The HC Blog 'Auschwitz Index'

[Stubble]

Nessie, I find irony in your words.

It is evidence to prove how far down the conspiracy rabbit hole you have fallen. It does not matter what is evidenced and what is not, you will believe.

Coal problem? What coal problem?

Backwards ventilation? You're no expert.

You do have a point about locating the entire population of jews post war, whatever piece of dirt may be embracing them now.

I again refer you to the ethnic census from the Jewish encyclopedia pre and post war. It does not reflect the deaths of 6,000,000.

Do I know exactly where the jews went during the post war diaspora? Well, no. I don't. You've got me there.

Just because I can't tell you where they went doesn't mean that you can grab a couple cinder blocks, a few railroad tracks, a cord or two of green pine and completely incinerate 2,000 to 5,000 corpses any more than you can completely incinerate 3 corpses in an oven with a little straw.

Earlier you accused me of embellishment concerning witness testimony, I assure you I do not. Henryich Tauber said that about straw. There is 0 embellishment on my end.

Lest we forget, this thread is a response to your 'proof' and 'evidence' of the mass executions and cremations at Auschwitz Birkenau. The contents is quickly showing to be misframing and misrepresentation of innocuous memoranda concerning delousing operations etc.

Furthermore, it appears to be recycled propaganda from the 'extraordinary Soviet commission'...

[Nessie]

You could really pick any document at random from the list and easily refute it. None of them actually evidence gassings or a Holocaust. This is the entire reason why Pressac had to start looking for "criminal traces" and piece together some sort of coherent story some 50 years after the fact.

...

This shows that you do not understand evidencing. Evidence is not analysed in isolation. It should be pieced together. Your refutations are merely unevidenced interpretations. You have claimed what you think the document refers to, without bothering to check any other evidence, and declared what you think it means, is what it means.

Investigators at the time, in particular the German prosecutors who ran the main A-B camp staff trials, had pieced together the evidence to establish what took place. Historians and Pressac also pieced together the evidence, with Pressac concentrating on the documentary evidence from the Construction Office. That repetition acts as a checking and verification system. It reduces the chances of evidence being missed, or misunderstood and an incorrect conclusion being reached.

Revisionists don't know what they are doing, when they investigate. They cast opinion over evidence individually, without proper context, and fail to reach a conclusion. Instead, they argue amongst themselves, as to what the Kremas were being used for in 1943-4, with none being able to evidence what they claim, actually happening. Remarkably, considering how many people saw inside the Kremas, they cannot produce a single witness who they believe.

[Nessie]

...
Speaking of court, typically in normal trials there are rules to prevent exactly this sort of gish gallopy presentation of evidence. You can't just claim you have a lot of evidence and expect the court to take your word for it. You have to present specifics and allow for it to be digested and for the other side to respond. And judges try to keep things moving and will often shut down lawyers who are beating around the bush.

Also in the legal profession, when you want to be uncooperative with the other side, one of the classic techniques is the so-called "document dump." This is when the other side requests documents in discovery and you give them a huge volume of largely irrelevant material in hopes that they won't be able to go through it all. If someone is doing something akin to a document dump in a historical debate, it indicates a major lack of confidence.

Typically, when an accused person admits to the crime they are accused of, the court does not go into great detail to prove the crime alleged, since it has been admitted to. That is why Holocaust trials were not to establish if mass killings took place, since those killings are admitted to. Instead, they were trials to establish the culpability of the accused and how responsible they were for the mass killings. Or, in the Demjanjuk trial, it was to establish if there was sufficient evidence to prove if the accused was the person responsible. It was to determine identification. The techniques you are discussing, did not happen.

[Nessie]

Nessie, I find irony in your words.

It is evidence to prove how far down the conspiracy rabbit hole you have fallen. It does not matter what is evidenced and what is not, you will believe.

Coal problem? What coal problem?

Backwards ventilation? You're no expert.

Argument from incredulity, fallacy. Just because you cannot solve the coal problem, or work out how the ventilation system could cope, does not therefore mean you have proved no gassings or cremations.

You do have a point about locating the entire population of jews post war, whatever piece of dirt may be embracing them now.

Not just postwar, but during the war. If there were no mass killings starting at the end of 1941, then by 1944, there would be millions of Jews in camps.

I again refer you to the ethnic census from the Jewish encyclopedia pre and post war. It does not reflect the deaths of 6,000,000.

Cherry picking a US almanac, over the Nazi documents, that recorded huge drops in the population, and every occupied country, that also recorded huge drops in its Jewish population, is a logical fallacy.

Do I know exactly where the jews went during the post war diaspora? Well, no. I don't. You've got me there.

I have also got you, over the period of 1941 to 1945.

Just because I can't tell you where they went doesn't mean that you can grab a couple cinder blocks, a few railroad tracks, a cord or two of green pine and completely incinerate 2,000 to 5,000 corpses any more than you can completely incinerate 3 corpses in an oven with a little straw.

You are exaggerating and misrepresenting the evidence, as to how mass pyres and cremations worked.

Earlier you accused me of embellishment concerning witness testimony, I assure you I do not. Henryich Tauber said that about straw. There is 0 embellishment on my end.

You have cherry-picked only straw. He said;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

"On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the corpse began to burn the other corpses would catch light themselves"

Lest we forget, this thread is a response to your 'proof' and 'evidence' of the mass executions and cremations at Auschwitz Birkenau. The contents is quickly showing to be misframing and misrepresentation of innocuous memoranda concerning delousing operations etc.

Furthermore, it appears to be recycled propaganda from the 'extraordinary Soviet commission'...

Favoured revisionist Rudolf Germar disputes that homicidal gassings took place, let alone delousing, inside the Leichenkellers. I have just shown an example of how you misrepresented evidence, but quoting everything a witness, who you named, said. You gloss over and misrepresent the problem you admit to, about missing Jews.

[Hektor]

...

Speaking of court, typically in normal trials there are rules to prevent exactly this sort of gish gallopy presentation of evidence. You can't just claim you have a lot of evidence and expect the court to take your word for it. You have to present specifics and allow for it to be digested and for the other side to respond. And judges try to keep things moving and will often shut down lawyers who are beating around the bush.

Also in the legal profession, when you want to be uncooperative with the other side, one of the classic techniques is the so-called "document dump." This is when the other side requests documents in discovery and you give them a huge volume of largely irrelevant material in hopes that they won't be able to go through it all. If someone is doing something akin to a document dump in a historical debate, it indicates a major lack of confidence.

Yes, there is prevention procedure for this.

But that's were clever lawyering comes it. Generally such a legal team won't just make allegation. They will come up with documents, expert reports, witness reports, etc. But it's the volume that counts not the content. As for the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial there was a historian experts, but there were no forensic expert reports. To compensate this A huge number of witnesses often with benign testimonies was added. It actually demonstrated that many people survived Auschwitz for years, got free health care and had more of an issue with fellow inmates.....

And yeah, document dumping to frustrate the other side is also being used. It is familiar from debating techniques.... And leftist academics have developed a whole culture around it. That's why people hate self-styled 'intellectuals'....

[Stubble]

Nessie, you must just have a low opinion of me.

Henryk Tauber, a member of one of the cremation Sonderkommando in Auschwitz-Birkenau, testified, “…we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty bodies burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat.  On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the body began to burn the other bodies would catch light themselves.”[5] According to Tauber’s testimony, there was no direct correspondence between the amount of coke used and the number of corpses that could be burned. Once the fires were started, it did not take as much coke to burn more bodies.

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... cremation/

As for the rest, dude, if you don't understand the massive problems here, you are beyond hope I fear.

[Nessie]

Nessie, you must just have a low opinion of me.

I do when you suggest he claimed cremations only with straw.

Henryk Tauber, a member of one of the cremation Sonderkommando in Auschwitz-Birkenau, testified, “…we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty bodies burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat.  On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the body began to burn the other bodies would catch light themselves.”[5] According to Tauber’s testimony, there was no direct correspondence between the amount of coke used and the number of corpses that could be burned. Once the fires were started, it did not take as much coke to burn more bodies.

You have redeemed yourself by quoting what he actually said.

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... cremation/

As for the rest, dude, if you don't understand the massive problems here, you are beyond hope I fear.

"Thus, attempts to calculate the precise amount of necessary fuel are futile."

That has been my position from the start, and not just about coke, but anything revisionists try to calculate. Their calculations are designed to support their incredulity, as if somehow, because they find something incredulous, that therefore means it did not happen.

[Stubble]

Well, I appreciate the acknowledgement. Believe it or not, I am trying here.

The coal problem was known, hence this testimony of spontaneously combusting corpses using straw (and wood) in place of lignite, coke, coal.

Men were sent to the gallows by this testimony and others like it.

You throw the 'argument from incredulity' around a lot. I'm not going to turn my brain off to believe that the laws of physics do not apply when the holocaust is concerned.

As I've said earlier, I have no intention to remove my brain and set it on the shelf for either side of this debate.

[Nessie]

Well, I appreciate the acknowledgement. Believe it or not, I am trying here.

The coal problem was known, hence this testimony of spontaneously combusting corpses using straw (and wood) in place of lignite, coke, coal.

Men were sent to the gallows by this testimony and others like it.

You throw the 'argument from incredulity' around a lot.

Revisionists rely on it, a lot. When they doubt, coke use for the ovens, wood for the pyres, corpse density in mass graves, pressure inside the gas chambers, ventilation capacity etc etc.

I'm not going to turn my brain off to believe that the laws of physics do not apply when the holocaust is concerned.

As I've said earlier, I have no intention to remove my brain and set it on the shelf for either side of this debate.

There is insufficient reliable, definitive data, to make any credible calculation, regarding the use of coke etc. Instead, revisionists are guestimating based on limited information, relying on their opinion and ignoring any bias they have, to somehow calculate possibility.

The form of argument revisionists are using is the same as me arguing because I think witnesses are credible and can see how the gas chambers worked, therefore gassings happened. I am sure you can see the obvious flaw now.

[Stubble]

Dude, I've designed commercial and industrial ventilation systems. I'm not going to ignore what I know. I'm not going to ignore the fact that the ventilation system is backwards. I'm not going to ignore the fact that hydrogen cyanide is lighter than air. I'm just not. That's not an argument from incredulity, it's an argument from study and understanding. That's not even mentioning that 10-30 air exchanges per hour is standard for a morgue and that 300 air exchanges per hour is standard for a gas chamber.

So far as fuel consumption of the crematoria, I'm not going to ignore the laws of thermal dynamics. I'm not going to ignore open air cremation tests, results and findings. Fact is, what is described is incongruent with reality. Women are not witches and do not ignite and burn other bodies. That's just not how it works.

One thing I find uniformity with is the exterminationist claim that bodies burn other bodies. This bending of reality runs like a red thread through the orthodox narrative, holding many things together. Fact is, it's not true.

/shrug

[Nessie]

Dude, I've designed commercial and industrial ventilation systems. I'm not going to ignore what I know. I'm not going to ignore the fact that the ventilation system is backwards. I'm not going to ignore the fact that hydrogen cyanide is lighter than air. I'm just not. That's not an argument from incredulity, it's an argument from study and understanding. That's not even mentioning that 10-30 air exchanges per hour is standard for a morgue and that 300 air exchanges per hour is standard for a gas chamber.

So far as fuel consumption of the crematoria, I'm not going to ignore the laws of thermal dynamics. I'm not going to ignore open air cremation tests, results and findings. Fact is, what is described is incongruent with reality. Women are not witches and do not ignite and burn other bodies. That's just not how it works.

One thing I find uniformity with is the exterminationist claim that bodies burn other bodies. This bending of reality runs like a red thread through the orthodox narrative, holding many things together. Fact is, it's not true.

/shrug

It is the very definition of argument from incredulity, to claim that because you cannot work out how the gas chambers could have possibly been properly ventilated, based on witness descriptions and some other very limited evidence, that therefore every single person who claimed gassings took place is a liar and all the documents that recorded the construction of gas chambers are somehow faked, or wrong and that all the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, selections, those not needed for work entering the Kemas, never to be seen again and their property being stolen and sold is somehow faked or wrong.

You may be knowledgeable, but you are working from limited and possibility inaccurate information about the functioning of the Kremas. Fact is, that a German engineer, in the 1940s, such as from Topf & Sons, with the necessary expertise, could design a system that would vent the Leichenkeller of gas, so that it could be used as a gas chamber. You doubting that, is the equivalent to someone doubting that you could design such as system and calling you and everyone else who used the room you ventilated, a liar.

I find it odd that you think if a corpse catches fire and burns, any corpse that it is in contact with and subject to the same heat source, will not also catch fire. Of course it will. That some corpses will burn better than others, is pretty obvious as well, due to varying fat content.

[Stubble]

Nessie, is my refusal to believe in witches also an argument from incredulity? There were trials after all, with all kinds of evidence and witness testimony. Are you calling witch deniers believers in a logical fallacy?

You wildly misframe my position concerning testimony from engineer. I don't deny it, I don't state that he didn't say what he said. There is no dispute that he mouthed those words. I'm saying that he the statement is false, regardless of whose mouth it came from. That these statements were made to the Soviets do not fill my mind with the idea they were made free of distress and coercion. I am not keen on ignoring the physical evidence of the prints and the extant evidence in favor of a single statement.

So far as other witnesses, of the handful of direct witnesses, yes, I'm calling them each liars. This is demonstrable. They lied, more than once, about various things.

Now, with people like Bomba, I'm not sure he lied. He may have actually believed what he said. He assumed people were gassed after he cut their hair. It's worth mentioning, the 'hair cutting room' is the gas chamber disguised as a shower room in his testimony. Not the steam chambers up the tunnel.

The witness testimony needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, and malice is not to be assumed. That doesn't mean malice is to be ignored man.

With cremation, all I can say is, well bless your heart. I also invite you to do your due diligence in this regard. The burning of fat and its caloric conversion to heat is not at issue. It is not the concern here. It is not the issue. The implication that it burns other bodies is. Dip your finger in some crisco, set it on fire and see if you burn to ash.

[Nessie]

Nessie, is my refusal to believe in witches also an argument from incredulity? There were trials after all, with all kinds of evidence and witness testimony. Are you calling witch deniers believers in a logical fallacy?

No, because people casting spells and flying around on broomsticks are a physical impossibility. A German engineer designing a working ventilation system for a gas chambers is not. Your fallacy here is false analogy. You have compared something that is physically impossible to do, to something that is not.

You wildly misframe my position concerning testimony from engineer. I don't deny it, I don't state that he didn't say what he said. There is no dispute that he mouthed those words. I'm saying that he the statement is false, regardless of whose mouth it came from. That these statements were made to the Soviets do not fill my mind with the idea they were made free of distress and coercion. I am not keen on ignoring the physical evidence of the prints and the extant evidence in favor of a single statement.

Just because he gave his evidence to the Soviets, does not therefore mean he lied. He is not claiming to have invented a flying broomstick. He is claiming to have ventilated a gas chambers.

So far as other witnesses, of the handful of direct witnesses, yes, I'm calling them each liars. This is demonstrable. They lied, more than once, about various things.

There are 34 Nazi, 26 Jewish, 47 other, 3 doctors and 4 engineer witnesses to the gassings at A-B.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=32920

You claim all 114 lied. Show me your evidence to prove that.

Now, with people like Bomba, I'm not sure he lied. He may have actually believed what he said. He assumed people were gassed after he cut their hair. It's worth mentioning, the 'hair cutting room' is the gas chamber disguised as a shower room in his testimony. Not the steam chambers up the tunnel.

The witness testimony needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, and malice is not to be assumed. That doesn't mean malice is to be ignored man.

I doubt very much you have looked at all 114 A-B witnesses (Bomba is not one of them), yet somehow, you have deduced they all lied. I call into question your credibility when it comes to assessing witness truthfulness.

With cremation, all I can say is, well bless your heart. I also invite you to do your due diligence in this regard. The burning of fat and its caloric conversion to heat is not at issue. It is not the concern here. It is not the issue. The implication that it burns other bodies is. Dip your finger in some crisco, set it on fire and see if you burn to ash.

Tauber said "Women's bodies burned much better and more quickly than those of men. For this reason, when a charge was burning badly, we would introduce a women's body to accelerate the combustion." That makes sense in the context of putting multiple corpses into the same oven. He is not claiming they were using corpses to set fire to other corpses. He is claiming that certain corpses burn better than others.

[TlsMS93]

Nessie, is my refusal to believe in witches also an argument from incredulity? There were trials after all, with all kinds of evidence and witness testimony. Are you calling witch deniers believers in a logical fallacy?

No, because people casting spells and flying around on broomsticks are a physical impossibility. A German engineer designing a working ventilation system for a gas chambers is not. Your fallacy here is false analogy. You have compared something that is physically impossible to do, to something that is not.

You wildly misframe my position concerning testimony from engineer. I don't deny it, I don't state that he didn't say what he said. There is no dispute that he mouthed those words. I'm saying that he the statement is false, regardless of whose mouth it came from. That these statements were made to the Soviets do not fill my mind with the idea they were made free of distress and coercion. I am not keen on ignoring the physical evidence of the prints and the extant evidence in favor of a single statement.

Just because he gave his evidence to the Soviets, does not therefore mean he lied. He is not claiming to have invented a flying broomstick. He is claiming to have ventilated a gas chambers.

So far as other witnesses, of the handful of direct witnesses, yes, I'm calling them each liars. This is demonstrable. They lied, more than once, about various things.

There are 34 Nazi, 26 Jewish, 47 other, 3 doctors and 4 engineer witnesses to the gassings at A-B.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=32920

You claim all 114 lied. Show me your evidence to prove that.

Now, with people like Bomba, I'm not sure he lied. He may have actually believed what he said. He assumed people were gassed after he cut their hair. It's worth mentioning, the 'hair cutting room' is the gas chamber disguised as a shower room in his testimony. Not the steam chambers up the tunnel.

The witness testimony needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, and malice is not to be assumed. That doesn't mean malice is to be ignored man.

I doubt very much you have looked at all 114 A-B witnesses (Bomba is not one of them), yet somehow, you have deduced they all lied. I call into question your credibility when it comes to assessing witness truthfulness.

With cremation, all I can say is, well bless your heart. I also invite you to do your due diligence in this regard. The burning of fat and its caloric conversion to heat is not at issue. It is not the concern here. It is not the issue. The implication that it burns other bodies is. Dip your finger in some crisco, set it on fire and see if you burn to ash.

Tauber said "Women's bodies burned much better and more quickly than those of men. For this reason, when a charge was burning badly, we would introduce a women's body to accelerate the combustion." That makes sense in the context of putting multiple corpses into the same oven. He is not claiming they were using corpses to set fire to other corpses. He is claiming that certain corpses burn better than others.

All that remains is for you to prove that more than two bodies can be fitted into an opening two feet wide and high.

[TlsMS93]

Nessie, is my refusal to believe in witches also an argument from incredulity? There were trials after all, with all kinds of evidence and witness testimony. Are you calling witch deniers believers in a logical fallacy?

You wildly misframe my position concerning testimony from engineer. I don't deny it, I don't state that he didn't say what he said. There is no dispute that he mouthed those words. I'm saying that he the statement is false, regardless of whose mouth it came from. That these statements were made to the Soviets do not fill my mind with the idea they were made free of distress and coercion. I am not keen on ignoring the physical evidence of the prints and the extant evidence in favor of a single statement.

So far as other witnesses, of the handful of direct witnesses, yes, I'm calling them each liars. This is demonstrable. They lied, more than once, about various things.

Now, with people like Bomba, I'm not sure he lied. He may have actually believed what he said. He assumed people were gassed after he cut their hair. It's worth mentioning, the 'hair cutting room' is the gas chamber disguised as a shower room in his testimony. Not the steam chambers up the tunnel.

The witness testimony needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, and malice is not to be assumed. That doesn't mean malice is to be ignored man.

With cremation, all I can say is, well bless your heart. I also invite you to do your due diligence in this regard. The burning of fat and its caloric conversion to heat is not at issue. It is not the concern here. It is not the issue. The implication that it burns other bodies is. Dip your finger in some crisco, set it on fire and see if you burn to ash.

Jews also confessed during the Black Death that they had poisoned wells with a substance given to them by rabbis. Of course, today it is accepted that these were confessions under torture, it was the Hoss of the time. But just because there is a camp, crematoria or a death list does not make a case of mass murder because there was an ad hoc trial.