Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Boyar
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Boyar »

Huntinger wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 5:24 pm
Nessie wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:39 pm
How is discussing what happened inside TII a derail?
The point of the thread is to examine the evidence, the details can be discussed elsewhere. At the moment the evidence is looking much stronger that this was a part of a customs facility as was the other AR camps.
I wonder if the poster Nessie thinks this was a "little" mistake.
Image
if theres mass graves under belzec, and it was the exact same type of death camp as treblinka, during the same time period, and everyone said it was a death camp , and all the evidence points towards it being a death camp, then its a death camp, just like belzec and sobibor. until you find someone who said it was a transit camp. until then its just a historical roleplaying "design your own resettlement action" game.


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


User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7152
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Huntinger »

Boyar wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:26 am

if theres mass graves under belzec, and it was the exact same type of death camp as treblinka, during the same time period, and everyone said it was a death camp , and all the evidence points towards it being a death camp, then its a death camp, just like belzec and sobibor. until you find someone who said it was a transit camp. until then its just a historical roleplaying "design your own resettlement action" game.
So you think there are 7 million dead Juden buried beneath Treblinka, a plot of about 10 acres? London city has a little more than 7 million,. You are saying that the population of London was murdered and buried without a trace.

How much soap do you think 26 million people would make. Clue 1kg of fat gives 1.5 kg of soap. There is about 10kg of fat per person which amounts to 15kg of soap per person. This would give 390 thousand tonne of soap. The average bar of soap is 0.06kg which means somewhere there were 6.5 billion bars of soap made. Do you believe that Boyar?


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

𝕳𝖚̈𝖓𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖗

User avatar
TheGodfather
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by TheGodfather »

Papasha is baaaaaaaaack

Turnagain
Posts: 7990
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Turnagain »

Lupus tries to lie his way out of Rajchman's claim that the blood of the 250,000 Jews who were buried in one mass grave accidentally caught fire and burned for an entire night and the next day. Stangl said:
When the cremation grates were there, fire was kindled in the corpse pits to cremate the corpses on top… such a fire in one grave resulted from the gas from the corpses. Big tall flames shot up and there was an enormous mushroom cloud.
What the hell is Stangl going on about a fire being kindled in the corpse pits "to cremate the corpses on top"? He then goes on to say that tall flames shot up and there was a mushroom cloud. Lupus is apparently claiming that Stangl meant that the gasses burned all night and the next day while the resulting mushroom cloud took all night and the next day to disperse. Of course Stangl is lying. He can't even keep his own story straight. That or Rajchman actually mistook the blood for corpse gasses which continued to burn all night and the next day. Well, it COULDA happened which becomes that DID happen and everybody lived happily ever after. Lupus' weasel dodge and lie is another FAIL.

Lupus then states:
As for his description of the fuel, no problem here at all as he obviously means dry branches/bushes. Twigs are virtually the same as branches. You might want to dispute that, but do it with somebody else, I aint interested in this pointless nit-picking.
Nitpicking. Right, got it. The fact is that Rajchman stated that "twigs the size of toothpicks" were used to set the cadavers ablaze on one occasion and said that "brushwood" was used on a different occasion. Lupus simply cherry picks the quote that he believes most fits his narrative and ignores all the rest. Anything else is just "nitpicking".
Just face facts, Ettling concluded the following :

The findings show that for a ewe, and presumably for a human also, the body can be rather thoroughly consumed by fire by its own fat.....
What part of "rather thoroughly consumed" don't you understand, Lupus?
Does Ettling say that the sheep's carcass was completely cremated? Answer "yes" or "no".
Does Ettling say that a human body was completely cremated? Reduced to ash and carbonized bone? Answer "yes" or "no".
I'm betting that Lupus refuses to answer those questions and replies with a weasel dodge. Ettling makes it clear that a sheep's carcass and two presumably fully dressed humans can be substantially burned in a car fire. Lupus then makes the leap to 2,000 to 3,000 naked humans being piled onto a grate made of railroad rails and, using nothing but minor amounts of wood or woody material for kindling completely consume themselves to ash and carbonized bone. Oh, and some rags soaked in gasoline, too. Can't forget the rags.

Ettling supposedly took his inspiration from the book, "The Revolt at Treblinka", by Jean-Francois Steiner. In 1966, Steiner's book was riding high as a first hand account of Treblinka. Just as Binny Wilkomirski's book, "Fragments" was a ten year sensation amongst hoyhoaxers. Unfortunately, both books were debunked as fakes although Steiner's tome is still being touted as "fake but accurate". Here is a review of Steiner's work of fiction. http://www.vho.org/tr/2001/3/tr07steiner.html So much for Lupus' "facts backed up by an experiment".
What is turnagain on about 'origin of the bodies' ?
I posted a link to a clamshell equipped M&H dragine demolishing a building to show the impossibility of even a 1.5 cubic meter clamshell being capable of exhuming whole bodies from a mass of buried and decaying cadavers. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Lupus simply stamps his feet and shrieks, "Can too exhume whole bodies, can too". Apparently he didn't even bother to watch the video.

As far as the sheep burning for three hours being magic, the wick effect is a well understood and a rather rare phenomena. A sheep's wool contains lots of lanolin and whether or not it was in contact with the char and ash is unknown. Clearly it wasn't setting on 6 inch high rails with the char and ash from some minor amounts of wood lying at least 20-30 cm beneath that. Neither were the sheep or the humans completely naked. Your little fantasy of of the 2,000 to 3,000 naked cadavers completely cremating themselves doesn't fly, Lupus. Just for openers, 2,000 bodies piled one every 12 inches would result in about 100 cadavers per layer on a 30 meter long grate. That raises the image of the magic Jew barbeque piled 20 to 30 bodies high before the kindling was ignited. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7152
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Huntinger »

Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:58 am
That raises the image of the magic Jew barbeque piled 20 to 30 bodies high before the kindling was ignited. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
What we have is a very faulty experimental design performed in a non professional manner; there is no report, no null hypothesis; it crawls with extraneous and confounding variables. On this point could I advise let this matter rest unless the poster can produce a peer reviewed published report. The poster has obviously no scientific training except perhaps mid school.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

𝕳𝖚̈𝖓𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖗

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Nessie »

Still waiting for a denier to produce evidence TII was a transit camp.
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
Huntinger
Posts: 7152
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:23 am
Still waiting for a denier to produce evidence TII was a transit camp.
The evidence is pointing to it being a customs processing depot of some sort. Details missing, not surprising considering the length the Soviets took to destroy the information. However it is compelling as a calculated bet.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

𝕳𝖚̈𝖓𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖗

Enigma Charlie
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:14 am
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Enigma Charlie »

Nessie wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:23 am
Still waiting for a denier to produce evidence TII was a transit camp.
That’s never going to happen. Holocaust deniers just make up things and don’t believe in providing evidence for their claims.

Kindest regards,

Charlie

User avatar
Lupus Rothstein
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Lupus Rothstein »

Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:49 am
Lupus
wrote:
Yep, you tried to inflate the amount of gasoline used for the second experiment by claiming several gallons were used instead of the correct amount of 2.75 gallons.
I plainly stated that several gallons of gasoline (17 quarts) were poured over the carcasses in the experiment. Lupus declares that he was only talking about one carcass which he somehow translates into I was lying about several gallons of gasoline being poured over the sheep carcasses. A fine example of holyhoaxer logic.
Face facts, you were left scratching your head trying to explain the 70% level of cremation from a magic fire with no fuel, so you decided to invent 'several gallons' of gasoline being used for the KEY experiment we were discussing. When I called you out over your lying, you pretend you were referring to both experiements, even though the first experiement is irrelevant. Sorry pal but you've been busted, like the big bullshitter you are.
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:49 am
The 30% remaining is irrelevant. If 70% of the sheep could be cremated by this 'accidental' experiment , then 100% cremation would be possible if a specialist was involved and the experiment was slightly altered to represent the conditions at Treblinka. This aint no 'woulda coulda' scenario, it's basic logic and common sense, pity you aint got any.
Lupus posts an excellent example of the non sequitur. 70% of the sheep carcass burned so 100% of the human cadavers burned. Lupus then goes on with a "what if" scenario and finishes up with his "coulda woulda". He then declares that anyone with "common sense" would accept his little "what if" and "coulda woulda" shitshow.
Yep, 70% of a sheep in a relatively piddly little fire would obviously result in 100% of a human corpse being consumed in more tailored experiment that resembled the Treblinka cremations more. Turnagain knows this but he dismisses it as a 'non-sequitur'. But he even gets this wrong as the term means no logic has been deployed from step 1 to step 2 , but there is plenty of logic in my claim. The irony here is that Turnagain produces a pointless video of a clam shell to arrive at his own 'woulda coulda ' scenario , which is also a 'non-sequitur', so as well as being wrong he is also a hypocrite.
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:49 am
Let me explain - slowly for the dopes in the class :
You claimed before that Finkelstein did not corroborate Matthes, but I proved you wrong by informing you both mentioned gasoline, simple. Maybe you call that babbling , but from where I'm from it's quite plain and to the point. You then said I was cherry picking by ignoring Rajcman and Wiernik, but I explained this wasn't the case as it doesnt matter if these two did not mention gasoline, this doesnt prove gasoline was absent.
Here's the quote from Finklestein.
A grate was set on fire with a little amount of wood or rags soaked in petrol and then the corpses burnt by themselves.
IOW, wood was used as kindling OR "rags soaked in petrol". Lupus is apparently claiming that the wood was "soaked" in gasoline like the rags. Matthes testified:
Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol.
Once again Lupus has his tit wedged firmly in the wringer. In any event some wood or brushwood or some rags soaked in petrol served as the only fuel available to totally cremate 2,000 to 3,000 cadavers lying on 6 inches high railroad rails. The pylons that the rails rested on was described as being either 50 cm or 70 cm high. Ettling's experiment is apples to oranges with no real description of how far the sheep carcass was suspended from the char and ash. Was the carcass in fact in contact with the char and ash? An unanswerable question.
So Turnagain tries to claim that Finkelstein only referred to rags being soaked in gasoline but this isn't neccessarily so . The way its worded could mean either both materials were soaked or just rags. Now considering Matthes mentions wood was soaked then it is likely this was what Finkelstein meant to. I mean, why would rags be soaked in petrol and not wood ?

No Turnagain , nice try but your latest snivelling attempt to debunk the experiment ain't fooling no-one. Reading the experiment you will see that fat dripped ONTO the char and the sheep was SUSPENDED on seat springs. If the fat dripped ONTO the the char from a sheep suspended on springs then that means there is a gap between the sheep and char. Your 'unanswerable question' has just been answered. :shock:

Turnagain is desperate to explain the 70% level of cremation and try and to distance this experiment with the Treblinka scenario . First he tried to inflate the gasoline used and now he's trying to suggest the sheep was touching the ash and char. But even if it was it remains unclear how this would help him anyway :roll: But as I keep reminding him, even the conductor of the experiment compared the similarity of the experiment to Treblinka, so Turnagain's basically left with nothing but his rants and warped logic. This leaves him stuck up to his neck in sheep shit as he coughs and splutters his weasely way through proceedings :lol:
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:49 am
Lupus then goes on to explain why it didn't matter that Wiernik and Rajchman didn't claim that gasoline was used to kindle the cadavers. Since they didn't say anything about gasoline that meant that Wiernik and Rajchman COULDA meant that gasoline WAS used. Aha! That old holyhoaxer standby, "coulda woulda". Lupus forgets that Wiernik said that no kindling was used to set the cadavers ablaze.

At any rate, the corroboration of Finklestein by Matthes is equivocal at best while Wiernik and Rajchman fall under the well worn holyhoaxer rubric of "coulda woulda". Perhaps Lupus will apply some of his famous "common sense" to the problem.

Well, I have some chores to attend to so will leave the wacky world of holyhoax la-la land and return later.
We have enough witnesses who mention gasoline so we don't need Wiernik and Rajchmann to confirm something that was obviously true. You can nit-pick all you like about the specifics of what each witnes said about the fuel. What people with common sense do is review all of the testimony to arrive at the most likely conclusion. But guess this counts you out , so that's your problem, not mine.
Last edited by Lupus Rothstein on Fri May 22, 2020 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lupus Rothstein
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Treblinka - transit camp or extermination camp?

Post by Lupus Rothstein »

Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:58 am
Lupus tries to lie his way out of Rajchman's claim that the blood of the 250,000 Jews who were buried in one mass grave accidentally caught fire and burned for an entire night and the next day. Stangl said:
When the cremation grates were there, fire was kindled in the corpse pits to cremate the corpses on top… such a fire in one grave resulted from the gas from the corpses. Big tall flames shot up and there was an enormous mushroom cloud.
What the hell is Stangl going on about a fire being kindled in the corpse pits "to cremate the corpses on top"? He then goes on to say that tall flames shot up and there was a mushroom cloud. Lupus is apparently claiming that Stangl meant that the gasses burned all night and the next day while the resulting mushroom cloud took all night and the next day to disperse. Of course Stangl is lying. He can't even keep his own story straight. That or Rajchman actually mistook the blood for corpse gasses which continued to burn all night and the next day. Well, it COULDA happened which becomes that DID happen and everybody lived happily ever after. Lupus' weasel dodge and lie is another FAIL.
Why would Stangl lie about this ? Obviously something happened that resulted in the corpses in the pit catch fire. Rajchmann thought blood was the "fuel" while Stangl reckons it's the gasses from the bodies. All I am doing is debunking your 'liar' accusation toward Rajchmann. The only way Rajchmann would be lying would be if he knew blood was NOT flammable, or the event did not happen. But considering a Nazi confirms the event happening no further discussion on this point is required. You are left with trying to prove Rajchmann knew blood was not flammable. If not, then you need to withdraw your 'liar' accusation, as it appears to be as false as all the other accusations you have made.
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:58 am
Lupus then states:
As for his description of the fuel, no problem here at all as he obviously means dry branches/bushes. Twigs are virtually the same as branches. You might want to dispute that, but do it with somebody else, I aint interested in this pointless nit-picking.
Nitpicking. Right, got it. The fact is that Rajchman stated that "twigs the size of toothpicks" were used to set the cadavers ablaze on one occasion and said that "brushwood" was used on a different occasion. Lupus simply cherry picks the quote that he believes most fits his narrative and ignores all the rest. Anything else is just "nitpicking".
Twigs are the same as branches, and branches were used as fuel. So what's your argument ? Turnagain does his own 'cherry picking' with the 'twigs like toothpicks' testimony, yet he has the nerve to accuse me of cherry picking :roll: ~As well as a liar Turnagain demonstrates his hypocrisy :roll:
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:58 am
Just face facts, Ettling concluded the following :

The findings show that for a ewe, and presumably for a human also, the body can be rather thoroughly consumed by fire by its own fat.....
1) What part of "rather thoroughly consumed" don't you understand, Lupus?
2) Does Ettling say that the sheep's carcass was completely cremated? Answer "yes" or "no".
3) Does Ettling say that a human body was completely cremated? Reduced to ash and carbonized bone? Answer "yes" or "no".
I'm betting that Lupus refuses to answer those questions and replies with a weasel dodge. Ettling makes it clear that a sheep's carcass and two presumably fully dressed humans can be substantially burned in a car fire. Lupus then makes the leap to 2,000 to 3,000 naked humans being piled onto a grate made of railroad rails and, using nothing but minor amounts of wood or woody material for kindling completely consume themselves to ash and carbonized bone. Oh, and some rags soaked in gasoline, too. Can't forget the rags.
Answers :

1) I understand it to mean that if 70% of a sheep can be thoroughly consumed in this experiment, then more or 100% of a human would be thoroughly consumed in a more tailored experiment
2) No
3) No human was cremated in the experiment so a silly question. However he concludes it would be possible for a human to be rather thoroughly consumed based on this experiment.

Looks like you lost the bet . Still you must be used to losing by now, eh ? :lol:

It's not me making a leap, it's the individual who carried out the experiment. So I will repeat my question you dodged from earlier :

Are you saying Ettling was wrong in his conclusion ? If so how are you more qualified than him to come to such an opinion ?

Well....??
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:58 am
Ettling supposedly took his inspiration from the book, "The Revolt at Treblinka", by Jean-Francois Steiner. In 1966, Steiner's book was riding high as a first hand account of Treblinka. Just as Binny Wilkomirski's book, "Fragments" was a ten year sensation amongst hoyhoaxers. Unfortunately, both books were debunked as fakes although Steiner's tome is still being touted as "fake but accurate". Here is a review of Steiner's work of fiction. http://www.vho.org/tr/2001/3/tr07steiner.html So much for Lupus' "facts backed up by an experiment".
Is this supposed to be your answer to my query who this 'Steiner' geezer was ? So, now we have established he was a writer, why did you try and pass him off as some sort of eye witness when you said he claimed that "Floss only used matches to set fire to his little campfires" ? Why are you using individuals who werent even at Treblinka to back up your claims ? I know you tried it with Rachel Auberch a while back re hermetically sealed chambers, but after I caught you out I thought you'd learn your lesson by now . Obviously not :roll:
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:58 am
What is turnagain on about 'origin of the bodies' ?
I posted a link to a clamshell equipped M&H dragine demolishing a building to show the impossibility of even a 1.5 cubic meter clamshell being capable of exhuming whole bodies from a mass of buried and decaying cadavers. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Lupus simply stamps his feet and shrieks, "Can too exhume whole bodies, can too". Apparently he didn't even bother to watch the video.
Your video was a pile of worthless rubbish. It didn't prove anything. You're that thick you think just because the clamshell might knock some wall over or damage a few bricks then it would be impossible for it to exhume whole corpses. Duh !!!!! As I told you before the bodies would be a combination of whole and not-so-whole. Even the witnesses confirm body parts and heads were present after the clam shell had done its job. But even if 100% of the bodies from the graves would be just a mass of parts, then so what ? There were plenty whole bodies from the freshly gassed Jews. Sounds like it's one of those occasions when you don't even know yourself what you're argument is :roll:
Turnagain wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:58 am
As far as the sheep burning for three hours being magic, the wick effect is a well understood and a rather rare phenomena. A sheep's wool contains lots of lanolin and whether or not it was in contact with the char and ash is unknown. Clearly it wasn't setting on 6 inch high rails with the char and ash from some minor amounts of wood lying at least 20-30 cm beneath that. Neither were the sheep or the humans completely naked. Your little fantasy of of the 2,000 to 3,000 naked cadavers completely cremating themselves doesn't fly, Lupus. Just for openers, 2,000 bodies piled one every 12 inches would result in about 100 cadavers per layer on a 30 meter long grate. That raises the image of the magic Jew barbeque piled 20 to 30 bodies high before the kindling was ignited. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
No Turnagain, it IS known about contact with ash and char. It was NOT in contact. So how come there was a fire with no fuel that lasted 3 hours, Turnagain ? Sounds like some form of 'magic barbeque' to me, what you reckon ? Maybe you've discovered the key to the other magic bbq you keep droning on about , what you say ?

Most of them bodies on the grate would have been decomposed and therefore flammable. The witnesses even commented on how better the decomposed corpses burnt compared to the fresh bodies. So once you got the fat dripping onto the dry wood and rags , both soaked in gasoline , then you got one serious mother fucker of a fire. Left overnight the bodies would all be consumed and the fire would be sustained from the fat dripping down onto the char and ash, just like some experiment I heard about 8-) .

You can imagine whatever you want regarding the size of the roasts, your back of a cigarette packet calculations mixing inches and meters (typical of you to muddle everything up) would need to be checked as they're bound to be way off the mark, just like everything else you do.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Nessie and 16 guests