Comments by ASMarques
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.
Not true. I only posted to five threads where explicit -- in my view objectionable -- reference to the "Holocaust" cult (not to "Jews, nazis or Hitler") had been produced, and not by the posters themselves, but in the clips expressly offered by the site for comment.
This is hardly "derailing" anything, other than the illusion that the "Holocaust" itself is not a religious creed. I simply made my objections in the appropriate places, and justified them by elaborating in greater detail, when discussions of the matter developed and my replies were solicited.
I wasn't aware that the comments columns were exclusively dedicated to devotional prayer.
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.
Allan W, I know that, and I hope you will be able to see that only one side of the debate -- the reasonable one, by the way, calmly posting logical arguments and hard information, instead of irrelevant ignorant rants -- has been "sidelined," i.e. relegated to alternate threads, while the other side has been conceded every possible legitimacy and advantage.
I won't participate in a closet debate and everything I said before is valid. For your information, here is a repetition of the words I addressed the administrators in my message #182701:
****** 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.
One side of the debate granted loudspeakers and paragons, the other side hardly granted the right to whisper and unable to defend itself in any other way? Now, what kind of debate would that be...
In case this strains you neuron architecture and you're not following me, let me give you an example by citing the latest questions al-rawandi addresses to me, no doubt confident that anyone reading him on the main thread (now his turf) will not go to the trouble of looking over the alternate thread, where the replies do in fact already exist:
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."
So please spare me the sanctimonious "it's not censoring" drivel intended for the weak of spirit. Any debate under such unequal conditions is a joke. There is only one difference between alternate threading and open censoring: in the first case the censors are actually ashamed of what they do and grasping for excuses.
Sorry, pals, not with me. If you want "alternate debates," suit yourselves by impersonating both voices à la Edgar Bergen & Charlie McCarthy, which, by the way, seems to be what the al-rawandi half-wit is already doing by attributing false quotes to me. So please choose some other names for your dummies incapable of defending themselves.
The very low level of the spiteful response to "Holocaust" analysis on this site surprised me, and presently makes me think that Richard Dawkins's campaign against the Abrahamic religions (others than the one he subscribes to, that is, or maybe it's the ones he feels pose no danger to his "courageous stand") is actually having a pernicious anti-pedagogical effect on many mental wretches incapable of free thought or any tolerance of it.
I'm sincerely sorry about that and I'm out.
Bye.
____________________________________________
P.S. (to Blake):
Blake: "ASM, no I *did* self-censor."
Yes, I know that. I was speaking about myself being censored, not you. I fully understand your not wanting any irrational hate directed at you, and not liking to be called a hate-monger. However, in my opinion, that sort of reaction is responsible for the progressive loss of freedom in the West. We already have our Goldstein, our Newspeak, and our Ministry of Truth. If we do nothing, we'll have the rats gnawing at our faces sooner than we may think.
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?
Goldy, imposed silence doesn't win arguments over calm logical thought, either. Blake was largely agreeing with my points on the irrational "Holocaust" cult. He was not claiming for himself a detailed historical knowledge, nor engaging anyone along those lines, so your side of the argument can hardly claim "to have beaten him."
In case you haven't noticed, most of my messages on the "Holocaust" irrational cult have now disappeared from the comments threads. This did not happen on my initiative, so I must assume they have been censored by the administrators of the RichardDawkins.net site.
Of course, I don't dispute their right to do so, since this is a private site under no obligation of coming to terms with the religious dogmas its owners subscribe to, or to stand up to the Jewish demand for universal censorship over the topic.
I do, however, lament the fact, since I had solicited, in more than one message, the courtesy of being informed that my messages on any particular subject should be deleted or that I should stop posting them, and had informed that I would stop posting altogether in each of both cases (partial or total censorship).
This is, naturally, my last message. On my personal thread I am still able to see -- as I hope others are -- all my messages (they number 160, including the present one):
http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,38300
I would like the administators to at least keep them visible in that closet fashion, since the adversarial messages in response to them, as well as the adversarial messages they were responding to, were not censored in the comments columns. I guess if they cannot be open supporters of loyal debate, well, they can always be at least closet supporters of some form of (to them) closed "debate."
I would also like to underline that, unlike Blake, I don't think I "hijacked" any comments thread, since my messages were reasonable -- they offered a good deal of information on both the "Holocaust" and the "historical Jesus" beliefs -- and directly addressed topics broached by one or more of the participants in each clip that was the object of the comments.
You will easily see that this is true by going over my first comment in each different subject thread. And criticism and eventual debate on a controversial topic among the posters is hardly surprising, unless the purpose of the comments columns is exclusively to laud the participants.
A last comment on (not "to") Diocletian who says "these threads that are completely off topic are annoying," and then goes around posting that same gratuitous message, with no other contents, on every thread where I was posting perfectly relevant arguments.
The claim Diocletian addresses to "those of you moderating the threads" is an interesting one. She writes: "you might wish to consider that people are just going to stop posting or even visiting the site because of few people who apparent[ly] pos[t]ed their perverted views on just about EVERY thread now. They completely derail the discussion."
This claim is, of course, entirely false, and she knows it, since her message was only repeated over the threads where the "Holocaust" cult was under consideration, so she didn't mean any other kind of "annoyance." And "just about EVERY thread" is hardly a correct description of the 5 (repeat: five) threads, out of many hundreds, where the "perverted views" on the sacrosanct "Holocaust" were being expressed, and in every case in a calm, reasonable and relevant way, motivated by the clip itself.
People like this -- not the believers open to discussion -- should be the true enemies of anyone who believes in the power of reason over dogma. You can easily recognise them because their sanctimonious first line when craving for censorship is always -- quote Diocletian -- "while not asking for people to be censored..."
But what problem would the discussion of any subjects that don't interest a given poster pose to that poster, other than the "problem" of easily jumping over them and ignoring them, while proceeding to the subjects that do interest them? Obviously, irrelevance or a lack of interest are not the reasons for their "annoyance."
This is indeed good evidence that the allegedly historical tenets of the "Holocaust" have become a religious cult that cannot withstand rational scrutiny. All that the true believers find themselves able to do about the disputation of their tenets of faith is gnashing their teeth and lobbying for censorship. Unfortunately for them, the cat is out of the bag, and universal censorship is no longer achievable.
you are not in prison, nor is ASMarques.
True, as far as I'm concerned, and I hope you're not lamenting the fact. I am not, but I could well be, if and when the European Union directives demanding restrictive speech-control laws are extended to my country. So, you see, the "Holocaust" and the Jewish power behind it are not as obviously innocent and devoid of evil agendas as you make them.
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.
Goldy, I don't know how old you are, so I'll spend a few seconds more of my precious time to point out to you that one of the most vile, cowardly, ways of ending any debate that is in fact being censored, is to create the impression that the opposing side does not respond or has taken flight.
Bye now. Back to my delicious lemonade.
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.
We'll agree to disagree on that. I'm a sticker for precision: 6 times in all, in 159 messages, makes once every 26.5 postings. Not exactly "throughout" then, but "rarely."
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.
Not joking at all. Why would I be joking?
I mean, why would anyone think that the gas chambers libel held against the Germans (involving even a systematic extermination of children out of some sinister fairy tale!), is not comparable to the blood matzo libel that used do be held against the Jews?
If it's simply because it doesn't involve any gourmet cooking, would the allegation that the SS made sausage out of Jewish flesh in the crematories make you change opinion?
Well, that's what David Olère, the famous eyewitness, told Jean-Claude Pressac (in Pressac, "Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz -- la Machinerie du meurtre de masse," CNRS, Paris 1993, p. 554), and Olère's testimony is supposed to be an important one. Robert Van Pelt, the expert witness for Deborah Lipstadt, produced six of his drawings made in 1945 to the court, during the Irving vs Lipstadt trial.
Biography:
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/ARTS/DOBIO/DOARTS.HTM
Self-portrait of the artist painting a lampshade (what else...):
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Images/484.02.jpg
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.
Frankly, I don't get your point. Or maybe you don't get mine. I'm not addressing any blood libel accusation at Jews. I'm saying the "Holocaust" libel against non-Jews is equally offensive.
What's wrong with that? To me, a false claim that the Germans made sausage out of Jews, sounds every bit as offensive as a false claim that the Jews made matzo out of Christians...
Think about it.
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.
Er... are you an anti-semite?
( ohmygod! )~~ :^O
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?
Okay, I'm getting you now. I didn't care very much because I couldn't believe your, er, anti-anti-semitism was only valid for the immediate post-war period...
I assume, then, that you believe Jews were not in positions susceptible of influencing US policy towards them, or interfering in the US handling of the Jewish issue in the immediate post-war period. I suggest that you consider what the following not-exactly powerless names have in common:
* Henry Morgenthau Jr. -- Secretary of the Treasury; "unofficial" presidential adviser; father of the Morgenthau Plan to re-structure Germany and Europe after WWII. [What was the Morgenthau Plan? See:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Morgenthau.html ]
* Harry Dexter White (Weiss) -- Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; key founder of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; adviser, close friend of Henry Morgenthau. Co-authored the Morgenthau Plan. Soviet spy.
* Bernard M. Baruch -- Financier and adviser to FDR; close friend of Winston Churchill.
* Rabbi Stephen Wise -- Close friend of FDR, spokesman for the American Zionist movement, President of the American Jewish Congress (WJC). In 1933, two years before the Nuremberg racial laws, he led the efforts for a commercial boycott of Germany. On March 27th, the American Jewish Congress and its allies convened simultaneous protest rallies in New York (an overflow crowd of 55,000 in the Madison Square Garden), Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland and 70 other locations). In April 1st, the Nazis replied with a one-day boycott directed at Jewish businesses, in reprisal of "the Jewish atrocity propaganda abroad." In June 1938, Wise told a rally: "I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew... Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race." The history of the soap allegation can be traced back to September 1942, when he announced that he had received a message from an official of the WJC in Europe reporting on the manufacture of soap and artificial fertilizer from Jewish bodies.
* Herbert H. Lehman -- Governor of New York, 1933-1942; Director of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations for the State Department, 1942-1943; Director-General of UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, 1943-1946, created to repatriate the refugees who would come under Allied control. UNRRA assisted in the repatriation of millions of refugees in 1945 and managed hundreds of displaced persons camps in Germany, Italy, and Austria during that year. It administered the work of 23 separate voluntary welfare agencies, including the Joint Distribution Committee, the Organization for Rehabilitation through Training (ORT), and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS).
* James Paul Warburg -- Banker and adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt (his father was the Jewish-German-American banker Paul Moritz Warburg); Special Assistant to the Coordinator of Information, William Joseph Donovan. In 1942, when propaganda responsibilities were transferred to the Office of War Information, he became its Overseas Branch Deputy Director. The following quote is attributed to him: "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." (Feb. 17, 1950, to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations).
* David Weintraub -- became head of the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations; helped create the United Nations; joined the UNRRA; Secretary, Committee on Supplies, 1944-1946.
* Nathan Gregory Silvermaster -- Head of the Near East Division of the Board of Economic Warfare; helped create the United Nations. Soviet spy [see the Wikipedia for the names in the Silvermaster spy ring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gregory_Silvermaster ]
* Harold Glasser -- Treasury Department director of the division of monetary research; Treasury representative to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. Soviet spy, member of the Perlo spy ring.
* Benjamin V. Cohen -- State Department official; adviser to FDR; counsel for the American Zionist Movement.
* Herbert Feis -- U.S. State Department official; economist, adviser on international economic affairs.
According to Gore Vidal, John Kennedy used to tell the following story about Truman's re-election in 1948:
http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionhist.html
"Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. 'That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.' As neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics."
Could be true or just gossip, but it certainly shows you how high-placed people within the US political system saw Jewish clout, even before the time you yourself agree it became "enormous."
The following quotes may help you figure out the Jewish role in the War Crimes trials and the concession of unprecedented reparations both to Jewish survivors and Israel, a state that didn't even exist during the war.
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)
In Nahum Goldmann's own words, in "The Jewish Paradox" (1978):
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.
But I don't want to give you the idea that the "Holocaust" was propped up exclusively by the Jews, or that their efforts were opposed by the Allied countries. Indeed what we have is a convergence of interests among all the winners. The British, for instance, were actively fabricating atrocity stories, not unlike those spewed out by the Soviet and Jewish propaganda mills. See, for instance, this article, based on declassified files reported by the British press:
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.)
I hope this will help you understand that the venomous lies of totalitarian propaganda are still with us, and still making victims: the ones that fall on the wake of the West's permanent waging of war on the reincarnations of the fallen devil and their always imminent reenactings of the "Holocaust" of the Jews...
Must go now, or I'll miss my plane. See you in a couple of weeks.
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?
Seems to me pretty obvious that your important implication was not simply "if conspirators make bad fakes, then conspirators must be an inept lot," but rather along the lines of "if conspirators make bad fakes (and thus are an inept lot), then the conspiracy should be falling apart quicker than a cheap suit" (my words to explain the implication as I understood it). Let me quote you: "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," i.e. you were implying that "Holocaust conspirators" are assumed not to be inept by your opposition, whereas no one else -- neither I, nor, as far as I could see, Blake himself -- was necessarily assuming anything of the sort.
And, of course, the point I was making through the example (rather than "conclusion," as you called it) was that people who try to argue alleged facts they have little information on, without regard for the facts themselves and further inquiring into them, are not showing a rational attitude. Your implication, as I understood it, forgot the fact that large, but well-succeeded, intrinsically ridiculous claims are not easily debunkable, otherwise established religions would have gone away a long time ago.
Concerning your global comment, note that you were concentrating on the "blatantly faked poster" -- while ignoring everything else Blake was telling you about disinfestation and homicidal gas chambers, negligible cyanide traces, lampshades, soap, Schindler's List as fiction, the 6 million figure etc. -- and trying to make the (in Blake's own words) "blatantly faked poster" look like maybe not such an intended fake after all, but "perhaps, instead, [...] a deliberate montage that everyone understood to be a montage," without considering that that was precisely what Blake was telling you, namely that "anyone would recognize it as such on close inspection" and "a quick look at it [shocked] you," i.e. that such an offensive picture -- a small German child dressed in winter clothing laughing at piles of naked dead bodies -- is revealing of the bottomless evil of the "Holocaust" propaganda and the absence of scruples shown by the proponents of the anti-German (or anti-Goy, since more or less everyone but Jews seem to be guilty of the suffering of the Jews) blood libel.
If you have difficulty understanding his point, possibly due to the unrelenting "Jewish uniqueness" propaganda you are submitted to in your everyday life, please try to imagine your reaction to a poster showing, through a deliberate montage, a small Jewish child dressed in winter clothing laughing at piles of naked dead bodies, say, in an Ukrainian exhibition of the great famine of 1932-33.
Would you still be using the words "deliberate montage that everyone understood to be a montage" in an exculpating sense? Or would you still be invoking "the guy in the Prado who objects to Guernica, not because he thinks the painting is shit, but because horses don't really have three eyes so it can't be true"? Or calling the montage "artistic license," just "trying to make a point in a very heavy-handed way," because "the curator had made a bad error of judgement"?
You add: "What it would not signify is that millions of Jews hadn't, in fact, died in concentration camps." Well, did you by any chance read the rest of Blake's message? Nothing of interest there that might have caught your eye relative to the "millions of Jews," other than the "deliberate montage"? Like, for instance, "Where did the 6 million figure come from -- no one ever gives any rational derivation"?...
I guess I must go now. See you.
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.
I was pointing out your apparent ignorance of a particular meaning, not every instance where you had gone wrong.
I think you understand what you mean by "evasion" and "failure of relevance," even though I don't think those descriptions should apply to what I've been saying or leaving out, and even though I have no time to systematically deal with every wrong accusation.
But I don't think you understand what an "ad hominem argument" means. Obviously, an intentionally false accusation that someone used an "ad hominem" argument is in itself ad hominem and worse than accusations of "evasion" and "failure of relevance," that do not aim at the character of the accused, but rather at his alleged incompetence. Hence my advice to you. Here is its context:
MaxD had asked:
QUESTION: "How did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)?"
I had replied:
REPLY: "You mean simply because you don't believe in conspiracies [this is not remotely an ad hominem claim, since the reluctance to believe in conspiracies, other than the claimed secret conspiracy to remove by stealth an entire race off the face of the planet, had been often implied], you don't believe the Jews of post WWII Europe managed to pull of this feat of land (to the point of taking over Palestine) [this is not remotely an ad hominem claim, since it simply quotes the question and provides a fact], power (to the point of being in control of US foreign policy) [same], and money grab (to the point, for instance, of extracting colossal amounts of money from the German and US taxpayers on account of the big H)[same]?
Mentioning the other part's beliefs -- or indeed statements -- relevant to the discussion, is not resorting to ad hominem argument. Ad hominem means addressing the person making the argument, instead of the argument itself, i.e. if it is done in a way irrelevant to the argument.
For instance, "this man is wrong about the sky being green because he is blind" is not ad hominem (provided the man is indeed blind). But "this man is wrong about the sky being green because he is a Nazi" is.
And so is "this man is wrong about the sky being blue because he is a Nazi." And that's the sort of argument much resorted to by your side of the debate, when it comes to the prodigious gas chambers of WWII Jewish & Allied folklore, that Israel and international Jewry -- an obviously different thing from "every individual Jew" -- want to impose forever on all of us.
Must go now. See you in a couple of months.
_________________________
Post Scriptum:
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.
You mean you have decided to go read the diabolical revisionist works? Wow.
Let me help you. Here is a fast choice of sites:
IHR
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/index.html
CODOH
The Comitee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
(large site, maintains a forum where you can debate, search or ask for specific information)
http://www.codoh.com/index.shtml
Aaargh
L'Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes
(multilingual site with a vast archive of revisionism in its main section in French, including Faurisson and Rassinier)
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/fran.html
VHO
The Holocaust Controversy
(multilingual site)
http://vho.org/
Air Photo Evidence
(useful maps and air photos)
http://www.air-photo.com/
And here is an introduction to acquaint you with the alleged "vast body of evidence:"
IHR set of leaflets (short and accurate)
http://www.ihr.org/main/leaflets.shtml
A searchable directory, useful for reference by name, concentration camp etc.
http://www.ihr.org/main/search.shtml
A name dictionary in French, equally useful for the same purpose
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/dicbio/dicbiogOancres.html
A short introduction to the study of Holocaust revisionism
http://www.codoh.com/butz/di/intro.html
Context and Perspective in the 'Holocaust' Controversy
(in English, French and German)
http://www.codoh.com/butz/di/context/context.html
The Lüftl Report
An Austrian Engineer's Report on the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and Mauthausen
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html
I don't know if you're posting from a country where "Holocaust" revisionism is censored, such as Germany, Austria or France, so let me give you a couple of URLs that you and other readers may find useful.
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.
MaxD, I didn't "impugn your character," and I'm sorry if I cannot expose the greatest hoax of all times to you in every phase of its development and organizing detail, for the very simple reason that I've not been a part of it. All I can do is to point out that its claims are false and Jews, as an international group, are doing their best -- we should really say worst -- to prohibit digging into it.
And, excuse me, but you're the one who refuses to answer questions. You first ask me "how did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)"?
Hoping to show you that the Jews, as an international group, are not powerless, poor, unimaginative, and incapable of conspiring, as you apparently make them, I then ask you to explain your question that sounds as if you had any doubts about facts such as the Jewish grabbing of land (Palestine), the power Jews wield (to the point of being in complete control of US foreign policy and having the US fight their wars for them), and the Jewish money grab (to the point, for instance, of extracting colossal amounts of money from the German and US taxpayers on account of the big H, and I may even add blackmailing Switzerland and holding up its banks).
You simply do not answer, but how then can you demand answers to questions that are in themselves unintelligible?
Said epeeist:
Looks like a failure of relevance, evasion and ad hominem to me.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the latin expression. Do look it up, please.
Said blake121666:
The Holocaust is the religion in that it is based on no empirical facts and is in fact averse to them.
Excellent way of putting it. A quick example follows, if I may.
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.
Here is the example. 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. Let me put it this way: how does Keith account for this sort of thing (please take a while to go through the "evidence" listed here):
http://www.cwporter.com/partone.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/parttwo.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/partthre.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/partfour.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/pg368.htm
That sort of "evidence" is from the Allied Nuremberg trials, and many people were hanged (mainly, but not exclusively, in Eastern and Central Europe) on its account. Does the plainly ridiculous level of such "evidence" mean it didn't exist and wasn't recognised by the shamefully one-sided standards of the tribunal? And does that make the conspirators that obviously fabricated the ridiculous "evidence" any less inept?
Said blake121666:
Elie Wiesel never mentions any homicidal gas chambers in "Night". Is Elie Wiesel a Holocaust denier?
True. Elie Wiesel is an interesting example of false literary testimony, because at the time he wrote Night, the big thing were the almost biblical flame pits, not yet the chain-murdering gas chambers. So, that's the lie he adopted, not the gassing one.
Quote: "Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes)." He describes a ditch with gigantic flames where the victims suffered "slow agony in the flames," and says he himself was led by the Germans to within two steps of it. And then "two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks." Same in Buchenwald, his survival was a miracle: "In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?"
Wiesel is a natural born liar and his "Holocaust" idiocies are no exception. Take his interview in the NY Times (5 March 1997, sec. C, p. 1), where he claims that in 1956 he was hit by a taxi in Times Square in Manhattan: "I flew an entire block [...] I was hit at 45th Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th. It sounds crazy. But I was totally messed up."
And there you have a very common "Holocaust" line: yes, it was impossible, but yes, it did happen. Well, if it was impossible, sorry, but no, it didn't happen...
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?
Correct. You see, "Holocaust" revisionists / deniers come in all sizes and political flavours. How could it be otherwise? I like some and I don't like others. Politically I agree with some and don't agree with others. But what has that to do with the reality of the alleged "Holocaust" facts? Nothing!
Gotta go. My lemonade is getting warm. See you in a few weeks.
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.
You don't get it. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm simply using events that you presumably accept to show you the difference between the usual ordinary horrors of war (such as the My Lay massacre), and an alleged secret conspiracy of gigantic proportions to exterminate a whole race (no one alleges that that was what the Americans were indulging in in Vietnam).
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. :)
Ah, yes. The face. I used to only read the comments very rarely, but I noticed her and saw her interviewing Dawkins. Very nice presence and clearly a (real) bright person that doesn't go around peddling idiotic hoaxes. So, she's entitled to any title she wishes, and to my apologies as well. My quarrel is not really with the bright people in general, but with the fringe that takes a special delight in shamelessly propagating the "Holocaust" blood libel, while refusing to examine the historical record.
Okay, boys and girls. I've got to fly now. Don't be bad to your dogs and cats and local anti-semites. Ciao.
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".
Fair enough. Naturally, I wasn't speaking of each and every individual per se. The quote was from Styrer, but I was obviously using it in an general, impersonal way. I meant the self-congratulatory atmosphere that seems prevalent among most of the locals, i.e. people who actually call themselves "Brights," and then go about proclaiming their faith in the silly "Holocaust" hoax...
Okay, Quetz, you may unruffle those feathers. No one is threatening you.
Cheers. Got to go now.
;^)
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.
Excellent sign. The pursuit of truth is a a harduous task. But you shouldn't give up.
How did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)? Eh? Seriously.
You mean simply because you don't believe in conspiracies, you don't believe the Jews of post WWII Europe managed to pull of this feat of land (to the point of taking over Palestine), power (to the point of being in control of US foreign policy), and money grab (to the point, for instance, of extracting colossal amounts of money from the German and US taxpayers on account of the big H)? Eh? Seriouly.
You remind me of Butz's excellent summary of the Krakow report (see #184118): "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."
I've got to go now. See you.
Comment #184187 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Said MaxD
Cute avatar by the way.
Thank you. I find it amusing to change avatars every now and then, according to campaign developments. Blake121666's comments inspired me this time, but I don't expect cultural anglos to get it. Will change it again in a couple of weeks.
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.
Yup, both are hoaxes. One anti-Jewish, the other anti-Aryan. Or anti-non-Jewish, or whatever you want to call it, since it sems everybody is actively or passively guilty of it, except for the Jews, even those who actively cooperated with the Axis, such as the terrorist Yitzhak Shamir, who sided with the pro-totalitarian Stern group, was interned by the British, and later became no less than prime-minister of Israel (he has not yet been brought to justice or deported, like poor Demjanjuk is going to be).
See Lenni Brenner's Zionism in the Age of Dictators:
http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zizad/zizad26.html
********************************************************************
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.
Ouch. Finally exposed, all three of us. Only Ahmadinejad managed to escape.
The cartoons of hook nosed Jews, riding Uncle Sam like a horse. Bah.
Well, some of them have hook noses. So what? Are you a nosist?
For example Ernst Zundel was exposed precisely as a fraud, in a Canadian court.
Thanks to Zundel, the medieval law he had been charged under, "reporting false news," was ruled unconstitutional and his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. Hardly a defeat, is it?
Not only was he shown to be a denier of the Holocaust (bad enough)
That must have been difficult indeed to prove in court. Maybe they asked him. Some hard work for the prosecution... (hahaha)~~ :^D
Seriously, I think I can see where your hate for Zundel comes from. His 1988 trial was a landmark event that sent the "Holocaust" mythologists reeling and whining for censorship and repressive laws. It was really history in the making:
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/falsenews.toc.html
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?
The answer is simple and has often been repeated to you: your "how come" premise is false. The only fraction of truth is the "discredit" part, but given the irrational religious significance of the matter, that's hardly astonishing, is it? I understand how difficult it is to part with long-held convictions you were taught to worship as sacred, but I've already tried to explain how the mechanism of "discredit" functions. Here is how:
-- The facts:
1) Deniers deny H.
2) Deniers get ruined or jailed for denying H.
3) Deniers get discredited for having being ruined or jailed.
4) Denial of H gets discredited, not because it has been proven false, but because deniers got discredited.
-- Your conclusion:
5) Therefore H is true and no conspiracy on behalf of H exists.
If you don't see the perverse absence of logic, I'm afraid I can't do anything more for you. You're beyond repair.
Eagerly awaiting reply.
I wouldn't if I were you, but, well, I don't presume to be the only patient person on this planet.
Back to my lemonade. See you in a few weeks, short of revolutionary developments or old Dawkins again implanting his foot on his mouth, H-wise.
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.
By Jove. I say, what a terrible week indeed you must have had.
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.
Wow. A rational life form on Dawkins's planet. I almost spilled my lemonade.
I was afraid of being delusional, and I hate being a sexist pig, but I really was under the impression that the general tone around these parts was rather menopausal. Or andro or whatever. Lots of nerves all around, you know what I mean. Quite unbelievable. Even old Dawkins sounded a bit shrillish on his "Holocaust" number on the clip.
Well, glad to know I'm not the only one to notice.
*** To Maxd ***
Please close your "i" bracket, otherwise you spoil other people's laborious formatting down the whole page. Thanks.
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.
Look, I am momentarily interrupting my business trip to Acapulco and have just stopped sipping my delicious lemonade, but I cannot unfortunately dedicate all of my time to conduct exhaustive analyses for the benefit of people who seem interested in the subject, but haven't even gone to the trouble of reading the revisionists themselves, instead of the Wikipedia rantings on them. Nevertheless, I have a soft heart and some difficulty in ignoring a call for help, so I'll do a bit of Wiki-exegesis for you. But you'll have to proceed from there on your own.
I will first let you catch the flavour of Wiki-obfuscation by commenting on a few ridiculous bits within the link from the Quetzalcoatl guy that you mention, in connection, by the way, with the "references" sent by the Teratornis guy (why is it that so many of these insecure self-proclaimed "most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web" like to wear plumage on their tails, I wonder).
I will then proceed to develop the very important stuff your Wikipedia link mentions en passant. That's where the real pedagogical value resides, once the whole story is told.
The confusion is so uniform that we may as well begin with the begining:
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.
End of the light part because time flies. Let's see the serious business: the forensic reports on the gas chambers. Here is a brief history leading to a conclusion that you'll have to assess by yourself.
1) 1988: THE LEUCHTER REPORT
The Leuchter Report showed there were very large amounts of stable cyanide compounds in the disinfestation gas chambers, while there were practically none -- consistent with only occasional disinfestation, as in samples from the prisoners' barracks -- in the allegedly homicidal gas chambers (i.e. the ones designated in German documents as "morgues," naturally contiguous to the cremating facilities similar to those existent in "non-extermination"concentration camps).
Quick summary of the circumstances:
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/inside.shtml
The Leuchter Report (1988)
(Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Madjanek)
http://www.ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html
The Second Leuchter Report (1989)
(Dachau, Mauthausen and Hartheim) Fred Leuchter & Robert Faurisson
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p261_Leuchter.html
Download the critical edition of the complete Leuchter Reports here:
http://vho.org/GB/Books/tlr/
2) 1990: THE HUSHED UP KRAKOW REPORT
As a result of the panic that ensued from the Leuchter Report and the simultaneous first real cross-examinations of "Holocaust" eyewitnesses (like Rudolf Vrba) and technical witnesses (such as Hilberg himself) ever made in a court of law, during the Canadian trial of Ernst Zundel, this forensic report resulted from a commission by the Auschwitz State Museum to the Institute of Forensic Research of Krakow. Since the results seemed to confirm Leuchter's own results, the report was quickly hushed up.
Quote from Germar Rudolf:
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.
Quote from the article where the report was leaked out (you'll find there an English translation of the report itself and a letter that shows its authenticity from Dr. Jan Markiewicz, then director of the Krakow Institute of Forensic Research):
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]
3) 1993: THE RUDOLF REPORT
This is an extensive study you can consult or download here:
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
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.
4) 1994: THE SECOND (OFFICIAL) KRAKOW REPORT
This is the report Wikipedia sends you to:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/
... even though it mentions the date of the first report (never officially made public, but never denied) that you can read in its entirety in the link to its JHR non-official publication that I indicated in 2).
Here are some comments on this revised report (notes references deleted, you may find them in the linked pages). Make up your mind on its value yourself.
Quote from Germar Rudolf:
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.
A good summary by Costas Zaverdinos:
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.
Sometimes the shorter the comment, the better. Here is how Arthur R. Butz put it:
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.
In short, in case you didn't get it, and are still counting on your Wikipedia report on the Krakow report: they used a method that only detects instable cyanide compounds -- although they were researching events that allegedly had taken place more than 50 years earlier! -- because they "couldn't understand" how the stable compounds had gotten there!
Again, from Germar Rudolf:
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.
Present situation:
-- Fred Leuchter was blacklisted in the US, hounded by the "Holocaust" lobby and vilified by the media. He was arrested and jailed in Germany for giving an anti-Holocaust lecture. Allowed out on bail, he returned to the US and chose not to go back to Germany to stand trial. Nonetheless, he lost his livelihood as a result of his pioneering role in the investigation of the alleged gas chambers.
-- Germar Rudolf was charged and tried in Germany for not believing in the standard Auschwitz story. As a scientist, he found the "gassing" claims to be scientifically untenable and, therefore, absurd. He was found guilty and convicted because he refused to renounce scientific facts and his own scientific tests and findings. He was dogged by the "Holocaust" enforcers over four different countries, and finally deported from the United States, in spite of being married to a US citizen, having a child from her, and having asked for political asylum there. He is now purging a jail sentence in Germany.
-- The Auschwitz State Museum is happy with the results of the (second) report commissioned from the Institute of Forensic Research of Krakow. And, oh yes, they still tell the tourists and the poor children sent to them for brainwashing that the "reconstructed gas chamber" in the main camp is an "original one in pristine state."
Conclusion? I leave it to you.
Advice? I advise you not to trust the Wikipedia on the "Holocaust." Read the revisionists first-hand yourself, not the hatchet jobs done on them.
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.
How do you do.
Clearmind - can I introduce you to AS Marques, he is a facist.
No, I won't exterminate him, if that's what you're asking. Some of my best friends are Romanies and besides, he is much more coherent than the "Holocaust" peddlers that infest these parts.
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.
Teratornis, your trust in the broadcasting media as the Voice of Our Lord, channeled by no other angelic medium than Deborah Lipstadt, deeply touches me, and frankly I don't know what to say about that, other than to point out that the same Voice used to say the ashes of some 4 million people -- yup, the old figure we are now (falsely) told that only the crazy commies used to believe in and immortalise in stone -- had been flushed to a small backyard pond in Auschwitz. And it did so, not through the hilarious Deborah "No Debate" Lipstadt spokesperson, but through no less a figure than Jacob "Have Some Hair" Bronowski in the BBC documentary series The Ascent of Man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA
The Voice is well known for feeding the faithful convenient pseudo-history that always transubstantiates in, or consubstantiates with (the matter is disputed, much like the Funcionalist vs Intentationalist approach to Hilberg's Holy Problem of the Vast Extermination by Telepathic Consensus), different versions of pseudo-history, according to the necessity of the moment. See, for instance, the case of BBC producer Lawrence Rees, the falsifier that I myself caught in flagrante delicto:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Marques_150405.html
Then an interesting exchange followed in an exterminationist blog. Warning: you won't be able to understand the (very common) subtle logic of the falsification and how one alleged gas chamber (the industrial "epicenter" in Krema II) is magically turned into another (the "little cottage," maybe near Bronowski's "little pond," who knows...) if you don't read my own messages to the end, in the comments columns:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/when-deniers-are-right.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/i-have-seen-gas-chambers-i-have-seen.html
Back to the Krema II epicenter.
Certainly the Lipstadt lines you point out make it seem as if it's only "the deniers" who deny the holes. Not so. Unlike Lipstadt, who is a sort of hillbilly professor of Jewish Uniqueness who likes to talk off the cuff, and generally doesn't even know what she is talking about, Robert Van Pelt has been to Auschwitz and he was recognised as an expert witness for the defense -- i.e. Lipstadt's own exterminationist side -- during the Irving vs Lipstadt & Penguin trial.
Now here is what Van Pelt says:
"Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the hole and thus restore the slab."
In other words, what the expert witness under Irving's cross-examination is admitting is the alleged Birkenau Krema II holes are not there, maybe because they have been refilled like the ones drilled after the war in the ceiling of the Auschwitz I alleged gas chamber are now, after revisionists discovered and publicized the original blueprints, mumbled by the Museum authorities to have been, but careful close inspection -- not to speak of modern science -- is not deemed capable of finding these odd refilled holes in the concrete slab, even when their precise location is well known!
Now, I am not implying that Van Pelt was actually conceding the non-existence of the holes as an ordinary fact devoid of contorted metaphysical implications of a religious nature, i.e. as a straight fact that indeed did prove in a very, very simple way that the gassing tales were false.
Of course he would never have done that. That's not the way the religious believing mind operates, and definitely not what the sponsors of Deborah Lipstadt, the "Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies" taken to court by David Irving, were paying him £109,000 to say.
What Van Pelt did do, as a true peddler of the "Holocaust" religion, was:
1) To admit that he had gone to Birkenau to see the holes in the alleged gas chamber's roof for himself and not having found them, he had concluded they must have been refilled by the wicked Germans (before their own blowing-up of the "gas chamber" (!) that fractured but didn't destroy the massive reinforced concrete slab that formed the roof), in some extremely clever way that can no longer be observed, even though the precise locations of the holes are known.
2) To allege that this material absence of the holes essential to the "Zyklon B through the roof" tale was not a simple matter of crucial sine qua non evidence that would establish the truth or falsehood of the eyewitness allegations and ought to be investigated by forensic science as normal criminal matters are, but instead that the sacred holes themselves should be promoted to the higher semi-metaphysical heights of "moral certainty" as defined by Bishop John Wilkins in his "Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion" (1660).
Unbelievable? Yes. Untrue? Not. See my post #174561:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2472,Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss,RichardDawkinsnet,page3#174561
Now, also missing is the cyanide that should have reacted chemically with the iron rich walls producing extremely durable compounds, as indeed happened in the other gas chambers, the ones everybody now, after revisionists brought them into the open in the 70s, agrees were only used for the disinfestation of clothes, mattresses etc., where cyanide compounds (like ferric ferrocyanide or "Prussian blue") make their presence visible even to the naked eye.
And my question to you is:
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.
I'm awfully sorry if I'm not the Reader's Digest. I must think of those who have been protesting because I don't throw in enough original stuff for their taste. You know, the "just links to the devilish sites I'll never even peek into!" sort of protest. Sorry if I fail you on the excess side. Can't satisfy all customers.
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.
That's what I call a king-size red herring. I never said it did, as you well know. Obviously a single ridiculous allegedly human lampshade doesn't count for any "Holocaust" falsifiability, whatever your definition of the Big H amoeba may be (however I expect you to agree that the non-existence of the chain-murdering gas chambers is quite a different matter).
What the lampshades, the shrunken heads and the humans soap idiotic stories show you is the standards of the evidence concocted at the trials you base your knowledge of the German war crimes on, including the "Holocaust" gigantic hoax. And I don't mean exclusively the main Nuremberg IMT. I mean the smaller camp trials as well.
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.
If 300,000, the hoax is not the 300,000. The hoax is the 6 million.
Is 300,000 really so much less serious than 6 million?
As an immediate matter of fact, it's 5,700,000 deaths less serious. I hope the life or death of 5,700,000 Jews doesn't leave you indifferent.
As a deeper reading, if the choice you imagine is between 6 million under (obviously intentional) industrial chain-murder in gas chambers as described by the exterminationist camp, or 300,000 from every sort of unwarranted causes, mainly under the disastrous conditions at the end of the war, as most revisionists assume, yes, absolutely, there is a radical difference to it.
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?
Don't be silly. Where do you read any spitefulness? I, for one, would think less Jewish victims should be good, not bad, news.
If you want spitefulness follow the "Nazi hunters" on the prowl looking for more innocent old men to nail, in order to gain a few extra mileage for their despicable propaganda. That's real spitefulness, I assure you.
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?
Hmmm, could it be straight out of the cabalistic night of times?
You know, six days to create the World, six pointed stars, six extermination camps...
Have you noticed this earlier instance of the 6 million figure dating from 1919 (yes, that's nineteen hundred nineteen) in The American Hebrew, October 31, 1919 (page 582), The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop! by Martin H. Glynn, former Governor of the State of N.Y.?
http://www.historiography-project.com/images/091031crucifixion.gif
"From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread. These children, these men and women are our fellow-members of the human family, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter's cold, the same propensity to death before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers. In the face of death, in the throes of starvation there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differentiations of race. In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand. Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood. In this threatened holocaust of human life (...)"
Holocaust of human life? Six million calling for help? Bigoted lust for Jewish blood? In 1919? Crucifixion of Jews when a lot of people were being starved all over Germany and Northern Europe?
Does that sound familiar?
Equally intriguing, how come the figure of 6 million was already known to the US Congress in March 1945, at a time when the war was still on, no German top officials or camp administrators had been captured, and no confessions had been obtained, 3 weeks before the Americans took over Dachau and the British took over Belsen, and 6 weeks before the Soviets released their Special Comission Report on Auschwitz? See clip at (08:46):
http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/nazishrunkenheads/nshrunkenheads.wmv
[There is a small error in there: the idiotic "atrocity display" we see in the photos was mounted near Buchenwald, not Nuremberg, but the atrocity bric-à -brac itself was indeed presented and accepted as evidence at a variety of trials, including the ones at Dachau and Nuremberg. The short movie on the whole is accurate and perceptive]
See you soon, uncle tungsten. I must go get a couple of kosher sandwiches now. This running business already made me faint twice.
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.
Please note that you're the one who seems to believe the "Holocaust" was an unbelievable conspiracy. I believe it was simply a convergence of interests in a common lie, together with the nearly inexhaustible human capacity to believe in fairy tales. My conspiracy requires only a common will to believe in fairy tales, while yours requires a fairy tale proper, complete with devils, ogres and monsters: Adolf Hitler and the branch of humanity known as "the Nazis," regardless of any statistical evidence for such an uniformly diabolical large group of people secretly sworn to monstrous deeds. You should reread your Goldhagen with your eyes open.
And I really hate having to repeat this à la Clockwork Orange to shock you into deconditioning, but, well... could you go back to (use Search within page): "a vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate [...] survivors galore from such alleged "extermination centers" as Auschwitz exhuberatingly manifesting themselves everywhere more than 60 years later?"
Ouch.
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?
You don't need to be sorry, but does that question of yours make any sense at all, given the premise? I mean lying Cretans and all that stuff...