Examples of the argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock

[pilgrimofdark]

So-called Holocaustophiliacs, really incompetent plagiarists, rely heavily on the fallacy of Argument from Gullibility to Plagiarized Schlock.

This thread will collect a tiny fraction of the millions of examples of these easily duped sanctimonious venerators of horror engaging in this fallacy.

AI Overview: The Argument from Gullibility to Plagiarized Schlock is a logical fallacy in which the perceived sincerity, enthusiasm, or sheer credulousness of an audience is taken as positive evidence for the profundity, veracity, or intellectual merit of a work that is, upon closer inspection, derivative drivel.

The Argument from Gullibility to Plagiarized Schlock asserts "I cannot imagine this being false; therefore it must be true and brilliant. Anyone who is not as equally gullible must be a liar who wants to censor me."

Related practices of so-called Holocaustophiliacs, really passive aggressive cry-bullies:

• Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to popularity), except with added intellectual cosplay.
• Halo Effect, wherein a compelling narrative tone substitutes for rigor.
• Footnote Laundering Principle, in which a thin bibliography is expanded via plagiarism and outright fabrication, retroactively conferring gravitas.
• Passive Aggressive Cry-Bullying, in which the person falling victim to this fallacy then claims being "ruthlessly censored" when, in reality, insulting everyone else.

---

Dieter Pohl, "The Murder of Jews in the General Government," in National Socialist Extermination Policies: Contemporary German Perspectives and Controversies, p. 84:

After the air-tight doors were bolted shut, the victims were suffocated with exhaust fumes from a diesel motor. After some twenty minutes all were dead.

Pohl provides no citation for this statement, taking it as an article of religious faith. It is in the second paragraph of his twenty-page article, in the introduction.

Because he is easily duped by his dogmatism, he engages in the fallacy of gullibility to plagiarized schlock, mindlessly repeating horror schlock and venerating it sanctimoniously.

Verdict: gullible to plagiarized schlock of diesel motor exhaust.

This is why people bullied me in grade school and continue to bully me on X. They shouldn't be allowed to censor me.

Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream authors with the same lack of charity and hyperbolic insults as shown to revisionist authors. The citations are serious, the tone is satirical. It looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- because it is.

[pilgrimofdark]

Das Prussian:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10004#p10004

11) Abraham Kaszepicki - 8/42-9/42 for 18 days escaped report dec 42

Das Prussian, being frankly idiotic, can wrap his head around the existence of "Abraham Kaszepicki" and believes in this non-existent person's "statement" written by two people switching off every few sentences.

He is gullible to believing making up names and never checking his own work for the simplest typo is "direct evidence."

He is able to understand that Krzepicki (the correct spelling of the name) is a "direct witness" to gassing when two of "Krzepicki's" authors write this:

None of us workers knew exactly how the deaths occurred. However, it seemed to us that a faint, barely perceptible smell of chlorine hung around the bathhouse.

Only the most gullible liar would consider "None of us knew" to be "direct evidence," which is why Das Prussian engages in arguing from his own gullibility to plagiarized schlock, a logical fallacy.

Is "Abraham Kaszepicki" in the room with Das Prussian now? Can "Kaszepicki" provide a new witness statement clarifying his "direct evidence"?

[pilgrimofdark]

YIVO:

On page 896 of the Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, above the entry "Killing Centers," YIVO prints this photograph of what they call a "mobile gas van used to murder Jews at the Chełmno death camp":



Being easily duped and frankly idiotic, YIVO lies about this photo, engaging in the logical fallacy of gullibility to plagiarized schlock.

Only a deliberate liar who does not understand the basics of investigation would misrepresent that this photo is of a "gas van."

Because they are gullible to the logical fallacy of plagiarizing schlock, they have plagiarized from Gerald Fleming's book Hitler and the Final Solution, where it is also printed with a caption with nearly-identical wording:

Fleming (1984): Gassing van used to liquidate Jews at the Kulmhof (Chelmno) extermination camp and near Konitz.

YIVO (2008): A mobile gas van used to murder Jews at the Chełmno death camp being examined by reporters, Poland, ca. 1945.

Numerous historians, mainstream and revisionist alike, have pointed out that this is a photograph of a furniture van.

However, YIVO, deluded by their own lies, continues to spread the misrepresentation that this is a "gas van." They have worked out to their satisfaction how to evidence their claims through plagiarism and lies.

YIVO is willing and able to believe anything that provides confirmation bias to their sanctimonious veneration of horror schlock. They have easily worked out in their minds that they are correct about a photograph of a dismantled furniture truck being a gas van because they read a caption written in a book by a liar and midwit. They easily steal and rewrite Fleming's lying caption in order to lie in their own plagiarized words.

They are able to evidence a gas van that only other people who engage in the logical fallacy of argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock believe.

YIVO is easily able to understand how furniture moving vans are "killing centers." This is not a mistake, it is a deliberate lie by gullible idiots.

I have not called YIVO lying idiots. That is a fallacy someone made up about me, and they shouldn't be allowed to bully me. YIVO's idiotic lying is proven, I can point to it in the book. I have only said they are engaged in lies, misrepresentations, and are deluded. At best, they are liars and idiots who are ignorant about the evidence.

When I sent them this complaint, they blocked me, which is a strawman. That they resort to censorship is proof they are still not understanding that they engage in a fallacy.

Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream works with the same lack of charity and hyperbolic insults as shown to revisionist writings. The citations are real, the tone is satirical. If it looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- that's because it is.

[pilgrimofdark]

The taxpayer-funded US Holocaust Memorial Museum:

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... /treblinka

Once the chamber doors were sealed, a large diesel engine installed outside the building pumped in carbon monoxide exhaust. All those inside were killed.

Rejecting the frankly idiotic liars of HC Blog for pseudorevisionist midwittery, the USHMM persists in its own lie that diesel engine exhaust was used to kill victims at Treblinka.

Nearly four decades after it was established that this doesn't work, USHMM continues to work out to its satisfaction that impossible schlock overrides all known laws of physical reality, so happened nearly every single day for months at a time.

What is the evidential value of their belief?

They cling to the logically flawed argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock, that because they can work out how diesel engine exhaust is homicidal, therefore it definitely happened.

This is lying and bullying and shouldn't be allowed. It is further proof the USHMM lied and made up diesel engine exhaust as a method of homicide and wants to encourage belief in such plagiarized schlock.

In the example shown above, the gullible idiots cite nothing to evidence their belief of diesel exhaust killings, elevating their gullibility to the status of evidence and making US taxpayers fund this state-established religion.

They are able to wrap their minds around the truth of plagiarized schlock, even venerating it to inclusion in the sanctimonious Holocaust Encyclopedia.

AI Overview: "The argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they delude themselves to believe something is true, then it is self-evidently true and presumptively self-authoritative."

Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream works with the same lack of charity, hyperbolic insults, and non sequitor mischaracterizations as directed at revisionist writings. The citations are real, the tone is satirical. If it looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- that's because it is.

[Nessie]

AI Overview
The argument from gullibility to "plagiarized schlock" suggests that a lack of critical thinking (gullibility) allows low-quality, stolen, or unoriginal content (plagiarized schlock) to gain acceptance and credibility. This intersection highlights a breakdown in intellectual rigor where audiences fail to scrutinize the source or originality of information.

USHMM have made a mistake claiming a diesel engine was used at TII. The eyewitnesses who are known to have seen and worked on the engine used for gassings, either did not say what fuel it used, or they said it was petrol. It is evidenced the camp had an engine used as a generator, either in the same building, or next to the gas chamber and it may well have been diesel, which would suggest some witnesses got mixed up. Obviously it would better if a mainstream secondary source such as USHMM did not make mistakes, but it is bound to happen, as the Holocaust is a huge topic. USHMM have taken the diesel claim from other sources that have made the same mistake.

If you want to see many examples of the argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock, then go to X and look for Holocaust denier promoters such as Uncommon Sense. Here are a few examples of the low quality, stolen or unoriginal content that gullible deniers fall for;

- a Red Cross report with a death toll of 271k, that lists 13 camps, is the entire Holocaust death toll.
- the wooden door with the window, in Krema I, that visitors walk through to see the gas chamber, was the original door into the gas chamber.
- wooden doors cannot be made gas tight.
- Auschwitz and other camps had facilities such as swimming pools and hospitals.
- there is no evidence of mass graves.
- there is no known Hitler order that references the use of gas.
- there are no traces of the use of Zyklon B in the Kremas.

