into the gas chamber. Mexiko was officially a reserve camp. Thousands were stuffed in there.
SS-man Pery Broad, in the report that bears his name ("Broad-Bericht ", Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, pp. 95-139) mentioned occasions during the Hungarian operation in the summer of 1944 when the next contingent was taken into the undressing room right after the gas chamber had been emptied from the last contingent, but he did so in connection with crematoria III (IV) and IV (V), in which the gas was introduced not through the roof but through openings on the side of the building, and cremation was not done in cremation ovens one floor above but in open-air pyres behind the crematorium, which meant that the corpses could be removed from the gas chambers more quickly. Broad wrote:
Es ging pausenlos. Man hatte kaum die letzte Leiche aus den Kammern gezogen und über den mit Kadavern übersäten Platz hinter den Krematorien zur Brandgrube geschleift, als schon in der Halle die nächsten zur Vergasung ausgezogen wurden ...
My translation:
It was going on without a break. One had barely dragged the last corpse from the chambers and dragged it over the square covered by corpses to the burning pits behind the crematoria, when in the hall the next in turn were undressed for gassing ...
In crematoria III(IV) and IV(V) operation was probably organized in such a manner that the new arrivals could see neither the introduction of the gas nor the dragging-out of corpses to the burning pits, which took place on the other side of the building. What they would see and smell was the smoke from the burning of corpses behind the crematorium. Also, the next contingent wouldn’t have to be taken from the trains or from "Mexiko" to the crematoria before the previous contingent had been moved to the burning pits. It was all a matter of coordination. According to Broad about 10,000 people per day arrived in the summer of 1944, and the camps roads were crammed with new contingents being taken to the crematoria as the reinforced Sonderkommando inmates feverishly worked to empty the gas chambers. But Broad’s estimate of daily arrivals is exaggerated, as is his estimate whereby a total of about half a million people were exterminated at Birkenau within a few weeks in the summer of 1944. According to Höss (as above) the highest number of people gassed and cremated within 24 hours at Birkenau was about 9,000, and that he stated to have happened only on one single day in which, due to train delays, 5 instead of the expected 3 transports arrived and these were also fuller than usual. But that number is probably also exaggerated. According to Pressac’s calculations (Les Crematoires d’Auschwitz. La Machinerie du Meurt de Masse, Portuguese translation by Editorial Notícias, Lisbon 1993, p. 215), the Birkenau gas chambers, crematoria and open air pyres could kill up to 300,000 people within 70 days with a daily capacity of 3,300, which could be enlarged to 4,300 if necessary, using the following installations:
• Crematorium I(II) and II(III): 1,000 per day each, one single gassing run possible per day.
• Crematorium V - 1,000 to 2,000 per day, two daily gassing runs possible because the block of three gas chambers was ventilated and the cremation was done in open-air pits.
• Bunker 2 - 3,000 per day [the total numbers mentioned above suggest that Pressac meant to say "300" instead of "3,000"), non-ventilated gas chamber and cremation in pits.

Slightly more than 300,000 Hungarian Jews were killed in the late spring and summer of 1944 according to the research of German historians Christian Gerlach and Götz Aly (Das letzte Kapitel, pages 275 ff., 286 ff.) About 425,000 Jews arrived at Auschwitz within 16 May and 11 July 1944 (57 days), of which about 110,000 were selected as laborers according to Gerlach and Aly. The remaining 315,000 were gassed, though not necessarily within those 57 days. The "Mexiko" reserve camp mentioned by Baretzki made it possible to keep arrived non-laborers "in store" until there was enough gassing and cremation capacity for them. Pressac, see above, considers the killing to have been done within 70 days.

The above means that even during the Hungarian Operation, the most intensive killing period at Auschwitz-Birkenau, a scenario in which a next contingent was led to a crematorium before the dead from the previous gassing had been wholly removed from the gas chamber(s) would be a rare occasion, if it happened at all. No such case is held to have happened in crematoria I(II) and II(III), which had only one gassing run per day, so a scenario in which a "next batch" would watch an SS-man pouring Zyklon B into an underground gas chamber is unlikely.

The Hungarian Operation aside, arriving transports were quite manageable with only one gassing run per crematorium, and sometimes without even having to use more than one crematorium, during most days of the camps’s operation. According to a compilation of transports available under http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/ ... t1806.html, the most intensive period bar the Hungarian Operation was between 1 and 6 August 1943, when 25,071 Jews were gassed – about 4,200 per day, requiring Pressac’s enlarged capacity scenario mentioned above, with more corpses being burned in the open if the crematoria were not working at full capacity. As the next transport arrived only on 10.8.1943, gassing and cremation could also be done at a more leisurely pace provided that there was a place in the camp to keep "excess" deportees until there was room for them. Also in this period, however, there would be no more than one gassing per day in each of crematoria I(II) and II(III).
Hannover wrote:3. Yep, the current narrative says about half an hour, but Roberto denies there is an actual narrative. Roberto simply dodges what the story he's tying to defend actually claims.
Problem is that there are 'witnesses' that claim a few minutes, utterly impossible, as is the current laughable narrative.
And how would so called 'witnesses' have known when the alleged 'screaming' stopped? If they knew then those allegedly waiting outside would have known.
The witnesses were SS-men and members of the Sonderkommando, and a scenario of "those waiting outside" was improbable even at peak times, as mentioned above. As to the gassing times, Hannover refers to a "storyline" or "current narrative" as if there were a single generally accepted narrative regarding every detail of the gassing and body disposal process. Actually there are several secondary sources on these subjects, and Hannover has identified none of them. A primary source mentioning a 30-hour period is Rudolf Höss, who in his above-mentioned notes stated that within 20 minutes at maximum after the gas was introduces no one was moving anymore and after 30 minutes the doors were opened and the forced ventilation was turned on.
Hannover wrote:4. Roberto's own previously cited Nyiszli said 20,000 a day. Laughable impossibility
Straw-man, as no historian or court of law based any findings of fact on Nyiszli’s numbers (Höss mentioned 9,000 per day on a single occasion, and even that is probably too high) , and Nyiszli was referred to not as concerns numbers but as concerns the dumping of cremation remains into the Vistula, regarding which he was in all probability right, as he was regarding other details according to Pressac , even if his numbers were widely exaggerated ("The description is entirely accurate, EXCEPT for certain FIGURES which are very WRONG indeed. "AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, p. 473 (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0473.shtml)
Hannover wrote:He has no proof that others were "gassed on occasion".
Actually one such occasion is mentioned in the diary of Dr. Johann Paul Kremer ("Tagebuch Johann Paul Kremer", Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, pp. 140–207.) The entry of 5 September 1942 includes the following information:
Heute mittag bei einer Sonderaktion aus dem F.K.L31 (»Muselmänner«): das Schrecklichste der Schrecken. [Rand: *Truppenarzt] Hschf. Thilo* hat Recht, wenn er mir heute sagte, wir befänden uns hier am anus mundi.
My translation:
Today at noon present at a special action from the F.K.L31 (»Muselmänner«): the horror of horrors. [marginal note * troop doctor Hschf. Thilo* is right when he told me that here we are at the anus mundi.
At his trial in Cracow Höss explained what he had meant in the above diary entry
Besonders unangenehm war die Vergasung von ausgemergelten Frauen aus dem Frauenlager, die allgemein als «Muselmänner» bezeichnet wurden. Ich erinnere mich, dass ich einmal beim Vergasen einer solchen Frauengruppe am Tage teilnahm. Wie gross diese Gruppe war, kann ich nicht angeben. Als ich in die Nähe des Bunkers kam, sassen sie angekleidet auf der Erde: Da sie in abgetragener Lagerkleidung waren, wurden sie nicht in die Ausziehbaracke gelassen, sondern sie zogen sich im Freien aus. Aus dem Benehmen dieser Frauen schloss ich, dass sie sich darüber klar waren, welches Schicksal sie erwartete, da sie bei den SS-Männern um Gnade flehten und weinten; jedoch wurden alle in die Gaskammer gejagt und vergast. Als Anatom hatte ich viele schreckliche Sachen gesehen, ich hatte viel mit Leichen zu tun gehabt, jedoch das, was ich damals sah, liess sich mit nichts vergleichen. Unter den Eindrücken, die ich damals empfing, schrieb ich am 5. 9. 1942 eben in mein Tagebuch: Das Schrecklichste der Schrecken. Hauptscharführer Tilo hat recht, wenn er mir heute sage, wir befänden uns hier am anus mundi, an der «Aftermündung der Welt». Diese Bezeichnung gebrauchte ich deshalb, weil ich mir gar nichts Abscheulicheres und Ungeheuerlicheres vorstellen konnte.
(Quoted under http://www.vho.org/D/atuadh/II24.html)

My translation:
Especially unpleasant was the gassing of emaciated women from the women’s camp, which were generally called «Muselmänner». I remember that I once took part in the gassing of such a group of women during the day. How large this group was I cannot tell. When I came close to the bunker, they were sitting dressed on the ground: as they were in worn-out camp clothing, they were not let inside the undressing barracks, but had to undress in the open. From the behavior of these women I concluded that they were aware of what fate awaited them, as they begged the SS-men for mercy and cried; however they were all chased into the gas chamber and gassed. As an anatomist I have seen many horrible things, had to a lot to do with corpses, but what I saw back then could not be compared with anything. Under the impressions that I got at that time I wrote the following in my diary on 5.9.1942: the horror of horrors. Hauptscharführer Tilo is right when he told me today that here we were at the anus mundi, at the «anus opening of the world». This designation I used because I could not imagine anything more abominable and monstrous.
Hannover wrote:5. Roberto continues to cite the forced 'confessions' & horrific torture of commandant Hoess and the laughable things that Hoess said during his 'interrogations', again, Robert is in denial of the well known torture of Hoess.
In fact he has ignored my citations to that torture.
see: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10182
I’m not saying that Hoess was never tortured. He was, by his British captors in March 1946, an experience he vividly described in his memoirs. But he didn’t mention having been tortured afterwards, and there’s no evidence that he was, especially as concern his period in Polish captivity. My source are notes attached to the autobiography, which were obviously written pursuant to his pre-trial interrogations as they suggest answers to questions. If you claim that Höss was in any way coerced by the Poles, you are hereby challenged to do the following:

a) Provide any evidence for such coercion,

b) Explain why, despite such claimed coercion, Höss had the cheek to tell his captors the following and record it in the aforementioned notes (Rudolf Höß, "Die »Endlösung der Judenfrage« im KL Auschwitz", Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, pp. 75–94):
Ich selbst wußte nie die Gesamtzahl, habe auch keine Anhaltspunkte, um sie wiedergeben zu können.

Es sind mir lediglich noch die Zahlen der größeren Aktionen in Erinnerung, die mir wiederholt von Eichmann oder dessen Beauftragten genannt worden waren.

Aus Oberschlesien und GG [Generalgouvernement] 250000

Deutschland und Theresienstad 100000

Holland 95000

Belgien 20000

Frankreich 110000

Griechenland 65000

Ungarn 400000

Slowakei 90000


Die Zahlen der kleineren Aktionen sind mir nicht mehr in Erinnerung, sie waren aber im Vergleich zu obigen Zahlen unbedeutend.

Ich halte die Zahl 2½ Millionen für viel zu hoch. Die Möglichkeiten der Vernichtung hatten auch in Auschwitz ihre Grenzen. Die Zahlenangaben ehemaliger Häftlinge sind Phantasiegebilde und entbehren jeder Grundlage.
My translation:
I myself never knew the total number, and also have no indications that would enable me to reproduce it.

I only recall the numbers of the larger actions, which were repeatedly mentioned to me by Eichmann or his representative.

From Upper Silesia und GG [General Government] 250,000

Germany and Theresienstadt 100,000

Holland 95,000

Belgium 20,000

France 110,000

Greece 65,000

Hungary 400,000

Slovakia 90,000


The numbers of the smaller actions I no longer recall, but they were insignificant in comparison with the above numbers.

I consider the number 2½ million to be much too high. The possibilities of extermination had their limits even in Auschwitz. Numbers stated by former inmates are products of fantasy and lack any foundation.
(Emphasis added.)

The partial figures mentioned by Höss add up to 1,130,000, a number considerably lower than the 2.5 million he claimed at Nuremberg, not to mention the 4 million claimed by a Soviet investigation commission, which had official status in Poland until the fall of the Iron Curtain. What is most important, however, is that Höss dismissed numbers stated by former inmates as "products of fantasy" that "lack any foundation". By "former inmates" he obviously meant inmates interrogated by the Poles, such as Henryk Tauber (Pressac, as above p. 501, http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0501.shtml) - with whose testimonies (conforming with the aforementioned Soviet investigation commission's estimate) he was probably confronted.

My questions to you are the following:

If - as you seem to be claiming - Höss was coerced or otherwise pressured by his Polish interrogators, why did he not obligingly confirm the 4 million figure they would have wanted him to confirm, or at least the 2.5 million figure he had stated at Nuremberg? Why did he openly challenge the credibility of figures suggested by his interrogators, even to the point of dismissing the four million figure stated by Tauber and others as a product of fantasy?

Please explain this obvious contradiction between your claim of coercion and Höss' everything-other-than-obliging statements quoted above.
Hannover wrote:Roberto is in denial of the current narrative is that up to 2000 were 'gassed ' per batch. yet he tries to defend the current narrative. Funny stuff.
I’m not in denial of anything, I just consider it unreasonable to assume that so-and-so-many Jews per "batch" were gassed at all times during the camp’s operation. How many were gassed depended on how many transports arrived on a given day or over a given number of days. If the number exceeded the capacity of one crematorium’s gas chamber(s) (or, more importantly, the daily capacity of the respective cremation ovens, which was the bottleneck in mass extermination) , gas chamber(s) of one of more other crematoria would be used. However, as the mentioned list of transports shows, there were also many days in which the number of gassed deportees was well below 2,000, or even below 1,000. Plus there were many days on which no transports arrived, and on which a backlog from earlier transports could be processed. Examples:

2.2.43 Oranczyce (Pj 105) 1265 Jews (866 gassed)
2.2.43 Theresienstadt 1001 Jews (783 gassed)
4.2.43 Westerbork 890 Jews (790 gassed)
4.2.43 Berlin (Da 15) 1000 Jews (713 gassed)
5.2.43 Zamosc (Po 65) 1000 Jews (417 gassed)
11.2.43 Westerbork 1184 Jews (1005 gassed)
11.2.43 Drancy (46. Tpt) 1000 Jews (832 gassed)
13.2.43 Drancy
(47. Tpt) 998 Jews (802 gassed)
15.2.43 Drancy
(48. Tpt) 1000 Jews (689 gassed)
18.2.43 Westerbork 1108 Jews (847 gassed)
20.2.43 Berlin 1000 Jews (775 gassed)
23.2.43 Breslau 1000 Jews (994 gassed)
25.2.43 Westerbork 1101 Jews (1014 gassed)
27.2.43 Berlin 913 Jews (651 gassed)

So putting a fixed number on the people gassed "per batch" makes no sense. The size of each "batch" depended on the size of the transport(s) that arrived on a given day. On 11.2.1943, for instance, the 1,005 arrivals from Westerbork might be gassed while the 832 from Drancy had not yet arrived or were undergoing the selection process. If the gas chamber in which the former "batch" had been gassed was not yet available when their successors had undergone the selection process because the bodies had not yet been removed (which took a long time), the 832 from the latter "batch" would be directed to another gas chamber.
Hannover wrote:6. Oh my. Supposedly up to 2000 corpses, a few at a time, were placed on ONE 4 ft. X 9 ft. hand drawn elevator and hoisted above to the typhus abatement crematorium. This would have taken hours / days to accomplish and simply blows away the alleged batch times & rates.
Yes, it took hours to remove the corpses from the underground gas chambers of crematoria I(II) and II(III). Days I don’t think, and I don’t know of any evidence in that direction (if Hannover thinks there is, he is hereby challenged to show it by quoting from a primary source, e.g. an eyewitness testimony). That was one of the reasons why, as pointed out by Pressac, neither of these crematoria could do more than one gassing run per day – unlike crematorium IV(V) during the Hungarian Operation and on other occasions when corpses were burned in the open.
Hannover wrote:Roberto still ignores the claims that copses were allegedly piled up outside, not seen in the aerial photos
Who exactly (meaning what primary or secondary source) "alleges" that bodies were "piled up outside" (which obviously refers to the times when open-air cremation complemented the cremation ovens)? The available photographs, shown on pp. of 422 of Pressac’s AUSCHWITZ Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0422.shtml), don’t show any piled-up bodies, as opposed to bodies lying side by side on the ground. And assuming that bodies were piled up, please explain why they should be visible on air photographs. Would they be so silhouetted against the ground on which they were piled up that a photo taken from several thousand meters above would necessarily show them, and that even where there was smoke from the open-air cremation sites? And what are such piled-up bodies supposed to look like on air photographs? Please explain.
Hannover wrote:7. Again Roberto ignores the fact that the storyline says that corpses were piled up outside for everyone to see.
Again, what "storyline" are we talking about? What primary or secondary source? Where exactly are the bodies supposed to have been piled up? If behind crematorium IV(V) or at the "bunkers" reactivated during the Hungarian Operation, who (other than the SS and the Sonderkommando prisoners) is supposed to have seen them there, and why so?
Hannover wrote:8. The ventilation method would have been impossible because the vents in the crematorum alleged to be 'gas chambers' were at the bottom of the crematorium, they would have been blocked by the alleged masses of corpses.
Here we go:
Image
What the 'gas chambers' supposedly looked like upon completion of the alleged 'gassings'.
Try 'venting' that from below.
Ventilation may have been difficult if the bodies were piled up filling the whole chamber as in the model shown. But that was rarely if ever the case. Höss wrote that the gas chambers of crematoria I(II) and II(III) were never filled to capacity because the transports were not that strong. Pressac, see above, considers a gassing run of no more than 1,000 per day (corresponding to the daily capacity of the cremation ovens) even during the Hungarian Operation. Tauber’s description of his first view of a gas chamber after a gassing also doesn’t suggest that the chamber was filled to capacity:
We found heaps of naked bodies, doubled up. They were pinkish, and in places red. Some were covered with greenish marks and saliva ran from their mouths. Others were bleeding from the nose. There was excrement on many of them. I remember that a great number had their eyes open and were hanging on to one another. The bodies were most crushed together round the door. By contrast, there were less around the wire mesh columns. The location of the bodies indicated that the people had tried to get away front the columns and get to the door.
(Pressac, Auschwitz, p. 489, http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0489.shtml)

The fact that there were less bodies around the wire mesh columns and the bodies were most "crushed" together round the door doesn’t exactly suggest a gas chamber filled to capacity. Upon realizing that they were meant to be gassed those who hadn’t succumbed already would move towards the door and try to get out. They wouldn’t move towards the gas chamber’s walls (where the ventilation openings were installed) unless there was no room for them to move elsewhere. But this obviously not the case on the occasion described by Tauber, and also need not have been the case on any other occasion.
Hannover wrote:Roberto tries to deflect from the current storyline which says that an SS man on the roof lifted still out-gassing cyanide containers from inside the alleged gas chambers .... thereby releasing the gas which would have been a massive danger to those allegedly waiting, and people at the site in general. Some surprise operations those would have been.
Again the unidentified "current storyline".

The theory that still out-gassing Zyklon B pellets were removed from the underground gas chambers to streamline the process goes back to three witnesses IIRC, Michal Kula (whose account Pressac’s drawing on page 487 of Auschwitz - http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0487.shtml - is based on), Henryk Tauber (as before, p. 484, http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0484.shtml) and Josef Erber (quoted in the article under http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... o-columns/, which contains some mistaken assumptions as concerns the configuration and function of the Zyklon B introduction columns in the underground gas chambers) .

As to the notion of a "massive danger" that the Zyklon B out-gassing in the open would have posed to the SS-men withdrawing the pellets' recipient (who would have worn gas masks) and to people at the site in general (what people are supposed to have been at the site of the crematoria when such withdrawal took place?), it is based on a misconception of how cyanide gas behaves in the open. As can be read under https://web.archive.org/web/20041020040 ... d/AC.shtml, the French used cyanide gas a chemical weapon during the First World War, but found it to be rather ineffective:
Its poisonous properties led to its early consideration as a chemical warfare agent, but during the First World War, hydrogen cyanide was employed only occasionally, primarily by the French. who dubbed it Forestite. Because of its high vapor pressure and low vapor density it tended to dissipate rapidly, and its low flash point meant that it would often (about half the time) ignite when released from artillery shells, limiting its military effectiveness. The French attempted to produce hydrogen cyanide-containing mixtures that would be more persistent, and so more useful. The best known of these is probably Vincennite, which was a mixture of 50% hydrogen cyanide with the smoke producers arsenic trichloride (30%) and stannic chloride (15%) along with chloroform as a stabilizer. Despite their best efforts, however, they were never able to produce a hydrogen cyanide munition that answered the needs of the period, and in a war in which the chemical industries of the world strained to produce enough deadly chemicals, usage of hydrogen cyanide was a relatively paltry 4000 tons.
(Emphases added.)

The above quote doesn’t exactly suggest that cyanide gas is very dangerous outside closed spaces.
Hannover wrote:9. Roberto continues to change the very narrative that he tries to defend.
As state, the storyline says (in order to meet the time lengths claimed) that the next batch was waiting outside while the alleged 'gassing' operations were underway.
Again, what "storyline" are we talking about? What primary or secondary source(s)? As explained above, there was no reason for a "next batch" to be waiting outside while the previous "batch" was gassed. No would there be any reason to hurry up the gassings, which were the easy part of the process (the difficult part was the bodies’ removal and cremation). And such "waiting outside" would not have been necessary where a day’s arrivals could be processed by one or several gas chambers in one run, and neither possible where further transports arrived hours after the one currently being "processed" and the deportees had to undergo the selection process first.
Hannover wrote:Roberto forgot that he claims that Jews actually heard those inside 'screaming', meaning they were in very close approximation.
I don’t remember having read claims that Jews meant for gassing heard those inside "screaming" (at least as concerns Auschwitz-Birkenau; at Treblinka this is reported to have happened), so again the question is warranted what primary or secondary source claims this. Such source would not be realistic in this respect anyway, for the reasons explained above. The only ones who would hear screaming inside the gas chambers at AB, bar evidence to the contrary, were the Sonderkommando prisoners and SS men supervising their work.
Hannover wrote:10. The usual false strawman argument from Roberto.
I have never seen a correct straw-man argument, and the way Hannover’s question was formulated ("Why don't the very real aerial photos of time show the claimed gassings in progress? ") invited the answer I provided.
Hannover wrote:No one says the aerials can show what occurs inside a structure, but they do not show anything that is alleged. The alleged occurrences would necessarily have been visible, IF they had actually happened.
We do not see actual corpses as alleged, we do not see lines of people as alleged, we do not see flaming chimneys as alleged; but we do see obvious amateur hour tampering with the photos, one even has 'marching Jews' drawn in on a rooftop.
I’ve never quite understood why what is claimed to have been necessarily visible on air photographs should have been necessarily visible on air photographs. Hannover is hereby challenged to provide a consistent demonstration that what he claims would have been viewable would necessarily have been viewable on the comparatively few air photos that were taken during the period in question. This applies especially to the movement of people towards the crematoria, which I think would be seen as thin lines on the road leading to the crematoria at best. As argued above, the capture of such lines would be visible on air photographs only due to a coincidence, unless such movements of people were going on throughout all daylight hours on the day a photograph was taken, which was hardly the case.
Hannover wrote:see here:
Image
and:
'Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt'
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html
and:
'Altered Aerial Photos and the Shadows of Doom'
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3249
and:
Air Photo Evidence
https://archive.org/details/AirPhotoEvidenceAuschwitz

I also refer our readers to this CODOH Forum link for further debunking of Roberto and those like him:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ues#p83723
If Hannover can refer our readers to Revisionist articles or forum discussions as concerns the air-photo issue (which I rather consider a non-issue), then I can also refer our readers to assessments of the issue by my fellow blogger Hans Metzner, who has posted here under his first name, knows a lot more about Auschwitz than I do and addressed the air photo (non-) issue in articles available under the following links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ation.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ce-on.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... sance.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... kenau.html

The second of these articles, if I understood correctly, addresses John Ball’s "marching on the rooftop" claims.
Roberto wrote:
Mortimer wrote:Roberto - As you believe that gassings occurred at Auschwitz can you give a brief explanation as to why you don't consider the Rudolf Report to be credible ?
https://shop.codoh.com/book/55/55
First of all, I don't believe. I accept what becomes apparent from conclusive evidence.

Second, if you want to know why the Rudolf Report is worthless in a nutshell, the reason is that he didn't provide the proof incumbent upon him that, considering all that is known about gassings of human beings in Birkenau crematoria as opposed to disinfestation gassings, Prussian Blue would necessarily have formed on the walls of the homicidal gas chambers.

As concerns the details, there was a long discussion about this issue in 2007 between me and a former Revisionist who posted here as "Wahrheit". I'm currently reproducing this discussion on another forum. If you are interested in reading this discussion, feel free to send me a PM.
Mortimer wrote:Anti revisionists who have critiqued the Leuchter Report often point out that Fred Leuchter was not a registered engineer. If this is a problem then what is wrong with The Luftl Report ? Walter Luftl was a registered engineer, expert court witness and president of the Austrian engineer's association -
http://codoh.com/library/document/2383/
That's great, but did he provide the proof that Rudolf failed to provide (see above)? That would be new to me, but I'm always open to learning something new.
PS:

As I predicted, "Hannover" got cold feet indeed. He deleted the former of the posts reproduced above after having approved it, and wrote some shit regarding the latter (about how I should respond to "Mortimer", which is further evidence, if that were still needed, that "Hannover" is the moderator - the guy must have manure inside his skull indeed).

Needless to say, he also removed from the notifications list the mention of the former post's approval.

Unfortunately for despicable "Hannover", I made screenshots of the thread as it looked after approval of the former post reproduced above, and as it looks now. I'll be glad so show them when I'm back.

Lily
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by Lily »

The facts are:
CODOH Moderator, not 'Hannover' said
Roberto,
Please do not post links without comments, without viewpoints, without telling us why you think they are compelling, etc.
See guidelines. [which Roberto agreed to]

Also, please limit the length of your posts. The 'wall of text' approach makes it cumbersome for our readers, makes it difficult to respond in readable manner.
See guidelines. [which Roberto agreed to]

We are the no. 1 "holocaust" debate site because of the order that we bring to the subject. We want readers to be able to follow & comprehend the various threads, posts.

Thanks, M1
:lol:

Hannover wrote:
No dodging Roberto, tell us why you don't accept the Rudolf Report, which is here:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/

Recall that you previously said that cyanide was washed off the alleged 'gas chamber' walls after every alleged 'gassing'. Oops.
see:
'Roberto Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide' :lol:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3706

You have also ignored the question about Luftl put to you. Please address it.
Mortimer wrote:
Anti revisionists who have critiqued the Leuchter Report often point out that Fred Leuchter was not a registered engineer. If this is a problem then what is wrong with The Luftl Report ? Walter Luftl was a registered engineer, expert court witness and president of the Austrian engineer's association - http://codoh.com/library/document/2383/
The massacre continues. :lol: :lol:

aemathisphd
Posts: 913
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by aemathisphd »

Lily wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:31 pm
The facts are:
CODOH Moderator, not 'Hannover' said
Roberto,
Please do not post links without comments, without viewpoints, without telling us why you think they are compelling, etc.
See guidelines. [which Roberto agreed to]

Also, please limit the length of your posts. The 'wall of text' approach makes it cumbersome for our readers, makes it difficult to respond in readable manner.
See guidelines. [which Roberto agreed to]

We are the no. 1 "holocaust" debate site because of the order that we bring to the subject. We want readers to be able to follow & comprehend the various threads, posts.

Thanks, M1
:lol:

Hannover wrote:
No dodging Roberto, tell us why you don't accept the Rudolf Report, which is here:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/

Recall that you previously said that cyanide was washed off the alleged 'gas chamber' walls after every alleged 'gassing'. Oops.
see:
'Roberto Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide' :lol:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3706

You have also ignored the question about Luftl put to you. Please address it.
Mortimer wrote:
Anti revisionists who have critiqued the Leuchter Report often point out that Fred Leuchter was not a registered engineer. If this is a problem then what is wrong with The Luftl Report ? Walter Luftl was a registered engineer, expert court witness and president of the Austrian engineer's association - http://codoh.com/library/document/2383/
The massacre continues. :lol: :lol:
:roll:

SFinesilver
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by SFinesilver »

aemathisphd wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:42 pm
Lily wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:31 pm
The facts are:
CODOH Moderator, not 'Hannover' said
Roberto,
Please do not post links without comments, without viewpoints, without telling us why you think they are compelling, etc.
See guidelines. [which Roberto agreed to]

Also, please limit the length of your posts. The 'wall of text' approach makes it cumbersome for our readers, makes it difficult to respond in readable manner.
See guidelines. [which Roberto agreed to]

We are the no. 1 "holocaust" debate site because of the order that we bring to the subject. We want readers to be able to follow & comprehend the various threads, posts.

Thanks, M1
:lol:

Hannover wrote:
No dodging Roberto, tell us why you don't accept the Rudolf Report, which is here:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/

Recall that you previously said that cyanide was washed off the alleged 'gas chamber' walls after every alleged 'gassing'. Oops.
see:
'Roberto Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide' :lol:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3706

You have also ignored the question about Luftl put to you. Please address it.
Mortimer wrote:
Anti revisionists who have critiqued the Leuchter Report often point out that Fred Leuchter was not a registered engineer. If this is a problem then what is wrong with The Luftl Report ? Walter Luftl was a registered engineer, expert court witness and president of the Austrian engineer's association - http://codoh.com/library/document/2383/
The massacre continues. :lol: :lol:
:roll:
:roll:
The massacre continues.
It sure does!

Wow, what was roberto thingking - going on a debate forum that doesn't allow dodging?
D - Has it been alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, Germany used "resettlement to the east" as a euphemism for transiting jews to the so-called "top secret" - PURE EXTERMINATION CAMPS - Yes. - or - No. - ?? - Nessie's answer: Yes.

E - Has it been alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the so-called "pure extermination camps" were - THE END OF THE LINE - for virtually everyone transited to those camps - Yes. - or - No. - ?? - Nessie's answer: Yes.

Is it - True. - or - False. - that; during WW II, Germany actually transited jews to labor camps / ghettos - that were located east of the Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II camps - ?? - Nessie's answer: True.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2078&start=210#p65945

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

Re: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by Roberto »

Lily wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:31 pm
The facts are:
CODOH Moderator, not 'Hannover' said
Roberto,
Please do not post links without comments, without viewpoints, without telling us why you think they are compelling, etc.
See guidelines. [which Roberto agreed to]

Also, please limit the length of your posts. The 'wall of text' approach makes it cumbersome for our readers, makes it difficult to respond in readable manner.
See guidelines. [which Roberto agreed to]

We are the no. 1 "holocaust" debate site because of the order that we bring to the subject. We want readers to be able to follow & comprehend the various threads, posts.

Thanks, M1
The no. 1 "Revisionist" debate side? The doesn't bode well for "Revisionism". If they are the best, what about the rest?

And don't give me that "CODOH moderator not Hannover" shit. CODOH moderator = "Hannover" = "Lily", as anyone with brains will easily realize.

Anyway, thanks for posting your moderator babbling here, "Lily". That way I can respond to it.

First paragraph: a lie (lying comes as naturally as breathing to "LIly"). All my links are strictly topic-related,

Second paragraph: the ultimate hypocrisy. Address each and every one of your "Revisionist" interlocutor's claims, respond to all challenges, provide a world of information if demanded ("show" me all mass graves, give me all names of people deported to BST even though I can't give you a single name of someone deported from BST to the "Russian East", etc.), but keep your posts short so we can "respond in a readable manner" (read: keep your posts to yourself because we can't respond to them and you make us look like idiots, which is why your posts rarely if ever see the light of day).

Who do you think you're fooling "Lily"?

I like your custom signature, by the way: "only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it". Sounds great, and fits your moderating practices like a glove.
Lily wrote:Hannover wrote:
No dodging Roberto, tell us why you don't accept the Rudolf Report, which is here:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/

Recall that you previously said that cyanide was washed off the alleged 'gas chamber' walls after every alleged 'gassing'. Oops.
see:
'Roberto Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide' :lol:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3706

You have also ignored the question about Luftl put to you. Please address it.
Mortimer wrote:
Anti revisionists who have critiqued the Leuchter Report often point out that Fred Leuchter was not a registered engineer. If this is a problem then what is wrong with The Luftl Report ? Walter Luftl was a registered engineer, expert court witness and president of the Austrian engineer's association - http://codoh.com/library/document/2383/
Thanks for that one, too. Here's how I responded to you (the post will go down the memory hole, of course):
Roberto wrote:
Hannover wrote:No dodging Roberto, tell us why you don't accept the Rudolf Report, which is here:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/

Recall that you previously said that cyanide was washed off the alleged 'gas chamber' walls after every alleged 'gassing'. Oops.
see:
'Roberto Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3706

You have also ignored the question about Luftl put to you. Please address it.
Mortimer wrote:
- Hannover

Imagine in a real / legit court of law where someone claims that millions of people were murdered and dumped into mass graves, but then could not produce the claimed mass graves and the alleged contents. They would be laughed out of that court.
No dodging? Now look who is talking.

And your signature shows that you still know as much about judicial proceedings and requirements as a pig does about Sunday, despite my patient explanations of what a court of law will demand and how (through reports and testimonies of expert witnesses) mass grave evidence, where available and necessary to make the case (it wasn't at the trials before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, conducted according to US rules of evidence, and it wasn't at NS-crimes trials before courts of the German Federal Republic, conducted according to the defendant-friendly procedural rules of a democratic state of law) is introduced into judicial proceedings.

