CW Porter's Website

[hermod]

As for the Himmler stuff: it is not eyewitness testimony from Himmler so is irrelevant. And the secondhand account from Masur (which is really the only credible one - the other guys are trying to save their necks by pleading ignorance of the Holocaust) does not mention the Aktion Reinhardt camps, which had long since been razed, and is focused on Belsen and Buchenwald and Terezin, which were in the press. (Though Terezin had not been liberated yet, atrocity accounts about it were circulating.)

In the interview with Masur, Himmler didn't plead ignorance of the Holocaust. He denied its existence. Himmler told Masur that the crematories in the German camps were not criminal facilities but mere sanitary facilities constructed and used to curb epidemics and especially typhus. Given the fact that U.S. propagandists had been portraying those crematories as weapons of mass murder for several months (noisy campaign of atrocity propaganda based on the Vrba-Wetzler "report" from November 1944) when Himmler and Masur met, Himmler's words on the KL crematories amounted to denying the Holocaust itself.

https://postimg.cc/RqmYK7CP

https://postimg.cc/H8Dwb9CT

[Hektor]

As for the Himmler stuff: it is not eyewitness testimony from Himmler so is irrelevant. And the secondhand account from Masur (which is really the only credible one - the other guys are trying to save their necks by pleading ignorance of the Holocaust) does not mention the Aktion Reinhardt camps, which had long since been razed, and is focused on Belsen and Buchenwald and Terezin, which were in the press. (Though Terezin had not been liberated yet, atrocity accounts about it were circulating.)

In the interview with Masur, Himmler didn't plead ignorance of the Holocaust. He denied its existence. Himmler told Masur that the crematories in the German camps were not criminal facilities but mere sanitary facilities constructed and used to curb epidemics and especially typhus. Given the fact that U.S. propagandists had been portraying those crematories as weapons of mass murder for several months (noisy campaign of atrocity propaganda based on the Vrba-Wetzler "report" from November 1944) when Himmler and Masur met, Himmler's words on the KL crematories amounted to denying the Holocaust itself.
...

It would have been the wrong defense strategy anyway. You don't plead ignorance of something you'd know to be true (if it was real), you'd plead that you were coerced to participate or to be silent about this.

When Germans say they didn't know anything about the Holocaust,... then they were speaking truthfully and sincere.

[HistorySpeaks]

Hermod,

Again, we have no first hand testimony from Himmler; we have second-hand recollections of what Himmler supposedly said to other people.

The people who were 'trying to save their necks' (and therefore had a powerful incentive to lie about what Himmler had told them) were Frank and Lammers.

As to Masur, nothing in his recorded recollections of his meeting with Himmler refers to the Reinhardt camps. They are talking about the KZs which is a completely different concept and system in German parlance than the AR camps. As another commentator noted, the word Durchgangslager is used to describe the AR camps, not concentration camps.

Regardless, neither Masur, nor Frank, nor Lammers constitute eyewitness testimony concerning AR. We need it from the horse's mouth himself (a recorded or transcribed statement from Himmler), not these secondhand recollections.

I'd be interested to see one of you respond to my point concerning Ohlendorf as well, and the quotations (printed in Mattogno's book, of all places) clearly describing his confession that the EG was systematically exterminating Jewish civilians (including kids).

[fireofice]

Fine lets say I was wrong about Ohlendorf. Walter Haensch said he knew of no such order.

As for their motives for lying, yes I get that you don't accept their testimonies. The point is that to say these testimonies don't exist is incorrect. I also reject "survivor testimony" because I think they have motive to lie and in this case, lots of evidence they are lying. But it would be stupid of me to say "there is no testimony about gas chambers".

[curioussoul]

What's compelling about the Holocaust testimony is the extreme convergence of testimonial evidence: literally all eyewitnesses (at the Reinhardt camps and for the Einsatzgruppen mass shootings) say the same thing was happening: systematic extermination of Jews. That is an extraordinary (100%) convergence and cannot be undermined by showing odd or mistaken or exaggerated features of this or that testimony.

There is no such "convergence", and what illusory convergence might be discernible in the mess of Holocaust eyewitness testimonies is demonstrably attributable to commonplace rumor and propaganda, and sometimes even to the fact that "witnesses" sought inspiration from each other and embroidered their own testimonies to fit a certain mold.

This is the reason why the absolutely worst testimonies appeared during and after the war, whereas the testimonies most in-line with orthodox Holocaust historiography started appearing much, much later, during the 80's and 90's, with the resurgence of Holocaust literature.

It is the very fact that every single eyewitness testimony contains contradictory, demonstrable and inexplicable propaganda motifs that makes the Holocaust story so unbelievable. I'm sorry, Matt, but the Holocaust has an extremely low level of historicity, and I'm saying that from a purely historiographical point of view. We're not talking about mere "odd or mistaken features", but structurally and demonstrably fraudulent claims, from the most minor witnesses to the most important ones (Hoess, etc).

Mattogno has thoroughly demonstrated this in several huge books, in particular The Making of the Auschwitz Myth, where he chronologically outlined the "making of the Auschwitz myth" based on all relevant eyewitness testimonies ever published, from British WWII intercepts, from "reports" and news articles and documents.

[Hektor]

....
As for their motives for lying, yes I get that you don't accept their testimonies. The point is that to say these testimonies don't exist is incorrect. I also reject "survivor testimony" because I think they have motive to lie and in this case, lots of evidence they are lying. But it would be stupid of me to say "there is no testimony about gas chambers".

There are statements about gas chambers no doubt. Indeed there are various. Don't think that testimony is to credible though. It appears that some of the gas chamber witnesses are pathological liars, others may just be 'caught up in rumor'. With the way the story has been pushed over the years. It is no surprise that false testimony on gas chambers is abounding. And that means that it on its own got zero probative value.

On the other hand, there is the bulk of potential witnesses that knew zero about any homicidal gassings or extermination program. They knew about concentration camps and sometimes they even worked with people from concentration camps. They knew about deportation as well, but since those that were deported often still communicated with people outside concentration camps there was no reason to concern neither. People would also know about epidemics, but I don't think that was a too hotly debated topic neither. Simply because too much talk about 'dangers' creates a climate unconducive to the war effort.

So no, testimony DOES NOT support the Holocaust. That despite many people thinking that it does, citing 'evidence at trials' or Holocaust survivor No. 4.683.365 telling about how he saw the chimneys of the gas ovens in Auschwitz. Testimony does GENERALLY support the Revisionist point of view.

[Merlin300]

Are there any other events where the existence of absurd fringe claims cause you to question the existence of the entire event?

Hello HistorySpeaks- Absurd stories can make people start to question the "underlying" narrative . That is a good thing.
If my fellow Americans started thinking about the absurdity of the evidence that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US with
"weapons of mass destruction" a horrible war would have been avoided.
Point One
People should think about the level of evidence they are accepting. Statements by individuals claiming to have seen some event are
"evidence." However they can be mistaken or false. As a Revisionist, I try and rely on physical, documentary, or photographic evidence.

Point Two
I find Holocaust Believers dishonest in presenting or even destroying evidence.

As an example, we had been told by Believer "experts" that the Germans obliterated all traces of Treblinka 2 camp based on
"eye witness" testimony.

However, Aerial and ground level photographs taken after the Soviets overran the area show that, in fact, the Germans left
rail lines, fences, garbage pits, and numerous structures. All these were destroyed by the Soviets and Poles
I have not seen Believers comment on the matter and the references in Wikipedia have been deleted.
The old lie 'A farmhouse for a watchman was built on the site and the ground ploughed over in an attempt to hide the evidence..."
is back on Wikipedia.

The tale of the disappearing 900,000 bodies is another story by itself.


Another example are the infamous human soap horror stories presented at the IMT at Nuremberg. Rather that denounce the admission
of faked evidence in a trial. Believer groups like Nizkor defend the tales.
As has been commented, the people at Nizkor are not dumb enough to believe the stories and not honest enough to renounce them.

[borjastick]

On the subject of Carlos W Porter I have long believed that the elephant in the room, maybe one of many elephants in the room, about Auschwitz is the tattooing of inmates. It never made sense to me because of the lack of photos, equipment, that it only happened at Auschwitz and not other camps. Too many oddities and claims made about the tattooing of those inside Auschwitz or at least some of those inside because afaik it didn't continue and was never for all inmates. Maybe the start of another thread...

[hermod]

Hermod,

Again, we have no first hand testimony from Himmler; we have second-hand recollections of what Himmler supposedly said to other people.

Not my fault that some Holohoaxers "suicided" him in a British prison cell a few days after the military defeat of the 3rd Reich. An understandable stratagem. The victors of WWII couldn't have sold their most crucial conspiracy theory at Nuremberg with one its main top characters in the room. Conspiracy theories need shadow and top secrecy. Ghosts don't rebuff and ridicule conspiracy theories, do they? The Holohoax smoke and mirrors crucially needed a dead Himmler.

The people who were 'trying to save their necks' (and therefore had a powerful incentive to lie about what Himmler had told them) were Frank and Lammers.

Show trials in general are a powerful incentive to lie. The exterminationists' fallacious argument that the accused Nazis (including alleged insiders such as Rudolf Hoess) could call the victors of WWII "Big Liars" (aka "The All Lies," the German nickname of the Allies during WWI) by unambiguously denying the Holocaust in public and even before a kangaroo court, is ridiculous and nonsensical beyond anything. How many accused had called the Bolsheviks "Big Liars" during the Moscow Show Trials of Stalin's Great Purge in the 1930s? Close to zero (if any). False confessions were the norm, Vyshinsky's standard procedure.

As to Masur, nothing in his recorded recollections of his meeting with Himmler refers to the Reinhardt camps. They are talking about the KZs which is a completely different concept and system in German parlance than the AR camps. As another commentator noted, the word Durchgangslager is used to describe the AR camps, not concentration camps.

Nobody said that he spoke about the AR camps (*), but he denied that the camp crematories were weapons of mass murder. Denying that the Birkenau crematoria were slaughterhouses of course amounted to denying the Holocaust itself. In the Holohoax mythology, the Birkenau crematoria were supposed to be the deadliest place of the Holocaust.


* Don't act as if Himmler had evaded that topic during the interview with that WJC official. If Masur (who was a Jew and a member of a major Zionist organization) wanted to know Himmler's opinion about the AR camps, why didn't he ask any question about those camps? It seems that Masur and the World Jewish Congress regarded the Aktion Reinhardt camps as an insignificant topic. And Masur did not even say the words "gas chambers" or "extermination of the Jews" during the whole interview!! Anyway, you can't blame Himmler for not answering unasked questions. That's unfair and laughable.

Regardless, neither Masur, nor Frank, nor Lammers constitute eyewitness testimony concerning AR. We need it from the horse's mouth himself (a recorded or transcribed statement from Himmler), not these secondhand recollections.

May I remind you that the death of six million Jews was "proved" in Nuremberg by and solely by a secondhand recollection of Wilhelm Hoettl (telling the court in an affidavit that Eichmann had told him during the war that six million Jews had died in Nazi hands)?

I'd be interested to see one of you respond to my point concerning Ohlendorf as well, and the quotations (printed in Mattogno's book, of all places) clearly describing his confession that the EG was systematically exterminating Jewish civilians (including kids).

Ohlendorf was just trying to save his own neck or at least to soften his lot and that of his relatives by collaborating with the almighty victors of WWII at their postwar show trials. The lack of any German opting for such a defense strategy would have been a big surprise, not to say an anomaly. Give me a few captured Israeli soldiers and I'll make them "confess" the very same things about Tzahal and Palestinian civilians (including kids) in a matter of days. Guaranteed...

https://postimg.cc/gXfBKY0p

https://postimg.cc/0bJ8Hbsk

[curioussoul]

Ohlendorf was just trying to save his own neck or at least to soften his lot and that of his relatives by collaborating with the almighty victors of WWII at their postwar show trials. The lack of any German opting for such a defense strategy would have been a big surprise, not to say an anomaly.

Good point. I'm convinced Hoess believed he'd be pardoned until the bitter end. He probably thought his absurd, anachronistic and impossible "admissions" could have landed him a converted sentence, naïve as he was.

And I got to love how Matt claims that Ohlendorf's testimony is "published by Mattogno, of all places", as if revisionists aren't the ones actively engaging with uncomfortable facts. This just demonstrates Matt's fundamentally dishonest approach to revisionism: clearly, since Mattogno is a "denier" he should have ignored Ohlendorf's testimony. It couldn't be that revisionists are actually legitimately interested in truthfully dissecting the Holocaust story - that just couldn't be it!

[hermod]

Ohlendorf was just trying to save his own neck or at least to soften his lot and that of his relatives by collaborating with the almighty victors of WWII at their postwar show trials. The lack of any German opting for such a defense strategy would have been a big surprise, not to say an anomaly.

Good point. I'm convinced Hoess believed he'd be pardoned until the bitter end. He probably thought his absurd, anachronistic and impossible "admissions" could have landed him a converted sentence, naïve as he was.

Probably. At least, it made his daily life in Allied gaols easier. It certainly ingratiated himself with his captors.

And I got to love how Matt claims that Ohlendorf's testimony is "published by Mattogno, of all places", as if revisionists aren't the ones actively engaging with uncomfortable facts. This just demonstrates Matt's fundamentally dishonest approach to revisionism: clearly, since Mattogno is a "denier" he should have ignored Ohlendorf's testimony. It couldn't be that revisionists are actually legitimately interested in truthfully dissecting the Holocaust story - that just couldn't be it!

Psychiatrists call that a psychological projection. It tells more about the exterminationists and their dishonest methods (such as cherry-picking) than it does about the revisionists and Mattogno as HistorySpeaks claims if I'm asked.

[Hektor]

And I got to love how Matt claims that Ohlendorf's testimony is "published by Mattogno, of all places", as if revisionists aren't the ones actively engaging with uncomfortable facts. This just demonstrates Matt's fundamentally dishonest approach to revisionism: clearly, since Mattogno is a "denier" he should have ignored Ohlendorf's testimony. It couldn't be that revisionists are actually legitimately interested in truthfully dissecting the Holocaust story - that just couldn't be it!

Psychiatrists call that a psychological projection. It tells more about the exterminationists and their dishonest methods (such as cherry-picking) than it does about the revisionists and Mattogno as HistorySpeaks claims if I'm asked.

Holocaust Believers probably can smell a rat, when dealing with the Holocaust. Just that they make the mistake thinking the rat must be on the Revisionist side.... Which isn't exactly logical, but by bending and squeezing arguments one can at least give statements the appearance of plausibility.

If the fog was off, they'd probably be ashamed on how stupid their arguments actually look.

[HistorySpeaks]

Nobody said that he spoke about the AR camps (*)

Well that was my whole point. He didn't talk about the AR camps and in any case Himmler's account is secondhand (from Masur), and so cannot be classified as eyewitness testimony.

You guys still haven't found a single example of an eyewitness who was at the AR camps, wrote or testified about his experience (in a recorded statement), and did not say they were extermination facilities. (I recognized in my first post on the thread that a couple such witnesses exist for Auschwitz, but unfortunately for you one of them, Thies Christophersen, effectively admitted he was lying in a documentary.)

[curioussoul]

You guys still haven't found a single example of an eyewitness who was at the AR camps, wrote or testified about his experience (in a recorded statement), and did not say they were extermination facilities. (I recognized in my first post on the thread that a couple such witnesses exist for Auschwitz

Gustav Wagner.

Not that your argument is historiographically sound.

(I can already picture your little hands Googling away to "debunk" Wagner )

[hermod]

Nobody said that he spoke about the AR camps (*)

Well that was my whole point. He didn't talk about the AR camps and in any case Himmler's account is secondhand (from Masur), and so cannot be classified as eyewitness testimony.

You guys still haven't found a single example of an eyewitness who was at the AR camps, wrote or testified about his experience (in a recorded statement), and did not say they were extermination facilities. (I recognized in my first post on the thread that a couple such witnesses exist for Auschwitz, but unfortunately for you one of them, Thies Christophersen, effectively admitted he was lying in a documentary.)

I didn't know that this thread was a challenge on that. Last time I checked, this thread was about the obscurantist liquidation of Carlos Whitlock Porter's website by (((the usual suspects))).

What would such testimonies prove anyway? Has any alleged abductee already said that alien spaceships are not anal probing clinics? No? Who cares? Changes nothing. Proves nothing. Disproves nothing.

Thies Christophersen, effectively admitted he was lying in a documentary

Did he? What motivated him? Shekels or threats?

Do you have a link to that one? Just for fun...

(I can already picture your little hands Googling away to "debunk" Wagner )