The Testimony and Statements of Konrad Morgan

[Stubble]

Bombs,

Leave the headshrinking at the door.

While I will admit my bias, that doesn't rise to a level of being un-objective. Further, it has nothing to do with the evidence.

Un-objective is just saying 'the lk's were painted' to excuse away the lack of iron blue. That's not something I do. That's all you buddy. I could go through and make this a list, but, it would get very long.

Assuming that powered buried in places no one talked about because those are places where no one has looked is also an example of your un-objective bias.

I offered (as a possibility- not what definitely happened) that the chambers were coated in a special paint similar to the ones used in the Dachau fumigation chambers, which prevented absorption, according to Rudolf. If it was a good enough reason for Rudolf to explain away the lack of staining there, why not?

Can't understand your last sentence.

You started with limewash and rode that till the wheels fell off, you fanatical sycophant.

[bombsaway]

Bombs,

Leave the headshrinking at the door.

While I will admit my bias, that doesn't rise to a level of being un-objective. Further, it has nothing to do with the evidence.

Un-objective is just saying 'the lk's were painted' to excuse away the lack of iron blue. That's not something I do. That's all you buddy. I could go through and make this a list, but, it would get very long.

Assuming that powered buried in places no one talked about because those are places where no one has looked is also an example of your un-objective bias.

I offered (as a possibility- not what definitely happened) that the chambers were coated in a special paint similar to the ones used in the Dachau fumigation chambers, which prevented absorption, according to Rudolf. If it was a good enough reason for Rudolf to explain away the lack of staining there, why not?

Can't understand your last sentence.

You started with limewash and rode that till the wheels fell off, you fanatical sycophant.

I started with lime?

(first mention of lime in my posts)
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... ime#p12894

(first mention of paint)
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10819#p10819

I just prove you brutally wrong time and time again and you just going, without any pause for self reflection, this is your fanaticism.

Also it wouldn't matter if I had said lime first "as a possibility". Possibility means that I'm not sure. This is not fanaticism.

[Stubble]

I offered (as a possibility- not what definitely happened) that the chambers were coated in a special paint similar to the ones used in the Dachau fumigation chambers, which prevented absorption, according to Rudolf. If it was a good enough reason for Rudolf to explain away the lack of staining there, why not?

Can't understand your last sentence.

You started with limewash and rode that till the wheels fell off, you fanatical sycophant.

I started with lime?

(first mention of lime in my posts)
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... ime#p12894

(first mention of paint)
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... int#p10823

I just prove you brutally wrong time and time again and you just going, without any pause for self reflection, this is your fanaticism.

Also it wouldn't matter if I had said lime first "as a possibility". Possibility means that I'm not sure. This is not fanaticism.

Did you just mix and match threads to paint this in the way that you would prefer?

My my, I'm sure that is honest and upright.

You hack.

[bombsaway]

You started with limewash and rode that till the wheels fell off, you fanatical sycophant.

I started with lime?

(first mention of lime in my posts)
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... ime#p12894

(first mention of paint)
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... int#p10823

I just prove you brutally wrong time and time again and you just going, without any pause for self reflection, this is your fanaticism.

Also it wouldn't matter if I had said lime first "as a possibility". Possibility means that I'm not sure. This is not fanaticism.

Did you just mix and match threads to paint this in the way that you would prefer?

My my, I'm sure that is honest and upright.

You hack.

No, I'm showing you your timeline (first you say lime - then you say special paint) is wrong.

[Stubble]

By mixing threads and not following the singular conversation where you in fact started with a limewash and then moved to paint.

You dishonest, sycophantic, fanatical hack.

From here;

In re-visiting the Green Rudolf debate for this thread (as i do every few months, and you lot should too), i have found this from Dr Green. He is discounting your proposed mechanism of pH interference due to Lime or Whitewashing.



He is however, unusually silent on bleach

The AI, without prompting by me said the high pH would inhibit. I'm not a chemist so I would probably defer to Green here. The lack of iron seems to me to be a core argument by Green, how much iron is in a coat of whitewash?

Not much of anything is in whitewash, you ever use any? Mostly water. Provides very thin uneven coats, coverage is sporadic.

[Archie]

Morgen denied gassings at Buchwenald and during the same session (a few minutes later probably) talked of gassings conducted under Wirth.

Well, I have a lot of opinions about you which I generally keep to myself so as not to distract from the substance of the debates at hand. You in contrast seem to prefer to be personally invidious. In which case, I will say for the record that I think you are a dishonest hack, and I think you are far more invested in this than you claim to be. You are not objective at all, and your attempts to pretend like you are fall embarrassingly flat.

Can you name a revisionist whom you don't regard to be a "fanatic"? Your critiques would hold more weight if there were some variation in your assessments and they were precise and tailored rather than broad insults against revisionists in general.

No I think someone can be a casual revisionist, believe there was a hoax and what not, but not put too much of their time or mental energy into it. That is not the case for the revisionist posters here, who are invested to a much larger degree.

I would use this definition:

A person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, especially in religious or political matters

Oh, you're concerned that we're wasting our time. Ok, thank you for your concern. Meanwhile you have one of the biggest post counts on the forum. More than me, in fact. So ... your point here makes no sense. Do you even listen to yourself?

Most people spend hours online, doom scrolling apps, streaming Netflix, etc. People have a lot more time than they think. If we want to study history and talk about that, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not even a strange interest.

If we were really "fanatics" we would not let you post so freely on here. That we do so is a sign of our open-mindedness. I also recently posted that essay summarizing your side's best arguments, plus an anti-revisionist bibliography. How fanatical of me! Meanwhile you and Nessie failed that test spectacularly in that steelman thread, an indication of your extreme partisanship.

The only explanation you gave for my supposed fanaticism was my "attachment to conspiratorial beliefs." And you base that accusation on my judging you to be dishonest, based on having interacted at length with you at length over several years. While you make blanket assumptions about everyone on here on the exact same basis. Total hypocrisy.

[bombsaway]

Post count does indicate much. Most of my responses are very short and I generally don't follow conversations where I'm not being responded to. I would be shocked if I spent anywhere near the amount of time you do on this forum.

I think my downside of Holocaust revisionism is that it's an unproductive activity, marginally speaking. I think the same thing about video games. I bring that up because I don't consider revisionism a threat in the same way that election fraud conspiracies were a threat. I'm interested in the entire sphere of misinformation on the internet and how that is propagated.

I'm under no obligation to merely summarize revisionist arguments to show I can. This is stupid. Much more interesting I would think is talking about the aspects of revisionism that I think are strongest. I wish you did that in your essay actually, would be much more interesting. I only skimmed through your essay but I could tell you weren't doing that.

[bombsaway]

By mixing threads and not following the singular conversation where you in fact started with a limewash and then moved to paint.

You dishonest, sycophantic, fanatical hack.

You have to explain what's so bad or hacky about offering a possible explanation for no staining, then offering up another possible explanation at a later date.

This is just another example of your fanaticism. You're also labeling me as dishonest, which is just wild - I'm definitely just stupid if anything, though I find it hard to believe you hated all Germans as a youngster.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Mr Seeker, I'd like to ask; have you read Herr Morgen's testimony?

Yes.
I read reams of Nürnberg showtrial testimonies over a decade ago, plus other showtrials AND interrogation reports when the internet provided access to them. Amongst all that primary source research I read everything available to me on Konrad Morgen and studied him, and his life before, during and after WW2

Your chronology of the events does not firmly adhere to the correct order of things as they occurred.

I disagree.
But if I’m wrong, please demonstrate that to me.

At the root of this disagreement remains Morgen's description of operations at the Bug River camps as well. You still haven't really addressed that.

I have. But briefly.
It goes like this:
1. Morgen FIRST appeared in court on the 7th Aug. 1946.
Q1. DO YOU AGREE?

2. He was immediately asked if he had had an “opportunity of gaining personal insight into the conditions in concentration camps”.
He replied that he had an excellent “opportunity” to do so as he stayed at some for months plus made unannounced visits to others, PLUS he had people under his command in camps to make investigations for him.
Q2. DO YOU AGREE so far?

3. Among the camps he said he said he had gained extensive information about — which he said it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to have been “deceived” about — he includes Auschwitz and Majdanek (Lublin). These are “concentration camps” which the HOLYH mythology claims were “EXTERMINATION CAMPS”!!!
Q3. DO YOU AGREE?

4. After he’d explained how his knowledge of the camps was extensive and unquestioningly ACCURATE, he then answered the prosecutor’s ULTIMATE QUESTION for the prosecution.
And the phrasing of this question implies that he (Herr Peckelmann) was EXPECTING A VERY DIFFERENT ANSWER than what he got.
THIS POINT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT because it is a sign of how these public interrogations were EXPECTED to proceed. It is the phrase “and at what time”. This implies he expected the answer to be affirmative, NOT a rebuttal of the ‘holyH extermination’ accusation.

When asked when he learnt that the concentration camps were for “exterminations”, and at what time he discovered that, Morgen categorically refuted that they ever were for that purpose!!!!

HERR PELCKMANN: Did you gain the impression — and at what time — that the concentration camps were places for the extermination of human beings?

MORGEN: I did not gain this impression. A concentration camp is not a place for the extermination of human beings.
Q4. ARE WE STILL IN AGREEMENT SO FAR?

5. I haven’t gone into all the contradictory stuff he later added to this. But I have never denied that he said it. All that stuff about gluttonous jewish weddings, and magic pixie dust that made corpses disappear, and Wirth’s descriptions of gassings, plus his account of ‘exterminations’ at Monowitz he definitely did say.
Where have I ever denied it?
I have pointed to HIS CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.
And I have EMPHASISED his “initial” statement — summary: “there were no exterminations at the camps” — OVER his later nonsense stuff.

I'd prefer not defend bombsaway, but, you keep leaving me no choice by not recognising your slight errors here.

No problem. You are NOT defending Bombsaway: you are defending honesty and truth and historical accuracy. And you have my respect for doing that. So please proceed.
I don’t claim to have an infallible understanding.
And as said previously, I welcome correction. I just don’t see any yet.

The problem appears to be miscommunication.
For which I blame BA for his strawman distortion of my point.

N.B.
Remember I also mentioned Erich Fuchs originally to BA.
I did that because my point was Germans had to invent lies to appease their torturers/interrogators/coercers.
Sometimes it was to escape with a short prison sentence and not execution, e.g. Fuchs.

Sometimes it was to save their family from persecution and torture with an acceptance of their own execution, e.g. Höß and Eichmann.

Joseph Kramer was another person I thought of providing as a person that fit his challenge.
Kramer — like Morgen — was in an excellent position to know what actually occurred in the camps and in Auschwitz.
He also — like Morgen — initially denied the ‘mass-gassing’ extermination accusation.

[Stubble]

Everybody has been telling you, he talks about the gassings at Auschwitz right after he says concentration camps aren't for killing on the 7th. Same day. The next day he spits out some words about 'Lublin' in the woods.

This isn't to say that what he said isn't still both fake and gay, more to say that you have to illustrate it in the correct order.

To be very clear, the propaganda rumors for Auschwitz appear to have been that homicidal gassings were at Monowitz. I'm sure at Auschwitz Monowitz they said the gassings were at Auschwitz main camp or at Auschwitz Birkenau. Ultimately, there were no gassings in any of those places.

With the Bug River Camps, he puts them around Majdanek.

Going by the claims by the Soviet at the time, there is 'the holocaust'. 4,000,000 at Auschwitz, 2,000,000 at Majdanek.

Narrative 1.0

[Wahrheitssucher]

Everybody has been telling you, he talks about the gassings at Auschwitz right after he says concentration camps aren't for killing on the 7th.

And I have never denied it nor contradicted it.

See above.
Please answer whether you agree with my numbered points.
They are numbered so that you can clearly state where you think I am incorrect.

Please clarify where exactly you think my chronology is incorrect.

[Stubble]

Dude, you literally called Bombsaway a liar over the 'Lublin' statement on the 8th. Morgen most certainly made that statement, on the record.

Now, I'm left here after telling you this for the 5th time wondering how you can both say you never said what you are quoted saying and that you understand that he made the statement.

I'm going to mark this interaction as odd and move on.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Morgen denied gassings at Buchwenald…

(Oh boy! )
Well… If he did then quote him.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Dude, you literally called Bombsaway a liar over the 'Lublin' statement on the 8th.

But no I didn’t. I told him he was a liar for stating Morgen gave “extensive” detail of gassings. Remember, his initial challenge was for German eyewitnesses who ever said that there were no gassing exterminations. Morgen never claimed to have seen it.

I have now named THREE persons to BA’s challenge:
Richard Baer
Konrad Morgen
Joseph Kramer.

Now, I'm left here after telling you this for the 5th time wondering how you can both say you never said what you are quoted saying and that you understand that he made the statement.

I’ve invited you repeatedly to show what I said that was incorrect. You have not yet quoted a single thing.
Quote me with a link.

I'm going to mark this interaction as odd and move on.

Or finish it properly and
a.) quote me where you think my chronology was wrong;
b.) quote me denying Morgen talked about gassings.

[Stubble]

Dude, every time I do, even 3 times in one post, you just ignore it and say 'no I didn't'.

I'm literally standing here thunderstruck bud.

/shrug