BA's case for orthodoxy

[Archie]

Take a look at the map I posted. Kola took 2,227 samples, spaced 5m apart. Of these, he reported human remains in only 236 of the samples. This is approximately 10%. In other words, no remains in 90% of the camp, and often not even any ground disturbance. It is from these positive samples that he came up with his "33 graves," somewhat arbitrarily. In the study, he presented detail on only 137 of the positive samples, presumably the most significant ones. From the scans I've seen online, I can't make out the details very well on the positive samples and of course it's totally impossible to actually purchase the book. Which is odd, given that it supposedly proves the holocaust.

To repeat myself, since you do not seem to have understood the point: Kola says the graves had a surface area of 6,000 square meters (actually 5,490). That's with his liberal assumptions regarding the grave boundaries. The story is that they buried 600,000 whole bodies there at the camp and dug them up and burned them later on. But they could not have buried 600,000 bodies in haphazard graves of <6,000 square meters. That would be 100+ bodies/square meter. For comparison, at Katyn, there were ~8-9 bodies per square meter. At that density you'd have only ~50,000 initial bodies in the Kola graves. And of course it could be far less (if anything the Katyn graves seem to have been far more orderly and planned out that Kola's map).

I was limiting discussion as much as I could to Kola's study, but yes, there has been debate about whether the graves could fit 450k to 600k bodies. I believe this was argued exhaustively to be possible by HC blog. They should have saved their breath though, because bodies were being burned in the summer of 42.

https://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/pol ... edlung.php

So this: "The story is that they buried 600,000 whole bodies there at the camp and dug them up and burned them later on. " is not actually the story.

Another point you ignored is the fact that Kola's work does not corroborate your witnesses like Reder who said there were 30 pits, each one 100x25 meters. The largest grave estimated by Kola was 40x12, and if you look at the actual samples you will see this is an aggressive estimate and it could easily be three smaller graves. Most of the graves Kola lists as much smaller. One is said to 5x5 meters (based on ONE positive sample).

Kola was able to identify graves by homogeneous content often deposited in layers, which had consistency for all samples taken. Eg with grave 5

"Located in the south-western part of the camp. The grave had the shape of an irregular lengthened rectangle with the dimensions of 32 meters by 10 meters, reaching a depth of over 4.5 meters. It was of a homogenous content. Studies of its crematory layers structure suggested multiple filling of the grave with burnt relics. The layer with the biggest thickness and intensity of crematory contents appeared in the lowest part of the pit and was about 1 meter thick; above 50 cm thick layer of soil, 4 following layers of crematory remains appeared, separated from each other with 20-30 cm layers of sand. The volume of the pit was about 1350 meters."

So he says it was 1 grave instead of 4 or 5 graves with similar contents.

Regarding Reder, he never claimed to be working at the grave sites, but rather at the gas chambers, so his knowledge there was limited. There's also no indication he had a photographic memory or was an engineer with clear ability to understand proportion and objective distance. His testimony is problematic in a way that is common and expected with witness testimony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

Kola's study is available in libraries https://www.worldcat.org/title/50149754

Your method seems to be to try to imagine some scenario wherein your established beliefs might still remain intact. I do not think anyone looking at this objectively would do this sort of mental gymnastics. Changing the story, downplaying your own star witnesses (who are ultimately the basis for all of this to begin with), and so on.

Here is what Gerstein says, by the way. He gives similar (and very incorrect) dimensions as Reder and further says these pits by the gas chambers, which contradicts the excuse you offered for Reder (that the pits were at some distance from the gas chambers).

Then, the naked bodies were thrown into large pits of about 100 x 20 x 12 meters, located near the death chambers.

[bombsaway]

Your method seems to be to try to imagine some scenario wherein your established beliefs might still remain intact. I do not think anyone looking at this objectively would do this sort of mental gymnastics. Changing the story, downplaying your own star witnesses (who are ultimately the basis for all of this to begin with), and so on.

Here is what Gerstein says, by the way. He gives similar (and very incorrect) dimensions as Reder and further says these pits by the gas chambers, which contradicts the excuse you offered for Reder (that the pits were at some distance from the gas chambers).

Then, the naked bodies were thrown into large pits of about 100 x 20 x 12 meters, located near the death chambers.

Where did I change the story? Where did I say Reder was a star witness? It seems like your argument is based on making a strawman of the orthodox narrative, plus ignoring the far far worse witness and documentary evidence for mass transit / resettlement.

Reder is just one witness, and we don't know how much access he had to the graves. I was reading the testimony found here https://aaargh.vho.org/engl/RassArch/PR ... nk13B.html , another interesting witness account with parallels to Eichmann - in that the witness ("the visitor") was affirming aspects of orthodoxy while in conversation with a skeptical revisionist (Paul Rassinier, according to wikipedia "the father of Holocaust denial")

The visitor provides additional confirmation of bodies being destroyed in summer/early autumn of 42 + here's what he says about the mass graves

https://aaargh.vho.org/engl/RassArch/PR ... nk13B.html

In preparing the victims for the gassing, they were required to deposit their valuables and jewels at the Effecktenkammer in return for a receipt; then they proceeded to the barber. Finally, they were made to undress. The undressing was the longest process and took almost all morning. These unfortunates asked their coreligionists, who had received them under the armed guard of a few listless and inattentive S.S., what was to become of them. They were told that they were to be disinfected and that, after that, they would be assigned to labor Kommandos according to their abilities. They were told to take a deep breath during the disinfection process -- a hideous spectacle for those who knew.

Then, they were herded into the building where the gassing was to take place. Haphazardly they were divided up among the six rooms -- 40 to 50 per room, my visitor repeated. The doors were closed, and the lights were put out. At this moment, the only things to be heard were the prayers of these unfortunates, and the cries of fright from the women and the children. The engine was started and, a quarter of an hour later, the bodies were removed by the Totenkommando, which was composed of Jewish prisoners. The corpses were carried to a waiting grave.

"But that grave," I interrupted, "they must have seen it, since, really, for 250 to 300 people it must have been quite sizeable." My visitor replied, "No. It had been dug some distance behind the gassing house, and they could not see it. The bodies were taken out through side doors in each room, directly to the outside, sort of garage doors. The dimensions of the grave? I have an idea that it must have been about 20 meters long, 5 wide, and barely 2 deep..."

And, he explained the dangers of that kind of burial. Wirth had told him that into that huge grave lots of gasoline had been poured over the heap of corpses. But, the attempt to cremate the corpses in that manner had been only partially successful. Earth was thrown on top of the corpses, but after two or three days this earth raised up from the pressure of gas rising from below. And, it infected the air. Also, the rotting flesh attracted the clouds of those flies which one saw everywhere. Deciding that he now had seen enough, my visitor left the camp without delay and returned to Lublin.

bold mine. So the graves were not necessarily visible from the gas chambers, as per your assumption.

[curioussoul]

Where did I change the story? Where did I say Reder was a star witness?

If your claim is that gasoline engines were used in Belzec, Reder might just be your only witness.

[Hektor]

Far more efficient are psychological pressures.

Exactly. And how hypocritical it is of BA to put so much weight on the fact that Eichmann was talking to revisionists while ignoring the psychological pressure elsewhere in the opposite direction. If the revisionists he was talking to were supposed to have this oh-so-great effect on Eichmann to deny everything, then to just completely ignore the other psychological pressures is completely hypocritical.

Sure, holo-propagnda wasn't as strong then as it is today. For example, John Beaty was able to write a book that denied the holocaust and have it endorsed by other US military leaders (which has all other kinds of problems for the orthodox narrative, as Butz showed that it was basically impossible for the US government to not know about the holocaust, yet here we have a significant US military leaders endorsing its denial). But the fact that Beaty felt like he had to say it indicates that holo-propaganda existed to some significant extent even back then. And from Eichmann's perspective being a wanted man, it would play a bigger psychological role than the rest of the population.

The mere fact that we have general psychological pressure on this topic shows that the idea of "non coercive confessions" is a myth. It's impossible for there to be no coercion with this level of psychological pressure.

As for the post-WW2 era, it should be clear what the power relations where then. While there where skeptics, those were limited to the top educated class that would look deeper into 'historical events'... They could not disprove things, just notice that there was a lot strange with the claims being made. For the less bright parts of the population there was repetitive hammering with all kinds of atrocity stories. Ex-NS-officials of course realized that contradicting claims was futile to dangerous. So nothing coming from this side. It's of course interesting who pushed a Holocaust narrative and rather unveiled atrocity propaganda most... Communists and well, some of the Jewish organizations. For the later one would think that they had better or more urgent things to do. But 'the Holocaust' became staple food for them. It was kind of 'too good to be true' for them. The AJC had several publications dealing with the matter. So from the horses mouth it's visible that they were pushing this line. Not limited to this of course the other thing was constant surveillance of populations and 'strategies against Antisemitism'. The Frankfurt School crew was also involved into this as were several other academics. Big Research was sponsored by the AJC. The Eichmann case was of course another matter. They urgently needed a big deal of court room theatrics and boy did they get that.

[bombsaway]

Where did I change the story? Where did I say Reder was a star witness?

If your claim is that gasoline engines were used in Belzec, Reder might just be your only witness.

According to this there are others http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... _9432.html

Basically Reder claimed to have worked as a machinist in the engine room of the gas chambers for months. Is there anyone else who would have had a better vantage point about what kind of engine was used? Reder was not assigned to digging graves or anything related, so his testimony there is less important.

So he's not a star witness overall, just about this particular detail. There are hundreds or thousands of other details about Belzec illuminated by other witnesses, some more than others. That's how witness testimony works.

[Butterfangers]

You're making the same basic mistake that Mattogno did. Yeah there aren't too many bodies in the graves. That's because when a body is cremated, it is destroyed. It ceases to be a body and becomes cremains. So yes, what Kola found at the site is consistent with the orthodox narrative (the bodies were destroyed, becoming ash, then dumped back into the graves). That a large volume of ash exists can be ascertained through Kola's descriptions above (as well as his diagrams). For some graves he provides an actual figure "The volume of crematory part is about 250 meters." (remember that roughly 600 bodies produce 1 cubic meter of ash). For some graves he describes the thickness of the ash layer. Eg grave pit 5 " Studies of its crematory layers structure suggested multiple filling of the grave with burnt relics. The layer with the biggest thickness and intensity of crematory contents appeared in the lowest part of the pit and was about 1 meter thick; above 50 cm thick layer of soil, 4 following layers of crematory remains appeared, separated from each other with 20-30 cm layers of sand." This grave was reported by Kola to have dimensions of 30x10 meters (300 meter area) so each layer is enormous.

If your contention is graves like this are commonplace, par for the course for Nazi Germany as well as other places, please provide comparable references. My contention is that they are not commonplace, that nothing remotely close to this scale (in terms of buried crematory content) has been discovered anywhere on earth.

To me the notion that Kola's findings, if taken at face value, support the revisionist case over the orthodox one is ridiculous. What is less ridiculous is that Kola fabricated the results to some degree. So in my opinion it is not accurate for revisionists to say that no physical evidence has been produced, but rather that physical evidence was fabricated to some degree.

Wow, that is a lot of words, all to pretend we haven't already had this conversation. Here's a throwback:

Mattogno, referring to Belzec in "The Operation Reinhard Camps" (TORC; p. 208):

On the other hand, when
it became a transit camp according to the revisionist thesis, at least 441,000
Jews passed through it. There undoubtedly occurred both natural and non-
natural deaths among them, the order of magnitude of which is difficult to es-
tablish. If one assumes with Dieter Pohl a mortality of some 5%, the death
toll would already be over 22,600.
This fact completely invalidates the orthodox commentators’ interpretation,
as it shows that the presence of human remains in the soil of the former Bełżec
Camp is not at all irreconcilable with the revisionist thesis. In order to truly re-
fute this thesis, it would be necessary to show that corpses in the order of mag-
nitude of hundreds of thousands are or were buried in the camp grounds.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=28

The amount of human remains do not remotely account for claims of the "Holocaust". Out of 236 samples, only six were "positive" for human remains. Among these (TORC, p. 206-7):

...Pit No. 1 reportedly contains a layer of human remains of
indeterminate thickness. The presence of human remains is not documented by
the soundings for Pit No. 4. For Pit No. 10, human remains are present only in
three out of the seven samples published by Kola; since he says nothing about
the remaining nine, we have to limit ourselves to the reported data. In Pit No.
28, human remains were found in one out of three samples.
Therefore, the only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from the core
samples is that the above-mentioned pits contain only scattered human re-
mains.

You keep repeating things like "substantial amounts of cremains" but you do not quantify these statements nor cite your source(s). It's confusing and I'm beginning to think you're just talking out of your behind.

1) Which specific core samples are you saying are confirmed to have had cremains identified?
2) Approximately how many human beings does the total mass of cremains you are saying have been identified amount to?
3) What significance do you ascribe to cremains in these quantities?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14850&p=108092#p108092


You never did answer those three questions, bombsaway. Either way, you still run into problems, as Archie has shown:

You do not have physical evidence for 600,000 people being killed there. We already talked about this. You said something like, well, maybe under certain convenient assumptions Kola's 21,000 cubic meters would theoretically be enough space to accommodate the cremains of a major city's worth of people. We could go back and forth with calculations on that point, but the larger matter is that you continue to ignore the problem of the initial burial of the 600,000 whole bodies and the difficulty of disinterring and burning this number of bodies. You are just jumping straight to the the cremains so you don't have to deal with the whole bodies. This is like skipping the first 25 miles of the marathon, finishing the only the last mile and brazenly proclaiming victory.
[...]
The areas Kola indicates as graves covered only 6,000 square meters and 21,000 meters of volume. The samples for the vast majority of the camp were reported to be "no disruption - natural strata." That is not consistent at all with the claim that 600,000 people were killed and buried at the camp. There would be disturbed earth and traces of these bodies all through the whole camp. Not some ash in 10% of the samples.

bombsaway responds to Archie by saying that Germany was already burning Jewish corpses at Belzec in 1942. Here is the actual [Google translated] text from the source BA provides for this claim:

6:20 p.m.:

We passed the Belzec camp. Before that it went through high pine forests for a long time. When the woman called "here it comes" all you could see was a high hedge of fir trees. A strong sweetish odor was clearly noticeable. "They stink," said the woman. "Oh nonsense, that's the gas," laughed the railway policeman. In the meantime - we had driven about 200 meters - the sweet smell had turned into a sharp burning smell. "That's from the crematorium," said the policeman. Shortly thereafter the fence stopped. You could see a guard house with SS guards in front of it. A double railway line led into the camp. One track branched off from the main line, the other led via a turntable out of the warehouse to a row of sheds about 250 meters away. A goods wagon was just standing on the turntable. Several Jews were busy turning the wheel. SS guards, rifles under their arms, stood by. One of the sheds was open, you could clearly see that it was filled to the ceiling with bundles of clothes. As I drove on, I looked back at the camp one more time. The fence was too high to see anything. The woman said that sometimes you can see smoke coming out of the camp as you drive by, but I didn't see anything of the sort. My guess is that the camp is about 800 by 400 meters.

Fascinating. A "sweetish" and "sweet" odor was noticed and bombsaway would have us believe this referred to burning corpses which are known in all other reports of history as having odor that is acrid, pungent, or foul.

Moreover, this person did not see a pile of Jews in the open shed... rather, they saw a pile of clothes. bombsaway can't seem to do the math that, since this location held amassed quantities of Jewish property, perhaps some of that is what was being burned there (especially given the typhus epidemic where property destruction was more often necessary or warranted).

This is even more interesting since the smoke phenomenon didn't seem to be a particularly visible occurrence. You could "sometimes" see it but this witness saw nothing, just enjoyed that oh-so-sweet smell, like Grandma's cookies on a Sunday morning.

bombsaway would prefer we remain ignorant of the conversations we have already had with him on these topics. It has been discussed how there is no question that Jewish property was being burned frequently in large pyres and that the confiscation/reallocation of property is, in fact, what "Aktion Reinhard" was all about:

The purpose and function of 'Aktion Reinhard' was the confiscation and utilization of Jewish property. See the post linked and the one after it, here: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 3#p2319478

Back on Eichmann:

As for motives, just because you are able to list some doesn't mean they are actually "clear and undeniable". I criticized them here, explaining why they were nonsencial, and you made no response, declaring victory and exiting the thread. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&start=330#p109653

Similar to the resettlement/mass population transfer hypothesis this seems to be another example of revisionists unwilling to respond to close scrutiny of their narrative.

I allowed my prior post (to which you were responding) to speak for itself since you frankly added nothing of value. Nothing you said invalidated any of the narrative I had outlined in that prior post.

That said, since you have the audacity to pretend you still had a case to stand on, I will respond to a few items of interest:

Why or how would it be necessary for me to produce a "narrative" for why a liar has told lies? It is sufficient that (1) we know this person does lie about a particular topic, (2) we know motives other than telling the truth existed for this same topic, for this person. Both are indisputably true, in Eichmann's case.

Most people lie, and most people have motives to lie in a given situation, so you have to go much further than this. You have to show a high degree of motive to lie about a particular thing. This is a value judgement, but I don't think you did this below. I'll describe more in detail.

What bombsaway is saying here is that since "everyone lies", it matters not that Eichmann is proven to have lied on a particular topic. bombsaway suggests here that your great-uncle who is known to lie about his war stories in Vietnam can still be trusted about his war stories in Vietnam since, after all, "most people lie".

bombsaway suggests that I (or anyone) needs to prove not only that Eichmann is a liar on this particular topic (which we have done, conclusively) but that he had a certain degree of motive to lie about it again. I don't think that's so reasonable.

I highlighted in bold above the portion about Eichmann changing his story to suit Sassen's "cue". This better suits a revisionist narrative, for obvious reasons.

Yep this is an example of Eichmann lying to minimize genocide, which is the opposite of your assertion (he lied to make it up). He didn't want to make Sassen uncomfortable by talking about his involvement in the killing of children.

bombsaway has an interesting way of interpreting this situation. On one hand, he is suggesting that this interview is a tell-all with Eichmann openly and shamelessly "tearing down the floodgate" to tell the full, unadulterated truth of his wartime experience in killing as many Jews as he could. On the other, he's obeying Sassen's interest in telling the story a certain way. Moreover, we know that Eichmann isn't only revising his lies downward, he's also invented 'gassings' that did not happen (revising upward), shown earlier:

In his precapture statements, Eichmann claimed that he saw the alleged homicidal gas chambers of Majdanek, a concentration camp in Poland. Browning informed his readers in 2003 that these “observations” are not credible: “In both precapture accounts, Eichmann’s dating is vague. Furthermore, the claims that gassing was already taking place in this first camp, or that it was Majdanek, are contrary to what we know from other sources. The precapture testimonies, in short, are helpful to neither the historian nor Eichmann’s credibility [p. 23].” In plain language, Eichmann never saw the “gas chambers” he claimed to have seen at Majdanek.

Even without the above evidence of "exaggerating" upward, only with the assumption that Eichmann was in fact responsible for 'gassings' can you make the assumption that he is only "lying to minimize genocide". This is a fallacy known as "affirming the consequent" -- you might want to Google that before you try using such a ridiculous argument going forward, bombsaway. Eichmann is a repeated liar on this topic and you and I both only have speculation as to his precise reasons why, but a strong case has been made as to what external and personal factors would contribute to him affirming those notorious falsehoods which had already been widely attributed to him.

Here's your argument on Aktion Reinhard camps:

Just because the existence of a killing and body destruction operation hasn't been proven to your liking, that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Microbes haven't been shown to exist on Mars, yet they very well might, or might've in the past. Many scientists think this is likely actually.

LOL, well, now you've done it bombsaway. I'm finally convinced the Holocaust happened.

Then, there's this:

2) You are deflecting from the fact that you made an argument and cited a quote to support it, leaving out the very next sentence which made clear that the evidence you cited meant the exact opposite of what you portrayed it as.

This is what I originally wrote, concerning Eichmann's situation at the time of the interviews:

"I assumed he was a humble rabbit farmer but it turns he was more of a manager of large industrial farm, making decent money according to Stangneth "But the income was pretty good—
Eichmann put it at 4,500 pesos a month, ") . Later he became an executive at Mercedes. Haven't seen evidence he was in poor circumstances."

So I quoted from the text to support the assertion that he was making decent money. There was no mistake or lie.

You quoted from the text to support your assertion that he was making decent money, to suggest he did not need money at the time of this interview. That's why you quoted the text, bombsaway, by your own admission.

The problem is, that same exact text---the very next sentence!---makes clear that he did, in fact, without a doubt, 100% need money at the time.

You either had an unbelievable---truly unbelievable---oversight, or you are lying. Guess which one I suspect.

A. Eichmann's Personal Motives


In this part of your response, you say Eichmann was motivated by proving that he had suffered for Germany. Yet the "horror stories" part of the tapes come towards the end of the interviews (transcript 47:12). He had much earlier stated the existence of a genocidal program, so this doesn't explain why he did that.

If he "stated the existence of a genocidal program" earlier on, that is where his "horror stories" began, quite obviously. It's bizarre you would suggest otherwise, unless you're just desperate for a way out of your poor arguments.

It also seems silly that he would have needed to make up stories about killing defenseless people to make himself seem more honorable. If he was flat out lying, he could have picked a different a subject. And of course, this is no explanation for why he held the position that the genocide was a moral good.

Your "make up stories about killing defenseless people to make himself seem more honorable" is a misrepresentation, first of all. Eichmann himself rants about his feelings in this regard openly, in his "even if we had killed 10 million of them..." statement in this same interview. Eichmann's nation was defeated, decimated, completely wiped out and humiliated all around the world by the greatest enemy the world has ever known. The view is: "the fewer Jews in existence, the better off we'd all be. Germany might have lived on, or had a brighter future, if only more of our enemy had been killed." Jews were not "defenseless people". They were Jews; a parasitic and permanent threat wherever they go. Thus, they could not be seen as "defenseless". Eichmann's view of killing more Jews, generally speaking, as "heroism" would no doubt be agreed upon by many "Nazis" at the time, even if others found a practical "extermination" unpalatable. No one on either side of our debate doubts there were surely some motives to kill all Jews among Germans by the end of the war. The only question is whether an extermination operation did, in fact, happen (since we know there were huge motives and means for Jewish organizations [with Allied support] to tell lies such as this one).

The second thing you bring up here is money. Yet it's not clear (to say the least) why telling fake genocide stories would have helped him here. Sassen, as you seem to agree, wasn't interested in affirming the orthodox narrative. He ended up stopping work on the project after the Eichmann interviews concluded. The money angle was never realized for Eichmann, and there's nothing to indicate he was ever going to make money off of these talks.

If he was cravenly in it for the money, I would guess he would've given Sassen the material he wanted, which could have been used to produce a pretty good revisionist book. There was money in revisionism and Nazi apologia at this time (the paper Der Weg is an example)

Unless you provide evidence otherwise, Sassen almost certainly was paying Eichmann for these interviews. People tend not to offer their time up for free, in multiple sessions, over the course of several months, without clearly expressing some desire to do so (or at least having some other motives which drive them to).

Your speculation about what the most profitable avenues perceived by Sassen might have been are baseless. There is an entire industry centered around telling "fake genocide stories". There's a reason so many authors have been caught lying about the "Holocaust", or their experience of it. And Hollywood was well-into their involvement and endorsement of such massive fabrications by the 1950s. Your hindsight assessment about which topics were profitable to publish is irrelevant to Sassen's own initiative at the time.

(EDIT: to clarify, I don't think Sassen was necessarily trying to bring "extermination" stories out of Eichmann for profit; the key point is that when money is involved, the question of actual motives becomes much less clear... this applies to both Sassen and Eichmann)

B. Eichmann's Popularity and Fame Motives

In this section of your response you quote some excerpts from the text where it is clear Eichmann is holding court to a certain degree, and different people are sitting in to listen. No doubt he liked the attention and it probably felt a little like the old days, when he was a powerful and respected figure within the Nazi government.

But this doesn't explain why he would traumatize a bunch of revisionists and pro-Nazi people with things they didn't want to hear. It's evident that his relationships with Sassen, Alvensleben, and others were damaged because of his beliefs and especially his ethical defense of the killing program. If he was motivated by "popularity" he would have done the opposite of what you say.

What are you even talking about? If he was motivated by popularity, he clearly would have done exactly what he was doing, since it was obviously working.

bombsaway, do you seriously even believe your own words?

As a result of this "entrapment" from Sassen, Eichmann became dramatically more obstinate, recognizing that Sassen preferred a more Revisionist-friendly narrative and deliberately violating that preference.

Stangneth simply assumes that Eichmann had some kind of epiphany the night before and decided to 'come 100% clean' with Eichmann at the next meetings, and finally tell the 'full truth' about extermination. In reality, it looks far more like he simply felt motivated to produce even more bullshit.

I'm not sure what argument you're making here, but Stangneth make clear that Sassen was messing with Eichmann because at that point he suspected he may have been working for "international Jewry" and wanted to get info out of him.

How are you not sure what argument I was making? Perhaps there is some cognitive dissonance in your way, or you're just lying again? Whatever Stangneth "makes clear" and whatever Sassen's motives actually were in "entrapping" Eichmann in this way, Eichmann clearly was not happy about it. He decidedly became less cooperative with Sassen and began sabotaging whatever was left of the interviews, speaking even more aggressively, etc. It isn't complicated.


Back to BA's most recent post addressing me, he responds to my points regarding the heavy restrictions and prohibitions on Revisionists from fair access to source material:

Yes revisionists are working at a disadvantage, but this isn't evidence of a conspiracy. The materials that have been released so far (long tape excerpt + transcripts half legible according to you, plus other more legible copies according to Wilbur) should give revisionists something to work on, but they haven't done anything thus far. Until they make some convincing (evidence based) arguments the Eichmann confession has probative value, far more than what revisionists have offered for any of their narratives. The single long excerpt linked on this forum suffices here, and I welcome you to present the strongest single piece of positive evidence for your side for purposes of comparison.

BA admits that "revisionists are working at a disadvantage" but will not really address this for what it is: a rigged game, a tilted table. "Cheating", so to speak. He puts the blame back on Revisionists, suggesting we should have "something to work on" with the crumbs that have already been made available in the public sphere. Nevermind that, due to global repression of Revisionist publishing in academia or society at-large, there are hardly any career Revisionists to find time to address the myriad problems with the establishment narrative. And, for the establishment, that's the point.

BA wraps up his chain of fallacy with another: "I welcome you to present the strongest single piece of positive evidence for your side..."

How can this be taken seriously? Beyond the problems just mentioned, are we really expected to provide "positive evidence" of the true motives behind a conversation between an infamous liar and a journalist? How about "positive evidence" of actual human corpses for just 1% of those you claim were 'Holocausted'?

It is proven in this thread that Eichmann (1) was a serial liar, (2) lied about "extermination" specifically, (3) had several clear and undeniable motives to do so. When looking at the story of the Sassen interviews and of Eichmann's life at the time, the truth is obvious: Eichmann was not speaking truthfully to Sassen. Nor can we assume Sassen sought only to document truth, given his own financial gain in the matter.

You proved nothing of the sort. A serial liar is a person with a psychological disorder who lies compulsively for no reason. There's no evidence of this. Eichmann lied for personal benefit, as most people do. The only lie about extermination that I could see was that he underplayed it.

BA seems to think "serial liar" is identical to "compulsive liar". He is unaware that "serial" simply means "repeatedly" or "in a series". But it is great to see that BA admits that "Eichmann lied for personal benefit". It's incredible that we are still arguing about Eichmann's credibility, given BA acknowledges this.

[fireofice]

The visitor provides additional confirmation of bodies being destroyed in summer/early autumn of 42 + here's what he says about the mass graves

Why should I take anything an anonymous "visitor" says seriously? How do we verify he is who he said he is exactly? As far as I'm concerned, anonymous testimonies go straight in the trash. It's pretty hilarious that you expected anyone here to take that seriously.

[Hektor]

The visitor provides additional confirmation of bodies being destroyed in summer/early autumn of 42 + here's what he says about the mass graves

Why should I take anything an anonymous "visitor" says seriously? How do we verify he is who he said he is exactly? As far as I'm concerned, anonymous testimonies go straight in the trash. It's pretty hilarious that you expected anyone here to take that seriously.

Because the visitor is a "Holocaust Witness". And that gets a status of sanctity with it. Just as a testimony about martyrdom does. The Holocaustians are like out-school Catholics that will believe anybody in the clergy, because he has that special status. That's how hegemony is maintained. It's similar with other religions like Islam. They all got their Holy Cows... And the Holy Caust is something rather powerful. Even secular people abide to religious behavior there and start believing in martyrs, testimonials of holy men, relics and some supernatural truth as well. The tricky thing is that the vast majority of Holocaustians considers themselves not religious, but enlightened, rational, scientifically minded, modern, secular, humanistic, etc.

[curioussoul]

Basically Reder claimed to have worked as a machinist in the engine room of the gas chambers for months. Is there anyone else who would have had a better vantage point about what kind of engine was used?

That depends, of course, on which Reder testimony you quote. In his original declaration from November 1944 he didn't mention the extermination method, only that "gas was fed through appropriate pipes". When he was interrogated in September 1944 he spoke of gas bottles and compressors. According to Reder, the gas generated by the engine was not even fed into the gas chamber. Instead, he hypothesized that the engine was used to "pressurize" or pump the air out of the room. He explained that the air in the gas chamber was pure, odorless and harmless.

In summary: Reder could not make up his mind about the actual extermination method used, despite supposedly working there for 3 months.

I won't even touch upon Reder's other lies and mistakes, which irrevocably shatter his credibility.

Gerstein, on the other hand, personally witnessed a diesel engine for hours, as the SS men purportedly tried to get it working. Gerstein must have been familiar with the workings of a typical engine since he was educated as an engineer.

[borjastick]

The visitor provides additional confirmation of bodies being destroyed in summer/early autumn of 42 + here's what he says about the mass graves

Why should I take anything an anonymous "visitor" says seriously? How do we verify he is who he said he is exactly? As far as I'm concerned, anonymous testimonies go straight in the trash. It's pretty hilarious that you expected anyone here to take that seriously.

Because the visitor is a "Holocaust Witness". And that gets a status of sanctity with it. Just as a testimony about martyrdom does. The Holocaustians are like out-school Catholics that will believe anybody in the clergy, because he has that special status. That's how hegemony is maintained. It's similar with other religions like Islam. They all got their Holy Cows... And the Holy Caust is something rather powerful. Even secular people abide to religious behavior there and start believing in martyrs, testimonials of holy men, relics and some supernatural truth as well. The tricky thing is that the vast majority of Holocaustians considers themselves not religious, but enlightened, rational, scientifically minded, modern, secular, humanistic, etc.

It is worth noting or remembering that up until the early to mid nineteenth century the jews as a race/religion were of little number and even smaller consequence. The Askenazis were the largest group of 'jews' in the world and some (me and plenty of others) would argue they aren't even real jews. The rest were so inconsequential that by and large the group known as jews were on the way out, consigned to the escalator of doom. They still to this day amount to fewer than 20 million on the whole planet. Tiny.

The call for Zionism allowed them to scream for what they believe to be their rightful homeland, though how ashkenazis can call for Palestine to be theirs is way above my pay grade. Then of course they started the mega lies of the 6m in trouble, at risk, peril awaits them routine and jumped at the opportunity to further this crazy claim in and after the first world war. No buyers would come calling for this nonsense and yet somehow Palestine was to be carved up by the Brits and handed over to a bunch of lying scumbags whose claim to be the chosenites was sketchy at best.

A new and more convincing devilish scheme was required to make the world realise how important this task was and not to be missed. Hence they decided that 6m of their own should, at least for the media and political classes, be sacrificed at the altar of ZyklonB. Bodies intertwined forever in numbers so huge as to make your eyes water and make the world see them as the greatest oppressed group ever, in the history of the world.

Riches beyond compare were bestowed on them, power, influence and deference were to be showered on them so that they could, in public, tell everyone else about how great they are while all the time killing Palestinian nationals with impunity.

That is why I fight back against the lies and deceit of the jews and their holocaust.

[bombsaway]

Yours was a long post so I'll just respond to the first couple of points to keep things manageable:

The amount of human remains do not remotely account for claims of the "Holocaust". Out of 236 samples, only six were "positive" for human remains. Among these (TORC, p. 206-7):

...Pit No. 1 reportedly contains a layer of human remains of
indeterminate thickness. The presence of human remains is not documented by
the soundings for Pit No. 4. For Pit No. 10, human remains are present only in
three out of the seven samples published by Kola; since he says nothing about
the remaining nine, we have to limit ourselves to the reported data. In Pit No.
28, human remains were found in one out of three samples.
Therefore, the only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from the core
samples is that the above-mentioned pits contain only scattered human re-
mains.

You keep repeating things like "substantial amounts of cremains" but you do not quantify these statements nor cite your source(s). It's confusing and I'm beginning to think you're just talking out of your behind.

1) Which specific core samples are you saying are confirmed to have had cremains identified?
2) Approximately how many human beings does the total mass of cremains you are saying have been identified amount to?
3) What significance do you ascribe to cremains in these quantities?

The grave descriptions I quoted here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&start=375#p110005 are taken verbatim from Kola's study. As you can see, according to his descriptions, 31/33 graves contained cremains, and the other two graves bodies. Every grave had human remains of some kind. I couldn't find a good scan of the core sample illustrations so can't comment on that. Are you saying that Kola "drummed up" his descriptions, but not the core sample illustrations, which could have just as easily been fabricated?

I think what happened is either you or Mattogno are conflating "human remains" with cremains, while Kola was just talking about uncremated bodies.

On the same page, I explained why the descriptions indicated substantial amounts of cremains.

bombsaway responds to Archie by saying that Germany was already burning Jewish corpses at Belzec in 1942. Here is the actual [Google translated] text from the source BA provides for this claim:

6:20 p.m.:

We passed the Belzec camp. Before that it went through high pine forests for a long time. When the woman called "here it comes" all you could see was a high hedge of fir trees. A strong sweetish odor was clearly noticeable. "They stink," said the woman. "Oh nonsense, that's the gas," laughed the railway policeman. In the meantime - we had driven about 200 meters - the sweet smell had turned into a sharp burning smell. "That's from the crematorium," said the policeman. Shortly thereafter the fence stopped. You could see a guard house with SS guards in front of it. A double railway line led into the camp. One track branched off from the main line, the other led via a turntable out of the warehouse to a row of sheds about 250 meters away. A goods wagon was just standing on the turntable. Several Jews were busy turning the wheel. SS guards, rifles under their arms, stood by. One of the sheds was open, you could clearly see that it was filled to the ceiling with bundles of clothes. As I drove on, I looked back at the camp one more time. The fence was too high to see anything. The woman said that sometimes you can see smoke coming out of the camp as you drive by, but I didn't see anything of the sort. My guess is that the camp is about 800 by 400 meters.

Fascinating. A "sweetish" and "sweet" odor was noticed and bombsaway would have us believe this referred to burning corpses which are known in all other reports of history as having odor that is acrid, pungent, or foul.

Moreover, this person did not see a pile of Jews in the open shed... rather, they saw a pile of clothes. bombsaway can't seem to do the math that, since this location held amassed quantities of Jewish property, perhaps some of that is what was being burned there (especially given the typhus epidemic where property destruction was more often necessary or warranted).

This is even more interesting since the smoke phenomenon didn't seem to be a particularly visible occurrence. You could "sometimes" see it but this witness saw nothing, just enjoyed that oh-so-sweet smell, like Grandma's cookies on a Sunday morning.

Are you accepting the Cornides diary as legitimate? It clearly evidences a mass killing operation through numerous second hand statements.

https://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/pol ... edlung.php

Here are some quotes:

I spoke to a policeman who was on duty at the train station. When I asked where the Jews came from, he replied: "They are probably the last ones from Lemberg. It's been going on like this for 3 weeks now, in Jaroslau they only left 8, no one knows why." I asked: "How far do they go?" He then: "To Belzec." "And then?" "Poison." I asked, "Gas?" He shrugged. Then he just said, "I think they always shot her in the beginning."

A railway policeman at the marshalling yard in Reichshof reported on August 30, 1942: »In Reichshof on September 1st a marble plaque with golden letters will be erected because the town will then be free of Jews. The transport trains with the Jews come through the marshalling yard almost every day, are immediately forwarded and usually come back cleanly swept out the same evening. In Jaroslau, 6,000 Jews were recently killed in one day.

A Sudeten-German foreman who was sitting at the same table commented: “Recently there was a drunk SS man sitting in our canteen, crying like a child. He said he was on duty in Belzec and if it went on like this for another 14 days he would kill himself because he couldn't take it any longer."

A policeman tells the story in the Ratskeller in Cholm on September 1, 1942: »The policemen who accompany the Jews on the train are not allowed into the camp. Only the SS and the Ukrainian Special Service (a police formation made up of Ukrainian volunteers) do that. But they also do good business. A Ukrainian was with us the other day, he had a whole stack of banknotes with him and watches and gold and all sorts of things. They find all that when they collect the clothes and load them." When asked how the Jews are killed, the policeman replied: "They are told that they have to be deloused and then they have to take off their clothes and then If you come into a room, you first let a heat wave in and then there is already a small dose of the gas. That's enough for anesthesia. Then the rest will follow. And then they'll be burned right away.

So Cornides is talking to mostly Germans who worked and lived near Belzec, so while not assigned for work in the camp itself, they had a pretty good vantage point about what was happening. A tiny camp which thousands of people are entering on a daily basis, without evidence of them leaving, is quite obviously a killing center of some sort, but clearly rumors about the site were also being spread by those working inside. “Recently there was a drunk SS man sitting in our canteen, crying like a child. He said he was on duty in Belzec and if it went on like this for another 14 days he would kill himself because he couldn't take it any longer."

There's nothing in the diary that supports the revisionist hypothesis that Jews exited Belzec en masse to go somewhere else. If people saw them coming in, wouldn't they see them coming out? Is everyone that Cornides talked to insane?

If we accept Cornides' account as factual, the question is is the smoke a result of property being destroyed or human bodies? No witness testimony supports the former, but it does the latter: "They are told that they have to be deloused and then they have to take off their clothes and then If you come into a room, you first let a heat wave in and then there is already a small dose of the gas. That's enough for anesthesia. Then the rest will follow. And then they'll be burned right away."

Why or how would it be necessary for me to produce a "narrative" for why a liar has told lies? It is sufficient that (1) we know this person does lie about a particular topic, (2) we know motives other than telling the truth existed for this same topic, for this person. Both are indisputably true, in Eichmann's case.

Most people lie, and most people have motives to lie in a given situation, so you have to go much further than this. You have to show a high degree of motive to lie about a particular thing. This is a value judgement, but I don't think you did this below. I'll describe more in detail.

What bombsaway is saying here is that since "everyone lies", it matters not that Eichmann is proven to have lied on a particular topic. bombsaway suggests here that your great-uncle who is known to lie about his war stories in Vietnam can still be trusted about his war stories in Vietnam since, after all, "most people lie".

bombsaway suggests that I (or anyone) needs to prove not only that Eichmann is a liar on this particular topic (which we have done, conclusively) but that he had a certain degree of motive to lie about it again. I don't think that's so reasonable.

I highlighted in bold above the portion about Eichmann changing his story to suit Sassen's "cue". This better suits a revisionist narrative, for obvious reasons.

Yep this is an example of Eichmann lying to minimize genocide, which is the opposite of your assertion (he lied to make it up). He didn't want to make Sassen uncomfortable by talking about his involvement in the killing of children.

bombsaway has an interesting way of interpreting this situation. On one hand, he is suggesting that this interview is a tell-all with Eichmann openly and shamelessly "tearing down the floodgate" to tell the full, unadulterated truth of his wartime experience in killing as many Jews as he could. On the other, he's obeying Sassen's interest in telling the story a certain way. Moreover, we know that Eichmann isn't only revising his lies downward, he's also invented 'gassings' that did not happen (revising upward), shown earlier:

In his precapture statements, Eichmann claimed that he saw the alleged homicidal gas chambers of Majdanek, a concentration camp in Poland. Browning informed his readers in 2003 that these “observations” are not credible: “In both precapture accounts, Eichmann’s dating is vague. Furthermore, the claims that gassing was already taking place in this first camp, or that it was Majdanek, are contrary to what we know from other sources. The precapture testimonies, in short, are helpful to neither the historian nor Eichmann’s credibility [p. 23].” In plain language, Eichmann never saw the “gas chambers” he claimed to have seen at Majdanek.

Absolutely nowhere does Browning say Eichmann made up gas chamber stories, that's a revisionist invention. Rather he thinks Eichmann was talking about an experimental gassing site near Majdanek (which would explain confusion about the name)

From 'Collected Memories':

If the scenario of a winter or spring86 trip to the forest site beyond Lublin is both contradicted by Eichmann’s own description
and difficult to reconcile with any rational defense strategy on Eichmann’s part, is there an alternative scenario that can be reconciled
with the accepted November 1 starting date for the construction of
Belzec? I believe so, but the necessary starting point is my admittedly speculative hypothesis that the site Eichmann visited was not
the Belzec camp under construction. That site lay alongside the
main road and rail line, in sight of the train station and town,
which hardly fits Eichmann’s description of two small wooden
houses or peasant huts at the end of a footpath in the middle of a
dense deciduous forest.87 I would suggest that in September 1941
Wirth had been sent to the Lublin district to experiment with
creating a gassing facility on a larger scale than the euthanasia institutes in Germany. He first contemplated converting peasant
huts into gas chambers by sealing them hermetically (as Höss was
to do with Bunkers 1 and 2 in Birkenau), and this is the site Eichmann was sent to visit in order to inform Heydrich of the latest
developments. As Bogdan Musial has recently discovered, the
commander of the Gendarmerie in the Lublin district, Ferdinand
Herzog, also testified to the existence of “a primitive installation,
consisting of a hermetically sealed shack hidden deep in the forest
across from Galicia near Belzec” in which gassing was tested.88

[fireofice]

Are you accepting the Cornides diary as legitimate? It clearly evidences a mass killing operation through numerous second hand statements.

Obviously not. He's just saying he's not saying what you want him to say.

Absolutely nowhere does Browning say Eichmann made up gas chamber stories, that's a revisionist invention. Rather he thinks Eichmann was talking about an experimental gassing site near Majdanek (which would explain confusion about the name)

Yeah that explanation doesn't work. That would be like if I said I witnessed 9/11 in New York on the wrong date, but then go, "oh wait, it was Balitmore where I witnessed a mass murder, I got it confused because the city is close by". Nonsense.

[Hektor]

Are you accepting the Cornides diary as legitimate? It clearly evidences a mass killing operation through numerous second hand statements.

Obviously not. He's just saying he's not saying what you want him to say.

Absolutely nowhere does Browning say Eichmann made up gas chamber stories, that's a revisionist invention. Rather he thinks Eichmann was talking about an experimental gassing site near Majdanek (which would explain confusion about the name)

Yeah that explanation doesn't work. That would be like if I said I witnessed 9/11 in New York on the wrong date, but then go, "oh wait, it was Balitmore where I witnessed a mass murder, I got it confused because the city is close by". Nonsense.

Does one need 'eye-witnesses' to know that the towers 'are gone'?

But for six million gassed Jews, we have some eyewitness contradicted by others.
Meanwhile there should have been piles of remains for this, if it were true.

[fireofice]

If we accept Cornides' account as factual, the question is is the smoke a result of property being destroyed or human bodies? No witness testimony supports the former, but it does the latter

The point is the claim is most consistent with property. If you want to say bodies, then that works just fine too, since the smell he ascribes to it is wrong. Either way, we can't accept it for what you want.

"They are told that they have to be deloused and then they have to take off their clothes and then If you come into a room, you first let a heat wave in and then there is already a small dose of the gas. That's enough for anesthesia. Then the rest will follow. And then they'll be burned right away."

Why do you post no source? Randomly throwing out quotes with no source or at least a reference to who is saying this is unacceptable.

[bombsaway]

If we accept Cornides' account as factual, the question is is the smoke a result of property being destroyed or human bodies? No witness testimony supports the former, but it does the latter

The point is the claim is most consistent with property. If you want to say bodies, then that works just fine too, since the smell he ascribes to it is wrong. Either way, we can't accept it for what you want.

"They are told that they have to be deloused and then they have to take off their clothes and then If you come into a room, you first let a heat wave in and then there is already a small dose of the gas. That's enough for anesthesia. Then the rest will follow. And then they'll be burned right away."

Why do you post no source? Randomly throwing out quotes with no source or at least a reference to who is saying this is unacceptable.

The "strong sweetish odor" is likely from the lime Kola describes as having been found in 20 of the 33 graves.

The source is the Cornides report, which is what we were discussing. More info here: https://phdn.org/histgen/cornides/facsimcornides.html