tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post5876807038851827996..comments2024-03-29T02:19:32.860+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: A new document mentioning "special cellars" (Sonderkeller) in the crematoria 2 and 3 at Birkenau.Nicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-57765433165125520562018-12-18T08:19:13.093+00:002018-12-18T08:19:13.093+00:00The apparently mentally ill bunny-dude posted anot...The apparently mentally ill bunny-dude posted another lie-filled rant about me which has been dealt with as per the policy above.<br /><br />The Bunny has shown his true face again, by refusing to call Neander's honest mistake a lie but calling my honest mistake based on Neander's honest mistake a lie (though I have more of an excuse), despite the origin having been explained to him above - thus he knowingly falsely called my mistake a lie, thus the Bunny lied.<br /><br />Not content with a mere lie he tries to wiggle out of <a href="https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2081564#p2081564" rel="nofollow">this</a> absolute proof of his pathological nature and even outright lies that I couldn't formulate his lie even though it's formulated right at the link:<br /><br />"So you now accept something you have just a short time ago called a CT and clearly rejected, without even admitting you were wrong and pretending that it has been your intent all along. Ministry of Truth indeed. We have always been at war with Eastasia. ROTFL."<br /><br />Either you were lying the whole time you were posting those low-IQ comments about Mermelstein. Or you lied that you "know that that print has been tampered with. I only brought him up on HC to see if you'd blame him".<br /><br />Either/or, a third option is not given.<br /><br />But I guess we can't be surprised that a guy who <a href="http://archive.is/oAuLe" rel="nofollow">spread</a> the "Jewish ritual murder" lies for years lied a bit more.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1453831758066849482018-12-13T09:08:02.602+00:002018-12-13T09:08:02.602+00:00I have now amended the phrasing (influenced by a r...I have now amended the phrasing (influenced by a reading of Neander's draft - my fault for relying on memory and not double-checking) and I note that the actual content obviously supports my skeptical POV much more than the previous formulation (for we don't even know Pister's alleged source), pointing to an honest confusion.<br /><br />Now, had Bunny simply pointed out the mistake without accusations of dishonesty (always projecting), he would have even deserved a word of thanks for proofing; alas it was not to be, so he can continue stewing in his own bile.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-41639080902806981182018-12-13T08:27:36.185+00:002018-12-13T08:27:36.185+00:00More comedy from our favorite clown:
> That do...More comedy from our favorite clown:<br /><br />> That doesn't appear in the drafts I have. But you may have a later ones.<br /><br />Thanks for your admission that you hurl accusations of lying based on... nothing. Illustrates my point brilliantly.<br /><br />Here is the passage in the 2017 draft I was relying on:<br /><br />"But there is the testimony of former SS judge Konrad Morgen, who led the criminal investigations against Koch in 1943. In an affidavit given on December 28, 1945 before U.S. interrogators he stated that he had seen in Camp Commandant Pister’s office “the prepared head of a hanged murderer and a lamp shade made out of human skin,” a remnant from his predecessor, Karl Koch. Morgen said that he had heard about the human origin of the lampshade from Pister, who himself had heard this from Koch. On January 22, 1946 he added that the lamp had a stand made of wrought iron and that its shade bore no ornamentation. <br />Morgen’s testimony has to be taken with great reserve. It seems that he not only confused the study in Koch’s home with the commandant’s office, but also the head sculpture above the writing desk in Koch’s study with a skull seen somewhere else in the camp. This can be concluded from a photograph in the possession of the Buchenwald archives showing Koch’s study. The lamp that can be seen there on Koch’s desk would fit well Morgen’s description. Evidence of the human origin of its shade, however, is weak. It is hearsay from hearsay. It is not known what happened to this lamp after Morgen had seen it in the end of August 1943."<br /><br />Neander and I said the same thing, yet I'm the only one the psycho accuses of "lying".Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-88640251233876638132018-12-13T01:13:41.788+00:002018-12-13T01:13:41.788+00:00We've never declared our comment section an Op...We've never declared our comment section an Open Debate zone.<br /><br />The policy regarding the deletion of the comments of the pathological liar BRoI is clearly stated above.<br /><br />If he wants another clarification, here it is: the comments in which he is not being a flaming asshole towards the blog owners will generally remain.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-70225896466565383382018-12-13T00:41:17.708+00:002018-12-13T00:41:17.708+00:00"the surface with the tar drops is remarkably..."the surface with the tar drops is remarkably straight."<br /><br />Because the drops are on the end of a brick, a brick-end that is still partially covered in concrete and that part isn't anywhere near being "straight". Rubble was evidently thrown in during the pour to save on concrete. Same thing is evident in the ceiling of the Dachau "gas chamber." <br /><br />Are you seriously claiming those tar drops survived the explosion when the concrete edges to the rest of the hole, starting 3-4 cms away, were completely and utterly mangled? <br /><br />Four comments deleted now, some acknowledged, some not. Resembles a CODOH thread.The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-50676146736925645172018-12-13T00:38:18.943+00:002018-12-13T00:38:18.943+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-36403619758726013692018-12-12T20:05:18.544+00:002018-12-12T20:05:18.544+00:00"Hans, what effect would the immense heat of ..."Hans, what effect would the immense heat of the explosion that collapsed the roof of L1 have had on the "tar" that covered the roof?"<br /><br />Probably none. <br /><br />The thermal energy released from conventional explosives is relatively low, 1 kg TNT is like burning 100 or 200 g of fat (It's the speed of energy release that is immense). The energy of the explosive is dissipated in all kind of directions. Whatever fraction reached the roof, met a thick layer of concrete, not a good thermal conductor (and steel-bars conducting in the wrong direction) but with a decent heat capacity and huge mass. Tar itself is a poor thermal conductor and needs its time to get warm. Unless there was a fire in the basement, as secondary effect following the detonation, and there is no evidence nor reason for this, the conditions do not seem anywhere near to get junks of tar on top of the roof getting warm and dropping into the ruin. <br /><br />Secondly, the surface with the tar drops is remarkably straight. Other fractured surfaces of the roof show irregular surfaces, dimples and little stones or something embedded as obstacles for the cracks. Compared to this, the surface in question looks handmade and casted. Then we got some tar drops on this straight surface. Such drops most likely originate from when tar was brushed on the concrete to ensure water-proofing of the bitumen layer.<br /><br />Taken together this is some strong evidence that this surface was part of an opening made when the roof was constructed. <br />Hans Metznerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07746792258730274681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-37731787960979707912018-12-12T18:42:03.115+00:002018-12-12T18:42:03.115+00:00By the way, the language comment referred to the p...<br />By the way, the language comment referred to the policy regarding your comments as stated earlier: apparently my plain language regarding the comments which will be deleted is above your comprehension.<br /><br />Oh, and in the deleted comment you outright lied once again: obviously, I fully faithfully represented Neander's views on the matter: "Evidence of the human origin of its shade, however, is weak. It is hearsay from hearsay."<br /><br />You're a pathological case, Bunny.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-19571305075498796242018-12-12T18:09:00.600+00:002018-12-12T18:09:00.600+00:00Very simply because you falsely ascribe motivation...Very simply because you falsely ascribe motivations apparently usual for *you* to the others. Most of your accusations of dishonesty are based either on honest mistakes or false standards. This thread is no exception.<br /><br />And you're not simply called a liar but proven to be such. As in the case with Mermelstein.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-82765407320075449092018-12-12T10:28:31.272+00:002018-12-12T10:28:31.272+00:00I really wish I'd kept count of the times you&...I really wish I'd kept count of the times you've called me a liar. It's got to be several hundred by now. <br /><br />You've called me a liar for stating things you effectively admit are entirely accurate very soon afterwards, whilst calling me a liar again!<br />https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=644497#p644497<br /><br />You're a very clever guy, that's abundantly clear. I just can't even begin to comprehend how you're comfortable endlessly publishing patently false accusations.The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-54329840566321143632018-12-12T09:51:14.606+00:002018-12-12T09:51:14.606+00:00"The ends of the rebar are hooked around perp...<i>"The ends of the rebar are hooked around perpendicular rebar to form a square aperture <a href="https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/holes-report/holes-figure16.shtml" rel="nofollow">(Figure 16)</a>. This indicates creation of those holes when the concrete roof was originally poured in early 1943."</i><br /><br />Their annotated bends, in "Hole 4", appear to be anchorage bends for splicing rebar. <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/karthickcivic/anchorage-and-lap-splicing-detailing-of-slabs-columns-beams-footings" rel="nofollow">See page 9.</a> This doesn't negate their claim of a hole, but it's certainly something they should have researched and mentioned.<br /><br /><i>"... <a href="https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/holes-report/holes-figure8.shtml" rel="nofollow">Figure 8b</a> shows both uncut rebar and rebar that has been cut and bent at the edge of a hole [no.1]."</i><br /><br />That slightly bended bar bares no similarity to the others they feature. It is not, and could not, have been anchored to a perpendicular rebar that would have been needed on the edge of any hole. Why was it done differently on this hole?The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-12159145553511396492018-12-12T07:32:45.741+00:002018-12-12T07:32:45.741+00:00It has already been shown above that the photo is ...It has already been shown above that the photo is irrelevant to the issue at hand, hence the Bunny has been caught lying again when he claims "suppression".<br /><br />No wonder, this is the guy <a href="https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2081564#p2081564" rel="nofollow">who is a pathological liar</a>.<br /><br />Indeed, he had to hide his whole blog of many years because there he was promoting lies like "<a href="http://archive.is/oAuLe" rel="nofollow">Jewish Ritual Murder</a>" among many other fabricated claims. It was a real lie factory.<br /><br />PS: it also appears that the Bunny does not understand plain English language.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-5802721707956602882018-12-12T02:01:47.267+00:002018-12-12T02:01:47.267+00:00The rebar bends are described by Daniel Keren, Jam...The rebar bends are described by Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy, and Harry W. Mazal here:<br /><br />https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/holes-report/holes.shtmlblake121666https://www.blogger.com/profile/07355647679491593871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-9705294429371325152018-12-11T20:57:16.737+00:002018-12-11T20:57:16.737+00:00"... bent rebar embedded in concrete at two o..."... bent rebar embedded in concrete at two openings ..."<br /><br />Are these bends in rebar aligned the length or the width of L1?<br /><br />L1 was 30m long I understand <a href="http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=22" rel="nofollow">[p.47]</a>. <br /><br />Were the rebars 30m long or were shorter strips laid end-to-end, overlapping for a few feet, and welded or tied together?<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUhZkFuIlMThe Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-27949255109918229282018-12-11T18:52:45.616+00:002018-12-11T18:52:45.616+00:00"Historians who are advancing a particular ar...<i>"Historians who are advancing a particular argument have to take <b>all</b> relevant documentary evidence into account, and where documents appear to go against their argument, they have to explain them; failing to mention them at all constitutes suppression of relevant evidence and is not acceptable in a reputable historian."</i><br />— <a href="https://www.hdot.org/evans/#" rel="nofollow">Sir Richard Evans</a> [emphasis in original]<br /><br />Neither of the two Bauleitung album photos that shows the roof is "irrelevant" to a discussion of that roof. Van Pelt and Keren et al. suppressed evidence in reports that were submitted to a British court [Van Pelt submitted Keren's paper when Irving was planning to appeal the original verdict].<br /><br /><br />Hans, what effect would the immense heat of the explosion that collapsed the roof of L1 have had on the "tar" that covered the roof?<br /><br />Recently I watched for a few moments as roofers put a new cover on an old flat-roof extension to my house. They did it with one of these flame guns that melts the asphalt.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKkqAtkdczs<br />The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-37020576894474923752018-12-11T08:20:31.457+00:002018-12-11T08:20:31.457+00:00See how oblivious the liar BRoI is to him himself ...See how oblivious the liar BRoI is to him himself causing confusion? But he demands perfect clarity from others and then projects his mendacious mindset onto them.<br /><br />No wonder that until recently this weirdo believed in the "Jewish ritual murder".<br /><br />I see that he also adds the deception about me having "ignored" something, even though I demonstrably ignored nothing. In order to ignore something this something has to exist. Since the photo, as explained, is irrelevant to the authors' thesis and they were not obligated to include it, there was nothing to "ignore" for me in their article.<br /><br />But no wonder that the exposed liar ( https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2081564#p2081564 ) BRoI would try to cast aspersions based on nothing but his projections.<br />Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-22794365557379448622018-12-11T06:48:05.075+00:002018-12-11T06:48:05.075+00:00I'm not sure where the problem is that Sergey ...I'm not sure where the problem is that Sergey or me - for that matter have - "ignored" mentioning the omission of the Janury 1943 photograph of the gas chamber by Keren et al. we regard as insignificant for the subject if there were gas introduction openings in the roofs (but not for the question when the chimneys were made) for reasons for instance explained by me already in 2012...<br /><br />"Another photograph taken earlier in January 1943 shows the gassing basement of the crematorium without the chimneys, which demonstrates they were constructed between both photographs. But it is not possible to tell from the photograph whether the gas openings are in the roof or not, since a) the basement is covered by snow and b) there is almost no view on the actual roof surface from the perspective. However, the archeological evidence indicates the openings were made when the concrete was poured and therefore that they were already in place at the time this photo was taken."<br /><br />http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/05/review-of-discussion-on-gas-openings-at.html<br /><br />...whilst lambasting Mattogno for ignoring something that we regard as very significant for the subject if there are gas introduction openings in the roof of the basement of crematorium 2 in a book not only exactly addressing this subject but also exactly addressing and supposedly refuting the article by Keren et al. where the argument has been advanced. Up to now I'm not aware of any "Revisionist" response to the argument and explanation why two of the openings identified by Keren et al. have not been made at the time the concrete was poured when there are tar drops and bent rebar embedded in concrete at those openings.<br /><br />So from our founded point of view there is a big difference between Keren et al's and Mattogno's omission for the subject at hand, one is rather insignificant and the other is very significant (and you need something more to challenge this than claiming "bullshitting skills" and citing a photograph of K3 showing a completely different situation).<br /><br />I will stand corrected if you show that the January 1943 photo of the basement is very significant to show that there had been no holes in the roof or if you can show that Keren at al's observation that tar drops and bent rebar embedded in concrete at two openings is not significant for the argument that these openings had been made when the concrete was poured.<br /><br />But this is something that will have to be delivered first before there is a serious problem in our representation of the issue.Hans Metznerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07746792258730274681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-56518923254825918242018-12-11T01:39:41.484+00:002018-12-11T01:39:41.484+00:00Oh, so that's what got you confused!
I merely...Oh, so that's what got you confused!<br /><br />I merely quoted you stating:<br /><br />"As a side note, Mattogno ignored this evidence in his attempted response to Keren et al."<br /><br />For irony's sake, as I was about to prove Keren et al. and van Pelt "ignored" [deliberately omitted] the only close-up photo of L1 of K2 in existence, despite the room's prominence in each of their respective reports.<br /><br />And because you "ignored" mentioning their omissions whilst lambasting Mattogno for ignoring something you think is specially significant.The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-43768266269360938802018-12-11T00:58:36.796+00:002018-12-11T00:58:36.796+00:00No, the word "evidence" refers to the ho...No, the word "evidence" refers to the hole photo from the Keren et al. article.<br /><br />The BRoI quoted this sentence and then immediately referred to "that photo", leading to obvious confusion, as if he were referring to the hole photo (without intending to do so). That the confusion clears up upon reading the next paragraphs closely is irrelevant, so the BRoI can stick the crayons back.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-43304800894493599502018-12-11T00:46:30.368+00:002018-12-11T00:46:30.368+00:00"The case could even be compared to what happ...<i>"The case could even be compared to what happened above, with the Bunny thinking that his reference to "this photograph" - after quoting the text that referred to a completely different photograph - would be clear at a first reading."</i><br /><br />I actually first refer to the omitted photo as "the photo" following the van Pelt quotation on the "little train photo".<br /><br />I think the text is perfectly clear as to which of the photos is then being referred to. But to clear up any lingering confusion, I got the <a href="http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/ba2cd77c2cd93837918fb7b8f7c94671.jpg" rel="nofollow">crayons out</a>.The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-58605412546526788812018-12-11T00:03:13.662+00:002018-12-11T00:03:13.662+00:00His other lies having been exposed, the BRoI is re...His other lies having been exposed, the BRoI is reduced to spamming irrelevant quotes from secondary/tertiary sources having no bearing on the issue whatsoever. As has been shown above, it was just a natural confusion, so the BRoI is lying about it being a lie and is employing a non sequitur in defense of his lie (some documentary and some other historian don't show anything clearly).Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-45695620040597675752018-12-10T23:38:31.077+00:002018-12-10T23:38:31.077+00:0019 April 2000:
Die Zeit: What surprised everybody ...<a href="http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial3/DieZeit120400e.html" rel="nofollow">19 April 2000:</a><br /><i><b>Die Zeit:</b> What surprised everybody was that the defence showed its greatest weaknesses when it came to Auschwitz.<br /><b>Cesarani:</b> There were indeed some scary moments. When Robert Jan Van Pelt testified we were all mildly shocked that even such an outstanding expert as he was not in a position to establish clarity on such things as the disposal of the murdered Jews.</i><br /><br /><br />RJ Evans, Lying About Hitler: <br /><i>On 29 April 2000, two and a half weeks after the verdict,</i> [Britain's] <i>Channel 4 broadcast a lengthy documentary</i> [Holocaust on Trial]<i>, lasting almost two hours, at prime time, successfully juxtaposing well-chosen dramatized extracts from the trial transcripts with historical analyses and archive footage of the events to which they referred.</i> <br /><br /><br />Cesarani features heavily in the documentary and is listed as "Programme Consultant" in the credits. His frank admission to Die Zeit and the recreation of Rampton and van Pelt's deception in the documentary — minus the part when it was exposed as a lie — shows clearly that it was not a mistake. <br /><br /><br /> The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-82271491496209593512018-12-10T23:01:42.139+00:002018-12-10T23:01:42.139+00:00Talking sternly to trolls is fine, but calling the...Talking sternly to trolls is fine, but calling them names is counterproductive. <br /><br />It also doesn't befit the quality of our work.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-4908671352178345582018-12-10T19:51:07.020+00:002018-12-10T19:51:07.020+00:00Roberto, the policy is set by us for the commenter...Roberto, the policy is set by us for the commenters. We ourselves will deviate from it as we see fit, for example for the purpose of educating certain poisonous trolls.<br /><br />It's not an equal relationship and has never been supposed to be. If an unruly child is given a stern talking to, it doesn't have a right of an equal reply.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-69977720445250465662018-12-10T18:43:42.238+00:002018-12-10T18:43:42.238+00:00Our comments policy includes the following:
Abus...Our comments policy includes the following: <br /><br />Abusive, insulting, offensive, violent or threatening language, regardless of whether it is used by Holocaust deniers, critics of Holocaust denial or anyone else. The use of racist, misogynist, homophobic or otherwise disparaging slurs and insults, be it by Holocaust deniers or anyone else, or against Holocaust deniers or anyone else, will not be tolerated.<br /><br />"Bunny" goes under insulting language (spoofing someone's name or alias). It should thus be avoided.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.com