No one to debate? [Rudolf vs Vann on Jake Shields]

[Nessie]

You cannot prove he is lying that TII had gas chambers, mass graves and pyres. To do that, you need evidence, such as an admission from him, he is lying, or a witness who was there who states there were no gas chambers, or an archaeological survey that finds no buried cremated remains, or a document that records regular mass transports back out of the camp.

It is typical of denier ignorance of investigations and evidencing, that they think opinion on credibility is the same as evidence to prove lying.

Yes we can.

1) Gas chambers - Carbon Monoxide is not fatally toxic in the methods or concentration claimed. The mechanics of the suggested operation are not feasible. Additionally, there are no remains of these alleged gas chamber buildings - so yes, Wiernik is lying through his gills.

Your opinion on the feasibility of gassing, as described by witnesses, is not evidence to prove a lie. You are arguing that because you do not believe the witnesses, therefore they lied. Your conclusion does not exclusively follow from your premise. Your opinion can be wrong and it is biased. You would not accept me arguing that because I believe the witnesses, therefore they are telling the truth.

The remains of buildings have been traced in the AR camps, at the locations witnesses give for the gas chambers. The remains found at TII matched witness descriptions of a building made of brick and concrete with a tiled chamber.

2) Mass graves - from reading A Year At Treblinka, Wiernik says the "mass graves" were some "300 meters" away. I can infer, he is saying much the same as Samuel Rajzman, who pointed out "where" the "mass graves" are located to examining judge Lukaszkiewicz, who led an excavation exactly where the witnesses said. He of course, found nothing.



Strike 2 of Wierniek (and his co-witnesses) lying through their gills

You have misunderstood the report. It is stating that instead of finding mass graves full of corpses, they found large areas of buried, cremated remains. That corroborates witness claims of exhumations, cremations and mixing the cremains back into the ground. What Wiernik wrote about in 1944, was what was found in 1945.

3) Pyres - Wiernik's claims of piling 3,000 soggy, waterlogged, semi-decayed corpses on top of each other and igniting them with the bodies of women is a downright fabrication.

Strike 3 of Wiernik lying through his teeth,

That, again, is merely your opinion. You provide no actual evidence, from another witness, document, physical, archaeological or other form of evidence. Your incredulity, and argument that the witness claims are too incredible and implausible to believe, is a logical fallacy. It is not a substitute for evidence, of which, you have nothing.

You have no
- witnesses who worked at the camp who describe a process that did not involve mass gassing
- documents recording mass transports of hundreds of thousand back out or arriving at other places
- archaeological evidence that ground witness claim was dug into, is in fact undisturbed.

That lack of evidence is why you resort to arguing your case, and no matter how many times I point out the argument you use is logically flawed, it is repeated time and time again.

[Stubble]

They weren't gas chambers, I keep telling you, they were steam chambers.

Over 3,000,000 jews were steamed there like lobsters.

I read it in a report from the Soviet extraordinary commission, a report from the United States and a report from the Polish government in exile.

Some of them argue differently numbers, but, it isn't about the numbers, it is about how inhumane the nazis treated the jews. They steamed them to death in steam chambers by the millions.

Are you calling all of these steam chamber witnesses liars?

[HansHill]

Your opinion on the feasibility of gassing, as described by witnesses, is not evidence to prove a lie. You are arguing that because you do not believe the witnesses, therefore they lied. Your conclusion does not exclusively follow from your premise. Your opinion can be wrong and it is biased. You would not accept me arguing that because I believe the witnesses, therefore they are telling the truth.

The remains of buildings have been traced in the AR camps, at the locations witnesses give for the gas chambers. The remains found at TII matched witness descriptions of a building made of brick and concrete with a tiled chamber.


You have misunderstood the report. It is stating that instead of finding mass graves full of corpses, they found large areas of buried, cremated remains. That corroborates witness claims of exhumations, cremations and mixing the cremains back into the ground. What Wiernik wrote about in 1944, was what was found in 1945.


That, again, is merely your opinion. You provide no actual evidence, from another witness, document, physical, archaeological or other form of evidence. Your incredulity, and argument that the witness claims are too incredible and implausible to believe, is a logical fallacy. It is not a substitute for evidence, of which, you have nothing.

You have no
- witnesses who worked at the camp who describe a process that did not involve mass gassing
- documents recording mass transports of hundreds of thousand back out or arriving at other places
- archaeological evidence that ground witness claim was dug into, is in fact undisturbed.

That lack of evidence is why you resort to arguing your case, and no matter how many times I point out the argument you use is logically flawed, it is repeated time and time again.

>"My opinion"

These are not my opinions. The concentration of CO in diesel exhaust is well documented in the literature as not being fatally toxic under the conditions claimed.

Here is one such study performed where lab rats were exposed to CO from a diesel exhaust. What's interesting here if you bother to read this, is the extent to which the diesel engine must be specifically juryrigged to ensure the concentrations achieve lethal dosages.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... onditions/

The results are that all the animals died in over 4 and half hours.

Here is another report from Gilbert 1974 which utterly discredits your CO gassing claims, this is from the mining industry where we can expect the direct inhalation of diesel exhaust over prolonged periods:

"An examination of ALL safety records has revealed that no person has suffered any harmful effects either temporarily or permanently as a direct result of breathing any toxic gas emitted from any vehicle powered by a Diesel engine."

Another quote from the technical literature summarises much of what can be found there. This is from an essay by Denis S. Lachtman, Director for Health Engineering for the EIMCO Mining Machinery company in a section subtitled: "No significant human hazard seen in over 20 studies.

"A number of studies evaluating human response to exposure of Diesel have included experience among Diesel bus workers, Diesel railroad workers, and metal and non-metal miners working with Diesel production equipment and underground. There are more than 20 human health studies involving working populations exposed to Diesel exhaust emissions. As can be seen from a careful review of these studies, NO SIGNIFICANT health hazards have been associated with exposures to Diesel exhaust emissions.

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/6558782

This means, that yes, Wiernik is lying about CO gas chambers

> Gas Chambers

Wiernik said there were 13 gas chambers. You don't have 13 gas chambers, because 13 gas chambers didn't exist. Because Wiernik is lying

>I misunderstand the excavations

The excavation sought to uncover what the eyewitnesses were leading them to. They left empty handed because Wiernik and his co-conspirators are lying.

[Nessie]

...
That lack of evidence is why you resort to arguing your case, and no matter how many times I point out the argument you use is logically flawed, it is repeated time and time again.

>"My opinion"

These are not my opinions.

Yes, they are your opinions. You give reasons for your opinions, which you think turns your opinion into evidence.

The concentration of CO in diesel exhaust is well documented in the literature as not being fatally toxic under the conditions claimed.
.....
This means, that yes, Wiernik is lying about CO gas chambers

Wiernik did not say diesel was used. He did not say what fuel the engine ran on. Fuchs and others who worked on the engine said it was petrol, or also did not say what fuel was used.

Even if a witness did say it was diesel, you cannot prove he lied, rather than he just made a mistake. Gerstein said it was diesel, but he saw one gassing and makes no mention of seeing the engine. As well as an engine for the gas chambers, there was an engine used as a generator for the camp. That could have been diesel and witnesses mixed up engines.

Since Wiernik did not say what you claim he said and even if he had, you cannot rule out he just made a mistake, you have not proved he lied.

> Gas Chambers

Wiernik said there were 13 gas chambers. You don't have 13 gas chambers, because 13 gas chambers didn't exist. Because Wiernik is lying

Your lack of understanding of logic is very apparent. To evidence that Wiernik lied and there were no gas chambers you need,
- witnesses who worked at the camp who describe a process that did not involve mass gassing
- documents recording mass transports of hundreds of thousand back out or arriving at other places
- archaeological evidence that ground witness claim was dug into, is in fact undisturbed.

>I misunderstand the excavations

The excavation sought to uncover what the eyewitnesses were leading them to. They left empty handed because Wiernik and his co-conspirators are lying.

Weirnik and the others who gave testimony about the camp, stated that the mass graves were excavated to cremate the bodies, which were mixed back into the ground and planted over. The excavations found exactly what Wiernik and others described, no mass graves full of corpses, since they had been exhumed and large areas of disturbed ground with ash, earth and cremated remains mixed together. They did not leave empty handed, they left with archaeological evidence that corroborated the witness claims.

You cannot produce contemporaneous evidence that directly relates to TII, that proves all the witnesses, not just Wiernik, lied. Instead, you give me your opinion on why you think they lied, which merely reveals your lack of understanding of witnesses, logic and evidencing.

[HansHill]

This is really poor stuff. One of CODOH's great attributes, is that curious people looking for a new perspective on the Holocaust will find threads like these.

They will on one hand, hear fresh arguments that were previously all but forbidden / illegal / socially distasteful, all of a sudden being made with references to bodies of literature they were never aware even existed. These arguments are often fresh, compelling, open, genuine, credible and underlined by the body of literature mentioned.

On the other hand, they will see your posts, regurgitating old talking points, asserting a priori that gas chambers existed in a sort of self-seeking pilpul dialectic, and odd twists and turns to brazenly deflect away any good faith revisionist arguments. The latter of these looks very disingenuous!

[Stubble]

This is really poor stuff. One of CODOH's great attributes, is that curious people looking for a new perspective on the Holocaust will find threads like these.

They will on one hand, hear fresh arguments that were previously all but forbidden / illegal / socially distasteful, all of a sudden being made with references to bodies of literature they were never aware even existed. These arguments are often fresh, compelling, open, genuine, credible and underlined by the body of literature mentioned.

On the other hand, they will see your posts, regurgitating old talking points, asserting a priori that gas chambers existed in a sort of self-seeking pilpul dialectic, and odd twists and turns to brazenly deflect away any good faith revisionist arguments. The latter of these looks very disingenuous!

That's part of what it is all about though man. The whole point is open debate. Nessie can raise his points as loud as he likes.

If someone seeking the truth actually reads a year in treblinka and starts looking at the official story with any scrutiny, it will fall apart no matter how many times 'historical consensus' gets mentioned.

Upon rigid inspection, I don't think anyone in their right mind could possibly believe the current, revised, cleaned up official story. Especially not withstanding all the lies behind the curtain.

Now, nessie maintains we can't prove a lie. He kicks on 'misconstrued' or 'out of context' stuff, or repetition of rumors.

There are a lot of witnesses that made a conscious effort to fib. About electric floors that doubled a crematorium for body disposal on the spot, for example, and all manner of other nonsense. Like, witches being used as fuel for outdoor cremation.

I meant jewesses. I meant jewesses.

[Scott]

Claims of testicle crushing is a lie, invented by dishonest Holocaust deniers, as they seek a way around the fact that every single Nazi who worked at an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, admits it as used for gassings.

Not exactly a lie but no doubt an exaggeration.

Judge Edward L. Van Roden was not exactly a "Holocaust Denier" either. However, he did walk back some of his public comments ─ or denied making them altogether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre_trial

[...]
One member of the [Simpson] commission, Judge Edward L. Van Roden of Pennsylvania, allegedly made several public statements claiming that physical violence had been inflicted on the accused and questioned the validity of the hearings. James Finucane, an official of the National Council for the Prevention of War, said that he heard Van Roden "had made some shocking statements" at a meeting of the Federal Bar Association, and that when Finucane approached Van Roden to verify the report, Van Roden invited him to hear him speak on the same subject at the Rotary Club. The National Council for the Prevention of War made a press release on December 18, 1948, publicizing this speech, which the editor of The Progressive asked to run as a partly-ghostwritten article under Van Roden's byline. After Finucane spoke with Van Roden by telephone to get his permission and discuss revisions to the article, it ran in the February 1949 issue of the magazine.[18][19]

18. Van Roden, Edward L. (February 1949). "American atrocities in Germany". The Progressive.

19. Malmedy Massacre Investigation: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1949. pp. 952, 959–63. Retrieved 25 February 2023.

I've studied the Malmedy Massacre investigation and the Baldwin Subcommittee where Senator Joe McCarthy started his anti-subversion career. Unfortunately, we can't really get very far about the torture claims. As McCarthy complained, efforts were made to NOT pursue this line of investigation regarding Jewish spooks employed as "experts" by the War Crimes trials and who were alleged to have engaged in torture of German PoWs.

Two things are very clear, 1) that the victorious powers could basically do whatever they wanted to with the enemy Pows on the basis of War Crime allegations, and 2) that the Malmedy Massacre trial at Dachau in particular garnered a hysterical reaction against the Waffen-SS.

Col. Joachim Peiper took responsibility for the atrocities as the commander of Kampfgruppe Peiper even though he was miles away from the massacre at the time, and he was duly sentenced to death, although this was commuted and he was released in December 1956 only to be assinated by Communist arsonists in France in 1976.

In the course of the Malmedy Massacre Trial, six Waffen-SS defendants, including Peiper, complained to the tribunal that they had been victims of physical violence and threats of violence meant to compel them to confessions of their war crimes.[11] The military tribunal asked the defendants to confirm their sworn statements;[11] of the nine Waffen-SS officers who testified, three claimed to have been mistreated by U.S. Army jailers.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre_trial

[fireofice]

Here's an article on the crushed testicles claim:

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... al-is.html

The full investigation, hearings, and conclusions are here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120503112 ... ation.html

I haven't gone through the entire thing, but it appears that the purpose was to admit some mistreatment occurred but then claim it wasn't "systematic". Basically a whitewash. Considering all the other underhanded stuff that was going on not too much earlier, I just have to say that I smell shenanigans here.

[Nessie]

The allegations that the victorious countries have forced a hoax by threats, ignores that to one extent or another, every single country occupied by the Nazis cooperated with the Final Solution and had at least some of its Jewish population arrested and sent to camps. From the Netherlands to Estonia, rather than having to face up to what countrymen did to their fellow countrymen, who happened to be Jewish, it would be in their interests to expose a hoax.

Both the Soviets and the Western Allies needed Germany, as it became the front line for the Cold War. Being able to expose a hoax, would be propaganda gold, embarrassing the side perpetrating the hoax and making Germans easier to rehabilitate with fellow Europeans. Revisionists like to suggest it was a Soviet hoax. Exposing that hoax, to embarrass them, makes more sense than cooperating and admitting to the role the western Europeans played. Rather than having to admit to killing their fellow countrymen, the Baltic States, on gaining their independence, would expose the hoax.

No revisionist thinks through the geopolitical implications of their hoax claim and the extent to which it would benefit so many to expose it.

[HansHill]

You're doing it again, despite a dedicated thread here designed to teach you about this exact logical fallacy.

You're attempting to shrug off Holocaust Denial by invoking an impossible "hoax" that would be too convoluted, or too incredulous to have occurred.

What you're ignoring is that these happen all the time. I'll only provide you with one example, and to be quite honest, it's not really for your benefit, its for the benefit of others who may happen to be reading in future.

We know that the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) hoax was coordinated by the USA in line with the Clean Break school of policy proposals for Zionist interests. We also know now, that practically everyone today recognises this hoax as such.



So here is evidence, of a global hoax, being coordinated at the international level, involving many countries, many moving parts, and key actors fabricating claims, evidence and testimoy for political capital and ethnic interests.

Now, why don't lets say... France speak out about this? Or why don't England speak out about this? England specifically lost many thousands of lives in the pursuing war. They would have every reason to "expose the hoax". Ditto for non-allied countries like Iran, or North Korea, or Russia.But they don't seek to expose the hoax.

Because Nessie, that's not how international relations work. Now after everything that I've taught you, re-read what you asked about the Holocaust.

[Nessie]

You're doing it again, despite a dedicated thread here designed to teach you about this exact logical fallacy.

What logical fallacy am I committing?

You're attempting to shrug off Holocaust Denial by invoking an impossible "hoax" that would be too convoluted, or too incredulous to have occurred.

Holocaust denial is widely rejected, because the hoax it alleges is not evidenced and would be too big to pull off. The Holocaust is evidenced to have happened and revisionists cannot evidence the only alternative, which if that had happened, would have left a lot of evidence.

What you're ignoring is that these happen all the time. I'll only provide you with one example, and to be quite honest, it's not really for your benefit, its for the benefit of others who may happen to be reading in future.

We know that the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) hoax was coordinated by the USA in line with the Clean Break school of policy proposals for Zionist interests. We also know now, that practically everyone today recognises this hoax as such.



So here is evidence, of a global hoax, being coordinated at the international level, involving many countries, many moving parts, and key actors fabricating claims, evidence and testimoy for political capital and ethnic interests.

Now, why don't lets say... France speak out about this? Or why don't England speak out about this? England specifically lost many thousands of lives in the pursuing war. They would have every reason to "expose the hoax". Ditto for non-allied countries like Iran, or North Korea, or Russia.But they don't seek to expose the hoax.

Because Nessie, that's not how international relations work. Now after everything that I've taught you, re-read what you asked about the Holocaust.

It is odd that you use an example of something that is widely accepted to have been an incompetent hoax, that only a few stubborn politicians refuse to accept was a deeply flawed narrative, as an example of how easy it is pull off a hoax on an international scale, involving millions of people cooperating, even when they are sworn enemies. It is like claiming Katyn is an example of how to pull off a hoax, when it was a hoax that failed!

All those competing political, ever-changing interests in Europe, yet no one has broken ranks and produced evidence to prove what really took place. Then there is the Arab world and in particular Saudi Arabia, with their wealth and international influence, who would benefit massively from the Holocaust being a hoax, yet there is nothing from any of them. Iran, North Korea or Russia do not claim it was a hoax, because of the lack of evidence. Unlike you, they do not want to embarrass themselves by making wild, unsupported claims that will just embarrass them.

[HansHill]

Nessie: You argued that the hoax couldn't happen.

I showed you a hoax pulled off in front of your eyes.

[Nessie]

Nessie: You argued that the hoax couldn't happen.

I showed you a hoax pulled off in front of your eyes.

Are you seriously trying to argue that because WMDs in Iran were used as an excuse for an invasion, which is now widely accepted to have been a hoax, therefore the Holocaust is a hoax?

[HansHill]

No, stop being disingenuous.

The WMD hoax shows that hoaxes happen. And furthermore, they happen regularly.

[Nessie]

No, stop being disingenuous.

The WMD hoax shows that hoaxes happen. And furthermore, they happen regularly.

I know international, political hoaxes happen, Katyn is another example of that. That such hoaxes happen, does not therefore mean it is possible to pull off a hoax the size of the Holocaust. Iraqi WMDs and Katyn were hoaxes limited to one country, with few people involved. Iraqi WMDs merely involved a few government officials and politicians, creating so-called "dodgy dossiers" accusing the Iraqis of having WMDs. It also likely included the murder of one scientist who was about to blow the whistle. Katyn involved some Soviet officials denying blind that they were responsible and the setting up of some Nazis to take responsibility, which only worked because the Allies were initially inclined to believe the Soviets.

The Holocaust as a hoax involves millions of people, across every single country in Europe, lying, falsifying documents, forensic and archaeological evidence and creating a fake circumstantial narrative, that has held together, despite it being in so many individual and national interests for it to be exposed. It is off the scale in terms of resources needed, compared to Iraqi WMDs and Katyn.