The Lies of the Witnesses

Nessie wrote:

Many of the German witnesses simply repeated the Jew's lies. Gley claimed that cadavers were flammable. Schluch claimed that the victims turned blue from the CO poisoning. Hoess confessed to the murder of 2.5 million with an additional half million dying from other causes. Those are undeniable facts, Nessie.

The witnesses from Spielberg's interviews speak quite literally about their experiences at Treblinka. As one witness said when asked what the Germans did to him when he arrived at Treblinka, he said, "Nothing. They made me comfortable and gave me something to eat". It doesn't get more literal and mundane than that.

How can I misrepresent what witnesses have written in books? How can quoting from a book be a misrepresentation? There are court records where testimony is given verbatim. How can I misrepresent the verbatim testimony of witnesses?

Are you seriously suggesting that photography wasn't available to the Lukaszkiewicz investigation? A state sponsored official investigation? The fact that Lukaszkiewicz took and retained no samples of the cremains is ridiculous. The Lukaszkeiwicz investigation was a sham and it's findings were no more than, "Yep, I seen it so take my word for it".

Colls claimed to have done a GPR survey of the area but published no complete results of that survey. She published only her electrical resistivity findings which could indicate possible grave sites. Why not the GPR profiles that would confirm such ground disturbances? In other studies GPR was used to find underground structures that were thousands of years old. Loghenge, for example. Why not use it to delineate the graves of Treblinka?

As far as "ground disturbances", of course the ground was disturbed at Treblinka. A camp was built there. Buildings were put up, garbage pits dug, wells were dug and installations were built to house at least several thousand people. Claiming "disturbed ground" as evidence of anything sinister is farcical.

You have "evidenced" nothing, Nessie. The graves and the cremains remain unproven while the claims of the alleged witnesses to the homicidal events at Treblinka remain as ridiculously impossible as ever. Your claim that Treblinka was an extermination facility is "evidenced" is bunkum. You have no incontrovertible evidence of that whatsoever.

There is evidence Hoess was coerced, there is no evidence Gley and those tried by Germans in Germany were. Many, such as Stangl were safe in South America, where they could have easily given evidence as to what did happen, if it was not gassings.



That they gave the Jews they felt they could trust to work for them, something to eat and did not beat them, is not evidence of no mass gassings and that something else happened. Why are you not quoting that witness saying what did happen? The answer is because he agreed gassings took place!!!!



For example, you claimed Wiernik described the use of a dragline and that he said the chambers were hermetically sealed, when he did not say that.



No. I asked about his original report, which neither of us have seen, so how do you know there are no photos? You stupidly think that if something is not online, it does not exist!!!!



His investigation is corroborated, starting with the 1944 aerial photo which proves large areas of disturbed ground on its own.



Not when it is assessed along with all of the other evidence.

That you want to see every single survey image is up to you. You suspiciously do nothing about it, when you could easily contact Staffs Uni and ask.



The evidence I present has been assessed by hundreds of academics over the past 70 odd years. You arrogantly expect me to dismiss it all, in favour of your unevidenced beliefs.

It is not hearsay for Korherr to report on a conversation he had.



www.sobiborinterviews.nl/en/interviews

There are twelve Dutch witnesses to mass arrivals at Sobibor, and then only a few hundred at most departing.



You have produced zero evidence of mass transports from the AR camps to the Russian east.

Gley explains how the pyre worked and Schluch spoke about seeing signs of asphyxiation from some of those who died in the chambers. Nothing they say is absurd.



It is clearly news to you, but not to me, that the Nazis often did not mistreat Jews they trusted to work for them.



You misrepresent what Wiernik said. You do that a lot to me. It is one of your tactics as you try to support your beliefs. I see that you have not been able to justify your demand that I reject all the evidence, assessed for decades by multiple academics, over your unevidenced beliefs.

No, they are supported by other evidence. I am lead by what is evidenced. You are not. You demand belief in what is not evidenced.



The evidence is that the brutality happened when prisoners tried to escape from the trains and as they were being driven into the gas chambers. The rest of time the Nazis maintained the illusion they were being resettled.

That a Nazi was appointed to convict other Nazis who stole property that had been stolen from the Jews, is not news.



Wiernik described hermetically sealed doors and a roof cap, which makes sense to stop leaks. He described a digger excavating the graves and bodies, which also makes sense. He is corroborated by oyther evidence. You have no evidence from any eyewitness that something else happened inside TII.



I did not say all academics agree. I am saying the evidence has survived decades of testing by numerous academics. The academics who disputed the evidence, did so either without presenting any evidence as to what did happen (Rudolf), or by use of fallacious arguments (Rudolf, Mattogno) or they made claims that were not backed by any evidence (Butz, Mattogno). Rassinier made the daft claim that because he did not see gassings, there were no gassings, but he was never inside the Kremas. I have not seen the arguments Kollerstrom or Faurisson made, but I have also not seen either present any evidence of what did happen.