tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post7543420497280598539..comments2024-03-29T02:19:32.860+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: What "Revisionism" is all about – A Chat with Fredrick Töben (Part 1)Nicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-79295516693616736232022-10-28T23:22:21.599+01:002022-10-28T23:22:21.599+01:00Ol' Tobe-head didn't last long in this cen...Ol' Tobe-head didn't last long in this century. He did the planet a favor and croaked, and his shitty "Institute" died about 5 minutes after him. He won't be missed.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01583024997893127761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-67586530857806133062010-12-16T10:52:37.092+00:002010-12-16T10:52:37.092+00:001. I'm just passing by because I'm placing...<i>1. I'm just passing by because I'm placing stuff on my website www.toben.biz, especially the 12-point Butz item, and the AIDS matter, which reminds me of how that fraud established itself into a Ponzi scheme, as did the Holocaust-Shoah decades ago.</i> <br /><br />Having new hallucinations, Mr. Töben? <br /><br /><i>2. I like the way Robert Muehlenkamp huffs-and-puffs-and-bluffs his way through responses without realizing that he has to prove his case while Revisionists do not have to prove anything.</i> <br /><br />Actually "my" case is not mine and has been proven long ago (Mr. Töben obviously hasn't been paying attention to what historiography and criminal justice have done in the past decades), whereas "Revisionist" charlatans have failed not only to produce substantial challenges to the historical record but also and more importantly to produce an evidence-backed alternative account. The position that they don't have to prove anything is a very comfortable one, but also one that absolutely stinks. <br /><br /><i>3. Unfortunately his sneering at and slandering anyone who disagrees with his opinions reduces his blog to a shouting match - most uncivilized, and I understand why Revisionists will not waste their time in engaging with this kind of uncivilized exchange.</i><br /><br />Pointless whining about what this over-sensitive promoter of hate propaganda (who is obviously too feeble to take hard criticism) lamely calls "sneering" and "slandering", as an excuse for not producing arguments he doesn't have. Where have I seen that before? <br /><br /><i>i4. It still amazes me how so many Germans went from national Socialism to national masochism, and blindly embraced this rubbish contained in the 'Holocaust-Shoah' narrative.</i> <br /><br />Blindness is all in the "Revisionist" camp, actually. Understandably so, as they have nothing but faith there to cling to. As to Mr. Töben's "national masochism" remark, I wonder if he applies the same crappy reasoning to inhabitants of the former Soviet Union who are honest about the crimes of Lenin and Stalin, or to US citizens who condemn what people from their country did over Tokio and Hiroshima, at My Lai and at other places of sad memory. Do you, Mr. Töben? <br /><br /><i>5. Now Robbo, mate, let me see your response to Butz's 12 points. Should be interesting.</i> <br /><br />Apart from being a prolific producer of hot air and little else, you haven't been paying attention again, Mr. Töben. Look <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with_26.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br /><br /><i>And, just for clarification purposes, could you please send me a photo of the homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz?<br />Thanks mate.Fredrick</i><br /><br />After you have specified which of the homicidal gas chambers at AB you mean (I hope you're not so ignorant as to assume that there was only one) and explained why one should expect such photo to necessarily exist, I might give it a try. <br /><br />Ah, and I'm not your "mate". I don't remember us having kept pigs together.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-84467401161509430232010-12-16T08:38:48.747+00:002010-12-16T08:38:48.747+00:001. I'm just passing by because I'm placing...1. I'm just passing by because I'm placing stuff on my website www.toben.biz, especially the 12-point Butz item, and the AIDS matter, which reminds me of how that fraud established itself into a Ponzi scheme, as did the Holocaust-Shoah decades ago.<br />2. I like the way Robert Muehlenkamp huffs-and-puffs-and-bluffs his way through responses without realizing that he has to prove his case while Revisionists do not have to prove anything.<br />3. Unfortunately his sneering at and slandering anyone who disagrees with his opinions reduces his blog to a shouting match - most uncivilized, and I understand why Revisionists will not waste their time in engaging with this kind of uncivilized exchange.<br />4. It still amazes me how so many Germans went from national Socialism to national masochism, and blindly embraced this rubbish contained in the 'Holocaust-Shoah' narrative.<br />5. Now Robbo, mate, let me see your response to Butz's 12 points. Should be interesting. And, just for clarification purposes, could you please send me a photo of the homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz?<br />Thanks mate.<br />FredrickFredrick Tobenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10879883642993210408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-31318828789110623022010-10-17T16:09:01.217+01:002010-10-17T16:09:01.217+01:00[Part 2]
Instead of rhetoric like this,
"Rev...[Part 2]<br /><br />Instead of rhetoric like this,<br />"Revisionists" would do much better to concentrate on providing positive evidence regarding their claims, like Documentary evidence detailing where the Jews of Treblinka were further deported to, or even statements from people to where the Jews of Treblinka were deported to.<br /><br />Hello? Anyone there? Hello?<br /><br />-and the “physical evidence” Muehlenkamp mentions simply does not exist. If it did, this discussion would not even be taking place… and Muehlenkamp would cite chapter and verse instead of making vague unsupported assertions.-<br /><br /><br />If you continue to dismiss physical evidence despite the existence of investigative reports (quoted in an above link), site photographs and a real expert's review of Richard Krege's nonsense, then forget a shrink. Lock yourself in an asylum without further delay.<br /><br /><br />-The "discontented polemicist" of whom Muehlenkamp speaks just happened to be the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court at the time in question.<br /><br />Many other prominent figures of the day, including Allied Military leaders, also spoke out against the so-called war crimes trials.<br /><br />To quote just one of many... "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future." -- Honorable Justice Learned Hand-<br /><br />If only "Revisionists" Like "Fooled Once" and JM would provide factual evidence from the proceedings of the IMT as proof of their claims that IMT was nothing but a show trial, instead of these empty appeals to authority that really impresses no one.<br /><br />Alas, there is nothing new. With his confidence, one would expect that Mr. Martin is able to show the evidence that would be considered the holy grail of "Revisionism": evidence that the Reinhardt camps were actually transit camps or confessions from the individuals complicit in his so called "hoax". Instead, nothing. Nothing but the bluster, ignorance and mental deficiency that "Revisionists" exhibit so well.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-53139028728269346572010-10-17T16:07:11.192+01:002010-10-17T16:07:11.192+01:00Another poster has unsuccessfully tried to post a ...Another poster has unsuccessfully tried to post a response to another of Mr. Martin's desperate attempts to hang on to his delusions, so I'll reproduce that poster's comments as they appeared in my mailbox: <br /><br />[Part 1]<br />Sun, October 17, 2010 2:44:16 PM<br />[Holocaust Controversies] New comment on What "Revisionism" is all about – A Chat with Fred....<br />...<br />From: <br />Nathaniel <br />...<br />View Contact<br />To: cortagravatas@yahoo.com <br />Nathaniel has left a new comment on the post "What "Revisionism" is all about – A Chat with Fred...":<br /><br />Mr. Martin seems to be engaging in the psychological exercise known as projection. That, or he is simply trolling, or even both.<br /><br />His last offering is full of nothing other than the "Rhetoric, Conjectures, and Falsehoods" Roberto Muehlenkamp once pointed out characterizes "Revisionist" statements.<br /><br />-<br />This is arrant nonsense. The so-called "eyewitness" evidence of which he speaks emanates exclusively from liars and lunatics such as Jankiel Wiernik whom he cited. To take Wiernik's claims at face value one would have to be as crazy as Jankiel Wiernik himself obviously is.-<br /><br />No one takes Wiernik's testimony at face value. That man's testimony is only accepted to the extent of what can be verified by independence evident of his testimony, including other witnesses and even SS men. You also have yet to provide an argument against Wiernik that hasn't been adequately addressed before or isn't an appeal to incredulity. Even then, most of this nonsense is nothing more than a repeat of Jack Martin's previous nonsense, and as such, the only answer is to once again offer RM's link discussing this nonsense.<br /><br /><br />-Read Wiernik's book ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ the thing speaks for itself. Read the book! or, if that is too much effort, obtain and watch the DVD, "One Third of the Holocaust."<br />If you then still believe Wiernik's ravings, make an appointment to see a shrink without further delay.-<br /><br />Expecting a detached, clean account from a man who witnessed his co-religionists being murdered en-masse says a lot about Jack Martin, the Ugly Voice, and the rest of their kind, doesn't it?<br /><br />[t.b.c.]Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-67490532854003394572010-10-17T14:44:16.565+01:002010-10-17T14:44:16.565+01:00Mr. Martin seems to be engaging in the psychologic...Mr. Martin seems to be engaging in the psychological exercise known as projection. That, or he is simply trolling, or even both. <br /><br />His last offering is full of nothing other than the "Rhetoric, Conjectures, and Falsehoods" Roberto Muehlenkamp once pointed out characterizes "Revisionist" statements. <br /><br />- <br />This is arrant nonsense. The so-called "eyewitness" evidence of which he speaks emanates exclusively from liars and lunatics such as Jankiel Wiernik whom he cited. To take Wiernik's claims at face value one would have to be as crazy as Jankiel Wiernik himself obviously is.-<br /><br />No one takes Wiernik's testimony at face value. That man's testimony is only accepted to the extent of what can be verified by independence evident of his testimony, including other witnesses and even SS men. You also have yet to provide an argument against Wiernik that hasn't been adequately addressed before or isn't an appeal to incredulity. Even then, most of this nonsense is nothing more than a repeat of Jack Martin's previous nonsense, and as such, the only answer is to once again offer RM's link discussing this nonsense. <br /><br /><br />-Read Wiernik's book ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ the thing speaks for itself. Read the book! or, if that is too much effort, obtain and watch the DVD, "One Third of the Holocaust." <br />If you then still believe Wiernik's ravings, make an appointment to see a shrink without further delay.-<br /><br />Expecting a detached, clean account from a man who witnessed his co-religionists being murdered en-masse says a lot about Jack Martin, the Ugly Voice, and the rest of their kind, doesn't it? <br /><br />Instead of rhetoric like this, <br />"Revisionists" would do much better to concentrate on providing positive evidence regarding their claims, like Documentary evidence detailing where the Jews of Treblinka were further deported to, or even statements from people to where the Jews of Treblinka were deported to.<br /><br />Hello? Anyone there? Hello?<br /><br />-and the “physical evidence” Muehlenkamp mentions simply does not exist. If it did, this discussion would not even be taking place… and Muehlenkamp would cite chapter and verse instead of making vague unsupported assertions.-<br /><br /><br />If you continue to dismiss physical evidence despite the existence of investigative reports (quoted in an above link), site photographs and a real expert's review of Richard Krege's nonsense, then forget a shrink. Lock yourself in an asylum without further delay. <br /><br /><br />-The "discontented polemicist" of whom Muehlenkamp speaks just happened to be the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court at the time in question.<br /><br />Many other prominent figures of the day, including Allied Military leaders, also spoke out against the so-called war crimes trials.<br /><br />To quote just one of many... "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future." -- Honorable Justice Learned Hand-<br /><br />If only "Revisionists" Like "Fooled Once" and JM would provide factual evidence from the proceedings of the IMT as proof of their claims that IMT was nothing but a show trial, instead of these empty appeals to authority that really impresses no one. <br /><br />Alas, there is nothing new. With his confidence, one would expect that Mr. Martin is able to show the evidence that would be considered the holy grail of "Revisionism": evidence that the Reinhardt camps were actually transit camps or confessions from the individuals complicit in his so called "hoax". Instead, nothing. Nothing but the bluster, ignorance and mental deficiency that "Revisionists" exhibit so well.Nathanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16264557937776545653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-64798374083965198452010-10-17T10:38:11.012+01:002010-10-17T10:38:11.012+01:00Mr. Muehlenkamp's comments seem calculated to ...Mr. Muehlenkamp's comments seem calculated to provoke rather than to elucidate and are replete with falshoods.<br /><br />William McAdoo once said, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."<br /><br />McAdoo, of course, was wrong about that. An ignorant man, if honest, will accept factual evidence when it is presented to him.<br /><br />If McAdoo had said instead that "It is impossible to defeat a dishonest man in an argument" he would have been correct - since a dishonest man, having no respect for truth, will not be persuaded by it.<br /><br />And that is evidently the situation that we have here.<br /><br />Mr. Muehlenkamp will have his "Holocaust" no matter what the verifiable empirical evidence says. <br />His motto is "damn the torpedoes... full speed ahead!"<br /><br />Muehlenkamp wrote, inter alia: <br />"So far all known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to Treblinka having been an extermination camp in which about 800,000 people were murdered, with no evidence supporting a different scenario."<br /><br />This is arrant nonsense. The so-called "eyewitness" evidence of which he speaks emanates exclusively from liars and lunatics such as Jankiel Wiernik whom he cited. To take Wiernik's claims at face value one would have to be as crazy as Jankiel Wiernik himself obviously is.<br /><br />Only a deliberate liar or a deranged person would offer - or accept - such material as proof of what allegedly transpired at Treblinka. And the other so-called "eyewitnesses" are hardly better… and the “physical evidence” Muehlenkamp mentions simply does not exist. If it did, this discussion would not even be taking place… and Muehlenkamp would cite chapter and verse instead of making vague unsupported assertions.<br /><br />Read Wiernik's book ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ the thing speaks for itself. Read the book! or, if that is too much effort, obtain and watch the DVD, "One Third of the Holocaust." <br />If you then still believe Wiernik's ravings, make an appointment to see a shrink without further delay.<br /><br />Muehlenkamp wrote further:<br />“As to Harlan Fisk Stone and other discontented polemicists, the fact is that their polemics didn't do justice to the IMT's endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial.”<br /><br />The "discontented polemicist" of whom Muehlenkamp speaks just happened to be the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court at the time in question.<br /><br />Many other prominent figures of the day, including Allied Military leaders, also spoke out against the so-called war crimes trials.<br /><br />To quote just one of many... "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future." -- Honorable Justice Learned Hand<br /><br />To speak of the IMT's "endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial" is to offer egregious insult to the intelligence of any person expected to believe such outrageous falsehood. One might just as well speak of an "endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial" at the infamous Stalin show trials.<br /><br />Clausewitz said “war is the continuation of policy by other means.” In more recent times “war crimes trials” were the continuation of war by other means.<br /><br />They could be more accurately described as trials BY war criminals than as trials OF war criminals.Jack Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168973823522218539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-51264817577274642382010-10-17T10:36:47.468+01:002010-10-17T10:36:47.468+01:00Mr. Muehlenkamp's comments seem calculated to ...Mr. Muehlenkamp's comments seem calculated to provoke rather than to elucidate and are replete with falshoods.<br /><br />William McAdoo once said, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."<br /><br />McAdoo, of course, was wrong about that. An ignorant man, if honest, will accept factual evidence when it is presented to him.<br /><br />If McAdoo had said instead that "It is impossible to defeat a dishonest man in an argument" he would have been correct - since a dishonest man, having no respect for truth, will not be persuaded by it.<br /><br />And that is evidently the situation that we have here.<br /><br />Mr. Muehlenkamp will have his "Holocaust" no matter what the verifiable empirical evidence says. <br />His motto is "damn the torpedoes... full speed ahead!"<br /><br />Muehlenkamp wrote, inter alia: <br />"So far all known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to Treblinka having been an extermination camp in which about 800,000 people were murdered, with no evidence supporting a different scenario."<br /><br />This is arrant nonsense. The so-called "eyewitness" evidence of which he speaks emanates exclusively from liars and lunatics such as Jankiel Wiernik whom he cited. To take Wiernik's claims at face value one would have to be as crazy as Jankiel Wiernik himself obviously is.<br /><br />Only a deliberate liar or a deranged person would offer - or accept - such material as proof of what allegedly transpired at Treblinka. And the other so-called "eyewitnesses" are hardly better… and the “physical evidence” Muehlenkamp mentions simply does not exist. If it did, this discussion would not even be taking place… and Muehlenkamp would cite chapter and verse instead of making vague unsupported assertions.<br /><br />Read Wiernik's book ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ the thing speaks for itself. Read the book! or, if that is too much effort, obtain and watch the DVD, "One Third of the Holocaust." <br />If you then still believe Wiernik's ravings, make an appointment to see a shrink without further delay.<br /><br />Muehlenkamp wrote further:<br />“As to Harlan Fisk Stone and other discontented polemicists, the fact is that their polemics didn't do justice to the IMT's endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial.”<br /><br />The "discontented polemicist" of whom Muehlenkamp speaks just happened to be the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court at the time in question.<br /><br />Many other prominent figures of the day, including Allied Military leaders, also spoke out against the so-called war crimes trials.<br /><br />To quote just one of many... "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future." -- Honorable Justice Learned Hand<br /><br />To speak of the IMT's "endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial" is to offer egregious insult to the intelligence of any person expected to believe such outrageous falsehood. One might just as well speak of an "endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial" at the infamous Stalin show trials.<br /><br />Clausewitz said “war is the continuation of policy by other means.” In more recent times “war crimes trials” were the continuation of war by other means.<br /><br />They could be more accurately described as trials BY war criminals than as trials OF war criminals.Jack Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168973823522218539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-67153785838432641732010-10-13T19:30:34.569+01:002010-10-13T19:30:34.569+01:00Fooled Once (I wonder if he catches the contempt f...Fooled Once (I wonder if he catches the contempt for anonymous writers that is professed by "Revisionist" coryphée Carlo Mattogno, see the blog <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/10/mattogno-freaks-out.html" rel="nofollow">Mattogno freaks out</a>) is dishing up no herring that hasn't been dished up before. <br /><br />Whether or not any of the states conducting the IMT and NMT trials had original jurisdiction over the accused (they had such jurisdiction at least insofar as their citizens had become victims of the crimes that the defendants were charged with), this doesn't change the fact that the IMT and NMT trials were conducted according to procedural rules resembling rules applied in the United States, which can be considered defendant-friendly. It is of no relevance in this context what constitution, if any, the states in question had at the time. The term constitutional state was used because, according to one of FO's more intelligent brothers in spirit, an Australian by the name of Michael Mills, this is the English equivalent of the German term <i>Rechtsstaat</i>, which designates a state ruled by law. The states behind the IMT were not necessarily ruled by law, but the procedural rules under which the trial was held were similar to such of a state that is. <br /><br />As to Harlan Fisk Stone and other discontented polemicists, the fact is that their polemics didn't do justice to the IMT's endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial. In this context I suggest reading my blog <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/09/some-misconceptions-related-to.html" rel="nofollow">Some misconceptions related to the Nuremberg trials … </a> and the sources linked to therein. As concerns the NMT trials, especially the <i>Einsatzgruppen</i> trial, there is this interesting anecdote about the "Penguin rule", mentioned in Yale Edeiken’s article <a href="http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-einsatz/" rel="nofollow">An Introduction to the Einsatzgruppen</a>.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-15468926536016577742010-10-06T21:14:59.520+01:002010-10-06T21:14:59.520+01:00Muehlenkamp's characterization of the postwar ...Muehlenkamp's characterization of the postwar proceedings at Nuremberg and elsewhere as "defendant-friendly" and "conducted under the auspices of a constitutional state" bespeak either a profound ignorance of the actual nature of the proceedings or a contemnable gullibility for the Allied propaganda that was put out about them at the time and afterwards.<br /><br />No state, constitutional or otherwise, HAD jurisdiction over the accuseds (they were never even CALLED defendants, at least not in the English versions). Jurisdiction was asserted on the basis of declarations made by powers then at war with Germany AFTER most of the offending acts were said to have been committed. The four states sponsoring the proceedings (the US, UK, France, and USSR) were indeed constitutional (though the UK has no single constitution), though the "friendliness" of each toward defendants, aside from being irrelevant, was subject to much variation, then as now.<br /><br />Harlan Fiske Stone, Justice of the US Supreme Court and presumably qualified to comment on such matters, pronounced the war crimes proceedings as "a high-grade lynching party for Germans." Even if that might not satisfy absolutely everyone as conclusive evidence, it satisfies me (having otherwise inquired into the evidence) as a succinct description of them.Fooled Oncehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10904182032713445913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1595029306520489352010-09-26T01:21:13.512+01:002010-09-26T01:21:13.512+01:00«The link you supplied for Treblinka mentions as a...<i>«The link you supplied for Treblinka mentions as a source the book, ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ by Jankiel Wiernik.<br /><br /> This Wiernik is an obvious liar whose story is preposterous from start to finish. In his book, he relates, inter alia, an incident in which he was shot by a guard… but the bullet - which penetrated his clothing - miraculously stopped upon reaching his skin, leaving only a mark.<br /> The rest of his story is in much the same vein. To actually believe his story, you'd have to be as crazy as Wiernik himself seems to be.»</i> <br /><br />Your illogical nonsense isn't exactly new, pal. Your coreligionist "denierbud" even made it into a video, which I shredded in the blog <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html" rel="nofollow">Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan …</a>. <br /><br /><i>«The official Treblinka story is a monumental lie… as are the official stories for virtually all of the so-called "death camps."<br /><br /> Those who believe the in so-called “Holocaust” hoax do so - not because of the evidence - but in spite of it.»</i> <br /><br />Instead of trying to convince yourself by repeating your empty prayers, you should try finding some evidence in support of your "unofficial" story of transit camp Treblinka (or was it a labor camp in your book?). So far all known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to Treblinka having been an extermination camp in which about 800,000 people were murdered, with no evidence supporting a different scenario.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-89099232944716511902010-09-26T01:20:01.741+01:002010-09-26T01:20:01.741+01:00«Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:42:00 AM
Blogger J...<i>«Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:42:00 AM<br />Blogger Jack Martin said...<br /><br /> I find very interesting Roberto Muehlenkamp's effort to ridicule the attempt by Richard Krege to examine the site at Treblinka to test whether mass graves had existed there, by means of ground penetrating radar.»</i><br /><br />I don't ridicule the attempt, Mr. Martin. What amuses me is the reluctance of Mr. Krege in producing a detailed report about his oh-so-groundbreaking results. Especially as there are strong indications that the reason for this reluctance is his having realized that he found exactly what he had hoped <i>not</i> to find and thereby shot "Revisionism" in the foot, as explained above. <br /><br /> <i>«What is particularly interesting is that no proper examination of that camp was ever conducted after the war either by the Allies or by Polish authorities.<br /> They absolutely should have done that.<br /><br /> Their inexplicable failure to do so can only be taken as proof that they had no reason to think they would find actual evidence for what they claimed.»</i> <br /><br />The Poles did investigate the site, Mr. Martin. And their investigation showed that the physical evidence corroborates what becomes apparent from the documentary and eyewitness evidence about the murder of ca. 800,000 people at Treblinka. See <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html#_Treblinka" rel="nofollow">this blog</a> for details. <br /><br /> <i>«The official version of events at Treblinka is beyond ridiculous; some 800,000 persons gassed by means of Diesel exhaust; then buried; and then disinterred and burnt on open air barbecue pits… all without leaving behind any corroborative evidence of their Herculean labors. Sane people simply do not credit such crap.»</i> <br /><br />Actually there is no such thing as the "official version" you postulate outside your fantasies, my friend. What the evidence shows is that about 800,000 people were murdered at Treblinka, mostly by gassing with exhaust from an engine that was probably not a diesel engine but a gasoline engine (as mentioned by at least two Treblinka eyewitnesses and by every knowledgeable eyewitness from Belzec, Sobibór, Chelmno and mobile gassing operations), that most of the victims were buried before being disinterred and burned on huge grates placed over pits containing gasoline-drenched wood (a method similar to that applied on the Dresden Altmarkt after the bombing on 13/14 February 1945, except that at Dresden they had only one grid that was also much smaller than the ones at Treblinka and could make no pit to shield the fire in the cobble-stoned square), and that the results of this procedure fell far short of not leaving behind any corroborative evidence, for Polish investigators found human ashes and larger human remains scattered over an area of about 2 hectares and buried to a depth of 7.5 meters when they investigated the Treblinka site in 1945. You need to do some reading on the subject, my friend. The HC blogs labeled <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/Treblinka" rel="nofollow">Treblinka</a> may help you overcome your ignorance.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-88123250387757966512010-09-26T01:13:50.484+01:002010-09-26T01:13:50.484+01:00Anything else worth responding to in Mr. Töben’s r...Anything else worth responding to in Mr. Töben’s ramblings? Let's see … <br /><br /><i>«Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:38:00 AM<br />Blogger michael santomauro said...<br /><br /> 2.[...]»</i> Puerile personal attacks, silly and often self-projecting accusations and other rhetorical baloney – not worth responding to.<br /><br /> <i>«3.[...]</i> More of the same. <br /><br /> <i>4.[...]»</i> More of the same. <br /><br /> <i>«Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:41:00 AM<br />Blogger michael santomauro said...<br /><br /> 5.[...]»</i> More of the same, except perhaps (let's be generous) for this: <br /><br /><i>«In this regard Carlos Porter asks: Why is it that only ‘official historians’ have had access to the German documentation centre at Arolsen while Revisionists have had to do their research under the most trying conditions?»</i><br /><br />Question to Mr. Töben: Are there any archives in the world that would open their doors to people known to have done everything to show that they are mendacious propagandists trying to falsify history in support of an ideological agenda?<br /><br />Please list all such archives you know about. <br /><br /> <i>«6.[...]»</i> More of the same. The good old "poor persecuted Revisionists are kept from doing proper research" mantra. A lame excuse for the miserable results of "Revisionist research", to say the least. If, among other things, 2.5 million Jews had really been resettled anywhere beyond Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek, there would be no need for lame "Revisionist" screeds. There would be untold thousands of documents and witnesses concerning the post-transit part of such a resettlement, thousands of the resettled Jews themselves would still be alive today and millions of ancestors of these resettled Jews would testify about their parents', grandparents' and great-grandparents' fates. Ever thought about that, Mr. Töben? <br /><br /> <i>«Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:42:00 AM<br />Blogger michael santomauro said...<br /><br /> 7.[...]»</i> More pointless pep-talk. Please anybody let me know if you think I missed something, but so far I have just seen Mr. Töben bitching around like a fish-wife on market day without addressing a single one of my comments to his previous "brief response". <br /><br /> 8. Still nothing. Good "Revisionists" this, bad Muehlenkamp that. Strictly for the birds. The pathetic sermon of an enraged true believer, full of sound and fury and hollow conjectures and empty claims, signifying nothing. <br /><br />Come back when you have time and a cool head to produce some arguments addressing the comments in my blog instead of dishing up that beaten <i>"poor Revisionists are persecuted, must be because there’s something to what they say"</i> - mixture of wishful thinking and cry-baby whining, Mr. Töben.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-56913864637113781582010-09-26T01:02:01.224+01:002010-09-26T01:02:01.224+01:00«Saturday, September 25, 2010 4:29:00 AM
Blogger m...<i>«Saturday, September 25, 2010 4:29:00 AM<br />Blogger michael santomauro said...<br /><br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70svPcdwNU<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/user/Mr2010Singh#p/f/1/R_WW9gsXVts<br /><br />To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro<br />Many thanks, mate Santomauro – that’s a new title for me ‘dinosaur’!<br />Excellent description of me and my work!<br />When next I’m in New York we’ll have to toast on that.<br />Töben<br /><br /> 1. I must confess I am now blinded by the many words – I am drowning in a sea of particulars - that came my way as I read through http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with.html I am currently preparing a High Court challenge and do not have the time directly to respond to Mühlenkamp’s material and so that needs to be left for a later date but, for what it’s worth, here’s a quick response. [… Good Krege this, bad Muehlenkamp that] »</i><br /> <br />Mr. Töben’s hysterical rant is a pathetic attempt to make believe that Krege did a great job and to scrounge up the usual lame excuses for the fact that neither Krege nor his bigmouthed sponsor nor any other bigmouthed "Revisionist" published a detailed report about Krege's supposed groundbreaking finds in the seven years (yes, seven years) that went by between Krege’s GPR exercise in 1999 and the 2006 Holocaust Conference in Teheran, where <i>"Fredrick Töben, director of the Adelaide Institute which funded Krege's team, did not present the findings"</i>, according to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Krege" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia article</a>. Whatever difficulties poor little Krege had with Australian authorities obviously happened later and cannot have been the reason for the report not having been published, so Mr. Töben’s excuse is somewhat less than convincing (apart from the fact that, if Krege has been kicked out of his job on account of his Treblinka activities as Töben claims, and if he made his way to Ukraine in 2009 as Wikipedia tells us, Krege has nothing to lose anymore by having his report published now). <br /><br />A more probable reason for Krege’s failure to have his report published is his having realized that through his GPR bumbling he found exactly what he had hoped <i>not</i> to find, i.e. ground disturbances compatible with the presence of huge mass graves in the soil of Treblinka. Speaking for this assumption there are assessments of Krege’s work by people who obviously know something about GPR, including GPR expert Lawrence Conyers. I wrote about this in <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html#_Treblinka" rel="nofollow">an earlier blog</a>. <br /><br />If Krege had really found what he claimed to have found, a detailed report about his finds would be the crown jewel of "Revisionism", ranging far above the Rudolf Report. The silence about Krege’s accomplishments following the initial ballyhoo is further evidence – besides the above-mentioned assessments – that the poor man shot "Revisionism" in the foot.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-4341595089835965942010-09-26T00:58:32.119+01:002010-09-26T00:58:32.119+01:00«Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:22:00 AM
Blogger J...<i>«Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:22:00 AM<br />Blogger Jack Martin said...<br /><br /> [Snip off-topic rhetorical blah-blah-blah] <br /><br /> The plain fact is that the reason "Holocaust" revisionism persists is that there simply is no credible evidence that anything resembling the "official" claims concerning the "Holocaust" ever occurred at all.»</i> <br /><br />No, the plain fact is that the only reason why Holocaust "Revisionism" persists is that there are ideologically motivated imbeciles who cannot face up to certain amply proven facts inconvenient to their articles of faith and therefore keep on babbling about there being "no credible evidence" to such facts. <br /><br /> <i>«The falsehoods put forward in support of the "Holocaust" are so blatant and so numerous that only a hate-filled bigot or a deliberate liar can continue to support what Professor Butz so aptly termed "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" in his definitive book of that title.»</i> <br /><br />Actually that statement fits "Revisionism" like a glove, for "Revisionism" consists of nothing other than misrepresentation, distortion or unreasonable dismissal of evidence coupled with inane conspiracy theories. But then, it’s nothing new to see "Revisionist" propagandists accuse their opponents of their own fallacies. <br /><br /> <i>« As for the IMT "trials," Butz correctly remarked: "It is a fact that without the evidence generated at these trials, there would be no significant evidence that the program of killing Jews ever existed at all." »</i><br /><br />Actually that’s blatant nonsense, for much documentary, eyewitness, demographic and physical evidence has been discovered and assessed a) in the context of a great many criminal investigations and trials other than the IMT and NMT trials, mainly by criminal justice authorities of the German Federal Republic, and b) by historians and archaeologists independently of criminal investigations or trials. But even if Butz were right, if all known evidence had been gathered in the context of the IMT and NMT trials, would this be a minus? Hardly so, for criminal justice authorities have much ampler means than historians to collect and assess evidence, and evidence is nowhere as critically and thoroughly scrutinized as at a fair trial according to the defendant-friendly procedural rules of a constitutional state. If I remember correctly Butz doesn't even question the fairness of the trials he refers to, so he is shooting himself in the foot with his silly remark. <br /><br /> <i>«Calling Butz a "dinosaur" - instead of responding honestly to his arguments - will not impress anyone whose aim is to uncover the truth - an aim which seems exclusively limited to the historical revisionists.»</i><br /><br />Hysteria obviously kept Mr. Martin from reading the following parts of my blog: <br /><br /><i>"So as not to pack too much material into a single blog, the present blog will address Mr. Töben's utterances while those of Mr. Butz will be commented in a second blog."</i><br /><br /><i>"As mentioned before, Mr. Butz’s "brief 12-point summary" will be commented in my next blog. But I can already give Mr. Töben the comfort that his rhetoric is no more inadequate than that of his admired coreligionist."</i> <br /><br />Read before hitting the keyboard next time, Mr. Martin.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-84101423064153807242010-09-26T00:49:22.949+01:002010-09-26T00:49:22.949+01:00Wow, five pages of "Revisionist" waffle ...Wow, five pages of "Revisionist" waffle in response to my blog. Looks like I caused more than one "Revisionist" freak to freak out. <br /><br />I don't think I need to respond to all this conundrum of puerile personal attacks, silly and often self-projecting accusations and other rhetorical baloney, which says more about its demented authors than I possibly could. Therefore I'll just filter out what arguments related to the subject matter of the discussion – "Revisionist" challenges to the historical record of the Nazi genocide of the Jews – are contained in all this hot air, and address only those. <br /><br /><i>«Blogger 666isMONEY said...<br /><br /> At Ur link for "CAD Reconstruction of the Gas Chambers in Treblinka," the article mentions a Diesel engine supplying carbon monoxide to the gas chambers.<br /><br /> Diesel exhaust would not asphyxiate people because it contains inert amounts of carbon monoxide.»</i><br /><br />Diesel exhaust would be sufficiently toxic to kill people if the engine was run at a high number of rpm while restricting the air intake, but the casual witnesses who thought the gassing engines were diesel engines were probably wrong in this respect, because the knowledgeable witnesses (those who handled or serviced gassing engines or had helped to install them) spoke about gasoline engines. See the blog <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-diesel-issue-is-irrelevant.html" rel="nofollow">Why the "diesel issue" is irrelevant</a> for details. <br /><br />Now, if witnesses wrongly assumed that the gassing engine had been a diesel engine, this doesn’t necessarily meant that they didn’t get other details right, so there was no reason to ignore them for the <a href="http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_trebcad.html" rel="nofollow">CAD Reconstruction of the Gas Chambers in Treblinka</a>. I don’t think the reconstruction means to represent the engine as being necessarily a diesel engine, but even if it did, this would only mean that it is inaccurate regarding this detail, not that its is inaccurate regarding the other details. And that inaccuracy, as mentioned above, would follow not from the inadequacy of diesel engines for gassing, but from the fact that the knowledgeable witnesses mentioned gasoline engines.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-47857651224897773212010-09-25T06:56:27.677+01:002010-09-25T06:56:27.677+01:00I find very interesting Roberto Muehlenkamp's ...I find very interesting Roberto Muehlenkamp's effort to ridicule the attempt by Richard Krege to examine the site at Treblinka to test whether mass graves had existed there, by means of ground penetrating radar. <br /><br />What is particularly interesting is that no proper examination of that camp was ever conducted after the war either by the Allies or by Polish authorities. <br />They absolutely should have done that. <br />Their inexplicable failure to do so can only be taken as proof that they had no reason to think they would find actual evidence for what they claimed.<br /><br />The official version of events at Treblinka is beyond ridiculous; some 800,000 persons gassed by means of Diesel exhaust; then buried; and then disinterred and burnt on open air barbecue pits… all without leaving behind any corroborative evidence of their Herculean labors. Sane people simply do not credit such crap.<br /><br />The link you supplied for Treblinka mentions as a source the book, ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ by Jankiel Wiernik.<br /><br />This Wiernik is an obvious liar whose story is preposterous from start to finish. In his book, he relates, inter alia, an incident in which he was shot by a guard… but the bullet - which penetrated his clothing - miraculously stopped upon reaching his skin, leaving only a mark. <br />The rest of his story is in much the same vein. To actually believe his story, you'd have to be as crazy as Wiernik himself seems to be.<br /><br />The official Treblinka story is a monumental lie… as are the official stories for virtually all of the so-called "death camps."<br /><br /> Those who believe the in so-called “Holocaust” hoax do so - not because of the evidence - but in spite of it.Jack Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168973823522218539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-80072578581178677532010-09-25T06:42:57.199+01:002010-09-25T06:42:57.199+01:007. I hesitate to reflect on this matter but none o...7. I hesitate to reflect on this matter but none of the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth – except for the dissenters who return to the fold after recanting – have been legally pursued. During my October-November 2008 London 50 Days in Gaol a number of public commentators, including Isi Liebler in Jerusalem, indirectly advised the British government not to extradite me to Germany by claiming that ‘Holocaust denial’ should not be criminalized. My matter thereby became a political-legal issue: should British Common Law criminalize so-called ‘Holocaust denial’? Had I been extradited, then this would effectively have criminalized the expressing of opinions, something that is readily done in the European Civil Law countries where it is considered ‘racist’ to question matter ‘Holocaust-Shoah’. What nonsense it is to stifle an historical debate on those grounds! The other argument is that there is a danger of Nazism re-emerging. Anyone with any historical sensitivity knows no event ever returns as an exact copy from the past. What this indicates, however, is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the current ideological mindset put in place after World War Two that needs again and again make reference for its legitimacy to matters ‘Holocaust-Shoah’.<br /> <br />8. While reading through the many words that Mühlenkamp wrote in reply to my response I was again reminded of the Middle Ages where one contentious issue was: How many angels fit on a pinhead? Although philosophically it illustrates the problem of universals and particulars, a practical effect flowing therefrom was retaining control of ideology. That’s what Mühlenkamp’s response is all about. It is not possible to write a definitive ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative because too many archives are still closed, and as Norman Finkelstein argues, one of the other problems afflicting research is the multi-billion ‘Holocaust industry’, and any dissenting opinion needs to be smashed before it can flourish, even if it contains elements of truth in it. Arthur Schopenhauer’s 3-stage emergence of truth is comforting here: 1. It is ridiculed, then 2. It is violently opposed, and 3. It is accepted as a given. Mühlenkamp seems to have regressed to the first stage, while we are already at the end of the second stage, which came about with the imprisonment of Sylvia Stolz, Ernst Zündel, Horst Mahler, Wolfgang Fröhlich and Gerd Honsik, among others.<br /> <br />Cheers<br />Fredrick TöbenMichael Santomaurohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14257040568294637764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-8144513782614314402010-09-25T06:42:25.853+01:002010-09-25T06:42:25.853+01:005. We only need to look at the making of the most ...5. We only need to look at the making of the most recent world/global myths – WMD of 2003, 9:11 of 2001 – then we can see how the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ has had over 60 years of legal codification and justification. Recently a new book was published wherein the crimes of the Chinese Revolution are detailed. In this regard Carlos Porter asks: Why is it that only ‘official historians’ have had access to the German documentation centre at Arolsen while Revisionists have had to do their research under the most trying conditions? Mühlenkamp does not reference such a one-sided approach to research, and can only debase his own arguments through personal subjective afflictions by smearing individual Revisionists – which indicates to me he has a deep-seated fear of their work.<br /> <br />6. Fortunately for those who uphold the official version of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myths life will continue to be comfortable. It wasn’t for Dr Wilhelm Stäglich nor for Dr Stuart Hayward [who added Joel to his name in deference to his Jewish heritage that he pulled out when the heat was on him-] with the former having his academic title revoked and the latter recanting his academic work. There are others, of course, who have had worse treatment heaped on them but it has always been a defaming of the person. Still, it doesn’t matter how much written stuff Mühlenkamp gathers up in order to discredit Revisionists’ work, this fact alone indicates that the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth are using any means of power at their disposal with which to silence opposition – and that’s a political matter.Michael Santomaurohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14257040568294637764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-49081204055405741462010-09-25T06:41:17.945+01:002010-09-25T06:41:17.945+01:002. By the tone of his response, and not only by hi...2. By the tone of his response, and not only by his name, did I sense that Herr Mühlenkamp is German – the anger, more so the fear that he will eventually have to re-think and re-evaluate his belief system, is clearly evident. But while the official ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ conspiracy theory is legally sustained and reinforced he will not have to face any Revisionist illumination. He can even pretend to do combat for them on their behalf, for example to start a petition to decriminalise the Holocaust debate, thereby indirectly testing the temperature about the debate and at the same time collecting more information about individuals who are buckling under the burden of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ lies! But in the meantime he’s flat out defending his belief in the Holocaust-Shoah myth. I recall in my first year of philosophical studies we had a meeting where the Rationalists claimed there is no God and one student screamed out that this is not true, that there is a God. This was the first time that the student, in public, had heard anyone make such a statement, denying the existence of God! It was the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who asked how is it that in western democracies anything can be denied, even the existence of God, but that it is sacrilege to question the Holocaust, to deny it ever happened. <br /> <br />3. Mühlenkamp’s frenzied tone, of course, is further indicative of his fear that he must know that if he only expresses a minute doubt, if he deviates just a little from the official conspiracy theory - from the basic premises of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ dogma/ideology: 1. 6 million, 2. systematic extermination and 3. homicidal gas chambers as a murder weapon, then in a flash he would have a European Arrest Warrant made out in his name! There is a whole legal fraternity out there waiting to service the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ industry because they consider anyone doubting the official narrative is ‘scandalising’ society. Some of the legal supporters to continue to criminalize the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ actually are libertarians who defend free expression at any price – but they have classified ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ matters as ‘hate-speech’, thereby excising it from open debate, i.e. only the official version of events is permitted to be canvassed and not any dissenting view that would question the three pillars on which the myth rests.<br /> <br />4. His unnecessary snide remarks throughout his ‘ramblings’ indicate to me that Mühlenkamp is more interested in debasing a serious discussion rather than rationally finding out the truth of a matter. In the past I’ve had numerous discussions with die-hard Holocaust-Shoah believers that have been productive, and some of these individuals are still about. It seems to me that Mühlenkamp does not wish to understand how the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ documentation has been fabricated, just as many professional historians cannot understand that our knowledge of the Egyptian, Greek and Roman world rests mainly on written documentation produced during the Middle Ages.Michael Santomaurohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14257040568294637764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-83335929215501367802010-09-25T06:39:41.531+01:002010-09-25T06:39:41.531+01:00To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Mi...To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro<br />Many thanks, mate Santomauro – that’s a new title for me ‘dinosaur’!<br />Excellent description of me and my work!<br />When next I’m in New York we’ll have to toast on that.<br />Töben<br /> <br />1. I must confess I am now blinded by the many words – I am drowning in a sea of particulars - that came my way as I read through http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with.html I am currently preparing a High Court challenge and do not have the time directly to respond to Mühlenkamp’s material and so that needs to be left for a later date but, for what it’s worth, here’s a quick response.<br />1.1 Let me briefly comment on what Mühlenkamp says about Richard Krege in the below introduction where he refers to Krege’s research as ‘bumbling and counterproductive attempt’. Krege’s work is groundbreaking, figuratively and literally, because such work had not been done before. It is a simple basic idea that yielded results and had the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth scrambling and re-adjusting their narrative. Some years later the Mythbusters TV series used the same technology in one of their episodes where they attempted to locate a body buried in the ground. Rather than scoff at Krege’s pioneering work, Mühlenkamp should lose his fear of having his pet-belief scrutinized for factual truth content.<br />1.2 In the Wikipeadi article on Krege that he links to in the below article the penultimate sentence indicates what problems Revisionists face: “However according to British historian Alan Heath, Krege did not have permission from the authorities in Warsaw, Siedlce nor in Treblinka itself ….Krege has not only failed to publish his findings but also has failed to respond to questions as to the actual dates of his alleged visits to Treblinka and Bełżec nor challenges to visit the site with qualified scientists. So, Krege’s sin was to be an independent thinker who produces goods that the guardians have not sanctioned, that an ethics committee has not cleared because it offends those who believe in the “Holocaust-Shoah’ myth. Shame, Mühlenkamp, shame on you!<br />1.3 I think it is common knowledge that after returning from the Teheran Holocaust Conference Richard Krege was, after almost ten years, dismissed from his government job at Air Services in Canberra, Australia – and Mühlenkamp smirks at Krege’s faced difficulties! Such an attitude of mind as displayed by Mühlenkamp indicates to me he has some deep-seated unresolved personal problems that he needs to project on others. Revisionists are all too familiar with ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ believers who project their own personal psychological and intellectual inadequacies – basic hatred - on to those who refuse to believe in their exaggerations, distortions, fabrications and outright lies.<br />1.4 Since Krege’s unofficial results have become known it is the official Treblinka narrative that has effectively been demolished – hence the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative has no reality in space and time, only in memory.<br />1.5 Mühlenkamp operates on a win-lose Marxist/Talmudic dialectic while individuals who seek out the truth of a matter operate on the co-operative win-win Hegelian dialectic. Revisionists don’t need to abuse anyone because they merely seek out the truth of a matter, and some individuals may find this process quite hurtful because it means giving up some beliefs that went deeply into their personal identity. After all, the truth hurts is a maxim that most of us made acquaintance with during our childhood but then left behind as we grew up and realized that sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words never did. However, I must admit when abuse comes my way, I sometimes fail to resist the impulse to respond in kind.Michael Santomaurohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14257040568294637764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-47872923085260692922010-09-25T06:38:59.073+01:002010-09-25T06:38:59.073+01:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70svPcdwNU
http:...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70svPcdwNU<br /> <br />http://www.youtube.com/user/Mr2010Singh#p/f/1/R_WW9gsXVts<br /> <br />To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro<br />Many thanks, mate Santomauro – that’s a new title for me ‘dinosaur’!<br />Excellent description of me and my work!<br />When next I’m in New York we’ll have to toast on that.<br />Töben<br /> <br />1. I must confess I am now blinded by the many words – I am drowning in a sea of particulars - that came my way as I read through http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with.html I am currently preparing a High Court challenge and do not have the time directly to respond to Mühlenkamp’s material and so that needs to be left for a later date but, for what it’s worth, here’s a quick response.<br />1.1 Let me briefly comment on what Mühlenkamp says about Richard Krege in the below introduction where he refers to Krege’s research as ‘bumbling and counterproductive attempt’. Krege’s work is groundbreaking, figuratively and literally, because such work had not been done before. It is a simple basic idea that yielded results and had the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth scrambling and re-adjusting their narrative. Some years later the Mythbusters TV series used the same technology in one of their episodes where they attempted to locate a body buried in the ground. Rather than scoff at Krege’s pioneering work, Mühlenkamp should lose his fear of having his pet-belief scrutinized for factual truth content.<br />1.2 In the Wikipeadi article on Krege that he links to in the below article the penultimate sentence indicates what problems Revisionists face: “However according to British historian Alan Heath, Krege did not have permission from the authorities in Warsaw, Siedlce nor in Treblinka itself ….Krege has not only failed to publish his findings but also has failed to respond to questions as to the actual dates of his alleged visits to Treblinka and Bełżec nor challenges to visit the site with qualified scientists. So, Krege’s sin was to be an independent thinker who produces goods that the guardians have not sanctioned, that an ethics committee has not cleared because it offends those who believe in the “Holocaust-Shoah’ myth. Shame, Mühlenkamp, shame on you!<br />1.3 I think it is common knowledge that after returning from the Teheran Holocaust Conference Richard Krege was, after almost ten years, dismissed from his government job at Air Services in Canberra, Australia – and Mühlenkamp smirks at Krege’s faced difficulties! Such an attitude of mind as displayed by Mühlenkamp indicates to me he has some deep-seated unresolved personal problems that he needs to project on others. Revisionists are all too familiar with ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ believers who project their own personal psychological and intellectual inadequacies – basic hatred - on to those who refuse to believe in their exaggerations, distortions, fabrications and outright lies.<br />1.4 Since Krege’s unofficial results have become known it is the official Treblinka narrative that has effectively been demolished – hence the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative has no reality in space and time, only in memory.<br />1.5 Mühlenkamp operates on a win-lose Marxist/Talmudic dialectic while individuals who seek out the truth of a matter operate on the co-operative win-win Hegelian dialectic. Revisionists don’t need to abuse anyone because they merely seek out the truth of a matter, and some individuals may find this process quite hurtful because it means giving up some beliefs that went deeply into their personal identity. After all, the truth hurts is a maxim that most of us made acquaintance with during our childhood but then left behind as we grew up and realized that sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words never did. However, I must admit when abuse comes my way, I sometimes fail to resist the impulse to respond in kind.Michael Santomaurohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14257040568294637764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-69996335101601828472010-09-25T06:38:23.959+01:002010-09-25T06:38:23.959+01:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70svPcdwNU
http:...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70svPcdwNU<br /> <br />http://www.youtube.com/user/Mr2010Singh#p/f/1/R_WW9gsXVts<br /> <br />===============================<br /> <br />To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro<br />Many thanks, mate Santomauro – that’s a new title for me ‘dinosaur’!<br />Excellent description of me and my work!<br />When next I’m in New York we’ll have to toast on that.<br />Töben<br /> <br />1. I must confess I am now blinded by the many words – I am drowning in a sea of particulars - that came my way as I read through http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with.html I am currently preparing a High Court challenge and do not have the time directly to respond to Mühlenkamp’s material and so that needs to be left for a later date but, for what it’s worth, here’s a quick response.<br />1.1 Let me briefly comment on what Mühlenkamp says about Richard Krege in the below introduction where he refers to Krege’s research as ‘bumbling and counterproductive attempt’. Krege’s work is groundbreaking, figuratively and literally, because such work had not been done before. It is a simple basic idea that yielded results and had the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth scrambling and re-adjusting their narrative. Some years later the Mythbusters TV series used the same technology in one of their episodes where they attempted to locate a body buried in the ground. Rather than scoff at Krege’s pioneering work, Mühlenkamp should lose his fear of having his pet-belief scrutinized for factual truth content.<br />1.2 In the Wikipeadi article on Krege that he links to in the below article the penultimate sentence indicates what problems Revisionists face: “However according to British historian Alan Heath, Krege did not have permission from the authorities in Warsaw, Siedlce nor in Treblinka itself ….Krege has not only failed to publish his findings but also has failed to respond to questions as to the actual dates of his alleged visits to Treblinka and Bełżec nor challenges to visit the site with qualified scientists. So, Krege’s sin was to be an independent thinker who produces goods that the guardians have not sanctioned, that an ethics committee has not cleared because it offends those who believe in the “Holocaust-Shoah’ myth. Shame, Mühlenkamp, shame on you!<br />1.3 I think it is common knowledge that after returning from the Teheran Holocaust Conference Richard Krege was, after almost ten years, dismissed from his government job at Air Services in Canberra, Australia – and Mühlenkamp smirks at Krege’s faced difficulties! Such an attitude of mind as displayed by Mühlenkamp indicates to me he has some deep-seated unresolved personal problems that he needs to project on others. Revisionists are all too familiar with ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ believers who project their own personal psychological and intellectual inadequacies – basic hatred - on to those who refuse to believe in their exaggerations, distortions, fabrications and outright lies.<br />1.4 Since Krege’s unofficial results have become known it is the official Treblinka narrative that has effectively been demolished – hence the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative has no reality in space and time, only in memory.<br />1.5 Mühlenkamp operates on a win-lose Marxist/Talmudic dialectic while individuals who seek out the truth of a matter operate on the co-operative win-win Hegelian dialectic. Revisionists don’t need to abuse anyone because they merely seek out the truth of a matter, and some individuals may find this process quite hurtful because it means giving up some beliefs that went deeply into their personal identity. After all, the truth hurts is a maxim that most of us made acquaintance with during our childhood but then left behind as we grew up and realized that sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words never did. However, I must admit when abuse comes my way, I sometimes fail to resist the impulse to respond in kind.Michael Santomaurohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14257040568294637764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-88677992266760856872010-09-25T04:29:41.151+01:002010-09-25T04:29:41.151+01:00Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote, concerning Fredrick Töb...Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote, concerning Fredrick Töben:<br /><br />"it may burst his bubble to know that this supposed "German hater" is a German citizen who has much pride in things and people German..."<br /><br />This statement reminds me of what Professor Arthur Butz wrote, with reference to Willy Brandt: "Clearly, a career such as Brandt's postwar career is possible only in a country in which treason has become a normal part of political life, so it is not in the least surprising that the Bonn Government is a defender of the hoax."<br />("Willi Brandts Nachkriegskarriere war nur möglich in einem Land, in dem Verrat zu einem normalen Vorgang des politischen Lebens geworden ist. Und so ist es nicht überraschend, daß die Bonner Regierung sich hinter den Schwindel stellt.")<br /><br />The plain fact is that the reason "Holocaust" revisionism persists is that there simply is no credible evidence that anything resembling the "official" claims concerning the "Holocaust" ever occurred at all. <br /><br />The falsehoods put forward in support of the "Holocaust" are so blatant and so numerous that only a hate-filled bigot or a deliberate liar can continue to support what Professor Butz so aptly termed "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" in his definitive book of that title.<br /><br />As for the IMT "trials," Butz correctly remarked: "It is a fact that without the evidence generated at these trials, there would be no significant evidence that the program of killing Jews ever existed at all."<br /><br />Calling Butz a "dinosaur" - instead of responding honestly to his arguments - will not impress anyone whose aim is to uncover the truth - an aim which seems exclusively limited to the historical revisionists.Jack Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168973823522218539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-2384994367563157232010-09-25T03:22:13.209+01:002010-09-25T03:22:13.209+01:00At Ur link for "CAD Reconstruction of the Gas...At Ur link for "CAD Reconstruction of the Gas Chambers in Treblinka," the article mentions a Diesel engine supplying carbon monoxide to the gas chambers. <br /><br />Diesel exhaust would not asphyxiate people because it contains inert amounts of carbon monoxide.666isMONEYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04278844324811261409noreply@blogger.com