problem with document / 'Heizers' & 'Holzablader'

[a_baron]

I have some problems with this document

http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkere ... g2-3.shtml

and the claims that they needed to burn over 2600 bodies a day. Can anyone provide some intelligent Revisionist comment on it? It appears to be genuine.

[Moderator3]

a. baron:

Please, no more than one topic per thread. I have deleted your second inquiry, you can re-post your comment and the link you provided with it to a new thread. Please read the guidelines, and welcome to CODOH Revisionist Forum.
guidelines here:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=358

Thanks, Moderator3

[a_baron]

a. baron:

Please, no more than one topic per thread. I have deleted your second inquiry, you can re-post your comment and the link you provided with it to a new thread. Please read the guidelines, and welcome to CODOH Revisionist Forum.
guidelines here:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=358

Thanks, Moderator3

Not sure how that happened, it was meant to be one post.

Answers please?

[Hannover]

This has been discussed, see:
'Information required'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=93&p=530

The Heizer (Stokers)
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=333&p=2138

Of course, it's much ado about nothing considering that the alleged Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are utterly impossible as alleged.

A "document" posted by D. Keren? Oh boy, we have this guy cold, see:

'the Industry's D. Keren lies about open 'gas chamber' doors'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4405&p=45858

'A New Affirmationist Study on Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5903&p=40534

For more, use the search function for Keren

- Hannover

[Hannover]

Here's more on the 'heizers' canard, from the older CODOH forum:

'"an alleged document / why so many 'heizers'?"
http://forum.codoh.com/codoh/496.html

Take note of the demolition of prominent anti-Revisionists. Read the thread and learn.

- Hannover

[Hans]

This has been discussed, see:
'Information required'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=93&p=530

The Heizer (Stokers)
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=333&p=2138

Of course, it's much ado about nothing considering that the alleged Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are utterly impossible as alleged.

While there had been some discussion, there is no coherent, conclusive Revisionist explanation offered for these documents. You leave the reader quite alone.

We have TMoran claiming without historical base that those documents are forgeries. We have CatScan claiming "hidden unemployment". Both explanations are utterly contradicting each other, and both explanations mean effectively, that they cannot explain. It's notable that the forgery allegation emphases an incriminating nature of the document content.

The argument pointed out by Catscan is that "400+ people are employed at the disinfection complex at Auschwitz I. That's a lot of people for that location, too." Indeed this is a lot of people, but not hidden unemployment is the reason but the fact those people were employed in the gathering and treating the material residues and belongings of 400.000 Hungarian Jews and other Jewish transports in Auschwitz-Birkenau, not main camp by the way. The reference to Auschwitz I in August 23 report is without doubt a typo as can be seen by comparing with the reports from other dates as well as by the note those are employed in the "Lager" as opposed to "Auschwitz" which was the actual reference to notate work force transfer to Auschwitz main camp. Accordingly, the strength of the Aufräumungskommando is no evidence for hidden unemployment - which means there is no evidence at all.

Third we have Hannover claiming that this all irrelevant anyway because "the alleged Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are utterly impossible as alleged" - an argument which is highly questionable and weak outside the Revisionist dogma, in the real world, that is. Even though I am well read in Revisionist literature and forum, I don't remember having seen the demonstration that the homicidal gas-chambers are utterly impossible as alleged. This is a controversy Revisionists and Anti-Revisionists are discussing for years and fail to see where there has been Revisionist victory. If I just consider Rudolfs statement about chemistry being not the science which can prove or disprove the Holocaust definitely, this shows on what weak grounds such a statement as Hannover made stays. Moreover, even if Revisionists had showed something like this, there would be still a variation of the homicidal gas-chambers possible, which then would be needed to discussed. In any case, this statement doesn't serve as a tool to make the 900 stokers and their strong correlation with mass murder narrative in Auschwitz disappear.

[The Warden]

Hans is looking for one reason to show the gas chambers are impossible as alleged when he knows full well there is a "convergence" of evidence.
As we all know, that claim is an instant win in the mentality of Believers, so it should be for Revisionists as well.
Goose meet gander.

[Hans]

Hans is looking for one reason to show the gas chambers are impossible as alleged when he knows full well there is a "convergence" of evidence.
As we all know, that claim is an instant win in the mentality of Believers, so it should be for Revisionists as well.
Goose meet gander.

Indeed it makes little sense to speak of a convergence of evidence that something is "impossible". Impossibility means zero probability. But a convergence of evidence in historical science can according to its nature never reduce something to 0 or 100% probability. At best, convergence of evidence results in something being extremely unlikely or likely. For instance, the existence of homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz is extremely likely due to the convergence of evidence. This expression acknowledges that there is a residual risk that homicidal gas-chambers might have in fact not existed in Auschwitz. But when this risk to commit an error is small enough, so that we can safely assume beyond reasonable doubt it is true - as it is in case of gas chambers in Auschwitz - it is classified as a historical fact.

Now IMHO it doesn't matter weather Hannover really wanted to say that "the alleged Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are utterly impossible as alleged" or if actually meant that there is a convergence of evidence that the Auschwitz gas-chambers are extremely unlikely as alleged - because for neither case there has been proof or sufficient evidence presented by Revisionists. Nor would a supposed improbability of the Auschwitz gas-chambers as alleged make Auschwitz a mass-murder free zone and would force a mass murder free interpretation of the Heizer documents, as I already pointed out. The whole argument lacks piercing force, from the beginning that it makes false claim about Revisionists having shown impossibility of Auschwitz gas-chambers to the end that even if the claim were true it would establish a mass murder free interpretation of the Heizer documents.

[The Warden]

Indeed it makes little sense to speak of a convergence of evidence that something is "impossible". Impossibility means zero probability. But a convergence of evidence in historical science can according to its nature never reduce something to 0 or 100% probability. At best, convergence of evidence results in something being extremely unlikely or likely. For instance, the existence of homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz is extremely likely due to the convergence of evidence. This expression acknowledges that there is a residual risk that homicidal gas-chambers might have in fact not existed in Auschwitz. But when this risk to commit an error is small enough, so that we can safely assume beyond reasonable doubt it is true - as it is in case of gas chambers in Auschwitz - it is classified as a historical fact.

Now IMHO it doesn't matter weather Hannover really wanted to say that "the alleged Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are utterly impossible as alleged" or if actually meant that there is a convergence of evidence that the Auschwitz gas-chambers are extremely unlikely as alleged - because for neither case there has been proof or sufficient evidence presented by Revisionists. Nor would a supposed improbability of the Auschwitz gas-chambers as alleged make Auschwitz a mass-murder free zone and would force a mass murder free interpretation of the Heizer documents, as I already pointed out. The whole argument lacks piercing force, from the beginning that it makes false claim about Revisionists having shown impossibility of Auschwitz gas-chambers to the end that even if the claim were true it would establish a mass murder free interpretation of the Heizer documents.

Unfortunately, the convergence from Believers is based on nothing more than plausibility. Many things are possible Hans, but that doesn't make them any more true just because someone can dream them up. There's a whole section in the literary world dedicated to imagination, and that's the very place the Holocaust lore belongs. The convergence from Revisionists is more than dreaming up an alternate theory, it's a definitive refutation of the claims made by Believers. If something is mathematically and physically impossible as alleged, then it didn't happen as alleged. The ever-present allegation addendum from Believers does more harm than good.

Your usage and implication of the term "historical fact" as something which can't be disproved as alleged is quite honestly laughable. If something becomes "historical fact" without passing the test of reasonable doubt, it is in fact, NOT fact at all in any modern day court of law. This is the problem with the standard storyline, original and subsequent stories; People cite it based on plausibility and the very misinterpretation of plausibility into fact. There have been countless numbers of historical occurrences which have been found to be completely untrue and have been corrected based on new evidence. I'm sure you're tired of hearing it, but Katyn is still the perfect example. For years, the majority of the population believed the Germans committed that atrocious act, but we know that "historical fact" turned out to be a bogus claim based on nothing more than the "plausibility" of the accusation. The Believer convergence has reached the religious level of argument (and for good reason because it's essentially based on faith). The idea that everything else in history can be open to correction based on new evidence and the gas chamber story cannot is, in itself, part of the Revisionist convergence. After all, we know Katyn didn't happen as alleged, don't we?

The term "utterly impossible" is accurate since the allegations made in the standard convergence for gas chambers has not been proven, only alleged . The idea that something is "historical fact" as long as you still have the opportunity to change the original allegation is ridiculous. The Believer convergence is a day late and a dollar short. As long as the Believer convergence has unanswered questions, no physical evidence to support the current theme, and/or the incessant use of plausibility, it remains nothing more than fiction (I mean that in its most literal definition). Believers hang on to the idea that one day they will come up with a story that can't be refuted and until then, it's "historical fact". As long as math and science exist, there will be no problem refuting Holocaust V39.3, V59.1, or any other newer version of the same original faulty idea that people were mass murdered in WWII by the Germans. Speaking in generalizations doesn't make something true, only more easy to believe, but as we've seen from Revisionist arguments, when specifics are needed to converge, they don't, making the storyline utterly impossible.

If there were 900 stokers, all it proves is 900 people were there, which I hardly think is anything spectacular since tens of thousands of people were being moved around a day.

Mars exists, but that certainly doesn't mean the statement "Martians exist" is historical fact because it's possible.

[SilenceIsALie]

It's strange that one of the first things I learned in life was that academically, scientifically and legally when witness testimony is contradicted by physical evidence the physical evidence is always right.

Now in the case of the Holocaust I discover it's the exact opposite, and adhering to the evidence rather than unreliable witness statements is actually criminal in some countries.

Hans can't see any convergence of evidence because his own convergence of hopes, possibilities and belief's is in the way.

[Hannover]

Hans says:

Third we have Hannover claiming that this all irrelevant anyway because "the alleged Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are utterly impossible as alleged" - an argument which is highly questionable and weak outside the Revisionist dogma, in the real world, that is. Even though I am well read in Revisionist literature and forum, I don't remember having seen the demonstration that the homicidal gas-chambers are utterly impossible as alleged. This is a controversy Revisionists and Anti-Revisionists are discussing for years and fail to see where there has been Revisionist victory. If I just consider Rudolfs statement about chemistry being not the science which can prove or disprove the Holocaust definitely, this shows on what weak grounds such a statement as Hannover made stays. Moreover, even if Revisionists had showed something like this, there would be still a variation of the homicidal gas-chambers possible, which then would be needed to discussed. In any case, this statement doesn't serve as a tool to make the 900 stokers and their strong correlation with mass murder narrative in Auschwitz disappear.

"Weak"? How, Hans? ... tell us, don't make empty claims.

Rudolf is including more in his statement than the impossible as alleged 'gas chambers'. Chemistry cannot disprove the fact that Jews and others, including common criminals, were sent to labor camps. In fact no one claims they were not. And the deportation of Jews to labor camps is part of the so called 'holocaust'.

But the fact remains, that Hans, nor any of the True Believers can make a case for the 'gas chambers' as alleged without violating laws of science. All of that is thoroughly explained, while Hans continues to ignore it, in the first thread at this forum:
'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

Go ahead, Hans, create a thread on how the alleged 'gas chambers' supposedly worked, or dare to post to the thread I just mentioned and I / we will show you exactly how your assertions violate laws of science, logic, and rational thought. Bring it Hans, if you can.

The so called 'most documented event in history' is nothing more than chutzpah (aka: a brazen lie which attempts to intimidate Joe six-pack and the naive), yet Hans resorts to spinning how many 'Heizers' were supposedly working on a particular day. Laughable. Yet nonsense like that is what passes for proof of the 'holocaust' as alleged.

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

Cheers, Hannover

[The Warden]

I'm still convinced this is nothing more than a "human inventory".
There's no reason to believe this document shows anything more than available personnel in the camps, much like a temporary worker service has tests and criteria for each specific job and a list of people who can do that job. There was work that needed to be done, and any efficient operation will need to know if progress can be made with the available resources. It would only make sense to tally up a labor-READY force, especially when tens of thousands of people were being shipped to and fro. If the plausibility of "mass murders" is good enough for proof, then the plausibility of one of the first employment programs should be equally used as an alternate theory. The "unemployment" theory based on this one document alone is simply more realistic given the actual events known as compared to using it to establish events that can't seem to get a firm foothold.

[Cloud]

For instance, the existence of homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz is extremely likely due to the convergence of evidence.

Speaking of "convergence," why don't we have the very best chemists from each of the 195 countries of the world converge on Auschwitz, have them take a look at these alleged HGCs for themselves, present their findings to the world, and put this matter to rest once and for all? What do you say?

[Moderator3]

Hans,
If you want to post arguments for your position regarding the thread; 'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz', then please do so, at that thread.

[Hans]

Hans says:

Third we have Hannover claiming that this all irrelevant anyway because "the alleged Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are utterly impossible as alleged" - an argument which is highly questionable and weak outside the Revisionist dogma, in the real world, that is. Even though I am well read in Revisionist literature and forum, I don't remember having seen the demonstration that the homicidal gas-chambers are utterly impossible as alleged. This is a controversy Revisionists and Anti-Revisionists are discussing for years and fail to see where there has been Revisionist victory. If I just consider Rudolfs statement about chemistry being not the science which can prove or disprove the Holocaust definitely, this shows on what weak grounds such a statement as Hannover made stays. Moreover, even if Revisionists had showed something like this, there would be still a variation of the homicidal gas-chambers possible, which then would be needed to discussed. In any case, this statement doesn't serve as a tool to make the 900 stokers and their strong correlation with mass murder narrative in Auschwitz disappear.

"Weak"? How, Hans? ... tell us, don't make empty claims.

Rudolf is including more in his statement than the impossible as alleged 'gas chambers'. Chemistry cannot disprove the fact that Jews and others, including common criminals, were sent to labor camps. In fact no one claims they were not. And the deportation of Jews to labor camps is part of the so called 'holocaust'.

But the fact remains, that Hans, nor any of the True Believers can make a case for the 'gas chambers' as alleged without violating laws of science. All of that is thoroughly explained, while Hans continues to ignore it, in the first thread at this forum:
'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

Just for record, as I point out here, the cyanide chemistry thread does not prove "violation of laws of science" or that “the alleged Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are utterly impossible as alleged”.