So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:41 am

Apparently Mary plans to "stand" on her non-answer. Which is the same, given the replies she hasn't addressed (for example, how the heck the Dachau gas chamber explains the evidence for mass murder at Chełmno), as throwing in the towel and telling Jeffk that she can't explain the supposed hoax.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Denying-History » Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:43 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:You still haven't explained where three million Auschwitz and 1.4 million Madjanek victims went. This is only peripherally related to the OP but your answer may provide some additioinal insight into how error can creep into the historical record.


I have handled this already Mary, don't make me have to go into detail past a single quote.

You don't need to go into detail. You just need to show us where they went. Easy.


Lol I don't think you understand that Auschwtiz never received 4 million people, nor did Majdanek ever recieve numbers even close to a million. Your argument is invalid due to the fact the Soviet's didn't base their numbers on documents. I have already explained this so stop playing dumb. Hell you completely ignored SM as well whom gave information which proves my exact point.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:44 am

She understands but thinks it is cute to troll with silly false mysteries.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19776
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:06 am

C'mon, Mary. Aren't you a little too old to ask the repeated "Why?" question of a child?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:11 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:It may be time to remind Mary that this thread is where deniers get to tell us "So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?" It isn't where deniers ask for our help when they fumble around with proclaimed forgeries or where they get to divert with questions to us about the IMT.

I already explained how the hoax works, in very broad strokes. If you want to delve deeper into the topic, I recommend the Butz book. It gives a good overview. You can download it for free but you would still be required to read it to understand.


No, you explained nothing.

What happened to the missing 5.5 million Jews?
Why would the US, British, French, Belgians, West Germans, agree to continue with a Soviet hoax?
Why did the players agree to this hoax at all?
What proof exists that there was a hoax?
How do you account for the documents that prove the Holocaust occurred?
Why would any German, SS or otherwise, admit to something like this?

And so on, and so on....
Cut the crap, Mary. I don't care about "broad strokes." Get specific or admit you have nothing, that you cling to the idea of a "hoax" for some reason I can't fathom.

As far as Butz, if I wanted to read something written by a dinosaur I'd buy a Barney book.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:21 am

Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:You still haven't explained where three million Auschwitz and 1.4 million Madjanek victims went. This is only peripherally related to the OP but your answer may provide some additioinal insight into how error can creep into the historical record.


I have handled this already Mary, don't make me have to go into detail past a single quote.

You don't need to go into detail. You just need to show us where they went. Easy.


Lol I don't think you understand that Auschwtiz never received 4 million people, nor did Majdanek ever recieve numbers even close to a million. Your argument is invalid due to the fact the Soviet's didn't base their numbers on documents. I have already explained this so stop playing dumb. Hell you completely ignored SM as well whom gave information which proves my exact point.


She's been told this by you, me and Stat Mech.

She's being deliberately dense.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:32 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:As far as Butz, if I wanted to read something written by a dinosaur I'd buy a Barney book.

LOL it is remarkable that she'd cite Butz in apparent seriousness!

THOTTC has a somewhat sorry history in this regard.

At Rodoh 1.0 someone got the brilliant idea to have a thread, modeled on a book club, to focus discussion on a single work all those participating would read. Unfortunately, we agreed to the revs' nomination of THOTTC as the first title.

Butz's masterwork was not only a dreadful book (in truth, most everyone was reading it for the 2nd time for the "book club," to our mutual astonishment) - incoherently presented, written in a dreadful tone of voice, poorly sourced, illogical and gaping with holes - but as the discussion got underway, the revs basically fled the thread. Their silence - "reticence" - was so complete that it became a discussion topic - that they were embarrassed by the book they'd chosen was the most plausible explanation for their flight from the book club thread.

And now, years later, Mary suggests we should read this book that is little more than a bad joke told poorly? Jesus wept.

The punch line is that, so that we might actually have something to discuss, rather than a target to practice taking shots at, the suggestion kept being made after the THOTTC debacle in favor of reading and discussion of Angrick & Klein's book on Riga . . . the revs ran from that as fast and far as they ran from their own choice, Butz's THOTTC.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:03 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:As far as Butz, if I wanted to read something written by a dinosaur I'd buy a Barney book.

LOL it is remarkable that she'd cite Butz in apparent seriousness!

THOTTC has a somewhat sorry history in this regard.

At Rodoh 1.0 someone got the brilliant idea to have a thread, modeled on a book club, to focus discussion on a single work all those participating would read. Unfortunately, we agreed to the revs' nomination of THOTTC as the first title.

Butz's masterwork was not only a dreadful book (in truth, most everyone was reading it for the 2nd time for the "book club," to our mutual astonishment) - incoherently presented, written in a dreadful tone of voice, poorly sourced, illogical and gaping with holes - but as the discussion got underway, the revs basically fled the thread. Their silence - "reticence" - was so complete that it became a discussion topic - that they were embarrassed by the book they'd chosen was the most plausible explanation for their flight from the book club thread.

And now, years later, Mary suggests we should read this book that is little more than a bad joke told poorly? Jesus wept.

The punch line is that, so that we might actually have something to discuss, rather than a target to practice taking shots at, the suggestion kept being made after the THOTTC debacle in favor of reading and discussion of Angrick & Klein's book on Riga . . . the revs ran from that as fast and far as they ran from their own choice, Butz's THOOTC.


I've never read Butz.
I've read the following Holocaust Handbooks:
Wilhelm Staeglich, "Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence."
Juergen Graf, "The Giant with Feet of Clay."
Mattogono and Graf, "Sobibor, Holocaust Propaganda and Reality."
Jim Rizoli suggested the Staeglich one. I've never forgiven him that one. He also suggested a book called "The Bad War" by someone called M.S. King (if you look on Amazon you can see my review). After that one I told him to never suggest a book to me again.

After those three and "The Bad War" I decided life is way too short to devote anymore time to reading any other denier books. I give the guys at Holocaust Controversies props for wading through the hot garbage/dumpster fires that are the HH series.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:18 am

Mattogno is the worst. He writes in an intentionally opaque manner than pretends to be methodical and information laden. David Thompson at AHF once wrote of the thing Mattogno and his sidekick Graf wrote on Majdanek that
The argument is like an embarrassingly bad card trick, which has been poorly thought out, and clumsily performed.

Indeed kudos to HC for doing this unpleasant work. Sorting through, one too many times, the horseshit Charlie enjoys spreading around led me to name him Il Re di Convoluzione.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:31 am

Really the worst of the books I mentioned is the M.S. King one. Only someone like Jim would think it worth taking seriously, I got out cheap on that one because I got it free on a membership. The others were also included on the same service, now, of course, they give them out for free to anyone.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:27 am

Maryzilla, I asked you:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Tell us, now, please, how do the points you've made (mentioned above - Dachau, steam, skulls, etc) explain the sources for mass murder of Jews at Chełmno?

You ignored the question but replied:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:It may be time to remind Mary that this thread is where deniers get to tell us "So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?" It isn't where deniers ask for our help when they fumble around with proclaimed forgeries or where they get to divert with questions to us about the IMT.

I already explained how the hoax works, in very broad strokes. If you want to delve deeper into the topic, I recommend the Butz book. It gives a good overview. You can download it for free but you would still be required to read it to understand.

Mary, this is not only crap, it's pathetic cowardice. Just answer the questions we've asked you.

I've read Butz. So that's done.

Now let's discuss the "hoax" in terms of Chełmno, as I requested. As Jeffk commented, we're after not broad strokes here but specifics, a reply to what I asked about Chełmno and zeroing in on two questions which Jeffk added ("What proof exists that there was a hoax?"; "How do you account for the documents that prove the Holocaust occurred?").

No more dodging: tell us how Dachau gas chambers, steam chambers, shrunken heads, etc, which you've cited as core to the hoax, 1) address the evidence for mass murder of Jews at Chełmno (hint: it is not fairly close to zero) and 2) provide evidence for how the hoax was developed with regard to Chełmno.

Btw Butz doesn’t have much to say about Chełmno.

At one point he sidesteps saying anything about the camp because he believes that "Auschwitz had been carefully chosen in 1944 as the core for the extermination hoax" (a point beyond stupid and utterly falsified by the volumes of evidence about Auschwitz the emerged from 1942-1944 as detailed, among other places, in Fleming's recent book on Auschwitz); at another juncture Butz is idiotic enough to handwave Chełmno away using a US statement of December 1942, which mentioned Chełmno and Bełzec (". . . 'places of execution have been organized at Chelmno and Belzec, where those who survive shootings are murdered en masse by means of electrocution and lethal gas.’ The alleged electrocutions at Belzec appeared a few times in the propaganda, and will be discussed again in Chapter 5. They are one of the versions of exterminations that were quickly forgotten about after the end of the war. Nevertheless we can see, at this point, a clear tendency of the propaganda to resemble the claims which have become the fixed features of the legend!"). There's really no help for understanding Chełmno from such gibberish.

More to the point, Butz falsely declares that “The evidence for exterminations at Belzec, Chelmno, Lublin, Sobibor, and Treblinka is fairly close to zero.” Because deniers make stupid statements like this, I listed evidence about mass murder at Chełmno in my earlier post and highlighted Nick Terry’s recent blog article. This material thoroughly refutes Butz’s ignorant claim of close-to-zero evidence about Chełmno executions, a claim which you are now stuck having to defend, as you’ve referred us to this piece of {!#%@} book.

Beyond this, Butz makes a few snide asides, without explaining himself, about “claims” of the use of gas vans at Chełmno. That’s it.

You may think THOTTC will help you with Chełmno, and many other questions we will be asking you about the “hoax,” but it won’t: Butz pretty much belongs in the Denier BS Bingo thread, as his book reads like a list of discredited nonsense and empty posturing.

So, get to it, Chełmno, 1) how the hoax developed with regard to the camp, 2) what you say in defense of the "hoax thesis" about the evidence we’ve mentioned - and now, since you are obtuse enough to have recommended Butz on this, 3) how THOTTC explains the development of the Chełmno hoax and the evidence about Chełmno we've presented you with. Yes, you own Butz: tell us how he helps with the predicament you find yourself in.

Simple. Do it. Answer what you've been asked.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeff_36 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:06 pm

Butz wrote:Auschwitz had been carefully chosen in 1944 as the core for the extermination hoax"


That is so utterly purile, I am shocked that this blather was at one point considered to be the crem du la creme of denial. Let me guess: next he stated that the Holocaust was not known until 1977 because of something in Skokie and Hogans Heroes is the proof?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:38 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Butz wrote:Auschwitz had been carefully chosen in 1944 as the core for the extermination hoax"


That is so utterly purile, I am shocked that this blather was at one point considered to be the crem du la creme of denial. Let me guess: next he stated that the Holocaust was not known until 1977 because of something in Skokie and Hogans Heroes is the proof?

There are the only two possible conclusions one can derive from all this. The early efforts to concoct Auschwitz, handled by the Reds, were so badly done that the Jews came up with Hogan's Heroes and the march in Skokie to rescue the Hoax. Or the hoaxsters were holding something back - Hogan's Heroes, Skokie - to really put the hoax over in the '70s . . .

My only question is why the Allies chose the Soviets to stage the liberation of the camp and concoct the evidence for it. I mean, it would have been obvious that they couldn't pull it off?

Why allow the 60th Army of the First Ukrainian Front to reap the earliest honors? And why have Rafael Mazelev from TASS, Mark Redkin, and Vladimir Yudin do the photography of the "liberated" camp? LIFE had good photographers - why weren’t they chosen? Was it because the Soviet photographers sent to Auschwitz were Jews, every one of them?

It is curious though because the Soviets did LESS reporting on Auschwitz in their press in early 1945 that they'd done with the fake camp of Majdanek in 1944. Most of the "hoaxographs" taken at Auschwitz by the Red photographers remained in archives and only a small % were published in Ogonyok and other periodicals at the time. What BS was Stalin trying to pull? OTOH in spring 1945 the Soviets translated their film of Auschwitz into more languages than the film of Majdanek. It doesn't add up.

This all seems terribly botched. So perhaps Butz got the date wrong - and the Allies conspired later, in 1945 instead of 1944, to elevate Auschwitz - plotting their moves out through the '70s ("Nyet, Ivan, no need to print all the Jewish photos now - but what about a 'TV' show on a Stalag, very funny Nazis? Good idea to save for '70s?")? Or maybe because the Soviets executed their part poorly at first Hogan's Heroes was the only way the Allies had to get things back on track?

But then why do we study the Einsatzgruppen, Einsatz Reinhard, Chełmno, the ghettos, the Polish blue police, flight and rescue, Aryanization, anti-Jewish legislation, the theft and processing of Jewish process, the criminal orders, war crimes in Poland in '39-'40, and so on?

Maryzilla will undoubtedly straighten all this out.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:47 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:You still haven't explained where three million Auschwitz and 1.4 million Madjanek victims went. This is only peripherally related to the OP but your answer may provide some additioinal insight into how error can creep into the historical record.


I have handled this already Mary, don't make me have to go into detail past a single quote.

You don't need to go into detail. You just need to show us where they went. Easy.


Lol I don't think you understand that Auschwtiz never received 4 million people, nor did Majdanek ever recieve numbers even close to a million.

I don't think you understand that that doesn't matter. If you posit X number of dead people, you can't lower that number without explaining what happened to them if they weren't intentionally murdered by the Germans. It's a stupid rule that sounds insane to anybody except for professional Holocaust historians but it is what it is. If you want to participate in intelligent discussions of this darkest period in human existence, you need to play by the rules. So where did they go?

Your argument is invalid due to the fact the Soviet's didn't base their numbers on documents.

The problem isn't that the Soviets didn't base their numbers on documents because they did. The problem is that the Soviets didn't conduct their investigations intending to discover the truth. They were looking for evidence to use against the Germans. They didn't conduct proper forensic examinations of the former death camps that could have confirmed the information they culled from the documents and, more often, the eyewitnesses. Nor did they allow any independent investigations. These problems were not unique to the Soviets. The Americans and British had the same motives and same lax investigative standards. But the Soviets were also interested in deflecting any attention from their own behavior.

I have already explained this so stop playing dumb. Hell you completely ignored SM as well whom gave information which proves my exact point.

You have explained and reiterated how false information got into the official record. You aren't completely right about the reason why this false information got into the official record but you agree that the information was false and you agree that the information was presented as the truth. Your understanding of how this happened doesn't rely on vast conspiracies operating on a continental scale involving hundreds of thousands of forged documents and tens of thousands of eyewitnesses cooperating with each other.

If you want to pretend you don't understand how such a "hoax" could possibly work, you need to stop explaining how it works.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:50 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:It may be time to remind Mary that this thread is where deniers get to tell us "So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?" It isn't where deniers ask for our help when they fumble around with proclaimed forgeries or where they get to divert with questions to us about the IMT.

I already explained how the hoax works, in very broad strokes. If you want to delve deeper into the topic, I recommend the Butz book. It gives a good overview. You can download it for free but you would still be required to read it to understand.


No, you explained nothing.

What happened to the missing 5.5 million Jews?

C'mon, Mary Jeffk. Aren't you a little too old to ask the repeated "Why?" question of a child?

<snip useless drivel>
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:44 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:If you want to pretend you don't understand how such a "hoax" could possibly work, you need to stop explaining how it works.

Except that very quickly people interested in determining what had happened rubbished the Soviets mistaken estimates about Auschwitz. So what we have here is a purported hoax that didn't work.

For example, Eduward Wirths rubbished the hoax. Interrogated in 1945 by the Brits, he told them that the death figure had to be lower than 4 million. That was as early as 1945. Reitlinger was publishing a roughly 1 million figure by the early 1950s, supported by Bauer and Hilberg (early 1960s, as you've been told). But in his contribution to the USHMM collection on Auschwitz (also in the museum's 5-vol official history), Piper addressed the Soviet estimate of 4 million deaths and its history, offering the following observations:

- documents in the liberated camp confirmed 100,000 deaths
- survivors spoke of millions who died
- the SEC based its "in-depth study" - the study that arrived at the 4 million estimate - on assumptions about "the capacity of the camp and the length of time that its machinery for mass murder was operative,"
- as early as 1953 Reitlinger, using lost population by country, "radically reevaluated" this figure, estimating the deaths to number "roughly 800,000 to 900,000"
- subsequent estimates often "lower[ed] the figures quoted by the Soviet and Polish commissions" and "have ranged upward from one million"
- in 1990 the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum decided to reassess "the four million figure" it had been using in its publications
- the museum's reassessment led to "a significant, though not complete, agreement" on the subject

Other points made by Piper include his explanation that the divergence in estimates persisted due to the destruction of the camp's records and that it was only by searching "archives in various European countries" that a reconstruction of the relevant records was possible.

According to Piper, it was "[b]efore these records [were] discovered" that "researchers had to rely on discrepant and imprecise data from testimonies and depositions . . ."

Piper also wrote that discrepant estimates persisted because of

- authors' doubts that accurate estimates could be made due to "gaps in the source material and the unresolvable contradictions and discrepancies in the extant sources"
- "psychological resistance to reexamining the numbers"

After exploring such subjective factors, Piper wrote that "the scientific demand for objectivity in the study of Nazi crimes" was among the factors prompting a reconsideration and revision of the death toll at Auschwitz-Birkenau. In Piper's view, it was Weller's 1983 reassessment and approach, relying on deportation estimates, despite its "methodological shortcomings," that represented a "turning point" in the assessment of the numbers of deaths at the camp.

These points, made explicitly by Piper in his article, make the claim of a Soviet hoax, said to succeed in fooling everyone and forming the basis of an Auschwitz hoax, risible.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:45 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:<snip useless drivel>

Coward. Explain to us how Butz helped you discover the "Chełmno hoax."
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:28 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:It may be time to remind Mary that this thread is where deniers get to tell us "So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?" It isn't where deniers ask for our help when they fumble around with proclaimed forgeries or where they get to divert with questions to us about the IMT.

I already explained how the hoax works, in very broad strokes. If you want to delve deeper into the topic, I recommend the Butz book. It gives a good overview. You can download it for free but you would still be required to read it to understand.


No, you explained nothing.

What happened to the missing 5.5 million Jews?

C'mon, Mary Jeffk. Aren't you a little too old to ask the repeated "Why?" question of a child?

<snip useless drivel>


Tell me how the allies managed to hide 5.5 million Jews so well they are hidden from all statistics related to the Jewish populations throughout the world.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:37 am

Before messing up her Auschwitz claims, Mary Q was going to tell us how Butz explains Chełmno hoaxing, and offer her own assessment of the variety of evidence we have for mass murder of Jews at Chełmno along with her further thoughts on how the Chełmno hoax was begun and sustained. Did I miss something in the back and forth - I don't see a reply from Mary Q on this?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeff_36 » Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:57 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:If you want to pretend you don't understand how such a "hoax" could possibly work, you need to stop explaining how it works.


You {!#%@} ignorant. He was explaining to the likes of you that belief in this so called "hoax" requires massive suspension of disbelief, and quantifies as an impossibly vast conspiracy refuted by the very nature of itself.

Tell me Mary, in addition to Statmech's questions in Chelmno, what happened to the Dutch Jews sent to Sobibor and the Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Aug 30, 2016 3:07 pm

So how will Marydogz explain the Chełmno hoax?

Will she inform us that "Belsen . . . has always constituted the effective, mass propaganda 'proof' of exterminations" and therefore Chełmno? Or trot out Höss being tortured and making forced confessions about gassings and numbers - and so Chełmno? Kaltenbrunner's cerebral hemmorhage? Or Butz faves like Documents sur l’activité du CICR en faveur des civils détenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne (1939-1945), Geneva, 1947 and Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities During the Second World War, Geneva, 1948? Or bellow about Gerstein? Witter on about the Dachau gas chamber? Falsely claim of the murdered Jews that "The Russians liquidated many," "note the existence, within the Soviet Union, of the specifically Jewish “autonomous state” of Birobidzhan, which is in the Soviet Far East, on the Amur river on the border of Manchuria," and tell us that "Many of the uprooted Jews might have returned to their original homes, or at least to their original homelands, in Europe"? Or set out for us that the text of Himmler's Posen speech has been forged or "the text may be genuine at his point but that by 'Ausrottung' Himmler merely meant 'uprooting' or some form of elimination less drastic than killing"?

It may be difficult for Marydogz to mention any evidence about Chełmno at all, or any explanation either, as Butz hasn't left any BS about this for her to pick up . . .

What will Marydogz come up with? Might she even try being more inventive and develop her own "theory" as she did with the famous "Lynndie England-Charle Grraner Theory of the Einsatzgruppen? Might there be there another "Hogan's Heroes"-style explanation in the offing . . . ?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Wed Aug 31, 2016 4:45 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:<snip useless drivel>

Coward. Explain to us how Butz helped you discover the "Chełmno hoax."

I never said Butz helped me discover the Chelmno hoax. I don't remember reading much about Chelmno in anything Butz has written. If you think Butz has some important insights into Chelmno, try opening another thread to discuss them if it's that important to you.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Denying-History » Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:03 am

How Mary wastes everyone's life.

1) Make outrageous claims.

2) continue to repeat these claims making slight adjustments to them over time.

3) completely end the subject on an irrelevant note.

4) repeat in the next thread that gains your attention.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:47 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:<snip useless drivel>

Coward. Explain to us how Butz helped you discover the "Chełmno hoax."

I never said Butz helped me discover the Chelmno hoax. I don't remember reading much about Chelmno in anything Butz has written. If you think Butz has some important insights into Chelmno, try opening another thread to discuss them if it's that important to you.

Butz has no important insights, as I've told you, about anything. The reason one will be unable to recall much in his book about Chełmno is that he has little to say about it and what he does say is particularly dumb.

However, after I'd asked about how the hoax works and how you can account for the Chełmno hoax, you replied, "If you want to delve deeper into the topic, I recommend the Butz book." So I figured you were under some misapprehensions about Butz's value and asked about that. I get it, you were blowing smoke. Fine.

So, you've answered the third question I asked you ("how THOTTC explains the development of the Chełmno hoax and the evidence about Chełmno we've presented you with"), by telling us that it doesn't - and that it doesn't really address Chełmno at all. But I chose Chełmno for our case study in hoaxing. So now I wonder if you agree with Butz on the one substantive claim he makes about the hoax and Chełmno, which is that there is close to zero evidence about mass murder at Chełmno.

Why did you dodge the other two questions I asked? These questions were for you to explain how your ideas about the hoax

    • address evidence for mass murder of Jews at Chełmno
    • account for how the hoax was developed with regard to Chełmno

I'm getting the idea that this whole topic is making you uncomfortable and you'd rather avoid it.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:35 am

And here is a model answer for Mary to consider regarding my question whether she "agree[s] with Butz on the one substantive claim he makes about the hoax and Chełmno, which is that there is close to zero evidence about mass murder at Chełmno." The model reply comes from (of all people) Werd at Rodoh, who posted in the "Terry gives MGK a severe twatting re Chelmno" thread there:
If Mattogno wants to say no document (piece of paper) claiming X or stating Y exists, and someone proves there is such a document, Mattogno would be in error stating there is no piece of paper like that. Simple.

Hint to Mary: substitute Butz for Mattogno and ponder for a spell the embarrassment you created for yourself in having recommended to us Butz.

(The commentary from the legendary Duke Umeroffen on the replies in the "severe twatting" thread are priceless.)
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:12 pm

Mary! Quick! Hargis is reeling - and reaching out for help in the light of the twatting which Nick Terry administered to Mattogno.

Will you be explaining to Hargis then - and I quote, "Thoughts, analysis invited" is what Hargis wrote beseechingly - how the hoax worked with Chełmno? All he's gotten so far is something called borjastick throwing up his hands and advising, "The best thing to do with Terry is ignore him." Will you be improving on this nonsense?

Or are we just going to be forced to conclude that, like Monstrous, you've got nothing and have been blowing smoke all this time?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:40 pm

Mary? Monstrous? Hello???

Anybody there?

I've waited patiently for the last couple of days.......

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:56 pm

I think I may have screwed up your thread by trying to use a case study and get specific . . .
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:21 pm

Don't worry about it. I opened this to get our resident deniers up and about. I wanted to see if they would even try to explain this with any real logic.
So far they haven't.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:35 pm

To answer Jeffk's question, and explain the hoaxing, Marydogz fixated on the gas chamber at Dachau in Barracke X as somehow central to gas chamber hoaxing.

In postwar trials in 1945 (Dachau trial) and 1946 (IMT), testimony of Dr Blaha, a prosecution witness, only ever said that > 10, or in this context "many," prisoners were to his direct knowledge gassed. Blaha's IMT affidavit (3249-PS) also said that mental patients killed by means of shooting or lethal injection after being led to the gas chamber. In his Dachau trial statement Blaha doubted that the gas used in the chamber was cyanide and said that the gassing was did not succeed in killing all the victims because it was experimental.

Dr Blaha told the IMT that about 12,000 Soviet POWs in 1942 had been taken to Mauthausen (Hartheim?) where "they were liquidated in gas chambers."

Blaha's affidavit had stated that the Dachau chamber was not built until 1944. However, Dr Rascher already wrote on 9 August 1942 in a letter marked secret to RFSS Himmler:
As you know, the same facilities have been built at the Dachau concentration camp as at Linz [Hartheim]. Because the convoys of invalids end up, one way or another, in the chambers that are intended for them, I am asking the following question: In these chambers, on people who are destined for them in any case, would it not be possible to test the efficiency of our combat gases?

A Dachau camp administration document from 17 March 1942 makes reference to Barracke X but does not mention the "chambers that are intended for" invalids, like the ones at Hartheim, where "euthanasia" victims were gassed with CO. It was Dr Rascher who had taken Dr Blaha to the gas chamber in 1944, according to Blaha, who was prisoner-assistant to Rascher performing autopsies and whose statement informed the IMT about gassings of Dachau prisoners at Mauthausen (or the Hartheim subcamp of Mauthausen).

At the Doctors Trial, a successor trial to the IMT proceeding, the prosecution - in this case the Americans without international partners - had testimony from Dr Muthig, chief camp doctor at Dachau, on the question of transports of selected prisoners from Dachau to "Mauthausen concentration camp" to be killed with poison gas. Dr Muthig described the infamous 14f13 commission, which visited Dachau in fall 1941 ("a commission of 4 doctors led by Professor Heyde") "to select prisoners unfit for work to be subjected to euthanasia" upon transfer to Mauthausen, where they would "be gassed." Dr Muthig: "The prisoners examined were both Germans and other nationalities, Jews, etc." Dr Muthig told the Doctors tribunal that "A few weeks after the commission had left Dachau in December 1941 the first trainload of several hundred prisoners selected by the commission left for Mauthausen to be gassed." According to Muthig another transport, also carrying several hundred prisoners, went from Dachau to Mauthausen in January 1942. At that time Dr Muthig was reassigned and thus he was unable to provide details on further transports.

It is estimated that between 2,674 and 3,166 prisoners, including about 700 Poles, were transferred as "invalids" from Dachau to the euthanasia center in Linz, at Hartheim. (Berben, Dachau, 1933-1945, pp 240, 273; Distel et al, The Dachau Concentration Camp, p 135)

I just have to say, Mary, with all due respect that this - the gassing of fewer than 10 Dachau prisoners at Dachau, perhaps "many" more in 1944; the shipment from Dachau to Mauthausen (Hartheim) of over 3,000 sick prisoners of various nationalities to be gassed there during 1942 - seems a rather roundabout and feeble "founding myth" for the hoaxing of over 5 million Jews in the Holocaust. Not only are you trying to turn apples into oranges, but the conclusion you draw is unrelated to your premise.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:56 pm

I've had discussions about the "Dachau Gas Chamber" before with other deniers. There is a great deal of confusion over its use, going by what I've read it's doubtful that it was ever used in any large capacity (if at all). The best evidence that it was ever used is Sigmund Rascher's letter to Himmler and a rather intriguing statement by Dr. Charles Larson:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/dachau ... er-02.html

Larson examined bodies at Dachau and said this "but in my opinion only a relatively few of the inmates were murdered in this fashion (referring to gassing)."
No numbers and I can't find his reports. D-H has some info by Pressac, Pressac studied the gas chamber.

Looking at the room itself it looks like it would function very well as a gas chamber.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:30 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I've had discussions about the "Dachau Gas Chamber" before with other deniers. There is a great deal of confusion over its use, going by what I've read it's doubtful that it was ever used in any large capacity (if at all). The best evidence that it was ever used is Sigmund Rascher's letter to Himmler and a rather intriguing statement by Dr. Charles Larson:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/dachau ... er-02.html

Larson examined bodies at Dachau and said this "but in my opinion only a relatively few of the inmates were murdered in this fashion (referring to gassing)."
No numbers and I can't find his reports. D-H has some info by Pressac, Pressac studied the gas chamber.

Looking at the room itself it looks like it would function very well as a gas chamber.

AFAIK the Dachau museum officially still maintains that the gas chamber was not used. An official camp history (Comité International de Dachau) from 1969 says that "the gas-chamber was never operated." A recent publication, reprising a 2003 documentary exhibit at the museum, from the Comité International de Dachau does not include the gas chamber in its section on camp as a place of execution discusses phenol injections of unfit prisoners, transfers of invalids to other camps like Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, and mass shootings especially of Soviet POWs, but not the gas chamber (btw I should have written Baracke X, not as I spelled it.) Harold Marcuse in his big book on Dachau concludes that "only trial gassings were conducted in the gas chamber" at Dachau.

There's another data point (leaving aside what Americans entering the camp in April-May 1945 described) worth mentioning, from Kogon, Langbein & Rueckerl, after his arrest (on charges of child theft), Dr Rascher was confined to the Dachau bunker where it is reported that he told S. Payne-Best, a British officer confined in the bunker, about how hard the SS had found keeping the chamber secret and hiding gassing in it.

The maximal claim for the gas chamber at Dachau is that it was used for a small number of experimental gassings - and perhaps not ever put into use. There is no evidence that the gas chamber played a role in the Final Solution, which is what we're discussing.

As noted above, given what we know, and what's been said, about the Dachau gas chamber, Mary has come up with the flimsiest foundation for the hoax which she claims.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:52 pm

I agree, the most that can be said about the DGC is that if it was used it was used on an experimental basis.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:33 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I agree, the most that can be said about the DGC is that if it was used it was used on an experimental basis.

And for Mary that's a foundation myth of the Holocaust hoax! LOL.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Denying-History » Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:57 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:You still haven't explained where three million Auschwitz and 1.4 million Madjanek victims went. This is only peripherally related to the OP but your answer may provide some additioinal insight into how error can creep into the historical record.


I have handled this already Mary, don't make me have to go into detail past a single quote.

You don't need to go into detail. You just need to show us where they went. Easy.


Lol I don't think you understand that Auschwtiz never received 4 million people, nor did Majdanek ever receive numbers even close to a million.

I don't think you understand that that doesn't matter. If you posit X number of dead people, you can't lower that number without explaining what happened to them if they weren't intentionally murdered by the Germans. It's a stupid rule that sounds insane to anybody except for professional Holocaust historians but it is what it is. If you want to participate in intelligent discussions of this darkest period in human existence, you need to play by the rules. So where did they go?


I explained it above, and you know that. Its not that the idea seems stupid at all its that it makes sense, cause the soviets estimates were again not based on documentation. Mary if you want to participate in intelligent discussions at all then you need to play to the means of reason and logic. Its logical to dismiss the soviets estimates considering their estimate was based on cremation rate plus their estimates off clothing and shoes. Documentation shows that 4 million people were never sent to auschwitz and nowhere close to 1.5 million people were sent to Majdanek.

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Your argument is invalid due to the fact the Soviet's didn't base their numbers on documents.

The problem isn't that the Soviets didn't base their numbers on documents because they did. The problem is that the Soviets didn't conduct their investigations intending to discover the truth. They were looking for evidence to use against the Germans. They didn't conduct proper forensic examinations of the former death camps that could have confirmed the information they culled from the documents and, more often, the eyewitnesses. Nor did they allow any independent investigations. These problems were not unique to the Soviets. The Americans and British had the same motives and same lax investigative standards. But the Soviets were also interested in deflecting any attention from their own behavior.
'

The Problem is that the soviets didn't base their numbers on documents... They didn't at all. The problem is the soviets based their estimate off theoretic ideas such as these gas chambers operating every day and night. Killing 2000 people every time, and cremating a large number of them in a short amount of time.

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
I have already explained this so stop playing dumb. Hell you completely ignored SM as well whom gave information which proves my exact point.

You have explained and reiterated how false information got into the official record. You aren't completely right about the reason why this false information got into the official record but you agree that the information was false and you agree that the information was presented as the truth. Your understanding of how this happened doesn't rely on vast conspiracies operating on a continental scale involving hundreds of thousands of forged documents and tens of thousands of eyewitnesses cooperating with each other.

If you want to pretend you don't understand how such a "hoax" could possibly work, you need to stop explaining how it works.
[/quote]

Mary shove a cork in it and list. The information the the soviets reports are true to what they discovered... They again though didn't use the documentation that existed in the camps. They used some documents such as the construction plans but they didn't use documents like the Topf estimate that 4,756 bodies could be burned every 24 hours.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:57 am

Mary,

No one can know about everything. So, really, there's no shame in your just admitting you don't know a {!#%@} thing about Chełmno and can't say a word about how it was hoaxed. We don't expect you to get all wrapped up in little details, like knowing something about every one of the death camps. You don't have a clue. Big deal. If you'd just cop to that, we could move along . . .

thanks, SM
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:23 am

Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:You still haven't explained where three million Auschwitz and 1.4 million Madjanek victims went. This is only peripherally related to the OP but your answer may provide some additioinal insight into how error can creep into the historical record.


I have handled this already Mary, don't make me have to go into detail past a single quote.

You don't need to go into detail. You just need to show us where they went. Easy.


Lol I don't think you understand that Auschwtiz never received 4 million people, nor did Majdanek ever receive numbers even close to a million.

I don't think you understand that that doesn't matter. If you posit X number of dead people, you can't lower that number without explaining what happened to them if they weren't intentionally murdered by the Germans. It's a stupid rule that sounds insane to anybody except for professional Holocaust historians but it is what it is. If you want to participate in intelligent discussions of this darkest period in human existence, you need to play by the rules. So where did they go?


I explained it above, and you know that. Its not that the idea seems stupid at all its that it makes sense, cause the soviets estimates were again not based on documentation. Mary if you want to participate in intelligent discussions at all then you need to play to the means of reason and logic. Its logical to dismiss the soviets estimates considering their estimate was based on cremation rate plus their estimates off clothing and shoes. Documentation shows that 4 million people were never sent to auschwitz and nowhere close to 1.5 million people were sent to Majdanek.

Basing your estimate on cremation rate is just as logical as basing it on the number of people the railroads say they transported to Auschwitz. If "Documentation shows that 4 million people were never sent to auschwitz and nowhere close to 1.5 million people were sent to Majdanek" then where does the documentation say they went?

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Your argument is invalid due to the fact the Soviet's didn't base their numbers on documents.

The problem isn't that the Soviets didn't base their numbers on documents because they did. The problem is that the Soviets didn't conduct their investigations intending to discover the truth. They were looking for evidence to use against the Germans. They didn't conduct proper forensic examinations of the former death camps that could have confirmed the information they culled from the documents and, more often, the eyewitnesses. Nor did they allow any independent investigations. These problems were not unique to the Soviets. The Americans and British had the same motives and same lax investigative standards. But the Soviets were also interested in deflecting any attention from their own behavior.


The Problem is that the soviets didn't base their numbers on documents... They didn't at all. The problem is the soviets based their estimate off theoretic ideas such as these gas chambers operating every day and night. Killing 2000 people every time, and cremating a large number of them in a short amount of time.

I thought you said they based their numbers on the estimates of how many bodies could be cremated. Did they also make assumptions about the gas chamber capacity when they calculated the death toll at the camp? And what the Hell did base their numbers on if they didn't use any documents?

Also, why wouldn't they base their estimates on the assumption that these gas chambers were operating 24/7 and killing 2000 people at a time? That's what the witnesses say was happening.

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
I have already explained this so stop playing dumb. Hell you completely ignored SM as well whom gave information which proves my exact point.

You have explained and reiterated how false information got into the official record. You aren't completely right about the reason why this false information got into the official record but you agree that the information was false and you agree that the information was presented as the truth. Your understanding of how this happened doesn't rely on vast conspiracies operating on a continental scale involving hundreds of thousands of forged documents and tens of thousands of eyewitnesses cooperating with each other. pretend you don't understand how such a "hoax" could possibly work, you need to stop explaining how it works.


Mary shove a cork in it and list. The information the the soviets reports are true to what they discovered...

What does "the information the the soviets reports are true to what they discovered" mean?

They again though didn't use the documentation that existed in the camps. They used some documents such as the construction plans but they didn't use documents like the Topf estimate that 4,756 bodies could be burned every 24 hours.

Why wouldn't they use the documentation that existed in the camp? Where did they get the documentation that they DID use to make their estimates?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:27 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:If "Documentation shows that 4 million people were never sent to auschwitz and nowhere close to 1.5 million people were sent to Majdanek" then where does the documentation say they went?

Jesus wept.

Mary Q Contrary wrote:why wouldn't they base their estimates on the assumption that these gas chambers were operating 24/7 and killing 2000 people at a time? That's what the witnesses say was happening.

Let's stick with Majdanek for a moment: which witnesses say that at Majdanek the gas chambers were operating 24/7 and killing 2000 people at a time? Name them and give us citations to where witnesses said this. Also, out of curiosity, what books, testimonies, trial materials, etc have you read about Majdanek - or is Majdanek another camp like Chełmno about which you are clueless?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19776
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:11 pm

Mary, if there are records of their deportations but none of their arrival at any camps or places that recorded such or at the camps you mentioned, but killing sites, remains and much of their belongings were found and witnesses said we/they killed most of them, where do you think they went?

And sticking with Lublin-Majdanek and environs, can you tell us where approximately 43,000 of them went on 3 November 1943?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: So, how does this "hoax" work, anyway?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Mary - also, just to help this discussion along, please tell us what the Polish-Soviet Commission and Soviet authorities heard from early Majdanek witnesses (1944-1946) about the duration of gassings and numbers involved. You know, to support your contention that witnesses told the postwar investigators that "these gas chambers were operating 24/7 and killing 2000 people at a time." Again, thanks so much, SM
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest