Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Dogzilla]

Considering that it was you who introduced several errors and misinterpretations into the discussion, not least of which was mistaking a secondary source for a primary source, I'm not sure you're in the best position to be whining about anything.

When I wasn't paying attention I thought this Pesye Schloss was an eyewitness. An easy mistake because the request was to name one credible eyewitness to the holocaust. I assumed somebody would offer an actual eyewitness, not a second hand account of something an eyewitness said. Sometimes I give you guys too much credit.

When I actually looked up the source I realized how pathetic it was.

LemmyCaution flagged up a witness mentioned in Hermann Kruk's diary. That diary is a primary source.

And the diary is what should have been offered. Not an account of something written in the diary.

Even Clayton Moore managed to manipulate Google Books to go to the original source, although he clearly misunderstood it, as then did you, cueing off Clayton Moore's incredulity.

Actually he understood it quite clearly. It's the source material that wasn't clear.

Then you find that the same witness was mentioned in a secondary source, a book by Samuel Kassow which is on the Oneg Shabes archive. Probably that was by googling, is my guess.

Good guess.

Do you actually own the book?

Hell no.

The main subject of that book is Emanuel Ringelblum, the secondary subject is the Warsaw ghetto. What happened in Vilnius comes up a few times but is clearly not the main subject. It seems you cannot decipher footnotes very well as you apparently didn't realise Kassow's source for his paraphrase was... Kruk. Probably Google Books didn't give you access to the footnotes.

I would recommend offering relevant source material in the future. Maybe this sort of confusion wouldn't occur.

Things become even funnier when, having had the source of your error explained to you, there now begins the typical Dogzilla huffing and puffing about historians and the Holocaust and teams and 'you guys' and all the rest of it.

One would have to conclude that you simply have never read very much on any subject not to realise that in order to be readable, virtually every single book has to condense and paraphrase its sources, and can only highlight select sources for verbatim quotation. This is not unique to the Holocaust. It really isn't. If you read about the same event in several different sources, there are almost invariably differences in how the original source is condensed. A million and one possible variations can creep in to telling the same story from the same sources. That's just how writing and language are. Yet now you insist others get their story straight, when it is you and Clayton Moore who couldn't even comprehend the primary source properly.

I would recommend offering relevant source material in the future. When somebody asks for a credible eyewitness to the holocaust, it's better to offer something that tells us what the eyewitness witnessed with their eyes--not somebody else's second hand hearsay evidence.

Thing is, others had their story straight from the beginning. LemmyCaution mentioned Schloss because he has Kruk's diary. That was his source, which is a primary source. He invoked Schloss because he knows quite a bit about the Wilno ghetto and the circumstances of the various killing actions in 1941 at Ponary.

He should have invoked Kruk. That was the primary source.

Maybe you remember a flop-eared poster named little grey rabbit who used to pop up every so often and is currently on suspension. Well, the bunny came a spectacular cropper over Ponary and the actions against the Wilno ghetto. I'm sure some of the members here know the catchphrase that goes along with that debacle. I'm also sure that memories of that never to be written page of glory in the history of revisionism prompted LemmyCaution to proffer a Wilno ghetto witness to see whether the menagerie would bite. Although maybe bite isn't the right word, since you're all as incoherent as gramps without his dentures.

That must be before my time or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. I don't pay attention to eyewitness testimony when what they say happened is impossible.

It's actually amusing to watch you and other deniers flail around hopelessly dithering over one hearsay witness, falling into what ought to have been a pretty obvious trap set by LemmyCaution, ignoring the small herd of elephants in the room, namely the totality of evidence regarding the Wilno ghetto. You are so predictable you fall into these heffalump traps every freaking time, and never learn, never realise where you are going wrong, and never once bother to do more than google up a rapid-fire response. It's really, really funny watching you guys flail around like this.

You got us with that one! We ask for evidence. You offer us really bad evidence. We do a little research and find out that it's really bad evidence. Then you tell us that you knew that all along and that while we were spinning our wheels on bad evidence we missed all the good evidence! We fall for it every time!!!

I think I figured out what Saggy is doing here. So you don't have any credible eyewitnesses do you? Not a single one?

 

[Dogzilla]

Just a quick note: Decomposition would hardly be "negligible" given the propensity of the Nazis (and others) to use quicklime.

The joys of folk-science. Quicklime dehydrates which would slow down decomposition. Look it up.

 

[Nick Terry]

Say what?

British idiom

the incident is now fondly remembered across multiple forums as "it was dated September... it wasn't dated at all". LemmyCaution can explain more, by PM if necessary.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You have yet to explain why you find the incident incredible.

According to the source document, the child was unconscious. For some reason you continue to claim she was "playing dead."



Essentially your response has boiled down to "she's not credible, she's a liar" without a single shred of evidence presented to contradict her story.

To compound their problem - just read Dogzilla's pathetic handwaving above - they need to deal not just with Pesye Schloss but with other evidence for the action in which she was shot, all of it aligning and describing this event.

As to Dogzilla's bizarre and desperate claim now that Pesye Schloss was not an eyewitness, of course she was. She was a victim-survivor, was interviewed by Herman Kruk (along with other victim survivors), had what she witnessed recorded by Kruk. Her testimony was taken and recorded on 4 September 1941, Pesye Schloss had been taken to Lukiszki Prison on 2 September, then to Ponar on 3 September. Her account is not confusing - Clayton Moore and Dogzilla simply misread it and made up silliness about it. And now, to extract himself, Dogzilla wants to differ with the normal definition of eyewitness - which is someone who has first-hand knowledge of an event and tells about it. That is what Pesye Schloss was - and not what Kruk was. Kruk was the person who, gathering and recording evidence about the fate of Vilna, took Schloss's first-hand account of her experience during a mass execution at Ponar. By Dogzilla's own admission, he doesn't know what he is talking about with Schloss, Ponar, or Vilna. He seems proud not to have or be familiar with the contents of Kassow's book on Oyneg Shabes in Warsaw. No wonder he makes so many elementary gaffes and then totes them up as important points: he doesn't know the context or sources for the events he tries to debunk.

So, again, as to the eyewitness Pesye Schloss, who offered first-hand knowledge of the early September mass execution of Vilna Jews at Ponar, can the deniers tell what were the lies they claim she told and how they know she lied? Then, can they explain how Yudis Trojak, another eyewitness, whose first-hand experience in the same murder action was taken down by Kruk, lied and how they know she lied? And then can they further explain Sakowicz's Ponar diary, which provides additional first-hand evidence for the same action, and Jaeger's official report of December 1941 describing in part the same event? And, finally, might they deal with a secondary source, Arad's account in Ghetto in Flames, and tell us the supposed problems with that reconstruction of the events of the first week of September 1941 in Vilna and at Ponar?

Or will they continue not to pay attention and to throw around words like "weak" and "pathetic" without so much as a single argument as to how they reached such a conclusion?

 

[LemmyCaution]

When I wasn't paying attention I thought this Pesye Schloss was an eyewitness. An easy mistake because the request was to name one credible eyewitness to the holocaust. I assumed somebody would offer an actual eyewitness, not a second hand account of something an eyewitness said. . . . And the diary is what should have been offered. Not an account of something written in the diary. . . . He should have invoked Kruk. That was the primary source.

No, you asked for an eyewitness. According to this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eyewitness, an eyewitness is "person present at an event who can describe what happened." That was Pesye Schloss, not Herman Kruk. Please try to pay attention to your own questions and not bounce and hop around like, well, a rabbit. What was requested was a single eyewitness. Pesye Schloss was a single eyewitness. Her testimony was taken not in a court of law or in a journalistic publication but by a chronicler of the Vilna ghetto, Herman Kruk. Herman Kruk took and recorded other eyewitness testimony as well as writing down hearsay about this incident. The evidence he recorded forms part of a long project of Kruk's, which was to document and explain the fate of Vilna Jews under Nazi occupation. Unfortunately for your case, his work aligns with other contemporary documents, with which you seem unfamiliar or perhaps to which you have not paid attention. The least we can ask, since history does not seem to be your metier, is that you be honest about what you write and use terms like eyewitness in their usual sense, unless you pre-define them in some consistent and public Sonder manner. You come across as thoroughly dishonest and quite desperate, you should know. That is along with your proud ignorance of events about which you have formed ungrounded and unexplained, but firm, opinions and attempt - I say attempt because that is what you do - to argue.

 

[erwinl]

No, you asked for an eyewitness. According to this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eyewitness, an eyewitness is "person present at an event who can describe what happened." That was Pesye Schloss, not Herman Kruk. Please try to pay attention to your own questions and not bounce and hop around like, well, a rabbit. What was requested was a single eyewitness. Pesye Schloss was a single eyewitness. Her testimony was taken not in a court of law or in a journalistic publication but by a chronicler of the Vilna ghetto, Herman Kruk. Herman Kruk took and recorded other eyewitness testimony as well as writing down hearsay about this incident. The evidence he recorded forms part of a long project of Kruk's, which was to document and explain the fate of Vilna Jews under Nazi occupation. Unfortunately for your case, his work aligns with other contemporary documents, with which you seem unfamiliar or perhaps to which you have not paid attention. The least we can ask, since history does not seem to be your metier, is that you be honest about what you write and use terms like eyewitness in their usual sense, unless you pre-define them in some consistent and public Sonder manner. You come across as thoroughly dishonest and quite desperate, you should know. That is along with your proud ignorance of events about which you have formed ungrounded and unexplained, but firm, opinions and attempt - I say attempt because that is what you do - to argue.

It almost sounds like he actually wants to have a witness to participate in this topic on this forum for it to be acceptable to him. Anything less would be handwaved away as a second hand account

 

[Dave Rogers]

It almost sounds like he actually wants to have a witness to participate in this topic on this forum for it to be acceptable to him. Anything less would be handwaved away as a second hand account

But if an eyewitness posted personally in this forum, then they'd be presenting themselves, rather than being presented by Nick Terry, so he'd still be able to claim they didn't satisfy his completely arbitrary conditions. I think what he's actually claiming is that if Nick Terry didn't personally witness the Holocaust, then it never actually happened.

Dave

 

[erwinl]

But if an eyewitness posted personally in this forum, then they'd be presenting themselves, rather than being presented by Nick Terry, so he'd still be able to claim they didn't satisfy his completely arbitrary conditions. I think what he's actually claiming is that if Nick Terry didn't personally witness the Holocaust, then it never actually happened.

Dave

True

 

[LemmyCaution]

But if an eyewitness posted personally in this forum, then they'd be presenting themselves, rather than being presented by Nick Terry, so he'd still be able to claim they didn't satisfy his completely arbitrary conditions. I think what he's actually claiming is that if Nick Terry didn't personally witness the Holocaust, then it never actually happened.

Dave

I think it might constitute reliable evidence if what could be presented in this forum were Nick Terry witnessing the Holocaust, all of it at once, first hand, in real time. That might be acceptable.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think it might constitute reliable evidence if what could be presented in this forum were Nick Terry witnessing the Holocaust, all of it at once, first hand, in real time. That might be acceptable.

It would also be consistent with the un-stated aim of all Holocaust deniers, which is to have another go but do it more thoroughly this time. Maybe they just want Nick to watch.

Dave

 

[LemmyCaution]

That must be before my time or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. I don't pay attention to eyewitness testimony when what they say happened is impossible.

Well, of course, that goes without saying. But what you fail to grasp is that Nick's friendly advice to you could actually save you further embarrassment - were you to read about Vilna and Ponar, and to familiarize yourself with the misrepresentations and errors of your cohorts concerning the events there in summer and fall 1941, you might not be so prone to uttering stupidities in this discussion. Your choice, for sure, whether to blether on in vain know-nothingism or actually to try and know something about what's under discussion.

 

[Saggy]

I think I figured out what Saggy is doing here. So you don't have any credible eyewitnesses do you? Not a single one?

Well, it took a while, but you got it.

 

[Wroclaw]

The joys of folk-science. Quicklime dehydrates which would slow down decomposition. Look it up.

Well, then, it's a good thing that when you shoot somebody, they bleed. The dead also tend to evacuate at the time of death.

 

[Nick Terry]

It would also be consistent with the un-stated aim of all Holocaust deniers, which is to have another go but do it more thoroughly this time. Maybe they just want Nick to watch.

Dave

This prompts whimsical musings about an Auschwitz reenactment society, a la the Sealed Knot. Curiously*, one doesn't appear to exist, although someone seems to have toyed with the idea

*[sarcasm]

 

[Cyrix686]

Dogzilla writes:

The joys of folk-science. Quicklime dehydrates which would slow down decomposition. Look it up.

Indeed yet unslaked lime is regularly used in animal carcass disposal.

As the carcasses are placed in the trench, they should be covered with unslaked lime (CaO) at a rate of 85 kg per 1000 kg of material buried. This will accelerate decomposition, discourage burrowing animals and prevent earthworms bringing contaminated material to the surface after pit closure. The last carcasses should then be covered with an additional 400 mm of soil, and an unbroken layer of unslaked lime should be added before filling is completed (USFWS 1995).

http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/1210632/disposal-manual.pdf

Take it up with the aussies if you think it's wrong. In fact simply google unslaked lime and carcass disposals and you will find countless examples where this looks like standard procedure. And they are not doing it to make animal carcasses look pretty.

Eggcosy? Well denier, it was all scrambled eggs to me.

 

[uke2se]

I think it might constitute reliable evidence if what could be presented in this forum were Nick Terry witnessing the Holocaust, all of it at once, first hand, in real time. That might be acceptable.

Not unless he caught it all on film and posted it to JooToobe. Remember, we are dealing with retarded CT logic here.

 

[Dogzilla]

Well, it took a while, but you got it.

What can I say? My IQ is only fifty points higher than retarded.

 

[Dogzilla]

Dogzilla writes:

The joys of folk-science. Quicklime dehydrates which would slow down decomposition. Look it up.

Indeed yet unslaked lime is regularly used in animal carcass disposal.

As the carcasses are placed in the trench, they should be covered with unslaked lime (CaO) at a rate of 85 kg per 1000 kg of material buried. This will accelerate decomposition, discourage burrowing animals and prevent earthworms bringing contaminated material to the surface after pit closure. The last carcasses should then be covered with an additional 400 mm of soil, and an unbroken layer of unslaked lime should be added before filling is completed (USFWS 1995).

http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/1210632/disposal-manual.pdf

Take it up with the aussies if you think it's wrong. In fact simply google unslaked lime and carcass disposals and you will find countless examples where this looks like standard procedure. And they are not doing it to make animal carcasses look pretty.

Eggcosy? Well denier, it was all scrambled eggs to me.

I guess quicklime and unslaked lime aren't the same thing. Quicklime slows down decomposition. Take it up with the Americans if you think it's wrong.

 

[uke2se]

What can I say? My IQ is only fifty points higher than retarded.

I think your math is off.

 

[Corsair 115]

I think I figured out what Saggy is doing here. So you don't have any credible eyewitnesses do you? Not a single one?

I'm still waiting for the one credible witness to the fantastical global Jewish conspiracy of Saggy's which controls the media, academia, and everything else.