The Lies of the Witnesses

First you miss out part of what Gley said, then you quote him saying it, then you deny he said it. Why are you doing that?

You asked for other witnesses, I linked to them and then you miss out the link and ask again. Why are you doing that?



The preferred Jews were given starvation rations and were treated as slaves.



You lied that he said dragline, to support your argument a dragline could not do exactly what the witnesses said it did.



No. There are some academics who have disagreed with the Holocaust narrative. That is a different point from the one I was making, which is the evidence for gassings has been examined by multiple academics over the decades and it has stood as the only evidenced narrative. The other academics who have disagreed have all failed to evidence what did happen.

Why did you miss out Gley's reference to the use of fuel? Why did you then quote him speaking about the fuel used and then claim he said they were cremated with no fuel?

Why are you denying that I linked you to multiple witnesses speaking about the pyres and how their descriptions match what Gley described?



Evidence the Jews working at the AR camps were paid and treated well.

Evidence that every camp operated in exactly the same way and all Jewish prisoners were treated equally.



You have repeatedly lied that witnesses describe the M&B dragline and then claimed it could not do what the witnesses claimed, therefore they all lied.



Despite the attempts of a few academics, a number of whom are not historians, to dispute the evidence of gassings, that evidence stands as the only evidence as to what happened inside the AR camps. Until someone finds evidence that something else happened, then it is rational to accept the gassings as what happened.

Typically for you, to sustain your desired beliefs, you misrepresent the witnesses to make it easier for you to justify to yourself to disbelieve them. You missed out that Gley said that wood was used in the pyres to sustain your belief that somehow, the Nazis set fire to the bodies, using no fuel. When you are forced into admitting Gley mentions fuel, you then switch to your bizarre interpretation that only the first time a pyre was set alight, was wood used and thereafter, they missed out the wood and just set the bodies on fire. The more rational interpretation, an interpretation that is backed by multiple witnesses, is that all the pyres were started with wood, which then set the bodies on fire, which them burned.



It is not my fault you cannot be bothered reading links;

www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/arperpsspeak.html

that you have been linked to on numerous previous occasions. How are you unable to read one page from a website? Here is Matthes;

"The cremation took place in such a way that railway lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were piled on these rails. Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol. In that way not only the newly accumulated corpses were cremated, but also those taken out from the graves.

Here is Stangl;

"I know that in the beginning in Treblinka they used rails from the trolley to build the cremation grill. But it turned out that these were too weak and bent in the heat. They were replaced with real railroad rails."



You have already made it clear that whenever there is a claim Jews were mistreated, you think that is a lie and every time something is said that does not reference mistreatment, you will believe it. You have only seen highly edited parts of the interviewee statements, from Hunt's video, so how do you know they never spoke of mistreatment?



In this post you discuss Rosenberg, Wiernik and Rajchman

rodoh.info/post/5960

and go into detail about what they said then conclude "the M&H dragline did NOT dig the graves". You are clearly insinuating they said that was the excavator used. In this post;

rodoh.info/post/4582

you said " When Wiernik said that the dragline..."

In the following posts you said;

rodoh.info/post/1659

"The notion that the M&H draglines both excavated and stockpiled the ex from the graves as described by Wiernik..."

rodoh.info/post/9947

"Wiernik claimed five graves and Rajchman said eleven graves. Nessie says that the graves were 100 meters long. None of those graves could have been excavated with the M&H mB dragline.

rodoh.info/post/9588

"Rajchman, Wiernik and Rosenberg all claim that the dimensions of the graves were different, the number of graves were different and shared only the common feature of being impossible to dig with the M&H dragline."

rodoh.info/post/6075

"Wiernik said that an excavator was used to "dig out the trenches". ...It is impossible for the M&H Mb dragline to dig such "trenches".

There are many more examples when I searched your posts for references to "Wiernik" and "dragline". You are the liar. Stop lying.



I did not make that inference, you are lyign again. Unless you stop lying, your posting privileges in this part of the forum will be curtailed. You have been warned.

Liar. Here are the quotes again;

In this post you discuss Rosenberg, Wiernik and Rajchman

rodoh.info/post/5960

and go into detail about what they said then conclude "the M&H dragline did NOT dig the graves". You are clearly insinuating they said that was the excavator used. In this post;

rodoh.info/post/4582

you said " When Wiernik said that the dragline..."

In the following posts you said;

rodoh.info/post/1659

"The notion that the M&H draglines both excavated and stockpiled the ex from the graves as described by Wiernik..."

rodoh.info/post/9947

"Wiernik claimed five graves and Rajchman said eleven graves. Nessie says that the graves were 100 meters long. None of those graves could have been excavated with the M&H mB dragline.

rodoh.info/post/9588

"Rajchman, Wiernik and Rosenberg all claim that the dimensions of the graves were different, the number of graves were different and shared only the common feature of being impossible to dig with the M&H dragline."

rodoh.info/post/6075

"Wiernik said that an excavator was used to "dig out the trenches". ...It is impossible for the M&H Mb dragline to dig such "trenches".

You are claiming the witnesses said a dragline was used to dig the graves, that is impossible for a dragline to do, therefore the witnesses lied. That is a lie, because at no time has a witness said it was a dragline, or given the make of the excavator.

Nessie wrote:

LOL! Now show where I specifically said that Wiernik, Rajchman et al. identified the dragline as being a M&H mB or mA. You can't. The draglines were identified from other sources. Whether you're that confused or going for a sly lie doesn't make any difference. I never attributed the identification of the draglines to the alleged witnesses.

That is a true statement and has absolutely nothing to do with how the draglines were identified.

I didn't say that Wiernik called the excavator an M&H dragline. I did identify the "excavator" as being an M&H dragline. It's identification comes from photos, Arad, Arc, Colls et al. Are you saying that the excavator Wiernik referenced wasn't an M&H?

Yes you did, repeatedly. I have quoted just some of the times you specifically referenced the witnesses with the M&H dragline or just dragline. You are obviously insulating that they claimed that specific dragline was used, when none of them did.



Your argument has been that since witnesses described the M&H dragline as digging graves of a certain size, with the stockpile next to the graves, and that is not possible, therefore the witnesses all lied.

I checked that argument and found it was secondary sources that attributed the digging of the graves to the M&H dragline and not the witnesses. You made a false claim and when I pointed that out to you, you continued to suggest that witnesses described the M&H dragline, which since you now knew that was not true, meant you were knowingly lying.



If you want to be considered honest with your argument, you should drop all references to the M&H dragline when discussing the witnesses, as no witness mentioned an M&H dragline. Your argument is with Arad, ARC etc.

You do not want to do that because the argument of no excavator/bagger/digger can dig a grave as described by the witnesses is clearly not a credible argument. You have to falsely introduce the M&H dragline to the witnesses, to make your argument appear to be credible.

Nessie wrote:

So, your claim that I attributed the identification of the M&H draglines to Wiernik and other witnesses is a lie. A big, fat, juicy lie. Your attempt to redirect the discussion away from the fact that I did NOT claim that the witnesses identified the draglines as being of M&H mfg. is a bust and your lie is exposed.

Neither can any other dragline with a ~35 foot boom dig the pits as described by the witnesses. The draglines, "diggers", "excavators" or whatever you want to call them were identified as being of M&H mfg. and with no auxiliary equipment could NOT have accomplished such excavations.

You lied when you claim that I attributed the identification of the draglines to the witnesses. That the draglines used to excavate the graves at Treblinka is part of the conventional narrative. What the witnesses called them is irrelevant since that equipment has been identified by other sources. Your much vaunted historians, chroniclers and archaeologists along with the photo record all agree that the equipment used to excavate the Treblinka graves was of M&H (Monk & Hambrock) mfg.

IOW, you admit that I did NOT attribute the identification of the draglines to the witnesses. In American slang, that's known as stepping on your own dick, Nessie.