Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The truth

2 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Tiger

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 4:49:40 PM4/11/02
to
jim.wi...@neverlandsystems.com (Jim Wightman) wrote in
news:37d3b6c7.02041...@posting.google.com:

> We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have
> we not?

No.

--
Tiger

*Remove yourclothes. to reply via email

David Gehrig

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 6:32:30 PM4/11/02
to
Jim Wightman wrote:

> We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
> not?

Really? Name some. Be specific.

> Its exactly the same principle as proving the christians wrong
> however: they have believed their version of facts (as told them by
> their bible) for so long that they feel its wrong to even question it.
>
> There is SO much evidence to at least make the average intelligent man
> stand back and say "hold on just a minute...maybe i should question
> what i've been told before" but sentimentality and fear of standing
> out is preventing them.

That and a little thing called massive corroborative
historical evidence.

> Is the truth (however much it hurts to tell it) better than living the
> biggest lie in history? Of course it is.
>
> Now is the time to stop thinking "it can't have all been a lie!" and
> to start thinking "maybe I should investigate this further".

If you're going to be a Holocaust denier, you'll need
to stop thinking altogether.

--
@%<

stillsunny

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 8:14:32 PM4/11/02
to
On 11 Apr 2002 13:43:00 -0700, jim.wi...@neverlandsystems.com (Jim
Wightman) wrote:

>We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
>not?

No. What in the sam hill are you up to?

>Its exactly the same principle as proving the christians wrong
>however: they have believed their version of facts (as told them by
>their bible) for so long that they feel its wrong to even question it.

Questioning is not wrong, and despite what you see on Usenet, there's
a significant amount of it going on in churches.

>There is SO much evidence to at least make the average intelligent man
>stand back and say "hold on just a minute...maybe i should question
>what i've been told before" but sentimentality and fear of standing
>out is preventing them.

Good thing you were here for the universal psychoanalysis.

>Is the truth (however much it hurts to tell it) better than living the
>biggest lie in history? Of course it is.

What is the biggest lie?

I'd say denial of the holocaust ranks right up there.

It's rather difficult to deny a neighbor with a tattoo on his wrist.

What do you think about the moon landing? Think that was a great big
conspiracy and hoax, too?

>Now is the time to stop thinking "it can't have all been a lie!" and
>to start thinking "maybe I should investigate this further".

Yes, you should.

>As <label>revisionists</label> we must seek to educate those that come
>to us for the truth. We must present facts and let the 'intelligent
>man' decide for themselves in an openminded manner.

Interesting. I did think you were far too antagonistic out of the
gate to be only interested in theology. Are you one of the church
members that sounds like a sneeze?

>Maybe it won't happen today...but tomorrow is ours for the taking.

Have at it. I'm living today. You've got nothing to offer me by way
of education.

Sunny

William Daffer

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 8:21:16 PM4/11/02
to
jim.wi...@neverlandsystems.com (Jim Wightman) writes:

> We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
> not?
>

No.

> Its exactly the same principle as proving the christians wrong


> however: they have believed their version of facts (as told them by
> their bible) for so long that they feel its wrong to even question
> it.
>

Questioning is one thing, claiming that your questions imply
anything is quite another.


> There is SO much evidence to at least make the average

[very far below]

> intelligent
> man stand back and say "hold on just a minute...maybe i should
> question what i've been told before" but sentimentality and fear of
> standing out

You misspelled 'common sense'

> is preventing them.


>
> Is the truth (however much it hurts to tell it) better than living
> the biggest lie in history? Of course it is.
>

Stop whining and get on with it. If the Holocaust didn't happen as
historians tell us, hwere are the missing 6 million Jews, 0.5 to 1.5
missing Roma?


> Now is the time to stop thinking "it can't have all been a lie!" and
> to start thinking "maybe I should investigate this further".
>

Well, hello! It would be good if you learned some of the history
you're trying to 'revise.'


> As <label>revisionists</label> we must seek to educate those that
> come to us for the truth. We must present facts and let the
> 'intelligent man' decide for themselves in an openminded manner.
>

You aren't a 'revisionist' That label is reserved for someone who
actually knows something about history.


> Maybe it won't happen today...but tomorrow is ours for the taking.

Just like Czechoslovakia was Hitler's, right?

[followups set]

whd
--
National Runt, demonstrating his idea of informed debate

Hello! I can barely make out the relevant portions of what you are
saying! Can you hear me? Hello! Are you in need of assistance?

William Daffer

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 8:21:30 PM4/11/02
to
David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> writes:

[snip]

>> Now is the time to stop thinking "it can't have all been a lie!" and
>> to start thinking "maybe I should investigate this further".
>
> If you're going to be a Holocaust denier, you'll need
> to stop thinking altogether.

Too late.

whd
--
Morghus, in 73fedc95.01081...@posting.google.com, says:

The bogus farm-house chambers were also supposed to be able to
accomodate 2,000 people each. That's where the interrogators dreamed
up their peak capacity of 10,000 in 1941 at the farmhouses.


http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=alt.revisionism&as_umsgid=73fedc95.0108161718.6bd60250%40posting.google.com

for the complete post.

Joseph Boegler

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 1:46:44 AM4/12/02
to
stillsunny sun...@sccoast.com wrote:

>On 11 Apr 2002 13:43:00 -0700, jim.wi...@neverlandsystems.com (Jim
>Wightman) wrote:
>
>>We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
>>not?
>
>No. What in the sam hill are you up to?
>
>>Its exactly the same principle as proving the christians wrong
>>however: they have believed their version of facts (as told them by
>>their bible) for so long that they feel its wrong to even question it.
>
>Questioning is not wrong, and despite what you see on Usenet, there's
>a significant amount of it going on in churches.
>
>>There is SO much evidence to at least make the average intelligent man
>>stand back and say "hold on just a minute...maybe i should question
>>what i've been told before" but sentimentality and fear of standing
>>out is preventing them.
>
>Good thing you were here for the universal psychoanalysis.
>
>>Is the truth (however much it hurts to tell it) better than living the
>>biggest lie in history? Of course it is.
>
>What is the biggest lie?
>
>I'd say denial of the holocaust ranks right up there.
>
>It's rather difficult to deny a neighbor with a tattoo on his wrist.

Holocaust denial means denial of the "systematic plan," denial
of the number of 6 million and denial of the gas chambers. How does
a Jewish neighbor with a tattoo on his wrist prove the plan, the
6 million figure and the gas chambers? He was obviously in
Auschwitz because only the prisoners at Auschwitz were tattooed.
How does his tattoo and his long life prove the plan, the figure
of 6 million and the gas chambers?

William Daffer

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 10:52:40 AM4/12/02
to
joseph...@aol.comnojunk (Joseph Boegler) writes:

[snip]

>>It's rather difficult to deny a neighbor with a tattoo on his wrist.
>
> Holocaust denial means denial of the "systematic plan," denial
> of the number of 6 million and denial of the gas chambers. How does
> a Jewish neighbor with a tattoo on his wrist prove the plan, the
> 6 million figure and the gas chambers? He was obviously in
> Auschwitz because only the prisoners at Auschwitz were tattooed.
> How does his tattoo and his long life prove the plan, the figure
> of 6 million and the gas chambers?

You really don't think he meant that the mere fact of the tattoo was
proof, do you?

whd
--
Kurt Knoll let's 'er rip:

When it comes to Jews the are very inventive when it comes to siphon
some ones pocked.

Orac

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 8:40:53 PM4/12/02
to
In article <37d3b6c7.02041...@posting.google.com>,
jim.wi...@neverlandsystems.com (Jim Wightman) wrote:

> We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
> not?

I haven't. Why don't you present some?


> Its exactly the same principle as proving the christians wrong
> however: they have believed their version of facts (as told them by
> their bible) for so long that they feel its wrong to even question it.
>

> There is SO much evidence to at least make the average intelligent man
> stand back and say "hold on just a minute...maybe i should question
> what i've been told before" but sentimentality and fear of standing
> out is preventing them.

Really? Can you give me a for instance? Just one piece of evidence that
will make me "question what I've been told before"? Make sure to include
citations or some way that I could independently verify the evidence.

> Is the truth (however much it hurts to tell it) better than living the
> biggest lie in history? Of course it is.
>

> Now is the time to stop thinking "it can't have all been a lie!" and
> to start thinking "maybe I should investigate this further".
>

> As <label>revisionists</label> we must seek to educate those that come
> to us for the truth. We must present facts and let the 'intelligent
> man' decide for themselves in an openminded manner.
>

> Maybe it won't happen today...but tomorrow is ours for the taking.

Not unless you stop B.S.'ing and start actually presenting this
"evidence" you describe.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 8:42:35 PM4/12/02
to
In article <m3g021p...@attbi.com>,
William Daffer <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote:

> jim.wi...@neverlandsystems.com (Jim Wightman) writes:
>
> > We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
> > not?
> >
>
> No.
>
> > Its exactly the same principle as proving the christians wrong
> > however: they have believed their version of facts (as told them by
> > their bible) for so long that they feel its wrong to even question
> > it.
> >
>
> Questioning is one thing, claiming that your questions imply
> anything is quite another.

Indeed. These revisionist/deniers seem to think that, just because THEY
question something, that it is in doubt. They seem to think that
questioning is enough and that they don't have to present any
historical, forensic, or testimonial evidence to back up their view of
WWII and Nazi actions against the Jews.

GassenBurnham

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 9:27:35 PM4/12/02
to
>Subject: Re: The truth
>From: William Daffer whda...@wabcmail.com
>Date: 4/13/02 12:52 AM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <m3elhln...@wabcmail.com>

>
>joseph...@aol.comnojunk (Joseph Boegler) writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>It's rather difficult to deny a neighbor with a tattoo on his wrist.
>>
>> Holocaust denial means denial of the "systematic plan," denial
>> of the number of 6 million and denial of the gas chambers. How does
>> a Jewish neighbor with a tattoo on his wrist prove the plan, the
>> 6 million figure and the gas chambers? He was obviously in
>> Auschwitz because only the prisoners at Auschwitz were tattooed.
>> How does his tattoo and his long life prove the plan, the figure
>> of 6 million and the gas chambers?
>
> You really don't think he meant that the mere fact of the tattoo was
> proof, do you?
>
>whd
>

Of course not, Daffy.
Just because you have 'Property of the Hells Angels' tattoed on your ass, does
not mean we believe you are theirs 7 days a week.


"If I am killing a rat with a stick and have him in a corner, I am not
indignant if he tries to bite me and squeals and gibbers with rage. My job is
to attend to my footwork and to keep on hitting him where it will do the most
good" A. S. Lees

William Daffer

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 9:25:49 PM4/12/02
to
Orac <Or...@wabcmail.com> writes:

> In article <m3g021p...@attbi.com>,
> William Daffer <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jim.wi...@neverlandsystems.com (Jim Wightman) writes:
>>
>> > We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
>> > not?
>> >
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > Its exactly the same principle as proving the christians wrong
>> > however: they have believed their version of facts (as told them by
>> > their bible) for so long that they feel its wrong to even question
>> > it.
>> >
>>
>> Questioning is one thing, claiming that your questions imply
>> anything is quite another.
>
> Indeed. These revisionist/deniers seem to think that, just because THEY
> question something, that it is in doubt. They seem to think that
> questioning is enough and that they don't have to present any
> historical, forensic, or testimonial evidence to back up their view of
> WWII and Nazi actions against the Jews.

It's the psychological corollary to "freedom of expression is *not
equal to* freedom from criticism." They can't fathom that their mere
word isn't good enough.

whd
--
"Nobody objects to the truth being written and published, but free
speech does not include the right to peddle vicious lies for profit."
- David Irving
<http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/books/Guttenplan/SMH0609101.html#note>

Message has been deleted

Kurt Knoll

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 12:34:00 PM4/13/02
to
Leuchter was discredited because he was in the Jews way. It does not
really matter who is doing some testing of forensic evidence in
Auschwitz the goal of the jews is discredit anyone who is trying or
attempting to do some testing and they will do anything what is in their
power to achieve this goal.

Kurt Knoll.
=============
"Jim Wightman" <jim.wi...@neverlandsystems.com> wrote in message
news:37d3b6c7.02041...@posting.google.com...
> Hi Orac,
>
> Sure I'll present some of the evidence that made me question what had
> happened...some of it you'll have to come to the UK for however since
> I've talked to a number of jews who admit that its all lies.
>
> In the meantime, check this report out:
>
> http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/
>
> If you need to independently research this for yourself then
> unfortunately you'll have to go to auschwitz etc and get your own
> samples and have them tested. You'll also need to be a chemical
> scientist or preferably a forensic scientist.
>
> Frederick Leuchter, btw, is (or rather used to be until the closed
> minded stopped dealing with him) an expert on 'death row' equipment.
> He used to consult for various US state prisons etc to improve the
> standard and success rate of execution equipment. He knows how to kill
> large amounts of people in the most efficient way.
>
> Leuchter is a <label>revisionist</label> only because his scientific
> mind, once presented with the scientific facts makes the scientific
> conclusion. In this case that Auschwitz 'gas chambers' could not have
> possibly been used for executions due to ventilation, they weren't air
> tight etc etc and also independent analysis of samples from the
> concrete walls showed absolutely no cyanide gas has come into contact
> with the walls.
>
> So there you go, its a start, please do learn more then come back and
> tell me what you think. I would hope that the evidence presented will
> make you think twice about what you've been told/heard. The ZOGs of
> the world have been feeding us a pack of lies. Alternatively it might
> just make you wonder: but if thats the case shouldn't it be
> investigated fully?
>
> Jim
>
>
> Orac <Or...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Orac-0C712C.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

Tiger

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 12:48:48 PM4/13/02
to

> Hi Orac,


>
> Sure I'll present some of the evidence that made me question what
> had happened...some of it you'll have to come to the UK for
> however since I've talked to a number of jews who admit that its
> all lies.

No need to read further. Hitler was a great Christian man, right?

Eugene Holman

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 2:43:04 PM4/13/02
to

> Hi Orac,
>
> Sure I'll present some of the evidence that made me question what had
> happened...some of it you'll have to come to the UK for however since
> I've talked to a number of jews who admit that its all lies.
>

> In the meantime, check this report out:
>
> http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/
>
> If you need to independently research this for yourself then
> unfortunately you'll have to go to auschwitz etc and get your own
> samples and have them tested. You'll also need to be a chemical
> scientist or preferably a forensic scientist.

You don't need to be a chemical or forensic scientist to recognize that
the Leuchter Report is so methodologically and implementationally
flawed as to be scientifically worthless.

> Frederick Leuchter, btw, is (or rather used to be until the closed
> minded stopped dealing with him) an expert on 'death row' equipment.

No he wasn't. He offered some consulting services to some American
prisons, and ran a scam which involved him playing off offers to
provide expert opinions to condemned prisoners that execution equipment
would result in cruel and unusual punishment, against offers to upgrade
execution equipment at penal institutions. Leuchter had no academic
qualifications (e.g. professional-level studies in chemistry,
electronics, toxology) to work in this capacity, and his professional
career as an execution consultant was spotty.

> He used to consult for various US state prisons etc to improve the
> standard and success rate of execution equipment. He knows how to kill
> large amounts of people in the most efficient way.

No he doesn't. At the Zündel trial Leuchter demonstrated that he didn't
even know that it takes far more cyanide to kill vermin than it does to
kill people. Hardly the level of expertise we would expect of a
self-styled authority.

>
> Leuchter is a <label>revisionist</label> only because his scientific
> mind, once presented with the scientific facts makes the scientific
> conclusion.

Leuchter lacks a scientific mind, something that became obvious in his
design of an experiment to determine whether the Auschwitz gas chambers
could have done what other historical evidence indicates that they did.

1. He did not understand that it takes far more cyanide to kill vermin
than it does to kill people.

2. He did not understand that Zyklon-B had been designed *specifically*
to allow cyanide to be used in normal rooms and structures lacking any
engineering saftey features *if* proper precautions have been taken and
properly trained personnel are implementing the gassing.

3. He did not understand that he should have tested for cyanide ions
rather than for traces of a specific cyanide compound, which is not
always formed upon exposure to cyanide.

4. He did not understand that the two environments compared, a
fumigation chamber and the ruins of a gas chamber, had quite different
chemical histories during their functional lives as well as afterwards.
Specifically, the conditions obtaining within a chamber stuffed with
clothing and one stuffed with human beings are going to differ
considerably with respect to the possibility of cyanates being formed.
The CO2 in the exhaled breath of human victims, for example, will raise
the pH of the water vapor in the room and have an inhibiting effect on
cyanate formation. The fact that gas chambers have to be hosed down
after each gassing of humans to remove expelled bodily fluids, and
white-washed occasionally to make them look harmlessly pristine, also
has an effect on the accumulation of cyanates. Finally, the fact that
the gas chambers were demolished, with their ruins exposed to the
elements since 1944, while the fumigation chambers have remained intact
and been protected from the elements, is also a factor that has to be
taken into account when comparing cyanate levels in the two
environments.

5. Leuchter used a single sample taken from a blue-stained area in a
fumigation chamber as a control. What he should have done is used some
place that the history of the camp shows was never exposed to cyanide
as his control, and compared samples taken from both the fumigation
chambers and the gas chambers with one another as well as with the
control. Linked with his ignorance of the amounts of cyanide needed to
kill vermin as opposed to people, the high reading obtained for his
control appeared to indicate something that was untrue. The readings
taken from a single blue-stained wall in a fumgation chamber gave a far
(135 times) higher reading tha the maximum reading from a gas chamber
sample, this is true, but the conclusion that this indicates that the
gas chambers could not have been exposed to concentrations of cyanide
sufficient to kill people is untrue, since Leuchter was working on the
unfounded and stupid assumption that it takes far more cyanide to kill
large people than it does to kill tiny lice.

6. Leuchter tested for a single cyanate, Prussian Blue, rather than for
cyanates in general. Prussian Blue is not always formed when structural
materials are exposed to cyanide. Parameters such as water vapor
content and pH of the ambient air also enter the picture. A test for
Prussian Blue is not the same as a test for cyanide exposure.

7. Fourteen of Leuchter's thirty samples taken from gas chamber ruins
tested positive for Prussian Blue. Leuchter attributed this to a
fumigation during the 1942 typhus epidemic at Auschwitz. The buildings
in question were not, however, built until 1943.

The Krakow Institute for Forensic Research conducted a study in 1994
which both debunks and complements Leuchter's research. It shows that
the evidence obtainable by forensic research is not in conflict with
other evidence which indicates that certain structures at
Auschwitz-Stammlager and Auschwitz-Birkenau were once the venus of
exterminational gassings using cyanide gas. See Richard Green's article
"The Chemistry of Auschwitz",
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry , and the
references mentioned there for further discussion.

> In this case that Auschwitz 'gas chambers' could not have
> possibly been used for executions due to ventilation, they weren't air
> tight etc etc and also independent analysis of samples from the
> concrete walls showed absolutely no cyanide gas has come into contact
> with the walls.

Here you are just mistaken.
- Some of the Kremas at Auschwitz-Birkenau had robust double-function
ventilation systems. cf. e.g.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/evidence/vanx.asp . Other were
cross-ventilated.

- They didn't have to be perfectly air tight, just as rooms fumigated
using Zyklon-B in civilian life did not have to be perfectly air tight
*provided* that the proper precautions were taken.

- Leuchter's analysis, flaws and all, determined that 14 out of 30
samples tsted positive for one, Prussian Blue, of the several compounds
that are or can be formed when cyanide is exposed to structural
materials.


--
Regards,
Eugene Holman

Orac

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 2:47:10 PM4/13/02
to

> Hi Orac,
>
> Sure I'll present some of the evidence that made me question what had
> happened...some of it you'll have to come to the UK for however since
> I've talked to a number of jews who admit that its all lies.
>
> In the meantime, check this report out:
>
> http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/

[Snip]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You're presenting the Leuchter Report as evidence?

That's hilarious, and you probably don't even realize it. You really
must be new to Holocaust denial, if you're presenting the Leuchter
Report as evidence. Even many hard-core Holocaust deniers are forced to
admit that the report is flawed. It's hard to know where to begin to
list the flaws, everywhere from methodology to conclusions. They've been
discussed here on a.r. before ad nauseum. However, here's a brief primer:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leuchter-fred/leuchter-vindicated-res
ponse.html
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/leuchter.fred/leuchter.faq1
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/leuchter.fred/leuchter.faq2
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leuchter-fred/leuchter-01.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leuchter-fred/leuchter-03.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leuchter-fred/qualifications-as-witne
ss.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leuchter-fred/leuchter-04.html

David Gehrig

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 2:49:14 PM4/13/02
to
David Gehrig wrote:

> Jim Wightman wrote:
>
>> We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
>> not?
>
> Really? Name some. Be specific.

Gee, Mr "Wightman" seems to have run from this question.

--
@%<

Orac

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 2:48:59 PM4/13/02
to
In article <ubgnhn7...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@uniserve.com> wrote:

> Leuchter was discredited because he was in the Jews way. It does not
> really matter who is doing some testing of forensic evidence in
> Auschwitz the goal of the jews is discredit anyone who is trying or
> attempting to do some testing and they will do anything what is in their
> power to achieve this goal.

Leuchter was discredited because he had inadequate background and
qualifications to do the analysis he did, leading him to make a lot of
really bad mistakes that led to unsupportable conclusions.

In short, Leuchter discredited himself.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you

?ð| inconvenience me with questions?"

David Gehrig

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 3:06:19 PM4/13/02
to
Jim Wightman wrote:

> Hi Orac,
>
> Sure I'll present some of the evidence that made me question what had
> happened...some of it you'll have to come to the UK for however since
> I've talked to a number of jews who admit that its all lies.

Oh, sure, that's incredibly credible.

> In the meantime, check this report out:
>
> http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/

Uh-oh -- Can Steady Freddy Leuchter be far behind?

> If you need to independently research this for yourself then
> unfortunately you'll have to go to auschwitz etc and get your own
> samples and have them tested. You'll also need to be a chemical
> scientist or preferably a forensic scientist.
>

> Frederick Leuchter, btw, is (or rather used to be until the closed
> minded stopped dealing with him) an expert on 'death row' equipment.

Steady Freddy's report was so full of holes that even so-called
"revisionists" have backed away from it in the last few years.
What's more, David Irving knew it was full of holes even before
he published it. Why then did he publish it? To paraphrase
P. T. Barnum, nobody ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of Holocaust deniers.

> He used to consult for various US state prisons etc to improve the
> standard and success rate of execution equipment. He knows how to kill
> large amounts of people in the most efficient way.

Yet his "report" is so full of scientific stupidities that it takes pages
upon pages to point out.

> Leuchter is a <label>revisionist</label> only because his scientific
> mind, once presented with the scientific facts makes the scientific
> conclusion.

As was demonstrated during the Zundel trial, Leuchter's "science"
was a joke. Here is an example.

Leuchter claimed that the gas chambers at Auschwitz needed to
have shielded wiring because otherwise the HCN would ignite.

Well, I'll ask you -- as a way to determine whether or not you have
the basic knowledge necessary to really sort through what Leuchter
had to say and determine whether or not he's a crank -- what's
the fundamental problem with Leuchter's assumption?

> In this case that Auschwitz 'gas chambers' could not have
> possibly been used for executions due to ventilation, they weren't air
> tight etc etc and also independent analysis of samples from the
> concrete walls showed absolutely no cyanide gas has come into contact
> with the walls.

Good golly, there's actually someone who's going to try to
play Leuchter straight.

Here's another question. "I don't think the Leuchter results
have any meaning." Who said that, and why?

> So there you go, its a start, please do learn more then come back and
> tell me what you think. I would hope that the evidence presented will
> make you think twice about what you've been told/heard. The ZOGs of
> the world have been feeding us a pack of lies.

If you folks in alt.religion.christianity aren't familiar with "ZOG,"
it's a standard white-power acronym for "Zionist Occupation Government,"
by which they mean the US, which they consider to be under the
control of THE JEW.

Scratch a "Holocaust revisionist," find an antisemite.

> Alternatively it might
> just make you wonder: but if thats the case shouldn't it be
> investigated fully?

It has been investigated quite thoroughly, and the results of
that investigation were packaged quite neatly by Prof. Robert
Jan van Pelt in the expert report he submitted as part of the
David Irving trial. In it, among other things, he chops the
Leuchter report into itty bitty bits.

But see for yourself --

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/evidence/van.asp

He's got a whole chapter on Steady Freddy and his
relationship

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/evidence/vanix.asp

One by one, Leuchter's arguments fall down and go boom,
and with each one the amazement grows that anyone
ever took him seriously. Well, only amazement until you
realize _who_ it is that took him seriously....

--
@%<

Jeffrey G. Brown

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 3:58:20 PM4/13/02
to
In article <ubgnhn7...@corp.supernews.com>, "Kurt Knoll"
<kkn...@uniserve.com> wrote:

> Leuchter was discredited because he was in the Jews way.

False. Leuchter discredited himself by pretending to be an expert in matters of
which he was entirely ignorant.

Kurt Knoll has discredited himself in much the same manner.

JGB

====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeffrey...@yahoo.com
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated what it means
to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
To be human is to choose. - "The Outer Limits: Feasibility Study", 1997

Jeffrey G. Brown

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 4:02:54 PM4/13/02
to

> Sure I'll present some of the evidence that made me question what had
> happened...some of it you'll have to come to the UK for however since
> I've talked to a number of jews who admit that its all lies.

Name these "jews".

You can't, can you?

> [...deletia...]

> Frederick Leuchter, btw, is (or rather used to be until the closed
> minded stopped dealing with him) an expert on 'death row' equipment.

> He used to consult for various US state prisons

False. Leuchter's tales of having worked for various US state prisons were shown
to be lies.

> [...deletia...]

> Leuchter is a <label>revisionist</label> only because his scientific
> mind, once presented with the scientific facts makes the scientific

> conclusion. In this case that Auschwitz 'gas chambers' could not have


> possibly been used for executions due to ventilation, they weren't air
> tight etc etc and also independent analysis of samples from the
> concrete walls showed absolutely no cyanide gas has come into contact
> with the walls.

False. Leuchter's own analyses showed that the walls of one of the Kremas *had*
been exposed to cyanide.

Leuchter tried to explain this away by claiming that the Krema had been
fumigated -- and gave a date for the fumigation that was a year before the Krema
had been built!

If you would take the time to learn the facts, you wouldn't be so successful in
making a very public ass of yourself...

William Daffer

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 11:20:45 PM4/13/02
to
jim.wi...@neverlandsystems.com (Jim Wightman) writes:

> Hi Orac,


>
> Sure I'll present some of the evidence that made me question what had
> happened...some of it you'll have to come to the UK for however since
> I've talked to a number of jews who admit that its all lies.
>

> In the meantime, check this report out:
>
> http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/
>

> If you need to independently research this for yourself then
> unfortunately you'll have to go to auschwitz etc and get your own
> samples and have them tested. You'll also need to be a chemical
> scientist or preferably a forensic scientist.
>

> Frederick Leuchter, btw, is (or rather used to be until the closed
> minded stopped dealing with him) an expert on 'death row' equipment.

> He used to consult for various US state prisons etc to improve the
> standard and success rate of execution equipment. He knows how to kill
> large amounts of people in the most efficient way.
>

> Leuchter is a <label>revisionist</label> only because his scientific
> mind, once presented with the scientific facts makes the scientific
> conclusion. In this case that Auschwitz 'gas chambers' could not have
> possibly been used for executions due to ventilation, they weren't air
> tight etc etc and also independent analysis of samples from the
> concrete walls showed absolutely no cyanide gas has come into contact
> with the walls.
>

> So there you go, its a start, please do learn more then come back and
> tell me what you think. I would hope that the evidence presented will
> make you think twice about what you've been told/heard. The ZOGs of

> the world have been feeding us a pack of lies. Alternatively it might


> just make you wonder: but if thats the case shouldn't it be
> investigated fully?
>

> Jim
>

Another poor fool convinced by the _Leuchter Report_.

Does someone grow these people in a tank? Because they have to be
some kind of vegetative matter.

whd
--
Werner Knoll, describing his purpose in alt.revisionism

Pissing in the swimming pool when you are in the water will get you
nowhere. Do it from from a 10 meter springboard and everybody will
notice you!

Edie

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 11:50:03 PM4/13/02
to
Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<130420022143044441%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi>...


> No he wasn't. He offered some consulting services to some American
> prisons, and ran a scam which involved him playing off offers to
> provide expert opinions to condemned prisoners that execution equipment
> would result in cruel and unusual punishment, against offers to upgrade
> execution equipment at penal institutions. Leuchter had no academic
> qualifications (e.g. professional-level studies in chemistry,
> electronics, toxology) to work in this capacity, and his professional
> career as an execution consultant was spotty.
>
> > He used to consult for various US state prisons etc to improve the
> > standard and success rate of execution equipment. He knows how to kill
> > large amounts of people in the most efficient way.
>
> No he doesn't. At the Zündel trial Leuchter demonstrated that he didn't
> even know that it takes far more cyanide to kill vermin than it does to
> kill people. Hardly the level of expertise we would expect of a
> self-styled authority.

what a fracas

Wait, is fracas is a singular word or a plural one.

I remember somewhere in the distant past hearing the phrase "wee
fraca" suggesting that maybe one is a fraca and more than one are
fracas.

Deaths Head

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 6:13:45 AM4/14/02
to
David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:K4%t8.4984$3z3.480677
@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:

Hmmmm well we all have to start somewhere: I too started with looking at
Leuchters work and although some of is has been debunked some of the rest
of it is still valid...and leads to other evidence and information.

I don't think its fair to jump all over the original poster just because
you don't agree with him. Yes, it appears he has just started on the path
of discovery with regards to the 'holocaust' but through discovery will
come knowledge.

At the end of the day I believe that there is a large degree of doubt
with regards to the 'holocaust'. I'd like to see a full unbiased enquiry
made to find out the truth. Until that time myself and a hell of a lot of
other people will still have doubts.

--
Deaths Head
<When you see me, you'll know me>

Andrew

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 10:08:24 AM4/14/02
to
"Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@uniserve.com> wrote in message news:<ubgnhn7...@corp.supernews.com>...

> Leuchter was discredited because he was in the Jews way. It does not
> really matter who is doing some testing of forensic evidence in
> Auschwitz the goal of the jews is discredit anyone who is trying or
> attempting to do some testing and they will do anything what is in their
> power to achieve this goal.
>
> Kurt Knoll.

You have been asked on several occasions, Mr. Knoll, to provide any
evidence whatsoever that anyone other than Fred Leuchter himself was
responsible for his downfall.
You have not done so. Until you provide evidence for this absurd
allegation, it will be given exactly the credibility it deserves, in
other words, none.
--Drew

Patrick Keenan

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 11:16:16 AM4/14/02
to
"Deaths Head" <antich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91F0733977F7...@212.159.13.1...

> David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:K4%t8.4984$3z3.480677
> @newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > David Gehrig wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Wightman wrote:
> >>
> >>> We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
> >>> not?
> >>
> >> Really? Name some. Be specific.
> >
> > Gee, Mr "Wightman" seems to have run from this question.
> >
>
> Hmmmm well we all have to start somewhere: I too started with looking at
> Leuchters work and although some of is has been debunked some of the rest
> of it is still valid...and leads to other evidence and information.

Just what do you think is 'still valid' in this report? His name?

Given that the assumptions, methodology, and results have been shown to be
almost totally worthless, the product of someone who admittedly didn't know
necessary details of the subject while representing himself as an expert in
it, what is left?

Please, do detail what is 'stil lvalid' in the Leuchter 'report'.

>
> I don't think its fair to jump all over the original poster just because
> you don't agree with him. Yes, it appears he has just started on the path
> of discovery with regards to the 'holocaust' but through discovery will
> come knowledge.
>
> At the end of the day I believe that there is a large degree of doubt
> with regards to the 'holocaust'. I'd like to see a full unbiased enquiry
> made to find out the truth. Until that time myself and a hell of a lot of
> other people will still have doubts.

I doubt it's really a 'hell of a lot of other people', though yes, the
historical process goes on. It doesn't change the basic facts of what
happened.

As they say, dont be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

-pk

Deaths Head

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 11:39:54 AM4/14/02
to
"Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:U2hu8.517$5J3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:

> "Deaths Head" <antich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91F0733977F7...@212.159.13.1...
>> David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:K4%t8.4984$3z3.480677 @newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > David Gehrig wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jim Wightman wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have
>> >>> we not?
>> >>
>> >> Really? Name some. Be specific.
>> >
>> > Gee, Mr "Wightman" seems to have run from this question.
>> >
>>
>> Hmmmm well we all have to start somewhere: I too started with looking
>> at Leuchters work and although some of is has been debunked some of
>> the rest of it is still valid...and leads to other evidence and
>> information.
>
> Just what do you think is 'still valid' in this report? His name?
>
> Given that the assumptions, methodology, and results have been shown
> to be almost totally worthless, the product of someone who admittedly
> didn't know necessary details of the subject while representing
> himself as an expert in it, what is left?
>
> Please, do detail what is 'stil lvalid' in the Leuchter 'report'.

> I doubt it's really a 'hell of a lot of other people', though yes, the
> historical process goes on. It doesn't change the basic facts of
> what happened.
>

Ok you say basic facts of what happened: what exactly is YOUR evidence
that it did?

Orac

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 11:48:50 AM4/14/02
to
In article <Xns91F0733977F7...@212.159.13.1>,
Deaths Head <antich...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:K4%t8.4984$3z3.480677
> @newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > David Gehrig wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Wightman wrote:

> >>> We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
> >>> not?
> >>
> >> Really? Name some. Be specific.
> >
> > Gee, Mr "Wightman" seems to have run from this question.
> >
>
> Hmmmm well we all have to start somewhere: I too started with looking at
> Leuchters work and although some of is has been debunked some of the rest
> of it is still valid...and leads to other evidence and information.

Please, then, tell us which SPECIFIC parts of the Leuchter Report you
consider to be valid and why. Don't forget to comment on the science and
methodology.


> I don't think its fair to jump all over the original poster just because
> you don't agree with him. Yes, it appears he has just started on the path
> of discovery with regards to the 'holocaust' but through discovery will
> come knowledge.

Not if he bases his "questioning" on the Leuchter Report, it won't.


> At the end of the day I believe that there is a large degree of doubt
> with regards to the 'holocaust'.

Really? And upon what specific evidence do you base your "large degree
of doubt"? Please tell us what parts of the evidence supporting the
historicity of the Holocaust should be doubted and why. Please be
specific. For instance, please spare us the common denier handwaving
about the "unreliability" of survivor testimony--unless you can cite
examples of specific survivor testimony that is false or unreliable and
then build a convincing argument about why that unreliability casts
significant doubt upon the historicity of the Holocaust or some major
aspect of it when compared to the rest of the evidence and testimony
that is not "unreliable." Please also spare us the usual denier
insinuations about the Allies forging documents--unless you can cite
specific instances of such forgery.


>I'd like to see a full unbiased enquiry
> made to find out the truth.

Such inquiries have been made continuously by historians during the last
57 years since WWII ended. Are you claiming that all the historians who
study Holocaust history are biased?


>Until that time myself and a hell of a lot of
> other people will still have doubts.

Without compelling evidence to back them up, your "doubts" are worthless.

You seem to think that just because you "doubt" something you are exempt
from having to produce evidence to support your position. It's a common
denier fallacy to express vague "doubts" about the Holocaust and then
think they don't have to do anything more to be taken seriously.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you

| inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 11:51:30 AM4/14/02
to
In article <U2hu8.517$5J3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Deaths Head" <antich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91F0733977F7...@212.159.13.1...

> > At the end of the day I believe that there is a large degree of doubt


> > with regards to the 'holocaust'. I'd like to see a full unbiased enquiry
> > made to find out the truth. Until that time myself and a hell of a lot of
> > other people will still have doubts.
>
> I doubt it's really a 'hell of a lot of other people', though yes, the
> historical process goes on. It doesn't change the basic facts of what
> happened.
>
> As they say, dont be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

Indeed, there is a difference between being "open-minded" and gullible.

Deniers are frequently incredibly gullible when it comes to evidence
that jibes with their prejudices and beliefs about the Holocaust and
incredibly close-minded when any evidence is presented that challenges
those beliefs. Richard Phillips is perhaps the best example of this
phenomenon in the newsgroup.

Jeffrey G. Brown

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 12:50:08 PM4/14/02
to
In article <Xns91F0AA85E5F8...@212.159.13.1>, Deaths Head
<de...@nospam.neverlandsystems.com> wrote:

> "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:U2hu8.517$5J3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:

> [...deletia...]

> > Please, do detail what is 'stil lvalid' in the Leuchter 'report'.
> > I doubt it's really a 'hell of a lot of other people', though yes, the
> > historical process goes on. It doesn't change the basic facts of
> > what happened.
> >
>
> Ok you say basic facts of what happened: what exactly is YOUR evidence
> that it did?

The existence of execution gas chambers is well-established. Eugene Holman
summarized the evidence quite neatly not long ago:

from
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=holman-ya02408000R2610001228240001%40news.h
elsinki.fi>

--- begin excerpt ---

Let's divide that question up into two questions:

1. Were Jews killed in very large numbers through planned and deliberate
mass killings?

2. Did some of these planned and deliberate mass killings involve gassing.

Evidence for an affirmative answer to question 1:

a. The systematic program of arresting and shooting the Jews of Estonia in
late 1941, including the extraordinary efforts to find the three children
of Juri Pilner and execute them in March, 1942. Documented in arrest
records and case files in the Estonian National Archives as well as in the
selection of photocopied police archive documents pertaining to the fate
of Estonian Jews during the period of Nazi occupation published by Eugenia
Gurin-Loof _Eesti Juutide katasroof 1941_, Tallinn 1994.

b. The methodical program of combing the towns and smaller cities of Latvia
and Lithuania for, and summary mass shootings of, Jews by Einsatzgruppe A,
documented in the Jager Report, during the latter half of 1941.

c. The well-planned shootings of Jews in larger cities such as Riga
(25,000), Daugavpils (13,000), Rezekne (1,700), Liepaja (5,000), Ventspils
(1,000), Shiauliai (3,000), Kaunas (3,600), Kiev (33,000), Serniki (600),
Kamanets-Podolski (23,600), Dnepropetrovsk (1,000+), Karkhov (10,000 !=
20,000), Odessa (23,000), Pinsk (16,200), and Minsk (19,000 + 9,000),
Brest-Litovsk (6,000 - 10,000), Zhitomir (18,000), Poniatowa (14,000),
Mogivel (3,700), Kostopol (5,000), Bialystok (3,000), Trawniki (12,000),
Janow Podlaski (2,500), among others, often involving a process lasting
several weeks during which Jews were declared a criminal element,
identified, sought out and arrested, dispossessed of all property and
assets, ghettoized, exploited locally for slave labor, and ultimately
marched to a specially chosen killing site which had been supplied with
sufficiant ammunition, ready dug graves, and the requisite number of
sharpshooters, and killed, with the immovable property and assets seized
from them catalogued and then sold or auctioned off, and te movable
property shipped to Germany.

Evidence for an affirmative answer to question 2:

a. The testimony of Nazis at the highest level, such as Adolf Eichmann.

b. The testimony of camp administrators such as Rudolf Hoess, specifically
his memoirs and his testimony as a witness at the Nuremberg trials.

c. The independent and mutually corroborating testimony of camp personnel
such as Kurt Bolender, Erich Fuchs, Hans Munch, and John Demyanyuk.

d. The testimony of escapees from extermination camps, such as Rudolf Vrba
and Toivi Blatt
[http://judaism.about.com/religion/judaism/library/holocaust/stories/bl_toiv
iblatta.htm]

e. The evidence that a variety of Zyklon-B lacking the mandatory warning
scent and irritant was delivered to the SSfor use at Auschwitz.

f. The evidence in the form of two standing and fully operational gas
chambers at Majdanek, one with clear evidence of thousands of desperate
fingernail scratchings on the wall.

g. The evidence if a fully functional gas chamber at Mauthausen.

h. The evidence of construction plans for gas chambers equipped with false
shower heads at Ausschwitz.

i. The evidence of forensic examinations conducted in 1945 and 1994 showing
clear traces of cyanide compounds on the walls and in the ventilation ducts
of structures other evidence indicates were once used as gas chambers.

j. The evidence of Freudian slips in censored military documents pertaining
to "special treatment" that this was a euphemisim for gassing.

k. The circumstantial evidence of the difficulty of explaining the origin
of the large amount of human remains found in places like Sobibor and
Treblinka as resulting fromany alternative source but the gassings former
personnel, escapees, and historians claim took place there.

l. The circumstantial evidence that personnel involved in developing mass
gassing techniques within the framework of the T-4 euthanasia program such
as Franz Stangle and Christian Wirth later wound up as commandants of
extermiantion centers where mass gassing methods representing evolutionary
more sophisticated variants of those developed at the T-4 centers were
used.

m. The evidence seen in private correspondence between Hoess and Wirth about
the relative advantages and disadvantages of gassing by HCN as opposed to
CO.

--- end excerpt ---

JGB

Patrick Keenan

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 1:24:39 PM4/14/02
to
"Deaths Head" <de...@nospam.neverlandsystems.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91F0AA85E5F8...@212.159.13.1...

After you; what is it you claim is 'still valid' in the Leuchter report?

-pk

>
> --
> Deaths Head
> <When you see me, you'll know me>

Already do, I think. An anonymous denier... without even the backbone of
the Knolls.


Deaths Head

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 2:02:23 PM4/14/02
to
> Let's divide that question up into two questions:
>
> 1. Were Jews killed in very large numbers through planned and
> deliberate mass killings?
>
> 2. Did some of these planned and deliberate mass killings involve
> gassing.
>
> Evidence for an affirmative answer to question 1:
>
> a. The systematic program of arresting and shooting the Jews of
> Estonia in late 1941, including the extraordinary efforts to find the
> three children of Juri Pilner and execute them in March, 1942.
> Documented in arrest records and case files in the Estonian National
> Archives as well as in the selection of photocopied police archive
> documents pertaining to the fate of Estonian Jews during the period of
> Nazi occupation published by Eugenia Gurin-Loof _Eesti Juutide
> katasroof 1941_, Tallinn 1994.

What if these people were criminals? Didn't the German government have
every right to hunt them down?

>
> b. The methodical program of combing the towns and smaller cities of
> Latvia and Lithuania for, and summary mass shootings of, Jews by
> Einsatzgruppe A, documented in the Jager Report, during the latter
> half of 1941.

My grandfather was an Einsatzkommando and later in the SS. He absolutely
refutes this allegation.

>
> c. The well-planned shootings of Jews in larger cities such as Riga
> (25,000), Daugavpils (13,000), Rezekne (1,700), Liepaja (5,000),
> Ventspils (1,000), Shiauliai (3,000), Kaunas (3,600), Kiev (33,000),
> Serniki (600), Kamanets-Podolski (23,600), Dnepropetrovsk (1,000+),
> Karkhov (10,000 != 20,000), Odessa (23,000), Pinsk (16,200), and Minsk
> (19,000 + 9,000), Brest-Litovsk (6,000 - 10,000), Zhitomir (18,000),
> Poniatowa (14,000), Mogivel (3,700), Kostopol (5,000), Bialystok
> (3,000), Trawniki (12,000), Janow Podlaski (2,500), among others,
> often involving a process lasting several weeks during which Jews were
> declared a criminal element, identified, sought out and arrested,
> dispossessed of all property and assets, ghettoized, exploited locally
> for slave labor, and ultimately marched to a specially chosen killing
> site which had been supplied with sufficiant ammunition, ready dug
> graves, and the requisite number of sharpshooters, and killed, with
> the immovable property and assets seized from them catalogued and then
> sold or auctioned off, and te movable property shipped to Germany.

Again, the jews of the time *were* known to be criminals - they were
being investigated and arrested as necessary.

> Evidence for an affirmative answer to question 2:
>
> a. The testimony of Nazis at the highest level, such as Adolf
> Eichmann.

Under duress.

> b. The testimony of camp administrators such as Rudolf Hoess,
> specifically his memoirs and his testimony as a witness at the
> Nuremberg trials.

Under duress.

> c. The independent and mutually corroborating testimony of camp
> personnel such as Kurt Bolender, Erich Fuchs, Hans Munch, and John
> Demyanyuk.

Under duress.



> d. The testimony of escapees from extermination camps, such as Rudolf
> Vrba and Toivi Blatt
> [http://judaism.about.com/religion/judaism/library/holocaust/stories/bl
> _toiv iblatta.htm]

Don't even get me started about the moaning jews. Their evidence is no
evidence at all: they'll do or say anything to make people feel sorry for
them.

> e. The evidence that a variety of Zyklon-B lacking the mandatory
> warning scent and irritant was delivered to the SSfor use at
> Auschwitz.

Delousing.



> f. The evidence in the form of two standing and fully operational gas
> chambers at Majdanek, one with clear evidence of thousands of
> desperate fingernail scratchings on the wall.

Proven to be fingernail scratches? How?

> g. The evidence if a fully functional gas chamber at Mauthausen.

What qualifies it as a 'gas chamber'? Is it like a delousing chamber? The
obvious answer is often the right one.



> h. The evidence of construction plans for gas chambers equipped with
> false shower heads at Ausschwitz.

False shower heads? Have you got one to show me?

> i. The evidence of forensic examinations conducted in 1945 and 1994
> showing clear traces of cyanide compounds on the walls and in the
> ventilation ducts of structures other evidence indicates were once
> used as gas chambers.

Delousing chambers.

> j. The evidence of Freudian slips in censored military documents
> pertaining to "special treatment" that this was a euphemisim for
> gassing.

How could I refute that one? That isn't evidence.



> k. The circumstantial evidence of the difficulty of explaining the
> origin of the large amount of human remains found in places like
> Sobibor and Treblinka as resulting fromany alternative source but the
> gassings former personnel, escapees, and historians claim took place
> there.

Circumstantial!! I need say no more!

> l. The circumstantial evidence that personnel involved in developing
> mass gassing techniques within the framework of the T-4 euthanasia
> program such as Franz Stangle and Christian Wirth later wound up as
> commandants of extermiantion centers where mass gassing methods
> representing evolutionary more sophisticated variants of those
> developed at the T-4 centers were used.


Circumstantial!! I need say no more!



> m. The evidence seen in private correspondence between Hoess and Wirth
> about the relative advantages and disadvantages of gassing by HCN as
> opposed to CO.

Really? Honest? Thats convenient - did they admit the documents were
between them, and not under duress?

If people intercepted half of the private mail I send then I'd be sent
down 'circumstantially' for all sorts of things. Sorry, but that evidence
just isn't valid.



> --- end excerpt ---
>
> JGB
>

Anything else?

Tell me...what makes *YOU* believe the lie?

Jeffrey G. Brown

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 3:15:49 PM4/14/02
to
In article <Xns91F0C2AE6AEB...@212.159.13.1>, Deaths Head
<de...@nospam.neverlandsystems.com> wrote:

[quoting Eugene Holman:]

> > Let's divide that question up into two questions:
> >
> > 1. Were Jews killed in very large numbers through planned and
> > deliberate mass killings?
> >
> > 2. Did some of these planned and deliberate mass killings involve
> > gassing.
> >
> > Evidence for an affirmative answer to question 1:
> >
> > a. The systematic program of arresting and shooting the Jews of
> > Estonia in late 1941, including the extraordinary efforts to find the
> > three children of Juri Pilner and execute them in March, 1942.
> > Documented in arrest records and case files in the Estonian National
> > Archives as well as in the selection of photocopied police archive
> > documents pertaining to the fate of Estonian Jews during the period of
> > Nazi occupation published by Eugenia Gurin-Loof _Eesti Juutide
> > katasroof 1941_, Tallinn 1994.
>
> What if these people were criminals? Didn't the German government have
> every right to hunt them down?

Tell us the crimes for which the children of Juri Pilner were executed. Be
certain that you provide transcripts of the trials of all three children.

> > b. The methodical program of combing the towns and smaller cities of
> > Latvia and Lithuania for, and summary mass shootings of, Jews by
> > Einsatzgruppe A, documented in the Jager Report, during the latter
> > half of 1941.
>
> My grandfather was an Einsatzkommando and later in the SS. He absolutely
> refutes this allegation.

Irrelevant. We have original documentation from the Nazis.

> > c. The well-planned shootings of Jews in larger cities such as Riga
> > (25,000), Daugavpils (13,000), Rezekne (1,700), Liepaja (5,000),
> > Ventspils (1,000), Shiauliai (3,000), Kaunas (3,600), Kiev (33,000),
> > Serniki (600), Kamanets-Podolski (23,600), Dnepropetrovsk (1,000+),
> > Karkhov (10,000 != 20,000), Odessa (23,000), Pinsk (16,200), and Minsk
> > (19,000 + 9,000), Brest-Litovsk (6,000 - 10,000), Zhitomir (18,000),
> > Poniatowa (14,000), Mogivel (3,700), Kostopol (5,000), Bialystok
> > (3,000), Trawniki (12,000), Janow Podlaski (2,500), among others,
> > often involving a process lasting several weeks during which Jews were
> > declared a criminal element, identified, sought out and arrested,
> > dispossessed of all property and assets, ghettoized, exploited locally
> > for slave labor, and ultimately marched to a specially chosen killing
> > site which had been supplied with sufficiant ammunition, ready dug
> > graves, and the requisite number of sharpshooters, and killed, with
> > the immovable property and assets seized from them catalogued and then
> > sold or auctioned off, and te movable property shipped to Germany.
>
> Again, the jews of the time *were* known to be criminals - they were
> being investigated and arrested as necessary.

You can, of course, produce the files of the police investigations on every one
of thos tens of thousands of known criminals? Please do so.

Or are you really telling us that the mere fact that one is a Jew is what makes
one a criminal?

> > Evidence for an affirmative answer to question 2:
> >
> > a. The testimony of Nazis at the highest level, such as Adolf
> > Eichmann.
>
> Under duress.

Cite evidence of this "duress".

> > b. The testimony of camp administrators such as Rudolf Hoess,
> > specifically his memoirs and his testimony as a witness at the
> > Nuremberg trials.
>
> Under duress.

Cite evidence of this "duress".

> > c. The independent and mutually corroborating testimony of camp
> > personnel such as Kurt Bolender, Erich Fuchs, Hans Munch, and John
> > Demyanyuk.
>
> Under duress.

Cite evidence of this "duress".

> > d. The testimony of escapees from extermination camps, such as Rudolf
> > Vrba and Toivi Blatt
> > [http://judaism.about.com/religion/judaism/library/holocaust/stories/bl
> > _toiv iblatta.htm]
>
> Don't even get me started about the moaning jews. Their evidence is no
> evidence at all: they'll do or say anything to make people feel sorry for
> them.

Translation: You cannot refute the testimony.

> > e. The evidence that a variety of Zyklon-B lacking the mandatory
> > warning scent and irritant was delivered to the SSfor use at
> > Auschwitz.
>
> Delousing.

Zyklon-B was required, by German Federal law, to contain a warning scent and
irritant. Why did the SS order the manufacturer to make and ship batches of
Zyklon-B *without* the scent?

> > f. The evidence in the form of two standing and fully operational gas
> > chambers at Majdanek, one with clear evidence of thousands of
> > desperate fingernail scratchings on the wall.
>
> Proven to be fingernail scratches? How?

Provide an alterntaive explanation.

> > g. The evidence if a fully functional gas chamber at Mauthausen.
>
> What qualifies it as a 'gas chamber'?

The fact that there is documentary and testimonial evidence that it was used as
such.

> [...deletia...]

> > h. The evidence of construction plans for gas chambers equipped with
> > false shower heads at Ausschwitz.
>
> False shower heads? Have you got one to show me?

We have the plans. You *have* seen the plans, have you not?

> > i. The evidence of forensic examinations conducted in 1945 and 1994
> > showing clear traces of cyanide compounds on the walls and in the
> > ventilation ducts of structures other evidence indicates were once
> > used as gas chambers.
>
> Delousing chambers.

Provide independently verifiable evidence that the Kremas were, in fact, used as
delousing chambers.

> > j. The evidence of Freudian slips in censored military documents
> > pertaining to "special treatment" that this was a euphemisim for
> > gassing.
>
> How could I refute that one? That isn't evidence.

Why? Do you even know what documents are referred to?

> > k. The circumstantial evidence of the difficulty of explaining the
> > origin of the large amount of human remains found in places like
> > Sobibor and Treblinka as resulting fromany alternative source but the
> > gassings former personnel, escapees, and historians claim took place
> > there.
>
> Circumstantial!! I need say no more!

Provide an alternative explanation for the origin of the large amounts of human
remains found in Sobibor and Treblinka. be certain that your ewxplanation is
consistent with *all* known historical facts.

> > l. The circumstantial evidence that personnel involved in developing
> > mass gassing techniques within the framework of the T-4 euthanasia
> > program such as Franz Stangle and Christian Wirth later wound up as
> > commandants of extermiantion centers where mass gassing methods
> > representing evolutionary more sophisticated variants of those
> > developed at the T-4 centers were used.
>
>
> Circumstantial!! I need say no more!

That's because you can't say anything about the evidence. You *did* know about
the T-4 program, didn't you? The program in which German citizens were executed
by the Nazi regime, and false explanations of their deaths provided to their
relatives?

> > m. The evidence seen in private correspondence between Hoess and Wirth
> > about the relative advantages and disadvantages of gassing by HCN as
> > opposed to CO.
>
> Really? Honest? Thats convenient - did they admit the documents were
> between them, and not under duress?

The documents were written during the war. Cite evidence that Hoess and Wirth
were "under duress" when the document were written.

> If people intercepted half of the private mail I send then I'd be sent
> down 'circumstantially' for all sorts of things. Sorry, but that evidence
> just isn't valid.

Wrong. Documentary evidence is considered valid in virtually all Western
jurisprudence. That mumblings of one anonymous coward does not change that fact.

> [...deletia...]

> Tell me...what makes *YOU* believe the lie?

You haven't provided evidence of any "lie" in any of the evidence provided.

Do so -- now.

JGB

Orac

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 2:50:54 PM4/14/02
to
In article <Xns91F0C2AE6AEB...@212.159.13.1>,
Deaths Head <de...@nospam.neverlandsystems.com> wrote:


> > b. The methodical program of combing the towns and smaller cities of
> > Latvia and Lithuania for, and summary mass shootings of, Jews by
> > Einsatzgruppe A, documented in the Jager Report, during the latter
> > half of 1941.
>
> My grandfather was an Einsatzkommando and later in the SS. He absolutely
> refutes this allegation.

According to "revisionist" scholars, eyewitness testimonial evidence is
unreliable and therefore not to be considered. Consequently, using the
usual standards of "revisionist" scholarship towards the Holocaust, your
grandfather's recollections and denials are not considered reliable
evidence. After all, if someone around here had pointed out that their
grandfather had witnessed the mass shootings by the Einsatzgruppen in
Latvia and Lithuania, you would surely have dismissed such accounts.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

Just applying your own fellow revisionists' standards to your argument.

Deaths Head

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 3:21:55 PM4/14/02
to

At the end of the day I need prove nothing. I believe what I believe and I
know why I believe it. I can produce reams of evidence to debunk the
holohoax but why should I? I'm not here to convince plebs like yourself.
And besides, you don't listen to it.

To rely on jewbags statements of the holohoax is ridiculous: they wanted to
get something out of the war for themselves so they moaned.

If a foreign government is threatening you with death or lie to protect the
truth you'll do it!

You question the intelligence of those that question the holocaust. I
refute that and throw it back: I question the intellegence of those that
_don't_ question.

If you believe everything you read and hear without damned good evidence
then you show yourself up to be the ignoramus you are.

David Gehrig

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 6:27:12 PM4/14/02
to
Some big, bad, sca-a-a-ary man who calls himself "Deaths Head" because

he's a big, bad, sca-a-a-ary man wrote:

> David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:K4%t8.4984$3z3.480677
> @newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
>> David Gehrig wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Wightman wrote:
>>>
>>>> We've all seen enough evidence to contradict the 'holocaust' have we
>>>> not?
>>>
>>> Really? Name some. Be specific.
>>
>> Gee, Mr "Wightman" seems to have run from this question.
>>
>
> Hmmmm well we all have to start somewhere: I too started with looking at
> Leuchters work and although some of is has been debunked some of the rest
> of it is still valid...and leads to other evidence and information.

Find me a scientific conclusion of Leuchter you consider to be
"still valid."

--
@%<

Jeffrey G. Brown

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 8:27:18 PM4/14/02
to
In article <Xns91F0D02AA210...@212.159.13.1>, anonymous coward
"Deaths Head <de...@nospam.justifiedhate.com>" wrote:

> At the end of the day I need prove nothing.

You've made a whole raft of idiotic claims about the evidence for the Holocaust,
gutless jackass.

Somehow, it's not surprising to see you run away from those claims at full steam.

> I can produce reams of evidence to debunk the holohoax but why should I?

Because without the evidence, you're just another ranting loony.

But we already know that, since there is no such evidence.

> [...deletia...]

> You question the intelligence of those that question the holocaust.

Nope. I merely question the intelligence of anyone who would give an anonymous
coward like you the slightest credence.

> [...deletia...]

> If you believe everything you read and hear without damned good evidence
> then you show yourself up to be the ignoramus you are.

Yet you believe what you believe without damned good evidence. That makes you
the ignoramus, gutless jackass.

JGB

Michael Ragland

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 10:15:20 PM4/14/02
to
Why have you chosen "Deaths Head" to be your nick? Why have you chosen
"de...@nospam.neverlandsystems" as email? Does it signify some type of
infatuation with death? The purpose of the Einsatzgruppen was not to
round up "Jewish criminals" but to round up and kill Jews. That is
what they did and I don't care what you may otherwise think or what
your real or imaginary grandfather may thing. From the Nazi view,
Zyklon was a perfect agent for "delousing" Jews since it was used as a
pesticide and the Nazis considered the Jews to be parasites and of
course the only way to really 100% delouse is to incinerate.

MR


Deaths Head <de...@nospam.neverlandsystems.com> wrote in message news:<Xns91F0C2AE6AEB...@212.159.13.1>...

Philip Mathews

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 11:50:26 PM4/14/02
to
"Deaths Head" <de...@nospam.justifiedhate.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91F0D02AA210...@212.159.13.1...

>
> At the end of the day I need prove nothing. I believe what I believe and I
> know why I believe it. I can produce reams of evidence to debunk the
> holohoax but why should I? I'm not here to convince plebs like yourself.
> And besides, you don't listen to it.
>
> To rely on jewbags statements of the holohoax is ridiculous: they wanted
to
> get something out of the war for themselves so they moaned.

Ah, just as we suspected! Another hate filled moron!

Thanks for not stretching this out for too long.

--
Philip Mathews

"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to attain it."

Samuel Johnson


Philip Mathews

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 11:48:32 PM4/14/02
to
"Deaths Head" <de...@nospam.neverlandsystems.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91F0AA85E5F8...@212.159.13.1...

I think you were just asked to back up a statement you made, specifically
that parts of the Leuchter Report were still valid.

Can we expect you to support that statement, or have you already realized
that you've stepped into the deep end of the pool?

Deaths Head

unread,
Apr 15, 2002, 1:18:19 PM4/15/02
to
ragl...@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in
news:eaf50c6b.02041...@posting.google.com:

> Why have you chosen "Deaths Head" to be your nick? Why have you chosen
> "de...@nospam.neverlandsystems" as email? Does it signify some type of
> infatuation with death? The purpose of the Einsatzgruppen was not to
> round up "Jewish criminals" but to round up and kill Jews. That is
> what they did and I don't care what you may otherwise think or what
> your real or imaginary grandfather may thing. From the Nazi view,
> Zyklon was a perfect agent for "delousing" Jews since it was used as a
> pesticide and the Nazis considered the Jews to be parasites and of
> course the only way to really 100% delouse is to incinerate.
>
> MR

Idiot. Don't you know what the Deaths Head is?

Deaths Head

unread,
Apr 15, 2002, 1:34:03 PM4/15/02
to

You are a bunch of jew loving scum.

I sincerely wish there WERE gas chambers...then perhaps the jewish disease
wouldn't be so proliferant. And scum like you wouldn't support them.

And besides, what is so wrong with killing the jewish scurge? What is so
wrong in sticking them in small rooms together with their own stench then
cleansing them?

I wish the world had the balls to vote ME into power, I'd sort them out for
good.

Deaths Head

unread,
Apr 15, 2002, 1:36:24 PM4/15/02