Saturday, April 04, 2015

Friedrich Jansson on Burial Space

Hans’ reply to Friedrich Jansson brought to my memory this "Revisionist" blogger, with whom I had some fairly interesting conversations on the RODOH forum back in 2013, see the threads Sobibor gassing engine - what was it?, Now that Mr. Jansson is with us ..., Alex Bay killed in trench collapse!, The rails would have bent in the heat, A new video on open air cremation, Why didn't everyone notice the cremation?, Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps, Roswell denial: a conspiracy theory?, Chinese forensic scientist supports holocaust denial?, 100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?, Those yellow corpses, Recovery of fat from burning pyres and Katyn burial space versus the Reinhardt camps.



One of Jansson’s main preoccupations is (or used to be) the burial space at the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka, which is addressed in Chapter 7 of the critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues and in the blogs Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (4,1) and Mattogno, Graf & Kues on the Aktion Reinhard(t) Mass Graves (3). In May 2014 Jansson published part 12 of a series presenting mass graves in which corpses or carcasses were buried over larger areas and/or in smaller concentrations (number of corpses per cubic meter) than in the AR camps, as if that were an argument against the mathematically demonstrated possibility of burying in the relatively small areas of these camps the murdered deportees for whose fate "Revisionists" haven’t managed, more than 70 years after the events, to provide a remotely plausible let alone evidence-backed alternative explanation (any "Revisionist" disputing this is kindly invited to take my Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory).

I suggest that Mr. Jansson have a conversation with his fellow "Revisionist" David Cole about the former Paris cemetery known as the Cimetière des Saints-Innocents.

36 comments:

Jeff said...

Welcome Back Mr. Muehlenkamp!!

Jonathan Harrison said...

All of Jansson's gambits seem to be based on personal incredulity and "coulda, woulda, shoulda", which makes Jansson a tiresome and pointless bore. Meanwhile he'll ignore the evidence, such as writing about the Tesch trial but leaving out Zyklon-B deliveries to Neuengamme or the gassing testimony of someone who actually gassed people, namely Willi Bahr, as noted here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2015/03/neuengamme-gassing-and-infanticide.html

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Welcome Back Mr. Muehlenkamp!!»

Thanks. I had no time or inclination for this kind of fun over the past year, mainly due to a demanding new job that had me working even on many a weekend. Things are getting better now at work with routine and someone to give me a hand, and I've even had enough leisure for the first time in half a year to continue working the rebuttal of MGK's SPOM as concerns my chapters of the critique. Hopefully things will stay that way.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Poor JH (a proven serial plagiarist) is more than a little envious of Jansson's research on the Tesch case evidently.

Yeah, you've posted a few dull paragraphs containing well known claims on the Neuengamme gassings lifted wholesale from others. *Yawn*

Why didn't you give Neuengamme the treatment Jannson gave the Tesch case, are you not capable of original research?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Hey rabbit,

I take that JH will address your other grievances, but may I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself (at least more than you do anyway) by cutting out the "plagiarist" baloney? It was never a very original accusation, and the more often you repeat it, the more boring it becomes.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Hey bobby

You might not have noticed, but I've never stated that you personally partook in plagiarism in the Manifesto; sure I've pointed out that you wholly rely on Mattogno for numerous documents and articles you've never seen the originals of and couldn't read even if they were sat in front of you (Polish text), but you at least cited him as the source.

Terry, Harrison and Myers on the other hand, plagiarised numerous authors mercilessly. I know this for a fact and am not just repeating the accusation made by Mattogno. I've not only read their rebuttal cover-to-cover, but also doubled checked many of the plagiarism accusations.

If you like, I can start a thread on rodoh, a sort of 'cut out & keep' guide to HC's plagiarism for those who can't be bothered to read MGK's entire book; to use be used as evidence against those who deny HC's plagiarism, such as yourself.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Hey bobby»

Have we kept pigs together, did you get angry about my calling you "rabbit", or why the familiarity?

«You might not have noticed, but I've never stated that you personally partook in plagiarism in the Manifesto; sure I've pointed out that you wholly rely on Mattogno for numerous documents and articles you've never seen the originals of and couldn't read even if they were sat in front of you (Polish text), but you at least cited him as the source.»

As did my co-authors when referring to a primary source after a secondary source, bar evidence to the contrary. There was one Polish text, by the way, which I had translated into and published in English before MGK did. Guess which it was.

«Terry, Harrison and Myers on the other hand, plagiarised numerous authors mercilessly. I know this for a fact and am not just repeating the accusation made by Mattogno. I've not only read their rebuttal cover-to-cover, but also doubled checked many of the plagiarism accusations.

If you like, I can start a thread on rodoh, a sort of 'cut out & keep' guide to HC's plagiarism for those who can't be bothered to read MGK's entire book; to use be used as evidence against those who deny HC's plagiarism, such as yourself.»

Before I might feel compelled to deny anything, if I were thus inclined, you have to provide evidence in support of your accusations. So, where exactly can you provide evidence that Nick Terry, Jon Harrison and Jason Myers referred to primary sources as if they had themselves done research on such sources when actually they were rendering those sources after secondary sources, without crediting those secondary sources?

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Have we kept pigs together, did you get angry about my calling you "rabbit", or why the familiarity?

So acquaintances do actual call you bobby then Herr dispute over mills!

There was one Polish text, by the way, which I had translated into and published in English before MGK did. Guess which it was.

No need to guess:
http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/topic/1071#.VSG89vnF98F

where exactly can you provide evidence that Nick Terry, Jon Harrison and Jason Myers referred to primary sources as if they had themselves done research on such sources when actually they were rendering those sources after secondary sources, without crediting those secondary sources?

Here:
https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34805#p34805
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2013/09/the-steaming-pile-of-mgk-manure-is-here.html
https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/a-case-of-shabby-plagiarism-by-holocaust-controversies/
https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/another-case-of-nicholas-terry-not-reading-the-works-he-cites/
and particularly here:
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-tecoar-long.pdf



Jeff said...

could the Daft Rabbit please shut up? MGK's definition of "plagiarism" is rather bizarre,m inclusive, and is not the same as the definition of plagiarism at most American or Canadian Universities to my knowledge. It's a non issue bitch-bunny, and you damage your already miniscule credibility by continuing to advance it.

Graf is a vile man, Kues is raving mad, and Mattogno is a naked fraud.

Time to move on.

Jonathan Harrison said...

This drivel reminds me why myself and so many of my colleagues have BRoI and his fellow trolls like werd on ignore. A stream of ad homs that ignore the case presented in the Critique and numerous blog articles. Don't expect anything but a yawn from us in response to any crap he posts. At least we don't delete him like Hargis does.

Jeff said...

<>

We at SSF been having a good time dissecting his shrieking over the past few months.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Have we kept pigs together, did you get angry about my calling you "rabbit", or why the familiarity?

So acquaintances do actual call you bobby then Herr dispute over mills!»

Did anybody understand what the rabbit is trying to tell me? I didn’t, but I don’t think I missed anything of importance.

«There was one Polish text, by the way, which I had translated into and published in English before MGK did. Guess which it was.

No need to guess:
http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/topic/1071#.VSG89vnF98F»

Bravo, rabbit! That was after my blog http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2008/10/mass-graves-at-sobibor-10th-update.html , by the way.

«where exactly can you provide evidence that Nick Terry, Jon Harrison and Jason Myers referred to primary sources as if they had themselves done research on such sources when actually they were rendering those sources after secondary sources, without crediting those secondary sources?

Here:
«https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34805#p34805»

The secondary source (Arad) is mentioned, so where's the plagiarism?

«http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2013/09/the-steaming-pile-of-mgk-manure-is-here.html»

An acknowledged error, obviously unintended.

«https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/a-case-of-shabby-plagiarism-by-holocaust-controversies/»

NT mentioned the secondary source David Bankier, and what Jansson calls a quote from the primary source on page 50 of the critique doesn’t seem to be a quote from the primary source but rather an indirect rendition thereof, even though it is formatted as a quote. So where Jansson yells "plagiarism" what we probably have is an editing mistake, which makes an indirect rendition look like a quote. Another such editing mistake, albeit with the opposite effect, can be found on pp. 422-423, where the first two sentences after the text formatted as a quote (from MGK's Sobibór book) are part of the quote, even though the formatting makes them look like my own words.
Much ado about nothing, rabbit.

«https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/another-case-of-nicholas-terry-not-reading-the-works-he-cites/»

Here I have a problem with Jannson's understanding that Wagenaar's quoted statement refers to the Jerusalem court's initial verdict, as opposed to the Israeli Supreme Court's verdict overturning the Jerusalem court's verdict. I'd have to read Wagenaar's article to decide whether Jansson is not either misunderstanding Wagenaar or misrepresenting him in order to vent his frustration on NT.

If Wagenaar accepted a case of mistaken identity but, as Jansson claims, doesn't mention Marchenko, then footnote 219 on page 122 is a bit misleading, and the reference to the footnote should have been after "identity" at the end of the first period instead of at the end of the sentence. But that's all there would be to it.

«and particularly here:
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-tecoar-long.pdf»

That's MGK's SPoM.

So it seems that, apart from the SPoM and the alleged cases discussed above, the rabbit has no evidence of plagiarism by my co-authors.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

PS:

What I called Wagenaar's article is actually a book. Published in 1989, it cannot have taken into account the verdict of the Israeli Supreme Court, which was passed in 1993.

Still, Jannson's understanding that «Wagenaar went along with the Jerusalem court’s verdict that Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible"» seems highly questionable to me after what I have read about the book, including without limitation a review on Amazon UK whereby Wagenaar came «to the surprising conclusion that John was probably not Ivan after all».

So I've just ordered the book.

Jonathan Harrison said...

The threshold of 'proof' that rabbit seems to apply to allegations of 'plagiarism' is extremely low when compared to the incredibly high threshold of 'proof' he demands for gas chambers.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34805#p34805

The secondary source (Arad) is mentioned, so where's the plagiarism?


The plagiarism is the fact Terry has lifted EVERYTHING from Arad (including his mistakes), but claims "also translated and cited in Arad", intentionally giving the impression his source in the original article (which he's never seen). That's plagiarism.

I'll remind you of Terry's claim about the citing of original and secondary sources:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1662384#p1662384

“Where we have cited documents from another author, we have written e.g.

Jürgen Förster, ‘The Wehrmacht and the War of Extermination against the Soviet Union,’ Yad Vashem Studies 14, 1981, pp. 7-33, citing Kommandant in Weissruthenien, Situation Report of February 1-15, 1942, BA-MA WK VII/527 RH 53 – 7/v. 206 RH 26-707/v. 1.

Where we have seen the documents ourselves, but it is already known in the literature, we have written

Kommandant in Weissruthenien Ia, Befehl Nr. 24, 24.11.41, gez. v. Bechtolsheim, NARB 378-1-698, p. 32; cf. Browning, Origins, p. 289.


So Terry's source for the article in question should have read:

Arad, Belzec, Sobibor Treblinka, pp. 350-1 citing Zygmunt Marikowski, Zwiazek Walki Zbrojnej, I, Armia Krajowa w Okregu Lubelskim, London. 1973. Book Two, Documents, pp. 34-35.



http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2013/09/the-steaming-pile-of-mgk-manure-is-here.html

An acknowledged error, obviously unintended.


lol, no, it's the opposite of obvious. And I demonstrated two examples of plagiarism on that comments thread, to which to do you refer, Myers', Harrison's, or both?

Anyway, those sorts of *errors* in the citing of original sources are strewn across the Manifesto; they form a pattern, and the pattern shows its authors are plagiarists.



https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/a-case-of-shabby-plagiarism-by-holocaust-controversies/

"NT mentioned the secondary source David Bankier, and what Jansson calls a quote from the primary source on page 50 of the critique doesn’t seem to be a quote from the primary source but rather an indirect rendition thereof, even though it is formatted as a quote. So where Jansson yells "plagiarism" what we probably have is an editing mistake, which makes an indirect rendition look like a quote. Another such editing mistake, albeit with the opposite effect, can be found on pp. 422-423, where the first two sentences after the text formatted as a quote (from MGK's Sobibór book) are part of the quote, even though the formatting makes them look like my own words.
Much ado about nothing, rabbit."


Sense. That makes none.

It is a quote; and it's correctly formatted in the Manifesto as a quote; there's no editing mistake but a Terry-malfunction in his plagiarising.

Terry thought he was plagiarising Bankier for a quote from the original document, whereas he actual copied and pasted Bankier's paraphrasing of the document and passed if off as being a quote from the original document.


So I've just ordered the book.

Thanks for the chuckles caused by your attempted debunkings before conceding you need to actually check the source. How unlike HC!

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34805#p34805

The secondary source (Arad) is mentioned, so where's the plagiarism?

The plagiarism is the fact Terry has lifted EVERYTHING from Arad (including his mistakes), but claims "also translated and cited in Arad", intentionally giving the impression his source in the original article (which he's never seen). That's plagiarism.

I'll remind you of Terry's claim about the citing of original and secondary sources:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1662384#p1662384

“Where we have cited documents from another author, we have written e.g.

Jürgen Förster, ‘The Wehrmacht and the War of Extermination against the Soviet Union,’ Yad Vashem Studies 14, 1981, pp. 7-33, citing Kommandant in Weissruthenien, Situation Report of February 1-15, 1942, BA-MA WK VII/527 RH 53 – 7/v. 206 RH 26-707/v. 1.

Where we have seen the documents ourselves, but it is already known in the literature, we have written

Kommandant in Weissruthenien Ia, Befehl Nr. 24, 24.11.41, gez. v. Bechtolsheim, NARB 378-1-698, p. 32; cf. Browning, Origins, p. 289.

So Terry's source for the article in question should have read:

Arad, Belzec, Sobibor Treblinka, pp. 350-1 citing Zygmunt Marikowski, Zwiazek Walki Zbrojnej, I, Armia Krajowa w Okregu Lubelskim, London. 1973. Book Two, Documents, pp. 34-35.»

All very interesting, but the "intentionally giving the impression his source in the original article" claim comes across as a bit paranoid, and the "also" may also be understood as meaning that the quote also appears in Arad’s book besides the critique.

Now, NT’s not referring to his source as you say he should have is plagiarism according to whose definition of plagiarism?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2013/09/the-steaming-pile-of-mgk-manure-is-here.html
An acknowledged error, obviously unintended.
lol, no, it's the opposite of obvious.»

Says the rabbit, with nothing to show for his claim.

«And I demonstrated two examples of plagiarism on that comments thread, to which to do you refer, Myers', Harrison's, or both?»

I didn’t find the name “Myers” in your posts under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2013/09/the-steaming-pile-of-mgk-manure-is-here.html, so please explain what exactly you are referring to.

«Anyway, those sorts of *errors* in the citing of original sources are strewn across the Manifesto; they form a pattern, and the pattern shows its authors are plagiarists.»

Says the rabbit, who apparently can "demonstrate" only isolated cases of such "pattern".

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/a-case-of-shabby-plagiarism-by-holocaust-controversies/
"NT mentioned the secondary source David Bankier, and what Jansson calls a quote from the primary source on page 50 of the critique doesn’t seem to be a quote from the primary source but rather an indirect rendition thereof, even though it is formatted as a quote. So where Jansson yells "plagiarism" what we probably have is an editing mistake, which makes an indirect rendition look like a quote. Another such editing mistake, albeit with the opposite effect, can be found on pp. 422-423, where the first two sentences after the text formatted as a quote (from MGK's Sobibór book) are part of the quote, even though the formatting makes them look like my own words.
Much ado about nothing, rabbit."
Sense. That makes none.
It is a quote; and it's correctly formatted in the Manifesto as a quote; there's no editing mistake but a Terry-malfunction in his plagiarising.
Terry thought he was plagiarising Bankier for a quote from the original document, whereas he actual copied and pasted Bankier's paraphrasing of the document and passed if off as being a quote from the original document.»

Stomping your feet and restating your claim doesn’t change the fact that the text may well be erroneously formatted as a quote and part of an indirect rendition that reads as follows:

«A second report came from two Belgian POWs, who had observed hundreds of wagons passing through the Rawa Ruska rail junction and returning empty. Those who died on the way or were shot trying to escape were dumped unceremoniously onto the side of the tracks. What made the most impression on them was the extermination of the Jews. They had both witnessed atrocities. One of the Belgians saw truck loads of Jews carried off into a wood and the trucks returning a few hours later – empty. Bodies of Jewish children and women were left lying in ditches and along the railways. The Germans themselves, they added, boasted that they had constructed gas chambers where Jews were systematically killed and buried.»

The "quote" part may be identical to Bankier’s rendition (which is too obviously a rendition as opposed to a quote for the rabbit’s "thought he was plagiarising Bankier for a quote from the original document" fantasy to be anything more than that), but NT is referring to Bankier:
«PRB Stockholm to PID London, 18.5.43, PRO FO 371/34430; cf. Bankier, p.110»

And he’s not saying that he’s quoting directly from the original document, only that he has seen it.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«So I've just ordered the book.
Thanks for the chuckles caused by your attempted debunkings before conceding you need to actually check the source. How unlike HC!»

What "attempted debunkings" did you have in mind? The argument that what I have read about the book makes Jansson's claim that «Wagenaar went along with the Jerusalem court’s verdict that Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible"» seem suspicious, and that I intend to follow up on this suspicion by reading the book?

As to the "unlike HC", in how many cases can you demonstrate that HC bloggers (especially me, as you’re including me in this accusation) have not checked a source they referred to in their blogs?

Jeff said...

The "plagiarism" issue Is nonexistant .
Please stop wasting their time. You have nothing to say.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Now, NT’s not referring to his source as you say he should have is plagiarism according to whose definition of plagiarism?

A straw man fallacy bobby! The best you could do?

I merely demonstrated how the source *should* have been cited by TERRY'S own claim about the citing of secondary sources.

This particular instance of Terry's plagiarism (the Arad/Zygmunt Markowski plagiarism) would constitute plagiarism with virtually every respectable academic institution, but to give a single example: UCL, where I believe Terry obtained his doctorate:

Plagiarism is defined at UCL as covering one or more of the following:

- giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/art-history/current_students/undergraduates/plagiarism





Says the rabbit, with nothing to show for his claim.

I would've thought you might have read a bit of MGK's rebuttal by now. Mattogno demonstrates scores upon scores of examples of HC's plagiarism there. What's the point in me copying them all out here in your annoyingly small comments box. I've already demonstrated three examples picked up by Mattogno here and a further two FJ noticed.

I didn’t find the name “Myers” in your posts under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2013/09/the-steaming-pile-of-mgk-manure-is-here.html, so please explain what exactly you are referring to.

Please excuse me for incorrectly assuming you were familiar with your own book! The first example I posted was a Myers' plagiarism, this one:
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/cb37fb991dbb613e58828d6792eaa56b.jpg





Regarding your denial of Terry's Bankier/PRB Stockholm to PID London, 18.5.43 plagiarism.

I'm see you've abandoned your "editing error" claim, but have upped the emotive accusations about myself.

It is indeed a direct quote from Bankier, so why does Terry cite the original document at all, considering, as Jansson proved, the document doesn't state what Bankier claims? And if Terry had "seen" this document as you insist, why did he quote Bankier's fraudulent paraphrasing of it at all, why didn't he just quote the original document?

Answers: Because he'd never seen the original document, and got himself confused with his plagiarising.





What "attempted debunkings" did you have in mind? The argument that what I have read about the book makes Jansson's claim that «Wagenaar went along with the Jerusalem court’s verdict that Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible"» seem suspicious, and that I intend to follow up on this suspicion by reading the book.

I hope for your sake that whatever rebuttal you eventually make of Jansson's post is more grounded in reality that your contradictory efforts to rebut his post on Terry's Bankier/PRB Stockholm to PID London, 18.5.43 plagiarism.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Now, NT’s not referring to his source as you say he should have is plagiarism according to whose definition of plagiarism?

A straw man fallacy bobby! The best you could do?»

Why "straw man fallacy"? Didn’t the rabbit claim plagiarism?

«I merely demonstrated how the source *should* have been cited by TERRY'S own claim about the citing of secondary sources.

This particular instance of Terry's plagiarism (the Arad/Zygmunt Markowski plagiarism) would constitute plagiarism with virtually every respectable academic institution, but to give a single example: UCL, where I believe Terry obtained his doctorate:

Plagiarism is defined at UCL as covering one or more of the following:

- giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/art-history/current_students/undergraduates/plagiarism »

The information about the source is not incorrect insofar as the source is Zygmunt Markowski as quoted by Arad. Note that the reference is not "Zygmunt Marikowski, Zwiazek Walki Zbrojnej, I, Armia Krajowa w Okregu Lubelskim, London. 1973. Book Two, Documents, pp.34-35, cf. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, pp. 350-1." It is "Zygmunt Marikowski, Zwiazek Walki Zbrojnej, I, Armia Krajowa w Okregu Lubelskim, London. 1973. Book Two, Documents, pp.34-35, also translated and cited in Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, pp. 350-1.". Replace the "also" with "as" (which may have been what NT meant to say), and you have correct information about the source. Leave the "also", and you have a glitch, but no plagiarism.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Says the rabbit, with nothing to show for his claim.

I would've thought you might have read a bit of MGK's rebuttal by now. Mattogno demonstrates scores upon scores of examples of HC's plagiarism there. What's the point in me copying them all out here in your annoyingly small comments box. I've already demonstrated three examples picked up by Mattogno here and a further two FJ noticed.»

So "MGK's rebuttal" is the essential backup of rabbit’s "plagiarism" accusations, even though he earlier wrote the following:

"I know this for a fact and am not just repeating the accusation made by Mattogno. I've not only read their rebuttal cover-to-cover, but also doubled checked many of the plagiarism accusations."

I see.

«I didn’t find the name “Myers” in your posts under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2013/09/the-steaming-pile-of-mgk-manure-is-here.html, so please explain what exactly you are referring to.

Please excuse me for incorrectly assuming you were familiar with your own book! The first example I posted was a Myers' plagiarism, this one:
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/cb37fb991dbb613e58828d6792eaa56b.jpg »

Thanks for providing the requested explanation, which would have looked better without the silly remark preceding it.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Regarding your denial of Terry's Bankier/PRB Stockholm to PID London, 18.5.43 plagiarism.

I'm see you've abandoned your "editing error" claim, but have upped the emotive accusations about myself.»

Actually the editing error is still a possibility I consider, and what "emotive accusations" (look who’s talking) are you referring to?

«It is indeed a direct quote from Bankier, so why does Terry cite the original document at all, considering, as Jansson proved, the document doesn't state what Bankier claims?»

Doesn’t it? Actually, unless I missed something, everything that is in Bankier’s rendering is also in the document, except for the reference to Lemberg as the place where the Belgian POWs’ German boasted about having constructed gas chambers. Jansson considers this omission crucial, but it hardly is if you consider that Lemberg is not so far away from Belzec (see the map reproduced in this blog and that a great many of Lemberg’s Jews ended up at Belzec. Jansson argues that "There’s no way anyone in Rawa Ruska would have confused Lemberg with Belzec", but this argument is moot as the POWs may for instance have referred to gas chambers where the Jews of Lemberg had been sent to and POWs may have understood their boasting as referring to gas chamber at Lemberg. His claim that "the document is a nice illustration of the prevalence of false wartime rumors about gas chambers" is a nice illustration of "Revisionist" wishful thinking, as what the POWs heard about gas chambers not only appears to have seemed entirely believable to them in light of what they had seen themselves, but also dovetails with what is known from direct evidence about the Belzec gas chamber killings and the trains going to that camp through Rawa Ruska from places like Lemberg.

«And if Terry had "seen" this document as you insist, why did he quote Bankier's fraudulent paraphrasing of it at all, why didn't he just quote the original document?

Answers: Because he'd never seen the original document, and got himself confused with his plagiarising.»

Or because, say, Bankier’s “fraudulent” paraphrasing (Bankier did abbreviate the wording of the document and changed the sequence of sentences, but made no changes that would amount to false claims about the document’s content) was what he had at hand instead of a copy of the document he couldn’t find among his papers at the moment, if he had taken a copy at all when consulting the document at the PRO. You have no way of knowing what the reason was, so don’t jump to convenient conclusions.

«What "attempted debunkings" did you have in mind? The argument that what I have read about the book makes Jansson's claim that «Wagenaar went along with the Jerusalem court’s verdict that Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible"» seem suspicious, and that I intend to follow up on this suspicion by reading the book.

I hope for your sake that whatever rebuttal you eventually make of Jansson's post is more grounded in reality that your contradictory efforts to rebut his post on Terry's Bankier/PRB Stockholm to PID London, 18.5.43 plagiarism.»

My "contradictory efforts" actually stand a good chance of being closer to reality than the accusatory speculations they address, whereas it seems unrealistic at best to assume that a defense witness who pointed out the shortcomings of evidence to Demjanjuk being "Ivan the Terrible" nevertheless "went along with the Jerusalem court’s verdict", as Jansson claims.

While Waagenaar’s book is on the way, the rabbit might entertain us by answering a question of mine he seems to be evading. This one:

As to the "unlike HC", in how many cases can you demonstrate that HC bloggers (especially me, as you’re including me in this accusation) have not checked a source they referred to in their blogs?

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

BRoI It is indeed a direct quote from Bankier, so why does Terry cite the original document at all, considering, as Jansson proved, the document doesn't state what Bankier claims?

RM Doesn’t it? Actually, unless I missed something, everything that is in Bankier’s rendering is also in the document, except for the reference to Lemberg as the place where the Belgian POWs’ German boasted about having constructed gas chambers. Jansson considers this omission crucial, but it hardly is if you consider that Lemberg is not so far away from Belzec (see the map reproduced in this blog and that a great many of Lemberg’s Jews ended up at Belzec. Jansson argues that "There’s no way anyone in Rawa Ruska would have confused Lemberg with Belzec", but this argument is moot as the POWs may for instance have referred to gas chambers where the Jews of Lemberg had been sent to and POWs may have understood their boasting as referring to gas chamber at Lemberg. His claim that "the document is a nice illustration of the prevalence of false wartime rumors about gas chambers" is a nice illustration of "Revisionist" wishful thinking, as what the POWs heard about gas chambers not only appears to have seemed entirely believable to them in light of what they had seen themselves, but also dovetails with what is known from direct evidence about the Belzec gas chamber killings and the trains going to that camp through Rawa Ruska from places like Lemberg.

I know where Lviv and Belzec are; I've been to both (the latter twice), and travelled from one to the other via Rava-Ruska.

You conveniently forgot to discuss Bankier's (and Terry's!) claim that "the PoWs saw hundreds of wagons passing through the Rawa Ruska rail junction”, a statement which is not supported by the document in the slightest.

Strange Terry should opt to back up such a falsehood considering he is *supposed * to have consulted the original document for himself.

RM Or because, say, Bankier’s “fraudulent” paraphrasing (Bankier did abbreviate the wording of the document and changed the sequence of sentences, but made no changes that would amount to false claims about the document’s content) was what he had at hand instead of a copy of the document he couldn’t find among his papers at the moment, if he had taken a copy at all when consulting the document at the PRO. You have no way of knowing what the reason was, so don’t jump to convenient conclusions.

Bankier did indeed make "changes that would amount to false claims about the document’s content" this part, which was duly plagiarised by Terry: "the PoWs saw hundreds of wagons passing through the Rawa Ruska rail junction”.

We're dealing with scores of clear-cut instances of plagiarism. The plagiarists and their collaborators might well have scores of long and winding excuses about how each detected example of plagiarism was an unfortunate error caused by x, y and z, but as I said earlier: these citation "errors" form a pattern, and when with considered Terry's boasting about his footnote count, the length of his bibliography, and not to forget his habit of falsely accusing Mattogno of plagiarism, the evidence of Terry's employment of plagiarism in the Manifesto is overwhelming.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

RM What "attempted debunkings" did you have in mind? The argument that what I have read about the book makes Jansson's claim that «Wagenaar went along with the Jerusalem court’s verdict that Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible"» seem suspicious, and that I intend to follow up on this suspicion by reading the book.

My "contradictory efforts" actually stand a good chance of being closer to reality than the accusatory speculations they address, whereas it seems unrealistic at best to assume that a defense witness who pointed out the shortcomings of evidence to Demjanjuk being "Ivan the Terrible" nevertheless "went along with the Jerusalem court’s verdict", as Jansson claims



Jansson correctly quotes Wagenaar:

“If the reader wants an answer to the question whether John Demjanjuk is Ivan, I can only refer to the court’s verdict. It is the best answer we have.”

It is literally the final sentence in Wagenaar's book (endnotes, bibliography, index etc. aside), I've checked; p. 172, and is part of a very short chapter titled: "Is John Demjanjuk Ivan?"

I've not read the entire book, but Marchenko doesn't appear in the book's index, so Jansson was correct to point out Terry's error in citing this book regarding Ivan Marchenko.

RM: Here I have a problem with Jannson's understanding that Wagenaar's quoted statement refers to the Jerusalem court's initial verdict, as opposed to the Israeli Supreme Court's verdict overturning the Jerusalem court's verdict. I'd have to read Wagenaar's article to decide whether Jansson is not either misunderstanding Wagenaar or misrepresenting him in order to vent his frustration on NT.

You sure do have a problem bobby, that's for sure.

Wagenaar's book was published in 1988, and Israeli Supreme Court of course overturned the original verdict in five years later, in 1993.

_________________________________


RM While Waagenaar’s book is on the way, the rabbit might entertain us by answering a question of mine he seems to be evading. This one:

As to the "unlike HC", in how many cases can you demonstrate that HC bloggers (especially me, as you’re including me in this accusation) have not checked a source they referred to in their blogs?


On page 334 (note 279) of the Manifesto is cited:

Protokol czynnosci wykomanych w terenie w toku dochodzenia sadowego w sprawie obozu smierci w Treblince, AIPN NTN 69, p.97R.

So which one of the non-Polish reading HC crew went to Warsaw to dig this up but wasn't able to correctly replicate the diacritics of the title?

Presuming of course the citation wasn't lifted from page 83 of Stanisław Wojtczak's article “Karny obóz pracy Treblinka I i ośrodek zagłady Treblinka II,” in: Biuletyn Głównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, Warsaw, 1975, Vol. 26 where it appears as "“Protokół czynności wykonanych w terenie w toku dochodzenia sądowego w sprawie obozu śmierci w Treblince (AGK NTN 69, k. 97, 93).”

That's a document you cite bobby (Manifesto p.394) but have never seen. Your plagiarist colleague Myers goes even further and boasts of the original archival ref which he probably found on the Internet, like I just did: http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/bbfab0efd05baf3cdae589857f0c590b.jpg

Myers has probably never seen Wojtczak's article either.

Plagiarism, your book stinks of it.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Yawn ...

I'll respond to this rant when I have nothing better to do.

Meanwhile, the "conveniently forgot" will be added to my collection of paranoid BRoIan imbecilities.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

No need to rush bobby. As you can see, I certainly didn't make it a priority to expose your rubbish.

But you could have cleared the second part of my reply, why did you block that? One of you also blocked a comment from me on your Holy Innocents' Cemetery post.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Nothing better to do for the next fifteen minutes, so let's have a look at the rabbit's latest droppings.

«You conveniently forgot to discuss Bankier's (and Terry's!) claim that "the PoWs saw hundreds of wagons passing through the Rawa Ruska rail junction”, a statement which is not supported by the document in the slightest.»

Neither is it part of the contentious passage taken from Bankier's book, so the rabbit just made a fool of himself again. Bankier and Terry obviously derived this assumption from the fact that almost all transports from outside Poland, West Poland and Galicia had to stop at Rawa Ruska, where the POW camp was located. According to the document, one of the POWs saw that "Bodies of Jewish children and women were left lying in ditches and along the railways." This suggests that the POWs had a view of the railway line, and if so they would have seen the trains passing through RR en route to Belzec.

«Strange Terry should opt to back up such a falsehood considering he is *supposed * to have consulted the original document for himself.»

Rabbit shouldn't dig deeper as he's in a hole already, for the reason explained above.

«Bankier did indeed make "changes that would amount to false claims about the document’s content" this part, which was duly plagiarised by Terry: "the PoWs saw hundreds of wagons passing through the Rawa Ruska rail junction”.»

This part was not part of the contentious text that NT took from Bankier's book, so I repeat my previous advice.

«We're dealing with scores of clear-cut instances of plagiarism. The plagiarists and their collaborators might well have scores of long and winding excuses about how each detected example of plagiarism was an unfortunate error caused by x, y and z, but as I said earlier: these citation "errors" form a pattern, and when with considered Terry's boasting about his footnote count, the length of his bibliography, and not to forget his habit of falsely accusing Mattogno of plagiarism, the evidence of Terry's employment of plagiarism in the Manifesto is overwhelming.»

Blah, blah, blah. One case of plagiarism (if it is one) doesn't make a "pattern", MGK write a lot of junk when the day is long, and I don't expect the rabbit's claim about NT's "habit of falsely accusing Mattogno of plagiarism" to have any more substance than his "pattern" fantasies. What is clear, however, is that the rabbit harbors some obsessive resentment against NT, which suggests a loser trying to get even with an unjust world that failed to recognize his genius (as does all of the rabbit's specialty, which is bitching about the supposed wrongdoings of other people).

How about doing something useful in the field instead of ranting about NT et al, rabbit? You might start by explaining why Jews from Lemberg and places further east in Galicia were taken to Belzec, a places way west or northwest of those places in Galicia, if they were meant to be sent to the "Russian East".

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«No need to rush bobby. As you can see, I certainly didn't make it a priority to expose your rubbish.»

Rubbish I leave to the rabbit, who produces little else.

«But you could have cleared the second part of my reply, why did you block that? One of you also blocked a comment from me on your Holy Innocents' Cemetery post.»

Stop whining, rabbit. I go by the e-mail messages in my inbox, and sometimes your droppings appropriately land in the spam folder. Anyway, I just checked and approved all pending posts directly in the blog. If any of yours is missing, feel free to post it again.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Jansson correctly quotes Wagenaar:

“If the reader wants an answer to the question whether John Demjanjuk is Ivan, I can only refer to the court’s verdict. It is the best answer we have.”

It is literally the final sentence in Wagenaar's book (endnotes, bibliography, index etc. aside), I've checked; p. 172, and is part of a very short chapter titled: "Is John Demjanjuk Ivan?"»

How about letting me read the book and looking at the context, which might make the final remark seem even more ironic that it already looks on the face of it? The "best answer we have" is not necessarily a good answer.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«On page 334 (note 279) of the Manifesto is cited:

Protokol czynnosci wykomanych w terenie w toku dochodzenia sadowego w sprawie obozu smierci w Treblince, AIPN NTN 69, p.97R.

So which one of the non-Polish reading HC crew went to Warsaw to dig this up but wasn't able to correctly replicate the diacritics of the title?»

"Belzec" is also spelled without the correct diacritics, so it doesn't like the rabbit is onto something here.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Presuming of course the citation wasn't lifted from page 83 of Stanisław Wojtczak's article “Karny obóz pracy Treblinka I i ośrodek zagłady Treblinka II,” in: Biuletyn Głównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, Warsaw, 1975, Vol. 26 where it appears as "“Protokół czynności wykonanych w terenie w toku dochodzenia sądowego w sprawie obozu śmierci w Treblince (AGK NTN 69, k. 97, 93).”

That's a document you cite bobby (Manifesto p.394) but have never seen.»

You mean «Protokol czynnosci wykomanych w terenie w toku dochodzenia sadowego w sprawie obozu smierci w Treblince, AIPN NTN 69, pp.97-98; cf. M&G, Treblinka, pp.84-86.»? First of all, there's a clear reference to M&G Treblinka. Second, the "cf." is not a format I use, so it must have been introduced in the final editing, without my noticing the change. Third, the rabbit failed to consider how the document is referred to in the main text, which rules out any claim that I saw the document myself (though one of my co-authors might have):
«The thoroughness of this investigation is acknowledged even by Mattogno & Graf (M&G), who provide what they claim to be a complete translation of the report of November 13, 1945 signed by Examining Judge Łukaszkiewicz and State Attorney Maciejewski.31»
And if you look at the blog on which Chapter 7 is based, you'll find the following reference:
«M&G, Treblinka, pp. 84-86»
Poor show, rabbit. As usual.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Your plagiarist colleague Myers goes even further and boasts of the original archival ref which he probably found on the Internet, like I just did: http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/bbfab0efd05baf3cdae589857f0c590b.jpg»

If so, would that be plagiarism?

«Myers has probably never seen Wojtczak's article either.»

Who knows? He may have received it from an acquaintance in Poland, like I received Kola's Sobibór report in Polish from Yoram Haimi.

«Plagiarism, your book stinks of it.»

Coming as that does from a stinking anonymous coward who accuses people of "plagiarism" and other wrongdoings from the safety of an alias, I consider it a compliment.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«I've not read the entire book, but Marchenko doesn't appear in the book's index, so Jansson was correct to point out Terry's error in citing this book regarding Ivan Marchenko.»

Haven't we been there already?

«RM: Here I have a problem with Jannson's understanding that Wagenaar's quoted statement refers to the Jerusalem court's initial verdict, as opposed to the Israeli Supreme Court's verdict overturning the Jerusalem court's verdict. I'd have to read Wagenaar's article to decide whether Jansson is not either misunderstanding Wagenaar or misrepresenting him in order to vent his frustration on NT.

You sure do have a problem bobby, that's for sure.

Wagenaar's book was published in 1988, and Israeli Supreme Court of course overturned the original verdict in five years later, in 1993.»

Oh, how clever the rabbit is!

Unfortunately for the clever rabbit, I wrote just what he tells me in my post of Monday, April 06, 2015 6:40:00 pm:

«PS:

What I called Wagenaar's article is actually a book. Published in 1989, it cannot have taken into account the verdict of the Israeli Supreme Court, which was passed in 1993.

Still, Jannson's understanding that «Wagenaar went along with the Jerusalem court’s verdict that Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible"» seems highly questionable to me after what I have read about the book, including without limitation a review on Amazon UK whereby Wagenaar came «to the surprising conclusion that John was probably not Ivan after all».

So I've just ordered the book.


Short memory, rabbit?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«I've not read the entire book, but Marchenko doesn't appear in the book's index, so Jansson was correct to point out Terry's error in citing this book regarding Ivan Marchenko.»

Haven't we been there already?

«RM: Here I have a problem with Jannson's understanding that Wagenaar's quoted statement refers to the Jerusalem court's initial verdict, as opposed to the Israeli Supreme Court's verdict overturning the Jerusalem court's verdict. I'd have to read Wagenaar's article to decide whether Jansson is not either misunderstanding Wagenaar or misrepresenting him in order to vent his frustration on NT.

You sure do have a problem bobby, that's for sure.

Wagenaar's book was published in 1988, and Israeli Supreme Court of course overturned the original verdict in five years later, in 1993.»

Oh, how clever the rabbit is!

Unfortunately for the clever rabbit, I wrote just what he tells me in my post of Monday, April 06, 2015 6:40:00 pm:

«PS:

What I called Wagenaar's article is actually a book. Published in 1989, it cannot have taken into account the verdict of the Israeli Supreme Court, which was passed in 1993.

Still, Jannson's understanding that «Wagenaar went along with the Jerusalem court’s verdict that Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible"» seems highly questionable to me after what I have read about the book, including without limitation a review on Amazon UK whereby Wagenaar came «to the surprising conclusion that John was probably not Ivan after all».

So I've just ordered the book.


Short memory, rabbit?