The MIKE PEINOVICH vs. MATT COCKERILL Holocaust debate

I just heard the end — the last 15 minutes.
Wow! That guy Mathew Cockeril! 😮 Jeez, what an ignoramus.

He is so ill-informed and arrogantly ignorant that he doesn’t know what constitutes ‘hearsay’ evidence.
He claims that someone just saying someone else told him something, is true and is definitely not hearsay.
Q: And why does he believe that falsehood?
A: Because to say otherwise would undermine his quasi-religious Holyhoax belief system. Which is the same criteria Nessie, Nick Terry and every other H-believer I’ ever discussed with, does in order to protect and justify their Holyhax belief: viz the criteria is if anything — ‘semantic definitions, evidence, logic, whatever — serves to enhance the sacrosanct narrative, then its kosher/ acceptable. If it undermines or refutes the H-credo, then it is to be rejected, avoided, dodged and/or denied.

Here is a definition:
Mike Peinovich tried to explain to him that citing as evidence a quote attributed to Himmler by Al-Hussein is a clear-cut example of ‘hearsay’ evidence. But he denied it. 
Amazing ignorance. 😮

Historians use evidence, not argument. Hence Matt had witnesses, documents, archaeology and Mike had his arguments as to why he did not believe that evidence.



He spent a lot of time discussed Allied bombing, comparing it to the Nazi treatment of the Jews. Why not compare it to Nazi bombing and like for like? The answer is that he was used his argument to distract from his lack of evidence.



True, and many have not shied away from exposing and criticising the Allies for their atrocities, such as the use of rape and bombing of civilians and the starvation in India.



A gross exaggeration.



The debate merely reinforced revisionist use of illogical arguments instead of evidence and Mike's repeated admission that he did not know what did happen for sure and where the Jews went, means revisionist is not a nirmal history, it is a non history.

The notes I took during the debate;

Matt opens by speaking of evidence and then goes over some of that evidence. He states Mike wants to be the defence, alibing the Nazis and alleging a hoax.
Matt starts with the EG mass shootings, evidenced by eyewitnesses, documents, photographic and physical evidence, accepting figures were exaggerated, but nearly 2 million were shot. He then goes into details of specific documents, mass graves, photographs and witnesses.

He moves on to AR and again all witnesses speak to mass gassings. He refers to documents, and their description of liquidation and execution of Jews as ghettos, such as Bialystock were emptied. The archaeological evidence from bore holes at Belzec, which is a normal method, finds evidence of buried remains and ash. He refers to the strength of the circumstantial evidence, whereby the records for the people sent to the AR camps end and they vanish. He refers to the use of staff from the euthanasia programme on AR, why use them, other than because they were used to killing people.

At A-B, Matt accepts not all witnesses speak to gassings there, but one later admitted to lying. Otherwise, the witness evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of gassings. Documents recorded the construction of a gas chamber. He accepts Liechenkeller’s literal translation is corpse cellar, or morgue, but it was not used as such (14.11), as gas tight doors, a hydrogen cyanide detection device, pre heating and undressing cellar, which corroborates the witnesses to gassing and the use of the term gassing cellar. He speaks to evidence the Leichenkeller containing higher HC residue than elsewhere, pictorial evidence of the holes in the roof and then the circumstantial evidence of people disappearing on arrival. The converging evidence from witnesses, documents, physical and circumstantial evidence proves that the purpose of the Liechenkeller was a gas chamber.

Those are the three stages of mass killings, which Matt provides evidence that senior Nazis knew what was happening, ordered and had policies for. Hitler spoke to the Hungarian leader in 1943 about Jews being shot or perishing. References to extermination etc were not metaphorical, they were specific about killing, or allowing Jews to die. Himmler and Goebbels referring to killing.
It is notable that Matt provides evidence, from “all categories of evidence”, witnesses, documents etc, to prove his claims, which is the normal method to prove something happened. He challenges Mike to produce evidence for his claims people were not gassed (alibi) and that it has been hoaxed. He explains an example of torture is not evidence of a hoax, a witness admitting to being involved in the hoax would be.

Mike starts by claiming he is always going to be on the back foot as Jews control pretty much everything and there are denial laws. He is already excusing himself from having any evidence. He is suggesting the evidence for the Holocaust is propaganda and admits to being a denier, a term he accepts.
He suggests Matt will argue documents don’t mean what they say (when he has just said that they should be taken literally), absence of evidence is a form of evidence (which it is when there is no evidence to prove something happened), he will cherry pick and connect the dots in a specific way to support a conspiracy. He suggests Matt’s evidence is threadbare and there is a lot of evidence out there, such as “100,000 documents in archives”, but he produces “ten”.

Mike fails to provide any evidence to prove what did happen. Instead, he attacks the evidence produced by Matt. Mike suggests the witness evidence is a convergence of rumour, a history of anecdote and hearsay.

He discusses the past public attention to gassings at A-B, and how the Holocaust by Bullets has risen in importance, but that it was not a policy for mass shooting, and refers to instructions not to shoot working Jews. He discusses how mass graves are located by asking local people who were alive at the time, without follow up excavations and the lack of physical evidence for the mass cremations and Action 1005, whilst documentary evidence exists. He highlights the Nazi report and site examination for Katyn as the standard for such enquiry. He discusses the trials over Katyn and the Soviet attempts to frame the Nazis. He suggests only 11 witnesses were not coerced and all the rest were.

Mike goes on to discuss a missing person’s database, of about 4.5 million, and how there have been mistakes and reunions, discussing a few of them. He states “Where did the Jews go? I don’t know”.
He talks about the Commissar Order, which was lawful at the time, the Nazis were justified killing an enemy and that the Allies had similar orders. Churchill uses the term exterminating people in reference to bombing campaigns, but did he mean kill all civilians? No. Is it possible to have one reference to extermination to mean everyone, but another to not be literal and not mean kill everyone? The answer is yes. Evidence determines the circumstances and from that we learn true meaning. Why does Mike spend so much time discussing a different set of circumstances to what the Nazis were doing to the Jews? Why not compare Allied to Nazi aerial bombing? Why compare Allied bombing to a policy that identifies, registers, rounds up and enslaves Jews? The answer is that Mike does not have any relevant evidence, so he has to find other issues to discuss. If he had relevant evidence, he would be discussing evidence as to what happened inside the AR camps, not what Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris said about breaking moral.
Matt replies by pointing out Mike provided no evidence, Mike replies by lying Matt has no witnesses. Matt is correct, weak evidence is better than no evidence. In fact, there is strong evidence, and deniers lie it is weak, such as Mikes claim there is only hearsay and rumour witness evidence, when the main witnesses all saw gassings and they are eyewitnesses speaking to what they saw.
Mike wants to “go through the evidence” Matt has provided. Again, that is typical revisionist, to ask for evidence, which is a dodge to not provide evidence of his own.
They discuss the Jaeger Report, which Mike has not read as he disputes it is about shooting all the Jews in Lithuania (it states, “There are no Jews anymore in Lithuania, with the exception of the Arbeitsjuden ["labor Jews"] and their families.”). The history is that those who needed workers often ended up in dispute with those whose job it was to clear Jews.
Matt points out Mike claims the holes are fake with no evidence and Mike retorts Matt is claiming they are “real with no evidence”. That is yet another lie by Mike. There is witness, photographic and physical evidence of holes in the Kremas roofs. That is not no evidence. Revisionists do this a lot, as we see in the debate, they lie there is no evidence, when there is evidence they dispute. Disputed evidence is not no evidence. No evidence is what Mike has, when he produces nothing to prove his claim the holes are fake. He claims “copes” because of a bent rebar in the concrete and the size of the marks on the Krema roof.
They then jump to the Rudolph report and presence of blue staining on the outside of the delousing chambers, being explained by the high quantities used to kill lice, which Mike does not accept. Is Rudolf’s report “bunk” or not? They do not agree, but they constantly talk over each other. They argue over concentration of cyanide (nothing about time of exposure).
Mike accepts people subjected to trauma say crazy things, but then he uses those crazy things to claim all the witnesses lied. He references a witness who claimed to being gassed three times and survived and they go back and forth over how to assess witness evidence, without either showing understanding how to assess witness truthfulness.
They debate the numbers of Jews, and Mike cannot evidence the “some that survived”, but “he does not know what happened to them”. He lies “there is no evidence those people were gassed” and claim they were deported to the east, “that’s what the Nazis said”. Matt asks where? The reply is the Soviet Union, but he cannot evidence that. Matt points out by the end of the war 5-600,000 were in the camps, not all were Jews, so where were the rest of them? When asked where, Mike replies “I don’t know”. He thinks he does not need to evidence what happened.
Mike asserts the documents are fake, the witnesses are lying, and that is evidence of the hoax. He does not understand he has to prove with evidence the documents are fake and all the witnesses lied and he has no evidence. He refuses to accept mass graves at Belzec. He has no evidence there are no mass graves. Mike has no response to the Kola Report.
The debate goes back to old ground. When Mike cannot give numbers, he misses out a huge and significant part of the evidence. He does that to dodge not being able to evidence where all the Jews not shot went.
Matt concludes with a summary of the evidence and that Mike has no evidence of what happened or of a hoax from a whistle-blower or anyone else.
Mike then makes a circular argument, asserting the evidence is fake, therefore a hoax, without understanding he needs actual evidence the evidence is fake.

