Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translations...

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translations...

Postby Werd » 5 years 6 months ago (Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:12 pm)

Thomas Kues
http://revblog.codoh.com/2011/06/skin-discoloration/
The Jewish witness Eliahu (Elias) Rosenberg supposedly spent several months working in close proximity of the alleged Treblinka gas chambers,[40] dragging thousands of corpses from the “death chambers” to mass graves.
___________________________________________________________________________________

[40] In the previously published version of this article Treblinka key witness Jacob (Jankiel) Wiernik was listed as witness number 5, due to the English (as well as Yiddish) translation of his pamphlet A Year in Treblinka mentioning “yellow” corpses (“There was no longer beauty or ugliness, for they all were yellow from the gas”, in the Polish original: “Nie ma ładnych i brzydkich, wszyscy żółci-zatruci.”). It has since been pointed out to us by a scholar who wishes to remain anonymous that we are here dealing with a mistranslation of a Polish idiomatic expression, żółci-zatruci, where “żółci” does not come from the word for “yellow” (żółty) but for “gall” (żółć) which has in vernacular an association with “poison”, cf. the German expression “Gift und Galle“. Thus Wiernik (in his known testimonies) has nothing concrete to say about the appearances of the corpses.

The date of this internet article is June 25 2011. Now it was in November 2011 that the Holocaust Controversies group published their "Cut and Paste Mainfesto" as it has been called. They too are saying the polish has been misunderstood. However in the rebuttal from MGK, which has been discussed here
[ Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again! ]
So it seems that the revisionists are agreeing with the exterminationists on the issue. But not really. In this new MGK work, Mattogno, Graf and Kues all have their say. And on page 949, we find ourselves in the midst of a section written by Mattogno. He disagrees with the HC group and with Kues.
Page 949. Point 113,
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-tecoar-long.pdf

I find this interesting. Kues in 2011 seems persuasive given that language can be poetic all over the world. But Mattogno's deconstruction also seems very convincing. Especially the first complete sentence at the top of page 950 showing the interchanging of the Y and the I on the ends of the words. Read it. You will see what I mean. :D Later in the book when Kues pops up after this section by Mattogno, Kues does not even appear to comment on yellow skin colour. He says he focuses on things not already mentioned by Mattogno. So I am assuming Kues agrees with Mattogno's rendering of the polish.

Kudos again to Mattogno for not only correcting Romanov, but even Kues who, to his credit, maybe assented to the previous explanation so as not to be taken in by a hoax in order to keep his original 2011 piece on the revblog solid and factual. On the yellow issue, Kues and Mattogno have clearly both operated from motives of accuracy and integrity.
Last edited by Werd on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Did Wiernik say corpses were yellow nor not?

Postby Werd » 5 years 6 months ago (Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:09 am)

Mattogno seems to be showing his proficiency in Polish yet again on page 1272 near the bottom.

He says that an English translation of Kola's work on Belzec is wrong. Kola's book "Belzec: The Nazi Camp for Jews" claims on page 28 that "in the zone between the graves No. 12, 13, 14, 24 in surface layers the drills showed numerous damages of grave structures, probably caused by levelling works or robbery digs." Mattogno then claims the English translation of Kola's book is incorrect because the Polish edition uses "silne" which is an adjective meaning strong or intense, and not numerous. Meaning, "intense damages of grave structures."

I mention this just to show that Mattogno has apparently done the legwork to correct mistranslations of Polish in at least one place and therefore probably is correct about Weinrick. However, over at rodoh, Muehlenkamp gets into an argument about yellow corpses and ends up getting spanked in the end. And theblackrabbitofinle does his own work to dig up primary sources and mentions Mattogno's work in getting primary sources Muehlenkamp has never seen to prove his own points against Muehlenkamp. Quite entertaining reading.
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1212

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Did Wiernik say corpses were yellow nor not?

Postby Werd » 5 years 6 months ago (Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:59 am)

Just went back in the last chapter looking for another Mattogno correction on original Polish and indeed there is yet another example. From the bottom of page 1416 to the top of page 1417, Mattogno says Muehlenkamp attacked him because Mattogno quoted Weirnik saying that 3000 bodies could be exhumed at one time. Muehlenkamp says he must have meant something like 'in a day' or 'in one shift.' To which Mattogno replies that he found the text of the first machine typed version of Weirnik's statements. The polish is "wyciągano naraz 3000 trupów." To which Mattogno states "The Polish adverb “naraz” translates as “at the same time, together,” therefore I interpreted the meaning of the passage in a blameless way. It was Wiernik who uttered a monstrous nonsense." Just one small example out of many where Mattogno shows the correct Polish and how many holocaust historians and even the HC nutcases have been working with bad English translations for decades!

Another example of Mattogno straightening out the translations of something Polish is found on from page 1358 to 1359. This one is discussing shapes of alleged creamtory ovens in Chelmno. Some say the ovens had a funnel in them whereas Mattogno shows that the Polish actually means the oven itself was funnel shaped and not a four sided oven that contained an funnel shape inside it. In fact there is a drawing on page 1348 and also 1360 which pretty much bears this out.

Edit:
Yet another example of Mattogno straightening out the Polish occurs on pages 1329-1330. Again, Chelmno is the topic of discussion and on this occasion, Mattogo is discussing Roberto Muehlenkamp's feeble attempt at tying Blobel to the creation of something called Aktion 1005. On page 1329 we find Roberto giving a quotation of which he does not know the original source since he got it from a website and Mattogno had to track it down himself like with so many other things in the HC Cut and Paste Manifesto. Muehlankamp has a quote. “In spring of 1942 two crematoria were built, and after that, all the dead were burnt in them (and the bodies previously buried as well). Details about the furnaces are lacking, for the investigator could find no witnesses who had been in the wood in 1942 or 1943. Those who lived near had only noticed two constantly smoking chimneys within the enclosure.”" As it turns out Władysław Bednarz is a judge who wrote the article called The extermination camp at Chełmno in the anthology "Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland." The Polish version is W. Bednarz, “Obóz zagłady Chełmno” and this is where Mattogno makes his point.

"The word “spring” appears also in the Polish text: “na wiosnę 1942 roku” (in the spring of 1942),2924 and therefore it is not a translation error. This refutes Muehlenkamp’s imaginative speculations about Blobel and “Aktion 1005,” because at Chełmno the exhumation of the corpses would thus have commenced even before Blobel went to the camp in order to perform his alleged cremation tests."

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Werd » 5 years 6 months ago (Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:00 am)

Pages 1436-1437 sees Muehlankamp getting spanked on Polish yet again. The discussion is about Sobibor and what Kola allegedly said in Polish regarding a particular pit with bodies. Muehlenkamp on page 500 of the Cut and Paste Manifesto claims that Kola said the pit in question was just a possible pit out of many and not the only one that was ever claimed where cremations took place in Sobibor.

"“The above text shows that Kola considered it possible (but not certain) that this ‘grave’ was ‘just a place where corpses were burned.’ Not the (only) place where corpses were burned, but a ‘place where corpses were burned,’ i.e. one out of several burning sites. MGK conveniently transformed this into a categorical statement that grave # 7 was the (only) cremation site at Sobibór.”"

Mattogno on apae 1436, supplies a polish phrase "Być może jest to jednak miejsce, gdzie palono zwłoki,” which in English is "this could be the location where the corpses were burned."

Muehlenkamp then says what Grób cialopalny is supposed to mean. On page 500 of his manifesto, Muehlenkamp says, “‘Grób’ means ‘grave’ and ‘cialopalny’ obviously refers to a property of the grave, so it doesn’t look like the author’s translator made a mistake here. MGK, on the other hand, translated the term ‘Grób cialopalny’ as ‘It contains remains of cremated corpses.’”

Mattogno then reminds the readers where earlier in the book he explained how grób ciałopalny is a pit or gravesit that has remains of cremated corpses and is not a cremation pit. "Exactly for this reason Kola, in order to express the
possibility that grave no. 7 had served as a cremation pit, he does not speak about a “grób ciałopalny,” but in fact of a location “gdzie palono zwłoki” “where the corpses were burned.”"

Muehlenkamp's ultimate objection is this: MGK engaged in a deliberate mistranslation to hide from their readers the idea that Kola and his team "located two other cremation sites besides grave no. 7" thereby rendering useless the MGK claim that grave no. 7 was the only incineration site identified. But this is absurd given how Muehlenkamp did not even get the Polish correct. Kola says "Być może jest to jednak miejsce, gdzie palono zwłoki,” which in English is "this could be the location where the corpses were burned." Mattogno states "it is a matter of fact that this is the only exhibit to which he attributes such a possibility."

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Werd » 4 years 10 months ago (Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:01 am)

Well it looks like holocaustcontroversies sockpuppet Duke is not very happy about the ass kicking over here.http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... &start=140
Duke Umeroffen PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:54 am

Yellow? A small translation correction was dealt with by S Romanov upon the meaning of the word yellow. In fact I had a minor private message exchange previous to publication with SR regarding it upon the old Yuku version of rodoh. He had made a public cryptic comment about the colour yellow in a thread. When I asked him what the deal was, he explained to me what YW had really meant and told me to keep it to myself. Which I did. That was that, until HC published the white paper.

You should all know this by now. It appears that the word was mistranslated and does not refer to a colour so much as a condition. More expert deniers who have read the white paper will know this, I'm quite sure. Why even the denier T Kues also agreed with the interpretation. This yellow can be thought of therefore as more pertaining to gall, or to, "poison." All we have on the matter is that Yankel Wiernik wrote that the corpses looked poisoned. If you disagree with this then you had just better take it up with Kues.

Sigh. We already know Kues said that in an article in 2011 posted on revblog.codoh. But we also know that Mattogno's expertise in Polish means he revised a fellow revisionist. Hmmm. Perhaps the HC crew is going to have a 'refutation' of Mattogno's above quoted explanation of why it is actually yellow that is in the polish in their second edition of the cut and paste manifesto? Or are they just bluffing through a sock puppet on the internet hoping no one will read the huge MGK book?

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Werd » 4 years 10 months ago (Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:04 am)

He also says this.
I think that guy Werd went on about it at codoh too in a thread and Kues and Mattogno and old Uncle Tom Interent Denier Cobbleigh and all - probably not.

Yeah, I did. This one. And thanks to your own idiocy, people are going to come here, see Mattogno quoted and then blowing your own pathetic argument to hell. Good job, moron. :lol: Kues also claimed in his 2011 article that someone who gave him the correct interpretation wanted to remain anonymous. Fine. But mattogno is public and in TECOAR, Kues put up no argument of his own against Mattogno's new interpretation of this passage about the corpse colour. Perhaps because he has no argument? Perhaps because Kues realizes he got taken for a ride? Because he knows that Mattogno is not a slouch when it comes to Polish.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Werd » 4 years 10 months ago (Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:04 pm)

Okay, I am putting up the full quote from page 949 for posterity and also to shove it in the face of the rodoh retards who watch this site once in a while and still persit in the pathetic explanation of that polish that the Holocaust Controversies crew have in their cut and paste manifesto.

[113] “MGK have always cited the English edition of Wiernik’s text,
seemingly never bothering to check the original Polish. The problem that
arises here is that Wiernik, in the original Polish version of 1944, uses a
vernacular expression: the gassed were ‘żółci-zatruci.’
‘Zatruci’ means ‘poisoned,’ – ‘żółci’ here comes from ‘żółć,’ meaning
‘gall,’ a substance often associated with ‘poison,’ (e.g. the German ‘Gift
und Galle speien,’ not from ‘żółty,’ which means ‘yellow’). In Polish literature,
we often find ‘żółć’ associated with ‘cierpienie,’ ‘suffering.’ So Wiernik,
who is using poetic language in this instance, wants to tell us that the
victims were ‘dead as a doornail’ (or something to that extent). Thus MGK
had criticized Wiernik on the basis of a misunderstood translation.” (pp.
332f.)



Here we find ourselves confronted with more hocus-pocus. First I
may quote the Polish sentence at hand: “Nie ma ładnych i brzydkich,
wszyscy żółci-zatruci.”2187 The first part means: “There are no beautiful
and ugly.” These two adjectives are in the genitive plural form, because there is a negation in the sentence. As to the second part, the claim that
““żółci” here comes from “żółć,” meaning “gall,” is an enormous fairy
tale. The term “żółci” is in fact the nominative plural of the personal
masculine form of the adjective “żółty”2188 (yellow), just like “zatruci”
is the nominative plural of the personal masculine form of the adjective
“zatruty” (poisoned). The meaning of the phrase is therefore: “There are
no beautiful and ugly, all [are] yellow and poisoned.” This is also confirmed
by the original typed version of the Wiernik report, where the
conjuction “i” (and) appears between the two adjectives: “Nie ma
ładnych i brzydkich, wszyscy żółci i zatruci” (There are no beautiful and
ugly, all [are] yellow and poisoned).2189
Romanov has mocked me because in my study on the “Bunkers” of
Birkenau I had misunderstood the meaning of the Polish abbreviation
“bł”: but here he does much worse!2190
The yellow coloring of the corpses is without a doubt a reference to
chlorine gas that was associated with a yellowish green pall and which,
according to Wiernik, was used for the purpose of killing in the “gas
chambers” (see above, point 76).


[114] “One would think that since MGK were the ones to focus on
corpse color descriptions, that they would actually check Wiernik’s original
description. Revisionist scholarly standards must not be too strict. Recently
however, many years after making the allegation and only after being informed
of the translation problem Kues withdrew his criticism of Wiernik’s
statement, dismissing him as having ‘nothing concrete to say about the appearances
of the corpses.’” (p. 333)


As I demonstrated above, verifying “Wiernik’s original description”
fully confirms that for him the corpses were “yellow.” As for Thomas
Kues, in the footnote mentioned by Myers he wrote:2191

"“In the previously published version of this article Treblinka key witness
Jacob (Jankiel) Wiernik was listed as witness number 5, due to the
English (as well as Yiddish) translation of his pamphlet A Year in Treblinka
mentioning ‘yellow’ corpses (‘There was no longer beauty or ugliness, for
they all were yellow from the gas,’ in the Polish original: ‘Nie ma ładnych i
brzydkich, wszyscy żółci-zatruci.’). It has since been pointed out to us by a scholar who wishes to remain anonymous that we are here dealing with a
mistranslation of a Polish idiomatic expression, żółci-zatruci, where ‘żółci’
does not come from the word for ‘yellow’ (żółty) but for ‘gall’ (żółć) which
has in vernacular an association with ‘poison,’ cf. the German expression
‘Gift und Galle.’ Thus Wiernik (in his known testimonies) has nothing concrete
to say about the appearances of the corpses.”"

As one can see, Kues’s only mistake is having taken for granted this
fantastic story by Myers/Romanov.


Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Werd » 4 years 10 months ago (Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:28 pm)

Check this topic out from hannover.
"eyewitness" Yankel Wiernik at Treblinka
I saw this referenced as evidence about Treblinka. http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm
==============================================
A YEAR IN TREBLINKA
By Yankel Wiernik
An Inmate Who Escaped Tells the Day-To-Day Facts of One Year of His Torturous Experiences
Published by
AMERICAN REPRESENTATION of the General Jewish Workers' Union of Poland 175 East Broadway New York 2, N.Y. 1945
===============================================

"All looked yellow from the gas..."


And here is the website's main page.


WE REMEMBER! SHALOM!
Ada Holtzman Home Page
http://www.zchor.org
In memory of my beloved mother Rywcia (Rivka) HOLTZMAN née GOSTYNSKI, born in Gombin (Gąbin), Poland 1915, died in Kibbutz Evron, Israel, 1969

Probably not a revisoinist site, if you catch my drift. So I guess even they know full well what colour Wiernik claimed the corpses looked like.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Werd » 4 years 9 months ago (Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:47 am)

Werd wrote:This is also how the holocaust controversies team operates. They deny the absurdities like the ones above and claim they were mere accidents or hyperbole. Or, to save face in regards to Wiernik's testimony about corpses colour, they deny he mentioned a yellow corpse colour at all claimed Mattogno and Graf got the Polish wrong. Yet the Poles and the Jews were clearly fine with that translation into English having Wiernik saying yellow. Holocaust controversies apparently now are better experts at Polish, Yiddish and Hebrew than those Jews and Poles who translated Wiernik's book into English in the forties. No wonder that source who in 2011 tricked Kues over that sentence from Wiernik wanted to remain anonymous. maybe the Holocaust controversies used a sock puppet. Wouldn't want to answer for their lies now would they?

From another topic that should have been posted here. I hope this point is easily understood. In other words Sergy Romanov's explanation of the Polish is wrong and the Poles and Jews didn't agree in 1945-6 when they translated Wiernik's book. Anyone who therefore argues in line with holocaust controversies on this one by implication holds that the Poles and jews who supervised the translation into English didn't know their own languages that they spoke. :lol:

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Werd » 4 years 9 months ago (Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:18 pm)

Dear Nessie,

Here is me on page 7 of this topic.
Werd @ The most important Photograph / corpse color
The extracts I quoted from rodoh pages 26 and 27 prove that the issue of yellow corpses was put to you and you said, "I have already said do some research or ask a pathologist as to why witnesses mention other colours of lividity. It may be that those who die from CO poisoning do not just eventually go cherry red. Other colours of lividity may appear. I do not know the answer." This is an admission that you do not know the answer. Your demand that we find proof for you that corpses are yellow when we never asserted it is hilarious. You actually expect us to do your homework.


Furhter down on page 7
Werd @ The most important Photograph / corpse color
I still have yet to see an explanation as to why Wiernik claimed yellow corpses. Nessie says he answered Turnagain's inquiries into why people said yellow black and blue for corpses colours. But I haven't found it in that massive thread yet. It was put to him on page 29 by been-there he quoted it in his response on page 30 and for the next five pages (the topic is at 35 pages now), he avoided answering it, claiming he already had.


So we go to page 30 on rodoh and we find that in your first post, you are indeed quoting something from been-there on page 29. He asked again about yellow corpses.

"On the contrary, alleged eye-witnesses claimed the bodies displayed blue or yellow discolourisation, which is demonstrably FALSE for CO gas victims.
Is any of this getting through yet?"

Your response on page 30 contained no mention of the issue of yellow corpses that was put to you and you haven't touched it since on rodoh. In other words, you dodged.

You know what is pathetic about this whole thing? That is was predicted you would claim that asking about Wiernik's testimony and demanding an explanation would eventually get us accused of engaging in some logical fallacy. On page 26, Turnagain said, "Wiernik said that the cadavers turned yellow. Did they turn yellow before they turned red? Is that question a fallacy of some kind, Nessie." Sure enough, here on codoh it is a fallacy.

Nessie

The topic and all my recent studies has been about skin discolouration due to CO poisoning. It is a red herring to try and deflect from that and discuss pit sizes and other colours witnesses describe.


How the hell would we know what the skin colours are supposed to be if not for the alleged witnesses? THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE ONLY WAY WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THEM SINCE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TRUTH TELLERS. So you can't claim to want to discuss corpse colours and then not discuss eyewitness testimony from Wiernik. You are clearly dodging because you know one of your precious eyewitnesses has been caught in a lie.

Nessie: I want to talk about corpse colours.
Werd: Well, Wiernik said...
Nessie: RED HERRING. RED HERRING. FALLACY OF INCREDUILTY. FALLACY OF IGNORANCE!!!

Back on rodoh you said, "I have already said do some research or ask a pathologist as to why witnesses mention other colours of lividity. It may be that those who die from CO poisoning do not just eventually go cherry red. Other colours of lividity may appear. I do not know the answer." This is an admission that you do not know the answer. "

This statement logically implies you think that Wiernik's testimony about yellow corpses was up for discussion and therefore relevant. But now you claim it is not relevant to a discussion of corpse colour. Changing your tune, I see. Not very respectable. Neither is the dodging on rodoh you have done on the yellow issue.

I hereby challenge you to explain your posts on rodoh. The ones where you said maybe other colours of lividity appear, you weren't sure...to the posts where yellow was brought up again to you on rodoh and you ignored it and never mentioned it again, acting like the issue was solved when it clearly wasn't. The longer you delay or make excuses to not resolve this problem of yellow, adds more and more proof that you know deep down, that Wiernik is full of shit and not a real eyewitness.
Last edited by Werd on Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Werd » 4 years 9 months ago (Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:27 pm)

P.S.
Turnagain as far back in the rodoh topic as page 15 challenged Nessie about the colour yellow as described by Wiernik and then again on page 25. Then been-there tried on page 29 as already shown. Nothing from you Nessie in all of those pages. Well, the time is now.

User avatar
Nessie.
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Nessie. » 4 years 9 months ago (Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:08 pm)

Werd wrote:P.S.
Turnagain as far back in the rodoh topic as page 15 challenged Nessie about the colour yellow as described by Wiernik and then again on page 25. Then been-there tried on page 29 as already shown. Nothing from you Nessie in all of those pages. Well, the time is now.


I said at the time I did not know what the answer was and further research or ask a pathologist would be needed. So far my research has shown that what Wiernik would not have seen is lots of cherry red corpses. So I have had a look and the following is what I have found.

I have read this translation

http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm#chapter11

in which he makes the following colour references

"Some people ..... would become yellow and swollen from hunger and finally drop dead."
".......for they all were yellow from the gas"

He makes no mention of red, blue, purple or grey corpses, yellow is the only descriptive. Yet people do not go yellow when they die from hunger or CO poisoning or as he mentions "People were smothered simply by overcrowding." Suffocation would most likely mean blue skin tones. Then when he describes the scene he sees "The next morning we saw that the yard was littered with corpses." he does not mention colour at all.

What does the medical science tell us?

http://koronfelsforensicmedicine.blogsp ... tasis.html

"Colour: In most cases of death the colour of hypostasis is bluish purple. the intensity of colour is dependent on the amount of reduced haemoglobine or derivatives of haemoglobine at the time of death. Thus deaths due to asphyxia or congestive heart failure the bluish tinge will be evident as shown in picture 2. Deaths associated with high levels of methaemoglobinaemia are associated with brown colour of hypostasis,e.g. poisoning with Potassium chlorates,aniline dyes and sulphonamids.
Raised levels of carboxyhaemoglobine will impart a crimson red colour. High levels of oxyhaemoglobine as in cases of deaths from cyanide poisoning and cold will impart a pink colour to hypostasis.
In deaths from haemorrhages or anaemia,hypostasis appear as ill defined pale patches."

http://mbbsdost.com/fbapp/index.php?mno=625

"Colour of post mortem lividity (hypostasis)
Normal – Bluish pink which later turns into bluish purple
Carbon monoxide – Bright cherry red
Cyanide – Pink
Phosphorous – Dark brown
Nitrates – Reddish brown
Chlorates – Chocolate brown
Hydrogen sulphide – Bluish Green
Aniline – Deep blue
Opiates – Black"

That is two sources but overall I cannot find any mention of yellow skin discolouration, hypostasis or lividity that would fit with either CO poisoning or hunger. Yellow skin is associated with jaundice, hepatitis, cirrhosis, some cancers and other diseases I have never heard of

http://symptomchecker.webmd.com/multipl ... ions=68|68

So I am still at the point I was when first asked why did he refer to the bodies being yellow, I do not know.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Werd » 4 years 9 months ago (Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:03 pm)

Here's a guess. He's full of crap. Is your religion of holocaustianity so important that you can't acknowledge outright lies and contradictions?

User avatar
Henry.
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translation

Postby Henry. » 4 years 9 months ago (Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:02 pm)

Nessie. wrote:....So far my research has shown that what Wiernik would not have seen is lots of cherry red corpses. So I have had a look and the following is what I have found......


http://mbbsdost.com/fbapp/index.php?mno=625

"Colour of post mortem lividity (hypostasis)

Normal – Bluish pink which later turns into bluish purple
Carbon monoxide – Bright cherry red
Cyanide – Pink
Phosphorous – Dark brown
Nitrates – Reddish brown
Chlorates – Chocolate brown
Hydrogen sulphide – Bluish Green
Aniline – Deep blue
Opiates – Black"

Hmm...Nessie says "...my research has shown that what Wiernik would not have seen is lots of cherry red corpses" then he quotes his source which actually supports cherry red lividity in the post mortem bodies that Wiernik was said to have handled.

So even his own source is against him....


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 8 guests