Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Clayton Moore]

.
"Almost instantly" is a judgment call, and not one on which I have opined. "Much quicker than lice or termites" is a matter of record -- do you dispute it? I have been in contact with both the photographer and the specific company involved in that picture, the first didn't know, and the second assures me that it was HCN. But don't trust me, call your Orkin man and get back to us.

Then maybe you'll stop running from telling us why the warning agent wasn't removed worldwide, if it was strictly a financial consideration -- and why it's not sold that way today.
.

A matter of record? What record?
Link?

 

[Wroclaw]

Try Leuchter under cross-examination.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/leuchter.fred/leuchter.04

 

[TSR]

A matter of record? What record?
Link?

,
Why? You'll just ignore that the manufacturer says so, in the link W provided, and go on pretending what you call "common sense" is neither. How about searching on Google for a source that could be useful?
,

 

[Robrob]

They're locked in the gas chamber. It's already too late for the people inside. If there was a warning agent, they would smell it at the same time they're breathing in cyanide gas. When that happens, they're going to be dying. So what's the advantage to not having the warning agent?

When you are murdering people, why would you want to tip your hand too early for any reason? A couple of hundred people prematurely alerted and smashing against a door might ruin your plan to kill them all. For some reason you seem focused on "argument from incredulity." First you can't understand why a murder might steal shoes off a corpse then you can't understand why you might not want a warning scent in your poison gas.

Your "argument" that the warning agent was eliminated to "save money" is pretzel logic. Since the guards were the ones applying it to the Jews, why wouldn't they want a warning agent? It's dangerous, right?

Maybe because they didn't want any warning?

 

[Dogzilla]

When you are murdering people, why would you want to tip your hand too early for any reason? A couple of hundred people prematurely alerted and smashing against a door might ruin your plan to kill them all. For some reason you seem focused on "argument from incredulity." First you can't understand why a murder might steal shoes off a corpse then you can't understand why you might not want a warning scent in your poison gas.

Your "argument" that the warning agent was eliminated to "save money" is pretzel logic. Since the guards were the ones applying it to the Jews, why wouldn't they want a warning agent? It's dangerous, right?

Maybe because they didn't want any warning?

First of all, I don't have any problem understanding why a murderer would steal the shoes off a corpse. What I don't understand is why a murderer who thought his victim was dead but discovers she is not would take her shoes and then shoot her in the foot instead of killing her like he intended. (which is the way it went down in the scenario you're talking about)

As to the question of the moment: the guards don't have to worry about 'tipping their hand too early.' The warning agent isn't released first followed by the cyanide gas. The warning agents and the gas are released simultaneously. If there was a warning agent in the gas, the Jews inside the gas chamber would smell the warning agent at the same time they start breathing the gas. When the Jews start breathing the gas, the Jews start dying.

You say that it's cheaper to make the gas without the warning agent is pretzel logic. Yet you do accept that without the warning agent, the gas is more dangerous to the guards who are actually deploying it against the Jews. So Zyklon B without the warning agent isn't cheaper. Zyklon B without the warning agent is more dangerous to the SS men working with it. Jews inside the gas chamber cannot get out and begin to die shortly after they are exposed to the cyanide gas whether or not there is a warning agent in the gas. So what advantage does not having the warning agent bring to the table? There must be some benefit that is important enough to justify a higher price for a more dangerous substance.

 

[Robrob]

First of all, I don't have any problem understanding why a murderer would steal the shoes off a corpse. What I don't understand is why a murderer who thought his victim was dead but discovers she is not would take her shoes and then shoot her in the foot instead of killing her like he intended. (which is the way it went down in the scenario you're talking about)

Because he's not a very good shot? Because he missed? Because after he shot her she passed out, again?

If he took her shoes without shooting her again it would be one thing but the focus on "where" she was hit (the second time) doesn't exactly invalidate the incident.

As to the question of the moment: the guards don't have to worry about 'tipping their hand too early.' The warning agent isn't released first followed by the cyanide gas. The warning agents and the gas are released simultaneously. If there was a warning agent in the gas, the Jews inside the gas chamber would smell the warning agent at the same time they start breathing the gas. When the Jews start breathing the gas, the Jews start dying.

You might want to go and read up on that. It was manufactured with the warning agent. Are you new at this?

You say that it's cheaper to make the gas without the warning agent is pretzel logic. Yet you do accept that without the warning agent, the gas is more dangerous to the guards who are actually deploying it against the Jews.

Your concern for the safety of the guards is noted. Likewise shooting the prisoners in the head is slightly dangerous to the guards as well. It's just a lot more dangerous to the people being murdered.

Like the oderant in propane, the warning agent in Zyklon-B was to alert you it was being released. If you are releasing it in a locked room of prisoners, what danger is there for the guards?

You do know there was plenty of Zykoln-B in the camp with the agent as well - that's what the guards used to fumigate the barracks. Wouldn't want any guards getting killed would we?

So Zyklon B without the warning agent isn't cheaper.

Strange, that's not what the others here have claimed. Their claim is it was a cost savings. So they were wrong?

Zyklon B without the warning agent is more dangerous to the SS men working with it. Jews inside the gas chamber cannot get out and begin to die shortly after they are exposed to the cyanide gas whether or not there is a warning agent in the gas. So what advantage does not having the warning agent bring to the table? There must be some benefit that is important enough to justify a higher price for a more dangerous substance.

Now you are claiming it cost more to manufacture it without the agent! Are you just making it up as you go?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Strange, that's not what the others here have claimed. Their claim is it was a cost savings. So they were wrong?



Now you are claiming it cost more to manufacture it without the agent! Are you just making it up as you go?

I don't know if it was cheaper or not, but since Gerstein didn't pay for anything other than a small fraction of the warning agent removed Zyklon, it is unlikely that cost was his motivation.

As I say, in view of his role as a leading member of the anti-Nazi resistance he was probably collecting material to smear the regime.

 

[LemmyCaution]

First of all, I don't have any problem understanding why a murderer would steal the shoes off a corpse. What I don't understand is why a murderer who thought his victim was dead but discovers she is not would take her shoes and then shoot her in the foot instead of killing her like he intended. (which is the way it went down in the scenario you're talking about)

He was most likely drunk, judging from Sakowicz's account of the action, and in any case, intending to kill Schloss, he failed - mistakes do happen - however, he must have thought he killed Schloss as she passed out and did not come to until a bit later, according to her account, as summarized by Kruk. I do realize that you are challenged drawing inferences from passages and re-constructing events from multiple sources, but this dumb act you're playing is a stretch even for you.

 

[little grey rabbit]

He was most likely drunk, judging from Sakowicz's account of the action, and in any case, intending to kill Schloss, he failed - mistakes do happen - however, he must have thought he killed Schloss as she passed out and did not come to until a bit later, according to her account, as summarized by Kruk. I do realize that you are challenged drawing inferences from passages and re-constructing events from multiple sources, but this dumb act you're playing is a stretch even for you.

I think it is a measure of the torrid times that Hoaxsters have been having here recently that they think the discussions of the non-existent Pesye Schloss was actually their high point.

I guess it might be like trying to write a book: "Great 20th Century French Military Achievements"

 

[LemmyCaution]

I think it is a measure of the torrid times that Hoaxsters have been having here recently that they think the discussions of the non-existent Pesye Schloss was actually their high point.

I guess it might be like trying to write a book: "Great 20th Century French Military Achievements"

You never dealt with the problems raised with your buffoonish claims, and instead impute grandiose claims to others. Who is a hoaxster here, if not you? Who ever said Pesye Schloss was a high point of any discussion? In fact, throughout the earlier chat regarding Ponar and the Great Provocation, Schloss took her place among others, whom you and the negationist claque ignored relentlessly.

In this little exchange here and now - just to highlight your thorough-going mendacity, which permeates everything you do at every level - I was responding to a post about Pesye Schloss's account, made in studied ignorance by Dogzilla. What Dogzilla claims - trying to manufacture a mystery the way you try - to be implausible is in fact plausible and easily explained from the various accounts. Nothing more, nothing less.

How is the case against OSR 24 coming along, by the way? And the specific evidence (names, orders & documents, actions, dates, etc.) for the Moscow Forgery Factory you like invoking when you need to? We have been patient, you know.

 

[Saggy]

I think it is a measure of the torrid times that Hoaxsters have been having here recently that they think the discussions of the non-existent Pesye Schloss was actually their high point

And why not? The perfect absurdity of it epitomizes the hoax. This is one of the astounding things, the in your face absurdity and chutzpah of the hoax. Best example: Elie Wiesel's pack of lies 'Night' which DISPROVES and contradicts the hoax, no gas chambers, absurd tales of throwing men/women into one burning pit and children into another, of tossing babies into the air as target practice for machine gunners, is recommended reading in many schools. That's another high point. The hoaxers revel in the absurdity of the hoax.

 

[LemmyCaution]

And why not? The perfect absurdity of it epitomizes the hoax. This is one of the astounding things, the in your face absurdity and chutzpah of the hoax. Best example: Elie Wiesel's pack of lies 'Night' which DISPROVES and contradicts the hoax, no gas chambers, absurd tales of throwing men/women into one burning pit and children into another, of tossing babies into the air as target practice for machine gunners, is recommended reading in many schools. That's another high point. The hoaxers revel in the absurdity of the hoax.

There is no argument made in this post, just vacuous hot air. Just how does Kruk's summary of Pesye Schloss's account disprove the mass slaughter carried out at Ponar the first week of September 1941? Now, what we need here is for you to give specifics, deal with the totality of the sources, and make some kind of argument. Are you up to that?

 

[Saggy]

There is no argument made in this post,

One does not argue with degenerate lies, one exposes them. Of course, to respond to a request for a single credible Jewish eyewitness to the holohoax with a non-existent person is a deft stroke, still, beyond being amusing, what is the sense of this idiocy? Ans: none.

 

[Wroclaw]

Then why are you even here?

 

[TSR]

Best example: Elie Wiesel's pack of lies 'Night' which DISPROVES and contradicts the hoax

.
That's right: and since no account of the Oz museum in Wamego, KS mentions the Colombian Theater means that they don't exist and aren't mounting a production of "The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee", which further means that (by CM's additive value of omission) Rebecca Feldman, William Finn, Rachel Sheinkin and Jay Reiss were never born...

July 13-15, 20-22, 2012
.

 

[eerok]

What's the fuss over the gas? The Nazis used what they had or could get to slaughter the Holocaust victims as quickly as possible, and it amounted to a crime against humanity that will never be forgotten.

There's nothing the Nazi apologists here have to offer that changes one iota of that fact.

 

[LemmyCaution]

One does not argue with degenerate lies, one exposes them. Of course, to respond to a request for a single credible Jewish eyewitness to the holohoax with a non-existent person is a deft stroke, still, beyond being amusing, what is the sense of this idiocy? Ans: none.

What is your argument (yes, you have to make one if you want to convince anyone beyond your little circle) that Pesye Schloss is "a non-existent person" besides "LGR said so"? We have a credible record from Kruk, which included testimony from 3 identified survivors of the shootings at Ponar in September 1941, one of whom he identified as Schloss; the tesimony of Schloss, Trojak, Katz, and the others aligned well with a separate journal kept by a Pole living near the killing site and with Jaeger's report, as well as other witness accounts cited earlier in the thread. Schloss doesn't appear in a census taken the following spring - but then, again, nor do many other Vilna Jews killed or driven underground in the fall slaughters, described by Jaeger, Sakowicz, Kruk, and many other witnesses and observers. Schloss's not appearing in the spring census is not tantamount to her not existing. If you think you can wave Schloss's account away, you are still left with the little problem of the other accounts, which confirmed the shootings at Ponar and meshed with what Kruk took down from Schloss. What is beyond belief is your incapacity to deal with any of this.

 

[Dogzilla]

You never dealt with the problems raised with your buffoonish claims, and instead impute grandiose claims to others. Who is a hoaxster here, if not you? Who ever said Pesye Schloss was a high point of any discussion? In fact, throughout the earlier chat regarding Ponar and the Great Provocation, Schloss took her place among others, whom you and the negationist claque ignored relentlessly.

Yes, the other witnesses to Ponar and the Great Provocation were relentlessly ignored because we weren't talking about Ponar and the Great Provocation. Pesye Schloss was brought up in a discussion about one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust. How her testimony takes it's place among the other eyewitness testimonies of this event is an important part of her credibility but only if other, far more fundamental qualifications are are met first. Her testimony isn't direct except for perhaps a couple of sentences. It's primarily a summary of her testimony by someone else. Plus, there doesn't appear to be any other record of this Pesye Schloss having even existed outside of Kruk's diary.

A second hand account from a person who might not even exist cannot be considered a good example of "one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust" merely because her testimony corroborates what other eyewitnesses to the event reported. Pesye Schloss is what you would expect to find if somebody were fabricating eyewitness testimony. The fact that your team can believe Pesye Schloss is worthy of being singled out as a good example of one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust reveals much about how you analyze evidence for the holocaust. It's quite frankly stunning and in any other discussion would be definite stundie of the month material. .

In this little exchange here and now - just to highlight your thorough-going mendacity, which permeates everything you do at every level - I was responding to a post about Pesye Schloss's account, made in studied ignorance by Dogzilla. What Dogzilla claims - trying to manufacture a mystery the way you try - to be implausible is in fact plausible and easily explained from the various accounts. Nothing more, nothing less.

The "various accounts" don't explain how a seemingly implausible event is plausible. The "various accounts" is how we know about a certain events; elements of which are implausible. Corroborating testimony doesn't answer any of the questionable elements of Pesye Schloss' testimony and does nothing to improve the credibility of this witness.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Yes, the other witnesses to Ponar and the Great Provocation were relentlessly ignored because we weren't talking about Ponar and the Great Provocation. Pesye Schloss was brought up in a discussion about one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust.

Yet from the outset I disagreed with the premise. And - you keep ignoring this not trivial methodological point - I brought up Schloss, in fact, along with Yudis Trojak at the outset, and the two of them for the purpose of showing how to establish credibility for any witness, that is, the account of each witness is evaluated in terms of other evidence, including but not limited to other witness testimony. This point has been stated over and over - I understand why you ignore it.

How her testimony takes it's place among the other eyewitness testimonies of this event is an important part of her credibility but only if other, far more fundamental qualifications are are met first. Her testimony isn't direct except for perhaps a couple of sentences. It's primarily a summary of her testimony by someone else.

So what? We have her words and the summary of her words - and we have other evidence that meshes with what Kruk reported her saying.

Plus, there doesn't appear to be any other record of this Pesye Schloss having even existed outside of Kruk's diary.

So what? Is Kruk unreliable? Your attachment to the bogus argument about the May 1942 census, which came on the heels of your original "reasons" for dismissing Schloss, give your game away.

A second hand account from a person who might not even exist cannot be considered a good example of "one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust" merely because her testimony corroborates what other eyewitnesses to the event reported.

Again, Schloss was never introduced to placate Saggy but to show that Saggy's premise was stupid.

Pesye Schloss is what you would expect to find if somebody were fabricating eyewitness testimony.

So you are charging Kruk with fabricating evidence? What is your evidence for this charge? Why is Kruk not credible? Recall, just for starters, that his journal contains another account, presented in a similar way to that of Schloss, and another contemporary diary also cites that person's testimony. Recall that Sakowicz's diary meshes with these accounts, and others, recorded in Kruk. Here is that ugly double standard of yours - you will believe, apparently, in mythical Moscow Forgery Factories and in Kruk's lying without one shred of evidence - and yet for an "unfriendly" eyewitness you seem to want birth certificate, real-time video, fingerprints, and voice analysis. It's absurd.

The fact that your team can believe Pesye Schloss is worthy of being singled out as a good example of one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust reveals much about how you analyze evidence for the holocaust. It's quite frankly stunning and in any other discussion would be definite stundie of the month material. .

Well, first, I am not on a team, and, second, Pesye Schloss wasn't "nominated" to be a single credible witness. She was named, along with Yudis Trojak, in fact, in order to promote a discussion about an act of genocide and how we know about it. That her account was taken down by a reliable observer, and meshes with other accounts, makes it credible. You haven't even scratched the surface here - because, despite your earlier statements, you yourself are playing Saggy's "one-witness one at a time" game. Which has nothing to do with doing history. For Ponar or anything else.

The "various accounts" don't explain how a seemingly implausible event is plausible.

What is implausible about the account which Schloss gave to Kruk? Nothing that any of you has claimed.

The "various accounts" is how we know about a certain events; elements of which are implausible.

No, not implausible – and it is the multiple accounts that show how things unfolded and what makes sense in the context. To take one point: Some on this board have said that a shooter missing his victim is preposterous. All one need do is read and compare the accounts, which convey precisely why such a thing as an errant shot is not only plausible but makes perfect sense: large numbers of bodies thrown together into a pit, a long day of stressful activity on the part of the shooters (not to mention the survivors), 1000s of victims, the killers shooting "while they were drunk," chaotic looting, and even one leader of the shooters, drunk, running on the road in a looted woman's fur coat. You see, without the other sources you don't know these things - and not knowing these things, you stupidly call Schloss's account implausible. Oh, and by the way, the same witness who gave these details, Sakowicz, described that there were survivors of the slaughter - and said that the survivors were women and children, who had contact with locals - you see, just what Kruk reported.

Corroborating testimony doesn't answer any of the questionable elements of Pesye Schloss' testimony and does nothing to improve the credibility of this witness.

I suggest you stop playing Jimmy the Dunce and read the accounts. You clearly don't know what you're talking about - and restating your ignorance doesn't turn it into knowledge.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Your concern for the safety of the guards is noted.

Just how is an odorless poisonous gas contended with by the people who emptied the alleged gas chambers?