Claims of Forged, Altered or Missing Evidence

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 17 Jan 2003 11:49

Erik wrote:But mass graves for 7,000 victims at Treblinka
"Arnulf Neumaier" and the "Polish Historical Society", I presume. And the same fellow who piously believes in them professes to be a "skeptic".
Erik wrote: instead of 200,000 (those buried there before the Enterdungsaktion)
The "Enterdungsaktion" started sometime in the spring of 1943. Until 31.12.1942, according to Höfle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943, no less than 713,555 Jews had been transported to Treblinka from the General Government alone.
Erik wrote:would challenge the “policy result” of 700,000 murdered there.
If you

i) ignore the evidence that most of the victims were eventually burned on railway grids, the bones that survived the process then being ground and the result of burning and grinding thrown back into the burial pits, interspersed and then (though the posterior activities of Treblinka gold diggers) wildly mixed with much larger amounts of earth and sand;

ii) can demonstrate that the burial ground of Treblinka examined by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, more than 20,000 square meters in area and 7.5 meters deep, could not have accomodated the dead bodies of at least 700,000 people;

iii) can demonstrate that the human remains after burning of the corpses and grinding of the surviving bones would have occupied so large a part of the pits they were thrown back into that it should have been possible for the Polish investigators to separate them from the earth and sand they were mixed with and to accurately quantify them;

iv) can demonstrate all detailed and coincident eyewitness testimonials and perpetrators' depositions to be either flights of fantasy, bald-faced lies or the product of illegal coercion; and

iv) can plausibly account otherwise for the fate of those who are documented to have entered Treblinka but nowhere shown to have ever left the place,

you may argue as you do.
Erik wrote:An archive find, recording hundreds of thousands transportations from Treblinka to other camps would challenge it, too; unless it can be shown to be forged.
The day there is such an archive find, please let us know. Assuming any of us is still alive by then, that is.
[...]Dr. Ganzenmüller responded to Himmler’s request, and in a letter to Karl Wolff on July 27, 1942, wrote:
Since July 22, a train load of 5,000 Jews has departed daily from Warsaw via Malkinia to Treblinka, and in addition a train load of 5,000 Jews has left Przemysl twice a week for Belzec …
Gedob is in constant contact with the Security Police in Cracow. It has been agreed that the transports from Warsaw through Lublin to Sobibor be suspended for as long as the reconstruction works on that section make those transports impossible (approximately until October 1942). These trains have been agreed upon with the commander of the Security Police in the General Government, and SS-Brigadeführer Globocnik has been adviser.

Heil Hitler!

Yours faithfully,

[Ganzenmüller]
In reply, Wolff wrote Ganzenmüller on August 13, 1942: “Hearty thanks, in the name of the Reichsführer SS, for your letter of July 28, 1942. With great joy I learned from your announcement that, for the past fourteen days, a train has gone daily to Treblinka with 5,000 ‘members of the chosen people’ (Angehörige des auserwählten Volkes).”[...]
Source of quote:

Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Death Camps, page 51.

Any idea why Ganzenmüller, when on trial, didn't try to make believe that the Jews mentioned in the above correspondence had gone "somewhere else" after passing through Treblinka?
[...]Rachel Auerbach, who visited Treblinka on November 7, 1945, as part of a delegation of the Polish State Committee for the Investigation of Nazi War Crimes on Polish Soil, described what she saw:
Masses of all kinds of pilferers and robbers with spades and shovels in their hands were there digging and searching and raking and straining in the sand. They removed decaying limbs from the dust [and] bones and garbage that were thrown there. Would they not come upon even one hard coin or at least one gold tooth? They even dragged shells and blind bombs there, those hyenas and jackals in the disguise of man. They placed several together, set them off, and giant pits were dug in the desecrated ground saturated by the blood and the ashes of burned Jews ...
Scenes of this kind took also place in the fields of Belzec and Sobibor. The search for treasures continued. The area was dug up again and again, and each section of the land was checked thoroughly by local people and people from afar who tried their luck. These acts ceased only when the Polish government decided to turn the camp areas into national memorial sites.[...]
Source of quote: as above, pages 379/380.
[...]There are also other traces. For example, in the north-eastern part, over a surface covering about 2 ha. (5 acres),
there are large quantities of ashes mixed with sand, among which are numerous human bones, often with the remains of decomposing tissues.

