David Cole on Treblinka

[Neckartailfingen451]

I have read the figure 900,000 for the tally of djooz killed at Treblinka yet a djoosh site which is an American-Israeli collaboration, states the real figure is 800,000 djooz and 50,000 goys. So if there are 50,000 less bodies to cremate, it stands to reason the Nazis would have had less wood ash, charred bones, teeth, dentures and prosthetic devices to hide.
At this site I also had a look at the memorials to the alleged victims. I've never seen anything so cheap and tacky looking in all my life. It looks as if they collected rubble from construction sites and the broken slabs discarded by quarries.
http://WWW.jewishvirtuallibrary.com

[Eric Hunt]

My Response to David Cole :

http://holocausthoaxmuseum.com/response-to-david-cole/

[diaz52]

EtienneSC said:

"A certain amount of email/facebook exchanges between Bradley Smith and David Stein over the last few days have been posted publicly....."

Here is a link to it:

http://codohfounder.com/david-cole-call ... ley-smith/

David Cole Calls It a Day with Bradley Smith

“Sure, get me the relevant passages with re to Faurisson that you mention [above], even though I did not ask you for them. That’s an expression of your hysteria. But do as you say you will.

“Re your tolerance: it is nothing compared to your hysteria in “defending” yourself. With a bit more manliness, take your time and think about this, you would not feel the need for these lady-like hissy-fits.

“With re to running your article on Treblinka: I did not say or even suggest that I was not going to run it. It’s your hysteria that causes you to think I will not run it. Man up, David. I expect to run it, and have a reply to it.

“Re El Gran Tabu: understood.

“—B”

There has been no further reply from David Cole/Stein. The entire exchange took place on one day, 22 July 2014. It’s all over. One question was too much for the hissy-boy. Perhaps the implications of the one question. Not for me, but for David Cole Stein. Some 25 years and it’s come to an end because of one question. I’m OK with it. When he gets anxious, I just don’t care for the quality of his prose.

A follow-up thought: David Cole Stein now has the opportunity to go off on Smith. The above screed is nothing to what he is capable of. I can picture him doing it even now. And what he does, if he does do it, will be out-of-this-world exceptional. You will never have read anything like it. I almost look forward to it. I do look forward to it. He’s that good.
end

Wow, yeah David's comments regarding Bradley, a friend of 25 years, are way beyond the pale. David Caroline Stein Sturdy Coles needs to, idk, sober up for starters.

[fountainhead]

Wow, yeah David's comments regarding Bradley, a friend of 25 years, are way beyond the pale. David Caroline Stein Sturdy Coles needs to, idk, sober up for starters.

Yeah, that was painful to read. Even in my short time here I've seen revisionists play inside baseball and end up falling out with each other, which is unfortunate. We're the more tolerant side after all, especially when it comes to open debate. I wish they wouldn't take it so personally.

One thought on David's Treblinka theory, though (And I guess this also goes for the likes of Irving and Weber). Let's say we grant him that Treblinka was a death camp. If the Nazis' plan was the genocide of the Jews in Europe, why have only one small camp with which to do it, while you put Jews in several other camps and for some reason you give those Jews living quarters, hospitals, medicine, a swimming pool, a theater, a soccer field, etc.? Of course, perhaps David is just following the evidence as closely as possible and not worrying about whether the big picture makes any sense or not.

[hermod]

My Response to David Cole :

http://holocausthoaxmuseum.com/response-to-david-cole/

Great reading. Thanks for sharing it with us.

[Atigun]

It seems that many, both believers and revisionists, simply pass over the reality of the claims for the mass graves at Treblinka. Wiernik states that the dimensions of the graves were 10x25x50 meters and there were six of them. That is a total of 75,000 cubic meter excavation. Arad states that the graves at both Belzec and Treblinka were 30 meters deep. Two types of M&H draglines (excavators) were in use at or near Treblinka, the type MA and the type MB. Due to their size limitations neither type could have accomplished the excavation AND THE STOCKPILING OF THE EXCAVATED MATERIAL without additional equipment such as trucks or wagons. It absolutely couldn't happen.

Here is a link to a dragline operating a clamshell bucket of the same type as is shown in the hoax museum photographs. It's also a M&H dragline but newer than the ones at Treblinka. It's operating in a 10 meter deep excavation. The excavation slopes deeper to the left of the working area. Now try to envision an excavation three (3) times that deep as described by Arad. Such claims as made by Wiernik and Arad are nothing but the product of their imaginations, complete fantasies. It DIDN'T effing happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC9sU7kue4I I've posted this link before but am reposting for any who didn't see the video. You can skip the first two minutes for a better view of the excavation.

The bottom line is that the mass graves as described by Arad or Wiernik don't exist. They never did and nobody is going to find them with or without GPR. The only realistic alternative the hoaxers have is to send Wiernik's and Arad's mass graves fantasies to the memory hole and start over with a new story. BTW, for Arad's graves to be 75,000 cubic meters in capacity they would have to be 30x25x100 meters or, 30x50x50 meters and so on.

[borjastick]

My Response to David Cole :

http://holocausthoaxmuseum.com/response-to-david-cole/

Well done Eric, I sat down last night and read through your fascinating response. Though I need to re-read a couple of sections for clarity I think you've answered the points raised by David Cole very well.

[Moderator]

Neckartailfingen451:
Today you edited your post of Sunday, July 27, 2014 . Since that time other posts have been made. I OK'd this edit, but in the future please do not edit a post after additional comments have been made. Makes sense, eh? Please read our basic guidelines.
Thanks, M1

[fountainhead]

Himmler himself told Korherr that the report might be good in the future for “camouflage purposes” (Tarnungszwecken), but that, for now, it would be for his eyes only.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I believe I read somewhere that Himmler stated this in a letter to Korherr. Is it held to be genuine? If so, what did Himmler mean by "camouflage purposes"? If a sinister interpretation is taken, it seems to go against the usual hush-hush, coded language that the exterminationists say the Germans spoke. Himmler is somewhat openly writing to a colleague about covering something up. Or is this another case of the true meaning of a term being lost in translation?

[Hannover]

The big question concerning the alleged contents of this letter is direct & simple, where is this alleged Himmler 'camouflage purposes' letter to actually review?

Not someone's unproven claims about 'camouflage purposes', not someone's alleged translation from the alleged German which may not have been written by Himmler or anyone from German leadership, but the actual original letter. Without an original the claims are just more of the standard 'holocaust' nonsense.
Imagine:
'Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, I do not have an actual letter written by Himmler which says this, in fact no one has a letter which says this, but trust me anyway, the unproven claims about this non-existent letter are true'.

That's something like 'holocaust' shyster Elie Wiesel would say.

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship.
Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The Internet has demolished the lies. The tide is turning.

The 'holocaust' storyline, falling apart faster than a cheap suit.

- Hannover

[fountainhead]

The big question concerning the alleged contents of this letter is direct & simple, where is this alleged Himmler 'camouflage purposes' letter to actually review?

True. I've tried and I can't find a picture of the original letter. It's supposedly Nuremberg document NO-5197 quoted here.

I also rewatched David Cole's Auschwitz video and found this statement from him rather ironic, given his present day stance on Treblinka:

And this re-examination must include the charges of genocide made against the Nazis, especially considering that, for Auschwitz, as well as the other camps in Poland - Majdanek, Belzec, Chelmno, Treblinka and Sobibor - we've had to rely on the Soviets for most of our information. And if the Soviets exaggerated the number of dead at Auschwitz, who's to say they didn't also do it at the other camps? Why would they exaggerate Auschwitz by four times and then be brutally honest about Treblinka?

[hermod]

I can't find a picture of the original letter. It's supposedly Nuremberg document NO-5197

Or in other words, very probably a photocopy of a copy "certified authentic", with the original nowhere to be found today.

DOCUMENTS USED IN "EVIDENCE" AT THE NUREMBERG "TRIAL"

by C W Porter

The standard version of events is that the Allies examined 100,000 documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at The Hague. This is rather inexact.

The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'. Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.

http://www.cwporter.com/document.htm

There are no originals of any Nuremberg trial documents, except for a few, more or less insignificant documents. Even the "file copies" are photocopies. Many people have remarked that nobody knows where these documents are.

[...]

To me, engaging in complicated arguments about the "content" of apocryphal documents is putting the cart before the horse. To me, the first question is, is it an original? What kind of document is it? Where did the copy come from? What kind of copy is it? And so on. Then we'll argue about what they say. There are no originals, as a rule, especially, no Nuremberg Trial originals, or very few. And no rules of evidence, no chain of evidence. No requirement that original documents be presented.

http://www.cwporter.com/letter25.htm

[Hektor]

...

David Cole on Robert Faurisson

“I’m going to make this short, and it will be my final word on the subject. I’ve been hearing a lot recently about Robert Faurisson badmouthing me. This is nothing new. This is what Faurisson does. He has systematically alienated, via his unwarranted insults, Mark Weber and David Irving, the two finest revisionist historians there are. Faurisson is displeased that I point out in my book that he froze on the witness stand at the Zundel Trial when asked about the Einsatzgruppen operations in the East after the invasion of Russia. If he is angry, let it be with his own behavior on the stand, preserved in the record of the proceedings (and accurately reproduced by me in my book). If Faurisson does not like Faurisson’s words being recorded, Faurisson needs to take that up with Faurisson. Just as in the case of “skeptic” fraud Michael Shermer, Faurisson is upset that I recounted his own words. Tough shit, boys.
...
end

I'm just listening to Cole talking about Michael Shermer. Apparently Shermer phoned Irv Rubin after Cole's retraction trying to get him railed up again against Cole (which would have made him an accomplice to murder, if Cole got killed). Then I also hear Shermer is accused of rape by PZ Myers and others. Any news on the pseude skeptic.

It seems Shermer is really worried:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mich ... legal-fund

[Werd]

Weber and Irving are revisionist historians? Since when?

[Inquisitor]

Weber and Irving are revisionist historians? Since when?

Indeed. How convenient, or should I say predictable, that "Cole" would have pointed to those two as his prime examples of Revisionists - specifically regarding the "holocaust" no less.