Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

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.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 22433
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Nessie » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:20 am

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:03 am
Nessie wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:51 am
DP, onetruth, JeffK and myself have something in common. We all follow the evidence using the historical method and have reached a conclusion, independent of any opinion, of what took place to the Jews under Nazi captivity during WWII.
:lol:

You are all a bunch of armchair conspiracy theorists which had barely seen any primary source in your whole life.
The CT is yours, you claim millions were not murdered, despite no evidence to show mass transits and resettlement from the AR camps and other places of mass murder, such as at Ponary. What primary sources have you seen?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 22433
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Nessie » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:20 am

Been-there has been busted plagiarising sources which he did not credit in the sub-forum, which is against the rules he so rigorously imposes on others, He then forgives himself and leaves the thread he created in place. That proves he is not a fit and proper person to run that sub-forum.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
DasPrussian
Posts: 2658
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by DasPrussian » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:25 pm

Nessie wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:20 am
Been-there has been busted plagiarising sources which he did not credit in the sub-forum, which is against the rules he so rigorously imposes on others, He then forgives himself and leaves the thread he created in place. That proves he is not a fit and proper person to run that sub-forum.
Lol, it was a dead cert that something like this would eventually happen.

Individuals like Been There, ( usually middle class lefty-liberal types who should know better ), will always slowly morph into and eventually surpass the behaviour of the very people or system they despise. Once they gain a little power ( in this case given their own sub-forum ), it tends to affect their mind-set to such a degree, that they become increasingly more deluded, hypocritical, dictatorial and mental.
All I want for Christmas is a Dukla Prague away kit

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 22433
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Nessie » Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:46 am

It is east enough to monitor been-there's threads for plagiarism and to show when he fails to properly cite sources or just how much he is actually quoting.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Roberto » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:53 am

The post copied below, on the thread viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916, was disapproved, apparently because the moderator thought it was a duplicate post.

That is not so.

The post was a response to Aryan Scholar’s post under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=80#p111399 .

The subsequent post (viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=90#p112133), which was approved, addresses Aryan Scholar’s post under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=90#p112080.

Two different answers to two different posts.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:57 am
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:00 pm
Roberto wrote:
Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:25 pm
I didn't say that the document explicitly refers to "mass graves used to bury Jews". The argument is that "Jewish mass grave" would not have been a term used for a mass grave containing something other than dead Jews, for the reasons explained. And that, besides, the possibility of the mass graves in question containing something other than dead Jews is not borne out by other evidence, whereas all related evidence points to mass graves containing the bodies of Jews who had met a violent death.
Please, substantiate the "argument is that "Jewish mass grave" would not have been a term used for a mass grave containing something other than dead Jews" with authoritative (or even testimonial) evidence related to DOK 239. Please, quote the parts of the related evidence of DOK 239 which explicitly "points to mass graves containing the bodies of Jews who had met a violent death". Let's see it.
It is not known who exactly ordered the systematic killing of Jews in Semeliškių.
We know from the Jäger Report that it was someone from the Teilkommando des EK.3 in Wilna mentioned on page 5 of the Jäger Report, which was obviously in charge of Vilnius and communities in the surrounding regions such as Semeliškių. The man from the Teilkommando who ordered the killing could have been Peter Eisenbarth, Erich Wolff, Martin Weiss or August Hering. Unless our objective is to press charges against any of these individuals, it's irrelevant which of them gave the order.
Aryan Scholar wrote:It is not known who exactly carried the order, dug the mass grave and systematic killed the Jews in Semeliškių in 1941.
Mass graves were dug either by Lithuanian auxiliaries or by the Jews to be executed. The killing was done by Germans of the Teilkommando and/or Lithuanian auxiliaries. Unless our objective is to press charges against any specific individual involved in the killing, it's irrelevant whether we have further information about the mentioned details or not.
Aryan Scholar wrote:It is not known where exactly the mass grave in Semeliškių was dug and how many bodies were really buried there.
As to the location of the mass grave, the available evidence (including the shape of the area) points to the lower-lying part of the fenced in area containing the monument. As to how many bodies were buried there, the choice is between just the 962 Jews mentioned in the Jäger Report or those 962 plus an additional 58 or so later buried in the same grave. Not exactly a significant difference.
Aryan Scholar wrote:It is not known if all Jews of Semeliškių were really killed.
The Jäger Report suggests that they were, but maybe some survived the massacre in hiding. Either way it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Aryan Scholar wrote:It is not known if the mass grave in Semeliškių have just have the corpses of Jews, gentiles, animals or a combination of all.
The case for the corpses of 962 Jews and maybe an additional 58 gentiles (e.g. Soviet prisoners of war) is strong. The case for there also being animals in the grave, on the other hand, is rather weak and based on a far-fetched interpretation of DOK 239.
Aryan Scholar wrote:It is not known who erected the symbolic 1965 monument in the Dargonių forest cemetery.
That may be so as far as the knowledge of participants in this discussion is concerned, but it is also irrelevant.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Finally, you fail to accept the Lithuanian land register has no record of any Jewish mass grave in the Dargonių forest cemetery.
I have no problem with the Lithuanian land register not specifically mentioning a mass grave, actually. My argument is that the presence of a mass grave is implied in the place's identification as a place where Jews were massacred.
Aryan Scholar wrote:It seems no related evidence of DOK 239 can be shown which explicitly "points to mass graves containing the bodies of Jews who had met a violent death" in Semeliškių, but instead assumptions are being made based mostly on belief and leaps of faith.
Assumptions are based on reason and logic, not on belief and leaps of faith. The only known event in the area that could have created something meriting the designation "Jewish mass grave" was the massacre of 962 Jews recorded on page 6 of the Jäger Report.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:49 pm
None of the above changes the fact that "the place of massacre of the Jews" implies a mass grave at that place, meaning that "graves" means both individual graves and a mass grave (or only the latter, as the individual graves are mentioned elsewhere), and that the fenced-in area is much bigger than would correspond to the individual graves alone, which occupy only small fraction of the area.
That would be true if there was a record of a Jewish mass grave in the Lithuanian land register of the Dargonių forest cemetery terrain. There is none.
Unless the Lithuanian authorities referring to the area as "the place of massacre of the Jews" assumed that the massacre's victims were left lying around for animals to feed on them (which is unlikely), and unless a realistic alternative explanation for the fencing-in of an area much larger than that corresponding to the few individual graves in the higher parts of that area can be provided, the reasonable assumption is still the one that "the place of massacre of the Jews" implies the existence of a mass grave in which the massacred Jews were buried.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:49 pm
And how do you explain the size of the fenced-in area including the monument, of which the individual graves occupy only a small fraction?
The Dargonių forest cemetery terrain includes 6 marked areas for individuals graves (see here and here).
That may be so, but the area is still much too large for just 6 individual graves.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:49 pm
No, reaching a conclusion based on several indicators, none of which is the conclusion itself. The other way round. You need to explain why you think that the above indications (including without limitation the depression) don't support my assumption.
For your assumption to be true you have to first prove the exactly location, dimension and content of the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239.
Proof of the grave's location and contents follows from the conjunction of the various elements of evidence I have mentioned. Proof without taking those elements into consideration would require excavation, which is neither something I can do nor something that is reasonably necessary to support the conclusion that the grave in question is where I think it is.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:49 pm
That's right. So it can neither be assumed nor ruled out that there was a Soviet excavation at the place in question. The question remains open.
As it remains the absence of any evidence of a Soviet excavation occurring in Semeliškių.
Absence of evidence known to the participants in this discussion does not necessarily mean absence of evidence at all.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:49 pm
The source you quote cannot be taken as proof that the Soviet ChGK based its conclusions only on "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence", as there are publicly available examples of cases in which excavations and exhumations were carried out by Soviet investigators (and what is publicly available is probably just a fraction of what exists in this respect).
In the absence of any evidence of a Soviet excavation occurring in Semeliškių, the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių can only come from "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence".
That conclusion might be reached after reading the whole report and not finding any mention of excavations there, but not on the basis of a published fraction of the report only.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:49 pm
I said that Germans gave the orders and were thus primarily responsible for the killing of civilians, which as we known from other evidence were Jews, in the Semeliškių. (...) So my assumption (that Germans were primarily responsible for the massacre) is duly substantiated, and there's no need to procure primary sources about specific individual perpetrators.
How do you know it was a German who gave the original order to kill civilians in Semeliškių if you do not even know the identity of the person who gave the original order?
Because there are two indications in this direction, one being the depositions of Lithuanian participants in the killing and the other being the information that the killing was done by the Teilkommando of EK3 in charge of Vilnius and the surrounding area. The rank and file of the Teilkommando and/or its auxiliaries may have included or been Lithuanians, but its commanders were Germans.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:49 pm
The other way round. Where is the proof that Wette, who is a noted historian, invented the statement in question? The source reference is the following (Wette, Jäger, p. 206):
Schreiben der Zentralen Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen vom 5.12.1989 an den Verf.; Anlage: Vermerk der Zentralen Stelle vom 2.5.1963 über die Überlassung einer Reihe von Originaldokumenten durch das Aussenministerium der UdSSR,
Translation:
Letter from the Central Bureau of the Federal States’ Judicial Administrations to the author dated 5.12.1989; attachment: note of the Central Bureau dated 2.5.1963 about the handing over of a number of original documents by the Foreign Ministry of the USSR.
What Soviet entity exactly and where in Lithuania exactly? I don't know. Maybe that is stated in the Central Bureau's note dated 2.5.1963 mentioned by Wette, see quote above. What is the relevance of this question?
The primary source for Wette statement is not authoritative evidence produced by the Soviets in 1944, but instead a "note of the Central Bureau dated 2.5.1963 about the handing over of a number of original documents by the Foreign Ministry of the USSR". It appears Wette made a conjecture based on an undisclosed statement in the note. So not really proof the Soviets know about the Jäger Report in 1944, even less the figure in the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių comes from the Jäger Report.
Actually a conjecture by Wette is rather unlikely. What is more realistic is that the document’s provenance (found by the Soviets in Lithuania in 1944) is stated in the note of the Central Bureau as being information provided by the Foreign Ministry of the USSR when handing over the document. Whether the figure in the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių took the Jäger Report into consideration is not clear, but it remains a possibility. The precise figure stated in the reports ("precise" meaning as opposed to something like "about 1,000") could have resulted from an addition of Jäger’s figure and a figure for further killings established on hand of eyewitness testimonies. Or it could have resulted from the count of bodies extracted from the grave.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:49 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote: Then who are the additional 58 "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") from the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių if there was no more Jews in Semeliškių to be killed in accordance with the Jäger Report?
I don't know. They may have been prisoners of war or civilians executed for having helped pro-Soviet partisans. What is the relevance of this question?
You are offering authoritative evidence which you do not know what exactly it proves.
What authoritative evidence exactly are you referring to, and what is the relevance of your question?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:49 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote: What is the primary source for the above statements from Arūnas Bubnys? Who is the German above in the underlined sentences Arūnas Bubnys is talking about?
"Interrogation minutes of J. Ragavičius of 17 August 1970, LSA, doc.col. K-1, inv.sched. 45, file 1851, p.p. 155-157; interrogation minutes of B. Kapačiūnas of 11 September 1970, ibid., file 1847, p.p. 236-236 a.p.". The German mentioned is not identified, presumably because the interrogated persons didn't know his name. It may have been Peter Eisenbarth, Erich Wolff, August Hering or Martin Weiss (see my post under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=80#p109880). Weiss is mentioned in connection with the Trakai massacre on p. 52 of Bubnys' article.
Another incognito perpetrator whose identity neither you nor Bubnys really knows, but believe it was really a German without proof because Ragavičius and Kapačiūnas said so in interrogations done in 1970.
Actually the depositions of Ragavičius and Kapačiūnas are relevant evidence and thus part of the proof, and what the interrogated Lithuanian individuals stated matches Jäger’s mention of the Teilkommando of his EK 3 as having carried out the massacre. As I said before, the Teilkommando’s rank and file and/or auxiliaries may have included or been Lithuanians, but the men giving orders were clearly Germans, otherwise Jäger wouldn’t have referred to the unit as a Teilkommando of his EK3. Besides, the names of German individuals belonging to that Teilkommando are known. It is highly unlikely that any of them would have left the organization and execution of a mass killing entirely to Lithuanians. As I wrote before, Martin Weiss is mentioned in connection with the Trakai massacre on p. 52 of Bubnys' article. Trakai is not far away from Semeliškių, so it stands to reason that Weiss gave the orders there as well.
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).

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7060
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 am
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by been-there » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:22 am

I gave you Nessie a free pass to show willing, and accepted a submission from you despite it breaking the rules. But I won't be doing that again. Be warned. You will NOT be permitted to disrupt that forum as you do elsewhere.

Here is your own explanation of your latest submission:
Nessie wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:33 pm
Lets test this out, the following has been submitted for the Treblinka thread.

"This claim has been made in the OP;
• If T2 was a 'transit camp' for preventing spread of disease, it would need shower facilities and clothes disinfectation facilities
(T2 had showers/parasite* killing chambers and steam rooms).
Please show the evidence for the existence of showers, parasite killing chambers and steam rooms that were used to shower and disinfect the people sent to TII."

Lets see if is accepted or not and if not, why?
The 'propositions' forum is intended to allow for genuine serious debate without allowing tricks to obfuscate, derail, obscure, etc.
Its only meant for those who want to seriously compare understandings and research.
Its not a place for beginners, nor for people whose only intention is to try and cause mean-spirited conflict from a position of ignorance.

Your submission broke rule No.2.
It offered no factual information at all. It actually showed an ignorance of the most basic details. Propositions is not the place for people who have no familiarity with the subject matter under discussion and who only want to challenge from a position of ignorance.

Your submission broke rule No.4.
You made a submission that was a test, an attempt to trip someone up. I.e it did not show a person attempting dialogue from a position of good faith.

Remember these rules are tried and tested rules based upon those at Wikipedia. If someone repeatedly contributes content like that on Wikipedia they are blocked. Here you won't get blocked from submitting, but your submissions won't be accepted.

Familiarise yourselves with the rules if you want to debate at propsitions. You won't be getting another free-pass.
RULES OF DEBATE:
Anyone can submit a topic for discussion and contribute as long as they abide by these conditions:

1.) deal with the argument not the person making it. I.e. No ad hominem remarks or arguments.

2.) as much as possible, factual information offered must be cited with verifiable references.

3.) no deliberate obfuscation tactics such as walls of text, moving the goalposts, strawman misrepresentation, changing the subject, tu quoque avoidance, etc., will be permitted

4.) assume others (opponents) are discussing in good faith. Even if you doubt it, argue as if they were.
The last rule is intended to create a virtuous circle that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more respectfully and fairly anyone comes to the debate, the more that allows others to reply in the same spirit whatever their position, pro or con. A more civilised debate will hopefully make for more useful and informative understanding of the areas of contention.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 22433
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Nessie » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:53 am

That post has appeared on the thread. Clearly there was nothing wrong with it. Rule 2 does not mean factual information is needed for every post. Your suggestion I do not know about the camp is itself a breach of the rules, rule 1 attacking your opponent and not the argument. The submission was a test of your moderation, not of anyone posting on the thread. It does not break rule 4. It is asking for the evidence from which a claim has been made. Here is a follow up to that request, where I show due to the source being contentious, the evidence it provides needs to be verified.
been-there wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:22 am
.....
Two filmed 'eye witnesses' are included in the following videos describing SHOWERS.
One at the very beginning here @ 0:11 to 0:30.



One at the very end here @ 12:11.



One transited Jewish person describes showers and steam rooms in this video starting at 11:50 to the end:

The source is Eric Hunt, who has since accepted the AR camps were not transit camps. It is important therefore, to verify that testimony is accurately represented. To do that we need the entire interviews. Whilst the first and third witnesses are speaking there is a caption below which shows they went on from Treblinka to Majdanek or Budzyn. The female witness in video 2 has no reference, but in other videos she speaks of being transited to work at Majdanek. In the video no witness is shown stating where they actually showered.

We need to check which camp the witnesses are referring to, to verify where they had their shower.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7060
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 am
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by been-there » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:16 am

Nessie wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:53 am
That post has appeared on the thread. Clearly there was nothing wrong with it. Rule 2 does not mean factual information is needed for every post. Your suggestion I do not know about the camp is itself a breach of the rules, rule 1 attacking your opponent and not the argument. The submission was a test of your moderation, not of anyone posting on the thread. It does not break rule 4. It is asking for the evidence from which a claim has been made. Here is a follow up to that request, where I show due to the source being contentious, the evidence it provides needs to be verified.

The source is Eric Hunt, who has since accepted the AR camps were not transit camps. It is important therefore, to verify that testimony is accurately represented. To do that we need the entire interviews. Whilst the first and third witnesses are speaking there is a caption below which shows they went on from Treblinka to Majdanek or Budzyn. The female witness in video 2 has no reference, but in other videos she speaks of being transited to work at Majdanek. In the video no witness is shown stating where they actually showered.

We need to check which camp the witnesses are referring to, to verify where they had their shower.
Obviously the primary source is NOT Eric Hunt. The filmed inteviews come from a project by Stephen Spielberg. Arguing from a position of Ignorance ex.1.
And again, obviously even Speilberg is not the source either. Arguing from a position of Ignorance ex.2.

The source is the 'eye-witnesses' who claimed to have passed through Treblinka and were filmed recounting their experiences themselves, NOT the persons filming them or anyone else utilising their filmed interviews.
This is such basic stuff. :roll:
You again show that you do not understand the basics of providing referenced sources.

If you maintain they were not talking about Treblinka when they mentioned showers, then demonstrate that. That would be a useful use of the RODOH subforum.

Anyway, a confirmatory documentary Polish source was provided with a verifiable reference confirming showers and disinfectation proceedures. You have ignored that.

And then obviously, those rules there do not apply here. This topic-thread is outside of the subforum. Here you have an oppurtunity to challenge decisions, be disruptive and difficult if you want. So expecting me to apply by those rules HERE again shows you are not trying to discuss in good faith but are trying to disrupt. Arguing from a position of belligerence, ex.1.

This demonstrates again that you are actually not capable of having an informed, reasonable, intelligent discussion in good faith. It shows how even when out of generosity referenced, authenticated information is provided for you, you refuse to accept it.

SO... to summarise:
You didn't do any genuine research of the sources yourself, but expected others to do it for you.
And then when it was provided, you ignored it or attempt to discredit it with false reasoning.
You did not follow the rules. You did not provide any information to further discussion or increase understanding.
And all this is NOT an isolated incident.

Obviously submissions containing nothing but questions is permitted with someone actually engaging in debate. But you werern't doing that
You are showing that you are a timewaster. Your mission is to troll, obfuscate and disrupt.
That is not allowed on that particular part of RODOH.
I will not be responding to further timewasting arguments about this.

If in future you want to try and discuss topics at 'propositions' subforum you are welcome. But you will have to attempt to follow the rules and accept in good faith moderator decisions. When and if you can do that you will be welcome to contribute there.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 22433
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Nessie » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:09 pm

been-there wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:16 am
.....

Obviously the primary source is NOT Eric Hunt. The filmed inteviews come from a project by Stephen Spielberg. Arguing from a position of Ignorance ex.1.
And again, obviously even Speilberg is not the source either. Arguing from a position of Ignorance ex.2.

The source is the 'eye-witnesses' who claimed to have passed through Treblinka and were filmed recounting their experiences themselves, NOT the persons filming them or anyone else utilising their filmed interviews.
This is such basic stuff. :roll:
You again show that you do not understand the basics of providing referenced sources.
I did not say Hunt was the primary source, i just said he was the source. You have been deceptive and you are nitpicking over phrasing. If the source was the original filmed interviews in their entirety, I would have referred to them in a different way.
If you maintain they were not talking about Treblinka when they mentioned showers, then demonstrate that. That would be a useful use of the RODOH subforum.

Anyway, a confirmatory documentary Polish source was provided with a verifiable reference confirming showers and disinfectation proceedures. You have ignored that.
The issue is you have used Eric Hunt's version of what the witnesses said. He has quote mined and been deceptive. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the interviews knows that the witnesses speak to selections on arrival at TII, only some leaving to work at camps elsewhere and how they were relieved to be showered, not gassed on arrival at Majdanek or Budzyn.
And then obviously, those rules there do not apply here. This topic-thread is outside of the subforum. Here you have an oppurtunity to challenge decisions, be disruptive and difficult if you want. So expecting me to apply by those rules HERE again shows you are not trying to discuss in good faith but are trying to disrupt. Arguing from a position of belligerence, ex.1.

This demonstrates again that you are actually not capable of having an informed, reasonable, intelligent discussion in good faith. It shows how even when out of generosity referenced, authenticated information is provided for you, you refuse to accept it.

SO... to summarise:
You didn't do any genuine research of the sources yourself, but expected others to do it for you.
You did not quote sources in the OP for the claim I have highlighted.
And then when it was provided, you ignored it or attempt to discredit it with false reasoning.
You did not follow the rules. You did not provide any information to further discussion or increase understanding.
And all this is NOT an isolated incident.
I have pointed out that is major problems with the source, which is Hunt's highly edited version of the interviews. The same Hunt who has now recanted and accepts he was wrong

https://archive.fo/DoGTn#selection-1741.372-1741.378
Obviously submissions containing nothing but questions is permitted with someone actually engaging in debate. But you werern't doing that
You are showing that you are a timewaster. Your mission is to troll, obfuscate and disrupt.
That is not allowed on that particular part of RODOH.
I will not be responding to further timewasting arguments about this.

If in future you want to try and discuss topics at 'propositions' subforum you are welcome. But you will have to attempt to follow the rules and accept in good faith moderator decisions. When and if you can do that you will be welcome to contribute there.
Asking you to provide evidence for and to verify your claims is within the rules.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7060
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 am
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by been-there » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:50 am

Nessie wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:09 pm
been-there wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:16 am
If you maintain they were not talking about Treblinka when they mentioned showers, then demonstrate that. That would be a useful use of the RODOH subforum.

Anyway, a confirmatory documentary Polish source was provided with a verifiable reference confirming showers and disinfectation proceedures. You have ignored that.
The issue is you have used Eric Hunt's version of what the witnesses said. He has quote mined and been deceptive.
1. TROLLING example 1
You are still ignoring the 1946 Polish official documentary evidence.

2. TROLLING example 2
Eric Hunt did some research of primary sources. He watched hours of interviews that were filmed and archived by Spielberg.
He did some work and he added to our collective knowledge.
You have done NOTHING except carp, whinge and attempt to discredit that research based on nothing but your opnion and confirmation-biased speculation.

So here is a challenge to you.
Instead of constantly asking for people to provide you with more and more evidence (which you then ignore in order to maintain your 'faith' in the holocaust religious dogma) DO some actual research yourself.
Look at the filmed interviews as Mr. Hunt did.
If he HAS "quote-mined and been deceptive" -- as you scurrilously claim without ANY evidence -- then you can demonstrate that. Post that up at the propositions subforum. That will be useful to others. That way you will be adding to the pool of knowledge.

But I predict you won't do that. I maintain it is because you are NOT interested in truth and fact. You are a troll intent only on buttressing an irrational belief for some strange reason.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest