|
Post by been_there on Nov 13, 2022 10:50:17 GMT
You have not shown any evidence they were all still open and full of prisoners at the end of the war. I have shown that those camps on that route, where the Treblinka trains stopped, relocated to other places as the war advanced. I clearly showed the general movement trend of those camps 1941 and 45 below; this was posted and you have the gall to demand a Closed late 1942; according to a prisoner statement February: 1943 deportations The prisoners were "transferred" to the Skarzysko forced labor camp for Jews at the end of 1942  Stopped (approx times): - Kielce...1 hour
- Skarz...1 hour
- Radom... 25 mins
- Deblin...40 mins
- Lukow..50 mins
- Siedlce 1.5 hours
Between August 1942 and summer of 1943 Jews from the Radom district were brought to three camps near the munitions factory to work the factory. According to German records, of the total 17,210 brought in with 58 transports linkYou ask for information and do not bother reading it. You admitted this. Listening to music while trolling.Precisely. This person is not and never has been interested in an accurate, well-informed, honest analysis of the actual evidence. They are only here for trolling.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 13, 2022 14:55:59 GMT
I have shown that those camps on that route, where the Treblinka trains stopped, relocated to other places as the war advanced. I clearly showed the general movement trend of those camps 1941 and 45 below; this was posted and you have the gall to demand a Closed late 1942; according to a prisoner statement February: 1943 deportations The prisoners were "transferred" to the Skarzysko forced labor camp for Jews at the end of 1942  Stopped (approx times): - Kielce...1 hour
- Skarz...1 hour
- Radom... 25 mins
- Deblin...40 mins
- Lukow..50 mins
- Siedlce 1.5 hours
Between August 1942 and summer of 1943 Jews from the Radom district were brought to three camps near the munitions factory to work the factory. According to German records, of the total 17,210 brought in with 58 transports linkYou ask for information and do not bother reading it. You admitted this. Listening to music while trolling.Precisely. This person is not and never has been interested in an accurate, well-informed, honest analysis of the actual evidence. They are only here for trolling. Nazgul dishonestly chopped my actual words from this post;
where I said "Remember, the burden of proof is on the claimant, so it is your job to show the evidence, even if you think it has been shown before. This forum has thousands of posts and many threads, you may think you have shown me the evidence, but I have not seen it."
EDIT - the post I originally relied to included this "NESSIE: but I have not seen it." which has disappeared from the quote above. Someone is playing silly buggers and is mucking about with the posts.
Nazgul has form for claiming he has produced evidence, when he has not and he has certainly not shown me any evidence of camps in the east, packed full of Jews, in 1945.
It is also impossible to get you to discuss evidencing and how you would go about evidencing a historical event. Clearly, you do not know!
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 13, 2022 18:38:58 GMT
Precisely. This person is not and never has been interested in an accurate, well-informed, honest analysis of the actual evidence. They are only here for trolling. He goes on this rant: By its very nature, Holocaust denial/revisionism, is anti-Semitic and designed to stir up hatred and perpetuate tropes and lies. It is reasonable to call such "filth". Which means that people, like Gibson and others who have found that questions need to be asked is met with this "firewall" of emotional perversity. You and I have admitted that some terrible things happened and wish to find the truth. Nessie is just intent to promulgate his version of the holocaust, the narrow narrative. Any diversion from his holocaustian world view is met with such derision as quoted above. Intelligent people see right through Nessie. I have established that there is a high probability that people got off the Treblinka destination trains at the various locations where labour camps or Zwangarbeitslager were. It is not just a coincidence there were on the same route in all directions. I have shown that the camps located further west as the war progressed and that Jews were often in transit. Prior to me telling him, this person had no idea of the existence of those camps, nor of the camps in Ostland and Ukraine. If one has watched the TV show "Naked and afraid" one realized how hard it is to survive without normal human comforts. While not quite the Amazon jungle or the bayou of Louisiana, most people in Europe were displaced including Jews. There were no shops, no shelter, no medicines, no food, no fresh water. I suspect that most of the mayhem occurred post war. We all know what it is like when we lose power for a night in winter. Imagine this with no food, no shelter in a European winter for a year. This is the course of my next investigation sequence.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 13, 2022 19:25:29 GMT
Precisely. This person is not and never has been interested in an accurate, well-informed, honest analysis of the actual evidence. They are only here for trolling. He goes on this rant: By its very nature, Holocaust denial/revisionism, is anti-Semitic and designed to stir up hatred and perpetuate tropes and lies. It is reasonable to call such "filth". Which means that people, like Gibson and others who have found that questions need to be asked is met with this "firewall" of emotional perversity. You and I have admitted that some terrible things happened and wish to find the truth. Nessie is just intent to promulgate his version of the holocaust, the narrow narrative. Any diversion from his holocaustian world view is met with such derision as quoted above. Intelligent people see right through Nessie. I have established that there is a high probability that people got off the Treblinka destination trains at the various locations where labour camps or Zwangarbeitslager were. It is not just a coincidence there were on the same route in all directions. I have shown that the camps located further west as the war progressed and that Jews were often in transit. Prior to me telling him, this person had no idea of the existence of those camps, nor of the camps in Ostland and Ukraine. If one has watched the TV show "Naked and afraid" one realized how hard it is to survive without normal human comforts. While not quite the Amazon jungle or the bayou of Louisiana, most people in Europe were displaced including Jews. There were no shops, no shelter, no medicines, no food, no fresh water. I suspect that most of the mayhem occurred post war. We all know what it is like when we lose power for a night in winter. Imagine this with no food, no shelter in a European winter for a year. This is the course of my next investigation sequence. OK, so how would go about investigating what happened? Describe your methodology.
To give you a hand, here is how I would go about it. I would...
1 - gather all relevant, verified & contemporaneous evidence, from witnesses, documents, physical items, images, archaeological/forensic reports and the circumstances.
2 - put that evidence in chronological order. 3 - look to see what evidence corroborates. 4 - look to see what evidence conflicts or is ambiguous.
5 - look to see what is not evidenced to have happened.
6 - piece that evidence together logically to see what conclusion it converges to.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 13, 2022 21:01:32 GMT
....."Emotive descriptions" are the hallmark of atrocity propaganda. If "every single Jewish witness" gives statements in this style, that should give you pause about accepting them as factual. Whilst that is true, it is only true to a limited extent. Credibility and truthfulness are different. You concentrate on credibility, I concentrate on truthfulness. When I first read Jewish testimony, I did think it was not particularly credible, because of the excessive use of emotive descriptives. I realised that by concentrating on credibility, deniers think they are reading false propaganda, when it is just the way eastern European Jews speak. I saw that the Nazis relate the same narrative as the Jews, but they do it in a matter of fact way, because they were following orders and believed they were doing good. I soon saw that the denier attacks on credibility of witnesses, did not work with the Nazis, so they have to switch to claiming they were all coerced into lying. There is another group, the Polish civilians, who witnessed much of what was happening. They fall in between the more matter of fact Nazis and the emotive descriptives of the Jews. That makes three individual separate groups, who all say the same thing, but in different ways. The Jews are the least credible, because, as you say, their testimony is like atrocity propaganda. There are explanations for that, PSD, survivor guilt and a need to convey the horror of what happened, as they had helped to kill many fellow Jews to survive themselves. I see very little legitimate analysis of the evidence. Instead, I see a lot of digging about to find excuses to disbelieve the claims and no attempt to look for corroborative evidence, logically and chronologically pieced together. Just because the Jewish testimony, at times, reads like atrocity propaganda, does not therefore mean it is atrocity propaganda. Do you understand that a credible witness can be a total liar and that a witness who is not credible, can be telling the truth? Do you see how credibility and truthfulness differ? Please describe your methodology as to how you determine if a witness is lying or not. Please stop dodging my request for you to explain your methodology for determining what has happened in the past. You seem to be conceding that the Jewish testimonies are a bit dodgy. But you think there is enough other evidence to corroborate the general picture? In principle, I would not object to that. But that only works IF the other evidence is indeed overwhelming. If I look at the history books however, I see that they DO rely heavily on statements by people like Wiernik. If the investigations of these camps were done to a high standard then we could have more confidence in the story. But who was it that took over these camps from the Germans and investigated what happened there? It was the Soviets. Below is from their report at Majdanek (issued jointly with the Poles). The Soviet "technical experts" are claiming four bodies at a time could be burned in only 15 minutes. That is beyond the realm of possibility. Are these investigations reliable? You also said you use German confessions for corroboration. Okay, I agree these are a potential source of evidence for your side, but these statements have their own problems. In particular, we have the fact that these statements were collected in the context of war crimes trials. Many of these are not technically confessions because the person testifying to gas chambers etc wasn't always the one in the dock. I myself would describe these as "cooperative" witnesses. There are actually many potential reasons a German under Allied occupation might want to cooperate with the new regime. Hoettl for example was an SS man but when the new sheriff was in town he switched his allegiance rapidly. He signed a statement claiming that he "heard" Eichmann say 6M Jews had been killed. Did he actually hear that or was he just ingratiating himself? There are also legal reasons why a defendant might take the Allied narratives for granted and argue narrowly to minimize individual guilt. Fritzsche and at least one other Nuremberg defendant complained on the stand about how statements were extracted. Below he says that his statement was written by a Russian interrogator and that they made him sign it. "That extract contains rather the thoughts which the interrogating Russian officer entertained in respect to my testimony. After it had been drawn up, the record was submitted to me for my signature." "I am protesting against everything, particularly against the expressions applied here which I have never used." (IMT, Vol 17, 214) This specific testimony is not of great relevance for proving or disproving the holocaust but the methods of collecting statements are a general issue. To summarize: Can we really "corroborate" fanciful Jewish testimony with Communist propaganda and postwar confessions? Do you not see the problem here?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 14, 2022 15:07:44 GMT
