another embarrassing 'excavation' / 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!
Rankweil
Member
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:42 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Rankweil » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:45 am)

No, none of these are forensic reports as none of them were performed for legal reasons.

The article by Thune is peer reviewed in a reputable German-language journal.

I'm sorry but you're applying a double standard which, again, does nothing for our case.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Hannover » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:52 am)

Where is your mass grave of 150,000 corpses, 'Rankweil'? Let's get to it.
Show me your alleged mass graves. You are challenged.
That's the way it works with real debate. Show us your alleged mass grave.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:32 am)

Rankweil wrote:So you're saying that the report is a fake? This author is lying?


YES.
The report is one of many holo-fakes.


Jerzy

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:32 am)

Rankweil wrote:So you're saying that the report is a fake? This author is lying?


YES.
The report is one of many holo-fakes.


Jerzy

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3357
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Hektor » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:51 am)

Rankweil wrote:Katyn is only one example. We're told 40 million people were killed by Stalin. Katyn is only a couple thousand Poles.

Yes, it was supposed to be only one example. I won't know how many people were killed under Stalin, I'd doubt the 40 million figure (as non-war death). Apparently there is some research being done on this. But the subject got far less attention then the The Judeo-Nazi-complex of world war two.

Rankweil wrote:My point is that it's very easy to claim something is a fraud just because you werne't shown something.

The claim doesn't rest on the not-showing-the-evidence shell game they played for decades only. Atrocity lies were a major element of Allied warfare against Germany. And it seems Jews got kind of a license to get away with the most outlandish claims against "Nazis". If you make something the central event of a century, I think you owe us all a higher standard of evidence, too.

As for Chelmno/Kulmhof they are not showing us anything that merits their claim of being a major mass killing site. And the burden of proof is on them.

friedrichjansson
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:20 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby friedrichjansson » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:54 am)

Hannover,

Please stop attacking everyone who asks critical questions. Take a breather and do something productive for revisionism. Such a hostile attitude makes this board a worse place.

On Chelmno: these investigators seem to claim that they have found the remains of three adults and one infant. For what purpose should revisionists declare them a fraud? Their factual findings (which, unfortunately, are not really described in adequate detail) do not seem to hurt the revisionist thesis. The fact that they interpret these findings in terms of the orthodox extermination camp story is beside the point - they do not claim to be proving that story, but merely documenting specific aspects of it.

What one should dispute is not whether they did indeed find a few bodies, but whether that finding supports, or is even consistent with, the extermination thesis. If anything, their discovery of a few bodies helps revisionism, as it shows that the Germans did not systematically and obsessively eliminate all traces of their "crimes." It is difficult to reconcile "we found a few bodies here and there" with "they exterminated 150,000 people and then destroyed all the traces."

Rankweil
Member
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:42 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Rankweil » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:02 pm)

This is precisely my point. I'm not saying there are 150,000 bodies in the ground, nor am I sayng that the Nazis are responsible for however many there are. I'm just pointing out that it's likely there are people buried there, rather than the whole study being a fraud.

Saying other people are lying except when they demonstrably are makes all reviisoinists look like crackpots.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Hannover » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:11 pm)

friedrichjansson wrote:Hannover,

Please stop attacking everyone who asks critical questions. Take a breather and do something productive for revisionism. Such a hostile attitude makes this board a worse place.

On Chelmno: these investigators seem to claim that they have found the remains of three adults and one infant. For what purpose should revisionists declare them a fraud? Their factual findings (which, unfortunately, are not really described in adequate detail) do not seem to hurt the revisionist thesis. The fact that they interpret these findings in terms of the orthodox extermination camp story is beside the point - they do not claim to be proving that story, but merely documenting specific aspects of it.

What one should dispute is not whether they did indeed find a few bodies, but whether that finding supports, or is even consistent with, the extermination thesis. If anything, their discovery of a few bodies helps revisionism, as it shows that the Germans did not systematically and obsessively eliminate all traces of their "crimes." It is difficult to reconcile "we found a few bodies here and there" with "they exterminated 150,000 people and then destroyed all the traces."

You say they 'ask critical questions', I say they dodge critical questions.
Look, why would a claimed excavation report not show what they said they excavated? Do you see any corpses? I do not. I have no problem with whatever they found, but proper forensic excavations surely must show what they claim to have found. It's so basic as to be glaring.
'Attack'? Please. How about 'demand proof' for the alleged 150,000?

I think, sir, that my to-the-point style troubles you. I have found there is little reason to argue a lot of minutiae when the entire matter rests on core assumptions. In this case, the lack of 150,000 claimed corpses and the ridiculous gassing claims.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Rankweil
Member
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:42 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Rankweil » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:29 pm)

Again, since it was deleted the first time. I think it's important to use the right words.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forensic

Definition of FORENSIC

1
: belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate
2
: argumentative, rhetorical
3
: relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems <forensic medicine> <forensic science> <forensic pathologist> <forensic experts>
— fo·ren·si·cal·ly adverb
See forensic defined for English-language learners »
See forensic defined for kids »
Origin of FORENSIC

Latin forensis public, forensic, from forum forum
First Known Use: 1659

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Hannover » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:34 pm)

... belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate

So where are the alleged 150,000 corpses?

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Rankweil
Member
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:42 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Rankweil » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:40 pm)

Do you have a reading problem? Here's what I wrote on the same page of this thread, "I'm not saying there are 150,000 bodies in the ground, nor am I sayng that the Nazis are responsible for however many there are. I'm just pointing out that it's likely there are people buried there, rather than the whole study being a fraud."

Do pay attention.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Hannover » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:45 pm)

Do read the linked to 'report'. I'm not particularly interested in what you say you believe, but what the promoters of this 'report' claim.
Yes, there could be a few people buried there, but those who made this 'report' claim otherwise. Do they not?

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Moderator » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:11 pm)

Rankweil,
[last post deleted]
Please cease the flamefest. If you have nothing to say in regards to the topic of the thread, then don't post. Thanks.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

friedrichjansson
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:20 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby friedrichjansson » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:21 pm)

Hannover wrote:Do read the linked to 'report'. I'm not particularly interested in what you say you believe, but what the promoters of this 'report' claim.
Yes, there could be a few people buried there, but those who made this 'report' claim otherwise. Do they not?

- Hannover


There is a fundamental difference between what the report claims to have found, and what interpretations they place on it. They believe that a huge number of people were exterminated at Chelmno; they do not state that they found the remains of these people. They are working within the exterminationist paradigm, to use Kuhnian language. Revisionism need not challenge the validity of their work within that paradigm. Rather, it attacks the validity of the paradigm itself.

why would a claimed excavation report not show what they said they excavated? Do you see any corpses? I do not. I have no problem with whatever they found, but proper forensic excavations surely must show what they claim to have found.


I agree that the detail offered in the report leaves much to be desired (Mattogno also comments on this fact in Chelmno, chapter 10). However, the principle "pics or it didn't happen" must be applied with caution.

I have found there is little reason to argue a lot of minutiae when the entire matter rests on core assumptions. In this case, the lack of 150,000 claimed corpses and the ridiculous gassing claims.


In this case, it would make sense not to participate in the discussion, as no-one here has made the claim that this report proves that 150,000 people were exterminated at Chelmno. Rather than claim forgery, simply observe that the report does not offer any serious evidence for extermination at Chelmno, and let those who are interested in the minutiae discuss them.

As you state, the issue concerns core assumptions - what I called a paradigm. Claiming that this study makes fraudulent claims about the presence of some human remains is not the right way to attack that paradigm.

There is no purpose in angrily arguing with positions no-one here is advancing, nor is revisionism advanced by engaging in an endless series of victory dances on the CODOH forum. A forum where the moderation prohibits any interaction with Hannover, its most prominent poster, other than serving him meatballs for easy refutation or cheering as he attacks the other side, is not a forum for open debate, and is not a forum which will help to advance revisionism.

Policing other revisionists is not the best use of your time and talent, Hannover. Why not build up a revisionist outreach program, such as a carefully designed "intro to revisionism" website? There are many possible projects of this sort which would advance revisionism and give you total control of the content. Such total control is not, however, suitable for a discussion forum.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: another embarrassing 'excavation' / Chelmno

Postby Hannover » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:16 pm)

Friedrich:

I think you should review this thread and you will see that I started it in order to discuss the Chelmno 'excavation' as linked to. Those which conducted this 'excavation' are purveyors of the 'extermination at Chelmno' canard. It is they who are the principal interest for me in this thread. I did not say the 'excavation' was a forgery, I said it was "fraud". The report participants have loaded all sorts of beliefs into this report which are not substantiated by the excavation itself. If that is not fraud, then what is?

As for your defense of Rankweil, I have simply reacted to his inquiries into what I think of this report and Chelmno in general. Rankweil persistently defends the 'report' while I challenge him on that support. Please read the thread and see the back & forth. I am merely challenging his overly complicated approach to a very simple issue.

Debate can appear to be unkind in some ways, especially when direct language is involved. I find nothing wrong with that, you apparently do, which is OK by me.

And ... I am 'policing' no one, of course I could say that you are attempting to police me.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests