The Significance of the Morgue Documents

[Nessie]

They left the Majdanek camps intact and that didn't stop the Soviets from claiming the most absurd things ever said in the war, they didn't want to make their propaganda work easier.

I repeat, no one is creating a conspiracy that the Soviets' scorched earth was to cover up anything. I'm surprised they didn't cover up the Katyn massacres and still had the nerve to blame the Germans, but Nessie trusts the reports of the Polish-Soviet commissions of those camps.

Was there a Soviet report on A-B? If so, it is so useless

Why would a Soviet report on A-B be useless?

I am being hyperbolic. You have cut out where I say that I have never seen a reference to a Soviet report on A-B, so I presume it has no evidential value and is considered to be unreliable. You know that Soviet evidence is generally considered to be unreliable.

[Nessie]

There was no delivery of coal in 1942-1943 for the alleged number of gassings carried out by Danuta Czech, nor were the muffles suitable for multiple cremations in a few minutes, nor was the refractory masonry of the same refurbished after 3,000 cremations. This Trinity of evidence alone demolishes the Holocaust at Auschwitz

Supporting hypotheses for these three problems without empirical evidence from tests that anyone can repeat as the scientific method guarantees will not convince anyone reasonable, perhaps people with very low IQs. Hasn't this been the goal of this post-45 system? To make society ignorant and docile so that the law will come out of Zion as Isaiah prophesied?

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings."

You cannot work out how the ovens could work, based on what is known about coke deliveries, oven suitability and repairs, so you claim there were no mass cremations.

[curioussoul]

If you misrepresent and strawman me, you will take responsibility for that. Is that understood going forward?

If you're going to blame others for going off-topic and intentionally derailing threads, there's no point in having you here. You're going to follow the rules like everybody else. Is that understood?

I agree that documentary and physical evidence is generally more reliable than witness memory, yes.

Finally some common sense out of you. Baby steps. If documentary and physical evidence contradicts a witness statement, in general, would that be cause for concern for a historian seeking to vindicate the witness story?

[curioussoul]

There was no delivery of coal in 1942-1943 for the alleged number of gassings carried out by Danuta Czech, nor were the muffles suitable for multiple cremations in a few minutes, nor was the refractory masonry of the same refurbished after 3,000 cremations. This Trinity of evidence alone demolishes the Holocaust at Auschwitz

Supporting hypotheses for these three problems without empirical evidence from tests that anyone can repeat as the scientific method guarantees will not convince anyone reasonable, perhaps people with very low IQs. Hasn't this been the goal of this post-45 system? To make society ignorant and docile so that the law will come out of Zion as Isaiah prophesied?

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings."

For you to invoke the argument from incredulity fallacy you would have to find a plausible explanation for why the prima facie configuration of the ventilation system seems to contradict the gassing hypothesis. Only once you've articulated such an explanation would an invokation of the incredulity fallacy be appropriate. In light of Stubble's personal experiences working with and designing ventilation equipment this appears even more pertinent. Wouldn't you agree?

[curioussoul]

Was there a Soviet report on A-B? If so, it is so useless

Why would a Soviet report on A-B be useless?

I am being hyperbolic. You have cut out where I say that I have never seen a reference to a Soviet report on A-B, so I presume it has no evidential value and is considered to be unreliable. You know that Soviet evidence is generally considered to be unreliable.

Would you explain the bolded bits? Why would that be?

[Nessie]

If you misrepresent and strawman me, you will take responsibility for that. Is that understood going forward?

If you're going to blame others for going off-topic and intentionally derailing threads, there's no point in having you here. You're going to follow the rules like everybody else. Is that understood?

If someone else derails a thread and asks me a question, I will answer them, even if it keeps the derailment going. Is that understood?

I agree that documentary and physical evidence is generally more reliable than witness memory, yes.

Finally some common sense out of you. Baby steps.

You incorrectly think that this is something I did not already know about. I have regularly stated, over the years of debates, that witness evidence is the weakest and linked to the reasons why. Those reasons prove that witnesses misremember, make mistakes, get estimations wrong, which undermine revisionist claims that the witnesses all lied, all 100% of them. All the studies of witnesses and their memory and recollection prove that mistakes etc are far more likely.

Revisionists refuse to take the baby steps to learn at least a little about witness evidence, as they do not want to have to accept that they likely made a mistake, or exaggerated, or just plain misremembered, rather than lied.

If documentary and physical evidence contradicts a witness statement, in general, would that be cause for concern for a historian seeking to vindicate the witness story?

Of course. When any evidence, no matter its source, contradicts, that needs further investigation. That can be two documents contradicting each other.

Revisionists try to apply interpretations to documents that contradict and are not supported by other evidence, such as the witnesses, none of whom speak to the various claims revisionists have made about the use of the Kremas 1943-4.

[Nessie]

There was no delivery of coal in 1942-1943 for the alleged number of gassings carried out by Danuta Czech, nor were the muffles suitable for multiple cremations in a few minutes, nor was the refractory masonry of the same refurbished after 3,000 cremations. This Trinity of evidence alone demolishes the Holocaust at Auschwitz

Supporting hypotheses for these three problems without empirical evidence from tests that anyone can repeat as the scientific method guarantees will not convince anyone reasonable, perhaps people with very low IQs. Hasn't this been the goal of this post-45 system? To make society ignorant and docile so that the law will come out of Zion as Isaiah prophesied?

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings."

For you to invoke the argument from incredulity fallacy you would have to find a plausible explanation for why the prima facie configuration of the ventilation system seems to contradict the gassing hypothesis. Only once you've articulated such an explanation would an invokation of the incredulity fallacy be appropriate. In light of Stubble's personal experiences working with and designing ventilation equipment this appears even more pertinent. Wouldn't you agree?

No. You have just made that condition up. From the witness descriptions and cut away plan that shows part of the ventilation system in the Liechenkeller, Stubble has argued that the gassings as described cannot have been ventilated, so the gassings cannot have taken place and all the witnesses lied. I do not need to meet conditions before I can point out that Stubble has used the argument from incredulity.

The facts are that;

1 - there are multiples sources of evidence that a gas chambers was constructed inside the Krema and it was used to gas people.

2 - exact details of the gassings and workings of the chamber, and how gas was introduced and vented, is unknown.

3 - Stubble is arguing from those limited details why he thinks the gas chamber venting could not have worked.

That means the definition of argument from incredulity has been met.

[Nessie]

Why would a Soviet report on A-B be useless?

I am being hyperbolic. You have cut out where I say that I have never seen a reference to a Soviet report on A-B, so I presume it has no evidential value and is considered to be unreliable. You know that Soviet evidence is generally considered to be unreliable.

Would you explain the bolded bits? Why would that be?

I am surprised that you do not know that Soviet derived evidence, such as presented during the Nuremberg war crimes trials, was considered unreliable and exaggerated. For example, they did a very limited site survey at TII, which is why the Poles formed a warcrimes commission and returned to do a more detailed and thorough site survey.

See Chapter 3, "Treblinka Extermination or Transit camp?" here;

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/treblinka/

[Stubble]

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings."

For you to invoke the argument from incredulity fallacy you would have to find a plausible explanation for why the prima facie configuration of the ventilation system seems to contradict the gassing hypothesis. Only once you've articulated such an explanation would an invokation of the incredulity fallacy be appropriate. In light of Stubble's personal experiences working with and designing ventilation equipment this appears even more pertinent. Wouldn't you agree?

No. You have just made that condition up. From the witness descriptions and cut away plan that shows part of the ventilation system in the Liechenkeller, Stubble has argued that the gassings as described cannot have been ventilated, so the gassings cannot have taken place and all the witnesses lied. I do not need to meet conditions before I can point out that Stubble has used the argument from incredulity.

The facts are that;

1 - there are multiples sources of evidence that a gas chambers was constructed inside the Krema and it was used to gas people.

2 - exact details of the gassings and workings of the chamber, and how gas was introduced and vented, is unknown.

3 - Stubble is arguing from those limited details why he thinks the gas chamber venting could not have worked.

That means the definition of argument from incredulity has been met.

The lies of the 'eye witnesses' and the physical reality of the room are separate issues and are not contingent on one another.

Let's separate these issues, shall we? I said that the direct eye witnesses to gassings were lying. Of your 114 witnesses, only a handful are direct eye witnesses. Now, lying and being wrong are 2 different things. Others are mistaken, they may have simply heard others and made assumptions.

Are you familiar 1972 trial of the engineers in Vienna?

Damn it, I'm engaging in thread derailment. Nessie, I've started a witness thread for your review in the revisionist section as the witness testimony and statements are not debatable. Feel free to read it as it grows at your leisure.

For the ventilation system of the morgues at krema II and krema III we should likely start a new thread, although, if the op is cool with it, I'd like to discuss it here as it is tangentially related to the topic of the thread.

[curioussoul]

If you misrepresent and strawman me, you will take responsibility for that. Is that understood going forward?

No more excuses, Nessie. Follow the rules or get out. Is that understood? That's a very simple question.

This is not a thread about Rudolf, or chemistry, or air-raid shelters. It's a thread about the morgue documents, and you're intentionally derailing the thread. Let's go on with it.

I agree that documentary and physical evidence is generally more reliable than witness memory, yes.

That's fantastic. Baby steps, again. Given the physical and documentary evidence the morgues were constructed and used as morgues, what would be the exterminationist explanation for such circumstances? Brushing them off as one-off exceptions doesn't explain their existence. If the morgue was indeed secretely a gas chamber for Jews, why are the Germans internally discussing their usage as morgues?

That's a bit odd, right? You were initially stumped by these documents, alleging such documents could not and did not exist. When confronted, you called them cherry-picked one-off exceptions, acknowledging their existence and problematic nature within the exterminationist framework, but not offering an explanation for their existence.

We'll go from there and see how you handle yourself. Baby steps, as I said.

[curioussoul]

I have regularly stated, over the years of debates, that witness evidence is the weakest and linked to the reasons why.

Right, that's fantastic progress. We'll progress from here and see where we end up.

Of course. When any evidence, no matter its source, contradicts, that needs further investigation. That can be two documents contradicting each other.

Right. So in the context of the morgue documents - documents that you correctly identified as being completely incompatible with the exterminationist position, documents that really shouldn't be able to exist at all if we follow the mainstream story - how would you square those contradictory sources?

Try to muster the historian within you, and we'll see where it takes us.

Revisionists try to apply interpretations to documents that contradict and are not supported by other evidence, such as the witnesses

But we've already determined that witness testimony is the weakest form of evidence possible and that physical and documentary evidence takes precedence over flimsly witness stories. See your above quote. In other threads you've asserted that physical, empirical evidence must be wrong if it contradicts "all of the witnesses", which is not a scientific position but an ideological one.

[curioussoul]

I am being hyperbolic. You have cut out where I say that I have never seen a reference to a Soviet report on A-B, so I presume it has no evidential value and is considered to be unreliable. You know that Soviet evidence is generally considered to be unreliable.

Would you explain the bolded bits? Why would that be?

I am surprised that you do not know that Soviet derived evidence, such as presented during the Nuremberg war crimes trials, was considered unreliable and exaggerated. For example, they did a very limited site survey at TII, which is why the Poles formed a warcrimes commission and returned to do a more detailed and thorough site survey.

See Chapter 3, "Treblinka Extermination or Transit camp?" here;

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/treblinka/

Not answering the question. I asked why a Soviet report would be useless, and why Soviet derived evidence would be unreliable and useless. Would you answer the question? Go ahead.

[Nessie]

For you to invoke the argument from incredulity fallacy you would have to find a plausible explanation for why the prima facie configuration of the ventilation system seems to contradict the gassing hypothesis. Only once you've articulated such an explanation would an invokation of the incredulity fallacy be appropriate. In light of Stubble's personal experiences working with and designing ventilation equipment this appears even more pertinent. Wouldn't you agree?

No. You have just made that condition up. From the witness descriptions and cut away plan that shows part of the ventilation system in the Liechenkeller, Stubble has argued that the gassings as described cannot have been ventilated, so the gassings cannot have taken place and all the witnesses lied. I do not need to meet conditions before I can point out that Stubble has used the argument from incredulity.

The facts are that;

1 - there are multiples sources of evidence that a gas chambers was constructed inside the Krema and it was used to gas people.

2 - exact details of the gassings and workings of the chamber, and how gas was introduced and vented, is unknown.

3 - Stubble is arguing from those limited details why he thinks the gas chamber venting could not have worked.

That means the definition of argument from incredulity has been met.

The lies of the 'eye witnesses' and the physical reality of the room are separate issues and are not contingent on one another.

Let's separate these issues, shall we? I said that the direct eye witnesses to gassings were lying.

What method do you use to reliably determine lying?

Of your 114 witnesses, only a handful are direct eye witnesses.

Which ones and how do you know that when you have hardly read any of them?

Now, lying and being wrong are 2 different things. Others are mistaken, they may have simply heard others and made assumptions.

How do you determine what is a genuine mistake and a lie?

Are you familiar 1972 trial of the engineers in Vienna?

No.

Damn it, I'm engaging in thread derailment. Nessie, I've started a witness thread for your review in the revisionist section as the witness testimony and statements are not debatable. Feel free to read it as it grows at your leisure.

For the ventilation system of the morgues at krema II and krema III we should likely start a new thread, although, if the op is cool with it, I'd like to discuss it here as it is tangentially related to the topic of the thread.

OK.

[Stubble]

Dude, there is a difference between not having read or heard witness accounts and not having memorized them. Like I said, there is a thread to go over them now in the revisionist section. It will take time for me to catalog the lies. It took me years to run across them...

What can I say, I don't memorize everything I read. More of a Monet style, I get the big picture and the broad strokes.

/end_threadjack

[Nessie]

Dude, there is a difference between not having read or heard witness accounts and not having memorized them. Like I said, there is a thread to go over them now in the revisionist section. It will take time for me to catalog the lies. It took me years to run across them...

What can I say, I don't memorize everything I read. More of a Monet style, I get the big picture and the broad strokes.

/end_threadjack

Revisionists constantly claim 100% of the witnesses lied, which is not a credible claim when most of the witness statements have not been read.