Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2023 5:31:38 GMT
How did they hoax 34,000 Dutch Jews being transported to Sobibor in 1943 and the majority of them disappearing inside the camp? There were a large number of camps in the Sobibor area. 17 actually. These camps were labour camps for Jews. Only two were near the railway line. The Jews were taken from Sobibor camp after sorting to one of these camps by cart, or walked. Many, hundreds left the Sobibor camp shortly after arrival by train to head to more distant labour camps. Of course some were aktioned. (14f13). I have written about these camps on this forum. Zwangarbeitlager fรผr Juden Sobibor. The camps (all Zwangarbeitslager fรผr Juden) were: Sobibor, Adampol, Czerniejow, Dorohusk, Kamien, Krychow, Luta, Nowosiolki, Osowa, Ruda Opalin, Sawin, Siedliszcze, Sobibor village, Staw-Sajczyce, Tomaszowka, Ujazdow, Wlodawa, and Zmudz. You admit only hundreds left Sobibor. What happened to the other c200,000 who arrived, but did not leave?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2023 5:35:33 GMT
1. "It does not matter that you think the gas chamber claims are laughable. Your opinion does not matter. Sadly, no matter how often the fallacy of argument from incredulity is explained to you, you continue to use it. It is like me arguing, I believe it, therefore it happened. You must be able to see that is a flawed argument. Yet, when you make the argument of you do not believe it, therefore it did not happen, you are quite happy. Why is that?" This has been explained to you numerous times. The ESC report on Majdanek claimed that the five ovens could each cremate four bodies at once in only fifteen minutes. I do not believe this. I have a good reason for not believing this. It's because all available data on cremation suggests it is not possible for such ovens to cremate so many bodies so quickly. You have not answered my original question. Why do you think your opinion is a reliable method for determining what happened?
Because, in your opinion, it is not possible to cremate 4 bodies at once in 15 minutes, does that mean no mass cremations at Majdanek, or the ESC report was wrong?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2023 5:50:12 GMT
2. You said "The best time to confirm this stuff would have been right away in 1945.". I replied "Why? You are assuming that all the evidence was available in 1945, which is clearly wrong." Please quote where I said "all" the evidence was available by 1945. That's not the issue. The issue is merely whether there was SUFFICIENT evidence to prove the claims. You said the best time was in 1945, so that must mean you think all the evidence was available then as surely the best time is when all the evidence is available. You then move the goalposts to a more realistic, was there sufficient evidence then? The answer was yes. There were already lots of Jewish witnesses to what had happened inside the AR camps and AB Kremas. There were Nazi admissions. There was the supporting evidence of mass transports to those places and the millions of Jews who then disappeared and did not leave those places. There was the evidence of the Nazis had been destroying evidence, which is the conduct of people trying to cover up a crime. The site examinations at the AR camps found large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated human remains. It was obvious. It was so obvious that the most senior Nazis never denied it happened, and instead they only denied their own involvement and responsibility for what happened. The Nazis who were caught in 1945, such as the staff of Topf & Sons, admitted to what happened and that there were mass gassings at the Kremas. The only significant evidence that was not gathered until about a decade after the war, was the testimony of the Nazis put on trial in Germany. There was no way round delaying getting much of the Jewish evidence, as, for example, TII closed in 1943, but gathering evidence had to wait till 1945. The sites were subject to grave robbing, so none could be examined unmodified.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2023 6:00:55 GMT
3. You said "Nessie uses this hearsay excuse to pick and choose the parts that match the current story and sweep the embarrassing parts in the early stories under the rug.". I replied "Why do think rumour and hearsay, spread by someone who has not seen what happened, should be considered as reliable evidence? What is wrong with dismissing such evidence?" The point was that when you were asked how you distinguish fact from fiction in these holocaust tales, your response of lazily mumbling something about "hearsay" is grossly inadequate. The fact that the foundational holocaust stories are full of ludicrous rumors and lies is not a point in your favor. What I actually said was that corroborating evidence is used to distinguish fact from fiction and that eyewitness evidence is more reliable than hearsay evidence. You know that to be true, so you lazily mumble yet another strawman misrepresentation of what I said.
The "foundational Holocaust stories" are also full of claims that were subsequently corroborated and proved to be correct. You cherry-pick the rumours to prop up your desired belief that all of the evidence is merely unsubstantiated rumour and hoaxes. You home in on the weakest, most unreliable evidence and claim that evidence undermines all the evidence. But a second hand report which contains mistakes, such as the Vrba - Wetzler Report, does not undermine the eyewitness evidence of Tauber, or the Topf & Sins engineers, who saw what happened inside the Kremas.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2023 6:03:53 GMT
Why do not then use corroborating evidence? Why do you instead argue that the evidence should not be believed? That is your opinion, based on an unrealistic understanding of witness evidence. When corroboration of Jewish claims is from other testimonies, and those other testimonies are Nazis, then that corroboration is strong. I would like you evidence our claim that usually corroboration is by other witnesses. Every single witness who claims mass arrivals at the AR camps is corroborated by documents. Same with claims about mass graves and cremations, which are corroborated by archaeological finds. What is only corroborated by other witnesses? The reasons why the history of the Holocaust is supposedly "dependent on testimonies" are because the Nazis destroyed much of the physical evidence and because the Holocaust was made up of multiple events that covered almost every European country over the period of the entire war and witnesses are able to give context and chronology. If the Holocaust was one massacre, such as Katyn was one massacre, and that evidence had been left untouched, witness evidence would not be needed in the same way. There is in fact a lot of hard evidence to corroborate the witnesses. That dates, details and estimations in that report are wrong, is hardly surprising, considering it was prisoners who were trying to investigate an action the Nazis were trying to keep as secret as possible, under pain of death. Why do you think its mistakes prove it is made up? Why do you think it should be more accurate? There is hard evidence from documents of mass arrivals, the selection process, the theft of property and the Kremas themselves, to support the gassing claims. The corroborating witness evidence is very strong, as I said, Nazis and Jews agree. The circumstantial evidence is also very strong, whereby hundreds of thousands of people disappear inside Birkenau, shortly after arriving, with no evidence they left. Remember, where there is a question mark (?), I am looking for an answer. So then you are admitting the report is bogus. Yet it is, in the essentials, the earliest version of the Auschwitz story: gassing in the morgues of the Birkenau crematoria, fake showers, holes in the roof, Zyklon. There's no reason we should believe the Zionist group that wrote this got those details right. When eyewitness, documentary, circumstantial and physical evidence corroborates the main claims in the report, of mass gassing using Zyklon B, then we know that the main claims are correct. That details were wrong, is, as you have dodged, hardly surprising. I have not admitted the report is bogus, that is yet another strawman misrepresentation of what I have said. That the report contains mistakes, does not make it bogus. You dodged answering my questions, that dates, details and estimations in that report are wrong, is hardly surprising, considering it was prisoners who were trying to investigate an action the Nazis were trying to keep as secret as possible, under pain of death. Why do you think its mistakes prove it is made up? Why do you think it should be more accurate? Answer the questions.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Jan 5, 2023 6:11:29 GMT
You admit only hundreds left Sobibor. What happened to the other c200,000 who arrived, but did not leave? It should be obvious that they went to the other Sobibor camps. There are witnesses who mention this fact. Search for them like we do.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2023 6:16:12 GMT
You admit only hundreds left Sobibor. What happened to the other c200,000 who arrived, but did not leave? It should be obvious that they went to the other Sobibor camps. It is not obvious, when there is evidence they were gassed and all their property was stolen. There are Dutch witnesses who state they were selected to go to A-B to work. I have never seen a witness who states he or she was sent to another Sobibor camp, so who are those witnesses?
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Jan 5, 2023 6:59:03 GMT
There are Dutch witnesses who state they were selected to go to A-B to work. I have never seen a witness who states he or she was sent to another Sobibor camp, so who are those witnesses? They did not realize that they were Sobibor camps. Trawniki was a Sobibor labour camp; whether they were AR is unlikely. Jetje and Sientje Veterman, both Dutch women ended up there. It is clear that these Sobibor camps were all manned, staffed, call it what you like, existing for different reasons. Each of those reasons is historically important. The existence of these camps were given by the Holocaust Historical Society. You had no idea they existed, had no interest in finding out and yet blabber on still about gas chambers. There is little interest shown by you about real history of the time. You wish to be your own echo chamber. Face the fact that these camps were supplied by inmates of the Sobibor camp; the rest were away from the railway lines.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2023 12:25:32 GMT
There are Dutch witnesses who state they were selected to go to A-B to work. I have never seen a witness who states he or she was sent to another Sobibor camp, so who are those witnesses? They did not realize that they were Sobibor camps. Trawniki was a Sobibor labour camp; whether they were AR is unlikely. Jetje and Sientje Veterman, both Dutch women ended up there. It is clear that these Sobibor camps were all manned, staffed, call it what you like, existing for different reasons. Each of those reasons is historically important. The existence of these camps were given by the Holocaust Historical Society. You had no idea they existed, had no interest in finding out and yet blabber on still about gas chambers. There is little interest shown by you about real history of the time. You wish to be your own echo chamber. Face the fact that these camps were supplied by inmates of the Sobibor camp; the rest were away from the railway lines.
On arrival at Sobibor, they were selected and went to the Lublin airfield camp, which is about 100km from Sobibor.
"The train went on to Sobibor, where the camp SS separated the men and women as soon as they arrived. Jetje did not see what happened to the men. The women โwere told to keep moving and they walked behind us armed with belts. We were asked whether we wanted to work and that we could apply for the laundry, the factory, etc.โ Subsequently the young women who were selected to work - Jetje and Sientje among them - were searched in the roll call area. โThey took everything from us, luggage, jewellery, etc.โ. The women were taken away on the same train that had brought them there...The trainโs destination turned out to be the Lublin-Flugplatz labour camp."
She later ended up at Trawniki, which is a labour camp that was about 75km from Sobibor and was not a sub camp of Sobibor, it was part of the Majdanek camp system and it was where much of the property stolen during AR ended up to be sorted. It was also used as a training camp for the Ukrainians who worked on AR.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 261
|
Post by Gibson on Jan 5, 2023 13:27:49 GMT
This has been explained to you numerous times. The ESC report on Majdanek claimed that the five ovens could each cremate four bodies at once in only fifteen minutes. I do not believe this. I have a good reason for not believing this. It's because all available data on cremation suggests it is not possible for such ovens to cremate so many bodies so quickly. You have not answered my original question. Why do you think your opinion is a reliable method for determining what happened?
Because, in your opinion, it is not possible to cremate 4 bodies at once in 15 minutes, does that mean no mass cremations at Majdanek, or the ESC report was wrong?
Ok, we are 18 pages in and you are still claiming that revisionists are wrong because their views are merely "opinions" while your views are supposedly not opinion but are based on pure "evidence." When challenged about this evidence, you simply reiterate your belief in the holocaust. If you are going to persist in this, I will not bother corresponding with you any further. I can't remember if I mentioned this here in this thread, but I should have highlighted the fallacy of begging the question. Begging the question - assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it.
Read any of Nessie's posts and you will see this endlessly. He says the Holocaust is true because "it is evidenced." But then he isn't equipped to discuss the evidence. He just wastes everyone's time going in circles.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 261
|
Post by Gibson on Jan 5, 2023 13:49:35 GMT
The point was that when you were asked how you distinguish fact from fiction in these holocaust tales, your response of lazily mumbling something about "hearsay" is grossly inadequate. The fact that the foundational holocaust stories are full of ludicrous rumors and lies is not a point in your favor. What I actually said was that corroborating evidence is used to distinguish fact from fiction and that eyewitness evidence is more reliable than hearsay evidence. You know that to be true, so you lazily mumble yet another strawman misrepresentation of what I said.
The "foundational Holocaust stories" are also full of claims that were subsequently corroborated and proved to be correct. You cherry-pick the rumours to prop up your desired belief that all of the evidence is merely unsubstantiated rumour and hoaxes. You home in on the weakest, most unreliable evidence and claim that evidence undermines all the evidence. But a second hand report which contains mistakes, such as the Vrba - Wetzler Report, does not undermine the eyewitness evidence of Tauber, or the Topf & Sins engineers, who saw what happened inside the Kremas.
I have "cherry-picked" Vrba-Wetzler? Uh, that's the most important and comprehensive war-time report on Auschwitz, and it was the ONLY one that received endorsement by the US government (Morgenthau's WRB). Then in May 1945 we have the Soviet report, USSR-8. Then in 1946 we have the Hoess statements. USSR-8 and Hoess essentially follow the story of Vrba-Wetzler, but since Hoess was the commandant of Auschwitz his confessions were regarded as more authoritative. Hoess then constituted the definitive proof at Nuremberg and subsequently.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2023 14:32:00 GMT
You have not answered my original question. Why do you think your opinion is a reliable method for determining what happened?
Because, in your opinion, it is not possible to cremate 4 bodies at once in 15 minutes, does that mean no mass cremations at Majdanek, or the ESC report was wrong?
Ok, we are 18 pages in and you are still claiming that revisionists are wrong because their views are merely "opinions" while your views are supposedly not opinion but are based on pure "evidence." When challenged about this evidence, you simply reiterate your belief in the holocaust. If you are going to persist in this, I will not bother corresponding with you any further. When you challenge me about the evidence I use, from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology and circumstances, I respond with the reasons how that evidence has been verified as truthful and how it proves what happened. The only credible and accurate way to investigate what happened is to study such evidence. The debate between us consists of you giving your opinion as to why you think the evidence is false and me explaining to you what evidence is hearsay and what evidence is corroborated and how that evidence is pieced together to prove what happened and that your methodology is logically flawed. I am not begging the question, because I am not making any assumptions, or merely trying to argue what happened. I use the method of gathering contemporaneous evidence from sources that were present at the time and then chronologically and logically piecing that evidence to reach a conclusion. That process is liner, not circular. I have just discussed the Vrba - Wetzler Report with you and explained why much of it is of a limited value as evidence, since it is hearsay due to being based on second hand information, but, its main claims have since been corroborated by contemporaneous eyewitnesses, documentary and circumstantial evidence.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2023 14:50:54 GMT
What I actually said was that corroborating evidence is used to distinguish fact from fiction and that eyewitness evidence is more reliable than hearsay evidence. You know that to be true, so you lazily mumble yet another strawman misrepresentation of what I said.
The "foundational Holocaust stories" are also full of claims that were subsequently corroborated and proved to be correct. You cherry-pick the rumours to prop up your desired belief that all of the evidence is merely unsubstantiated rumour and hoaxes. You home in on the weakest, most unreliable evidence and claim that evidence undermines all the evidence. But a second hand report which contains mistakes, such as the Vrba - Wetzler Report, does not undermine the eyewitness evidence of Tauber, or the Topf & Sins engineers, who saw what happened inside the Kremas.
I have "cherry-picked" Vrba-Wetzler? Uh, that's the most important and comprehensive war-time report on Auschwitz, and it was the ONLY one that received endorsement by the US government (Morgenthau's WRB). Then in May 1945 we have the Soviet report, USSR-8. Then in 1946 we have the Hoess statements. USSR-8 and Hoess essentially follow the story of Vrba-Wetzler, but since Hoess was the commandant of Auschwitz his confessions were regarded as more authoritative. Hoess then constituted the definitive proof at Nuremberg and subsequently. You cherry-picked through the Report, listing the reasons why you think it is bogus.
You admit "The report does contain accurate information about Auschwitz" and then dodge my questions;
Why do you think its mistakes prove it is made up? Why do you think it should be more accurate?
You then acknowledge that since then, other evidence, which is regarded as "more authoritative" has resulted in the claims about mass murder at A-B being accepted as proved. From what I have seen of the Soviet report "USSR-8"
its main use is that it identifies witnesses. That not just Hoess, but all the Nazis who worked at A-B, in particular, those who worked at the Kremas, including the Topf & Sons engineers, all admit to mass gassings, which is corroborated by the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, selections process, mass theft of property, the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of people within the camps and subsequent Nazi destruction of evidence in a cover-up, is why the courts and historians have since regarded the mass gassing claims as proved.
The method of gathering and assessing evidence, identifying the strongest evidence, what is corroborated and how it chronologically fits together, is clearly the only reliable method for determining what happened.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Jan 5, 2023 17:43:25 GMT
She later ended up at Trawniki, which is a labour camp that was about 75km from Sobibor and was not a sub camp of Sobibor, it was part of the Majdanek camp system and it was where much of the property stolen during AR ended up to be sorted. It was also used as a training camp for the Ukrainians who worked on AR.
Please do further research then come back if you can tie your shoe laces.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 6, 2023 9:23:36 GMT
She later ended up at Trawniki, which is a labour camp that was about 75km from Sobibor and was not a sub camp of Sobibor, it was part of the Majdanek camp system and it was where much of the property stolen during AR ended up to be sorted. It was also used as a training camp for the Ukrainians who worked on AR.
Please do further research then come back if you can tie your shoe laces. I checked your research, identified your source and corrected your mistake. Trawniki was not a sub camp of Sobibor.
|
|