Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 12:31 am
I'm not asking you to do my leg work, I had assumed this was 'common knowledge' and didn't consider 40 pages a burden regardless.
Another such poor wretch was the so-called "Scheissmeister" [shitmaster]. He was dressed like a cantor and even had to grow a goatee. He wore a large alarm clock on a string around his neck. No one was permitted to remain in the latrine longer than three minutes, and it was his duty to time everyone who used it. The name of this poor wretch was Julian. He also came from Czestochowa, where he had been the owner of a metal products factory. just to look at him was enough to make one burst
For the record, I have had literal encyclopedea thrown at me before here. Multi volume.
And why are you so certain this is a lie? If it's something that's just self evident this a great divide between us. It could be a lie, literally any witness statement could be a lie, but you are assigning high certainty that it is, which I don't understand.
Did anybody else ever fucking say this shit?
You'd think this cartoon character timing you take a shit would, stand out. He'd be noticed.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
Archie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 12:43 am
Even with these concessions, that would still raise major questions about his reliability. And there's no reason we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume complete honesty. The line between "exaggeration" + "emotive language" + "mixing in hearsay" and "lying" is a pretty fine one.
It’s thicker than you might think because lying implies a deliberate attempt to convey false information.
Also, from the revisionist perspective, it makes no difference if Wiernik is deliberately lying, is delusional, is extrapolating, or is engaging in pious fraud. It makes little difference. What matters is whether we can accept his narrative as reliable or not.
Up thread, I posted a study of 9/11 memories over time and how they became increasingly unreliable. Here’s what no one in that study said: that 9/11 didn’t happen. Or more to the point, that they didn’t remember where they were when they’d heard.
That’s important. Where testimonies agree is what’s worth focusing on. The utter lack of witnesses claiming no mass extermination at Treblinka is highly notable.
Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 12:31 am
I'm not asking you to do my leg work, I had assumed this was 'common knowledge' and didn't consider 40 pages a burden regardless.
For the record, I have had literal encyclopedea thrown at me before here. Multi volume.
And why are you so certain this is a lie? If it's something that's just self evident this a great divide between us. It could be a lie, literally any witness statement could be a lie, but you are assigning high certainty that it is, which I don't understand.
Did anybody else ever fucking say this shit?
You'd think this cartoon character timing you take a shit would, stand out. He'd be noticed.
Why do you *necessarily* believe that he would have come up in courtroom testimony? There are no other Treblinka "memoirs" as far as I know.
And why are you so certain this is a lie? If it's something that's just self evident this a great divide between us. It could be a lie, literally any witness statement could be a lie, but you are assigning high certainty that it is, which I don't understand.
Did anybody else ever fucking say this shit?
You'd think this cartoon character timing you take a shit would, stand out. He'd be noticed.
Why do you *necessarily* believe that he would have come up in courtroom testimony? There are no other Treblinka "memoirs" as far as I know.
Dudes pissing in each other's mouths made it into trial testimony, why wouldn't the shit master merit a mention. If I saw a literal toilet goblin, I'd tell everybody.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
Archie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 12:43 am
Even with these concessions, that would still raise major questions about his reliability. And there's no reason we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume complete honesty. The line between "exaggeration" + "emotive language" + "mixing in hearsay" and "lying" is a pretty fine one.
It’s thicker than you might think because lying implies a deliberate attempt to convey false information.
Also, from the revisionist perspective, it makes no difference if Wiernik is deliberately lying, is delusional, is extrapolating, or is engaging in pious fraud. It makes little difference. What matters is whether we can accept his narrative as reliable or not.
Up thread, I posted a study of 9/11 memories over time and how they became increasingly unreliable. Here’s what no one in that study said: that 9/11 didn’t happen. Or more to the point, that they didn’t remember where they were when they’d heard.
That’s important. Where testimonies agree is what’s worth focusing on. The utter lack of witnesses claiming no mass extermination at Treblinka is highly notable.
It does imply something deliberate but motivations can't always be determined and human psychology is complex. The word "lie" can cover a wide psychological range. On controversial topics, it is often a very loaded/tendentious term. We see this a lot with political partisans where each side constantly accuses the other of lying. It isn't a purely descriptive word. It also has a moral judgment, and the moral aspect can be subjective.
When people get caught writing a fake memoir (and not just the Holocaust ones), what do they always say? Do they say, "I'm a big fat liar and you caught me!" No. They say something like, oh, I was trying to communicate a "larger truth" or something like that. Some are incorporating the experiences of others and extrapolating. Some of these types may not think of themselves as being dishonest or "liars." Rassinier notes that when he would confront people about their bogus stories they would say things like "Okay, well, maybe I didn't actually see it, but I'm sure something like that happened somewhere." They don't think of it as dishonesty. Some of this would fall in the "pious fraud" category, where someone is saying something false but is convinced of their total righteousness.
You'd think this cartoon character timing you take a shit would, stand out. He'd be noticed.
Why do you *necessarily* believe that he would have come up in courtroom testimony? There are no other Treblinka "memoirs" as far as I know.
Dudes pissing in each other's mouths made it into trial testimony, why wouldn't the shit master merit a mention. If I saw a literal toilet goblin, I'd tell everybody.
Have you looked at the other testimonies? They're all super short, like a couple hundred words. That's because investigators were interested in building a case against defendants, they weren't trying to get a comprehensive understanding of what happened at these camps. I would expect Wiernik's memoir to have substantially more detail. You might have an argument if there were 10 full length memoirs written about Treblinka.
Btw I also am getting tired of your use of invective "eg toilet goblin" from you about these people. You're entitled to do it, but it dissuades me from talking to you.
Hilburg, for example, must have read Weirnik before citing him as a source. If he didn't understand that there are lies in the pages of one year in treblinka, I'd be shocked, and yet, he went with that source anyway. Repeatedly. Of course there are plenty of other historian that cite him. I get that the volume of testimony for treblinka is rather slim. At the same time, I cannot understand quoting such a contaminated source in an unironic way and free from caveat.
...
Wiernik is corroborated, so his truthfulness about the general operation of TII, is proven. You cannot prove he lied about details, rather than he did what many witnesses do, and mis-remember, exaggerate, use emotive language and figures of speech and mix hearsay with what he saw.
Revisionist lack of training in, experience with and understanding of witness memory, behaviour and recall, is why they make so many errors of interpretation.
If he
-misremembers
-exaggerates
-uses emotive language (lol, that's one way to put it)
-figures of speech (lol again)
-and mixes in hearsay (without telling us)
that's still a problem.
Even with these concessions, that would still raise major questions about his reliability. And there's no reason we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume complete honesty. The line between "exaggeration" + "emotive language" + "mixing in hearsay" and "lying" is a pretty fine one.
Which is where corroboration comes in.
Also, from the revisionist perspective, it makes no difference if Wiernik is deliberately lying, is delusional, is extrapolating, or is engaging in pious fraud. It makes little difference. What matters is whether we can accept his narrative as reliable or not.
That you would use such a source as Wiernik which reads like a bad penny dreadful to prove that nearly a million people were killed at Treblinka is absolutely hilarious to me.
That is because you refuse to use corroboration as a tool to assess witness evidence, unlike every other trained investigator, whether they are criminal, journalist or historian. Instead, you want to rely on your incredulity, despite it being logically flawed.
Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 1:43 am
For the record, out of all the interviews, testimony etc from Abraham Bomba, for example, this cartoon character was never mentioned.
You'd think he would have noticed.
I think you're coming at this from the perspective of, oh it's a giant lie, it didn't happen like this. If you examined it from another perspective, like Bomba truly witnessing the mass slaughter of his countrymen, knowing his family had been likely killed there too, maybe it would make sense to you why he wasn't focused on the bathroom situation.
Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 1:43 am
For the record, out of all the interviews, testimony etc from Abraham Bomba, for example, this cartoon character was never mentioned.
You'd think he would have noticed.
I think you're coming at this from the perspective of, oh it's a giant lie, it didn't happen like this. If you examined it from another perspective, like Bomba truly witnessing the mass slaughter of his countrymen, knowing his family had been likely killed there too, maybe it would make sense to you why he wasn't focused on the bathroom situation.
I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle. Survivor testimony to the shoah foundation describes a completely different process from the atrocity propaganda pamphlet 'A Year in Treblinka'.
Julian probably had a union dispute over bathroom breaks and so was immortalized by Warnick in this way.
Further, the propaganda is cited by 'historians' rather than the benign witness accounts, which are free of things like being run naked up the tube while being clubbed and bitten by dogs, and free of dj poop master fresh.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle. Survivor testimony to the shoah foundation describes a completely different process from the atrocity propaganda pamphlet 'A Year in Treblinka'.
....
Every single person who worked inside TII describes the same process, or part thereof. Mass arrivals, people undressing and getting haircuts and their property sorted. They were killed inside chambers and their corpses buried, later to be cremated.
The Shoah survivor testimony is from people selected from the mass arrivals to work at labour camps, mainly Majdanek. They did not work inside TII, so they did experience a different process.
The two processes are compatible with each other and those processes are repeated at the other AR camps and A-B.
I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle. Survivor testimony to the shoah foundation describes a completely different process from the atrocity propaganda pamphlet 'A Year in Treblinka'.
....
Every single person who worked inside TII describes the same process, or part thereof. Mass arrivals, people undressing and getting haircuts and their property sorted. They were killed inside chambers and their corpses buried, later to be cremated.
The Shoah survivor testimony is from people selected from the mass arrivals to work at labour camps, mainly Majdanek. They did not work inside TII, so they did experience a different process.
The two processes are compatible with each other and those processes are repeated at the other AR camps and A-B.
They aren't compatible Nessie.
For example, was the haircut room in the fucking gas chambers, or the literal haircut room.
If you think that the survivors 'didn't notice' a bunch of naked jews being beaten, bitten and run up the tube, I challenge you to explain this.
They would have noticed.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle. Survivor testimony to the shoah foundation describes a completely different process from the atrocity propaganda pamphlet 'A Year in Treblinka'.
....
Every single person who worked inside TII describes the same process, or part thereof. Mass arrivals, people undressing and getting haircuts and their property sorted. They were killed inside chambers and their corpses buried, later to be cremated.
The Shoah survivor testimony is from people selected from the mass arrivals to work at labour camps, mainly Majdanek. They did not work inside TII, so they did experience a different process.
The two processes are compatible with each other and those processes are repeated at the other AR camps and A-B.
They aren't compatible Nessie.
For example, was the haircut room in the fucking gas chambers, or the literal haircut room.
If you think that the survivors 'didn't notice' a bunch of naked jews being beaten, bitten and run up the tube, I challenge you to explain this.
They would have noticed.
Witnesses who describe a selection process and leaving the camp after being selected, is not incompatible with witnesses who say those sent to the gas chambers got haircuts. That a witness said he cut hair in the gas chambers is also not incompatible with selections.
The selections took place in the station area of the camp, away from the gas chambers. Those selected never entered further into the camp, to see people being herded to the gas chambers.
It is clear you have not read testimony or looked at the maps. You just want excuses to disbelieve.
Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 7:30 am
I actually have listened to the testimony, and read other testimony. Obviously you have not.
You are acting like the survivors didn't get-
1) a haircut
2) a shower
3) camp clothes
4) a job assignment
Were the transited through, yes.
Did it happen without getting a chance to use the restroom, be deloused, get some toast and 'what passes for German coffee' and a job assignment? No.
The survivors transited through TII speak to selections, waiting for the next train and leaving the camp. None of them speak to getting a haircut etc there. It was the labour camp that they then went to, where they got showers, uniform and work.
The survivors who were selected to work at TII and survived by escaping from the camp, speak to the haircuts, property sorting, gas chambers, graves etc.
There are two sets of survivors and you do not appear to have realised that, which casts doubt on your claim that you have read and listened to entire testimony. It sounds like you got your limited knowledge to selective cherry-picked denier sources, such as Eric Hunt's video.
