CW Porter's Website

[greatmystery]

A reader of my website left a comment in my article about Porter, https://www.holocaust.claims/revisionis ... ck-porter/, that the links to his site are dead, https://www.cwporter.com. Going by archive.org the site went down sometime in March of this year. Searching his name I didn't find any news about him. Does anyone know about this?

[fireofice]

Backup of Porter's site here:

https://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/

[HistorySpeaks]

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

For example, there is absurd eyewitness testimony concerning the firebombing of Dresden, which describes bodies being melted to piles of green-brown puddles with bones sticking out.* Does this lead you to question whether the firebombing of Dresden happened?

Similarly, in the aftermath of battle of Mons (1914), various testimonies to the existence of supernatural beings on the field of battle appeared. Does that make you question whether the battle happened?

Human beings are often gullible, confused, untruthful, or have poor memories. 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.

(We can't say "all eyewitnesses" for Auschwitz because there are fringe exceptions. It should be noted however that the most notable of these, Thies Christophersen, who actually says he was in Birkenau, essentially admitted in a documentary that he was lying.)

*https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-bombing-of-dresden-was-the-attack-fully-justified/

[greatmystery]

Backup of Porter's site here:

https://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/

Thanks!

[EtienneSC]

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

This question seems misplaced on this thread.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of the argument. Revisionists of course do not question the existence of Auschwitz, or the Einsatzgruppen. What is distinctive about the gassing claims is that they rely primarily on eye-witness evidence. Hence where this is not credible, it casts doubt on what is not otherwise supported by the existence and coherence of material, documentary and other evidence routinely generated in a literate, bureaucratic society. Thus there is no invalid jumping to a conclusion along the lines of - "so-and-so is mistaken, hence it is all invalid."

It is true that there is some common ground in witness claims, with difference in details. This is consistent with different accounts of the same event, but also with a propaganda campaign or campaigns intended to vilify and discredit the enemy.

[fireofice]

literally all eyewitnesses (at the Reinhardt camps and for the Einsatzgruppen mass shootings) say the same thing was happening: systematic extermination of Jews

Well since you seem to be including Nazis as eyewitnesses in your inclusion of Christophersen (who DID NOT admit he lied, see here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14162) this is just not true.

Himmler saw everything and denied everything.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/5C17yVoHIBOK/

Otto Ohlendorf denied any knowledge that the Einsatzgruppen was to be exterminating Jews.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dfQvbIiyv9cu/

Hardly any of the defendants initially believed the charges after the war until shown footage of bodies in the camps and Hoss's confession, both of those completely lacking support for the holocaust.

17 min 40 sec:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/Lipst ... -Part1.mp4

And "convergence" means nothing in a hysterical environment.

[hermod]

Are there any other events where [...]

This is a poorly-concealed attempt to conceal the fact that the Holocaust is an obscurantist myth that can't stand the lights of free research & debate and needs to censor capable debunkers to perpetuate itself. Stay on topic.

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.

So do all eyewinesses to alien abductions, Marian apparitions and ghost sightings. A very ordinary convergence of BS easily explained by cross pollination. And perhaps the mass deportation of a group of people genetically predisposed to schizophrenia wasn't the best idea after all...

[Hektor]

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

This question seems misplaced on this thread.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of the argument. Revisionists of course do not question the existence of Auschwitz, or the Einsatzgruppen. What is distinctive about the gassing claims is that they rely primarily on eye-witness evidence. Hence where this is not credible, it casts doubt on what is not otherwise supported by the existence and coherence of material, documentary and other evidence routinely generated in a literate, bureaucratic society. Thus there is no invalid jumping to a conclusion along the lines of - "so-and-so is mistaken, hence it is all invalid."

It is true that there is some common ground in witness claims, with difference in details. This is consistent with different accounts of the same event, but also with a propaganda campaign or campaigns intended to vilify and discredit the enemy.

Exterminationists have a serious problem with Logic. They think because a place or an camp exists the narratives about it must be somehow true as well. But this is actually separate. Also, if one can put a name on this, it must be somehow true. They are an example of deceived deceivers having been tricked into believing something they assume it to be true and now try to induce others with it. Pretty much how a cult works.

And it's working associative including emotional load on a matter. If there was a concentration camp and a single person died there, then this means to them that there 'is guilt' and the whole Holocaust is true. Announcing this abrogates accuracy, so it's OK to make more allegations and insinuations about the subject. E.g. it was OK to claim Millions have been gassed there, despite this being false. One dead Jew would already have created the same guilt.

Unbelievable how nuts those people are and how insane they behave with this. Their problem is far worse than being historically inaccurate.

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

This question seems misplaced on this thread.
....

Indeed, it would be a subject of its own.
He seems to forget that Dresden was indeed bombed and that's not in dispute. The discussion is more on how many people the bombing killed. And well.... There doesn't seem to be any persecution of "Dresden Deniers".
* You can claim 'only 20.000 people' died. Still keep your job and not be dragged into court.
* You can call the claims into question made by witnesses.
* You can even justify this.

So in fact they can do all the things, establishment figures accuse 'Holocaust Deniers' of. But I recall this being an old rescue device of Exterminationists.... When they find out one isn't impressed by their grand standing and continues asking for concise evidence or points out that there obviously is atrocity propaganda involved, they shift the debate to 'other atrocities' and asks why one don't question them... Well, why aren't they pushing them the same way they do with they do with what they do with NS-policy on Jews? There is no points to be scored their, that's why.

...For example, there is absurd eyewitness testimony concerning the firebombing of Dresden, which describes bodies being melted to piles of green-brown puddles with bones sticking out.* Does this lead you to question whether the firebombing of Dresden happened?
....

Can you explain what's absurd with this?

What leads to the questions about Holocaust Claims is the fact that this was part of atrocity propaganda an also a post-war PR campaign for various political interests.

Anyway... Perhaps this should be a separate debate.

[HistorySpeaks]

literally all eyewitnesses (at the Reinhardt camps and for the Einsatzgruppen mass shootings) say the same thing was happening: systematic extermination of Jews

Well since you seem to be including Nazis as eyewitnesses in your inclusion of Christophersen (who DID NOT admit he lied, see here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14162) this is just not true.

Himmler saw everything and denied everything.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/5C17yVoHIBOK/

Otto Ohlendorf denied any knowledge that the Einsatzgruppen was to be exterminating Jews.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dfQvbIiyv9cu/

Hardly any of the defendants initially believed the charges after the war until shown footage of bodies in the camps and Hoss's confession, both of those completely lacking support for the holocaust.

17 min 40 sec:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/Lipst ... -Part1.mp4

And "convergence" means nothing in a hysterical environment.

1. We have no direct testimony from Himmler denying the Holocaust. We have secondhand testimony from Frank and Lammers at Nuremberg (who have a huge incentive to lie: trying to save their necks by arguing they were ignorant of the Holocaust), and WJC represeentation Masur's written recollections of his meetings with Himmler. That is a evidence of a much lower calibre than eyewitness testimony, which is what I am discussing.

That said, I am inclined to credit Masur's report on his meeting with Himmler as basically true. However, even in this report, Himmler never discussed the Aktion Reinhardt camps or denied that they were extermination facilities; he merely denied this concerning the extant concentration camps (he talked about Belsen and Buchenwald specifically, which were in the media and widely being discussed, having been recently liberated; he never mentions the razed Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec camps). https://collections.ushmm.org/search/ca ... 449%2C5535

2. You're misconstruing Ohlendorf's testimony. He never denied that the EG massacred huge numbers of Jewish civilians in a systematic fashion, or claimed to have 'only killed partisans'; he merely said the motive for the massacres was security, not exterminating a race of people. Mattogno takes up this argument in his Einsatzgruppen book.

Ohlendorf also says the EG reports exaggerated the Jewish death toll, but he confirms their authenticity and the practice of massacring Jewish civilians.

[HistorySpeaks]

Re: Ohlendorf, he admitted at trial to massacring Jewish civilians and a Himmler order for the Einsatzgruppen to massacre Jews incl. kids.

I quote Ohlendorf's 5 November 1945 affidavit from Mattogno's book on the Einsatzgruppen(p. 133).

Himmler declared that an important part of our mission consisted of the elimination of Jews – women, men and children – and Communist officials.

At a 3 January 1946 hearing, Ohlendorf declared under cross-examination by colonel Amen that:

The instructions were that in the Russian operational areas of the Einsatzgruppen the Jews, as well as the Soviet political commissars, were to be liquidated.

What he disputed was a genocidal motivation. Instead he said it was a security motivation. You are (I believe unintentionally, fwiw) misrepresenting his claim about the motivation of the massacres as a denial that Jewish civilians were systematically massacred.

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.)

[fireofice]

We have no direct testimony from Himmler denying the Holocaust. We have secondhand testimony from Frank and Lammers at Nuremberg (who have a huge incentive to lie: trying to save their necks by arguing they were ignorant of the Holocaust), and WJC represeentation Masur's written recollections of his meetings with Himmler. That is a evidence of a much lower calibre than eyewitness testimony, which is what I am discussing.

You referred to "eyewitnesses". Nauser is a primary source on Himmler being an eyewitness, and in this case I would say a pretty reliable one, since if Himmler said all the extermination stories were true, he would have written that down for sure.

That said, I am inclined to credit Masur's report on his meeting with Himmler as basically true. However, even in this report, Himmler never discussed the Aktion Reinhardt camps or denied that they were extermination facilities; he merely denied this concerning the extant concentration camps (he talked about Belsen and Buchenwald specifically, which were in the media and widely being discussed, having been recently liberated; he never mentions the razed Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec camps).

He was talking about the camps as a whole. He wasn't just talking about particular camps. He also felt the need to insist that his conduct of his Einsatzgruppen was just, which had nothing to do with the freeing of Jews in the German camps. His view of the Einsatzgruppen was completely in line with what the revisionists say. He was making a holistic defense, not just a partial defense.

And his argument wouldn't even make sense anyway under your interpretation. He said "In order to stop the epidemic, we were forced to cremate the bodies of the many people that died of the disease. That was the reason we had to build the crematoria, and now, because of this everybody wants to tighten the noose around our neck." Why did they build the crematoria? To stop the epidemic, not extermination. What were the Allies tightening the noose around their neck for? For the false claim of extermination, not a true claim. This would apply to the Reinhardt camps, since that would also be a part of any false extermination claim, even if they didn't use crematoria. This is the most obvious reading of the text. Everything there is best read as a complete denial of the holocaust. Your interpretations are just absurd.

Mattogno takes up this argument in his Einsatzgruppen book.

OK so it's compatible with a revisionist view of it. What's your point then?

[HistorySpeaks]

He was talking about the camps as a whole. He wasn't just talking about particular camps.

He wasn't because the Aktion Reinhardt camps were not labeled "concentration camps" by the Germans. (Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec weren't even, administratively speaking, in the KZ system.) They were also razed long before Himmler's conversation with Masur.

If Himmler had been asked about the Reinhardt camps (by which I refer to Treblinka II, Belzec, and Sobibor) perhaps he would have lied that they were 'transit camps.' But he wouldn't have called them concentration camps because they were plainly no such thing. (Even deniers acknowledge this, noting that they had no room for a significant number of inmates, but instead alleging they were transit camps.)

Even if you assume he was mentioning the Reinhardt camps, none of this bears on my point because it is not eyewitness testimony. It is secondhand. We'd need a recorded or transcribed statement from Himmler himself (not a heavily paraphrased, non-transcribed recollection from Masur) for it to be an eyewitness testimony.

[fireofice]

He wasn't because the Aktion Reinhardt camps were not labeled "concentration camps" by the Germans.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that his whole statement was premised on none of the camps being extermination camps. And I already explained why Mauser is a good source for Himmler's words in this case. You said there were "literally no witnesses" and I gave good evidence that Himmler was one such witness. Goering and Speer who should have known about an extermination program also denied knowing about it. You can say they're lying, but to say "no witnesses exist" is just not true.

Before bringing up the 1971 Speer letter, don't. That's been debunked:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14655

[Hektor]

He wasn't because the Aktion Reinhardt camps were not labeled "concentration camps" by the Germans.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that his whole statement was premised on none of the camps being extermination camps. And I already explained why Masur is a good source for Himmler's words in this case. You said there were "literally no witnesses" and I gave good evidence that Himmler was one such witness. Goering and Speer who should have known about an extermination program also denied knowing about it. You can say they're lying, but to say "no witnesses exist" is just not true.
....

I think you mean Norbert Masur there. He's sort of a good source, since he reports *as a WJC representative* what Heinrich Himmler told him in private... It is hearsay, but hearsay of the better kind given that it was written down briefly after that conversation.

If the main purpose wasn't 'concentration' why would it be call concentration camp anyway?

The camps are called Durchgangslager in Communications, which means transit camps. If one wants to discuss the subject one really should first be familiar with the key documents. Otherwise it become cherry-picking and trial and error argumentation.

[hermod]