66 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE HOLOCAUST

68 views
Skip to first unread message

Ralph Winston

unread,
Mar 9, 1992, 7:35:04 PM3/9/92
to

*** 66 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE HOLOCAUST ***
_____________________________________________________________________

Published by the Institute for Historical Review
1822 1/2 Newport Blvd. * Suite 191 * Costa Mesa, California 92627
Extra copies of this Question and Answer sheet, 10 copies $2, 50 copies
$5, 100 or more copies 8 cents each
_____________________________________________________________________

1. What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately
killed six million Jews?
None. The only evidence is the testimony of individual
"survivors." This testimony is contradictory, and few "survivors" claim
to have actually witnessed any gassing. There is no hard evidence
whatsoever: no mounds of ashes, no crematoria capable of doing the job,
no piles of clothes, no human soap, no lamp shades made of human skin,
no records, no credible demographic statistics.

2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the
Nazis?
Extensive evidence, including that of a forensic, demographic,
analytical and comparative nature, exists demonstrating the
IMPOSSIBILITY of such a figure, an exaggeration of, perhaps, 1000%.

3. Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil"?
Yes. In _Books and Bookmen_, April, 1975 issue. He claims the
"gassings" of the Jews took place in Poland.

4. If Dachau was in Germany and even Simon Wiesenthal says that it was
not an extermination camp, why do thousands of veterans in America say
that it was an extermination camp?
Because after the Allies captured Dachau, thousands of G.I.s
were led through Dachau and shown buildings alleged to be gas chambers,
and because the mass-media widely, but falsely, stated that Dachau was
a "gassing" camp.

5. Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that gas
chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in
Auschwitz?
No. A reward of $50,000 was offered for such proof, the money
being held in trust by a bank, but no one came up with any credible
evidence. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was extensively modified
after the war and a mortuary was reconstructed to look like a large
"gas chamber." It is now a big tourist attraction for the Communist
Polish government.

6. If Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp," what was its true purpose?
It was a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic rubber
(Buna) was made there, and its inmates were used as a workforce. The
Buna process was used in the U.S. during WWII.

7. Who set up the first concentration camps, and where and when?
The first use of concentration camps in the Western world was
apparently in America during the Revolutionary War. The British
interned thousands of Americans, many of whom died of disease and
beatings. Andrew Jackson and his brother -who died- were two. Later the
British set up concentration camps in South Africa to hold Afrikaner
women and children during their conquest of that country (the Boer
War). Tens of thousands died in these hell-holes, which were far worse
than any German concentration camp of WWII.

8. How did German concentration camps differ from American relocation
camps which interned Japanese-German-and Italian-Americans during WWII?
Except for the name, the only significant difference was that
the Germans interned persons on the basis of being a real or suspected
security threat to the German war effort, whereas the Americans
interned persons on the basis of race alone.

9. Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?
Because the Germans considered Jews a direct threat to their
national sovereignty and survival, and because Jews were overwhelmingly
represented in Communist subversion. However, all suspected security
risks -not only Jews- were in danger of internment.

10. What extensive measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as
early as 1933?
An international boycott of German goods.

11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?
Yes. The world media carried the headlines, "Judea Declares War
on Germany."

12. Was this before or after the rumors of the "death camps" began?
Nearly six years BEFORE. Judea declared war on Germany in 1933.

13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass
civilian bombing?
Great Britain-on 11 May 1940.

14. How many gas chambers to kill people were there at Auschwitz?
None.

15. How many Jews were in areas that came to be controlled by the
Germans before the war?
Fewer than four million.

16. If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what
happened to them?
After the war Jews of Europe were still in Europe, except for
perhaps 300,000 of them who had died of all causes during the war, and
those who had emigrated to Israel, the United States, Argentina,
Canada, etc. Most Jews who left Europe did so after, not during, the
war. They are all accounted for.

17. How many Jews fled to deep within the Soviet Union?
Over two million. The Germans did not have access to this
Jewish population.

18. How many Jews emigrated prior to the war, thus being outside of
German reach?
Over a million (not including those absorbed by the USSR).

19. If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant,
Rudolf Hoss, confess that it was?
He was tortured by Jewish interrogators in British uniform, as
one of them has subsequently admitted.

20. Is there any evidence that it was American, British, French, and
Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to exact confessions
before the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?
There is extensive evidence of torture having been used both
before and during the famous Nuremberg trials-and after, in the case of
other war crimes trials.

21. How does the "Holocaust" story benefit the Jews today?
It removes them from any criticism as a group. It provides a
"common bond" with which their leaders can control them. It is
instrumental in money-raising campaigns and to justify aid to Israel,
totaling about $10 billion per year.

22. How does it benefit the state of Israel?
It justifies the billions of dollars in "reparations" the State
of Israel has received from West Germany (East Germany has refused to
pay). It is used by the Zionist/Israeli lobby to control American
foreign policy toward Israel and to force American taxpayers to put up
all the money Israel wants. And the annual ante is growing each year.

23. How does it benefit many Christian clergymen?
It correlates with the Old Testament idea of Jews being the
persecuted "Chosen People." It also keeps the Israeli-controlled "Holy
Land" accessible to the clergy.

24. How does it benefit the Communists?
It hides the extent of their own war mongering and atrocities
before, during and after the war.

25. How does it benefit Britain?
In the same way it benefits the Soviet Union.

26. Is there any evidence that Hitler knew of a mass extermination of
Jews?
No.

27. What kind of gas was used by the Nazis in concentration camps?
Zyklon-B, a hydrocyanic gas.

28. For what purpose was, and is, this gas manufactured?
For the extermination of the typhus-bearing louse. It is used
to fumigate clothing and quarters. It is readily available today.

29. Why did they use this instead of a gas more suitable for mass
extermination?
If the Nazis had intended to use gas to exterminate people, far
more efficient gases were available. Zyklon-B is very inefficient
except when used as a fumigation agent.

30. How long does it take to ventilate fully an area fumigated by
Zyklon-B?
Normally about 20 hours. The whole procedure is extremely
involved and technical. Gas masks have to be used and only well-trained
technicians are employed.

31. Auschwitz commandant Hoss said that his men would enter the gas
chamber ten minutes after the Jews had died and remove them. How do you
explain this?
It can't be explained because had they done so they would have
suffered the same fate as the previous occupants.

32. Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as
they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after
gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive?
Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false.

33. What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to
exterminate Jews?
The stories range from dropping the gas canisters into a
crowded room from a hole in the ceiling, to piping it through shower
heads. "Millions" of Jews are alleged to have been killed in this
manner.

34. How could such a mass program have been kept secret from Jews who
were scheduled for extermination?
It couldn't have been kept secret. The fact is that there was
no such mass-gassing anywhere. The extermination rumors came from
strictly Jewish sources.

35. If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them,
why did they go to their death without fight or protest?
They didn't fight or protest simply because they knew there was
no intention to kill them. They were simply interned and forced to
work.

36. About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?
About 300,000.

37. How did they die?
Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn
Europe during the period. Also from starvation and lack of medical
attention toward the end of the war when virtually all road and rail
transportation had been bombed out by the Allies.

38. What is typhus?
The disease always appears when many people are jammed together
for long periods without bathing. It is carried by lice which infest
hair and clothes. Armies and navies have traditionally required short
haircuts on their men because of the danger of typhus. Ironically, if
the Germans had used more Zyklon-B, more Jews might have survived life
in the concentration camps.

39. What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during
this awesome period?
5,700,000. Besides -and contrary to "Holocaust" propaganda-
there was no deliberate attempt to exterminate anyone.

40. Many Jewish survivors of the "death camps" say they saw bodies
being piled up in pits and burned. How much gasoline would have to be
used to perform this?
A great deal more than the Germans had access to, as there was
a substantial fuel shortage at that time.

41. Can bodies be burned in pits?
No, it is impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by
flames in this manner, as not enough heat can be generated in open
pits.

42. "Holocaust" authors claim that the Nazis were able to cremate
bodies in about 10 minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one
body according to professional cremator operators?
About 2 hours.

43. Why did the concentration camps have crematory ovens?
To dispose efficiently and sanitarily of the corpses created by
the typhus epidemics.

44. Given a 100% duty cycle of all the crematoria in all the camps in
German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it
would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such
crematoria were in operation?
About 430,600.

45. Can a crematory oven be operated 100% of the time?
No. 50% of the time is a generous estimate (12 hours per day).
Cremator ovens have to be cleaned thoroughly and regularly when in
heavy operation.

46. How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?
After the bone is all ground down, about a shoe box full.

47. If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what
happened to the ashes?
That remains to be "explained." Six million bodies would
produce literally tons upon tons of ashes. Yet there is no evidence of
any large depositories of such ash.

48. Do Allied wartime photos of Auschwitz (during the period when the
"gas chambers" and crematoria were supposed to be in full operation)
reveal gas chambers?
No. In fact, these photographs do not even reveal a trace of
the enormous amounts of smoke which were supposedly constantly over the
camp. Nor do they evidence the "open pits" in which bodies were
allegedly burned.

49. What was the main provision of the German "Nuremberg laws" of 1935?
Laws against intermarriage and sexual relations between Germans
and Jews, similar to laws existing in Israel today.

50. Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?
Many states in the U.S.A. had laws preventing intermarriage and
sexual relations between persons of different races long before the
Nazis.

51. What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to
the "Holocaust" question?
A report on the visit of an IRC delegate to Auschwitz in
September, 1944 pointed out that internees were permitted to receive
packages and that rumors of gas chambers could not be verified.

52. What was the role of the Vatican during the time the six million
Jews were alleged to have been exterminated?
If there had been an extermination plan, the Vatican would most
certainly have been in a position to know. But since there was none,
the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it.

53. What evidence is there that Hitler knew of the ongoing Jewish
extermination?
None.

54. Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?
Before the war, Germany signed an agreement with the Zionists
permitting Jews to take large amounts of capital to Palestine. During
the war, the Germans maintained cordial relations with the Zionist
leadership.

55. What caused Anne Frank's death just several weeks before the end of
the war?
Typhus.

56. Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?
No, the evidence compiled by Ditlieb Felderer of Sweden and Dr.
Robert Faurisson of France establishes conclusively that the famous
diary is a literary hoax.

57. What about the numerous photographs and footage taken in the German
concentration camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these
faked?
Photographs can be faked, yes. But it's far easier merely to
add a caption or comment to a photo or a piece of footage that does not
tell the truth about what that photo or film actually shows. Does a
pile of emaciated corpses mean that these people were "gassed" or
deliberately starved to death? Or could this mean that these people
were victims of a raging typhus epidemic or starved due to the lack of
food in the camps toward the end of the war? Pictures of piles of
German women and children killed in Allied bombing raids have been
passed off as dead Jews.

58. Who originated the term "genocide"?
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in a book which appeared in 1944.

59. Were films such as _Holocaust_ and _The Winds of War_ documentary
films?
No, the films do not claim to be history, rather fictional
dramatizations BASED on history. Unfortunately, all too many people
have taken them to be accurate representations of history as it really
happened.

60. About how many books have been published which refute some aspect
of the standard claims made about the "Holocaust"?
At least 60. More are in process of production.

61. What happened when a historical institute offered $50,000 to anyone
who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
No proof was submitted as a claim on the reward, but the
institute was sued for $17 million by a "Holocaust" survivor who claims
the reward offer caused him to lose sleep, caused his business to
suffer, and represented "injurious denial of established fact."

62. What about the claim that those who question the "Holocaust" are
anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?
This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and
honest arguments. Scholars who refute "Holocaust" claims are of all
persuasions- Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, socialists,
Christians, Jews, etc. There is no correlation between "Holocaust"
refutation and anti-Semitism or neo-Nazism. As a matter of fact, there
are increasing numbers of Jewish scholars who openly admit that
evidence for the "Holocaust" is severely lacking.

63. What has happened to the historians who have questioned the
"Holocaust" material?
They have been subject to smear campaigns, loss of academic
positions, loss of pensions, destruction of their property and physical
violence.

64. Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation
for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic
freedom?
The IHR had been bombed three times and completely destroyed on
July 4, 1984 by a criminal arson attack. Death threats by telephone are
virtually a daily occurence. All newspaper coverage is hostile, if
there is any coverage at all.

65. Why is there so little publicity for your point of view?
Because for political reasons the Establishment does not want
any in-depth discussion about the facts surrounding the "Jewish
Holocaust" myth.

66. Where can I get more information about the "other side" of the
"Holocaust" story as well as facts concerning other areas of WWII
Historical Revisionism?
The Institute for Historical Review, 1822 1/2 Newport Blvd.,
#191, Costa Mesa, CA 92627, carries a wide variety of books, cassette
and video tapes on significant historical subjects.
_____________________________________________________________________

FOR MORE IN-DEPTH STUDY OF THE HOLOCAUST, READ THESE BOOKS AVAILABLE
FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW: _The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century_ by Arthur Butz, Hb., $15.95, Pb., $9.95. _The Holocaust Story
and the Lies of Ulysses_ (available May 1, 1988). _The Auschwitz Myth_
by Wilhelm Staeglich, Hb., $19.95. _No Time for Silence_ by Austin J.
Ap, Pb., $6.95. _The Holocaust-120 Questions and Answers_ by Charles
Weber, Pb., $4.00. _Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?_ by Robert
Faurisson, Pb., $5.00. _The Journal of Historical Review_, quarterly,
published by the IHR, subscription price of $40 per year includes the
_IHR Newsletter_. Cassette tapes of IHR Revisionist conference
lectures, $8.95. Write today for our catalog of books, cassettes and
videotapes.

Ralph Winston

-.-
Banished CPU supports FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Currently no fees.
CALL: +1(503) 232-6566 (8N1, v.32/42/bis) or +1(503) 232-5783 (8N1)
UUCP: Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!
Users of Banished CPU are solely responsible for their actions.

Stan Krieger

unread,
Mar 10, 1992, 9:37:03 AM3/10/92
to
In article <gate.6s2...@b-cpu.UUCP> ral...@b-cpu.UUCP (Shitbrain) writes:

> *** 66 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE HOLOCAUST ***

(Most of the anti-Semitic neo-Nazi crap deleted)

>3. Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that "there were no
>extermination camps on German soil"?
> Yes. In _Books and Bookmen_, April, 1975 issue. He claims the
>"gassings" of the Jews took place in Poland.

Shitbrain, this is no big deal. It's on the record that the "extermination"
camps were in Poland.



>5. Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that gas
>chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in
>Auschwitz?
> No. A reward of $50,000 was offered for such proof, the money
>being held in trust by a bank, but no one came up with any credible
>evidence. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was extensively modified
>after the war and a mortuary was reconstructed to look like a large
>"gas chamber." It is now a big tourist attraction for the Communist
>Polish government.

There was a recent posting that the reward was paid. Why do you
still utter the above lie.

It is also a FACT, dipshit, that the Germans destroyed Auschwitz before
the Russians got there. We told you this already, are you retarded?

>Banished CPU supports FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Currently no fees.
>CALL: +1(503) 232-6566 (8N1, v.32/42/bis) or +1(503) 232-5783 (8N1)
>UUCP: Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>Users of Banished CPU are solely responsible for their actions.

Shitbrain,

Please remove the above referenced anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi statement
from your .signature or system's mailer.
--
Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
AT&T UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
s...@usl.com

Lawrence C. Foard

unread,
Mar 10, 1992, 12:46:26 PM3/10/92
to
In article <gate.6s2...@b-cpu.UUCP> ral...@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph Winston) writes:
>
> *** 66 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE HOLOCAUST ***

66 lies about the holocaust.


>_____________________________________________________________________
>
> Published by the Institute for Historical Review
> 1822 1/2 Newport Blvd. * Suite 191 * Costa Mesa, California 92627
>Extra copies of this Question and Answer sheet, 10 copies $2, 50 copies
>$5, 100 or more copies 8 cents each
>_____________________________________________________________________
>
>1. What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately
>killed six million Jews?
> None. The only evidence is the testimony of individual
>"survivors."

So eyewitness evidence is invalid?

>This testimony is contradictory, and few "survivors" claim
>to have actually witnessed any gassing.

How many people survive being gassed?

>There is no hard evidence
>whatsoever: no mounds of ashes, no crematoria capable of doing the job,
>no piles of clothes, no human soap, no lamp shades made of human skin,
>no records, no credible demographic statistics.

Please respond to the other posts that give hard evidence.

>2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the
>Nazis?
> Extensive evidence, including that of a forensic, demographic,
>analytical and comparative nature, exists demonstrating the
>IMPOSSIBILITY of such a figure, an exaggeration of, perhaps, 1000%.

Please give us references we can look up for ourselves.

>3. Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that "there were no
>extermination camps on German soil"?
> Yes. In _Books and Bookmen_, April, 1975 issue. He claims the
>"gassings" of the Jews took place in Poland.

Its ok to kill 6 million jews as long as it isn't done in Germany?

>6. If Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp," what was its true purpose?
> It was a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic rubber
>(Buna) was made there, and its inmates were used as a workforce. The
>Buna process was used in the U.S. during WWII.

Where is the evidence for this?

>8. How did German concentration camps differ from American relocation
>camps which interned Japanese-German-and Italian-Americans during WWII?

Could it have to do with the people coming back out after?

> Except for the name, the only significant difference was that
>the Germans interned persons on the basis of being a real or suspected
>security threat to the German war effort, whereas the Americans
>interned persons on the basis of race alone.
>9. Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?
> Because the Germans considered Jews a direct threat to their
>national sovereignty and survival, and because Jews were overwhelmingly
>represented in Communist subversion. However, all suspected security
>risks -not only Jews- were in danger of internment.

What a load of anti-semitic BS. Please show me one Jew who was known to
be jewish and not arrested....

>10. What extensive measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as
>early as 1933?
> An international boycott of German goods.

Oh how horrible. Well I guess that justifies genocide... NOT

>11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?
> Yes. The world media carried the headlines, "Judea Declares War
>on Germany."

A boycott is not war in the conventional sense. This is a blatant distortion
when taken out of context.

>21. How does the "Holocaust" story benefit the Jews today?
> It removes them from any criticism as a group. It provides a
>"common bond" with which their leaders can control them. It is
>instrumental in money-raising campaigns and to justify aid to Israel,
>totaling about $10 billion per year.

How does the revisionist lie help you?

>24. How does it benefit the Communists?

What communists?

>29. Why did they use this instead of a gas more suitable for mass
>extermination?
> If the Nazis had intended to use gas to exterminate people, far
>more efficient gases were available. Zyklon-B is very inefficient
>except when used as a fumigation agent.
>
>30. How long does it take to ventilate fully an area fumigated by
>Zyklon-B?
> Normally about 20 hours. The whole procedure is extremely
>involved and technical. Gas masks have to be used and only well-trained
>technicians are employed.

Does any one see a problem with 29 and 30? In 29 Zyklon-B is a harmless
pesticide, in 30 it is so dangerous it can only be handled by well trained
technicians...

>31. Auschwitz commandant Hoss said that his men would enter the gas
>chamber ten minutes after the Jews had died and remove them. How do you
>explain this?
> It can't be explained because had they done so they would have
>suffered the same fate as the previous occupants.

Unlike a building a room full of dead bodies can be quickly ventilated,
people also die much more quickly from poison than lice do, I suspect
much of the 20 hours refered to is to allow it to attack insects.

>32. Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as
>they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after
>gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive?
> Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false.

Explosive and toxic, maybe they ventilated the rooms first? I doubt
a person would survive long in an explosive mixture of the gas...



>34. How could such a mass program have been kept secret from Jews who
>were scheduled for extermination?
> It couldn't have been kept secret. The fact is that there was
>no such mass-gassing anywhere. The extermination rumors came from
>strictly Jewish sources.

You mean all the invading armies where Jewish? This is a new one...



>35. If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them,
>why did they go to their death without fight or protest?
> They didn't fight or protest simply because they knew there was
>no intention to kill them. They were simply interned and forced to
>work.

If you wanted to arrest someone without a fight would you tell them
you where going to kill them?

>47. If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what
>happened to the ashes?
> That remains to be "explained." Six million bodies would
>produce literally tons upon tons of ashes. Yet there is no evidence of
>any large depositories of such ash.

How hard is it to dispose of several tons of ash?
Hint: How many tons of dirt are moved building a house?

>60. About how many books have been published which refute some aspect
>of the standard claims made about the "Holocaust"?
> At least 60. More are in process of production.

Repeating the same lies over and over doesn't make them true.

>62. What about the claim that those who question the "Holocaust" are
>anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?
> This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and
>honest arguments.

The only smear campaign I see is the one being run by the revisionists,
they make up censorship of there ideas just to ligitimize them.

>Scholars who refute "Holocaust" claims are of all
>persuasions- Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, socialists,
>Christians, Jews, etc. There is no correlation between "Holocaust"
>refutation and anti-Semitism or neo-Nazism.

hahahahahhaha

>As a matter of fact, there
>are increasing numbers of Jewish scholars who openly admit that
>evidence for the "Holocaust" is severely lacking.

Increased from 1 to 2...

--
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact". ------
This is a mutated signature virus, if you don't put it in your .sig \ /
file you may lose your job, your dog may be run over, and you may die. \ /
If you repent and add the .sig you may win the lottery and get laid. \/

Ken Shirriff

unread,
Mar 10, 1992, 4:29:42 PM3/10/92
to
In article <gate.6s2...@b-cpu.UUCP> ral...@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph Winston) writes:
> *** 66 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE HOLOCAUST ***

I've been waiting to see this again. I've pointed out twice before that
question 32 is totally flawed (e.g. my message
<kkq1is...@agate.berkeley.edu> in alt.conspiracy on Dec 16.)
and I haven't got any response from Ralph Winston.
This reveals the lie that the revisionists are interested in a rational
debate and in finding the truth.

>27. What kind of gas was used by the Nazis in concentration camps?
> Zyklon-B, a hydrocyanic gas.

>30. How long does it take to ventilate fully an area fumigated by
>Zyklon-B?
> Normally about 20 hours. The whole procedure is extremely
>involved and technical. Gas masks have to be used and only well-trained
>technicians are employed.

Ventilation is a simple problem; it's not rocket science. I checked a
HVAC handbook and found that under current building standards, 12 air
changes per hour is common (e.g. garages, toilets, gymnasiums) and other
spaces get up to 60 air changes per hour (e.g. commercial kitchens).
In other words, it is straightforward to replace the air in a room once every
minute. I don't know what hat Ralph pulled the 20 hour figure out of.

>31. Auschwitz commandant Hoss said that his men would enter the gas
>chamber ten minutes after the Jews had died and remove them. How do you
>explain this?
> It can't be explained because had they done so they would have
>suffered the same fate as the previous occupants.

It could be explained by ventilation (exhausting a room in 10 minutes is
easy), by gas masks, or by Hoss underestimating the time.

>32. Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as
>they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after
>gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive?
> Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false.

The limits of inflammability of HCN in air are 5.60% to 40.00%, according to
the CRC Handbook. That is, if the HCN concentration is less than 5.6% it
will be too lean to burn. 5.6% is 56 000 parts per million.
According to the Merck index, 300 parts per million of HCN can cause death
in a few minutes. Thus, the lethal concentration is more than two orders
of magnitude below the explosive concentration so there never would have
been an explosive concentration in the gas chambers. Besides, ventilating
the chambers for 10 minutes would remove the HCN.
Ralph's statement is obviously false.

I've corrected the revisionist mistakes twice before, so I don't really
expect they'll change now. Wait and see if the "66 question" article gets
reposted unchanged in 3 more months. Also see if the revisionists actually
make a reply to my referenced facts.

On another topic, somebody in alt.conspiracy should write a satire on Ralph's
article: "66 questions showing Kennedy wasn't killed".
Q1: Could Oswald have shot Kennedy with his rifle?
A1: No. Oswald was a poor marksman and his rifle was very inaccurate.
Obviously Oswald could not have hit Kennedy, so Kennedy is still alive.
Q2: Was Kennedy's "autopsy" carried out correctly?
A2: There were several contradictions. Obviously the autopsy wasn't carried
out proving Kennedy wasn't killed.
(Well, someone who knows the Kennedy details could do a much better job.)

Ken Shirriff shir...@sprite.Berkeley.EDU

Mark Weinstock

unread,
Mar 10, 1992, 4:31:42 PM3/10/92
to
On 10-Mar-92 in 66 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON..
user Ralph Win...@b-cpu.UUCP writes his own answers to a bunch of
questions that he himself poses.

Basically, Ralph, what you're saying is that everyone is lying. All the
Jews (not Zionists, for once, use the proper term), every confessed
Nazi, the government of all the allied forces. Everyone is in on this
lie. The Jews, being the incredibly powerful force that they are in the
world, with about 15-30 million world-wide, undermine governments,
control the world economy, infiltrate armed forces and use them as tools
of torture, and essentially caused everything bad that has happened in
the past fifty years. We're probably repsonsible for the Iraqi invasion
of Kuwait.

All of this, to me, sounds just like the pure crap that was spewed
before the Nazis (not Germans) decided to exterminate the Jews.The
scariest part about all this is that people might actually believe you.
I have sat back for many of these discussions, content to see others
show you to be ignorant. This type of outburst probably plays right into
your hands. But I am truly frightened that someone of your obvious
intelligence can exude such hatred.

Just for a minute, lets assume that there was not mass extermination of
6,000,000 Jews, and others during WWII. So what? It was fifty years ago.
Are you saying that you are being discriminated against because of this?
Do the Jews, because of this event, suddenly have so much more unearned
power than they did before the war?

And what do Zionists have to do with this at all? Do you even understand
what a Zionist is? You're signature says "UUCP: Path (..twiki!b-cpu)
"ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!" What exactly does this mean?
Were you thrown off a net for this junk?

In addition, could you please explain which laws in Israel you are
refering to when you write, "Laws against intermarriage and sexual
relations between Germans
and Jews, similar to laws existing in Israel today." I would be very
interested to know who in Israel is effected by these laws.

Essentially, all your questions are set-ups, and all your answers are
half-truths, misinformation, or outright lies. At least I hope they are
lies (not just that you lack the ability to know), otherwise you ARE as
ignorant as you seem.

You constantly quote members of the IHR as if this was a credible,
impartial organization. Are there any members of the group that are not
Revisionists? Or is this simply an official organization, like the Ku
Klux Klan.

I would welcome any intelliegent response, OR something from b-CPU. The
two seem to be mutually exclusive.

-Mark

Barry Shein

unread,
Mar 10, 1992, 9:26:34 PM3/10/92
to

"Apart from that I gave orders that all men should stand as far away
as possible from van during the gassings, so that their health would
not be damaged by any escaping gases. I would like to take this
opportunity to draw your attention to the following: Some of the
Kommandos are using their own men to unload the vans after the
gassing. I have made commanders of the Sonderkommandos in question
aware of the enormous psychological and physical damage this work can
do to the men, if not immediately then at a later stage."

Dr August Becker on 16 May 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuherer Rauff

In collaboration with the group staff and two Kommandos of Police
Regiment South, on 29 and 30 September 1941 Sonderkommando 4a executed
33,771 Jews in Kiev.

Ereignismeldung UdSSR, No. 101, 2 October 1941

During my visit to Kumhof I also saw the extermination installation,
with the lorry which had been set up for killing by means of motor
exhaust fumes. The head of the Kommando told me that this method,
however, was very unreliable, as the gas build-up was very irregular
and was often insufficient for killing.

Rudolf Hoss, Commandant of Auschwitz, on a vist to Chelmno
on 16 September 1942

From a speech by Adolf Hitler, January 30, 1942, Berlin Sports Palace:

"This war will not end as the Jews imagine, namely, in the liquidation
of all the European and Aryan poeples; the outcome of this war will be
the extermination of Jewry. For the first time it will not be other
nations who will bleed to death. For the first time we will practice
the ancient Jewish law: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

"At the beginning of August 1941 the Einsatzkommandofuhrer of
Einsatzgruppe C were ordered to report to Dr Rasch (Head of
Einsatzgruppe C) in Zhitomir. There Dr Rasch revealed to us that
Gruppen fuhrer Jeckeln had delivered an order from Reichsfuhrer-SS
Himmler that from then on all Jews not engaged in work were to be shot
along with their families."

Erwin Schulz, head of Einsatzkommando 5
--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD

gordon e. banks

unread,
Mar 11, 1992, 4:53:34 PM3/11/92
to
In article <gate.6s2...@b-cpu.UUCP> ral...@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph Winston) writes:
>evidence. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was extensively modified
>after the war and a mortuary was reconstructed to look like a large
>"gas chamber." It is now a big tourist attraction for the Communist
>Polish government.
>
Are you still posting this ancient tract? Poland has not been communist
for several years now. How many years are you going to continue to
post this?

>than any German concentration camp of WWII.
>
>8. How did German concentration camps differ from American relocation
>camps which interned Japanese-German-and Italian-Americans during WWII?
> Except for the name, the only significant difference was that
>the Germans interned persons on the basis of being a real or suspected
>security threat to the German war effort, whereas the Americans
>interned persons on the basis of race alone.
>
Did the Americans perform medical experiments on the Japanese inmates?
Nazis performed them on Jews and we have that data today. In fact
some of our knowledge of hypothermia comes from these experiments
where they threw Jews into tanks of ice water and monitored them
until they died.


>9. Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?
> Because the Germans considered Jews a direct threat to their
>national sovereignty and survival, and because Jews were overwhelmingly
>represented in Communist subversion. However, all suspected security
>risks -not only Jews- were in danger of internment.
>
David Irving also documents greed as a reason. Many of the more
wealthy Jews were sent off to be exterminated and their property
ended up in the personal coffers of the SS men who murdered them.
Even those who had nothing but gold teeth served to enrich their
Aryan conquerers.


>11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?
> Yes. The world media carried the headlines, "Judea Declares War
>on Germany."
>
And how many Germans did "Judea" kill in this war?
Of course, Mein Kampf declared war on Jews years before that.


>13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass
>civilian bombing?
> Great Britain-on 11 May 1940.

Does the name "Guernica" ring a bell? I seem to recall
that being a bit before 1940.

>
>16. If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what
>happened to them?
> After the war Jews of Europe were still in Europe, except for
>perhaps 300,000 of them who had died of all causes during the war, and
>those who had emigrated to Israel, the United States, Argentina,
>Canada, etc. Most Jews who left Europe did so after, not during, the
>war. They are all accounted for.
>

Almost every Jew I know can tell me the names of relatives
they have never been able to contact since the war. Where
are they, on the moon?

>21. How does the "Holocaust" story benefit the Jews today?
> It removes them from any criticism as a group. It provides a
>"common bond" with which their leaders can control them. It is
>instrumental in money-raising campaigns and to justify aid to Israel,
>totaling about $10 billion per year.
>

Now we are getting down to your motives for pushing this story.
Do Jews warrant criticism as a group? Because they are Jews?
What is the commonality between all Jews that needs criticism?
Who are their leaders that are controlling them?

>62. What about the claim that those who question the "Holocaust" are
>anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?
> This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and
>honest arguments. Scholars who refute "Holocaust" claims are of all

Here's a question for you. Why does your press (the Noontide Press)
publish such books as a fancy coffee table book of the Art of Adolf
Hitler? Do you really think Hitler was such a gifted artist
that people are attracted to his art aside from being attracted
to the man and his philosophy? Does his art stand on its own
or is it because your customers are neo-Nazis who slobber over
everything their Furher did?

Also, the idea that Jews need to be criticized as a group is
anti-Semitic on its face.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks N3JXP | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
g...@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu | to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Lustiger

unread,
Mar 12, 1992, 1:50:39 PM3/12/92
to
I hope you find this interesting. I know I did.

----------------------------------------------------------------

25 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE "ATOMIC BOMB"

1. Is there any evidence that a thermonuclear device exploded over
Hiroshima in 1945?

No, absolutely none. According to leading historians and physicists,
the thermonuclear bomb was not invented until years after the supposed
detonation over Japanese territory.

2. Is there any evidence that a uranium-based "atom bomb" was ever dropped
onto Nagasaki, Japan?

Absolutely not. While many historians and journalists made this claim
in the late 40's and early 50's, everyone now agrees that no such
bomb ever exploded over Nagasaki. Yet there are some who still stubbornly
cling to this supposed "fact."

3. What are the materials needed to make an "atom bomb?"

Uranium-238 and plutonium-239.

4. Aren't these materials radioactive?

Highly so. Anybody who attempts to use these materials is endangering
his/her life.

5. Is it likely that nuclear scientists in the 40's would be
handling uranium and plutonium?

This would be highly unlikely. Very few people felt so threatened
by the Japanese to be willing to risk their lives on a theoretical
chance of a superbomb that could end a far-away war a little sooner.

6. Aren't there witnesses to the atomic bomb in Hiroshima?

The only "witnesses" that could possibly survived this supposed
explosion would have been blinded by the intense flash of light,
so their testimony is quite unreliable and contradictory.

7. According to conventional historians, was the uranium bomb tested
before supposedly being dropped over Hiroshima?

No. There was no testing whatsoever of a uranium bomb in Alamogordo
or anywhere else before Hiroshima.

8. Isn't that strange?

Yes. Typical weapons are tested for months and years before deployment;
there is no other weapon that according to the accepted "facts" deployed
before any testing whatsoever.

9. How many witnesses are there for all of the atomic tests allegedly
occuring during the fifties and sixties?

Very few, perhaps a few hundred, who claimed to have seen them.

10. What did the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy
Commission say in their report of October 30, 1949?

They recommended strongly against the development of what they
called the "Super Bomb," which is simply a thermonuclear
bomb. They said that "A super bomb might become a weapon of
genocide."

11. Isn't this four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Yes. Obviously development of nuclear weapons occurred well
after their supposed implementation in 1945.

12. Is radioactivity dangerous?

Everything is radioactive to some extent.

13. What was the triggering method of the bomb that supposedly
was dropped on Hiroshima?

According to the standard historical accounts, it used a gun-
assembly trigger.

14. Wasn't the gun-assembly method of triggering abandoned
in the design stage?

Yes; according to these same sources the gun method would not
work with uranium-derived plutonium-239 because some of the
plutonium-239 absorbs a neutron to become plutonium-240, which
undergoes spontaneous fission, all before supercriticality,
causing a premature and very small explosion that is unusable
for the very purpose that it was supposedly designed for!

15. How do conventional historians rectify these two "facts?"

They don't even attempt to.

16. How many books have been written about the atomic bomb?

Many hundreds, as well as thousands of articles in magazines
and newspapers.

17. Why was Hiroshima "targeted," and not Tokyo?

Perhaps because no one had heard of Hiroshima, and no one knew anyone
from there. It would be far more difficult to claim that Tokyo was bombed
than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, most world maps from before "World
War Two" do not even mention these cities at all.

18. How does Japan benefit from the "atom bomb" story?

As a direct result of the "war," Japan has received billions of dollars
worth of US aid for its defense. Japan has essentially no defense
budget, so it can pour resources through MITI into defeating the US
economically, all while playing on the emotions of anti-"nuke" activists
about the "horrors" of nuclear weapons.

19. Wow, I never thought of that. How else do the Japanese
benefit from this story?

The Japanese now own major Hollywood studios, from which many war
movies are produced. Also, they play upon our sympathy for the
supposed "atom bomb" to blind us to the fact that this foreign
nation had taken over our semiconductor industry, many California
banks and practically the entire state of Hawaii.

This is all a part of the Japanese plot to take over the world.
According to the "Protocols of the Elders of the Orient," this
is a Japanese conspiracy all foretold by their ancient texts
that very few Anglo-Saxons have the ability to read.

19. How many people are supposed to have died in the explosions?

It is hard to say. Some sources say 60,000 in Hiroshima, others say
140,000. No attempt has been made to rectify the various numbers.

20. How many people die annually from car accidents in the US?

Over 50,000.

21. So, what makes Hiroshima so special?

Nothing, especially given the contradictory evidence about it.

22. Boy, I'm mad. What should I do about this?

Glad you asked. First, send me lots of money so we can spread this
message far and wide. Maybe we'll take out ads in college newspapers
or something.

Second, direct your anger at the Japanese. We are the victims, and
they are the aggressors. Make yourself feel important again by bashing
Japan at every opportunity. Japanese people are inherently evil, and
basically subhuman. They were never bombed, and if they would have been
they would have deserved it. Who do they think they are, anyway?

Yes, we Revisionists have all the answers. Life is a lot simpler than
you thought it was. Join us, and you won't have to be bothered anymore
by any feelings of guilt for your inherent hatred. We can justify it!
Oh, it's not the Japanese you hate, but the crippled? Hey - so do we!
It's easy: we don't like feeling uncomfortable around people in wheelchairs,
either! Who do they think they are, taking all the good parking spaces
when they were stupid enough to slip on a banana peel? IT'S A
CONSPIRACY! --See how easy it is to start? Now, just mix in a few
real facts, and start converting all of the otherwise messed-up
people to OUR CAUSE!

23. Wow! You mean that I could write stuff like this, too?

Sure! It's embarrasingly easy to write what we wrote above. In fact,
it's even superior to the usual anti-Semitic revisionist garbage,
because it has a higher percentage of REAL FACTS! Most of the
apparent "contradictions" above come from the facts that Nagasaki
was bombed by a plutonium bomb, not uranium; and that hydrogen
bombs are thermonuclear, not atomic bombs. Just juggle information
about the different types of bombs and mix them up so they seem to
be contradicting each other. It doesn't take ANY INTELLIGENCE
WHATSOEVER, and you can get lots of free air time on "48 Hours"!

Oh, I forgot to mention: I have a Japanese girlfriend who agrees
with EVERY WORD I've written above. Here she is:

"Yes, I am his Japanese girlfriend. I love him very much, and I've
always been troubled by my Japanese friends claiming to know people
who died in Hiroshima."

There you have it! Just throw some unverifiable opinions on top
of ridiculous proofs to STRENGTHEN YOUR CASE!

24. Couldn't I be arrested for this?

No! This country is founded on FREE SPEECH! But, just make sure
that you mention how much you are being persecuted for saying
your version of history. (More than three email messages a day
qualify for being called harrassment. Five may merit a lawsuit.)

25. Where can I get more information?

Go to a library. Take a book at random. Skim it. Then, decide how
that book is either for you or against you. If it is for you, quote
liberally and out of context. If against you, do the same.

DON"T LET YOURSELF GET CONFUSED BY THE FACTS! We certainly don't!

------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Alan Lustiger
|_ | | AT&T Bell Laboratories ERC, Princeton, NJ
/ |( attmail!alustiger or att!pruxk!alu or lust...@att.com

Paultje Bakker

unread,
Mar 13, 1992, 1:06:04 AM3/13/92
to
In article <1992Mar10....@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> st...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>In article <gate.6s2...@b-cpu.UUCP> ral...@b-cpu.UUCP (Shitbrain) writes:
>
>> *** 66 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE HOLOCAUST ***
>
>>5. Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that gas
>>chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in
>>Auschwitz?
>>[..] Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was extensively modified

>>after the war and a mortuary was reconstructed to look like a large
>>"gas chamber." It is now a big tourist attraction for the Communist
>>Polish government.
>
>It is also a FACT, dipshit, that the Germans destroyed Auschwitz before
>the Russians got there. We told you this already, are you retarded?

This is a fact?
Auschwitz was not destroyed by the Germans; they only blew up *some*
of the Gas Chambers a few days before the Russians arrived.
Most of the original buildings (including all the brick ones at
Auschwitz proper) still exist today. Including one small gas-chamber.

I don't see the point in being economical with the truth, even if you
are on an anti-anti-semite crusade.

paultje

--
PaulBakker ------------------------------------- email:bak...@cs.uq.oz.au
Depts.ofComputerScience/Psychology,UniversityofQueensland,Qld4072,Australia

"He who slings mud is sure to lose ground" - Lady Flo

s6...@ac.dal.ca

unread,
Mar 13, 1992, 2:44:32 PM3/13/92
to
In article <1992Mar12.1...@cbnewsk.att.com>, a...@cbnewsk.att.com (Alan Lustiger) writes:
> I hope you find this interesting. I know I did.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 25 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE "ATOMIC BOMB"
>
> 1. Is there any evidence that a thermonuclear device exploded over
> Hiroshima in 1945?
>
> No, absolutely none. According to leading historians and physicists,
> the thermonuclear bomb was not invented until years after the supposed
> detonation over Japanese territory.
>
True. The thermonuclear bomb was not invented until the 50s. The
atomic bomb, on the other hand, was invented by the scientists at Los
Alamos in 1943-45. The two devices have different principles behind them.

2. Is there any evidence that a uranium-based "atom bomb" was ever dropped
> onto Nagasaki, Japan?
>
> Absolutely not. While many historians and journalists made this claim
> in the late 40's and early 50's, everyone now agrees that no such
> bomb ever exploded over Nagasaki. Yet there are some who still stubbornly
> cling to this supposed "fact."
>
> 3. What are the materials needed to make an "atom bomb?"
>
> Uranium-238 and plutonium-239.
>
> 4. Aren't these materials radioactive?
>
> Highly so. Anybody who attempts to use these materials is endangering
> his/her life.
>

True. Any idiot who attempts to use these materials without proper
safety equipment is endangering themselves. The scintists who developed the
bomb would have taken proper precautions.

> 5. Is it likely that nuclear scientists in the 40's would be
> handling uranium and plutonium?
>
> This would be highly unlikely. Very few people felt so threatened
> by the Japanese to be willing to risk their lives on a theoretical
> chance of a superbomb that could end a far-away war a little sooner.
>

WWII was looking very dark when the Manhattan project was begun, with
both German and Japanese forces rampaging across Europe and Asia. The bomb
was not developed specifically with the intent of dropping it on the
Japanese, but by the time, the bomb was finally designed and tested, the
Germans had surrendered. The prospects of invading the Japanese home islands
were grim, considering the resistance American forces had faced in their
island hopping campaign, so it was thought dropping the bomb on a relatively
untouched population center would make the Japanese think twice about
continuing the war.



> 6. Aren't there witnesses to the atomic bomb in Hiroshima?
>
> The only "witnesses" that could possibly survived this supposed
> explosion would have been blinded by the intense flash of light,
> so their testimony is quite unreliable and contradictory.
>

Eyewitnesses to the actual explosion, no. Eyewitnesses to the aftermath
of the explosion, yes.



> 7. According to conventional historians, was the uranium bomb tested
> before supposedly being dropped over Hiroshima?
>
> No. There was no testing whatsoever of a uranium bomb in Alamogordo
> or anywhere else before Hiroshima.

Yes it was. This then negates question 8 below.


>
> 8. Isn't that strange?
>
> Yes. Typical weapons are tested for months and years before deployment;
> there is no other weapon that according to the accepted "facts" deployed
> before any testing whatsoever.
>

> 10. What did the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy
> Commission say in their report of October 30, 1949?
>
> They recommended strongly against the development of what they
> called the "Super Bomb," which is simply a thermonuclear
> bomb. They said that "A super bomb might become a weapon of
> genocide."
>

The Russians had developed a nuclear bomb after the Americans had.
The commission was concerned that a "Bomb Race" would develop, with greater
and greater proliferation of the weapons. Thermonuclear weapons were developed,
against the recommendation of the commission, countered by the Soviets.
SURPRISE! Lots of nukes everywhere.

> 11. Isn't this four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
>
> Yes. Obviously development of nuclear weapons occurred well
> after their supposed implementation in 1945.
>

True. The second generation of nuclear weapons were first developed in the
50s.



> 17. Why was Hiroshima "targeted," and not Tokyo?
>
> Perhaps because no one had heard of Hiroshima, and no one knew anyone
> from there. It would be far more difficult to claim that Tokyo was bombed
> than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, most world maps from before "World
> War Two" do not even mention these cities at all.

Hiroshima was targeted because it was basically untouched by B-29
raids, while Tokyo was being bombed heavily. This made the damage caused by
the atom bomb easier to analyze.


>
> 18. How does Japan benefit from the "atom bomb" story?
>
> As a direct result of the "war," Japan has received billions of dollars
> worth of US aid for its defense. Japan has essentially no defense
> budget, so it can pour resources through MITI into defeating the US
> economically, all while playing on the emotions of anti-"nuke" activists
> about the "horrors" of nuclear weapons.
>
> 19. Wow, I never thought of that. How else do the Japanese
> benefit from this story?
>
> The Japanese now own major Hollywood studios, from which many war
> movies are produced. Also, they play upon our sympathy for the
> supposed "atom bomb" to blind us to the fact that this foreign
> nation had taken over our semiconductor industry, many California
> banks and practically the entire state of Hawaii.
>
> This is all a part of the Japanese plot to take over the world.
> According to the "Protocols of the Elders of the Orient," this
> is a Japanese conspiracy all foretold by their ancient texts
> that very few Anglo-Saxons have the ability to read.
>

Wow. The Japanese are beating you at your own economic game and now you
piss and moan. Fuck off. You make me sick.

> 19. How many people are supposed to have died in the explosions?
>
> It is hard to say. Some sources say 60,000 in Hiroshima, others say
> 140,000. No attempt has been made to rectify the various numbers.
>

About 60,000. More died in firebomb raids on Tokyo (approx. 111,000 on
a single raid), but a good return for one bomb.



> 20. How many people die annually from car accidents in the US?
>
> Over 50,000.
>

My heart pumps purple piss. Whats the point of this statistic anyway?
50,000 people dying over 1 year doesn't compare to 60,000 people dying from
a single bomb.

> 21. So, what makes Hiroshima so special?
>
> Nothing, especially given the contradictory evidence about it.
>

> 25. Where can I get more information?
>
> Go to a library. Take a book at random. Skim it. Then, decide how
> that book is either for you or against you. If it is for you, quote
> liberally and out of context. If against you, do the same.
>
> DON"T LET YOURSELF GET CONFUSED BY THE FACTS! We certainly don't!
>

Thats right. Facts. Who needs 'em?

Sean Dzafovic

Alex Wolf

unread,
Mar 13, 1992, 4:58:44 PM3/13/92
to
I just got done reading 66 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST by Mr. Ralph
Winston. Feelings ranging from shock to sickness to utter disgust are
what I felt from reading that. I will commend Mr. Winston on his research
abilities. I will not, however, fall into his trap and believe that there
was never a Holocaust.

My friend, one question:
Why would a German death camp (and that is exactly what they were) officer
admit to the killing of 6 million Jews? If anything, that would condemn him
more. And it isn't just one guard either. Many have admitted to the slaughter
of far more than 500,000. Wouldn't it make sense that they would only say
500,00 if they thought they could get away with it? The obvious answer is no
becuase there WERE far more than 500,000 Jews killed during the Holocaust.

I personally have met survivors of the Holocaust. For a research project, I
asked them to relive, however painful it may be, some of the things that went
on in the death camps. You may find this surprising Mr. Winston, but there
were Jews killed at Auschwitz and Dachau. From what my subjects could tell me,
there were approximately 100,000 people brought into each of their respective
camps. (I interviewed five people). That figure, although innaccurate,
accounts for about 500,000 people right there. If you expand that number
to include all of the death camps in Germany and Poland, you will find that
the number comes awfully close to about 4 to 6 million.

I would like to refer you to a movie Mr. Winston. It's called 'Escape from
Sobybor' and it is a historically correct film about a rebellion at one
of the German death camps. At the end, an update is given about the status
of each of the survivors from that rebellion. I think you will find it most
interesting.

From your post, Mr. Winston, I am not sure if you are trying to deny completely
the occurance of the Holocaust, or simply trying to somehow make it seem
that it wasn't really as bad as it seemed. Well trust me, it was that bad, if
not worse.

I do not agree with the Zionist movement. I think it is a nationalist, racist
attempt to somehow promote Jews. I do not, however, deny the existance of the
Holocaust. It DID happen.

--
/-/-/-/Alex Wolf-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/Ball State University/-/-Some people think,
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-00am...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu/-/-/-/-My brain just keeps the
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/Munice, IN 47306-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- top of my head from caving in

Ron Dippold

unread,
Mar 13, 1992, 9:55:28 PM3/13/92
to
s6...@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>
>> 25 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE "ATOMIC BOMB"

> Wow. The Japanese are beating you at your own economic game and now you


>piss and moan. Fuck off. You make me sick.

>> DON"T LET YOURSELF GET CONFUSED BY THE FACTS! We certainly don't!
>>
>Thats right. Facts. Who needs 'em?
> Sean Dzafovic

You didn't read the entire file before you spouted off in all
directions, did you? It seemed pretty obvious from the start (at
least to me) that this was a takeoff on the revisionist "fact files."
However, the end of the file should have removed any doubt, as he
specifically tells you what he's doing.
--
Jesus was killed by a Moral Majority.

William Houts 324-9788

unread,
Mar 15, 1992, 6:45:09 AM3/15/92
to

>1. What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately
>killed six million Jews? [Ad nauseam]
>
> Ralph Winston


Give us all a fucking break, Ralph, and credit for brain cells.
Thanks a bunch.

KUR...@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at

unread,
Mar 16, 1992, 3:47:15 AM3/16/92
to
Ok, no Jews were killed during the Hitler regime.
There is only one simple questions left: where are all the people gone?
Outta-space ? Mass suicide ?
Why don't you just come to Austria and recite these 66 neo-Nazi lies again
and you'll find yourself in a place where people like you gotta be:
in prison.
BTW, Austria's constitution is founded on free speech. Spreading lies
regarding the systematic extermination of 6 million jews during WW II is
considered a crime.

Roland.

s6...@ac.dal.ca

unread,
Mar 16, 1992, 2:22:43 PM3/16/92
to

Enough already! I now know it was a joke, so will everyone stop telling me
that and leave me in my misery. Maybe next time, I'll read the whole post before
I try and shoot it down. God, I feel stupid.

John Nagle

unread,
Mar 16, 1992, 4:24:03 PM3/16/92
to

A significant percentage of the population, when polled, responds
that the moon landing was a fake. Look for space program revisionism to
come along some time soon. The movie "Capricorn One" revolves around a
faked Mars landing by NASA, and could be regarded as the beginning of that
genre.

John Nagle

Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892

unread,
Mar 18, 1992, 4:04:46 AM3/18/92
to
Well, I'll try to inject some information too:

In article <1992Mar13....@ac.dal.ca> s6...@ac.dal.ca writes:
(Sometimes erroneously)


>In article <1992Mar12.1...@cbnewsk.att.com>, a...@cbnewsk.att.com (Alan Lustiger) writes:

(often irrationally, doubtful he'splaying with a full deck...)


>> I hope you find this interesting. I know I did.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 25 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE "ATOMIC BOMB"
>>
>

>> 2. Is there any evidence that a uranium-based "atom bomb" was ever dropped
>> onto Nagasaki, Japan?
>>
>> Absolutely not. While many historians and journalists made this claim
>> in the late 40's and early 50's, everyone now agrees that no such
>> bomb ever exploded over Nagasaki. Yet there are some who still stubbornly
>> cling to this supposed "fact."
>>

I am inclined to point out that this paragraph is self contradictory. If
everyone agrees to something then there is no one left to cling to another
point of view! To my knowledge the consensus is that a Plutonium bomb, similar
to the one tested at Almagordo was dropped on Nagasaki. The bomb dropped on
Hiroshima was an untested Uranium bomb. It was untested because of the paucity
of fissile materials available. Supposedly, there was only enough capacity
in the U.S. to produce enough material for about a half dozen or so bombs
prior to the end of 1947, including material captured from Germany. So, it
was deemed too precious to use on more than one test prior to 'use' in the
field. If the Uranium bomb hadn't detonated, there was still the proven
Plutonium device available.


>>
>> 3. What are the materials needed to make an "atom bomb?"
>>
>> Uranium-238 and plutonium-239.
>

No. Uranium 235 *OR* Plutonium. Uranium 238 is used to make Plutonium.
Supposedly, any isotope, or combination of Plutonium isotopes can be used
to make at least a crude, or unreliable bomb. An isotope which does not
undergo spontaneous fission, Plutonium 241, is preferred, as I recall, for
at least the bulk of a Plutonium device. This is to prevent the chain
reaction from beginning too soon/off center during the implosion phase.
Plutonium 239 may be used at the center of such a bomb, or maybe even in a
uranium rapid assembly device as a trigger. See "The Curve of Binding
Energy" ghost written by John Macphee for Ted Taylor


>
>>
>> 4. Aren't these materials radioactive?
>>
>> Highly so. Anybody who attempts to use these materials is endangering
>> his/her life.
>
> True. Any idiot who attempts to use these materials without proper
>safety equipment is endangering themselves. The scintists who developed the
>bomb would have taken proper precautions.
>

No. If they were "highly" radioactive then they would rapidly become impure
due to radioactive decay and nuclear weapons would have a very short shelf
life. (Too bad!) If Uranium 238, or 235 were highly radioactive there
wouldn't be nearly as much of it left in the Earth as there is now. Plutonium
is scarce in nature on the Earth as it was apparently not present at the time
the Earth was formed, and is only produced in nature (from uranium) in minute
quantities under rare conditions. Uranium, to my knowledge, is not naturally
produced on the Earth at all. It is all left over from the time of formation.

The (any) process used to produce Plutonium also produces many "highly" radio-
active contaminents which makes the purification process potentially very
dangerous.

Further, the deleterious effects on health due to radiation exposure are
cumulative, but (barring extrordinarily high doses on the order of ~100krem)
delayed by hours, days, months, years, or decades. Workers can, and have,
worked in enviroments which ultimately result in fatal exposure for years,
e.g. the 'radium' sisters, before the first syptoms occur. This is one of
the problems with radiation exposure, and why a proper protection program
is needed to monitor workers. A person can feel *ABSOLUTELY* normal, while
receiving a fatal dose and not die until some time later.

Uranium and Plutonium are certainly hazardous materials. Uranium is pyro-
phoric in reduced form, and Plutonium readily ignites in air. The (chemical)
burning process scatters fine particulates of the oxides which can be readily
inhaled, exposing living lung tissue (unshielded by dead epithilial(sp?)
cells) to alphas. Once they are purified, however, it is possible to handle
them with a degree of safety comporable to, say, beryllium or phosphorous.

There are numerous industrial and (nonradioactive) military uses for depleted
Uranium (Uranium without U 235). It is a dense, hard material. Uses include
radiation shielding, and armor piercing bullets.


>
>> 5. Is it likely that nuclear scientists in the 40's would be
>> handling uranium and plutonium?
>>
>> This would be highly unlikely. Very few people felt so threatened
>> by the Japanese to be willing to risk their lives on a theoretical
>> chance of a superbomb that could end a far-away war a little sooner.
>>

I have only personally known one person who enlisted in the U.S. military on
December 8, 1941, but I daresay that the total number enlisting that day,
and fully expecting to risk their lives, exceeded the total number of people
working on the Manhatten project, most of whom never came close to any
radioactive material.

Moreover, clearly many people work with these (and more hazardous) substances
today. While there is perhaps less risk due to improved knowledge and loss
control engineering there is also clearly less need.

This whole line of 'reasoning' is absurd. If nuclear scientists did not work
with these substances prior to the developement of nuclear power/weapons,
then the subsequent applications would never have been possible.

>
>> 7. According to conventional historians, was the uranium bomb tested
>> before supposedly being dropped over Hiroshima?
>>
>> No. There was no testing whatsoever of a uranium bomb in Alamogordo
>> or anywhere else before Hiroshima.
>
> Yes it was. This then negates question 8 below.

Actually no. See above.

>
>> 8. Isn't that strange?
>

No. See above.


>
>> 10. What did the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy
>> Commission say in their report of October 30, 1949?
>>
>> They recommended strongly against the development of what they
>> called the "Super Bomb," which is simply a thermonuclear
>> bomb. They said that "A super bomb might become a weapon of
>> genocide."
>>
>

Bear in mind, that the thermonuclear bomb, refered to as 'super' above,
followed after the atom bomb. These are two different, though related
programs. Oppenheimer headed the Manhatten project, which produced the
atom bomb, but dropped out of and opposed developement of the thermonuclear
or hydrogen bomb.

Two related technologies-- first the atomic bomb, using pure fission of
Uranium or Plutonium. This was developed by the Manhatten project.
Supposedly only a small number of these were in existence until the early
1950's, and Truman offered to give control over them all to the newly formed
United Nations.

The thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb, uses Uranium and Lithium fission, and
hydrogen/helium fusion (sometimes called fission/fusion/fission). Developed
in the 1950's. Much more powerful than the atomic bomb.

Both may be properly called nuclear bombs. Perhaps some have found this
confusing. Actually, a chemical bomb could be called a molecular bomb,
for that matter.

>
> The Russians had developed a nuclear bomb after the Americans had.
>The commission was concerned that a "Bomb Race" would develop, with greater
>and greater proliferation of the weapons. Thermonuclear weapons were developed,
>against the recommendation of the commission, countered by the Soviets.
>SURPRISE! Lots of nukes everywhere.
>
>> 11. Isn't this four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
>>
>> Yes. Obviously development of nuclear weapons occurred well
>> after their supposed implementation in 1945.
>>
> True. The second generation of nuclear weapons were first developed in the
>50s.
>

Their developement has been a continous process since the early 1940's.
So what? Does the developement of the F 15 in recent years disprove the
existence of the Wright Flyer at an earlier date? Hardly.


>
>> 17. Why was Hiroshima "targeted," and not Tokyo?
>>
>> Perhaps because no one had heard of Hiroshima, and no one knew anyone
>> from there. It would be far more difficult to claim that Tokyo was bombed
>> than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, most world maps from before "World
>> War Two" do not even mention these cities at all.
>
> Hiroshima was targeted because it was basically untouched by B-29
>raids, while Tokyo was being bombed heavily. This made the damage caused by
>the atom bomb easier to analyze.
>>

Additionally, it had already been decided that the Emperor had to survive
in order to assure the cooperation of the Japanese people with the surrender.
The atomic bombing of Tokyo would put him at great risk. Also, (my speculation
but, why shouldn't I speculate also, *AND SAY SO*) It was important to
preserve the central government of Japan in the hope that they would sur-
render before the small number of bombs was used up. Destroying the Cen-
tral government in Tokyo would have left no central government to organize
a surrender.

>
>> 19. How many people are supposed to have died in the explosions?
>>
>> It is hard to say. Some sources say 60,000 in Hiroshima, others say
>> 140,000. No attempt has been made to rectify the various numbers.
>>
> About 60,000. More died in firebomb raids on Tokyo (approx. 111,000 on
>a single raid), but a good return for one bomb.
>

The (American) official casualty reports for deaths at Nagasaki and Hiroshima
do not include subsequent death of those who survived more than three days
after the respective bombings. This plainly underestimates the casualties.
It excludes virtually all those who survived heat and concussion trauma, but
later died from complications (such as infection), acute radiation effects
(radiation 'poisoning'), or somatic (delayed e.g. cancer or leukemia) effects.

Some others attempt to estimate deaths due to excess leukemia in the contem-
porary population and include them in among the casualties. Thus, some
fatalities by this reckoning, may include persons not yet born at the time of
the bombings. I do *NOT* however, see this as an irrational approach.

When I was younger, casualty estimates for WW II were much higher than what one
sees today, especially estimates of German civilians lost in Allied raids.
Ted Koppel recently stated the casualties at Dresden as 35,000. My encyclopedia
stated them as 350,000. What are they saying today about the 750,000
casualties at Koln? There is indeed an argument that revisionism is rampant,
but not in the form of exagerration.

>
>>
>> 25. Where can I get more information?
>>

For the educated layman intersted in the history, and science behind nuclear
weapons I reccommend "The Layman's Guide to Atomic Physics", "Disturbing
the Universe", "The curve of Binding Energy", Ford's Introduction to Modern
Physics, (or any body else's freshman physics series).

I don't know where these other guys get their information, probably off the
net!
--
| Regards, | Hughes STX | Code 926.9 GSFC |
| Doug Caprette | Lanham, Maryland | Greenbelt, MD 20771 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I see no logic in prefering Ston over me." -- Spock

Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892

unread,
Mar 18, 1992, 10:44:07 AM3/18/92
to

Worst, the original article had expired at my site and I only saw, and
replied to, the rebuttal.

Oh well, at least everything I said was true. Shouldn't (attempts at)
humorous spoofs of conspiracy be posted to something.humor? I thought
everyone who posted to alt.conspiracy was a serious conspiracy advocate--
or debunker.

Tino

unread,
Mar 20, 1992, 12:03:59 AM3/20/92
to
If anyone wants real answers, I recommend the Pulitzer Prize (among others)
winning book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes.

Tino
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The nuclear scientist will prepare the bed on which mankind must lie; and
if mankind doesn't fit - well, that will be just too bad for mankind."
- Aldous Huxley

Steve Creps

unread,
Mar 19, 1992, 8:17:52 PM3/19/92
to
> Ah comeon xxxxxxx when have you ever seen a Catholic like xxxxx with even
> one Brain CELL. Go on I dare you to tell me (snigger). I think you give
> him a little too much credit.

I've removed the name of the sender of the above quote, in case he now
regrets having said it. Unless I misunderstand the above post, it displays
an anti-Catholic bigotry. Since this demonstration of bigotry is made in
the same breath condemning someone else for bigotry, a charge of hypocrisy
also can be added.

- - - - - - - - - -
Steve Creps, Indiana University
cr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (129.79.1.6)
{inuxc,rutgers,uunet!uiucdcs,pur-ee}!iuvax!silver!creps
speaking as a Roman Catholic

Eber Lambert

unread,
Mar 19, 1992, 8:00:40 PM3/19/92
to
jo...@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke) writes:

> Ah comeon William when have you ever seen a Catholic like Ralph with even


> one Brain CELL. Go on I dare you to tell me (snigger). I think you give
> him a little too much credit.

Wait a minute... What does Catholicism have to do with it? I thought Ralph
was a mental midget because he was a Neo-Nazi. If you are condemn all
Catholics youre as much of a brainless twit as Ralph.

Or did I miss something?

el
--

Tino

unread,
Mar 19, 1992, 11:59:33 PM3/19/92
to
I know that the article was kind of dubious, but could someone repost it?
I'd like to take a look at it, since it is in my field...

Jon Clarke

unread,
Mar 17, 1992, 2:34:46 PM3/17/92
to

Ah comeon William when have you ever seen a Catholic like Ralph with even


one Brain CELL. Go on I dare you to tell me (snigger). I think you give
him a little too much credit.

_
Jon Clarke o( ) The Z*NET Global News Gateway in New Zealand
Voice:(+64)25-962638 / /\ jo...@status.gen.nz or FIDO 3/772:105

Alex Wolf

unread,
Mar 19, 1992, 6:32:52 PM3/19/92
to
In article <1992Mar16.0...@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, jfl...@csws5.ic.sunysb.edu (Jesse Flint) writes:
> In article <rdippold.700541728@cancun> rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>s6...@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>
>>>> 25 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE "ATOMIC BOMB"
>>You didn't read the entire file before you spouted off in all
>>directions, did you? It seemed pretty obvious from the start (at
>>least to me) that this was a takeoff on the revisionist "fact files."
>>However, the end of the file should have removed any doubt, as he
>>specifically tells you what he's doing.

> Duh... And I just a few minutes ago posted an article saying I was scared
> at this... I guess this is what I get for coming in in the middle of a
> conversation. Or maybe it shows just how cynical I'm getting if I thought
> it was serious...

Unfortunately, this witty little thing was in rebuttal to a man who actually
thinks like this (See: 66 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST). At first I too
believed that this guy was even nuttier than Ralph (a.k.a. Adolf) Winston is.
Much to my relief, I read the whole thing through and found it to be a joke.
Whew!!!
--

----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf--Indiana Academy for Math Science and the Humanities--Ball State
Muncie, IN 47306 00am...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Swan, swan, hummingbird hurrah! We're all free now. -- REM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon Clarke

unread,
Mar 22, 1992, 5:15:01 PM3/22/92
to
elam...@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Eber Lambert) writes:

> Wait a minute... What does Catholicism have to do with it? I thought Ralph
> was a mental midget because he was a Neo-Nazi. If you are condemn all
> Catholics youre as much of a brainless twit as Ralph.
>
> Or did I miss something?
>

Ah well you get that, did we all miss the GRIN or did you not read the
the previous messages where the 'thought' that any word relating to
an ethnic creed or religion would surfice in place of "Zionist" ?

Replace the word with what you will!

"Hey Fred, they are Flipping Rediculous Ecological Devices, arn't they?"

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages