Bergs bogus challenges?

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 25238
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Nessie » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:22 pm

Turnagain wrote:So, two more posts composed entirely of weasel dodge. Lemme' guess, Nessie, you're getting ready to declare that all questions have been answered but we don't "properly read" your posts so you're going to quit responding to nothing but fallacies. Going for the ultimate weasel dodge, Nessie?
If your posts consist of fallacious arguments, I will point out that fallacies. If you put together a coherent argument that shows you have actually read and understood what I have said, I will answer it.

What do mean by weasel dodge? I have asked you that on a number of occasions, why will not answer?
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: 7888
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by been-there » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:46 pm

DasPrussian wrote:Then there's the uncertainty of whether individuals in poor health would display the desired [cherry red] colouring due to anemia and malnourishment etc. Then we have to discover at what point the redness would occur and reconcile that with the timing of when the eye witnesses would have seen the bodies.
Where do you get the info from that "anemia and malnourishment etc." inhibits redness of corpses.
Redness occurs prior to death and so would obviously also be visible from then on to immediately after death and presumably for days after.
DasPrussian wrote:...The guilty SS would surely be fuming at [falsely] being found guilty of inflicting horrific murder on Jews... Yes, so furious that during visiting time by their close circle of family and friends, the truth would be passed on. Then when they were released from jail they would continue to tell all who were willing to listen, especially deniers who were active during that time, like Wilhelm Staglich, David Irving, Arthur Butz, Robert Faurrison etc.
However this doesn't seem to have occurred. In fact the only contact I know between a perpetrator and a denier was the famous 'mystery guest' of Paul Rassinier. And guess what? He admitted witnessing a gassing in Belzec!!!!!!!!!! How strange !
You are forgetting Pfannensteilwho met and corresponded with Rassinier. He denied Gerstein's report AND involvement in mass gassings in a policy of genocide of ALL Jews in Europe. Pfannensteil also is evidence for why accused perpetrators didn't "continue to tell all who were willing to listen, especially [revisionists]". He had gone through years of imprisonment, interrogations, release, re-arrest and re-imprisonment, trials and harrassment. He had a family of five children. He didn't want more trouble for either himself or his family.
Pfannensteil was charged in two cases but after giving testimony that didn't contradict the holocaust narrative created by the victors, he curiously was never convicted for his supposed involvement in it. That appears to me to be an indication of plea bargaining. In the court-room statements, which are available to us, he never directly disputed Gerstein's account, but in a private letter to Rassinier he described the Gerstein testimony as "highly dubious rubbish in which 'fantasy' far outweighs fact." He also wrote that due to the persecution and slander to which he was exposed, he did not wish to comment further on the matter publicly.
Look what happened to Stäglich.
Look what happened to Thies Christophersen. And Christophersen related how many SS personnel confirmed to him privately that there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz but after torture and years of imprisonment they weren't prepared to risk their liberty and lives by stating so publically. Christophersen did do that, and he was treated abominably for it. Are you really in denial of all this coercion and pressure upon them to keep quiet about what really happened?

And as for the credibility of the "mysterious guest" to Rassinier, who confirmed a one-off gassing, his account did not convince Rassinier who repeatedly pointed out it defied scientific possibility. And even then it was of a one-off "wild" occurrence, not a co-ordinated, planned policy of genocide.
Plus we have this about him:
In l986, I asked the historian's widow Madame Rassinier herself about this "mysterious guest". Basically, our conversation went as follows:
H.R.: Do you remember a visit to Asnières by a German in 1963? He confirmed to your husband a gassing at Belzec camp, where he was with Gerstein in 1942.
Mrs. Rassinier: I remember it very well. When this unknown entered, I felt as though evil vibrations spread throughout the apartment. Paul was troubled. He talked to me several times about this visit.
Last edited by been-there on Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Turnagain
Posts: 4311
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Turnagain » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 pm

Nessie wrote:
Turnagain wrote:So, two more posts composed entirely of weasel dodge. Lemme' guess, Nessie, you're getting ready to declare that all questions have been answered but we don't "properly read" your posts so you're going to quit responding to nothing but fallacies. Going for the ultimate weasel dodge, Nessie?
If your posts consist of fallacious arguments, I will point out that fallacies. If you put together a coherent argument that shows you have actually read and understood what I have said, I will answer it.

What do mean by weasel dodge? I have asked you that on a number of occasions, why will not answer?
The definition of "weasel dodge" should be, by context, perfectly obvious to even the dimmest intelligence. Apparently you didn't make the cut so here's a definition of "weasel dodge" just for you. A weasel is a small muskilid; a stinking little varmint fur-bearer with a bad reputation. They are a sneaky and sly little creature that will kill from blood lust not just for food. Calling someone a "weasel" is fighting words. Dodge means to avoid so a "weasel dodge" is a sneaky, sly and stinking way of avoiding something. In your case, it's how you avoid answering any questions about your Cadillac spaceship type assertions. That good enough for ya'?

You claim that the mass graves described by Wiernik actually existed at some time but have somehow vanished or at least become invisible to GPR technology. According to information available on the internet that is not possible. I've even posted links to some GPR sites that explain how GPR works and give examples of it being used to specifically find clandestine graves yet you continue to declare such information a "fallacy of incredulity (or ignorance, etc.)." In other words, you're simply using fallacies of logic as a weasel dodge. QED or Quod erat demonstradum. I wrote the Latin for you so you wouldn't mistake "QED" for "Quite easily done."

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 25238
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Berg's challenges demonstrate scientifically the shoah f

Post by Nessie » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:12 pm

been-there wrote:......
A faulty natural gas room heater caused this fatal poisoning. The characteristic cherry-red colouration of skin persists in death.
CO binds irreversibly with haemoglobin to produce bright red haemoglobin‚ which retains its colour even though no oxygen is present.
Credit: Thomas H. McConnell, The Nature Of Disease Pathology for the Health Professions, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007
A "curious" and peculiar case of carbon monoxide poisoning without cherry-red livor.

Carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning typically causes so-called cherry-red livor of the skin and viscera. The authors report a case of CO poisoning in which cherry-red livor did not develop. The decedent was a 75-year-old white man who was found dead in his car during a cold winter. Blood CO saturation was 86%. The death was attributed to CO poisoning, and the manner of death was designated suicide. The curious absence of cherry-red livor was studied. The decedent's tissue and blood specimens were tested at different temperatures. There was no tendency for either type of specimen to develop cherry-red color at cold or warm temperatures. The antemortem response of the skin to cold possibly sequestered CO-saturated blood in the cadaver. As regards the viscera, there are other proteins to which CO can bond, and possibly these proteins contribute to the development of visceral cherry-red livor.
No one is denying that cherry red lividity appears in all but the rarest of cases of CO poisoning. That is not the issue. The issue is how long does it take to appear and how that affects the lack of reporting of such by witnesses to homicidal gassings.

Berg claims "That intense red coloring would have appeared within minutes of death...."

http://nazigassings.com/

....but he provides no evidence to back that claim up. I have linked to numerous sites that do not mention turning any shade of red or pink as a symptom to look for in the still living suffering from CO poisoning. If it so obvious, why not mention it? I have linked to numerous sites which state that lividity takes at 20 minutes to 3 hours to start to appear and then 6 to 12 hours to become clear.

Here are yet more links

http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/domestic/co.htm - no mention of redness in the symptoms

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicin ... edeath.pdf -discusses the time it takes for lividity to form.

The second link to the Dundee University site also mentions the effect moving a body can have on lividity. It causes a "secondary pattern of lividity forming" and that "for the hypostasis of (sic) have value in this way, the body must have first remained in one position for a length of time, perhaps 10 hours, sufficient for the lividity to have become well developed..."

That is corroborated by this site http://forensicmd.blogspot.co.uk/2011/0 ... r-due.html "Lividity can altered by changing the position of the body." which will take place up to 12 hours after death as the blood remains liquid.

Furthermore there is another issue "Areas of the body that are pressed up against an object, like the floor or a bed, leave white 'blanched' spots because the blood can't get there."

So we have two further reasons not to see clear cherry red lividity, the bodies being moved and being piled up together and pressing down on each other.

That is why what Berg has claimed is not properly studied. He found a result that he realised he could use to claim his pre conceived conclusion, that Jews lied about what happened and there were no gas chambers. But he failed to check to see if there were other reasons.
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: 25238
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Nessie » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:19 pm

Turnagain wrote:.......
The definition of "weasel dodge" should be, by context, perfectly obvious to even the dimmest intelligence. Apparently you didn't make the cut so here's a definition of "weasel dodge" just for you. A weasel is a small muskilid; a stinking little varmint fur-bearer with a bad reputation. They are a sneaky and sly little creature that will kill from blood lust not just for food. Calling someone a "weasel" is fighting words. Dodge means to avoid so a "weasel dodge" is a sneaky, sly and stinking way of avoiding something. In your case, it's how you avoid answering any questions about your Cadillac spaceship type assertions. That good enough for ya'?
OK :roll: All I can say is whenever you make a fallacious argument, I will point out the fallacy to you.
Turnagain wrote:You claim that the mass graves described by Wiernik actually existed at some time but have somehow vanished or at least become invisible to GPR technology.
That is a lie.
Turnagain wrote: According to information available on the internet that is not possible. I've even posted links to some GPR sites that explain how GPR works and give examples of it being used to specifically find clandestine graves yet you continue to declare such information a "fallacy of incredulity (or ignorance, etc.)." In other words, you're simply using fallacies of logic as a weasel dodge. QED or Quod erat demonstradum. I wrote the Latin for you so you wouldn't mistake "QED" for "Quite easily done."
I have specifically started a thread to deal with the issue of GPR. That contradicts your claim I am trying to avoid the issue.
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: 7888
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Berg's challenges demonstrate scientifically the shoah f

Post by been-there » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:37 pm

Nessie wrote: No one is denying that cherry red lividity appears in all but the rarest of cases of CO poisoning. That is not the issue. The issue is how long does it take to appear and how that affects the lack of reporting of such by witnesses to homicidal gassings.
Berg claims "That intense red coloring would have appeared within minutes of death...."
http://nazigassings.com/

....but he provides no evidence to back that claim up...

Furthermore there is another issue "Areas of the body that are pressed up against an object, like the floor or a bed, leave white 'blanched' spots because the blood can't get there."
So we have two further reasons not to see clear cherry red lividity, the bodies being moved and being piled up together and pressing down on each other.
That is why what Berg has claimed is not properly studied. He found a result that he realised he could use to claim his pre conceived conclusion, that Jews lied about what happened and there were no gas chambers. But he failed to check to see if there were other reasons.
I think this is nonsense and further evidence of your cognitive dissonance.
Mr. Fritz Berg has produced evidence: photographic evidence of cherry red colouring occurring in still living victims of CO poisoning. So this is proof of when it occurs and also exposes the deceit/self-delusion in your question: "the issue is how long does it take to appear". Answer: it starts immediately upon internal exposure to the gas.
This also refutes your excuse of there being white areas of bodies. So what if some parts of corpses were 'blanched'? Some parts of some of the bodies would still also be the very distinctive and surprising cherry red colour. And yet none of the 'Jewish' self-claimed eye witnesses who claimed to have disposed of many hundreds of thousands of gassed corpses, noticed it or included that in their supposed accurate, eye-witness testimony.
All these obfuscations avoid the obvious fact that out of the alleged many hundreds of thousands of people supposedly poisoned to death using Carbon monoxide gas, none of them were noticed to have displayed on ANY visible part of their bodies this highly visible and peculiar colourisation. On the contrary, alleged eye-witnesses claimed the bodies displayed blue or yellow discolourisation, which is demonstrably FALSE for CO gas victims.
Is any of this getting through yet?
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
DasPrussian
Posts: 3101
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by DasPrussian » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:54 pm

Where do you get the info from that "anemia and malnourishment etc." inhibits redness of corpses.
From the Holocaust Controversies critique of Mattogno, Graff and Kues . There is a chapter on corpse colour. If you can't be bothered to read it then i'll let you know the sources - Bernard Knight, Forensic Pathology (New York, Oxford University 1991) and Myron Winick - Hunger Disease, Studies by the Jewish physicians in the Warsaw ghetto (New York, Wiley 1979).
Redness occurs prior to death and so would obviously also be visible from then on to immediately after death and presumably for days after.
So how are you going to see a body with red colouring if its buried in a grave with a covering of sand or chlorine? How do we know the deaths were from carbon monoxide anyway? According to your mate Pfannenstiel he saw blue tinges to the facial area and testified it was due to suffocation. And who were the eye witnesses who survived who actually saw the bodies between death and thrown in a grave, cos they would be the best witnesses to rely on, and if I remember correctly there's hardly any.
You are forgetting Pfannensteilwho met and corresponded with Rassinier. He denied Gerstein's report AND involvement in mass gassings in a policy of genocide of ALL Jews in Europe. Pfannensteil also is evidence for why accused perpetrators didn't "continue to tell all who were willing to listen, especially [revisionists]". He had gone through years of imprisonment, interrogations, release, re-arrest and re-imprisonment, trials and harrassment. He had a family of five children. He didn't want more trouble for either himself or his family.
Really, so how long did Pfannenstiel spend at the AR camps ? And how would he know about any 'policy' ? What did he say about the role of Belzec as a transit camp then? Considering he knew about policy . He would have been the ideal person to tell Rassinier where the Jews were transited to.
Pfannensteil was charged in two cases but after giving testimony that didn't contradict the holocaust narrative created by the victors, he curiously was never convicted for his supposed involvement in it. That appears to me to be an indication of plea bargaining. In the court-room statements, which are available to us, he never directly disputed Gerstein's account, but in a private letter to Rassinier he described the Gerstein testimony as "highly dubious rubbish in which 'fantasy' far outweighs fact." He also wrote that due to the persecution and slander to which he was exposed, he did not wish to comment further on the matter publicly.


Its already been ascertained that Gerstein told independent witnesses about the gassings. in 1942 I believe. That's enough evidence thankyou very much.

Look what happened to Stäglich.
Look what happened to Thies Christophersen. And Christophersen related how many SS personnel confirmed to him privately that there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz but after torture and years of imprisonment they weren't prepared to risk their liberty and lives by stating so publically. Christophersen did do that, and he was treated abominably for it. Are you really in denial of all this coercion and pressure upon them to keep quiet about what really happened?
What were the names of the SS who told Christophersen there were no gassings? What torture was being done in Germany during the course of the trials in Germany? Christophersen was a bullshitter and an unreliable witness, it appears unlikely if he even went to Birkenau!!

So what has stopped the perpetrators meeting with Staglich so he could pass on his info to deniers in Britain and USA ??? What stopped the perpetrators writing down a confession with instructions to only open on death and for his family to innocently pass this confession on to a denier in the USA or Britain?

If you was a Nazi wrongly accused of genocide, would you confide in anybone what the truth was? I mean family and friends? Cos I fuckin would, and I'd make sure everyone knew about it after my death (if I was worried about 'hassle') . Id write it all down and made sure the IHR received it. The family can easily act innocent, not as though the Germans would do anything to them anyway
And as for the credibility of the "mysterious guest" to Rassinier, who confirmed a one-off gassing, his account did not convince Rassinier who repeatedly pointed out it defied scientific possibility. And even then it was of a one-off "wild" occurrence, not a co-ordinated, planned policy of genocide.
Plus we have this about him:
In l986, I asked the historian's widow Madame Rassinier herself about this "mysterious guest". Basically, our conversation went as follows:
H.R.: Do you remember a visit to Asnières by a German in 1963? He confirmed to your husband a gassing at Belzec camp, where he was with Gerstein in 1942.
Mrs. Rassinier: I remember it very well. When this unknown entered, I felt as though evil vibrations spread throughout the apartment. Paul was troubled. He talked to me several times about this visit.
I cant remember Rassinier 'not been convinced' , the only sticking point with him was the diesel engine, and the guest could have been mistaken like a lot of the other witnesses. So, 'Paul was troubled' - yeah probably cos he had just encountered someone who admitted gassings were being carried out. Whether he was right to say they were 'one-offs' cannot be confirmed if his details have been withheld, how do we know how long he was in Belzec for? what was his role? Too many questions I'm afraid.
All I want for Christmas is a Dukla Prague away kit

User avatar
Duke Umeroffen
Posts: 5781
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Duke Umeroffen » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:00 pm

That other one been-there is repeating the same old rubbish too. He logs in here obsessively and yet still doesn't know about "yellow."

And I don't mean urine either.
Viking; North Utsire; South Utsire; Forties; Cromarty; ; Firth; Tyne; Dogger. Fisher; German Bight; Humber; Thames *; Dover;

User avatar
Duke Umeroffen
Posts: 5781
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Duke Umeroffen » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:03 pm

Lol and he's still repeating his rubbish about Christophersen too. Not exactly the behaviour of a person with an open mind.
Viking; North Utsire; South Utsire; Forties; Cromarty; ; Firth; Tyne; Dogger. Fisher; German Bight; Humber; Thames *; Dover;

Turnagain
Posts: 4311
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Turnagain » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:12 pm

Nessie wrote:
Turnagain wrote:.......
The definition of "weasel dodge" should be, by context, perfectly obvious to even the dimmest intelligence. Apparently you didn't make the cut so here's a definition of "weasel dodge" just for you. A weasel is a small muskilid; a stinking little varmint fur-bearer with a bad reputation. They are a sneaky and sly little creature that will kill from blood lust not just for food. Calling someone a "weasel" is fighting words. Dodge means to avoid so a "weasel dodge" is a sneaky, sly and stinking way of avoiding something. In your case, it's how you avoid answering any questions about your Cadillac spaceship type assertions. That good enough for ya'?
OK :roll: All I can say is whenever you make a fallacious argument, I will point out the fallacy to you.
You almost got it right, Nessie. "All I can say is whenever you ask a question that I can't answer, I will call it a fallacy of some kind." There, fixed it for you.
Turnagain wrote:You claim that the mass graves described by Wiernik actually existed at some time but have somehow vanished or at least become invisible to GPR technology.
That is a lie.
A lie? Really? Well, slap my keyboard. If that's the case then you won't mind explaining why neither Krege or CS-C found even a little corner of a 10 meter deep excavation with their GPR scans. You do realize, don't you, that if we take into consideration the necessary area of the stockpiles, the graves had to be spread out over an area of 4-5 acres? Care to explain why CS-C didn't find at least a part of one 10 meter deep grave while she claimed that she found at least 10< 4 meter deep pits? Do you know that there is one version of the official story that the mass graves at both Belzec and Treblinka were 30 meters deep.
Turnagain wrote: According to information available on the internet that is not possible. I've even posted links to some GPR sites that explain how GPR works and give examples of it being used to specifically find clandestine graves yet you continue to declare such information a "fallacy of incredulity (or ignorance, etc.)." In other words, you're simply using fallacies of logic as a weasel dodge. QED or Quod erat demonstradum. I wrote the Latin for you so you wouldn't mistake "QED" for "Quite easily done."
I have specifically started a thread to deal with the issue of GPR. That contradicts your claim I am trying to avoid the issue.
Well, I shall go there and see if my fallacies have changed any on your new thread.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 11 guests