As a result of an examination made by an expert it was found that ashes were the remains of burnt human bones. The examination of numerous human skulls found in the camp has shown that they bear no traces of external injuries. Within a radius of several hundred yards from the camp site an unpleasant smell of burnt ash and decay is noticeable, growing stronger as one approaches.[...]
From the report by the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. Warsaw, 1946

Source:
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm
In the area where the gas chambers were supposed to have been located, the commission's team of 30 excavation workers reportedly found human remains, partially in the process of decay, and an unspecified amount of ash. Untouched sandy soil was reached at 7.5 meters, at which point the digging was halted. An accompanying photograph of an excavated pit reveals some large bones. (note 63)

Poland's Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes reported that large quantities of ashes mixed with sand, among which are numerous human bones, often with the remains of decomposing tissues, were found in the five acre (two hectare) burial area during an examination of the site shortly after the end of the war. (note 64)
The investigations by the Central Commission as referred to in an article by "Revionists" Mark Weber and Andrew Allen.

Source:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... linka.9605

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 17 Jan 2003 17:55

Erik -- Here is a practical example of the destruction of evidence and the consciousness of guilt. Zutter's KZ Mauthausen affidavit concerns (among other things) the execution of members of an allied military mission to Slovakia. These men were captured, in uniform, in Jan 1945 and then killed pursuant to the "Commando order," in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1929 (There is a lot more information on this subject posted on the "'Other'" War Crimes - Commando Order" thread in this forum). Other POWs were also murdered at KZ Mauthausen. The secret execution orders were subsequently deliberately destroyed, as you can see.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 17 Jan 2003 21:41

Erik wrote: I’m here to learn from those who know, not to teach how I feel. That’s why my postings are littered with question marks.
I’m asked to ”challenge directly” and ”present evidence” of my ”conclusions”. .
Naturally you are.Because all your question marks are not about finding out what really happened.Those question marks ,your posts are ''littered''
with ,lead a reader to make conclusions on the basis of your dubious comparisons ( such as "slave trade " parallel ) or religious preconceptions ( your " to Romans " "deja vu " )
" I am here to learn ". What do you want to learn here ? Some facts about the real events which could be verified by the authentic documents ( if not please prove the forgery), eyewitness testimonials ( if you doubt them - show their inconsistences ) factual evidence ( bring up something which can raise doubts . Maybe your own "Leuchter" report.. ) ?
No you are not interested to "learn here " judging by all your posts.
What you are really interested in is the tactic - shoot some bull and run.
Which tells volumes about how you ''feel "( see above - ''not to teach how I feel ")
That is exactly what bring discussions to " an abrupt stop "

Descartes wrote
The first was never to accept anything as true if I did not have evident knowledge of its truth; that is, carefully to avoid precipitate conclusions and preconceptions, and to include nothing more in my judgements than what presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it.
The second, to divide each of the difficulties I examined into as many parts as possible and as may be required in order to resolve them better.

The third, to direct my thoughts in an orderly manner, by beginning with the simplest and most easily known objects in order to ascend little by little, step by step, to knowledge of the most complex, and by supposing some order even among objects that have no natural order of precedence.
I think this is what can be called the real skepticism.
No "Deja vu-s" here :)

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002 16:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik » 17 Jan 2003 23:13

Mr. Thompson wrote:
Anyone who doesn't bring their common sense to matters involving their own history or religion is making a big mistake. If you can't be real with your own values, you're not going to have a lot to offer. I constantly try to apply the same standards to propositions, in order to see if they are true or false, forged or authentic. If I think any proposition is false or forged, I make a mental note and discard it.

(3) "Why use coded language concerning the Final Solution, unless the criminal intention of this policy was known to every perpetrator?"

The only reason to use coded language is to mask the truth. The use of code helps establish and maintain a barrier between those who know, and those who don't. Sometimes it becomes necessary to change the code, because too many people have come to understand its no longer secret meaning. Here is an example:

On 11 Jul 1943, the head of the NSDAP (Nazi Party) Chancellory, Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, issued an "instruction" to all Reichsleiters, Gauleiters, Higher SS and Police Leaders, and SS Chiefs of Administrative Headquarters in which, in agreement with the Fuehrer, the term "final solution" and any associated details were not to be mentioned in any documents sent to Adolf Hitler regarding the "Jewish question." The only permitted references were of Jews being sent off to work. The actual text, "by order of the Fuehrer," said: "In public discussion of the Jewish question any mention of a future total solution must be avoided. However, one may discuss the fact that all Jews are being interned and detailed to purposeful compulsory labor forces." (Fleming pp. xxvii [footnote], 22)


Mr. Thompson:

thanks for your answer.

You also wrote:
Unfortunately, the printed word is all we have to work with here, so clarity is at a premium.


Exactly. I obviously wasn’t clear enough when I wrote:
I was rather hinting at a sort of circularity of the "inferring process".

I.e., that the very absence of documentary evidence is an indication of “consciousness of guilt” – otherwise the documtentation would be extant, wouldn’t it?

Why use coded language concerning the Final Solution, unless the criminal intention of this policy was known to every perpetrator?

That kind of reasoning.


The circularity I “hinted” at and exemplified in the two questions, is perhaps too obvious to be considered relevant.

But then you provide an example of the very circularity I “hinted” at!!

Bormann must be hiding the “truth” of the Final Solution when he “instructed”
“all Reichsleiters, Gauleiters, Higher SS and Police Leaders, and SS Chiefs of Administrative Headquarters” …’in agreement with the Fuehrer, the term "final solution" and any associated details were not to be mentioned in any documents sent to Adolf Hitler regarding the "Jewish question."’.

That is your formulation.

But ‘the actual text, "by order of the Fuehrer," said’…something else, didn’t it?:
"In public discussion of the Jewish question any mention of a future total solution must be avoided. However, one may discuss the fact that all Jews are being interned and detailed to purposeful compulsory labor forces." (Fleming pp. xxvii [footnote], 22)
The so called “code language” – i.e., “mention” of a “Final or Future Solution to the Jewish Problem” – was likely to be "understood" in a sinister way, and was to be supplanted by “public discussion”(?) of “the fact” of the “actual policy” of internment and compulsory labor.

And the present solution – the “fact” – was not the “future total solution”, accordingly.

That’s what he is saying, isn’t it?

Your comment:
The only reason to use coded language is to mask the truth. The use of code helps establish and maintain a barrier between those who know, and those who don't. Sometimes it becomes necessary to change the code, because too many people have come to understand its no longer secret meaning.
So Bormann’s instruction to abandon “coded language” of a Final Solution is itself a confession of guilt of a “final solution” of exterminating the European Jewry?

The “code” failed to “establish and maintain a barrier between those who know and those who don’t”. A new barrier must be established and maintained.

So from now on they were instructed to use a code of internment and compulsory labor – the “fact” – in “public discussion” of the “Jewish Problem”.

What if the Allied propaganda during the war already was spreading such “knowledge”, using the so called “coded language” as evidence? The Black Book of Polish Jewry was published in 1943, sponsored by Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt, and the newspapers probably – and more importantly – reported similar accounts of how the Germans “solved the Jewish problem”.

Which came first in this case? The barrier or the propaganda concerning such a barrier?

Bormann acknowledged the propaganda with his instruction, not that the "barrier" was being broken? In fact, he instructed that a "barrier" was to be removed, to reveal the "fact" of the policy!

But the "actual policy" is another matter, of course. That is something to be found by historians, beyond both propaganda and "language instructions".

I don’t know if I am clear enough this time.

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 18 Jan 2003 01:14

Erik wrote:
I’m asked to ”challenge directly” and ”present evidence” of my ”conclusions”. Then I have to search archives and statistics for original documents and national registration records and European population census etc etc for half a century of world history, haven’t I?
But the alternative is then to simply assert that, for example, 700,000 didn't die at Treblinka because the documentation is forged or suspect? It seems remarkably easy to stop any and all discussion, and why bother with history if all it takes is a simple accusation of fraud to make it invalid? You don't have to present your reasons why you find the documentation fraudulent or forged, simply assert that since it can be forged, it is. End of discussion.

Per original documents and searches: Scott Smith has posted on the dreaded soap issue that since no one has shown him the original documents such as USSR-262 and 274, apparently, ergo, they do not exist. If they were produced, they would undoubtably then charged as forgeries, deposed under duress of torture, or the lies of the Evil Communist intent upon besmirching not the Nazis, but the poor, misunderstood, downtrodden German people.

As an aside, I wonder if those with such demands carry bags of gold and silver to live in the modern world as surely they have zero belief in paper or plastic money.
If my questions and comparisons disturb you, is that because you are not sure yourselves?

Oh, please, surely you are not serious?

I was once accused in the arena of politics that because I refused to support a female candidate for US Senator, I must be "afraid of strong women".

My reply was that I was not afraid of strong women, merely incompetent ones.

Mark wrote:
The inference, to me at least, is that a claim of 700,000 dead at Treblinka is 1) certainly potentia and probable forgery, and 2) subjected to far less scrutiny: this would seem up to you to demostrate why I should be persuaded of it.

Not because it is possible, as it is; but how and why it is apparently so probable to you, and how you have reached that conclusion.

Erik replied:
Not possible, “as it is”; I agree. (Although we probably don’t mean the same thing.) You mean that the evidence is so conclusive, that forgery – potential or probable – can’t change the story.
Your example was of simple forger, adding zeroes to a check to inflate its value, and who would probably be caught as it would be under intense scrutiny.

My reply is that while certainly documentation about Treblinka can be forged, you fail to either explain why it has not been scrutinized closely, which it has by various historians and why you find it so probable that it is forged. Again, simply asserting forgery and then apparently being mystified when asked why you state that, is not an answer.

You have provided some excellent reasoning to challenge the “claim” of Black African slavery trade to the New World to be put on the same level as the Holocaust.

The interesting point is that you use the WWII revisionist methodology to bear on the “debunking” of the comparison.
No, I didn't. I confronted what I consider a quoted number to be in error.

And it took all of a 30 second web search to find a starting point of an explanation to a figure you threw out (from hearing on a radio show) and that you appear to have deliberately inserted into the discussion to cast doubts (if we can't prove 100 million, how can we prove 700,000 or the opposite gambit, the 700,000 of Treblinka is as absurd as 100 million) and again skirt the issue of persuading readers to reach the same conclusions you have.

Now, per this method of mine that is the same as Revisionists: since we are using numbers, let's show Revisionist history.
This detail of history was intriguing, since, after all, history books had said for a generation that of the 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust, 4 million died at Auschwitz alone. Thus, if the new facts were correct, the actual overall number of Jewish Holocaust victims had to be considerably less than the much-talked-about figure of 6 million. Put simply: subtract the former 4 million Jews dead at Auschwitz from the popular 6 million, and that leaves 2 million Jews dead. Simple math -- and a controversial conclusion indeed.
You can find this today as Revisionist history on any number of their web sites. For all their carefully prepared documents with footnoting and copious sources, their zeal to present their members as educated scholars, it appears that Revisionists would prefer to never indicate the sophistry of the above argument.

The man who wrote this is supposedly a historian, and an author. Any historian would surely know that, for example, the IMT never said 4 million, and that the original number came from calculations of the capacity of the once existing Kremas that were removed or blown up as the valuable military targets they were, as the Allies needed mass crematorium capacity, I guess.

Or that the figure of 6 million included 4 million from Auschwitz.

But the passage above is common amongst denier sites with many similiar variants. Clearly duplicitious, unless deniers are incredibly stupid as well...but they can't be, because they are such distinguished scholars. Historical revisionism has little to do with Deniers. So don't lump me in with people who directly lie in order to persuade and compel.
If the data is missing, then the alleged happenings didn’t happen.
How odd.

What a twist; I think you mean to say this:

"If the data is missing, then what happened is alleged."

As what you wrote is clearly false. Try telling it to a Kennedy conspiracy theorist; the "data" on Oswald as the killer is clearly missing yet the President was killed, you know.

Perhaps it is a language thing; if not is as wholly in error as believing that "consciouness of guilt" requires guilt...why? In some of the religious, a thought of premarital sex is enough to cause guilt yet neither the act nor the sin was committed; with no act, no sin, how could one be "conscious of guilt" for something she had never done but simply thought about it while keeping wholly it to herself?

Or were normal, ordinary Germans who knew something was going on when they watched their Jewish neighbors being hauled off to camps as guilty as those who then killed them and robbed them of property and life? There are many Germans who were "conscious of guilt" and in the occupation, hundreds were marched through the camps of the Reich to view what had happened in their country.
You adress the issues like a first rate revisionist – and of course, “my” parallell with the Slave Trade is an “old hat” in Holocaust discussion.
No, there are fundamental differences. I would have to deny the numbers involved, the systematic structure created to sustain and legitimize the slave trade, to claim that, oh, yes, certainly some blacks were sold into slavery, but 20 million? HA! Oh, and the estimates and documentation of $400 million in slave profits that literally built the economies of some England's most powerful ports and cities are forgeries and frauds. Or made the plantation system and the cotton economy of the American Old South possible.

Oh, and why is it that those blacks are so sensitive about the issue of slavery? History is filled with the use of slaves, surely theirs is not unique.

I argue why a number, and one you threw out to compare to Treblinka, is probably hyperbole...and it that is hardly different than what many historians have done in dealing with the first writings in the immediate aftermath of the discoveries of the horrors found left by the Nazis.

Regards,

Mark

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002 16:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik » 18 Jan 2003 02:18

Erik wrote:
But mass graves for 7,000 victims at Treblinka
"Arnulf Neumaier" and the "Polish Historical Society", I presume. And the same fellow who piously believes in them professes to be a "skeptic".

Erik wrote:
instead of 200,000 (those buried there before the Enterdungsaktion)

The "Enterdungsaktion" started sometime in the spring of 1943. Until 31.12.1942, according to Höfle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943, no less than 713,555 Jews had been transported to Treblinka from the General Government alone.

Erik wrote:
would challenge the “policy result” of 700,000 murdered there.

If you

i) ignore the evidence that most of the victims were eventually burned on railway grids, the bones that survived the process then being ground and the result of burning and grinding thrown back into the burial pits, interspersed and then (though the posterior activities of Treblinka gold diggers) wildly mixed with much larger amounts of earth and sand;

ii) can demonstrate that the burial ground of Treblinka examined by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, more than 20,000 square meters in area and 7.5 meters deep, could not have accomodated the dead bodies of at least 700,000 people;

iii) can demonstrate that the human remains after burning of the corpses and grinding of the surviving bones would have occupied so large a part of the pits they were thrown back into that it should have been possible for the Polish investigators to separate them from the earth and sand they were mixed with and to accurately quantify them;

iv) can demonstrate all detailed and coincident eyewitness testimonials and perpetrators' depositions to be either flights of fantasy, bald-faced lies or the product of illegal coercion; and

iv) can plausibly account otherwise for the fate of those who are documented to have entered Treblinka but nowhere shown to have ever left the place,

you may argue as you do.

Erik wrote:
An archive find, recording hundreds of thousands transportations from Treblinka to other camps would challenge it, too; unless it can be shown to be forged.

The day there is such an archive find, please let us know. Assuming any of us is still alive by then, that is.


Thus wrote Roberto.

Thanks for your reply and your exemplary patience. It’s not the first time you have to post corrections like those above.

I must have mixed up the Reinhard camps in some way. Blobel started the “Sonderaktion/Kommando 1005” (not to be mixed up with the Enterdungsaktion?) already in June 1942, on initiative of the Gestapo chief Müller/Heydrich(?). Experiments were made in Kulmhof/Lemberg/Janowska(?) and then implemented in the Action Reinhard camps, with Treblinka last (“somtime in the spring of 1943”)in order, until the camp was razed to the ground autumn 1943.

Stangl said that the burning of the exhumed corpses was done at the same time as the burning of the newly arrived victims. The Bulgarian Jews from Thrakien and Makedonien (c.a 14 000 according to Hilberg) described by Wiernik and Sereny (24 000 persons, according to her), were perhaps among those.

In fact, I’ve never understood the implications of the Höfle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943
and its dating (“Until 31.12.1942”) – until now! “No less than 713,555” must have been killed at Treblinka before that date, and buried in the ground there, since the open air cremations began first in March 1943 or so.

At least 5,000 corpses from the ground cremated every day, added with new corpses of those queuing for the gas chambers.

Roberto then numerates all the impossibilities meeting anyone bent on refuting this scenario of mass killings at Treblinka in five points.

The complete lack of quantifiable physical evidence of mass murder at present day Treblinka proves the very fact of at least 700,000 murders at Treblinka, like the fathomless abysses of the Atlantic ocean give evidence to the 100 million slaves that have perished there during the transportations to America.

It cannot be refuted.

One is reminded of the illustrious OMPHALOS or “navel” theory of parson Gosse:
http://www.burgy.50megs.com/omphalos.htm
While it may be true, it is not testable, nor does it suggest future research projects. It is a dead end. Gosse recognized this. Nevertheless, he urged his fellow scientists to continue as if unreal history were real and to construct their theories independent of his thesis.
And:
"Not the least of its remarkable virtues is that while it won not a single convert, it presented a theory so logically perfect, and so in accordance with geological facts that no amount of scientific evidence will ever be able to refute it." More recently, Chris Morgan and David Langford's FACTS AND FALLACIES (1981) mentions it as an "ultimate invincible theory," overcoming "all conflict between evolution and the Bible." Gosse's son, Edmund Gosse, in his 1905 book, FATHER AND SON, reported at length his father's bewilderment, following publication, of the expressions of derision that were expressed, by believers and non-believers alike.
Of course, we do not laugh at Roberto’s calculations, “believers and non-believers alike”. But Roberto and Gosse show a likeness in ambition (if not in “its remarkable virtues”) : to construct the irrefutable theory.

God created the “fossil record” just like Adam’s navel, and the former is still with us to inspect and to test our faith in God, to “tempt” us to scepticism.

The “record” of Treblinka according to Roberto looks a lot like the creation of God, à la Gosse.
We KNOW that more than a million human beings were killed and lied buried in these acres , but it cannot be BELIEVED!!
(Gitta Sereny “Into that Darkness”, side 145)

That’s knowledge, isn’t it?

CAN it be refuted by archive finds?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 18 Jan 2003 02:40

Erik -- I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make with the Bormann instruction. I didn't term it a "confession," or anything of the sort.

Furthermore, if you are trying to make a point with the Treblinka numbers, what is it? If it's that you think the Treblinka statistics are unreliable, ok. Other contributors have also questioned them, and been answered by yet other contributors. But ultimately, whatever the numbers may be, the place was a murder camp. It was established and operated by the Nazi government to kill persons -- men women and children -- on the basis of something the victims couldn't do anything about -- their race. So what's your point -- KZ Treblinka wasn't that bad, because they didn't kill as many people as some claimed?

The evidence of war crimes at Treblinka isn't missing. No one so far has established that it was forged or altered, either.

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002 16:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik » 18 Jan 2003 03:29

Witness wrote:
(…)What do you want to learn here ? Some facts about the real events which could be verified by the authentic documents ( if not please prove the forgery), eyewitness testimonials ( if you doubt them - show their inconsistences ) factual evidence ( bring up something which can raise doubts . Maybe your own "Leuchter" report.. ) ?
No you are not interested to "learn here " judging by all your posts.
What you are really interested in is the tactic - shoot some bull and run.
Which tells volumes about how you ''feel "( see above - ''not to teach how I feel ")
That is exactly what bring discussions to " an abrupt stop "

Descartes wrote
Quote:
The first was never to accept anything as true if I did not have evident knowledge of its truth; that is, carefully to avoid precipitate conclusions and preconceptions, and to include nothing more in my judgements than what presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it.
The second, to divide each of the difficulties I examined into as many parts as possible and as may be required in order to resolve them better.

The third, to direct my thoughts in an orderly manner, by beginning with the simplest and most easily known objects in order to ascend little by little, step by step, to knowledge of the most complex, and by supposing some order even among objects that have no natural order of precedence.



I think this is what can be called the real skepticism.
Thanks for the reply.

You are still being more interested in Erik than in his actual postings, aren’t you?

You quote Descartes on “real” skepticism, after admonishing me to stop being a skeptic, if I can’t refute currently accepted opinions and verities.

Descartes wrote:
The first was never to accept anything as true if I did not have evident knowledge of its truth; that is, carefully to avoid precipitate conclusions and preconceptions, and to include nothing more in my judgements than what presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it.
Why won’t witness let me?
The second, to divide each of the difficulties I examined into as many parts as possible and as may be required in order to resolve them better.
Dividing the difficulties, that’s putting question marks after them as they present themselves – to me!! I try to avoid following the “precipitate conclusions and preconceptions” of others, just because others are faster – than me! “Sequor, ergo sum” ; that’s for others, not for Erik!
The third, to direct my thoughts in an orderly manner, by beginning with the simplest and most easily known objects in order to ascend little by little, step by step, to knowledge of the most complex, and by supposing some order even among objects that have no natural order of precedence.


That’s easier said than done. “Just follow the facts” à la Roberto - if that's it - sounds like the “sequor ergo sum” that I doubt. “Objects” are “goals”, too, and so can become “ideological bubbles”. You tend to look at them from the point of view of “converged evidence”, handpicked for a purpose.
“…supposing some order even among objects that have no natural order of precedence.”
Well, that’s the déjà-vu thing! We’ve been here before, in history! That is the supreme “precedence” for Erik!

Forgeries galore!

The Internet Curtain raise for some more of them to strut and fret their hour on the “well-trod stage” of human history, “signifying nothing” in the end!!! (“Big deal”).

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 18 Jan 2003 03:31

Scott -- Terming Carlos Whitlock Porter an iconoclast is charitable. Is there something in particular on the site to which you wanted to draw my -- or the other contributors' -- attention? I don't want to go through the whole haystack (I'll be charitable too) to find a needle.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Modern Meccas

Post by Scott Smith » 18 Jan 2003 04:07

Roberto wrote:
Erik wrote:
would challenge the “policy result” of 700,000 murdered there.
If you

i) ignore the evidence that most of the victims were eventually burned on railway grids, the bones that survived the process then being ground and the result of burning and grinding thrown back into the burial pits, interspersed and then (though the posterior activities of Treblinka gold diggers) wildly mixed with much larger amounts of earth and sand;
What evidence? That's the point. There should be millions of teeth, gazillions of bone-chips and other artifacts, chemical changes in the soil, as well as evidence of structures and digging in the strata. Instead of a systematic forensic archaeology we have Holo-Kitsch for Pilgrims of Memory. We're talking about Treblinka not ancient Troy.
ii) can demonstrate that the burial ground of Treblinka examined by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, more than 20,000 square meters in area and 7.5 meters deep, could not have accomodated the dead bodies of at least 700,000 people;
Ordering the Central Commission report from the Library of Congress is on my to-do list. Unlike you, I have little faith in evidence generated under Communist auspices for warcrimes trials.
iii) can demonstrate that the human remains after burning of the corpses and grinding of the surviving bones would have occupied so large a part of the pits they were thrown back into that it should have been possible for the Polish investigators to separate them from the earth and sand they were mixed with and to accurately quantify them;
So could my back yard. That proves nothing.
iv) can demonstrate all detailed and coincident eyewitness testimonials and perpetrators' depositions to be either flights of fantasy, bald-faced lies or the product of illegal coercion; and
We've been thorough this before. Even the testimonial is scant, uneven, and contradictory. People like Gitta Sereny were impressed but why shouldn't that be so...
iv) can plausibly account otherwise for the fate of those who are documented to have entered Treblinka but nowhere shown to have ever left the place,
Assuming they really arrived at the gate and never left, Flying-saucers is an equally plausible scenario given the available hard evidence.
you may argue as you do.
Thank you.
:)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 18 Jan 2003 04:19

David Thompson wrote:Scott -- Terming Carlos Whitlock Porter an iconoclast is charitable. Is there something in particular on the site to which you wanted to draw my -- or the other contributors' -- attention? I don't want to go through the whole haystack (I'll be charitable too) to find a needle.
Sorry. He discusses the Neely and Witton Human Soap affidavits and makes some good points about document 501-PS, the Becker-Rauff memo on the Gas-Vans. Roberto actually called my attention to Porter some time ago as I had never heard of him, although I had heard some of the points that have been made by him and others, such as the pedal-powered brain-bashing machine that Nuremberg actually claimed the Germans used. I can give you specific links if you want, but my point was only that not everyone swallows Nuremberg as gospel, in itself a veritable heresy. And Porter makes a few good points that can only be countered with ad hominem arguments. Roberto called Porter a "Falsifier of History," but he never really offered any non-theological views in support of that notion.
:)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 18 Jan 2003 05:03

Tarpon27 wrote:Per original documents and searches: Scott Smith has posted on the dreaded soap issue that since no one has shown him the original documents such as USSR-262 and 274, apparently, ergo, they do not exist.
Not exactly. Since Chuck was the only one arguing the pros of Human Soap (i.e., making the original accusation) and since (prior to Mr. Thompson) I was the only one who had EVER posted any primary documentation, including stuff from the IMT Red Books, microfilm and Interlibrary-Loan, it was my position that attorney Chuck should visit his Law library and get the Neely-Witton affidavits himself to support his accusation so that we could read them in-toto ourselves, and compare the Neely and the Witton claims line-by-line with Mazur's Human Soap allegations. My assertion was that these affidavits (hearsay at best) only support or converge with each other in the most GENERAL terms and not on DETAILS; and furthermore, that they were generated out of the same warcrimes process or Holo-genre itself, and thus are not truly independent of one-another--just like the original wartime rumors of German Human Soap manufacture (or "experiments" if you prefer). Chuck refused to supply the needed support for his accusation so we are at an impasse, although he appears to have dropped it and admits that he knows nothing of the Soviet Human Soap exhibit itself, USSR-393, the smoking-gun of Nuremberg-fraudulence, AFAIC.
If they were produced, they would undoubtably then charged as forgeries, deposed under duress of torture, or the lies of the Evil Communist intent upon besmirching not the Nazis, but the poor, misunderstood, downtrodden German people.
Nonsense. I'm sure the affidavits exist, but curiously not on the Nizkor site, or any other Holo-Site, which tells me that they don't support their accusations. I think they would like to drop it altogether but the yellowed 1946 publications prove the sages at Nuremberg once tried to carry this torch.

I went to the Law library to look in the IMT Blue blooks for the affidavits of Neely and Witton but didn't find the "documents book" referred to. I'm planning to go again and look some more. There is also microfilm if that doesn't pan out. When I do so (don't hold your breath) I'll post them and we can compare the three affidavits side-by-side for convergence and divergence of detail. If there is some consistency on key detail then it means that Human Soap "experimentation" is possible, though I don't think there's a snowball's chance of that. Like I said, if Neely and Witton were credible smoking-guns then they would already be online to hit the nasty Krauts with.
As an aside, I wonder if those with such demands carry bags of gold and silver to live in the modern world as surely they have zero belief in paper or plastic money.
I can always go withdraw my money from the bank and stuff it in the mattress if I'm not sure that my deposits are really there. With the Big-H we have no such promise, only accusations--not much to check, really. One either believes, disbelieves, or is skeptical.
:)

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 18 Jan 2003 06:27

Erik wrote "You are still being more interested in Erik than in his actual postings, are not you?"

Well some reality orientation is due here now ,I guess - no Erik I am not
too interested in your personality -why would I be ? 8O
Simply I read all the posts devoted to the themes I am interested in,your posts including.However when I read your posts I am completely at loss. It is obvious that you are not an objective,impassinate observer, that you "take sides'' which is fine with me untill you present some valid "arguments to the contrary".The problem is that you don't .
Instead you are trying to push your own agenda ( to deny having it would be absolutely dishonest on your side which I hope you are not intend to do )resorting to genaralizations ,dubious comparisons and your own interpretation of Christianity.
Descartes wrote
The first was never to accept anything as true if I did not have evident knowledge of its truth; that is, carefully to avoid precipitate conclusions and preconceptions, and to include nothing more in my judgements than what presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it.
Erik wrote
Why won't witness let me?
Why ? Didn't Roberto showed that you a priori "accept " all this R crap as true ? :D

Descares wrote
The second, to divide each of the difficulties I examined into as many parts as possible and as may be required in order to resolve them better.
Erik wrote
I try to avoid following the 'precipitate conclusions and preconceptions' of others, just because others are faster than me!
I would not say that you "try" ( see above ) .Plus you impose your own "precipatate conclusions and preconceptions" (religious,Revisionist etc ) on others .
Besides - it is fine to put 'the question marks " here with the purpose of learning. To ask questions so that to receive an answer.
Your questions are not aimed on receving knowledge but rather to instill your own not backed by anything conclusions ( see above )
That is why there are so many questions in your posts - literally "littered"
throughout your posts so that by their means to create an impression that there is some profound meaning in the air of ambiguity you are creating.
Does not look like some genuine interest in the history of the Holocaust to me..
Descartes wrote
The third, to direct my thoughts in an orderly manner, by beginning with the simplest and most easily known objects in order to ascend little by little, step by step, to knowledge of the most complex, and by supposing some order even among objects that have no natural order of precedence
Erik wrote
That s easier said than done. Just follow the facts à la Roberto - if that's it - sounds like the 'sequor ergo sum' that I doubt. 'Objects' are 'goals', too, and so can become 'ideological bubbles'.
So you don't want " to follow the facts "? And you don't offer your own facts .. But .... you are afraid to become an "object" of "ideological bubbles ". And... to prevent this to happen to you ...you produce your own "ideological bubbles'' evidently instilled in you by the R sites ..
But .. you are not able to back up this kind of " ideological bubble "
Funny, is not it ? :D
Are we supposed to swallow it without questioning ?
Last edited by witness on 18 Jan 2003 08:16, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 18 Jan 2003 06:34

Sorry for all those numbers in the quotation boxes. I am not using my own PC now ( being at work )
Don't know where all these numbers are coming from :( 8O

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 18 Jan 2003 06:48

Scott, I think you are guilty of "forging" and making "fradulent" claims.

Scott wrote:
Nonsense. I'm sure the affidavits exist, but curiously not on the Nizkor site, or any other Holo-Site, which tells me that they don't support their accusations.

Speaking of nonsense, what accusations by Nizkor?

In their section on the Denier use of Soap Libel, Nizkor writes:
Because "revisionists" often portray the soap allegations as an attack on Germans generally, Nizkor wishes to make one thing clear from the outset. We present information on Professor Spanner and the Danzig soap experiment, not because we feel this isolated case is relevant to the history of the Holocaust as a whole, nor because we believe it is especially important, but because the revisionists we cite have attempted to confuse the issue. They have conflated the Auschwitz RIF rumor and the Danzig experiment into one "soap story" and have presented statements about one or the other as though they referred to both.

In order to eliminate this confusion, and to dissect this particular technique of denial, it is necessary to explain the evidence regarding the Danzig experiment in some detail.

Nizkor takes no position as to the reliability of this evidence, as it is not clear to us whether there is consensus among historians on the issue. The reader may make up his or her own mind. The important thing is that the evidence does exist, and that the revisionist tracts we shall examine ignore that evidence in an attempt to confuse the lay reader.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniqu ... ap-01.html


Please show me the direct "accusations" that you claim Nizkor makes.
Conclusion
Why should it matter whether or not human soap was made from the corpses of Nazi Germany's victims? Whether Nazi Germany, or even one Nazi, made human soap or attempted to make human soap does not change the fact that Hitler attempted to exterminate European Jewry and murdered between 5 and 6 million of them.

Compared with this monumental crime, the soap allegations can be seen as trivial.

[...]

We still cannot say with certainty whether or not human soap was made at the Danzig Anatomical Institute. There are three affidavits from three people who worked there to that effect, and corroborating physical evidence. That is not sufficient to establish human soapmaking for certain, but neither can it be dismissed out of hand.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniqu ... ap-06.html


That's the "accusations" Nizkor makes. Unless you have...?

Mark
[/quote]

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”