| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| brian wrote: | Dogsmilk, it is not for me to speculate as to the purpose of the showers or gas tight doors. I could say for example that the chamber obviously had dual uses - EG for showering or decontamination. The point is though the document proves absolutely nothing and shows how desperate the anti revisionists are.
Like the Holfe memo it tells us nothing regards extermination yet you wave that now like it is of some import. Why?
You say Himmler's Poznan speech was pretty specific after saying the Germans used code. Could you be specific about Himmlers specificity or was he using code as well?
Your - "The Nazis, after all, didn't just alter buildings for a laugh did they?"
- only demonstrates what you want to convey, nothing else. Buildings are altered for all sorts of practical reasons be it by Nazis or others.
My approach to this is to learn, yours is to convince. You are not making a good job of it as far as I am concerned. |
Actually, it shows how you don't have an answer that fits your belief system.
For a denial position to work, you first have to assume all the eyewitnesses - Jews and Nazis - are liars. It's very difficult to be 'mistaken' about mass murder so let's be clear - you have to say they're liars. Otherwise, what we're trying to do is see if the physical evidence matches what the eyewitnesses claim - this is pretty standard in any investigation isn't it? Surely we want to be sure of our ground before we call lots of people liars don't we?
- Second you don't have an explanation. You suggest "showering" - with shower heads not connected to a water supply - or "decontamination". Ok, so you speculate showering with no water or decontamination were taking place in what would otherwise have been a morgue. Was this common? So the eyewitnesses contradict your speculation (let's remember crematorium III was the one Daniel Olere drew a highly detailed cross section of in 1945, gas chambers and all) but you have no actual evidence to back this speculation up. Yet it fits the witness testimony about fake shower heads in gas chambers (years before the document was discovered) perfectly.
So you still need to show how these people were lying and show how this evidence that apparently fits their lies actually doesn't.
Let's add something else.
You're probably aware that on 28th June 1943, Karl Bischoff signed a letter starting "Report the completion of crematorium 3 at 26 June 1943,. Therewith all the crematoria ordered have been completed." The letter states an incineration capacity of 4756 persons per 24 hours. Now I know there's endless arguments as to whether the crems could actually pull this off, but the fact is, this is what they ordered, what they wanted, what they expected. There was a war on, so it's unlikely they'd order this nonsense unless they were expecting to use it. So what was the population of the camp? About 100, 000? So, even with typhus, they wanted ovens capable of incinerating about 5% of the camp population per day? Yet if we look at the available death books for registered inmates (not the unregistered ones that were gassed. For some reason, deniers appear to think you'd bother to register someone at the camp just before killing them. Go figure.):
http://www.air-photo.com/english/deathbooks.html
The link is from a denier site.
we see nothing like this level of mortality. Or are we to believe the Nazis seriously expected pretty much the entire camp to pop their clogs in something over 20 days at some point (but not in any genocidal way)?
So - eyewitnesses say mass murder - entirely consistent with sh!tloads of ovens.
Eyewitnesses (somehow all) liars. Why so many ovens?
Why so many compared with the camps where people weren't being exterminated?
The Holfe memo isn't conclusive, but again it fits neatly and deniers are faced with more "Oooh, it must be sumpin'" hand-waving. The numbers could be something else...but what?
Cole fans may which to note it's an intercept, something he claims never happened.
| Quote: | The next radio message to be intercepted about “Aktion Reinhard” occurs in January 1943. Two partially intercepted messages exist, of which one is a fragment, but there can be little doubt that the two messages would have been more or less identical in their content. On 11 January 1943 at 10.00 a.m. a radio message marked “Geheime Reichssache” from SS-Sturmbannführer Höfle in Lublin addressed to SS-Obersturmbannführer Eichmann at RSHA Berlin was partially intercepted. At 10.05 a.m. Höfle sent a second message also marked “Geheime Reichssache” to SS-Obersturmbannführer Heim of the BdS office in Krakow; Heim was the deputy BdS under SS-Oberführer Dr Eberhard Schöngarth. The radio message to Heim is a 14 day report (for the 14 days prior to 31 December 1942) for “Einsatz Reinhart” and a year-end report, quoting a series of numbers against a series of letters. The author believes these figures provide an accurate reflection of the number of victims of the “Einsatz Reinhart” program to the end of 1942:
Letter and 14 day report year-end report
Camp i.d. to 31.12.1942 1942 total
L – Lublin 12761 24733
B – Belzec 0 434508
S – Sobibor 515 101370
T – Treblinka 10335 713555*
total: 23611 1274166
(* even radio operators and decoding people are fallible; in the decode itself the number is 71355, however this does not give proper addition, 713555 was the correct number.)
|
http://www.death-camps.org/reinhard/prodecodes.html
I've always wondered why if Aktion Rheinhard was all innocent, it was pretty much exactly the same crew from T4 (something deniers seem to avoid like the plague). What do you think, Bri? D'you reckon T4 happened or not?
You see, if the Nazis were gassing the disabled, do you find it such a massive stretch they might possibly be up for also gassing the people they hated most?
Or was T4 just another bit of confusion?
You can check out the Poznan speech for yourself:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/himmler-poznan-large.m ov
Believe it or not, my approach is to learn, too. And the more I learn, the more flimsy Holocaust denial seems.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dog, Bri here,
Before addressing your post I would just like to say I was glad to see you admit you are a bit of an a.shole on the internet. Not that I needed your confirmation.
No, I don’t have an answer, or at least one that satisfies me.
If I produce witnesses saying there was no gas chambers will you then accept it as fact or will you call them liars or mistaken – even about mass murder? Not likely they would have been tortured like Hoss or given favourable sentences or even paid is it?
Your answer is once again full of baseless assertions which you then employ in a smart ass manner. Such as the unconnected showers nonsense.
The evidence does not support your smart ass comments -
The Basement Showers of Crematorium III
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p17_Crowell.html
As for the Bischoff document - your own authority Pressac has undermined it, as have others.
Extract from the article below –
A Dubious Document
.. as long ago as 1989, the French anti-revisionist researcher Jean-Claude Pressac expressed doubt about the figures given in this document. In a detailed book published that year, he expressed the view that the true cremation figures may perhaps have been one-half or one-third of those given in the Bischoff letter. 19 Noting that some years ago Pressac had characterized this document as “an internal propaganda lie” of the SS, and that even van Pelt has cut in half the figures in the Bischoff letter, Meyer writes of the “entirely permissible doubts about the authenticity of the document.”
New ‘Official’ Changes in the Auschwitz Story
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v21/v21n3p24_weber.html
Hofle - the point again is it nothing to do with numbers, it is quite simply nothing of the sort of what it is claimed to be – IE proof of extermination. Revisionists claim they have said for years Treblinka was a transit camp and the numbers only show that.
This added to the fact there is no evidence whatsoever of large numbers of bodies being disposed of, a recurring problem for the official line.
We can then see that all the hand waving is from you.
So Dog, milking pathetically weak evidence is not the sign of someone whose approach is to learn now is it.
And, presenting pathetically weak evidence in the hand waving over the top arrogant manner you do tells me only that you have little other than bravado to offer. Or is it deception?
Whatever, it shows, at least as far as you are concerned, flimsy would be a charitable description of your holocaust affirmation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One might argue they're trying to over-egg the planned presence of any actual showers in the vicinity - the broad thrust of which is covered here:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/vanpelt/vanpelt-showerhe ads.shtml
as the article is strangely familiar in content to stuff Germar Rudolf was saying, It concludes:
| Quote: | In his attempt to use Bischoff's proposal to install 100 hot-water showers in the "undressing room" of crematorium 3 as evidence that this crematorium was not a killing installation, Rudolf did face the problem how to explain why this building would have been equipped with an "undressing room" to start with. Rudolf tries to answer that question by postulating that the decision to put those showers in this "undressing room" shows that the word "undressing room" is used "in the ordinary mortuary sense, and not in any special sense." This statement, which is a mere assertion without any explanation, does not make any sense whatsoever. I do not understand "the ordinary mortuary sense" of making a very large space into an "undressing room," and then filling it with showers. Does Rudolf suggest that it was customary in Germany to shower dead bodies en masse? Or does he have something else in mind? What is clear, however, is that Rudolf has not provided any evidence that showers and undressing rooms were common features in German morgues.
Which leaves, then, the question of the gas-tight door. If, indeed, the presence of an undressing room and showers show that the basement of crematorium 3 was used in "the ordinary mortuary sense," what would be the "ordinary mortuary sense" of the gas-tight door mentioned in that same inventory that listed the 14 showers? After giving so much attention to one item of the inventory - the 14 showers - he completely ignores that other item - the gas-tight door.
|
And, interestingly, your article also appears to fail to notice the door. It makes a vague reference to hypothetical 'hot air' delousing which does nothing to explain this. I concede Pressac may have been wrong about the showers definitively being unconnected, but his central argument concerns the concurrent ordering of showers and door. Your article does not address this. Hence it does not account for the presence of shower heads and a gas tight door in the same location.
I already acknowledged there is debate about the actual capacity of the crematoria and quite explicitly stated what I was referring to what was ordered. So I am confused as to why you link to an article purporting to attack the very point I said I wasn't making.
Since I'm not sure exactly where in the text the view it ascribes to Pressac is (and I'm not arsed to go trawling through it), and since Meyer is credited as saying "even Van Pelt has cut in half the figures in the Bischoff letter" while in the case for Auschwitz Van Pelt says (after considering the 50% lower figures of Topf engineer Kurt Prufer),
| Quote: | | When considering Prufer's figures, it must be remembered that, because the contracts were already signed, it was in his interest to provide very conservative numbers, because the Topf firm was to be accountable for the functioning of the ovens. We should keep Prufer's figures in mind but may cautiously proceed on the basis of Bischoff's letter of June 28 1943 |
(p.350)
you'll forgive me if I don't take it at its word thats it's an accurate description of Pressac's precise position.
In fact, Prufer himself pointed out that ovens adding up to his stated capacity of corpses 2650 per day was simply not sufficient for their requirements:
| Quote: | TOPF To J.A. TOPF UND SÖHNE Erfurt, September 8, 1942
Department D IV
Our Mark: D IV/Prf./hes
In Matters of: Reichsführer SS, Berlin-Lichterfelde-West.
Concerning: Krematorium-Auschwitz.
Confidential! Secret!
8.9.42 Herr Obersturmführer Krone calls to say that he was
summoned to meet with Brigadeführer Kämmer and
to report on his inspection of the crematorium in Auschwitz,
whence he had returned yesterday. He could make nothing
of the facilities at Auschwitz and wanted therefore to inform
himself on how many muffles are in operation there at this
time and how many ovens with muffles we are building there
and are still to be delivered.
I told him that at this time 3 double-muffle
ovens are in operation, with a capacity of
250 per day. Further, currently under
construction are 5 triple muffle ovens
with a daily capacity of 800. Today and in the next few
days, 2 eight-muffle ovens, each with a daily capacity
of 800, will come on consignment, redirected from Mogilew.
Mr K said that this number of muffles is not yet sufficient;
we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible.
Thus, it is appropriate that I come to Berlin Thursday
morning in order to discuss further deliveries with Mr K.
I should bring documents on Auschwitz with me, so that
the urgent calls can be finally silenced once and for all.
I have agreed to the visit for Thursday.
|
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/topf/
So this guy apparently thought quite a few people were being cremated, too.
The article cites Pressac and Van Pelts alleged positions as reasons to doubt its authenticity. They are reasons to doubt its accuracy not its authenticity.
The article also makes a curious argument from incredulity apparently claiming the Nazis wouldn't have allowed the crematoria to break down if they had been ordered from the top. In fact, the notion that the crematoria broke down is neither here nor there - otherwise it's like saying because the British government ordered a massive IT system , there's no way they'd let it go tits up - and most contemporary historians simply do not allege the Holocaust was meticulously planned anyway.
However, on the other hand my question still stands. The Nazis appeared to be wanting a dramatic capacity to incinerate corpses. Even Prufer's 2650 daily is a dramatic cremation capacity for a totally innocent work camp.
Indeed, if Bischoff were drastically over-estimating capacity, this raises the question why he felt motivated to make unnecessary grandiose claims about some ostentatious necropolis, apparently not thinking he'd get a bollocking for wasting valuable resources constructing a superfluous folly. On the other hand, he may well inflate capacity if - for some reason - he thought looking able to incinerate vast quantities of human beings in double quick time might make him look good.
And am I right in thinking Auschwitz had a lot more oven space than comparable non-extermination camps?
