"56 Olympic Swimming Pools" and Treblinka (Nessie's logic)

[Nessie]

I am requesting that Nessie provide his sources for this statement:

All the witnesses agree, in what area of the camp, mass graves were located.

This request is in accordance with these forum rules:

If you make a controversial claim without support, others have the right to request support. You must respond in some fashion, either by explaining your basis for the claim (whatever it may be) or by conceding that support is lacking. ... Citing overly vague support (like a lengthy source with no explanation) may also be considered non-responsive. You are only obligated to respond to demands regarding claims you yourself have made.

Refrain from unsupported disagreement. This means that if you disagree with something or think it is incorrect, you must explain why you disagree or show why it's incorrect. A mere expression of disapproval is not sufficient.

My original post stated that the report Obóz zagłady Treblinka concluded "no mass graves were found" "in connection with the testimonies of witnesses," thirteen of whom are referred to in the report.

In the context of the report and evidence as to what took place within the camp, the finding of no mass graves is consistent with the exhumations, cremations, mixing cremains back into the ground, the grave robbing and lack of survey equipment.

I'm not sure what Nessie is referring to in his statement about "all the witnesses." From my quotation of one single report, he offered a contradiction of "all the witnesses," with no citations at all.

The context is all the witnesses, who provided a map of the camp;

http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/maps.html

To assist Nessie in correcting his violation of the rules, I am providing a list of the alleged survivors of the revolt, based on Chad Gibbs's dissertation.

• Berko/Berka
• Boraks, Gustaw/Borax, Gustav/Godel/Godl
• Brenner, Henoch/Hejnoch/Henry – Brener, Enoch
• Ciechanowski, Chaim/Cham
• Ciechanowski, Leizer
• Czarny/Czerny, Josef
• Domb, Jakob
• Epstein, Pinchas
• Finkelstein, Leon/Finkielsztajn, Lajzer
• Glazar/Glazer, Richard/Goldschmid, Richard
• Gleit, Aron
• Goldberg, Sam/Shmulke/Shmulik
• Goldberg, Szymon/Shimon
• Goldfarb, Abraham/Avram
• Grinberg, Tadeusz/Tanhum – Greenberg, Tanchum
• Grinsbach, Eliahu
• Helfing, Isadore
• Hellman/Helman/Helmann, Szlomo/Shlomo/Schlomo
• Jankowski, Kalman
• Kelin, Judah
• Klaynman, Moyshe/Klajnman Mosze
• Kohn, Shalom/Kon, Stanisław
• Kolski, Abraham/Avraham/Abram
• Kon, Abe
• Koszycki, Jacob
• Kruk (No first name)
• Kudlik, Alexander “Arie”/Aleksander
• Lachman/Lackman, Sol (Solomon)
• Laks, Moszek/Mietek – Laks, Moishe-Mordechai
• Lewkowicz/Levkovitz, Sonia/Sonja – nee Grabinska/Grabinski
• Luck, Moshe
• Markus
• Mattel, Morton
• Miller, Yaakov/Miler/Miller, Jacob/Müller, Jakob
• Mitelberg, M.
• Perelstein, Leon
• Platkiewicz, Manny/Platkevitz, Marian
• Porzecki, Moshe
• Poswalski/Posowalski/Pazovalski/Poswolski, Henry/Henryk
• Rajchman vel Romanowski/Reichman, Yechiel/Chil/Henry/Henryk
• Rajgrodzki, Jerzy/Georg
• Rajzman/Reizman, Samuel/Shmuel
• Rak, Meir/Cancer, Meier
• Rojtman
• Rosental/Rozental, Szymon/Schaman
• Salzberg, Moniek
• Shneiderman/Sznajdman, Wolf/William/Velvel/Velvl
• Siedlecki, Joseph/Josef
• Strawczynski, Oskar/Oscar
• Strawczynski, Zygmunt/Zigmund
• Sukno, Bronka
• Sztajer/Steier, Chaim/Haim
• Taigman/ Teigman/Tajgman/Tajgmann, Kalman
• Unger, Charles/Karel
• Warszawski/Warsaw, Sewek/Szyja/Neck/Yeshayahu
• Weinberg, Kazik Borys/Boris Kazik
• Wiernik, Jankiel/Yankel/Jakob – Smarzyński, Jan
• Willenberg, Samuel
• Ziegelman/Zigelman, Mejer

For each name listed, I request the citation for where each pointed out where the mass graves were located.

If that is not forthcoming, I'd ask the mods to remove the original reply as an unsubstantiated, uncited conclusory statement with no support provided; i.e., a violation of the above-listed rules.

Some of the names on that list are in the link I have provided. Most, I have not seen online statements, nor any maps of the camp they may have provided. Not all the people who are listed as having been at the camp, have provided statements.

[pilgrimofdark]

So you are not aware of "all the witnesses," as of Gibbs's 2021 dissertation, because you rely on a website last updated in 2006. The date of an external website is immaterial to your burden to comply with the rules of the forum and provide sources for your claim of "all."

Of the "some" witnesses you know, "most" didn't give statements or draw maps, so neither agree nor disagree with "in what area of the camp, mass graves were located."

Can you clarify what personal definition of "all" you are using?

It seems like "all" means less than "most," with the further qualification that less than "most of some of all" only means the ones you've "seen online," as of 2006.

The link to (last updated 2006) DeathCamps.org references maps from these witnesses that overlap with the report:

• Jankiel Wiernik
• Aleksander Kudlik

Thus, you have taken upon yourself the burden to provide sources for at least the remaining witnesses, as requested and in accordance with the forum rules:

• Henryk Poswolski
• Abe Kon
• Aron Czechowicz
• Oskar Strawczyński
• Samuel Reisman
• Hejnoch Brener
• Stanisław Kon
• Eugeniusz Turowski
• Henryk Reichman
• Szyja Warszawski
• Leon Finkelsztein

I renew my (2025) request for sources that support the statement "all the witnesses," and disregard this "some" of "all" that is less than "most."

I observe Nessie knows how to request citations from others, but has not demonstrated a willingness to provide the same when he is on the other end of the request:

Can you link to that, so I can see the context?

I will wait a few more hours for sources for "all," not "some" and not less than "most."

[Archie]

...

I'm not sure what Nessie is referring to in his statement about "all the witnesses." From my quotation of one single report, he offered a contradiction of "all the witnesses," with no citations at all.
...

Nessie loves to make sweeping claims about what "the witnesses" and "the historians" all say. These assertions of his are in no way based on careful reading (or really any reading) of these sources. Similarly, he says "100%" of witnesses say that the Birkenau crematoria were mass gassing facilities and that ZERO witnesses support the revisionist thesis of corpse storage. This is completely wrong since Himmler himself is on record supporting the revisionist interpretation, i.e. that the crematoria were for hygienic purposes and that the true purpose had been misunderstood and distorted. His reply was that Himmler wouldn't have known (!) because he did not personally work in the crematoria, lol.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=315

[Nessie]

So you are not aware of "all the witnesses," as of Gibbs's 2021 dissertation, because you rely on a website last updated in 2006. The date of an external website is immaterial to your burden to comply with the rules of the forum and provide sources for your claim of "all."

Of the "some" witnesses you know, "most" didn't give statements or draw maps, so neither agree nor disagree with "in what area of the camp, mass graves were located."

Can you clarify what personal definition of "all" you are using?

It seems like "all" means less than "most," with the further qualification that less than "most of some of all" only means the ones you've "seen online," as of 2006.

The link to (last updated 2006) DeathCamps.org references maps from these witnesses that overlap with the report:

• Jankiel Wiernik
• Aleksander Kudlik

Thus, you have taken upon yourself the burden to provide sources for at least the remaining witnesses, as requested and in accordance with the forum rules:

• Henryk Poswolski
• Abe Kon
• Aron Czechowicz
• Oskar Strawczyński
• Samuel Reisman
• Hejnoch Brener
• Stanisław Kon
• Eugeniusz Turowski
• Henryk Reichman
• Szyja Warszawski
• Leon Finkelsztein

I renew my (2025) request for sources that support the statement "all the witnesses," and disregard this "some" of "all" that is less than "most."

I observe Nessie knows how to request citations from others, but has not demonstrated a willingness to provide the same when he is on the other end of the request:

Can you link to that, so I can see the context?

I will wait a few more hours for sources for "all," not "some" and not less than "most."

The names are in the link I provided, first time of asking. Here it is again;

http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/maps.html

There are maps attributed to Weirnik, Kudlik, Trautsolt, Laks, Platkiewicz, Glazar, Willenberg and Krzepiki, along with sketch maps attributed to "Brokman or Henrik Sperlin" and the Stangl map, used at his trial.

They all locate the graves, in the same part of the camp.

[Nessie]

...

I'm not sure what Nessie is referring to in his statement about "all the witnesses." From my quotation of one single report, he offered a contradiction of "all the witnesses," with no citations at all.
...

Nessie loves to make sweeping claims about what "the witnesses" and "the historians" all say. These assertions of his are in no way based on careful reading (or really any reading) of these sources. Similarly, he says "100%" of witnesses say that the Birkenau crematoria were mass gassing facilities and that ZERO witnesses support the revisionist thesis of corpse storage. This is completely wrong since Himmler himself is on record supporting the revisionist interpretation, i.e. that the crematoria were for hygienic purposes and that the true purpose had been misunderstood and distorted. His reply was that Himmler wouldn't have known (!) because he did not personally work in the crematoria, lol.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=315

I am correct to say that 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas, state they were used for gassings. To stay on topic, the same applies to TII. Whatever hypothesis you support, as to what TII was actually used for, you have ZERO eyewitnesses, who worked inside the camp, to support you.

[pilgrimofdark]

Obóz zagłady Treblinka, is online, and here is the AI translation of the concluding section:

During the investigation, no mass graves were found during field work, which, in connection with the testimonies of witnesses, leads to the assumption that almost all the bodies of the victims were burned (the German authorities had enough time for this due to the early liquidation of the camp).

However, there is also an official English translation. If Mattogno ever mentioned this, I missed it, but he probably didn't need it.

"Extermination Camp Treblinka" in German Crimes in Poland. Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, 1946 Vol. 1. Online here.

From the concluding section on page 106 (page 140 of the PDF). The misspellings are in the original:

During the investigation when the grund was levelled, no collective graves were found, and this together with the evidence given by the witnesses leads to the conclusion that almost all the remains were burnt; the German authorities having had plenty of time to do it since the camp was closed.

The map with key stating "Incinerators for corpses" is on page 130 of the PDF.

[Hektor]

...
I am correct to say that 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas, state they were used for gassings. To stay on topic, the same applies to TII. Whatever hypothesis you support, as to what TII was actually used for, you have ZERO eyewitnesses, who worked inside the camp, to support you.

That's circular reasoning. The very fact that they claim to have witnessed or at least heard about homicidal gassings is the reason they are called eyewitnesses.

[Nessie]

...
I am correct to say that 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas, state they were used for gassings. To stay on topic, the same applies to TII. Whatever hypothesis you support, as to what TII was actually used for, you have ZERO eyewitnesses, who worked inside the camp, to support you.

That's circular reasoning. The very fact that they claim to have witnessed or at least heard about homicidal gassings is the reason they are called eyewitnesses.

It is amazing how hard so-called revisionists find understanding what an eyewitness is. The clue is in the word!

That your assessment of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas, so they saw what happened, is 100% of them lied, is a suspect result, which becomes even more suspect when you assess 100% of the other death camp workers to have lied. For that many people, to successfully lie, for many decades, often under intense scrutiny, with no whistleblower or accidental, or death bed reveal, is nigh on impossible and highly implausible. Nazis had to watch other Nazis hang, whilst many Nazis found safety in South America, yet not one of them broke ranks and stated another purpose to the camps. Even when interviewed in secrecy, or by Nazi sympathisers, none said something else happened.

You gloss over the implausibilities of your claims, as you go into intense detail about what you find implausible about digging some pits to use as mass graves.

[Hektor]

...
I am correct to say that 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas, state they were used for gassings. To stay on topic, the same applies to TII. Whatever hypothesis you support, as to what TII was actually used for, you have ZERO eyewitnesses, who worked inside the camp, to support you.

That's circular reasoning. The very fact that they claim to have witnessed or at least heard about homicidal gassings is the reason they are called eyewitnesses.

It is amazing how hard so-called revisionists find understanding what an eyewitness is. The clue is in the word!
....

Can you please tell your fellow exterminationists to use the word correctly? Because they call people eyewitnesses, even if it turns out - quite officially - that they never have seen anything in this regard.


But well, my point still stands and you affirmed it.

[Nessie]

That's circular reasoning. The very fact that they claim to have witnessed or at least heard about homicidal gassings is the reason they are called eyewitnesses.

It is amazing how hard so-called revisionists find understanding what an eyewitness is. The clue is in the word!
....

Can you please tell your fellow exterminationists to use the word correctly? Because they call people eyewitnesses, even if it turns out - quite officially - that they never have seen anything in this regard.


But well, my point still stands and you affirmed it.

I agree, many historians do refer to people as eyewitnesses, when their evidence is hearsay, but that is usually because the evidence is a mix of what they saw and what they heard. I am clearer about the difference, to help so-called revisionists understand the difference better.

Applying a definition to a term, and then using that definition in the real world, is not circular reasoning. So, it is not circular reasoning to say that 100% of the people who worked inside TII, were witnesses to the mass graves. Now, some may have never worked in the part of the camp, where the mass graves were located, in which case, theirs is hearsay. Those who saw the mass graves, are eyewitnesses. There are zero witnesses, who worked inside the camp, who state there were no mass graves. There were some whose stay was short and they were selected to leave and work elsewhere, so they were never in a position to see, or even hear about the mass graves, whilst they were there. They are not witnesses.