That aside, who are you to tell me how I should respond to Mortimer? Are you the moderator?

I assume you are, but that also doesn't give you the right to interfere in a discussion between two other posters.

And why do you interfere? Do you think Mortimer is not capable of responding for himself? Are you afraid I might lead him to discover something outside the tight walls of CODOH?

The latter concern may not be unjustified. Mortimer may become interested in the long discussion about Rudolf's arguments and Green's counterarguments that I had with Wahrheit in 2007, first with him on CODOH and me on that other forum you're afraid of mentioning, then with both of us on that forum. It wasn't all about moisture (a little is good, too much is bad), it was also about CO2, the ph of the walls and other interesting things. The conclusion we eventually reached, IIRC (I haven't yet reached the end of my reproduction of that discussion on the other forum) was that Rudolf had screwed himself, or failed to make his case at best.

Remember Wahrheit, Hannover? He was one of the best you had, now he's with us. Then Thomas Kues fell silent. Then Friedrich Jansson lost interest in the subject. Then BROI (one of the few Revisionists who did archival research, perhaps the only one besides Mattogno & Graf) repudiated Revisionism, and finally Eric Hunt reached the end of the line. Things don't look good for Revisionism. Maybe you'll be left alone or surrounded by some third-degree yes-men one of these days,

As to Lüftl, I acknowledged that he's an engineer, which was what I understood Mortimer wanted me to do. Whether he made any points that Rudolf failed to make is another matter. I consider that improbable as Rudolf, along with Mattogno, is one of the two big assets Revisionism has left. However, if Mortimer wants to discuss particulars of the Lüftl Report with me, I'll be glad to that. He'll have to do more than just post a link, however.

Now, kindly stay out of my discussion with Mortimer and let Mortimer speak for himself. Thank you.
Lily wrote:The massacre continues.
I guess so. The massacre of whatever credibility CODOH may still have had as a place of open debate, at the hands of a cowardly and sparrow-brained moderator who disapproves every post that makes him shit faster (and when he accidentally approves one such post, he comes running from the shithouse to delete it).

You're a sorry excuse for a "Revisionist", moderator "Lily". Unfortunately the scene is now largely dominated by your kind, which makes debate increasingly boring. I miss abler debaters like Wilfried Heink aka neugierig, may he rest in peace. I used to call him "Waldheini", but he stood head and shoulders over creatures like you. Be grateful that Mr. Rudolf, who seems to be very patient with you, is your boss. If CODOH were my thing, I'd kick you out of moderation and put someone with guts and brains in your place.
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).

SFinesilver
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival

Post by SFinesilver »

CWhite:

Looks good, don't you think Roberto?


My challenge to Revisionists is thus the following:

Please provide the name of at least one jew that you can prove to have been transited via Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór or Treblinka to what Korherr called the "Russian East", i.e. to a destination in the Reichskommissariat Ostland, the Reichskommissariat Ukraine or the Soviet territories under German military administration[/b]. By "transited" I mean that the person in question must have been taken to the respective camp (Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór or Treblinka), then shipped from that camp to a certain destination in the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union as defined above, e.g. to Minsk, Riga, Kovno or Kiev.

One name, with proof.

Just one name.

Please note that this challenge pertains specifically to the - 1,419,467 - jews that I can prove actually set foot in Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor or Treblinka II, and that I can prove were killed and buried in the camps to which they were deported. (Though I have yet to muster the courage, integrity and character to accept the challenge to put up or shut up and prove my unsubstantiated allegations - like any honest / legitimate researcher would.)

Also note that my fellow exterminationist "Nessie" alleges that at least 75 "huge mass graves" have been located / proven to exist - with the utmost certainty via the scientific method - within the boundaries of these four camps, and that he can also prove - with the utmost certainty and using the scientific method - that these four camps contain the remains of at least - 1,796,000 - jews. (Though he has yet to muster the courage, integrity and character to accept the challenge to put up or shut up and prove his unsubstantiated allegations - like any honest / legitimate researcher would.)

Last note: This challenge was born out of an amenable conversation between my old friend Greg Gerdes and me on the threads - $1,000.00 REWARD FOR THE NAME OF JUST ONE GASSED jEW - in which I did not earn so-much-as one sinlge penny in reward money - not one single penny!


CWhite:

When are we going to see the change on your website?



What are you waiting for roberto?

What are you so afraid of?
D - Has it been alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, Germany used "resettlement to the east" as a euphemism for transiting jews to the so-called "top secret" - PURE EXTERMINATION CAMPS - Yes. - or - No. - ?? - Nessie's answer: Yes.

E - Has it been alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the so-called "pure extermination camps" were - THE END OF THE LINE - for virtually everyone transited to those camps - Yes. - or - No. - ?? - Nessie's answer: Yes.

Is it - True. - or - False. - that; during WW II, Germany actually transited jews to labor camps / ghettos - that were located east of the Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II camps - ?? - Nessie's answer: True.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2078&start=210#p65945

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests