










Comment #185433 by ASMarques on May 27, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I'm sorry, dear Admin. entities, but I feel this farewell message in response to groundless accusations and false quotes attributed to me is important, so please leave it on the main thread. It's not asking too much, is it? Thank you.
Said newskin:
That's because you derail pretty much every thread that has the faintest mention of Jews, nazis or Hitler.
Said AllanW:
The administrators have placed your delusions at the side of each thread as a result. Not censored, not deleted, not suppressed just sidelined.
****** A NOTE TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS SITE ******
[...]
I will instantly stop posting the moment the administrator informs me that "Holocaust" comments to "Holocaust" mentions by the speakers are no longer welcomed, but naturally I won't be dismissed to any "alternate thread" and go on posting there or anywhere else.
Al-rawandi renewed questions (#185317): "Are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion a forgery or not? Do you believe they are real or true? Do you believe the blood libel to be true?"
My replies on this same comments thread, already existent but now relegated to an alternate thread:
-- Concerning the Protocols (#184675): "Yup, both [the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the "Holocaust"] are hoaxes. One anti-Jewish, the other anti-Aryan. Or anti-non-Jewish, or whatever you want to call it [...]"
-- Concerning the blood libel (#184187): "Or maybe you don't get [my point]. I'm not addressing any blood libel accusation at Jews. I'm saying the "Holocaust" libel against non-Jews is equally offensive."
Comment #185310 by ASMarques on May 27, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Said Goldy (to Blake121666):
I can see your point, but to go on this note is to, well, give in. If Muslims shout loudly, they win - not by power or logic of argument, but by intimidation and noise. This what has beaten you?
you are not in prison, nor is ASMarques.
You didn't get anywhere by running away (well, OK, you - you get away ;-)) and you don't convince others by doing so. Neither, it must be said, can you yourself be convinced of any opposition to your position by running from debate.
Comment #184675 by ASMarques on May 26, 2008 at 12:32 am
Said blake121666:
I have to admit that I actually hadn't noticed that ASM uses the term "blood libel" throughout his postings.
I scanned through the "blood libel against the jews" wikipedia entry. While I would technically call Holocaust claims a "libel" against the accused, if ASM means "blood libel" as described in that wikipedia entry he's probably joking.
ASM, why throw garbage such as that term into your postings? I might filter BS too readily when reading things. Honestly, I am interested in empirical facts and not any garbage such as that.
Comment #184643 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Said MaxD:
I am not denying that currently Jews have an enourmous political clout.
I am saying that at the time they did not, and didn't have much influence over US foreign policy at the time. EDIT: I suppose I should have said, though I thought it was obvious, immediately post WWII. You are telling me that immediately after WWII the Jews could pull this off?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html
(see the linked page for the references)
Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organizing these trials. Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials. Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added. (note 8)
The World Jewish Congress also played an important but less obvious role in the day to day proceedings. Above all, the powerful but secretive organization made sure that Germany's persecution of the Jews was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants were punished for their involvement in that process. (note 9)
Two Jewish officers in the US Army -- Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays and Colonel David "Mickey" Marcus -- played key roles in the Nuremberg enterprise. In the words of historian Robert Conot, Bernays was "the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg." Bernays, a successful New York attorney, persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial. (note 10)
Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the "number three man in making American policy" in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government's War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials. (He later became a commander of Zionist "Haganah" military forces in Palestine.) (note 11)
Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business. One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals. "If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here," he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced. "The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident," he added. (note 12)
Wennerstrum cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process. "The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome ... Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices." He criticized the one-sided handling of evidence. "Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case." He concluded that "the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors." Wennerstrum left Nuremberg "with a feeling that justice has been denied."
[...]
In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: "The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ... The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst." (note 14) Another Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated: "As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States... A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States." (note 15)
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/reparations/quotes_from_books/index.html
Apart from my encounter with the survivors of the concentration camps after the liberation, I only returned officially to Germany in order to meet Chancellor Adenauer and open negotiations about reparations. These reparations constitute an extraordinary innovation in terms of international law. Until then, when a country lost a war it paid damages to the victor, but it was a matter between states, between governments. Now for the first time a nation was to give reparations either to ordinary individuals or to Israel, which did not legally exist at the time of Hitler's crimes. All the same I must admit that the idea did not come from me.
During the war the WJC had created an Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York (its headquarters are now in London). The directors were two great Lithuanian Jewish jurists, Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson. Thanks to them, the Institute worked out two completely revolutionary ideas: the Nuremberg tribunal and German reparations.
The importance of the tribunal which sat at Nuremberg has not been reckoned at its true worth. According to international law it was in fact impossible to punish soldiers who had been obeying orders. It was Jacob Robinson who had this extravagant, sensational idea. When he began to canvas it among the jurists of the American Supreme Court they took him for a fool. 'What did these Nazi officers do that was so unprecedented?' they asked. 'You can imagine Hitler standing trial, or maybe even Goering, but these are simple soldiers who carried out their orders and behaved as loyal soldiers.' We therefore had the utmost trouble in persuading the Allies; the British were fairly opposed, the French barely interested, and although they took part later they did not play any great part. The success came from Robinson managing to convince the Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson. The Institute's other idea was that Nazi Germany ought to pay after its defeat. [...] According to the Institute's conclusions, the German reparations would first have to be paid to people who had lost their belongings through the Nazis. Further, if, as we hoped, the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation to enable the survivors to settle there. The first time this idea was expressed was during the war, in the course of a conference in Baltimore.
Once the Nuremberg trials were over, this reparations problem received further consideration. Several Jewish leaders then attempted to establish relations with Adenauer, but their proposals were often ridiculous. One organization suggested a payment of twenty million Deutschmarks -- "and at the conclusion of the agreement I obtained, the Germans will have paid out a total of eighty billion!
[...]
Without the German reparations [...] Israel would not have half of its present [1978] infrastructure: all the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel's industry ... and that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today received hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each year. [...] In some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany have been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to the principle -- even some members of Herut draw reparations.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n5p15_propaganda.html
During the Second World War, Britain's main "dirty tricks" propaganda agency was the Political Warfare Executive (PWE), a unit of the British Foreign Office. This psychological warfare agency invented and distributed "black" propaganda disinformation to boost morale among anti-German British and Americans, and to promote anti-German sentiment in neutral countries. Its work also included manufacturing and distributing bogus German documents.
Some of the PWE's most bizarre falsehoods were distributed on phonograph records as part of a secret "Special (Venom)" campaign directed to Arabs. These fables included reports that Hitler hated Arabs, and that a Jewish doctor had cut off the German leader's testicles. Epithets applied to Hitler in this report included including "pig," "swine" and "bastard." Such exotic propaganda was considered necessary, the PWE advised, because Hitler's prestige was "tremendous in Arab countries."
The Arab-oriented campaign also included stories suggesting that the Germans were using mosques as brothels in Axis-ruled Tripoli. According to another PWE story, "Germans [were] so short of cloth they are training agents to disinter bodies in Muslim cemeteries and seize shrouds for use as machine rugs in Germany."
One of the most malicious PWE "black" reports was this April 1943 story: "On entering Tunis Allied troops found dead children cut up as butchers' meat in the German army store. Portions of them had already been used as pork ration. Typically enough, the Germans had filed their identity cards."
Some British officials were skeptical of this campaign's effectiveness. For example, a PWE story that Goebbels had enriched himself during the war, and had hidden away a private fortune, said one official, "would evoke admiration and envy rather than disapprobation."
This "Special (Venom)" campaign was first made public in 1994 when the relevant files were declassified from Britain's Public Records Office (and then reported in The Guardian newspaper, London, September 8, 1994, p. 22).
During the war years, British agencies produced and disseminated a wide range of anti-German propaganda lies. According to one suggested story, the Germans were using poison gas to secretly kill off their own wounded soldiers. This manufactured "rumor," designed to mislead and demoralize the German public, was proposed by Britain's Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee in October 1941. (A facsimile of the secret wartime document confirming this is published in facsimile in the Sept.-Oct. 1993 Journal, p. 43.)
Even some of the more bizarre propaganda stories have proven remarkably durable over the years. A good example is the wartime fable that the Germans were manufacturing oil and soap from the bodies of murdered Jews, a report that became an important feature of Jewish and Allied war propaganda. Two major Jewish agencies, the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Congress, energetically promoted this lie. (See: M. Weber, "Jewish Soap," Summer 1991 Journal, pp. 218, 234.)
Comment #184457 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 10:28 am
Said Keith:
Now, from the above exchange you derive the following:ASM: Here is the example [that the Holocaust is a religion based on no empirical facts and is in fact averse to them [Note by ASM: the bold type is my completion of your quote of Blake's claim].]. Trying to argue the truth of the facts without regard for the facts themselves, simply out of one's perceived "ability or inepcy of the conspirators," is not a rational attitude.
Now how, precisely, did you get from my comment that the Holocaust conspirators must be an inept lot if they make such bad fakes (Blake's claim) to your conclusion?
Comment #184434 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 7:15 am
Said epeeist:
I note you never mentioned the evasion and failure of relevance.
Said epeeist:
Ignorance isn't a problem, we are all ignorant of most of human knowledge, however "I don't know what "Blood Libel" means and I'm not interested in looking it up." betrays a singular lack of interest in remedying at least part of that ignorance.
Important: If you live in a country where your government demands that Internet service providers forbid you to look up the evidence, you may access the blocked sites through anonymizers. Here is a good one (all you have to do is place the URL you want to access in the slot, click enter, and you'll be navigating the forbidden waters with no further trouble):
Anonymouse:
http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html
A useful list of anonymizers:
http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/free_proxy/cgi-proxy.htm
Comment #184419 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 5:13 am
From several messages (sorry, no time to go into details):
Said MaxD:
You did not answer my question simply impugned my character by claiming I was victim of the argument from incredulity.
Said epeeist:
Looks like a failure of relevance, evasion and ad hominem to me.
Said blake121666:
The Holocaust is the religion in that it is based on no empirical facts and is in fact averse to them.
Said keith:
After all, you'd have to say that Holocaust conspirators must be pretty inept if their fakes are as bad as you say they are.
Said blake121666:
Elie Wiesel never mentions any homicidal gas chambers in "Night". Is Elie Wiesel a Holocaust denier?
Still blake121666:
But on a purely personal note, yes, I do find many of those labeled holocaust deniers as unsavory. But my personal opinions don't matter on the truth value of an event. A religious person would say that he finds atheists unsavory, wouldn't he?
8. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins
Comment #184416 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 5:07 am
Said MaxD:
Simply saying hey look at this atrocity happened here, therefore you have no right to criticize what happened here. Bullshit. I am more than happy to be critical of My Lai massacre.
Comment #184261 by ASMarques on May 24, 2008 at 8:17 am
Said Brian English:
Head count. Who here calls themselves a bright? Paula, you're excused. :)
Comment #184229 by ASMarques on May 24, 2008 at 3:47 am
Said Quetzalcoatl:
Witty. Since you're so good at providing links and quotes, perhaps you would like to direct everyone to the precise comment where I described myself as one of the "most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web".
Comment #184222 by ASMarques on May 24, 2008 at 2:18 am
Said MaxD:
I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time.
How did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)? Eh? Seriously.
Comment #184187 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Said MaxD
Cute avatar by the way.
I suspect ASM buys into this protocols of Zion business as well. He has said more than once that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by the Jews in order to swindle the rest of world out of money, land and power.
Said al-rawadi (two messages):
I am curious as to whether ASM is in fact David Irving, David Duke, Israel Shamer, or some other whackjob.
The cartoons of hook nosed Jews, riding Uncle Sam like a horse. Bah.
For example Ernst Zundel was exposed precisely as a fraud, in a Canadian court.
Not only was he shown to be a denier of the Holocaust (bad enough)
If the Holocaust is a myth, hoax and fabrication, how come the only people to discover this have been bigots, discredited non-scholars, the mentally deranged, Islamic militants, and other assorted whackos?
Eagerly awaiting reply.
Comment #184139 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Said Styrer:Said MaxD:
Blake1i382003920293049238409293209,
You say:
Thank you, MaxD. That gave me the very best laugh of my fucking week.
Comment #184126 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Said blake121666:
If you people can't see that the Holocaust is a largely mythical religion in the way it is presented and not based on facts as ASM has patiently shown you all, then you don't belong on an atheist discussion board. It seems to me that it is *not* ASM who has been the biased, shrill and hysterical side of these discussions.
Comment #184118 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Said Peacebeuponme:
Quetz
ASMarques may question the scholarship of Wikipedia. However, I think if he comes back he must first attempt a refutation of each of the well presented, and fully referenced, points set out in your third link above.
WIKIPEDIA:There have been claims by Holocaust deniers that the gas chambers which mainstream historians believe were for the massacre of civilians never existed, but rather that the structures identified as gas chambers actually served other purposes. These other purposes include delousing and disinfection.
A disguised red herring. The important alleged "gas chambers" at Auschwitz were in fact morgues. Their purpose was the storing of cadavers, not the turning of living beings into cadavers. It's also true -- and everyone on both sides agrees about that! -- that facilities for delousing were presented as homicidal gas chambers by the Allied propaganda (example: the one with the skull and bones warning and even the gassing times marked on its entrance door at Dachau!). But by phrasing it that way, the Wikipedia "experts" lead you away from the morgues -- an installation with the double purpose of morgue and gas chamber at once is in itself functionally absurd -- and make it sound as if the revisionist claims were false or improbable, whereas in fact it's the exterminationist claims that have been systematically debunked.
WIKIPEDIA:A similar argument is sometimes used that claims gas was not used to murder Jews and other victims, and that many gas chambers were also built after the war just for show.
Note the word "many," to hide the fact that, since practically everyone on both sides of the dispute now agrees that no gassings took place within the Old Reich frontiers, it becomes obvious that indeed there were "gas chambers" within those same frontiers that were built "just for show." And the local claims are still there! See, for instance, my comment #182418 on the Sachsenhausen "gas chamber":
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2527,Shaw-TV-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins,Shaw-TV-Richard-Dawkins,page5#182418
Apparently, the dispute according to the Wikipedia "experts," is not whether "gas chambers built just for show" existed or not, but whether they were "many" or "few." And, of course, they phrase it in such a way ("a similar argument is sometimes used") as to give you the impression that the revisionists are the ones trying to patch up the holes in their claims by coming up with new absurd ideas. But it's not "sometimes," it's "always," and the claim is an obvious fact.
WIKIPEDIA:A document advancing this theory is the "Leuchter Report" by Fred A. Leuchter, a paper stating that only traces of cyanide were found when he examined samples taken from one of the Auschwitz gas chambers in 1988.
Simply false. Leuchter took samples (and found no significant cyanide traces) from all five alleged homicidal gas chamber facilities.
WIKIPEDIA:This is often cited as evidence that gas was not used in the chambers, as no trace amounts remain. Despite the difficulty of finding traces of this material 50 years later, in February, 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Institute of Forensic Research in Kraków, redid the analysis.[33]
This is the real important stuff concerning the cyanide evidence within the true gas chambers (for delousing) and the false ones (the crematory morgues), and it's presented in a very confused way. Note the way the reference to the Krakow report is phrased in order to dissimulate the fact that a first never officially published report did exist in 1990, and sending you to note [33] that links instead to the 1994 sham report. Also by not referring the almost incredible fact that the method chosen, despite the difficulty of finding traces of this material 50 years later, was one that only detects instable cyanide compounds! You'll find more references to the Krakow forensic reports below.
WIKIPEDIA:Another claim made by Holocaust deniers is that there were no vents in the gas chambers through which Zyklon B could be inserted[35]. The BBC offers a response showing that this requires disregard of much documentation:
"Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.[36]"
Note the quality of the "well presented, and fully referenced" material (according to you). Instead of mentioning the admission of Robert Van Pelt -- an expert witness for the exterminationist side in the Irving vs Lipstadt trial that is not even mentioned in the article -- that the alleged holes are not there, they cite... a "BBC response [!] showing that this requires disregard of much documentation"...
So, you go to note [36] to have a peek at some of that monumental documentation, and here is what you get: the "BBC response" is none other than good old Debbie Lipstadt -- of all wise "Holocaust" scholars -- telling the BBC that "The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper."
How about that, for a scholarly reference to "much documentation"? Well, at least I found out where the Teratornis bird, after getting his tail plumage singed over Dresden (#176554), had gotten himself conned by the hillbilly professor of Jewish Uniqueness (#183361)...
Here is another idiotic claim at random. One could almost pick them up blindfolded:
WIKIPEDIA:Another argument used by Holocaust deniers is that testimony on the gas chambers is unreliable. The Institute for Historical Review is one of the organizations which hold this assertion. In the words of the IHR:
"Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false."
The Nizkor Project and other sources have pointed out that the minimal concentration of Zyklon-B to be explosive is 56,000 parts per million, while the amount used to kill a human is 300 parts per million, as is evidenced in "The Merck Index" and the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" [etc. etc. etc.].
Again a red herring and, if I'm not mistaken, a false (or partially falsified) quote. No reference other than "in the words of the IHR" is given and I couldn't find it there. What the Wikipedia is hiding from you by leading you away from the essential problem, is the fact that those crazy revisionists object to people with gas masks over their faces going about puffing on cigarettes and eating sandwiches as per the Hoess testimony!
In other words, what Hoess was doing was giving the court and his torturers and blackmailers (both the torture and the blackmailing are well documented) what they wanted from him, while leaving signs in his false testimony that he was reciting nonsensical tales that had in fact never happened.
More on Hoess here:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/hoess.html
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/19460514hoess.html
This could go on forever. The Wikipedia articles on the "Holocaust" hoax are so full of this sort of drivel that it really doesn't justify debunking one-sided presentations that a child with some basic information could see through.
Of course, the essential thing here is the basic information. The naive posters who have been clutching at Wikipedia won't get it there. So, my recommendation to them is: in order to criticise the revisionists, read what they write, not exclusively what others have been writing on them.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p-3_Rudolf.html
In 1991, a document leaked out of the Jan Sehn Institute in Krakow into the hands of the revisionists, and was eventually published in their periodicals. It showed that Dr. Markiewicz and his co-workers had prepared a first report as early as 1990. This report was never published. Its results were discomfiting: although the researchers were already employing their deceptive analytical method, only one of the five samples taken from alleged homicidal gas chambers resulted in an extremely small amount of cyanide (0.024 mg/kg); the rest had no detectable cyanide. On the other hand, samples taken from a delousing chamber showed values up to 20 times higher (0.036-0.588 mg/kg). These results seemed to confirm Leuchter's findings. Hence, in their 1994 paper, the Krakow investigators suppressed any information about their initial results. Normally, researchers guilty of such unethical conduct are expelled from the scientific community.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p207_Staff.html
[...]
Concerned at the impact of Leuchter's widely-circulated Report, the Auschwitz State Museum, a Polish government agency, commissioned the Institute of Forensic Research (Instytut Ekspertyz Sadowych) of Krakow to carry out its own investigation. The result: In a carefully worded six-page internal forensic report, the Institute's experts essentially replicated Leuchter's findings and implicitly corroborated his conclusions.
Consistent with Leuchter's investigation, the Institute's specialists detected absolutely no traces of cyanide (or ferro-ferri-cyanide compound) in most of the plaster and brick samples taken from the alleged extermination gas chambers. Traces of cyanides were detected in eight samples, seven of which were rooms in Block 3 of Auschwitz main camp where -as the Institute's experts acknowledge - inmate clothing was disinfected by "gassing" with Zyklon.
A barely detectable trace of cyanide compound was found in the eighth remaining "positive" sample, which was sample No. 15 from the alleged homicidal "gas chamber" in Krema building II in Birkenau. Significantly, this is the only sample taken from any of the supposed extermination gas chambers that showed any trace of cyanide. The presence of an almost indetectable trace in this sample is entirely in keeping with Leuchter's conclusion that the room from which it was taken must have been deloused with Zyklon at one time or another.
In an apparent attempt at "damage control," the authors of the Institute's report sought to play down or negate the significance of their own findings by asserting that any cyanide traces would have disappeared long ago under the impact of the weather and the elements.
[...]
It is worth noting that the Krakow Institute's report did not respond at all to other compelling reasons given by Leuchter for doubting the orthodox extermination story. As he points out, for example, the alleged homicidal gas chambers he examined were not properly sealed or vented for use as killing facilities.
[...]
[A translation of the Krakow Institute's forensic report and a letter from Dr. Markiewicz follow this introduction]
Rudolf's concluding remarks:
(A) The investigation concerning the formation and long-term stability of cyanide remnants in the witnessed facilities and the analysis of the brick and mortar samples resulted in the following conclusions:
1. The cyanide in the walls, which has been activated into Prussian Blue possesses a long-term stability of centuries ... Cyanide remnants should therefore be detectable in almost undiminished quantities, irrespective of the influence of the weather. This is proved by the intense blue in the outer walls of the delousing chambers of the buildings BW 5a and 5b which contain large amounts of cyanide.
2. Under the actual conditions, as testified to by eyewitnesses of massive homicidal gassing in the disputed chambers, traces of cyanide residues would have formed of the same order of magnitude as those found in the delousing chambers, including the blue coloration of the walls.
3. The traces found in the alleged gas chambers are just as insignificant as those to be found in any building chosen at random.
Conclusion: On chemical and physical grounds, the mass gassing with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, as described by witnesses, could not have taken place.
(B) The investigation of the practical and technical data regarding the witnessed mass gassing in the indicated facilities and their physical and chemical analyses resulted in the following conclusions:
1. The alleged main gas chambers of Auschwitz, that is the morgue in the main camp, and the morgue number 1 of Kremas II and III in Birkenau, had no means to introduce the poison. Holes visible today in the roofs were made after the war.
2. The release of the lethal hydrogen cyanide gas from its carrier material could not have taken place in the short time span indicated by eyewitnesses. In fact, it would have taken hours before the gas was completely released.
3. The necessary ventilation of the alleged gas chambers of Kremas II and III, at the rate of one air exchange every 15 minutes would have taken at least two hours, contradicting all eyewitness accounts.
4. An effective ventilation of the alleged gas chambers of Kremas IV and V and Bunkers I and II53 was not possible. The Sonderkommandos could not have removed the corpses from the chambers without wearing protective clothing and gas masks fitted with a special filter.
Conclusion: The mass gassing as described by witnesses cross-examined before courts, as stated in verdicts and published in literary and scientific writings could not, for chemical and physical reasons, have taken place.
Excluding the Unwanted
The authors of the Krakow study ignored all arguments proving them wrong, although they were certainly aware of them, as they quoted them. They made no attempt to prove or to disprove their own claims. They did nothing to understand what they claimed not to have understood.
Was there a reason for their strange conduct?
The answer is very simple: The researchers wanted to exclude Prussian blue and similar iron cyanide compounds from their analyses. Excluding these compounds can only be justified on the assumption that Prussian blue in the walls of the delousing chambers must have a different origin, e.g. from paint. As the Krakow investigators wrote in their 1994 article:
"We decided therefore to determine the cyanide ions using a method that does not induce the breakdown of the composed ferrum cyanide complex (this is the blue under discussion) [.]"
What does this mean?
In fact, the exclusion of Prussian blue from analytical detection must result in much lower cyanide traces for the delousing chambers, as non-iron cyanide compounds are not very stable and would therefore hardly be present after fifty years. The same is true for every room ever exposed to hydrogen cyanide. In fact, values close to the detection level must be expected. These are generally so unreliable that a proper interpretation is close to impossible. It can therefore be expected that the analysis of samples tested with such a method would deliver similar results for nearly every sampling of material that is many years old. Such an analysis would make it practically impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide and those which were not: all would have a cyanide residue of close to zero.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n5p26_Zaverdinos.html
In 1994 the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute published a second, lengthier technical report on the Auschwitz gas chambers, basing its conclusions on chemical analyses of numerous brick and mortar samples taken from various buildings. If one accepts the methods used by the authors of this report, the results would appear to prove that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, as they found cyanide residues in the (non-homicidal) delousing chambers in amounts comparable to those found in morgue No. 1 of Krema II (an alleged homicidal gas chamber).
What, if anything, is wrong here? The Polish investigators called the blue wall phenomenon "controversial," and possibly due to paint! In a fax exchange with the Cracow Institute and the authors of this report, Germar Rudolf reminded them that, by their own admission, they had deliberately chosen an analytic method that would not detect Prussian Blue, that is, the vast majority of stable cyanide compounds present in the walls. This fact is crucial to their results and cannot be overemphasized, especially given that the Polish researchers offer no satisfactory explanation for their assertion that the Prussian Blue stains are "controversial," apart from the arbitrary conjecture that "this dye" (as they call it) may have resulted from "paint." They were not even sure if the "blue" was due to cyanide, something they could easily have ascertained.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p12_Butz.html
The argument, to the extent that it was intelligible enough to be summarized at all, was that they did not understand how the iron-cyanide compounds got to be there, so they decided to ignore them in reaching their conclusions. I don't understand how the moon got there, so I will ignore all effects associated with it, such as tides. I hope I don't drown.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p-3_Rudolf.html
A Lack of Understanding
The team from the forensic institute, Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, and Jerzy Labedz, claims not to have understood how it was possible for Prussian blue to have formed in walls as a result of their being exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas: "It is difficult to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place."
There is no shame in not understanding. Actually, this is the beginning of every science: the cognition of not understanding. In pre-scientific ages, humans tended to find mystical or religious answers to unsolved questions; modern scientists approach problems they don't understand, and sometimes can scarcely imagine, as challenges to investigate, in order to understand. This quest for knowledge is the chief driving force of modern humanity. Should we not expect, then, that the Krakow researchers would next have attempted to learn whether Prussian blue can be formed in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide and, if so, how?
More Lack of Understanding
In 1991 Dr. Markiewicz wrote, via a mutual acquaintance, that he was unable to understand how Prussian blue could possibly form in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide. He thought that quite unlikely, and suggested that its presence might stem from a different source, for example from Prussian blue wall paint used to give the interior walls of the delousing chambers a fanciful, patchy blue coloration. (What for?, one is tempted to ask.) I suggested that he look at the outer surfaces of the walls, which are exposed to environmental influences, and which were partly patchy blue as well. Their color cannot be explained by paint, but only by cyanide compounds spreading to the outside walls over the years, and being converted to Prussian blue. He replied that these blue patches were hard to explain, and first it had to be established that they were indeed Prussian blue. So there were even more questions to be answered before these scientists could conduct their analysis.
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.4.2.
8.4.2. False Method of Analysis
Many people, both experts and laymen, rely good-naturedly upon the findings of the Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow, i.e., the study published in 1994 by Prof. Markiewicz and colleagues. These Polish scientists, however, tested their samples with analytical methods that were unable to detect stable iron cyanide compounds. They did this because they could not imagine how such stable iron cyanide compounds could form. It is, of course, no shame to fail to understand something initially. Anyone, however, who makes a claim to scientific reliability must, before making statements upon the subject, at least attempt to investigate and understand. But not so the Polish scientists. They assert their lack of understanding as a justification for their failure to act. Has anyone ever heard that failure to understand a phenomenon was any reason for scientists not to study it? To the Polish scientists, this was obviously the case. It would only be permissible to exclude Iron Blue from the study if it were possible to exclude, with practical certainty, that the effects of hydrogen cyanide on masonry could result in the formation of iron cyanide, and, consequently, Iron Blue, and if there were at least some indication that these rooms had been painted with Iron Blue. The Polish scientists completely neglected to do this. And even worse: they did not even attempt to refute my arguments on the formation of stable iron cyanide compounds which I published in early 1993. They were familiar with this publication, because they quoted it, but not, for example, in order to discuss my arguments, but simply to condemn it flatly as an example of the allegedly diabolical deeds of the 'deniers' and the 'whitewashers' of Hitler, who Prof. Markiewicz and his colleagues intended to refute-so their own words. This should suffice to show that the Polish actions were ideologically motivated, to a high degree. If they had been neutral scientists, they would have applied the correct and interpretable method of analysis and would have discussed my publications in a scholarly manner instead of worrying about Hitler's dirty laundry.
Prof. Markiewicz and his colleagues did not even attempt to find any explanation for the high iron cyanide concentration in the walls of the disinfestation chambers and their blotchy-blue surfaces.
Although they had sought out an analytical method able to produce the results desired by them, the results of their first series of tests were obviously so disturbing that they decided to suppress them and never published them. These data only became public knowledge through an act of indiscretion in 1991 (see chapter 8.3.2.).
The Polish scientists therefore rejected the undesired results of their first series of tests and took even more samples, until they finally produced the results that fitted in with their preconception: this time, both the samples from the disinfestation chamber and the alleged 'gas chambers' showed cyanide residues on the same order of magnitude.
But even Prof. Markiewicz and his colleagues, during the test fumigations performed by them, at least confirmed that moist cement mortar (as was used in the morgues of crematoria II and III) absorbs at least ten times more hydrogen cyanide than dry lime mortar (as used in the disinfestation chambers), as I had assumed for my calculations in this work.
Comment #183405 by ASMarques on May 22, 2008 at 4:08 am
Dear Brights,
I'll be away for a while on a business trip to Acapulco, probably until some new clip mentions again the H hoax. This shouldn't take too long, if past experience is a guide. During the meanwhilst, you may satisfy your fascination with matters holocaustic by studying the fine messages I lovingly created with your best interests in mind. They link to many hidden treasures of wisdom and are generously sprinkled all over these five threads:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2443,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions,BBC
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-Richard-Dawkins-Michael-Shermer
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2472,Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss,RichardDawkinsnet
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2527,Shaw-TV-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins,Shaw-TV-Richard-Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2604,What-is-science-for,Sir-John-Sulston-John-Harris-Richard-Dawkins
Jot down your main observations or doubts, and we'll discuss them later.
Now, you Bright folks don't seem to get the idea that "evidence" is not the same as "claim of evidence." This is quite excusable because your best source to the silly "Holocaust" hoax seems to be the Wikipedia. But if it vanishes in front of your eyes the instant you invoke it, it's not evidence, it's simply a false claim of evidence, much like the genius inside that lamp on your desk. If you rub the lamp and nothing happens, and then you break it and still nothing happens, except your dad and mom getting mad at you, what that means is there was simply a claim of a genius, not a real genius. Same for a million geniuses if that is what the claim is. But you must do the rubbing. It's not enough to point to the lamp and say "see this genius here" or "see this million geniuses here."
So, as I have repeatedly told you, I will be glad to present a short report to you on any eyewitness, confession or speech you may believe constitute "good evidence." Shouldn't be too difficult if there is so much of it. So why not choose some good evidence and send it over?
Tell you what: since my free time, alas, is not infinite, I propose you choose one real good trustful eyewitness, one real good sincere confession, and one real good murderous speech.
I will then take a little while to appreciate each of the three and send you my opinion on them. If they crumble before your eyes, well, you should consider the probability of having picked up precisely the bad apples when the good ones were allegedly so abundant. And in that way you'll be able to start to appreciate how vacuous is the so-called evidence on record. How about it?
It's really in your interest, not mine. Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn.
See you.
Yours Truly
Comment #183384 by ASMarques on May 22, 2008 at 2:40 am
Said epeeist: AS Marques - can I introduce you to clearmind, he is a Romany.
Clearmind - can I introduce you to AS Marques, he is a facist.
Comment #183361 by ASMarques on May 22, 2008 at 1:09 am
Said Teratornis:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/deniers_06.shtml
"Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.
There is much additional evidence affirming Auschwitz/Birkenau's role as a killing centre. There is no reputable evidence that affirms the deniers' claims."
Let's see, who should I trust. The BBC, or some anonymous person on the Internet who routinely commits logical fallacies that I easily recognize? Boy, that's a tough one.
PREMISE 1 -- Since the holes are not there and no refilling can be detected,...
PREMISE 2 -- ... and the cyanide that should have been there is also absent,...
PREMISE 3 -- ... and the Voice venerated by the faithful Teratornis, through people like broadcasting producer Lawrence Rees, feels the need to establish new trends in Nazi pseudo-gassing, by taking them by stealth out of the clearly visible "epicenter" into the alleged dark small cottage (of candy?) in the deeps of the unknown forest (see the exchange in the exterminationist blog linked above),...
CONCLUSION? -- ... which way does the "convergence of evidence" point: Krema II gassings true, or Krema II gassings false?
Comment #183045 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 9:13 am
ASM,
Because your posts are quite long, I can only claim to have read one or two without skipping bits.
The fact that there might never have been a lampshade made out of human skin does not in itself prove that the Holocaust didn't happen.
I'm not sure that even the most callous person would call 300,000 dead 'a hoax'. There surely comes a point when the number of dead ceases to have an affect on how we view a crime.
Is 300,000 really so much less serious than 6 million?
Said Elli:
ASM: how did all those Jewish people die, then?That's an easy one, o Elli of the beauteous avatar, daughter of Jewish Israelis, who has interviewed numerous "Holocaust" survivors: most of them didn't die, hosanna and hallelujah!
I don't know if Elli had been particularly nasty to you, but this kind of taunting is just vile. Could you not have just answered the question and left the spitefulness to one side?
Comment #182988 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 7:34 am
Said uncle tungsten (great name! I like it.)
The commonly accepted figure for the number of extermination victims is 6 million.
Where does this figure come from?
Comment #182906 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 5:40 am
Said AfraidToDie:
You seem to be driven by a single issue that consumes you, that the Holocaust did not really happen, that it is a conspiracy.
As "whacky" as conspiracy theories can be, you still put together some very rational statements. My image of you is one of a potentially brilliant madman (sorry, but perhaps delusional too). Am I wrong?