General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[A'isha]

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

I thought you said you read Pressac, SnakeTongue.

 

[SnakeTongue]

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

(...)

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

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

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

 

[A'isha]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dafydd]

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

About this many?




http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/28-cr-relief-for-punjab-mass-cremation-victims/254/32750/

 

[SnakeTongue]

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

This website:

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_mogilev.html

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

The wrong model:

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

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_mogilev.html​

The right model:

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

http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homep...ger_cars/Commercial_cars/commercial_cars.html

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

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

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

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_mogilev.html​

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

Here's a better view of it:

[qimg]http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/pic/bigmogilev01.jpg[/qimg]

here is a 1939 Adler:

[qimg]http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/aa/39adlerDiplomat_VGrabarj.jpg[/qimg]

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

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

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

Wrong model.

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

Who is "we"?

 

[SnakeTongue]

I thought you said you read Pressac, SnakeTongue.

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

 

[A'isha]

[qimg]http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3718/adlereagle25literspictu.jpg[/qimg]

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

 

[SnakeTongue]

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

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

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

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

Appeal to Authority.

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

No.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your absurd insistence.

 

[SnakeTongue]

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

For easy visual comparison.

 

[SnakeTongue]

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

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

 

[A'isha]

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

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

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

Appeal to Authority.

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

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

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

 

[LemmyCaution]

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

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

 

[TSR]

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

I *do* understand it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wahrheitseeker]

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

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

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

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

 

[LemmyCaution]

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

 

[threadworm]

The wrong model:

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

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_mogilev.html​

The right model:

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

http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homep...ger_cars/Commercial_cars/commercial_cars.html

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

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

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

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_mogilev.html​

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

[qimg]http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9991/novo5u.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3718/adlereagle25literspictu.jpg[/qimg]



Wrong model.

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

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

Who is "we"?

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

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

 

[tsig]

The wrong model:

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

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_mogilev.html​

The right model:

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

http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homep...ger_cars/Commercial_cars/commercial_cars.html

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

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

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

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_mogilev.html​

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

[qimg]http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9991/novo5u.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3718/adlereagle25literspictu.jpg[/qimg]



Wrong model.


Who is "we"?

Wrong model car disproves the holocaust.


.

 

[Marras]

Argument:

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

Completely illogical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FluffyPersian]

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

And another key difference besides the ones Antpogo pointed out:

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

 

[Dogzilla]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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