I liked Gandi's description of the British.. he didn't say it directly, but a person could reasonably infer that he called them "savages in quaint houses"..
The Revisionist claim is: Official state policy towards the Jews in the Third Reich was emigration, not extermination.
It is true that Hitler Germany wanted to remove the Jews from the German people's "sphere of influence." The country was at war - a war largely seen as having been instigated by international banking Jewry, and Jews were seen as a corroding influence, not only financially but also racially and culturally. Hitler Germany was adamant in not wanting Jews to be part of Germany because they were held to be harmful to the fabric of an ethnically cohesive society as it was woven by Hitler. The Führer wanted the Jews "out of his face." He certainly was not fond of them.
emigration, not extermination?
Did you miss one of the earlier quotes I posted from the leader of that Third Reich? Or do you need more of them? (I can oblige)...
When Hell asked Hitler what he intended doing if he ever had full freedom of action against the Jews, his response was:
"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!"
That really sounds like all he wanted to do was ship them out, eh?
WTH STILL isn't responding to lots of things posters here posted- like video footage and so on,
and still pretending he isn't responding to them.
I bet this convinces HIM he's responding to it or something.
He's also under some misimpression-or considers it appropriate-
to pretend anyone said this was a great scholarly study here.
That's one of his pieces to change the subject when I pointed out what HE posts is what he can
claim credit for, not discussions happening somewhere else.
We're having A discussion here. (What's next, posting to announce he's not posting?)
This discussion is here-which is not specialized as a Holocaust, history, or science board.
Therefore, it's not a bunch of experts posting here.
That having been said, the amount of information (this is the dawn of the Information Age)
available for laymen (like me, WTH, Leuchter, Hamm, and simonzelotes, for example)
is considerable. Most of us need not be experts to look over historical evidence, or
claims of such, to see if they are reliable or sound.
I agree, the numbers certainly don't matter a whole lot, especially when historians with credible reputations themselves can't agree on the exact "number." Heck I say, make up a number yourself - you might end up and be a whole lot closer to the truth then they are. Where I happen to disagree with you though is that there is currently no attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. Even if there were such an attempt, why should we be involved?
Funny the way you can re read through this thread and notice something you missed earlier. We are talking about the holocaust, an event from over 60 years ago. I presented a couple (out of many) of Hitler's statements regarding what he thought of Jews and what he was going to do to them. All of this discussion has been about this event, and in an answer to a post of mine, you say you disagree with me, saying that there is currently no attempt to exterminate the Jewish people.
Currently? I never said anything about whether or not there were any current attempts to exterminate them. You are disagreeing with me on something I never said anything about. Or is that an admission from you that the Holocaust was an attempt to exterminate the Jewish people? After all, that is what this thread is about.
Has anybody else done what I did...go over this threads and notice something that they missed?
[several paragraphs that ignore Lifted Up's post]
Feel free to click on the arrow and check it out.
WTH quoted Lifted Up's post, which pointed out WTH claimed someone was talking about
some CURRENT attempts to exterminate the Jews.
That means he's claiming he's addressing Lifted's post.
WTH then went on for several paragraphs, completely unrelated to Lifted's post.
Someone's eager to change the subject and PRETEND some things were never
posted-by himself and commented on by WTH.....
but then again, someone's eager to PRETEND some things never happened, and some
people were never imprisoned and subsequently executed WHILE in prison...
There's a systematic pattern here for someone...
emigration, not extermination?
Did you miss one of the earlier quotes I posted from the leader of that Third Reich? Or do you need more of them? (I can oblige)...
When Hell asked Hitler what he intended doing if he ever had full freedom of action against the Jews, his response was:
"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!"
That really sounds like all he wanted to do was ship them out, eh?
Since WTH claims he's not skipping over anything, then he didn't miss your earlier quotes.
He saw them and made the deliberate decision to not respond, disregard them,
and otherwise pretend they don't even exist.
However, he expects us to adopt his own doctrines, even to the point of pretending there are no flaws
This may be a dumb question,but is there anything out there that refutes Leuchter's results,or methodology,other than he didn't have the credentials?....
for one.. the lab he sent the "samples" to, he didn't tell them it was surface contamination that they should test for. They wouldn't have crushed the samples. It diluted any trace of cyanide to probably thousandths of what a surface examination would have revealed.
I posted a few other legitimate claims:
after that many years, humidity and the elements would make it quite unlikely to find ANY cyanide.
Some of the bricks were from a museum, a recreation, and were never involved in gassing to begin with..
Some may have been exposed to water in the spring, for decades..
some of his argument depended on finding levels of the chemical that would be needed for delousing, which would be a lot more than a level that would prove lethal to a human being.
The facts suggest that zyklon B would be a poor choice for delousing, but a rather good choice for gassing people.
Besides all of this.. a person can argue the science all they want.. I still ask,
"what about the shoes"..
Personally.. I think when some people are confronted with man's darker nature, they kinda flip out..
These are pretty elementary mistakes for Leuchter to make.
Back in HIGH SCHOOL, I would have gotten in trouble for making mistakes this basic in a lab.
Then again, my high school lab teachers had a higher standard for accuracy than Leuchter has.
They have titles, which reflect the study they put in, and that they know what they claim they know.
That's why the don't make amateurish mistakes.
(Mind you, even many amateurs would avoid such mistakes.)
Then again,
perhaps Leuchter DID know a CAREFUL analysis would risk disproving his thesis.
So,
either Leuchter is a barely-competent amateur, who made elementary mistakes that were easily
avoided, and lacks the wit to acknowledge them when raised and said
"Wait-they're right. This would compromise the results."
or
Leuchter knew FULL WELL in advance that he selected methods that were flawed,
in order to deliberately obtain flawed results,
which means he did NOT want ACCURATE results, but preferred FLAWED results.
Either way,
WTH's pinned his ideology on this.
It's as foolish as pinning one's full understanding of the Bible on a sermonizer,
These are pretty elementary mistakes for Leuchter to make. Back in HIGH SCHOOL, I would have gotten in trouble for making mistakes this basic in a lab.
Then again, my high school lab teachers had a higher standard for accuracy than Leuchter has. They have titles, which reflect the study they put in, and that they know what they claim they know. That's why the don't make amateurish mistakes. (Mind you, even many amateurs would avoid such mistakes.)
Then again, perhaps Leuchter DID know a CAREFUL analysis would risk disproving his thesis. So, either Leuchter is a barely-competent amateur, who made elementary mistakes that were easily avoided, and lacks the wit to acknowledge them when raised and said "Wait-they're right. This would compromise the results."
or Leuchter knew FULL WELL in advance that he selected methods that were flawed,in order to deliberately obtain flawed results, which means he did NOT want ACCURATE results, but preferred FLAWED results.
Either way, WTH's pinned his ideology on this. It's as foolish as pinning one's full understanding of the Bible on a sermonizer, or a homileticist, or something.
All this surmizing and you draw your conclusions based on ????????. In case you missed reading The Findings which are in the introduction of the Leuchter report, I have reprinted a copy of the initial findings here - although this is not the complete introduction from the report. I'd say it would be very hard for anyone with any common sense to come to the conclusion that Leuchter's findings are FLAWED, as you claim they are. Why? Because basic laws of physics would have to be broken to support the exterminist's point of view for one to come to the conclusion that Leuchter's findings are likewise flawed.
(But then again, the exterminists don't appeal to one's common sense or reason, but to myth and emotion in an attempt to indoctrinate people with their propaganda, while all the time they are banking on people's naivete and gullibility. Of course, we be very emotional people. Holocaust exterminists bank on this fact too, as they usually end up calling anyone who strongly dis-agrees with their view of the Holocaust an Anti-Semite, etc.)
The results published in the Leuchter Report are the important thing. Categorically, none of the facilities examined at Auschwitz, Birkenau or Lublin (Majdanek) could have supported, or in fact did support, multiple executions utilizing hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide or any other allegedly or factually lethal gas. Based upon very generous maximum usage rates for all the alleged gas chambers, totalling 1,693 persons per week, and assuming these facilities could support gas executions, it would have required sixty-eight (68) years to execute the alleged number of six millions of persons. This must mean the Third Reich was in existence for some seventy-five (75) years. Promoting these facilities as being capable of effecting mass, multiple or even singular executions is both ludicrous and insulting to every individual on this planet. Further, those who do promote this mistruth are negligent and irresponsible for not investigating these facilities earlier and ascertaining the truth before indoctrinating the world with what may have become the greatest propaganda ploy in history.
2. Crematories
Of equal importance are Exterminationist errors relating to the crematories. If these crematories, operated at a theoretical rate of maximum output per day, without any down time and at a constant pace (an impossible situation), and we accept the figure of at least six million executed, the Third Reich lasted for at least forty-two (42) years, since it would take thirty-five (35) years at an impossible minimum to cremate these six million souls.
No one by any stretch of the imagination would allege (or even believe) that the Third Reich ever lasted for seventy-five (75) or even forty-two (42) years, yet they would have us believe that six million souls were executed with equipment that could not possibly have functioned, in less than one-seventh of the absolute minimum time it could possibly have taken.
3. Forensics
Forensic samples were taken from the visited sites. A control sample was removed from delousing facility 1 at Birkenau. It was postulated that because of the high iron content of the building materials at these camps the presence of hydrogen cyanide gas would result in a ferric-ferro-cyanide compound being formed, as evidenced by the Prussian blue staining on the walls in the delousing facilities.
A detailed analysis of the 32 samples taken at the Auschwitz-Birkenau complexes showed 1,050 mg/kg of cyanide and 6,170 mg/kg of iron. Higher iron results were found at all of the alleged gas chambers but no significant cyanide traces. This would be impossible if these sites were exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas, because the alleged gas chambers supposedly were exposed to much greater quantities of gas than the delousing facility. Thus, chemical analysis supports the fact that these facilities were never utilized as gas execution facilities.
4. Construction
Construction of these facilities shows that they were never used as gas chambers. None of these facilities were sealed or gasketed.No provision was ever made to prevent condensation of gas on the walls, floor or ceiling. No provision ever existed to exhaust the air-gas mixture from these buildings. No provision ever existed to introduce or distribute the gas throughout the chamber. No explosion-proof lighting existed and no attempt was ever made to prevent gas from entering the crematories, even though the gas is highly explosive. No attempt was made to protect operating personnel from exposure to the gas or to protect other non-participating persons from exposure. Specifically, at Auschwitz, a floor drain in the alleged gas chamber was connected directly to the camp's storm drain system. At Majdanek a depressed walkway around the alleged gas chambers would have collected gas seepage and resulted in a death trap for camp personnel. No exhaust stacks ever existed. Hydrogen cyanide gas is an extremely dangerous and lethal gas, and nowhere were there any provisions to effect any amount of safe handling. The chambers were too small to accommodate more than a small fraction of the alleged numbers. Plain and simple, these facilities could not have operated as execution gas chambers.
5. Conclusion
After a thorough examination of the alleged execution facilities in Poland and their associated crematories, the only conclusion that can be arrived at by a rational, responsible person is the absurdity of the notion that any of these facilities were ever capable of, or were utilized as, execution gas chambers.
There you have it - sound, rational conclusions. But WW and Mr. Ham insist upon these findings are flawed??? If they are, then the laws of physics are likewise flawed. What we really have is a conclusion that can be arrived at by any rational reasonable person, vs. the absurdity of notions continiously made by WW, Mr. Ham, and Holocuast exterminists.
Of equal importance are Exterminationist errors relating to the crematories. If these crematories, operated at a theoretical rate of maximum output per day, without any down time and at a constant pace (an impossible situation), and we accept the figure of at least six million executed, the Third Reich lasted for at least forty-two (42) years, since it would take thirty-five (35) years at an impossible minimum to cremate these six million souls.
if it makes any difference, the cremetories were only part, but a large part of the operation.
Oh yes.. the cremetories were SOO busy, they chose to burn bodies in open pits outside as well.. care to see the nazi's documentation?
I'd say it would be very hard for anyone with any common sense to come to the conclusion that Leuchter's findings are FLAWED, as you claim they are. Why? Because basic laws of physics would have to be broken to support the exterminist's point of view for one to come to the conclusion that Leuchter's findings are likewise flawed.
You'd say a great deal. Some of it, at times, is sensible to the average, literate adult.
Leuchter supposedly wanted to test a surface for the presence of a poison that was present over 40 years before.
As I learned back in high school, one problem with poison gas is that it is highly reactive-that's why it's poisonous.
(That's why I can clear out chlorine fumes by introducing an open flame, which forces a chemical reaction
called burning-but technically is OXIDATION, meaning I force it to react and combine with oxygen.
Nobody had to tell me I could do it, either.)
Given 40 years, the amount of chemical present somewhere would be extremely small, due to the passage of
40 years, and re-reaction at the microscopic level like always happens.
Given exposure to the elements (WEATHER), 40 years of exposure will dilute the presence of any chemical.
Given rebuilding, some of the bricks that had been exposed to poison had been moved, and some bricks that
were NOW there were introduced later and were never exposed to poison because they hadn't been around
when the poison gas was released.
So, Leuchter, who acted on his own without permission and desecrated a grave,
took some bricks- which we would call STEALING FROM A MONUMENT.
He either knew that he might have taken the wrong bricks, and if they were the right bricks, they might have
been exposed to poison and been purged of it in the DECADES since due to weather and time,
or he did not.
If he DID know, then he deliberately engaged in fraud.
If he did NOT know, he's just as incompetent as even one of his own history revisionists called him.
Then, he sent the "sample" (which was grossly below standards for a sample when I was in HIGH SCHOOL)
to a lab. He then made an amazingly elementary "mistake"-
he didn't tell them he wanted the SURFACE tested. So, they pulverized the sample and tested the AGGREGATE.
Either he knew this would ruin the sample-which means he engaged in fraud-
or he did not know-which means, again, he's an incompetent.
The lab took the sample, and judged the aggregate as having no discernable level of poison.
Of course, if there HAD been discernable levels, they would have been on the SURFACES, and the AGGREGATE
diluted what little there was further yet.
So, the "sample" might have been from bricks that hadn't been AT the facility when people were getting gassed.
If they HAD been, they'd been exposed to time and weather for DECADES.
Whatever was left was then DILUTED by combining the exposed surfaces with the unexposed majority of the
brick. The presence of poison was not detected.
DUUUUUHHHHH.
If one pulled aside people from the labs in my old HIGH SCHOOL, they could have made the same conclusions
the rest of us do- the sample was so badly compromised that the results won't tell you ANYTHING if they come back
negative-and the chance of the sample coming back positive after exposure to poison and then the conditions this
sample was exposed to is almost nil.
It doesn't take a LOT of science to understand that-a high schooler's understanding of practical chemistry is enough.
However,
WTH's understanding of "basic laws of physics" gets invoked here. WTH thinks the understanding of all this
contradicts the "basic laws of physics."
What results is a pastiche of parrotting back whatever Leuchter said,
and lots of insults to anyone who disagrees.
=========
Frankly,
the last time I saw someone trying to misdirect this badly was when someone claimed their doctrine
was correct, and for it to not work,
"God would have to change the laws of the universe."
Now, we have "basic laws of physics would have to be broken."
I recall seeing a television program on revisionism a few years ago which closed with Deborah Lipstadt making some statement to the effect that: the real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again. I normally don't agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, 'Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!'" -- "On Revisionism" by Harold Covington
The facts suggest that zyklon B would be a poor choice for delousing, but a rather good choice for gassing people.
Zyklon B was originally developed as a pesticide by Fritz Haber, a German Jew who emigrated in 1933. It was first produced in World War I by TASCH (Technischer Ausschuss für Schädlingsbekämpfung, or Technical Committee for Pest Control) as a delousing agent. Out of TASCH emerged DEGESCH (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbekämpfung GmbH, or German Corporation for Pest Control), which played a key role in the manufacturing of Zyklon B in World War II. Many German companies had a stake in DEGESCH, but all eventually sold their shares to the chemical giant Degussa in the early 1920s. Degussa developed the process to manufacture Zyklon B in crystals, as it was used during World War II. To raise capital, Degussa split its controlling interest of DEGESCH with IG Farben in 1930: both companies held a 42.5% share in DEGESCH, with the remaining 15% held by the Th. Goldschmidt AG of Essen. (Source: Wikipedia)
The exterminist claim that Zyklon B was used by Nazi Germany as a chemical weapon to poison prisoners in the gas chambers of Auschwitz Birkenau, and also at Majdanek. The exterminists also use "air photos" of the Holocaust to support their claims - but they typically use recent air photos and list them on their web sites. Yet in a aerial photo dated 31th May 1944 there's no visible sign of mass graves, burial pits, activity around or near the presumed gas chambers. According to various presumed eyewitnesses (Bendel, Tauber, Müller three ex fomer inmates Jews) one would see large open burial pits for the cremations of people allegedly gassed. Nothing of all this. This evidence constitutes one fatal strike to the credibility of eyewitnesses and to the history of Auschwitz as killing center.
The Leuchter Report also shows and explains how gassing thousands of Jews would be physically impossible for the Nazi's. Just about every slander and every weapon has been used to silence Fred Leuchter in this regard. However this only beg's the question - What exactly do the Holocaust exterminists have to hide?
Besides all of this.. a person can argue the science all they want.. I still ask, "what about the shoes"..
I believe David Cole has handled this issue about the shoes. Some of his videos are featured on YouTube and I believe he covers that particular issue in one of those videos. I will look for it and post a link to it later, but you can find it on YouTube in the mean time. (I previous posted one of his videos of his trip to Auschwitz, but that particular video did not cover the "shoe issue" specifically, yet the other video he has on YouTube I believe does.)
Personally.. I think when some people are confronted with man's darker nature, they kinda flip out..
That all depends upon the particular individual, I believe.
WW and Mr. Ham apparently continue to struggle with the findings in the Leuchter report. They often quote Nizkor (even post articles from Nizkor to assist them in refuting the Leuchter report), yet four years later after it was published the Leuchter Report was confirmed by three other reports:
First, that of the Krakow Forensic Institute;
Then, that of the German Germar Rudolf, and finally,
That of the Austrian Walter Lüftl.
The most stunning of these three reports is the one from Krakow. It had been pressed for by the authorities at the Auschwitz State Museum in the hope that it would disprove the Leuchter Report's conclusions. The opposite happened and despite embarrassed explanations to try to minimize the meaning of their own tests, the authors of the Krakow report indeed confirmed - involuntarily - that Fred Leuchter was right. As a result, the exterminationists prefer to treat the report of the Krakow Forensic Institute with silence.
Hey WW and Mr Ham, have you found any links to post here from Nizkor that refutes the report from the Krakow Forensic Institute? Hmmmmm, I didn't think so.
As Dr. Robert Faurisson stated at the Ernest Zundel trial: "I will be prepared to believe in the Nazi gas chamber, the central pillar of the 'Holocaust' religion, on the day you can describe 'a single one of those gas chambers' to me." Sometimes I add: "But you are unable to do so. Those chemical slaughterhouses where, according to you, one could have entered with impunity to retrieve millions of bodies out of an ocean of hydrocyanic acid were a physical and chemical impossibility.One cannot describe or draw the alleged homicidal gas chamber of Auschwitz as one cannot describe or draw a square circle or a circular square."
If anything, I always considered WW and Mr. Ham to be hard core skeptics - people who need tons of scientific evidence and scientific documentation before they would believe anything at all.
In fact, our age believes itself to be skeptical, believing only that which it sees.
It claims to be the age of television. It claims to be the age of science and technology.
Yet our age still believes in a material thing of which it does not have the least material representation and never has a book, a movie or the television provided us with an image of this material thing -- The German Nazi Gas Chamber of The Holocaust!
(Provided is a picture of a real gas chamber. There is nothing Nazi Germany had at any of the concentration camps during WWII that can compare to this.)
WW and Mr. Ham apparently continue to struggle with the findings in the Leuchter report. They often quote Nizkor (even post articles from Nizkor to assist them in refuting the Leuchter report),
Times like this, I'm confirmed that WTH either isn't reading my posts,
or isn't understanding my posts.
How many times have I quoted Nizkor so far in this thread?
Unless I forgot something, or you count quoting other posters,
the total should hover around "zero".
yet four years later after it was published the Leuchter Report was confirmed by three other reports:
First, that of the Krakow Forensic Institute;
Then, that of the German Germar Rudolf, and finally,
That of the Austrian Walter Lüftl.
The most stunning of these three reports is the one from Krakow. It had been pressed for by the authorities at the Auschwitz State Museum in the hope that it would disprove the Leuchter Report's conclusions. The opposite happened and despite embarrassed explanations to try to minimize the meaning of their own tests, the authors of the Krakow report indeed confirmed - involuntarily - that Fred Leuchter was right. As a result, the exterminationists prefer to treat the report of the Krakow Forensic Institute with silence.
All the data refuting your position may as well be nonexistent for all the time you've given them.
As in ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THEM, not reading around them,
but we're supposed to consider all your data as sacrosanct.
Interesting disconnect.
And it still ignores the elementary science errors in Leuchter's report.
How "reliable" are scientific studies that can skip over what high school students know?
Still amazed that the finest scientific minds of the Holocaust revision movement wouldn't
have gotten passing grades in lab class in my old high school.
Doesn't say much of their scholarship abilities, and I don't have to get
complicated or use fancy words to see that.
Hey WW and Mr Ham, have you found any links to post here from Nizkor that refutes the report from the Krakow Forensic Institute? Hmmmmm, I didn't think so.
Have I posted from Nizkor so far? Have I needed to refute anything complicated
when the most basic level won't pass scrutiny? Is the science good enough that I should
take it even a LITTLE seriously? Hmmm, I didn't think so.
WTH, do you think you sound more erudite like this?
Do you think others are reading this and saying "that WTH has the right of it,
science is on his side here"?
As Dr. Robert Faurisson stated at the Ernest Zundel trial: "I will be prepared to believe in the Nazi gas chamber, the central pillar of the 'Holocaust' religion, on the day you can describe 'a single one of those gas chambers' to me."
They were chambers. They were at the Auschwitz facility (Auschwitz 2 and adjoining.)
They were designed to put people and poison gas together, killing the people with the
poison gas.
They were used for their designed purpose.
That's a description.
========
As for "Holocaust religion", the raising of this subject-by you- to a dogma is one reason
you're missing the obvious-like what I post.
It's also why some specific becomes a "central pillar", an object of fixation.
To me, THAT the Nazis killed millions of people, and that they planned to kill millions of people,
is more important than where they killed them (unless it was on the battlefield),
how they killed them (unless it was in standard military engagement),
or who they killed (unless it was soldiers of the opposing armies.)
These other matters, to me, are secondary. It was wrong for them to plan to kill
millions of people- which they went on record saying was their plan.
It was wrong to imprison people for the purpose of killing them- which is a matter
of record, obstinates to the contrary.
It was wrong to wipe out the people in those prisons- which has been documented
well enough for all but a handful of the most obstinate people.
The Clue specifics of where they did it, and with what weapon, to me,
doesn't matter. Killing those people is no MORE right if they were all beaten to death
with sticks in a public park, or if they were all Russian or South American.
But that many of them-and not all of them-were Jews allows some a fixation
with ideologies claiming Jews secretly rule the world and the banks and so on.
If anything, I always considered WW and Mr. Ham to be hard core skeptics - people who need tons of scientific evidence and scientific documentation before they would believe anything at all.
This shows how little WTH understands my posts. I even allow room for "maybe" if the
reports are inconclusive. If they were inconclusive here, that would apply.
In fact, our age believes itself to be skeptical, believing only that which it sees.
It claims to be the age of television. It claims to be the age of science and technology.
Yet our age still believes in a material thing of which it does not have the least material representation and never has a book, a movie or the television provided us with an image of this material thing -- The German Nazi Gas Chamber of The Holocaust!
Supposing that's true, it doesn't change the reality of something just because
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine, www.skeptic.com and author of How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, Denying History and The Borderlands of Science, devotes a whole section of his book Why People Believe Weird Things to the Holocaust deniers. The section spans 68 pages, so I'm not going to go into too much of it, but highly recommend reading it for those interested. I'm assuming WTF is not interested as it would take the wind out of his sails and it's only written in normal size fonts.
He says about the deniers' methodology:
They concentrate on their opponents' weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position. Deniers emphasize the inconsistencies between eyewitness accounts, for example.
They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents' conclusions were wrong, all of their opponents' conclusions must be wrong. Deniers point to the human soap story, which has turned out to be a myth, and talk about 'the incredible shrinking Holocaust' because historians have reduced the number killed at Auschwitz from four million to one million.
They use quotations, uisually taken out of context, from prominent mainstream figures to buttress their own position. Deniers quote Yehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg, Arno Mayer and even leading Nazis.
They mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field. Deniers take the intentionalist-functionalist debate about the development of the Holocaust as an argument about whether the Holocaust happened or not.
They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit. Deniers concentrate on what we do not know about gas chambers and disregard all the eyewitness accounts and forensic tests that support the use of gas chambers for mass murder.
They ignore the overwhelming convergence of proof:
Written documents: Hundreds of thousands of letters, memos, blueprints, orders, bills, speeches, articles, memoirs and confessions. (Even OM has posted a link to articles of recently released information that just compounds the overwhelming evidence)
Eyewitness testimony: Accounts from survivors, Kapos, Sonderkommandos, SS guards, commandants, local townspeople and even upper-echelon Nazis who did not deny the Holocaust.
Photographs: Official military and press photographs and films, civilian photographs, secret photographs taken by prisoners, aerial photographs and German and allied film footage.
Physical evidence: Artifacts found at the sites of concentration camps, work camps and death camps, many of which are still extant in varying degrees of originality and reconstruction.
Demographics: All those people who the deniers claim survived the Holocaust are missing.
When all else fails, deniers shift from wrangling about intentionality, gassings and crematoria, and the number of Jews killed to arguing that the Nazi's treatment of the Jews is really no different from what other nations do to their perceived enemies. ...
Just because another country does evil does not make your own evil right. Second, there is a difference between war and the systematic state-organized killing of unarmed people within your own country, not in self-defense, not to gain more territory, raw materials or wealth, but simply because they are perceived as a type of Satanic force and inferior race.
At his trial in Jerusalem, Adolf Eichmann, SS Obersturmbannfuhrer of the RSHA and one of the chief implementers of the Final SSolution, never denied the Holocaust. His argument was that "these crims had been legalized by the state" and therefore the people that "issued the orders" are responsible. This was the classic defense used at the Nuremberg trials by most of the Nazis. Since the higher-ups all committed suicide - Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Hermann Goring - they were off the hook, or so they thought.
And what about the teeth.. nothing like being a "dentist" in the third reich.. 384 pounds worth.. and who knows how much more went to the smelter before them.
If this doesn't bring to one's mind new meaning for the words "twisted", "gruesome", or "despicable".. I don't know what to say.
What about the teeth? I thought you were asking about shoes? Regardless, questions about teeth and shoes are rather ludicrous once the major portions of the Holocaust myth have been exposed, such as the gas chambers myth, etc. These questions are similar to one asking, "What about Santa's elves and reindeer?" after the myth of Santa Claus has been exposed. But the teeth and shoe stories (like the Jewish soap and lampshades stories) are stories told to help prop up the lie of the Holocaust. That is the problem with most of my generation - most have been educated by the boobs on the boob tube. They don't stop to ask exactly what is the source of those stories and the reason for the promotion of those stories.
For example:
The US Holocaust Museum promotes the charge Germans murdered the Jews of Europe in homicidal gas chambers. It therefore has a moral obligation to demonstrate that the charge is true.Those who contend it is more important to be sensitive than truthful about whether or not the gas chambers existed debase America's old civil virtues of free inquiry and open debate, and they betray the ideal of the university itself. For the benefit of whom?
What are the facts?
The Museum's "proof" for a gas chamber at Birkenau is - a plastic model imagined by a Polish artist. A plastic copy of a metal door is displayed as "proof" of a homicidal gas chamber at Maidanek. And, incredibly, the Museum has simply dropped the Auschwitz gas chamber, the basement room visited yearly by hundreds of thousands of tourists in Poland. There is no mention of the alleged gas chambers at Buchenwald or even at Dachau, where after World War II American GIs and German civilians were assured that more than 200,000 victims were "gassed and burned."
The notion that eyewitness testimony, given under highly politicized and emotional circumstances, is prima facie true, was refuted by the Israeli Supreme Court when it acquitted John Demjanjuk of being "Ivan the Terrible."The Israeli Court found that eyewitnesses who testified that Demjanjuk operated "gas chambers" could not be believed!
Deborah Lipstadt argues in her much-praised "Denying the Holocaust" that Revisionists ("deniers") should not be debated because there can not be another side to the gas chamber story. This is where Revisionism displays its strength. Revisionist theory, resting only on facts, can be disproved. Exterminationist theory, having fallen into the hands of "cultists," must be "believed."
I'm not in disagreement with Ms. Lipstadt and her clique on the gas chamber controversy because they may be Zionists or Jews. That's disingenuous. I'm in disagreement with her over the fact that she argues against "light of day," our understanding that in a free society all ideas are best illuminated in the light shed by open debate.The Museum is so confident no one will challenge its "gas chamber" gimcrackery that it even claims to have found a new "death camp" gas chamber.
Proof? The uncorroborated fantasies of one man pandering to the victim-of-Holocaust-survivor-syndrome. The Museum's historian doesn't even know where the place was.It "may have been" near Giessen. "May have been?" That's the best historical writing $200 Million can buy?
The exterminist's arguments and the "proof" they provide to extend their arguments (like teeth, shoes, etc.) all come off just like VPW saying, "There must be a text somewhere that says ...."
384 pounds worth, of gold and silver that were among the lot that just happened to not make it to the smelter. Had they made it to the smelter, I think one MAY argue that the gold was not originally teeth. But lo and behold, there they are.. maybe it was a little shipment the nazi's forgot about or something..
If they were removed before, or after the death of the individual, it is still as gruesome, still as twisted..
384 pounds of gold teeth.. my, the "dentist" was busy..
Do we get the same argument about the teeth?
"oh, it's impossible for a dentist to pull that many teeth.. has to be another hoax.."
I imagine the little man in the white frock awoke every morning, and like the little red engine, kept saying, "I think I can, I think I can.."
Those teeth belonged to PEOPLE at one time. What happened to them? Where did they go?
See.. if you argue, "well, it would have taken them 30 years to remove that many teeth. First, they hafta rinse the mouth, then it takes fifteen minutes for the nurse to administer novacaine, then the "doc" has to follow this procedure, that procedure.."
It's insane.
1. No, they didn't care about any kind of sterile field or anything around the "patient" (providing he or she was even still alive)..
2. No, they didn't care whether the "patient" experienced pain. Of course, if he was no longer alive, that's kinda a moot point as they say..
3. No.. no sterile instruments. You just reach in with a pair of pliers, grab, and pull. No time for a stitch, or a "brave" effort to stop bleeding.. "next patient, nurse.."
If you're looking for some kind of compassion and humanity in the perpetrators of this kind of business, you're looking in the wrong place..
that's the same insanity I see arguing the gas chamber specifications..
they built the suckers on the cheap.. something big enough, CHEAP enough, to get the "job" done..
no hermetically sealed, perfectly aerated units..
just a BIG block house, spigots to pour out poison gas, or little slots to pour in the powder..
did they care if the next set of victims inhaled just a little residual gas?
Or the ones conscripted to remove the bodies?
Ya know.. they didn't exactly follow "queens rules" in this business..
384 pounds worth, of gold and silver that were among the lot that just happened to not make it to the smelter. Had they made it to the smelter, I think one MAY argue that the gold was not originally teeth. But lo and behold, there they are.. maybe it was a little shipment the nazi's forgot about or something..
If they were removed before, or after the death of the individual, it is still as gruesome, still as twisted..
384 pounds of gold teeth.. my, the "dentist" was busy..
Do we get the same argument about the teeth?
"oh, it's impossible for a dentist to pull that many teeth.. has to be another hoax.."
I imagine the little man in the white frock awoke every morning, and like the little red engine, kept saying, "I think I can, I think I can.."
Those teeth belonged to PEOPLE at one time. What happened to them? Where did they go?
Same for the shoes..
See: The Gold Teeth - Deactivating the Holocaust Hoax Reflections of a Holocaust Revisionist and Liberal, by Joseph Heaney
WWII propaganda. It has to be understood that the Russian Communists and the German Fascists had a long running propaganda battle both before the Hitler/Stalin non-aggression pact and of course, after the outbreak of war. Both Stalin and Hitler were men who were capable and quite adept at propaganda, yet the vestages of our acceptance of Soviet propaganda still lingers to this day. The point is, we have a hard time realizing that Stalin's anti-German propaganda was just as virulent as Hitler's anti-Soviet propaganda, and as the victor's, the Soviets got to commit their propaganda to the history books as fact.
But all charges and counter-charges made during WWII must be re-examined with the 20/20 hindsight we now have - the knowledge of Stalin's despotism and the KGB's history of mis-information and deception. This re-examination must also include the charges of genocide made against the Nazi's. The problem has been that we've had to rely on the Soviets for most of our information. If the Soviets exagerrated the number of the dead at Auschwitz, then whose to say they didn't do it at the other camps? Example: Why would they exaggerate Auschwitz by four times and then be brutally honest about Treblinka? Of course our own Army's propaganda department just didn't sit idly by and let the Soviet's have all the attrocity propaganda fun. Was “the Holocaust” intended, as most atrocity propaganda has been, to serve as an expedient which would eventually wither on the vine of human memory? Were it’s inconsistencies and absurdities gradually to be allowed exposure as it's usefulness waned? One can only surmise.
Revisionism in it's essence is forensic rather than political in it's concerns. This is not to say it is without political and ideological implications. History is part of the bedrock upon which we build our subjective world of values and ideals. If it is radically revised then we may be challenged to correspondingly revise our world-view. How this revising takes place is important. When one realises for the first time the holocaust story is false one has a sense of shock and disorientation. Some even develop psychosomatic symptoms. One has to take time to again find one's ideological, political and philosophical bearings. How one integrates the new knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself.
The sorry saga of the Second World War is normally narrated as a conflict between light and darkness, good and evil, between black and white. In essence the structure is that of that ancient story form; the fairy tale. There is little space for deep and subtle analysis, for varying shades of grey, for alternate modes of interpretation. It is presented as a simple conflict between good and evil.
When one gains the knowledge that things were less simple than society had led one to believe there is a temptation to jump to the very opposite conclusion to the one which has been pushed so constantly and unremittingly. One jumps to the conclusion the wrong side won and one enthusiastically embraces the ideological baggage of the Nazis. In short one accepts a fairy tale equal and opposite to the fairy tale one had started out with, only now who the good and evil sides are reversed.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
28
116
58
24
Popular Days
Jun 23
24
Sep 26
22
Sep 25
20
Sep 21
18
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 28 posts
Ham 116 posts
What The Hey 58 posts
doojable 24 posts
Popular Days
Jun 23 2005
24 posts
Sep 26 2007
22 posts
Sep 25 2007
20 posts
Sep 21 2007
18 posts
Popular Posts
Catcup
Absolutely.
Catcup
This was exactly my experience. I sat in the same meetings and heard Martindale make the same exclamation: That the Jews of today are no more Jews than the Apache Indians. And yes, the Holocaust wa
Catcup
A slippery slope indeed, Tref.
Posted Images
Ham
I liked Gandi's description of the British.. he didn't say it directly, but a person could reasonably infer that he called them "savages in quaint houses"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
emigration, not extermination?
Did you miss one of the earlier quotes I posted from the leader of that Third Reich? Or do you need more of them? (I can oblige)...
When Hell asked Hitler what he intended doing if he ever had full freedom of action against the Jews, his response was:
"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!"
That really sounds like all he wanted to do was ship them out, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Just reviewing WTH's last post to me.
WTH STILL isn't responding to lots of things posters here posted- like video footage and so on,
and still pretending he isn't responding to them.
I bet this convinces HIM he's responding to it or something.
He's also under some misimpression-or considers it appropriate-
to pretend anyone said this was a great scholarly study here.
That's one of his pieces to change the subject when I pointed out what HE posts is what he can
claim credit for, not discussions happening somewhere else.
We're having A discussion here. (What's next, posting to announce he's not posting?)
This discussion is here-which is not specialized as a Holocaust, history, or science board.
Therefore, it's not a bunch of experts posting here.
That having been said, the amount of information (this is the dawn of the Information Age)
available for laymen (like me, WTH, Leuchter, Hamm, and simonzelotes, for example)
is considerable. Most of us need not be experts to look over historical evidence, or
claims of such, to see if they are reliable or sound.
Feel free to click on the arrow and check it out.
WTH quoted Lifted Up's post, which pointed out WTH claimed someone was talking about
some CURRENT attempts to exterminate the Jews.
That means he's claiming he's addressing Lifted's post.
WTH then went on for several paragraphs, completely unrelated to Lifted's post.
Someone's eager to change the subject and PRETEND some things were never
posted-by himself and commented on by WTH.....
but then again, someone's eager to PRETEND some things never happened, and some
people were never imprisoned and subsequently executed WHILE in prison...
There's a systematic pattern here for someone...
Since WTH claims he's not skipping over anything, then he didn't miss your earlier quotes.
He saw them and made the deliberate decision to not respond, disregard them,
and otherwise pretend they don't even exist.
However, he expects us to adopt his own doctrines, even to the point of pretending there are no flaws
in what he's presenting.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
These are pretty elementary mistakes for Leuchter to make.
Back in HIGH SCHOOL, I would have gotten in trouble for making mistakes this basic in a lab.
Then again, my high school lab teachers had a higher standard for accuracy than Leuchter has.
They have titles, which reflect the study they put in, and that they know what they claim they know.
That's why the don't make amateurish mistakes.
(Mind you, even many amateurs would avoid such mistakes.)
Then again,
perhaps Leuchter DID know a CAREFUL analysis would risk disproving his thesis.
So,
either Leuchter is a barely-competent amateur, who made elementary mistakes that were easily
avoided, and lacks the wit to acknowledge them when raised and said
"Wait-they're right. This would compromise the results."
or
Leuchter knew FULL WELL in advance that he selected methods that were flawed,
in order to deliberately obtain flawed results,
which means he did NOT want ACCURATE results, but preferred FLAWED results.
Either way,
WTH's pinned his ideology on this.
It's as foolish as pinning one's full understanding of the Bible on a sermonizer,
or a homileticist, or something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
reminds me of the vicster sending his men on a wild goose chase trying to find manuscripts that supported his theology..
"can't be.. there just has to be a text SOMEWHERE that says so and so.."
keep looking, boys.. we've got the inside info on this, gawd told me so. The rest of the world MUST be wrong..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
All this surmizing and you draw your conclusions based on ????????. In case you missed reading The Findings which are in the introduction of the Leuchter report, I have reprinted a copy of the initial findings here - although this is not the complete introduction from the report. I'd say it would be very hard for anyone with any common sense to come to the conclusion that Leuchter's findings are FLAWED, as you claim they are. Why? Because basic laws of physics would have to be broken to support the exterminist's point of view for one to come to the conclusion that Leuchter's findings are likewise flawed.
(But then again, the exterminists don't appeal to one's common sense or reason, but to myth and emotion in an attempt to indoctrinate people with their propaganda, while all the time they are banking on people's naivete and gullibility. Of course, we be very emotional people. Holocaust exterminists bank on this fact too, as they usually end up calling anyone who strongly dis-agrees with their view of the Holocaust an Anti-Semite, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------
(From the Introduction of the Leuchter Report):
The Findings:
1. Gas Chambers
The results published in the Leuchter Report are the important thing. Categorically, none of the facilities examined at Auschwitz, Birkenau or Lublin (Majdanek) could have supported, or in fact did support, multiple executions utilizing hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide or any other allegedly or factually lethal gas. Based upon very generous maximum usage rates for all the alleged gas chambers, totalling 1,693 persons per week, and assuming these facilities could support gas executions, it would have required sixty-eight (68) years to execute the alleged number of six millions of persons. This must mean the Third Reich was in existence for some seventy-five (75) years. Promoting these facilities as being capable of effecting mass, multiple or even singular executions is both ludicrous and insulting to every individual on this planet. Further, those who do promote this mistruth are negligent and irresponsible for not investigating these facilities earlier and ascertaining the truth before indoctrinating the world with what may have become the greatest propaganda ploy in history.
2. Crematories
Of equal importance are Exterminationist errors relating to the crematories. If these crematories, operated at a theoretical rate of maximum output per day, without any down time and at a constant pace (an impossible situation), and we accept the figure of at least six million executed, the Third Reich lasted for at least forty-two (42) years, since it would take thirty-five (35) years at an impossible minimum to cremate these six million souls.
No one by any stretch of the imagination would allege (or even believe) that the Third Reich ever lasted for seventy-five (75) or even forty-two (42) years, yet they would have us believe that six million souls were executed with equipment that could not possibly have functioned, in less than one-seventh of the absolute minimum time it could possibly have taken.
3. Forensics
Forensic samples were taken from the visited sites. A control sample was removed from delousing facility 1 at Birkenau. It was postulated that because of the high iron content of the building materials at these camps the presence of hydrogen cyanide gas would result in a ferric-ferro-cyanide compound being formed, as evidenced by the Prussian blue staining on the walls in the delousing facilities.
A detailed analysis of the 32 samples taken at the Auschwitz-Birkenau complexes showed 1,050 mg/kg of cyanide and 6,170 mg/kg of iron. Higher iron results were found at all of the alleged gas chambers but no significant cyanide traces. This would be impossible if these sites were exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas, because the alleged gas chambers supposedly were exposed to much greater quantities of gas than the delousing facility. Thus, chemical analysis supports the fact that these facilities were never utilized as gas execution facilities.
4. Construction
Construction of these facilities shows that they were never used as gas chambers. None of these facilities were sealed or gasketed. No provision was ever made to prevent condensation of gas on the walls, floor or ceiling. No provision ever existed to exhaust the air-gas mixture from these buildings. No provision ever existed to introduce or distribute the gas throughout the chamber. No explosion-proof lighting existed and no attempt was ever made to prevent gas from entering the crematories, even though the gas is highly explosive. No attempt was made to protect operating personnel from exposure to the gas or to protect other non-participating persons from exposure. Specifically, at Auschwitz, a floor drain in the alleged gas chamber was connected directly to the camp's storm drain system. At Majdanek a depressed walkway around the alleged gas chambers would have collected gas seepage and resulted in a death trap for camp personnel. No exhaust stacks ever existed. Hydrogen cyanide gas is an extremely dangerous and lethal gas, and nowhere were there any provisions to effect any amount of safe handling. The chambers were too small to accommodate more than a small fraction of the alleged numbers. Plain and simple, these facilities could not have operated as execution gas chambers.
5. Conclusion
After a thorough examination of the alleged execution facilities in Poland and their associated crematories, the only conclusion that can be arrived at by a rational, responsible person is the absurdity of the notion that any of these facilities were ever capable of, or were utilized as, execution gas chambers.
There you have it - sound, rational conclusions. But WW and Mr. Ham insist upon these findings are flawed??? If they are, then the laws of physics are likewise flawed.
What we really have is a conclusion that can be arrived at by any rational reasonable person, vs. the absurdity of notions continiously made by WW, Mr. Ham, and Holocuast exterminists.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Oh yes.. the cremetories were SOO busy, they chose to burn bodies in open pits outside as well.. care to see the nazi's documentation?
http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Pit.jpg
Umm, the levels of gas for delousing are at levels capable of explosion. The level required to snuff out a human being is well below.
http://stason.org/TULARC/history/holocaust...-Proximity.html
I seriously doubt *mr* leuchter even KNOWS what a CRC handbook, or Merck Index actually is..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I'd add.. death by cyanide isn't exactly pleasant..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I'd still like an explanation of the shoes..
and glasses..
how about.. 384 POUNDS of gold and silver teeth. Wonder where they came from..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You'd say a great deal. Some of it, at times, is sensible to the average, literate adult.
Leuchter supposedly wanted to test a surface for the presence of a poison that was present over 40 years before.
As I learned back in high school, one problem with poison gas is that it is highly reactive-that's why it's poisonous.
(That's why I can clear out chlorine fumes by introducing an open flame, which forces a chemical reaction
called burning-but technically is OXIDATION, meaning I force it to react and combine with oxygen.
Nobody had to tell me I could do it, either.)
Given 40 years, the amount of chemical present somewhere would be extremely small, due to the passage of
40 years, and re-reaction at the microscopic level like always happens.
Given exposure to the elements (WEATHER), 40 years of exposure will dilute the presence of any chemical.
Given rebuilding, some of the bricks that had been exposed to poison had been moved, and some bricks that
were NOW there were introduced later and were never exposed to poison because they hadn't been around
when the poison gas was released.
So, Leuchter, who acted on his own without permission and desecrated a grave,
took some bricks- which we would call STEALING FROM A MONUMENT.
He either knew that he might have taken the wrong bricks, and if they were the right bricks, they might have
been exposed to poison and been purged of it in the DECADES since due to weather and time,
or he did not.
If he DID know, then he deliberately engaged in fraud.
If he did NOT know, he's just as incompetent as even one of his own history revisionists called him.
Then, he sent the "sample" (which was grossly below standards for a sample when I was in HIGH SCHOOL)
to a lab. He then made an amazingly elementary "mistake"-
he didn't tell them he wanted the SURFACE tested. So, they pulverized the sample and tested the AGGREGATE.
Either he knew this would ruin the sample-which means he engaged in fraud-
or he did not know-which means, again, he's an incompetent.
The lab took the sample, and judged the aggregate as having no discernable level of poison.
Of course, if there HAD been discernable levels, they would have been on the SURFACES, and the AGGREGATE
diluted what little there was further yet.
So, the "sample" might have been from bricks that hadn't been AT the facility when people were getting gassed.
If they HAD been, they'd been exposed to time and weather for DECADES.
Whatever was left was then DILUTED by combining the exposed surfaces with the unexposed majority of the
brick. The presence of poison was not detected.
DUUUUUHHHHH.
If one pulled aside people from the labs in my old HIGH SCHOOL, they could have made the same conclusions
the rest of us do- the sample was so badly compromised that the results won't tell you ANYTHING if they come back
negative-and the chance of the sample coming back positive after exposure to poison and then the conditions this
sample was exposed to is almost nil.
It doesn't take a LOT of science to understand that-a high schooler's understanding of practical chemistry is enough.
However,
WTH's understanding of "basic laws of physics" gets invoked here. WTH thinks the understanding of all this
contradicts the "basic laws of physics."
What results is a pastiche of parrotting back whatever Leuchter said,
and lots of insults to anyone who disagrees.
=========
Frankly,
the last time I saw someone trying to misdirect this badly was when someone claimed their doctrine
was correct, and for it to not work,
"God would have to change the laws of the universe."
Now, we have "basic laws of physics would have to be broken."
SSDD.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe some people just can't handle reality..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Here's one guy's attraction to Holocaust denial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Covington
Maybe he wants to go back to the "good old days"..
The guy is actually serious about it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
yet, like the little red engine, "I think I can, I think I can.."
"what the mind of man can conceive, and believe, it can acheive.."
There's "the law of believing" for you.. for what it is..
I'd rather not believe..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
WW and Mr. Ham apparently continue to struggle with the findings in the Leuchter report. They often quote Nizkor (even post articles from Nizkor to assist them in refuting the Leuchter report), yet four years later after it was published the Leuchter Report was confirmed by three other reports:
The most stunning of these three reports is the one from Krakow. It had been pressed for by the authorities at the Auschwitz State Museum in the hope that it would disprove the Leuchter Report's conclusions. The opposite happened and despite embarrassed explanations to try to minimize the meaning of their own tests, the authors of the Krakow report indeed confirmed - involuntarily - that Fred Leuchter was right. As a result, the exterminationists prefer to treat the report of the Krakow Forensic Institute with silence.
Hey WW and Mr Ham, have you found any links to post here from Nizkor that refutes the report from the Krakow Forensic Institute? Hmmmmm, I didn't think so.
As Dr. Robert Faurisson stated at the Ernest Zundel trial: "I will be prepared to believe in the Nazi gas chamber, the central pillar of the 'Holocaust' religion, on the day you can describe 'a single one of those gas chambers' to me." Sometimes I add: "But you are unable to do so. Those chemical slaughterhouses where, according to you, one could have entered with impunity to retrieve millions of bodies out of an ocean of hydrocyanic acid were a physical and chemical impossibility. One cannot describe or draw the alleged homicidal gas chamber of Auschwitz as one cannot describe or draw a square circle or a circular square."
If anything, I always considered WW and Mr. Ham to be hard core skeptics - people who need tons of scientific evidence and scientific documentation before they would believe anything at all.
In fact, our age believes itself to be skeptical, believing only that which it sees.
It claims to be the age of television. It claims to be the age of science and technology.
Yet our age still believes in a material thing of which it does not have the least material representation and never has a book, a movie or the television provided us with an image of this material thing -- The German Nazi Gas Chamber of The Holocaust!
(Provided is a picture of a real gas chamber. There is nothing Nazi Germany had at any of the concentration camps during WWII that can compare to this.)
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Times like this, I'm confirmed that WTH either isn't reading my posts,
or isn't understanding my posts.
How many times have I quoted Nizkor so far in this thread?
Unless I forgot something, or you count quoting other posters,
the total should hover around "zero".
All the data refuting your position may as well be nonexistent for all the time you've given them.
As in ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THEM, not reading around them,
but we're supposed to consider all your data as sacrosanct.
Interesting disconnect.
And it still ignores the elementary science errors in Leuchter's report.
How "reliable" are scientific studies that can skip over what high school students know?
Still amazed that the finest scientific minds of the Holocaust revision movement wouldn't
have gotten passing grades in lab class in my old high school.
Doesn't say much of their scholarship abilities, and I don't have to get
complicated or use fancy words to see that.
Have I posted from Nizkor so far? Have I needed to refute anything complicatedwhen the most basic level won't pass scrutiny? Is the science good enough that I should
take it even a LITTLE seriously? Hmmm, I didn't think so.
WTH, do you think you sound more erudite like this?
Do you think others are reading this and saying "that WTH has the right of it,
science is on his side here"?
They were chambers. They were at the Auschwitz facility (Auschwitz 2 and adjoining.)
They were designed to put people and poison gas together, killing the people with the
poison gas.
They were used for their designed purpose.
That's a description.
========
As for "Holocaust religion", the raising of this subject-by you- to a dogma is one reason
you're missing the obvious-like what I post.
It's also why some specific becomes a "central pillar", an object of fixation.
To me, THAT the Nazis killed millions of people, and that they planned to kill millions of people,
is more important than where they killed them (unless it was on the battlefield),
how they killed them (unless it was in standard military engagement),
or who they killed (unless it was soldiers of the opposing armies.)
These other matters, to me, are secondary. It was wrong for them to plan to kill
millions of people- which they went on record saying was their plan.
It was wrong to imprison people for the purpose of killing them- which is a matter
of record, obstinates to the contrary.
It was wrong to wipe out the people in those prisons- which has been documented
well enough for all but a handful of the most obstinate people.
The Clue specifics of where they did it, and with what weapon, to me,
doesn't matter. Killing those people is no MORE right if they were all beaten to death
with sticks in a public park, or if they were all Russian or South American.
But that many of them-and not all of them-were Jews allows some a fixation
with ideologies claiming Jews secretly rule the world and the banks and so on.
This shows how little WTH understands my posts. I even allow room for "maybe" if thereports are inconclusive. If they were inconclusive here, that would apply.
Supposing that's true, it doesn't change the reality of something just because
it hasn't appeared on television...
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Here is one of the above ground "chambers".
doesn't look like a gas chamber built in the U.S. in the states that allow such a thing, does it?
It was built on the cheap. "lowest bid".. made on a budget. I kinda doubt the construction would pass modern codes for construction..
the little "vents" are well above eye level.. that's where the little man likely wearing a gas mask dumped in the poison.
who do you think "cleaned up" after the "event"?
Not likely the nazi's..
It was largely a slave labor operation. Work forced with the barrel of a handgun, or with the butt of a rifle..
I wonder how much they cared about the slaves being subjected to residual gas..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
And what about the teeth..
nothing like being a "dentist" in the third reich..
384 pounds worth.. and who knows how much more went to the smelter before them.
If this doesn't bring to one's mind new meaning for the words "twisted", "gruesome", or "despicable".. I don't know what to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine, www.skeptic.com and author of How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, Denying History and The Borderlands of Science, devotes a whole section of his book Why People Believe Weird Things to the Holocaust deniers. The section spans 68 pages, so I'm not going to go into too much of it, but highly recommend reading it for those interested. I'm assuming WTF is not interested as it would take the wind out of his sails and it's only written in normal size fonts.
He says about the deniers' methodology:
They ignore the overwhelming convergence of proof:
When all else fails, deniers shift from wrangling about intentionality, gassings and crematoria, and the number of Jews killed to arguing that the Nazi's treatment of the Jews is really no different from what other nations do to their perceived enemies. ...
Just because another country does evil does not make your own evil right. Second, there is a difference between war and the systematic state-organized killing of unarmed people within your own country, not in self-defense, not to gain more territory, raw materials or wealth, but simply because they are perceived as a type of Satanic force and inferior race.
At his trial in Jerusalem, Adolf Eichmann, SS Obersturmbannfuhrer of the RSHA and one of the chief implementers of the Final SSolution, never denied the Holocaust. His argument was that "these crims had been legalized by the state" and therefore the people that "issued the orders" are responsible. This was the classic defense used at the Nuremberg trials by most of the Nazis. Since the higher-ups all committed suicide - Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Hermann Goring - they were off the hook, or so they thought.
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
What about the teeth? I thought you were asking about shoes? Regardless, questions about teeth and shoes are rather ludicrous once the major portions of the Holocaust myth have been exposed, such as the gas chambers myth, etc. These questions are similar to one asking, "What about Santa's elves and reindeer?" after the myth of Santa Claus has been exposed. But the teeth and shoe stories (like the Jewish soap and lampshades stories) are stories told to help prop up the lie of the Holocaust. That is the problem with most of my generation - most have been educated by the boobs on the boob tube. They don't stop to ask exactly what is the source of those stories and the reason for the promotion of those stories.
For example:
The US Holocaust Museum promotes the charge Germans murdered the Jews of Europe in homicidal gas chambers. It therefore has a moral obligation to demonstrate that the charge is true. Those who contend it is more important to be sensitive than truthful about whether or not the gas chambers existed debase America's old civil virtues of free inquiry and open debate, and they betray the ideal of the university itself. For the benefit of whom?
What are the facts?
The Museum's "proof" for a gas chamber at Birkenau is - a plastic model imagined by a Polish artist. A plastic copy of a metal door is displayed as "proof" of a homicidal gas chamber at Maidanek. And, incredibly, the Museum has simply dropped the Auschwitz gas chamber, the basement room visited yearly by hundreds of thousands of tourists in Poland. There is no mention of the alleged gas chambers at Buchenwald or even at Dachau, where after World War II American GIs and German civilians were assured that more than 200,000 victims were "gassed and burned."
The notion that eyewitness testimony, given under highly politicized and emotional circumstances, is prima facie true, was refuted by the Israeli Supreme Court when it acquitted John Demjanjuk of being "Ivan the Terrible." The Israeli Court found that eyewitnesses who testified that Demjanjuk operated "gas chambers" could not be believed!
Deborah Lipstadt argues in her much-praised "Denying the Holocaust" that Revisionists ("deniers") should not be debated because there can not be another side to the gas chamber story. This is where Revisionism displays its strength. Revisionist theory, resting only on facts, can be disproved. Exterminationist theory, having fallen into the hands of "cultists," must be "believed."
I'm not in disagreement with Ms. Lipstadt and her clique on the gas chamber controversy because they may be Zionists or Jews. That's disingenuous. I'm in disagreement with her over the fact that she argues against "light of day," our understanding that in a free society all ideas are best illuminated in the light shed by open debate. The Museum is so confident no one will challenge its "gas chamber" gimcrackery that it even claims to have found a new "death camp" gas chamber.
Proof? The uncorroborated fantasies of one man pandering to the victim-of-Holocaust-survivor-syndrome. The Museum's historian doesn't even know where the place was. It "may have been" near Giessen. "May have been?" That's the best historical writing $200 Million can buy?
The exterminist's arguments and the "proof" they provide to extend their arguments (like teeth, shoes, etc.) all come off just like VPW saying, "There must be a text somewhere that says ...."
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Ludicrous? No, they are evidence..
384 pounds worth, of gold and silver that were among the lot that just happened to not make it to the smelter. Had they made it to the smelter, I think one MAY argue that the gold was not originally teeth. But lo and behold, there they are.. maybe it was a little shipment the nazi's forgot about or something..
If they were removed before, or after the death of the individual, it is still as gruesome, still as twisted..
384 pounds of gold teeth.. my, the "dentist" was busy..
Do we get the same argument about the teeth?
"oh, it's impossible for a dentist to pull that many teeth.. has to be another hoax.."
I imagine the little man in the white frock awoke every morning, and like the little red engine, kept saying, "I think I can, I think I can.."
Those teeth belonged to PEOPLE at one time. What happened to them? Where did they go?
Same for the shoes..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
See.. if you argue, "well, it would have taken them 30 years to remove that many teeth. First, they hafta rinse the mouth, then it takes fifteen minutes for the nurse to administer novacaine, then the "doc" has to follow this procedure, that procedure.."
It's insane.
1. No, they didn't care about any kind of sterile field or anything around the "patient" (providing he or she was even still alive)..
2. No, they didn't care whether the "patient" experienced pain. Of course, if he was no longer alive, that's kinda a moot point as they say..
3. No.. no sterile instruments. You just reach in with a pair of pliers, grab, and pull. No time for a stitch, or a "brave" effort to stop bleeding.. "next patient, nurse.."
If you're looking for some kind of compassion and humanity in the perpetrators of this kind of business, you're looking in the wrong place..
that's the same insanity I see arguing the gas chamber specifications..
they built the suckers on the cheap.. something big enough, CHEAP enough, to get the "job" done..
no hermetically sealed, perfectly aerated units..
just a BIG block house, spigots to pour out poison gas, or little slots to pour in the powder..
did they care if the next set of victims inhaled just a little residual gas?
Or the ones conscripted to remove the bodies?
Ya know.. they didn't exactly follow "queens rules" in this business..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
See: The Gold Teeth - Deactivating the Holocaust Hoax Reflections of a Holocaust Revisionist and Liberal, by Joseph Heaney
WWII propaganda. It has to be understood that the Russian Communists and the German Fascists had a long running propaganda battle both before the Hitler/Stalin non-aggression pact and of course, after the outbreak of war. Both Stalin and Hitler were men who were capable and quite adept at propaganda, yet the vestages of our acceptance of Soviet propaganda still lingers to this day. The point is, we have a hard time realizing that Stalin's anti-German propaganda was just as virulent as Hitler's anti-Soviet propaganda, and as the victor's, the Soviets got to commit their propaganda to the history books as fact.
But all charges and counter-charges made during WWII must be re-examined with the 20/20 hindsight we now have - the knowledge of Stalin's despotism and the KGB's history of mis-information and deception. This re-examination must also include the charges of genocide made against the Nazi's. The problem has been that we've had to rely on the Soviets for most of our information. If the Soviets exagerrated the number of the dead at Auschwitz, then whose to say they didn't do it at the other camps? Example: Why would they exaggerate Auschwitz by four times and then be brutally honest about Treblinka? Of course our own Army's propaganda department just didn't sit idly by and let the Soviet's have all the attrocity propaganda fun. Was “the Holocaust” intended, as most atrocity propaganda has been, to serve as an expedient which would eventually wither on the vine of human memory? Were it’s inconsistencies and absurdities gradually to be allowed exposure as it's usefulness waned? One can only surmise.
Revisionism in it's essence is forensic rather than political in it's concerns. This is not to say it is without political and ideological implications. History is part of the bedrock upon which we build our subjective world of values and ideals. If it is radically revised then we may be challenged to correspondingly revise our world-view. How this revising takes place is important. When one realises for the first time the holocaust story is false one has a sense of shock and disorientation. Some even develop psychosomatic symptoms. One has to take time to again find one's ideological, political and philosophical bearings. How one integrates the new knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself.
The sorry saga of the Second World War is normally narrated as a conflict between light and darkness, good and evil, between black and white. In essence the structure is that of that ancient story form; the fairy tale. There is little space for deep and subtle analysis, for varying shades of grey, for alternate modes of interpretation. It is presented as a simple conflict between good and evil.
When one gains the knowledge that things were less simple than society had led one to believe there is a temptation to jump to the very opposite conclusion to the one which has been pushed so constantly and unremittingly. One jumps to the conclusion the wrong side won and one enthusiastically embraces the ideological baggage of the Nazis. In short one accepts a fairy tale equal and opposite to the fairy tale one had started out with, only now who the good and evil sides are reversed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.