....You seem to be conceding that the Jewish testimonies are a bit dodgy. No, I am stating that because of the way they speak, they can come over as lacking credibility. That does not mean they are dodgy, as credibility and truthfulness are not the same. Yes. I disagree, the circumstantial evidence of the Nazis stated policy of ridding occupied Europe of Jews, their demonising of the Jews as subhuman, their identification, registration and ghettoising, followed by mass transports to camps where those people then disappeared, leaving large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated human remains and the mass theft of all their property, down to their underwear and gold teeth, is sufficient on its own to prove they were killed. Witnesses give context and add the human level that many are interested in. I agree that the earliest investigations were to what we would now consider a poor standard. But they lacked the resources to do anything more than basic written reports and they did not have the equipment and forensic capability available now. The post Soviet camp site examinations were to a higher standard and prove large areas of cremated remains at the sites and at Sobibor and TII, they found the remains of the gas chambers. No, because you phrase it as if the only evidence is from untrustworthy Jewish or Soviet sources, whereas much of the evidence has been gathered by western Allied investigators followed by universities and many of the trials were conducted in Germany by the Germans. The evidence has withstood decades of checking and verification. No evidence has been found of any alternative. Can you please explain to me why you repeatedly dodge my questions about how would you investigate what happened? Is it because you do not know how you would investigate?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 14, 2022 15:17:40 GMT
... The Soviet "technical experts" are claiming four bodies at a time could be burned in only 15 minutes. That is beyond the realm of possibility. Are these investigations reliable? I am not aware of those Soviet claims, but due to the unreliability of the Soviets, I would want all claims to be thoroughly checked. Yes, the Topf & Sons engineers. As eyewitnesses, they are compelling, as they knew exactly what was happening inside the Kremas. I regard the Topf & Sons engineer evidence as truthful, because their claims are corroborated by other witnesses independent of them, in particular the Jewish witnesses. Furthermore, documentary evidence recovered from the A-B construction office and Topf & Sons, also corroborate their claims. The circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, selections, people not needed for work sent to the Kremas, the mass cremations and the theft of all their property, provides even more corroboration. The hearsay evidence about hearing what others said, is weak and I would disregard it. You spend too much time looking at the weakest evidence and ignoring the strongest evidence.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 14, 2022 18:54:35 GMT
I regard the Topf & Sons engineer evidence as truthful, because their claims are corroborated by other witnesses independent of them, in particular the Jewish witnesses. Furthermore, documentary evidence recovered from the A-B construction office and Topf & Sons, also corroborate their claims. This poster cannot distinguish mass extermination from 14F13. It is clear from this that the engineers were interviewed by the Soviets, no doubt the Extraordinary Commission, who orchestrated and covered up the Katyn massacre.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 15, 2022 4:58:03 GMT
I regard the Topf & Sons engineer evidence as truthful, because their claims are corroborated by other witnesses independent of them, in particular the Jewish witnesses. Furthermore, documentary evidence recovered from the A-B construction office and Topf & Sons, also corroborate their claims. This poster cannot distinguish mass extermination from 14F13. It is clear from this that the engineers were interviewed by the Soviets, no doubt the Extraordinary Commission, who orchestrated and covered up the Katyn massacre. Graf has a good discussion of Prรผfer in Holocaust Handbook #36. I shared this before with Nessie and as I recall he did not have much of a response. Prรผfer's "confession" was made in Soviet custody. The self-flagellation here is over-the-top. These are the words of a Russian, not a German. A German would not likely talk about "the Germans" as an enemy. Also note that Prรผfer "confesses" to designing crematories, including at Dachau and other non-extermination camps. This is a weird thing to "confess" to seeing as there's nothing inherently criminal about designing crematory ovens.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 15, 2022 5:25:44 GMT
I disagree, the circumstantial evidence of the Nazis stated policy of ridding occupied Europe of Jews, their demonising of the Jews as subhuman, their identification, registration and ghettoising, followed by mass transports to camps where those people then disappeared, leaving large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated human remains and the mass theft of all their property, down to their underwear and gold teeth, is sufficient on its own to prove they were killed. Witnesses give context and add the human level that many are interested in. Some of this gets into point number two in the OP, the question of logical implication. If A, therefore B. The "therefore B" needs to follow necessarily from A. In general, I think you are jumping very quickly to your conclusion without working through all the steps to get there. I don't think it has much to do with lack of resources or technology. The German investigation at Katyn in 1943 was well done. The concentration camp investigations were poorly done because they didn't care that much about getting it right. It was more for propaganda. In the Majdanek report that I quoted, they didn't come up with those crazy numbers because they made an honest mistake. They wanted to portray the Germans in as negative a light as possible. The American and British camp investigations (Buchenwald, Belsen, etc) were better than those of the Soviets but only marginally. They were still propagandistic, it's just that the Americans and British favored a somewhat more restrained approach compared to the beat-you-over-the-head Soviet propaganda. I say somewhat because some stuff like the skin harvesting claims etc were not very subtle.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 15, 2022 9:56:35 GMT