Been-there is correct and I have made a mistake, which I will now correct. Kremer's diary entry states;

"At noon was present at a special action in the women’s camp (Moslems)—the most horrible of all horrors"

It is his later 1947 interrogation where he states;

"The gassing of emaciated women from the women’s camp was particularly unpleasant. Such
individuals were generally called Muselmanner [Moslems]. I remember taking part in the
gassing of such women in daylight"

Despite numerous requests to address me as he, been-there is still refusing and has now adopted he/she. That speaks to the type of person he is. He thinks the debate is about point scoring, such as whether an entry was from a diary or an interrogation. There was a lot of point scoring in the debate as well. Point scoring is used by revisionists to distract from their lack of evidence. Kremer's evidence that a special action is a gassing, provides evidence as to the use of terminology by the Nazis, which was a major part of the debate.

Matt and Mike argue about terms such as liquidation. As with Kremer's diary entry about a special action, we learn what that term means from other evidence. When gassings are evidence as having taken place inside the Kremas, unlike mass showering or their use as bomb shelters, which no witness speaks to, we know special action refers to gassing. Kremer confirms that with his 1947 interrogation.

That does not suit been-there, so he points scores and misuses pronouns despite repeated requests not to, to distract attention from the evidence he does not want to believe. Mike does that throughout the debate, for example his opening, where he concentrates on Allied bombing. He does that because he brings no evidence to the debate. It is filler to make it appear he has something to contribute. Been-there and Scott think Mike won the debate, because they point score it. In fact, Matt won the debate, because he was the only one who presented evidence as to what happened.

There is a lot of evidence (from historians, nothing from revisionists) and mistakes will be made, by both sides.



Mike and Matt disagreed over what Kremer said. Matt said Kremer used the term gassing, Mike said that was not the case. The mistake was where Kremer used the term gassing, it was in testimony he gave in 1947, not his diary. That is not an example of brainwashing, indoctrination and bogus history. It is a mistake.



My above post shows that I did check the link again. I saw the mistake, admitted to it and corrected it.



There you go again. When you asked not to be called a denier, I complied. When I ask to be referred to as he, you refuse. That examples how you have convinced yourself you are correct, you point score. The debate is a brilliant example of point scoring vs evidence. Mike uses point scoring, Matt uses evidence.

You give yourself little victories, such as refusing to call me what I want to be called, even though I have accepted your wish not to be called a denier. You have a little victory here, because of the mistake over where Kremer said gassing.



Anyone reading this thread will see the post above where I say;



Kremer did not use the term gassing in his diary. He used it in a later statement. You are dodging that, because it takes you down a path you do not want to tread. You do not want to use the methodology of checking all the evidence to determine what a witness means.



Your point scoring fails to win over the evidence. Your point scoring is why you have fallen for the Holocaust denial hoax. Like Mike, you spend your time coming up with excuses to believe mass gassing in the Kremas, and AR camps, was a hoax, by giving yourself little victories and ignoring the evidence.

Rather than say, it was not his diary, it was his later statement, that Kremer said gassing and move on, you bog the debate down, to dodge discussing that evidence and how it proves the use of terms such as special action referred to gassing and that Kremer is yet another witness to a gassing. As Matt repeatedly points out, every single person who worked inside a Krema said it was used for gassings. The revisionist theories of showering and bomb shelters have no witnesses to evidence that is what actually happened. You demand belief in what you cannot evidence happened.

Ironically this is just another reply proving that Nessie is the genuine person who is in ‘denial’ here, so more correctly deserves the epithet of ‘denier’.

As Nessie initially tried to ‘deny’ the EVIDENCE I alluded to that showed Cockerill was making innaccurate claims to further his ‘belief’.
This is what a cultish believer mindset does. It denies evidence, it misinterprets evidence, it cherry-picks evidence. It is NOT interested in the actual evidence UNLESS it corroborates their cultish belief!
Nessie just demonstrated that IS her/his approach to ‘evidence’.

But she/he can’t admit that and correct that behaviour. As we have just witnessed. She/he dishonestly dodges.

It is dishonest and delusional behaviour!

The dishonest and irrational mindset of people like Nessie, Mike Cockerill and all the other quite stubborn and genuinely hateful people who are smearing and demonising genuine research and analysis, are the ones who are exhibiting blatantly delusional behaviour that is in denial of the facts. 

This is why I don’t think skeptics and revisionists should allow and accept the perjorative of ‘denier’ to be applied to them. As looking at a sacrosanct narrative that refuses objective analysis and enforces belief is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of ‘denial’.  

And courageously explaining that you do not believe things just because everybody else does, and instead want an open and honest reappraisal, is also not in any sane world any form of genuine ‘denial’. Again it is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of that. 

So allowing people who just unintelligently and submissively believe what they are TOLD to believe to regard genuine objective enquiry to be demonised as ‘denial’ is in my opinion an ‘own goal’. 

Another dishonest dodge!
As I forced you to check by asking you a test question that YOU COULDN’T ANSWER!