Hunts Majdanek film.

Discussions
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:05 pm

Nessie wrote:I say Hunt has made a compelling case that the Soviets/Poles/museum authorities took what they found and modified it to make it look like the delousing chambers were gas chambers.
How do you know that the modifications were to delousing chambers? You seem to be reasoning circularly from a starting assumption here . . . as you advocated doing, in your last post on this . . .
Nessie wrote:If you stripped away the modifications and had tourists go the opposite way through the bath and disinfection buildings, they could not sustain any of the claims of homicidal gas chambers.
I got that from your previous posts - but I don't know how you know inmates went in the bunker end. What, other than a bad reconstruction and Hunt's logic, are your sources for the direction inmates took in the bathhouse-bunker complex?

Are you arguing that (a) you know that the inmates went in the bunker end and (b) the walls erected between bunker and bathhouse make it appear that the inmates couldn't have entered there? If so, please tell us how you know (a), e.g., sources.
Nessie wrote:They should return the buildings back to their original condition. Visitors will remember what they see better than the words of any tour guide or plan on a plaque.
I don't know why the complex was modified. Do you?

And, corollary to this, why did the museum fail to monkey similarly with original gas chambers 1-6? That is, why didn't the museum dummy up exhibits to make a propaganda statement with regard to the other structures incorrectly identified as gas chambers after the war?
Nessie wrote:OK, so only CO was used at Majdanek, not Zyklon B. In that case Majdanek is the worst example of mixed up information as to what exactly happened of any camp I have looked at.
Well, according to the museum's director, Wikipedia has it wrong. My point is a little different: Hunt doesn't seem to acknowledge the museum's case regarding the CO bottles in criticizing the museum. Kranz, far from trying to propagandize, says outright that the documentation is not abundant and that many details are not clear.

I can understand arguing that even the museum says details are sketchy. as you do below . . . but accusing Kranz of purposefully being dishonest - without looking at how he uses the sources and without understanding how he and others reach their conclusions - seems a bit of a reach to me.

Have you read Kranz's book? Sources on the complex?
Nessie wrote:From the Jewish Virtual Library

"although Majdanek has the only Nazi homicidal gas chambers preserved in their original condition,"
Clearly not what the museum says. But not part of the museum's supposed propaganda!
Nessie wrote:From USHMM

"In the winter of 1941-1942, camp authorities began to use Zyklon B gas to murder prisoners too weak to work in a makeshift gas chamber. Mass murder operations using poison gas began at Majdanek in October 1942 and continued until the end of 1943. There appear to have been three gas chambers at Majdanek; at least two were shower rooms reconfigured for use of Zyklon B gas. At least one of these two was used to kill human beings. Some sources refer to a third gas chamber, which reportedly used carbon monoxide gas as a means of murder."
This statement is a bit sloppy, I think, but it is close to what Kranz says. I wrote in my post that the camp "probably" didn't use Zyklon because Kranz makes some firm and other less firm statements. That was also sloppy! Looking back through Kranz on this, I need to correct what I wrote to say that in Kranz's view, CO was the principle agent with at most minor use of Zyklon B. Kranz says at one place that of the three chambers, one of the small rooms was never used, one small room was for CO and Zyklon B, and the large room was for CO only (p 46). Kranz also says that "it is nearly certain" that during 1942 only CO was used and that it was probably always the main killing agent (p 55). I found also this morning where, despite all this, he says that both agents were used and that traces of Zyklon B were found in only one of the two small rooms.

None of this sounds like propaganda to me, Nessie, but rather a thin paper trail and bits of evidence which Kranz is sorting through and trying to evaluate fairly.
Nessie wrote:For those reasons I say Majdanek needs a major information accuracy over haul before it can gain any credibility.
I get that, but I question the use of reconstructions for evidence and your drawing conclusions from the exhibit - unless you take a painstaking "archaeological" approach, that is, researching through all the layers of modifications to pinpoint the state of the exhibit when the camp was operating and how/when/why it was altered. That was what I didn't see happening at Hunt's website and what would in fact add to our understanding.

To take another example, the large pavilion roof that stood over the gas chambers when they were operating is missing today. There's a history behind that. Is this modification a case of "tampering with evidence"? Clearly, the "display" is inaccurate without that roof. But is it for propaganda and to mislead that the roof isn't there? And of course, I would not base my understanding of the site based on the roof being missing (a modification); rather, I'd use evidence of how the complex stood in 1942-1943 to understand it.
Nessie wrote:My problem is the level of tampering with the evidence and misinformation means that lacks credibility.
The exhibit does lack authenticity and credibility. Agreed. But with what intent and how? And Hunt's reasoning about secrecy is inane and ahistorical. Also missing today, besides the roof, are structures that obscured the complex from the rest of the camp. Hunt is clearly misrepresenting the history by using present-day features as though they alone answer questions about the history. That is my point. My follow-up is why you give Hunt credibility when he so clearly distorts things.

We have Mary and David yapping that I am trusting everything Kranz says when I wrote that I don't. And when I wrote specifically that I cannot see how the exhibit can be taken literally as evidence.
Nessie wrote:My issue is that so much time has been spent by the authorities trying to prop up a crumbling narrative based on physical evidence of homicidal gassings that lacks credibility.
How do you know that the modifications are an effort to prop up a specific case? How, from what is there and what you've shared, do you know what the real case is? That is what I still don't get.

Let me be clear: I am generally negative, even suspicious about, museum installations and the like. They pretend to a high-minded position but use their stature to impose a view of things - and/or they memorialize and celebrate in an unquestioning manner. I've never been to the USHMM, although I view the research they sponsor differently to the memorial. Living museums and outdoor installations also have to solve for all sorts of "new" issues - many visitors, the elements, budget pressures, managing staff, levels of competence, etc. So I am generally wary of what museums and the like have on display.
Nessie wrote:Crudely chiseled out holes, CO2 bottles, chambers that are stained and positioned such their use was clearly for clothing. The openness of the buildings to the rest of the site, the issue of body disposal.
Fine but nothing here except "chambers that are stained and positioned such their use was clearly for clothing" speaks to the actual site during 1942-1943. And I don't get how the positioning of the gas chambers or staining show that they were clearly used for clothing. That is what I've been asking you to explain to me. I get that the museum display is not reliable - we can differ on intent (and until someone provides a history of the museum, I will still say I don't know) - but the display's unreliability doesn't necessarily mean chicanery with regard to these chambers.
Nessie wrote:If I was a court, Hunt has done a defence job that means I would never convict as the prosecution's evidence is so dubious.
Ok, we will go round and round. The display is inaccurate - and the museum says so, too. So IMHO, with regard to what you wrote that you conclude from this, Hunt's defended successfully what's not in contention. But how do we get from there, the modified exhibit, to what happened in 1942-1943? You've not explained that.
Nessie wrote:It clearly was for disinfection and functioned as such with its layout and showers. If it was purpose built as a homicidal gas chamber, the layout and location far away from the crematorium is very odd.
I get that. But this has nothing to do with the reconstructed walls, right? It is to do with the location of the bunker within the camp and relative to the crematoria?

I thought you were making an argument about the reconstruction of the bathhouse-bunker (the addition of the connecting walls/room) persuading you - but your key issue is the distance of the gas chamber from the crematoria? Is that correct? Please confirm that it is the distance, rather than the added walls, that you find most compelling . . .
Nessie wrote:I thought you said Karnaz accepts Zyklon B was not used for killing? Above you say he does.
I wrote "probably" not but I should have written "probably very little." My error, I've corrected my memory by re-reading the passages in Kranz and summarized above.
Nessie wrote:I do not see it as a leap. The timeline of the orthodox narrative clearly shows that the last supposed chambers have also fallen in doubt.
I don't follow this. I asked about the orientation of the photo . . . but maybe we're back to very different views on historical evidence and memorialization?
Nessie wrote:Sorry for the lack of detail. I'll have to come back to this. Basically I say the credibility of Majdanek's gas chambers, which was weaker than anywhere else, has now been reduced to that of the Dachau chambers, as in there was no mass gassings.
Shoot! LOL, I really wanted to get your take on what you were saying about the gas chamber photo . . . and the route taken by inmates. To be clear, I've seen only one thing that speaks to the route the prisoners took - it implies that they came into the bathhouse from the end opposite the bunker rather than where you think they entered.

My concern isn't whether "we" end up with gas chambers at Majdanek that killed maybe 10,000 Jews. If the evidence - and I don't mean the museum display - can't support the claim, then the claim needs to be tossed, just as with the other purported gas chambers in the camp. So to me it is really a question of looking at the various sources, just like any other site or event. Not propagandizing about the current display, not believing false claims about secrecy and so on. Kranz, for example, didn't arrive at his claims by studying the exhibit - which is clear from his book - but by using technical diagrams, camp plans, contemporary photos, witness statements, planning documents, and the site layout all together. In fact, he specifically discards the modifications as evidence for the use of the complex in 1942-1943.

The core question I am asking is how you know from what you showed us - thus my desire to hear more about the photo you posted and the presumed route taken by inmates - that the purpose of this facility was innocuous. I don't think you've explained that.

I appreciate your reply but it didn't help me understand my core question. I understand that the memorial is inaccurate - hell, I even pointed out based on my very limited knowledge of it, another inaccuracy, the missing pavilion roof. But I don't see how these inaccuracies convict the museum of dishonesty, in that they "admit" the inaccuracies, nor how they persuade anyone that the complex was used only for disinfection. I'd rather focus on the second part of this for now - how you know what happened in the bunker-bathhouse complex during 1942-1943 (but we can keep circling around on the memorial too . . . !).

And, you knew this was coming, I pointed out to you Hunt's blatant dishonesty, which he doesn't admit and which he's using to promote the same agenda he's always promoted, dishonestly.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Nessie » Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:57 pm

Until Hunt's film I had never been able to orientate myself for Majdanek as I had been able to for other sites. I can easily see how the gas chambers at Auschwitz (as a whole) worked in terms of arrival, disrobing, gassing and disposing of the remains. The same is the case for TII and Sobibor. I have never looked at Belzec in any detail, but from what I have seen it looks straight forward. Poznan Fort and other T4 chambers are clear as well, especially due to the small numbers over all making them manageable.

I now understand why I had not been able to 'walk through' the gassings at Majdanek as with other sites. With so much conflicting information on the standard reference sites, the modifications and so old and new photos not matching.

Majdanek was the first place I debated on the site, with Bob (of course!). I remember coming to my first big, so to speak revelation which was the more stained a gas chamber is, the more likely it was used for clothes and not people (That inspired the thread, prove to me that the Nazis gassed clothes!). Yet go into google images and it is full of Majdanek gas chambers showing staining.

Then disposal of the bodies at Majdanek was an issue I knew about, but it had not looked at in detail. Hunt did not touch on it much either. At no camp was it done so obviously in front of the entire of the rest of the camp, especially transporting bodies across the camp.

Hunt on the other hand has presented a straightforward case using the original as much as possible. Occams razor tells me that the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions is likely to be the correct one.

The propaganda argument was also compelling and how the Soviets went into over load as Majdanek was captured first and in tact. The Soviets had already blamed Katyn on the Nazis, so captured gas chambers was a huge coup, even if they were just chambers where gas had been used, for clothes. We also know the allies were capturing gas chambers all over the place, which were later admitted to not be such.

I think Majdanek is very likely to end up like Dachau and at most a sign will appear alleging experimental gassings and sometimes even that sign will end up in a cupboard somewhere.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:11 pm

Nessie wrote:. . . disposal of the bodies at Majdanek was an issue I knew about, but it had not looked at in detail. Hunt did not touch on it much either. At no camp was it done so obviously in front of the entire of the rest of the camp, especially transporting bodies across the camp.
You need to read Kranz. He argues that the bodies were sometimes transported across the camp, presumably because of how the camp was laid out and worked (more below), and that witnesses saw this. He names and quotes Rudolph Ettrich (p 50), Adolf Gorski (p 60), and (it's a bit confused) Natan Zelechower (pp 61-62).
Nessie wrote:Hunt on the other hand has presented a straightforward case using the original as much as possible. Occams razor tells me that the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions is likely to be the correct one.
Before we let Occam start slicing, I still don't understand what you find straightforward or compelling about Hunt's explanation. In fact, I've shown you lies and distortions he uses to make his case.

Can you state in your own words what the compelling argument is - a summary?

I think you're taking some of Hunt’s specious reasoning at face value because you've not brought into consideration, even if you've read it, source material on the camp. Disclaimer: I've not researched Majdanek in detail, but from what I've read, what you've posted and what I saw on Hunt's website, there’s a persuasive case only that the exhibits aren't authentic, which the museum itself says, and NOT that the bunker was innocuous. You’ve not explained what it is about the layout, the reconstruction, etc. so I can understand your case and so that evidence which others, like Kranz use, is accounted for. Here's an example of why: You and Hunt put a stake in the ground over the distance of the gas chambers from the crematory, as though that's decisive. But let's take into account more evidence than simply the distance. I've given you some above, I will add more below. Here I want to lay out an alternative position to yours out a bit more fully and step by step . . .

Hypothesis

Rather than building the bunker or crematory de novo, the German camp authorities used an existing installation (the original crematory, which - see below - seems to have been operating by June 1942) and/or adapted facilities under construction (the bunker, built during August - September 1942). To make this work, they introduced the miraculous inventions of trucks and outdoor cremation, as needed, to dispose of corpses of those gassed along with corpses of prisoners who died from other causes.

Rationale

It is important to realize that the gas chambers at Majdanek were not aimed at exterminating 100s of 1000s prisoners and not purpose built from outset; thus, they were even more improvised than what's found at larger camps like Auschwitz. E.g., there wasn’t a special camp at Majdanek like Birkenau.

Also, the crematoria were built for disposal, as I alluded to above, of corpses from deaths by other causes than gassing; the original crematory, per Mattogno and Graf, opened in fact before the camp had any gas chambers for executions. That is, the crematory was not connected from the outset to the gas chambers.

M/G, citing Mussfeldt, state that the old crematoria operated from June 1942 as a temporary installation utilizing 2 furnaces brought to Majdanek from Sachsenhausen; this facility, they say, was stopped operating in October 1942, due lack of fuel, and was dismantled in early 1943; M/G also say that construction on the new gas chamber didn’t begin until sometime in 1943. M/G say that the structure was built in March 1943 and the “first known diagram of the installation” is dated 24 June 1943 (pp 101-102).

The original gas chamber - Kranz in Photo 3 in his book and M/G on p 101 agree - was located in Interfield I, near the laundry, which was, in contrast to the replacement crematory, close by the gas chambers. (I understand you like that Hunt “simplifies” all this - but he does so by leaving out facts that undermine his argument - is this truly acceptable to you?)

The gas chambers themselves were adapted, as I've said, during late summer, from disinfection chambers under construction at the time. As the new crematory wasn’t even built yet, ipso facto, the gas chambers were not located near it.

Conclusions

With 1) gassings of people running from September 1942 to November 1943 at the latest, and mostly complete by September 1942 (Kranz, p 57), 2) with the original crematory running only until October 1942 (if M/G are correct), and 3) with the camp thus not having any crematory operational during much of the time period in which Kranz alleges gassings, other means had to be found to deal with corpses of victims, numbering as we've seen in the thousands, along with corpses of prisoners dying from other causes. (I assume that prisoners dying of other causes were also trucked to the crematory, either new or old, as they didn’t conveniently die next to it.)

According to Kranz, whilst a crematorium was operational, bodies were shunted from the gas chambers in trucks or hauled on a a trailer behind a tractor (pp 60-61); these solutions stand in contrast to how Hunt tries to pass off what was done, clowning about "carting prisoners" uphill to the crematorium to make a short truck ride seem impossible. But, against Hunt’s argument, the really significant problem was the need for other means to dispose of corpses when the crematory, whichever one, wasn't functioning.

Again, there doesn't appear to be any mystery where Hunt tries to manufacture one: Kranz (p 61) explains that the authorities used "incineration stakes" laid out "in the former a manege [riding area] located near the gas chamber" (marked 9 on the camp plan) and "in a ravine on the grounds of the vegetable gardens (Gartnerei), some 200 metres from the bathhouses and gas chambers."

The corollary is that it is Hunt who is dishonest here; he's misstated the problem and ignored evidence contrary to his bias. His mystery seems easily solved. Again, I am no expert on this camp - if my solution is wrong, show me where. But your repeating that the museum installation sucks, there's misinformation all around on Majdanek, and that Hunt's specious claims convince you don't really explain either how you come to your views or what the best understanding is.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

BlackRabbit
BANNED
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by BlackRabbit » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:15 pm

This slick liar statistical hasn't watched the film so hasn't seen the huge hole blown wide open.

Prisoners went the opposite way gullible tourists are shunted thru today. Boarding up the original ENTRANCE is the prime reason for the modification

No one ever took a shower before getting gassed. Only a total moron could still believe that after watching this video, certainly no "skeptic"

Watch the video, you prejudiced con artist!
Last edited by BlackRabbit on Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9995
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Pyrrho » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:52 pm

I suppose I am going to regret approving that post.

Oh, well.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

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

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:52 pm

BlackRabbit wrote:This slick liar statistical hasn't watched the film so hasn't seen the huge hole blown wide open.

Prisoners went the opposite way gullible tourists are shunted thru today. Boarding up the original entrance is the prime reason for the modification

No one ever took a shower before getting gassed. Only a total moron could still believe that after watching this video, certainly no "skeptic"

Watch the video, you prejudiced, racist con artist.
This is going to be the world's fastest banning. Please take David and Mary with you, when you go. :D

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:08 am

BlackRabbit wrote:This slick liar statistical hasn't watched the film so hasn't seen the huge hole blown wide open.

Prisoners went the opposite way gullible tourists are shunted thru today. Boarding up the original ENTRANCE is the prime reason for the modification

No one ever took a shower before getting gassed. Only a total moron could still believe that after watching this video, certainly no "skeptic"

Watch the video, you prejudiced con artist!
A few simple questions and comments rattling your cage, Rabbit? LOL. Oh well, better DO SOMETHING if you guys can't handle some questions . . .

Prejudiced - or racist - con artist? C'mon, your edit seems to have been caught . . . are you now going to post my personal information to stop me asking questions?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28576
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:20 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
BlackRabbit wrote:This slick liar statistical hasn't watched the film so hasn't seen the huge hole blown wide open.

Prisoners went the opposite way gullible tourists are shunted thru today. Boarding up the original entrance is the prime reason for the modification

No one ever took a shower before getting gassed. Only a total moron could still believe that after watching this video, certainly no "skeptic"

Watch the video, you prejudiced, racist con artist.
This is going to be the world's fastest banning. Please take David and Mary with you, when you go. :D
12-13-14...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:53 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
BlackRabbit wrote:This slick liar statistical hasn't watched the film so hasn't seen the huge hole blown wide open.

Prisoners went the opposite way gullible tourists are shunted thru today. Boarding up the original entrance is the prime reason for the modification

No one ever took a shower before getting gassed. Only a total moron could still believe that after watching this video, certainly no "skeptic"

Watch the video, you prejudiced, racist con artist.
This is going to be the world's fastest banning. Please take David and Mary with you, when you go. :D
12-13-14...
His argument about the camp seems to consist of the following:

- statistical is a slick liar
- tourists are gullible
- you'd have to be a total moron not to agree with whatever
- I'm a prejudiced, racist (or just prejudiced) con artist

Or, put more succinctly, his argument consists of insults. Nice. I ask about Nessie's reasoning, Nessie and I carry on a perfectly delightful dialogue, and . . . well.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

BlackRabbit
BANNED
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by BlackRabbit » Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:41 am

No, actually it's that you haven't watched the video so you have no idea what changed Nessie's mind.

Primarily, Original blueprints that prove prisoners went the opposite way through Bath 1 and 2 and the museum deliberately mislabels rooms. Like the room with Zyklon stacked inside which was actually the hair cutting room. The undressing room was actually the dressing room. The dressing room, the undressing room. The current entrance, the exit.

Then just add what you just wrote on top of that. You are all of the above.

Nessie's reasoning is simple, Nessie watched the film! What are you doing posting your same old lies in a thread about a film you refuse to watch which presents new evidence you refuse to see?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28576
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:10 am

I haven't seen Nessie's "mind change". What I do see is open and honest inquiry about unclear issues.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:38 am

BlackRabbit wrote:No, actually it's that you haven't watched the video so you have no idea what changed Nessie's mind.
Oh goodie. Are you directly saying that you have watched Eric Hunt's propaganda videos and can answer questions about them? Strangely, the other two holocaust deniers on this forum haven't watched any of Eric's propaganda videos and refuse to answer questions about these silly propaganda videos.

Eric, the convicted criminal, after his release from a non voluntary-psychiatric hospital made a home video about Treblinka II. As you follow Eric's directions, will you answer questions about Eric's hilarious video in the Treblinka thread?

My first question is why Eric Hunt himself, on this very forum changed his mind and claimed the Treblinka gas chambers were air raid shelters and not showers. Have you spoken to Eric about this, through Freddy Berg, his keeper?

:D

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28576
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Dec 14, 2014 5:23 am

BlackRabbit wrote:No one ever took a shower before getting gassed....
Testimony given in a German court and cited by Wolfgang Curilla on page 619 in his book "Der Judenmord in Polen und die deutsche Ordnungspolizei 1939-1945" describes naked and shorn newcomers at Majdanek being selected by a doctor to either go to the showers or leave through a certain door - meaning they had been selected for gassing.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:41 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
BlackRabbit wrote:No one ever took a shower before getting gassed....
Testimony given in a German court and cited by Wolfgang Curilla on page 619 in his book "Der Judenmord in Polen und die deutsche Ordnungspolizei 1939-1945" describes naked and shorn newcomers at Majdanek being selected by a doctor to either go to the showers or leave through a certain door - meaning they had been selected for gassing.

Twenty first century scholars like Stat Mech, Balsamo, and myself don't depend on evidence generated during judicial proceedings for our knowledge of the Holocaust. I helpfully highlighted the parts of your post where you appear to make assertions of fact that you have sourced back to a judicial proceeding. If you want to claim that a doctor at Madjanek selected naked newcomers for either a shower or a gassing, please provide a non-judicial source for this fact.

Here's some advice: If you want to be accepted around here, you need to support any argument you make by providing a credible source for any facts you submit in support of said argument. It's not always easy but that's just how us skeptics roll.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:53 am

Nessie,

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. A couple of times I asked how you knew the actual route taken by prisoners through the bathhouses and what was your source. I didn't see where you answered those questions, and when I asked if you'd tie in your conclusions about the route prisoners took through the bathhouses with your comments about this in terms of the photo you shared, I understood that you begged for more time -
Sorry for the lack of detail. I'll have to come back to this.
- and then referred to a general lack of credibility for "Majdanek's gas chambers." In fact, instead of focusing on the prisoners' route, you seemed to foreground this point in explaining the rationale for your being convinced by Hunt:
If it was purpose built as a homicidal gas chamber, the layout and location far away from the crematorium is very odd.
Given this focus, I replied by addressing two points you seem to misunderstand - 1) the gas chamber is not thought to have been purpose built for killing and 2) the distance between the gas chamber and the crematory is not very odd at all, in context.

But apparently I missed where you explained the basis for your views on the route prisoners took. So, apologies. Black Rabbit has kindly pointed this out - or is Black Rabbit now applying to be your spokesperson?
BlackRabbit wrote:. . . you have no idea what changed Nessie's mind.

Primarily, Original blueprints that prove prisoners went the opposite way through Bath 1 and 2 and the museum deliberately mislabels rooms. . . .

Nessie's reasoning is simple . . .
So, since your source for the way prisoners passed through the bathhouse is the "Original blueprints," could you please say more about them (date, contents, author, etc) and why they persuade you so much?

(On that note, I thank scrmbldggs for sharing the note from Curilla, which seems to counter the source you're relying on as well as the notion that "Believers" insist that the victims - whoops, I'm getting ahead of myself, that is, the Haftlinge showered first - and, though it may cause Mary to burst a valve, I think it's just fine and dandy that the information comes to us by way of a judicial proceeding.)

I do not want to drop the question of how you're persuaded by Hunt's simple, misleading (or simply misleading) argument about the distance between the bathhouse-bunker complex and the crematory. I'm quite interested in how, in the context I described, this point is meaningful - or whether you can explain to me how I have the context wrong. So I hope you'll return to this topic, as well as what to the topic of what you find so significant about the photo you shared.

In the meantime, I take note that Black Rabbit must be very frustrated to be dwelling on my supposedly being a liar and a knave - and racist to boot - just for asking you about how you've reached your views.

SM
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

BlackRabbit
BANNED
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by BlackRabbit » Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:09 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Nessie,
So, since your source for the way prisoners passed through the bathhouse is the "Original blueprints," could you please say more about them (date, contents, author, etc) and why they persuade you so much?

In the meantime, I take note that Black Rabbit must be very frustrated to be dwelling on my being a liar and a knave - and racist to boot - just for asking you about how you've reached your views.

SM
How did Nessie reach their views?

They watched the MOVIE which is the subject of this post, you {!#%@} moron.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:27 am

BlackRabbit wrote:How did Nessie reach their views?

They watched the MOVIE which is the subject of this post, you {!#%@} moron.
Thanks for your thoughtful input. Are you the Black Rabbit of Insults?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Nessie » Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:58 am

The more I get information about Majdanek, the less I find the gas chamber narrative convincing. The original plan Hunt shows on the video, has any got its source? It shows the entrance marked at the chamber side. So that is the opposite way to how the museum has it.

Then BRoI has posted this image, the first I have seen of how it was.

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/c6d3eaf9c02 ... 577a60.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is totally unlike any other gas chamber set up and it completely lacks the security required. Deception is involved, but also security is needed for what was a secretive operative cloaked in code words and death camps razed to the ground and gas chambers destroyed by retreating Nazis.

Add that to a Soviet desire to set the Nazis up and no wonder everything that was lockable and had some staining became a homicidal gas chamber. The work to the site to display how the gassings took place happened after the Soviets arrived. Seeing what the actual set up is, no wonder.

I see the present museum site makes no reference at all to gas chambers.

http://www.majdanek.eu/articles.php?key ... &x=18&y=17" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Nessie » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:30 pm

BlackRabbit wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Nessie,
So, since your source for the way prisoners passed through the bathhouse is the "Original blueprints," could you please say more about them (date, contents, author, etc) and why they persuade you so much?

In the meantime, I take note that Black Rabbit must be very frustrated to be dwelling on my being a liar and a knave - and racist to boot - just for asking you about how you've reached your views.

SM
How did Nessie reach their views?

They watched the MOVIE which is the subject of this post, you {!#%@} moron.
Denier/revisionists with your attitude damage any chance of having holocaust denial laws reversed and true freedom of speech allowed.

If you read my posts you would see Hunt is the culmination of a long time of doubt about Majdanek. For me it never fitted together properly and his reorientation of the narrative, plus evidence of Soviet propaganda makes that clearer.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Nessie » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:45 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Nessie,

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. A couple of times I asked how you knew the actual route taken by prisoners through the bathhouses and what was your source. I didn't see where you answered those questions, and when I asked if you'd tie in your conclusions about the route prisoners took through the bathhouses with your comments about this in terms of the photo you shared, I understood that you begged for more time -
Sorry for the lack of detail. I'll have to come back to this.
- and then referred to a general lack of credibility for "Majdanek's gas chambers." In fact, instead of focusing on the prisoners' route, you seemed to foreground this point in explaining the rationale for your being convinced by Hunt:
If it was purpose built as a homicidal gas chamber, the layout and location far away from the crematorium is very odd.
Given this focus, I replied by addressing two points you seem to misunderstand - 1) the gas chamber is not thought to have been purpose built for killing
I understand it was a modification, just like a number of other chambers. But seeing the original condition and how the chambers are open and separate from the rest of the building, plus the sheer number of revisions the museum has made to the numbers has created a huge cloud of doubt in my mind. I know it could be done by CO gas in the unstained chambers and even throwing Zyklon B into other chambers, but it is so impractical that the most I can realistically see is a few experiments as is on/off claimed about the Dachau gas chamber.

and 2) the distance between the gas chamber and the crematory is not very odd at all, in context.
How far is it? I have seen one source of 100 metres, but maps of the site have it at the other end of the camp.
Or is referring to cremation pyres I saw on one plan of the site?
But apparently I missed where you explained the basis for your views on the route prisoners took. So, apologies. Black Rabbit has kindly pointed this out - or is Black Rabbit now applying to be your spokesperson?
BlackRabbit wrote:. . . you have no idea what changed Nessie's mind.

Primarily, Original blueprints that prove prisoners went the opposite way through Bath 1 and 2 and the museum deliberately mislabels rooms. . . .

Nessie's reasoning is simple . . .
So, since your source for the way prisoners passed through the bathhouse is the "Original blueprints," could you please say more about them (date, contents, author, etc) and why they persuade you so much?

(On that note, I thank scrmbldggs for sharing the note from Curilla, which seems to counter the source you're relying on as well as the notion that "Believers" insist that the victims - whoops, I'm getting ahead of myself, that is, the Haftlinge showered first - and, though it may cause Mary to burst a valve, I think it's just fine and dandy that the information comes to us by way of a judicial proceeding.)

I do not want to drop the question of how you're persuaded by Hunt's simple, misleading (or simply misleading) argument about the distance between the bathhouse-bunker complex and the crematory. I'm quite interested in how, in the context I described, this point is meaningful - or whether you can explain to me how I have the context wrong. So I hope you'll return to this topic, as well as what to the topic of what you find so significant about the photo you shared.

In the meantime, I take note that Black Rabbit must be very frustrated to be dwelling on my supposedly being a liar and a knave - and racist to boot - just for asking you about how you've reached your views.

SM
I am obviously happy to be challenged, hence I started a thread specifically about the video and owned up to my shift in stance. I should have noted the time the blueprints were shown on the video, but I do not know how to do a capture so as to post such here.

The point is that how it was the delousing bath house clearly functioned very efficiently at that job, but it would have been extremely difficult to heard people in one end and back out side to then go inside a gas chamber and then bodies removed back outside and then across the camp for cremation.

I know you referred to witnesses seeing bodies being taken across the camp. I recently read Suchomel's testimony about TII and how 2/3rds of arrivals could be dead. Could it be as a transport arrived, the dead were taken from the trains as the survivors were processed?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:52 pm

Nessie wrote:The more I get information about Majdanek, the less I find the gas chamber narrative convincing. The original plan Hunt shows on the video, has any got its source? It shows the entrance marked at the chamber side. So that is the opposite way to how the museum has it.
That's not the question I asked: the question is what in that original plan do you find compelling and why. Just a sentence or two . . .
Nessie wrote:Then BRoI has posted this image, the first I have seen of how it was.

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/c6d3eaf9c02 ... 577a60.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is totally unlike any other gas chamber set up and it completely lacks the security required.
The photo is in Kranz's book. Indeed, the set-up, given the uses and small numbers involved, wouldn't be expected to be like, e.g., Auschwitz. Would you like to tell us the numbers and scale of the murders involved, in the view of the "official" narrative?

Nessie, do you have any comment on the distance argument you made and my response? I'm happy to discuss this photo, but, please, let's not jump from this to that. Doing so muddies up the discussion terribly.
Nessie wrote:Deception is involved, but also security is needed for what was a secretive operative cloaked in code words and death camps razed to the ground and gas chambers destroyed by retreating Nazis.
This sounds awfully like rhetoric substituting for specific responses to specific questions you've been asked.
Nessie wrote:Add that to a Soviet desire to set the Nazis up
The Soviets - and you should know this - downplayed the killing of the Jews, especially by the late '40s. But, more importantly, the "official narrative" "spun" today is vastly different from the charges made by the Soviets about Majdanek in the late 1940s.
Nessie wrote:. . . no wonder everything that was lockable and had some staining became a homicidal gas chamber.
Except Kranz, the museum director and someone you've been implying is a stooge of the Soviets to this day, dismisses the claims that the facility on Interfield I, charged as a murder site postwar, was for extermination of people - he says it was for disinfection - in part due to proximity to barracks; Kranz also says that the so-called "experimental chamber" in barrack no. 41 is disproved to be a murder site due to the type of door there and the chamber's internal layout - and that proof of this room's used for disinfecting clothing comes from the plans and testimony of prisoners - also that Zyklon B was used for fumigation there.

Kranz's arguments are directly counter to how you say this is being reasoned!

Kranz, I should note, also specifically rejects the Soviet charges, on p 41, where he cites the report of the Polish/Soviet Commission made in August 1944 charging 7 gas chambers, later in 1945, saying 6.
Nessie wrote:The work to the site to display how the gassings took place happened after the Soviets arrived. Seeing what the actual set up is, no wonder.
Ok, tell us how all this happened and how historians are relying on today's displays for their understanding. It seems to me, from reading Kranz's book, that he uses archival sources, not the displays. And, again, if Kranz is running with Soviet machinations, why does he critique them AND say openly that the current displays contain modifications?
Nessie wrote:I see the present museum site makes no reference at all to gas chambers.

http://www.majdanek.eu/articles.php?key ... &x=18&y=17" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This link gives me a blank search page. That's not very helpful; yes, it all this does seem simple - but stuff like this is so shoddy, I have trouble believing you actually believe it yourself. This gets to why I am pressing you on this - Hunt's methodology has always been superficial propaganda.

Please check these items from the museum's website (by the way, the gas chambers aren't made the top priority, by any means, for all the reasons I've already suggested about the camp - gassing deaths were a fraction of the total, the camp's main purposes were different to gassing, etc). These links go straight to pages a click or so from the museum website's landing page.

"Prisoners’ lives were constantly threatened. They died in the aftermath of wretched living conditions, they were executed and murdered in gas chambers. Among an estimated 150,000 prisoners who entered Majdanek, 80,000 people, including 60,000 Jews, were killed according to the most recent research. In order to remove the traces of the crimes, the corpses of those who died and the murdered were burnt on pyres or in the crematorium."

"The panels with accounts are related with the most important aspects of the camp existence and landmarks in the Majdanek history. They include descriptions concerning e.g. reception of newly arrived prisoners, plunder of property, selections, labour, extermination in gas chambers, or mass murder of Jews of November 3, 1943."

"Jews had to pass through selection, as a result of which they could be put to death in the gas chamber. . . . < photo > Gas chamber bunker . . . The first concept for setting up the Museum arose in 1949. Prisoner barracks remained only in Field III. Bathhouses, gas chambers, and the crematoria were also preserved. . . . The outdoor exhibition complements the historical exhibition. Its central elements are glass display panels with historical commentaries. They are installed inside original camp buildings (the bathhouse, the gas chamber bunker, prisoner barracks in Field III, and the crematorium), and along the route visitors follow. These make up a historical trail titled 'Konzentrationslager Lublin 1941-1944.' . . . There are two brick buildings within the Museum boundaries (the gas chamber bunker and the so-called white cottage) as well as almost 90 ruins. . . . When visiting the grounds of the former concentration camp at Majdanek, it is worth paying special attention
to the following objects . . . - the gas chamber bunker . . .”


Just to be clear, the Kranz book I keep referring to was ordered through the Majdanek State Museum website and was published by the museum. Why do I keep citing this book? As I told you, I haven't read deeply about Majdanek - but not one thing you've said takes me past Kranz's arguments.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

BlackRabbit
BANNED
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by BlackRabbit » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:22 pm

I think this statistical liar should be banned for spreading disinformation on a movie he admits he never saw.

Ignorant liar.

It has information about the true path through bath buildings he REFUSES to be exposed to.

He shouldn't be allowed to comment on a film he refused to see.

SM - "Gaaas came down instead of da waater ! "

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:26 pm

To be clear, you implied that the complex was not modified when you wrote
Nessie wrote:If it was purpose built as a homicidal gas chamber . . .
I think Hunt downplays improvisation and repurposing to deceive people.
Nessie wrote:But seeing the original condition and how the chambers are open and separate from the rest of the building,
This is precisely what I don't understand, for 3 reasons. First, the gas chamber structure was under a pavilion roof that both bathhouses abutted; if that roof were there today, the site would "look like" three structures conjoined. Second, the distance is but 5 or so feet from the eastern bathhouse to the gas chamber entry - and there was a wooden landing between the two (see Kranz Photo 10, which I will scan and post if you want). Third, I don't understand, still, why this configuration - in an adapted structure - means that the gas chamber wasn't for killing. I really am struggling with your repetition of this assertion: how hard is it for people to walk some feet off an originally planned pathway?
Nessie wrote:plus the sheer number of revisions the museum has made to the numbers has created a huge cloud of doubt in my mind.
Again, we will have to agree to disagree - if you can't show me how historians utilize inaccurate reconstructions, I still don't get what you're arguing. I do get that you're arguing that the museum display is bad, but I don't get what that says about the documentation Kranz uses, for example, which I've told you is not the museum display.

Also your argument seems to be that the museum authorities got this wrong years ago, current administrators are sorting it out - but the sorting out proves that what the current research says is wrong because they story has changed. This is worse than circular logic.
Nessie wrote:I know it could be done by CO gas in the unstained chambers and even throwing Zyklon B into other chambers, but it is so impractical that the most I can realistically see is a few experiments as is on/off claimed about the Dachau gas chamber.
Why is CO poisoning, which I've told you Kranz argues was by far the preponderant method, impractical? Your saying it is impractical doesn't make it so. And, as I wrote to David, impractical is not the same as "not optimal." We've already agreed to an improvised character of this operation . . .
Nessie wrote:How far is it? I have seen one source of 100 metres, but maps of the site have it at the other end of the camp.
It was not 100 metres. I told you how far the cremation areas were, and also you can see on the map the original crematory basically next to the bunker. The new crematory, which operated only for the last phases of the gassings, according to what I can figure out, was indeed on "the other side of the camp." If you want, I can post what Kranz uses - the camp plan - with these areas highlighted.

Again, given the repurposing involved, the numbers involved, the many corpses coming from other causes, and the use of trucks and multiple corpse disposal sites, you seem fixated on a non-issue. This camp was not like Birkenau yet you seem to be reasoning from Birkenau's context.

I point you to testimony of Jerzy Kwiatkowski, cited in Kranz, p 53:
Only a relatively small number of people could be killed each day in the gas chamber.
I hear your objections as objections to a mistaken view you have of the camp and what is being said about it. In short, you're beating down a kind of strawman - no one disagrees that these facilities could handle only a small number of people - and that is what it is argued they did.
Nessie wrote:I am obviously happy to be challenged, hence I started a thread specifically about the video and owned up to my shift in stance. I should have noted the time the blueprints were shown on the video, but I do not know how to do a capture so as to post such here.

The point is that how it was the delousing bath house clearly functioned very efficiently at that job, but it would have been extremely difficult to heard people in one end and back out side to then go inside a gas chamber and then bodies removed back outside and then across the camp for cremation.
Thanks, but how many people a day or at a time? See quote above.

The reason I am not persuaded by the original plans is that the original plans for the complex, per Kranz, were indeed for disinfection. The complex according to Kranz, citing construction records, were changed when during August-September 1942. Again, with the small numbers of victims - er, Haftlinge - involved and from what I can tell of the layout, neither the original plans nor the difficulties you mention are compelling.
Nessie wrote:I know you referred to witnesses seeing bodies being taken across the camp. I recently read Suchomel's testimony about TII and how 2/3rds of arrivals could be dead. Could it be as a transport arrived, the dead were taken from the trains as the survivors were processed?
For sure. Or people who died from shootings, disease, starvation, overwork, etc.

The point, first, is that moving bodies around the camp in trucks and trailers was fairly routine - so the distance argument Hunt pushes and you picked up makes no sense. Second, there are problems for what you want to be the case with the testimonies. For example, Rudolf Ettrich specifically describes people taken to the bathhouse and
Later, I saw naked bodies being carried out of the barracks and loaded onto a wooden wagon.
His language isn't ours today - I take him to differentiate bathhouse from bunker, but maybe not. Still, problematic for Hunt's view. Zygmunt Godlweksi worked emptying the gas chambers, and Jerzy Kwaitkowski reported that bodies of those gassed in the chambers were loaded onto trailers and hauled away on trailers. (Kranz, pp 59-60)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:28 pm

BlackRabbit wrote:I think this statistical liar should be banned for spreading disinformation on a movie he admits he never saw.

Ignorant liar.

It has information about the true path through bath buildings he REFUSES to be exposed to.

He shouldn't be allowed to comment on a film he refused to see.

SM - "Gaaas came down instead of da waater ! "
Tsk, tsk, all insults but nothing of substance . . . I am concluding that what I'm asking is too hard for you.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

BlackRabbit
BANNED
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by BlackRabbit » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:32 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:To be clear, you implied that the complex was not modified when you wrote
Nessie wrote:If it was purpose built as a homicidal gas chamber . . . I think Hunt downplays improvisation and repurposing to deceive people.
How would you know? You haven't even watched the film, you ignorant liar.

It's clear the video shows the Majdanek museum under Soviet occupation who boarded up the original entrances and to this day mislabels rooms to claim prisoners went the opposite way through the bath buildings are the deceivers.

Or do you believe Joos took hot showers before gassings to open their pores, you monstrous myth peddler?

What kind of board allows this liar with his preset responses to post so much on a video he actively refuses to see?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27560
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:36 pm

BlackRabbit wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:To be clear, you implied that the complex was not modified when you wrote
Nessie wrote:If it was purpose built as a homicidal gas chamber . . . I think Hunt downplays improvisation and repurposing to deceive people.
How would you know? You haven't even watched the film, you ignorant liar.

It's clear the video shows the Majdanek museum under Soviet occupation who boarded up the original entrances and to this day mislabels rooms to claim prisoners went the opposite way through the bath buildings are the deceivers.

Or do you believe Joos took hot howers before gassings to open their pores, you monstrous myth peddler?
LOL - it is funny how a few questions and comments have set you off . . . now, if you read my posts, you will know what I think about all this . . . but you'd rather hurl insults . . . I was told in my youth not to engage in pissing contests with skunks . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

BlackRabbit
BANNED
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by BlackRabbit » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:41 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Nessie wrote:But seeing the original condition and how the chambers are open and separate from the rest of the building,
This is precisely what I don't understand...I really am struggling with your repetition of this assertion...I still don't get what you're arguing.
Big surprise, you're confused about a film you haven't seen, which presents information you haven't seen.

Lying, prejudiced hater.

This liar is posting twenty posts about a film he brags he refuses to watch. He should be banned from this thread.

Statistically stupid !

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9995
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:52 pm

Banned.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Nessie » Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:11 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:To be clear, you implied that the complex was not modified when you wrote
Nessie wrote:If it was purpose built as a homicidal gas chamber . . .
I think Hunt downplays improvisation and repurposing to deceive people.
Nessie wrote:But seeing the original condition and how the chambers are open and separate from the rest of the building,
This is precisely what I don't understand, for 3 reasons. First, the gas chamber structure was under a pavilion roof that both bathhouses abutted; if that roof were there today, the site would "look like" three structures conjoined. Second, the distance is but 5 or so feet from the eastern bathhouse to the gas chamber entry - and there was a wooden landing between the two (see Kranz Photo 10, which I will scan and post if you want). Third, I don't understand, still, why this configuration - in an adapted structure - means that the gas chamber wasn't for killing. I really am struggling with your repetition of this assertion: how hard is it for people to walk some feet off an originally planned pathway?
I have already stated my issue and it that Majdanek is unlike any other homicidal gassing location due to its openness, lack of security and general impracticalities. Elsewhere once people were inside the building, that was it, they stayed inside. In some places they were cremated inside as well, or the dead were taken a very short distance to mass graves or cremations that were kept well away from sight of others.

Sobibor, TII and Belzec are very similar with locations away from other places, a layout designed to obscure what was going on inside the gas chambers and graves/cremations. A layout that also meant people arriving were herded in a restricted area to the gas chamber.

At Krema I the whole operation was inside one building and because of its proximity no outside cremations or mass graves existed. At the Birkenau Kremas most took place inside and when that was not possible there was space outside that was obscured to burn and bury.

Celmno used gas vans.Other chambers such as at the Poznan Fort were small scale and manageable for that reason. So as I said before, Majdanek is plausible for maybe small scale, experimental gassings, but not large scale as in any other death camp.

I actually cannot find numbers for those gassed, only over numbers of dead. Do you know?
Nessie wrote:plus the sheer number of revisions the museum has made to the numbers has created a huge cloud of doubt in my mind.
Again, we will have to agree to disagree - if you can't show me how historians utilize inaccurate reconstructions, I still don't get what you're arguing. I do get that you're arguing that the museum display is bad, but I don't get what that says about the documentation Kranz uses, for example, which I've told you is not the museum display.
I would need to read Kranz to comment on him.
Also your argument seems to be that the museum authorities got this wrong years ago, current administrators are sorting it out - but the sorting out proves that what the current research says is wrong because they story has changed. This is worse than circular logic.
That only applies to the museum authorities. It does not apply to all the other sources who, as I have already shown provide a very mixed bag of information. That suggests a lot of disagreement and confusion, more so than at any other site. For example

http://www.holocaust-education.dk/lejre ... slejre.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Majdanek began its gassings in October 1942. The camp functioned in the same way as Auschwitz-Birkenau, and also included a concentration- and work camp. In the autumn of 1943 the camp was closed after claiming between 60,000 and 80,000 Jewish victims."

Majdanek did not function like Auschwitz-Birkenau in terms of how the gassings took place, the layout, what was used to gas people and the history of the places in terms of what was claimed to be a gas chamber. Did Majdanek not supposedly have seven chambers attributed to gassings at one time?

That means I can justifiably ask does anyone really know and can anyone be truly sure Majdanek was a camp that ranks along with the other death sites?
Nessie wrote:I know it could be done by CO gas in the unstained chambers and even throwing Zyklon B into other chambers, but it is so impractical that the most I can realistically see is a few experiments as is on/off claimed about the Dachau gas chamber.
Why is CO poisoning, which I've told you Kranz argues was by far the preponderant method, impractical? Your saying it is impractical doesn't make it so. And, as I wrote to David, impractical is not the same as "not optimal." We've already agreed to an improvised character of this operation . . .
So how many killed? As I said I can see a few experimental gassings. Not a death camp.
Nessie wrote:How far is it? I have seen one source of 100 metres, but maps of the site have it at the other end of the camp.
It was not 100 metres. I told you how far the cremation areas were, and also you can see on the map the original crematory basically next to the bunker. The new crematory, which operated only for the last phases of the gassings, according to what I can figure out, was indeed on "the other side of the camp." If you want, I can post what Kranz uses - the camp plan - with these areas highlighted.

Again, given the repurposing involved, the numbers involved, the many corpses coming from other causes, and the use of trucks and multiple corpse disposal sites, you seem fixated on a non-issue. This camp was not like Birkenau yet you seem to be reasoning from Birkenau's context.
I am fixating on what the gassing operations were like and Majdanek is the least practical, secure and convincing for mass gassings.
I point you to testimony of Jerzy Kwiatkowski, cited in Kranz, p 53:
Only a relatively small number of people could be killed each day in the gas chamber.
I hear your objections as objections to a mistaken view you have of the camp and what is being said about it. In short, you're beating down a kind of strawman - no one disagrees that these facilities could handle only a small number of people - and that is what it is argued they did.
Any numbers for gassings a day and at a time?
Nessie wrote:I am obviously happy to be challenged, hence I started a thread specifically about the video and owned up to my shift in stance. I should have noted the time the blueprints were shown on the video, but I do not know how to do a capture so as to post such here.

The point is that how it was the delousing bath house clearly functioned very efficiently at that job, but it would have been extremely difficult to heard people in one end and back out side to then go inside a gas chamber and then bodies removed back outside and then across the camp for cremation.
Thanks, but how many people a day or at a time? See quote above.

The reason I am not persuaded by the original plans is that the original plans for the complex, per Kranz, were indeed for disinfection. The complex according to Kranz, citing construction records, were changed when during August-September 1942. Again, with the small numbers of victims - er, Haftlinge - involved and from what I can tell of the layout, neither the original plans nor the difficulties you mention are compelling.
I am not saying it could never have happened. I am saying the narrative is very dubious and I regard Majdanek as like Dachau where a sign tells tourists there may have some experimental gassings.
Nessie wrote:I know you referred to witnesses seeing bodies being taken across the camp. I recently read Suchomel's testimony about TII and how 2/3rds of arrivals could be dead. Could it be as a transport arrived, the dead were taken from the trains as the survivors were processed?
For sure. Or people who died from shootings, disease, starvation, overwork, etc.

The point, first, is that moving bodies around the camp in trucks and trailers was fairly routine - so the distance argument Hunt pushes and you picked up makes no sense. Second, there are problems for what you want to be the case with the testimonies. For example, Rudolf Ettrich specifically describes people taken to the bathhouse and
Later, I saw naked bodies being carried out of the barracks and loaded onto a wooden wagon.
His language isn't ours today - I take him to differentiate bathhouse from bunker, but maybe not.
I would take that to mean bodies from people who died in the barracks.
Still, problematic for Hunt's view. Zygmunt Godlweksi worked emptying the gas chambers, and Jerzy Kwaitkowski reported that bodies of those gassed in the chambers were loaded onto trailers and hauled away on trailers. (Kranz, pp 59-60)
This is where I need to more reading.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Nessie » Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:42 pm

The information I am finding on Majdanek is riddled with errors. For example;

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/museum/memorials/Majdanek/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

"Carbon monoxide gassing chamber. Note blue discoloration on walls"


Image

"Zyklon B gas chamber with description"


Image

"Experimental Gas Chamber. Vent in ceiling recalls the square vents at Auschwitz Crematorium II used for access to gassing columns. Zyklon B and carbon monoxide were used at Majdanek."

The gas chamber captions are the wrong way around. Here it is claimed it was experimental gassings and the chamber shown is not credited by the museum as being homicidal.

The point being that Majdanek has had so much false and mixed information put about that it stands as the least reliable source for homicidal gassings during AR.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9995
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:27 pm

The sign reads:
Image

Image
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28576
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:36 pm

Nessie wrote:...

I have already stated my issue and it that Majdanek is unlike any other homicidal gassing location due to its openness, lack of security and general impracticalities. Elsewhere once people were inside the building, that was it, they stayed inside. In some places they were cremated inside as well, or the dead were taken a very short distance to mass graves or cremations that were kept well away from sight of others.

...
Admittedly, I haven't studied much about Majdanek (KL Lublin), but it seems the layout makes more sense as described above. From the map and aerial, the bunker was well away from the rest of the camp and at the edge of it, adjacent to the bathhouses and under a large and high canopy roof, invisible from above but with plenty airflow.

It would appear that the area surrounding it was controlled by the Germans - no dwellings nearby, as there are today, and the buildings across and further up the road, Bauhof, etc. belonged to the camp.

Also, the numbers are vastly different and lower from the other camps, the Höfle telegram showing L 24733 (KL Lublin) on 12.31.1942.

I think it was similar to Auschwitz in that it wasn't strictly an extermination camp, and unlike Auschwitz in that killings in chambers occurred on an "as needed" basis, rather than the main purpose and process?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Nessie » Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:39 pm

Pyrrho wrote:The sign reads:
Image

Image
Which is still wrong compared to the captions. Majdanek is terrible when it comes to trying to get accurate and consistent information. Its history as a site of Soviet and Polish propaganda and huge over hauls of the narrative mean it is not a reliable source any more.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Nessie » Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:49 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Nessie wrote:...

I have already stated my issue and it that Majdanek is unlike any other homicidal gassing location due to its openness, lack of security and general impracticalities. Elsewhere once people were inside the building, that was it, they stayed inside. In some places they were cremated inside as well, or the dead were taken a very short distance to mass graves or cremations that were kept well away from sight of others.

...
Admittedly, I haven't studied much about Majdanek (KL Lublin), but it seems the layout makes more sense as described above. From the map and aerial, the bunker was well away from the rest of the camp and at the edge of it, adjacent to the bathhouses and under a large and high canopy roof, invisible from above but with plenty airflow.

It would appear that the area surrounding it was controlled by the Germans - no dwellings nearby, as there are today, and the buildings across and further up the road, Bauhof, etc. belonged to the camp.

Also, the numbers are vastly different and lower from the other camps, the Höfle telegram showing L 24733 (KL Lublin) on 12.31.1942.

I think it was similar to Auschwitz in that it wasn't strictly an extermination camp, and unlike Auschwitz in that killings in chambers occurred on an "as needed" basis, rather than the main purpose and process?
I think it is more like Mauthausen or Bergen-Belsen and yes there may have been as needed killings.

I disagree that it is like Birkenau in terms of security and privacy.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:51 pm

Pyrrho wrote:The sign reads:
Image

Image
This is even more pathetic than the "gas chamber never used as a gas chamber" sign that appears and disappears at Dachau. I don't need to watch Hunt's film. This signage alone proves that the idiots running the Madjanek museum are, well, idiots.

Carbon oxide? Are you serious?

What a joke!!
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9995
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:23 pm

Nessie, you may be working with outdated sources. More recent:

Image
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

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

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:37 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Banned.
Thanks Pyrrho. I'm still learning from Statistical Mechanical and other people's posts. I think that another holocaust denier, who simply shouts insults, would simply clog things up and no new information would get posted.

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

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:42 pm

Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote:Carbon oxide? Are you serious?
CO is Carbon monoxide or a "carbon oxide". What, technically, is your complaint?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... rbon-oxide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28576
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:44 pm

Perhaps that whoever wrote that information board seems to know more than one language?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: Hunts Majdanek film.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:17 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Perhaps that whoever wrote that information board seems to know more than one language?
You are sort of "on the money"

I noticed that "оксид углерода" on the Russian version means both "carbon oxide" and carbon monoxide" as the oxygen remains singular. I don't know Polish so I had a look at the Polish translation.

Carbon oxide = tlenek węgla
Carbon Monoxide = tlenek węgla

It is my guess the English version has been translated from the Polish original by a non chemist.