Those examples are off the scale when compared to mixing up a diesel with a petrol engine.

[Nazgul]

Those examples are off the scale when compared to mixing up a diesel with a petrol engine.

I’m not interested in arguing petrol vs diesel engines, doors, trace chemistry, or endlessly recycled talking points. That discussion has been on loop for over a decade and it doesn’t advance understanding.

My position is structural, not technical.

The mass death of Jews and other civilians in Eastern Europe can be fully explained by total war conditions:

forced population transfers into active war zones

collapse of food, medicine, and shelter

exposure, disease, starvation, and reprisals

partisan warfare and counter‑insurgency

dual pressure from German and Soviet systems

In places like Belarus, mortality was driven primarily by environment, logistics, and war dynamics, not by isolated facilities or single mechanisms. Entire populations — Jews, Slavs, prisoners, civilians — lived and died under conditions where survival itself was exceptional.

Focusing obsessively on technical disputes about camps like Treblinka or Sobibor narrows history instead of explaining it. It reduces a continent‑wide human catastrophe into a courtroom debate over components, while ignoring where the majority of suffering actually occurred: villages, forests, swamps, labour sites, transit zones, and front‑line collapse areas.

I don’t deny Jewish suffering. I reject the idea that it can be understood — or honoured — through a simplified, mechanistic narrative divorced from the realities of total war.

If the goal is historical understanding rather than rhetorical victory, then the conversation has to move beyond recycled technical arguments and address the full structural causes of mass death in Eastern Europe.

[Nessie]

Those examples are off the scale when compared to mixing up a diesel with a petrol engine.

I’m not interested in arguing petrol vs diesel engines, doors, trace chemistry, or endlessly recycled talking points. That discussion has been on loop for over a decade and it doesn’t advance understanding.

My position is structural, not technical.

The mass death of Jews and other civilians in Eastern Europe can be fully explained by total war conditions:

I note your use of the word "explained" rather than evidenced. You then produce a list of hypothesis, with no evidence.

forced population transfers into active war zones

collapse of food, medicine, and shelter

exposure, disease, starvation, and reprisals

partisan warfare and counter‑insurgency

dual pressure from German and Soviet systems

In places like Belarus, mortality was driven primarily by environment, logistics, and war dynamics, not by isolated facilities or single mechanisms. Entire populations — Jews, Slavs, prisoners, civilians — lived and died under conditions where survival itself was exceptional.

Why have you missed out the ghettos?

Focusing obsessively on technical disputes about camps like Treblinka or Sobibor narrows history instead of explaining it.

How is history narrowed, by focusing on two camps that, between them, took in over a million Jews? That is 1/6th of all the Jews evidenced to have died during WWII, in just two camps. Add in Belzec, Majdanek, Chelmno and Auschwitz, that total rises to around 2.5 million, or over 40%.

It reduces a continent‑wide human catastrophe into a courtroom debate over components, while ignoring where the majority of suffering actually occurred: villages, forests, swamps, labour sites, transit zones, and front‑line collapse areas.

I don’t deny Jewish suffering. I reject the idea that it can be understood — or honoured — through a simplified, mechanistic narrative divorced from the realities of total war.

If the goal is historical understanding rather than rhetorical victory, then the conversation has to move beyond recycled technical arguments and address the full structural causes of mass death in Eastern Europe.

If your goal was historical understanding, then get evidencing.

[pilgrimofdark]

Joseph Kermish & Yad Vashem:

In the period of the classical "Ausrottung" of the Jewish population, late December 1941 to May 1942 in the forests of Chelm, it became clear beyond any doubt that every German deportation meant only and solely liquidation of Jews.

- To Live With Honor and Die With Honor: Selected Documents from the Warsaw Ghetto Underground Archives "O.S" (Oneg Shabbath), p. 37.

Instead of "In the forests of Chełm" Read "In the forests of Chełmno."

- unnumbered "Errata" page

Congrats, Kermish & Yad Vashem have beaten all other Holocaust "historians" by setting the earliest known record in the Holocaustophiliac "research" contest for the most distant misidentification of Chełmno nad Nerem.

Yad Vashem and Joseph Kermish have worked out to their satisfaction how two places 420 km apart with different names are identical. They easily dupe each other through the process of writing, editing, proofreading, and publishing a book they charged money for.

[Nessie]

Joseph Kermish & Yad Vashem:

In the period of the classical "Ausrottung" of the Jewish population, late December 1941 to May 1942 in the forests of Chelm, it became clear beyond any doubt that every German deportation meant only and solely liquidation of Jews.

- To Live With Honor and Die With Honor: Selected Documents from the Warsaw Ghetto Underground Archives "O.S" (Oneg Shabbath), p. 37.

Instead of "In the forests of Chełm" Read "In the forests of Chełmno."

- unnumbered "Errata" page

Congrats, Kermish & Yad Vashem have beaten all other Holocaust "historians" by setting the earliest known record in the Holocaustophiliac "research" contest for the most distant misidentification of Chełmno nad Nerem.

Yad Vashem and Joseph Kermish have worked out to their satisfaction how two places 420 km apart with different names are identical. They easily dupe each other through the process of writing, editing, proofreading, and publishing a book they charged money for.

I am not sure how historians make mistakes, is the win you think it is. You allege a mass conspiracy, involving a lot of people, when people make mistakes, making such a mass conspiracy highly unlikely to pull off.

[pilgrimofdark]

Hans: insult against Calla for making a mistake.
Nessie: agrees with Hans.

Me: exact same insult against Kermish/Yad Vashem for making the exact same mistake.
Nessie: I am not sure... not the win you think it is... mass conspiracy...

Consequences of lacking a theory of mind

What is the evidential value of what Nessie is not sure of? He works out to his satisfaction how he can engage in the logical fallacy of argument from unsurety.

What is the evidential value of Nessie's lack of a theory of mind?

Consequences of lacking a sense of humor

Me: numerous disclaimers pointing out this thread is satire intended to use the insults directed against revisionist writings against mainstream writings for the same mistakes to illustrate how unhinged and unserious the Nessie-HCBlog-Lipstadt School of Interpersonal Communication™ comes across.

Nessie: takes it seriously, says using these insults is not a win

After being exposed to his own argumentation style, Nessie denounces it as "not a win" within 10 posts.

What is the evidential value of Nessie's lack of a sense of humor (second-order effect of lack of theory of mind)?

Assessing Theory of Mind by Humor

There are numerous types of humor; the most complex type is considered ToM [Theory of Mind] humor, where an understanding of social/emotional content is necessary.

Maybe Nessie could explain the evidential value of him using these insults in a serious manner against others but when they're directed against people he agrees with in a satirical context, he claims they are "not the win you think it is."

AI Overview: "Theory of Mind is a crucial cognitive mechanism for navigating the social world, and since much of humor is social, a well-functioning ToM is often essential for full participation in that aspect of humor."

Consequences of psychological projection

Nessie reads "Yad Vashem" -- a book publisher -- and immediately thinks mass conspiracy involving many people.

Those words only exist in Nessie's brain and are mentioned nowhere else in this thread.

Maybe Nessie could explain why the mention of a book publisher triggering the phrase "mass conspiracy" only in his brain is of any evidential value.

[Nessie]

Hans: insult against Calla for making a mistake.
Nessie: agrees with Hans.

The link you provide is to a disagreement with Callafangers, not an agreement with Hans.

Me: exact same insult against Kermish/Yad Vashem for making the exact same mistake.
Nessie: I am not sure... not the win you think it is... mass conspiracy...

Mistakes would lead to the collapse of a hoax.

Consequences of lacking a theory of mind

What is the evidential value of what Nessie is not sure of? He works out to his satisfaction how he can engage in the logical fallacy of argument from unsurety.

What is the evidential value of Nessie's lack of a theory of mind?

Consequences of lacking a sense of humor

Me: numerous disclaimers pointing out this thread is satire intended to use the insults directed against revisionist writings against mainstream writings for the same mistakes to illustrate how unhinged and unserious the Nessie-HCBlog-Lipstadt School of Interpersonal Communication™ comes across.

Nessie: takes it seriously, says using these insults is not a win

After being exposed to his own argumentation style, Nessie denounces it as "not a win" within 10 posts.

What is the evidential value of Nessie's lack of a sense of humor (second-order effect of lack of theory of mind)?

Assessing Theory of Mind by Humor

There are numerous types of humor; the most complex type is considered ToM [Theory of Mind] humor, where an understanding of social/emotional content is necessary.

Maybe Nessie could explain the evidential value of him using these insults in a serious manner against others but when they're directed against people he agrees with in a satirical context, he claims they are "not the win you think it is."

AI Overview: "Theory of Mind is a crucial cognitive mechanism for navigating the social world, and since much of humor is social, a well-functioning ToM is often essential for full participation in that aspect of humor."

Consequences of psychological projection

Nessie reads "Yad Vashem" -- a book publisher -- and immediately thinks mass conspiracy involving many people.

Those words only exist in Nessie's brain and are mentioned nowhere else in this thread.

Maybe Nessie could explain why the mention of a book publisher triggering the phrase "mass conspiracy" only in his brain is of any evidential value.

I have not claimed to have presented any evidence.

[pilgrimofdark]

Sara Berger, engaged in a mAsS cOnSpIrAcY with the Hamburg Institute for Social Research to write, edit, and offer a book for sale to the public:

In the solidly built engine compartment there was a power generator and a Russian tank diesel engine, whose exhaust gases were distributed to the individual gas chambers via a pipeline along the walls. [footnote 195]

footnote 195: Lambert and Matthes, 15.10.1964 (Hpt.V.), LA Düsseldorf, Rep. 388, No. 808; Jakob Wiernik, 23.8.1960, ibid., no. 753, pp. 194–204; Nikolay Shalayev, 20.12.1951 and 18.12.1950, Document GX-126 and 125 in the U.S. case vs. Reimer, Plaintiff Documents, Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, pp. 380–389 and 395–404, OSI File TC 4-5-34 and 35; Prokofiy Ryabtsev, February 3, 1965, document GX-121 in ibid., pp. 664-671, OSI File TC 4-5-51.

- Experten der Vernichtung

Berger has worked out to her satisfaction, using sources like "Wiernik" and OSI court records, that a Russian diesel engine was used in homicidal gassings at Treblinka.

She relies on imagination to become easily duped by Wiernik's phrase "It weakened some, and revived others," and believes he has seen a Russian diesel tank engine gas chamber where people were "revived." She believes Wiernik that diesel exhaust which revives people is tested, verified, and regarded as generally reliable.

My training tells me that she is lying. My training is in the room with me right now and can tell you why you're wrong. I have not claimed Berger is lying. That is a strawman and a logical fallacy and bullying. The fact that she can only censor me shows her methodology is flawed.

She mimics legitimate scholarly works, piling up citations to support her allegation of homicidal diesel revivification, which generates confusion among those who do not immediately recognize her intention: lying. (Lipstadt insult)

What is the evidential value of her reliance on gullibility to plagiarized schlock? This is known as the logical fallacy of an appeal to credulity.

AI Overview: The logical fallacy of argument from gullibility occurs when someone argues that a proposition is true simply because they (or others they hope aren't bullies) are willing to believe it. The easily-duped often want to believe in something simply because others do, and this fallacy provides a pseudo-intellectual justification for that desire.

Such poor quality arguments stem from Berger's credulity of the literature and offer a shortcut to incorrect conclusions without having to think about physical reality. (HC Blog insult)

She follows the Epstein methodology, which some people are interested in. This methodology is the following:

This is the way the jew make money.. and made a fortune in the past ten years„ selling short the shippping futures„ let the goyim deal in the real world.

- PDF Source

Berger has worked out to her satisfaction a methodology where she can "let the goyim deal in the real world" of toxicology and fluid dynamics.

Revisionists reject this methodological school founded and funded by Jeffrey Epstein and his human trafficking legal advisors at the USHMM. Can any revisionist here explain to me, why Berger should dump the Epstein methodology used by Epsteinian historiographers all over the world, to investigate the Holocaust and switch to their method when the "real world" was long ago left to "the goyim"?

There is no entry for "Goyim" in any USHMM Encyclopedia. Can any revisionist here explain to me why not, when the USHMM methodology is based on this fanatical concept?

Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream works with the same lack of charity, hyperbolic insults, and non sequitor mischaracterizations as directed at revisionist writings. The citations are real, the tone is satirical. If it looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- that's because it is. Some people have denounced such argumentation style as "not a win."

[pilgrimofdark]

Chris Webb, involved in a MaSs CoNsPiRaCy with ibidem Verlag to write, edit, publish and charge money for a paperback book:

Franciszek Zabecki was the Polish stationmaster at Treblinka village station, and a member of the Polish Underground. He had been placed at Treblinka by the AK (Armia Krajowa-Home Army), the biggest Polish Underground movement, originally to report on the movement of German troops and equipment. He was therefore the only trained observer on the spot throughout the entire existence of the Treblinka extermination camp.

- The Treblinka Death Camp, p. 19.

These midwits are double fucked, as usual. This makes them quadruple midwits.

Webb, who is frankly idiotic, has worked out to his satisfaction that when Zabecki writes the below, he means, "I was the stationmaster":

I missed out on promotion. I didn’t become a stationmaster.

- Zabecki, Wspomnienia dawne i nowe. p. 85-86.

He lies to himself and others that "didn't become stationmaster" means "was the stationmaster."

Maybe he found a diary from Zabecki in his attic, with the exact same title and publisher as Zabecki's memoirs, since that is what he cites in his "Selected Bibliography" (p. 546).

To steelman his position, which is impossible to do because he relies on logical fallacies, he has plagiarized schlock from someone else who is unable to read a book so lies and makes things up that are the opposite of what the book contains. After making up lies based on fallacies, Webb believes them, because he is not trained to realize when he is lying.

He dumps the methodology used by truth-tellers all over the world, and switches to the Epstein historiographical methodology of lying and plagiarism. Can anyone here explain to me why he does this?

He has worked out to his satisfaction how someone saying "did not" is exactly the same as "did." Due to his plagiarism and logical fallacies, he is octodecwoble fucked.

Why is he allowed to bully? When I emailed Webb, his publisher, and the Holocaust Historical Society to call them liars and double-fucked midwits who sell books to the easily duped, they blocked me. That they resort to censoring me and do not let me email freely to them shows their methodology is logically flawed. They are unable to reply coherently to my argument, and instead resort to childish insults.

Webb claims that "not" is a code word for "was." It's positively laughable when he pontificates about the exact inversion of reality, when he's shown zero knowledge of the definition of "not."

I find it incredible how difficult historians find it to differentiate between "not something" and "something," when the concepts and terms are so simple and obvious.

This is known as the logical fallacy of argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock, since he has obviously not read the book he references.

AI Overview: The argument from gullibility operates on the principle that the mere belief in a proposition's veracity is, in itself, a sufficient and irrefutable warrant for its truth. It is the philosophical stance of the intellectual invertebrate. In essence, the argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock is a surrender of the intellect to fanaticism. It champions the comfort of belief in an assertion, thereby elevating assertions divorced from "the real world" to the unearned status of established fact. It is, in essence, an argument from credulity that has been hollowed out and refilled with cheap, derivative nonsense. It mistakes duping oneself as a validation of pilfered, shoddy, stolen content.

He has the religious faith of a fanatic, and uses it to believe the opposite of what people say about themselves, and then engages in a conspiracy to charge money for his lies. It's hardly in my supposed interests to correct delusions circulating among "historians."

Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream works with the same lack of charity, hyperbolic insults, and non sequitor mischaracterizations as directed at revisionist writings. The citations are real, the tone is satirical. If it looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- that's because it is. Some people have denounced such argumentation style as being for losers.

[pilgrimofdark]

Jacob Flaws, in a mAsS cOnSpIrAcY with the University of Nebraska Press to write, edit, and a publish a book offered for sale to the public.

First nosewitness here.

Second nosewitness here.

Flaws's third nosewitness about the smell of Treblinka is Jakub Krzepicki, who is usually mistakenly referred to as Abraham Krzepicki.

Abraham [sic] Krzepicki observed, "The monstrous stench of the decaying bodies was literally... nauseating." [endnote 15]

[ellipsis in original]

- Flaws, Jacob. Spaces of Treblinka: Retracing a Death Camp. University of Nebraska Press, 2024, p. 133.

endnote 15: ARG II 382 (Ring. II/299), p. 164.

Flaws quotes an archival document directly which is made up of 3 notebooks of handwritten Yiddish by Rachel Auerbach. He has worked out to his satisfaction how to read Yiddish handwriting without citing a translation into any other language.

For translations, much of the second and third notebooks are in Donat's book on Treblinka, and the entirety of all three are in Volume 5 of The Ringelblum Archive in English.

However, nothing like what Flaws writes is in those books, showing his methodology is appalling and can not be defended. He relies on logical fallacies like the argument to gullibility of plagiarized schlock.

Page 164, translated into English:

the captain and brought his club down on the heads nearest him. Damned people, indeed, pushed down in the caverns of hell, and this was one of the devils, a minion of hell with red cheeks and a black moustache. This SS-man had no horns, he merely used fire and brimstone, heat and steam...

"Away! Away! Let me out of here before I go crazy! I'm getting into a state where I'd be ready to jump into the death cauldron on my own!" I thought. I tried to calm my nerves and to allow myself not to become so upset. Just one more time in my life I wanted to see people with calm faces, with other things to do than running beneath the whip in a death chase. Herds of human beings like herds of oxen, herds of sheep, driven to the slaughter, with the only difference that oxen and sheep don't know what will happen to them until the last minute, while in the case of humans even the youngest children understand the situation sooner and can see and understand what's coming.

Flaws has worked out to his satisfaction that he can fabricate quotes and then cite archival documents directly. He believes his own made-up quote is tested, verified, and regarded as generally reliable.

This willingness to believe his own inanities is known as the argument from plagiarized schlock. Thus, he can console himself by affirming his credulity in his pretend quotes.

AI Overview: The fallacy of argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock occurs when someone argues a claim is true simply because it's comforting to believe. In essence, it is the opposite of critical thinking and logic. "I believe this is true so it must me." It shifts the burden of proof from "the real world" which is for "the goyim" to the realm of fanatical belief in religious terms which lack analytical value.

Flaws, gullible to his own lies and schlock, doesn't provide a secondary reference, which might not help anyway. The previous secondary reference he provided was page numbers for a book in which the relevant person isn't mentioned at all.

Just because he finds his incorrect quotes and citations easy to accept does not therefore mean they are credible.

He has worked out to his satisfaction how citing random books with random page numbers is the methodology used by historians all over the world. In reality, it is the methodology used by Jeffrey Epstein and his human trafficking legal consultants at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

This is the way the jew make money.. and made a fortune in the past ten years„ selling short the shippping futures„ let the goyim deal in the real world.

- PDF Source

This methodology allows for Flaws to "let the goyim deal in the real world" while he makes up quotes, assigns page numbers to them, and puts them in a book that he charges money for.

AI overview: An argument from gullibility is a logical fallacy that assumes something is true because it's comforting to believe, imagine, or understand.

So saying "ARG II 382 (Ring. II/299), p. 164" is obfuscation pure and simple. The academic term for this is midwit, which some others term hate speech.

With no particular translator listed, he implies that he is able to read Auerbach's Yiddish handwriting himself. If so, he has easily duped himself and buyers of his book.

inb4

Spoiler

No, the quote is not on page 163 or 165.

No, the quote is not on page 146 (not a transposition error).

No, the quote doesn't show up anywhere in the Ringelblum Archive translation.

No, the quote doesn't show up in Donat's translation.

No, the quote doesn't show up in Google. Or Archive.org. Or Z-library.

Maybe, like historians and people interested in methodology, he does not know what an accurate citation is.

Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream works with the same lack of charity, hyperbolic insults, and non sequitor mischaracterizations as directed at revisionist writings. The citations are real, the tone is satirical. If it looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- that's because it is. Some people have denounced such argumentation style as being not a win.

[Nessie]

...

Flaws's third nosewitness about the smell of Treblinka is Jakub Krzepicki, who is usually mistakenly referred to as Abraham Krzepicki.

...

Why is that a mistake?

https://muzeumtreblinka.eu/en/informacj ... ram-jakub/

"Abram Jakub Krzepicki was born in 1915 in Praszka..."

https://www.jhi.pl/en/articles/a-man-es ... epicki,391

"On 13 September 1942, Abraham (Jakub) Krzepicki escaped from the Treblinka II..."

https://1943.pl/en/artykul/the-victim-a ... er-part-1/

"On 13 September 1943, Abram Jakub Krzepicki managed to escape from the extermination camp in Treblinka."