Most important photograph

Discussions
Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:01 pm

iwh wrote:
Corrections54 wrote:
iwh wrote:
Corrections54 wrote: I am trying to say that their credibility is damaged, [...] the rest of his story would lose credibility.
Come, sir, let's not beat around the bush here......... you are saying he is lying; he didn't handle any mass of bodies and neither did the other 2 eyewitnesses because (in your opinion) they got the skin colour wrong.
If constructing a pretty straw man makes you feel good, I'm not going to ruin your moment.
So his story losing credibility would result in....what exactly?
Do you really not understand the importance of eyewitness credibility when you are trying to reconstruct a historical event based on eyewitness testimony?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:19 pm

Nessie wrote:
iwh wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: The witnesses were not to my knowledge ever questioned closely on this issue; toss in the point made by iwh - and you've got a nonissue that Berg has fixated on for a decade - and now "corrections," too, even as he tosses around some "maybes" and "whatevers."
Indeed the colour of bodies is a total non issue. The Sonderkommando survivors would not have been concerned with the colour of individual bodies or other details in a situation where you are more concerned about your own survival and you have become totally desensitised when faced continually with piles upon piles of dead bodies.

Other issues could also influence what the survivors described: lighting, fatigue, stress...and most importantly, the length of time after the events took place that the eyewitness statements were given. Interestingly, AFAIK it is only with the events of the Holocaust that skin colour takes on such an importance when it comes to evidence and proof of said event taking place. A few years ago I looked at a very small percentage of eyewitness statements taken after the Hilsborough football stadium disaster here in the UK. IIRC, only one person of the 20 or so I looked at mentioned the skin colour (blue) of the victims.
That is irrelevant to denier/revisionists because it helps to explain the errors and they don't want that. For them errors means they can declare lies. I doubt the Hillsborough witnesses, just like the gas chamber witnesses were asked to give specifics about skin colours. Hence they went with their naturally flawed recollections and a detail that stands out to one of them does not necessarily stand out to all.
The eyewitnesses to the gas chambers were not asked about skin color specifically. However, some of the eyewitnesses described the skin color specifically. They didn't describe the same color. The color they described isn't the color that would be consistent with the cause of death.

The analogy with the Hilsborough stadium event is a fail unless the eyewitnesses who did describe the color of the skin disagreed with each other and none of them mentioned the correct color.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:31 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:The color they described isn't the color that would be consistent with the cause of death.
Which color is?

You're studiously missing iwh's point and simply repeating the claptrap he argued against.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:34 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:The color they described isn't the color that would be consistent with the cause of death.
Which color is?

You're studiously missing iwh's point and simply repeating the claptrap he argued against.
You know exactly what color it is. The color that infrequently occurs in carbon monoxide poisoning but it common in acute carbon monoxide poisoning resulting in death. The color that none of the eyewitnesses mention.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:40 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:The color they described isn't the color that would be consistent with the cause of death.
Which color is?

You're studiously missing iwh's point and simply repeating the claptrap he argued against.
You know exactly what color it is. The color that infrequently occurs in carbon monoxide poisoning but it common in acute carbon monoxide poisoning resulting in death. The color that none of the eyewitnesses mention.
So you've not been following the discussion. Fine. Nessie asked a direct, pertinent question about this above - if the color is so obvious, why . . . well, you can read and avoid the post itself instead of my repeating it.

And you continue to miss iwh's point. Fine again.

You continue to meet expectations.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:22 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:The color they described isn't the color that would be consistent with the cause of death.
Which color is?

You're studiously missing iwh's point and simply repeating the claptrap he argued against.
You know exactly what color it is. The color that infrequently occurs in carbon monoxide poisoning but it common in acute carbon monoxide poisoning resulting in death. The color that none of the eyewitnesses mention.
So you've not been following the discussion. Fine. Nessie asked a direct, pertinent question about this above - if the color is so obvious, why . . . well, you can read and avoid the post itself instead of my repeating it.

And you continue to miss iwh's point. Fine again.

You continue to meet expectations.
Why don't you summarize what you think iwh's point is?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:24 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:Why don't you summarize what you think iwh's point is?
Why don't you stop playing games? iwh stated his point very clearly. You don't need my help in replying to him.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Corrections54
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:19 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Corrections54 » Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:35 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Corrections54 wrote:I can say with pretty good confidence that he was not talking about figuratively yellow victims that he saw in the past. Everything else is to be taken literally
Because you say so? Because you've already shared with us your ability to read out of context and make things say what you want?
It's usually good to include explanations with your claims, especially when it can be perceived as an attack on someone's critical thinking skills.
Corrections54 wrote:and I will do the same with the corpse color.
If it floats your boat, go for it. You're not even making an argument at this point - simply stating your will.
I explained why, and I further explain why down below in this post. It's also extremely ironic that you are saying I am simply stating my will when you make the bold claim "you can't take this passage as a literal description."
Corrections54 wrote:And I have also never said that Wiernik lied about everything,
I didn't say you did. I said you've shown nothing so far to impeach him.
I already explained that I am not using this as incontrovertible evidence to impeach him. I just said that this should be taken into consideration. But why does the burden of proof constantly have to be on the revisionists side, when the true-believers present documents riddled with contradiction as their proof of events happening?

Fact: Wiernik mentioned yellow corpses.
Fact: If Wiernik's homicidal gas chamber story is true, he would have seen a combination of red and lifelike corpses.
Fact: Wiernik would be unlikely to recall the colors so dramatically wrong, especially when those are the images imprinted on his brain that he flashes back to during the musings.
Fact: This hurts Wiernik's credibility.
Corrections54 wrote:He did get one clear thing wrong though. Instead of a combination of red and lifelike, he saw yellow.
No, again, you're simply ignoring what you can't rebut.
False, let's try this.
1) The passage you rely on in Wiernik is not a clear statement of what you want it to be.
See the "Facts" that I presented.
2) The processes which Nessie's described to you don't suggest Wiernik should have seen and recalled cherry red.
Last I knew, Nessie didn't try to refute my 30% lower bound estimate for redness in pre-hypostasis gassing victims. https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 190#p56602
Nessie says "OK I follow that." to my post which included the phrase:
"So we can extrapolate something similar to "30-40% is less than or equal to the proportion of cherry-red in gassing victims". This is being used a lower bound, unless you wish to dispute that."
3) What iwh has tried, patiently, to explain to you about witness memory makes this a detail at best a non-issue, even if we assume your literal reading of what come across as Wiernik's reflections and, your word, musings.
I feel like I addressed everything he "patiently" tried to explain to me with tactics such as the straw man.
This extremely dubious, self-interested, stretched and skewed reading of a single paragraph out of context
These kind of vacuous conclusions are contradictory to the idea of skepticism. I would hope that true skeptics take note.
is hardly sufficient for you to be going on about Wiernik's supposed falsehoods and poor credibility.
So are they "supposed falsehoods" or contradictions which don't ruin his credibility?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:42 am

Corrections54 wrote:It's usually good to include explanations with your claims, especially when it can be perceived as an attack on someone's critical thinking skills.
Hunh?
Corrections54 wrote:It's also extremely ironic that you are saying I am simply stating my will when you make the bold claim "you can't take this passage as a literal description."
Not a bold claim, and not unsupported - rather, an explanation that comes from simply reading the paragraph in context - heck, I even paraphrased what Wiernik was writing about and told you why I thought so. If you're not able to follow that, I don't know what to tell you.
Corrections54 wrote:I already explained that I am not using this as incontrovertible evidence to impeach him.
It would be foolish to try to. But just what are you trying to do? Why not simply tell us?
Corrections54 wrote:I just said that this should be taken into consideration.
"This"? What "this"? That Wiernik mused about death - but didn't muse with details you feel he should have?
Corrections54 wrote:But why does the burden of proof constantly have to be on the revisionists side, when the true-believers present documents riddled with contradiction as their proof of events happening?
Well, it all depends. Historians have offered volumes of explanation, based on sources and assessments of those sources, for what they conclude happened and how. Did you miss all that?

But if Fritz wants to claim that cherry-red is somehow definitive, and if you want to "partially" impeach witnesses on this ground, golly gee, the burden of proof is on you. That being so, are you going to reply to Nessie's question or not?
Corrections54 wrote:Fact: Wiernik mentioned yellow corpses.
You have got to be pulling our collective legs. Facts? Come on.

Ok, Wiernik mentioned yellow (or gall-poisoned) corpses. So what? I've already explained to you that a) the context in which he made his statement was his musing about death in the gas chambers, not handling corpses, and b) he was not questioned about what he meant, or what he saw, and under what conditions.

Corrections54 wrote:Fact: If Wiernik's homicidal gas chamber story is true, he would have seen a combination of red and lifelike corpses.
You have got to be pulling our collective legs. Facts? Come on.

Besides which, you're repeating yourself now and ignoring all the necessary qualifiers. And trying to promote a fallacy of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. A witness's focus on one thing - and good recall of it - and his not focusing on another aspect of the events (and either not recalling that aspect or not mentioning it or misremembering it) do not impeach his credibility on his main focus. You tried pulling this with your black/white gambit.

By the way, the issue of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus is why, I assume, iwh has asked if you are accusing Wiernik of outright lying.
Corrections54 wrote:Fact: Wiernik would be unlikely to recall the colors so dramatically wrong, especially when those are the images imprinted on his brain that he flashes back to during the musings.
Your basis for this assertion? You've studied the cognitive issues involved with eyewitness testimonies no doubt. But I've already explained that your premise is based on a misreading of Wiernik's full passage on the gassing process.
Corrections54 wrote:Fact: This hurts Wiernik's credibility.
Only if you ignore what Nessie, iwh, and I have argued. And assume that Wiernik is lying.
Corrections54 wrote:See the "Facts" that I presented.
They're not facts; they are your opinions, misinterpretations, and leaps of illogic.
Corrections54 wrote:Nessie didn't try to refute my 30% lower bound estimate for redness in pre-hypostasis gassing victims. . . .
After which Nessie wrote, in reply to Werd,
You also know that Wiernik first dealt with decomposed bodies and that he described people who had died of hunger as yellow. So he saw all sorts of colours and was never asked in any detail about them. The same is true for Rajchman and Rosenburg. You expect detail recollection where they were not asked for the details. You are also coming from this expecting them to be describing lots of cherry red corpses, but Berg is wrong.
And:
The witnesses describe {!#%@}, piss, children still alive who were shot, people who had died screaming, finding valuables hidden in the private parts and you get into their mince because they do not all describe a colour you mistakenly think is common and obvious.
You yourself wrote that we don't have replications of the conditions of the gassing process - severely malnourished victims, jam-packed gas chambers, etc. You yourself said that Berg's argument isn't exactly definitive.
Corrections54 wrote:I feel like I addressed everything he "patiently" tried to explain to me with tactics such as the straw man.
Dismissing an argument as a strawman may, in denier circles, equate to addressing it patiently, but here it comes across as sidestepping a point that you can't refute.
Corrections54 wrote:So are they "supposed falsehoods" or contradictions which don't ruin his credibility?
Well, if you want to ignore what I've written fine. But I will reiterate that I've given you at least one reason why what you call a falsehood isn't a falsehood at all: Wiernik's musing on death of the victims within the gas chamber isn't the same as a description of the corpses he saw removed from the gas chamber after the gassing.

And iwh has provided another reason, as has Nessie: the corpse-removal workers were in an extreme situation in which focus on and recall of precise details of all aspects of their work, victims' condition, desires of their overseers, and so is highly unlikely; you simply claim that the corpse-workers should have focused on a detail you want them to have focused on, with no reason that they should have done so.

Another point which Nessie has made (me too, come to think of it) is that these witnesses were not questioned about what they saw, thus they didn't clarify observations, sequences, features, etc.

And so on. So, yes, "supposed." Or "in your mind." Or "alleged."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:09 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Why don't you summarize what you think iwh's point is?
Why don't you stop playing games? iwh stated his point very clearly. You don't need my help in replying to him.
I'm not playing games. You seem to believe iwh clearly made some important point yet you cannot restate it. Dodge noted.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:15 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote: I'm not playing games.
Yes you are Mary. Shall I present a list of your more idiotic posts that prove that?
:D

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26429
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Most important photograph

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:55 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:And iwh has provided another reason, as has Nessie: the corpse-removal workers were in an extreme situation in which focus on and recall of precise details of all aspects of their work, victims' condition, desires of their overseers, and so is highly unlikely; you simply claim that the corpse-workers should have focused on a detail you want them to have focused on, with no reason that they should have done so.
Add to that that it seems there's a variety of colors that may develop in postmortem hypostasis, depending on the physiology of the victim (and lessening thereof in an aged, malnourished, or anemic condition) and the actual cause of death, that said coloring doesn't occur immediately in most cases and can take up to several hours to develop, and that it can be blotchy and look just like the bruises many bodies already had before being gassed.

It would seem nothing would have seemed remarkable any longer to the Sonderkommandos eventually, working in such a fast-paced and threatening environment. And if they didn't encounter one of the few who could develop the typical coloring under discussion, however strong or faint, during their beginning hours/days of that horrible task, it would seem unlikely that they would have made much of it if a few cropped up later on.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Most important photograph

Post by iwh » Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:55 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote: Do you really not understand the importance of eyewitness credibility when you are trying to reconstruct a historical event based on eyewitness testimony?
Of course I do Mary...as does the historical community. That's why the 3 eyewitnesses mentioned are an accepted part of the historiography of the AR system. Bursting into tears because the odd detail here and there does not match up to your expectations isn't going to change anything.

;)
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Most important photograph

Post by iwh » Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:03 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote: The analogy with the Hilsborough stadium event is a fail unless the eyewitnesses who did describe the color of the skin disagreed with each other and none of them mentioned the correct color.
That wasn't the point I was making. The point was that the colour of skin of the victims was NOT an issue to most of the eyewitnesses. Most eyewitnesses failed to mention colour. They were never questioned about the colour of skin. The colour of skin was not an issue in proving that around 90 people lost their lives.

