The Auschwitz Burning Pits: Deniers Blow Smoke (There's a shock)
Keith Morrison
Swamp Gas: Holocaust Deniers and Their Unique Interpretation
of the Geology of Auschwitz
Keith Morrison, B.Sc, (Geol)
==============================================
One comment that has recently (May, 1997) made the rounds of
Holocaust denier circles is based on a piece of alleged common
sense that "proves" some aspects of evidence about what
occurred at Auschwitz does not obey physical laws. To be
specific, Holocaust deniers will claim that testimony regarding
burning pits or massive burial pits can not be real as, they will
state with self-assuredness, the camp was built in a swamp,
therefore any hole would fill with water, ergo the description of
a hole that was used as a burning pit must be fake as such holes
are clearly impossible.
This is an investigation of such claims based on an immutable
fact that all the deniers or advocates in the world cannot change
and that is the ground itself. They may argue over the meaning
of words and claim forgery for material that is not agreed with
but the rock will speak to those who can listen and the rock is
not subject to torture, intimidation and (salted drill core aside)
forgery. Therefore this article will focus on the geology of
Auschwitz and whether the ground speaks for those who accept
the Holocaust or those who deny it.
For those who want to use the question of swamps and holes to
break up the history of the Holocaust you must find somewhere
else to do it. Science does not support your "common sense".
The pits in question are those described by the following
passage:
In 1965, Hydrokop, a chemical mining enterprise based
in Krakow, was commissioned by the
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum to carry
out geological tests at Birkenau aimed at determining the
locations of incineration pits and pyres. Specialists of
Hydrokop bored 303 holes up to 3 m deep. Traces of
human ashes, bones, and hair turned up in 42 sites.
Documentation of all the holes and the diagrams of their
distribution are preserved in the Conservation
Department of the Museum.[1]
Typical of the reactions to material such as this is the following
posting to alt.revisionism by Chris Carpenter:
I understand that the A/B complex was built on a swamp.
Even with drainage ditches, the water is still very close to
the surface. This condition would make it difficult to dig
burning pits as described in the literature. There seems
to be a conflict between the earths natural forces and
Holocaust sources.[2]
This question, after some debate, was responded to by the
following supportive post from "Ceacaa":
Mr. Carpenter raises a good point based on an
intellegent observation of simple physics. Too bad
Mark (the Hoaxter Jokester) has to respond with
his typical drivel horror stories. If Vanalstine would
bother to read some of Soviet propaganda stories he
would have us believe, he would learn that Mr.
Carpenter's point is supported by "testimony" as well as
by science and logic.[3]
Sadly (for them), "science and logic" are not only unsupportive
of Mr. Carpenter's point but actively disputes it. This author
leaves it to others to demonstrate how "Ceacaa's" reference to
testimony supporting his position is not only taken out of
context but blatantly so.
An introduction of the geology of the Auschwitz area begins
with the ground that the camp stands on. According to _Zarys
Geologii Polski_ the area of Auschwitz is underlain by Miocene
marine sediments that were deposited in the area north of the
Carpathian Mountains.[4] This deposition was due to
downwarping of the area [5] which allowed marine transgression
during the Miocene (25 to 4 million years ago) and deposited
clay layers 40-70 meters thick.[6]
The next major geological event was the period colloquially
known as "The Ice Age". For the Auschwitz area the dominant
glaciation was the Preicenian-Danube (Pretegelen) Glaciation
during the Quaternary (0 to 2 million years ago) that emplaced
glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits 25-75 meters thick.[7]
Now to take a moment and explain some concepts that become
rather important. Glaciofluvial, deposits, as defined by the
American Geological Institute in their _Dictionary of Geological
Terms, Third Edition_, are
Pertaining to meltwater streams flowing from glaciers
or to the deposits made by such streams
and glaciolacustrine deposits are
Pertaining to, derived from, or deposited in glacial lakes
[8]
Glaciofluvial deposits are characterized by sands and gravels,
glaciolacustrine by finely layered clays.[9] Clays are, generally
speaking, impervious to water which is why landfill commissions
in New Brunswick seek areas underlain by clay deposits in order
to prevent subsurface runoff of contaminated water into the
natural water table.
Now let us apply this knowledge to Auschwitz.
One of the reasons Auschwitz was constructed where it was
involved ready access to materials needed to make concrete to
be used in the buildings and in the industrial areas. The area was
known for its sand and gravel pits [10] which are typically found
in thick areas of glaciofluvial deposit and indeed just north of the
town of Auschwitz is the path of a long-dried up river that
carried glacial outwash directly toward the town from the north.
[11] This indicates that the area of Auschwitz itself was under
water as meltwater from the glaciers flowed south and was
trapped against the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains,
therefore glaciolacustrine deposits, mostly clays, would have
been deposited in the area of the camp itself. This is in fact
verified as there is 200 feet (61 meters) of impermeable marl
beneath the camp.[12]
As an aside marl is a mostly-abandoned term for clay with
limestone fragments and some accessory minerals, sometimes
used as a fertilizer in acidic soils (the lime neutralizes the
acidity).
The study commissioned by the Nazi government by Zunker [13]
noted that the area was wet and swampy and this has caused the
confusion, intentional or not, as to what this really means.
A swamp in a formerly glaciated terrain, or northern countries,
does not mean the same thing as a swamp in Louisiana or
Florida. In those areas swamps are low-lying areas that are
permanently wet. In the north a swamp is also wet but it is not
necessarily low-lying. The author has been in alder swamps
perched halfway up the side of a mountain. The difference
between these swamps and southern swamps is how they
formed. As stated southern swamps are low lying areas that
have a river running through them (or in the case of the Florida
Everglades, actually form one wide river themselves). Swamps,
such as that at Auschwitz, are caused by pour drainage.
At Auschwitz the impermeable clay soil did not allow water to
drain out, thus it was trapped at surface and could not drain
either into the ground and the water table or into the nearby
rivers. The effect can be simulated by taking a lump of child's
modeling clay and forming a little hill with a small depression
and then pouring water over it. The water will collect in the
depression while the remainder that falls outside will drain away.
To dry out this micro-swamp there must be a crack
(imperfection) in the material holding the water, the water must
evaporate or you may cut the side of the swamp and let the
water drain away.
This last option (cut out the side of the depression to drain the
water) is used most frequently in cases of elevated swamps and
this is what occurred at Auschwitz. No one can seriously argue
that there were not drainage ditches. What deniers who try the
swampy argument fail to understand (intentionally or otherwise)
is that the source of water was not *in* the ground, it was
trapped *above* the ground. By providing drainage away from
the camp you prevent the water from pooling and thus you
eliminate the swamp. As the reason the water accumulated was
due to the impermeability of the soil to water in the first place,
once the area is drained you will not get any serious amount of
water coming up from below. Yes, holes will *eventually* fill
(to the water table) from water traveling through small
imperfections in the clay and from rain but the hole is in no
danger of becoming a pond within any reasonable period of time.
Knowing this, the swamp argument used by Holocaust deniers
quickly loses any semblance of "proof" of anything. With some
basic geological knowledge a reasonable person can come to the
conclusion that you can indeed dig hole at Auschwitz and have it
stay free of water for a reasonable period. Arguments to the
contrary are based on either ignorance or unwillingness to let the
truth ruin a good lie.
REFERENCES
[1] Piper, F. _Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp_, 179
[2] Carpenter, Chris (cc...@concept.net). "Burning pit
question" alt.revisionism 1997/04/09
Message-Id: <334b989...@news.zippo.com>
[3] "Ceacaa" (cea...@aol.com). "Re: Burning pit question"
alt.revisionism 1997/05/15 Message-Id:
<19970515052...@ladder02.news.aol.com
>
[4] Ksiqzkiewicz, M., Samsonowicz, J. Ruhle, E. _Zarys
Geologii Polski_. Wydawnictwa Geoloiczne, 1965.
Trans. _An Outline of Geology of Poland_.
The Scientific Publication Foreign Cooperation
Center of the Central Institute for Scientific, Technical
and Economical Information, 1968. 46.
[5] Ksiqzkiewicz et al, 206.
[6] Ksiqzkiewicz et al, 208.
[7] Ksiqzkiewicz et al, 335, Fig. 40.
[8] _Dictionary of Geological Terms, Third Edition_. AGI,
1983.
[9] Sugden, D.E. and John, B.S. _Glaciers and Landscapes_
Edward Arnold, 1976.
[10] van Pelt, R.J. and Dwork, D. _Auschwitz 1270 to the
Present_. W.W. Norton and Co Inc, 1996. 174.
[11] Ksiqzkiewicz et al, 343, Fig. 42.
[12] van Pelt and Dwork, 191.
[13] van Pelt and Dwork, 192.
--
Keith Morrison
lone...@nbnet.nb.ca
Michael
Defensive little bugger aren't you. I am not knowledgeable about
geology but I still know when someone is trying to B S me. When you
set up the conditions of an argument, proceed on a false projected
assumption (No holes, like every revisionist in the world said that!);
then qualify your conclusion with "....you can indeed dig (a) hole at
Auschwitz and have it stay free of water for a 'reasonable' period;and
finish with "Arguments to the contrary are based on either ignorance
or unwillingness to let the truth ruin a good lie"; thus closing the
door to any dissenting opinion or theory; I know that the guy who's
talking is full of crap.
"I am not a crook."----------Richard Nixon
natio...@juno.com
Michael
"http://www.natall.com"
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
"No man has come to true greatness who has not felt
in some degree that his life belongs to his race."
----Phillips Brooks
Michael P. Stein
In article <33934f74...@news.pnet.net>,
[Over 200 more quoted lines of scientific argument, without one comment by
'nationalist', deleted.]
>"I am not a crook."----------Richard Nixon
[four blank lines plus .sigfile deleted]
When you find a refereed scientific journal to publish your
meticulously researched and brilliantly reasoned refutation, do let us
know.
In the meantime, it has been over eight hours since I posted my
challenge for you to put your money where your mouth is. Maybe I should
give you another half hour and then post a half dozen articles announcing
that you have failed to respond to the challenge.
--
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Ceacaa
Ceacaa wrote:
>
>> Your arguments are Laputian;they deserve to be snipped
>> I have been to Birkenau, and there is a highwater table,
>> about 6 feet below ground level. The quotes I posted
>> showed that the holes dug in September 1942 filled
>> with water.
[Keith "Lone Wolf" Morrison]
>No, the quotes you posted said that these holes were
>called "swimming pools" by one witness who further
>stated that he
>meant that by their size and shape and explicitely
>said they were dry.
>But one can understand why you missed that part.
>You have a tendancy to boldy ignore what you don't
>want to see.
[Ceacaa replies]
Morrison-You are a pompous clown-(strike that)
a reading-challenged pompous clown.
Reread my posting two or three times and then tell us
who has a tendancy to ignore what they
don't want to see.
[Quotes re: waterlevel at Birkenau circa 1942]
Maurice Benroubi testified regarding the western edge of
the camp, ie. the site of
the alleged "burning pits" that,
"Some comrades exchanged non-mouldy bread for mouldy
in order to have a bigger quanity. LITTLE POOLS OF WATER
FORMED IN THE GRAVES AND AS WE WERE VERY THIRSTY,
WE QUICKLY JUMPED DOWN AND LAPPED UP THE WATER AND
CLIMBED OUT AGAIN VERY FAST."
[and]
Then, to top the other witnesses is Erko Hajblum.
[begin quote]
I was in the kommando that disinterred the dead,
thousands of dead.
We waded through a mixture of putrifying bodies
and mud...The bodies seemed to come up to the
surface, as if the ground didn't want them.
What you went through, Maurice, is nothing besides
that. [end quote]
If you need help understanding the part about
"little pools of water" forming or "mud" any
1st year geology student could help you. The quote
re: swimming pools was to give size and location.
[Morrison continues on Ceacaa's posting]
>> The basis of science is physical proof-You
>> are barking up the wrong tree.
>Oh? So perhaps you can point out the errors in the science
>of the following?
>And please, specific objections. otherwise one might
>be tempted
>to think you have no idea what you are talking about.
[Keith's Term Paper-Grading at last page]
===================================================================
and glaciolacustrine deposits are
[snip references]
Keith Morrison
lone...@nbnet.nb.ca
[Professor Ceacaa grades]
You have some interesting points but hide them in
a verbose and pertentious style. Your writting would be
twice as good if it were half as long.
As to the particular points made:
Have you considered that the comments made
on a high watertable of the Camp are based on direct
observation, both in 1942 (the Zunker Report and
testimony of Benroubi and Erko Hajblum) and in 1995?
They seem to be valid. Therefore, you have overlooked an important
logical step in your argument.
What you seem to be trying to show is that
between these two periods the water table was
lowered enough to allow "burning pits". You hint at
this by your assertion that "cut out the side of the
depression to drain the water" occurred at Birkenau.
But then you fail to explain why Birkenau is
"waterlogged" today. (increased rainfall? collapse
of the drainage cannals?) In fact, you fail polemically/
Scientifically in a fundamental point. The drainage ditches
were dug in the Main Camp-Why do you assert that
they were dug in the remote area where you claim
that the burning pits where? Are do you now claim that
the "pits" were back in the populated area or
Birkenau Camp?
You also fail to define the issue: How deep were the
"burning pits" -1 meter deep-10 meters deep?
Is the level of water really an issue?
While spending much time on irrelevant tangent
isues such as landfill commissions in New Brunswick
you almost ignore the best evidence that you MIGHT
have: The 1965 Hydrokop report. But you leave the
issue hanging-Why did they have to drill 303 holes
if the location of the "pits" were known? Why did
they only drill down 3 meters? Something to do
with the watertable issue? What quanity of
humans remains were found and where? Is the
site(s) now part of a parking lot?
Although I recognize that you spent much time
and effort on your paper, it is more of an attempted
display of erudition than a thoughtful work related to
the question that I posed for the term paper.
Spotting the issues D
Use of information and relevancy C
Logical consistence D-
Effort A
Paper Grade C-
John Morris
In <5p7h7h$7sh$1...@news01a.micron.net>, on Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:06:49
GMT, sbr...@micron.net (Brian Smith) wrote:
>cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>> [Professor Ceacaa grades]
>>You have some interesting points but hide them in
>>a verbose and pertentious style. Your writting would be
>>twice as good if it were half as long.
>Isn't that interesting? Let's see what actually transpired here.
>Well, on one hand, we have the holohoax claim that people were burned
>in pits. Yet the problem is that holohoax canard couldn't have
>happened, since we know that Auschwitz was basically a swamp. So
>enter Nizkook Keith Morrison, who was commissioned to throw in a few
>50-cent geology words, shake his beads and tail-feathers around, does
>the Nizkook two-step, and -viola!-: another canard is given a facade!
>Ah, the joys of Nizkookery! History "on the fly," as it were.
>[Keith's turgid and ridiculous article snipped]
Couldn't answer it, could you Brian?
I just love the way the semi-literates from the National Alliance
claim that historians don't know about history, geologists don't know
about geology, and anthropologists don't know about race.
Keith is a professional geologist, but high school dropout Brian Smith
knows better.
Small wonder you are the laughing stock of Usenet.
> Archive THIS, Nizkook!
>
> ( )( )
> \ | | /
>
>MOONING the Nizkor Camera!
Hmm. *No* wonder you ar the laughing stock of Usenet.
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Scripture veteris capiunt exempla futuri>
--
The Nizkor Project | http://www.nizkor.org/
Keith Morrison
Ceacaa wrote:
> To put it very simply for you, John,
> If you look hard (ie. dig 303 holes) and find the remains
> of 500 bodies but NOT the remains of 250,000 bodies
> what does it mean?
Five hundred bodies, hmm?
And why, exactly, would those 500 bodies be scattered in three-
dimensional space over 3 vertical meters and several hundred
square meters in different locations?
Or are you suffering from the affliction of Moran-Math and cannot
use numbers in the way most normal people do?
For someone who earlier claimed that *I* cannot logically evaluate
evidence your logic in the above looks like it comes straight from
the nearest loony-bin.
--
Keith Morrison
lone...@nbnet.nb.ca
John Morris
In <19970702044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, on 2 Jul 1997
04:42:27 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>John....@UAlberta.CA (John Morris)
>wrote on 30 Jun 1997 regarding Ceacaa:
>>Did you expect better? I think it is pretty telling
>>that the deniers
>>are a bunch of kooks when they say that geologists
>>don't know anything about geology, and that anthropologists >don't know
>anything about
>>race, and that historians don't know anything about
>>history. It is no
>>different than Duane Gish telling evolutionary
>>biologists that they
>>don't know anything about biology.
>>Don't foget: you're dealing with here the first-class
>>mind that claimed that the presence of human remains
>>in a huge mass grave was
>>proof that no one was killed at Treblinka.
> [Ceacaa]
>John Morris leaps into the battle with a confusing
>array of irrelevant points! Most seem to be related
>to the sanctity of Academic degrees. Hmmm, why
>do I get the feeling that Morris is insecure-that the
>cowgirls of Ponoka don't take his pending degree seriously?
>John, do you mind if I ask a personal question? Just one
>that I sort of am curious about. Do you live at home with your mother?
Empty ad hominem.
> Anyway, you have it all confused-Revisionists respect
>geologists, biologists, etc. It's your stupid arguments
>which provoke derision.
If you respect geologists so much, why have you consistently dismissed
Keith Morrison's analysis of the geology of the Birkenau site. He is,
after all a professional geologist?
> Look at your analysis of
>the "burning pit" question.
Tell me what my analysis of the burning pit question is.
> You can't even define the issue
>of how deep the things were supposed to be or even where
>they were supposed to have been.
When did you ask me to? So far I have only offered the observation
that you are dismissive of the expertise of people who have earned the
right to call themselves experts.
> You just try and
>get by claiming that you are going to get a Ph.d
>(someday) from some small backwoods diploma mill.
Empty ad hominem.
> The Revisonist point is simple: water runs downhill.
>I am pretty sure you know that and you also know that it
>fills things up holes in the ground, like basements of cheaply
>built hovels. And the holes can be as shallow as
>your arguments-depending on a very high watertable,
>of course.
Yes. Water runs downhill. It runs downhill particularly well on
impermeable soil. It runs away altogether if you cut a drainage ditch.
The British managed to drain the whole of East Anglia in the sixteenth
century. I don't know why this fairly simple engineering concept is so
difficult for you to grasp.
>Let's see what else you wrote; "mass graves" "no one killed"
>What are you gibbering about?
Your article on Treblinka in the Journal for Historical Review.
> What a pumpkin head
>you are! You are claiming to be a doctorial graduate of the
>Gord McFee Kollege of the Math and Speling Challenged-
>Yet you seem to have such a problem with the concept
>of quantity, you know How many.
You are the pumpkin head who argued that the presence of human remains
in a huge mass grave at Treblinka was proof that no one could have
been killed there. Or have I got you mixed up with another Andrew
Allen.
> Let's bring this all back to Birkenau-The Germans
>probably DID use pit cremation sometime at Auschwitz.
I thought you said they couldn't have done so because the water table
was too high. Please make up your mind.
>Specificially during the summer of 1942 in the
>large typhus outbreak. They only had Krema I at the time
>and had 3-4,000 bodies to dealwith. So there are
>possibly some small (little) remains of pryes-but,
>as I keep repeating, "where and how many?"
Odd, but one of your Revisionist buddies cites a memo from Pohl to
Himmler which indicates that 45,000 people died of disease at
Auschwitz in 1942:
http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrjfb/nrjfbcrema.html
To leave a mere 4000 bodies to be dealt with in pits, Krema I would
have to have burned one body per hour, 24 hours per day, every day for
the whole year. Revisionists claim that such a burning rate is
technically impossible. Ivan Lagace testified under oath at the
Zuendel trial that the furnaces could scarcely have done one quarter
of that amount of cremation.
Get back to us when you have sorted out which version of the story you
want us to believe today.
>To put it very simply for you, John,
>If you look hard (ie. dig 303 holes) and find the remains
>of 500 bodies but NOT the remains of 250,000 bodies
>what does it mean?
Are you referring to the Hydrokop tests of the Birkenau site in 1965?
If so, you have got it just wrong enough to make it look like you have
a case. Typical.
Hydrokop did not "dig" 303 holes. They took 303 core samples. Of
those, 42 contained human remains. The main cremation pits were due
west of "Mexico" (and north of Krema IV and V) and due west of Kremas
IV and V.
>Dang, I better tell you, I know you'll muff it.
>It means you have found all the bodies and 500 died,
>not 250,000. Think about it.
I see. You claim that the discovery of 500 bodies in pits, which you
have already stipulated were used for cremating bodies, means that
only 500 people died. Pretty interesting idea you have there. I assume
you are defining "cremation" as digging a hole, putting a corpse in
it, and covering it over. And you did stipulate above that 3000 to
4000 died.
Okay, I've thought about it: you paper over a very weak argument with
a lot of personal attacks.
Mark Van Alstine
In article <19970702044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, cea...@aol.com
(Ceacaa) wrote:
[Mr. Allen's drivel snipped]
> To put it very simply for you, John,
> If you look hard (ie. dig 303 holes) and find the remains
> of 500 bodies but NOT the remains of 250,000 bodies
> what does it mean?
It means that "the remains of 250,000 bodies" were removed from the
incineration pits and dumped into the Vistula River. But, of course, this
has been posted innumerable times in this group. Why does Mr. Allen ignore
this?
> Dang, I better tell you, I know you'll muff it.
> It means you have found all the bodies and 500 died,
> not 250,000. Think about it.
No, it means thaty the Nazis, attempting to hide the enourmity of the
crimes, had prisoner kommandos empty the incineration pits and dump the
remains of the victims into the Vistula River. Then the incinration pits
were filled in and sapliongs planted. But, of course, this has been posted
innumerable times in this group. Why does Mr. Allen ignore this?
It also means that the Nazis made sure that the number of victims they
murdered at Auschwitz could not be determined by finding and examining
their remains. Think about it. Why does Mr. Allen ignore this?
Why does Mr. Allen ignore so many facts? Because Mr. Allen, being the
dishonest person he is, would rather ignore such "inconvienant" facts (and
reality) that refute his crackpot theories and instead spin his pathetic
denier fantasies.
For those interested in Mr. Allen's prolific Holocaust denial, lies, and
crackpot "theories," please peruse DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project
at:
http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/a/allen.andrew
Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Harmon
> John....@UAlberta.CA (John Morris)
> wrote on 30 Jun 1997 regarding Ceacaa:
> >Did you expect better? I think it is pretty telling
> >that the deniers
> >are a bunch of kooks when they say that geologists
> >don't know anything about geology, and that anthropologists >don't know
> anything about
> >race, and that historians don't know anything about
> >history.
[..snip]
> >Don't foget: you're dealing with here the first-class
> >mind that claimed that the presence of human remains
> >in a huge mass grave was
> >proof that no one was killed at Treblinka.
Ceacaa wrote:
> John Morris leaps into the battle with a confusing
> array of irrelevant points! Most seem to be related
> to the sanctity of Academic degrees.
They're quite relevant. Why should we trust 'revisionists'
more on the subjects of history, geology, chemistry, and
anthropology than those who study these fields as their
life's work? Particularly when we take into account
the frequent prejudice and incompetence on the part of
'revisionist scholars'.
> Hmmm, why
> do I get the feeling that Morris is insecure-that the
> cowgirls of Ponoka don't take his pending degree seriously?
> John, do you mind if I ask a personal question? Just one
> that I sort of am curious about. Do you live at home with your mother?
How ironic. Weren't you just criticizing Mr. Morris for making
allegedly irrelevant points?
You then proceed to insult him several times:
> Let's bring this all back to Birkenau-The Germans
> probably DID use pit cremation sometime at Auschwitz.
> Specificially during the summer of 1942 in the
> large typhus outbreak.
Amazing. for the longest time Holocaust 'revisionists'
argued that burning corpses in pits was _impossible_.
For example, at Greg Raven's website, he has the IHR's
'66 questions and answers on the Holocaust':
41. Can bodies be burned in pits?
No. It is impossible for human bodies to be totally
consumed by flames in this manner because of lack of oxygen.
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/66questions.html
Are you saying that bodies can be burned in pits, Mr. Allen?
Carl Montagno also insists that burning bodies in pits is not
possible in his critique of Pressac entitled 'Auschwitz: End of a
Legend'. I can provide a page number and full cite if you'd like.
(the book is at home, and i'd need to look it up, however.)
Let me clear, however, i am not saying bodies cannot be burned in pits.
they most certainly can be. I just don't want your admission that bodies
can be cremated in this manner to go unnoticed.
> To put it very simply for you, John,
> If you look hard (ie. dig 303 holes) and find the remains
> of 500 bodies but NOT the remains of 250,000 bodies
> what does it mean?
>
> Dang, I better tell you, I know you'll muff it.
> It means you have found all the bodies and 500 died,
> not 250,000. Think about it.
If you read the citation, you'll note that it mentions
human _ashes_ were found. If the bodies were cremated,
how the hell can you tell how many remains you've found?
http://www1.us.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/crematoria/burning-pits
--
Brian Harmon <bra...@itsa.ucsf.edu>
====================================
"Right on, jew traitor." -- Matt Giwer,
displaying his commitment to rational debate.
<52kj3e$6...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
ChuckF2323
WRONG!!!
Chuck Ferree
Fifty-two years ago, Allied soldiers
liberated Buchenwald, Dachau, Belsen
and other Nazi concentration camps
and came face to face with the
Human Ruins of the Nazi system of slave labor and genocide.
IT HAPPENED! GET USED TOO IT !!!
Keith Morrison
Brian Smith wrote:
> Isn't that interesting? Let's see what actually transpired here.
> Well, on one hand, we have the holohoax claim that people were burned
> in pits. Yet the problem is that holohoax canard couldn't have
> happened, since we know that Auschwitz was basically a swamp. So
> enter Nizkook Keith Morrison, who was commissioned to throw in a few
> 50-cent geology words, shake his beads and tail-feathers around, does
> the Nizkook two-step, and -viola!-: another canard is given a facade!
> Ah, the joys of Nizkookery! History "on the fly," as it were.
Nice theory. Unfortunetly:
a) I was not "commissioned" to write the report
b) I spent considerably more than $0.50 per word to be able to use
said terms. More like $20 000 for the lot.
c) Auschwitz is *not* a swamp. Unless your Nazi heroes were suffering
some form of odd dementia and constructed not only prisoner but
their own quarters in a "swamp".
d) Why don't *you* explain how I made an error in the geological
interpretation. Feel free to take your time.
--
Keith Morrison
lone...@nbnet.nb.ca
Brian Smith
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>Sigh. If the situation was reversed and it was Israelis who were being
>accused of burning bodies at Auschwitz, then Sanctimonious Morris the Cat
>and the rest of his feline fakirs would pull no stops in "proving" to the
>rest of the world why this feat would be impossible. Hypocrites.
Actually, John Santimorris' mendacious and robotic defense of the
impossible claim that one can dig large burial pits in a swamp is
actually a fairly modest one for the "never say die!" holohoaxing of
the Nizkooks. However, my current favorite remains the Nizkook
defense of the below, which bears repeating:
Filip Mueller's _Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas
Chambers_ (1979), which won the 1980 prize of the International League
against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA).:
"From time to time, SS doctors visited the crematorium, above all
Hupsturmfuerherer Kitt and Oberscharfuehrer Weber. During the visits
it was just like working in a slaughterhouse. Like cattle dealers
they felt the thighs and calves of men and women who were still alive
and selected what they called the best pieces before the victims were
executed. After their execution, the chosen bodies were laid on a
table The doctors proceeded to cut pieces of still warm flesh from
thighs and calves and threw them into waiting receptacles. The
muscles of those who had been shot were still working and contracting,
making the bucket jump about."
Archive THIS, Nizkook!
( )( )
\ | | /
MOONING the Nizkor Camera!
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/ Greg Raven's Website
http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/welcome.html Zundelsite
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~lpauling/ Student Revisionist Resource Site
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/LEUCHTER/leuchtertoc.html
http://www.codoh.com/irving/irving.html David Irving
http://www.codoh.com/ Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/ Arthur R. Butz
http://www.air-photo.com/ Air Photo Evidence (John Ball)
http://www.adam.com.au/~fredadin/adins.html Adelaide Institute
http://www.codoh.com/rudolf/rudreport/rudreport.html
Brian Smith
http://www.natall.com
"A civilization which tolerates the existence of Kaplan and his filthy
business should be burned to the ground" I said. "We should make
a bonfire of the whole thing and then start over fresh."
_The Turner Diaries_. p. 85
>-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
\|/ Towards a New Consciousness. \|/
| A New Future. |
A New People.
>.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Michael
>Brian Smith wrote:
>> Isn't that interesting? Let's see what actually transpired here.
>> Well, on one hand, we have the holohoax claim that people were burned
>> in pits. Yet the problem is that holohoax canard couldn't have
>> happened, since we know that Auschwitz was basically a swamp. So
>> enter Nizkook Keith Morrison, who was commissioned to throw in a few
>> 50-cent geology words, shake his beads and tail-feathers around, does
>> the Nizkook two-step, and -viola!-: another canard is given a facade!
>> Ah, the joys of Nizkookery! History "on the fly," as it were.
>Nice theory. Unfortunetly:
>a) I was not "commissioned" to write the report
Yes you were. Either by another party or yourself. Commission is also
a noun, Putz.
>b) I spent considerably more than $0.50 per word to be able to use
> said terms. More like $20 000 for the lot.
Waste of money. Should have sent it to some Holocaust(tm) survivor or
their relatives.
>c) Auschwitz is *not* a swamp. Unless your Nazi heroes were suffering
> some form of odd dementia and constructed not only prisoner but
> their own quarters in a "swamp".
Yes it is. You said so yourself. You went to great lengths to point
out that Auschwitz was not a swamp like a Louisiana swamp, but still a
swamp. Remember all of your ranting about drainage etc.?
>d) Why don't *you* explain how I made an error in the geological
> interpretation. Feel free to take your time.
Chock full of qualifiers (surprise) and theory but it will happen, in
time.
>Keith Morrison
>lone...@nbnet.nb.ca
very lone
John Morris
In <19970703211...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 3 Jul 1997
21:12:31 GMT, fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>Sigh. If the situation was reversed and it was Israelis who were being
>accused of burning bodies at Auschwitz, then Sanctimonious Morris the Cat
>and the rest of his feline fakirs would pull no stops in "proving" to the
>rest of the world why this feat would be impossible. Hypocrites.
Translation: I have nothing worthwhile to say, so I will stoop to
baseless slander instead.
Gord McFee
In <33bfd0fb...@news.hollinet.com>, on 07/04/97
at 10:44 AM, natio...@juno.com (Michael) said:
:>On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 23:41:38 -0300, Keith Morrison
:><lone...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
:>>Brian Smith wrote:
:>>> Isn't that interesting? Let's see what actually transpired here.
:>>> Well, on one hand, we have the holohoax claim that people were burned
:>>> in pits. Yet the problem is that holohoax canard couldn't have
:>>> happened, since we know that Auschwitz was basically a swamp. So
:>>> enter Nizkook Keith Morrison, who was commissioned to throw in a few
:>>> 50-cent geology words, shake his beads and tail-feathers around, does
:>>> the Nizkook two-step, and -viola!-: another canard is given a facade!
:>>> Ah, the joys of Nizkookery! History "on the fly," as it were.
:>>Nice theory. Unfortunetly:
:>>a) I was not "commissioned" to write the report
:>Yes you were. Either by another party or yourself. Commission is also a
:>noun, Putz.
Not when it's used as above, idiot.
:>>b) I spent considerably more than $0.50 per word to be able to use
:>> said terms. More like $20 000 for the lot.
:>Waste of money. Should have sent it to some Holocaust(tm) survivor or
:>their relatives.
You should have spent a bit on an education.
--
Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net>
I'll write no line before its time
Keith Morrison
Michael wrote:
> >a) I was not "commissioned" to write the report
>
> Yes you were. Either by another party or yourself. Commission is also
> a noun, Putz.
Except, sir, you generally do not commission yourself. I
realize that the usage of the English language is something you
are not familiar with so one may grant you some leniancy.
>
> >b) I spent considerably more than $0.50 per word to be able to use
> > said terms. More like $20 000 for the lot.
>
> Waste of money. Should have sent it to some Holocaust(tm) survivor or
> their relatives.
Oh, I don't think so. I had my job a week after my graduation and
was head geologist at the mine in two and a half months.
> >d) Why don't *you* explain how I made an error in the geological
> > interpretation. Feel free to take your time.
>
> Chock full of qualifiers (surprise) and theory but it will happen, in
> time.
Oh, so in other words you cannot. And you don't know how. And you
still say I'm wrong even though you don't understand why that is
so.
Tell me the next time you get published using that methodology.
--
Keith Morrison
lone...@nbnet.nb.ca