Dumbos try to tackle arguments, fail miserably.

CODOH gurus are being literally eviscerated at this blog. Pitiful Cesspit fauna cannot ignore this fact, but neither can it refute anything, so it has to do what it does best: lie or distort.

A notorious Cesspit clown "Carto's Cutlass Supreme" thinks he has me nailed down:

It's interesting because Romanov agrees that Pechersky's claims are not believable, and the way he tries to get around that is by saying the holocaust writers lied about what Pechersky said.

The problem is that Pechersky wrote his own book which had the problematic comments.

Hey, no big deal, it's just 10 men executed at a trial where Pechersky was lead prosecution witness. (1963 Kiev)

But of course, in the very posting which he cites, I never said that anybody lied or distorted Pechersky's text. That was a possibility offered by Mr. Blatt, based on his own bad experience with Miriam Novitch.

What is important in Mr. Blatt's reply is the point that Pechersky never claimed to have seen the process itself, indeed, that the Jewish Sobibor prisoners could have learned about the method only through hearsay. Only those people who operated the gas chambers could provide the reliable information about the methods used (and they did, after the war).

The second quote I provide - the quote from the book edited by Suhl - fully confirms Mr. Blatt's point about hearsay. Not only the method described is hearsay, it is second-hand hearsay, i.e. even Pechersky's source heard this from someone else. Witnesses' credibility is in no way impeached when they repeat hearsay, if they don't claim that this is what they have seen with their own eyes (and Pechersky did no such thing, of course), and especially if they explicitly identify hearsay as such (and this is what Pechersky did).

And Graf deceptively omitted the passages which identify Pechersky's information as second-hand hearsay.

This simple idea evidently flew right through CCS' empty head.

Finally, as a comic relief, you can read Jonnie "I am not Hannover" Hargis' hysterical argument-free "response" in the same thread. What can I say? Cesspit at its best!

Update: CCS continues to dig his grave even deeper.

Mazal has a whole library of holocaust books, but offers Romanov a book that he just discounted in the previous paragraph. The only way it could have been worse is if Mazal offered Romanov a Leon Uris book!

Romanov bolsters his position by quoting Mazal's email:

No Jew who was once inside the gas chamber in operation come out alive. The information about the gassing installation came from the accused Nazi testimonies in the court proceedings.

At the end of the day, CCS is even more clueless than he was in the beginning. It was Blatt who discounted the book, and it is Blatt whom CCS quotes - not Mazal. Reading skills of a kindergartner. Anyway, what is CCS' point in the first sentence? Is the imbecile unaware that it is the very same book that Graf quotes (just an English edition), and that's why it is this very book that had to be checked? CCS, why are you so dumb?

And then follows up with his own comment, "Makes sense, doesn't it."

Actually it doesn't make sense because Romanov is someone who has been posting daily for the holocaust cause for years, and who maybe is a second online persona of Andrew Mathis. Clearly he knows that most of the information about the gas chambers is from Jewish inmates.

This is obviously untrue in the case of Sobibor. What Sobibor Sonderkommandos survived?

So Romanov has never heard of Yankel Wiernik's Year in Treblinka? Or how about this book:

Filip Müller, Auschwitz Inferno: Testimony of a Sonderkommando, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1979.

So Romanov has never seen Shoah (1985) by Claude Lanzmann where Abraham Bomba talks about being inside the gas chamber on DVD disk 3 chapter 2?

Yes, Treblinka and Auschwitz to debunk a point about Sobibor. How clever! (A side note: in fact, the point is generally more or less true in case of all Aktion Reinhardt camps, even where Sonderkommandos survived. Because most of SKs were just dragging the bodies out of the gas chambers - which does not mean that they would have accurate information about the method itself, including all specifics. Many did get it right - that people were gassed with engine exhaust. But some of them (along even with several Nazis not directly involved in the procedure) (probably) incorrectly thought that the engine was diesel. Others thought that different methods (like sucking the air out of chamber or steaming) were used in the past. So, as I said, the point stands - as a rule, only the people most directly involved in the murder procedure would have non-hearsay, accurate information about the details).