Pizzaman wrote:Of course. Except the things that all the survivors have in common from Treblinka are: (1) They say it was an extermination camp, not a transit camp; and (2) None them went to the GULAG.
What prisoners say is the most unreliable information from the Holocaust. Prisoners have claimed electrocution, chlorine, sexual experiments, floors opening, impossible numbers, and numerous other examples which have been discussed and debunked time and time again. They said there was tattooed skin, human skin lampshades, and shrunken heads too. Even after lugging them into a courtroom, it still didn't make it any more true. Perhaps you can contact C.D. Jackson to come here and settle things once and for all.
Pizzaman wrote:They didn't do those things to convince people of guilt. They did them because they believed they were true. Without them, they still would have won convictions, as the Frankfurt trials, which had none of those things, amply proved.
They believed they were true because they relied on the infamous testimonies you keep clinging to. Again, those "truths" didn't turn out so well.
As far as the Frankfurt trials, look at the results:
These are convictions of low level officials and privileged prisoners based on most of the faulty information that derived from Nuremberg.
Now I'm sure you might think the pharmacist, medical orderlies, and the dentist masterminded the Holocaust, but those of us in reality know this is ludicrous.
Which is why they received prison terms or were released, not executed.
Pizzaman wrote:In fact, most DIDN'T change their names, except, as you note, the ones who went to Israel.
a.k.a the majority of the inhabitants of the new found land when they developed the Yiddish language from Hebrew.
Pizzaman wrote:I don't see what relevance name changes have.
Name changes and the lack of records of such prove my point they aren't too interested in the details in order to divvy out German money to "survivors".
Anyone can walk in with the basic information and a sob story of a Jew from WWII era, and simply claim they changed their name.
Pizzaman wrote:Yes, I do believe they would challenge a claim if there were on proof. Otherwise, they'd go broke. Common sense.
And yet, it takes the Eric Hunts of the world to expose the Zisblatts, denierbuds to expose well.... numerous witnesses, and Carolyn Yeagers to expose the Wiesels (name changed by the way).
Germany can't challenge these people. They would be accused of antisemitism!
Pizzaman wrote:Make up your mind: Are the stories ridiculous or did they hedge on details?
The stories are ridiculous, which is why they hedge on details.
Is there some specific reason you believe it isn't possible they stopped asking for details once they started to see their story line crumbling as a result of those details?
Pizzaman wrote:Again, you'll need to prove that.
The obvious change in testimonies over the years and lack of details is proof positive.
It's Dr. Neander's post that says all they need is to show they were there at the time.
They didn't ask "Which camp(s) were you at".
Pizzaman wrote:You mean "bane."
Yes, thank you for the correction.
Pizzaman wrote:Also, I don't find the testimonies in that video unreliable, but that's off topic here.
I wasn't referring to that section of the video in particular.
There's a whole movie loaded with consistent debunking of testimonies, in case you haven't heard. http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/on ... caust.html
Pizzaman wrote:No, it isn't, but at least if people had been through a transit camp, they'd probably say so.
Well, it's common sense that if they had "been through" the camp in the first place, it can't be called an extermination camp.
Or they wouldn't have been available for you to wonder why they didn't claim camp loyalties.
Pizzaman wrote:Your mistake here is thinking that the Census Bureau keeps the same records as INS.
Wonderful. I've yet to see any 6 million claim based on INS records. They're always dependent on Jewish post war sources.
I look forward to seeing your conclusions based on the information you're claiming being presented.
Pizzaman wrote:Nearly zero during the war. The doors were closed.
You mean the same way the doors have been closed to immigrants who don't go through the proper channels now?
Yes, very effective indeed.
Pizzaman wrote:Please provide a link.
Pizzaman wrote:But when you allege a transit camp, you've got to prove one.
So following your logic, if you claim an "extermination camp", you would have to show the remains of people who were "exterminated", right?
I haven't seen you do that.
Since you can't produce the remains of the alleged amounts, the space required for those amounts was impossible, and the method of burning was impossible to maintain the amounts claimed, why would anyone have to show you it was a transit camp. The very fact that the claims of extermination are impossible show it was a transit camp. The information provided by Hannover shows people passed through the camp.
Pizzaman wrote:Different topic.
So the fact that the remains claimed aren't there is a different topic?
Interesting. I seem to think it's rather important to the theory of transit vs. extermination.