More Perjury
Debunks
of the Commission for the Investigation of Nazi-German Crimes in Auschwitz,
Alter Feinsilber (Stanislaw Jankowski) stated the following:
On the basis of my own observations and conversations with other prisoners in
this Sonderkommando, I have come to the conclusion that during its existence -
and it functioned for about two years - no less than 2 million people were
burned in the crematoria and bunkers of Birkenau. This figure does not include
persons incinerated in Birkenau by various other Sonderkommandos which had
existed before that time, and were later liquidated by the SS men so that they
could not give us information about the numboer of persons burned during their
existence. The number of unregistered arrivals incincerated reaches several
million."
SOURCE: Auschwitz, how many perished, F. Piper, Krakow, 1991, p. 7.
Next we have a statement allegedly written by an SK who again, allegedly buried
this statement in the earth at Birkenau, later *discovered* by Soviets or their
agents:
"...Zalman Gradowski, wrote:
"I have buried this under the ashes, considering it the safest place, bound to
be dug up to find traces of the millions of murdered people."
Source, Ibid, Piper, p. 6.
COMMENT: It should be noted here that there are no masses of ashes which were
ever discovered at the camp which would support the claims allegedly made by
Gradowski above. In effect, he is claiming millions of deaths for the period
prior to 1943-1945.
Next:
Zalman Leventhal declared:
"The history of Auschwitz-Birkenau as a labour camp, and especially as an
extermination camp for millions of people, will not-so I believe-be accurately
related to the world."
Source, Ibid., Piper, p. 6
Comment: Of course Leventhal's statement can be taken two ways. The history
of the camp and the bunkers has not be accurately related to the world.
Next:
"Rachwalowa, a former prisoner who worked in the office of the political
division in Birkenau, testified: "Conversations between SS men in the
political office led me to the conclusion that this number (of victims-F.P.)
was between 4 and 5 million."
Source: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
COMMENT: It is obvious that this inmate is perjuring himself. Again,
statements such as these are consistent with Soviet techniques. He *overhears*
alleged statements which led him to conlude, etc. Hearsay and unsubstantiated
rubbish which was conveniently *confessed* to by people like Grabner, who was
head of the political division at Auschwitz, to the Soviets.
Next:
The above statement by the eavesdropping *witness* Rachwalowa, is *confirmed*
by the following:
"This is confirmed by Wlodzimierz Bilan, a member of the SS who was employed in
this office; according to his testimony given during the trial of Rudolf
Hoess, SS men present there estimated the number of victims at 5 million."
And adding further insult to injury, we next read:
"Another SS man from the political division, Perry Broad, wrote in his memoirs:
"Auschwitz was an extermination camp, the largest such camp in history. In the
course of hits existence 2 to 3 million Jews were murdered there, as well as
thousands of Poles, Russians, Czechs, Yugoslavs and others."
And finally:
"Another SS physician, Friedrich entree, who served as the camp doctor in
1942-1943, stated that in his view, 2 to 2.5 million people were killed in
Auschwitz."
Source for all the above: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
COMMENT: Thus we see that the technique employed by Soviets was utilized in
toto re these Auschwitz witnesses. Hearsay, false estimates, calculations,
which all averaged out to the 4 million figure claimed by the Soviets and the
Auschwitz Museum up to 1989. The figure was chiseled into stone and the Pope
genuflected before it. Now, the figure has been chiseled out.
The statement by Entree is also of interest because he is claiming 2-2.5
million killed for the period during which he was employed at Auschwitz. Thus,
HIS figure is made to correspond by his interrogators to the 2 million claimed
by Tauber prior to his arrival, and by others as well, such as Dragon, Bimko's
unidentified informant, and also confirms Hoess's figure of 2.5 million (Again,
during the period when he was actively commandant. Hoess was transferred in
Nov 1943 and returned briefly in the summer of 44 to process the Hungarian
arrivals.
\What a web they weaved! And now it is all catching up with them.
Steven Mock
Debunks wrote:
> "In a testimony given in Cracow on April 16, 1945, to Edward Pechalski, member
> of the Commission for the Investigation of Nazi-German Crimes in Auschwitz,
> Alter Feinsilber (Stanislaw Jankowski) stated the following:
>
> On the basis of my own observations and conversations with other prisoners in
> this Sonderkommando, I have come to the conclusion that during its existence -
> and it functioned for about two years - no less than 2 million people were
> burned in the crematoria and bunkers of Birkenau. This figure does not include
> persons incinerated in Birkenau by various other Sonderkommandos which had
> existed before that time, and were later liquidated by the SS men so that they
> could not give us information about the numboer of persons burned during their
> existence. The number of unregistered arrivals incincerated reaches several
> million."
And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
> SOURCE: Auschwitz, how many perished, F. Piper, Krakow, 1991, p. 7.
>
> Next we have a statement allegedly written by an SK who again, allegedly buried
> this statement in the earth at Birkenau, later *discovered* by Soviets or their
> agents:
>
> "...Zalman Gradowski, wrote:
>
> "I have buried this under the ashes, considering it the safest place, bound to
> be dug up to find traces of the millions of murdered people."
And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
> Zalman Leventhal declared:
>
> "The history of Auschwitz-Birkenau as a labour camp, and especially as an
> extermination camp for millions of people, will not-so I believe-be accurately
> related to the world."
>
> Source, Ibid., Piper, p. 6
And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
> Comment: Of course Leventhal's statement can be taken two ways. The history
> of the camp and the bunkers has not be accurately related to the world.
Ah, I see. Because Joe Bellinger says so. Again.
> Next:
>
> "Rachwalowa, a former prisoner who worked in the office of the political
> division in Birkenau, testified: "Conversations between SS men in the
> political office led me to the conclusion that this number (of victims-F.P.)
> was between 4 and 5 million."
I'm sure that was his indeed his conclusions, which happened to be erroneous.
What, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
> Source: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
>
> COMMENT: It is obvious that this inmate is perjuring himself.
Oh, its obvious, then. I stand corrected.
> Again,
> statements such as these are consistent with Soviet techniques. He *overhears*
> alleged statements which led him to conlude, etc. Hearsay and unsubstantiated
> rubbish which was conveniently *confessed* to by people like Grabner, who was
> head of the political division at Auschwitz, to the Soviets.
Translation: It smells Sov to me, so its perjury. Thor has spoken.
<snip: nothing of importance>
This is the sort of evidence that Bellinger thinks vidicates his smears? Please!
Steven Mock
--
"I may not agree with your bumper sticker;
but I'll defend your right to stick it." - Ed Anger
Debunks
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 2/10/01 2:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A85BF56...@nizkor.org>
Further evidence is on the way. Enjoy@!
tom moran
Mock mocked again and again:
>And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
Random House Dictionary
perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
when claiming millions were exterminated. Lies and only lies. Was it a
"mistake" that Mock says it was a "mistake"?
gassen_...@my-deja.com
It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to perjury,
cunningly couched in terms that an apologist like you could use in order
to make them appear innocuous.
The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence' that
even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
evident.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Steven Mock
> Further evidence is on the way. Enjoy@!
"Further evidence"? All I did was ask you to explain how what you already posted
counted as evidence for your position. Apparently you don't want to answer.
Debunks
>From: t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran)
>Date: 2/10/01 3:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3a8fcb10...@news.pacificnet.net>
Steven Mock
> Mock mocked again and again:
> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>
> Random House Dictionary
>
> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
> Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
> millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
> when claiming millions were exterminated.
Obviously you have more fingers and toes than Tauber had, Moran.
(what an idiot!)
Steven Mock
> It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to perjury,
> cunningly couched in terms that an apologist like you could use in order
> to make them appear innocuous.
>
> The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence' that
> even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
> evident.
Right. So you'd be another one who thinks that a witnesses' testimony is
totally worthless unless he or she can demonstrate the ability accurately
guess at numbers in the order of millions.
That's why they're deniers, I suppose.
Debunks
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 2/10/01 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A85D70C...@nizkor.org>
>
>tom moran wrote:
> Mock mocked again and again:
>> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>
>> Random House Dictionary
>>
>> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
REPLY: That appears to be the case, yes.
>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
>a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and unsubstantiated.
>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>
REPLY: A reckless disregard for truth by referring to an unnamed informant
without any substantiation and a false claim of having assisted in the
destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period, (Note that the life of
an SK was 2-3 months at best, according to other sources) during the course of
which the murderous SS allowed him to live and tell his story and point fingers
at the alleged offenders. I would say this also qualifies. Which leads one to
the conclusion that his duties were not as he claimed, but that if he was an
SK, his dutied consisted of disposal of those who died as a result of epidemics
or natural causes. This not preclude the possibility that some type of
euthanasia program was in force in the camp, but you need to prove this as
fact)
>
>> Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
>> millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
>> when claiming millions were exterminated.
>
>Obviously you have more fingers and toes than Tauber had, Moran.
>
>(what an idiot!)
>
REPLY: No, he isn't an idiot. He is being honest in his assessment of Tauber's
statements.
tom moran
>> Mock mocked again and again:
>> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
Moran introduced the understanding of what we would be talking about:
>> Random House Dictionary
>>
>> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
Mock with more crock:
>So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>
>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
>a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>
>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>Obviously you have more fingers and toes than Tauber had, Moran.
>
>(what an idiot!)
Is this the same Tauber you're referring to Mock?
Tauber is the one that said they would put up to eight (8) bodies at a
time into a cremation oven in order to create a lot of flames and
smoke to signal Allied bomber crews as to what was going on. He said
they would do it when no one was looking. In Pressac's book, the same
one that Mathews cites as the source, Pressac shows a number of
designs for various cremation ovens designed by German companies. With
those we can see that any one of them wouldn't have anything more than
a small opening for any emissions to escape from the ovens. Thus we
would have it that the alleged flames and smoke would exit from the
ovens into a 2 x 2 foot duct system, then go under ground up to 40
feet before it hit the chimney and then up the chimney to exit as
flames and billowing smoke. .
Tauber also as cited in Pressac's book says that they could cremate up
to four (4) bodies in 15 minutes or one in a time of 4 to 7 minutes.
Present day high tech cremation facilities take up to an hour and a
half to cremate a body of 150 pounds.
Tauber also said they would cremate from 10,000 to 12,000 bodies a day
at Auschwitz. That would be for the ovens and not pits. That would be
about 240 bodies per oven per day or for each oven 10 bodies per hour.
So is that the same Tauber you going on about, Mock?
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A85D70C...@nizkor.org>
> >
> >tom moran wrote:
>
> > Mock mocked again and again:
> >> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
> >>
> >> Random House Dictionary
> >>
> >> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>
> >So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
> >that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
> >there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>
> REPLY: That appears to be the case, yes.
In other words, all you have is your subjective assessment, coupled with your
desire to believe whatever you want.
> >Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
> >a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>
> REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and unsubstantiated.
True. But its not perjury.
> >Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>
> REPLY: A reckless disregard for truth by referring to an unnamed informant
Which is not perjury. He didn't know the guy's name. If he had made up a name, it
would be perjury.
He's not demanding that we take this number as revealed truth. He's just telling
us what he knows to the best of his ability.
> without any substantiation and a false claim of having assisted in the
> destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
An estimate of 2 million. Other than the fact that he guessed wrong, what about
the claim is false?
<remaining unsupported speculations snipped>
gassen_...@my-deja.com
Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote:
> tom moran wrote:
>
> > Mock mocked again and again:
> > >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
> >
> > Random House Dictionary
> >
> > perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>
> So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he
guess
> that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he
was
> there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
No what is suggested is that no homicidal gassings were carried out and
that Taubers entire testimony is perjury.
What is suggested is that Tauber did not hazard his guess until the
scenario was explained to him by the Soviet officials concocting his
'testimony'.
>
> Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who
offered
> a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
That is exactly what is being said, if there was no 'holocaust' then
there was no conversation about it, this 'conversation' was another
concoction.
>
> Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>
His entire 'testimony'.
> > Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
> > millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
> > when claiming millions were exterminated.
>
> Obviously you have more fingers and toes than Tauber had, Moran.
>
> (what an idiot!)
>
> Steven Mock
> --
If you can't figure it out, all I have to say to you is:
> (what an idiot!) Steven Mock
Steven Mock
> > So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he
> guess
> > that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he
> > was there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>
> No what is suggested is that no homicidal gassings were carried out and
> that Taubers entire testimony is perjury.
>
> What is suggested is that Tauber did not hazard his guess until the
> scenario was explained to him by the Soviet officials concocting his
> 'testimony'.
Then I guess no one has told you that your unsupported "suggestion" and a
bucket of excrement is worth the bucket.
Unlike the witness testimonies, which are evidence.
<snip: more unsupported denails and childish insults>
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
(snip)
>Further evidence is on the way. Enjoy@!
>
Any evidence you provide would be the first.
All you've done in over a week on this topic is confirm that many of the
survivors offered widely varying over-estimates of something they couldn't be
expected to know, - the number murdered at Auschwitz.
That's pretty pathetic, Joe.
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson
Gord McFee
perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
Debunks wrote:
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Philip Mathews
No perjury there. And note how Joe is willing to make such a
determination without all the background information he claimed was
necessary with Tauber before making a judgment about his testimony.
>
>Next we have a statement allegedly written by an SK who again,
allegedly
>buried
>this statement in the earth at Birkenau, later *discovered* by Soviets
or
>their
>agents:
Despite Joe's use of the word "alleged" the documents were found buried
on the grounds by multiple people.
>
>"...Zalman Gradowski, wrote:
>
>"I have buried this under the ashes, considering it the safest place,
bound
>to
>be dug up to find traces of the millions of murdered people."
>
>Source, Ibid, Piper, p. 6.
>
>COMMENT: It should be noted here that there are no masses of ashes
which
>were
>ever discovered at the camp which would support the claims allegedly
made by
>Gradowski above. In effect, he is claiming millions of deaths for the
period
>prior to 1943-1945.
Ashes were discovered at Auschwitz. Most of the ashes were disposed of
in the Vistula river.
(quote)
"December 5 <1944> ...The women's squad employed in dismantling
Crematorium III increases by 50, to 150.... The woodleand demolotion
squad is created in Birkenau, to which 50 female prisoners are sent.
The squad works on the grounds of the so-called big sauna and
Crematorium IV. It must clear the grounds and fill in and cover with
grass all the pits previously used for burning the corpses of those
killed in the gas chambers. It must also sift through the human ash
remains before they are strewn in the Vistula. Little trees are planted
on the leveled ground.... The male and female prisoners attempt to
sabotage the orders of the SS and avoid whenever possible removing the
ashes of the murdered before the pits are filled in, in the hope that
these human remains- some incompletely burned bones -will in the near
future prove the crime of genocide that was committed here."
(end quote)
Auschwitz Chronicle
Danuta Czech
p. 759
A concerted effort was made to remove and dispose of the ashes from
those murdered and cremated. As for Gradowski's estimate of the number
killed, it is no more significant than the fact that others couldn't be
expected to know the correct number.
>Next:
>
>Zalman Leventhal declared:
>
>"The history of Auschwitz-Birkenau as a labour camp, and especially as
an
>extermination camp for millions of people, will not-so I believe-be
>accurately
>related to the world."
>
>Source, Ibid., Piper, p. 6
>
>Comment: Of course Leventhal's statement can be taken two ways. The
history
>of the camp and the bunkers has not be accurately related to the
world.
LOL! Leventhal's statement cannot be taken that way at all. As for your
charge, you have a problem. You've no evidence to offer that the
history of the camp has not been accurately related to the world.
>
>Next:
>
>"Rachwalowa, a former prisoner who worked in the office of the
political
>division in Birkenau, testified: "Conversations between SS men in the
>political office led me to the conclusion that this number (of
victims-F.P.)
>was between 4 and 5 million."
>
>Source: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
>
>COMMENT: It is obvious that this inmate is perjuring himself.
Of course, it is not obvious at all.
Again,
>statements such as these are consistent with Soviet techniques.
Statements are not techniques, and the estimate in this case was higher
by a significant degree than others. It is a strange technique which
wishes to establish a certain number by having a wide variety of
numbers testified to
He
>*overhears*
>alleged statements which led him to conlude, etc. Hearsay and
>unsubstantiated
>rubbish which was conveniently *confessed* to by people like Grabner,
who was
>head of the political division at Auschwitz, to the Soviets.
There's nothing wrong with hearsay evidence and no witness is expected
to provide substantiation for his own testimony.
>
>Next:
>
>The above statement by the eavesdropping *witness* Rachwalowa, is
*confirmed*
>by the following:
>
>"This is confirmed by Wlodzimierz Bilan, a member of the SS who was
employed
>in
>this office; according to his testimony given during the trial of
Rudolf
>Hoess, SS men present there estimated the number of victims at 5
million."
Well, I don't know how 5 million confirms 4-5 million, but when you're
struggling to make a case, I guess you resort to that.
>
>And adding further insult to injury, we next read:
>
>"Another SS man from the political division, Perry Broad, wrote in his
>memoirs:
>
>"Auschwitz was an extermination camp, the largest such camp in
history. In
>the
>course of hits existence 2 to 3 million Jews were murdered there, as
well as
>thousands of Poles, Russians, Czechs, Yugoslavs and others."
So now we have a collection of estimates from 2.8 million, to 2-3
million, to 4 million, to 4.5 million, to 4-5 million, to 5 million, to
5.5 million. Some conspiracy!
>
>And finally:
>
>"Another SS physician, Friedrich entree, who served as the camp doctor
in
>1942-1943, stated that in his view, 2 to 2.5 million people were
killed in
>Auschwitz."
Oh my God, a different estimate still!!! What a conspiracy.
>
>Source for all the above: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
>
>COMMENT: Thus we see that the technique employed by Soviets was
utilized in
>toto re these Auschwitz witnesses.
Testimony is not technique.
>Hearsay,
Not a technique. A vast amount of all historical evidence is hearsay.
Perfectly acceptable.
>false estimates,
A variey of false estimates, none of them tied to the Soviets, as your
own sources show.
> calculations,
>which all averaged out to the 4 million figure claimed by the Soviets
and the
>Auschwitz Museum up to 1989.
LOL! Note the change in strategy! First Joe attempted the common denier
canard, that the Soviets conspired to have the witnesses testify to 4
million dead. But that gambit was exposed by much testimony, some
concealed by Joe, that the estimates were all over the place. Now Joe's
theory is that the Soviets conspired to effect a series of estimates
whose mathematical mean would be 4 million! Of course, he has no more
evidence that this is true than he did before, but for some reason it
makes him feel better.
Of course the most interesting aspect of this post is the question
about which of these witnesses Joe was able to ascertain the
same information he demanded of Tauber before being able to reach a
judgment on the testimony.
--
Philip Mathews
Philip Mathews
>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>Mock mocked again and again:
>>And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>
>Random House Dictionary
>
>perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>
>
>Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
>millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
>when claiming millions were exterminated.
Sure they do, just like Irving, and denier websites, and deniers make a mistake
when they claim that 200,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 were killed in the bombing
of Dresden.
Lies and only lies. Was it a
>"mistake" that Mock says it was a "mistake"?
Well, it was clearly a mistake. To make it a lie requires evidence, not just
antisemitic motivations for believing what you want to believe. Got any
evidence Tommy boy!
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>>Date: 2/10/01 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3A85D70C...@nizkor.org>
>>
>>tom moran wrote:
>
>> Mock mocked again and again:
>>> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>>
>>> Random House Dictionary
>>>
>>> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>
>>So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>>that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>>there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>
>REPLY: That appears to be the case, yes.
Not based on any evidence you've been able to show.
>
>>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
>>a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>
>REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and unsubstantiated.
It is not immaterial and people are supposed to substantiate their own
testimony. That's the job of people who use their testimony.
>
>>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>>
>
>REPLY: A reckless disregard for truth by referring to an unnamed informant
>without any substantiation and a false claim of having assisted in the
>destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
There is no reckless disregard for the truth. No one knew the truth at the
time. He gave the information he had.
(Note that the life
>of
>an SK was 2-3 months at best, according to other sources)
No, that's not what the evidence says, and for a handful of thousands of SKs to
survive longer is hardly suspicious.
during the course
>of
>which the murderous SS allowed him to live and tell his story and point
>fingers
>at the alleged offenders.
They didn't allow him to tell his story, he escaped. Are you really this
stupid, or is wilful mischaracterization the only thing you have to offer?
> I would say this also qualifies. Which leads one
>to
>the conclusion that his duties were not as he claimed,
It doesn't lead to that conclusion even if your lies were true.
> but that if he was an
>SK, his dutied consisted of disposal of those who died as a result of
>epidemics
>or natural causes.
No, the evidence indicates he disposed of those killed in gas chambers. You've
conveniently forgotten that?
Philip Mathews
>gassen_...@my-deja.com wrote:
(snip)
>It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to perjury,
>cunningly couched in terms that an apologist like you could use in order
>to make them appear innocuous.
Who cares what it seem like to you. Were's the evidence which supports what you
want to believe. I'll tell you where. It doesn't exist.
>
>The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence' that
>even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
>evident.
This is not evidence given at a war crimes trial, idiot.
If you're going to attempt to discuss history, go learn some first.
Philip Mathews
>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>
>Moran introduced the understanding of what we would be talking about:
>>> Random House Dictionary
>>>
>>> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
Li'l Tommy apparently thinks defining a word is proving it occurrence.
>>So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>>that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>>there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>>
>>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
>>a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>>
>>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>
>>Obviously you have more fingers and toes than Tauber had, Moran.
>>
>>(what an idiot!)
>
>Is this the same Tauber you're referring to Mock?
>
>Tauber is the one that said they would put up to eight (8) bodies at a
>time into a cremation oven in order to create a lot of flames and
>smoke to signal Allied bomber crews as to what was going on. He said
>they would do it when no one was looking. In Pressac's book, the same
>one that Mathews cites as the source, Pressac shows a number of
>designs for various cremation ovens designed by German companies. With
>those we can see that any one of them wouldn't have anything more than
>a small opening for any emissions to escape from the ovens.
Where do we see that?
> Thus we
>would have it that the alleged flames and smoke would exit from the
>ovens into a 2 x 2 foot duct system, then go under ground up to 40
>feet before it hit the chimney and then up the chimney to exit as
>flames and billowing smoke. .
So?
>
>Tauber also as cited in Pressac's book says that they could cremate up
>to four (4) bodies in 15 minutes or one in a time of 4 to 7 minutes.
>Present day high tech cremation facilities take up to an hour and a
>half to cremate a body of 150 pounds.
Irrelevant. Present day cremation facilities don't use the same procedures.
>
>Tauber also said they would cremate from 10,000 to 12,000 bodies a day
>at Auschwitz.
No he didn't. You've lied about this at least twice in the past week or so.
>So is that the same Tauber you going on about, Mock?
Yes, and you are the same lying moron who is a laughingstock of this newsgroup,
poor L'il Tommy!
Steven Mock
> Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
> perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
Why do we even bother, Gord. In 5 years, Bellinger has never changed. He is never
going to understand that simply posting witness testimonies and yelling "liar, liar,
pants on fire" is not evidence.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <964icu$rgc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> in alt.revisionism, on Sat, 10 Feb
2001 23:21:07 GMT, gassen_...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip]
> It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to
> perjury,
It seems fairly obvious to me that you're a sick little freak.
So it must be true, right?
> cunningly couched in terms that an apologist like you could use in
> order to make them appear innocuous.
> The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence'
> that even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes
> that fact evident.
It must be true if you say so.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOoXxk5QgvG272fn9EQKKdACg3VG/n83nNjtiC1eRcoiGhSzlK+EAoOIS
GE2oECihu8q60uFRo7rhVSUL
=H0D2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Debunks
>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>Date: 2/10/01 5:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010210205347...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>In >Message-id: <3a8fcb10...@news.pacificnet.net>
>
>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
>Mock mocked again and again:
>>>And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>
>>Random House Dictionary
>>
>>perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>>
>>
>>Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
>>millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
>>when claiming millions were exterminated.
>Sure they do, just like Irving, and denier websites, and deniers make a
>mistake
>when they claim that 200,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 were killed in the bombing
>of Dresden.
REPY: Red herring will be ignored. Try to substantiate your own claims re
Auschwitz.
>
> Lies and only lies. Was it a
>>"mistake" that Mock says it was a "mistake"?
>
>Well, it was clearly a mistake.
REPLY: And only you are capable of making a *mistake,* right? When your
opponents do it, you refer to us as liars.
>To make it a lie requires evidence, not just
>antisemitic motivations for believing what you want to believe. Got any
>evidence Tommy boy!
REPLY: There is plenty of evidence for your duplicity re Tauber et al.
Debunks
>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>Date: 2/10/01 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A85EEB9...@sympatico.ca>
>
>Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
>perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
>
REPLY: Please forgive me if I don't have time to tutor you on the basics of
proper evaluation of evidence and testimony.
>> The statement by Entress is also of interest because he is claiming 2-2.5
Debunks
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 2/10/01 6:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A85F436...@nizkor.org>
>
>Gord McFee wrote:
>
>> Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
>> perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
>
>Why do we even bother, Gord. In 5 years, Bellinger has never changed. He is
>never
>going to understand that simply posting witness testimonies and yelling
>"liar, liar,
>pants on fire" is not evidence.
>
honesty and rules of evidence in evaluating testimony and documentation. And
you are the only one I see here yelling liar at your opponents instead of
admitting that your witnesses perjured themselves.
>
David Gehrig
>
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 6:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A85F436...@nizkor.org>
> >
> >Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> >> Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
> >> perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
> >
> >Why do we even bother, Gord. In 5 years, Bellinger has never changed. He is
> >never
> >going to understand that simply posting witness testimonies and yelling
> >"liar, liar,
> >pants on fire" is not evidence.
> >
> REPLY: *Not changing* in this instance means that I will still adhere to
> honesty and rules of evidence in evaluating testimony and documentation.
You have to start doing it before you can still do it, Joe-Joe. Your
track record on the honesty issue is downright pathetic.
> And you are the only one I see here yelling liar at your opponents instead of
> admitting that your witnesses perjured themselves.
So you say -- and say again -- and say again -- and say again, but
never quite manage to prove.
---
david gehrig's self-referential .sigfile has seven a's, two c's,
five d's, thirty-two e's, ten f's, five g's, nine h's, seventeen
i's, six l's, nineteen n's, ten o's, two p's, ten r's, thirty-three
s's, twenty-four t's, five u's, eight v's, seven w's, two x's,
four y's, all sorts of punctuation, and ends with these: @%<
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
Rules of evidence require that you have some; and honesty would dictate you not
pretend you've presented some when you haven't.
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
Hardly, everyone is capable of making a mistake.
When your
>opponents do it, you refer to us as liars.
Not for their mistakes, just for their wilful lies.
>
>>To make it a lie requires evidence, not just
>>antisemitic motivations for believing what you want to believe. Got any
>>evidence Tommy boy!
>
>REPLY: There is plenty of evidence for your duplicity re Tauber et al.
Then why can't you present it, hmmm!
Debunks
>From: Philip Mathews pmat...@my-deja.com
>Date: 2/10/01 5:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <964q96$1je$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
REPLY: It is consistent with the other perjured testimonies.
>And note how Joe is willing to make such a
>determination without all the background information he claimed was
>necessary with Tauber before making a judgment about his
>testimony.
REPLY: I have every right to point to the obvious. And you of all people have
no right to criticize me, for you have consistently refused to answer my
queries re Tauber et al.
>>Next we have a statement allegedly written by an SK who again,
>allegedly
>>buried
>>this statement in the earth at Birkenau, later *discovered* by Soviets
>or
>>their
>agents:
>
>Despite Joe's use of the word "alleged" the documents were found buried
>on the grounds by multiple people.
>>
REPLY: Please tell us all about it. Cite names, dates, and under whose
tutelage these buried *documents* were found.
>"...Zalman Gradowski, wrote:
>>
>>"I have buried this under the ashes, considering it the safest place,
>bound
>>to
>>be dug up to find traces of the millions of murdered people."
>>
>>Source, Ibid, Piper, p. 6.
>>
>>COMMENT: It should be noted here that there are no masses of ashes
>which
>>were
>>ever discovered at the camp which would support the claims allegedly
>made by
>>Gradowski above. In effect, he is claiming millions of deaths for the
>period
>>prior to 1943-1945.
>
>Ashes were discovered at Auschwitz. Most of the ashes were disposed of
>in the Vistula river.
REPLY: In other words, no ashes were found consistent with the claims. Thank
you.
>
>(quote)
>
>"December 5 <1944> ...The women's squad employed in dismantling
>Crematorium III increases by 50, to 150.... The woodleand demolotion
>squad is created in Birkenau, to which 50 female prisoners are sent.
>The squad works on the grounds of the so-called big sauna and
>Crematorium IV. It must clear the grounds and fill in and cover with
>grass all the pits previously used for
>burning the corpses of those
>killed in the gas chambers. It must also sift through the human ash
>remains before they are strewn in the Vistula. Little trees are planted
>on the leveled ground.... The male and female prisoners attempt to
>sabotage the orders of the SS and avoid whenever possible removing the
>ashes of the murdered before the pits are filled in, in the hope that
>these human remains- some
>ncompletely burned bones -will in the near
>future prove the crime of genocide that was committed here."
>
>(end quote)
>
>Auschwitz Chronicle
>Danuta Czech
REPLY: All empty allegations again with no proof. BTW, Czech claimed 4
million dead at Auschwitz. So much for that source.
>A concerted effort was made to remove and dispose of the ashes from
>those murdered and cremated
REPLY: Proof? Evidence? Other than unsupported statements again? Post
convincing proof and I shall be the first to agree with you.
>As for Gradowski's estimate of the number
>killed, it is no more significant than the fact that others couldn't be
>expected to know the correct number.
REPLY: More excuses again.
>
>>Next:
>>
>>Zalman Leventhal declared:
>>
>>"The history of Auschwitz-Birkenau as a labour camp, and especially as
>an
>>extermination camp for millions of people, will not-so I believe-be
>>accurately
>>related to the world."
>>
>Source, Ibid., Piper, p. 6
>>Comment: Of course Leventhal's statement can be taken two ways. The
>history
>>of the camp and the bunkers has not be accurately related to the
>world.
>LOL! Leventhal's statement cannot be taken that way at all
REPLY: Of course it can. He never intended for it to work out this way, but
that is what has happened.
>As for your
>charge, you have a problem. You've no evidence to offer that the
>history of the camp has not been accurately related to the world.
REPLY: It would be a waste of time to reply to this.
>Next:
>>
>>"Rachwalowa, a former prisoner who worked in the office of the
>political
>>division in Birkenau, testified: "Conversations between SS men in the
>>political office led me to the conclusion that this number (of
>victims-F.P.)
>>was between 4 and 5 million."
>>
>>Source: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
>COMMENT: It is obvious that this inmate is perjuring himself.
>
>Of course, it is not obvious at all.
REPLY: I'm sorry. I will correct that to read: Of course it is obvious to
HONEST people that this inmate is perjuring himself.
> Again,
>>statements such as these are consistent with Soviet techniques.
>
>
>Statements are not techniques, and the estimate in this case was higher
>by a significant degree than others.
REPLY: Again, this is irrelevant, for the average remains constant. All part
of the Soviet technique, which can be studied and investigated by honest
people.
>It is a strange technique which
>wishes to establish a certain number by having a wide variety of
>numbers testified to
REPLY: Nevertheless, the average remains constant and the technique is
undeniably Soviet, as any HONEST person can affirm by examining the sources I
posted.
>
> He
>>*overhears*
>>alleged statements which led him to conlude, etc. Hearsay and
>>unsubstantiated
>>rubbish which was conveniently *confessed* to by people like Grabner,
>who was
>>head of the political division at Auschwitz, to the Soviets.
>There's nothing wrong with hearsay evidence and no witness is expected
>to provide substantiation for his own testimony.
REPLY: Hearsay evidence is inadmissible, period, in capital cases. Still, the
technique of introducing such hearsay evidence as fact is undeniably a Soviet
technique.
>>
>>Next:
>>
>>The above statement by the eavesdropping *witness* Rachwalowa, is
>*confirmed*
>>by the following:
>>"This is confirmed by Wlodzimierz Bilan, a member of the SS who was
>employed
>>in
>>this office; according to his testimony given during the trial of
>Rudolf
>>Hoess, SS men present there estimated the number of victims at 5
>million."
>
>Well, I don't know how 5 million confirms 4-5 million, but when you're
>struggling to make a case, I guess you resort to that.
REPLY: It doesn't confirm 4-5 million? And the 4 million average does not
remain constant? Of course it does. Lies on top of lies.
>>And adding further insult to injury, we next read:
>>
>>"Another SS man from the political division, Perry Broad, wrote in his
>>memoirs:
>>"Auschwitz was an extermination camp, the largest such camp in
>history. In
>>the
>>course of hits existence 2 to 3 million Jews were murdered there, as
>well as
>>thousands of Poles, Russians, Czechs, Yugoslavs and others."
>So now we have a collection of estimates from 2.8 million, to 2-3
>million, to 4 million, to 4.5 million, to 4-5 million, to 5 million, to
>5.5 million. Some conspiracy!
>
REPLY: It only gets worse, too-unfortunately for you-but this is the evidence
upon which you *prove* your case.
>And finally:
>>
>>"Another SS physician, Friedrich Entress, who served as the camp doctor
>in
>>1942-1943, stated that in his view, 2 to 2.5 million people were
>killed in
>>Auschwitz."
>Oh my God, a different estimate still!!! What a conspiracy.
REPLY: But you avoid mentioning that these figures only applied to the period
when he worked at Auschwitz. And that was 2 years. And even then, it is
untrue.
The only doctor to walk away from prosecution and death was Muench, and that is
because he testified for the Soviets.
>>Source for all the above: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
>>
>>COMMENT: Thus we see that the technique employed by Soviets was
>utilized in
>>toto re these Auschwitz witnesses.
>
>Testimony is not technique.
REPLY: It is perjured testimony in this case and it is technique of the Soviet
variety.
>
>>Hearsay,
>
>Not a technique. A vast amount of all historical evidence is hearsay.
>Perfectly acceptable.
>
REPLY: No, it isn't. No hearsay evidence is acceptable in capital cases.
>>false estimates,
>
>A variey of false estimates, none of them tied to the Soviets, as your
>own sources show.
REPLY: They are ALL tied to the Soviets.
>
>> calculations,
>>which all averaged out to the 4 million figure claimed by the Soviets
>and the
>>Auschwitz Museum up to 1989.
>LOL! Note the change in strategy!
REPLY: Laughing on the ouside, raging on the inside. Of course you fail to
note that I have maintained this argument all along-all throughout this thread.
>First Joe attempted the common denier
>canard, that the Soviets conspired to have the witnesses testify to 4
>million dead.
REPLY: And they certainly did, and the witness statements prove it.
>But that gambit was exposed by much testimony, some
>concealed by Joe, that the estimates were all over the place.
REPLY: OF course there was and is no gambit, only the truth and the testimony
of the witnesses.
> Now Joe's
>theory is that the Soviets conspired to effect a series of estimates
>whose mathematical mean would be 4 million!
REPLY: And yet that is exactly the situation, isn't it? Answer: Yes.
>Of course, he has no more
>evidence that this is true than he did before, but for some reason it
>makes him feel better.
REPLY: I have the figures and the testimony and they agree with my thesis.
>
>Of course the most interesting aspect of this post is the question
>about which of these witnesses Joe was able to ascertain the
>same information he demanded of Tauber before being able to reach a
>judgment on the testimony.
REPLY: Piper was more open than you will ever be. Don't tell me you do not
accept Piper as an authority!?
Debunks
>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>Date: 2/10/01 5:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010210204402...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>In >Message-id: <20010210173424...@ng-mk1.aol.com>
>
>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>Further evidence is on the way. Enjoy@!
>>
>
>Any evidence you provide would be the first.
>
>All you've done in over a week on this topic is confirm that many of the
>survivors offered widely varying over-estimates of something they couldn't be
>expected to know, - the number murdered at Auschwitz.
>
>That's pretty pathetic, Joe.
>
>--
>Philip Mathews
>
>
these witnesses? I am.
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
> >Date: 2/10/01 5:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <20010210205347...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
> >>Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
> >>millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
> >>when claiming millions were exterminated.
>
> >Sure they do, just like Irving, and denier websites, and deniers make a
> >mistake
> >when they claim that 200,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 were killed in the bombing
> >of Dresden.
>
> REPY: Red herring will be ignored.
It is not a red herring - it goes right to the core issue, that being the
methodology by which you assess the credibility of witnesses, and the consistency
with which you apply it.
> Try to substantiate your own claims re
> Auschwitz.
You first.
> > Lies and only lies. Was it a
> >>"mistake" that Mock says it was a "mistake"?
> >
> >Well, it was clearly a mistake.
>
> REPLY: And only you are capable of making a *mistake,* right? When your
> opponents do it, you refer to us as liars.
Everyone makes mistakes, Joe. Its when you wilfully distort the facts that you
become a liar.
> >To make it a lie requires evidence, not just
> >antisemitic motivations for believing what you want to believe. Got any
> >evidence Tommy boy!
>
> REPLY: There is plenty of evidence for your duplicity re Tauber et al.
You haven't presented it. In contrast, we have proven that you attempted to
distort Tauber's testimony to suit your conclusion that he perjured himself. We
proved it by posting your words as to what his testimony contained, the actual
contents of the testimony, and then your attempt to deny your earlier statement
and change your tune.
And you have no defense except to call all of your opponants dishonest.
The only proven liar here, Joe, is you.
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
> >Date: 2/10/01 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A85EEB9...@sympatico.ca>
>
> >Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
> >perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
>
> REPLY: Please forgive me if I don't have time to tutor you on the basics of
> proper evaluation of evidence and testimony.
But you have to, since your idea of the "proper evaluation of evidence and
testimony" is apparently different from ours, and, for that matter, from the
entire academic community who consider the witnesses you call perjurers to be
credible sources of information.
So tell us how you do it, Joe? What's the big secret? How do you know that these
witnesses are liars? What do you know that the rest of the civilized world
doesn't?
tom moran
Debunks said it like it is:
>> It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to
>> perjury,
Mr.Morris has a hissy fit:
>It seems fairly obvious to me that you're a sick little freak.
>
>So it must be true, right?
You just don't testify about millions of murder victims and not have
it an intentional lie, Mr.Morris.
Debunks said another like it is statements:
>> The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence'
>> that even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes
>> that fact evident.
Mr.Morris finally realizing that Debunks is right?:
>It must be true if you say so.
No, you must be kidding, right Mr.Morris? Even though Debunks is
right. If you ever got tried and they followed the same codes as
Nuremberg you and your lawyer would screaming, 'We want Debunks'.
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 6:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A85F436...@nizkor.org>
> >
> >Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> >> Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
> >> perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
> >
> >Why do we even bother, Gord. In 5 years, Bellinger has never changed. He is
> >never going to understand that simply posting witness testimonies and yelling
> >"liar, liar, pants on fire" is not evidence.
>
> REPLY: *Not changing* in this instance means that I will still adhere to
> honesty and rules of evidence in evaluating testimony and documentation.
No. It means that you're never going to realize that a witness can not be
presumed a liar unless you can show that he actually lied. You have yet to do
so. Once. In your entire miserable history as a revisionist.
> And
> you are the only one I see here yelling liar at your opponents instead of
> admitting that your witnesses perjured themselves.
Do you really not see the obvious hypocrisy in your sentence above, Joe? You are
"yelling liar" by claiming that the witnesses perjured themselves, and your demand
that the rest of us admit it just because you would like us to is absurd,
especially given *your* proven history of misrepresenting their statements. I
swear, debating with you is like stepping into a Monty Python routine.
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
Absolutely. You've made a complete fool of yourself, and in doing so revealed
that deniers of the Holocaust don't know how to address the power of the
survivor testimony except through such obviously desperate methods as to
declare it all lies with no evidence of lies. The only thing I find curious Joe
is that this is no different than deniers have been doing for years. After all
this build up I expected something --better?
tom moran
Philip Mathews frothing:
>Yes, and you are the same lying moron who is a laughingstock of this newsgroup,
>poor L'il Tommy!
If that's the case why are you frothing?
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
You haven't shown any other perjured testimony.
>
>>And note how Joe is willing to make such a
>>determination without all the background information he claimed was
>>necessary with Tauber before making a judgment about his
>
>>testimony.
>
>REPLY: I have every right to point to the obvious. And you of all people
>have
>no right to criticize me, for you have consistently refused to answer my
>queries re Tauber et al.
And you proved you lied when you said you needed more information. Everyone
knew you were lying and only looking for an excuse. That's why no one wasted
their time.
>
>>>Next we have a statement allegedly written by an SK who again,
>>allegedly
>>>buried
>>>this statement in the earth at Birkenau, later *discovered* by Soviets
>>or
>>>their
>
>>agents:
>
>>
>>Despite Joe's use of the word "alleged" the documents were found buried
>>on the grounds by multiple people.
>>>
>
>REPLY: Please tell us all about it. Cite names, dates, and under whose
>tutelage these buried *documents* were found.
If you don't know the answer to this already, how could you make such
statements?
>
>>"...Zalman Gradowski, wrote:
>>>
>>>"I have buried this under the ashes, considering it the safest place,
>
>>bound
>>>to
>>>be dug up to find traces of the millions of murdered people."
>>>
>>>Source, Ibid, Piper, p. 6.
>
>>>
>>>COMMENT: It should be noted here that there are no masses of ashes
>>which
>>>were
>>>ever discovered at the camp which would support the claims allegedly
>>made by
>
>>>Gradowski above. In effect, he is claiming millions of deaths for the
>>period
>>>prior to 1943-1945.
>>
>>Ashes were discovered at Auschwitz. Most of the ashes were disposed of
>>in the Vistula river.
>
>REPLY: In other words, no ashes were found consistent with the claims.
>Thank
>you.
As I've shown, the ashes were purposely disposed of. Should the Sonderkommando
in question have been clairvoyant? You are a silly man, Joe.>
>>
>>(quote)
>>
>>"December 5 <1944> ...The women's squad employed in dismantling
>>Crematorium III increases by 50, to 150.... The woodleand demolotion
>>squad is created in Birkenau, to which 50 female prisoners are sent.
>
>>The squad works on the grounds of the so-called big sauna and
>>Crematorium IV. It must clear the grounds and fill in and cover with
>>grass all the pits previously used for
>
>>burning the corpses of those
>>killed in the gas chambers. It must also sift through the human ash
>>remains before they are strewn in the Vistula. Little trees are planted
>>on the leveled ground.... The male and female prisoners attempt to
>
>>sabotage the orders of the SS and avoid whenever possible removing the
>>ashes of the murdered before the pits are filled in, in the hope that
>>these human remains- some
>
>>ncompletely burned bones -will in the near
>>future prove the crime of genocide that was committed here."
>>
>>(end quote)
>>
>>Auschwitz Chronicle
>>Danuta Czech
>
>REPLY: All empty allegations again with no proof. BTW, Czech claimed 4
>million dead at Auschwitz. So much for that source.
Not allegation. Testimonial evidence from witnesses. All by itself, it dwarfs
the evidence you've been able to cite for your claims.
>
>>A concerted effort was made to remove and dispose of the ashes from
>>those murdered and cremated
>
>REPLY: Proof? Evidence? Other than unsupported statements again? Post
>convincing proof and I shall be the first to agree with you.
It's already presented.>
>
>
>>As for Gradowski's estimate of the number
>>killed, it is no more significant than the fact that others couldn't be
>>expected to know the correct number.
>
>REPLY: More excuses again.
It is not an excuse to point out that people with a system for counting
couldn't be expected to know. It's called common sense.>
>>
>>>Next:
>>>
>>>Zalman Leventhal declared:
>>>
>
>>>"The history of Auschwitz-Birkenau as a labour camp, and especially as
>>an
>>>extermination camp for millions of people, will not-so I believe-be
>>>accurately
>>>related to the world."
>>>
>
>>Source, Ibid., Piper, p. 6
>
>>>Comment: Of course Leventhal's statement can be taken two ways. The
>>history
>>>of the camp and the bunkers has not be accurately related to the
>>world.
>
>>LOL! Leventhal's statement cannot be taken that way at all
>
>REPLY: Of course it can. He never intended for it to work out this way, but
>that is what has happened.
Well, if that's the case you can prove it.
>
>>As for your
>>charge, you have a problem. You've no evidence to offer that the
>>history of the camp has not been accurately related to the world.
>
>REPLY: It would be a waste of time to reply to this.
No more so than all your responses of the past week or so, none of which
contained any evidence.
>
>>Next:
>>>
>>>"Rachwalowa, a former prisoner who worked in the office of the
>>political
>>>division in Birkenau, testified: "Conversations between SS men in the
>>>political office led me to the conclusion that this number (of
>
>>victims-F.P.)
>>>was between 4 and 5 million."
>>>
>>>Source: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
>
>>COMMENT: It is obvious that this inmate is perjuring himself.
>>
>>Of course, it is not obvious at all.
>
>REPLY: I'm sorry. I will correct that to read: Of course it is obvious to
>HONEST people that this inmate is perjuring himself.
It is particularly not obvious to honest people.
>
>> Again,
>>>statements such as these are consistent with Soviet techniques.
>>
>
>>
>>Statements are not techniques, and the estimate in this case was higher
>>by a significant degree than others.
>
>REPLY: Again, this is irrelevant, for the average remains constant.
Conspiracy theories are not concocted on "averages"!
>
>
>>It is a strange technique which
>>wishes to establish a certain number by having a wide variety of
>>numbers testified to
>
>REPLY: Nevertheless, the average remains constant and the technique is
>undeniably Soviet, as any HONEST person can affirm by examining the sources I
>posted.
Well, aside from the fact that you haven't shown the average is 4 million,
there is no evidence that an average played any part in anyone's calculations.
>
>>
>> He
>>>*overhears*
>>>alleged statements which led him to conlude, etc. Hearsay and
>>>unsubstantiated
>>>rubbish which was conveniently *confessed* to by people like Grabner,
>>who was
>
>>>head of the political division at Auschwitz, to the Soviets.
>
>>There's nothing wrong with hearsay evidence and no witness is expected
>>to provide substantiation for his own testimony.
>
>REPLY: Hearsay evidence is inadmissible, period, in capital cases.
History is not a case. Hearsay evidence is common and multitudinous in the
historical work.
Still,
>the
>technique of introducing such hearsay evidence as fact is undeniably a Soviet
>technique.
No it isn't.>
>>>
>>>Next:
>>>
>>>The above statement by the eavesdropping *witness* Rachwalowa, is
>>*confirmed*
>>>by the following:
>
>>>"This is confirmed by Wlodzimierz Bilan, a member of the SS who was
>>employed
>>>in
>>>this office; according to his testimony given during the trial of
>>Rudolf
>>>Hoess, SS men present there estimated the number of victims at 5
>
>>million."
>>
>>Well, I don't know how 5 million confirms 4-5 million, but when you're
>>struggling to make a case, I guess you resort to that.
>
>REPLY: It doesn't confirm 4-5 million?
No, 5 million is 25% higher than 4 million.
>And the 4 million average does not
>remain constant?
You haven't shown a four million average and no one claims a four million
average as the method for reaching the death toll.
>
>>>And adding further insult to injury, we next read:
>>>
>>>"Another SS man from the political division, Perry Broad, wrote in his
>>>memoirs:
>
>>>"Auschwitz was an extermination camp, the largest such camp in
>>history. In
>>>the
>>>course of hits existence 2 to 3 million Jews were murdered there, as
>>well as
>>>thousands of Poles, Russians, Czechs, Yugoslavs and others."
>
>>So now we have a collection of estimates from 2.8 million, to 2-3
>>million, to 4 million, to 4.5 million, to 4-5 million, to 5 million, to
>>5.5 million. Some conspiracy!
>>
>
>REPLY: It only gets worse, too-unfortunately for you-but this is the
>evidence
>upon which you *prove* your case.
What is the evidence? Is it invisible?
>
>>And finally:
>>>
>>>"Another SS physician, Friedrich Entress, who served as the camp doctor
>>in
>>>1942-1943, stated that in his view, 2 to 2.5 million people were
>>killed in
>>>Auschwitz."
>
>>Oh my God, a different estimate still!!! What a conspiracy.
>
>REPLY: But you avoid mentioning that these figures only applied to the
>period
>when he worked at Auschwitz.
His statement doesn't say that.
>>>Source for all the above: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
>>>
>>>COMMENT: Thus we see that the technique employed by Soviets was
>>utilized in
>>>toto re these Auschwitz witnesses.
>>
>
>>Testimony is not technique.
>
>REPLY: It is perjured testimony in this case and it is technique of the
>Soviet
>variety.
No evidence of perjury has been presented.>
>>
>>>Hearsay,
>>
>>Not a technique. A vast amount of all historical evidence is hearsay.
>>Perfectly acceptable.
>>
>
>REPLY: No, it isn't. No hearsay evidence is acceptable in capital cases.
Capital cases are not history. More wilful dishonesty.
>
>>>false estimates,
>>
>>A variey of false estimates, none of them tied to the Soviets, as your
>>own sources show.
>
>REPLY: They are ALL tied to the Soviets.
Not based on any evidence you've shown.>
>>
>>> calculations,
>>>which all averaged out to the 4 million figure claimed by the Soviets
>>and the
>>>Auschwitz Museum up to 1989.
>
>>LOL! Note the change in strategy! First Joe attempted the common denier
>>canard, that the Soviets conspired to have the witnesses testify to 4
>>million dead. But that gambit was exposed by much testimony, some
>>concealed by Joe, that the estimates were all over the place. Now Joe's
>>theory is that the Soviets conspired to effect a series of estimates
>>whose mathematical mean would be 4 million!
>
>REPLY: And yet that is exactly the situation, isn't it? Answer: Yes.
Show it.
>
>>Of course, he has no more
>>evidence that this is true than he did before, but for some reason it
>>makes him feel better.
>
>REPLY: I have the figures and the testimony and they agree with my thesis.
No they don't. And you have no evidence that anyone ever used a methodology of
computing the average of survivor estimates to arrive at a number! That's just
your desperate attempt to escape your original lie.
Philip Mathews
>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
Li'l Tommy, smarting from the spanking he took on the "shadows" post, starts
with his usual mischaracterization.
>Philip Mathews frothing:
Why are you lying?
I enjoy rubbing it in. I'm beginning to think you enjoy the pain!
Debunks
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 2/10/01 4:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A85DE61...@nizkor.org>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
>> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>> >Date: 2/10/01 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3A85D70C...@nizkor.org>
>> >
>> >tom moran wrote:
>>
>> > Mock mocked again and again:
>> >> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>> >>
>> >> Random House Dictionary
>> >>
>> >> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>>
>>
>> >So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>> >that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>> >there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>
>> REPLY: That appears to be the case, yes.
>
>In other words, all you have is your subjective assessment, coupled with your
>desire to believe whatever you want.
>
REPLY: Not at all. I have the testimonies and the verifiable techniques of the
Soviets in other cases, which agree perfectly with the techniques employed in
this instance.
>> >Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
>> >a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>>
>> REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and
>unsubstantiated.
>True. But its not perjury.
>
REPLY: It IS if there was in fact no such informant. Can you name him? He
doesn't, so we are left with the more than likely probability that he was
fabricating.
And I will point out that in a homicide case, this is exactly how such
testimony would be treated.
> >Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>>
>> REPLY: A reckless disregard for truth by referring to an unnamed informant
>Which is not perjury. He didn't know the guy's name. If he had made up a
>name, it
>would be perjury.
REPLY: GO peddle that story elsewhere. He provided no name. None of them did,
because that way the statements could have been traced. All consistent with
Soviet techniques. If anyone tried to peddle this nonsense in any homicide
trial, they would be thrown out of court.
>He's not demanding that we take this number as revealed truth. He's just
>telling
>us what he knows to the best of his ability.
REPLY: He perjured himself.
>> without any substantiation and a false claim of having assisted in the
>> destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
>
>An estimate of 2 million. Other than the fact that he guessed wrong, what
>about
>the claim is false?
REPLY: It was not a guess. He claimed to participate in the process of mass
murder.
Paul Kneisel
has no obligation to answer any of Debunk's questions. The world has every
right to criticize Debunk (It is called freedom of speech.)
The idea that one must earn the right to speak against Debunk only by first
answering Debunk's question must come from a typical narcissistic sense
that the narcissist is the center of the world and all obligations and
rights flow through him or her.
On 11 Feb 2001 03:01:28 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
Paul Kneisel
important claims were substantiated at Nuremberg.
On 11 Feb 2001 02:37:51 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
Debunks
>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>Date: 2/10/01 6:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010210210032...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>In >Message-id: <20010210192521...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
>
>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>>>Date: 2/10/01 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <3A85D70C...@nizkor.org>
>>>
>>>tom moran wrote:
>> Mock mocked again and again:
>>>> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>>>
>>>> Random House Dictionary
>>>>
>>>> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>>>So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>>>that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>>>there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>>
>>REPLY: That appears to be the case, yes.
>Not based on any evidence you've been able to show.
>
REPLY Are you prepared to answer my questions re Tauber et al yet?
>>>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
>>>a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>>
>>REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and
>unsubstantiated.
>
>It is not immaterial and people are supposed to substantiate their own
>testimony. That's the job of people who use their testimony.
REPLY: It is negligent. It is irresponsible and it is hearsay. It is
palpable nonsense which would never be allowed in a real court.
>>
>>>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>>>
>>
>>REPLY: A reckless disregard for truth by referring to an unnamed informant
>>without any substantiation and a
>false claim of having assisted in the
>>destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
>
>There is no reckless disregard for the truth.
REPLY: It is called perjury.
>No one knew the truth at the
>time. He gave the information he had.
REPLY: Which was perjury. Thank you.
>(Note that the life
>>of
>>an SK was 2-3 months at best, according to other sources)
>
>No, that's not what the evidence says, and for a handful of thousands of SKs
>to
>survive longer is hardly suspicious.
>
REPLY: Yes, it IS what the sources maintain. Dig yourself a deeper hole,
Matthews.
>during the course
>>of
>>which the murderous SS allowed him to live and tell his story and point
>>fingers
>>at the alleged offenders.
>
>They didn't allow him to tell his story, he escaped
REPLY: And his story was rubbish, too. And now, can you explain how Nyiszli
was waltzed out of Auschwitz? Mueller? et al?
> Are you really this
>stupid, or is wilful mischaracterization the only thing you have to offer?
REPLY: Your own witnesses which you taunted me to assess have created this
problem for you, which you compound by your own dishonesty. Do not seek to
divert your failings on to others.
> I would say this also qualifies. Which leads one
>>to
>>the conclusion that his duties were not as he claimed,
>
>It doesn't lead to that conclusion even if your lies were true.
REPLY: It does lead to this conclusion/.
>
>> but that if he was an
>>SK, his dutied consisted of disposal of those who died as a result of
>>epidemics
>>or natural causes.
>No, the evidence indicates he disposed of those killed in gas chambers.
>You've
>conveniently forgotten that?
>
REPLY: Not at all; I am waiting for further evidence in support of the claim.
I suggest that you answer my queries re Tauber first though.
Paul Kneisel
qualified to summarize Bellinger's methodology.
But are we really challenging Bellinger to convince Bellinger that he is
wrong? I think not.
Rather I think the discourse with Bellinger must have two purposes:
1) Keep Bellinger from convincing others that he is right;
2) Use Bellinger's actions as hard data to educate people about how the
Denier crowd conducts the "academic" debate they claim they so badly want.
Debunks
>Message-id: <20010210210611...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
REPLY: Open your eyes, Matthews.
>> Thus we
>>would have it that the alleged flames and smoke would exit from the
>>ovens into a 2 x 2 foot duct system, then go under ground up to 40
>>feet before it hit the chimney and then up the chimney to exit as
>>flames and billowing smoke. .
>
>So?
REPLY: So he is fabricating-again. Some star witness.
>>Tauber also as cited in Pressac's book says that they could cremate up
>>to four (4) bodies in 15 minutes or one in a time of 4 to 7 minutes.
>>Present day high tech cremation facilities take up to an hour and a
>>half to cremate a body of 150 pounds.
>Irrelevant. Present day cremation facilities don't use the same procedures.
REPLY: Prove it. Post the specs for krema II with specs for a modern
facility.
>
>>Tauber also said they would cremate from 10,000 to 12,000 bodies a day
>>at Auschwitz.
>
>No he didn't. You've lied about this at least twice in the past week or so.
>
>
REPLY: His statement is available on line, isn't it? www.mazal.org
>
>>So is that the same Tauber you going on about, Mock?
>
>Yes, and you are the same lying moron who is a laughingstock of this
>newsgroup,
>poor L'il Tommy!
>
REPLY: No, he is not the laughingstock of this newsgroup. Now, here is what
you have been pleading for....a discussion of Tauber's claims. Aren't you glad
you taunted me into assessing his claims? I am.
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 4:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A85DE61...@nizkor.org>
> >
> >> >Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who
> >> >offered a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
> >>
> >> REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and
> >unsubstantiated.
>
> >True. But its not perjury.
>
> REPLY: It IS if there was in fact no such informant.
And you can prove this? Well now we're getting somewhere. Well, out with it!
<conspiracy theories and bald assertions snipped>
> >> without any substantiation and a false claim of having assisted in the
> >> destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
> >
> >An estimate of 2 million. Other than the fact that he guessed wrong, what
> >about the claim is false?
>
> REPLY: It was not a guess.
Aside from the fact that he prefaced it with the words "I imagine..."
> He claimed to participate in the process of mass
> murder.
And how was he supposed to keep a tally of the exact numbers of victims, to the
tune of over a million. On his fingers and toes?
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A85E03E...@nizkor.org
>
>gassen_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> > So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he
>> guess
>> > that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz
>while he
>> > was there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>>
>> No what is suggested is that no homicidal gassings were carried out and
>> that Taubers entire testimony is perjury.
>>
>> What is suggested is that Tauber did not hazard his guess until the
>> scenario was explained to him by the Soviet officials concocting his
>> 'testimony'.
>
>Then I guess no one has told you that your unsupported "suggestion" and a
>bucket of excrement is worth the bucket.
REPLY: His suggestion makes sense when the testimonies and scenario are
viewed objectively.
>
>Unlike the witness testimonies, which are evidence.
>
><snip: more unsupported denails and childish insults>
>
>Steven Mock
>--
>REPLY: You resort to childish insults quite frequently, Mr Mock. Why are you
chiding him about it?
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>Date: 2/10/01 6:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20010210210032...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>>In >Message-id: <20010210192521...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
>>
>>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>>>>Date: 2/10/01 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <3A85D70C...@nizkor.org>
>>>>
>>>>tom moran wrote:
>
>>> Mock mocked again and again:
>>>>> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>>>>
>>>>> Random House Dictionary
>>>>>
>>>>> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>
>>>>So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>>>>that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>>>>there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>>>
>>>REPLY: That appears to be the case, yes.
>
>>Not based on any evidence you've been able to show.
>>
>
>REPLY Are you prepared to answer my questions re Tauber et al yet?
Are you prepared to offer evidence for you false claims?
>
>>>>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
>>>>a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>>>
>>>REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and
>>unsubstantiated.
>
>>
>>It is not immaterial and people are supposed to substantiate their own
>>testimony. That's the job of people who use their testimony.
>
>REPLY: It is negligent. It is irresponsible and it is hearsay.
It is not negligent or irresponsible. Hearsay is perfectly fine.
It is
>palpable nonsense which would never be allowed in a real court.
So you say. History is not a court.
>
>>>
>>>>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>>>>
>>>
>>>REPLY: A reckless disregard for truth by referring to an unnamed informant
>>>without any substantiation and a
>
>>false claim of having assisted in the
>>>destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
>>
>>There is no reckless disregard for the truth.
>
>REPLY: It is called perjury.
That's what it's called. Got any evidence of any?
>
>>No one knew the truth at the
>>time. He gave the information he had.
>
>REPLY: Which was perjury. Thank you.
Giving information is not perjury. Your welcome.
>
>>(Note that the life
>>>of
>>>an SK was 2-3 months at best, according to other sources)
>>
>
>>No, that's not what the evidence says, and for a handful of thousands of SKs
>>to
>>survive longer is hardly suspicious.
>>
>
>REPLY: Yes, it IS what the sources maintain. Dig yourself a deeper hole,
>Matthews.
We've been through this. You exaggerate. And deviations from the average are
not necessarily suspicious.
>
>>during the course
>>>of
>>>which the murderous SS allowed him to live and tell his story and point
>>>fingers
>>>at the alleged offenders.
>
>>
>>They didn't allow him to tell his story, he escaped
>
>REPLY: And his story was rubbish, too.
Oh, then you have evidence of this? What am I thinking, of course you don't!
And now, can you explain how Nyiszli
>was waltzed out of Auschwitz? Mueller? et al?
Why does it require an explanation?
>
>> Are you really this
>>stupid, or is wilful mischaracterization the only thing you have to offer?
>
>REPLY: Your own witnesses which you taunted me to assess have created this
>problem for you,
The only problem I have Joe is trying to get you to produce evidence. When will
we begin to see some?
>> I would say this also qualifies. Which leads one
>>>to
>>>the conclusion that his duties were not as he claimed,
>>
>>It doesn't lead to that conclusion even if your lies were true.
>
>REPLY: It does lead to this conclusion/.
Not in the least.
>
>>
>>> but that if he was an
>>>SK, his dutied consisted of disposal of those who died as a result of
>>>epidemics
>>>or natural causes.
>
>>No, the evidence indicates he disposed of those killed in gas chambers.
>>You've
>>conveniently forgotten that?
>>
>
>REPLY: Not at all; I am waiting for further evidence in support of the claim.
Try reading some history. And then try to find some evidence for your
assertions.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A85D922...@nizkor.org>
>
>gassen_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to perjury,
>> cunningly couched in terms that an apologist like you could use in order
>> to make them appear innocuous.
>>
>> The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence' that
>even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
>> evident.
>
>Right. So you'd be another one who thinks that a witnesses' testimony is
>totally worthless unless he or she can demonstrate the ability accurately
>guess at numbers in the order of millions.
>
>That's why they're deniers, I suppose.
REPLY: Wrong again. These people claimed to be Sonderkommandos-eyewitnesses
and participants in the mass destruction of their own people-people who
assisted the Nazis is destroying thousands of innocent children and others in
gas chambers, and then cremating their remains. Is there any defence for this
sort of behavior? Not in my book. Therefore it does not surprise me that such
people would also perjure themselves in court. As for your comments
above-that's why you're called liars, I guess.
Debunks
>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>Date: 2/10/01 6:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010210210901...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>In >Message-id:
><964icu$rgc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>>gassen_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to perjury,
>>cunningly couched in terms that an apologist like you could use in order
>>to make them appear innocuous.
>
>Who cares what it seem like to you. Were's the evidence which supports what
>you
>want to believe. I'll tell you where.
>It doesn't exist.
>
REPLY: YOURS doesn't appear to exist, Mr. Matthews.
>>
>>The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence' that
>>even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
>>evident.
>This is not evidence given at a war crimes trial, idiot.
>
REPLY: Soviet show trials in Poland is what is meant here.
>If you're going to attempt to discuss history, go learn some first.
>
REPLY: You really ought to follow your own advice. Are you prepared to answer
my questions re Tauber yet?
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
Ah, you mean you can tell me? Please do.
>
>>> Thus we
>>>would have it that the alleged flames and smoke would exit from the
>>>ovens into a 2 x 2 foot duct system, then go under ground up to 40
>>>feet before it hit the chimney and then up the chimney to exit as
>>>flames and billowing smoke. .
>>
>
>>So?
>
>REPLY: So he is fabricating-again. Some star witness.
Based on Tommy's assertions of what he says is in a photo? Doesn't take much to
confirm your mindless denial, does it Joe.
>
>>>Tauber also as cited in Pressac's book says that they could cremate up
>>>to four (4) bodies in 15 minutes or one in a time of 4 to 7 minutes.
>>>Present day high tech cremation facilities take up to an hour and a
>>>half to cremate a body of 150 pounds.
>
>>Irrelevant. Present day cremation facilities don't use the same procedures.
>
>REPLY: Prove it. Post the specs for krema II with specs for a modern
>facility.
Specs have nothing to do with procedures.>
>>
>>>Tauber also said they would cremate from 10,000 to 12,000 bodies a day
>>>at Auschwitz.
>>
>>No he didn't. You've lied about this at least twice in the past week or so.
>>
>>
>
>REPLY: His statement is available on line, isn't it? www.mazal.org
Exactly!
>
>>
>>>So is that the same Tauber you going on about, Mock?
>>
>>Yes, and you are the same lying moron who is a laughingstock of this
>>newsgroup,
>>poor L'il Tommy!
>>
>
>REPLY: No, he is not the laughingstock of this newsgroup.
OK, he's a close second.
> Now, here is what
>you have been pleading for....a discussion of Tauber's claims. Aren't you
>glad
>you taunted me into assessing his claims? I am.
I'm loving it!
Philip Mathews
> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>Date: 2/10/01 6:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20010210210901...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>
>>In >Message-id:
>
>><964icu$rgc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>
>>>gassen_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>
>>>It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to perjury,
>>>cunningly couched in terms that an apologist like you could use in order
>>>to make them appear innocuous.
>>
>>Who cares what it seem like to you. Were's the evidence which supports what
>>you
>>want to believe. I'll tell you where.
>
>>It doesn't exist.
>>
>
>REPLY: YOURS doesn't appear to exist, Mr. Matthews.
I don't need evidence for your claims Joe, you do.
>
>>>
>>>The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence' that
>>>even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
>>>evident.
>
>>This is not evidence given at a war crimes trial, idiot.
>>
>
>REPLY: Soviet show trials in Poland is what is meant here.
No, what he meant was war crimes trials.
>
>>If you're going to attempt to discuss history, go learn some first.
>>
>
>REPLY: You really ought to follow your own advice. Are you prepared to
>answer
>my questions re Tauber yet?
You mean you should. You might then find some evidence for your claims, rather
than looking like such a fool Joe.
Steven Mock
> REPLY: Wrong again. These people claimed to be Sonderkommandos-eyewitnesses
> and participants in the mass destruction of their own people-people who
> assisted the Nazis is destroying thousands of innocent children and others in
> gas chambers, and then cremating their remains. Is there any defence for this
> sort of behavior? Not in my book. Therefore it does not surprise me that such
> people would also perjure themselves in court.
But, Joe... if they really did those things, as they testified, then I guess they
didn't perjure themselves, did they?
(consistency is not a denier thing...
> As for your comments
> above-that's why you're called liars, I guess.
... but vacuous insults are, I guess)
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3a9302f8...@news.pacificnet.net> in alt.revisionism, on
Sun, 11 Feb 2001 03:18:32 GMT, t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
> Debunks said it like it is:
No. It was "gassen_burnham."
> >> It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to
> >> perjury,
> Mr.Morris has a hissy fit:
> >It seems fairly obvious to me that you're a sick little freak.
> >So it must be true, right?
> You just don't testify about millions of murder victims and not
> have it an intentional lie, Mr.Morris.
You've missed the point as usual.
> Debunks said another like it is statements:
> >> The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of
> >> 'evidence' that even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up
> >> excuses for makes that fact evident.
> Mr.Morris finally realizing that Debunks is right?:
> >It must be true if you say so.
> No, you must be kidding, right Mr.Morris?
What do you think, Tom?
> Even though Debunks is
> right.
Why? Because he says so?
Which is the point and which point has entirely escaped Anthill
Moran.
> If you ever got tried and they followed the same codes as
> Nuremberg you and your lawyer would screaming, 'We want Debunks'.
Having made some small study of the Nuremberg Tribunal, I would
probably say, "You do me more honour than I deserve by giving me such
a fair trial."
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOoYcjpQgvG272fn9EQIujQCguicx6zJxwcEx/oesScr3xJlfK5gAnjF6
B8C7YXtvHJK7fBpCzuoLJjCl
=L/Jh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Debunks
>Message-id: <20010210232020...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>
>
>In >Message-id: <20010210231251...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>
>> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>Date: 2/10/01 6:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <20010210210901...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>>
>>In >Message-id:
>>
>>><964icu$rgc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>>
>>>>gassen_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to perjury,
>>>>cunningly couched in terms that an apologist like you could use in order
>>>>to make them appear innocuous.
>
>>>Who cares what it seem like to you. Were's the evidence which supports what
>>>you
>>>want to believe. I'll tell you where.
>>
>>>It doesn't exist.
>>
>>REPLY: YOURS doesn't appear to exist, Mr. Matthews.
>
>I don't need evidence for your claims Joe, you do.
REPLY: No, Mr Matthews, you have things wrong again as usual. It is YOU who
asked me to assess the testimony of these *unassailable* witnesses of yours.
It is YOUR obligation to convince us that what they claimed was true and
credible. Not the other way around.
>>
>>>>The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence' that
>>>>even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
>>>>evident.
>>>This is not evidence given at a war crimes trial, idiot.
>>>
>>
>>REPLY: Soviet show trials in Poland is what is meant here.
>
>No, what he meant was war crimes trials.
REPLY: They all fall within the same scope and orbit.
>>If you're going to attempt to discuss history, go learn some first.
>>>
>>
>>REPLY: You really ought to follow your own advice. Are you prepared to
>>answer
>>my questions re Tauber yet?
>
>You mean you should
REPLY: No, I mean YOU should.
> You might then find some evidence for your claims, rather
>than looking like such a fool Joe.
REPLY: Still laughing on the outside, crying on the inside, aren't you? You
have no one to blame but yourself.
Debunks
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 2/10/01 8:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A861643...@nizkor.org>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
>> REPLY: Wrong again. These people claimed to be
>Sonderkommandos-eyewitnesses
>> and participants in the mass destruction of their own people-people who
>> assisted the Nazis is destroying thousands of innocent children and others
>in
>> gas chambers, and then cremating their remains. Is there any defence for
>this
>> sort of behavior? Not in my book. Therefore it does not surprise me that
>such
>> people would also perjure themselves in court.
>But, Joe... if they really did those things, as they testified, then I guess
>they
>didn't perjure themselves, did they?
>
>(consistency is not a denier thing...
REPLY: Of course that would be correct, IF they were telling the truth-but
they weren't.
>
>> As for your comments
>> above-that's why you're called liars, I guess.
>
>... but vacuous insults are, I guess)
>
REPLY: Who wrote, "That's why they're called deniers?" Why, you did, and we
all know how you use the word denier as a sledge hammer.
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
Nothing has been shown which raised any doubts about their testimony. Their
evidence is impeccable.>
>>>
>>>>>The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence' that
>>>>>even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
>>>>>evident.
>
>>>>This is not evidence given at a war crimes trial, idiot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>REPLY: Soviet show trials in Poland is what is meant here.
>>
>
>>No, what he meant was war crimes trials.
>
>REPLY: They all fall within the same scope and orbit.
No they don't.
>
>>>If you're going to attempt to discuss history, go learn some first.
>>>>
>
>>>
>>>REPLY: You really ought to follow your own advice. Are you prepared to
>>>answer
>>>my questions re Tauber yet?
>>
>>You mean you should You might then find some evidence for your claims, rather
>>than looking like such a fool Joe.
>
>REPLY: Still laughing on the outside, crying on the inside, aren't you? You
>have no one to blame but yourself.
Still trying to avoid presenting any evidence I see. Boo hoo.
Debunks
>Message-id: <20010210231023...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
REPLY: I will accept that as a *no.*
>>>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
>>>>>a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>>>>
>REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and
>>>unsubstantiated.
>>>It is not immaterial and people are supposed to substantiate their own
>>>testimony. That's the job of people who use their testimony.
>>
>>REPLY: It is negligent. It is irresponsible and it is hearsay.
>
>It is not negligent or irresponsible. Hearsay is perfectly fine.
REPLY: For the likes of you, of course it is. What else do you have to offer?
>
> It is
>>palpable nonsense which would never be allowed in a real court.
>
>So you say. History is not a court.
>>
REPLY: I see, so then you must accept the verdicts of courts which convicted
Jewish people of Ritual Murder. Thanks for the insight!
>>>
>>>>>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>REPLY: A reckless disregard for truth by referring to an unnamed
>informant
>>>>without any substantiation and a
>>
>>>false claim of having assisted in the
>>>>destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
>>>
>>>There is no reckless disregard for the truth.
>>
>>REPLY: It is called perjury.
>
>That's what it's called. Got any evidence of any?
REPLY: Do you have any evidence, period?
>>
>>>No one knew the truth at the
>>>time. He gave the information he had.
>>
>>REPLY: Which was perjury. Thank you.
>
>Giving information is not perjury. Your welcome.
>
REPLY: Telling lies under oath is perjury.
>
>>>(Note that the life
>>>>of
>>>>an SK was 2-3 months at best, according to other sources)
>>>
>>No, that's not what the evidence says, and for a handful of thousands of SKs
>>>to
>>>survive longer is hardly suspicious.
>>
>>REPLY: Yes, it IS what the sources maintain. Dig yourself a deeper hole,
>>Matthews.
>
>We've been through this. You exaggerate. And deviations from the average are
>not necessarily suspicious.
REPLY:: LOL! Keep kicking those legs@! Pretty soon you will be able to join a
Can-Can chorus with Mr. Gehrig!
>>during the course
>>>>of
>>>>which the murderous SS allowed him to live and tell his story and point
>>>>fingers
>>>>at the alleged offenders.
>>
>>>They didn't allow him to tell his story, he escaped
>>
>>REPLY: And his story was rubbish, too.
>
>
>Oh, then you have evidence of this? What am I thinking, of course you don't!
REPLY: I don't care.
> And now, can you explain how Nyiszli
>>was waltzed out of Auschwitz? Mueller? et al?
>Why does it require an explanation?
REPLY: Of course. We understand, Phil......really, we do....
>> Are you really this
>>>stupid, or is wilful mischaracterization the only thing you have to offer?
>
>>REPLY: Your own witnesses which you taunted me to assess have created this
>>problem for you,
>The only problem I have Joe is trying to get you to produce evidence. When
>will
>we begin to see some?
REPLY: Are you prepared to submit yourself to my questioning re Tauber et al
yet?
>
>>> I would say this also qualifies. Which leads one
>>>>to
>>>>the conclusion that his duties were not as he claimed,
>>>
>>>It doesn't lead to that conclusion even if your lies were true.
>
>>REPLY: It does lead to this conclusion/.
>
>Not in the least.
REPLY: yes it does, Phillie willie. This is how you should be treated if you
persist in infantile responses.
>>> but that if he was an
>>>>SK, his dutied consisted of disposal of those who died as a result of
>>>>epidemics
>>>>or natural causes.
>>>No, the evidence indicates he disposed of those killed in gas chambers.
>>>You've
>>>conveniently forgotten that?
>>>
>>
>>REPLY: Not at all; I am waiting for further evidence in support of the
>claim.
>
>Try reading some history. And then try to find some evidence for your
>assertions.
REPLY: I read history all the time. Time for you to be honest with yourself
and with others.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A860DD9...@nizkor.org>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
>> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>> >Date: 2/10/01 4:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3A85DE61...@nizkor.org
>> >> >Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who
>> >> >offered a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>> >>
>> >> REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and
>> >unsubstantiated.
>
>> >True. But its not perjury.
>>
>> REPLY: It IS if there was in fact no such informant.
>
>And you can prove this? Well now we're getting somewhere. Well, out with
>it!
REPLY: It is not up to me to prove anything, Steve. The burden of proof
rests upon TAUBER and the SK's and you. If you cannot cite an informant, these
statements are inadmissible, and most probably indicative of the fact that he
and they were lying under oath.
>
><conspiracy theories and bald assertions snipped>
>
>> >> without any substantiation and a false claim of having assisted in the
>> >> destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
> >An estimate of 2 million. Other than the fact that he guessed wrong, what
>> >about the claim is false?
>>
>> REPLY: It was not a guess.
>Aside from the fact that he prefaced it with the words "I imagine..."
REPLY: Nope, that did not apply to his own experience.
>
>> He claimed to participate in the process of mass
>> murder.
>
>And how was he supposed to keep a tally of the exact numbers of victims, to
>the
>tune of over a million. On his fingers and toes?
REPLY: Irrelevant. His methodology is not my problem. My problem is that he
and others made claims under oath which they could not validate or justify.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 7:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A860DD9...@nizkor.org>
> >
> >> >> >Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who
> >> >> >offered a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
> >> >>
> >> >> REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and
> >> >unsubstantiated.
>
> >> >True. But its not perjury.
> >>
> >> REPLY: It IS if there was in fact no such informant.
> >
> >And you can prove this? Well now we're getting somewhere. Well, out with
> >it!
>
> REPLY: It is not up to me to prove anything, Steve.
Yes it is, Joe. You are accusing the witnesses of perjury. You are calling their
testimonies worthless. If you wont support your accusations, you're a coward.
> The burden of proof
> rests upon TAUBER and the SK's and you.
And that burden has been met. You are trying to dispute the authenticity of the
testimonies as evidence. Well, get to it.
> >> >> without any substantiation and a false claim of having assisted in the
> >> >> destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
>
> > >An estimate of 2 million. Other than the fact that he guessed wrong, what
> >> >about the claim is false?
> >>
> >> REPLY: It was not a guess.
>
> >Aside from the fact that he prefaced it with the words "I imagine..."
>
> REPLY: Nope, that did not apply to his own experience.
"I imagine that during the period in which I worked in the Krematorien as a member
of the Sonderkommando, a total of about 2 million people were gassed."
You knew full well that's what he said, Joe. What do you have to say for yourself?
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
As will I.
>
>>>>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who offered
>>>>>>a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>>>>>
>
>>REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and
>>>>unsubstantiated.
>
>>>>It is not immaterial and people are supposed to substantiate their own
>>>>testimony. That's the job of people who use their testimony.
>>>
>>>REPLY: It is negligent. It is irresponsible and it is hearsay.
>
>>
>>It is not negligent or irresponsible. Hearsay is perfectly fine.
>
>REPLY: For the likes of you, of course it is. What else do you have to
>offer?
Hearsay is common as historical evidence.
>
>>
>> It is
>>>palpable nonsense which would never be allowed in a real court.
>>
>>So you say. History is not a court.
>>>
>
>REPLY: I see, so then you must accept the verdicts of courts which convicted
>Jewish people of Ritual Murder. Thanks for the insight!
Why must I accept those verdicts? The verdict of history is such charges were
lies.
>
>>>>
>>>>>>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>REPLY: A reckless disregard for truth by referring to an unnamed
>>informant
>>>>>without any substantiation and a
>
>>>
>>>>false claim of having assisted in the
>>>>>destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
>>>>
>>>>There is no reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>
>>>REPLY: It is called perjury.
>
>>
>>That's what it's called. Got any evidence of any?
>
>REPLY: Do you have any evidence, period?
Tons, but none to prove you erroneous claims.
>
>>>
>>>>No one knew the truth at the
>>>>time. He gave the information he had.
>>>
>>>REPLY: Which was perjury. Thank you.
>
>>
>>Giving information is not perjury. Your welcome.
>>
>
>REPLY: Telling lies under oath is perjury.
You haven't shown he lied.
>
>>
>>>>(Note that the life
>>>>>of
>>>>>an SK was 2-3 months at best, according to other sources)
>>>>
>
>>>No, that's not what the evidence says, and for a handful of thousands of
>SKs
>>>>to
>>>>survive longer is hardly suspicious.
>
>>>
>>>REPLY: Yes, it IS what the sources maintain. Dig yourself a deeper hole,
>>>Matthews.
>
>>
>>We've been through this. You exaggerate. And deviations from the average are
>>not necessarily suspicious.
>
>REPLY:: LOL! Keep kicking those legs@! Pretty soon you will be able to join
>a
>Can-Can chorus with Mr. Gehrig!
As I said, you exaggerate what has been said about Sonderkommando lifespans,
and your conclusions about the significance of those who outlast such averages
are unwarranted and self serving.
>>>during the course
>>>>>of
>>>>>which the murderous SS allowed him to live and tell his story and point
>>>>>fingers
>>>>>at the alleged offenders.
>
>>>
>>>>They didn't allow him to tell his story, he escaped
>>>
>>>REPLY: And his story was rubbish, too.
>>
>
>>
>>Oh, then you have evidence of this? What am I thinking, of course you don't!
>
>REPLY: I don't care.
We can see that!
>
>> And now, can you explain how Nyiszli
>>>was waltzed out of Auschwitz? Mueller? et al?
>
>>Why does it require an explanation?
>
>REPLY: Of course. We understand, Phil......really, we do....
I guess it really doesn't then, correct?
>
>>> Are you really this
>>>>stupid, or is wilful mischaracterization the only thing you have to offer?
>
>>
>>>REPLY: Your own witnesses which you taunted me to assess have created this
>>>problem for you,
>
>>The only problem I have Joe is trying to get you to produce evidence. When
>>will
>>we begin to see some?
>
>REPLY: Are you prepared to submit yourself to my questioning re Tauber et al
>yet?
His evidence is posted. Deal with it if you're able. So far you've mightily
embarrassed yourself and you've barely touched the evidence.
>>
>>>> I would say this also qualifies. Which leads one
>>>>>to
>>>>>the conclusion that his duties were not as he claimed,
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't lead to that conclusion even if your lies were true.
>
>>
>>>REPLY: It does lead to this conclusion/.
>>
>>Not in the least.
>
>REPLY: yes it does, Phillie willie. This is how you should be treated if
>you
>persist in infantile responses.
You call me "Phillie willie" and accuse me of "infantile responses"? You have
no evidence he lied about his duties.
>
>>>> but that if he was an
>>>>>SK, his dutied consisted of disposal of those who died as a result of
>>>>>epidemics
>>>>>or natural causes.
>
>>>>No, the evidence indicates he disposed of those killed in gas chambers.
>>>>You've
>>>>conveniently forgotten that?
>>>>
>
>>>
>>>REPLY: Not at all; I am waiting for further evidence in support of the
>>claim.
>>
>>Try reading some history. And then try to find some evidence for your
>>assertions.
>
>REPLY: I read history all the time. Time for you to be honest with yourself
>and with others.
Try books instead of websites.
Debunks
>Message-id: <20010210224543...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>In >Message-id: <3a96075c...@news.pacificnet.net>
>
>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
>Li'l Tommy, smarting from the spanking he took on the "shadows" post, starts
>with his usual mischaracterization.
>
>
>>Philip Mathews frothing:
>
>>>Yes, and you are the same lying moron who is a laughingstock of this
>>newsgroup,
>>>poor L'il Tommy!
>>
>>If that's the case why are you frothing?
>
>Why are you lying?
>
>I enjoy rubbing it in. I'm beginning to think you enjoy the pain!
>
>--
>Philip Mathews
>
>
equals all the force of being whipped with a wet noodle.
Debunks
>Message-id: <20010210231343...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>In >Message-id: <20010210225630...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>
>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>
>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>Date: 2/10/01 6:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <20010210210611...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>In >Message-id: <3a90dd07...@news.pacificnet.net>
>>>
>>>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>>>
>>>>Moran introduced the understanding of what we would be talking about:
>>>>>> Random House Dictionary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>>
>>>Li'l Tommy apparently thinks defining a word is proving it occurrence.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>>>>>that approximately 2 million
>people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>>>>>there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who
>offered
>>>>>a similarly derived estimate o
>2 million others?
>>>>>
>>>>>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>>>>
>>>>>Obviously you have more
>fingers and toes than Tauber had, Moran.
>>>>>
>>>>>(what an idiot!)
>>>>
>>>>Is this the same Tauber you're referring to Mock?
>>>>
>>>>Tauber is the one that said they would put up to eight (8) bodies at a
>>>>time into a cremation oven in order to create a lot of flames and
>>>>smoke to signal Allied bomber crews as to what was going on. He said
>>>>they would do it when no one was looking. In Pressac's book, the same
>>>one that Mathews cites as the source, Pressac shows a number of
>>>>designs for various cremation ovens designed by German companies. With
>>>>those we can see that any one of them wouldn't have anything more than
>>>>a small opening for any
>emissions to escape from the ovens.
>>>
>>>Where do we see that?
>>>
>>
>>REPLY: Open your eyes, Matthews.
>
>
>Ah, you mean you can tell me? Please do.
>
REPLY: Can I make a blind man see? Your beliefs rest in good part on the
supernatural and it is only through a supernatural act that you can be cured.
>>> Thus we
>>>>would have it that the alleged flames and smoke would exit from the
>>>>ovens into a 2 x 2 foot duct system, then go under ground up to 40
>>>>feet before it hit the chimney and then up the chimney to exit as
>>>>flames and billowing smoke. .
>>So?
>>
>>REPLY: So he is fabricating-again. Some star witness.
>
>Based on Tommy's assertions of what he says is in a photo? Doesn't take much
>to
>confirm your mindless denial, does it Joe.
REPLY: All it takes is for people to read the quality of your posts and
evidence, Phil.
>>>>Tauber also as cited in Pressac's book says that they could cremate up
>>>>to four (4) bodies in 15 minutes or one in a time of 4 to 7 minutes.
>>>>Present day high tech cremation facilities take up to an hour and a
>>>>half to cremate a body of 150 pounds.
>>>Irrelevant. Present day cremation facilities don't use the same procedures.
>
>>
>>REPLY: Prove it. Post the specs for krema II with specs for a modern
>>facility.
>Specs have nothing to do with procedures.>
REPLY: Another Matthews diversion nipped in the bud. LOL! Whenever it is
time to put up or shut him, he shouts something irrelevant or insulting and
then scampers off! I think I'll dub thee, Sir Scamp.
'
>
>>>>Tauber also said they would cremate from 10,000 to 12,000 bodies a day
>>>>at Auschwitz.
>>>
>>>No he didn't. You've lied about this at least twice in the past week or so.
>
>>
>>REPLY: His statement is available on line, isn't it? www.mazal.org
>
>Exactly!
REPLY: O Sanctas Simplicitas!
>>
>>REPLY: No, he is not the laughingstock of this newsgroup.
>
>OK, he's a close second.
>
REPLY: To you?
>> Now, here is what
>>you have been pleading for....a discussion of Tauber's claims. Aren't you
>>glad
>>you taunted me into assessing his claims? I am.
>
>I'm loving it!
REPLY: Laughing on the outside, raging on the inside.....
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>Date: 2/10/01 7:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20010210224543...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>
>>In >Message-id: <3a96075c...@news.pacificnet.net>
>>
>>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>>Li'l Tommy, smarting from the spanking he took on the "shadows" post, starts
>>with his usual mischaracterization.
>>
>>
>>>Philip Mathews frothing:
>>
>>>>Yes, and you are the same lying moron who is a laughingstock of this
>>>newsgroup,
>>>>poor L'il Tommy!
>>>
>>>If that's the case why are you frothing?
>>
>>Why are you lying?
>>
>>I enjoy rubbing it in. I'm beginning to think you enjoy the pain!
>
>>
>REPLY: Viewed in context with the quality of your posts here, your *pain*
>equals all the force of being whipped with a wet noodle.
Hehe.
Debunks
>Message-id: <20010210221615...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>
>In >Message-id: <20010210220211...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>
>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>Date: 2/10/01 5:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <20010210204402...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>>In >Message-id: <20010210173424...@ng-mk1.aol.com>
>>>
>>>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>Further evidence is on the wa
>Enjoy@!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Any evidence you provide would be the first.
>>>
>>>All you've done in over a week on this topic is confirm that many of the
>>>survivors offered widely varying over-estimates of something they couldn't
>>be
>>>expected to know, - the number murdered at Auschwitz.
>>>
>>>That's pretty pathetic, Joe.
>>REPLY: Aren't you glad that you taunted me into examining the testimony of
>>these witnesses? I am.
>
>Absolutely. You've made a complete fool of yourself, and in doing so revealed
>that deniers of the Holocaust don't know how to address the power of the
>survivor testimony
REPLY: Oh, I know how to address survivor testimony all right. And I also
have no compunctions about calling people perjurers when it fits the bill, and
this is the case with your witnesses. Now, there are certainly survivors whose
testimony are credible, these are not, and they do a great disservice to those
who told the truth.
> except through such obviously desperate methods as to
>declare it all lies with no evidence of lies.
REPLY: We have their own statements, sworn to under oath.
>The only thing I find curious Joe
>is that this is no different than deniers have been doing for years. After
>all
>this build up I expected something --better?
REPLY: There is never anything better than the truth and honesty, Mr Matthews.
Debunks
>Message-id: <20010210224016...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>In >Message-id: <20010210220128...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>
>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>From: Philip Mathews
>You haven't shown any other
>perjured testimony.
REPLY: I have posted many.
>
>>>And note how Joe is willing to make such a
>>>determination without all the background information he claimed was
>>>necessary with Tauber before making a judgment about his
>>
>>>testimony.
>
>>REPLY: I have every right to point to the obvious. And you of all people
>>have
>>no right to criticize me, for you have consistently refused to answer my
>>queries re Tauber et al.
>And you proved you lied when you said you needed more information
REPLY: Asking for more information is lying? Interesting...
>Everyone
>knew you were lying and only looking for an excuse
REPLY: Paranoids such as yourself? Hardly convincing.
>That's why no one wasted
>their time.
REPLY: You have never shown a desire to honestly evaluate testimony and
evidence.
>>>Next we have a statement allegedly written by an SK who again,
>>>allegedly
>>>>buried
>>>>this statement in the earth at Birkenau, later *discovered* by Soviets
>>>or
>>>>their
>>agents:
>>
>>>
>>>Despite Joe's use of the word "alleged" the documents were found buried
>>>on the grounds by multiple people.
>>>>
>
>>REPLY: Please tell us all about it. Cite names, dates, and under whose
>>tutelage these buried *documents* were found.
>
>If you don't know the answer to this already, how could you make such
>statements?
>
REPLY: I posted the reasons. Now, do you have the evidence or are your feet
and mouth already in motion.
>>"...Zalman Gradowski, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"I have buried this under the ashes, considering it the safest place,
>>
>>>bound
>>>>to
>>>>be dug up to find traces of the millions of murdered people."
>
>>>>Source, Ibid, Piper, p. 6.
>>
>>>>
>>>>COMMENT: It should be noted here that there are no masses of ashes
>>>which
>>>>were
>>>>ever discovered at the camp
>which would support the claims allegedly
>>>made by
>>
>>>>Gradowski above. In effect, he is claiming millions of deaths for the
>>>period
>>>>prior to 1943-1945.
>>>Ashes were discovered at Auschwitz. Most of the ashes were disposed of
>>>in the Vistula river.
>>
>>REPLY: In other words, no ashes were found consistent with the claims.
>>Thank
>>you.
>As I've shown, the ashes were purposely disposed of.
REPLY: You have shown nothing but your habit of repeating unsubstantiated
claims.
> Should the Sonderkommando
>in question have been clairvoyant?
REPLY: No, they should have been honest.
>(quote)
>>>
>>>"December 5 <1944> ...The women's squad employed in dismantling
>>>Crematorium III increases by 50, to 150.... The woodleand demolotion
>>>squad is created in Birkenau, to which 50 female prisoners are sent.
>>The squad works on the grounds of the so-called big sauna and
>>>Crematorium IV. It must clear the grounds and fill in and cover with
>>>grass all the pits previously used for
>>
>>>burning the corpses of those
>>>killed in the gas chambers. It must also sift through the human ash
>>>remains before they are strewn
>in the Vistula. Little trees are planted
>>>on the leveled ground.... The male and female prisoners attempt to
>>
>>>sabotage the orders of the SS and avoid whenever possible removing the
>>>ashes of the murdered befo
>he pits are filled in, in the hope that
>>>these human remains- some
>>
>>>ncompletely burned bones -will in the near
>>>future prove the crime of genocide that was committed here."
>>>
>>>(end quote)
>>>
>>Auschwitz Chronicle
>>>Danuta Czech
>>
>>REPLY: All empty allegations again with no proof. BTW, Czech claimed 4
>>million dead at Auschwitz. So much for that source.
>
>Not allegation. Testimonial evidence from witnesses
REPLY: Allegations until YOU can prove otherwise.
>All by itself, it dwarfs
>the evidence you've been able to cite for your claims.
REPLY: I have been citing your sources. LOL!
>>>A concerted effort was made to remove and dispose of the ashes from
>>>those murdered and cremated
>>
>>REPLY: Proof? Evidence? Other than unsupported statements again? Post
>>convincing proof and I shall be the first to agree with you.
>It's already presented.>
>>
>>
>>>As for Gradowski's estimate of the number
>>>killed, it is no more significant than the fact that others couldn't be
>>>expected to know the correct number.
>REPLY: More excuses again.
>
>It is not an excuse to point out that people with a system for counting
>couldn't be expected to know. It's called common sense.>
REPLY: You mean they didn't devise a method for counting but parrotted a
useless figure? You mean they didn't really bury estimates and statements in
the soil under the ashes which have never been found, but the papers were? O,
Mr Matthew, what a web you weave! And you call others conspiracy theorists.
>>>Next:
>>>>
>>>>Zalman Leventhal declared:
>>>>
>>
>>>>"The history of Auschwitz-Birkenau as a labour camp, and especially as
>>>an
>>>>extermination camp for millions
>of people, will not-so I believe-be
>>>>accurately
>>>>related to the world."
>>>>
>>
>>>Source, Ibid., Piper, p. 6
>>>Comment: Of course Leventhal's statement can be taken two ways. The
>>>history
>>>>of the camp and the bunkers has not be accurately related to the
>>>world.
>>
>>>LOL! Leventhal's statement cannot be taken that way at all
>>
>>REPLY: Of course it can. He never intended for it to work out this way,
>but
>>that is what has happened.
>
>Well, if that's the case you can prove it.
REPLY: You have it wrong. You must prove Leventhal was telling the truth.
Good luck. You better consult a medium.
>>As for your
>>>charge, you have a problem. You've no evidence to offer that the
>>>history of the camp has not been accurately related to the world.
>>
>>REPLY: It would be a waste of time to reply to this.
>No more so than all your responses of the past week or so, none of which
>contained any evidence.
>>
REPLY: They were your sources...so you admit by default that you have no
evidence? Thanks!
.
>>>Next:
>>>>
>>>>"Rachwalowa, a former prisoner who worked in the office of the
>>>political
>>>>division in Birkenau, testified: "Conversations between SS men in the
>>>>political office led me to the
>conclusion that this number (of
>>
>>>victims-F.P.)
>>>>was between 4 and 5 million."
>>>>
>>>>Source: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
>>COMMENT: It is obvious that this inmate is perjuring himself.
>>>
>>>Of course, it is not obvious at all.
>>
>>REPLY: I'm sorry. I will correct that to read: Of course it is obvious to
>>HONEST people that this inmate is perjuring himself.
>It is particularly not obvious to honest people.
REPLY: You are no authority on that subject.
>> Again,
>>>>statements such as these are consistent with Soviet techniques.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>Statements are not techniques, and the estimate in this case was
>higher
>>>by a significant degree than others.
>>
>>REPLY: Again, this is irrelevant, for the average remains constant.
>
>Conspiracy theories are not concocted on "averages"!
>
REPLY: Apparently yours are.
>
>>>It is a strange technique which
>>>wishes to establish a certain number by having a wide variety of
>>>numbers testified to
>>
>REPLY: Nevertheless, the average remains constant and the technique is
>>undeniably Soviet, as any HONEST person can affirm by examining the sources
>I
>>posted.
>
>
>Well, aside from the fact that you haven't shown the average is 4 million,
>there is no evidence that an average played any part in anyone's
>calculations.
REPLY: Add the figures yourself. It is the average mean.
>>> He
>>>>*overhears*
>>>>alleged statements which led him to conlude, etc. Hearsay and
>>>>unsubstantiated
>>>>rubbish which was conveniently *confessed* to by people like Grabner,
>>>who was
>>>>head of the political division at Auschwitz, to the Soviets.
>>
>>>There's nothing wrong with hearsay evidence and no witness is expected
>>>to provide substantiation for his own testimony.
>>
>>REPLY: Hearsay evidence is inadmissible, period, in capital cases.
>
>History is not a case. Hearsay evidence is common and multitudinous in the
>historical work.
REPLY Well it is not applicable here. Is this an admission that hearsay
evidence is all you have to offer?
>
> Still,
>>the
>>technique of introducing such hearsay evidence as fact is undeniably a
>Soviet
>>technique.
>
>No it isn't.>
>>>>Next:
>>>>
>>>>The above statement by the eavesdropping *witness* Rachwalowa, is
>>>*confirmed*
>>>>by the following:
>>
>>>>"This is confirmed by Wlodzimierz Bilan, a member of the SS who was
>>>employed
>>>>in
>>>>this office; according to his testimony given during the trial of
>>>Rudolf
>>>>Hoess, SS men present there estimated the number of victims at 5
>>million."
>>>
>>>Well, I don't know how 5 million confirms 4-5 million, but when you're
>>>struggling to make a case, I guess you resort to that.
>>
>>REPLY: It doesn't confirm 4-5 million?
>
>No, 5 million is 25% higher than 4 million.
REPLY: The wording was 4-5 million which means anywhere from 4 to 5.
>
>>And the 4 million average does not
>>remain constant?
>
>You haven't shown a four million average and no one claims a four million
>average as the method for reaching the death toll.
REPLY: Go add them all up and see for yourself.
>
>>>>And adding further insult to injury, we next read:
>>>>
>>>>"Another SS man from the political division, Perry Broad, wrote in his
>>>>memoirs:
>>>"Auschwitz was an extermination camp, the largest such camp in
>>>history. In
>>>>the
>>>>course of hits existence 2 to 3 million Jews were murdered there, as
>>>well as
>>>>thousands of Poles, Russians,
>Czechs, Yugoslavs and others."
>>
>>>So now we have a collection of estimates from 2.8 million, to 2-3
>>>million, to 4 million, to 4.5 million, to 4-5 million, to 5 million, to
>>>5.5 million. Some conspiracy!
>
>>REPLY: It only gets worse, too-unfortunately for you-but this is the
>>evidence
>>upon which you *prove* your case.
>
>
>What is the evidence? Is it invisible?
REPLY: Your evidence? Apparently so.
>>And finally:
>>>>
>>>>"Another SS physician, Friedrich Entress, who served as the camp doctor
>>>in
>>>>1942-1943, stated that in his view, 2 to 2.5 million people were
>>>killed in
>>>>Auschwitz."
>>>Oh my God, a different estimate still!!! What a conspiracy.
>>
>>REPLY: But you avoid mentioning that these figures only applied to the
>>period
>>when he worked at Auschwitz.
>
>His statement doesn't say that.
REPLY: DUH! Isn't it OBVIOUS, Mr Matthews?! (exasperated sighs)
>>>>Source for all the above: Ibid., Piper, p. 8.
>>>>
>>>>COMMENT: Thus we see that the technique employed by Soviets was
>>>utilized in
>>>>toto re these Auschwitz witnesses.
>>>Testimony is not technique.
>>
>>REPLY: It is perjured testimony in this case and it is technique of the
>>Soviet
>>variety.
>
>No evidence of perjury has been presented.>
>>>
>>>>Hearsay,
>>>
>>>Not a technique. A vast amount of all historical evidence is hearsay.
>>>Perfectly acceptable.
>>>
>>
>>REPLY: No, it isn't. No hearsay evidence is acceptable in capital
>cases.
>
>Capital cases are not history. More wilful dishonesty.
REPLY: On your part? Sad, but true.
>>>false estimates,
>>>
>>>A variey of false estimates, none of them tied to the Soviets, as your
>>>own sources show.
>>
>>REPLY: They are ALL tied to the Soviets.
>
>Not based on any evidence you've shown.>
>>>
>>>> calculations,
>>>>which all averaged out to the 4 million figure claimed by the Soviets
>and the
>>>>Auschwitz Museum up to 1989.
>>
>>>LOL! Note the change in strategy! First Joe attempted the common denier
>>>canard, that the Soviets
>conspired to have the witnesses testify to 4
>>>million dead. But that gambit was exposed by much testimony, some
>>>concealed by Joe, that the estimates were all over the place. Now Joe's
>>>theory is that the Soviets
>conspired to effect a series of estimates
>>>whose mathematical mean would be 4 million!
>>
>>REPLY: And yet that is exactly the situation, isn't it? Answer: Yes.
>Show it.
>>
REPLY: Already done. But don't worry! The Holocaust will still stand on its
own merit, I can assure you. There can be no justification for the persecution
the Jewish people endured before and during the war.
>>Of course, he has no more
>>>evidence that this is true than he did before, but for some reason it
>>>makes him feel better.
>>
>>REPLY: I have the figures and the testimony and they agree with my thesis.
>No they don't. And you have no evidence that anyone ever used a methodology
>of
>computing the average of survivor estimates to arrive at a number! That's
>just
>your desperate attempt to escape your original lie.
REPLY: Yet it is still true, regardless of your current hysteria.
Debunks
>From: David Gehrig zem...@earthlink.net
>Date: 2/10/01 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A85FE53...@earthlink.net>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
>> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>> >Date: 2/10/01 6:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3A85F436...@nizkor.org>
>> >
>> >Gord McFee wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
>> >> perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
>> >
>> >Why do we even bother, Gord. In 5 years, Bellinger has never changed. He
>is
>> >never
>> >going to understand that simply posting witness testimonies and yelling
>> >"liar, liar,
>> >pants on fire" is not evidence.
>> >
>> REPLY: *Not changing* in this instance means that I will still adhere to
>> honesty and rules of evidence in evaluating testimony and documentation.
>
>You have to start doing it before you can still do it, Joe-Joe. Your
>track record on the honesty issue is downright pathetic.
>
>> And you are the only one I see here yelling liar at your opponents instead
>of
>> admitting that your witnesses perjured themselves.
>
>So you say -- and say again -- and say again -- and say again, but
>never quite manage to prove.
>
>---
REPLY: No one is trying to prove anything to you, Mr. Gehrig..you are
divine...
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A8603D8...@nizkor.org>
>Debunks wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
>> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>> >Date: 2/10/01 6:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3A85F436...@nizkor.org>
>> >Gord McFee wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
>> >> perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
>> >
>> >Why do we even bother, Gord. In 5 years, Bellinger has never changed. He
>is
> >never going to understand that simply posting witness testimonies and
>yelling
>> >"liar, liar, pants on fire" is not evidence.
>>
> REPLY: *Not changing* in this instance means that I will still adhere to
>> honesty and rules of evidence in evaluating testimony and documentation.
>
>No. It means that you're never going to realize that a witness can not be
>presumed a liar unless you can show that he actually lied. You have yet to
>do
>so. Once. In your entire miserable history as a revisionist.
REPLY: Well, you are the person struggling here, not me. The witnesses
perjured themselves, and anyone is free to examine their claims.
>> And
>> you are the only one I see here yelling liar at your opponents instead of
>> admitting that your witnesses perjured themselves.
>Do you really not see the obvious hypocrisy in your sentence above, Joe? You
>are
>"yelling liar" by claiming that the witnesses perjured themselves
REPLY: No, Steve, I am demonstrating by their own testimonies that they
committed perjury.
> and your demand
>that the rest of us admit it just because you would like us to is absurd,
REPLY: I agree that expecting honesty from you is absurd.
>especially given *your* proven history of misrepresenting their statements
REPLY: Posting their words verbatim is misrepresenting them? Interesting....
> I
>swear, debating with you is like stepping into a Monty Python routine.
REPLY: Is that where you get your material?
Debunks
>From: Paul Kneisel tall...@nyct.net
>Date: 2/10/01 7:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <CwyGOsYyfLeEBfV=dK2Xl60AKL=i...@4ax.com>
>
>Mock has more experience with Bellinger than I and is therefore far better
>qualified to summarize Bellinger's methodology.
REPLY: That works two ways, of course.
>
>But are we really challenging Bellinger to convince Bellinger that he is
>wrong? I think not.
>
>Rather I think the discourse with Bellinger must have two purposes:
>
>1) Keep Bellinger from convincing others that he is right;
>
REPLY: The truth is always a danger to some people.
>2) Use Bellinger's actions as hard data to educate people about how the
>Denier crowd conducts the "academic" debate they claim they so badly want.
REPLY: Translation: try and prevent others from reading the truth.
Interesting observations. What was your name again? Small Paul?
Debunks
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 2/10/01 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A8602A7...@nizkor.org>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
>> >From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>> >Date: 2/10/01 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3A85EEB9...@sympatico.ca>
>
>> >Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
>> >perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
>>
>> REPLY: Please forgive me if I don't have time to tutor you on the basics
>of
>> proper evaluation of evidence and testimony.
>
>But you have to, since your idea of the "proper evaluation of evidence and
>testimony" is apparently different from ours,
REPLY: that is because you are people with an agenda.
>and, for that matter, from the
>entire academic community
REPLY: That is certainly an exaggeration.
>who consider the witnesses you call perjurers to be
>credible sources of information.
REPLY: Funny thing though-they aren't, after all. The truth shall prevail in
time.
>So tell us how you do it, Joe? What's the big secret?
REPLY: Being honest with myself and others.. Works best for me. Might even
work for you too-you ought to try it sometime.
> How do you know that these
>witnesses are liars?
REPLY: I read their testimonies and compared them?
>What do you know that the rest of the civilized world
>doesn't?
REPLY: I do not presume to speak for the entire world, Mr. Mock.
Interesting.....
Debunks
>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>Date: 2/10/01 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010210215253...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>In >Message-id: <20010210213751...@ng-cc1.aol.com>>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>Date: 2/10/01 5:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <20010210205347...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>
>>>In >Message-id: <3a8fcb10...@news.pacificnet.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
>>>>when claiming millions were exterminated.
>>
>>>Sure they do, just like Irving, and denier websites, and deniers make a
>>>mistake
>>>when they claim that 200,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 were killed in the
>>bombing
>>>of Dresden.
>>
>>REPY: Red herring will be ignored. Try to substantiate your own claims re
>>Auschwitz.
>>
>>>
>>> Lies and only lies. Was it a
>>>>"mistake" that Mock says it was a "mistake"?
>>>
>>>Well, it was clearly a mistake.
>>
>>REPLY: And only you are capable of making a *mistake,* right?
>
>Hardly, everyone is capable of making a mistake.
>
> When your
>>opponents do it, you refer to us as liars.
>
>Not for their mistakes, just for their wilful lies.
>>
>>>To make it a lie requires evidence, not just
>>>antisemitic motivations for believing what you want to believe. Got any
>>>evidence Tommy boy!
>>
>>REPLY: There is plenty of evidence for your duplicity re Tauber et al.
>
>Then why can't you present it, hmmm!
>
>--
REPLY: Proving this is about as necessary as proving the sun rises in the east
and sets on the British empire.
Debunks
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 2/10/01 7:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A86020C...@nizkor.org>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
>
>> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
>> >From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>> >Date: 2/10/01 5:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <20010210205347...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>>Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
>> >>millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
>> >>when claiming millions were exterminated.
>
>> >Sure they do, just like Irving, and denier websites, and deniers make a
>> >mistake
>> >when they claim that 200,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 were killed in the
>bombing
>> >of Dresden.
>>
>> REPY: Red herring will be ignored.
>
>It is not a red herring - it goes right to the core issue,
REPLY: No it doesn't. the core issue here is Auschwitz and the credibility of
your witnesses and Soviet sources.
> that being the
>methodology by which you assess the credibility of witnesses,
REPLY: Easily answered. The methodology which is used in all courts in this
country.
>and the consistency
>with which you apply it.
REPLY: Without curry; without favor, as the law should be applied. And
equally to all-whether Jew, Communist, Democrat, Catholic, Buddhist or Nazi.
>
>> Try to substantiate your own claims re
>> Auschwitz.
>You first.
REPLY: I do not have to. Your obligation is to convince us that the claims
made re Auschwitz are credible and based upon credible sources and evidence.
>
>> > Lies and only lies. Was it a
>> >>"mistake" that Mock says it was a "mistake"?
>> >
>>Well, it was clearly a mistake.
>>
>> REPLY: And only you are capable of making a *mistake,* right? When your
>> opponents do it, you refer to us as liars.
>
>Everyone makes mistakes, Joe. Its when you wilfully distort the facts that
>you
>become a liar.
REPLY: I know. So why do you do it, Steve?
>
>> >To make it a lie requires evidence, not just
>> >antisemitic motivations for believing what you want to believe. Got any
>> >evidence Tommy boy!
>>
>> REPLY: There is plenty of evidence for your duplicity re Tauber et al.
>You haven't presented it.
REPLY: I know....YOU have. LOL!
> In contrast, we have proven that you attempted to
>distort Tauber's testimony to suit your conclusion that he perjured himself.
>
REPLY: I distorted him by quoting him verbatim? Interesting....
>We
>proved it by posting your words as to what his testimony contained, the
>actual
>contents of the testimony, and then your attempt to deny your earlier
>statement
>and change your tune.
REPLY: I never change my tune. I am always consistent. And, yes, Tauber
lied.
His testimony proves it.
>
>And you have no defense except to call all of your opponants dishonest.
REPLY: Under the circumstances, I do not know what else to call you.
>The only proven liar here, Joe, is you.
REPLY: Can you cite the name of Tauber's alleged informant? Bimko's? Do you
affirm her description of the alleged gas chamber? take your time to reply.
Steven Mock
<multiple I-say-so's snipped>
> >especially given *your* proven history of misrepresenting their statements
>
> REPLY: Posting their words verbatim is misrepresenting them? Interesting....
No. Claiming that they said something they didn't, and calling them liars on that
basis, is misrepresenting. Which I have proven you have done.
You're a liar, Joe. You smear dead people by accusing them of perjury on the
basis of shameless misrepresentations of their words, and don't even have the
decency to even try to prove your libels. But I suppose that's revisionism in a
nutshell.
Debunks
>Message-id: <uwuGOgY=MI20NzEt4a...@4ax.com>
>We don't have to substantiate our own "claims" about Auschwitz. The
>important claims were substantiated at Nuremberg.
REPLY: They were? let's see? Didn't they cite a death figure of 4 million at
Nuremberg? think hard, Pauly...
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A8602A7...@nizkor.org>
> >
> >> >Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
> >> >perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
> >>
> >> REPLY: Please forgive me if I don't have time to tutor you on the basics
> >> of proper evaluation of evidence and testimony.
>
> >But you have to, since your idea of the "proper evaluation of evidence and
> >testimony" is apparently different from ours,
>
> REPLY: that is because you are people with an agenda.
Us and every historian on earth. Right, Joe.
> >and, for that matter, from the
> >entire academic community
>
> REPLY: That is certainly an exaggeration.
Alright then. Name one person from the academic community who thinks that Tauber
is a perjurer. We'll wait.
<various assorted "I say so"'s snipped>
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 7:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A86020C...@nizkor.org>
<various "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I"'s snipped>
> > In contrast, we have proven that you attempted to
> >distort Tauber's testimony to suit your conclusion that he perjured himself.
>
> REPLY: I distorted him by quoting him verbatim? Interesting....
No, weasel. You distorted him by claiming he said something he didn't, and
accusing him of perjury on that basis.
> >We proved it by posting your words as to what his testimony contained, the
> >actual contents of the testimony, and then your attempt to deny your earlier
> >statement and change your tune.
>
> REPLY: I never change my tune. I am always consistent.
Sure Joe. First Tauber claimed authoritative knowledge of 4-million killed at
Auschwitz. Then, when I actually posted his words verbatin, suddenly he guessed.
Now he's back to having claimed it authoritatively. You've been waffling so much
on that point I can't keep up.
> And, yes, Tauber
> lied. His testimony proves it.
<yawn>
<vauge accusations and attempted dodges snipped>
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A863A40...@nizkor.org>
>
>Debunks wrote:
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
>> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>> >Date: 2/10/01 7:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3A86020C...@nizkor.org>
>
><various "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I"'s snipped>
Reply: Then why do you start it?
>
>> > In contrast, we have proven that you attempted to
>> >distort Tauber's testimony to suit your conclusion that he perjured
>himself.
>>
>> REPLY: I distorted him by quoting him verbatim? Interesting....
>No, weasel.
REPLY: Name calling becomes you, Mr Mock. Makes you more credible, too.
>You distorted him by claiming he said something he didn't, and
>accusing him of perjury on that basis.
REPLY: Nope. I quoted him verbatim and compared his fabrications under oath
with others.
> >We proved it by posting your words as to what his testimony contained, the
>> >actual contents of the testimony, and then your attempt to deny your
>earlier
>> >statement and change your tune.
>>
>> REPLY: I never change my tune. I am always consistent.
>
>Sure Joe. First Tauber claimed authoritative knowledge of 4-million killed
>at
>Auschwitz. T
REPLY: Well let's see: 2 million from his unnamed Soviet informant, and 2
million from his personal experience in aiding and abetting the Nazis in their
scheme to kill his own people. The way I see, it, that totals 4 million.
>Then, when I actually posted his words verbatin, suddenly he guessed.
REPLY: No, he did not guess. he imagined the first 2 million with his
imaginary informant. The 2nd 2 million was from personal experience.
>Now he's back to having claimed it authoritatively. You've been waffling so
>much
>on that point I can't keep up.
>
REPLY: I never waffle. I post factual information only. Now that we are
through with Tauber, shall we discuss Bimko, Dragon, Mueller, Bomba, et al?
> And, yes, Tauber
>> lied. His testimony proves it.
>
><yawn>
REPLY: I will not allow you to walk away from this.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A863857...@nizkor.org>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
>> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>> >Date: 2/10/01 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3A8602A7...@nizkor.org>
> >Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
>> >> >perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
>> >>
>> >> REPLY: Please forgive me if I don't have time to tutor you on the
>basics
>> >> of proper evaluation of evidence and testimony.
>
>> >But you have to, since your idea of the "proper evaluation of evidence and
>> >testimony" is apparently different from ours,
>>
>> REPLY: that is because you are people with an agenda.
>
>Us and every historian on earth. Right, Joe.
>
REPLY: Since I have not discussed these issues with every historian I earth, I
shall not comment, but I am perfectly justified in making the comment re you
and your colleagues.
>>and, for that matter, from the
>> >entire academic community
>>
>> REPLY: That is certainly an exaggeration.
>
>
>Alright then. Name one person from the academic community who thinks that
>Tauber
>is a perjurer. We'll wait.
>
REPLY: Sure, you would love to add other names to Nizkor's black list,
wouldn't you?
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A8637EA...@nizkor.org>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
><multiple I-say-so's snipped>
>
>> >especially given *your* proven history of misrepresenting their statements
>>
>> REPLY: Posting their words verbatim is misrepresenting them?
>Interesting....
>
>No. Claiming that they said something they didn't, and calling them liars on
>that
>basis, is misrepresenting. Which I have proven you have done.
>
REPLY: No steve, that is not what I have done. What I have done is to post
their own words verbatim, and then compared them with other perjurers.
>You're a liar, Joe.
REPLY: Name calling becomes you, Steve.
>You smear dead people by accusing them of perjury on the
>basis of shameless misrepresentations of their words,
REPLY: Their words and lies were posted verbatim. Take your violin act
elsewhere.
>and don't even have the
>decency to even try to prove your libels. But I suppose that's revisionism
>in a
>nutshell.
REPLY: You suppose a great deal which is not true, Mr. Mock-just like the
witnesses whose testimony I examined.
Debunks
>Message-id: <20010211011157...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>In >Message-id: <20010211010458...@ng-mf1.aol.com>
>
>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>Date: 2/10/01 7:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <20010210224543...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>>
>>>In >Message-id: <3a96075c...@news.pacificnet.net>
>>>
>>>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>>
>>>Li'l Tommy, smarting from the spanking he took on the "shadows" post,
>starts
>>>with his usual mischaracterization.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Philip Mathews frothing:
>>>
>>>>>Yes, and you are the same lying moron who is a laughingstock of this
>>>>newsgroup,
>>>>>poor L'il Tommy!
>>>>
>>>>If that's the case why are you frothing?
>>>
>>>Why are you lying?
>>>
>>>I enjoy rubbing it in. I'm beginning to think you enjoy the pain!
>>
>>>
>>REPLY: Viewed in context with the quality of your posts here, your *pain*
>>equals all the force of being whipped with a wet noodle.
>
>Hehe.
>
>--
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A862B41...@nizkor.org>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>> >Date: 2/10/01 7:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3A860DD9...@nizkor.org>
>> >
>> >> >> >Are you saying that he
>*didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who
>> >> >> >offered a similarly derived estimate of 2 million others?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> REPLY: An unnamed source? Who cares? It is immaterial and
>> >> >unsubstantiated.
>> >True. But its not perjury.
>> >>
>> >> REPLY: It IS if there was in fact no such informant.
>> >
>> >And you can prove this? Well now we're getting somewhere. Well, out with
>> >it!
>>
>> REPLY: It is not up to me to prove anything, Steve.
>
>Yes it is, Joe. You are accusing the witnesses of perjury. You are calling
>their
>testimonies worthless. If you wont support your accusations, you're a
>coward.
REPLY: Name calling becomes you and is your only refuge, but I insist that you
tell us the names of Tauber and Bimko's informants and why we should believe
anything those people testified to under oath.
>
>> The burden of proof
>> rests upon TAUBER and the SK's and you.
>
>
>And that burden has been met. You are trying to dispute the authenticity of
>the
>testimonies as evidence. Well, get to it.
REPLY: No, the burden has not been met. The identities of Tauber and Bimko's
informants, please?
>> >> >> without any substantiation and a false claim of having assisted in
>the
>> >> >> destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
>>
>> > >An estimate of 2 million. Other than the fact that he guessed wrong,
>what
>> >> >about the claim is false?
>> REPLY: It was not a guess.
>>
>> >Aside from the fact that he prefaced it with the words "I imagine..."
>>
>> REPLY: Nope, that did not apply to his own experience.
>
>"I imagine that during the period in which I worked in the Krematorien as a
>member
>of the Sonderkommando, a total of about 2 million people were gassed."
>
>You knew full well that's what he said, Joe. What do you have to say
>for yourself?
REPLY: His own words condemn him as a perjurer.
Debunks
>Message-id: <20010211004613...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
REPLY: In fact, I presented YOURS. Pleasant dreams, Mr. Matthews.
Paul Kneisel
believe in mainstream history have "an agenda." It is true in the same way
it is true to say that people who believe the Earth to be round or who
believe that 2 + 2 = 4 also have "an agenda."
The Denier crowd also has an agenda: produce political apologetics for the
Nazis.
On 11 Feb 2001 06:50:13 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
Melody Blaiser
>In >Message-id: <20010210220211...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>
>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>Date: 2/10/01 5:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <20010210204402...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>>
>>>In >Message-id: <20010210173424...@ng-mk1.aol.com>
>>>
>>>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>Further evidence is on the way. Enjoy@!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Any evidence you provide would be the first.
>>>
>>>All you've done in over a week on this topic is confirm that many of the
>>>survivors offered widely varying over-estimates of something they couldn't
>>be
>>>expected to know, - the number murdered at Auschwitz.
>>>
>>>That's pretty pathetic, Joe.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Philip Mathews
>>>
>>>
>>REPLY: Aren't you glad that you taunted me into examining the testimony of
>>these witnesses? I am.
>
>Absolutely. You've made a complete fool of yourself, and in doing so revealed
>that deniers of the Holocaust don't know how to address the power of the
>survivor testimony except through such obviously desperate methods as to
>declare it all lies with no evidence of lies. The only thing I find curious Joe
>is that this is no different than deniers have been doing for years. After all
>this build up I expected something --better?
I did also since JB asserted he knew all this history so well. I
expected proof of intimate collusions along with Soviet government
agents sneaking INTO Auschwitz to begin the deception. What drama and
what revisionism this would be. No, it was not to be with JB.
Melody Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>>Date: 2/10/01 4:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3A85DE61...@nizkor.org>
>>
>>Debunks wrote:
>
>>> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>>> >Date: 2/10/01 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: <3A85D70C...@nizkor.org>
>>> >
>>> >tom moran wrote:
>
>>>
>>> > Mock mocked again and again:
>>> >> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>> >>
>>> >> Random House Dictionary
>>> >>
>>> >> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>>>
>
>>>
>>> >So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>>> >that approximately 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>>> >there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>
>>
>>> REPLY: That appears to be the case, yes.
>>
>>In other words, all you have is your subjective assessment, coupled with your
>>desire to believe whatever you want.
>>
>
>REPLY: Not at all. I have the testimonies and the verifiable techniques of the
>Soviets in other cases, which agree perfectly with the techniques employed in
>this instance.
At the Belsen trial? What techniques?
Melody Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>Date: 2/10/01 5:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20010210205347...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>>In >Message-id: <3a8fcb10...@news.pacificnet.net>
>>
>>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>
>>Mock mocked again and again:
>>>>And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>>
>>>Random House Dictionary
>>>
>>>perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>>>
>
>>>
>>>Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
>>>millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
>>>when claiming millions were exterminated.
>
>>Sure they do, just like Irving, and denier websites, and deniers make a
>>mistake
>>when they claim that 200,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 were killed in the bombing
>>of Dresden.
>
>REPY: Red herring will be ignored. Try to substantiate your own claims re
>Auschwitz.
It is the same instance and expression of how many people in
Alexander's Army. How many filled the Santa Anna Army at the Alamo. So
many bodies all in one place looks like so many more to the observer.
Melody Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>>Date: 2/10/01 4:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3A85D922...@nizkor.org>
>>
>>gassen_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>> It seems fairly obvious to me that the statements ammount to perjury,
>>> cunningly couched in terms that an apologist like you could use in order
>>> to make them appear innocuous.
>>>
>>> The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence' that
>
>>even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
>>> evident.
>>
>>Right. So you'd be another one who thinks that a witnesses' testimony is
>
>>totally worthless unless he or she can demonstrate the ability accurately
>>guess at numbers in the order of millions.
>>
>
>>That's why they're deniers, I suppose.
>
>REPLY: Wrong again. These people claimed to be Sonderkommandos-eyewitnesses
>and participants in the mass destruction of their own people-people who
>assisted the Nazis is destroying thousands of innocent children and others in
>gas chambers, and then cremating their remains.
This is what they claimed and now you are attempting to attack
character rather than the testimony. Right?
> Is there any defence for this
>sort of behavior? Not in my book.
I do not recall them defending themselves, JB.
> Therefore it does not surprise me that such
>people would also perjure themselves in court. As for your comments
>above-that's why you're called liars, I guess.
Thus says JB who has been in a Nazi concentration camp and who claims
he knows all about the psychology of the human mind.
Melody Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
>In >Message-id: <20010210220128...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>
>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
That is exactly where you stop responding until he does.
Melody Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>>Date: 2/10/01 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3A85EEB9...@sympatico.ca>
>
>>
>>Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
>>perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
>>
>
>REPLY: Please forgive me if I don't have time to tutor you on the basics of
>proper evaluation of evidence and testimony.
LOL! JB, you are such a card. LOL!
Melody Blaiser
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 11:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A863A40...@nizkor.org>
> >
> ><various "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I"'s snipped>
>
> Reply: Then why do you start it?
Another classic example.
> >> > In contrast, we have proven that you attempted to
> >> >distort Tauber's testimony to suit your conclusion that he perjured
> >himself.
> >>
> >> REPLY: I distorted him by quoting him verbatim? Interesting....
>
> >No, weasel.
>
> REPLY: Name calling becomes you, Mr Mock. Makes you more credible, too.
Watching you trying to wiggle out of your earlier distortions is amusing to no
end, Joe.
> >You distorted him by claiming he said something he didn't, and
> >accusing him of perjury on that basis.
>
> REPLY: Nope. I quoted him verbatim and compared his fabrications under oath
> with others.
But you didn't quote him verbatim, Joe. I quoted him verbatim. Phil Mathews
quoted him verbatim. All you did was lie about what he said, then try and wiggle
out of your lie once the two of us had quoted him verbatim. Asserting otherwise
doesn't change the past (but I guess believing it does is what revisionism is all
about).
> >Then, when I actually posted his words verbatin, suddenly he guessed.
>
> REPLY: No, he did not guess. he imagined the first 2 million with his
> imaginary informant. The 2nd 2 million was from personal experience.
Well, that explains your curious interpretation of Tauber's credibility. You
can't read!
"I imagine that during the period in which I worked in the Krematorien as a member
of the Sonderkommando, a total of about 2 million people were gassed."
Simply claiming that it says anything other than what it says isn't going to alter
it.
> >Now he's back to having claimed it authoritatively. You've been waffling so
> >much on that point I can't keep up.
>
> REPLY: I never waffle. I post factual information only. Now that we are
> through with Tauber, shall we discuss Bimko, Dragon, Mueller, Bomba, et al?
>
> > And, yes, Tauber
> >> lied. His testimony proves it.
> >
> ><yawn>
>
> REPLY: I will not allow you to walk away from this.
LOL! Who just said "Now that we're through with Tauber..."? Who's trying to walk
away?
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A863857...@nizkor.org>
>
> > >Not a single point made to show **why** any of the statements made were
> >> >> >perjury. Get a grip, Joe.
> >> >>
> >> >> REPLY: Please forgive me if I don't have time to tutor you on the
> >> >> basics of proper evaluation of evidence and testimony.
>
> >> >But you have to, since your idea of the "proper evaluation of evidence and
> >> >testimony" is apparently different from ours,
> >>
> >> REPLY: that is because you are people with an agenda.
>
> >Us and every historian on earth. Right, Joe.
>
> REPLY: Since I have not discussed these issues with every historian I earth, I
> shall not comment, but I am perfectly justified in making the comment re you
> and your colleagues.
Do you deny that Tauber's testimony is normatively understood as credible, and has
been used as a source of information by professionals numerous times in the past?
> >>and, for that matter, from the
> >> >entire academic community
> >>
> >> REPLY: That is certainly an exaggeration.
>
> >Alright then. Name one person from the academic community who thinks that
> >Tauber is a perjurer. We'll wait.
>
> REPLY: Sure, you would love to add other names to Nizkor's black list,
> wouldn't you?
... as Joe once again cites the Big Conspiracy as his excuse for his failure to
back up his claims. Pathetic, Joe.
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 10:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A8637EA...@nizkor.org>
> >
> >> >especially given *your* proven history of misrepresenting their statements
> >>
> >> REPLY: Posting their words verbatim is misrepresenting them?
> >Interesting....
>
> >No. Claiming that they said something they didn't, and calling them liars on
> >that basis, is misrepresenting. Which I have proven you have done.
>
> REPLY: No steve, that is not what I have done. What I have done is to post
> their own words verbatim, and then compared them with other perjurers.
That is all you have done, Joe. You did not post their words, verbatim so stop
lying. I posted their words verbatim, and Phil Mathews did. All YOU did was lie
about what those words contained, *until* the two of us posted them verbatim, at
which point all you could do was squirm.
> >You're a liar, Joe.
>
> REPLY: Name calling becomes you, Steve.
I have proven that you lied about the contents of the testimonies. What other
name becomes you?
> >You smear dead people by accusing them of perjury on the
> >basis of shameless misrepresentations of their words,
>
> REPLY: Their words and lies were posted verbatim. Take your violin act
> elsewhere.
Their words were posted verbatim and did not contain the lies you claimed they
did. Thus your calling them liars is a mere smear against people who cannot
defend themselves.
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: More Perjury
> >From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
> >Date: 2/10/01 10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A862B41...@nizkor.org>
> >
> >> >> >> without any substantiation and a false claim of having assisted in
> >> >> >> the destruction of 2 million souls within a two year period,
> >>
> >> > >An estimate of 2 million. Other than the fact that he guessed wrong,
> >> >> >what about the claim is false?
>
> >> REPLY: It was not a guess.
> >>
> >> >Aside from the fact that he prefaced it with the words "I imagine..."
> >>
> >> REPLY: Nope, that did not apply to his own experience.
>
> >"I imagine that during the period in which I worked in the Krematorien as a
> >member of the Sonderkommando, a total of about 2 million people were gassed."
> >
> >You knew full well that's what he said, Joe. What do you have to say
> >for yourself?
>
> REPLY: His own words condemn him as a perjurer.
What do you have to say for *yourself*, Joe, not him. You just told an out in out
lie about the contents of the testimony directly above. It's there for everyone to
see. So why, then, should anyone take your assessment of the credibility of this
evidence seriously? Oh, please answer that question for once.
tom moran
TYPICAL MELODY
>LOL! JB, you are such a card. LOL!
>Melody Blaiser
That's the best you'll ever see out of Melody. Do you want to see
really stupid eyes? Check out Melody's at -
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/holocaustdenial
Click "Members" on the left and then under "Founders" click "Mopdacc".
Melody evidently is trying to curry favor so she can get a role in
Hollywood.
Philip Mathews
> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>Date: 2/10/01 8:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20010210231343...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>>In >Message-id: <20010210225630...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>>
>>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>>Date: 2/10/01 6:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <20010210210611...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>>>In >Message-id: <3a90dd07...@news.pacificnet.net>
>>>>
>>>>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>>> >And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>>>>
>>>>>Moran introduced the understanding of what we would be talking about:
>>>>>>> Random House Dictionary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>
>>>
>>>>Li'l Tommy apparently thinks defining a word is proving it occurrence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>So what then? Are you saying that Tauber willfully stated that he guess
>>>>>>that approximately 2 million
>
>>people were killed in Auschwitz while he was
>>>>>>there, knowing that his guess was wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you saying that he *didn't* talk to another sonderkommando who
>>offered
>>>>>>a similarly derived estimate o
>
>>2 million others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where is the willful utterance of a false statement under oath?
>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously you have more
>
>>fingers and toes than Tauber had, Moran.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(what an idiot!)
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this the same Tauber you're referring to Mock?
>>>>>
>
>>>>>Tauber is the one that said they would put up to eight (8) bodies at a
>>>>>time into a cremation oven in order to create a lot of flames and
>>>>>smoke to signal Allied bomber crews as to what was going on. He said
>>>>>they would do it when no one was looking. In Pressac's book, the same
>
>>>>one that Mathews cites as the source, Pressac shows a number of
>>>>>designs for various cremation ovens designed by German companies. With
>>>>>those we can see that any one of them wouldn't have anything more than
>>>>>a small opening for any
>
>>emissions to escape from the ovens.
>>>>
>>>>Where do we see that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>REPLY: Open your eyes, Matthews.
>>
>
>>
>>Ah, you mean you can tell me? Please do.
>>
>
>REPLY: Can I make a blind man see? Your beliefs rest in good part on the
>supernatural and it is only through a supernatural act that you can be cured.
In other words, you don't even know what Moran is referring to. I suspected as
much.
>
>>>> Thus we
>>>>>would have it that the alleged flames and smoke would exit from the
>>>>>ovens into a 2 x 2 foot duct system, then go under ground up to 40
>>>>>feet before it hit the chimney and then up the chimney to exit as
>>>>>flames and billowing smoke. .
>
>>>So?
>>>
>>>REPLY: So he is fabricating-again. Some star witness.
>
>>
>>Based on Tommy's assertions of what he says is in a photo? Doesn't take much
>>to
>>confirm your mindless denial, does it Joe.
>
>REPLY: All it takes is for people to read the quality of your posts and
>evidence, Phil.
Still don't know what Tommy's referring to, do you?
>
>>>>>Tauber also as cited in Pressac's book says that they could cremate up
>>>>>to four (4) bodies in 15 minutes or one in a time of 4 to 7 minutes.
>>>>>Present day high tech cremation facilities take up to an hour and a
>>>>>half to cremate a body of 150 pounds.
>
>>>>Irrelevant. Present day cremation facilities don't use the same
>procedures.
>>
>>>
>>>REPLY: Prove it. Post the specs for krema II with specs for a modern
>>>facility.
>
>>Specs have nothing to do with procedures.
>
>REPLY: Another Matthews diversion nipped in the bud. LOL! Whenever it is
>time to put up or shut him, he shouts something irrelevant or insulting and
>then scampers off! I think I'll dub thee, Sir Scamp.
You're delusional. Specifications are not prodecures. Modern crematoria do not
shove multilple bodies into a oven simultaneously, do not stop the cremation
before the bones are fully reduced to fine white ash, and often do involve a
casket which also must be consumed. Procedures are the key, not oven
specifications.
>'
>>
>>>>>Tauber also said they would cremate from 10,000 to 12,000 bodies a day
>>>>>at Auschwitz.
>>>>
>>>>No he didn't. You've lied about this at least twice in the past week or
>so.
>>
>
>>>
>>>REPLY: His statement is available on line, isn't it? www.mazal.org
>>
>>Exactly!
>
>REPLY: O Sanctas Simplicitas!
And of course, it's not in the statement. Another deniers lie exposed.
>
>
> >>
>>>REPLY: No, he is not the laughingstock of this newsgroup.
>>
>>OK, he's a close second.
>>
>
>REPLY: To you?
Nope. Closer to home Joe.
>
>>> Now, here is what
>>>you have been pleading for....a discussion of Tauber's claims. Aren't you
>>>glad
>>>you taunted me into assessing his claims? I am.
>>
>>I'm loving it!
>
>REPLY: Laughing on the outside, raging on the inside.....
Laughing all the way!
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson
tom moran
Melody Blaiser squeaks:
>This is what they claimed and now you are attempting to attack
>character rather than the testimony. Right?
Do you want to see Melody "atack character"? Just keep an eye on her
stuff.
Melody Blaiser is one of the foremost capable defenders of the
Holocaust currently operating on the Internet.
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
What would you know about grace Joe?
I see you've taken to avoiding discussion of the Holocuast.
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>Date: 2/10/01 7:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20010210221615...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>
>
>>
>>In >Message-id: <20010210220211...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>>
>>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>>Date: 2/10/01 5:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <20010210204402...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>>>>In >Message-id: <20010210173424...@ng-mk1.aol.com>
>>>>
>>>>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>>Further evidence is on the wa
>
>>Enjoy@!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Any evidence you provide would be the first.
>>>>
>>>>All you've done in over a week on this topic is confirm that many of the
>
>>>>survivors offered widely varying over-estimates of something they couldn't
>>>be
>>>>expected to know, - the number murdered at Auschwitz.
>>>>
>>>>That's pretty pathetic, Joe.
>
>>>REPLY: Aren't you glad that you taunted me into examining the testimony of
>>>these witnesses? I am.
>
>>
>>Absolutely. You've made a complete fool of yourself, and in doing so
>revealed
>>that deniers of the Holocaust don't know how to address the power of the
>>survivor testimony
>
>REPLY: Oh, I know how to address survivor testimony all right.
LOL! Yeah, declare it forged with no evidence. That's just typical denial Joe.
You've been taking that mindless approach for years.
>
>> except through such obviously desperate methods as to
>>declare it all lies with no evidence of lies.
>
>REPLY: We have their own statements, sworn to under oath.
Yup. But you have no evidence of anything else. None.
>
>>The only thing I find curious Joe
>>is that this is no different than deniers have been doing for years. After
>>all
>>this build up I expected something --better?
>
>REPLY: There is never anything better than the truth and honesty, Mr
>Matthews.
Then you should adopt some, as difficult as that transistion will be for you.
In the meantime, you're no further ahead in advancing your theory than other
deniers. Evidence is required and you have none.
Philip Mathews
> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>Date: 2/10/01 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20010210215253...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>
>>In >Message-id: <20010210213751...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>>
>>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: More Perjury
>>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>>Date: 2/10/01 5:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <20010210205347...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>>>
>>>>In >Message-id: <3a8fcb10...@news.pacificnet.net>
>>>>
>>>>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>Mock mocked again and again:
>>>>>>And what, exactly, about this statement amounts to perjury?
>>>>>
>>>>>Random House Dictionary
>>>>>
>>>>>perjury; the willful utterance of a false statement under oath ...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mock also came to utter the word "mistake" as to the testimony of
>>>>>millions being exterminated at Auschwitz. No one makes a "mistake"
>>>>>when claiming millions were exterminated.
>>>
>>>>Sure they do, just like Irving, and denier websites, and deniers make a
>>>>mistake
>>>>when they claim that 200,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 were killed in the
>>>bombing
>>>>of Dresden.
>>>
>>>REPY: Red herring will be ignored. Try to substantiate your own claims re
>>>Auschwitz.
Not at all. It demonstrates that estimating a high death toll is a tricky
affair, and that overestimating in such a circumstance is common. Of course the
difference is that Irving and deniers generally continued to use the higher
figures for a Dresden death toll even after scholarship revealed it to be
closer to 35,000. At that point their assertions became propaganda for their
immoral case of moral equivalency.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lies and only lies. Was it a
>>>>>"mistake" that Mock says it was a "mistake"?
>>>>
>>>>Well, it was clearly a mistake.
>>>
>>>REPLY: And only you are capable of making a *mistake,* right?
>>
>>Hardly, everyone is capable of making a mistake.
>>
>> When your
>>>opponents do it, you refer to us as liars.
>>
>>Not for their mistakes, just for their wilful lies.
>>>
>>>>To make it a lie requires evidence, not just
>>>>antisemitic motivations for believing what you want to believe. Got any
>>>>evidence Tommy boy!
>>>
>>>REPLY: There is plenty of evidence for your duplicity re Tauber et al.
>>
>>Then why can't you present it, hmmm!
>>
>>--
>REPLY: Proving this is about as necessary as proving the sun rises in the
>east
>and sets on the British empire.
In other words, Joe makes baseless accusations to cover for his lies and
dishonesty.
Philip Mathews
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>>>>>>The war crimes trials were a farce and the acceptance of 'evidence'
>that
>>>>>>>even a rabid hoaxer like you cant dream up excuses for makes that fact
>>>>>>>evident.
>>>
>>>>>>This is not evidence given at a war crimes trial, idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>REPLY: Soviet show trials in Poland is what is meant here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>No, what he meant was war crimes trials.
>>>
>>>REPLY: They all fall within the same scope and orbit.
>>
>>No they don't.
>>>
>>>>>If you're going to attempt to discuss history, go learn some first.
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>REPLY: You really ought to follow your own advice. Are you prepared to
>>>>>answer
>>>>>my questions re Tauber yet?
>>>>
>
>>>>You mean you should You might then find some evidence for your claims,
>>rather
>>>>than looking like such a fool Joe.
>>>
>>>REPLY: Still laughing on the outside, crying on the inside, aren't you?
>You
>>>have no one to blame but yourself.
>>
>>Still trying to avoid presenting any evidence I see. Boo hoo.
>>
>REPLY: In fact, I presented YOURS. Pleasant dreams, Mr. Matthews.
And MY evidence you presented doesn't support your conspiracy theory. Where is
the proof?