Furthermore, Pressac isn't 'my authority' - he's just one of many who've done some interesting work, and plenty of other scholars disagree with some of his claims. I would be very surprised if any historian wasn't wrong about some of their claims. Hell, even deniers don't all agree with one another on the detail. Look at the way Cole ripped into Faurrison.
If you produced eyewitness testimony that said there were no gas chambers, I would not assume the witnesses were lying. In fact, if there were sufficient eyewitnesses who could be placed at the scene, whose testimonies were broadly consistent with one another and who were, as far as we can tell, credible I'd say it's certainly worth considering.
If e.g. they said they once visited the camp but never saw a gas chamber, I'd find that less convincing. I was under the impression the overwhelming weight of testimony lay in one particular direction - do correct me if I'm wrong.
Mind you, they did such a good job torturing Hoess, they even got an autobiography out of him! In which they let him actually say he'd been beaten. He's not someone I've looked into that much so please remind me - exactly how many sources are there confirming his confession was tortured out of him? Who are you suggesting was paid? Many Auschwitz staff were never convicted at all, some imprisoned, executed, some were only tracked down years later (like Groning mentioned earlier on the thread). If you're going to suggest all the eyewitnesses lied, you need to present a case as to how this happened, or else demonstrate there is a serious split between two totally different narratives. An account of the lack of death bed retractions would be good, too.
It's particularly interesting in the 911 'scene' - eyewitnesses seem to be far more reliable to some people when they're describing e.g. bombs in the twin towers or a plane flying north of the Citgo, but sixty years ago you couldn't believe a word anyone said!
You haven't answered me as to whether you believe T4 occurred. This is important as even though it in no way helps to prove that Jews were gassed, it is a clear indication that the Nazis were not averse to exterminating a group of people (their own people) by gassing them and IMO is a horror that is too frequently overshadowed by the death camps.
It also raises the interesting question as to exactly why many of the key players in T4 were subsequently relegated to running "transit camps"
You haven't commented on the Poznan speech.
Just out of interest, where exactly is this shangri-la the Jews were sent to after arriving at these 'transit camps'?
Body disposal:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is Germar Rudolf still in jail?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PaulStott wrote: | | rodin wrote: | | I just learned the KKK are a Masonic group, and we know who they are in bed with. |
Do we? |
Flags of six of the twelve tribes of Israel in the Royal Arch (4th degree and up) Lodge room at Bristol Freemasons Hall, Park Street
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | PaulStott wrote: | | rodin wrote: | | I just learned the KKK are a Masonic group, and we know who they are in bed with. |
Do we? |
Flags of six of the twelve tribes of Israel in the Royal Arch (4th degree and up) Lodge room at Bristol Freemasons Hall, Park Street
|
Sorry, this is beyond me.
Can you explain?
I know that the ceremonies of freemasonry derive from Talmudic Judaism ( the non-Universalism [self-seeking], being led into the group by a halter as 'goyim' [cattle] and so on...) but what's the KKK got to do with it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackbear
Validated Poster
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 656
Location: up north
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America
Mike Adams
The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com
This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated. This is not an exaggeration. It is a literal reading of the law, which you can check yourself here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml
The bill states:
‘...ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs...
Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:
• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
• A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency
You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts.
If you stopped someone on the street and handed them a Bible, for example, this could be considered an act of terrorism ("...use of force to promote the individual's religious beliefs...")
If you sent a barrage of angry letters to Washington about global warming and the destruction of the environment by the U.S. military, this could also be considered an act of terrorism ("...to promote the individual's political beliefs...")
If you believe in same-sex marriage and you wrote a letter threatning a sit-in protest in front of your state's capitol building, this could also be considered an act of terrorism, even if you never carried it out! ("...planned use of force to promote a social belief...")
The United States is on the fast track to fascism, and the Congress is working right alongside this nation's traitorous leaders to criminalize any thoughts, words or speeches that disagree with current government policies regarding war, terrorism, domestic surveillance and civil liberties. Simply speaking out against the war on Iraq could soon be labeled a crime. Merely thinking thoughts against the war on Iraq could be considered a criminal act.
http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html
Coming here soon...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't this section used to be called the war on truth? I thought that was a gr8 name for a section... essential really in Orwellian Britian
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
