Industry's Nick Terry takes on Carlo Mattogno about Chelmno

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Industry's Nick Terry takes on Carlo Mattogno about Chelmno

Postby Hannover » 3 years 1 week ago (Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:30 am)

I copied & pasted someone's "summary" of a piece by The Industry's Nick Terry and the link to the actual article by Terry.

curious article title:
The Jews buried in a little wood near Kulmhof”: Documenting Cremation at Chełmno
In his brochure Chełmno: A German Camp in History and Propaganda, Carlo Mattogno declared (p.83):
Not a single document exists on the alleged Chełmno crematoria
Unfortunately for “the world’s premier revisionist scholar”, this assertion is false.'
see:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... -near.html

article regarding point 10 below:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... s-and.html

We'll forgive the crude language used in the "summary".

I all seems rather silly considering that the alleged 150,000 - 300,000 Jew corpses that Jews say are still buried there cannot be shown.
Thoughts, analysis invited.

- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.


In his latest brilliant article on HC, Nick Terry introduces us to some recently digitised archived German documents in respect of Chelmno. It appears that some have been cited in recent mainstream books, but in some instances have never been published or quoted in full.

There are two collections. One is the archive from the ghetto administration and the other relates to files from the intelligence service.

In summary, these are the findings of NT's article :

1) Mattogno has claimed "not a single document exists on the alleged Chelmno crematoria" so Terry does the business and produces one, leaving Mattogno looking like a right twat.

2) The same document confirms that Jews have been exhumed and cremated in in specially constructed furnaces in a wood near Chelmno.

3) The same document confirms that it is mainly Jews unfit for work that are transferred to Chelmno.

4) Invoices are cited that show the purchase of cement and iron beams/girders/ railway rails. This again backs up the fact that furnaces were built to cremate the dead Jews.

5) A second document confirms the info in the first document was given 'in confidence' .

6) NT then produces a Himmler quote which asks Kaltenbrunner to remind Bothmann's SK who operated in Chelmno of the need for secrecy when they are transferred to Yugoslavia. This transfer is confirmed in the first document.

7) Mattogno gets twatted again about his pathetic 'ball mill' hypothesis.

8) Another twatting arrives in the form of Terry proving Mattogno doesn't even read his own books ! If he did then he would not have stupidly claimed that the "alleged activity of Blobel at Chelmno is not confirmed by any document", yet such a document can be found in his Chelmno book ,p157 !!

9) One of the documents from the intelligence service notes how the camp is referred to as a 'supply camp'. This must be perplexing to MGK as they believe it was a transit camp.

10) Terry rounds up the grand twatting by reminding MGK of another nonsense claim they made, this time claiming no documentation for Action 1005 exists. In this instance Sergey reels off 6 documents that does just that.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Industry's Nick Terry takes on Carlo Mattogno about Chelmno

Postby borjastick » 3 years 1 week ago (Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:07 pm)

More holes than a Swiss cheese but I'll start with the issue they claim to have unearthed about Chelmno being a 'supply camp' as opposed to a 'transit' camp. What's the difference?? They both absolutely mean movement, non static, outward not inbound only.

The best thing to do with Terry is ignore him. He's a busted flush and the good people of Exeter University know that.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Industry's Nick Terry takes on Carlo Mattogno about Chelmno

Postby PotPie » 3 years 1 week ago (Wed Aug 31, 2016 4:42 pm)

The H-C Blog has a wonderful tendency to try to use debunked/highly questionable "witnesses" to glue their claims together, especially when otherwise lacking a reasonable level of evidence.

I haven't personally studied Chelmno much, but I have read much on Auschwitz-Birkenau. I find that in book after book authored by an "eyewitness" is peppered with claims not only laughable at first glance, but upon second glance, they cannot stand up to existing camp records regarding what functioned and when in the crematoria facilities there. Does this stop these people from citing those materials anyway? Hell no.

And Nick Terry/eggheadbanga is one of them.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Industry's Nick Terry takes on Carlo Mattogno about Chelmno

Postby Hannover » 3 years 1 week ago (Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:24 pm)

It's Amateur Night for Nick Terry, his game is blown immediately.

Terry starts off mentioning a "letter", a debunked bogus letter of 5 June, 1942 which has been demolished years ago.
Terry:
The existence of a document describing the use of gas vans at Chełmno in explicit detail - the so-called Just memo for Walter Rauff of 5 June 1942 ...

See this "letter" & more hammered:
'phoney gas vans / J. McCarthy & 'holocaust' Hist. Proj.'
viewtopic.php?t=73

Why would anyone forge a letter?

Terry goes further on ridiculous 'gas vans'.
A must read here:
'NEWS! magazine & Wiesenthal Ctr. caught faking 'gas vans'!
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8534
and:
' Gas Van Film and Photo Fraud
German News Magazine and Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum Caught Faking Photo and Film Captions'
http://codoh.com/library/document/3276/

Now why would anyone make fake pictures & fake captions?

- Hannover

So called "holocaust eyewitnesses" making absurd, impossible, and contradictory claims is not the exception, but the rule.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Industry's Nick Terry takes on Carlo Mattogno about Chelmno

Postby PotPie » 3 years 1 week ago (Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:26 am)

Great points, Hannover.

A huge flaw of the mainstream exterminationists as a whole is their continued use of debunked items, be they witnesses or otherwise, without their addressing why the Revisionist stance on these particular topics is wrong. Time and again I see Revisionist demolishing a given source, and if they can't defend why they're using it, they simply pretend like they didn't see the challenge.

And that seriously smacks of a conscious attempt to deceive.

onetruth
Member
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:53 am

Re: Industry's Nick Terry takes on Carlo Mattogno about Chelmno

Postby onetruth » 3 years 1 week ago (Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:12 pm)

~

Seems all here are willing to ignore the simple fact that :

If Mattogno wants to say no document exists, and someone proves that such a document in fact does exist , than Mattogno would be in error stating no document exist.

Sorry , no going around that simple fact and anything else written is just excuses.


~

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3312
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Industry's Nick Terry takes on Carlo Mattogno about Chelmno

Postby Hektor » 3 years 1 week ago (Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:30 pm)

onetruth wrote:~
Seems all here are willing to ignore the simple fact that :
If Mattogno wants to say no document exists, and someone proves that such a document in fact does exist , than Mattogno would be in error stating no document exist.
Sorry , no going around that simple fact and anything else written is just excuses.
~

Then post a scan of the document you say exists :wink: .

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Industry's Nick Terry takes on Carlo Mattogno about Chelmno

Postby Werd » 3 years 1 week ago (Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:45 am)

Courtesy of theblackrabbitofinlé

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:He's well aware that it "exists"; he just thinks it's a forgery.

From his 2013 book:

[...] Just’s letter of 5 June 1942, it is a document full of crass errors and technical absurdities which lead me to radically doubt its authenticity.

p. 634 http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-tecoar-long.pdf


The “Just document” has already been invoked by Harrison on p.122. It is an absurd document rambling in its form and content: it bears the letterhead “einzigste Ausfertigung” (onliest (!) copy) and uses in the first line the term “beispielweise” (for instance), which presupposes an earlier text passage. In addition to the points already raised (chapter 5, point 87), I refer to my further considerations on this matter. First, the claim that “Just was coldly referring to victims of three gas vans in the Warthegau” can not be inferred from the document itself, but this can actually logically be excluded. The document pertains in fact to “technical modifications to the special vehicles deployed in service and in the process of construction [technische Abänderungen an den im Betrieb eingesetzten und an den sich in Herstellung befindlichen Spezialwagen],” thus it refers to all the alleged operational “gas vans [Gaswagen],” even though the author opens by mentioning “for instance” only three of them. On the other hand, if “since December 1941, for instance, with 3 deployed vans 97,000 were processed, without occurrence of defects to the vehicles [seit Dezember 1941 wurden beispielweise mit 3 eingesetzten Wagen 97000 verarbeitet, ohne daß Mängel an den Fahrzeugen auftraten],” is not entirely clear why some “technical modifications [technische Abänderungen]” were necessary to begin with. The subsequent expression, “the known explosion in Chelmno has to be assessed as an isolated case [die bekannte Explosion in Kulmhof ist als Einzelfall zu bewerten]” (the reason was a “handling mistake [Bedienungsfehler]”), excludes that the 97,000 (what?) referred to would have been “processed [verarbeitet]” in this camp, for otherwise it would not make sense that what had happened was “without occurrence of defects to the vehicles [ohne daß Mängel an den Fahrzeugen auftraten].”

Ibid p.820

Nessie wrote:Meaning Mattogno thinks no document exists about Chelmno. You are just nitpicking over the way phraseology.

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:Meaning Mattogno thinks no document exists about Chelmno.


Did you mean to say that Mattogno thinks no document exists "on the alleged Chełmno crematoria"? Yes?

If so, why did you link to a letter about the "special wagons" and claim he doesn't think it exists?


Anyway, moving on from your nonsense...

There's a lot of victory dancing about this already known new discovery of Terry's, but he also misrepresented Mattogno by not mentioning that he doesn't contest that cremations were carried out at Chelmno.

On page 102 of his Chelmno study Mattogno accepts the 1988 archaeological discovery of one of the crematoria, and the 1988 findings of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Poznan, who analysed four bags of earth and cremains from the site and estimated that "a few percent" of the material they received was residual bone.

Mattogno just maintains that the discovery of one crematorium and some cremains does not prove the mass cremation of 152,000 bodies at the site.

Mattogno assertion that "not a single document exists on the alleged Chemno crematoria" arguably still stands. The 22.06.43 memo by the Forschungsstelle A Litzmannstadt isn't a document "on" the crematoria. This intelligence agency was just relaying that they'd heard about the exhumation and cremations etc. from someone called Riehl and had [some of?] his story confirmed by the local Gestapo.

Sergeant "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!" Schultz could've gone far in the Forschungsstelle A Litzmannstadt. Not only was this intelligence agency in the dark until late June 1943 about the fate of Jews leaving the Lodz ghetto in front of their faces, they also didn't know until the Gestapo told them on 26.06.43 that the BBC was reporting Jews were being killed at Chelmno. That was 364 days after Jews in the Lodz ghetto had heard the BBC first report that Jews were being killed at Chelmno.

DasPrussian wrote:
Mattogno is not clear enough in his claim that 'not a single document exists on the alleged Chelmno crematoria'. He doesn't specify if he means the construction, running, planning or general existence of them . Even though this claim is made under the section 'Construction and Operation' , it still isn't worded in a way that suggests this is what he was specifically referring to. To support this, Mattogno also includes a general summary of evidence by Judge Bednarz under this 'Construction and Operation' section too. So it appears his claim is referring to any document that mentions anything about the crematoria.

Don't forget there are also invoices for cement and railway lines/iron beams mentioned by NT that appear in the archive collection. It would not be unreasonable to suggest these are documents on the construction of the crematoria and the pits, where mass cremations were carried out.

Therefore any appeal against the validity of the 'twatting' can be thrown out :D

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:True; Mattogno [or his translator] wasn't explicitly clear that he meant a document created by, or for, someone directly involved in planning/building/using the crematoria of Chelmno—even though it's perfectly obvious that's exactly what he meant. Mattogno might have refined his words a little had he known NT would track down a document from an agency that had nothing whatsoever to do with the camp and were essentially just reporting hearsay about furnaces, and then twist what Mattogno meant whilst failing to disclose he accepts one crematorium and limited cremations at Chelmno.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests