General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Adolf Hitler had more skills than you are going to achieve in your whole life...

Oh dear, very funny. The only skills he had were hate and malice. Now, are you a troll or a real Hitler hugger?

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Moss

This is still the same mistaken assumption you have been told about before CM: Nazi policies against the Jews were not always the same at each moment and every place. Like most things in life and history it is normally more complicated than that.

Quote:

Shouldn't those guards be aware that they allegedly gassed and killed millions of Jewish children, women, and men. Did they think or did the High Command think that they had gotten away with murdering 6/4.5 million Jewish children, women, and men. Yet they trudged around with group after group evacuating noncombatants from camp after camp.

Although nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition I'm sure no Germans who oversaw or performed the alleged gassing of millions of Jewish children, women, and men expected that they would get away with it.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

That explanation is just so much clap trap.

That explanation summarises a 9-volume encyclopedia of the concentration camp system and hundreds of separate studies which have fed into the encyclopedia, not to mention separate studies of the evacuations of the camps and the death marches.

Quote:

After three years of allegedly murdering millions of noncombatants the guards who oversaw the alleged gassing are galavanting around Europe with exhausted women hardly able to keep up.

Wrong. Gross Rosen didn't have gas chambers, it was a work camp complex. And yes, the exhausted women were hardly able to keep up, which is why the guards on many evacuation marches, whether or not they knew about gassing, shot thousands of men and women who couldn't keep up.

Quote:

So these soldiers require 6 weeks of supplies for themselves and hundreds of women?

except the hundreds of women didn't always get much in the way of supplies, which is why they became exhausted in many such marches.

Quote:

And, AND these women are not the only camp evacuations in progress.

So? The Soviets evacuated at least 17 million people in the summer of 1941, using a much less efficient transportation system and while the frontlines were being breached to far deeper operational distances than in Germany during 1945.

Quote:

Shouldn't those guards be aware that they allegedly gassed and killed millions of Jewish children, women, and men.

Whether or not they were aware is irrelevant. The Final Solution was over by the time the evacuation took place. They had been told to guard Jewish women for months beforehand, in order to make these Jewish women work. Then they were told to evacuate the women. So they did. What is so hard to understand here?

Quote:

Did they think or did the High Command think that they had gotten away with murdering 6/4.5 million Jewish children, women, and men.

Irrelevant. If these guards knew about the Final Solution, they also knew that it had stopped since there were no more gassings at Birkenau. Since so many prisoners and guards were transferred from Auschwitz to Gross-Rosen they probably did know about the Final Solution. But whether or not they knew is irrelevant, since their orders were different.

These guards may not even have been full-time SS men since many camp guards were transferred from the Army and Luftwaffe in 1944. These guards may not have been especially brutal. They may not have wanted to risk being prosecuted after the war. We don't know. That doesn't mean you can make any old crap up.

One should expect human behaviour to vary in such situations. Some hardened SS men would be more brutal, some would realise the Third Reich was a sinking ship, some would be deluded into thinking not all was lost - why on earth would you expect everyone to react in the same way? Human psychology and group behaviour simply isn't like that.

Quote:

Yet they trudged around with group after group evacuating noncombatants from camp after camp.

No. There were 700,000 prisoners in the camp system in January 1945, of whom about 300,000 were Jews and the rest non-Jews.

In January 1945, three big camp complexes, Auschwitz, Gross-Rosen and Stutthof, were evacuated or began to be evacuated because they were the easternmost camps left and threatened with being overrun by the Soviets. So this displaced 150,000+ prisoners, not all Jews. Many of the evacuations were conducted by rail, only some on foot. Some of the foot marches reached railheads fairly quickly, after a few days or a week. A six week march is exceptional. There were not many like that.

You are talking about several hundred different evacuations from separate sub-camps like Schleiersee. Some of the sub-camps could be evacuated into the main camp and from there, sent westwards by rail. Some were too far away from the main camp to do this. Like, apparently, Schleiersee.

And yes, in some cases later on, the SS guards shot prisoners rather than evacuate them. Point being the responses varied. Expecting there to be a uniform policy in a system of 700 sub-camps is completely batty.

[000063]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Who is "we"?

Pretty much everyone in this thread who is not a denier.

Quote:

You are not in position to demand anything from me.

Yes I am. Just as you're in a position to quote-mine and ignore me.

Originally Posted by 000063

That's nice. We were not discussing the statistical data, but the witnesses' testimony in general. Since you have admitted to "refuting" only the statistical date when you know we were discussing the testimony in general, you just admitted to using a straw man argument.

And, of course, your laughable reason for contesting the statistical data has nothing to do with whether the Eichmann is kidnapped or not.

Ah, there we go. There, ST, you're wrong.

The statistical accuracy of the data provided has nothing to do with whether Eichmann was kidnapped or not. Your claim regarded Eichmann being kidnapped as a reason to dismiss his claims, you lying SnakeTongue.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

So now team Holocaust says the non-working children/women were not killed because the alleged gas chambers were no longer being used? So why were they being marched around for almost a year?

Gotta keep your workers healthy.

[Bluespaceoddity]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I am amazed!

I did not know that in 1943's Dutch newspaper published cross words, chess boards and ads!

Your document gave me an very good visual insight about the Dutch media from the 40's.

Just what exactly means?

Geen Straf
bij tijdige aanwijzing van verborgen joden en joodsche vermogenswaarden.

Google Translate is producing a very dubious translation.

Not all papers published those so, please, share what you find amazing about the Dutch newspaper "Nieuwsblad van het Noorden", published the same day in a different region of the Netherlands.
http://resources2.kb.nl/010410000/pdf/DDD_010414078.pdf

Besides the same "Geen Straf - bij tijdige aanwijzing van verborgen joden en joodse vermogenswaarden" published in the Dordrechtsche Courant linked in the previous comment, this paper also has a "Beschikking
van den Commisaris-Generaal voor den Openbare Veiligheid betreffende het verblijf van joden in de provincies"

My translation.
"Ordinance
from the Commissaris-Generaal for Public Safety regarding the stay of Jews in the provinces"

You think there might be a connection? ... and what could the following mean? "Article 5. jood in den zin van deze beschikking is hij die ingevolge Artikel 4 van de verordening 189/40 betr. de aanmelding van ondernemingen jood is of als jood wordt aangemerkt"

Commissaris-Generaal voor den Openbare Veiligheid was a certain Rauter. Wasn't his name mentioned in this thread recently? On some list of sources from before 1950 that a different poster had requested for some reason he never explained?

[000063]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

You think that picture proves that Bin Laden had the intention to murder Americans?

No, I think it proves that one cannot claim that bin Laden never plotted to murder Americans based on a single photo.

Quote:

In case your perception did not notice, Bin Laden is a fictional character created by the international media.

If you think not, prove me wrong, find Bin Laden body laying on the bottom of the ocean and I will recognize that Bin Laden was a real person.

What would stop you claiming that he wasn't someone altered to look like bin Laden? Why is only his dead body acceptable as evidence?

Also, there's the little fact of bin Laden being the scion of a wealthy and prominent Saudi family, with records and evidence and testimony of his life and activities going back longer than you've probably been alive. Like SpringHallConvert, you'd have to prove that every single one of those pieces of evidence is faked, instead of dismissing it out of hand.

Quote:

So?

I'd like to think you're incapable of getting my point, rather than unwilling.

Quote:

Where is the evidence which proves Adolf Hitler had kill anyone but the soldiers he fought in the First World War?

In thousands of museums, libraries, and history books. Oh, and there are a few Jewish survivors around who would like a few words with you. Be sure to tell them how they didn't watch people be murdered on an industrial scale, how the numbers tattooed on their arms are all fabrications.

Quote:

Your flawed logic is not acceptable as reference.

I was pointing out your flawed logic; just because Hitler is not ordering the death of Jews at the time the picture was taken is not evidence that he did not ever do so. If you take a picture of me right now, I am not pooping. Yet it would be fallacious to claim, based on that hypothetical photo, that I have never pooped.

[000063]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Adolf Hitler did not have any "day off". He had millions of volks to look after.

You just cannot understand that role.

Adolf Hitler had more skills than you are going to achieve in your whole life...

Given that those skills included murder, backstabbing, bigotry, conquering, and racism, I certainly hope so.

Every once in a while, you let your "patient debater" mask--which was never very good--slip, and we see your true colors.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

...Argument:

P ∈ X || A ∼ (Y ∉ X) ≠ A ∃ H ˆ (+ ∃ Nv = ∃)

Completely illogical.

Try again.
...

oh my god what the :

That's it. Welcome to ignore.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The problem with this type of comment/response/rational is that the 3,000,000 number of alleged Jewish gassing victims eliminates any possibility of an entire camp population being NOT aware of the alleged gassing activity.

Who is making this claim?

Quote:

That knowledge would preclude any tricking gassing victims into a gas chamber. That said, chaos would be rampant because a looming gas chamber threat.

If only they had men with guns to force people into th--oh, wait, they did. Well, it's not like the prisoners had the idea of resistance systematically beaten out of them--oh, wait, they did.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Although nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition I'm sure no Germans who oversaw or performed the alleged gassing of millions of Jewish children, women, and men expected that they would get away with it.

Why not? They probably expected to win the war. I doubt that the guards at Guantanamo Bay thought they'd be exposed and hung out to dry, yet they abused prisoners. According to the testimony of the Nazi guards, they were "just following orders". There are numerous studies showing that people follow authority and crowds even when its against their own ethics, most prominently the Milgram experiments. Con men exploit this tendency on a regular basis. There is an extended list on this page, near the bottom, in the "Real Life" folder.

Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's own need to think.
—Adolph Eichmann

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Although nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition I'm sure no Germans who oversaw or performed the alleged gassing of millions of Jewish children, women, and men expected that they would get away with it.

To add to Dr. Terry's reply: they may also have thought that every kilometer that brought them more westward diminished the chance of falling into the hands of the Soviets, and thus increased their chance of survival and being treated civilly. The Nazis had every reason to fear the treatment they'd get as POW in hands of the Red Army, even if only for the brutal treatment of Soviet POWs by the Nazis and the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the occupied parts of the USSR.

And as a matter of fact, the low-level henchmen did largely get away with it: the (Western) denazification targeted the upper echelons of the Nazi machinery and didn't go after the grunts. Demjanjuk is the exception, not the rule.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Google Translate is producing a very dubious translation.

Really? You don't say...

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I'm sure no Germans who oversaw or performed the alleged gassing of millions of Jewish children, women, and men expected that they would get away with it.

And you base this "certainty" on .... what?

Your visceral need that it be so, else your denial comes crashing down around your ears?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I appreciated the URLs. I could grasp a basic idea about the questions I made.

My native tongue is Brazilian Portuguese.

There are no good books on the Holocaust, or WW2 in (Brazilian) Portuguese?

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Your citation of NLG was insightful.

That's the only thing you learnt from those quotes?

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I did not know that in 1943's Dutch newspaper published cross words, chess boards and ads!

Your document gave me an very good visual insight about the Dutch media from the 40's.

Not really different from newspapers in other parts of the world, you mean? Except, of course, that the news was censored by the Nazi authorities.

[Bluespaceoddity]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I appreciated the URLs. I could grasp a basic idea about the questions I made.

My native tongue is Brazilian Portuguese.

I learned English when living in UK.

Your citation of NLG was insightful.

The Dutch guilder (Dutch: gulden, IPA: [ˈɣʏldə(n)]; Frisian: gûne, IPA: [ˈɡuːnə]; sign: ƒ or fl.) was the currency of the Netherlands from the 17th century until 2002, when it was replaced by the euro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_guilder

Fascinating topic, isn't it? Currency. The people listed below equalled NLG 37.50 at the exchange rate applicable on 6 April 1943.

Quote:

Willem Doof A'dam 25.4.84 Majubastraat 1 II
Levie Snoek A'dam 28.10.1904 President Brandstraat 44 II
Mietje Spier-de Metz A'dam 20.2.1882 Transvaalplein 10 huis
Salomon Spier Leeuwarden 7.1.1875 Transvaalplein 10 huis
Isaac Serlui A'dam 28.8.1858 Transvaalplein 23 boven Amsterdam

According to the "Empfangsbescheinigung" made up on that day, signed by the person who received that amount in payment for delivering these people to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung in Amsterdam on April 5, 1943. "Vorschussweise aus Judenvermögen bezahlt."

According to the links below, Levie Snoek lived until May 28 1943. The others died on April 16 1943. 3 days after the receipt was stamped "Sachlich richtig"
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/511731
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/501409
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/488929
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/488878
In Memoriam

Is your grasp on the basic idea of your participation in this topic getting better?

[Dogzilla]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

It's dishonesty no matter how you try to slice it.

LemmyCaution very clearly explained on the previous thread, and has done so again, that he does not consider the Jaeger report evidence for gas chambers, so quit putting words into his mouth. You may also find that you don't get any response from Lemmy for a while as he has informed me he is beyond disgusted with your mendacity, as am I.

If he doesn't believe it is evidence for gas chambers then perhaps he should stop asking me for my analysis of it.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

If he doesn't believe it is evidence for gas chambers then perhaps he should stop asking me for my analysis of it.

Or perhaps you should stop lying and claiming it is only about fighting partisans.

[000063]

Originally Posted by 000063

...

oh my god what the :

That's it. Welcome to ignore.

For the record, this was the point where I realized that Snakey was either being deliberately obtuse (trolling/lying) or accidentally so. In either case, the chances of making headway were almost nonexistent, and the only effects on my end would be raised blood pressure.

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by TSR

My apologies, you didn't -- *this* time.

You haven't supported "3900 leftover bodies" yet.

You use a single reference of "up to" 6k Jews as the normal death rate.

That is not enough for you? How many Jews gassed per day is necessary to you understand the mathematical demonstration?

Originally Posted by TSR

You then mindlessly parrot a snippet apparently from CODOH about the total capacity, not even looking at your own "citation" which does not have the quotes to which you repeat the attribution. You obviously don't read German, or at the least did not follow the link you got from Library Boi and company, or you would have noticed this.

The URL leads to the book which printed the transcript of the document addressed by the quote.

It is a reference to the secondary evidence which propose the numbers I used.

Originally Posted by TSR

You also neglect the fact that more than one body was cremated at a time.

How many bodies a muffle could burn at the same time? Present your numbers.

[Clayton Moore]

You can bet your sweet bippy Team Holocaust is blissfully unaware that they are on one big sock it to me roll.

They tricked millions into the gas chambers.
They forced millions into the gas chambers.

Gas chambers which at first were cottages.

Quote:

The problem with this type of comment/response/rational is that the 3,000,000 number of alleged Jewish gassing victims eliminates any possibility of an entire camp population being NOT aware of the alleged gassing activity.

That knowledge would preclude any tricking gassing victims into a gas chamber. That said, chaos would be rampant because a looming gas chamber threat.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

How many bodies a muffle could burn at the same time? Present your numbers.

I thought you said you read Pressac, SnakeTongue.

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

No, what you're doing is still repeating what the source you cribbed Alvarez's arguments from told you. You refer to this number as a "serial number" because that's how Alvarez referred to it in his remarks about the March 26, 1942 letter - "d) The letter's serial no. '167/42g' is handwritten, not typed."

(...)

Your complete misunderstanding of what that number actually means and description of it as a "serial identification" for documents is also how I know you didn't get your list of criticisms directly from Alvarez' book, but instead from someone else who reproduced Alvarez' list (I'd bet good money on this CODOH forum thread being your actual source for your "analysis").

I wonder how you would react if I started to use your argument against yourself by claiming "you're doing is still repeating what the source you cribbed Yaacov Lozowick's arguments from told you"...

You must had spent a good time in the CODOH and other forums looking for the comparison I produced.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I wonder how you would react if I started to use your argument against yourself by claiming "you're doing is still repeating what the source you cribbed Yaacov Lozowick's arguments from told you"...

I'd wonder why you thought that was a legitimate comparison, because for one thing I've actually read Lozowick's (and Alvarez's, for that matter) books, unlike you. And for another thing, Lozowick is an actual scholar and former director of the Yad Vashem archives who has referred exhaustively to original documentation and testimony when doing his own work, while Alvarez as far as I can tell is just some guy who co-authors books that merely repeat the claims of other deniers, without showing the slightest indication he even understands what he's writing about.

That's why Lozowick's book gets reviewed favorably by the Times Literary Supplement, while no one takes Alvarez's book seriously.

[EDIT: Plus, your "analysis" (with the exception of the foolishness about Google Translate) was pretty much 100% copied from Alvarez. Whereas the only thing I referred to Lozowick for was to provide you with a good description of how RSHA documents were formatted, coded, and filed, since you were basing your follow-up arguments entirely on your misunderstanding of how the process worked.]

Quote:

You must had spent a good time in the CODOH and other forums looking for the comparison I produced.

Not really. Though it wasn't exactly difficult to find, since I remembered Alvarez' nonsense about Pradel's rank and recognized it immediately when you said the same thing. A quick check in Alvarez' book confirmed that you were simply cutting and pasting his arguments.

A simple 3-second Google search using the terms "santiago alvarez rauff" turned up the CODOH thread as the fourth result.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

How many bodies a muffle could burn at the same time? Present your numbers.

About this many?




http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/st...ims/254/32750/

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by threadworm

Not one of the cars you post images of are the same model as the one used in the video, and the 1951 Mercedes has the exhaust on the right hand side.

This website:

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...s_mogilev.html

Identifies one of the vehicles in the video as a 1939 Adler.

The wrong model:

A car (Adler 1939 limousine or convertible, 2 litres, registration number "Pol 28545") was parked outside and one of the pipes connected to the car’s exhaust.

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...s_mogilev.html

The right model:

Adler Standard 6 - 1927-1934
Adler Standard 8 - 1928-1934
Adler Favorit - 1929-1934
Adler Primus - 1932-1936
Adler Trumpf - 1932-1936
Adler Trumpf Junior - 1934-1941
Adler Diplomat - 1934-1938
Adler Trumpf - 1936-1938
Adler Primus - 1937-1938
Adler 2,5 Liter (Type 10) - 1937-1940
Adler 2 Liter - 1938-1940

http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homepa...cial_cars.html

The Adler eagle 2.5 liters is a passenger car, which the eagle works in 1937 brought out as a “Type 10″. He was the successor to the model diplomatthought. The streamlined body was a work of chief designer Karl Jenschke (1899-1969), who until November 1935 senior engineer at Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG was.

http://www.charmingcars.com/the-adler-eagle-2-5-liters/

“During the afternoon Nebe had the window bricked in, leaving two openings for the gas hose… When we arrived, one of the hoses that I had brought was connected. It was fixed onto the exhaust of a touring car… Pieces of piping stuck out of holes made in the wall, onto which the hose could easily be fitted… After five minutes Nebe came out and said that nothing appeared to have happened. After eight minutes he had been unable to detect any result and asked what should be done next. Nebe and I came to the conclusion that the car was not powerful enough. So Nebe had the second hose fitted onto a transport vehicle which belonged to the regular police. It then took only another few minutes before the people were unconscious. Both vehicles were left running for about another ten minutes.”

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...s_mogilev.html

There is no exhaust pipe as claimed by Dr Albert Widmann and the hoses in the forged video are obviously made of metal.

Originally Posted by threadworm

Here's a better view of it:

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...gmogilev01.jpg

here is a 1939 Adler:

http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/aa/3...t_VGrabarj.jpg

and yes, I can tell it's not the same model.

Here is another picture of an Adler from the wartime era:

http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/a/adlerSF1_Baydeww2.jpg

Wrong model.

Originally Posted by threadworm

So we can demonstrate that the Adler model was around during the war, was used by the military, and that it produced models with a right hand exhaust.

Who is "we"?

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I thought you said you read Pressac, SnakeTongue.

I read about the delousing gas chambers. I was not interested in the crematoriums.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3...iterspictu.jpg

Why is this picture a mirror image of the picture at the charmingcars.com link you posted, SnakeTongue?

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I'd wonder why you thought that was a legitimate comparison, because for one thing I've actually read Lozowick's (and Alvarez's, for that matter) books, unlike you.

If you know I did not read the book, why you keep bringing into the debate as evidence to prove my analysis is not "legitimate"?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

That's why Lozowick's book gets reviewed favorably by the Times Literary Supplement, while no one takes Alvarez's book seriously.

[EDIT: Plus, your "analysis" (with the exception of the foolishness about Google Translate) was pretty much 100% copied from Alvarez. Whereas the only thing I referred to Lozowick for was to provide you with a good description of how RSHA documents were formatted, coded, and filed, since you were basing your follow-up arguments entirely on your misunderstanding of how the process worked.

Appeal to Authority.

Did you find any document comparison like I did in Alvarez or other sources you know?

No.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your absurd insistence.

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Why is this picture a mirror image of the picture at the charmingcars.com link you posted, SnakeTongue?

For easy visual comparison.

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

So you see, the Einsatzgruppen were not formed to carry out the mission of exterminating the Jews. Jews were killed but that's inevitable when your task is neutralizing the Judeo-Bolshevik elements that were perceived as a threat to the occupation. If you want to condemn the Nazis for the concept of Judeo-bolshevism, you may do so. If you want to condemn them for overreacting when meting out punishment, you may do so. If you want to condemn them for excessive paranoia and seeing threats where none existed, you may do so. But if you want to condemn them for setting up special units to scour the countryside and shoot all Jews willy nilly, you'll need to explain away all the evidence of the Einsatzgruppen engaged in activities other than killing the Jews. And if you want to say the Jagger report proves there were gas chambers you'll need to at least try.

Well done! Your review is much better than the one made by Lemmycaution. No dramatization and no bloated numbers.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

If you know I did not read the book, why you keep bringing into the debate as evidence to prove my analysis is not "legitimate"?

Because your "analysis" was copied from Alvarez' book. Whether you did the initial copying or whether you merely copied from someone else who did the initial copying is irrelevant. The analysis is not yours, instead being something you cut and pasted from elsewhere without even verifying whether any of the claims in it were true or not. That's why it took you weeks to even answer my simple question about the "office code" nonsense.

The fact that you got it from someone else who got it from Alvarez' book, rather than from Alvarez' book directly, shows how little you know or care to educate yourself on the topic. Your intellectually lazy refusal to just read some damn books about the Holocaust stretches to a refusal to even read denier books, even though you're apparently perfectly happy to cut and paste their arguments virtually verbatim as long as someone else has read the book and reposted those arguments for you to copy.

Quote:

Appeal to Authority.

Which isn't a fallacy when the person in question actually is an authority. Especially when you don't have anything to stand against it save for your own ignorance.

Quote:

Did you find any document comparison like I did in Alvarez or other sources you know?

I have no reason to doubt that your weeks-after-the-fact "document comparison" is your own work. That's why it was weeks late, based on a scattershot and random selection of documents that can't seriously be used as the basis for a legitimate comparison, and was reliant on your complete lack of understanding of how the institutional symbols and filing codes on RSHA documentation actually worked.

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Well done! Your review is much better than the one made by Lemmycaution. No dramatization and no bloated numbers.

So, for starters, along with this mutual stroking and given the the failure of Dogzilla's lying, are you going to explain what Jaeger meant when he wrote for his superior that his EK’s operations supported “the goal of making Lithuania free of Jews” and explained that with the actions he described, “the goal of solving the Jewish problem for Lithuania has been achieved by Einsatzkommando 3"? And when Jaeger provided detailed support for his having achieved this goal in the form of a “Complete list of executions carried out in the EK 3 area up to 1 December 1941." That is, not population removals, as one liar used to claim; not anti-partisan warfare, as the same liar used to claim; not a rogue operation, as this liar used to claim; and certainly not excessive paranoia, as this liar now tries claiming, not an action against Judeo-Bolshevism, as the liar is now trying to make out. No, a clearly stated goal - making Lithuania free of Jews - and a specific way of doing so - executions of Jews, listed in detail.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

That is not enough for you? How many Jews gassed per day is necessary to you understand the mathematical demonstration?

I *do* understand it.

You're pulling numbers out of ... thin air.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

The URL leads to the book which printed the transcript of the document addressed by the quote.

Not that one can tell from the snippet of the book found by following that URL.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

It is a reference to the secondary evidence which propose the numbers I used.

No, it isn't -- and knowing the book, no, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

How many bodies a muffle could burn at the same time? Present your numbers.

Depends on a number of factors you ignore -- such as the size of those bodies.

Show numbers you haven't cribbed from someone else who made them up.

*You're* the one making the claim that the capacity wasn't sufficient.

[Wahrheitseeker]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogzilla
So you see, the Einsatzgruppen were not formed to carry out the mission of exterminating the Jews. Jews were killed but that's inevitable when your task is neutralizing the Judeo-Bolshevik elements that were perceived as a threat to the occupation. If you want to condemn the Nazis for the concept of Judeo-bolshevism, you may do so. If you want to condemn them for overreacting when meting out punishment, you may do so. If you want to condemn them for excessive paranoia and seeing threats where none existed, you may do so. But if you want to condemn them for setting up special units to scour the countryside and shoot all Jews willy nilly, you'll need to explain away all the evidence of the Einsatzgruppen engaged in activities other than killing the Jews. And if you want to say the Jagger report proves there were gas chambers you'll need to at least try.

Well done! Your review is much better than the one made by Lemmycaution. No dramatization and no bloated numbers.

Nothing like supporting a worthless commentary that fails to even spell Jaeger correctly, despite the fact that his report was the central document under discussion.

Yeah, in addition to SnakeTongue's refusal to be bothered with reading crucial aspects of Pressac's work regarding exterminations at Auschwitz, that pretty much sums up the denier scene here.

[LemmyCaution]

True, I was beginning to think that Mick and the boys were somehow involved.

[threadworm]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

The wrong model:

A car (Adler 1939 limousine or convertible, 2 litres, registration number "Pol 28545") was parked outside and one of the pipes connected to the car’s exhaust.

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...s_mogilev.html

The right model:

Adler Standard 6 - 1927-1934
Adler Standard 8 - 1928-1934
Adler Favorit - 1929-1934
Adler Primus - 1932-1936
Adler Trumpf - 1932-1936
Adler Trumpf Junior - 1934-1941
Adler Diplomat - 1934-1938
Adler Trumpf - 1936-1938
Adler Primus - 1937-1938
Adler 2,5 Liter (Type 10) - 1937-1940
Adler 2 Liter - 1938-1940

http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homepa...cial_cars.html

The Adler eagle 2.5 liters is a passenger car, which the eagle works in 1937 brought out as a “Type 10″. He was the successor to the model diplomatthought. The streamlined body was a work of chief designer Karl Jenschke (1899-1969), who until November 1935 senior engineer at Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG was.

http://www.charmingcars.com/the-adler-eagle-2-5-liters/

“During the afternoon Nebe had the window bricked in, leaving two openings for the gas hose… When we arrived, one of the hoses that I had brought was connected. It was fixed onto the exhaust of a touring car… Pieces of piping stuck out of holes made in the wall, onto which the hose could easily be fitted… After five minutes Nebe came out and said that nothing appeared to have happened. After eight minutes he had been unable to detect any result and asked what should be done next. Nebe and I came to the conclusion that the car was not powerful enough. So Nebe had the second hose fitted onto a transport vehicle which belonged to the regular police. It then took only another few minutes before the people were unconscious. Both vehicles were left running for about another ten minutes.”

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...s_mogilev.html

There is no exhaust pipe as claimed by Dr Albert Widmann and the hoses in the forged video are obviously made of metal.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9991/novo5u.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3...iterspictu.jpg



Wrong model.

Where did I claim it is the right model? I posted evidence showiing that the car manufacturer concerned was producing vehicles at the time and did produce cars with exhausts on the correct side. You seemed to have a problem with these two facts. Thankfully, you now realise that you were wrong.

The model you have posted has a different wheel arch construction (it is not as rounded), which is one of the reasons I did not post a picture of it in the first place (it's easy to find on google). The model you posted has the exhaust on the right side, so thanks for that.

Quote:

Who is "we"?

The same 'we' as most normal people use when they are writing about a shared belief. My academic training also discourages the use of the personal pronoun singular.

If you are trying to have some grand 'a-haa' moment that proves the people who disagree with you are somehow acting in concert or on behalf of some organisation, then you are hopelessly wrong.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

The wrong model:

A car (Adler 1939 limousine or convertible, 2 litres, registration number "Pol 28545") was parked outside and one of the pipes connected to the car’s exhaust.

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...s_mogilev.html

The right model:

Adler Standard 6 - 1927-1934
Adler Standard 8 - 1928-1934
Adler Favorit - 1929-1934
Adler Primus - 1932-1936
Adler Trumpf - 1932-1936
Adler Trumpf Junior - 1934-1941
Adler Diplomat - 1934-1938
Adler Trumpf - 1936-1938
Adler Primus - 1937-1938
Adler 2,5 Liter (Type 10) - 1937-1940
Adler 2 Liter - 1938-1940

http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homepa...cial_cars.html

The Adler eagle 2.5 liters is a passenger car, which the eagle works in 1937 brought out as a “Type 10″. He was the successor to the model diplomatthought. The streamlined body was a work of chief designer Karl Jenschke (1899-1969), who until November 1935 senior engineer at Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG was.

http://www.charmingcars.com/the-adler-eagle-2-5-liters/

“During the afternoon Nebe had the window bricked in, leaving two openings for the gas hose… When we arrived, one of the hoses that I had brought was connected. It was fixed onto the exhaust of a touring car… Pieces of piping stuck out of holes made in the wall, onto which the hose could easily be fitted… After five minutes Nebe came out and said that nothing appeared to have happened. After eight minutes he had been unable to detect any result and asked what should be done next. Nebe and I came to the conclusion that the car was not powerful enough. So Nebe had the second hose fitted onto a transport vehicle which belonged to the regular police. It then took only another few minutes before the people were unconscious. Both vehicles were left running for about another ten minutes.”

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...s_mogilev.html

There is no exhaust pipe as claimed by Dr Albert Widmann and the hoses in the forged video are obviously made of metal.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9991/novo5u.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3...iterspictu.jpg



Wrong model.



Who is "we"?

Wrong model car disproves the holocaust.


.

[Marras]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Argument:

P ∈ X || A ∼ (Y ∉ X) ≠ A ∃ H ˆ (+ ∃ Nv = ∃)

Completely illogical.

This is a post that I simply can't understand. Why did you post a string of random mathematical symbols and called it 'Argument'?

I can see that you are presenting a strawman version of 000063's argument, that's obvious, but did you really think that well-formed formulas of logic are created just by replacing random words of a natural language sentence with some symbol whose shorthand name is kind of close to the word that you want to replace? Or did you think that no one reading this thread knew logic well-enough to realize that your formula is gibberish? In that one line you demonstrated that you don't know anything about symbolic logic, the same way that your 98%-Eichmann post showed that you don't know anything about statistics.

I could parse what you believed you said with the first five symbols of the sentence but after that it got even more confused and I didn't feel it necessary to try to take the effort to degibberish it. However, if you ever actually try to study logic, you'll quickly find out that your way to use the symbols and connectives is highly unorthodox, to put it mildly. For example, by the time you encounter a logic where '||' means 'at the same time', you will know that 'P ∈ X' isn't used for 'P is in place X' but instead it's 'P is an element of the set X' (by the way, and you really should have learned that in high school or whatever the equivalent is in your country). Another revealing mistake is that your existential quantifications don't quantify over anything at all - a mistake impossible to make if you had even a passing familiarity of the syntax of predicate logic.

If I had to express 000063's sentence that you pretended to formalize in symbolic logic, it would look something like this:

∀p∀a(∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x)∧L(p,x,t))) ∧ ∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y)) ⇒ ¬∃t.H(p,a,t))

where the variables are quantified over suitable domains (p over persons; x and y over places; a over actions; and t over times), and where H denotes the 'happens' relation ('a happens to p at time t), L the location relation ('p is in place x at time t') , and C the 'can-happen' relation ('event a can happen in place x').

What he said in the post is equivalent to saying that the well-formed formula that you see above is not a theorem. And guess what, it isn't.

[FluffyPersian]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I wonder how you would react if I started to use your argument against yourself by claiming "you're doing is still repeating what the source you cribbed Yaacov Lozowick's arguments from told you"...

And another key difference besides the ones Antpogo pointed out:

Antpogo cited Lozowick, as scholars and ethical writers of all kinds do when they reference another person's work. Whereas SnakeTongue tried to pass off his document comparison as his own. When asked about it, he sputtered off something like "But you can't prove it!"

[Dogzilla]

Originally Posted by Marras

This is a post that I simply can't understand. Why did you post a string of random mathematical symbols and called it 'Argument'?

I can see that you are presenting a strawman version of 000063's argument, that's obvious, but did you really think that well-formed formulas of logic are created just by replacing random words of a natural language sentence with some symbol whose shorthand name is kind of close to the word that you want to replace? Or did you think that no one reading this thread knew logic well-enough to realize that your formula is gibberish? In that one line you demonstrated that you don't know anything about symbolic logic, the same way that your 98%-Eichmann post showed that you don't know anything about statistics.

I could parse what you believed you said with the first five symbols of the sentence but after that it got even more confused and I didn't feel it necessary to try to take the effort to degibberish it. However, if you ever actually try to study logic, you'll quickly find out that your way to use the symbols and connectives is highly unorthodox, to put it mildly. For example, by the time you encounter a logic where '||' means 'at the same time', you will know that 'P ∈ X' isn't used for 'P is in place X' but instead it's 'P is an element of the set X' (by the way, and you really should have learned that in high school or whatever the equivalent is in your country). Another revealing mistake is that your existential quantifications don't quantify over anything at all - a mistake impossible to make if you had even a passing familiarity of the syntax of predicate logic.

If I had to express 000063's sentence that you pretended to formalize in symbolic logic, it would look something like this:

∀p∀a(∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x)∧L(p,x,t))) ∧ ∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y)) ⇒ ¬∃t.H(p,a,t))

where the variables are quantified over suitable domains (p over persons; x and y over places; a over actions; and t over times), and where H denotes the 'happens' relation ('a happens to p at time t), L the location relation ('p is in place x at time t') , and C the 'can-happen' relation ('event a can happen in place x').

What he said in the post is equivalent to saying that the well-formed formula that you see above is not a theorem. And guess what, it isn't.

If any of what you just wrote explains why 000063's belief in the historical value of that video clip is anything more than nonsense borne of extreme gullibility, please say it again in English. Nobody here understands what ∀p∀a(∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x)∧L(p,x,t))) ∧ ∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y)) ⇒ ¬∃t.H(p,a,t)) means.

(BTW, if anybody wants to pretend they do understand, feel free to explain it in your own words.)