User talk:StickofTruth

Blocked for Holocaust Denial? Eh?
How on earth can someone rationalise blocking me for "Holocaust denial"? I've haven't denied the Holocaust! Incredible!

I challenged the witness statement of one person and showed that there were scientific inconsistencies in said persons statement. That is all I did! Nothing else! I did not say the Holocaust didn't happen, I didn't offer any refutation of the Holocaust, I simply showed how the events described by ONE witness are scientifically impossible, such as; he was shot with a projectile which passed through his clothes but left no mark on his skin. This is an impossible occurrance. The only rational explanation for this statement is that it is not true!

The article I wrote took a statement and look at it rationally. The blocking of me is irrational given the reason which can't be justified.

Please explain.


 * You repeated nonsense that has been debunked elsewhere on the web . The water content of the bodies is a red herring; it's the fat content that's relevant to how well they burn. Nothing in the witness account contradicts science, because the idea that the bodies were burned without other fuel is a straw man. The money quote is this:
 * Bud’s second attempt to cheat his viewers is rather obvious. Bud points out the following passages of Wiernik’s account, which can be found in Chapter 9 of A Year in Treblinka:
 * "It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires."
 * and claims (by asking a rhetorical question) that Wiernik tried to make believe that the women burned «on their own, like wood».
 * This is nonsense, of course. The context provided by other evidence shows that what Wiernik probably meant was that the bodies of women, which would burn better than those of man due to their higher fat content, were placed at the bottom of a pile of corpses to be incinerated so that they might help the incineration of the less fatty male corpses above them. This practice was described by another eyewitness, Yechiel Reichman, who is quoted... on page 175 of Yitzhak Arad’s book Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka.
 * It's bloody obvious that the only reason you bothered in the first place was to place the thin end of the denialist wedge onto an article. The fact that you then recreated the article under a spelling mistake is just icing on the cake. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Response
Wow, talk about bias, weak arguments and outright ignoring arguments.

You've attempted to refute ONE of the quotes a listed by saying that Wiernik "probably meant" something else. You completely ignored the other quotes where Wiernick describes corpses being set on fire as though they are flammable.

Curious as the how much more fat content women have than men and how this would effect the cremation practice. I don't refute it, but I've seen no evidence of it. The idea that placing them underneath would "help" the "less fatty males corpses" above them cremate faster also sounds far fetched. But I'm sure you know the science and can direct me somewhere.

I've already mentioned that you completely ignored the other quotes of Wiernik where he describes corpses being set on fire, but on top of this, you've also ignored the quote reference a projectile being shot, going though his clothes yet making no mark on his skin. I've shot a lot of weapons and seen the impact they have on the environment, what Weirnik describes is impossible. I'm guessing you're going to still choose to ignore this as it is more convenient for you to do so.

Finally you make assumptions about my motive. My motive is to add content, and in this case I found the information about Wiernik very interesting and worth sharing. That is all. Regarding the spelling mistake, that is something easily done and easily fixed. It's not "icing on the cake" unless you're looking to score points against someone because you don't like the information they have presented.

P.S. for clarity sake let me point out, that I do not refute the Holocaust, and as much as one might label me a "Holocaust denier", this is simply not true and can not be proven. I refute Wiernik only! He wouldn't be the first who has been caught lying about such things. It does not mean such things didn't happen, but that we should be sceptical of him as a witness given his absurd claims. This is a RATIONAL view to take.
 * You're not really sticking this angle of plausible good faith.
 * We don't need an article on Wiernick. He's not relevant. It's transparently obvious that the only reason you created one was to throw shade at the reliability of holocaust witnesses in general. That women's bodies have a higher fat content is common medical knowledge, and it speaks poorly of your scientific knowledge that dismiss it without spending ten second to check google first.
 * The only far-fetched things here are your protestations. Take your little roadshow somewhere else. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a rule of thumb relating to people with the word truth in their username. Can anyone guess it? Flannan Isle (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Same with claiming to be the rational one, there is even an essay how and why that is a silly to push. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bubba41102is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 20:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, what's up with this idea that "refute" means something like "offering counterarguments" (rather than actually demonstrating that an argument is wrong)? No, StickofTruth (SoT) doesn't refute Wiernick, (s)he disputes the validity of Wiernick's testimony. However, given that SoT isn't aware of basic human anatomy, likes to banter around words such as RATIONAL in all caps, seems to think (s)he alone knows what the truth is and to prognosticate on what cannot be "proven" or "justified", I guess I shouldn't be surprised that (s)he either doesn't know what "refute" actually means or is deliberately employing such hyperbolic rhetorical blustering. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)