He accuses me of selective quotation of sources, not providing any examples whatsoever. He brings up Olga Lengyel's death toll, except the death tolls given by inmates are simply irrelevant. He brings up Vrba, claiming that he admitted to being a false witness, except this, of course, is a lie, as he never did. Here's what the Veritas team had to say about Vrba:
Let's look at the testimony about "poetic license", the grounds on which Faurisson and our esteemed opponents insistently call Vrba a “self-perjuring liar”. Unlike the Negationists, who are content to draw their conclusions based on paraphrases from their friends, we would prefer to examine the court testimony itself, and highlight the passages from which it becomes clear that if there are “self-perjuring liars” around, Vrba is not one of them. We will even take the transcription of the trial records from a "Revisionist” site, www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/vrba3.html :Note how he doesn't give a link to the Veritas team statement, and instead chooses to misrepresent it. Perhaps this is because all links to RODOH are censored at CODOH forum? Actually, even the name "RODOH" is censored. It is automatically turned to "shills", as you can witness in the posting in question. This just shows how the CODOH bunch and Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis are afraid of the open debate.Q. I suggest, also, that you falsified to some extent as well, because throughout the book you referred to someone by the name of Rudolf Vrba, and you attribute the name Vrba to the conversations, and Rudi, meaning you, and in fact, there was nobody by that name in the camp, sir. Is that right?
A. That is perfectly so, but I would take a great objection against your word "falsify", because I would say, then, that the artist drawn my moustache in a different way has falsified something. This is not a document, but literature, and literature has been meant mainly for young people and it would be for young people a considerable confusion to explain to them all the methods of clandestine work and how it came that the names have to be changed. Moreover, I would have to explain my real ground and reasons why I changed my German name to the name of my native language, and this would have transferred, perhaps, a national hatred to the reader, which I wanted to avoid, against the Germans.
In other words, I used my licence of a poet, it is called licensia poetarium, to put in the book only those facts and events which will enable a young person to understand the general situation.
Q. Mm-hmmm. So for you it's poetic licence?
A. Poetic licence in this particular case.
A. In other words, I am not bound to make of it a document, but re-creates the situation as close as possible to the truth without complicating it.
So Vrba never testified to using "poetic license" in the 1944 report, as Faurisson and our opponents would have us believe. He openly admitted to having used it in a personal memoir written twenty years after the report, where it was perfectly legitimate for him to do so, and that in regard only to details which in no way affected the accuracy of his description of events at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Apart from trying to make a fly into an elephant (another well-known “Revisionist” tactic) our opponents and their source seek to mislead their readers about the occasion, contents and object of Vrba’s statements.
The hapless chap then talks about Mattogno destroying this or that, but what about Mattogno himself, who has been destroyed by the HC team? To repeat his own words: "Once a source is exposed as fake and writers keep using him, aren't the writers that keep using it exposed as fake, too?"
All in all, this guy's posting amounts to one big ad hominem - he doesn't deal with a single argument at this blog. Which is only to be expected.
Ah, CODOH. For dessert, here's another nice thread:
vincentferrerGiven that Finkelstein is an atheist, only his ethnicity is meant. "Vee arr not antisemitic!" Yeah, yeah.
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:13
He [Finkelstein - SR] cast a little bit of doubt on the holocaust. The Jews who control the place denied him tenure.
Personally, as a Catholic, I support this since I think Jews should not teach at private Catholic colleges.
Read the updates...
Update: In the same thread an old German CODOH member "Sailor" who is known as a translator of some denier texts from German into English, as an outspoken antisemite and simply as an all-around doofus, adds:
The man was booted off the forum when he lost his cool and abused people who did not agree with his views on Babi Jar.Take away the spin, and there is the core of truth. I was debunking the deniers' guru John Ball regarding the Babij Jar issue (see the full debunking here), and my last posting, which addressed the insane ramblings of some "Turpitz", who was making some rather outrageous claims like "why did the Zionist not intervene as one of their sacred burial sites was destroyed" ("Zionists"? "Intervene"? In Soviet Union? During Stalin's reign? The boy is a babbling ignoramus) - was deleted and I was banned. When a person describes this as a matter of "disagreement", rather than outright censorship by Hargis, who is always afraid of good debunkings, you can say that the person is severely deluded, or full of it. This Eschen guy is known to be a Mattogno fan, but he never addressed the refutations of Mattogno's stuff on our blog. All he can do is whine in online forums. Same applies to Hannover-Hargis, who is simply pathetic.
Update 2: a denier lemming "Laurentz Dahl" (spanked here) brings up some irrelevancies to counter the point that "No Jew who was once inside the gas chamber in operation come out alive". He brings up Yaakov Biskowitz, claiming that the latter claimed to have seen the collapsing floor of Sobibor gas chamber. This has been already dealt with: Biskowitz explicitly said that he did not see the collapsing floor. Moreover, here are the circumstances under which he had seen the gas chambers:
When I was passing by the two larger stores in Camp 2, I detached the cart and pushed it towards Camp 3. I was supposed to leave it near the gate, but I could not hold the vehicle back. The gate opened and it pushed me inside. Since I knew I would not get out alive from there, I began to run back at top speed and managed to reach my place of work without anyone noticing.So he was there for a few seconds, he was at a distance from the gas chambers, in a state of great panic, and later misinterpreted what he had seen in these few moments as a hollow "underneath" the chambers. Big deal! One must be a total loon to think that this "proves" anything. Besides, Biskowitz mentioned nothing about the method of murder. So he is irrelevant in this case!
Then he brings up Hersz Cukierman, whose testimony only underscores the ignorance of the Jews like Pechersky, who were outside the Totenlager, about the method used. However, inside the Totenlager the information about specifically the use of "gas" was also probably a conjecture - again, only the Nazis and "motorists" would know for certain.
For the same reason his mention of other witnesses, like Bahir and Lichtman, is absolutely irrelevant - they were outside of Totenlager, if they did repeat the "collapsing floor" story, then it probably came from Biskowitz, AND "collapsing floor" is not the method of murder, so again, irrelevancy upon irrelevancy. Kalmen Wawryk told something by a kapo? The kapo was from the same camp as Kalmen, obviously, i.e. outside of Totenlager. Even if earlier that kapo had been in the Totenlager, there is, again, no guarantee that he somehow saw what had happened inside the gas chambers.
But despite the lack of knowledge about the precise method of murder, the Sobibor survivors are still valuable witnesses, because they can testify to the very fact of murder, to the proven fact that Sobibor was the last stop for the absolute majority of the arriving transports. Indeed, as Wewryk wrote:
However, only a severely retarded person could remain ignorant of what went on there. The smoke and the smell said it all and we occasionally heard a terrified "Shma Yizroel" echo over to us from there."Dahl", you're even stupider than I thought.
Update 3: the denier in question responded. Well, kind of. As is only usual for CODOH deniers, he did not address a single point, thereby conceding that he has lost the argument. Instead, he wrote several ad hominem-filled paragraphs, which in effect, amount to "nyah-nyah-nyah, your behavior is childish and you fling ad hominems". Talk about pot(pie)s and kettles! So much for "open debate". Thanks for confirming that most CODOH deniers are retards, who are unable to deal with logical arguments - once again.
Update 4: Dahl responds to the comment regarding Biskowitz, but does not even link here! What a chicken. So, here's what Chicken Dahl (as I will call him from now on for refusal to link here, until he does) has to say:
Sergey Romanov (hello Sergey! since you are reading this) claims that Biskowitz did not see the collapsing floor and that anyway it's "irrelevant since the collapsing was not the murder agent". He is lying.Note how Chicken Dahl does not deal with a simple fact that since the floor was not claimed to gave been a murder weapon, it is a non-example when it comes to the issue at hand. Worse yet, he accuses me of lying, but then cannot support his accusation. Let's see. What is my claim?
This is what Biskowitz actually attested to:Q. Please understand me. You are somewhat familiar with these matters. Did you see the floor when it had opened up?So what he claims that he did not see was the process of the floor opening up. What he claims he saw was corpses in a pit underneath the gas chamber. Which means that he claimed to have seen the floor of the gas chamber in its opened up state.
A. I did not see that ? I merely saw that underneath the gas chamber, there was a hollow which already contained bodies.
Presiding Judge Thank you, Mr. Biskowitz, you have concluded your testimony. I know you have not told us everything. But there was no alternative.
Biskowitz explicitly said that he did not see the collapsing floor.How does the witness answer the question "Did you see the floor when it had opened up?"?
I did not see that - I merely saw that underneath the gas chamber, there was a hollow which already contained bodies.So once again: he did not see the "collapsing floor" itself. I.e. exactly what I have claimed. Game, set, match. I.e., it is Chicken Dahl who is lying through his teeth, especially when he claims that Biskowitz "claimed to have seen the floor of the gas chamber in its opened up state". Biskowitz mentioned nothing about "the floor in the opened state" and nowhere in his testimony it is implied. Indeed, to have seen the bodies in a supposed pit underneath a chamber through an already opened floor, Biskowitz would have to be near the gas chambers. However, he said that he saw the pit and the hollow "from a distance". This implies that he has interpreted what he thought he had seen to be two "levels" at once, i.e. a chamber and what is underneath a chamber, which would not imply that the "collapsing floor" had to be in an open state at that moment. Taken at face value, his testimony implies that the pit underneath a chamber was exposed and could be seen from the outside (he also mentions a little train that carried the bodies, implying that the bodies would have to be unloaded from the exposed pit). The "hollow" was supposed to be visible by itself, from a distance, with or without the flooor in the open state. Now, what he really did see we will probably never know. To repeat:
So he was there for a few seconds, he was at a distance from the gas chambers, in a state of great panic, and later misinterpreted what he had seen in these few moments as a hollow "underneath" the chambers. Big deal!Possibly, it was a heap of corpses in some small pit near the chambers, which Biskowitz, in those few panicky moments, interpreted to have a "continuation" underneath the building. Or whatever. Anyway, Chicken Dahl, you fail again. And you did not even try to address the rest of it...