Gibson, this thread is where you examine the methodology I use. So far, you have done little of that and instead you have explained, yet again, the reasons why you are inclined to disbelieve the evidence traced by historians and other investigators. I do not need you to repeat your incredulity about that evidence. I know why you are incredulous about it.
It is clear that you are unable to critique my arguments, as you call it, because the methodology I use is sound. I gather evidence, verify and assess it, logically and chronologically piece it together, look for corroboration, look for unevidenced claims and then converge on a logical and evidenced conclusion. That is the methodology taught at university and in the police.
You have dodged answering my questions about your training, so it appears you have had none, which makes you ability to critique me limited. There is not much point going on, until you stop dodging my repeated questions about how you would go about investigating what happened. So, regarding the AR camps and A-B Kremas, describe your methodology for determining what happened at those place.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 15, 2022 14:07:49 GMT
Gibson, this thread is where you examine the methodology I use. So far, you have done little of that and instead you have explained, yet again, the reasons why you are inclined to disbelieve the evidence traced by historians and other investigators. I do not need you to repeat your incredulity about that evidence. I know why you are incredulous about it. It is clear that you are unable to critique my arguments, as you call it, because the methodology I use is sound. I gather evidence, verify and assess it, logically and chronologically piece it together, look for corroboration, look for unevidenced claims and then converge on a logical and evidenced conclusion. That is the methodology taught at university and in the police. You have dodged answering my questions about your training, so it appears you have had none, which makes you ability to critique me limited. There is not much point going on, until you stop dodging my repeated questions about how you would go about investigating what happened. So, regarding the AR camps and A-B Kremas, describe your methodology for determining what happened at those place. My intention with the thread was to critique your "stock arguments." Call these stock arguments a "methodology" if you want, but I think that's a bit grandiose. Thus far I have mostly been trying to pin you down on #1 and #1a. And I think you have pretty much admitted that testimonies like those of Wiernik have credibility issues and are not a solid basis for believing millions were killed. You say that the corroboration is strong enough that we don't have to rely on the testimonies. I said in theory I do not object to that, but naturally we must ask what this other evidence is. This gets more into point #2, whether this other evidence truly establishes what is being claimed. As an aside, I will mention that the mainstream histories rely heavily on testimonies for many critical points. So I think you are downplaying them more than the mainstream would, probably because they are difficult to defend.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 15, 2022 14:32:40 GMT
Gibson, this thread is where you examine the methodology I use. So far, you have done little of that and instead you have explained, yet again, the reasons why you are inclined to disbelieve the evidence traced by historians and other investigators. I do not need you to repeat your incredulity about that evidence. I know why you are incredulous about it. It is clear that you are unable to critique my arguments, as you call it, because the methodology I use is sound. I gather evidence, verify and assess it, logically and chronologically piece it together, look for corroboration, look for unevidenced claims and then converge on a logical and evidenced conclusion. That is the methodology taught at university and in the police. You have dodged answering my questions about your training, so it appears you have had none, which makes you ability to critique me limited. There is not much point going on, until you stop dodging my repeated questions about how you would go about investigating what happened. So, regarding the AR camps and A-B Kremas, describe your methodology for determining what happened at those place. I do not focus on credentials. Maybe I'm a rocket scientist, maybe I deliver pizzas. Why does it matter? I will tell you that I have taken several university-level math courses that covered logic and mathematical proofs. What is your training in logic? Nobody has formal credentials in history, demographics, archaeology, chemistry, toxicology, engineering, etc., all of which are relevant to revisionism. In some cases it matters. I do not have the chemistry background to have written Germar Rudolf's book. But that's a technical subject. History does not have the same high technical barriers and lots of history is written by people with no academic historical training.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 15, 2022 15:21:01 GMT
Gibson, this thread is where you examine the methodology I use. So far, you have done little of that and instead you have explained, yet again, the reasons why you are inclined to disbelieve the evidence traced by historians and other investigators. I do not need you to repeat your incredulity about that evidence. I know why you are incredulous about it. It is clear that you are unable to critique my arguments, as you call it, because the methodology I use is sound. I gather evidence, verify and assess it, logically and chronologically piece it together, look for corroboration, look for unevidenced claims and then converge on a logical and evidenced conclusion. That is the methodology taught at university and in the police. You have dodged answering my questions about your training, so it appears you have had none, which makes you ability to critique me limited. There is not much point going on, until you stop dodging my repeated questions about how you would go about investigating what happened. So, regarding the AR camps and A-B Kremas, describe your methodology for determining what happened at those place. My intention with the thread was to critique your "stock arguments." Call these stock arguments a "methodology" if you want, but I think that's a bit grandiose. That further evidences your misunderstanding. I do not use argument. I use evidence. I do not try to argue there was a Holocaust, I use evidence to prove there was a Holocaust. You said in the OP "Just give your evidence and analysis and try to convince people you are right." You possibly think analysis is argument, but it is not, because it is analysis from established methodologies when studying what happened in the past, such as corroboration, differentiating between hearsay and eyewitness evidence, checking provenance, working chronologically, peer review and logical convergance of evidence. I have not said that. You repeatedly dodge what I have said. Yet again, I have said that credibility is not the same as truthfulness. I have repeatedly pointed out that someone can be credible, and a liar. You obsess about credibility and ignore truthfulness, why is that? Many histories use witnesses as the lead evidence, because eyewitness give a readable narrative and context and because people like people, so they are interested in what others have to say, more than dry documents, or archaeological reports. Whilst witnesses are the lead evidence, they are usually not the best or strongest of evidence, which is why the evidence from documents, archaeology, images etc follow on. Then there is circumstantial evidence, which is not widely understood. It is the cumulation of evidence. I gave you an example, which, of course you ignored, of the circumstantial evidence for mass murder at the AR camps and A-B Kremas, regarding the identification, registration, transportation of Jews and the evidence of mass cremations and the mass theft of property, with no trace of the people leaving those places. When you ignore so much of what I am explaining and you refuse to answer my questions, what is your point of being here? So far, all you have done is show that you lack the understanding to critique my so called arguments.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 15, 2022 15:29:29 GMT
Gibson, this thread is where you examine the methodology I use. So far, you have done little of that and instead you have explained, yet again, the reasons why you are inclined to disbelieve the evidence traced by historians and other investigators. I do not need you to repeat your incredulity about that evidence. I know why you are incredulous about it. It is clear that you are unable to critique my arguments, as you call it, because the methodology I use is sound. I gather evidence, verify and assess it, logically and chronologically piece it together, look for corroboration, look for unevidenced claims and then converge on a logical and evidenced conclusion. That is the methodology taught at university and in the police. You have dodged answering my questions about your training, so it appears you have had none, which makes you ability to critique me limited. There is not much point going on, until you stop dodging my repeated questions about how you would go about investigating what happened. So, regarding the AR camps and A-B Kremas, describe your methodology for determining what happened at those place. I do not focus on credentials. Maybe I'm a rocket scientist, maybe I deliver pizzas. Why does it matter? I will tell you that I have taken several university-level math courses that covered logic and mathematical proofs. What is your training in logic? I did a year course at university in general philosophy, which included a part on logical fallacies, which explains why I often refer to such when debating deniers. Which explains why you make so many mistakes and show so much misunderstanding about how history is investigated. How can you reliably critique something that you know little about and have no training in? Do you not think you come over as rather arrogant and foolish, suggesting that you can comment on something that you are ignorant about? For example, to go back to something you have repeatedly ignored and the difference between credibility and truthfulness. Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful? Do you understand that someone can be credible and a liar? Do you understand that corroboration is the best test of truthfulness?
|
|