NEWSFLASH: Zundel's Artwork Now at Bargain Basement Price
Hilary Ostrov
far between. Ingrid's now dropped the price to $10.
From the May 22 Z-gram:
<quote>
We have a number of delicate colour-pencil sketches by Ernst
Zundel done in prison. Each is dated and signed. Each is a nature
study. [...]
If you send us a cheque for $100 or more, we'll send you one of these
collector's items [...]
</quote>
Her <back to the future> Zgram dated: "Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:03:31
-0600" and "Subject: Fwd: ZGram - 10/3/2003 - "EZ: Prisoner of
Conscience Letter" - Part II" ends with the following appeal:
<quote>
FOR ANY DONATION OF $10 or more, you will receive a frameable copy of
a sketch produced in prison by Ernst.
[...]
</quote>
No sign of a different reward for any $100 plus donations.
hro
--
If Ernst Zundel is a refugee, Daffy Duck is Albert Einstein. Some
propositions are so ludicrous that they are a betrayal of common
sense and human dignity if allowed a moment's oxygen.
- REX MURPHY, The Globe and Mail
Ken McVay, OBC
news:t1apnvkkc3vvmkgrb...@4ax.com...
> Seems that $100 donations to Zundel's "cause" may have been few and
> far between. Ingrid's now dropped the price to $10.
>
> From the May 22 Z-gram:
>
> <quote>
>
> We have a number of delicate colour-pencil sketches by Ernst
> Zundel done in prison. Each is dated and signed. Each is a nature
> study. [...]
Are these the "delicate colour-pencil skteches" Zundel drew with the stubby
graphite pencil that was all the jailors would allow him to use?
The magic pencils?
Sara Salzman
They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
and no bedtime snacks.
Yet he managed to create "delicate colour-pencil sketches."
What a guy!!
Then again, Hitler made water-color postcards.
Sara
--
-My name is not "Fatbury Scumbag" you stupid lying Jew bastard. Name call
is all a pathetic loser like you has! You have yet to prove me wrong
you dirty filthy lying Jew bastard!
-I don't rely on personal attacks as my means of posting and
the bulk of my posts prove so! You can't discern the difference.
BTW my name is not Fatboy you stupid kike.
--Scott Bradbury, who completely misses the irony of the above
helge
At least he draw the crap IN A PRISON, Hilary & Kenny - not your way - I
mean in "Jerzy Kosinski" style, who's rubbish was celebrated by
holohucksters around the globe for it's "overhelming authenticity".
Patrick Keenan
news:3f7cbfa7$0$23589$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
A cell he can leave at any time, no less. It's his call.
But you don't get this, do you - he's hawking drawings from his cell, but
complaining that he doesn't have anything to write with.
-pk
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Hilary Ostrov wrote
in message <t1apnvkkc3vvmkgrb...@4ax.com>:
>Seems that $100 donations to Zundel's "cause" may have been few and
>far between. Ingrid's now dropped the price to $10.
>
>From the May 22 Z-gram:
>
><quote>
>
> We have a number of delicate colour-pencil sketches by Ernst
>Zundel done in prison. Each is dated and signed. Each is a nature
>study. [...]
>
>If you send us a cheque for $100 or more, we'll send you one of these
>collector's items [...]
>
></quote>
>
>Her <back to the future> Zgram dated: "Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:03:31
>-0600" and "Subject: Fwd: ZGram - 10/3/2003 - "EZ: Prisoner of
>Conscience Letter" - Part II" ends with the following appeal:
>
><quote>
>
>FOR ANY DONATION OF $10 or more, you will receive a frameable copy of
>a sketch produced in prison by Ernst.
>[...]
>
></quote>
>
>No sign of a different reward for any $100 plus donations.
And still, remarkably done with only a single small stub of a
pencil...
Brian Blank
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <blibs...@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Ken McVay, OBC" <kmc...@nizkor.org> wrote:
>
>> "Hilary Ostrov" <hos...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:t1apnvkkc3vvmkgrb...@4ax.com...
>> > Seems that $100 donations to Zundel's "cause" may have been few and
>> > far between. Ingrid's now dropped the price to $10.
>> >
>> > From the May 22 Z-gram:
>> >
>> > <quote>
>> >
>> > We have a number of delicate colour-pencil sketches by Ernst
>> > Zundel done in prison. Each is dated and signed. Each is a nature
>> > study. [...]
>>
>> Are these the "delicate colour-pencil skteches" Zundel drew with the stubby
>> graphite pencil that was all the jailors would allow him to use?
>>
>> The magic pencils?
>>
>>
>
>They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
>and no bedtime snacks.
>
>Yet he managed to create "delicate colour-pencil sketches."
>
>What a guy!!
>
>Then again, Hitler made water-color postcards.
>
>Sara
Und he vas a vunderful dancer...
Regards,
Brian Blank
http://ireland.anglican.org/disclaimer/smythe.html
http://churchofireland.net/disclaimer/smythe.html
http://gazette.ireland.anglican.org/010803/extra010803.htm#5
Joe Bruno
> far between. Ingrid's now dropped the price to $10.
>
> From the May 22 Z-gram:
>
> <quote>
>
> We have a number of delicate colour-pencil sketches by Ernst
> Zundel done in prison. Each is dated and signed. Each is a nature
> study. [...]
>
> If you send us a cheque for $100 or more, we'll send you one of these
> collector's items [...]
>
> </quote>
>
> Her <back to the future> Zgram dated: "Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:03:31
> -0600" and "Subject: Fwd: ZGram - 10/3/2003 - "EZ: Prisoner of
> Conscience Letter" - Part II" ends with the following appeal:
>
> <quote>
>
> FOR ANY DONATION OF $10 or more, you will receive a frameable copy of
> a sketch produced in prison by Ernst.
> [...]
>
> </quote>
>
> No sign of a different reward for any $100 plus donations.
>
> hro
Ernst's artwork is suitable for wrapping fish,lining litter boxes or
as a substitute for toilet tissue.
Ken McVay, OBC
At least we agree it's crap... now tell me how he got colour images from a
graphite pencil. I can hardly wait....
Sara Salzman
Brian Blank <nota...@earthlink.spamblocker.net> wrote:
He could do an entire room in an afternoon! Two Coats!!
Charles Don Hall
> Seems that $100 donations to Zundel's "cause" may have been few and
> far between. Ingrid's now dropped the price to $10.
I think that's explained by this bit from the October 1st Z-gram:
This is Ernst writing:
===
I had gone to numerous Southern Gospel conventions to hear different
vocalists in person - and tentatively had picked a girl's voice. She is
about 30 years old, from Wisconsin. A beautiful voice! [...] Within a
week from the time of my arrest, I had an appointment with a small
company locally that has state-of-the-art microphones and mixing consoles
staffed by sound engineers.
===
Apparently Ingrid just figured out who's in line to be Wife #4, and now
she's lost interest in fundraising.
The other bit I liked was:
===
I am highly offended by the raucous noise which passes as modern
Christian music. [...] I did not find a single tape - and I bought
hundreds over the last ten years in Christian book-and-music stores -
which I did not find offensive!
===
http://zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/oct01_zgram.html
--
======================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher
======================================
Ken McVay, OBC
message news:Xns9408E2563...@216.254.95.101...
> The other bit I liked was:
> ===
> I am highly offended by the raucous noise which passes as modern
> Christian music. [...] I did not find a single tape - and I bought
> hundreds over the last ten years in Christian book-and-music stores -
> which I did not find offensive!
> ===
>
> http://zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/oct01_zgram.html
Poor, desperate Facelift is finished!
Ah, the humiliation of it all.... can't write, can't dance, can't keep her
man.... Will Ingrid start singling gospel songs during her calls to
Ernie-Poo?
William Daffer
LOL!
What a marooon!
whd
--
<quote>
xganon, in 360dc87da7c02e27...@xganon.com, under the subject line:
"The Horror of the gas chambers", says:
It's too bad that they still don't do that. I would love to see most
of the oppressive Zion nazi regime and the rest of the Jew assasins
put there. For every non jew killed 100 jews should be slaughtered
like pigs. They don't belong there, the temples should be burned and
the people shot. They are all soldiers of zion and deserve one fate.
They are the chosen to die people. God has chosen the jews to be
persecuted and slaughtered. IT IS THE WAY
</quote>
helge
come on Kenny, what happened to your otherwise fertile holocausted
imagination ?
one possible answer is directly in the front of your nose - it is often
used by "holocaust scholars":
often when I asked a "holocaust scholar" about the number of gassed
jews/per day, or about why is not the smoke from "overloaded" Kremas in
Birkenau visible in photograps - I was given following answer:
"who told you that the Kremas were overloaded all the time ?"
or
"who told you that 12 000jews/day were gassed every day in Treblinka ?"
so: who told you Kenny, that Zuendel was not permitted to use colour
pencils all the time he is in prison ? - he could complain BEFORE they
allowed him to use colour pencils, as well he could draw some pictures
BEFORE they forbid him to use colour pencils.
yes Kenny the answer lies in "holocaust"...
helge
thank's god that Zuendel is not a jew ! who knows what "normative
holocaust history" he would add with his "single small stub of a
pencil" - at least 6 000 000 pages of "truth", but he's not a jew,
so we have to amuse ourself with Jerzy Kosinski and Fillip Mueller:
"Suddenly from out of the ranks of doomed prisoners stepped the young
Rabbinical student who had worked in the hair-drying team. He turned to
Oberscharführer Muhsfeld and with sublime courage told him to be quiet.
Then he began to speak to the crowd: 'Brothers!' he cried, 'it is God's
unfathomable will that we are to lay down our lives. A cruel and
accursed fate has compelled us to take part in the extermination of our
people, and now we are ourselves to become dust and ashes. No miracle
has happened. Heaven has sent no avenging bolts of lightning. No rain
has fallen strong enough to extinguish the funeral pyres built by the
hand of man. We must submit to the inevitable with Jewish resignation.
It will be the last trial sent to us by heaven. It is not for us to
question the reasons, for we are as nothing before Almighty God. Be not
afraid of death! Even if we could, by some chance, save our lives, what
use would that be to us now? In vain we would search for our murdered
relatives. We should be alone, without a family, without relatives,
without friends, without a place we might call our own, condemned to
roam the world aimlessly. For us there would be neither rest nor peace
of mind until one day we would die in some corner, lonely and forsaken.
Therefore, brothers, let us now go to meet death bravely and with dignity!'"
"The atmosphere in the dimly lit gas chamber was tense and depressing.
Death had come menacingly close. It was only minutes away. No memory, no
trace of any of us would remain. Once more people embraced. Parents were
hugging their children so violently that it almost broke my heart.
Suddenly a few girls, naked and in the full bloom of youth, came up to
me. They stood in front of me without a word, gazing at me deep in
thought and shaking their heads uncomprehendingly. At last one of them
plucked up courage and spoke to me: 'We understand that you have chosen
to die with us of your own free will, and we have come to tell you that
we think your decision pointless: for it helps no one.' She went on: 'We
must die, but you still have a chance to save your life. You have to
return to the camp and tell everybody about our last hours,' she
commanded. 'You have to explain to them that they must free themselves
from any illusions. They ought to fight, that's better than dying here
helplessly. It'll be easier for them, since they have no children. As
for you, perhaps you'll survive this terrible tragedy and then you must
tell everybody what happened to you. One more thing,' she went on, 'you
can do me one last favour: this gold chain round my neck: when I'm dead,
take it off and give it to my boyfriend Sasha. He works in the bakery.
Remember me to him. Say "love from Yana". When it's all over, you'll
find me here.' She pointed at a place next to the concrete pillar where
I was standing. Those were her last words.
I was surprised and strangely moved by her cool and calm detachment
in the face of death, and also by her sweetness. Before I could make an
answer to her spirited speech, the girls took hold of me and dragged me
protesting to the door of the gas chamber. There they gave me a last
push which made me land bang in the middle of the group of SS men.
Kurschuss was the first to recognize me and at once set about me with
his truncheon. I fell to the floor, stood up and was knocked down by a
blow from his fist. As I stood up on my feet for the third or fourth
time, Kurschuss yelled at me: 'You bloody shit, get it into your stupid
head: we decide how long you stay alive and when you die, and not you.
Now piss off, to the ovens!' Then he socked me viciously in the face so
that I reeled against the lift door."
overhelming authenticity :)
helge
>>The magic pencils?
>>
>>
>
>
> They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
> and no bedtime snacks.
>
so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM ! one of the biggest they ever had on the
planet Shoa...
however none is trying to answer such "small" and "unimportant" mystery
about how SS burned 800 000 jewish cadavers WITHOUT FUEL in Treblinka ?
on the planet Shoa...
Sara Salzman
helge <he...@helge.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> >>The magic pencils?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
> > and no bedtime snacks.
> >
>
> so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
> how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
> prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
> IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM ! one of the biggest they ever had on the
> planet Shoa...
It's not a problem, Moron. It's just a simple fact:
Ernst Zundel is a liar.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <3f7d50e2$0$23594$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>:
>> At least we agree it's crap... now tell me how he got colour images from a
>> graphite pencil. I can hardly wait....
>come on Kenny, what happened to your otherwise fertile holocausted
>imagination ?
>one possible answer is directly in the front of your nose - it is often
>used by "holocaust scholars":
>
>often when I asked a "holocaust scholar" about the number of gassed
>jews/per day, or about why is not the smoke from "overloaded" Kremas in
>Birkenau visible in photograps - I was given following answer:
>
>"who told you that the Kremas were overloaded all the time ?"
>or
>"who told you that 12 000jews/day were gassed every day in Treblinka ?"
>
>so: who told you Kenny, that Zuendel was not permitted to use colour
>pencils all the time he is in prison ?
Ummmm. zundel did. You *really* should educate yourself on these
issues before you pontificate.
>- he could complain BEFORE they
>allowed him to use colour pencils, as well he could draw some pictures
>BEFORE they forbid him to use colour pencils.
Except that that is not what zundel has said happened.
>yes Kenny the answer lies in "holocaust"...
No, the lies are in "revisionism" -- yes -- it *could* have happened
that way, too bad for you it really didn't.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <3f7d52a5$0$23608$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>:
>Roger wrote:
Had you planned on doing something other than sneering, cretin?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be helge wrote
[snip]
>>>The magic pencils?
>> They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
>> and no bedtime snacks.
>so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
>how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
>prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
>IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM ! one of the biggest they ever had on the
>planet Shoa...
No, but it points out how shamelessly zundel lies.
>however none is trying to answer such "small" and "unimportant" mystery
>about how SS burned 800 000 jewish cadavers WITHOUT FUEL in Treblinka ?
Of course, no one but you is claiming that no fuel at all was used --
pointing out how shamelessly you lie.
Sean Cyril O'Tavish
<catamont-FDE7E4...@news-60.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Ernst Zundel is a liar.
What about YOU, Yale F. Edeiken, or Ken McVay?
I.E.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=07qc8vguuom77pvmugliksb3dmdf8pp82r%404ax.com&rnum=6
Subject: Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund
Message-ID: <07qc8vguuom77pvmu...@4ax.com>
Date: 30 Mar 2003 03:49:22 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=3bmv4vc9u4kh2qs4v84aek0qsbfhb5eul8%404ax.com
Subject: Test this, David Michael aka Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is
Filled With Lies and Perjury...
Message-ID: <3bmv4vc9u4kh2qs4v...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=20licv4ua1ceur4iqrk6ttvt4ktcrbuc22%404ax.com&rnum=3
Subject: Sara "The Fist" Salzman Won't Quote Me in Context BUT I Quote Her in
Full Context!! Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:01:57 -0500
Message-ID: <20licv4ua1ceur4iq...@4ax.com>
Tavish
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
William Daffer
> [snip]
>>>The magic pencils?
>>>
>>>
>> They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no
>> chair, and no bedtime snacks.
>>
>
> so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
> how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
> prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
> IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM !
Ah, so you finally figured it out! Only took you, what? three, four
clues?
> one of the biggest they ever had on the planet Shoa...
Yes, we're not surprised that you don't care about his lying. After
all, you believe Zuendel about the Holocaust.
>
> however none is trying to answer such "small" and "unimportant"
> mystery about how SS burned 800 000 jewish cadavers WITHOUT FUEL in
> Treblinka ?
Given the dubious nature of your information about the Holocaust,
you won't be surprised when we ask you to produce some evidence that
someone ever said any such thing, will you?
No, I'm sure you won't.
So, chop chop.... Hop to it. Get those quotes, complete with full
citations.
[snip]
whd
--
Richard Phillips, in <3BA0C85C...@earthlink.net> show's his
humanity by saying:
As for your priceless World Trade Center... my only regret
is that they didn't demolish the obscenities totally by
crashing into them at a much lower point."
Sara Salzman
Sean Cyril O'Tavish <Sean_Cyril_O'Tav...@IRISH-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET>
wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:02:22 -0600,
> <catamont-FDE7E4...@news-60.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
> <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Ernst Zundel is a liar.
>
> What about YOU, Yale F. Edeiken, or Ken McVay?
>
Once again, Mr. Bradbury shows his obsessive interest in my sex life.
Patrick Keenan
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:02:22 -0600,
> <catamont-FDE7E4...@news-60.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
> <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Ernst Zundel is a liar.
>
> What about YOU, Yale F. Edeiken, or Ken McVay?
Getting tired of taunting children in other states, Mr. Bradbury?
When are you going to get off your butt and file your suit? Anywhere this
side of never?
-pk
helge
> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be helge wrote
> in message <3f7d50e2$0$23594$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>:
>
>
>
>>>At least we agree it's crap... now tell me how he got colour images from a
>>>graphite pencil. I can hardly wait....
>
>
>>come on Kenny, what happened to your otherwise fertile holocausted
>>imagination ?
>>one possible answer is directly in the front of your nose - it is often
>>used by "holocaust scholars":
>>
>>often when I asked a "holocaust scholar" about the number of gassed
>>jews/per day, or about why is not the smoke from "overloaded" Kremas in
>>Birkenau visible in photograps - I was given following answer:
>>
>>"who told you that the Kremas were overloaded all the time ?"
>>or
>>"who told you that 12 000jews/day were gassed every day in Treblinka ?"
>>
>>so: who told you Kenny, that Zuendel was not permitted to use colour
>>pencils all the time he is in prison ?
>
>
> Ummmm. zundel did.
now just to prove it. show me the statement (with date) by Ernest
Zuendel where he claims that he does not have access to colour pencils.
and then show me his colour pencil painting with the same date as the
above statement.
> You *really* should educate yourself on these
> issues before you pontificate.
>
well Mr. Double Standards, prove your claim.
>
>>- he could complain BEFORE they
>>allowed him to use colour pencils, as well he could draw some pictures
>>BEFORE they forbid him to use colour pencils.
>
>
> Except that that is not what zundel has said happened.
>
what did Zuendel say ? Do you have exact quote ?
>
>>yes Kenny the answer lies in "holocaust"...
>
>
> No, the lies are in "revisionism" -- yes -- it *could* have happened
> that way, too bad for you it really didn't.
revisionism has nothing to do with "holocaust", that's just your
paranoic interpretation that someone wants to apply different standards
to "holocaust" history.
revisionism is deadly to MYTHS and LIES not to history, grow up.
helge
> In article <3f7d54bb$0$23608$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote:
>
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>The magic pencils?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
>>>and no bedtime snacks.
>>>
>>
>>so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
>>how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
>>prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
>>IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM ! one of the biggest they ever had on the
>>planet Shoa...
>
>
> It's not a problem, Moron. It's just a simple fact:
> Ernst Zundel is a liar.
>
> Sara
>
are not liars on the planet Shoa...
helge
> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be helge wrote
> in message <3f7d54bb$0$23608$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>>The magic pencils?
>
>
>>>They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
>>>and no bedtime snacks.
>
>
>>so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
>>how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
>>prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
>>IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM ! one of the biggest they ever had on the
>>planet Shoa...
>
>
> No, but it points out how shamelessly zundel lies.
>
>
>>however none is trying to answer such "small" and "unimportant" mystery
>>about how SS burned 800 000 jewish cadavers WITHOUT FUEL in Treblinka ?
>
>
> Of course, no one but you is claiming that no fuel at all was used --
> pointing out how shamelessly you lie.
>
well so it is me who invented the Treblinka myth right ?
not Samuel Rajzman, Eliahu Rosenberg, Yankel Wiernik and other jewish
eyewitnesses ?
I invetned the
fat-jewess-no-fuel-needed-bodies-burn-once-they-caught-fire miracale ?
well I m not jewish - I do not have talent for that...
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
>
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>The magic pencils?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no
>>>chair, and no bedtime snacks.
>>>
>>
>>so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
>>how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
>>prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
>>IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM !
>
>
> Ah, so you finally figured it out! Only took you, what? three, four
> clues?
>
>
>
>>one of the biggest they ever had on the planet Shoa...
>
>
> Yes, we're not surprised that you don't care about his lying. After
> all, you believe Zuendel about the Holocaust.
>
>
>
>
>>however none is trying to answer such "small" and "unimportant"
>>mystery about how SS burned 800 000 jewish cadavers WITHOUT FUEL in
>>Treblinka ?
>
>
> Given the dubious nature of your information about the Holocaust,
> you won't be surprised when we ask you to produce some evidence that
> someone ever said any such thing, will you?
>
Master Willy I m not the one who is claiming that there were (at least)
8 00 000 bodies cremated in Treblinka in an open-air cremation on a huge
grates - it is people like, Roger often refering to Yitzhak Arad's book.
I might be wrong, excuse me master Willy, but I think that THOSE WHO
CLAIM CERTAIN THINGS HAVE TO SUPPORT THEY CLAIMS WITH EVIDENCE.
The information about the fuel and transports of the fuel used for those
open-air cremations was not provided for some "strange reason".
1. Do you want to say that 8 00 000 cadavers were not burned in Treblinka ?
2. Do you want to say that 8 00 000 cadavers were burned in Treblinka
without a fuel ?
3. Do you want to say that 800 000 cadavers were creamted in Treblinka -
and you have information and evidence about the fuel used for that
cremation - THEN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE please - or as you say:
steve wolk
"Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-EE815A...@news-60.giganews.com...
> In article <cv2rnv0c8guojo44s...@4ax.com>,
> Sean Cyril O'Tavish <Sean_Cyril_O'Tav...@IRISH-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:02:22 -0600,
> > <catamont-FDE7E4...@news-60.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
> > <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Ernst Zundel is a liar.
> >
> > What about YOU, Yale F. Edeiken, or Ken McVay?
> >
> Once again, Mr. Bradbury shows his obsessive interest in my sex life.
Fatbury, like his pal Don Ellis, is obsessively interested in everybody
else's sex life, for the simple reason that he has no sex life of his own.
steve wolk
Hellga, we do not expect you to say something intelligent in EVERY post you
make, but we would be grateful if you would say something intelligent in
just ONE of them.
>
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be helge wrote
>Roger wrote:
>> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be helge wrote
>> in message <3f7d50e2$0$23594$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>:
>>>so: who told you Kenny, that Zuendel was not permitted to use colour
>>>pencils all the time he is in prison ?
>> Ummmm. zundel did.
>now just to prove it. show me the statement (with date) by Ernest
>Zuendel where he claims that he does not have access to colour pencils.
http://zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/june7_zgram.html :
"...this talented artist has been given only a short stub of a pencil
with which to draw and write letters."
>and then show me his colour pencil painting with the same date as the
>above statement.
http://zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/may22_zgram.html :
"We have a number of delicate colour-pencil sketches by Ernst Zundel
done in prison."
Note the dates.
>> You *really* should educate yourself on these
>> issues before you pontificate.
>well Mr. Double Standards, prove your claim.
Now it's your turn: *who*, besides you has claimed that:
5 million of the victims of the Holocaust were killed by gassing.
The bodies at Treblinka were burned with no fuel at all.
There was not enough fuel available to burn all the bodies.
The Wiesenthal Centre felt they specifically needed a photo with smoke
in it.
>>>- he could complain BEFORE they
>>>allowed him to use colour pencils, as well he could draw some pictures
>>>BEFORE they forbid him to use colour pencils.
>> Except that that is not what zundel has said happened.
>what did Zuendel say ? Do you have exact quote ?
See above.
>>>yes Kenny the answer lies in "holocaust"...
>> No, the lies are in "revisionism" -- yes -- it *could* have happened
>> that way, too bad for you it really didn't.
>revisionism has nothing to do with "holocaust", that's just your
>paranoic interpretation that someone wants to apply different standards
>to "holocaust" history.
No paranoia involved -- deniers demonstrably *do* apply different
standards to the Holocaust than to other historical events.
>revisionism is deadly to MYTHS and LIES not to history, grow up.
And denial is deadly to the truth.
Which is why you engage in it.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be helge wrote
>sure - Zuendel is a liar and 100s of jewish "holocaust" "eyewitnesses"
>are not liars on the planet Shoa...
Of course, we can *prove* zundel is a liar, and you can't for those
100s of witnesses...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be helge wrote
>Roger wrote:
>> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be helge wrote
>> in message <3f7d54bb$0$23608$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>:
[snip]
>>>>>The magic pencils?
>>>>They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
>>>>and no bedtime snacks.
>>>so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
>>>how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
>>>prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
>>>IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM ! one of the biggest they ever had on the
>>>planet Shoa...
>> No, but it points out how shamelessly zundel lies.
>>>however none is trying to answer such "small" and "unimportant" mystery
>>>about how SS burned 800 000 jewish cadavers WITHOUT FUEL in Treblinka ?
>> Of course, no one but you is claiming that no fuel at all was used --
>> pointing out how shamelessly you lie.
>well so it is me who invented the Treblinka myth right ?
That particular one, yes.
>not Samuel Rajzman, Eliahu Rosenberg, Yankel Wiernik and other jewish
>eyewitnesses ?
None of whom ever claimed that no fuel at all was used.
>I invetned the
>fat-jewess-no-fuel-needed-bodies-burn-once-they-caught-fire miracale ?
That's not the same as no fuel at all.
>well I m not jewish - I do not have talent for that...
Obviously, since it is so transparent a lie.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be helge wrote
>William Daffer wrote:
>> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
[snip]
>> Yes, we're not surprised that you don't care about his lying. After
>> all, you believe Zuendel about the Holocaust.
>>>however none is trying to answer such "small" and "unimportant"
>>>mystery about how SS burned 800 000 jewish cadavers WITHOUT FUEL in
>>>Treblinka ?
>> Given the dubious nature of your information about the Holocaust,
>> you won't be surprised when we ask you to produce some evidence that
>> someone ever said any such thing, will you?
>Master Willy I m not the one who is claiming that there were (at least)
>8 00 000 bodies cremated in Treblinka in an open-air cremation on a huge
>grates - it is people like, Roger often refering to Yitzhak Arad's book.
Which of course, is not the same thing as you saying no fuel at all
was used to burn them...
>I might be wrong, excuse me master Willy, but I think that THOSE WHO
>CLAIM CERTAIN THINGS HAVE TO SUPPORT THEY CLAIMS WITH EVIDENCE.
Except if it happens to be you, evidently.
>The information about the fuel and transports of the fuel used for those
>open-air cremations was not provided for some "strange reason".
Not provided *where*?
>1. Do you want to say that 8 00 000 cadavers were not burned in Treblinka ?
>
>2. Do you want to say that 8 00 000 cadavers were burned in Treblinka
>without a fuel ?
>
>3. Do you want to say that 800 000 cadavers were creamted in Treblinka -
>and you have information and evidence about the fuel used for that
>cremation - THEN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE please - or as you say:
>So, chop chop.... Hop to it. Get those quotes, complete with full
>citations.
It's your contention that there was insufficient fuel for the task --
it's your responsibility to demonstrate how you came to that
conclusion.
helge
liars.
helge
DAILY open-air cremation of those 800 000 victims of Treblinka.
THAT'S YOUR CLAIM - YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS A CREMATION,
but you failed to provided any information about the fuel used for that
cremation.
the explanation is:
1. there was no fuel - therfore you are not able to provide evidence for it
3. because there was no fuel - there was no 6 months open air cremation
4. because the bodies couldn't be cremated without a fuel and there are
no non-cremated bodies in graves
5. the conclusion is that there were no 8 00 000 bodies cremated in
Treblinka
William Daffer
Claiming and proving are two different things.
whd
--
In <20010827224114...@mb-mr.aol.com>,
posted: 2001-08-27 19:42:01 PST
Nicegoy said: "You are an idiot as well as a liar Daffy!"
On Aug 28, I asked him to produce the lie. He has yet to answer.
This .sig file will be used until he answers this question, or
retracts the claim.
William Daffer
[snip]
> the explanation is:
> 1. there was no fuel - therfore you are not able to provide evidence for it
>
> 3. because there was no fuel - there was no 6 months open air cremation
>
> 4. because the bodies couldn't be cremated without a fuel
You sure about that, are you?
> and there
> are no non-cremated bodies in graves
>
> 5. the conclusion is that there were no 8 00 000 bodies cremated in
> Treblinka
Then by the very same argument there was no firebombing of Dresden.
Think about it before you answer.
whd
--
DEM's idea of 'freedom of speech'
John Morris:
I deny ever threatening to hire private investigators as you have
threatened to do.
The DEM
I've more than threatened to do it. I've done it. And as a result,
one particularly nasty poster of revisionists' personal details has
been rather quiet recently.
It should be noted that DEM can't be talking about John Morris, yet
the DEM has published the personal details of John Morris'
adviser. Perhaps the DEM thinks John Morris' adviser posted
personal details to alt.revisionism, which is ridiculous, since John
Morris' adviser has never posted to a.r.
No, it's clear to one and all, the DEM's purpose was to silence John
Morris by terrorizing his advisor.
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
> [snip]
>
>
>
>>the explanation is:
>>1. there was no fuel - therfore you are not able to provide evidence for it
>>
>>3. because there was no fuel - there was no 6 months open air cremation
>>
>>4. because the bodies couldn't be cremated without a fuel
>
>
> You sure about that, are you?
>
It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. You are not able to
decribe a technology of burning human body without fuel.
>
>
>>and there
>>are no non-cremated bodies in graves
>>
>>5. the conclusion is that there were no 8 00 000 bodies cremated in
>>Treblinka
>
>
> Then by the very same argument there was no firebombing of Dresden.
>
rubbish.
you can not compare Dresden bombing that is a fact with Treblinka
hearsay based myth, if you want - please:
present documentary photographic evidence simillar to Dresden evidence
for Treblinka (do not forget that Dreseden evidence is by both the
Germans AND the Allies)
DRESDEN: BTW, your comparisson is based on your lack of knowledge - yes
many of the bodies and rests after the bombing were burned BUT,
NOT ALL OF THEM - some 100s of bodies were burried without cremation,
the rests are still in the graves.
TREBLINKA: in Treblinka 100% of bodie were cremated - there are no 100s
of gassed but not cremated bodies in graves (ready for forensic medic to
investigate)
DRESDEN: those who were creamated in Dresden were not cremated to 100%
asch, because the reason to cremate them was not to "hide" something,
they were cremated because of hygienic reasons AND the rests and asch
from the cremation were not "used as a fertilizer on a field", or
"thrown into a river" - they were burried ON A CONCRETE PLACE, they are
still there - if you need them to investigate.
TREBLINKA:
those who were cremated despite the primitive open-air cremation on a
"grates made out of rails" were cremated into 100% asch THERE ARE NO
RESTS - as needed by Holohoax, AND the asch WAS REMOVED again 100% -
as needed by Holohoax.
the whole extermination: machinery new and old diesel "gass chambers",
cremation grates with it's concrete base were removed 100% - as needed
by Holohoax,
the traces after huge mass graves of size 50 x 25 x 10 were removed 100%
(it was never explained how !) - as needed by Holohoax
> Think about it before you answer.
>
Think about it before you ask.
> whd
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be helge wrote
>Roger wrote:
Keep lying about it -- maybe little tommie will believe you -- no one
more intelligent that he will, tho...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be helge wrote
>Roger wrote:
[snip]
>> It's your contention that there was insufficient fuel for the task --
>> it's your responsibility to demonstrate how you came to that
>> conclusion.
>no - no - it is your normative history fairy-tale about 6 months long
>DAILY open-air cremation of those 800 000 victims of Treblinka.
>THAT'S YOUR CLAIM - YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS A CREMATION,
>but you failed to provided any information about the fuel used for that
>cremation.
And? If you think information about those details will disprove it,
trot them out.
>the explanation is:
>1. there was no fuel - therfore you are not able to provide evidence for it
Except that there was, and I could.
>3. because there was no fuel - there was no 6 months open air cremation
As false as your first premise is.
>4. because the bodies couldn't be cremated without a fuel and there are
>no non-cremated bodies in graves
This phrase doesn't seem to be complete, but what there is, is wrong.
>5. the conclusion is that there were no 8 00 000 bodies cremated in
>Treblinka
Okay, now all you have to do is *prove* these premises, and you stand
a chance of supporting your conclusion.
But only a small chance.
helge
> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be helge wrote
> in message <3f7e16f1$0$23599$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>:
>
>
>>Roger wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>It's your contention that there was insufficient fuel for the task --
>>>it's your responsibility to demonstrate how you came to that
>>>conclusion.
>
>
>>no - no - it is your normative history fairy-tale about 6 months long
>>DAILY open-air cremation of those 800 000 victims of Treblinka.
>>THAT'S YOUR CLAIM - YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS A CREMATION,
>>but you failed to provided any information about the fuel used for that
>>cremation.
>
>
> And? If you think information about those details will disprove it,
> trot them out.
>
nothing will disprove "holocaust" myth in the eyes of holohuckster
bigot, no doubts...
you need and you want to have "Holocaust" .(period) no brain needed to
"understand" such logic.
>
>>the explanation is:
>>1. there was no fuel - therfore you are not able to provide evidence for it
>
>
> Except that there was, and I could.
>
I m sure that they fuel in Treblinka, however there is no evidence about
the fuel used for cremation of those 800 000 normative cadavers.
If there was such evidence the "generations of scholars of all nations
and faiths" would most likely discover it and present it.
>
>>3. because there was no fuel - there was no 6 months open air cremation
>
>
> As false as your first premise is.
>
I should prove that there wasn't a 6 months of open-air cremation ?
Isn't that you who should actually prove that there was a 6 months of
open-air cremation ?
>
>>4. because the bodies couldn't be cremated without a fuel and there are
>>no non-cremated bodies in graves
>
>
> This phrase doesn't seem to be complete,
continues in point 5.
> but what there is, is wrong.
>
well - if it is wrong, please show me the evidence about non-cremated
bodies in graves in Treblinka. so easy.
>
>>5. the conclusion is that there were no 8 00 000 bodies cremated in
>>Treblinka
>
>
> Okay, now all you have to do is *prove* these premises, and you stand
> a chance of supporting your conclusion.
>
My premises are that's what you call "normative history".
I do not claim that there were 800 000 jews gassed and cremated at
Treblinka - WHAT SHOULD I PROVE ?
You do claim that there were 800 000 jews gassed and cremated at
Treblinka - IT IS YOUR CLAIM, THERFORE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING
EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM.
YOU HAVE A CHANCE.
> But only a small chance.
your chance is not big, nor small - you have to provide evidence for
your claims - that's all.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be helge wrote
>Roger wrote:
>> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be helge wrote
>> in message <3f7e16f1$0$23599$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>:
>>>Roger wrote:
[snip]
>>>>It's your contention that there was insufficient fuel for the task --
>>>>it's your responsibility to demonstrate how you came to that
>>>>conclusion.
>>>no - no - it is your normative history fairy-tale about 6 months long
>>>DAILY open-air cremation of those 800 000 victims of Treblinka.
>>>THAT'S YOUR CLAIM - YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS A CREMATION,
>>>but you failed to provided any information about the fuel used for that
>>>cremation.
>> And? If you think information about those details will disprove it,
>> trot them out.
>nothing will disprove "holocaust" myth in the eyes of holohuckster
>bigot, no doubts...
>you need and you want to have "Holocaust" .(period) no brain needed to
>"understand" such logic.
Projection is *such* an ugly thing...
>>>the explanation is:
>>>1. there was no fuel - therfore you are not able to provide evidence for it
>> Except that there was, and I could.
>I m sure that they fuel in Treblinka, however there is no evidence about
>the fuel used for cremation of those 800 000 normative cadavers.
Wrong.
>If there was such evidence the "generations of scholars of all nations
>and faiths" would most likely discover it and present it.
And have done so -- in the many books that you will find at the
library that scares you so much.
>>>3. because there was no fuel - there was no 6 months open air cremation
>> As false as your first premise is.
>I should prove that there wasn't a 6 months of open-air cremation ?
>Isn't that you who should actually prove that there was a 6 months of
>open-air cremation ?
No, because it's already been done.
Ask your librarian. They don't bite, really.
>>>4. because the bodies couldn't be cremated without a fuel and there are
>>>no non-cremated bodies in graves
>> This phrase doesn't seem to be complete,
>continues in point 5.
Then there shouldn't be a point five (four, actually, since you
skipped 2) and it should be *included* in point three.
>> but what there is, is wrong.
>well - if it is wrong, please show me the evidence about non-cremated
>bodies in graves in Treblinka. so easy.
The wrong part is your claim that they couldn't be cremated, and your
suggest that there was no fuel.
>>>5. the conclusion is that there were no 8 00 000 bodies cremated in
>>>Treblinka
>> Okay, now all you have to do is *prove* these premises, and you stand
>> a chance of supporting your conclusion.
>My premises are that's what you call "normative history".
But since they aren't, you need to prove them.
>I do not claim that there were 800 000 jews gassed and cremated at
>Treblinka - WHAT SHOULD I PROVE ?
You premises above, obviously.
>You do claim that there were 800 000 jews gassed and cremated at
>Treblinka - IT IS YOUR CLAIM, THERFORE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING
>EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM.
>YOU HAVE A CHANCE.
Already been done. You might also try a bookstore, if libraries scare
you so much you cannot bring yourself to visit one.
>> But only a small chance.
>your chance is not big, nor small - you have to provide evidence for
>your claims - that's all.
What claims have *I* made in this thread?
helge
well I have Yitzhak Arad's book "Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The
Operation Reinhard Death Camps" on my desk (english version the
"hardcover" one from 1987) - ON WHAT PAGE DO YOU SAY IS THE REFERENCE
TO THE FUEL USED to burn those cca. 800 000 cadavers ?
and having the book on my desk it reminds me that you run away from a
debate about the lack of forensic investigation of those so called
"extermination" camps - you did produce the name of the above book
and LIED that it contains references to forensic investigation,
you are welcome to point me to a page in that book where Arad writes
about forensic investigation (of any of those 3 "extermination" camps)
>
>>>>3. because there was no fuel - there was no 6 months open air cremation
>
>
>>>As false as your first premise is.
>
>
>>I should prove that there wasn't a 6 months of open-air cremation ?
>>Isn't that you who should actually prove that there was a 6 months of
>>open-air cremation ?
>
>
> No, because it's already been done.
No it was not.
>
> Ask your librarian. They don't bite, really.
>
>
Well - the book is in front of me - and you are not able to produce a
page number, interesting... I read the book very carefuly - however I
did not find any references to forensic investigation, neither any
references about the fuel that was used for the open-air cremation of
those 8 00 000 cadavers.
>>>>4. because the bodies couldn't be cremated without a fuel and there are
>>>>no non-cremated bodies in graves
>
>
>>>This phrase doesn't seem to be complete,
>
>
>>continues in point 5.
>
>
> Then there shouldn't be a point five (four, actually, since you
> skipped 2) and it should be *included* in point three.
>
>
>>>but what there is, is wrong.
>
>
>>well - if it is wrong, please show me the evidence about non-cremated
>>bodies in graves in Treblinka. so easy.
>
>
> The wrong part is your claim that they couldn't be cremated,
without fuel, right.
> and your
> suggest that there was no fuel.
>
no there was no fuel for the open-air cremation of 8 00 000 cadavers,
none ever provided evidence for it.
I posted the (revisionistic) estimation already - you are welcome to
post your estimation, point to any mistakes in the revisionistic
estimation BUT AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING you have to prove the
existence of the fuel.
>
>>>>5. the conclusion is that there were no 8 00 000 bodies cremated in
>>>>Treblinka
>
>
>>>Okay, now all you have to do is *prove* these premises, and you stand
>>>a chance of supporting your conclusion.
>
>
>>My premises are that's what you call "normative history".
>
>
> But since they aren't, you need to prove them.
>
couple of days ago you said that Yitzhak Arad's book is "normative
history", is it not anymore ?
>
>>I do not claim that there were 800 000 jews gassed and cremated at
>>Treblinka - WHAT SHOULD I PROVE ?
>
>
> You premises above, obviously.
>
the premises are just a simple logical conclusion based on the
(mysteries of) "normative holocaust" history.
>
>>You do claim that there were 800 000 jews gassed and cremated at
>>Treblinka - IT IS YOUR CLAIM, THERFORE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING
>>EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM.
>>YOU HAVE A CHANCE.
>
>
> Already been done.
Was not. Repeating the lie won't change the facts and reality.
> You might also try a bookstore, if libraries scare
> you so much you cannot bring yourself to visit one.
>
>
>>>But only a small chance.
>
>
>>your chance is not big, nor small - you have to provide evidence for
>>your claims - that's all.
>
>
> What claims have *I* made in this thread?
you've been claiming that there is evidence for fuel used for open-air
cremation of 800 000 jewish cadavers in Treblinka.
you have been claiming (actually LYING) that there are references to the
forensic investigation of "extermination" camp's in Arad's book "Belzec,
Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps".
or do you want to say that there were no 800 000 jewish cadavers burned
in Treblinka ?
William Daffer
> William Daffer wrote:
>> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>the explanation is:
>>>1. there was no fuel - therfore you are not able to provide evidence for it
>>>
>>>3. because there was no fuel - there was no 6 months open air cremation
>>>
>>> 4. because the bodies couldn't be cremated without a fuel
>> You sure about that, are you?
>>
>
> It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. You are not able to
> decribe a technology of burning human body without fuel.
Surely the fact that I haven't described it to you doesn't mean that
the explanation doesn't exist!
So, I ask you again: You sure about that, are you?
>
>>
>>>and there
>>>are no non-cremated bodies in graves
>>>
>>>5. the conclusion is that there were no 8 00 000 bodies cremated in
>>>Treblinka
>> Then by the very same argument there was no firebombing of Dresden.
>>
>
> rubbish.
> you can not compare Dresden bombing that is a fact with Treblinka
> hearsay based myth,
Sure you can: as regards the open-air burning of corpses. That's the
question we're discussing, in case you've forgotten.
And if someone argues that the impossibility of open-air burning of
corpses implies that Treblinka didn't happen, then they have to
explain how the same argument doesn't also apply to Dresden!
Having read ahead I see that you're about to weather a veritable sea
of irrelevancies!
> if you want - please:
>
> present documentary photographic evidence simillar to Dresden evidence
> for Treblinka (do not forget that Dreseden evidence is by both the
> Germans AND the Allies)
Irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what was
possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
Certainly it can't have anything to do with the absence of photographs.
>
> DRESDEN: BTW, your comparisson is based on your lack of knowledge -
> yes many of the bodies and rests after the bombing were burned BUT,
> NOT ALL OF THEM - some 100s of bodies were burried without cremation,
> the rests are still in the graves.
>
>
> TREBLINKA: in Treblinka 100% of bodie were cremated - there are no
> 100s of gassed but not cremated bodies in graves (ready for forensic
> medic to investigate)
Irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what was
possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
Certainly it can't have anything to do with the fact that some
bodies were buried at Dresden, where the Nazis had no need to hide
the facts of their crime, while all were eventually burned at
Treblinka, where they did have such need.
>
> DRESDEN: those who were creamated in Dresden were not cremated to 100%
> asch, because the reason to cremate them was not to "hide" something,
> they were cremated because of hygienic reasons AND the rests and asch
> from the cremation were not "used as a fertilizer on a field", or
> "thrown into a river" - they were burried ON A CONCRETE PLACE, they
> are still there - if you need them to investigate.
>
> TREBLINKA:
> those who were cremated despite the primitive open-air cremation on a
> "grates made out of rails" were cremated into 100% asch THERE ARE NO
> RESTS - as needed by Holohoax, AND the asch WAS REMOVED again 100% -
> as needed by Holohoax.
Again, irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what was
possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
Certainly it can't have anything to do the fact that at Dresden the
Nazis had no need to hide the evidence of their crime while at
Treblinka they did.
You're not very good at this, are you?
> the whole extermination: machinery new and old diesel "gass chambers",
> cremation grates with it's concrete base were removed 100% - as needed
> by Holohoax,
Again, irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what
was possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
Certainly it can't have anything to do fact that the Nazis attempted
to remove evidence of their crime at Treblinka.
I was expecting to see some argument about the question at hand, you
seem to have forgotten what we're talking about.
> the traces after huge mass graves of size 50 x 25 x 10 were removed 100%
> (it was never explained how !) - as needed by Holohoax
Again, irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what was
possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
Certainly the physics of cremation don't depend upon whether graves
were discovered.
But, in fact, you're wrong on the facts. Again. (this is getting to
be a tiresome habit with you) The Nazis did NOT succeed in removing
all evidence of their crimes. At Belzec graves sites totally 33,000
cubic meters were mapped by archaeological core samples.
See: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/belzec
There's also a famous escavation Serniki in the Ukraine, where
disposition at the grave site quite closely corroborated the
testimony of the town's people.
See:
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~jb3/war/war.html
<insert anti-semitic canard here>
So even on this point you're wrong, and you're wrong for the very
reason I raised when first I responded to you: you're bone
ignorant about the history you're attempting to criticise.
>
>> Think about it before you answer.
>>
> Think about it before you ask.
I did. I had hoped that you would take the hint and do a little
research before you spouted off in your ignorant way, but you can't
seem to resist the urge to 'shot from the lip.' So, you didn't
follow my advice and now you look even more the total fool than
before, if that's even possible.
As I've shown, you're wrong about the impossibility of open-air
cremation at Treblinka, it's just as possible there as it was at
Dresden where, you agree, it did happen.
Strangely enough you seem very confused on why other circumstances
would vary between the two instances, and you seem to think that
these easily explained but ultimately irrelevant differences (one of
which you explained yourself!) should bear upon the question of the
possibility of open-air cremation at Treblinka! You seem
particularly concerned with the question of why the Nazis would seek
to obliterate evidence of a crime at Treblinka: you find this fact
puzzling. But you have a very weird world view.
And finally, as a bonus, you have, with your claim that there's *NO*
evidence of mass graves, once again demonstrated your near total
ignorance about the facts of history when . This is quite simply
false and this new claim adds weight to my counter-claim: that
you're bone ignorant about the very history you seek to critique.
It's just that simple. You're just like most deniers: you don't know
anything about history and it's rather easy to get you to
demonstrate your ignorance.
Thanks!
whd
--
In 3b9e...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk: David E. Michael expressed his
support for the bombers of Washington and New York, who in the course
of their terrorist acts caused the downing of at least 4 commercial
airliners and the destruction of two buildings with a greater loss of
life than occurred at Pearl Harbor, most of it civilian, said:
"I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment."
William Daffer
[snip]
>
> I m sure that they fuel in Treblinka, however there is no evidence
> about the fuel used for cremation of those 800 000 normative cadavers.
There's the missing 800,000 people! Wait: don't tell me! They're all
living in Israel and New York!
> If there was such evidence the "generations of scholars of all nations
> and faiths" would most likely discover it and present it.
And where's your evidence of the fuel used to cremate the bodies at
Dresden? No historian has ever presented that evidence. By your
argument the cremations never occured!
Think about it for a hour or 100 before you answer. Or, as is your
habit, don't; and come out more the fool for your haste.
Sara Salzman
William Daffer <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote:
> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > I m sure that they fuel in Treblinka, however there is no evidence
> > about the fuel used for cremation of those 800 000 normative cadavers.
>
> There's the missing 800,000 people! Wait: don't tell me! They're all
> living in Israel and New York!
>
Don't forget Miami. One of these clowns told me my missing family were
all living in Miami.
Sara
>
>
> > If there was such evidence the "generations of scholars of all nations
> > and faiths" would most likely discover it and present it.
>
> And where's your evidence of the fuel used to cremate the bodies at
> Dresden? No historian has ever presented that evidence. By your
> argument the cremations never occured!
>
> Think about it for a hour or 100 before you answer. Or, as is your
> habit, don't; and come out more the fool for your haste.
>
> whd
--
8Man
"William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:1pmcnck7PsB...@giganews.com...
> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
[..stuff snipped]
> --
> DEM's idea of 'freedom of speech'
>
> John Morris:
> I deny ever threatening to hire private investigators as you have
> threatened to do.
>
> The DEM
> I've more than threatened to do it. I've done it. And as a result,
> one particularly nasty poster of revisionists' personal details has
> been rather quiet recently.
>
> It should be noted that DEM can't be talking about John Morris, yet
> the DEM has published the personal details of John Morris'
> adviser. Perhaps the DEM thinks John Morris' adviser posted
> personal details to alt.revisionism, which is ridiculous, since John
> Morris' adviser has never posted to a.r.
>
> No, it's clear to one and all, the DEM's purpose was to silence John
> Morris by terrorizing his advisor.
.. why would John Morris need an "advisor" in order to post to a.r.?
Does John Morris require assistance from his "advisor" in order to
formulate his opinions before posting to a.r.?
How do you know this "advisor" was "terrorized" by anything DEM posted?
Patrick Keenan
news:3f81c6d4$0$16188$2c56...@news.cablerocket.com...
>
> "William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1pmcnck7PsB...@giganews.com...
> > helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
> [..stuff snipped]
> > --
> > DEM's idea of 'freedom of speech'
> >
> > John Morris:
> > I deny ever threatening to hire private investigators as you have
> > threatened to do.
> >
> > The DEM
> > I've more than threatened to do it. I've done it. And as a result,
> > one particularly nasty poster of revisionists' personal details has
> > been rather quiet recently.
> >
> > It should be noted that DEM can't be talking about John Morris, yet
> > the DEM has published the personal details of John Morris'
> > adviser. Perhaps the DEM thinks John Morris' adviser posted
> > personal details to alt.revisionism, which is ridiculous, since John
> > Morris' adviser has never posted to a.r.
> >
> > No, it's clear to one and all, the DEM's purpose was to silence John
> > Morris by terrorizing his advisor.
>
> .. why would John Morris need an "advisor" in order to post to a.r.?
He does not. However, Mr. Morris is at an academic institution, and so has
an 'advisor' there.
> Does John Morris require assistance from his "advisor" in order to
> formulate his opinions before posting to a.r.?
No. The advisor has no involvement in this whatsoever, and yet personal
details of that person were posted here.
> How do you know this "advisor" was "terrorized" by anything DEM posted?
What DEM allegedly posted was some of the advisor's alleged personal details
(I have no idea if they were correct or not), with encouragements to contact
him. Are you defending this kind of action?
-pk
William Daffer
> "William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1pmcnck7PsB...@giganews.com...
>> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
> [..stuff snipped]
>> --
>> DEM's idea of 'freedom of speech'
>>
>> John Morris:
>> I deny ever threatening to hire private investigators as you have
>> threatened to do.
>>
>> The DEM
>> I've more than threatened to do it. I've done it. And as a result,
>> one particularly nasty poster of revisionists' personal details has
>> been rather quiet recently.
>>
>> It should be noted that DEM can't be talking about John Morris, yet
>> the DEM has published the personal details of John Morris'
>> adviser. Perhaps the DEM thinks John Morris' adviser posted
>> personal details to alt.revisionism, which is ridiculous, since John
>> Morris' adviser has never posted to a.r.
>>
>> No, it's clear to one and all, the DEM's purpose was to silence John
>> Morris by terrorizing his advisor.
>
> .. why would John Morris need an "advisor" in order to post to a.r.?
He doesn't, stupid. I was refering to his thesis advisor. I guess
I'm not surprised that you wouldn't know anything about a thesis
advisor.
And did you know that you're responding to a .sig file?
> Does John Morris require assistance from his "advisor" in order to
> formulate his opinions before posting to a.r.?
>
> How do you know this "advisor" was "terrorized" by anything DEM posted?
I didn't say he had been terrorized, idiot. I said that was clearly
DEM's purpose.
Do you have to work at being so stupid?
whd
--
Joe Bellinger, in <20030719171105...@mb-m14.aol.com>
speaking of his method for checking the veracity of quotes.
If I had an interest in researching it, I would have done so.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3f81c6d4$0$16188$2c56...@news.cablerocket.com> in
alt.revisionism, on Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:29:13 -0700, "8Man"
<us...@isp.com> wrote:
I don't. William is referring to my dissertation supervisor's.
David E. Michael posted my supervisor's home phone number and address
to alt.revisionism with an invitation to call and harass him. The
suggestion was that I might lose employment or scholarships if enough
calls were made.
> Does John Morris require assistance from his "advisor" in order to
> formulate his opinions before posting to a.r.?
> How do you know this "advisor" was "terrorized" by anything DEM
> posted?
I'll tell you right now: one David E. Michael's criminal
co-conspirators made a series of harassing telephone calls to my
supervisor's home. The family had to train their young son to check
the number on the caller ID before picking up the phone.
It is the sort of cowardly tactic that I think you might support.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBP4I5p5QgvG272fn9EQJ/qgCg44OtOP8FAg/1iUrfMIX5ikdgZMcAoLCO
PTPoIbTB/IETFsZe0sUcz05H
=0AKm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
helge
WHAT ?!?
You are an absolut idiot - what was "possible at Dresden was impossible
at Treblinka?"
1. Dresden - the people of Dresden died in the bombing, BUT THEY DID NOT
"DISAPPEAR" during the bombing - I never heard anyone claiming that
the victims of Dresden bombin disappeared during the bombing - even you
are not so stupid - you are just a liar who was caught in his own lies -
so you created this absurdity.
The people of Dresden died during the bombing:
- part of them died in the destroyed buildings
- part of the suffocated to death because of the lack of oxygen
- part of them suffered deadly injuries because of the heat
HOWEVER - they bodies DID NOT DISAPPEAR - they were:
- burried
- cremated and burried
AS WELL the graves of bodies and the mass graves of creamted human rests
and those who were not identified DID NOT DISAPPEAR but EXISTS and
could be investigated.
At Treblinka:
1. allegedly 800 000 jews were gassed
2. between July 1942 -April 1943 the bodies of gassed victims were
burried in (2?) large mass graves (50mx25mx10m)
3. from April 1943-July 1943 the bodies of gassed victims were creamted
on big grates, as well the bodies of those previously burried were
exhumed and cremated
NONE ever saw:
1. bodies or rests of bodies of victims - 100% were destroyed
2. there is no human ash from those 800 000 bodies
3. huge 50mx25mx10m graves were not discovered
4. what fuel and from where was used to cremate those 800 000 bodies is
a secret as well
5. there is photo evidence
6. there is lots of conflicting jewish "eyewitness testimonies"
WHAT execatly di you want to say ?
What was POSSIBLE at Dresden and was "IMPOSSIBLE" at Treblinka ?
>
> Certainly it can't have anything to do with the absence of photographs.
>
>
>
>>DRESDEN: BTW, your comparisson is based on your lack of knowledge -
>>yes many of the bodies and rests after the bombing were burned BUT,
>>NOT ALL OF THEM - some 100s of bodies were burried without cremation,
>>the rests are still in the graves.
>>
>>
>>TREBLINKA: in Treblinka 100% of bodie were cremated - there are no
>>100s of gassed but not cremated bodies in graves (ready for forensic
>>medic to investigate)
>
>
>
> Irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what was
> possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
>
As explained above NONE EVER CLAIMED (EXCEPT YOU) THAT (800 000)
BODIES "DISAPPEARED" DURING THE BOMBING OF DRESDEN without any traces.
You failed to answer the question - parroting "Irrelevant to the
question" won't replace the facts.
> Certainly it can't have anything to do with the fact that some
> bodies were buried at Dresden, where the Nazis had no need to hide
> the facts of their crime, while all were eventually burned at
> Treblinka, where they did have such need.
>
>
>
>
>>DRESDEN: those who were creamated in Dresden were not cremated to 100%
>>asch, because the reason to cremate them was not to "hide" something,
>>they were cremated because of hygienic reasons AND the rests and asch
>>from the cremation were not "used as a fertilizer on a field", or
>>"thrown into a river" - they were burried ON A CONCRETE PLACE, they
>>are still there - if you need them to investigate.
>>
>>TREBLINKA:
>>those who were cremated despite the primitive open-air cremation on a
>>"grates made out of rails" were cremated into 100% asch THERE ARE NO
>>RESTS - as needed by Holohoax, AND the asch WAS REMOVED again 100% -
>>as needed by Holohoax.
>
>
>
> Again, irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what was
> possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
>
> Certainly it can't have anything to do the fact that at Dresden the
> Nazis had no need to hide the evidence of their crime while at
> Treblinka they did.
>
> You're not very good at this, are you?
>
As explained above NONE EVER CLAIMED (EXCEPT YOU) THAT (800 000)
BODIES "DISAPPEARED" DURING THE BOMBING OF DRESDEN without any traces.
You failed to answer the question - parroting "Irrelevant to the
question" won't replace the facts.
>
>
>>the whole extermination: machinery new and old diesel "gass chambers",
>>cremation grates with it's concrete base were removed 100% - as needed
>>by Holohoax,
>
>
>
> Again, irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what
> was possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
>
> Certainly it can't have anything to do fact that the Nazis attempted
> to remove evidence of their crime at Treblinka.
>
> I was expecting to see some argument about the question at hand, you
> seem to have forgotten what we're talking about.
>
As explained above NONE EVER CLAIMED (EXCEPT YOU) THAT (800 000)
BODIES "DISAPPEARED" DURING THE BOMBING OF DRESDEN without any traces.
You failed to answer the question - parroting "Irrelevant to the
question" won't replace the facts.
>
>
>>the traces after huge mass graves of size 50 x 25 x 10 were removed 100%
>>(it was never explained how !) - as needed by Holohoax
>
>
>
> Again, irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what was
> possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
>
> Certainly the physics of cremation don't depend upon whether graves
> were discovered.
>
As explained above NONE EVER CLAIMED (EXCEPT YOU) THAT (800 000)
BODIES "DISAPPEARED" DURING THE BOMBING OF DRESDEN without any traces.
You failed to answer the question - parroting "Irrelevant to the
question" won't replace the facts.
>
> But, in fact, you're wrong on the facts. Again. (this is getting to
> be a tiresome habit with you) The Nazis did NOT succeed in removing
> all evidence of their crimes. At Belzec graves sites totally 33,000
> cubic meters were mapped by archaeological core samples.
>
We were talking about Treblinka. I did not question archaeological core
samples of Belzec, did I ?
> See: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/belzec
>
> There's also a famous escavation Serniki in the Ukraine, where
> disposition at the grave site quite closely corroborated the
> testimony of the town's people.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.soton.ac.uk/~jb3/war/war.html
>
> <insert anti-semitic canard here>
>
> So even on this point you're wrong, and you're wrong for the very
> reason I raised when first I responded to you: you're bone
> ignorant about the history you're attempting to criticise.
>
>
>
>>> Think about it before you answer.
>>>
>>
>>Think about it before you ask.
>
>
> I did. I had hoped that you would take the hint and do a little
> research before you spouted off in your ignorant way, but you can't
> seem to resist the urge to 'shot from the lip.' So, you didn't
> follow my advice and now you look even more the total fool than
> before, if that's even possible.
>
> As I've shown,
You did not show anything.
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>I m sure that they fuel in Treblinka, however there is no evidence
>>about the fuel used for cremation of those 800 000 normative cadavers.
>
>
> There's the missing 800,000 people! Wait: don't tell me! They're all
> living in Israel and New York!
>
After you present the EVIDENCE that there are "800,000 missing people"
we can move on to discuss where they are. I'll be here waitting for you.
>
>
>
>>If there was such evidence the "generations of scholars of all nations
>>and faiths" would most likely discover it and present it.
>
>
> And where's your evidence of the fuel used to cremate the bodies at
> Dresden? No historian has ever presented that evidence. By your
> argument the cremations never occured!
no that's not true - even if it was true that "No historian has ever
presented that evidence" - THERE ARE THE GRAVES AND MASSGRAVES with the
bodies and rests of bodies and ash in them !
In Treblinka there are NO BODIES, NO RESTS OF BODIES, NO ASH, NO GRAVES
AND NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE TYPE AND SOURCE OF THE FUEL that would be
required by the open air creamtion as described in the jewish
"eyewitness testimonies".
Victims of the bombing of Dresden were "just Germans" - normal humans,
not "the choosen ones", after
a German dies there is (surprise, surprise) a body, if they cremate the
body there is ash,
but none of them (the ash or the body) DISAPPEARS the "Holocaust" style,
BUT IT STILL HERE ON THIS PLANET IN A GRAVE AND COULD BE INVESTIGATED.
William Daffer
> William Daffer wrote:
[snip]
>>>if you want - please:
>>>
>>>present documentary photographic evidence simillar to Dresden evidence
>>>for Treblinka (do not forget that Dreseden evidence is by both the
>>>Germans AND the Allies)
>> Irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what was
>> possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
>
> WHAT ?!?
> You are an absolut idiot - what was "possible at Dresden was
> impossible at Treblinka?"
It's clear that I'm going to have to write *very, very* simple
English, because you can't understand anything beyond that.
Here's a class in remedial English. An English sentence that starts
with an independent clause (that's a complete sentence which isn't
signified as being such by a period at the end) followed by a colon
(that's the ':') followed by a phrase or independent clause should,
be read as if the colon (that's the ':') means "that is" or 'which
is."
So, that sentence reads;
'Irrelevant to the question, which is, how can you maintain that what
was possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?'
Get it? You claimed that open-air cremation at Treblinka was
impossible. I answered that they did it at Dresden. So far your
response is: yes, but they have graves at Dresden.
They have graves at Treblinka too, stupid. And at Belzec and Sobibor
and Majdanek and Auschwitz/Birkenau and, indeed, at the hundreds (or
thousands) of Einsatzgruppen killing sites.
So again, where's the difference?
>
> 1. Dresden - the people of Dresden died in the bombing, BUT THEY DID
> NOT "DISAPPEAR" during the bombing
Overlooking the 'during', people most certainly are claiming that
the dead were cremated in just the sort of 'open-air cremation' you
say *was impossible at Treblinka*! (Is it beginning to sink in,
doofus?) Therefore they 'disappeared' in precisely the same way they
'disappeared' at Treblinka.
Is the light beginning to shine into the impenetrable darkness that is
your brain?
> - I never heard anyone claiming that
> the victims of Dresden bombin disappeared during the bombing
Nor do you hear anyone, except stupid deniers like yourself,
claiming that the dead at Treblinka disappeared in any way different
from the dead at Dresden.
There are graves, they contain remains from cremations. The Belzec
dig proves this, not that it needed proving.
Are you getting the picture yet? You can't possibly be *this*
stupid.
> - even you are not so stupid - you are just a liar who was caught in
> his own> lies - so you created this absurdity.
The rest of your response, having following the same mindless
stupidty, is mercifully discarded. I can't see how we can continue
until you've shown that you can get beyond this *first step* in the
argument.
However, I must say that you have, so far, demonstrated that you are
so completely impenetrable, so armored against the intrusion of
logic, that I can't see any way to pursue even that limited
discussion which passes for rational discourse when one is
conversing with holocaust deniers.
You're like a (slightly) more functional Kurt Knoll.
[snip]
whd
--
Kurt Knolls enjoins us:
Bellow is your Gas Wagon Jeffery Enjoy.
William Daffer
> William Daffer wrote:
>> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>I m sure that they fuel in Treblinka, however there is no evidence
>>>about the fuel used for cremation of those 800 000 normative cadavers.
>> There's the missing 800,000 people! Wait: don't tell me! They're
>> all
>> living in Israel and New York!
>>
>
> After you present the EVIDENCE that there are "800,000 missing people"
> we can move on to discuss where they are. I'll be here waitting for you.
Well, the fact of the matter is that you're the one with the burden
of proof. The historicity of the Holocaust is well established.
You're the skeptic, so it's up to you to prove that your skepticism
is rational. Simply bellowing that you don't believe it isn't
rational. There are people who believe that the Earth is
flat, after all.
But if you want a hint as to the task awaiting you:
Talk to the survivors. Talk to the family members of those
missing. Try to keep in that little brain of yours that not all
survivors or their families are Jewish. Then tell me it's rational
to believe that they're *all* lying when they tell of missing family
members.
Go look at all the Einsatzgruppen reports that show the clear intent
of the Nazi policy to murder Jews. Try to argue that it's rational
to believe that all these reports, which are corroborated by other
Nazi documentation (movement orders, logistical reports, troop
orders, etc.) were all forged along with all the corroborating
documentation.
Then go look at all the transportation records that show people
being moved to the Reinhardt camps and then disappearing. Then tell
me it's rational to believe that all this documentation has been
forged.
Look at all the corroborating documentation: the troop orders, the
transportation orders, the deportation orders, the logistical
reports, the statistical reports, there are literally 10s of
thousands of them. Then tell me it's rational to believe that
someone forged all these documents!
Try to explain the Wannsee protocol, the Posnan speech, the various
references in Goebbel's diary, Frank's diary, the various telegrams,
the Auschwitz building documents, in some way *other* than the
Holocaust. Or, althernatively, try to argue that all these documents
were forged.
Then go look at all the evidence submitted at trial and the
testimony given by the perpetrators both immediately after the war
and 20 years later in the various trials conducted in Germany in the
60s and tell me that it's rational to believe that *all* that
evidence was forged and all of these people were coerced.
Then go to the Belzec dig and tell me that it's rational to believe
that somehow, someone deposited 33,000 cubic feet of human remains
into the graves there just to perpetrate this hoax. Or try to tell
me it's rational to believe that the investigation and report were
rigged despite the fact that the news agencies followed it and the
Polish Government was involved!
Or go to Strankik and tell me that it's rational to believe that
someone constructed that gravesite so that it would *exactly
corroborate* the testimony of the town's people who witnesses the EG
action there!
Then tell me how the vast majority of historical research being done
by historians, many of them *GERMAN*, is all wrong.
Go ahead, tell us how to fit all that together in the *real world*,
not the cloud-cuckoo-land that is your racist fantasies!
Perhaps then you'll understand why people laugh at you.
Me? I believe the cumulative implication of all this data so I have
no need for further verification. If it comes, that's nice, but it
certainly isn't required. You can't accuse me of being untrue to my
principles as I can accuse you.
>
>>
>>>If there was such evidence the "generations of scholars of all nations
>>>and faiths" would most likely discover it and present it.
>> And where's your evidence of the fuel used to cremate the bodies at
>> Dresden? No historian has ever presented that evidence. By your
>> argument the cremations never occured!
>
> no that's not true -
It most certainly is. You're arguing that because someone hasn't
shown you anything discussing the fuel used that there must have
been no fuel and therefore there couldn't have been any
cremations. This assertion partakes of *two* logical fallacies: that
'absence of proof' is 'proof of absence' and 'hasty
conclusion.' Moreover, I assert that the situation is exactly
analogous to Dresden: you've produced no evidence concerning the
fuel used in Dresden to cremate bodies. By your own argument those
cremations didn't occur and the final cause of the deaths, namely
the bombing of Dresden, also didn't occur.
Don't blame me, it's *your argument*!
> even if it was true that "No historian has ever
> presented that evidence" - THERE ARE THE GRAVES AND MASSGRAVES with
> the bodies and rests of bodies and ash in them !
Ah, but now you've shifted your ground, _now_ the argument is 'if
there aren't any reports detailing the type of fuel used it could
nevertheless be true that cremations occured, but there must be
graves with remains and ash in them.'
So let's analysize my analogy. Let's take the assumptions you, as a
holocaust denier, make about Treblinka and apply them to
Dresden. Your assumption is, "until someone proves otherwise using
the methods I demand, I'm going to take as the default position that
no one died at Treblinka." So, assuming the same for Dresden, namely
that Dresden did not occur until proved otherwise and the
hypothetical 'doubter' requires that proof of a certain sort be
presented before he changes his mind. My purpose is to demonstrate
that the knowledge that you have for both is the same and, were you
true to your epistemological (that means 'theory of knowledge')
principles, you *should* hold the same beliefs about both.
Then, and here's the kicker, the fact that you DO NOT follow the
dictates of your own argument will demonstrate your hypocrisy and
double-standard. You don't care what knowledge (in the sense of
rational argument and evidence assessment) is to be had, you care
only that your fore-ordained conclusions that Jews were murdered at
the hands of the Nazis be sustained and you're willing to disobey
all the rules of logic and evidence to get to that conclusions.
I point out that you can't make the same criticism of me. I don't
impost such ridiculous restrictions on what constitutes a 'proof' in
history.
Let's begin.
To recap, you've complained of the lack of any reports of the fuel
used at Treblinka. I replied that you have no reports of the fuel
used at Dresden.
Point 1: in both cases there are no reports of the fuel used.
Nevertheless you continue to maintain that open-air cremation was
possible at Dresden but impossible at Treblinka.
You've complained that you have no need of reports of fuel, because
you *COULD* check the graves at Dresden. I translate that to mean
that you know of reports of graves in Dresden and you believe that
you could, if you wanted, go dig them up. Let's ponder this a bit
further.
I point out that the presence of mass grave does not, in and of
itself, prove cremations. One must have graves of a particular
sort. You'vew produced no evidence that these 'graves' are of the
right sort.
Now, there are reports of graves at Treblinka, just as there are
reports of graves in Dresden. Since you haven't actually done your
'forensic' investigation, so far that's all you have, reports. So
the analogy still holds: you have exactly the same evidence for
Dresden as you do for Treblinka.
Point 2: in both cases there are no reports of the fuel used yet
both have reports of graves.
Nevertheless you continue to maintain that open-air cremation was
possible at Dresden but impossible at Treblinka.
However, accoring to the 'denier methodology' this isn't enough, the
only thing which decides the issue is 'forensic' investigation.
If you answer; 'but I *could* do a forensic investigation at
Dresden' I would first answer, 'So can I.' At this very moment in
history both of us have just as much possibility of doing
investigations of graves sites as does the other. So, again, there's
no difference between the 'Treblinka doubter' and the 'Dresden
doubter.'
Point 3: We both could do investigations of the graves.
Yet you continue to maintain that open-air cremation was
possible at Dresden but impossible at Treblinka.
Are you beginning to see the pattern here?
But, on reflection, my second answer to your claim that you COULD,
if you wanted, do a 'forensic' investigation proving your claims
about Dresden would be, "Can you? Really? Are you sure? Have you
tried?"
Remember, we're translating your epistemological skepticism about
Treblinka into skepticism about Dresden, so all the assumptions you
hold about Treblinka must apply to Dresden. In particular you take
the position that everthing has to be proved to you about Treblinka
because you believe all reports of the murders there are, in fact, the
result of some grand conspiracy by a group of liars to subvert
historical truth, so our hypothetical 'Dresden doubter' must take
the same position with regard to Dresden. And since you believe that
until it's proved to you that these people died you assume they
didn't, we must posit the same assumptions for our hypothetical
'Dresden denier.'
Now, ponder the fate of our hypothetical 'Dresden denier' who goes
to the Dresden authorities and says, in effect, "I doubt that there
was ever a bombing here in which 10s of thousands died and their
bodies cremated, and, in fact, I believe that all the people who
report otherwise are liars until it can be proved to my satisfaction
that they aren't, and I want to investigate this 'question' by doing
an exhumation just to be sure." I suspect that the Dresden
authorities would, at best, laugh our 'Dresden denier' out of the
room and, at worst, beat him insensate. I suspect they would say to
our 'Dresden denier', "Who are you to desecrate the graves of the 10s
of thousands who died and were buried without the benefit and
comfort of a proper Christian burial? Who are you to doubt the the
historical accounts of the time which speak of the many dead? Who
are you to doubt the word of the hundreds of thousands of survivors
who report their loss?"
And they'd be right! We don't need to do any exhumations to prove
the historical fact that Dresden was bombed and 10s of thousands
died. We know it from precisely the same sort of evidence we know
that Treblinka was a death camp: the official records. But I'm not
the one dictating the 'rules of evidence' here, I'm just taking you
at your word and analysing what *you* would require in order to
establish historical fact if you were a 'Dresden denier' instead of
a 'Treblinka denier.'
Mutatis mutandis, (that means 'change what needs to be changed,
i.e. change 'Dresden' to 'Treblinka') that sort of dialog is
precisely the sort of thing you, as 'Treblinka denier' would say to
the authorities at Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and Auschwitz! So why
are you surprised that, were you to go to Poland and say, "I don't
believe that anyone was murdered here, why don't you let me do a dig
in order to make the determination?" that you'd be denied the right
to disturb the graves of hundreds of thousands of the victims of
racially motivated murder? Who are you, who believes that there's a
vast conspiracy to subvert truth run by 'the Jews', who believes
that all Jews are liars, who knows next to nothing about what the
evidence of history *really* says, who is so arrogant to believe you
have the right to disturb their graves?
So now the analysis of the problems of determining whether Dresden
occured is, again, *exactly* equivalent to Treblinka: neither of the
groups of the 'powers that be', given the repugnance of the default
'opinion', would allow the 'denier' to do the 'forensic'
investigation.
Point 4: both would be denied their 'forensic' investigation.
In fact, your methodology compels more of the 'Dresden denier.' It
requires hime to believe that Dresden DID NOT OCCUR. Why? Becauuse,
according to your weird mindset, the city fathers are attempting to
stifle your research and that can mean only one thing: there's a
conspiracy to subvert the truth and you're default belief that no
one died must be true! You'd never think that they may have a
perfectly good reason to deny you your 'forensic' investigation that
has absolutely nothing to do with attempting to hide anything. They
simply find your 'doubt' repugnant and your desires ghoulish and
racist.
>
> In Treblinka there are NO BODIES, NO RESTS OF BODIES, NO ASH, NO GRAVES
> AND NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE TYPE AND SOURCE OF THE FUEL
As I keep saying: how do you know? Have you done the very forensic
investigation you keep claiming is the desideratum of truth that
proves there are no remains (not 'rests')
One wonders if it will ever get through that thick skull of yours?
> that would be
> required by the open air creamtion as described in the jewish
> "eyewitness testimonies".
Why? All you have to support your claims of the open air cremations
in Dresden is german 'eyewitness testimonies.' and the very same
sort of official 'documentation' that exists for Treblinka. No
'forensic' reports. No autopsies. Nothing more than 'reports' of
graves, bodies, cremations and ash. No 'rests', no 'ash.'
The 'Dresden denier' would reject that testimony out of hand, just
like you, as the fabrications of the racist haters of the British or
Americans, grand conspirators bent on extracting, via the Marshall
plan, the most for the pain and suffering of the poor, downtrodden
German people!
Me? I believe history, so I don't have need of such artificial
qualifications on my knowledge like you do. I understand that it's
pretty hard to have hundreds of thousands of people, victim and
perpetrator alike, give mutually corroborating accounts and maintain
the claim that all are either lying, mistaken or have been
coerced. It's even harder when there's literally tons of
corroborating documentation almost all of it created by the
perpetrators themselves.
But hey, you're a holocaust denier. That's a recipe for bizarre
beliefs.
>
> Victims of the bombing of Dresden were "just Germans" - normal
> humans, not "the choosen ones", after a German dies there is
> (surprise, surprise) a body, if they cremate the body there is ash,
So you keep saying, but where's your *forensic* proof.
Don't blame me for your predicament, it's *YOUR* criterion!
> but none of them (the ash or the body) DISAPPEARS the "Holocaust" style,
> BUT IT STILL HERE ON THIS PLANET IN A GRAVE AND COULD BE INVESTIGATED.
>
The graves at Treblinka COULD BE INVESTIGATED. Just as the graves at
Dresden COULD BE INVESTIGATED, but haven't, at least by you. So your
own methodology requires that you believe both or neither. The fact
that you believe one and not the other only demonstrates your
hypocrisy.
Besides, as I keep telling you, there has been an investigation of
the sort you require, so of the two of us I've met your criterion
with regard to the Reinhardt camps (and since the reports of
cremation at Belzec are the same as those at Treblinka there's no
reason to doubt the one but not the other which isn't an example of
the fallacy of 'special pleading') while you haven't with regard to
Dresden. But I have no doubt that you'll simply ignore the obvious
conclusions, since you simply don't want to believe the facts.
>> Think about it for a hour or 100 before you answer. Or, as is your
>> habit, don't; and come out more the fool for your haste.
Well, I gave you a hint. I told you to think about it for a
while. Too bad, you didn't take it, now you look like a fool.
Again.
whd
--
'To me, there is no such thing as a "freedom fighter".'
Pat Blakely in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9r2jns%24mv9%241%40suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
>
>
>>William Daffer wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>>>>if you want - please:
>>>>
>>>>present documentary photographic evidence simillar to Dresden evidence
>>>>for Treblinka (do not forget that Dreseden evidence is by both the
>>>>Germans AND the Allies)
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to the question: how can you maintain that what was
>>> possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?
>>
>>WHAT ?!?
>>You are an absolut idiot - what was "possible at Dresden was
>>impossible at Treblinka?"
>
>
> It's clear that I'm going to have to write *very, very* simple
> English, because you can't understand anything beyond that.
>
> Here's a class in remedial English. An English sentence that starts
> with an independent clause (that's a complete sentence which isn't
> signified as being such by a period at the end) followed by a colon
> (that's the ':') followed by a phrase or independent clause should,
> be read as if the colon (that's the ':') means "that is" or 'which
> is."
>
> So, that sentence reads;
>
> 'Irrelevant to the question, which is, how can you maintain that what
> was possible at Dresden was impossible at Treblinka?'
>
wanted to say, right ?
> Get it? You claimed that open-air cremation at Treblinka was
> impossible. I answered that they did it at Dresden. So far your
> response is: yes, but they have graves at Dresden.
>
No. I did not claim that: "AN open-air cremation at Treblinka was/is
impossible".
I did claim that: "THE open-air cremation at Treblinka in 1943 (as)
described by jewish "eyewitnesses" and "holocaust historians" was
impossible.
> They have graves at Treblinka too, stupid.
well - in this sentence you have "DENIED" "The Holocaust" - because if
you read the "normative" history (e.g. Yitzhak Arad) and jewish
"eyewitness" "testimonies" (e.g. Yankel Wiernik) it says that the
SS removed ALL TRACES - that includes graves, bodies of victims, gass
chambers - EVERYTHING.
example:
(quote)
ARAD: Both Treblinka and other camps, once they had fulfilled their
task of extermination they were liquidated, disbanded, they were
obliterated, they were turned into agricultural land and some greenery
was planted. All we do have is survivors' evidence and testimony,
especially Yaakov Vernick, who a few months after he escaped from the
Treblinka Camp at the time of the revolt — I will come back to that at a
later stage — he had prepared a drawing, a sketch or diagram of the
Treblinka Camp and he in fact constructed in Israel, at a later stage, a
scale model of Treblinka on the basis of the drawing he had brought
along. And this is the main source for our information about the camp.
(quote)
> And at Belzec and Sobibor
> and Majdanek and Auschwitz/Birkenau and, indeed, at the hundreds (or
> thousands) of Einsatzgruppen killing sites.
>
we are talking about Treblinka, right ?
> So again, where's the difference?
>
>
>>1. Dresden - the people of Dresden died in the bombing, BUT THEY DID
>>NOT "DISAPPEAR" during the bombing
>
>
> Overlooking the 'during', people most certainly are claiming that
> the dead were cremated in just the sort of 'open-air cremation' you
> say *was impossible at Treblinka*!
1. LIE - noone but you is claiming that the dead [of Dresden] were
cremated "in just the sort of 'open-air cremation' [like at Treblinka]"
>(Is it beginning to sink in,
> doofus?)
2. LIE - it is beginning of your lying and as you see you didn't get
very far.
>Therefore they 'disappeared' in precisely the same way they
> 'disappeared' at Treblinka.
>
3. LIE - noone but you is claiming that victims of Dresden bombing
'disappeared' in precisely the same way they 'disappeared' at Treblinka.
> Is the light beginning to shine into the impenetrable darkness that is
> your brain?
>
>
>>- I never heard anyone claiming that
>>the victims of Dresden bombin disappeared during the bombing
>
>
> Nor do you hear anyone, except stupid deniers like yourself,
> claiming that the dead at Treblinka disappeared in any way different
> from the dead at Dresden.
4. LIE - it is a claim of normative history and jewish "eyewitnesses" -
that the Nazis REMOVED ALL TRACES - thus the bodies of Treblinka
"victims" 'disappeared' ( in sense were 100% destroyed, and the ashes
were removed as well 100%).
In Dresden the purpose of the open-air cremation was not to hide
something, or to remove all traces - the open-air cremation was needed
because of hygienic reasons.
The remains of the bombing were buried in a graves - where they are
until now.
>
> There are graves, they contain remains from cremations. The Belzec
> dig proves this, not that it needed proving.
5. LIE - the "Belzec dig" has nothing to do with Treblinka
6. LIE - the Belzec dig was needed and is needed to finish it, because
that is the only way how to provide material evidence about Belzec.
>
> Are you getting the picture yet? You can't possibly be *this*
> stupid.
[stupid means to do not want to accept your shallow lies - yes then I
must agree - I m *this* stupid ]
>
>
>
>>- even you are not so stupid - you are just a liar who was caught in
>>his own> lies - so you created this absurdity.
>
>
>
> The rest of your response, having following the same mindless
> stupidty, is mercifully discarded.
7. LIE - you made up the stupid comparisson between Treblinka myth,
based on "eyewitness testimonies" and bombing of Dresden based on
facts and evidence.
And you were clearly shown that one can not compare facts&evidence
with hearsay, lies and "eyewitness testimonies".
The evidence for Dresden and Treblinka is VERY DIFFERENT in quality
as well in the quantity.
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
>
>
>>William Daffer wrote:
>>
>>>helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>I m sure that they fuel in Treblinka, however there is no evidence
>>>>about the fuel used for cremation of those 800 000 normative cadavers.
>>>
>>> There's the missing 800,000 people! Wait: don't tell me! They're
>>>all
>>> living in Israel and New York!
>>>
>>
>>After you present the EVIDENCE that there are "800,000 missing people"
>>we can move on to discuss where they are. I'll be here waitting for you.
>
>
> Well, the fact of the matter is that you're the one with the burden
> of proof.
> The historicity of the Holocaust is well established.
what is this ?
a proof ?
well look what I can say:
"the generations of scholars of all nations and all faiths have prooved..."
or
"there are mountains of eveidence..."
or
"everybody knows..."
as you can see I know "the Holocaust" and it's "evidence" very good.
THOSE WHO CLAIM that 800 000 were killed at Treblinka MUST PROVIDE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM.[period]
and ? despite the huge propaganda, despite the massive production of
lies and distortions of history, despite they had more than 60 years,
despite that the oposition was violently silenced and persecuted - what
did they achieve ?
NOTHING.
why? because it is impossible to do anything about the truth and about
the time - truth and time - you can not bribe them, you can not put them
into a prison ...
> You're the skeptic, so it's up to you to prove that your skepticism
> is rational.
I m skeptic because of the missing proof for your allegations.
> Simply bellowing that you don't believe it isn't
> rational. There are people who believe that the Earth is
> flat, after all.
>
Asking for evidence and proof has nothing to do with faith.
"The Holocaust" on other hand is a form of religion.
> But if you want a hint as to the task awaiting you:
>
> Talk to the survivors.
Unfortunatelly for jewish survivors, there were other survivors like
Rassinier.
> Talk to the family members of those
> missing.
Yes - looking at the numbers of "family members of those missing" I came
to a conclusion that average jewish holocaust family had between 20-50
members.
>Try to keep in that little brain of yours that not all
> survivors or their families are Jewish.
That's true, above mentioned Rassinier was not jewish.
> Then tell me it's rational
> to believe that they're *all* lying when they tell of missing family
> members.
>
It is irrelevant what they say as well it is irrelevant what do I belive
or not.
The only relevant thing is the evidence and facts.
> Go look at all the Einsatzgruppen reports that show the clear intent
> of the Nazi policy to murder Jews. Try to argue that it's rational
> to believe that all these reports, which are corroborated by other
> Nazi documentation (movement orders, logistical reports, troop
> orders, etc.) were all forged along with all the corroborating
> documentation.
There is nothing wrong with shooting bolshevik scum.
>
> Then go look at all the transportation records that show people
> being moved to the Reinhardt camps and then disappearing. Then tell
> me it's rational to believe that all this documentation has been
> forged.
Did I said that the jews were not transported/deported ?
BTW. "the transportation records" - there is the book "Belzec, Sobibor,
Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps" I WONDER IF YOU COULD
POINT ME TO THE PAGE IN THE BOOK WHERE HE IS REFERING to "transportation
records".
Do you say page 382 ?
>
> Look at all the corroborating documentation: the troop orders, the
> transportation orders, the deportation orders, the logistical
> reports, the statistical reports, there are literally 10s of
> thousands of them. Then tell me it's rational to believe that
> someone forged all these documents!
>
hmm - corroborating documentation - where are the orders to establish
"extermination camps" ?
where are the transportation orders about the fuel for open-air cremations ?
> Try to explain the Wannsee protocol,
>the Posnan speech,
> the various
> references in Goebbel's diary, Frank's diary,
small jewish child - there are tears in my eyes - but how:
1. HOW did she survived the "selection" in Auschwitz ?
2. WHY did they transport them FROM Auschwitz, it was an "extermination
camp", right ?
3. WHY didn't she die because of being shot or tortured by SS or at
least gassed in a CO gasschamber ?
>the various telegrams,
> the Auschwitz building documents, in some way *other* than the
> Holocaust. Or, althernatively, try to argue that all these documents
> were forged.
>
> Then go look at all the evidence submitted at trial and the
> testimony given by the perpetrators both immediately after the war
torture
> and 20 years later in the various trials conducted in Germany in the
> 60s and tell me that it's rational to believe that *all* that
> evidence was forged and all of these people were coerced.
>
Trials you call them, right ?
What would be the outcome of a trial where they had prooved that there
was no extermination camp in Treblinka ?
Those type of "trials" have before hand set goal and outcome.
> Then go to the Belzec dig and tell me that it's rational to believe
> that somehow, someone deposited 33,000 cubic feet of human remains
> into the graves there just to perpetrate this hoax.
I do agree with evidence based on real research.
If there is 33000 cubic feet of human remains in Belzec - fine - good
start - investigate (!!!AFTER 60 YEARS!!!) the rest of the camps as
well. Then the estimation would be based on FACTS AND EVIDENCE.
> Or try to tell
> me it's rational to believe that the investigation and report were
> rigged despite the fact that the news agencies followed it and the
> Polish Government was involved!
>
It is not the Polish Government who is obstructing the investigation of
"extermination camps".
> Or go to Strankik and tell me that it's rational to believe that
> someone constructed that gravesite so that it would *exactly
> corroborate* the testimony of the town's people who witnesses the EG
> action there!
>
> Then tell me how the vast majority of historical research being done
> by historians, many of them *GERMAN*, is all wrong.
>
> Go ahead, tell us how to fit all that together in the *real world*,
> not the cloud-cuckoo-land that is your racist fantasies!
>
> Perhaps then you'll understand why people laugh at you.
>
I do not care about what people do.
> Me? I believe the cumulative implication of all this data so I have
> no need for further verification.
>If it comes, that's nice, but it
> certainly isn't required.
the only forensic investigation you mentioned so far was at Belzec -
however "you believe" and you are saying that further investigation
"certainly isn't required", that's what you wanted to say ?
> You can't accuse me of being untrue to my
> principles as I can accuse you.
>
to believe propaganda and crap and console yourself that research
"certainly isn't required" are your "principles".
>
>
>
>>>>If there was such evidence the "generations of scholars of all nations
>>>>and faiths" would most likely discover it and present it.
>>>
>>> And where's your evidence of the fuel used to cremate the bodies at
>>> Dresden? No historian has ever presented that evidence. By your
>>> argument the cremations never occured!
>>
>>no that's not true -
>
>
> It most certainly is. You're arguing that because someone hasn't
> shown you anything discussing the fuel used that there must have
> been no fuel and therefore there couldn't have been any
> cremations. This assertion partakes of *two* logical fallacies: that
> 'absence of proof' is 'proof of absence' and 'hasty
> conclusion.'
I did not create the story about the Treblinka's open-air cremation.
It wasn't me who came with the revolutionary cremation technique based
on "fat-jewess-with-skinny-jew-burn-without-fuel", therefore "almost no
fuel was required - only to start the fire" and the bodies burned
themselves "once they caught fire".
>Moreover, I assert that the situation is exactly
> analogous to Dresden: you've produced no evidence concerning the
> fuel used in Dresden to cremate bodies. By your own argument those
> cremations didn't occur and the final cause of the deaths, namely
> the bombing of Dresden, also didn't occur.
>
> Don't blame me, it's *your argument*!
>
It is your lie - or as you said "assert"-ion (from ass - like pulling
something out of ass)
If there were bodies or rests of cremated bodies in Treblinka - NOONE
would ask about the fuel - makes sense ?
but the difference between Dresden and Treblinka is that in Treblinka
EVERYTHING was removed 100% by the SS. There is no evidence, everything
is based on jewish eyewitness testimonies.
You can try a simple excercise, let's forget about all eyewitness
testimonies about Dresden - and - did something change ? NO !
Because there are other types of evidence:
1. photographical evidence
-destroyed town
-piles of the corpses in the streets
2. the bodies of victims and the rests of bodies did not disappear 100%
they are in the RECORDED graves and massgraves
>
>
>>even if it was true that "No historian has ever
>>presented that evidence" - THERE ARE THE GRAVES AND MASSGRAVES with
>>the bodies and rests of bodies and ash in them !
>
>
> Ah, but now you've shifted your ground, _now_ the argument is 'if
> there aren't any reports detailing the type of fuel used it could
> nevertheless be true that cremations occured, but there must be
> graves with remains and ash in them.'
no I did not shift anything. I did not invent the Treblinka absurdity
about 100% removal of all traces - once again if there were bodies or
rests of cremated bodies at Treblinka NONE would ask about the fuel.
people ask about the fuel, because there is no other evidence for
"open-air" cremation of 800 000 victims - those who claim did not
provide any evidence during last 60 years.
>
> So let's analysize my analogy. Let's take the assumptions you, as a
> holocaust denier, make about Treblinka and apply them to
> Dresden. Your assumption is, "until someone proves otherwise using
> the methods I demand, I'm going to take as the default position that
> no one died at Treblinka."
It is not me who he is making decisions what is DEFAULT.
The proof has nothing to do with me or with other person and with what
they think or believe.
Proof about 800 000 killed people MUST BE OBJECTIVE based on EVIDENCE
and FACTS.
Besides I m not forcing anone to use "my methods" - I m ready to accept
any EVIDENCE and any FACTS - if there is other evidence for 800 000
open-air cremated bodies - please present it.
>So, assuming the same for Dresden, namely
> that Dresden did not occur until proved otherwise and the
> hypothetical 'doubter' requires that proof of a certain sort be
> presented before he changes his mind.
LIE - "proof of a certain sort". Any material evidence and facts.
If someone finds your dead body and you were shot in the head they are
most likely not going to wait for further evidence to declare you dead,
but if there is just someone saying that you were shot, they won't
stop the investigation, does it make sense ?
> My purpose is to demonstrate
you have demonstarted that you are an idiot (sorry this is not an
insult) - as I do not think that anyone who is not an idiot can produce
such crap, and pretending at the same moment how deep is his logic and
philosophy.
> that the knowledge that you have for both is the same and, were you
> true to your epistemological (that means 'theory of knowledge')
> principles, you *should* hold the same beliefs about both.
>
yes - but that was true if the situation of Dresden was the same as the
situation of Treblinka - and you are the only one who "thinks" that they
are equal.
There is other evidence for Dresden and facts - as the human remains in
the graves and massgraves. There is no evidence for Treblinka - just
jewish "eyewitness testimonies". Btw. the same goes for comparisson of
Treblinka and Katyn - have a look what I m asking for:
http://www.katyn.org.au/naziphotos.html
it was possible at Katyn - it is not possible at Treblinka, right ?
but keep lying that: "there are graves at Treblinka", as you said
you certainly do not need research and investigation, what for ?
they won't change dogmas...
> Then, and here's the kicker, the fact that you DO NOT follow the
> dictates of your own argument
It is "dictates" of your interpretations of my "own argument"...
>will demonstrate your hypocrisy and
> double-standard.
hypocrisy double-standard - nice to meet you, I m Helge.
>You don't care what knowledge (in the sense of
> rational argument and evidence assessment) is to be had, you care
> only that your fore-ordained conclusions that Jews were murdered at
> the hands of the Nazis be sustained and you're willing to disobey
> all the rules of logic and evidence to get to that conclusions.
>
logic is different from political corectness, propaganda and lies
> I point out that you can't make the same criticism of me. I don't
> impost such ridiculous restrictions on what constitutes a 'proof' in
> history.
>
> Let's begin.
>
> To recap, you've complained of the lack of any reports of the fuel
> used at Treblinka. I replied that you have no reports of the fuel
> used at Dresden.
>
This is a lie. The remains of the victims in Dresden DO EXIST - it is
possible to invetigate them. They were creamted. It is not a hearsay
as at Treblinka - IT IS A FACT. From there you can move on start
investigating about the fuel used for their cremations.
"no reports of the fuel used at Dresden" makes no sense - AS THERE ARE
THE RESULTS OF THE CREMATION.
In Treblinka there is no EVIDENCE or FACT you could rationaly and
scientificaly investigate - because is we were told "the Nazis removed
traces 100%"
> Point 1: in both cases there are no reports of the fuel used.
>
> Nevertheless you continue to maintain that open-air cremation was
> possible at Dresden but impossible at Treblinka.
>
There are the results of cremation in Dresden, THERE ARE NO RESULTS OF
ANY ACTION in Treblinka.
> You've complained that you have no need of reports of fuel, because
> you *COULD* check the graves at Dresden. I translate that to mean
> that you know of reports of graves in Dresden and you believe that
> you could, if you wanted, go dig them up. Let's ponder this a bit
> further.
The graves are REGISTRED you goon, it has nothing to do with me.
>
> I point out that the presence of mass grave does not, in and of
> itself, prove cremations.
The existence of mass grave not - the content of the mass grave YES.
> One must have graves of a particular
> sort. You'vew produced no evidence that these 'graves' are of the
> right sort.
>
???
Those are the mass graves and graves of people who were killed in the
bombing of Dresden - they were recorded, the information is not secret,
and what is the most important thing they DO EXIST.
>
> Now, there are reports of graves at Treblinka, just as there are
> reports of graves in Dresden.
No they are not.
A jewish "eyewitnes testimony" from Treblinka would be equal to a german
eyewitness testimony from Dresden - WHERE DID I REFERED TO "a german
eyewitness testimony from Dresden" ?
The graves in germany are not being recorded by "eyewitness" but by
official institution.
in Treblinka there are "eyewitness testimonies" - reports of graves at
Treblinka - BUT THERE WERE NO GRAVES FOUND.
in Dresden - there are no "reports of graves" THERE ARE GRAVES.
> Since you haven't actually done your
> 'forensic' investigation, so far that's all you have, reports.
that's really a witty statement, but you are right I was not personaly
at the funeral of victims in Dresden, nor at the exhumations in Katyn
http://www.katyn.org.au/naziphotos.html
however I can refer to this forensic info, but what forensic info should
I refer to at Treblinka ?
> So
> the analogy still holds: you have exactly the same evidence for
> Dresden as you do for Treblinka.
>
no - in Dresden it is not a "reports of graves" IT IS THE EXITING REAL
GRAVES ITSELF.
> Point 2: in both cases there are no reports of the fuel used yet
> both have reports of graves.
"PLUS" DRESDEN HAS REAL GRAVES.
>
> Nevertheless you continue to maintain that open-air cremation was
> possible at Dresden but impossible at Treblinka.
>
no - it is no what I claim.
see above.
> However, accoring to the 'denier methodology' this isn't enough, the
> only thing which decides the issue is 'forensic' investigation.
>
In Treblinka - yes (it is simillar to Katyn) - the Treblinka and Katyn
graves and burials WERE PARTS OF THE CRIME - therefore there is need for
'forensic' investigation.
One can make 'forensic' investigation in Dresden BECAUSE THE GRAVES AND
THE HUMAN RESTS IN THEM DO REALLY EXIST, however the difference you want
to distract from is THAT IN DRESDEN THE GRAVES AND BURIAL WERE NOT PARTS
OF A CRIME.
>
> If you answer; 'but I *could* do a forensic investigation at
> Dresden' I would first answer, 'So can I.'
LIE. what are you going to investigate in Treblinka ?
The jewish "symbolic" cemetary ?
You need at first to locate the graves in order to do "forensic
investigation". BUT THAT'S AGAIN THE POINT OF DISTRACTION - there are no
graves in Treblinka.
>At this very moment in
> history both of us have just as much possibility of doing
> investigations of graves sites as does the other. So, again, there's
> no difference between the 'Treblinka doubter' and the 'Dresden
> doubter.'
There is a BIG difference. It is the difference between a REAL EXISTING
GRAVE in Dresden and "records of graves" in Treblinka.
BTW. given that we both stand with a showel in the hand - me in Dresden
and you in Treblinka - WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO START TO DIG ?
is there really no difference ?
>
> Point 3: We both could do investigations of the graves.
>
you do not have any grave - you have a "records of massgraves", that's
the difference I was talking just 5 lines above.
another holohuckster drawning in his shit...
> Yet you continue to maintain that open-air cremation was
> possible at Dresden but impossible at Treblinka.
>
no - I have not said that.
> Are you beginning to see the pattern here?
>
that's not a pattern that's a swimming piece of shit - because you are
drawning in your own shit
>
> But, on reflection, my second answer to your claim that you COULD,
> if you wanted, do a 'forensic' investigation proving your claims
> about Dresden would be, "Can you? Really? Are you sure? Have you
> tried?"
>
> Remember, we're translating your epistemological skepticism about
> Treblinka into skepticism about Dresden,
we are ? well - do you have fleas or what ?
>so all the assumptions you
> hold about Treblinka must apply to Dresden.
real existing grave in Dresden - and you call it an assumption, huh ?
>In particular you take
> the position that everthing has to be proved to you about Treblinka
everything ? is the opposite of nothing.
if there was at least SOMETHING proved about Treblinka, that would do.
> because you believe all reports
yes - reports - you right - no evidence, facts, results of investigation
just reports - or you do have for Treblinka.
>of the murders there are, in fact, the
> result of some grand conspiracy by a group of liars to subvert
> historical truth, so our hypothetical 'Dresden doubter' must take
> the same position with regard to Dresden. And since you believe that
> until it's proved to you that these people died you assume they
> didn't, we must posit the same assumptions for our hypothetical
> 'Dresden denier.'
>
just to explain this interesting phenomenon in history - there are no
'Dresden denier' or 'The battle of Watterloo deniers' - there are just
"holocaust deniers"- invented and pointed by the jews.
> Now, ponder the fate of our hypothetical 'Dresden denier' who goes
> to the Dresden authorities and says, in effect, "I doubt that there
> was ever a bombing here in which 10s of thousands died and their
> bodies cremated, and, in fact, I believe that all the people who
> report otherwise are liars until it can be proved to my satisfaction
> that they aren't, and I want to investigate this 'question' by doing
> an exhumation just to be sure." I suspect that the Dresden
> authorities would, at best, laugh our 'Dresden denier' out of the
> room and, at worst, beat him insensate. I suspect they would say to
> our 'Dresden denier',
>"Who are you to desecrate the graves of the 10s
> of thousands who died and were buried without the benefit and
> comfort of a proper Christian burial?
forensic investigation - in case of alleged crimes in Treblinka is
called "desecrate the graves" just by those who know what will be the
result of the investigation - and they are afraid of the result.
It is just a question of time.
Who are you to doubt the the historical accounts of the time which speak
of the many dead?
[jewish thinking, jewish question - it is obvious that the one who has
the need to ask this idiotic question is a cheeting individum in it's
last attempt to hide fraud]
Who are you to doubt the word of the hundreds of thousands of survivors
who report their loss?
[jewish thinking, jewish question - it is obvious that the one who has
the need to ask this idiotic question is a cheeting individum in it's
last attempt to hide fraud]
> And they'd be right! We don't need to do any exhumations to prove
> the historical fact that Dresden
because they died in bombong and then were burried - it happened in
public, it was not secret, it was not a part of a crime.
> was bombed and 10s of thousands
> died. We know it from precisely the same sort of evidence we know
> that Treblinka was a death camp: the official records.
The Official Report - "This is an extermination camp", right ?
>But I'm not
> the one dictating the 'rules of evidence' here, I'm just taking you
> at your word and analysing what *you* would require in order to
> establish historical fact if you were a 'Dresden denier' instead of
> a 'Treblinka denier.'
the Treblinka's burial process and the mass graves are allegedly part of
a crime, the killings and burial as well the removal of the camp did not
happen in a big city - but in a remote rural region
>
> Mutatis mutandis, (that means 'change what needs to be changed,
> i.e. change 'Dresden' to 'Treblinka') that sort of dialog is
> precisely the sort of thing you, as 'Treblinka denier' would say to
> the authorities at Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and Auschwitz!
No it is not - as I pointed already many times - the graves and the
burial process in Dresden were NOT PARTS OF A (ALLEGED) CRIME. And
nothing was/is secret.
In Treblinka - there are allegations about a big crime the forensic
research is crucial to PROVIDE A PROOF based on evidence and facts.
> So why
> are you surprised that, were you to go to Poland and say, "I don't
> believe that anyone was murdered here, why don't you let me do a dig
> in order to make the determination?" that you'd be denied the right
> to disturb the graves of hundreds of thousands of the victims of
> racially motivated murder?
the murder of "hundreds of thousands of the victims" needs to be proved
- without a proof it is just an allegation.
>Who are you, who believes that there's a
> vast conspiracy to subvert truth run by 'the Jews', who believes
> that all Jews are liars, who knows next to nothing about what the
> evidence of history *really* says, who is so arrogant to believe you
> have the right to disturb their graves?
It is an interesting theatrical switching between fiction and reality.
I m not a forensic medic - that research is usually run by forensic
experts - as in Katyn. Their work is not about emotions and all that
pathetic rubbish about "disturbing graves" .
The work of an forensic expert is about FACTS - that's why the jews are
getting hysterical about forensic investigation of those so called
"extermination camps".
>
> So now the analysis of the problems of determining whether Dresden
> occured is, again, *exactly* equivalent to Treblinka:
it is not - maybe in your very "inteligent Mutatis mutandis" theory
where did you equal "reports of graves" from Treblinka with A REAL
EXISTING GRAVE from Dresden.
> neither of the
> groups of the 'powers that be', given the repugnance of the default
> 'opinion', would allow the 'denier' to do the 'forensic'
> investigation.
there are no "groups" - there is just one group - your one - the liars
who want to hide a fraud and the lack of evidence and facts to support
their lies.
>
> Point 4: both would be denied their 'forensic' investigation.
>
> In fact, your methodology compels more of the 'Dresden denier.' It
> requires hime to believe that Dresden DID NOT OCCUR. Why? Becauuse,
> according to your weird mindset, the city fathers are attempting to
> stifle your research and that can mean only one thing:
it is not true - at Katyn and other sites it was the totalitarian
Soviets and other liars who were against independant 'forensic'
investigation.
The Germans who had NOTHING TO HIDE at Katyn - actually put together an
international team of experts and brought even Allies POW to WITNESS
A REAL FORENSIC EXAMINATION.
And the funny thing is that it is the "neoNazis" (as you like to call
everyone who does not accept you r crap) these days who want the
forensic investigation - and it is the jews who are hysterically trying
to prevent it.
makes sense - no ?
>there's a
> conspiracy to subvert the truth and you're default belief that no
> one died must be true!
lie. when and where did I use the expression "no one died" - distracting
again ?
well my opinion is that there is no more than 300-500 000 jewish victims
for the so called "The Holocaust".
Do not worry about the numbers, but as you can see 300 000 - 500 000
is far from yours "no one died".
Actually it is a favourite holohawker's trick, then they prove that 1600
died - therefore the claim about 6 000 000 is true !
(hidden as: "jews were killed by the Nazis, therefore the Holocaust
happened")
> You'd never think that they may have a
> perfectly good reason to deny you your 'forensic' investigation that
> has absolutely nothing to do with attempting to hide anything. They
> simply find your 'doubt' repugnant and your desires ghoulish and
> racist.
>
yes, yes - actually they "simply find your 'doubt' repugnant and your
desires ghoulish and racist" already in 1945-46 therefore there was no
forensic reasearch done (except Tragenza's in 1997) ?
that's what you want to say ?
a viva la justice ! or should I say: a viva la jewstice !
>
>
>>In Treblinka there are NO BODIES, NO RESTS OF BODIES, NO ASH, NO GRAVES
>>AND NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE TYPE AND SOURCE OF THE FUEL
>
>
>
> As I keep saying: how do you know? Have you done the very forensic
> investigation you keep claiming is the desideratum of truth that
> proves there are no remains (not 'rests')
>
> One wonders if it will ever get through that thick skull of yours?
>
It has nothing to do with my person. I do not claim that a crime has
happened in Treblinka.
Those who claim need to support it with evidence. Such evidence MUST
be based (BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME) on forensic
investigation.
>
>
>>that would be
>>required by the open air creamtion as described in the jewish
>>"eyewitness testimonies".
>
>
> Why? All you have to support your claims of the open air cremations
> in Dresden is german 'eyewitness testimonies.' and the very same
> sort of official 'documentation' that exists for Treblinka.
Lie. The evidence about bombing of Dresden and the cremation of the
victims is NOT BASED on german 'eyewitness testimonies'.
> No
> 'forensic' reports.
Lie - medics were there - some of the victims died after the bombing
because of their injuries - many of them in presence of a doctor.
> No autopsies.
Lie. see above.
> Nothing more than 'reports'
I m not aware of any "reports" it was germans not jews, you know ...
> of
> graves, bodies, cremations and ash. No 'rests', no 'ash.'
>
There are REAL EXISTING graves in Dresden.
There are bodies in the graves.
There is ash as well in the graves.
> The 'Dresden denier' would reject that testimony out of hand, just
> like you, as the fabrications of the racist haters of the British or
> Americans, grand conspirators bent on extracting, via the Marshall
> plan, the most for the pain and suffering of the poor, downtrodden
> German people!
>
Doesn't apply - THERE ARE GRAVES AND BODIES WITH HUMAN REMAINS in Dresden.
> Me? I believe history, so I don't have need of such artificial
> qualifications on my knowledge like you do.
yes but you do believe "reports of graves" based on jewish eyewitness
testimonies from Treblinka, NOT REAL EXISTING GRAVES.
> I understand that it's
> pretty hard to have hundreds of thousands of people, victim and
> perpetrator alike, give mutually corroborating accounts and maintain
> the claim that all are either lying, mistaken or have been
> coerced. It's even harder when there's literally tons of
> corroborating documentation almost all of it created by the
> perpetrators themselves.
there are not - you admitted yourself that there are "reports of
graves", then you spent huge effort to explain "why the reports can not
be investigated" - that's the quality of your evidence.
>
> But hey, you're a holocaust denier. That's a recipe for bizarre
> beliefs.
>
>
>>Victims of the bombing of Dresden were "just Germans" - normal
>>humans, not "the choosen ones", after a German dies there is
>>(surprise, surprise) a body, if they cremate the body there is ash,
>
>
> So you keep saying, but where's your *forensic* proof.
> Don't blame me for your predicament, it's *YOUR* criterion!
>
THE GRAVES OF THE DRESDEN VICTIMS DO NOT EXIST THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY ?
>
>>but none of them (the ash or the body) DISAPPEARS the "Holocaust" style,
>>BUT IT STILL HERE ON THIS PLANET IN A GRAVE AND COULD BE INVESTIGATED.
>>
>
>
> The graves at Treblinka COULD BE INVESTIGATED.
you said that there are "reports of graves" at Treblinka.
> Just as the graves at
> Dresden COULD BE INVESTIGATED,
there are real existing graves in Dresden
Are you aware of the difference between a "reports of graves"
and real existing graves ?
>but haven't, at least by you. So your
> own methodology requires that you believe both or neither. The fact
> that you believe one and not the other only demonstrates your
> hypocrisy.
>
> Besides, as I keep telling you, there has been an investigation of
> the sort you require, so of the two of us I've met your criterion
> with regard to the Reinhardt camps (and since the reports of
> cremation at Belzec are the same as those at Treblinka there's no
> reason to doubt the one but not the other which isn't an example of
> the fallacy of 'special pleading')
In other words - if there is a grave in Belzec - there are graves in
Treblinka, right ? makes sense ? no - sorry I m not jewish.
1. How many victims are in the mass graves in Belzec - could be
established only by an forensic expert as well - WHO WERE THOSE
VICTIMS - to avoid the often "posthumous conversion to judaism".
> while you haven't with regard to
> Dresden. But I have no doubt that you'll simply ignore the obvious
> conclusions, since you simply don't want to believe the facts.
>
the opposite is true I m asking for facts - and you are trying to
"explain" why the facts can not be provided...
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3f856b02$0$23596$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au> in
alt.revisionism, on Thu, 09 Oct 2003 22:04:24 +0800, helge
<he...@helge.net> wrote:
That was done in Dusseldorf in the 1960s and 1970s. Your ignorance
of the facts is irrelevant.
> and ? despite the huge propaganda, despite the massive production
> of lies and distortions of history, despite they had more than 60
> years, despite that the oposition was violently silenced and
> persecuted - what did they achieve ?
> NOTHING.
Revisionism has accomplished nothing. In the United States, the
Revisionist "opposition" crackpots have been perfectly free to make
out a real historical case about what happened to the Jews of Europe
during the war. In that, they have failed completely and
unequivocally.
Instead of the Real History touted by the David Irvings of the world,
we have seen niggling objections to the established body of evidence,
grossly dishonest selectivity in the evidence, and a complete failure
to offer alternative historical account.
As simplistically propagandistic as the Revisionist project has been,
it is still worlds more sophisticated than the childishly mindless
denials offered by people like you.
> why? because it is impossible to do anything about the truth and
> about the time - truth and time - you can not bribe them, you can
> not put them into a prison ...
So tell us the truth for the first time. What happened to the Jews
of Europe during the war?
What happened to the Jews deported to Treblinka?
> > You're the skeptic, so it's up to you to prove that your
> > skepticism
> > is rational.
> I m skeptic because of the missing proof for your allegations.
Ignorance does not make you a skeptic. It just means that you are
ignorant.
Tell us please: what happened to the Jews deported to Treblinka?
> > Simply bellowing that you don't believe it isn't
> > rational. There are people who believe that the Earth is
> > flat, after all.
> Asking for evidence and proof has nothing to do with faith.
Read a book. You quite obviously are a know-nothing.
> "The Holocaust" on other hand is a form of religion.
Slogans are not argument.
What happened to the Jews deported to Treblinka?
> > But if you want a hint as to the task awaiting you:
> > Talk to the survivors.
> Unfortunatelly for jewish survivors, there were other survivors
> like Rassinier.
Rassinier is a liar, and I have proved it.
> > Talk to the family members of those
> > missing.
> Yes - looking at the numbers of "family members of those missing" I
> came to a conclusion that average jewish holocaust family had
> between 20-50 members.
And? I have a photograph from my grandmother's 70th birthday of only
my grandmother's direct descendants. There are about fifty people in
the photograph who are my bothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins,
nieces, nephews, and second cousins.
> >Try to keep in that little brain of yours that not all
> > survivors or their families are Jewish.
> That's true, above mentioned Rassinier was not jewish.
> > Then tell me it's rational
> > to believe that they're *all* lying when they tell of missing
> > family
> > members.
> It is irrelevant what they say as well it is irrelevant what do I
> belive or not.
> The only relevant thing is the evidence and facts.
Of which you seem to have a great shortage.
what happened to the Jews deported to Treblinka?
> > Go look at all the Einsatzgruppen reports that show the clear
> > intent
> > of the Nazi policy to murder Jews. Try to argue that it's
> > rational
> > to believe that all these reports, which are corroborated by
> > other
> > Nazi documentation (movement orders, logistical reports, troop
> > orders, etc.) were all forged along with all the corroborating
> > documentation.
> There is nothing wrong with shooting bolshevik scum.
Really? You would kill people because you disagree with them?
Then by the same token, couldn't we say there's nothing wrong with
killing you?
> > Then go look at all the transportation records that show people
> > being moved to the Reinhardt camps and then disappearing. Then
> > tell
> > me it's rational to believe that all this documentation has
> > been
> > forged.
> Did I said that the jews were not transported/deported ?
Well, then, what happened to the Jews deported to Treblinka? Where
are they now?
> BTW. "the transportation records" - there is the book "Belzec,
> Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps" I WONDER
> IF YOU COULD POINT ME TO THE PAGE IN THE BOOK WHERE HE IS REFERING
> to "transportation records".
> Do you say page 382 ?
> > Look at all the corroborating documentation: the troop orders,
> > the
> > transportation orders, the deportation orders, the logistical
> > reports, the statistical reports, there are literally 10s of
> > thousands of them. Then tell me it's rational to believe that
> > someone forged all these documents!
[snip]
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBP4Yg75QgvG272fn9EQLppgCeN0s6ghthdZH9mvTdGm9cHM665gQAnA+t
q7gCthl7D/u2PR/4xhYQyZfe
=mjEo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sara Salzman
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
You know, John, we go through this stuff so many times, you'd think the
Idiots would have leaerned by now.
Let's start with the basics, since "Helge" seems incapable of
understanding even basic facts:
1. Families, on the average, were larger then than now. Most families
had more than 2 or 3 children.
2. In eastern Europe, most families lived fairly close together; in the
same town or nearby towns. Shtetls were very insulated.
3. Unlike today, when people tend to get married in their late 20s and
have children in their 30s, most people got married in their late teens
or early 20s and had children right away. So it was not difficult to
have three or four generations living in the same local community.
4. Okay, here we go:
My maternal grandfather was from the town of David Horodok, in what is
now Belarus. He had at least two sisters. One sister married a man from
Stolin (a neighboring town), and they had at least 5 children.
(Counting? So far, we've got 2 parents (my great-grandparents), 3
children, one husband and 5 grandchildren. That's 11.)
Now, my grandfather also married a woman from Stolin. My grandmother.
Grandma's family consisted of two parents (my great-grandparents) and 5
children. My great uncle Maeschel was married, and had six children. My
great uncle Josef was married and had 4 children. My great aunt Chashka
was married and had 3 children. My grandmother and grandfather had two
children. (So excluding my grandfather, who we've already counted above,
that's 2 parents, 5 children with 3 other spouses, and 15 grandchildren.)
My goodness! We're already at 26 people!
Now, my grandfather's sister (the one who had 5 children) died in
childbirth. So let's drop down to 25. But her husband married again
(back to 26) and had another 7 children. Hey! We're up to 33!
Now that's my mother's family.
My father is the youngest of 8 children. (Actually, his mother had 11
children, but only 8 survived childhood.) Every one of those children
married. One couple had no children. 3 had 2 children, 3 had 3 children,
and 2 had four children.
So we've got 2 parents, 8 children, 8 spouses, and 23 grandchildren.
(That's a total of 41 people.) I'm the youngest of the grandchildren. I
have 2 children. two of my sisters have 3 children. We all have spouses.
So 4 of the grandchildren have 4 spouses and 8 kids. (We're now at 53.
See how easy that was?) And of those 8 kids, 2 are married and one has a
child. (56) And there's 19 other grandchildren -- each with spouses,
and children (and some grandchildren) of their own.
It's easy to get to 50 people if any one branch of a family had even a
reasonable number of children. When a family like my father's, you get
to 50 in less than 3 generations. And my father, who is alive and well,
already has 2 great-grandchildren.
--
helge
well John Morris and his "presbyterian logic":
People were accused, tried, found guilty and were executed for among
other things the crimes they allegedly commited in Treblinka by the so
called "international tribunal" in 1946.
1946? - John Morris "the holocausted brain" of history admitts (thinks?)
THAT THE PROOF AND EVIDENCE were provided "in Dusseldorf in the 1960s
and 1970s".
in other words the evidence was provided 14-24 years after someone was
found guilty.
well - justice ?
no - JEWSTICE.
besides - Morris is lying again because there was no evidence/facts
provided by the showtrials in Dusseldorf in the 1960s and 1970s
that 800 000 jews were gased and cremated in Treblinka in 1942-43.
[snip]
helge
This is the most powerful evidence about "The Holocaust" I've ever seen.
How many of those people were "gassed" in those famous "homicidal gass
chambers" in those "extermination camps" ?
or do you count the "father, who is alive and well" into the 6 000 000
of "holocaust" victims ?
or is he just a "holocaust survivor" ?
I have no doubts that he survived just to "tell the world the terrible
truth about the Nazis death factories", he saw gassvans, gasschambers,
what else ?
>>
>>
>>>>Try to keep in that little brain of yours that not all
>>>> survivors or their families are Jewish.
>>>
>>>That's true, above mentioned Rassinier was not jewish.
>>
[snip]
Sara Salzman
helge <he...@helge.net> wrote:
Well, you're wrong. Mr father was born in Brooklyn, Moron. His family
came here long before the Holocaust.
I was not trying to prove anything about the Holocaust, Helge. I was
merely responding to your statement:
> >>>Yes - looking at the numbers of "family members of those missing" I
> >>>came to a conclusion that average jewish holocaust family had
> >>>between 20-50 members.
Are you THAT stupid?
Sara
helge
you know this is alt.revisionism not alt.myfamily, here's the place
where jewish "holocaust" fraud and propaganda are being discussed...
> I was
> merely responding to your statement:
>
well - you missed the point - i was not making a joke about the size of
jewish families.
i was pointing to the number of so called "holocaust survivors" and how
they are related to the number of alleged victims of "The Holocaust".
Ludwig
The trials in Duesseldorf, Germany, in 1965 and 1970 did not proof
that 800,000 Jews or whatever were murdered in Treblinka. These crimes
were considered evident facts and could not be disputed by anyone, as
dictated by the Military Occupational Forces in Germany in the General
Vertrag with Germany.
Source: Rückerl: NS-Vernichtungslager
helge
that is exactly what I was pointing to - John Morris is a liar.
In those trials there was no evidence/facts "needed" to suport the
jewish version of "the Treblinka story".
There were no forensic investigation reports, no evidence at all.
Inquisition like show trial was asking the former SS members to "admitt"
their crimes, and to help accuse the "perpetrators" - surprise, surprise
- the main perpetrators are dead (Wirth, Eberle, Floss, Hackenholt),
the ones who are alive ones (Suchomel, Franz, Stangl) - have to choose
what to say - THERE WAS NO CHANCE TO PROVE what really happened.
Joebruno
> In article <3f7d54bb$0$23608$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > >>The magic pencils?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
> > > and no bedtime snacks.
> > >
> >
> > so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
> > how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
> > prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
> > IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM ! one of the biggest they ever had on the
> > planet Shoa...
>
> It's not a problem, Moron. It's just a simple fact:
> Ernst Zundel is a liar.
>
> Sara
Holy revelation, Batman!!!! You mean those flying saucers Uncle
Ernstie talks about may not be real?
Joebruno
> [snip]
> >>The magic pencils?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > They must be. Remember, he had only one little stubby pencil, no chair,
> > and no bedtime snacks.
> >
>
> so this is the most important thing in the whole known jewish universe,
> how could Zuendel draw a colour picture and as well complain about the
> prison officials that they didn't want to let him use colour pencils.
> IT IS A REALLY HUGE PROBLEM ! one of the biggest they ever had on the
> planet Shoa...
>
> about how SS burned 800 000 jewish cadavers WITHOUT FUEL in Treblinka ?
>
> on the planet Shoa...
>
> > Yet he managed to create "delicate colour-pencil sketches."
> >
> > What a guy!!
> >
> > Then again, Hitler made water-color postcards.
> >
> > Sara
Why do you insist that Sara have the same priorities that you do? To each his own.
Gord McFee
Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
> In article <tc7covk3b6910tl5f...@4ax.com>,
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
[...]
Counting only my parents, brothers, sisters and children, and my wife's
parents, their children and their spouses and children, I arrive at 54.
[...]
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3f868f95$0$23612$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au> in
alt.revisionism, on Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:52:43 +0800, helge
<he...@helge.net> wrote:
> John Morris wrote:
> >>William Daffer wrote:
> >>>helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
> >>>>William Daffer wrote:
> >>>>>helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
> >>>>>[snip]
> >>or
> >>"everybody knows..."
If you are too cowardly or too ignorant to answer questions, why are
here? Is it just to vent your spleen at Jews? Is that all you have
to contribute to the discussion? Hatred of Jews?
Here is another chance for you to run away from real discussion: what
happened to the Jews deported to Treblinka?
Your response is remarkably stupid even by the low standards of
alt.revisionism. Two trials were held at Duesseldorf: one in 1965
and one in 1970. That fact makes no reference to the International
Military Tribunal.
Evidence was offered at Duesseldorf regarding the scale of the
murders at Treblinka. The defendants could most certainly have
disputed that evidence or equally could have disputed their roles in
the murders just as the defendants in Frankfurt did. But the
Duesseldorf defendants did neither.
To claim, as you seem to do, that "the Jews" controlled the trials
demonstrates a belief on your part that Germans are weak and stupid
people easily controlled and manipulated by others. You might wish
to explain why you hate Germans so much.
Or you might try answering one question: what happened to the Jews
deported to Treblinka?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBP4dzsJQgvG272fn9EQLTxwCg4eOyYojLxtEdMEkVdV4X9YcxiR8AoJjr
avD1TD7bIFgrXepLVnQRKSLh
=Tdyq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <14eaa81f.03101...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 10 Oct 2003 09:58:28 -0700, kolch...@yahoo.com
(Ludwig) wrote:
> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in message
> news:<3f868f95$0$23612$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>...
[snip]
> > besides - Morris is lying again because there was no
> > evidence/facts provided by the showtrials in Dusseldorf in the
> > 1960s and 1970s that 800 000 jews were gased and cremated in
> > Treblinka in 1942-43.
> > [snip]
> The trials in Duesseldorf, Germany, in 1965 and 1970 did not proof
> that 800,000 Jews or whatever were murdered in Treblinka. These
> crimes were considered evident facts and could not be disputed by
> anyone, as dictated by the Military Occupational Forces in Germany
> in the General Vertrag with Germany.
> Source: Rückerl: NS-Vernichtungslager
The trials at Duesseldorf were conducted by the independent judiciary
of the Federal Republic of Germany. The German judicial system was
restored to independence in the late 1950s.
Please do not embarass yourself again with such transparent
falsehoods.
If you wish to redeem yourself, try answering the question "helge"
was too afraid to attempt: what happened to the Jews deported to
Treblinka?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBP4d0gZQgvG272fn9EQJqrACgjD4rC7mS4tHx3gvoVXVueDXPimYAn2Ob
1Ym1Eu7qs3rsqNDAqknJlX+Z
=cDgq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3f86d048$0$23587$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au> in
alt.revisionism, on Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:28:46 +0800, helge
<he...@helge.net> wrote:
[snip]
> you know this is alt.revisionism not alt.myfamily, here's the place
> where jewish "holocaust" fraud and propaganda are being
> discussed...
But Sara did dispose rather handily of your implication that Jews
lied about the size of their families in order to raise the Holocaust
death toll.
I guess that embarasses you just as much as the rather simple
question: what happened to the Jews who were deported to Treblinka?
Why does this question make you tremble?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBP4d1dZQgvG272fn9EQLPtQCgs6iBpXbYdRF4ZmXajot3WTVJWQQAnRfg
9xgnQmEdvZAVeANu5mrIkUZJ
=+zEh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <catamont-50103E...@news-60.giganews.com> in
alt.revisionism, on Thu, 09 Oct 2003 22:16:36 -0600, Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
> In article <tc7covk3b6910tl5f...@4ax.com>,
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
[snip]
> It's easy to get to 50 people if any one branch of a family had
> even a reasonable number of children. When a family like my
> father's, you get to 50 in less than 3 generations. And my father,
> who is alive and well, already has 2 great-grandchildren.
Well, heck, I was talking about my grandmother's direct descendants.
None of the spouses of my cousins, _et al_., were in the picture, and
we still got fifty.
My grandmother also recently celebrated her 90th birthday, and some
of the little children in the 70th birthday picture now have children
of their own. I haven't seen it yet, but there is a picture of an
even larger group of people totalling five generations.
"Revisionists" like "helge" seem to be prone to the stupidest gambits
to reinforce the closed belief system that Jews lie about everything
from the sizes of their families to the numbers of family members
lost to the Holocaust.
[snip]
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA+AwUBP4d3w5QgvG272fn9EQKwvwCVGysMPmliTO0no9delh5B4RYvrACdE+3+
ovUmn78ICCymemhW4QUjdBw=
=0YgW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
helge
running away Morris ? distracting from the problem ?
do you want to awoid "the International Military Tribunal" - the act of
jewstice ?
you are saying that people were accused, tried, found guitly and were
executed - AND THE PROOF FOR THEIR CRIME WAS DELIVERED 14 -24 years
after their execution.
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ADMITTED - sure because of you limited intelect -
you were not aware of that.
> Evidence was offered at Duesseldorf regarding the scale of the
> murders at Treblinka.
And the evidence was ?
let me guess - jewish hearsay ?
THERE WAS NO FORENSIC INVESTIGATION REPORT, THERE WAS NO ARCHEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE TREBLINKA "extermination camp" site.
what was the evidence ?
> The defendants could most certainly have
> disputed that evidence or equally could have disputed their roles in
> the murders just as the defendants in Frankfurt did.
That's exactly what they did - NONE OF THEM admitted to participate in
extermination activities - they pointed to the already death ones
(Wirth, Hackenholt, Floss, etc.)
> But the
> Duesseldorf defendants did neither.
They did - and there was the problem - they could choose from:
1. accepting the jewish official story, and save their asses telling
that the jewish story is right, but they did not personaly participate
in the extermination activities - already dead Wirth, Hackenholt, Floss
were the real "criminals"
2. they could dismiss the jewish story - WITH NO WAY TO PROVE ANYTHING -
BECAUSE THE JEWISH STORY WAS NOT PROVED AND IT IS NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE
AND FACTS (so it is the same as if the SS guy should "prove" that there
is no live on Mars)
And the result of such action would be what Morris ?
LIFE SENTENCE - plus the defendant whout be accussed as being one of the
MAIN PARTICIPANTS of the extermination.
I m aware - read - can produce a link to a "jewish eyewitness testimony"
where the jew claims that he "saw SS Unterscharfuehrer Suchomel shooting
a small jewish girl (4-5 years old) because she did not want to give him
her doll"
HMM ?
One does not have to commit such crime in Treblinka wearing a SS uniform
to end up with lifesentence, right ?
HOWEVER - SS Unterscharfuehrer Suchomel - good boy "understood" - what
the show trial wants to hear - what are the politicaly correct answer -
how to say his ass - and he walked away with:
Arrested since 11th July 1963.
In the First Treblinka Trial 1965 he was sentenced to six years in
prison. Released in 1969.
THREE YEARS - well and here are some examples of his testimonies
(the jews like/need/want to hear:)
Tchechia according to Suchomel:
"She [Tchechia Mendel] was a really intelligent distinguished girl, very
proud and courageous. She was one of the few Jews all of us Germans
addressed as "Sie" rather than "Du". Jean François Steiner, author of
the controversial book "Treblinka", said she slept with Germans, but
never never did she do that.
She was Kapo Rakowski’s girl friend. He was the chief Jew of the camp
and she became pregnant by him and had an abortion. Tchechia was the
daughter of an industrialist in Galicia, extremely well educated. I was
told later how she died. I didn’t see it myself. It happened after I
left Treblinka. It was quite a while after the revolt, only a few girls
were still there waiting on the remnant of the German personnel who were
liquidating the camp. The Unterscharführer (who was in charge) got up
after lunch that day and apparently said to the three girls: "Well
girls, it’s your turn now" (jetzt muss es ja einmal dran’gehen).
Tchechia laughed and said, "aha, I never did believe your fairy-tale
promises, you pigs. Go ahead, kill us. Just do me a favour and don’t ask
us to undress". One of the girls, she was also called Tchechia ("little
Tchechia"), cried and Tchechia said, "don’t cry, don’t do them the
favour. Remember, you are a Jewess". She was really something -
somebody, you know.
(The position Suchomel has adopted as an admirer of the Jews, is as
remarkable as his memory, and psychologically interesting) Tchechia
Mandel came from Lvov.
But she never worked at the clinic, she always worked in the kitchen..."
"SS-Scharführer Suchomel relates about her:
One morning one of the young Poles who worked under me came,
distraught.He said, "Chief, please help me. My sister Broncha has
arrived; she is already in the undressing barrack... Please save her!" I
went in there and asked which was Broncha. There she was, naked,
trembling from head to foot and crying. I said, "Stop trembling. You are
a seamstress, are you?" And she - would you believe it, she said,
trembling, "no, I can't sew". So I said, "don't be stupid, you are a
seamstress; just remember that and I'll get you out". Then I told the
barrack commando to hold her back not to let her go into the tube or
they'd have to answer to me for it. And I went over to see Stangl and
told him that I just didn't have enough workers in my shop - I had to
have more. He said Wirth had ordered there was to be no more recruiting.
"Everything has to go", he said. But I said I just had to have at least
one more girl; so finally he said, "well, in God's name then," and gave
me a chit for her - to show Küttner. Anyway, that's how Broncha got out.
She survived, you know; she is in Israel."
"Chorazycki according to Suchomel:
Stangl told me that this physician had been a "famous Warsaw internist".
In Steiner's book "Treblinka" Dr. Chorazycki is described as "the doctor
of the Germans". Suchomel says:"Of course, I remember him well; he was a
nose and throat specialist. I talked with him many times; my son was
physically handicapped you know, and Dr. Chorazycki often advised me
about him. He was converted Jew, you know. He wore a golden necklace
with a cross. He said his Polish colleagues in the hospital in Warsaw
had given him away..."
"Suchomel relates and has another idea about what started the uprising
prematurely:
There was a man called Salzberg. He had two sons. Both the boys were
cleaners in our barracks. Father Salzberg was storekeeper in the
tailor-shop, therefore under me. He was very intelligent and worried
about his boys. He told me his wife had died in Kielce before he came to
Treblinka. Salzberg was on the so-called "committee", and it was upon
his urging that the revolt began an hour earlier than planned, and thus
insufficiently prepared. The reason why Salzberg insisted on this may be
because his older boy, two days before the revolt, had done something -
I don’t know what - that annoyed Küttner. I had pleaded with Kurt Franz
for the boy's life and it seemed all right, but Salzberg was still
afraid that Küttner would take him. That boy was fifteen that's what
his father told me - the younger one was twelve and his name was
Heinrich. He was a nice boy. The older one I didn’t know because he
worked in the other barrack.
Richard Glazar too had written to me about Salzberg, but spoke of him as
only having one son, sixteen years old. "The only case", he said, "where
father and son were selected together from a transport. The young
Salzberg worked as a cleaner in the SS barracks with Edek, the accordion
player. I hear he is supposed to have survived and be living somewhere
in Spain.""
>
> To claim, as you seem to do, that "the Jews" controlled the trials
> demonstrates a belief on your part that Germans are weak and stupid
> people easily controlled and manipulated by others. You might wish
> to explain why you hate Germans so much.
>
> Or you might try answering one question: what happened to the Jews
> deported to Treblinka?
1. "deported" IS NOT EQUAL to "gassed and cremated"
2. I m not aware of EVIDENCE about *800 000* jews being deported to
Treblinka
3. I can not answer your question because I DO NOT KNOW "what happened
to the X jews deported to Treblinka" - EXACTLY AS YOU DO KNOW what
happened to them - the difference is that you are lying without any
evidence/facts that:
1. they were "exterminated" in Treblinka
2. that there were 800 000 jews deported to Treblinka
YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY PROOF FOR YOUR LIES - and your "don't know" defaults
to "gassed and cremated"
William Daffer
[snip]
>> I have no doubts that he survived just to "tell the world the terrible
>> truth about the Nazis death factories", he saw gassvans, gasschambers,
>> what else ?
>>
>
> Well, you're wrong. Mr father was born in Brooklyn, Moron. His family
> came here long before the Holocaust.
>
> I was not trying to prove anything about the Holocaust, Helge. I was
> merely responding to your statement:
>
>> >>>Yes - looking at the numbers of "family members of those missing" I
>> >>>came to a conclusion that average jewish holocaust family had
>> >>>between 20-50 members.
>
> Are you THAT stupid?
From my interaction with him I'd be forced to admit that yes, he is
THAT stupid. He's like a slightly more functional Kurt Knoll.
whd
--
Ewan Jackson, confirming his status as a self-admitted liar.
[Jeffrey Brown asked]
Were you lying when you told us your real name was Jerome Gregory,
or were you lying when you told us it wasn't?
[Ewan answered]
Yes.
William Daffer
> John Morris wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[snip]
>> Evidence was offered at Duesseldorf regarding the scale of the
>> murders at Treblinka.
>
> And the evidence was ?
> let me guess - jewish hearsay ?
> THERE WAS NO FORENSIC INVESTIGATION REPORT, THERE WAS NO ARCHEOLOGICAL
> INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE TREBLINKA "extermination camp" site.
> what was the evidence ?
So, again you admit to *complete ignorance* about what evidence does exist.
Small surprise.
[snip]
whd
--
Kurt asks (says?):
You are coherent to what.
William Daffer
You claimed that because no one had produced any evidence of the
fuel used open air cremation was impossible. The same is true of
Dresden, you've produced no evidence of the fuel used. Ergo, by
*YOU* argument, the open-air cremations as Dresden are impossible.
Don't blame me, it's *YOUR* argument.
Beyond that you've made some remarkably stupid claims about what
eyewitnesses and historians say, most of which center around your
bizarre notion that they believe the bodies completely disappear
without a trace. That part of your claims are fabrications on your
part, no one makes any such claims. So by sputtering on about this
you're only proving what an ignorant boob you are.
>
>> They have graves at Treblinka too, stupid.
> well - in this sentence you have "DENIED" "The Holocaust" - because if
> you read the "normative" history (e.g. Yitzhak Arad) and jewish
> "eyewitness" "testimonies" (e.g. Yankel Wiernik) it says that the
> SS removed ALL TRACES - that includes graves, bodies of victims, gass
> chambers - EVERYTHING.
>
> example:
> (quote)
> ARAD: Both Treblinka and other camps, once they had fulfilled their
> task of extermination they were liquidated, disbanded, they were
> obliterated, they were turned into agricultural land and some greenery
> was planted. All we do have is survivors' evidence and testimony,
> especially Yaakov Vernick, who a few months after he escaped from the
> Treblinka Camp at the time of the revolt I will come back to that
> at a later stage he had prepared a drawing, a sketch or diagram
> of the Treblinka Camp and he in fact constructed in Israel, at a later
> stage, a scale model of Treblinka on the basis of the drawing he had
> brought along. And this is the main source for our information about
> the camp.
> (quote)
*sigh*. How many times do we have to say this to you? Part of giving
a quote is the attribution. Which MUST INCLUDE THE PAGE NUMBER(S).
So, what is the attribution for your quote?
Now, as to the its substance, all I can say is: Wow, you really
can't read English, can you!
Nothing in that report would lead someone moderately facile with
English to conclude that Arad had claimed that there would be no
graves with the cremation remains of the victims.
In fact, checking _Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka_ I find that not only
are graves with remains mentioned by Arad, but, (surprise, surprise)
so is fuel. So all of your claims about normative historians, which
seems to mean Arad to you, are false on their face.
Is anyone surprised that you would, again, be demonstrated to be an
ignorant know-nothing?
Quoting Arad, who's quoting SS Oberscharfuehrer Heinrich
Matthes.
'"At that time SS Oberscharfuehrer or Hauptscharfuehrer [Herbert]
Floss, who, as I assume, was previously in another extermination
camp, arrived. He was in chage of the arrangements for cremating
the corpses. the cremation took place in such a was that railway
lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were
piled on these rails. was put under the fails. The wood was doused
with petrol In that way not only the newly accumulated corpses
were cremated, but also those taken out from the graves."' p 174.
There. Two mentions of two different fuels. There are other
mentions. So, stupid, as usual. You're completely wrong.
Now, about the disappearance of the bodies.
'The camp command was confronted with the problem of disposing of
the large piles of ash and bits of bone that remained after the
process was completed. Attempts to mix the ash with dirt and dust
proved unsuccessful as a means of concealing the ash. Ultimately
it was decided *to dump the ash and bits of bone into the ditches
that had previously held the bodies* and to cover them with a
thick layer of sand and dirt. The ash was scattered in the pits in
several layers, interspersed with layers of sand. The top 2 meters
of the pit were filled with earth.' p 176
A bit further on.
'The burning of the bodies, the scattering of ashes, and the
refilling of the ditches went on for months. the mass graces,
emptied of the victims' bodies and *refilled with the victims' ashes
and bits of their bones*, were covered with a thick layer of
earht. The cremation of the corpses in the death camps of *Operation
Reinhardt* contined until the last days of activity there. p 177
Emphasis mine.
>
>> And at Belzec and Sobibor
>> and Majdanek and Auschwitz/Birkenau and, indeed, at the hundreds (or
>> thousands) of Einsatzgruppen killing sites.
>>
> we are talking about Treblinka, right ?
Belzec and Sobibor were also Reinhardt camps and used the same
methodologies, as I've just shown. You can't dispute the occurances
at Treblinka without disputing them, as well. Otherwise you commit
the fallacy of 'special pleading.'
Go look it up.
>
>> So again, where's the difference?
>>
>>>1. Dresden - the people of Dresden died in the bombing, BUT THEY DID
>>> NOT "DISAPPEAR" during the bombing
>> Overlooking the 'during', people most certainly are claiming that
>> the dead were cremated in just the sort of 'open-air cremation' you
>> say *was impossible at Treblinka*!
>
> 1. LIE - noone but you is claiming that the dead [of Dresden] were
> cremated "in just the sort of 'open-air cremation' [like at Treblinka]"
LIE: It's *YOU* who has fabricated this new requirement for
Treblinka that normative historians believed the bodies disappeared
without a trace. It'd abundantly clear now that your beliefs are
borne completely of your ignorance and have nothing to do with what
normative historians actually say. Without your artificial
restriction the methodology for removal of dead bodies in the two
cases is the same with only one caveat, that the cremations at
Dresden did not have as their object the destruction of the evidence
of a crime. But this caveat actually works to my favor, not yours,
since it means that producing evidence of Dresden should be
*easier*, yet you've produced none!
>
>
>>(Is it beginning to sink in,
>> doofus?)
> 2. LIE - it is beginning of your lying and as you see you didn't get
> very far.
How can calling you a doofus be a lie? It's abundantly true that you
are a doofus!
>
>>Therefore they 'disappeared' in precisely the same way they
>> 'disappeared' at Treblinka.
>>
> 3. LIE - noone but you is claiming that victims of Dresden bombing
> 'disappeared' in precisely the same way they 'disappeared' at
> Treblinka.
LIE: No one but you is claiming that they 'disappeared' in 'some
different way' at Treblinka. The rest of humanity understands that
even when you burn people there are some remains. But if Treblinka's
dead didn't 'disappear' in some 'different way' then they
'disappeared' in 'the same way' as Dresden's dead: they were
cremated and the remains of those cremations were put in mass
graves.
It's called the 'law of the excluded middle.'
Of the two of us I've prodced evidence for the existence of the
remains at Treblinka, you haven't for Dresden. So, by YOUR OWN
METHODOLOGY you have to conclude that no one was cremated at
Dresden. But for you that produces a necessary follow-on conclusion:
no one died at Dresden (that's what you argued about Treblinka, the
fact that no one was cremated implied that no one died, after all).
>
>
>> Is the light beginning to shine into the impenetrable darkness that is
>> your brain?
>>
>>>- I never heard anyone claiming that
>>> the victims of Dresden bombin disappeared during the bombing
>> Nor do you hear anyone, except stupid deniers like yourself,
>> claiming that the dead at Treblinka disappeared in any way different
>> from the dead at Dresden.
> 4. LIE - it is a claim of normative history and jewish "eyewitnesses"
> that the Nazis REMOVED ALL TRACES - thus the bodies of Treblinka
> "victims" 'disappeared' ( in sense were 100% destroyed, and the ashes
> were removed as well 100%).
No. it isn't, as I've just shown. It's a claim of one helge, who's
too stupid to read English with any understanding. That, or helge is
lying.
>
> In Dresden the purpose of the open-air cremation was not to hide
> something, or to remove all traces - the open-air cremation was needed
> because of hygienic reasons.
> The remains of the bombing were buried in a graves - where they are
> until now.
Not that you've shown, you've produced no forensic proof. In case
you've forgotten, that'w what you're requiring for Treblnka.
And there are remains are at Belzec, which used the same
methodology as Treblinka.
>
>> There are graves, they contain remains from cremations. The Belzec
>> dig proves this, not that it needed proving.
> 5. LIE - the "Belzec dig" has nothing to do with Treblinka
LIE: Belzec was another Reinhardt camp. The methodology used there
was the same as at Treblinka. You can't claim that they were able to
make bodies 'disappear' at Treblinka yet unable to do the same magic
at Belzec when they used the same method of disposal at both.
Otherwise you commit the fallacy of 'special pleading.'
> 6. LIE - the Belzec dig was needed and is needed to finish it, because
> that is the only way how to provide material evidence about Belzec.
As predicted, you wouldn't let the fact that your demand has already
been met deter you from requiring more proof. The fact is, you
simply won't be satisfied because you *already* believe that nothing
happened there and so you refuse to believe the evidence that
contradicts your pre-ordained conclusion.
Well, too bad. The dig was done, it found human remains. It was more
than what was required to prove the facts of the matter in the first
place. Nothing more needs to be done to satisfy those like you who
won't be satisfied.
>
>
>> Are you getting the picture yet? You can't possibly be *this*
>> stupid.
> [stupid means to do not want to accept your shallow lies - yes then I
> must agree - I m *this* stupid ]
That's right. You can't read simple English, you can't understand
simple logic and you're too ignorant for words about what history
does say.
>
>>
>>>- even you are not so stupid - you are just a liar who was caught in
>>>his own> lies - so you created this absurdity.
>> The rest of your response, having following the same mindless
>> stupidty, is mercifully discarded.
>
> 7. LIE - you made up the stupid comparisson between Treblinka myth,
> based on "eyewitness testimonies" and bombing of Dresden based on
> facts and evidence.
Of course I made it up, stupid. I made it up to demonstrate the
absurdity of your argument.. It's a time-honored technique in logic:
apply the same argument to a different case and see if it yeilds an
absurd conclusion. If it does, the argument was invalid to begin
with.
Of course you can't understand that, being stupid and all.
>
> And you were clearly shown that one can not compare facts&evidence
> with hearsay, lies and "eyewitness testimonies".
> The evidence for Dresden and Treblinka is VERY DIFFERENT in quality
> as well in the quantity.
Not that you've produced, 'helge.' You keep demanding I produce
evidence for Treblinka. I have. And mine is better. You've produced
absolutely no evidence that Dresden that is of as high a 'forensic'
caliber as I've produced for Treblinka. No accounts as to the fuel
used (your demand), no 'forensic studies' of the graves (your
demand), no proof that remains exist (your demand). I've produced all
three. By your own argument, you should, if you were consitent,
conclude that Dresden never actually happened.
The fact that you don't only shows that you recognize the absurdity
of your argument when applied to Dresden. Of course the rest of us
recognize that your argument is absurd when applied to anything.
Which was my point all along.
God you make this easy!
[snip]
whd
--
Death's head, relating his commitment to rational debate:
if you turned up at my house you'd be killed stone dead and ... i'd
poke your eye out and skullfuck you first.
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> writes:
>
>
>>John Morris wrote:
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>>>Evidence was offered at Duesseldorf regarding the scale of the
>>>murders at Treblinka.
>>
>>And the evidence was ?
>>let me guess - jewish hearsay ?
>>THERE WAS NO FORENSIC INVESTIGATION REPORT, THERE WAS NO ARCHEOLOGICAL
>>INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE TREBLINKA "extermination camp" site.
>>what was the evidence ?
>
>
>
> So, again you admit to *complete ignorance* about what evidence does exist.
>
have you ever thought about buying a pair of glasses, willy ?
let me repeat, what I said:
"THERE WAS NO FORENSIC INVESTIGATION REPORT, THERE WAS NO ARCHEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE TREBLINKA "extermination camp" site." [used
at the Treblinka trials in 60s and 70s]
> Small surprise.
>
> [snip]
>
> whd