Neither is the colour of skin a vital issue in proving that 800,000 or so Jews were murdered at Treblinka II....no matter how much a small group of deniers think it is.
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Most important photograph

Post by iwh » Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:16 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
By the way, the issue of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus is why, I assume, iwh has asked if you are accusing Wiernik of outright lying.
Correct.
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:34 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Why don't you summarize what you think iwh's point is?
Why don't you stop playing games? iwh stated his point very clearly. You don't need my help in replying to him.
I'm not playing games. You seem to believe iwh clearly made some important point yet you cannot restate it. Dodge noted.
No dodge. His posts remain in the thread. And I've elsewhere commented on them. I am not repeating portions of this discussion just because you like being obstinate.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:05 pm

iwh wrote:The point was that the colour of skin of the victims was NOT an issue to most of the eyewitnesses. Most eyewitnesses failed to mention colour. They were never questioned about the colour of skin. The colour of skin was not an issue in proving that around 90 people lost their lives.

Neither is the colour of skin a vital issue in proving that 800,000 or so Jews were murdered at Treblinka II....no matter how much a small group of deniers think it is.
To add a bit to this observation, it didn't escape my attention that Corrections54 earlier posted Werd's snippet from Rajchman: "...The corpses from the larger gas chambers, ...had completely black faces, as if they had been burnt," rendering "completely black" in big bold type. Werd didn't provide context for Rajchman's observations, nor did Corrections54, which context speaks to the point iwh has been making. For, according to Rajchman (English edition, p 67), what he observed was appalling and disgusting:
The corpses in the larger gas chambers, where death took longer, were horribly deformed, their faces all black, the bodies swollen and blue, the teeth so tensely clenched that it was literally impossible to open them, and to get to the gold crowns we had sometimes to pull out of natural teeth - otherwise the mouth would not open.
Swelling of the bodies was mentioned by Wiernik and Rosenberg ("Die Leichen der Ermordeten waren furchtbar anzusehen. Die Körper waren stark aufgedunsen, die Haut grauweisslich und löste sich leicht,so dass sie oft in Fetzen herunterhing. Die Augen waren herabgequollen und die Zunge hing aus dem Mund.") as well as by Rajchman. Rajchman's passage attempted, in part, to convey the brutally physical and repellent results of the overall murder process. According to Rajchman, the violence of the process impacted the appearance of the corpses, in the smaller chambers, by distorting victims' faces; also
The bodies were covered in sweat. Before dying, people had urinated and defecated.
Rajchman and Wiernik were also struck by how the corpses were packed so tightly into the gas chambers, with such force, that they remained standing in death.

What Corrections54 excised from Rajchman's passage, in favor of big bold type for one phrase, is pertinent to iwh's point about what the witnesses saw (bodies distorted in various ways, smeared and discolored by bodily fluids, contorted, etc) and the physiological processes raised by Nessie and scrmbldggs. If what Nessie and scrmbldggs write about the medical issues is correct, Rajchman's reporting black and blue on the corpses is not a "falsehood."

The witnesses, including Rajchman, described a violent process (both guards' actions and sustained shoving of the victims). Rajchman, for example, referred to the "struggle" within the gas chambers and "death agonies." Wiernik called the process of getting victims into the gas chambers "bedlam":
On the way to their doom, they were pushed and beaten with rifle butts and with Ivan's gas pipe. Dogs were set upon them, barking, biting and tearing at them. To escape the blows and the dogs, the crowd rushed to its death, pushing into the chamber, the stronger ones shoving the weaker ones ahead of them.
Testimony against Munzberger and others during Dusseldorf Treblinka trial corroborates Wiernik's description. E.g., Bryant, Eyewitness to Genocide, pp 215-220.

Rajchman, Wiernik, and Rosenberg all reported that the Germans had gold teeth and crowns removed from the mouths of the victims; all mentioned the so-called dentists, Rajchman forced to serve in this crew. Apparently, this gruesome detail stuck in witnesses' memory.

These witnesses noticed and reported the most obvious and compelling features and elements of the murder process, those that horrified and surprised them along with what helped explain the work they were forced to participate in.

The testimonies do not contradict - no matter how many times Corrections54 pulls this notion out of the air - the results of such a process, and its potential impact on the frightened, beaten, struggling, malnourished, anemic victims mentioned above by scrmbldggs.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Corrections54
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:19 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Corrections54 » Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:18 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Corrections54 wrote:It's also extremely ironic that you are saying I am simply stating my will when you make the bold claim "you can't take this passage as a literal description."
Not a bold claim, and not unsupported - rather, an explanation that comes from simply reading the paragraph in context - heck, I even paraphrased what Wiernik was writing about and told you why I thought so. If you're not able to follow that, I don't know what to tell you.
Despite how you constantly show disrespect to everyone with differing opinions than your own, I respectfully disagree.
Corrections54 wrote:I already explained that I am not using this as incontrovertible evidence to impeach him.
It would be foolish to try to. But just what are you trying to do? Why not simply tell us?
I am trying to convince people to re-think their perception by freeing themselves of biases. I strongly believe that history should be approached from a logical/scientific perspective rather than a political one, which is why I stress uncertainty so much.
Corrections54 wrote:I just said that this should be taken into consideration.
"This"? What "this"? That Wiernik mused about death - but didn't muse with details you feel he should have?
I would bet that almost anyone who reads that thinks he is musing about concrete images he saw.
Corrections54 wrote:But why does the burden of proof constantly have to be on the revisionists side, when the true-believers present documents riddled with contradiction as their proof of events happening?
Well, it all depends. Historians have offered volumes of explanation, based on sources and assessments of those sources, for what they conclude happened and how. Did you miss all that?
Which is why my focus is on primary documents which aren't subject to the scrutiny they should be. Do you think it's a coincidence that mainstream history keeps moving in the direction of less homicidal gas chamber deaths?
But if Fritz wants to claim that cherry-red is somehow definitive, and if you want to "partially" impeach witnesses on this ground, golly gee, the burden of proof is on you.
Fritz's site badly needs peer editing, and I would never sign my name to it.
The burden of proof of mass systematic murders in homicidal gas chambers is on the people making the claims.
That being so, are you going to reply to Nessie's question or not?
If you actually want me to answer "Nessie's question", kindly quote it.

I've noticed a tactic you use repeatedly is to vaguely refer to other people's questions or arguments, and then when people are unwilling to put in the effort to figure out what you're talking about, you accuse them of dodging.

I don't dodge any question, but questions should be brought to the forefront in as clear of language as possible.
Corrections54 wrote:Fact: Wiernik mentioned yellow corpses.
Ok, Wiernik mentioned yellow (or gall-poisoned) corpses. So what? I've already explained to you that a) the context in which he made his statement was his musing about death in the gas chambers, not handling corpses, and b) he was not questioned about what he meant, or what he saw, and under what conditions.
I personally think his musing is almost definitely musings about what he saw and how they still impact him today based on my experience with the English language. This is purely intuitive and impossible to prove definitively one way or the other, but like I said I'd bet most people would read it the same as myself.
Corrections54 wrote:Fact: If Wiernik's homicidal gas chamber story is true, he would have seen a combination of red and lifelike corpses.
Besides which, you're repeating yourself now and ignoring all the necessary qualifiers. And trying to promote a fallacy of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. A witness's focus on one thing - and good recall of it - and his not focusing on another aspect of the events (and either not recalling that aspect or not mentioning it or misremembering it) do not impeach his credibility on his main focus. You tried pulling this with your black/white gambit.
Why do you believe he has "good recall" of some things but not other things? Why do you not at least have some objection of turning eyewitness testimonies into buffets?

Also blatant irony with your call of "fallacy of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus", which is a straw man fallacy in itself. Also blatantly contradictory is how earlier in the post you admitted that I was not using said fallacy, only you didn't use the Latin terminology then.
By the way, the issue of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus is why, I assume, iwh has asked if you are accusing Wiernik of outright lying.
My answer to that question should be evident by now.
Corrections54 wrote:Fact: Wiernik would be unlikely to recall the colors so dramatically wrong, especially when those are the images imprinted on his brain that he flashes back to during the musings.
Your basis for this assertion? You've studied the cognitive issues involved with eyewitness testimonies no doubt. But I've already explained that your premise is based on a misreading of Wiernik's full passage on the gassing process.
I maintain that you are the one misreading it, but this is just going to go in an endless cycle.
Corrections54 wrote:Nessie didn't try to refute my 30% lower bound estimate for redness in pre-hypostasis gassing victims. . . .
After which Nessie wrote, in reply to Werd,
You also know that Wiernik first dealt with decomposed bodies and that he described people who had died of hunger as yellow. So he saw all sorts of colours and was never asked in any detail about them. The same is true for Rajchman and Rosenburg. You expect detail recollection where they were not asked for the details.
They voluntarily provided those details which is worse for credibility. If they were asked, they would be more likely to put forth a best guess.
You are also coming from this expecting them to be describing lots of cherry red corpses, but Berg is wrong.
I'm just using a conservative estimate and extrapolating from there. This is completely independent of Berg.
You yourself wrote that we don't have replications of the conditions of the gassing process - severely malnourished victims, jam-packed gas chambers, etc. You yourself said that Berg's argument isn't exactly definitive.
Yes, it's a source of uncertainty which can't nor shouldn't be ignored.
Corrections54 wrote:I feel like I addressed everything he "patiently" tried to explain to me with tactics such as the straw man.
Dismissing an argument as a strawman may, in denier circles, equate to addressing it patiently, but here it comes across as sidestepping a point that you can't refute.
Post his specific arguments and what I said that you didn't find clear in my responses, and I will further clarify.

I didn't reply to everything because I would just be repeating myself in the same post.

Note: won't be around to post much in the next month and a bit

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Nessie » Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:32 pm

Corrections54. If 30% of corpses from acute fatal CO poisoning are showing skin discolouration that would result in witnesses commonly making reference to it, then why is such a feature not referenced in warnings about CO poisoning lists of symptoms and used to save lives?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Nessie » Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:36 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:.......

You're studiously missing iwh's point and simply repeating the claptrap he argued against.
You know exactly what color it is. The color that infrequently occurs in carbon monoxide poisoning but it common in acute carbon monoxide poisoning resulting in death. The color that none of the eyewitnesses mention.[/quote]

How long after death does that colour start to appear?
How long before it is fully formed?
How recognisable from standard lividity is lividity from CO poisoning?

Please show the medical sources that you will use to answer the above questions.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:40 pm

Corrections54 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Corrections54 wrote:It's also extremely ironic that you are saying I am simply stating my will when you make the bold claim "you can't take this passage as a literal description."
Not a bold claim, and not unsupported - rather, an explanation that comes from simply reading the paragraph in context - heck, I even paraphrased what Wiernik was writing about and told you why I thought so. If you're not able to follow that, I don't know what to tell you.
Despite how you constantly show disrespect to everyone with differing opinions than your own, I respectfully disagree.
I am shocked. I am also shocked that you offer no explanation for your disagreement. By the way, if you think I'm supposed to pretend that your games here are anything but games, you can forget it. Your act is so old and so tired it engenders little but boredom at this point.
Corrections54 wrote:I am trying to convince people to re-think their perception by freeing themselves of biases.
By reading in a biased and selective manner? LOL.
Corrections54 wrote:I strongly believe that history should be approached from a logical/scientific perspective rather than a political one, which is why I stress uncertainty so much.
And yet you ignore all the signs warning you to be uncertain in this instance.
Corrections54 wrote:I would bet that almost anyone who reads that thinks he is musing about concrete images he saw.
Maybe, maybe not. And if he's ruminating about what he saw, when did he see it and under what circumstances? Speaking of uncertainty, the text is anything but certain about these things.
Corrections54 wrote:Which is why my focus is on primary documents which aren't subject to the scrutiny they should be.
But you claimed that historians haven't accepted the burden of proof and have instead shifted it to deniers. Do you imagine that historians need a reminder from you to work with primary sources? Do you think historians don't rely on primary sources as the core of what they do - that you're offering something new here? Do you really imagine that historians don't interrogate the sources they use - and one another? That they need you to help them out with this? You've conveyed nothing here other than condescension based on ignorance - and the usual squirming and negating of "revisionism." Jesus wept.
Corrections54 wrote:Do you think it's a coincidence that mainstream history keeps moving in the direction of less homicidal gas chamber deaths?
I've no idea what you're talking about. In 1961 Hilberg estimated that about half of the victims in the Holocaust were murdered in gas chambers; I know of nothing in the literature produced by historians that's moved away from that estimate.
Corrections54 wrote:If you actually want me to answer "Nessie's question", kindly quote it.
Nessie posted this directed specifically to you. What is it with you guys and the games you play? Noted that both Maryzilla and you've dodged Nessie's question.

In fact, given your propensity for not tackling hard questions, Nessie was kind enough to repeat the question:
Corrections54. If 30% of corpses from acute fatal CO poisoning are showing skin discolouration that would result in witnesses commonly making reference to it, then why is such a feature not referenced in warnings about CO poisoning lists of symptoms and used to save lives?
No excuses seem available to you at this point. LOL
Corrections54 wrote:I've noticed a tactic you use repeatedly is to vaguely refer to other people's questions or arguments, and then when people are unwilling to put in the effort to figure out what you're talking about, you accuse them of dodging.
Frankly, BS. I have gone round and round with deniers and spent hours linking to specific points, only to see them dodge and twist and obfuscate. I am not going to waste my time on every single point we discuss because of the deficits your cohort possesses in abundance.
Corrections54 wrote:I don't dodge any question, but questions should be brought to the forefront in as clear of language as possible.
Excuse me? Nessie's post was clear, directed to you, and ignored. Next topic.
Corrections54 wrote:I personally think his musing is almost definitely musings about what he saw and how they still impact him today based on my experience with the English language.
But that isn't what he wrote, nor is it how the passage is structured.
Corrections54 wrote:This is purely intuitive and impossible to prove definitively one way or the other
Bingo. Now maybe you understand why I wrote
To be clear, in telling these alleged "falsehoods" Wiernik may have been thinking of people being gassed and dying, he may have been trying to make sense of the gassing process, he may have been thinking of how the victims looked when he first saw them, he may have been blending what he could observe and what he thought was the meaning of it all . . . I don't know for sure. Neither does Corrections54 or Berg or anyone. And that is the slight gap through which Corrections54 is now trying to steer his heavy load of lost credibility and falsehoods in the case of Wiernik.
So much for your attachment to a chimerical "uncertainty principle."
Corrections54 wrote:like I said I'd bet most people would read it the same as myself.
Not those who have learned basic source criticism and critical thinking.
Corrections54 wrote:Why do you believe he has "good recall" of some things but not other things? Why do you not at least have some objection of turning eyewitness testimonies into buffets?
Read my subsequent post, and think about what iwh has posted.
Corrections54 wrote:Also blatant irony with your call of "fallacy of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus", which is a straw man fallacy in itself.
You're babbling. With the apparent goal of stalling and dodging.
Corrections54 wrote:Also blatantly contradictory is how earlier in the post you admitted that I was not using said fallacy, only you didn't use the Latin terminology then.
Speaking of people who post nebulous assertions without any basis for them!
Corrections54 wrote:My answer to that question should be evident by now.
I suppose. Nonetheless, iwh tried to get you to grasp his point several times.
Corrections54 wrote:. . . this is just going to go in an endless cycle.
Correct - but you have to admit that, knowing my reading of Wiernik, there was no mystery as to why I used the word supposed.
Corrections54 wrote:They voluntarily provided those details which is worse for credibility. If they were asked, they would be more likely to put forth a best guess.
"Worse" in what way? You see, in the first place, you've not shown how what the three witnesses you've cited wrote was incompatible with what they should have seen. In the second place, assuming your reading of Wiernik, you've not shown why a misremembered detail (gloves/mittens) undermines the most important observations (the murder).
Corrections54 wrote:Yes, it's a source of uncertainty which can't nor shouldn't be ignored.
In which case, the corollary must be that the witnesses could very well be correctly stating what they saw.
Corrections54 wrote:Post his specific arguments and what I said that you didn't find clear in my responses, and I will further clarify.
I posted a more complete view of the argument earlier today. The essence of iwh's point is here, to which you tried using the ridiculous analogy of a white man described as black:
Sir, eyewitnesses are regularly inconsistent on details of anything from car crashes to robberies, but it does not mean that those events did not take place.

The main consistency in the eyewitness testimony regarding the murders at Treblinka 1 is that all three men were involved in the man handling of masses of dead bodies.

Are you trying to imply that they are lying?
When iwh pressed you to be serious, you said he was using a straw man. Iwh came back and told you directly that credibility wouldn't necessarily be undermined unless "you can prove he was deliberately lying." I missed your reply to him. When I re-raised iwh's point, you babbled again about strawmen, ironies, and Latin.
Corrections54 wrote:I didn't reply to everything because I would just be repeating myself in the same post.
Nonsense - because you didn't answer his pointed criticism of your position in the first place.
Corrections54 wrote:Note: won't be around to post much in the next month and a bit
I can see why.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:29 pm

iwh wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote: Do you really not understand the importance of eyewitness credibility when you are trying to reconstruct a historical event based on eyewitness testimony?
Of course I do Mary...as does the historical community. That's why the 3 eyewitnesses mentioned are an accepted part of the historiography of the AR system. Bursting into tears because the odd detail here and there does not match up to your expectations isn't going to change anything.

;)
Not an answer. You implied that loss of eyewitness credibility would have no impact.

The fact that these three eyewitnesses are an accepted part of the historiography of the AR system is part of the problem with the accepted historiography. Based upon the descriptions of the bodies, these three eyewitnesses didn't see people who had been killed by CO poisoning. Nobody has denied this. They have merely tried to explain it away by claiming some sort of PTSD warped their memory of these horrible horrible events or (my favorite) the eyewitnesses were musing figuratively and the descriptions of the bodies shouldn't be taken literally.

Yes, these eyewitnesses are accepted by historians as reliable. That's why the Holocaust historiography is a joke.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:59 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:. . . these three eyewitnesses didn't see people who had been killed by CO poisoning. Nobody has denied this.
Really? You must be reading a different thread.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:They have merely tried to explain it away by claiming some sort of PTSD warped their memory of these horrible horrible events
Link to where someone did this. No one that I know of has mentioned PTSD. Now, I described a warped scene with corpses brutalized by different forms of violence visited by the camp guards and observed by these three and other witnesses. That they wouldn't notice what you, happily removed from the scene of the violence and unable to conceive it, want them to, or think they should have, doesn't matter one iota in the scheme of things. As you well know, iwh also discussed witness focus in a complex situation - which, again, is a matter different to PTSD. The witnesses observed and described the appalling and disgusting reality created by your heroes, not their own PTSD, which is your invention and which was not offered by anyone in this thread as an explanation for anything.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:(my favorite) the eyewitnesses were musing figuratively and the descriptions of the bodies shouldn't be taken literally.
Try again. Your efforts to distort what people have written fall flat. You need to step up your game. I wrote that one witness, Wiernik - not witnesses - included a paragraph of reflection. How strange, that someone, er, reflecting on events in the past would reflect, muse, ponder . . . might even try to think through what happened during the part of the process he couldn't see. Of course, I didn't describe Rajchman or Rosenberg or anyone else reflecting in this way. Your reading skills are so poor that you multiply the witnesses I described as reflecting on what happened to the gassed victims - and your biases are so strong that you scoff at this natural reaction on the part of Wiernik. So circumscribed is your appreciation that you can't help yourself trying to translate Wiernik's reflections into black and white answers to the simplistic questions in your mind - not his.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:(Yes, these eyewitnesses are accepted by historians as reliable. That's why the Holocaust historiography is a joke.
Cue lesson on convergence of evidence . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:21 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:(Yes, these eyewitnesses are accepted by historians as reliable. That's why the Holocaust historiography is a joke.
Mary? Have you yourself actually ever read Weirnik's A Year in Treblinka? Yes or No?

Mary? State the name of any book on the holocaust you have actually read.

:D

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by David » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:50 pm

Nessie wrote:Corrections54. If 30% of corpses from acute fatal CO poisoning are showing skin discolouration that would result in witnesses commonly making reference to it, then why is such a feature not referenced in warnings about CO poisoning lists of symptoms and used to save lives?
Hello Nessie-
Still beating that dead horse?
To repeat the answer again....the pink flush is rare except in extreme cases of CO
poisoning. It is NOT rare in fatalities.

If you are still confused, go look up the symptoms of drowning.

It is all pretty simple...not one "eye witness" in any camp mentioned the pink flush.
Not one mentioned the bright red lividity of corpses.



User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:16 pm

David wrote:
Nessie wrote:Corrections54. If 30% of corpses from acute fatal CO poisoning are showing skin discolouration that would result in witnesses commonly making reference to it, then why is such a feature not referenced in warnings about CO poisoning lists of symptoms and used to save lives?
Hello Nessie-
Still beating that dead horse?
To repeat the answer again....the pink flush is rare except in extreme cases of CO
poisoning. It is NOT rare in fatalities.

If you are still confused, go look up the symptoms of drowning.

It is all pretty simple...not one "eye witness" in any camp mentioned the pink flush.
Not one mentioned the bright red lividity of corpses.


David, best to catch up before posting. You're weeks behind the argument which Nessie has been making.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:22 pm

David, the lying holocaust denial, cult member wrote:It is all pretty simple...
David? Have you actually read "A year in Treblinka"? Yes or No?

David? Can you name one book on the holocaust that you have actually read? Just one book David.....name just one book......
:D

( You haven't got a clue at all do you?)

Corrections54
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:19 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Corrections54 » Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:25 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I am shocked. I am also shocked that you offer no explanation for your disagreement. By the way, if you think I'm supposed to pretend that your games here are anything but games, you can forget it. Your act is so old and so tired it engenders little but boredom at this point.
Basically, I've just accepted who you are and that you have one goal which is to defend every claim of the Big H, never with any semblance of impartiality.
Corrections54 wrote:I strongly believe that history should be approached from a logical/scientific perspective rather than a political one, which is why I stress uncertainty so much.
And yet you ignore all the signs warning you to be uncertain in this instance.
Corrections54 wrote:I would bet that almost anyone who reads that thinks he is musing about concrete images he saw.
Maybe, maybe not. And if he's ruminating about what he saw, when did he see it and under what circumstances? Speaking of uncertainty, the text is anything but certain about these things.
Your own mind and biases appear to be distorting the actual words in the passage. If he saw a combination of red and lifelike corpses when he was transporting the bodies, then he shouldn't be recalling "all yellow". There's two reasons why he would recall all yellow - bad memory or lies.

There's an additional reason which you're trying to add which wouldn't necessarily require even recalling all yellow, but it's ridiculous. In this paragraph, he is describing the emotional pain he has to bear, and it is common sense that the images he brings up within the paragraph are some of the most penetrating images, one of which is the entirety of the corpses being yellow. However, you first have to read the passage with impartiality to make the deductions that I made.
Corrections54 wrote:Which is why my focus is on primary documents which aren't subject to the scrutiny they should be.
But you claimed that historians haven't accepted the burden of proof and have instead shifted it to deniers. Do you imagine that historians need a reminder from you to work with primary sources? Do you think historians don't rely on primary sources as the core of what they do - that you're offering something new here? Do you really imagine that historians don't interrogate the sources they use - and one another? That they need you to help them out with this?
Yes, that's my point in a nutshell. For the holy Big H, they simply aren't doing their jobs as historians.
Corrections54 wrote:Do you think it's a coincidence that mainstream history keeps moving in the direction of less homicidal gas chamber deaths?
I've no idea what you're talking about. In 1961 Hilberg estimated that about half of the victims in the Holocaust were murdered in gas chambers; I know of nothing in the literature produced by historians that's moved away from that estimate.
Half is a proportion, not an amount. Half of what? See: Auschwitz and Majdanek for examples of drastically reduced figures.
Corrections54 wrote:If you actually want me to answer "Nessie's question", kindly quote it.
Nessie posted this directed specifically to you. What is it with you guys and the games you play? Noted that both Maryzilla and you've dodged Nessie's question.
First, you're doing exactly what you say you don't do, which I have already described, such as below:
Corrections54 wrote:I've noticed a tactic you use repeatedly is to vaguely refer to other people's questions or arguments, and then when people are unwilling to put in the effort to figure out what you're talking about, you accuse them of dodging.
Onward...
Nessie was kind enough to repeat the question:
Corrections54. If 30% of corpses from acute fatal CO poisoning are showing skin discolouration that would result in witnesses commonly making reference to it, then why is such a feature not referenced in warnings about CO poisoning lists of symptoms and used to save lives?
I've already dealt with this lame argument at RODOH. Nessie himself doesn't even know why. He won't try to refute the 30% conservative estimate, but asks the question for which he doesn't have the answer to. My response is at the following link: https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 190#p56612
Corrections54 wrote:I've noticed a tactic you use repeatedly is to vaguely refer to other people's questions or arguments, and then when people are unwilling to put in the effort to figure out what you're talking about, you accuse them of dodging.
Frankly, BS. I have gone round and round with deniers and spent hours linking to specific points, only to see them dodge and twist and obfuscate. I am not going to waste my time on every single point we discuss because of the deficits your cohort possesses in abundance.
Attitude noted.
Corrections54 wrote:I personally think his musing is almost definitely musings about what he saw and how they still impact him today based on my experience with the English language.
But that isn't what he wrote, nor is it how the passage is structured.
The paragraph is structured as facts and derived facts, concluded by how they made his life hard and give him the passion to continue on and write about it. He would not have said yellow if he didn't mean yellow. And he did say exactly that. All yellow to be precise. Why would he say they were yellow if he was transporting their lifelike and cherry-red corpses?
Corrections54 wrote:This is purely intuitive and impossible to prove definitively one way or the other
Bingo. Now maybe you understand why I wrote
To be clear, in telling these alleged "falsehoods" Wiernik may have been thinking of people being gassed and dying, he may have been trying to make sense of the gassing process, he may have been thinking of how the victims looked when he first saw them, he may have been blending what he could observe and what he thought was the meaning of it all . . . I don't know for sure. Neither does Corrections54 or Berg or anyone. And that is the slight gap through which Corrections54 is now trying to steer his heavy load of lost credibility and falsehoods in the case of Wiernik.
So much for your attachment to a chimerical "uncertainty principle."
Corrections54 wrote:like I said I'd bet most people would read it the same as myself.
Not those who have learned basic source criticism and critical thinking.
Yes, it's purely intuitive because one can read anything the way they wish. You're reading it wrong. It seems "critical thinking" to you is to find ways to distort primary sources to fit the Big H narrative.
Corrections54 wrote:Also blatant irony with your call of "fallacy of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus", which is a straw man fallacy in itself.
You're babbling. With the apparent goal of stalling and dodging.
No, I'm telling the truth, and you're lying. In a court of law I would try to get him discredited, but this isn't a court of law. Witness testimonies, even if they are rife with bad recollections, lies, and exaggerations, still are in many cases our best opportunity to try to make some kind of explanations.

To be continued...

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:33 am

Corrections54 wrote: In a court of law I would try to get him discredited, but this isn't a court of law.
How interesting......... and how exactly would that work for you, in lieu of all the other evidence? Have you studied the laws of evidence and corroboration or are you just another holocaust denier blabbing out anything that comes to mind?
:D

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:55 am

Corrections54 wrote:Basically, I've just accepted who you are and that you have one goal which is to defend every claim of the Big H, never with any semblance of impartiality.
What claims are these I'm said to be accepting on their face?
Corrections54 wrote:Your own mind and biases appear to be distorting the actual words in the passage.
Which actual words written by Wiernik are my supposed biases distorting? Do you imagine that Wiernik actually saw people in the gas chamber stop being jealous and become equals?
Corrections54 wrote:If he saw a combination of red and lifelike corpses when he was transporting the bodies, then he shouldn't be recalling "all yellow".
Well, since we disagree about the translation of Wiernik's text, whether he is recalling the appearance of corpses in his paragraph on the fate of the victims, and what the corpses can be expected to have looked like on removal from the gas chambers, you truly are running us around in circles.
Corrections54 wrote:There's two reasons why he would recall all yellow - bad memory or lies.
Or he is not recalling the corpses upon removal at all. Etc.
Corrections54 wrote:There's an additional reason which you're trying to add which wouldn't necessarily require even recalling all yellow, but it's ridiculous. In this paragraph, he is describing the emotional pain he has to bear, and it is common sense that the images he brings up within the paragraph are some of the most penetrating images, one of which is the entirety of the corpses being yellow. However, you first have to read the passage with impartiality to make the deductions that I made.
Round and round you go. It would help if you were to re-write this paragraph so that it makes sense and speaks to what I've said, not what you think I'm trying to add.

To reiterate, Wiernik's paragraph beginning "They no longer shouted, because the thread of their lives had been cut off" includes reflections on what the victims must have endured - and the consequences of their fate (all now equal, no beauty or ugliness in their deaths, no more jealousy, before God's throne, etc). How you get to conclusion that these thoughts were based on first-hand observations or "derived facts," in your awkward phrase, of what occurred in the sealed gas chamber is quite the head-scratcher.

God's throne - a "derived fact"? Seriously?
Corrections54 wrote:Yes, that's my point in a nutshell. For the holy Big H, they simply aren't doing their jobs as historians.
And you're here to help them? LOL. I don't even know the way to express how ludicrous your - er, self-confidence is. Unless you were to give us your critique of recent and current historiography, we are left with your Ubuesque ego and a good laugh.
Corrections54 wrote:Half is a proportion, not an amount. Half of what? See: Auschwitz and Majdanek for examples of drastically reduced figures.
And this is an example of your critique of historians who aren't going their jobs? Playing dumb about Hilberg's death estimates? LOL.

You said that historians were moving away from gas chambers - they aren't. In proportion or amount. The two examples you offer are just the usual denier fallacies and claptrap.

Let's stick with Hilberg: in 2003, forty years after his first edition, he pegged the Jewish death toll in the Holocaust at 5.1 million, about 2.6 million in camps, most of these but not all in gas chambers. In 1961, his total for Jewish deaths in Majdanek was a bit lower than Kranz's 2005 estimate - Hilberg had 50,000. The later revisions of the Majdanek death toll by the Majdanek State Museum thus had no impact on Hilberg's overall estimate of the number of Jews dying in the Holocaust. Hilberg never accepted the high Auschwitz estimate made by the Soviets, if that's what you're referring to; he always had IIRC around 1 million. We've gone through this, in some detail, with regard to Majdanek here and here and here.

Yad Vashem explains how Hilberg's estimates fit into the historiography:
There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million (Professor Raul Hilberg) to 5.95 million (Jacob Leschinsky). More recent research, by Professor Yisrael Gutman and Dr. Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, estimates the Jewish losses at 5.59–5.86 million, and a study headed by Dr. Wolfgang Benz presents a range from 5.29–6 million. The main sources for these statistics are comparisons of prewar censuses with postwar censuses and population estimates. Nazi documentation containing partial data on various deportations and murders is also used. We estimate that Yad Vashem currently has somewhat more than four million names of victims that are accessible.
It would really benefit discussion if you could be spell out what you're referring to and what your case is.
Corrections54 wrote:First, you're doing exactly what you say you don't do, which I have already described, such as below:
Corrections54 wrote:I've noticed a tactic you use repeatedly is to vaguely refer to other people's questions or arguments, and then when people are unwilling to put in the effort to figure out what you're talking about, you accuse them of dodging.
Onward...
Actually, I linked to Nessie's question, even though I told you it was obvious what you were asked and that you hadn't replied to it, and then I quoted Nessie's reiteration. Do you not know how to click on links?
Corrections54 wrote:I've already dealt with this lame argument at RODOH. Nessie himself doesn't even know why. He won't try to refute the 30% conservative estimate, but asks the question for which he doesn't have the answer to. My response is at the following link: https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 190#p56612
I would have expected an answer to a question in this thread to be in this thread - with a link to another thread or forum if you felt you'd spoken to the point elsewhere. But I can't read your mind and I don't keep up with RODOH.
Corrections54 wrote:The paragraph is structured as facts and derived facts . . .
I was discussing the structure of the passage, not the paragraph: you can tell that because I wrote about "how the passage is structured." Nor is the paragraph "structured as facts and derived facts" that Wiernik observed . . . again, do you really think Wiernik observed anything about "jealousy" from the other side of the doors of the gas chambers?
Corrections54 wrote:Why would he say they were yellow if he was transporting their lifelike and cherry-red corpses?
I've told you already - because he wasn't discussing transporting corpses in that paragraph, in the first place . . . and because, as Nessie's explained, cherry-red wouldn't be what a witness must observe in any case.
Corrections54 wrote:Yes, it's purely intuitive because one can read anything the way they wish.
Of course one can do whatever one pleases. But a passage in which Wiernik discusses first the filling of the gas chamber and turning on of the gas, then in the next paragraph gives his thoughts about the people dying in the gas chamber and what their deaths meant, and then in a third paragraph tells what happened when ""the gassing was over, Ivan and Nicholas inspected the results, moved over to the other side, opened the door leading to the platform, and proceeded to heave out the corpses" fairly begs you to pay attention to what was written and not interpose your own "intuitions."
Corrections54 wrote:You're reading it wrong.
Because you say so? Because you ignore the structure and the content of the paragraph? Or are you a know-nothing, like Maryzilla, for whom the very idea of someone contemplating the meaning of death appears silly?
Corrections54 wrote:It seems "critical thinking" to you is to find ways to distort primary sources to fit the Big H narrative.
Again with the "Big H narrative." What is it? I'm supposedly fitting all kinds of things into a narrative that hasn't even been defined!

And, no, critical thinking requires engaging with texts and evidence, considering them in context and in comparison, applying knowledge and synthesizing learning, and making reasoned analyses based on evidence. What it does not mean is that "one can read anything the way they wish" - and a hallmark of critical thinking is not declaring "You're reading it wrong."
Corrections54 wrote:No, I'm telling the truth, and you're lying.
Now I'm said to be lying? Because you failed to make a clear point? Pray tell, what is my lie . . . my conjecture for why you're babbling about strawmen?
Corrections54 wrote:In a court of law I would try to get him discredited,
So what? In a court of law, you'd be up against all the complications you ignore, and which iwh has tried reminding you of, as well as counsel's familiarity with and argument from the cognitive issues relating to witnessing.

As to falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus, in a court of law you'd be up against people familiar with this sort of commentary and practice: "'Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus' is but a legal maxim and not an inflexible rule of evidence. . . . The doctrine 'falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus' is only applied as a rule of law to a witness who has knowingly and willfully sworn falsely as to some fact material to the issue." If this were not a court of law, but a scientific discussion, you'd be up against people who deride your approach as "a crank's favorite gambit."

What did I lie about - remind me?
Corrections54 wrote:but this isn't a court of law.
Profound. Perhaps you can move on from this insight to explain your theory of lying . . .
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:30 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Corrections54 wrote: In a court of law I would try to get him discredited, but this isn't a court of law.
How interesting......... and how exactly would that work for you, in lieu of all the other evidence?
Exactly. In lieu of whatever gets in his way. That's how he thinks it would work for him - in lieu of the science, which he says is not certain - but then tries using it to impeach; in lieu of corroborating testimonies on the key material points; in lieu of legal principles . . . in lieu of it all! He might throw in that he has been busy educating a couple generations of scholars on how to do history . . . LOL (no doubt he will be back soon to let us know what the fundamental flaws are in David Silberklang's recent book on Lublin district . . . )
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:52 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: Exactly. In lieu of whatever gets in his way.
I love it when holocaust deniers tell me "how it would go in court" Would that be Jurgen Graf who fled or David Irving's ego preventing him from listening to his own counsel?

Corrections45 : "Your honour, I now wish to present inconstancy on a minor issue as the eyewitness, Wiernik used the word yellow"

Judge : Dlaczego ten polski naoczny świadek mówił słowo " żółty " w języku angielskim ?
:D

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:58 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Exactly. In lieu of whatever gets in his way.
I love it when holocaust deniers tell me "how it would go in court" Would that be Jurgen Graf who fled or David Irving's ego preventing him from listening to his own counsel?

Corrections45 : "Your honour, I now wish to present inconstancy on a minor issue as the eyewitness, Wiernik used the word yellow"

Judge : Dlaczego ten polski naoczny świadek mówił słowo " żółty " w języku angielskim ?
:D
LOL, and next up - Corrections54: Your honor, the well-known theory of derived facts and how Wiernik reported witnessing God's throne in the gas chambers, before which all were equal. Literally.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:33 am

David wrote:
Nessie wrote:Corrections54. If 30% of corpses from acute fatal CO poisoning are showing skin discolouration that would result in witnesses commonly making reference to it, then why is such a feature not referenced in warnings about CO poisoning lists of symptoms and used to save lives?
Hello Nessie-
Still beating that dead horse?
To repeat the answer again....the pink flush is rare except in extreme cases of CO
poisoning. It is NOT rare in fatalities.

If you are still confused, go look up the symptoms of drowning.

It is all pretty simple...not one "eye witness" in any camp mentioned the pink flush.
Not one mentioned the bright red lividity of corpses.


To me, it's not so much that none of the eyewitnesses mentioned the pink flush. If the eyewitnesses didn't mention color at all, there would be nothing here. But three of the eyewitnesses did mention color. They all remembered seeing a different color. None of them remembered seeing a pink, or red, or cherry, or scarlet or magenta or anything close to the color that they would have seen if they had seen people who died from CO poisoning.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:52 am

Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denial cult member wrote:To me, it's not so much that none of the eyewitnesses mentioned the pink flush.
Apart from the actual quotes we have given you and you are pretending to forget......blue lips from asphyxiation...pink from CO poisoning...
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denial cult member wrote:But three of the eyewitnesses did mention color.
Are you including the blue lips and pink tinge from other eyewitness reports .....or are you still pretending to forget those?
:D
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denial cult member wrote: None of them remembered seeing a pink...............
Are you this stupid on purpose?

Leiding testified at his 1946 trial "The corpses had, as we chemists found out/observed the typical pink outlook of men, who had died of a CO-poisoning"

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Most important photograph

Post by iwh » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:40 am

What were the lighting conditions like during the gassing? From what I have seen in a very basic search on the Internet there was no light in the gas chambers of Treblinka during the gassings (if at all). Gassings also took place at night as well as day, especially during peak times.

Different lighting conditions have different effects on people and objects.

Just a thought.....
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:50 am

iwh wrote:What were the lighting conditions like during the gassing? From what I have seen in a very basic search on the Internet there was no light in the gas chambers of Treblinka during the gassings (if at all). Gassings also took place at night as well as day, especially during peak times.

Different lighting conditions have different effects on people and objects.

Just a thought.....
God's throne shone with such radiance that apparently darkness did not obscure it and thus Wiernik saw and recalled its glory before which all were equal. Literally.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Most important photograph

Post by iwh » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:21 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
iwh wrote:What were the lighting conditions like during the gassing? From what I have seen in a very basic search on the Internet there was no light in the gas chambers of Treblinka during the gassings (if at all). Gassings also took place at night as well as day, especially during peak times.

Different lighting conditions have different effects on people and objects.

Just a thought.....
God's throne shone with such radiance that apparently darkness did not obscure it and thus Wiernik saw and recalled its glory before which all were equal. Literally.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'd forgotten how much deniers can't cope with metaphor and simile....
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Most important photograph

Post by David » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:47 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Leiding testified at his 1946 trial "The corpses had, as we chemists found out/observed the typical pink outlook of men, who had died of a CO-poisoning"
Matty the Believer is too much.
For months he has been claiming that people people dying of CO poisoning do not have a very remarkable pink flush that all the Operation Reinhard eye witnesses
missed.
Now he is all flushed with rage that we are not impressed by a witness who
notes that the "typical pink outlook" was seen.
The trouble for poor "I can believe two different things at the same time" Matty
is that Leiding was a chemist speaking of people allegedly killed in
"gas vans." As a chemist he would have known the scientific fact that
Matty has been dancing around. CO death = pink flush
The handful of Reinhard witnesses did not know what they "were supposed to have seen" so they gave a common sense answer (purple, blue, or black) or kept silent on both the pink flush or the Cherry Red lividity that quickly developed after death.



User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Most important photograph

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:16 pm

David wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Leiding testified at his 1946 trial "The corpses had, as we chemists found out/observed the typical pink outlook of men, who had died of a CO-poisoning"
Matty the Believer is too much.
For months he has been claiming that people people dying of CO poisoning do not have a very remarkable pink flush that all the Operation Reinhard eye witnesses
missed.
Now he is all flushed with rage that we are not impressed by a witness who
notes that the "typical pink outlook" was seen.
The trouble for poor "I can believe two different things at the same time" Matty
is that Leiding was a chemist speaking of people allegedly killed in
"gas vans." As a chemist he would have known the scientific fact that
Matty has been dancing around. CO death = pink flush
The handful of Reinhard witnesses did not know what they "were supposed to have seen" so they gave a common sense answer (purple, blue, or black) or kept silent on both the pink flush or the Cherry Red lividity that quickly developed after death.


David, please, please stop posting stupidities. If you'd been paying attention at all - indeed if you'd read Matthew Ellard's post before opening your mouth - you'd twig that a core problem with what Berg, Kues, Corrections54, and you are all trying to peddle is that, with a variety of factors influencing the condition of the corpses, witnesses would be expected to see a variety of conditions of corpses. Put another way, the discussion has shown that witnesses were not "supposed to have seen" the cherry-red you so fervently believe in. And put still another way, Corrections54 has admitted that the definitive factor in impeaching these witnesses, is not, er, definitive - in Corrections5's words, "Not even Berg says something that definitive."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .