Question to Benjie Cramer: David Irving and his book on PQ17
Ron Jacobson
David Irving wrote a book about the WW2 convoy PQ17.
The book contained such a myriad of lies and slanders, that
Irving was sued by Captain Broome, the commander of PQ17. The
court convicted Irving and he had to pay a fine of 40,000 Pounds.
Do you have any thoughts on the issue?
RJ.
Ben Cramer
to save him further embarrassment.
Eugene Holman
<[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JacobsOn's boring, repetitive, dishonest and out of context drivel snipped
> to save him further embarrassment.
You are avoiding the issue. Irving has been making a career of fabricating
history since the late 1960s, when he lost the libel suit in question.
Considering that David Irving has:
1. no academic training in history;
2. no degree in history or any other field (if he had a degree in, say,
hotel management, he could, like Fred Leuchter with his BA in history who
claims that this qualified him to practice engineering, at least say that
he has *some* academic qualifications giving him competence to write
about, say concentration camps);
3. a long and proven track record of deliberately mistranslating,
misquoting, and misattributing;
4. a history of trying to use the courts to silence critics of his work
and methodology, but of violating laws intended to silence deniers of or
apologists for Nazi atrocities;
5. not a single publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal for the
professional community of historians;
6. a history of having publicly stated that he is not an expert on the
Holocaust, has never given it serious study, and of having admitted that
any statements that he made about this issue would, due to his lack of
expertise, be of marginal if any value as true or reliable statements
about history;
the question of your thoughts concerning his having lost a libel trial
almost forty years ago for having published a book that contained "such a
myriad of lies and slanders, that Irving was sued...[t]he court convicted
Irving and he had to pay a fine of 40,000 Pounds," with the book being
subsequently withdrawn from circulation and pulped, is important. In this
sense Jacobson's question, far from being "boring, repetitive, dishonest
and out of context" is extremely pertinent.
Why, the intellectually responsible segment of the alt.revisionism
community asks, do you regard David Irving as having any credibility with
respect to the Holocaust or any other area of history? If you regard this
proven libeler and liar about history, this deliberate violator of
Austrian constitutional and immigration laws, and this travesty of an
historian has having even a scintilla of credibility about the Holocaust,
what does that tell us about you?
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Richard Mileski
>
>
> Why, the intellectually responsible segment of the alt.revisionism
> community asks, do you regard David Irving as having any credibility with
> respect to the Holocaust or any other area of history? If you regard this
> proven libeler and liar about history, this deliberate violator of
> Austrian constitutional and immigration laws, and this travesty of an
> historian has having even a scintilla of credibility about the Holocaust,
> what does that tell us about you?
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
If you don't like the man's books, then don't read them! Nobody forces
you. It is not necessary to start a hate and smear campaign against
him.
I like Irvings books and read them with great enjoyment, if you don't
mind. OK?
Anyway, you and your friends have succeeded in silencing Irving and
putting him in jail. That is free speech for you.
And please, no lecturing on free speech now! We all know your stance
that one should not announce in an airport to blow up an airplane, and
that the Holocaust should therefore not be criticized.
RM
Eugene Holman
"Richard Mileski" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> If you don't like the man's books, then don't read them! Nobody forces
> you. It is not necessary to start a hate and smear campaign against
> him.
I stated easily proven facts about him, including his lack of academic
credentials and his track record as a libelist, liar about history, and
scofflaw. Stating such facts cannot be regarded as a hate or smear
campaign, they would have to be untrue or at least contested for such a
claim to be valid.
> I like Irvings books and read them with great enjoyment, if you don't
> mind. OK?
Nobody, least of all myself, would forbid you that pleasure. What you gain
from it, on the other hand, is another issue. The man is a proven
pseudohistorian, so you can rely neither on the information that he
presents as facts or on his argumentation. I dervive great enjoyment from
watching James Bond movies, but that does not mean that interacting with
such films is in any way relevant to improving my understanding of how
British secret agents go about their job.
> Anyway, you and your friends have succeeded in silencing Irving and
> putting him in jail.
No. It was David Irving's personal decision to enter Austria knowing full
well that there was an outstranding warrant for his arrest as well as a
ban on him entering or being in the country. Don't blame me or "my
friends" for the consequences of David Irving's personal decisions.
> That is free speech for you.
No society has perfectly free speech. Just go to Heathrow Airport and joke
about the bomb in your pocket to the security people if you don't believe
me. In Austria, Germany, and several other countries that produced or were
victimized by the Nazis, denying, downplaying, or trying to justify the
atrocities that they committed is regarded as going beyond the boundaries
of acceptable free speech, just like joking about having a bomb at an
American or British airport is.
> And please, no lecturing on free speech now! We all know your stance
> that one should not announce in an airport to blow up an airplane, and
> that the Holocaust should therefore not be criticized.
No society has or can allow completely free speech. The boundaries on the
acceptable limits of free speech and expression are set differently by
different societies.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Dr Ewan Jackson
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <1155304429.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Richard Mileski" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
> >
> > If you don't like the man's books, then don't read them! Nobody forces
> > you. It is not necessary to start a hate and smear campaign against
> > him.
>
> I stated easily proven facts about him, including his lack of academic
> credentials and his track record as a libelist, liar about history, and
> scofflaw. Stating such facts cannot be regarded as a hate or smear
> campaign, they would have to be untrue or at least contested for such a
> claim to be valid.
>
> > I like Irvings books and read them with great enjoyment, if you don't
> > mind. OK?
>
> Nobody, least of all myself, would forbid you that pleasure. What you gain
> from it, on the other hand, is another issue. The man is a proven
> pseudohistorian, so you can rely neither on the information that he
> presents as facts or on his argumentation. I dervive great enjoyment from
> watching James Bond movies, but that does not mean that interacting with
> such films is in any way relevant to improving my understanding of how
> British secret agents go about their job.
>
You mean *gasp* that British secret agents don't drive DB5's equipped
with ejector seats?
*shakes head*
Ewan
Richard Mileski
> In article <1155304429.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Richard Mileski" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
> >
> > If you don't like the man's books, then don't read them! Nobody forces
> > you. It is not necessary to start a hate and smear campaign against
> > him.
>
> I stated easily proven facts about him, including his lack of academic
> credentials and his track record as a libelist, liar about history, and
> scofflaw. Stating such facts cannot be regarded as a hate or smear
> campaign, they would have to be untrue or at least contested for such a
> claim to be valid.
>
judge and experts during the Irving trial.
That is not enough, man.
> > I like Irvings books and read them with great enjoyment, if you don't
> > mind. OK?
>
> Nobody, least of all myself, would forbid you that pleasure.
Well, thank you! How gracious of you to grant me that liberty!
I certainly form my opinion about Irving and his books myself and
don't need like you, who does not even read Irving's books, the
opinion of some second rate Jewish flunkies around Lipstadt during the
trial, and whose task it was to go through all of Irving's books and
list any discrepancies.
What superficiality!
>
[...]
>
> > And please, no lecturing on free speech now! We all know your stance
> > that one should not announce in an airport to blow up an airplane, and
> > that the Holocaust should therefore not be criticized.
>
> No society has or can allow completely free speech. The boundaries on the
> acceptable limits of free speech and expression are set differently by
> different societies.
>
What a bullshitter you are!
We are talking about questioning aspects of the Jewish Holocaust myth,
like the existence of homicidal cyanide gas chambers in Auschwitz and
the diesel exhaust fume gas chambers in the Reinhard camps.
Not to mention the killing of millions of Jews by steam, by vacuum or
in gigantic underground electrocution chambers.
And all of this is accepted by the courts without any proof whatsoever,
because everything is "offensichtlich" (self-evident)
»The International Military Tribunal shall not be bound by technical
rules of evidence.
The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but
shall take judicial notice thereof.«
And questioning anything of this is not allowed, because Holman
dictates "No society has or can allow completely free speech."
Right on, baby!
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
"Richard Mileski" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > In article <1155304429.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Richard Mileski" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > <deletions>
> > >
> > > If you don't like the man's books, then don't read them! Nobody forces
> > > you. It is not necessary to start a hate and smear campaign against
> > > him.
> >
> > I stated easily proven facts about him, including his lack of academic
> > credentials and his track record as a libelist, liar about history, and
> > scofflaw. Stating such facts cannot be regarded as a hate or smear
> > campaign, they would have to be untrue or at least contested for such a
> > claim to be valid.
> >
> And those easily proven facts would naturally be those made by some
> judge and experts during the Irving trial.
But they are not.
David Irving:
1. Lost a libel suit consequent to his having been proven to have
fabricated evidence;
2. Has no academic or professional qualifications as an historian;
3. Has admitted to being totally unqualified to say anything of
historiographic consequence concerning the Holocaust;
4. Is currently in prison as a consequence of the decision he himself made
to enter Austria with an outstanding arrest warrant and a ban on entering
or being in the country.
> That is not enough, man.
That is quite a lot.
>
> > > I like Irvings books and read them with great enjoyment, if you don't
> > > mind. OK?
> >
> > Nobody, least of all myself, would forbid you that pleasure.
>
> Well, thank you! How gracious of you to grant me that liberty!
> I certainly form my opinion about Irving and his books myself and
> don't need like you, who does not even read Irving's books,
I have read some of them and excerpts from many others. They are fun to
read, but totally garbageous as serious history.
> the
> opinion of some second rate Jewish flunkies around Lipstadt during the
> trial, and whose task it was to go through all of Irving's books and
> list any discrepancies.
> What superficiality!
David Irving was demonstrated to have fabricated references.
> What a bullshitter you are!
Nope. I am an academic, who understands the implication of fabricating
references.
> We are talking about questioning aspects of the Jewish Holocaust myth,
> like the existence of homicidal cyanide gas chambers in Auschwitz and
> the diesel exhaust fume gas chambers in the Reinhard camps.
> Not to mention the killing of millions of Jews by steam, by vacuum or
> in gigantic underground electrocution chambers.
>
> And all of this is accepted by the courts without any proof whatsoever,
> because everything is "offensichtlich" (self-evident)
>
> =BBThe International Military Tribunal shall not be bound by technical
> rules of evidence.
> The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but
> shall take judicial notice thereof.=AB
>
> And questioning anything of this is not allowed, because Holman
> dictates "No society has or can allow completely free speech."
>
> Right on, baby!
David Irving is a charlatan and pseudohistorian with zero credibility.
Live with that knowledge.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Richard Mileski
Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Nobody, least of all myself, would forbid you that pleasure.
> >
> > Well, thank you! How gracious of you to grant me that liberty!
> > I certainly form my opinion about Irving and his books myself and
> > don't need like you, who does not even read Irving's books,
>
> I have read some of them and excerpts from many others. They are fun to
> read, but totally garbageous as serious history.
>
authored by Holocaust revisionists and form your opinion about the
Holocaust on information from Nizkor, THHP, Aktion Reinhard Camps and
similar comic sites.
> > the
> > opinion of some second rate Jewish flunkies around Lipstadt during the
> > trial, and whose task it was to go through all of Irving's books and
> > list any discrepancies.
> > What superficiality!
>
> David Irving was demonstrated to have fabricated references.
>
> > What a bullshitter you are!
>
> Nope. I am an academic, who understands the implication of fabricating
> references.
>
Then act like one and form your own opinion and do not depend and
repeat that garbage from Nizkor, THHP, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Aktion
Reinhard Camps or the results from political witchcraft trials in post
war Germany.
[...]
>
> David Irving is a charlatan and pseudohistorian with zero credibility.
> Live with that knowledge.
>
Says a Holocaust hoaxster.
RM
Ben Cramer
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-1108...@ke-hupnet203-25.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> In article <ebholb$asf$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JacobsOn's boring, repetitive, dishonest and out of context drivel
>> snipped
>> to save him further embarrassment.
>
> You are avoiding the issue. Irving has been making a career of fabricating
> history since the late 1960s, when he lost the libel suit in question.
>
> Considering that David Irving has:
>
> 1. no academic training in history;
Nor have many of the supposed holocaust "experts" on your side. Guess that's
not important if they support the dodgy shoah though.
>
> 2. no degree in history or any other field (if he had a degree in, say,
> hotel management, he could, like Fred Leuchter with his BA in history who
> claims that this qualified him to practice engineering, at least say that
> he has *some* academic qualifications giving him competence to write
> about, say concentration camps);
Why this absolute nonsense about the requirement for academic qualification?
Huh? Why?
>
> 3. a long and proven track record of deliberately mistranslating,
> misquoting, and misattributing;
Not really. A couple of instances, for which he's paid the penalty. I one
was to take the work of any author, give it to the yids for microscopic
scrutiny, I'm quite certain all authors would wind up in the same boat.
Unless you're rocking the shoah industry's boat, you'll be OK.
>
> 4. a history of trying to use the courts to silence critics of his work
> and methodology, but of violating laws intended to silence deniers of or
> apologists for Nazi atrocities;
That's not at all what he has done. He was of the opinion these people were
defaming him. Which they were.
>
> 5. not a single publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal for the
> professional community of historians;
No shit Sherlock. And just why is that so damned necessary? Hmmmmm?
>
> 6. a history of having publicly stated that he is not an expert on the
> Holocaust, has never given it serious study, and of having admitted that
> any statements that he made about this issue would, due to his lack of
> expertise, be of marginal if any value as true or reliable statements
> about history;
What's your beef?
>
> the question of your thoughts concerning his having lost a libel trial
> almost forty years ago for having published a book that contained "such a
> myriad of lies and slanders, that Irving was sued...[t]he court convicted
> Irving and he had to pay a fine of 40,000 Pounds," with the book being
> subsequently withdrawn from circulation and pulped, is important. In this
> sense Jacobson's question, far from being "boring, repetitive, dishonest
> and out of context" is extremely pertinent.
Read the entire court records, matey, for a better understanding of the
outcome. JacobsOn has pounced on a very small part of the judgement. As he
frequently does.
>
> Why, the intellectually responsible segment of the alt.revisionism
> community asks, do you regard David Irving as having any credibility with
> respect to the Holocaust or any other area of history? If you regard this
> proven libeler and liar about history, this deliberate violator of
> Austrian constitutional and immigration laws, and this travesty of an
> historian has having even a scintilla of credibility about the Holocaust,
> what does that tell us about you?
Out of the millions of words this man has written, only a select few
statements made by him have been challenged by the yid industry. They've
done such a fantastic job of destroying this man's life based on
exaggeration.
Had he not pissed off the yids, he would still be a free man.
Ben Cramer
For god's sake, Eugene. If there is ANY restriction on speech, there is NO
free speech. Don't you understand that?
Ben Cramer
"Richard Mileski" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155304429.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bit of a cracked record, our Eugene. Speaks a lot, but actually says very
little. Typical academic.
Ben Cramer
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-1108...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
Point 4: That's the "tidy" explanation of why he's currently cooling his
heels in an Austrian gaol. The real reason is that the yids loathe him. OK?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard Mileski wrote
in message
<1155325693.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>Eugene Holman wrote:
>> <deletions>
>> > If you don't like the man's books, then don't read them! Nobody forces
>> > you. It is not necessary to start a hate and smear campaign against
>> > him.
>> I stated easily proven facts about him, including his lack of academic
>> credentials and his track record as a libelist, liar about history, and
>> scofflaw. Stating such facts cannot be regarded as a hate or smear
>> campaign, they would have to be untrue or at least contested for such a
>> claim to be valid.
>And those easily proven facts would naturally be those made by some
>judge and experts during the Irving trial.
>That is not enough, man.
Because ... ?
>> > I like Irvings books and read them with great enjoyment, if you don't
>> > mind. OK?
>> Nobody, least of all myself, would forbid you that pleasure.
>Well, thank you! How gracious of you to grant me that liberty!
>I certainly form my opinion about Irving and his books myself and
>don't need like you, who does not even read Irving's books,
Your proof that Mr. Holman does read irving's crap?
>the
>opinion of some second rate Jewish flunkies around Lipstadt during the
>trial, and whose task it was to go through all of Irving's books and
>list any discrepancies.
>What superficiality!
Your superficial endorsement of irving despite his proven dishonesty?
>[...]
>> > And please, no lecturing on free speech now! We all know your stance
>> > that one should not announce in an airport to blow up an airplane, and
>> > that the Holocaust should therefore not be criticized.
>> No society has or can allow completely free speech. The boundaries on the
>> acceptable limits of free speech and expression are set differently by
>> different societies.
>What a bullshitter you are!
Which part of what Mr. Holman said is "bullsh*t?"
>We are talking about questioning aspects of the Jewish Holocaust myth,
There is no "myth."
>like the existence of homicidal cyanide gas chambers in Auschwitz and
What part of the normative understanding of this do you pretend is
"myth?"
>the diesel exhaust fume gas chambers in the Reinhard camps.
*What* diesel exhaust gad chambers?
>Not to mention the killing of millions of Jews by steam, by vacuum or
>in gigantic underground electrocution chambers.
None of which were ever a part of the normative understanding of the
Holocaust.
>And all of this is accepted by the courts without any proof whatsoever,
>because everything is "offensichtlich" (self-evident)
You can document courts accepting "the killing of millions of Jews by
steam, by vacuum or in gigantic underground electrocution chambers?"
>»The International Military Tribunal shall not be bound by technical
>rules of evidence.
Now all you need to do is actually *cite* an item of evidence which
would not stand up under those rules....
>The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but
>shall take judicial notice thereof.«
>
>And questioning anything of this is not allowed, because Holman
>dictates "No society has or can allow completely free speech."
Nor *does* any society.
Do you dispute this?
>Right on, baby!
Sara Salzman
"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-1108...@ke-hupnet203-25.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> > In article <ebholb$asf$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> > <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> JacobsOn's boring, repetitive, dishonest and out of context drivel
> >> snipped
> >> to save him further embarrassment.
> >
> > You are avoiding the issue. Irving has been making a career of fabricating
> > history since the late 1960s, when he lost the libel suit in question.
> >
> > Considering that David Irving has:
> >
> > 1. no academic training in history;
>
> Nor have many of the supposed holocaust "experts" on your side. Guess that's
> not important if they support the dodgy shoah though.
>
Bullshit, Mr. Cramer. You've been shown that virtually ALL of the
"experts" have (at least) PhDs in addition to thousands of pages of
peer-reviewed work.
Why do you continue to repeat this same lie?
> >
> > 2. no degree in history or any other field (if he had a degree in, say,
> > hotel management, he could, like Fred Leuchter with his BA in history who
> > claims that this qualified him to practice engineering, at least say that
> > he has *some* academic qualifications giving him competence to write
> > about, say concentration camps);
>
> Why this absolute nonsense about the requirement for academic qualification?
> Huh? Why?
For the simple reason that being to lazy (or stupid) to go to college
says a great deal about Irving. There are universally accepted norms for
researchers and historians. Irving meets none of them.
>
> >
> > 3. a long and proven track record of deliberately mistranslating,
> > misquoting, and misattributing;
>
> Not really. A couple of instances, for which he's paid the penalty. I one
> was to take the work of any author, give it to the yids for microscopic
> scrutiny, I'm quite certain all authors would wind up in the same boat.
>
> Unless you're rocking the shoah industry's boat, you'll be OK.
More bullshit. Most authors do not DELIBERATELY lie or mistranslate,
most historians have reputations they care about, and scruples and
morals they believe in. Irving has none.
>
> >
> > 4. a history of trying to use the courts to silence critics of his work
> > and methodology, but of violating laws intended to silence deniers of or
> > apologists for Nazi atrocities;
>
> That's not at all what he has done. He was of the opinion these people were
> defaming him. Which they were.
When did Gitta Sereny defame him? When did Amazom.com.uk defame him? Do
you have any idea how many people Irving has threatened with lawsuits?
>
> >
> > 5. not a single publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal for the
> > professional community of historians;
>
> No shit Sherlock. And just why is that so damned necessary? Hmmmmm?
>
Because, Cramer, peer-review is an essential part of research. That's
how we know that "most authors" don't deliberately mistranslate. Because
before a serious reputable journal publishes something called "facts,"
they make sure that the facts are accurate. The way they do this,
Cramer, is to get PEERS of the author to review his work and make sure
that facts are accurate and theories have merit.
That's one way we know that Irving is a stone liar. His work doesn't
withstand scrutiny because he lies and mistranslates. Duh.
> >
> > 6. a history of having publicly stated that he is not an expert on the
> > Holocaust, has never given it serious study, and of having admitted that
> > any statements that he made about this issue would, due to his lack of
> > expertise, be of marginal if any value as true or reliable statements
> > about history;
>
> What's your beef?
>
> >
> > the question of your thoughts concerning his having lost a libel trial
> > almost forty years ago for having published a book that contained "such a
> > myriad of lies and slanders, that Irving was sued...[t]he court convicted
> > Irving and he had to pay a fine of 40,000 Pounds," with the book being
> > subsequently withdrawn from circulation and pulped, is important. In this
> > sense Jacobson's question, far from being "boring, repetitive, dishonest
> > and out of context" is extremely pertinent.
>
> Read the entire court records, matey, for a better understanding of the
> outcome. JacobsOn has pounced on a very small part of the judgement. As he
> frequently does.
>
Huh? Are you claiming these are not the facts of the 40-year-old libel
trial? Do you have some other tale to tell?
> >
> > Why, the intellectually responsible segment of the alt.revisionism
> > community asks, do you regard David Irving as having any credibility with
> > respect to the Holocaust or any other area of history? If you regard this
> > proven libeler and liar about history, this deliberate violator of
> > Austrian constitutional and immigration laws, and this travesty of an
> > historian has having even a scintilla of credibility about the Holocaust,
> > what does that tell us about you?
>
> Out of the millions of words this man has written, only a select few
> statements made by him have been challenged by the yid industry. They've
> done such a fantastic job of destroying this man's life based on
> exaggeration.
>
> Had he not pissed off the yids, he would still be a free man.
What a wonderful fantasy world you live in, Cramer. Too bad there's not
a single fact in it.
Sara
--
In democracy it's your vote that counts; In feudalism it's your count
that votes.
- Mogens Jallberg
Ben Cramer
"Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-4BEAB3...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <ebj5ef$nto$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-1108...@ke-hupnet203-25.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
>> > In article <ebholb$asf$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
>> > <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> JacobsOn's boring, repetitive, dishonest and out of context drivel
>> >> snipped
>> >> to save him further embarrassment.
>> >
>> > You are avoiding the issue. Irving has been making a career of
>> > fabricating
>> > history since the late 1960s, when he lost the libel suit in question.
>> >
>> > Considering that David Irving has:
>> >
>> > 1. no academic training in history;
>>
>> Nor have many of the supposed holocaust "experts" on your side. Guess
>> that's
>> not important if they support the dodgy shoah though.
>>
>
> Bullshit, Mr. Cramer. You've been shown that virtually ALL of the
> "experts" have (at least) PhDs in addition to thousands of pages of
> peer-reviewed work.
I speak of the loudmouthed "experts" such as yourself, mcFey, jacobsOn et
al.
>
> Why do you continue to repeat this same lie?
It's not a lie, dopey. Even the "experts" who do have these qualifications,
have them in fields which has nothing to do with study of history.
Like the Nizkor site? Which is so full of bullshit as to be totally
discredited.
Nope. It's a fact, girlie. Piss off the yids, expect to be destroyed.
Sara Salzman
You have no idea about anyone's academic training. HINT: you're wrong
about me.
>
> >
> > Why do you continue to repeat this same lie?
>
> It's not a lie, dopey. Even the "experts" who do have these qualifications,
> have them in fields which has nothing to do with study of history.
>
"Richard J. Evans was born in London in 1947. From 1989 to 1998 he was
Professor of History at Birkbeck College, University of London. Since
1998 he has been Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University. He
is a Fellow of the British Academy."
Nothing to do with history?
Ian Kershaw:
"Professor Kershaw is widely regarded as one of the world's leading
experts on Hitler and the Third Reich. His endeavours in this field have
brought him many accolades - he is a fellow of the British Academy and
the Royal Historical Society, and he has been knighted by Queen
Elizabeth II for services to history. Ian Kershaw was educated at
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Liverpool and Oxford Universities, and his original historical interest
was Medieval English history. It was this subject that he taught when he
joined Manchester University when he took up his first job in 1968.
However, on visiting Germany in 1972, he developed a fascination for
social history of the Nazi era. This led him to change to lecturing in
modern history at Manchester University, and then to work at the Ruhr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
University in Bochum, West Germany, as Visiting Professor of Modern
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
History.
^^^^^^^^^
Between 1987 and 1989 he was Professor of Modern History at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
University of Nottingham, then joined the University of Sheffield where
he has been Professor of modern history ever since."
Nothing to do with history?
"David Cesarani is Professor of Twentieth-Century Jewish History and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Culture at the University of Southampton. Professor Cesarani held the
prestigious position of Director of the Institute of Contemporary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
History at the Wiener Library between 1989 and 2000."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nothing to do with history?
"Robert Jan van Pelt is Professor of Cultural History in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Architecture School at the University of Waterloo in Canada. He received
his Doctorate (D.Lit.) in 1984 from the University of Leiden in the
Netherlands and his Doctorandus Litterarum (Drs.Lit) in 1979 also from
the University of Leiden, in the History of Art. There he teaches
courses on the history of urbanism, on collective memory and the design
and preservation of cultural sites."
Nothing to do with history?
"Sir Martin Gilbert (born October 25, 1936 in London) is a British
historian and biographer and author of over seventy books on a range of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
historical subjects. He is primarily known as the official biographer of
Sir Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister during World War II, and
for his books on the Holocaust and Jewish history.
He attended Highgate School before he studied modern history at Magdalen
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
College, Oxford, graduating in 1960 with a BA. One of his professors at
Oxford was A.J.P. Taylor. He was knighted in 1995 for services to
British history and international relations. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nothing to do with history?
"Yehuda Bauer (born 1926) is an historian and scholar of the Holocaust.
He is a Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Avraham Harman Institute
of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem."
Nothing to do with history?
Don't you EVER get tired of being wrong?
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > 2. no degree in history or any other field (if he had a degree in, say,
> >> > hotel management, he could, like Fred Leuchter with his BA in history
> >> > who
> >> > claims that this qualified him to practice engineering, at least say
> >> > that
> >> > he has *some* academic qualifications giving him competence to write
> >> > about, say concentration camps);
> >>
> >> Why this absolute nonsense about the requirement for academic
> >> qualification?
> >> Huh? Why?
> >
> > For the simple reason that being to lazy (or stupid) to go to college
> > says a great deal about Irving. There are universally accepted norms for
> > researchers and historians. Irving meets none of them.
> >
Lack of response noted.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 3. a long and proven track record of deliberately mistranslating,
> >> > misquoting, and misattributing;
> >>
> >> Not really. A couple of instances, for which he's paid the penalty. I one
> >> was to take the work of any author, give it to the yids for microscopic
> >> scrutiny, I'm quite certain all authors would wind up in the same boat.
> >>
> >> Unless you're rocking the shoah industry's boat, you'll be OK.
> >
> >
> > More bullshit. Most authors do not DELIBERATELY lie or mistranslate,
> > most historians have reputations they care about, and scruples and
> > morals they believe in. Irving has none.
Lack of response noted.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 4. a history of trying to use the courts to silence critics of his work
> >> > and methodology, but of violating laws intended to silence deniers of
> >> > or
> >> > apologists for Nazi atrocities;
> >>
> >> That's not at all what he has done. He was of the opinion these people
> >> were
> >> defaming him. Which they were.
> >
> > When did Gitta Sereny defame him? When did Amazom.com.uk defame him? Do
> > you have any idea how many people Irving has threatened with lawsuits?
Lack of response noted.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 5. not a single publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal for the
> >> > professional community of historians;
> >>
> >> No shit Sherlock. And just why is that so damned necessary? Hmmmmm?
> >>
> >
> > Because, Cramer, peer-review is an essential part of research. That's
> > how we know that "most authors" don't deliberately mistranslate. Because
> > before a serious reputable journal publishes something called "facts,"
> > they make sure that the facts are accurate. The way they do this,
> > Cramer, is to get PEERS of the author to review his work and make sure
> > that facts are accurate and theories have merit.
>
> Like the Nizkor site? Which is so full of bullshit as to be totally
> discredited.
Not discredited by any accredited historians, Cramer, and you know it.
Only discredited by idiots you don't understand "peer review."
Lack of response noted.
> >
> >> >
> >> > Why, the intellectually responsible segment of the alt.revisionism
> >> > community asks, do you regard David Irving as having any credibility
> >> > with
> >> > respect to the Holocaust or any other area of history? If you regard
> >> > this
> >> > proven libeler and liar about history, this deliberate violator of
> >> > Austrian constitutional and immigration laws, and this travesty of an
> >> > historian has having even a scintilla of credibility about the
> >> > Holocaust,
> >> > what does that tell us about you?
> >>
> >> Out of the millions of words this man has written, only a select few
> >> statements made by him have been challenged by the yid industry. They've
> >> done such a fantastic job of destroying this man's life based on
> >> exaggeration.
> >>
> >> Had he not pissed off the yids, he would still be a free man.
> >
> > What a wonderful fantasy world you live in, Cramer. Too bad there's not
> > a single fact in it.
>
> Nope. It's a fact, girlie. Piss off the yids, expect to be destroyed.
A fact, is it? Then why the hell are YOU still here?
Ben Cramer
I know you've got a Masters in something to do with the arts.
BAs in Australia are referred to as Bachelor of Attendance degrees. Very
much your Clayton's type of degree.
Sara Salzman
If you knew that, why did you lie and say I had "no academic training"?
>
> BAs in Australia are referred to as Bachelor of Attendance degrees. Very
> much your Clayton's type of degree.
>
So what? Irving doesn't even have one of THOSE, does he? However, the
list I gave you below demonstrates that these Holocaust "experts" have a
whole lot more than that. And you'd be rather surprised at the education
levels of those you call "loudmouthed 'experts.'" Many of us have rather
impressive educations. That's why we laugh at people who think "cunt" is
a reasonable word to use in polite conversation.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what's known as a slam dunk.
Ben Cramer
Your training has nothing to do with holohoax research. Nothing whatsoever.
>
>
>
>>
>> BAs in Australia are referred to as Bachelor of Attendance degrees. Very
>> much your Clayton's type of degree.
>>
>
> So what? Irving doesn't even have one of THOSE, does he? However, the
> list I gave you below demonstrates that these Holocaust "experts" have a
> whole lot more than that. And you'd be rather surprised at the education
> levels of those you call "loudmouthed 'experts.'" Many of us have rather
> impressive educations.
Yours certainly is not terribly impresssive, is it. Arts degrees don't cut
it in the real world, dearie.
>That's why we laugh at people who think "cunt" is
> a reasonable word to use in polite conversation.
What polite conversation? Dealing with you cunts is nothing to with polite
conversation. You're liars, the lot of you.
Eugene Holman
<[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
<deletions>
> >>
> >> I know you've got a Masters in something to do with the arts.
> >
> > If you knew that, why did you lie and say I had "no academic training"?
>
> Your training has nothing to do with holohoax research. Nothing whatsoever.
Academic training in *any* field teaches people to think, present
arguments logically, and relate critically to sources. It does not matter
whether the degreee is in the arts or the sciences.
> >> BAs in Australia are referred to as Bachelor of Attendance degrees. Very
> >> much your Clayton's type of degree.
What's your Strine term for loud-mouthed publicity seekers and
professional wannabes, like David Irving, who have no degree at all?
> > So what? Irving doesn't even have one of THOSE, does he? However, the
> > list I gave you below demonstrates that these Holocaust "experts" have a
> > whole lot more than that. And you'd be rather surprised at the education
> > levels of those you call "loudmouthed 'experts.'" Many of us have rather
> > impressive educations.
>
> Yours certainly is not terribly impresssive, is it. Arts degrees don't cut
> it in the real world, dearie.
How about *no* degree at all, à la David Irving?
> >That's why we laugh at people who think "cunt" is
> > a reasonable word to use in polite conversation.
>
> What polite conversation? Dealing with you cunts is nothing to with polite
> conversation.
What does that make you, the man who denies that a Boeing 757 airliner,
photographed by several people a few seconds before impact, crashed into
the Pentagon on September 11, 2001?
> You're liars, the lot of you.
Says the man who claims that David Irving is presently in an Austrian
prison for having "pissed off the yids". In actual fact, David Irving, who
violated Austrian constitutional law back in 1989, for which reason an
arrest warrant and ban on entering or sojourning in Austria were issued,
is in prison for having deliberately entered Austria knowing full well
that he would be arrested and tried for his outstanding violations of the
law there:
Source:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/02/22/2003294124/wiki
<quote>
<deletions>
Irving's Bente Hogh said he had brought his imprisonment on himself by
going to Austria despite the ban.
"He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria
and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone." she said on Monday
night. "He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."
<deletions>
</quote>
That's the facts, Jack.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Ben Cramer
> In article <ebjks7$s9v$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
>> >>
>> >> I know you've got a Masters in something to do with the arts.
>> >
>> > If you knew that, why did you lie and say I had "no academic training"?
>>
>> Your training has nothing to do with holohoax research. Nothing
>> whatsoever.
>
> Academic training in *any* field teaches people to think, present
> arguments logically, and relate critically to sources. It does not matter
> whether the degreee is in the arts or the sciences.
Unless your name is Leuchter. Is that how it goes.
>
>> >> BAs in Australia are referred to as Bachelor of Attendance degrees.
>> >> Very
>> >> much your Clayton's type of degree.
>
> What's your Strine term for loud-mouthed publicity seekers and
> professional wannabes, like David Irving, who have no degree at all?
Most Australians have a very low estimation of Academe, as do I. I've been
through the process a few times, and am less impressed with the bullshit of
the academics each time.
One is not permitted an opinion of one's own. One has to read the works of
others who are accepted by academe, and regurgitate those works in a fashion
that appears to be your own work. I know of academics who, when assessing
assignments, look at the abstract and the bibliography and ignore the body
of the text. Sad innit.
>
>> > So what? Irving doesn't even have one of THOSE, does he? However, the
>> > list I gave you below demonstrates that these Holocaust "experts" have
>> > a
>> > whole lot more than that. And you'd be rather surprised at the
>> > education
>> > levels of those you call "loudmouthed 'experts.'" Many of us have
>> > rather
>> > impressive educations.
>>
>> Yours certainly is not terribly impresssive, is it. Arts degrees don't
>> cut
>> it in the real world, dearie.
>
> How about *no* degree at all, à la David Irving?
I honestly don't see why you clots insist anyone who puts pen to paper must
have a degree. The author of Schindler's Ark, which became Schindlers List,
has 'owt, but he's held up as some sort of hero by the fucking holocaust
industry shills.
>
>> >That's why we laugh at people who think "cunt" is
>> > a reasonable word to use in polite conversation.
>>
>> What polite conversation? Dealing with you cunts is nothing to with
>> polite
>> conversation.
>
> What does that make you, the man who denies that a Boeing 757 airliner,
> photographed by several people a few seconds before impact, crashed into
> the Pentagon on September 11, 2001?
Bullshit a Bobing was photographed crashing into the Pentagon. The tail
plane for a start bears no resemblance to anything Boeing have made.
>
>> You're liars, the lot of you.
>
> Says the man who claims that David Irving is presently in an Austrian
> prison for having "pissed off the yids".
And thats the real reason. Your attempt to detract from that with the
rubbish below, is nothing more than a smokescreen. The yid industry have
been baying for Iriving's blood for decades.
>In actual fact, David Irving, who
> violated Austrian constitutional law back in 1989, for which reason an
> arrest warrant and ban on entering or sojourning in Austria were issued,
> is in prison for having deliberately entered Austria knowing full well
> that he would be arrested and tried for his outstanding violations of the
> law there:
>
> Source:
> http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/02/22/2003294124/wiki
>
> <quote>
> <deletions>
> Irving's Bente Hogh said he had brought his imprisonment on himself by
> going to Austria despite the ban.
>
> "He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria
> and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone." she said on Monday
> night. "He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."
> <deletions>
> </quote>
He was gaoled for his views. Pure and simple. Had the man not been of the
view he was, the yids would not even have known of him.
That's the real fact, Jack.
To believe anything else is pure delusion.
Ron Jacobson
admitted he barely knows anything about the Holocaust.
All the following are statements Irving made during
the libel trial he initiated (and lost) against Lipstadt
and Penguin:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day001.htm
"I have never held myself out to be a Holocaust expert, nor
have I written books about what is now called the Holocaust."
"I have done my best to prepare the case that follows, but
I respectfully submit that I do not have any duty to become an
expert on the Holocaust, my Lord."
"I have never claimed to be a Holocaust historian. As I have
said, I have no written no book about the Holocaust. I have written
no article about it. If I have spoken about it, it is usually
because somebody has asked me a question, I have been questioned
about it. On such occasions I have emphasised my lack of expertise
and I have expatiated only upon those areas with which I am familiar."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day002.htm:
"Now, you heard me say in my opening statement, Mr Rampton,
that I am not an expert on the Holocaust. What I would now say
would be a figure without any value whatsoever."
"Q. [Rampton] What you do you say about Sobibor, Treblinka,
Belzec and Chelmno?"
"A. [Irving] Nothing at all. I am not an expert."
RJ.
Ben Cramer
"Ron Jacobson" <rj...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:ebkdho$htp$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> Benjie keeps ignoring Irving's own words, in which he
> admitted he barely knows anything about the Holocaust.
And just some more of ronnie's lies, folks.
Poor bugger couldn't lie straight in bed.
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ron Jacobson" <rj...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> news:ebkdho$htp$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>> Benjie keeps ignoring Irving's own words, in which he
>> admitted he barely knows anything about the Holocaust.
> And just some more of ronnie's lies, folks.
(yaaawn)
Eugene Holman
<[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-1208...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> > In article <ebjks7$s9v$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> > <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <deletions>
> >> >>
> >> >> I know you've got a Masters in something to do with the arts.
> >> >
> >> > If you knew that, why did you lie and say I had "no academic training"?
> >>
> >> Your training has nothing to do with holohoax research. Nothing
> >> whatsoever.
> >
> > Academic training in *any* field teaches people to think, present
> > arguments logically, and relate critically to sources. It does not matter
> > whether the degreee is in the arts or the sciences.
>
> Unless your name is Leuchter. Is that how it goes.
Leuchter presented the illogical argument that rooms that could be
fumigated with Zyklon-B could not be used to kill people with Zyklon-B. He
did not understand that killing vermin with cyanide is a far more complex
and dangerous process than killing people with cyanide. He also argued,
equally illogically, that carbon monoxide is unsuitable as a lethal agent
for a gas chamber because people trapped in a room where they were forced
to breathe it would die from suffocation before it killed them. He
conveniently neglects the fact that carbon monoxide kills thousands of
people every year.
<deletions>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Ben Cramer
> In article <ebk05p$vch$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-1208...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>> > In article <ebjks7$s9v$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
>> > <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > <deletions>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I know you've got a Masters in something to do with the arts.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you knew that, why did you lie and say I had "no academic
>> >> > training"?
>> >>
>> >> Your training has nothing to do with holohoax research. Nothing
>> >> whatsoever.
>> >
>> > Academic training in *any* field teaches people to think, present
>> > arguments logically, and relate critically to sources. It does not
>> > matter
>> > whether the degreee is in the arts or the sciences.
>>
>> Unless your name is Leuchter. Is that how it goes.
>
> Leuchter presented the illogical argument that rooms that could be
> fumigated with Zyklon-B could not be used to kill people with Zyklon-B.
No. What he did was raise very serious doubt about the use of these alleged
"gas chambers" for homicidal purpose. That's what pissed the yids off.
Ron Jacobson
David Irving wrote a book about the WW2 convoy PQ17.
The book contained such a myriad of lies and slanders, that
Irving was sued by Captain Broome, the commander of PQ17. The
court convicted Irving and he had to pay a fine of 40,000 Pounds.
Do you have any thoughts on the issue?
RJ.
Kurt Knoll
brothers write to be true. Read Mathews posting about the killing of Jews
where about 2000 Jews were gassed to death and only after they were death
the sonder commando came in and shaved or stole their hair of. You must be
living in a dream world.
Kurt Knoll.
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-1308...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
Albert Pfündl
"Kurt Knoll" schrieb:.
> You must be living in a dream world.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
You too, old sick man...
Albert Pfündl
Kurt Knoll
based on the information given to him by others.
Kurt Knoll.
"Ron Jacobson" <rj...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:ebmkmf$hpb$1...@pcls4.std.com...
Ron Jacobson
"Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@monarch.net> wrote in message
news:HyCDg.382800$IK3.149755@pd7tw1no...
> Get real Ron Irving did not lie or change anything . His book is simply
> based on the information given to him by others.
JacobsOn doesn't want to know that. He wants to paint Irving in as black a
mode as is possible.
Ronnie's not at all interested in honesty.
Ron Jacobson
Ron Jacobson <ronnies...@nonuts.net> wrote:
(snip silly forgery by Benjie Cramer)
"my younger Brother got me absolutely stoned on magic mushrooms.
I spent three days sitting in the corner of the tent waiting to come
down." -- the neo-Nazi "Ben Cramer" reflects on his usage of
hallucinatory drugs. Source:
Message-ID: <1125123267.5e5d281ad88798917af26011bcb01dc0@teranews>
RJ.
Emil Müller
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote
>
> Leuchter presented the illogical argument that rooms that could be
> fumigated with Zyklon-B could not be used to kill people with Zyklon-B. He
> did not understand that killing vermin with cyanide is a far more complex
> and dangerous process than killing people with cyanide.
Leuchter did not say that people cannot be killed with Zyklon-B, or better:
the cyanide gas released from Zyklon-B.
The man worked as a consultant for the design of gas chambers and said that
the US does not use Zyklon-B for its execution gas chambers because of the
slow discharge of the gas (2 to 3 hours).
How do you know what Leuchter understood and what not? Can you read the man's
mind?
And how can anyone certify the death of 2000 people by looking through a
peephole after 3 to 15 minutes?
In the US according to Leuchter they monitor the heartbeat of the executee
and know when he is dead.
He also argued,
> equally illogically, that carbon monoxide is unsuitable as a lethal agent
> for a gas chamber because people trapped in a room where they were forced
> to breathe it would die from suffocation before it killed them. He
> conveniently neglects the fact that carbon monoxide kills thousands of
> people every year.
>
2000 in one shot in a single room? Where does that happen thousands of time
every year?
If 2000 people are trapped inside the gas tight morgue 1 they will be
suffocated within 30 minutes for lack of oxygen without the use of CO or
HCN.
em
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <%rODg.7989$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote
>>
>> Leuchter presented the illogical argument that rooms that could be
>> fumigated with Zyklon-B could not be used to kill people with Zyklon-B. He
>> did not understand that killing vermin with cyanide is a far more complex
>> and dangerous process than killing people with cyanide.
>
>Leuchter did not say that people cannot be killed with Zyklon-B, or better:
>the cyanide gas released from Zyklon-B.
>
>The man worked as a consultant for the design of gas chambers and said that
>the US does not use Zyklon-B for its execution gas chambers because of the
>slow discharge of the gas (2 to 3 hours).
>
>How do you know what Leuchter understood and what not? Can you read the man's
>mind?
No need to read his mind -- he admitted in court that he was unaware
that it takes far more HCN over a far longer time to kill lice than to
kill humans.
>And how can anyone certify the death of 2000 people by looking through a
>peephole after 3 to 15 minutes?
Ummm -- if they ain't moving, and you know they've been exposed to a
potent poison, what's the stretch?
>In the US according to Leuchter they monitor the heartbeat of the executee
>and know when he is dead.
One of the many ways in which a Nazis gassing and a US penitentiary
gassing differ.
>> He also argued,
>> equally illogically, that carbon monoxide is unsuitable as a lethal agent
>> for a gas chamber because people trapped in a room where they were forced
>> to breathe it would die from suffocation before it killed them. He
>> conveniently neglects the fact that carbon monoxide kills thousands of
>> people every year.
>2000 in one shot in a single room? Where does that happen thousands of time
>every year?
>
>If 2000 people are trapped inside the gas tight morgue 1 they will be
>suffocated within 30 minutes for lack of oxygen without the use of CO or
>HCN.
So, you admit that that number can be killed in a gas tight room.
What's the problem then?
Waldo
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <ebjks7$s9v$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
> > >>
> > >> I know you've got a Masters in something to do with the arts.
> > >
> > > If you knew that, why did you lie and say I had "no academic training"?
> >
> > Your training has nothing to do with holohoax research. Nothing whatsoever.
>
> Academic training in *any* field teaches people to think, present
> arguments logically, and relate critically to sources.
Well, that's the theory, at least.
> It does not matter
> whether the degreee is in the arts or the sciences.
Give an idiot a degree and what do you have? An idiot with a degree.
They're a dime a dozen - three dozen for a quarter.
> > >> BAs in Australia are referred to as Bachelor of Attendance degrees. Very
> > >> much your Clayton's type of degree.
>
> What's your Strine term for loud-mouthed publicity seekers and
> professional wannabes, like David Irving, who have no degree at all?
Irving has no degree? Then he deserves to be in jail! ;-)
> > > So what? Irving doesn't even have one of THOSE, does he? However, the
> > > list I gave you below demonstrates that these Holocaust "experts" have a
> > > whole lot more than that. And you'd be rather surprised at the education
> > > levels of those you call "loudmouthed 'experts.'" Many of us have rather
> > > impressive educations.
> >
> > Yours certainly is not terribly impresssive, is it. Arts degrees don't cut
> > it in the real world, dearie.
>
> How about *no* degree at all, à la David Irving?
>
> > >That's why we laugh at people who think "cunt" is
> > > a reasonable word to use in polite conversation.
> >
> > What polite conversation? Dealing with you cunts is nothing to with polite
> > conversation.
>
> What does that make you, the man who denies that a Boeing 757 airliner,
> photographed by several people a few seconds before impact, crashed into
> the Pentagon on September 11, 2001?
You've seen photos of the 757 that allegedly crashed into the
Pentagon? Photographs shot by *people*? Would you kindly point me to
these photos? The only alleged pre-crash photos I've seen are the
out-of-focus and generally poor quality shots supposedly taken by the
parking security camera.
Thanks in advance.
> > You're liars, the lot of you.
>
> Says the man who claims that David Irving is presently in an Austrian
> prison for having "pissed off the yids". In actual fact, David Irving, who
> violated Austrian constitutional law back in 1989, for which reason an
> arrest warrant and ban on entering or sojourning in Austria were issued,
> is in prison for having deliberately entered Austria knowing full well
> that he would be arrested and tried for his outstanding violations of the
> law there:
>
> Source:
> http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/02/22/2003294124/wiki
>
> <quote>
> <deletions>
> Irving's Bente Hogh said he had brought his imprisonment on himself by
> going to Austria despite the ban.
>
> "He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria
> and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone." she said on Monday
> night. "He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."
> <deletions>
> </quote>
>
> That's the facts, Jack.
So Irving's not in jail "just for his views", he's in jail
because he entered a country from which he was banned. And he was
banned from that country for expressing his views, which were illegal.
And his views were illegal because the Jews of that country managed to
con the government into making them illegal, because the Jews
positively HATE the idea of anyone expressing those particular views.
Or to put it succinctly, David Irving is sitting in an Austrian jail
because he "pissed off the Yids".
I don't see how it could be any clearer.
Don't forget those 757 Pentagon photos, will you Eugene?
**
Waldo
Observer at Large
Waldo
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <ebk05p$vch$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > news:holman-1208...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> > > In article <ebjks7$s9v$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> > > <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <deletions>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I know you've got a Masters in something to do with the arts.
> > >> >
> > >> > If you knew that, why did you lie and say I had "no academic training"?
> > >>
> > >> Your training has nothing to do with holohoax research. Nothing
> > >> whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Academic training in *any* field teaches people to think, present
> > > arguments logically, and relate critically to sources. It does not matter
> > > whether the degreee is in the arts or the sciences.
> >
> > Unless your name is Leuchter. Is that how it goes.
>
> Leuchter presented the illogical argument that rooms that could be
> fumigated with Zyklon-B could not be used to kill people with Zyklon-B. He
> did not understand that killing vermin with cyanide is a far more complex
> and dangerous process than killing people with cyanide.
There is nothing inherently more complex about killing vermin than
humans - and that goes for almost any fumigant, including Zyklon-B.
The only difference would be the necessary concentrations and exposure
time, and the time and/or equipment necessary for adequate ventilation
- which would depend on the fumigant and the commodity.
And who are Holocaustniks to criticize *anyone* for being
"illogical"? The methods allegedly used by the Nazis according to
"eyewitness accounts" and the generally accepted Holocaust Dogma
could not be more illogical.
The stories don't allege that the Nazis were a bunch of schoolboys
who found some nasty stuff in grandpa's shed, and decided to kill
some Jews, the camps were staffed with experts, factory trained in the
proper use of Zyklon-B, but the tales insist that the substance was
applied and handled by incompetent amateurs.
Humbug. The only incompetent amateurs were the dolts who concocted the
Gassing Tales in the first place. If they'd done a bit of research,
they could have come up with a plausible story, and the Holocaust Tales
would not be subject to scrutiny and ridicule today.
As it is, the Holocaust is crumbling, the god is dying.
> He also argued,
> equally illogically, that carbon monoxide is unsuitable as a lethal agent
> for a gas chamber because people trapped in a room where they were forced
> to breathe it would die from suffocation before it killed them.
Leuchter was probably referring to Gerstein's account - and in that
case, he would VERY likely be correct.
And speaking of degrees, Kurt Gerstein had a degree in Mining
Engineering, and as such, he knew well the effects that diesel exhaust
would have on human beings in confined spaces. He also had two years of
medical school, so he knew something about human physiology.
In the SS, Gerstein was in charge of sanitation - delousing operations
(funigation), so he was well acquainted with the methods of
estimating/calculating the square and cubic footage of a given area,
and how much breathable air would have been available. With all of his
education, experience, and expertise, Gerstein would have been the
*perfect* "expert witness' for what he supposedly saw. And he LIED.
Gerstein LIED when he told the tales of the diesel gassings. He lied
intentionally, and with malice aforethought. He purposefully told a
tale that he knew well could NEVER have happened, and he did so to send
a message. He lied NOT to help promote the evil scheme of lies and
false accusations that he saw the Allies and Jews perpetrating before
him, but to DESTROY it.
Gerstein told an entirely unbelievable story to people who he KNEW did
NOT have the background or technical expertise to understand that they
were being played for FOOLS, and the Nuremberg court's accepting
Gerstein's story as "fact" was certainly one of the *stupidest*
things that they ever did.
Of course, they Jewish/Allied Vengeance Squad eventually figured out
that they had been suckered, and Gerstein was "suicided" as
punishment - and to shut him up. But it was too late, the damage was
done.
> He
> conveniently neglects the fact that carbon monoxide kills thousands of
> people every year.
Yes, but from diesel exhaust?
Evidence please. Kurt Gerstein's ghost wants to know.
Waldo
Kurt Knoll wrote:
> Always the same stories Eugene. Do you believe al the stories your holohoax
> brothers write to be true. Read Mathews posting about the killing of Jews
> where about 2000 Jews were gassed to death and only after they were death
> the sonder commando came in and shaved or stole their hair of. You must be
> living in a dream world.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
Yep Kurt, the Nazis supposedly ordered the shaving of the Jews' hair
AFTER they had been gassed. And in the process of being gassed, the
Jews would have lost the contents of their bowels, bladders, and
possibly their stomachs onto the floor (death does that) onto which
they then would have fallen, and/ or were dragged across by smoking,
sandwich-eating Sonderkommandos.
The Holocaust tales imply that the Nazis were SOOOO stupid that it
never occurred to them that they might cut the relatively CLEAN hair of
the people while they were still *alive* and semi-cooperative (like
they did EVERYONE ELSE that entered the camps) ... nooo, they cut the
shit, piss and puke filled hair AFTER the Jews were gassed and dead
(makes for a more gruesome and grisly story, you know)
This is only one of COUNTLESS inconsistent illogical idiocies that one
MUST swallow (puke, piss, shit and all) if one is to be a member of the
True Holocaust Faithful.
Oh well, paper covers rock, scissors cut paper, rock dulls scissors,
and blind religious faith trumps EVERYTHING.
Ben Cramer
"Waldo" <wald...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1155536515.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
A question I've asked, and received no response to, relates to just who or
how did the Germans clean up said shit, piss chuck etc. from the
"chambers"?. The floors were below ground level, therefore the rubbish had
to be pumped out by some method. At Auschiwtz, in particular, the Germans
wouldn't even have had the luxury of draining from the bottom of the chamber
to a cess pit as the water level was within a few feet of the surface of the
ground.
Guess McFey is still busy "discovering" appropriate documents to counter
this.
Ben Cramer
"Emil Müller" <EmiMl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%rODg.7989$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Ssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
You're not supposed to be cognizant of that.
Waldo
I've asked the same question, and it has been inferred that there
were drains - but no one has ever produced documents relating to such.
Even if there were drains, the problem of cycling becomes apparent, in
that (supposedly) these people were told that they were being led to
"showers", so the area had to be fairly clean, otherwise those at
the front of the line would balk, and chaos would ensue.
According to Dogma, the process went something like this: Jews in,
doors shut, gas applied, wait, doors open, minimal ventilation, Jews
out, hair cut / teeth pulled / body cavity's searched, Jews burned.
And you're right, during this time the chamber would have to be
thoroughly cleaned, and if these chambers didn't have access to
pressurized water and excellent drainage, it would have been a hell of
a task.
It also seems unlikely that the Nazis, in their never ending attempts
to deceive the Jews would place a sign on the "death chamber" door
that read:
"Harmful gas! Entering endangers your life".
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blauschwitz35.htm
Reverse psychology? Maybe the Jews thought that the Nazis stashed all
the fresh bagels and cream cheese inside, with the sign to scare
everyone away?
> Guess McFey is still busy "discovering" appropriate documents to counter
> this.
Yes, maybe there's no "evidence" just yet, but McVay, Kerensky et
al are nothing if not tenacious, so you can be sure that they'll keep
"forging" ahead!
Eugene Holman
<wald...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > In article <ebjks7$s9v$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<deletions>
> >
> > What's your Strine term for loud-mouthed publicity seekers and
> > professional wannabes, like David Irving, who have no degree at all?
>
> Irving has no degree? Then he deserves to be in jail! ;-)
No, he doesn't necessarily belong in prison, but he, a proven libelist and
falsifier and manipulator of historical sources, does not deserve to be
taken seriously as an historian.
<deleions>
> >
> > What does that make you, the man who denies that a Boeing 757 airliner,
> > photographed by several people a few seconds before impact, crashed into
> > the Pentagon on September 11, 2001?
>
>
> You've seen photos of the 757 that allegedly crashed into the
> Pentagon? Photographs shot by *people*? Would you kindly point me to
> these photos? The only alleged pre-crash photos I've seen are the
> out-of-focus and generally poor quality shots supposedly taken by the
> parking security camera.
>
> Thanks in advance.
There are photos of the damage done by the airplane seconds before the
crash as well as of debris bearing the American Airlines livery. The
remains of passengers, luggage, and seats were found inside the Pentagon.
See e.g.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html .
> > > You're liars, the lot of you.
> >
> > Says the man who claims that David Irving is presently in an Austrian
> > prison for having "pissed off the yids". In actual fact, David Irving, who
> > violated Austrian constitutional law back in 1989, for which reason an
> > arrest warrant and ban on entering or sojourning in Austria were issued,
> > is in prison for having deliberately entered Austria knowing full well
> > that he would be arrested and tried for his outstanding violations of the
> > law there:
> >
> > Source:
> > http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/02/22/2003294124/wiki
> >
> > <quote>
> > <deletions>
> > Irving's Bente Hogh said he had brought his imprisonment on himself by
> > going to Austria despite the ban.
> >
> > "He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria
> > and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone." she said on Monday
> > night. "He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."
> > <deletions>
> > </quote>
> >
> > That's the facts, Jack.
>
>
> So Irving's not in jail "just for his views", he's in jail
> because he entered a country from which he was banned. And he was
> banned from that country for expressing his views, which were illegal.
The views were not illegal. Expressing them in a public forum was. Nobody
prevents me from holding the view that the world would be a better place
if President Bush were "neutralized". But if I hire an auditorium and give
a speech advocating his assassination I would be in trouble with the
American Secret Service. Different countries have different kinds of
constraints on free speech, but no country, not even the United States,
allows the public advication of assassinations or violently overhrowing
the government.
> And his views were illegal because the Jews of that country managed to
> con the government into making them illegal, because the Jews
> positively HATE the idea of anyone expressing those particular views.
Wrong. The Austrian Constitution, which was drafted and adapted
immediately after the restoration of Austrian sovereignty in April, 1945,
contains sections outlawing Nazism and Nazi organizations, as well as
criminalizing efforts to whitewash, deny, or justify the crimes against
humanity committed by the Nazis. Austrian Jews, many of whom had been
killed or forced to emigrate by the Nazi regime did not have the political
power to influence this legislation. It was the product of Austrians
committed to the denazification of their country, with some guidance from
the four main Western Allies.
> Or to put it succinctly, David Irving is sitting in an Austrian jail
> because he "pissed off the Yids".
Nope. the Jews had nothing to do with the Prohibition Law that is part of
the Austrian Consitution (Verfassungsgesetz).
>
> I don't see how it could be any clearer.
David Irving is sitting in an Austrian prison for having violated the
Austrian Prohibition Law, which applies to everyone who is on Austrian
soil. He compounded his legal difficulties by knowingly entering Austria
with a warrant for his arrest outstanding. David Irving is in an Austrian
prison for repeated violations of Austrian law (the Prohibition Law,
immigration laws, and residency laws), and because of these violations he
has shown contempt for the Austrian state, its constitution, and its legal
system. He has pissed off the Austrians, not the Jews.
>
> Don't forget those 757 Pentagon photos, will you Eugene?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html
The people who took the photos state that they saw a low-flying American
Airlines aircraft damage a lamppost just before crashing into the
Pentagon.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Ben Cramer
Yep. Two whole days later. Isn't that interesting.
Kurt Knoll
Kurt Knoll.
"Ben Cramer" <[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebp6mg$2g9t$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
Ron Jacobson
Emil Müller <EmiMl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The man worked as a consultant for the design of gas chambers
No. Leuchter never consulted anyone on gas chambers.
RJ.
Ron Jacobson
Waldo <wald...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Yes, but from diesel exhaust?
>
> Evidence please.
Here you go. I underlined the important parts, to make
it easier for you to follow.
"Thus the O2 level decreases with increasing engine load.
The minimum O2 levels in the exhaust thus occur at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
maximum loads, the minimum level recorded being just under
2.6% at 1840 rev/min at full rack, with just over 2.6%
^^^^
recorded at 2420 rev/min at full rack."
Source: "Assessment of the Performance of Diesel Particulate
Filter Systems with Fuel Additives for Enhanced Regeneration
Characteristics", by P Richards, B Terry, M W Vincent and S L
Cook, The Associated Octel Company Limited.
O2 means oxygen. And 2.6% oxygen is not enough to
sustain life. It's quite simple.
RJ.
Waldo
You're a dolt, Jacobson.
I asked for (extra-Holocaustic) examples of PEOPLE that had *died* from
carbon monoxide poisoning as a **direct result of having exposed to
diesel exhaust**. Neither you nor anyone else has been able to do so
to date.
(Now watch the JacobDolt post the EXACT same screed from above as a
response. I'd be tempted to think that JacobDolt was a primitive
AutoBot - but JacobDolt is not smart enough to be an AutoBot -
primitive or otherwise)
**
Waldo
Observer at Large
>
Ron Jacobson
Waldo <wald...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Ron Jacobson wrote:
>> Here you go. I underlined the important parts, to make
>> it easier for you to follow.
>>
>> "Thus the O2 level decreases with increasing engine load.
>> The minimum O2 levels in the exhaust thus occur at the
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> maximum loads, the minimum level recorded being just under
>> 2.6% at 1840 rev/min at full rack, with just over 2.6%
>> ^^^^
>> recorded at 2420 rev/min at full rack."
>>
>> Source: "Assessment of the Performance of Diesel Particulate
>> Filter Systems with Fuel Additives for Enhanced Regeneration
>> Characteristics", by P Richards, B Terry, M W Vincent and S L
>> Cook, The Associated Octel Company Limited.
>>
>> O2 means oxygen. And 2.6% oxygen is not enough to
>> sustain life. It's quite simple.
> You're a dolt, Jacobson.
You're a "Holocaust revisionist", waldo.
> I asked for (extra-Holocaustic) examples of PEOPLE that had *died* from
> carbon monoxide poisoning as a **direct result of having exposed to
> diesel exhaust**.
But we ARE talking about the Holocaust, waldo.
What you're doing is equivalent to someone trying to "prove"
that Japan wasn't nuked, by demanding to see "extra-ww2
examples of people that had died from the effects of an
atomic bomb".
The question is: can people be killed by closing them in a small
chamber, and directing the exhaust of a powerful diesel into it,
as was done in Treblinka?
The answer is obviously yes. The exhaust simply does not
contain enough oxygen to sustain life. Please read the cited
source above. Or choose to stay stupid, like old man Neil did.
RJ.
Ron Jacobson
(snip)
"I have long ago conceded that diesel exhaust can indeed kill people
in half-an-hour if the exhaust is from a diesel operating at or near
FULL LOAD."
Who wrote that, waldo?
RJ.
Gord McFee
<1155336036.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Richard
Mileski" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
> > > > Nobody, least of all myself, would forbid you that pleasure.
> > >
> > > Well, thank you! How gracious of you to grant me that liberty!
> > > I certainly form my opinion about Irving and his books myself and
> > > don't need like you, who does not even read Irving's books,
> >
> > I have read some of them and excerpts from many others. They are fun to
> > read, but totally garbageous as serious history.
> >
> You told us a while back on another thread that you never read anything
> authored by Holocaust revisionists and form your opinion about the
> Holocaust on information from Nizkor, THHP, Aktion Reinhard Camps and
> similar comic sites.
If I remember correctly, he didn't say he hadn't read any of them; he
said he didn't take any of them seriously because their scholarship is
so god awful.
> > > the
> > > opinion of some second rate Jewish flunkies around Lipstadt during the
> > > trial, and whose task it was to go through all of Irving's books and
> > > list any discrepancies.
> > > What superficiality!
> >
> > David Irving was demonstrated to have fabricated references.
> >
> > > What a bullshitter you are!
> >
> > Nope. I am an academic, who understands the implication of fabricating
> > references.
> >
> Then act like one and form your own opinion and do not depend and
> repeat that garbage from Nizkor, THHP, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Aktion
> Reinhard Camps or the results from political witchcraft trials in post
> war Germany.
Which of the Nazi documents cited on those sites would you suggest he
ignore?
> [...]
> >
> > David Irving is a charlatan and pseudohistorian with zero credibility.
> > Live with that knowledge.
> >
> Says a Holocaust hoaxster.
Pathetic little denier.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Gord McFee
<ebj5l0$nv6$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-1108...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> > In article <1155325693.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Richard Mileski" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Eugene Holman wrote:
> >> > In article <1155304429.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > "Richard Mileski" <miles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > <deletions>
> >> > >
> >> > > If you don't like the man's books, then don't read them! Nobody
> >> > > forces
> >> > > you. It is not necessary to start a hate and smear campaign against
> >> > > him.
> >> >
> >> > I stated easily proven facts about him, including his lack of academic
> >> > credentials and his track record as a libelist, liar about history, and
> >> > scofflaw. Stating such facts cannot be regarded as a hate or smear
> >> > campaign, they would have to be untrue or at least contested for such a
> >> > claim to be valid.
> >> >
> >> And those easily proven facts would naturally be those made by some
> >> judge and experts during the Irving trial.
> >
> > But they are not.
> >
> > David Irving:
> >
> > 1. Lost a libel suit consequent to his having been proven to have
> > fabricated evidence;
> > 2. Has no academic or professional qualifications as an historian;
> > 3. Has admitted to being totally unqualified to say anything of
> > historiographic consequence concerning the Holocaust;
> > 4. Is currently in prison as a consequence of the decision he himself made
> > to enter Austria with an outstanding arrest warrant and a ban on entering
> > or being in the country.
>
> Point 4: That's the "tidy" explanation of why he's currently cooling his
> heels in an Austrian gaol. The real reason is that the yids loathe him. OK?
It was the Austrians, not the Jews, who put him in the slammer. And
it was Irving's own doing.
Gord McFee
<ebjks7$s9v$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:catamont-415498...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <ebjf5j$qnq$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
> > "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >> news:catamont-DA5233...@news.giganews.com...
> >> > In article <ebjd0d$q33$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
> >> > "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:catamont-4BEAB3...@news.giganews.com...
> >> >> > In article <ebj5ef$nto$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
> >> >> > "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:holman-1108...@ke-hupnet203-25.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> >> >> >> > In article <ebholb$asf$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> >> >> >> > <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> JacobsOn's boring, repetitive, dishonest and out of context
> >> >> >> >> drivel
> >> >> >> >> snipped
> >> >> >> >> to save him further embarrassment.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You are avoiding the issue. Irving has been making a career of
> >> >> >> > fabricating
> >> >> >> > history since the late 1960s, when he lost the libel suit in
> >> >> >> > question.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Considering that David Irving has:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 1. no academic training in history;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nor have many of the supposed holocaust "experts" on your side.
> >> >> >> Guess
> >> >> >> that's
> >> >> >> not important if they support the dodgy shoah though.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Bullshit, Mr. Cramer. You've been shown that virtually ALL of the
> >> >> > "experts" have (at least) PhDs in addition to thousands of pages of
> >> >> > peer-reviewed work.
> >> >>
> >> >> I speak of the loudmouthed "experts" such as yourself, mcFey, jacobsOn
> >> >> et
> >> >> al.
> >> >
> >> > You have no idea about anyone's academic training. HINT: you're wrong
> >> > about me.
> >>
> >> I know you've got a Masters in something to do with the arts.
> >
> > If you knew that, why did you lie and say I had "no academic training"?
>
> Your training has nothing to do with holohoax research. Nothing whatsoever.
> >>
> >> BAs in Australia are referred to as Bachelor of Attendance degrees. Very
> >> much your Clayton's type of degree.
> >>
> >
> > So what? Irving doesn't even have one of THOSE, does he? However, the
> > list I gave you below demonstrates that these Holocaust "experts" have a
> > whole lot more than that. And you'd be rather surprised at the education
> > levels of those you call "loudmouthed 'experts.'" Many of us have rather
> > impressive educations.
>
> Yours certainly is not terribly impresssive, is it. Arts degrees don't cut
> it in the real world, dearie.
It's not the Arts degree that is the point. It is the fact that to
obtain a degree requires a level of objective and empirical research
that is taught and learned.
Gord McFee
Then why did the "expert" Leuchter admit he did not understand that?
[...]
Waldo
Ok so, aside from the Holocaust Tales, you can find few if any
examples of persons dying from carbon monoxide poisoning (or otherwise)
as a direct result of having been exposed to diesel exhaust. Don't
feel bad, no one else seems to be able to find such examples either.
> What you're doing is equivalent to someone trying to "prove"
> that Japan wasn't nuked, by demanding to see "extra-ww2
> examples of people that had died from the effects of an
> atomic bomb".
Uh, no. Actually, quite a number of people died from the aftereffects
of "extra WWII" atomic bombs that were exploded right here in the
USA. See:
> The question is: can people be killed by closing them in a small
> chamber, and directing the exhaust of a powerful diesel into it,
> as was done in Treblinka?
Probably. As I told you before, they can also be bludgeoned to death
with frozen cucumbers, if you REALLY want to do things the hard way.
Do you really think the Nazis were THAT stupid, Ron?
Waldo
Eugene, you disappointed me. You promised images of the plane
"photographed by several people a few seconds before impact".
**BEFORE**? The link you provided offers nothing of the sort.
Sure, the pentagon was hit by something - but what? Where are the tapes
from the Circle-K and other local businesses that were confiscated by
"authorities" immediately after the attack. These would have shown
clearly what hit the Pentagon, and if they backed up the "official
version", wouldn't they have been spattered across every TV screen
in the world by now?
Whatever is on those tapes, it doesn't fit the "official
version".
Other oddities associated with 9-11: Exactly THREE high-rise
steel-framed office buildings have allegedly collapsed as a result of
fire in the history of Earth. ALL of these at the WTC complex on
9-11-2001, and only TWO of these were hit by aircraft.
Also: Mohammad Atta's Passport. Period.
Start with these, and then we'll go on.
How big does a pile of propagandic bullshit have to be before you
Holocaustnicks catch a whiff of the stench?
<snip>
> > So Irving's not in jail "just for his views", he's in jail
> > because he entered a country from which he was banned. And he was
> > banned from that country for expressing his views, which were illegal.
>
> The views were not illegal.
Of course they were.
> Expressing them in a public forum was. Nobody
> prevents me from holding the view that the world would be a better place
> if President Bush were "neutralized". But if I hire an auditorium and give
> a speech advocating his assassination I would be in trouble with the
> American Secret Service.
You just expressed it. You're fucked now, Ewegene. Expect US bombing
raids to commence on Helsinki within the week.
> Different countries have different kinds of
> constraints on free speech, but no country, not even the United States,
> allows the public advication of assassinations or violently overhrowing
> the government.
Declaring one's belief that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz
is hardly advocating assassination, or overthrow of the government (The
Jewish Shadow Government, maybe?)
> > And his views were illegal because the Jews of that country managed to
> > con the government into making them illegal, because the Jews
> > positively HATE the idea of anyone expressing those particular views.
>
> Wrong. The Austrian Constitution, which was drafted and adapted
> immediately after the restoration of Austrian sovereignty in April, 1945,
> contains sections outlawing Nazism and Nazi organizations, as well as
> criminalizing efforts to whitewash, deny, or justify the crimes against
> humanity committed by the Nazis. Austrian Jews, many of whom had been
> killed or forced to emigrate by the Nazi regime did not have the political
> power to influence this legislation.
Roadapples. Jews make up circa 2% of the US population, and look at
the political power they wield. Besides, Austria was occupied and
controlled by the Allies at the time - the government was no more "in
power" than the marionettes currently in Iraq.
> It was the product of Austrians
> committed to the denazification of their country, with some guidance from
> the four main Western Allies.
Yeah, like a bunch of penitentiary inmates setting the prison
"rules", with a little "guidance" from the warden and guards.
> > Or to put it succinctly, David Irving is sitting in an Austrian jail
> > because he "pissed off the Yids".
>
> Nope. the Jews had nothing to do with the Prohibition Law that is part of
> the Austrian Consitution (Verfassungsgesetz).
There are many states in the US where "sodomy" laws are still on
the books - yet they are unenforced. Understand? This was NOTHING but
a Jewish vendetta.
Was Irving foolish? Yes. Should he have stayed out of Austria? No
doubt. But the Jews would have gotten to him anyway - (the Lipstadt
thing REALLY pissed them off) and don't think their bloodlust will be
satisfied by this jail sentence.
Waldo
I don't know that Leuchter made any such "admission". I do know that
Eugene doesn't seem to know what he's talking about - "far more complex
and dangerous".
Why do Holocaustniks insist that the "gassing cellars" at Auschwitz
were used as murder machines, yet insist that they could *not* have
been simple overflow fumigation chambers?
Ben Cramer
"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:6oc2e2l78jhmkv4ik...@4ax.com...
Fuck all of that involved in Arts degrees, Gord. They're like arseholes.
Everyone's got one.
Ron Jacobson
Waldo <wald...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Ron Jacobson wrote:
> Ok so, aside from the Holocaust Tales, you can find few if any
> examples of persons dying from carbon monoxide poisoning (or otherwise)
> as a direct result of having been exposed to diesel exhaust.
And aside from WW2, can you find few if any examples of
people who died from the blast wave of an atomic bomb?
>> The question is: can people be killed by closing them in a small
>> chamber, and directing the exhaust of a powerful diesel into it,
>> as was done in Treblinka?
> Probably.
Why "probably"? It's a medical fact. The exhaust does not
contain enough oxygen to sustain life.
> As I told you before, they can also be bludgeoned to death
> with frozen cucumbers, if you REALLY want to do things the hard way.
But it was not the hard way. You see, they already had that
large engine there, to run a generator. Why not use it also
for killing the people they wanted to kill, simply by running
the engine, and directing its exhaust into the chambers?
A very simple, very cheap, very fast method for killing.
As the member of the SS in Treblinka, Franz Suchomel, described
it -- Treblinka was a simple but effective production line of death.
> Do you really think the Nazis were THAT stupid, Ron?
Not all of them. Unlike today's nazis, who are all
dumb as dogshit.
RJ.
Gord McFee
<1155619248.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Waldo"
<wald...@my-deja.com> wrote:
He testified that he didn't know it took a higher concentration and a
longer exposure of Zyklon-B to kill lice than it does humans.
Gord McFee
<ebrprj$4vu$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, God forbid that anyone approach history empirically and using
appropriate methodology. Really buggers up your fairy tales, doesn't
it?
Ben Cramer
Not at all. Idiots like Oy Vey McFey had absolutely NO academic
qualifications whatsoever.
The fairy tales, Gord, are put by those who stand most to gain from
perpetuating the myth of the holocaust. Can you guess which group of persons
that might be?
Waldo
I still don't know that he said that. As you are the one making the
claim, would you kindly provide a link to the transcripts of said
testimony?
Did Leuchter ever claim expertise in pest control?
And how exactly does this supposedly support the Exterminationist
position?
Waldo
Eugene,
I had hoped that you'd answer this - particularly the 9/11 issues.
Is this what you'd call a "Finnish finish"?
Richard Mileski
> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > He testified that he didn't know it took a higher concentration and a
> > longer exposure of Zyklon-B to kill lice than it does humans.
>
>
> I still don't know that he said that. As you are the one making the
> claim, would you kindly provide a link to the transcripts of said
> testimony?
>
> Did Leuchter ever claim expertise in pest control?
>
Leuchter included in his report the "DIRECTIVES FOR THE USE OF
PRUSSIC ACID (ZYKLON) FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF VERMIN
(DISINFESTATION)", the TRANSLATION OF DOC. NO. NI-9912 Office of
Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, with detail instructions for the
fumigation of insects.
http://64.143.9.197/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html
RM
Gord McFee
<1155799490.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Waldo"
<wald...@my-deja.com> wrote:
No. Find it yourself.
Gord McFee
<ec12ug$1s5i$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I do.
> The fairy tales, Gord, are put by those who stand most to gain from
> perpetuating the myth of the holocaust. Can you guess which group of persons
> that might be?
No, I can't, because there is no myth.
Ben Cramer
Then you should have more sense.
Academic training suggests if there is no evidence in existence to support
the study of an event, no conclusion that said event occurred can be made.
>
>> The fairy tales, Gord, are put by those who stand most to gain from
>> perpetuating the myth of the holocaust. Can you guess which group of
>> persons
>> that might be?
>
> No, I can't, because there is no myth.
Oh yes there is. There is not a single piece of tangible, scientifically
verifiable evidence anywhere, to support the notion of the existence of
homicidal gas chambers. Nothing.
Waldo
You know Gord, when you make claims, and then fail to substantiate
those claims, it makes it look as though you were spewing horsepuckey
from the outset.
But you're used to that, right Gord?
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
("Holocaust revisionism" drivel snipped)
Just deal with the evidence, "Ben".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1673471.stm
Mass graves found at Nazi camp
Researchers have discovered seven mass graves at the Sobibor Nazi
death camp in north-eastern Poland.
The research team, which began its government-sponsored investigation
in the summer, said the graves -- the largest of which is about half
the size of a football pitch -- contain charred remains.
</quote>
A very elaborate study of the mass graves in the Belzec death camp was
conducted a few years ago by a team of Polish archaeologists, headed by
Prof. Andrzej Kola from the University of Torun in Poland, who is the
author of more than 130 papers on archaeology. The team studied the site
of the death camp, drilling 1,700 bore holes and investigating the core
samples. The results are summarized in an 84 page report (ANDRZEJ KOLA:
"BELZEC. THE NAZI CAMP FOR JEWS IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES.
Excavations 1997-1999". ISBN 83-905590-6-4). The study has recovered
human remains over a very large area, to a depth of up to six meters.
The minimal estimate to the volume of the graves is 21,000 cubic meters.
RJ.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard Mileski wrote
in message
<1155810398.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>Waldo wrote:
And yet, when asked about the fact that it takes a higher
concentration of cyanide gas over a longer period of time to kill lice
than to kill humans, he declined to answer because it was an area
about which he was not qualified to testify.
At least, according to the Transcript of Her Majesty the Queen vs.
Ernst Zündel, District Court of Ontario, 1988, 8991ff.
Ron Jacobson
"This may well be. I've never killed beetles. I, you know, I
don't know. I haven't made computations for killing beetles" --
Fred Leuchter.
RJ.
Ben Cramer
Gord McFee
<1155883912.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Waldo"
<wald...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Of course, you had to say that. The reference has been posted dozens
of times, and has just been posted again. Your feigning innocence and
asking for a source is an old one, Waldo.
> But you're used to that, right Gord?
I'm used to your behaviour, yes.
Gord McFee
Of course, he has no answer for that.
Gord McFee
<ec3n5d$2l76$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I do.
> Academic training suggests if there is no evidence in existence to support
> the study of an event, no conclusion that said event occurred can be made.
I think you mean the occurrence of an event, not the study, but in any
event, your premise is as usual wrong since there is all sorts of
evidence.
> >> The fairy tales, Gord, are put by those who stand most to gain from
> >> perpetuating the myth of the holocaust. Can you guess which group of
> >> persons
> >> that might be?
> >
> > No, I can't, because there is no myth.
>
> Oh yes there is. There is not a single piece of tangible, scientifically
> verifiable evidence anywhere, to support the notion of the existence of
> homicidal gas chambers. Nothing.
Sorry, Ben, we have played this game before and you ran away. I'm not
wasting my time on it again,. You are a true non-believer and that
isn't going to change, evidence or not.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Gord McFee wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:41:21 +0000 (UTC), in
> <ec4jih$ssp$1...@pcls4.std.com>, rj...@TheWorld.com (Ron Jacobson) wrote:
>
>
>> Here's a lead for you, waldo. Care to follow it?
>>
>> "This may well be. I've never killed beetles. I, you know, I
>>don't know. I haven't made computations for killing beetles" --
>>Fred Leuchter.
>
>
> Of course, he has no answer for that.
>
Not necessarily, Gord, to wit:
Wally-lad®: "OHHHHHHH....."HORSEPUCKEY" !" [sic!]
Doc Tony
;-)
Ben Cramer
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:36:29 +1000, in
>> Academic training suggests if there is no evidence in existence to
>> support
>> the study of an event, no conclusion that said event occurred can be
>> made.
>
> I think you mean the occurrence of an event, not the study, but in any
> event, your premise is as usual wrong since there is all sorts of
> evidence.
Nonsense. I've been asking the shills here for solid, tangible,
scientifically verifiable evidence for over twelve months, and wha't turned
up? Nuttin'. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
>
>> >> The fairy tales, Gord, are put by those who stand most to gain from
>> >> perpetuating the myth of the holocaust. Can you guess which group of
>> >> persons
>> >> that might be?
>> >
>> > No, I can't, because there is no myth.
There is no solid, scientifically verifiable evidence to support the shoah
industry's version of events, and you state there is no myth? What the devil
do you call it then, if not a myth?
>>
>> Oh yes there is. There is not a single piece of tangible, scientifically
>> verifiable evidence anywhere, to support the notion of the existence of
>> homicidal gas chambers. Nothing.
>
> Sorry, Ben, we have played this game before and you ran away. I'm not
> wasting my time on it again,. You are a true non-believer and that
> isn't going to change, evidence or not.
I am an agnostic, Gord. Show me proof - solid, scientifically verifiable
proof, and I'll change my tune. I've been trained to believe only in solid
evidence.
Gord McFee
<ecbl00$1uen$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:s6ehe2dlsfbf0qrk9...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:36:29 +1000, in
>
> >> Academic training suggests if there is no evidence in existence to
> >> support
> >> the study of an event, no conclusion that said event occurred can be
> >> made.
> >
> > I think you mean the occurrence of an event, not the study, but in any
> > event, your premise is as usual wrong since there is all sorts of
> > evidence.
>
> Nonsense. I've been asking the shills here for solid, tangible,
> scientifically verifiable evidence for over twelve months, and wha't turned
> up? Nuttin'. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
No, all sorts of evidence has been posted. You simply dismiss each
and every one with a wave of your hand and then declare none has been
offered.
> >> >> The fairy tales, Gord, are put by those who stand most to gain from
> >> >> perpetuating the myth of the holocaust. Can you guess which group of
> >> >> persons
> >> >> that might be?
> >> >
> >> > No, I can't, because there is no myth.
>
> There is no solid, scientifically verifiable evidence to support the shoah
> industry's version of events, and you state there is no myth? What the devil
> do you call it then, if not a myth?
Every time such evidence is posted, you dismiss it and then claim, as
you now are, that there isn't any.
> >> Oh yes there is. There is not a single piece of tangible, scientifically
> >> verifiable evidence anywhere, to support the notion of the existence of
> >> homicidal gas chambers. Nothing.
> >
> > Sorry, Ben, we have played this game before and you ran away. I'm not
> > wasting my time on it again,. You are a true non-believer and that
> > isn't going to change, evidence or not.
>
> I am an agnostic, Gord. Show me proof - solid, scientifically verifiable
> proof, and I'll change my tune. I've been trained to believe only in solid
> evidence.
We've been around this one a dozen times, Ben.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
More than that, I fear, but then here's a whole page of translated
documents [German documents] that specifically deal with the matter of
'what happened to those Jews during the war" VERSUS such 'scholarly
findings' [!?] from Messrs. Butz and Freedman, you know, "The alleged
gassed Jews were living happily and rich in the Bronx, USA!" [sic --
Freedman] or, another revisionist 'historical revelation and finding',
to wit, "They WANTED [emphasis mine] to be considered dead or missing so
as to avoid resuming pre-war personal relationships in which they were
no longer interested." [sic -- Butz].
I won't even dwell on other revisionist "findings" as to what happened
to the missing Jews a la "Some island somewhere" [sic -- Chris
Carpenter]; "evacuated and resettled: [sic -- Morghus or Morg's
preferred cut to the chase, "What holocaust? Not one Jew was ever
'purposely' [Morg's emphasis] harmed during that era [1933-45] as a
result of official German or NSDAP policy! Not one!"] and on and on and on.
Anyway ...
http://facultystaff.vwc.edu/~dgraf/nazidocs.txt
Doc Tony
PS: Get ready for Morghus [et al] and the one, the ONLY, THE revisionist
'translator of translators' of German speeches and documents, one Carlos
["In English please, Herr Richter!®] Porter, to claim that ==ALL== the
German verbs and nouns [Example: die Ausrottung [noun] / ausrotten
[verb]] -- ALL, in virtually ALL German speeches and documents at least
when it comes to having 'anything' to do with Jews, well, per Morg' and
Carlos, those nounds and verbs MUST 'translate' [cough-cough] to, you
guessed it, 'evacuation and resettlement.' [sic]. Naturally, that
becomes par for the revisionist ... agenda.
Then again, here is an original for you ....
"Wir hatten das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht gegenüber
unserem Volk, 'dieses' [emphasis mine] Volk das uns umbringen wollte,
umzubringen." [Himmler, October 4, 1943, Posen]
** We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people to annihilate
'these' people [guess who that is?] who wanted to annihilate us."
Doc Tony
Ben Cramer
"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:44EB8D04...@localnet.com...
The documents I want to see distributed, and which I've had some limited
access to recently, are the German documents siezed by the Soviets from
Oranienberg at the conclusion of the war.
These are the documents which were to have been made available to all and
sundry, as mentioned by the International Red Cross quite recently. It seems
there may be some further delay before the great unwashed are permitted
access to them. The very limited access I have had to the documents
indicates there was nothing like 6m deceased jews in Europe at the
conclusion of hostilities. Nothing like it, I'm afraid.
>
> I won't even dwell on other revisionist "findings" as to what happened to
> the missing Jews a la "Some island somewhere" [sic -- Chris Carpenter];
> "evacuated and resettled: [sic -- Morghus or Morg's preferred cut to the
> chase, "What holocaust? Not one Jew was ever 'purposely' [Morg's emphasis]
> harmed during that era [1933-45] as a result of official German or NSDAP
> policy! Not one!"] and on and on and on.
You're slipping, Doc. Not at all up to your usual standard.
Ben Cramer
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:48:33 +1000, in
> <ecbl00$1uen$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> <[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:s6ehe2dlsfbf0qrk9...@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:36:29 +1000, in
>>
>> >> Academic training suggests if there is no evidence in existence to
>> >> support
>> >> the study of an event, no conclusion that said event occurred can be
>> >> made.
>> >
>> > I think you mean the occurrence of an event, not the study, but in any
>> > event, your premise is as usual wrong since there is all sorts of
>> > evidence.
>>
>> Nonsense. I've been asking the shills here for solid, tangible,
>> scientifically verifiable evidence for over twelve months, and wha't
>> turned
>> up? Nuttin'. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
>
> No, all sorts of evidence has been posted. You simply dismiss each
> and every one with a wave of your hand and then declare none has been
> offered.
No. No evidence has been posted whatsoever. Which part of "solid, tangible,
scientifically verifiable evidence" are you experiencing difficulties with?
>
>> >> >> The fairy tales, Gord, are put by those who stand most to gain from
>> >> >> perpetuating the myth of the holocaust. Can you guess which group
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> persons
>> >> >> that might be?
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I can't, because there is no myth.
>>
>> There is no solid, scientifically verifiable evidence to support the
>> shoah
>> industry's version of events, and you state there is no myth? What the
>> devil
>> do you call it then, if not a myth?
>
> Every time such evidence is posted, you dismiss it and then claim, as
> you now are, that there isn't any.
There has been no such evidence mentioned, Gord.
>
>> >> Oh yes there is. There is not a single piece of tangible,
>> >> scientifically
>> >> verifiable evidence anywhere, to support the notion of the existence
>> >> of
>> >> homicidal gas chambers. Nothing.
>> >
>> > Sorry, Ben, we have played this game before and you ran away. I'm not
>> > wasting my time on it again,. You are a true non-believer and that
>> > isn't going to change, evidence or not.
>>
>> I am an agnostic, Gord. Show me proof - solid, scientifically verifiable
>> proof, and I'll change my tune. I've been trained to believe only in
>> solid
>> evidence.
>
> We've been around this one a dozen times, Ben.
Convince me, Gord. I'm prepared to believe anything if shown proof.
Gord McFee
<ecgpqc$cuv$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
The only part I am having trouble with is your continued stating that
over and over again, and then dismissing the mountains of documents
that contradict it, with a wave of your hand.
And you offer nothing in support of what you say except vague
allusions to some mysterious documents that you claim to have had
access to, but won't give any details about and won't quote.
> >> >> >> The fairy tales, Gord, are put by those who stand most to gain from
> >> >> >> perpetuating the myth of the holocaust. Can you guess which group
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> persons
> >> >> >> that might be?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, I can't, because there is no myth.
> >>
> >> There is no solid, scientifically verifiable evidence to support the
> >> shoah
> >> industry's version of events, and you state there is no myth? What the
> >> devil
> >> do you call it then, if not a myth?
> >
> > Every time such evidence is posted, you dismiss it and then claim, as
> > you now are, that there isn't any.
>
> There has been no such evidence mentioned, Gord.
Exactly what I expected you to say.
> >> >> Oh yes there is. There is not a single piece of tangible,
> >> >> scientifically
> >> >> verifiable evidence anywhere, to support the notion of the existence
> >> >> of
> >> >> homicidal gas chambers. Nothing.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, Ben, we have played this game before and you ran away. I'm not
> >> > wasting my time on it again,. You are a true non-believer and that
> >> > isn't going to change, evidence or not.
> >>
> >> I am an agnostic, Gord. Show me proof - solid, scientifically verifiable
> >> proof, and I'll change my tune. I've been trained to believe only in
> >> solid
> >> evidence.
> >
> > We've been around this one a dozen times, Ben.
>
> Convince me, Gord. I'm prepared to believe anything if shown proof.
Prove it by posting the documents I referred to above.
Gord McFee
<ecgpqe$cuv$2...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:44EB8D04...@localnet.com...
[...]
> > More than that, I fear, but then here's a whole page of translated
> > documents [German documents] that specifically deal with the matter of
> > 'what happened to those Jews during the war" VERSUS such 'scholarly
> > findings' [!?] from Messrs. Butz and Freedman, you know, "The alleged
> > gassed Jews were living happily and rich in the Bronx, USA!" [sic --
> > Freedman] or, another revisionist 'historical revelation and finding', to
> > wit, "They WANTED [emphasis mine] to be considered dead or missing so as
> > to avoid resuming pre-war personal relationships in which they were no
> > longer interested." [sic -- Butz].
>
> The documents I want to see distributed, and which I've had some limited
> access to recently, are the German documents siezed by the Soviets from
> Oranienberg at the conclusion of the war.
What documents? Where do they come from and what do they deal with?
Who found them and when?
> These are the documents which were to have been made available to all and
> sundry, as mentioned by the International Red Cross quite recently. It seems
> there may be some further delay before the great unwashed are permitted
> access to them. The very limited access I have had to the documents
> indicates there was nothing like 6m deceased jews in Europe at the
> conclusion of hostilities. Nothing like it, I'm afraid.
Then quote the documents that give you that impression. If you have
been given access to them (by whom, by the way?), then you can quote
them, including author, date and so on.
Ben Cramer
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:41:33 +1000, in
> <ecgpqe$cuv$2...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
> <[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:44EB8D04...@localnet.com...
>
> [...]
>
>> > More than that, I fear, but then here's a whole page of translated
>> > documents [German documents] that specifically deal with the matter of
>> > 'what happened to those Jews during the war" VERSUS such 'scholarly
>> > findings' [!?] from Messrs. Butz and Freedman, you know, "The alleged
>> > gassed Jews were living happily and rich in the Bronx, USA!" [sic --
>> > Freedman] or, another revisionist 'historical revelation and finding',
>> > to
>> > wit, "They WANTED [emphasis mine] to be considered dead or missing so
>> > as
>> > to avoid resuming pre-war personal relationships in which they were no
>> > longer interested." [sic -- Butz].
>>
>> The documents I want to see distributed, and which I've had some limited
>> access to recently, are the German documents siezed by the Soviets from
>> Oranienberg at the conclusion of the war.
>
> What documents? Where do they come from and what do they deal with?
> Who found them and when?
They're pretty much the documents which were to be released to the world
earlier this year. The IRC apparently had these documents in their
possession for some years.
They deal with concentration / work camp detail, were kept in German
headquarters in Oranienberg, and were captured by the Soviets toward the
conclusion of WWII.
>
>> These are the documents which were to have been made available to all and
>> sundry, as mentioned by the International Red Cross quite recently. It
>> seems
>> there may be some further delay before the great unwashed are permitted
>> access to them. The very limited access I have had to the documents
>> indicates there was nothing like 6m deceased jews in Europe at the
>> conclusion of hostilities. Nothing like it, I'm afraid.
>
> Then quote the documents that give you that impression. If you have
> been given access to them (by whom, by the way?), then you can quote
> them, including author, date and so on.
I'm not at liberty, just yet, to to that. Just a little "teaser" for you at
the moment.
Ben Cramer
There is absolutely nothing "solid, or tangible" in the documentary
'evidence' you clots put. This stuff wouldn't last five minutes as evidence
in a modern court of law.
Gord McFee
<ecmpen$23rg$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
You'll forgive me if I find that a bit suspicious.
Gord McFee
<ecmph0$23rq$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
That of course is rubbish, because the evidence already has been
upheld in a modern court of law. And I wasn't aware of your legal
training.
> > And you offer nothing in support of what you say except vague
> > allusions to some mysterious documents that you claim to have had
> > access to, but won't give any details about and won't quote.
Not going to comment on this?
[...]
Ben Cramer
I'm sure you do. Unlike a lot of you lot, I honour my word
Ben Cramer
What court of law? I sincerely hope you're not confusing the yid infested
and inspired Nuremberg trials?
>
>> > And you offer nothing in support of what you say except vague
>> > allusions to some mysterious documents that you claim to have had
>> > access to, but won't give any details about and won't quote.
>
> Not going to comment on this?
I've done so, as far as I'm prepared at this stage.
Gord McFee
<ecoi8f$2kbg$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Good stuff. I look forward to the documents.
Gord McFee
<ecoian$2kcd$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Many courts of law, in the United States, Britain, Canada, Germany and
elsewhere.
> >> > And you offer nothing in support of what you say except vague
> >> > allusions to some mysterious documents that you claim to have had
> >> > access to, but won't give any details about and won't quote.
> >
> > Not going to comment on this?
>
> I've done so, as far as I'm prepared at this stage.
OK.
Ben Cramer
All they've done, is what Gray did in the Irving / Lipstadt case. He simply
stated the holocaust was a given. The fucking yids have done a grand job on
conning the world into that belief.
No matter there hasn't been a concerted and thorough test, judicially and
scientifically, of the "evidence" you lot put.