Moe about the previously mentioned "revisionist" dillemma
Another problem which came to my realization long ago (but I was too lazy to make a post!) is that following: Why would morgues, air-raid shelters whatever have F-A-K-E showers?
Deniers are forced to find an alternative for the gas chambers in Birkenau to explain away the presence of the gas-tight doors. Samuel Crowell tried to make his point by making a thesis thaat the gas chambers were in reality bombshelters. But Mattogno debunked the bombshelter thesis.(link)
Mattogno should also subject his own thesis about the Birkenau gas chambers to the same type of scrutiny which he applied to S. Crowell's thesis.
Because it is quite amazing that Mattogno can't see the erroneous points in his thesis. For one, according to eyewitness testimony, inventory lists, and other evidence, we know that F-A-K-E showerheads were installed in the chamber. Can Mattogno or any other denier explain to me what fake showerheads are going to be doing in a morgue or whatever?
Another problem is that Mattogno's theory (as well as the other denier's theories regarding morgues, air-raid shelters etc in Birkenau) is that his theory has no evidence to support it! This is the elephant in the room, so to say.
The fact that Mattogno is reduced to accepting theories without evidence to support it while he makes utterances about there somehow not being enough evidence for other things goes to show how desperately Mattogno is glued to his "revisionist" faith. It also exposes his hypocritical double standard in evidence.
Almost all of the denier theories regarding alternatives for the gas-tight doors in the corpse cellars of Birkenau are easily reduced to rubbish (not that they were any better than rubbish in the first place) by the inescapable fact that there is no evidence at all to suppot their conclusion.
Deniers are forced to find an alternative for the gas chambers in Birkenau to explain away the presence of the gas-tight doors. Samuel Crowell tried to make his point by making a thesis thaat the gas chambers were in reality bombshelters. But Mattogno debunked the bombshelter thesis.(link)
Mattogno should also subject his own thesis about the Birkenau gas chambers to the same type of scrutiny which he applied to S. Crowell's thesis.
Because it is quite amazing that Mattogno can't see the erroneous points in his thesis. For one, according to eyewitness testimony, inventory lists, and other evidence, we know that F-A-K-E showerheads were installed in the chamber. Can Mattogno or any other denier explain to me what fake showerheads are going to be doing in a morgue or whatever?
Another problem is that Mattogno's theory (as well as the other denier's theories regarding morgues, air-raid shelters etc in Birkenau) is that his theory has no evidence to support it! This is the elephant in the room, so to say.
The fact that Mattogno is reduced to accepting theories without evidence to support it while he makes utterances about there somehow not being enough evidence for other things goes to show how desperately Mattogno is glued to his "revisionist" faith. It also exposes his hypocritical double standard in evidence.
Almost all of the denier theories regarding alternatives for the gas-tight doors in the corpse cellars of Birkenau are easily reduced to rubbish (not that they were any better than rubbish in the first place) by the inescapable fact that there is no evidence at all to suppot their conclusion.
posted by 104839sobe104839 at 7:57 PM
4 Comments:
well the document in question doesn't actually say "fake showers" what it does say is "Brausen 14", which is literally 14 sprinkler heads.
Personally I don't believe the documentation is genuine, but if I wanted to go down the Mattagno route (which I emphatically don't) I would argue that 14 sprinkler heads - far too few to make a convincing looking shower room in such a large space. If you are going to create a fake shower room, why not do it properly?
Clearly, as Mattagno would argue, these were either fire protection devices or if that is unlikely in a concrete bunker, sprinkler heads were used for washing the morgue down automatically.
To be perfectly honest I would be rather suspicious of any document that claims the Germans kept such detailed inventories - what next? The number of paper clips?
In my view it is extremely unlikely that the "morgues" were built before 1945 - hence the supposed inventory can not be genuine.
>well the document in question >doesn't actually say "fake >showers" what it does say >is "Brausen 14", which is >literally 14 sprinkler heads.
Yeah, but when viewed in light of other evidence, it is clear that these showerheads could not possibly be real.
>Personally I don't believe the >documentation is genuine,
Only because it doesn't fit your religion filled with pre-conceived notions.
>but if I wanted to go down the >Mattagno route (which I >emphatically don't) I would argue >that 14 sprinkler heads - far too >few to make a convincing looking >shower room in such a large >space. If you are going to create >a fake shower room, why not do it >properly?
14 showerheads are only the amount of showerheads listed in the inventory. There's no reason to believe that these are the total amount of showerheads installed.
>Clearly, as Mattagno would argue, >these were either fire protection >devices or if that is unlikely in >a concrete bunker, sprinkler >heads were used for washing the >morgue down automatically.
First of all, these showerheads weren't connected to a water supply. Second of all, Mattogno offers no evidence for his interpretation.
Mr. Lurker, isn't it kind of funny to see the same folks that demand "evidence" for the Holocaust push theories without any proof to support them?
Firstly die Brause is literally "The Sprinkler", therefore Brausen is Sprinklers.
Showerhead has the perfectly acceptable german word as Duschekopf. I think you should use the correct translation.
"14 showerheads are only the amount of showerheads listed in the inventory. There's no reason to believe that these are the total amount of showerheads installed."
Thats nonsensical. The inventory described the state of Morgue II at handover. Why would the SS lie on such a document?
"First of all, these showerheads weren't connected to a water supply."
What is your evident for that staement? Could you please cite the documents that back up that position?
Even if the sprinkers were not connected to a water source that does not mean they were F-A-K-E. Fake suggests an intention to deceive, now noone could be deceived by 14 sprinkler heads in such a large space (by contrast the much smaller 'gas chamber' at Maidanek had 72 shower heads).
Furthermore the surviving documentation (which I dont believe is genuine) quite clearly indicate it was the INTENTION to create a genuine shower room in the basement of Krema III and one connected to heated water.
On May 13 1943 Bischoff wrote
"Civilian employee Jährling has to carry out the installation of heaters and boilers in the wash barracks, as well as the showers in the undressing room of crematorium III. Concerning the showers, SS Sturmbannführer Bischoff will consult with camp commander SS-Obersturmführer Höß."
On May 15 he wrote
"Urgent telegram!
Address: Topfwerke Erfurt.
Text: Bring along Monday estimated project for hot water supply to 100 showers. Provide for installation of heating coils or boilers in waste incinerator under construction at crem. III or flue-gas duct for exploitation of high exhaust temperatures. Necessary increase of oven level to accommodate large reserve tank would be possible. Please furnish such drawing to Mr. Prüfer by Monday, May 17."
On May 16 he wrote
"6. Disinfestation plant. For the disinfestation of the clothing of detainees, each subsection of BAII will have an OT-disinfestation unit. To ensure a faultless delousing of the detainees themselves, the two existing detainee baths of BAI will be equipped with heaters and boilers to provide hot water for the existing showers. Furthermore, it is planned to install heating coils in the garbage incinerator at crematorium III thereby to provide water for the shower installation to be built in the cellar of crematorium III. Concerning the design of this unit, negotiations have been carried out with Topf & Söhne of Erfurt."
The inventory of June 24 mentions 14 showerheads.
The INTENTION to install a functioning shower system is well documented. So you can not say the sprinklers mentioned in the inventory are fake as opposed to possibly not yet functional.
So the question has to be asked of you. Why were the SS so concerned to build functioning hotwater showers in a cellar allegedly for homicidal gassing?
Why is there so much correspondence of the design of showers and absolutely none of the design of Zyklon introduction vents.....vents that are demonstrably crudely drawn on by air-photos released by the CIA?
"Firstly die Brause is literally "The Sprinkler", therefore Brausen is Sprinklers."
So what?
"Showerhead has the perfectly acceptable german word as Duschekopf. I think you should use the correct translation."
Do you know German?
"
Sobe
14 showerheads are only the amount of showerheads listed in the inventory. There's no reason to believe that these are the total amount of showerheads installed.
Lurker
Thats nonsensical. The inventory described the state of Morgue II at handover. Why would the SS lie on such a document?"
You don't understand; the SS didn't "lie", my point is that there's no reason to believe that the total amount of showers throughout existence of the morgue in Krema II stayed the same.
Even you must admit that it's a plausible hypothesis.
"Sobe
First of all, these showerheads weren't connected to a water supply.
Lurker
What is your evident for that staement? Could you please cite the documents that back up that position?"
Why do I need to adhere to your irrelevant standards of evidence, Mr. Lurker? I can show you evidence. But do I need to show a document to prove it? Only because you demand so? How absurd!
I'll take care of the rest of your post later, as I need to take care of other business now.
Post a Comment
<< Home