rebuttal to rebuttal of episode 1 Of One Third Of The Holocaust
I'd be glad to respond to the HolocaustControversies rebuttal to episode 1 of One Third Of The Holocaust.
The first part of the rebuttal discusses how historians look at convergence of testimonial evidence. The author states that it's o.k. and understandable if there are memory errors. Can a witness be discredited? Not according to this explanation. An obviously fraudulent eyewitnesses like Yankel Weirnik who claimed a guy dressed as a clown with an alarm clock tied around his neck, timed people going to the bathroom at Treblinka isn't discredited by saying such a ridiculous thing. And because A Year in Treblinka was used as a template by other witnesses, at least one other witness said the same thing as the rebuttal author points out.
The next passage makes a big deal about where the testimony of Yankel Wiernik can be found, stating that it's disingenous to say it's hard to find when it's on the web. Maybe the videomaker wanted a hard copy. By the way, the web version of Wiernik's account is great to read because you can see that Denierbud left out a lot of parts that show Wiernik is lying. Like where the naked woman leaps a 9 foot fence, from chapter 8 of A Year in Treblinka:
In other words, Denierbud doesn't include ALL the unbelievable stories.
Then the point is made that by episode 29, Denierbud has found a book that has Wiernik's account and was thus being dishonest about how hard it was to find. But maybe Denierbud didn't know about Donat's book when he made episode 1, but knew about it by episode 29. A 4-hour video takes years to make.
The next passage is all about body burning. Weirnik said women burned better than men and were thus used as kindling for fires. The rebuttal seeks a way around that absurd notion. The valid translation from the 1944 edition of Wiernik's testimony states "the male corpses would not burn at all, although they were sprinkled with benzine." The rebuttal author finds a more agreeable translation that changes it to "soaked in gasoline" (nevermind the wartime fuel shortage.) "The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn." So "sprinkled with benzine" becomes "soaked in gasoline" thereby suiting the rebuttal author.
The entire burning operation described by Wiernik is ridiculous. Sprinkling gasoline on a pile of something that doesn't burn on it's own, tends to create a temporary fire while the gas burns off. However, some things absorb the gasoline in firemaking, but human bodies don't. Thus the gasoline wets the surface and burns off.
The assertion that a guy named Herbert Floss came along and made a better burning system, is ridiculous, as is described by Carlo Mattogno and Juergen Graf in their book Treblinka: (allow 2 minutes for the Treblinka book link to download.)
It's ridiculous to talk about SS burning experts when there is no attempt to hold the heat in, or put an elevated slanted roof over the fire in rainy Poland. These are the first things anyone would have done, let alone an SS burning expert.
In the next passage the rebuttal tries to explain how a person could be shot with a gun and how the bullet could go through all the clothing and just leave a mark but not pierce the skin. The rebuttal author explains how this is possible. It's farfetched as is the part that Wiernik then kills the shooter with an axe. The rebuttal tries to explain how it's possible.
Where I do agree with the rebuttal is that I think the origin of Julian, the "scheissmeister" is not correct. It probably in reality wasn't a metal products owner who had a dispute with the union.
The rebuttal continues for many more pages but I'll pause here to see if anyone is even interested, since it hardly is meaningful if people haven't watched the video.
I'd be glad to respond to the HolocaustControversies rebuttal to episode 1 of One Third Of The Holocaust.
The first part of the rebuttal discusses how historians look at convergence of testimonial evidence. The author states that it's o.k. and understandable if there are memory errors. Can a witness be discredited? Not according to this explanation. An obviously fraudulent eyewitnesses like Yankel Weirnik who claimed a guy dressed as a clown with an alarm clock tied around his neck, timed people going to the bathroom at Treblinka isn't discredited by saying such a ridiculous thing. And because A Year in Treblinka was used as a template by other witnesses, at least one other witness said the same thing as the rebuttal author points out.
The next passage makes a big deal about where the testimony of Yankel Wiernik can be found, stating that it's disingenous to say it's hard to find when it's on the web. Maybe the videomaker wanted a hard copy. By the way, the web version of Wiernik's account is great to read because you can see that Denierbud left out a lot of parts that show Wiernik is lying. Like where the naked woman leaps a 9 foot fence, from chapter 8 of A Year in Treblinka:
In other words, Denierbud doesn't include ALL the unbelievable stories.
Then the point is made that by episode 29, Denierbud has found a book that has Wiernik's account and was thus being dishonest about how hard it was to find. But maybe Denierbud didn't know about Donat's book when he made episode 1, but knew about it by episode 29. A 4-hour video takes years to make.
The next passage is all about body burning. Weirnik said women burned better than men and were thus used as kindling for fires. The rebuttal seeks a way around that absurd notion. The valid translation from the 1944 edition of Wiernik's testimony states "the male corpses would not burn at all, although they were sprinkled with benzine." The rebuttal author finds a more agreeable translation that changes it to "soaked in gasoline" (nevermind the wartime fuel shortage.) "The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn." So "sprinkled with benzine" becomes "soaked in gasoline" thereby suiting the rebuttal author.
The entire burning operation described by Wiernik is ridiculous. Sprinkling gasoline on a pile of something that doesn't burn on it's own, tends to create a temporary fire while the gas burns off. However, some things absorb the gasoline in firemaking, but human bodies don't. Thus the gasoline wets the surface and burns off.
The assertion that a guy named Herbert Floss came along and made a better burning system, is ridiculous, as is described by Carlo Mattogno and Juergen Graf in their book Treblinka: (allow 2 minutes for the Treblinka book link to download.)
It's ridiculous to talk about SS burning experts when there is no attempt to hold the heat in, or put an elevated slanted roof over the fire in rainy Poland. These are the first things anyone would have done, let alone an SS burning expert.
In the next passage the rebuttal tries to explain how a person could be shot with a gun and how the bullet could go through all the clothing and just leave a mark but not pierce the skin. The rebuttal author explains how this is possible. It's farfetched as is the part that Wiernik then kills the shooter with an axe. The rebuttal tries to explain how it's possible.
Where I do agree with the rebuttal is that I think the origin of Julian, the "scheissmeister" is not correct. It probably in reality wasn't a metal products owner who had a dispute with the union.
The rebuttal continues for many more pages but I'll pause here to see if anyone is even interested, since it hardly is meaningful if people haven't watched the video.
Last edited:
