| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2005 09:04:18 PM |
| Object: |
Six Reasons Why the Gas Chamber Story is a Lie |
I found this very interesting, hope you do too.
Six Reasons
I am not going to argue that "The Holocaust didn't happen." My
position is that some of it happened and some of it didn't happen.
Specifically, my thesis is that there were no gas chambers in the Nazi
concentration camps. I am going to give six reasons for this:
1. The physical evidence -- the rooms themselves.
This has to be the starting point. If you could go to Auschwitz and
find a room that was obviously a gas chamber, then there would be no
such thing as revisionism. That would settle the matter once and for
all. The problem is, when you go to Auschwitz and look at the room
that is supposed to have been a gas chamber, you find a room that is
obviously not a gas chamber. That's why revisionism is possible.
That's why revisionism is necessary.
Please click here to see pictures of the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
The basic fact in the whole subject is that the room that is supposed
to have been a gas chamber isn't a gas chamber.
If I were teaching Psychology 101, I would use this as a paradigm case
of beliefs governing perceptions. Some people look at those pictures
and see a gas chamber. Others look at the same pictures and see a
morgue. This is like that experiment where everybody in the room says
the red pencil is longer, and the experimental subject, whose eyes
tell him the green pencil is longer, is afraid to contradict the
group.
My eyes tell me that the green pencil is longer, and I'm going to say
so, even if it's illegal to say it (especially if it's illegal to say
it): the very idea that people were gassed in that room or any such
room is absurd on its face.
2. The gap in the documentary record.
If there were documents covering the whole sequence of events, then
there would be no such thing as revisionism. The problem is, the
documents one would expect to find do not exist. We have documents
relating to every aspect of the war, including every aspect of the
Holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews. It is not possible to
gas six million people, or to do anything else involving millions of
people, without leaving a paper trail. If the gassing happened, there
would be thousands of documents to verify it, starting with the
planning stages and continuing throughout the course of events. But no
such paper trail exists.
3. The gap in the photographic record.
If there were photographs of the whole sequence of events, including
photographs of piles of corpses in gas chambers, then there would be
no such thing as revisionism. That would settle the matter
immediately. The problem is that no such pictures exist. We have
photographs of every aspect of World War II, including every aspect of
the Holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews. There are
photographs of Jews getting off the train at Auschwitz, photographs of
Jews in the camp, and photographs of bodies in mass graves, but there
are no photographs of anyone being gassed.
To summarize the first three reasons: if we had the same kind of
evidence for the gassing of the Jews that we have for real historical
events (i.e. for events that actually happened), then everyone would
acknowledge that there were gas chambers, and there would be no such
thing as revisionism.
4. The testimony of witnesses doesn't prove that there were gas
chambers.
There are three points that need to be made about witnesses.
a. The witnesses are not unanimous. Some witnesses didn't say anything
about gas chambers.
For example, Jan Karski wrote a report in the fall of 1942 in which he
stated that he visited the camp at Belzec to investigate rumors of
extermination. He said the Jews were being killed by electrical shocks
in a room with a metallic floor. In 1944, he published a book in which
he said that the Jews were being loaded into wagons filled with
quicklime and left to die outside the camp. Neither the article nor
the book says anything about gas chambers. Now, of course, the
official history of Belzec says nothing about electrical shocks or
wagons filled with quicklime. We are supposed to believe that the Jews
at Belzec were killed in gas chambers. But Jan Karski, who was there
at the time (so he says), said nothing about gas chambers.
b. Witness testimony about gas chambers doesn't stand up under
examination.
One of the witnesses who is quoted as an authoritative source is Dr.
Miklos Nyiszli, the supposed author of Auschwitz, a Doctor's
Eyewitness Account. There really was a Dr. Nyiszli. He was a Hungarian
doctor. He was sent to Birkenau (not Auschwitz), where he worked in
the pathology lab under the infamous Dr. Mengele. After the war, he
testified at the Nuremburg trials. He died in 1949. The book was
published in 1951. Throughout the book, the author says he was in
Auschwitz. He says there were four crematoria at Auschwitz. In fact,
there was one crematorium at Auschwitz, and four at Birkenau.
Obviously anyone who was there would know that. Anyone who was there
would know which camp was which. At the end (page 206), when they are
evacuating in January of 1945, the author says
We left, filled with the feverish sensation of liberation. Direction:
the Birkenau KZ, two kilometers from the crematoriums.
Dr. Nyiszli didn't leave Auschwitz and go in the direction of
Birkenau. He was already in Birkenau. This is just the most glaring
impossibility in a book full of impossibilities. This book was not
written by Dr. Nyiszli. It couldn't have been written by anyone who
was there. And yet this book is cited as one of the most authoritative
witness statements.
If you read only one book about the Holocaust, that book should be
Auschwitz, a Doctor's Eyewitness Account. Let them give you their best
shot. Use your own judgment. Is this book an eyewitness account, or
not?
c. Witnesses by themselves don't prove anything.
Suppose a hundred thousand witnesses claim that something happened.
Does that mean it happened? There are probably a hundred thousand
people who have "seen a UFO" at one time or another in the last fifty
years. Does that mean there are flying saucers in the sky? There are
hundreds of people who say they have not only seen UFOs, they have
been in them. They have been abducted. They will tell you in vivid
detail about their experience, and they have no obvious motive for
lying. Does that mean it happened?
Go back and look again at the "gas chamber" - if someone says he saw
people being gassed in that room, does that mean it happened?
5. The fact that standard reference books can't be trusted.
In the summer of 1995, when I was a novice in this subject, I went to
a debate between Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, and Mark
Weber, a revisionist. It was supposed to be a debate, but actually it
was what Michael Shermer calls a "meta-debate." Dr. Shermer tried to
pretend that there was nothing to argue about. However at one point he
did condescend to say something about the evidence. He said that if
anyone really wants to look at the evidence for the gas chambers, the
place to look is Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, by Gutman and
Berenbaum, especially the article by Pressac.
It probably never occurred to Dr. Shermer that anyone would actually
read the book, but I did. I searched all over Los Angeles for this
book, and finally found it at the UCLA bookstore. I read Pressac's
article, including the footnotes. Many of his assertions about gassing
are not documented at all. When Pressac does give footnotes, they
can't be checked out. Most of them are of the form "Oswiecim, BW 1/19"
or "Moscow/October Revolution, 7021-108-32, 46."
However, there is one exception. Pressac says, on page 234,
The first gassing in crematorium IV did not go well. An SS man,
wearing a face mask, had to climb a little ladder to get to a
"window," then open it with one hand and pour in the Zyklon B with the
other. This acrobatic routine had to be repeated six times. When the
gas-tight doors were opened to evacuate the gas, it was noticed that
the natural aeration was ineffective; a door had to be cut immediately
into the north corridor to get an air current flowing. [143]
The footnote for this paragraph is:
143. Auschwitz Album (New York, 1980), photo 112.
This can be checked out. The Auschwitz Album is out of print and hard
to find, but at least one doesn't have to go to Poland or Russia.
Eventually I found a copy in a library, and eagerly looked up photo
112. This photo has nothing to do with the paragraph quoted above. In
fact, none of the photographs in the Auschwitz Album has anything to
do with that paragraph.
In other words, the only footnote I was able to check turned out to be
bogus.
As far as I know, the Auschwitz Album is not available online. (Since
writing this I have discovered that part of it is available here.) I'm
not going to scan photo 112 and post it here. This is left as an
exercise for the reader. Do you care if the gas chamber story is true?
How much do you care? Enough to go to the library and check out
footnotes? What Michael Shermer is counting on is that almost no one
will do this.
What I'm counting on is that a few people will. It only takes a few,
in the beginning. At every university, I hope at least one student or
professor will care enough about academic honesty to look up photo
112, and then will have enough courage to speak up. Make no mistake,
it does take courage. Consider what happened to David Cole and other
revisionists.
More information about Pressac and his footnotes can be found on the
Dead Footnote page. I have added some new and somewhat ironic
comments to this page in October of 2004. It's not as simple as I
thought - and yet it's simpler, in a certain sense.
6. The fact that Hitler declared his intentions openly, and the Nazis
committed atrocities openly.
Conventional historians account for the lack of photographs and
documents by claiming that the Holocaust was so secret that no
photographs were ever taken, and no incriminating documents were
allowed to exist. This is supposed to have been true even when the
Final Solution was in the planning stages, as far back as 1941.
Hitler talked about exterminating or annihilating the Jews on many
occasions. For example, here is a sentence from Mein Kampf. (This is
from page 338 of the Houghton-Mifflin hardback edition. Other
references to extermination may be found on pages 169 and 679.) Hitler
wrote,
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from
all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated.
We are supposed to believe that Hitler announced to the world that the
Jews would be annihilated, and at the same time went to great lengths
to maintain the pretense that they were not being annihilated. The
intention was declared openly, but the act itself was so secret that
the Nazis never even discussed it among themselves. This is nonsense.
On page 679 he said this:
If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen
thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under
poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best
German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front
would not have been in vain. On the contrary: twelve thousand
scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the lives of millions
of Germans, valuable for the future.
At that point the "secret" was already out. Having broached the idea
of gassing the Jews in Mein Kampf, it would make no sense for Hitler
to pretend it wasn't happening, if he actually did it. But there is no
other reference to gassing in anything else he ever said or wrote. We
have voluminous records of everything Hitler, Himmler, and the other
Nazis said in public, and much of what they said in private, and there
is no mention of gassing anywhere, even on occasions when they were
talking about getting rid of the Jews.
We have a transcript of a speech (the Poznan speech) in which Himmler
addressed a private meeting of the senior officers of the SS. Even if
he didn't want to mention gassing publicly, he would feel free to
speak plainly at a private meeting of the SS. (He would have to speak
plainly at some point. They would have to discuss it among themselves.
You can't do anything without saying what you are doing.) But he said
nothing about gassing, even though he was talking about sending the
Jews to concentration camps. He did not say "I am now referring to the
gassing of the Jews, to the Ausrottung of the Jewish people." On the
contrary. What Himmler said was,
I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the Ausrottung of
the Jewish people.
In another private meeting (in 1941), Hans Frank mentioned the idea of
killing the Jews with poison gas, only to dismiss it:
We cannot shoot these 3.5 million Jews, nor can we poison them, yet we
will have to take measures which will somehow lead to the goal of
annihilation...
Even at the Wannsee conference, nothing was said about gassing.
In 1941, the Nazis were winning the war. War crimes trials were the
last thing on anybody's mind. (In fact there was no such concept until
1945. War crimes trials had not been a standard part of wars in the
past.) The Nazis had no reason to create an illusion for posterity.
They thought they were going to be posterity. They thought they would
never answer to anybody for what they did. And yet we are supposed to
believe that even in 1941 they were looking ahead to a postwar era in
which it would be necessary to cover up their actions.
The Nazis were not shy about killing people. They committed atrocities
openly. They flaunted it. We have pictures of Nazi soldiers shooting
Jews in cold blood and laughing about it. These pictures were not
taken surreptitiously by someone else, they were taken by the Nazis
themselves. But we are supposed to believe that the gas chambers were
so secret that no photographs were ever taken.
We are also supposed to believe that it would be possible to cover up
an action involving six million people.
The gassing scenario is supposed to have gone like this: a trainload
of Jews arrives at Auschwitz. They are separated into two groups,
those who are fit for labor and those who are not. The latter group is
taken to the crematorium right then. First they go to the undressing
room, where they take off their clothes. Then they are led into
another room, which is supposed be a shower room, or a delousing room.
When they are in that room, they are locked in and gassed. A few
minutes later the guards go in and drag the bodies out and take them
to the ovens to be cremated.
If six million Jews were gassed, this scenario must have been repeated
thousands of times. Do the math. This must have happened at least
twelve thousand times, at several different camps, over a period of
several years. This macabre scene is something a photographer would
give his right arm for, especially since naked women were involved.
But supposedly it was forbidden to take photos, so no photos were ever
taken. This is nonsense. Prison guards are a law unto themselves. You
can't stop them from taking pictures. Ask Lynndie England - and her
many fans and imitators who think it's all a big joke. Gallows humor
existed in 1943 just as much as it does in 2004.
If the gassing scenario happened at all, let alone thousands of times,
there would be photographs. But there are none.
There are no photographs of anyone being gassed because nobody was
gassed.
Summing up
Arthur Butz is one of the great pioneers in this subject. He made the
essential point that this has to be a simple thing.
If you are considering the question whether there is an elephant in
your basement, you don't have to go down there and look around with a
magnifying glass. You don't have to construct a long, involved
argument to settle the question. If the elephant is there, he is
obviously there, and if he is not there, he is obviously not there.
Likewise, the question of whether six million Jews were gassed cannot
be an obscure question. It has to be obvious, one way or the other.
That's why I began my argument with the physical evidence, the rooms
themselves. Once you see that the room isn't a gas chamber, everything
else falls into place. Of course there is no documentation of gas
chambers. How could there be? Of course there are no photographs of
anyone being gassed. How could there be? It's not a gas chamber!
The very idea that anyone was gassed
in this room or any such room
is absurd on its face.
That's the end of the six reasons argument. There are a few more
things that should be discussed.
Women and children in the camps
There is another reason that I originally included in my list of
reasons, but I removed it because strictly speaking it doesn't bear
directly on the gas chamber question. However it is something that I
have not seen mentioned elsewhere, and if you widen the context of the
discussion just a little, it is relevant.
I am referring to the fact that women and children lived in the
concentration camps. Anne Frank is the most famous example. The
standard story that we are all supposed to believe is that when the
Jews disembarked from the train, they were sorted into two groups, and
the ones who were not fit for labor were taken to the gas chambers,
immediately. How then could a little girl spend two months in
Auschwitz, and five months in Bergen-Belsen? She finally died of
typhus in March of 1945. Why wasn't she gassed in the summer of 1944,
as soon as she arrived at Auschwitz?
I recently found another example. This article is not about the
concentration camps per se. It is about a woman who is trying to get
the Czech authorities to acknowledge her father as a resistance
fighter. The camps are mentioned in passing:
After the outbreak of the Second World War Jiĝina Urbanová's parents
joined the antifascist resistance movement. Ema Faitová worked in
Nation Revival for the famous combat unit Morávek - Balabán - Masín.
The Gestapo seized both of them in the beginning of the year 1943.
Father was executed by the fascists in Flossenburg in February 1945
and Mother went through the camps in Auschwitz, Birkenau, Ravensbruck
and Neustadt-Gleve. Jiĝina being 4 years old together with her
7-year-old brother went into an orphanage... Both the children met
their mother only after the war.
Here you have a woman who went through four camps, including two of
the "extermination camps." She spent two years in these camps and
survived.
On the Scrapbook site (reference given below), the same phenomenon is
mentioned:
When the size of the Birkenau camp is quoted as a mile long by a mile
and a half wide, this measurement includes the security area around
the camp and the Mexico section; the actual area where the prisoners
lived is not that large. Still, I heard one survivor say that she
lived in the camp for two years and never found out the location of
the latrine. Another survivor who lived there as a child said that she
never saw her father the whole time she was in the camp, although he
was also a prisoner there.
This by itself does not imply that there were no gas chambers, but it
does imply that Jews were not routinely exterminated in the Nazi
concentration camps.
The following paragraphs are from an article by Mark Weber, "Pages
from the Auschwitz Death Registry Volumes" (reference given below).
Consistent with the Sterbebuch records, other German wartime documents
show that a very high percentage of the Jewish inmates at Auschwitz
were not able to work, and were nevertheless not killed.
For example, an internal German telex message dated September 4, 1943,
from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS Economic
and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of 25,000 Jewish
inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work. All of the
remaining Jewish inmates -- some 21,500, or about 86 percent -- were
unable to work.
This is also confirmed in a secret report dated April 5, 1944, on
"security measures in Auschwitz" by Oswald Pohl, head of the WVHA
agency responsible for the concentration camp system, to SS chief
Heinrich Himmler. Pohl reported that there was a total of 67,000
inmates in the Auschwitz camp complex, of whom 18,000 were
hospitalized or disabled. In the Auschwitz II camp (Birkenau),
supposedly the main extermination center, there were 36,000 inmates,
mostly female, of whom "approximately 15,000 are unable to work."
The Six Million question
Revisionists argue that the number of Jews who died in the camps was
much less than six million. Unlike the question of whether six million
Jews were gassed, the question of whether six million Jews disappeared
is far from obvious. There is nothing simple about it. You would have
to know how many Jews were in Europe (especially Poland) before the
war, and how many were left after the war. Reliable statistics are
hard to come by. The revisionists say that a lot of Jews had already
gotten out of Poland before the war, and many others migrated to the
Soviet Union, America, Israel, and various other places during and
after the war. I have read their arguments (which are summarized here)
but I haven't checked out their references.
I'm not going to discuss this question in detail here. The only point
I want to make is that the number of Jews who were killed implies
nothing about how they were killed. It's a separate issue which
doesn't affect my point about gas chambers.
Suppose six million Jews died in the Nazi concentration camps. This
would not imply that they were gassed. In the Soviet Union, the
communists killed tens of millions of people. They didn't have gas
chambers in the communist concentration camps, but that didn't stop
them from killing millions of people. There are lots of ways to kill
people. Starvation, exposure, disease, and bullets, to name a few.
On the other hand, suppose the Revisionists are right, and only one
million Jews (or even less than a million) died in the Nazi camps.
What would this imply about gas chambers? It wouldn't imply anything
one way or the other.
Idolatry
We have nothing to gain by denying anything. I despise the whole
concept of "denial." We have absolutely nothing to gain by pretending
that Nazi Germany was not what it was, or by pretending that anything
is not what it is.
This also applies to the Jews. They have nothing to gain by lying. I
think the Jews will eventually realize that the gas chamber lie is
hurting their own cause, and they will abandon it. I don't know how
they will manage this, since they have painted themselves into a
corner that's going to be very difficult to get out of, but they will
find a way. They have to find a way. Their position is untenable. If
they persist with what they are doing, there is going to be a huge
backlash.
They may not care about the backlash, but they should care about the
effect lies have on their own minds. It's almost impossible to keep
repeating a lie over and over for 50+ years without believing it
yourself. If they believe their own lies, and no longer care about
staying in touch with reality, then they are in more trouble than they
know. They have given up their best weapon.
Who may ascend the hill of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who does not lift up his soul to an idol,
Or swear by what is false.
He will receive blessing from the Lord
And vindication from God his Saviour.
....
A false witness will not go unpunished,
And he who pours out lies will perish.
This isn't just empty moralizing. It's literally true. Idolatry means
taking something to be real that isn't real. One of the basic ideas of
the Old Testament is that idolatry is self-defeating. "Blessing" and
"vindication" mean victory on the battlefield (among other things).
The way to win battles is to see reality more clearly than your
opponent.
This page is meant to be read with its companion pages:
Reply to Michael Shermer: A Logical Analysis of "Proving the
Holocaust" -- This is a long article about the methodology of
revisionism and anti-revisionism. Michael Shermer, publisher of
Skeptic magazine, says the gas chambers can be proved with a "jumping
together" argument. The epistemological question is whether a "jumping
together" argument can ever be a valid proof of anything. This is a
philosophical point that may be of interest even to those who have not
read Michael Shermer's article.
Reply to Michael Shermer, the short version -- an examination of his
18 bits of evidence.
The Dead Footnote Society -- This page has further discussion of
Pressac's footnotes. If you are one of those rare individuals who
looks things up, and you would like to meet others in that select
group, you might want to join the Dead Footnote Society.
Political agendas of revisionists and anti-revisionists
Loose ends: what remains to be done to nail this down
Other pages on this site:
The Sanskrit Story and the Third Wave -- a revisionist look at Ron
Jones's "Third Wave" experiment in Palo Alto, California. I argue that
the story is not what it purports to be. The Third Wave didn't happen
the way Ron Jones described it. It has some basis in fact, but most of
it is fiction. It's a fable, intended to make a political point.
However, it's not presented as a fable. It's supposed to be historical
fact. It isn't.
The Post-Nazi home page
The Geniebusters home page (the original home page of this site)
External links:
What I have tried to do on this page is lay out the basic logic of
revisionism in its simplest form, so you can get an overview of it.
There are actually many other reasons for questioning the gas chamber
story. Here are some links for readers who want to pursue the subject
in more detail.
The Scrapbook site -- a tour of Poland, including Auschwitz. This is
not a revisionist site. I'm just including it for background. The
author occasionally makes skeptical remarks, but for the most part he
just tells you what the tour guides told him, so this is almost like
being there and taking the standard tour that visitors get when they
go to Auschwitz and the other camps.
And now, some revisionist links:
Samuel Crowell, The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes - An Attempt at a
Literary Analysis of the Holocaust Gassing Claim "Samuel Crowell" is
a pseudonym. The author appears to be a mainstream professor (not a
professional revisionist) who doesn't want to use his real name. "The
Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes" is probably the most important
revisionist document on the internet. As of January 2005 the CODOH
site is back online, and naturally this was one of the first documents
restored to the new site.
Carlo Mattogno, The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews: Part I
Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report
Greg Raven, Rebutting the anti-revisionists' "best evidence" for the
existence of Nazi "gas chambers"
Nick Herbert (author of Quantum Reality), Why I admire David Irving
Mark Weber's testimony in the Zündel Trial
1. overview
2. details
Mark Weber, Pages from the Auschwitz Death Registry Volumes
Arthur Butz, Context and Perspective in the 'Holocaust' Controversy
Samuel Crowell, review of The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the
Irving Trial, by Robert Van Pelt
William Halvorsen, review of The Holocaust in American Life by Peter
Novick
Jurgen Graf, A brief history of revisionism
Bill Wright, review of The First Holocaust: Jewish Fundraising
Campaigns with Holocaust Claims during and after World War One by Don
Heddesheimer
Note added December 10, 2003
Here is an example of the level on which this page is discussed. I get
a report from my ISP which tells me, among other things, where my
visitors are coming from. I noticed I was getting visitors from
www.livejournal.com and I decided to investigate. The following
paragraph is what I found. It was posted by somebody who calls himself
jihad_al_nafs (his real name is Chris):
I don't think i've ever even read anywhere that anybody claims that
auschwitz was used for gassing... The whole argument is strange to me.
Apparently it's a popular thing for holocaust deniers to hold on to, I
did a search and basically everything that came up with auschwitz and
gassing were people talking about how it couldn't have happened, or at
least how it couldn't have happened like "history claims." Auschwitz
was a work camp. They employed the jews to assemble weapons and
process rubber. It wasn't an extermination camp. In fact, it was
decided early on that gas was just too messy and difficult to deal
with for any of the camps to adopt it. It's not to say that people
weren't gassed at some of the extermination camps like Dachau or
Buchenwald; I've stood inside of Dachau and Buchenwald, they
definately had sealed facilities for gassing, I saw them with my own
eyes. I wish people would stop writing all this reactionary literature
and just let the history and the photographs speak for themselves. If
you read anything about the holocaust, you'll find that gassing wasn't
very common. Shootings, starvations, and burial alive were more
common.
This is TRULY BIZARRE.
Yes, children, just about everybody claims that Auschwitz was used for
gassing. If you go to the library (it's that big building with a lot
of bookcases, usually near the center of campus) and read any
mainstream history book about the Second World War, it will tell you
that six million Jews were killed, most of them by gassing. That has
been the official story for more than fifty years, and it still is. In
some countries you could be arrested for questioning it. Auschwitz is
the most famous of the so-called "extermination camps" where the
gassing supposedly took place.
When I wrote this page, I assumed that my readers would at least know
what the argument is about. It never occurred to me that the page
would be read by people who don't even know that Jews were supposed
to have been gassed at Auschwitz. "I don't think i've ever even read
anywhere that anybody claims that auschwitz was used for gassing..." I
really don't know what to make of this.
I keep hearing things about today's students, like they can't locate
the Pacific Ocean on a map (even if they live at the beach), so I
guess I shouldn't be too surprised, but I am still astonished when I
encounter this degree of ignorance. It reminds me of The World
According to Student Bloopers.
I just hope they aren't all like that.
But wait a minute. There is something about this that gives me pause.
He says
I did a search and basically everything that came up with auschwitz
and gassing were people talking about how it couldn't have happened,
or at least how it couldn't have happened like "history claims."
So the revisionists have won, as far as the internet is concerned, and
therefore we have won as far as today's students are concerned. When
you do a search for Auschwitz and gassing, you find revisionist sites
that explain why the official story is wrong. And since today's
students live on the internet and seldom set foot in a library, that's
the reality they live in. Chris has never read anything to the effect
that millions of Jews were gassed at Auschwitz and the other
concentration camps, because he doesn't read books, he only reads
websites.
Maybe we have won, in that sense, but I'm not happy about it. It's a
Pyrrhic victory. We have gained the point about the gas chambers but
lost the much more important point about looking things up. In this
particular case, books may lead you astray, and the internet will give
you information that can't be found in most libraries. But that's not
always true. I don't want students to believe that there were no gas
chambers because that's what "comes up" when you "do a search." It
shouldn't be a matter of belief, it should be a matter of logic and
evidence -- and looking up footnotes, which can only be done in a
library.
What really bothers me about this is that if the kids who participate
in "livejournal" are any indication, historical memory is very, very
short. It's not just Chris. When he said "In fact, it was decided
early on that gas was just too messy and difficult to deal with for
any of the camps to adopt it... If you read anything about the
holocaust, you'll find that gassing wasn't very common," his friends
didn't know enough to challenge these preposterous statements. A
couple of them offered hesitant demurrals, but they weren't confident
enough to tell him flatly that he doesn't know what he's talking
about.
I guess it's possible that this isn't a fair sample. Maybe you have to
be an idiot to participate in the livejournal discussion. But I'm
afraid not. Clearly some of them are idiots, but I think most of them
are typical college students. If they are typical, then most of
today's students (in America, at least) have only the dimmest
recollection of the most famous event of the 20th century.
If memories are really that short, then all the knowledge stored in
libraries is no more permanent than a pile of leaves on a windy day.
As I said above, I hope they aren't all like that -- and in fact I
know they aren't. Like any generation, this one includes the whole
range from monkeys to scholars. A few students read the reply to
Michael Shermer all the way through and look up photo 112. It only
takes a few, in the beginning. Eventually they will restore the
integrity of the history profession. It's not going to be easy, but it
can be done.
For readers who are not familiar with the the canonical Auschwitz
story, here are some links. They aren't that hard to find. I don't
know why Chris and his friends couldn't find them. Nor do I know how
anybody manages to finish high school without learning about this.
The Holocaust Memorial Center -- "The Holocaust (also called Shoah in
Hebrew) refers to the period from January 30, 1933, when Hitler became
chancellor of Germany, to May 8, 1945 (V-E Day), when the war in
Europe ended. During this time, Jews in Europe were subjected to
progressively harsh persecution that ultimately led to the murder of
6,000,000 Jews (1.5 million of these being children) and the
destruction of 5,000 Jewish communities... While the Nazis murdered
other national and ethnic groups, such as a number of Soviet prisoners
of war, Polish intellectuals, and gypsies, only the Jews were marked
for systematic and total annihilation. In the famed Nazi use of
euphemism, they were marked for "Special Treatment"
(Sonderbehandlung). "Special Treatment" meant that Jewish men, women,
and children were to be methodically killed with poisonous gas."
Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum -- "The majority of the Jewish
men, women and children deported to Auschwitz were sent to their
deaths in the Birkenau gas chambers immediately after arrival."
Zipple.com -- The Jewish Supersite -- Concentration Camps
How many Jews died at Auschwitz? - The official number has changed
quite a bit since 1945.
Fritjof Meyer, "The Number of Victims of Auschwitz - New Findings
Through New Archival Discoveries"
MSN Encarta -- Auschwitz
Links to photographs of gas chambers in other camps
"After all every sort of shouting is a transitory thing.
It is the grim silence of facts that remains."
-- Joseph Conrad
--
"Besides, from 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz,
but probably overall, more Jews were killed by
so-called `natural' causes than by `unnatural' ones"
Arno Mayer, The `Final Solution' in History (p.365);
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Jacobson" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Reasons Why the Gas Chamber Story is a Lie |
05 Mar 2005 02:12:21 PM |
|
|
(snip Chris Carpenter's spam)
Chris, I have a question about Fred Leuchter, one of
the Holocaust deniers whom you quote as an authority on
Auschwitz.
In one of his "reports", published in
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report4/ch8000.html,
Leuchter deals with a work report written by a foreman working
in an Auschwitz crematorium. The foreman reported "work on
gas chamber".
Leuchter asserts that the foreman wrote that as a "joke".
What do you think about this "explanation"? What do you
think it reflects about the "scholarly standards" of Holocaust
deniers?
RJ.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Reasons Why the Gas Chamber Story is a Lie |
04 Mar 2005 09:07:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I found this very interesting, hope you do too.
That must mean it is embarrassingly stupid!
Six Reasons
I am not going to argue that "The Holocaust didn't happen." My
position is that some of it happened and some of it didn't happen.
Specifically, my thesis is that there were no gas chambers in the
Nazi
concentration camps. I am going to give six reasons for this:
1. The physical evidence -- the rooms themselves.
This has to be the starting point. If you could go to Auschwitz and
find a room that was obviously a gas chamber, then there would be no
such thing as revisionism. That would settle the matter once and for
all. The problem is, when you go to Auschwitz and look at the room
that is supposed to have been a gas chamber, you find a room that is
obviously not a gas chamber. That's why revisionism is possible.
That's why revisionism is necessary.
I suppose we should begin by pointing out the obvious flaw in this
premise. The fact that a physical structure no longer exists does not
mean its existence at one time cannot be proven. A criminal, whether an
individual or the Nazi state, can destroy evidence of a murder weapon
(in this case physical structures), as they did in the camps of
Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor. But the fact that they existed is
proven by the testimonial evidence of those who ran the camps,
survivors of the camps, the evidence detailing the one way
transportation of hundreds of thousands of Jews to these camps, and the
discovery of mass graves at these sites.
As it is, homicidal gas chambers did survive - at Maidanek, Mauthausen,
and at Auschwitz, although they were dynamited by the Nazis as they
left.
Please click here to see pictures of the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
Please click where?
The basic fact in the whole subject is that the room that is supposed
to have been a gas chamber isn't a gas chamber.
Gee, that's a convincing argument!
If I were teaching Psychology 101, I would use this as a paradigm
case
of beliefs governing perceptions. Some people look at those pictures
and see a gas chamber. Others look at the same pictures and see a
morgue. This is like that experiment where everybody in the room says
the red pencil is longer, and the experimental subject, whose eyes
tell him the green pencil is longer, is afraid to contradict the
group.
My eyes tell me that the green pencil is longer, and I'm going to say
so, even if it's illegal to say it (especially if it's illegal to say
it): the very idea that people were gassed in that room or any such
room is absurd on its face.
So in other words you have no argument that the room in question is not
a gas chamber, and pretend that your argument is just as good as anyone
elses because the only possible methodology for determining whether it
was or not is merely looking at it and contemplating your navel.
The fact that evidence incidates the room was used as a homicidal gas
chamber escapes you.
2. The gap in the documentary record.
If there were documents covering the whole sequence of events, then
there would be no such thing as revisionism.
Another ridiculous premise. There is never documentary evidence to
cover a whole event. Historical events are proven by all the evidence,
of all types. Physical evidence, photographic evidence, and testimonial
evidence, along with documentary evidence are examined and result in a
convergence of evidence, and historical proof. These different pieces
of evidence corroborate each other, with each type filling in the gaps
left by the other.
This is particularly the case for an attempted genocide, where the
perpetrator attempted to destroy the evidence of their deeds.
The problem is, the
documents one would expect to find do not exist.
In other words, the very documents one would expect the perpetrator to
destroy first.
We have documents
relating to every aspect of the war, including every aspect of the
Holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews.
You don't have any idea if we have documents for every aspect of the
war. Furthermore, it is hardly surprising that documents betraying
genocide would be destroyed while others would not be . As it is, there
are documents from Auschwitz which clearly refer to gassing, using
accepted euphemisms. And of course there are verbal orders and
directives, common during war time, which for which there would be no
written record.
It is not possible to
gas six million people,
Of course the Nazis didn't gas 6 million people and no one has ever
said they did.
It is instructive that Chrissy calls this piece an "interesting read",
when the author obviously doesn't understand the first thing about the
Holocaust, and makes assertions about the established history he wishes
to deny which are not even true.
This is but another example of Chrissy's willingness to cut and paste
anything which supports his lies even when the content is so obviously
flawed.
or to do anything else involving millions of
people, without leaving a paper trail.
Well, there is a paper trail. And the paper trail, when assessed with
all the other evidence, shows that approximately 2.7 million Jews were
gassed in camps constructed or adapted for that purpose.
If the gassing happened, there
would be thousands of documents to verify it, starting with the
planning stages and continuing throughout the course of events.
This is called a planted axiom, whose purpose is to create a wholly
subjective standard for the express purpose of obtaining a
pre-determined outcome.
It also can be described as the "woulda", "coulda", "shoulda" school of
Holocaust denial. It is merely the creation of artificial standards of
proof which serves as a rationale for ignoring the evidence.
The fact of the matter is it is unlikely that thousands of documents
would be generated about gassing as a methodology for committing mass
murders. Just the same, construction documents from Auschwitz clearly
show the transformation and construction of "morgues" as homicidal gas
chambers.
3. The gap in the photographic record.
Why should there have to be any photographic record?
If there were photographs of the whole sequence of events, including
photographs of piles of corpses in gas chambers, then there would be
no such thing as revisionism.
Of course there would!
Deniers would just claim the evidence was false in some way. Witness
the hilarious antics of the pathetic Colonel, who merely asserts any
inconvenient piece of evidence was forged, coerced, or otherwise
tainted. The Colonel takes this very position with respect to aerial
photography of Auschwitz.
But there is photographic evidence which contributes to our
understanding of Auschwitz and which corroborates other evidence we
have about the camp.
To summarize the first three reasons: if we had the same kind of
evidence for the gassing of the Jews that we have for real historical
events (i.e. for events that actually happened), then everyone would
acknowledge that there were gas chambers, and there would be no such
thing as revisionism.
We do have the same kind of evidence.
4. The testimony of witnesses doesn't prove that there were gas
chambers.
No one type of evidence proves something. Only the totality of evidence
proves something.
There are three points that need to be made about witnesses.
a. The witnesses are not unanimous. Some witnesses didn't say
anything
about gas chambers.
And some people in Dallas in November of 1963 did not see or hear shots
fired at President Kennedy!
The fact that some people didn't see or hear about gas chambers says
nothing about the evidence of those who did.
There are no survivors of Treblinka, Belzec, or Sobibor who claim not
to have known about gas chambers.
There are dozens of witnesses to gassing, including Nazi perpetrators.
There are very few witnesses who survived the camps who "didn't say
anything about gas chambers".
For example, Jan Karski wrote a report in the fall of 1942 in which
he
stated that he visited the camp at Belzec to investigate rumors of
extermination. He said the Jews were being killed by electrical
shocks
in a room with a metallic floor.
Those were the rumors he heard. And Karski was not in Belzec, so is
hardly an example for your claim.
In 1944, he published a book in which
he said that the Jews were being loaded into wagons filled with
quicklime and left to die outside the camp. Neither the article nor
the book says anything about gas chambers.
In fact his report talked about "death chambers". But the point is
irrelevant. Karski was not in Belzec, was not an eyewitness. It is
telling that he is presented as something he is not merely to support
an erroneous claim.
b. Witness testimony about gas chambers doesn't stand up under
examination.
One of the witnesses who is quoted as an authoritative source is Dr.
Miklos Nyiszli, the supposed author of Auschwitz, a Doctor's
Eyewitness Account. There really was a Dr. Nyiszli. He was a
Hungarian
doctor. He was sent to Birkenau (not Auschwitz), where he worked in
the pathology lab under the infamous Dr. Mengele. After the war, he
testified at the Nuremburg trials. He died in 1949. The book was
published in 1951. Throughout the book, the author says he was in
Auschwitz. He says there were four crematoria at Auschwitz. In fact,
there was one crematorium at Auschwitz, and four at Birkenau.
Oh, this is childish!
Auschwitz was the name which could referred to the entire camp, not
just the Auschwitz Stammlager.
[...]
At the end (page 206), when they are
evacuating in January of 1945, the author says
We left, filled with the feverish sensation of liberation. Direction:
the Birkenau KZ, two kilometers from the crematoriums.
Dr. Nyiszli didn't leave Auschwitz and go in the direction of
Birkenau. He was already in Birkenau. This is just the most glaring
impossibility in a book full of impossibilities.
If a deliberate attempt by this author to pretend Auschwitz couldn't
refer to the entire camp is the most glaring impossibility in the book,
then he doesn't have much!
This book was not
written by Dr. Nyiszli.
Of course it was.
It couldn't have been written by anyone who
was there. And yet this book is cited as one of the most
authoritative
witness statements.
It's cited as one of many.
c. Witnesses by themselves don't prove anything.
No one has ever said the do.
In fact it is deniers who claim that single pieces of evidence, or
types of evidence must prove something.
We can see this in this very piece where individual pieces and
categories of evidence are discussed in isolation, in a manner no
historian or intelligent person would ever consider them.
5. The fact that standard reference books can't be trusted.
In the summer of 1995, when I was a novice in this subject, I went to
a debate between Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, and
Mark
Weber, a revisionist. It was supposed to be a debate, but actually it
was what Michael Shermer calls a "meta-debate." Dr. Shermer tried to
pretend that there was nothing to argue about. However at one point
he
did condescend to say something about the evidence. He said that if
anyone really wants to look at the evidence for the gas chambers, the
place to look is Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, by Gutman and
Berenbaum, especially the article by Pressac.
It probably never occurred to Dr. Shermer that anyone would actually
read the book, but I did. I searched all over Los Angeles for this
book, and finally found it at the UCLA bookstore. I read Pressac's
article, including the footnotes.
There is no article by Pressac.
There is an article by Pressac and Robert Jan Van Pelt.
Many of his assertions about gassing
are not documented at all.
And we are supposed to accept this unsupported claim?
Is this an example of denier methodology? Are we to find credible
someone who exhibits such shoddy standards of evidence?
When Pressac does give footnotes, they
can't be checked out. Most of them are of the form "Oswiecim, BW
1/19"
or "Moscow/October Revolution, 7021-108-32, 46."
So the complaint is that documentary evidence exists in archives?
How odd!
However, there is one exception. Pressac says, on page 234,
The first gassing in crematorium IV did not go well. An SS man,
wearing a face mask, had to climb a little ladder to get to a
"window," then open it with one hand and pour in the Zyklon B with
the
other. This acrobatic routine had to be repeated six times. When the
gas-tight doors were opened to evacuate the gas, it was noticed that
the natural aeration was ineffective; a door had to be cut
immediately
into the north corridor to get an air current flowing. [143]
The footnote for this paragraph is:
143. Auschwitz Album (New York, 1980), photo 112.
This can be checked out. The Auschwitz Album is out of print and hard
to find, but at least one doesn't have to go to Poland or Russia.
Eventually I found a copy in a library, and eagerly looked up photo
112. This photo has nothing to do with the paragraph quoted above. In
fact, none of the photographs in the Auschwitz Album has anything to
do with that paragraph.
In other words, the only footnote I was able to check turned out to
be
bogus.
We'll see when I check my copy tonight.
[...]
6. The fact that Hitler declared his intentions openly, and the Nazis
committed atrocities openly.
Conventional historians account for the lack of photographs and
documents by claiming that the Holocaust was so secret that no
photographs were ever taken, and no incriminating documents were
allowed to exist.
Historians do not make this claim.
This is supposed to have been true even when the
Final Solution was in the planning stages, as far back as 1941.
Hitler talked about exterminating or annihilating the Jews on many
occasions. For example, here is a sentence from Mein Kampf. (This is
from page 338 of the Houghton-Mifflin hardback edition. Other
references to extermination may be found on pages 169 and 679.)
Hitler
wrote,
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from
all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated.
We are supposed to believe that Hitler announced to the world that
the
Jews would be annihilated, and at the same time went to great lengths
to maintain the pretense that they were not being annihilated.
Denial is a matter of belief, not history.
We are asked to know what can be demonstrated by evidence. The fact
that a murderer may have threatened the victim before committing the
murder hardly creates doubt that he committed the crime.
The
intention was declared openly, but the act itself was so secret that
the Nazis never even discussed it among themselves. This is nonsense.
Of course they discussed it among themselves.
[...]
We have a transcript of a speech (the Poznan speech) in which Himmler
addressed a private meeting of the senior officers of the SS. Even if
he didn't want to mention gassing publicly, he would feel free to
speak plainly at a private meeting of the SS.
Once again, creating a subject standard which is a false standard.
The only thing matters about the speech is what Himmler said.
[...]
He did not say "I am now referring to the
gassing of the Jews, to the Ausrottung of the Jewish people." On the
contrary. What Himmler said was,
I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the Ausrottung
of
the Jewish people.
In other words, "I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to
the extermination of the Jewish people."
The fact that Himmler didn't go into detail about the various methods
employed is irrelevant.
In another private meeting (in 1941), Hans Frank mentioned the idea
of
killing the Jews with poison gas, only to dismiss it:
We cannot shoot these 3.5 million Jews, nor can we poison them, yet
we
will have to take measures which will somehow lead to the goal of
annihilation...
In fact he did not mention poison gas at all!
He mentioned poison, which is hardly the same thing as poison gas!
Frank also said in his diary:
"Of course I could not eliminate all lice and Jews in only a year's
time. But in the course of time, and above all, if you will help me,
this end will be attained."
Hans Frank
Source: Diary of Hans Frank, Governor-general of Poland,
as quoted in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Vol. I, p. 984.
Even at the Wannsee conference, nothing was said about gassing.
Not necessarily true. As Eichmann testified, methodologies were
discussed openly.
[...]
The gassing scenario is supposed to have gone like this: a trainload
of Jews arrives at Auschwitz. They are separated into two groups,
those who are fit for labor and those who are not. The latter group
is
taken to the crematorium right then. First they go to the undressing
room, where they take off their clothes. Then they are led into
another room, which is supposed be a shower room, or a delousing
room.
When they are in that room, they are locked in and gassed. A few
minutes later the guards go in and drag the bodies out and take them
to the ovens to be cremated.
Anyone with any familiarity with the history would know that guards
were not involved with emptying the gas chambers.
If six million Jews were gassed, this scenario must have been
repeated
thousands of times. Do the math. This must have happened at least
twelve thousand times, at several different camps, over a period of
several years.
How can Chrissy expect to retain any credibility when he posts such
nonsense! Six million Jews gassed!
[...]
Another pathetic cut and paste.
--
Philip Mathews
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Reasons Why the Gas Chamber Story is a Lie |
04 Mar 2005 09:02:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Reasons Why the Gas Chamber Story is a Lie |
04 Mar 2005 11:25:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
scott@free.info wrote:
Liar.
What did you find to be in error?
--
I am Zarquawi! I am Spartacus!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3376
http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Reasons Why the Gas Chamber Story is a Lie |
04 Mar 2005 12:25:11 PM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2005 07:02:09 -0800, wrote:
Liar.
Watch the attacks that are personal--argumentum ad hominem--the last
desperate refuge of the debater who has no case.
--
"We have nothing to gain by denying anything.
I despise the whole concept of "denial."
We have absolutely nothing to gain by pretending
that Nazi Germany was not what it was,
or by pretending that anything is not what it is."
Lyle Burkhead
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Reasons Why the Gas Chamber Story is a Lie |
04 Mar 2005 12:32:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 4 Mar 2005 07:02:09 -0800, wrote:
Liar.
Watch the attacks that are personal
Watch the liar fail to address the errors, distortions and lies pointed
out in what he posts.
--
Philip Mathews
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Reasons Why the Gas Chamber Story is a Lie |
04 Mar 2005 03:54:43 AM |
|
|
In article <7ajf21p27d7cpkvch9tm98sev1pbc7dcna@4ax.com>, wrote:
I found this very interesting, hope you do too.
Six Reasons
I am not going to argue that "The Holocaust didn't happen." My
position is that some of it happened and some of it didn't happen.
Specifically, my thesis is that there were no gas chambers in the Nazi
concentration camps. I am going to give six reasons for this:
1. The physical evidence -- the rooms themselves.
This has to be the starting point. If you could go to Auschwitz and
find a room that was obviously a gas chamber, then there would be no
such thing as revisionism.
If there were a room at Auschwitz that was "obviously a gas chamber", the
Nazis would never have been able to gas as many people there as they did.
That would settle the matter once and for
all. The problem is, when you go to Auschwitz and look at the room
that is supposed to have been a gas chamber, you find a room that is
obviously not a gas chamber. That's why revisionism is possible.
That's why revisionism is necessary.
Please click here to see pictures of the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
The basic fact in the whole subject is that the room that is supposed
to have been a gas chamber isn't a gas chamber.
On what basis do you justify this conclusion?
The auditorium of the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow is obviously not a gas
chamber if your mental picture of a gas chamber is limited to the kind of
device used in the American penal system. Nevertheless, 129 out of
approximately 800 people were killed in it when a supposedly non-lethal
knock-out gas was injected into its ambient air.
The rooms and garages in which thousands of people die every year in gas
accidents or suicides are obviously not gas chambers in the American penal
sense, yet people in them die either intentionally or unintentionally from
lethal gas being in the ambient air. Thus, they can assume the
functionality of a gas chamber.
Any room, ship, or railway car, obviously not gas chambers, that is to be
disinfected using Zyklon B has to be sealed and evacuated because anyone
that happened to be in it during the procedure would be killed by the
cyanide generated. They, too, can assume the functionality of a gas
chamber.
Summa summarum. Gas chambers do not have to look like American overt,
high-tech, penal gas chambers. They can be far simpler, non-technical,
covert devices. Indeed, any enclosure in which people can be killed by
modifying the composition of the ambient atmosphere is a gas chamber by
definition. Anybody committing suicide by locking himself in a garage with
the car motor running knows this.
If I were teaching Psychology 101, I would use this as a paradigm case
of beliefs governing perceptions. Some people look at those pictures
and see a gas chamber. Others look at the same pictures and see a
morgue. This is like that experiment where everybody in the room says
the red pencil is longer, and the experimental subject, whose eyes
tell him the green pencil is longer, is afraid to contradict the
group.
My eyes tell me that the green pencil is longer, and I'm going to say
so, even if it's illegal to say it (especially if it's illegal to say
it): the very idea that people were gassed in that room or any such
room is absurd on its face.
Pray tell, what attributes does a sealed, sturdily constructed room need
for it to be *impossible* to be a functional gas chamber if the potential
victims were trapped inside and were a lethal gas could be introduced into
the air they were forced to breathe?
2. The gap in the documentary record.
If there were documents covering the whole sequence of events, then
there would be no such thing as revisionism. The problem is, the
documents one would expect to find do not exist. We have documents
relating to every aspect of the war, including every aspect of the
Holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews. It is not possible to
gas six million people, or to do anything else involving millions of
people, without leaving a paper trail. If the gassing happened, there
would be thousands of documents to verify it, starting with the
planning stages and continuing throughout the course of events. But no
such paper trail exists.
Actually, such papers do exist. Read van Pelt's book on Auschwitz. The
papers in question are in an Auschwitz archive at Auschwitz-Stammlager
that was abandoned in early 1942 and thus never vetted. The papers in
question have lapses and other unintentional references to gas chambers
and gassing. Otherwise, committing anything about the gassing program to
paper was a criminal act that earned its perpetrator an immediate death
sentence.
3. The gap in the photographic record.
If there were photographs of the whole sequence of events, including
photographs of piles of corpses in gas chambers, then there would be
no such thing as revisionism. That would settle the matter
immediately. The problem is that no such pictures exist. We have
photographs of every aspect of World War II, including every aspect of
the Holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews. There are
photographs of Jews getting off the train at Auschwitz, photographs of
Jews in the camp, and photographs of bodies in mass graves, but there
are no photographs of anyone being gassed.
So, you expect that there would have been a photographer in the gas
chamber taking pictures? There are pictures of the before and after, but
the gassings themselves took place behind closed doors for reasons that
must be easily undertandable.
There are photographs and movies of, as well as laboratory reports about
gassings made in conjunction with the testing of lethal agents within the
T-4 euthanasia program. Many of the people who gained experience with
lethal gassing within the framework of this program went on to work at the
Operation Reinhard extermination camps.
To summarize the first three reasons: if we had the same kind of
evidence for the gassing of the Jews that we have for real historical
events (i.e. for events that actually happened), then everyone would
acknowledge that there were gas chambers, and there would be no such
thing as revisionism.
I counter by claiming that you cannot approach the question of Nazi gas
chambers by assuming that a gas chamber must have the attributes of an
American penal gas chamber. Additionally, you must consider that Nazi
gassings were done covertly as part of a top-secret program, so there is
absolutely no reason to expect their gas chambers to stand out from their
environment, for them to have generated unnecessary paperwork, or for the
gassing process to be documented with incriminating photographs. It should
be obvious to you several hundred people at a time cannot be gassed by a
far smaller group of personnel, even if armed, if the structure into which
the people are being herded where the operation is to be performed looks
threatening in any way. Any room in which the conditions obtaining during
a gas accident can be replicated and then neutralized, such as the
auditorium at the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow or any garage where an
exhaust-gas suicide or accident has taken place, has the functional
prerequisites to be a potential covert gas chamber.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Reasons Why the Gas Chamber Story is a Lie |
04 Mar 2005 10:46:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:54:43 +0200, (Eugene
Holman) wrote:
In article <7ajf21p27d7cpkvch9tm98sev1pbc7dcna@4ax.com>, wrote:
I found this very interesting, hope you do too.
Six Reasons
I am not going to argue that "The Holocaust didn't happen." My
position is that some of it happened and some of it didn't happen.
Specifically, my thesis is that there were no gas chambers in the Nazi
concentration camps. I am going to give six reasons for this:
1. The physical evidence -- the rooms themselves.
This has to be the starting point. If you could go to Auschwitz and
find a room that was obviously a gas chamber, then there would be no
such thing as revisionism.
If there were a room at Auschwitz that was "obviously a gas chamber", the
Nazis would never have been able to gas as many people there as they did.
Ah, the old 'it was a secret' scenario.
That would settle the matter once and for
all. The problem is, when you go to Auschwitz and look at the room
that is supposed to have been a gas chamber, you find a room that is
obviously not a gas chamber. That's why revisionism is possible.
That's why revisionism is necessary.
Please click here to see pictures of the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
The basic fact in the whole subject is that the room that is supposed
to have been a gas chamber isn't a gas chamber.
On what basis do you justify this conclusion?
How 'bout the door that opens inward?
The auditorium of the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow is obviously not a gas
chamber if your mental picture of a gas chamber is limited to the kind of
device used in the American penal system. Nevertheless, 129 out of
approximately 800 people were killed in it when a supposedly non-lethal
knock-out gas was injected into its ambient air.
Your claims that the "extermination camps" of Auschwitz/Birkenau;
Chelmo; Belzec; Sobibor; Treblinka and Maidanek were designed to be
huge chemical slaughterhouses doesn't hold water.
The rooms and garages in which thousands of people die every year in gas
accidents or suicides are obviously not gas chambers in the American penal
sense, yet people in them die either intentionally or unintentionally from
lethal gas being in the ambient air. Thus, they can assume the
functionality of a gas chamber.
Form follows function. Where is the evidence?
Any room, ship, or railway car, obviously not gas chambers, that is to be
disinfected using Zyklon B has to be sealed and evacuated because anyone
that happened to be in it during the procedure would be killed by the
cyanide generated. They, too, can assume the functionality of a gas
chamber.
You're talking exterminating bugs, occasionally. We're talking
planned, pre-meditated use of chemicals for the purpose of "mass
murder."
Summa summarum. Gas chambers do not have to look like American overt,
high-tech, penal gas chambers. They can be far simpler, non-technical,
covert devices. Indeed, any enclosure in which people can be killed by
modifying the composition of the ambient atmosphere is a gas chamber by
definition. Anybody committing suicide by locking himself in a garage with
the car motor running knows this.
We're not talking personal size gas chambers, we're talking
industrial/commercial sized gc's.
If I were teaching Psychology 101, I would use this as a paradigm case
of beliefs governing perceptions. Some people look at those pictures
and see a gas chamber. Others look at the same pictures and see a
morgue. This is like that experiment where everybody in the room says
the red pencil is longer, and the experimental subject, whose eyes
tell him the green pencil is longer, is afraid to contradict the
group.
Exactly. That's why so many people reported "homicidal gas chambers"
that they never saw or even heard of. They didn't want to contradict
the rumors.
My eyes tell me that the green pencil is longer, and I'm going to say
so, even if it's illegal to say it (especially if it's illegal to say
it): the very idea that people were gassed in that room or any such
room is absurd on its face.
Pray tell, what attributes does a sealed, sturdily constructed room need
for it to be *impossible* to be a functional gas chamber if the potential
victims were trapped inside and were a lethal gas could be introduced into
the air they were forced to breathe?
Elaborate venting and filtering systems for industrial use. Tents
and/or or plenty of warning signs posted in the area for occasional
use. In the case of delousing - the chambers were left sealed until
the gas dissipated over a number of days to allow safe entry.
2. The gap in the documentary record.
If there were documents covering the whole sequence of events, then
there would be no such thing as revisionism.
True, the proof would be documented and there would be no question.
The problem is, the
documents one would expect to find do not exist.
We have documents
relating to every aspect of the war, including every aspect of the
Holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews. It is not possible to
gas six million people, or to do anything else involving millions of
people, without leaving a paper trail. If the gassing happened, there
would be thousands of documents to verify it, starting with the
planning stages and continuing throughout the course of events. But no
such paper trail exists.
Actually, such papers do exist. Read van Pelt's book on Auschwitz. The
papers in question are in an Auschwitz archive at Auschwitz-Stammlager
that was abandoned in early 1942 and thus never vetted. The papers in
question have lapses and other unintentional references to gas chambers
and gassing. Otherwise, committing anything about the gassing program to
paper was a criminal act that earned its perpetrator an immediate death
sentence.
Well, let's see the "papers" and be done with revisionism. If they
existed - they would be part of the public record. Jews would be
shouting from the rooftops: "WE HAVE PROOF."
As far as trying to keep it secret, why try? The people of Europe and
the United States didn't like Jews. The people of Europe still don't.
If Hitlers plan was to "gas" millions of Jews - there would have been
signs at the entrance to the "extermination camps" [similar to
McDonalds] that proclaimed ' ________ gassed to date.'
Admit it, Eugene, Hitler was fighting a war and didn't have the
resources or the need to exterminate people. His plan to send Jews to
Madigascar was shelved until after the war. He lost and the plan was
never carried out.
3. The gap in the photographic record.
If there were photographs of the whole sequence of events, including
photographs of piles of corpses in gas chambers, then there would be
no such thing as revisionism. That would settle the matter
immediately. The problem is that no such pictures exist. We have
photographs of every aspect of World War II, including every aspect of
the Holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews. There are
photographs of Jews getting off the train at Auschwitz, photographs of
Jews in the camp, and photographs of bodies in mass graves, but there
are no photographs of anyone being gassed.
So, you expect that there would have been a photographer in the gas
chamber taking pictures? There are pictures of the before and after, but
the gassings themselves took place behind closed doors for reasons that
must be easily undertandable.
I agree. You tell that to Phil Mathews. He's been demanding proof that
Rudolf Vrba witnessed gassings from the gas chamber. I tried
repeatedly to demonstrate that he saw gassings by watching Zyklon B
dumped in by "sporty" SS men. I even showed him the sworn court
testimony. But, that's the Phil we all know and love.
There are photographs and movies of, as well as laboratory reports about
gassings made in conjunction with the testing of lethal agents within the
T-4 euthanasia program. Many of the people who gained experience with
lethal gassing within the framework of this program went on to work at the
Operation Reinhard extermination camps.
We know about T-4.
To summarize the first three reasons: if we had the same kind of
evidence for the gassing of the Jews that we have for real historical
events (i.e. for events that actually happened), then everyone would
acknowledge that there were gas chambers, and there would be no such
thing as revisionism.
I counter by claiming that you cannot approach the question of Nazi gas
chambers by assuming that a gas chamber must have the attributes of an
American penal gas chamber.
It would, however, need all the safety precautions necessary when
using poison gas.
Additionally, you must consider that Nazi
gassings were done covertly as part of a top-secret program,
Bull *****, Eugene. The rumors were broadcast over the radio on a
daily basis. It would have been no secret. Why? because you can't
kill six million Jews and keep it a secret.
so there is
absolutely no reason to expect their gas chambers to stand out from their
environment, for them to have generated unnecessary paperwork, or for the
gassing process to be documented with incriminating photographs.
Not one photograph, not one autopsy report, not one conclusive,
validated document exists today.
It should
be obvious to you several hundred people at a time cannot be gassed by a
far smaller group of personnel, even if armed, if the structure into which
the people are being herded where the operation is to be performed looks
threatening in any way. Any room in which the conditions obtaining during
a gas accident can be replicated and then neutralized, such as the
auditorium at the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow or any garage where an
exhaust-gas suicide or accident has taken place, has the functional
prerequisites to be a potential covert gas chamber.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene, good to see you back. Col Blandish brought up a good point
you may have missed.
The documents and telegram requesting 'gas detectors' seem to be
problematic as they wern't invented yet.
The U.S. Patent Office lists the first application date as 1974.
Since you are in Europe, I was wondering if you could nose around and
find out when 'gas detectors' first came to market.
Thank you.
--
"We have nothing to gain by denying anything.
I despise the whole concept of "denial."
We have absolutely nothing to gain by pretending
that Nazi Germany was not what it was,
or by pretending that anything is not what it is."
Lyle Burkhead
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "True Patriot" |
|
| Title: I beg you, on behalf of my Humanity, send this post to a Church for God of your choosing. |
04 Mar 2005 05:12:07 PM |
|
|
http://sydney.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/t-timebig16.mp3
http://sydney.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/attila-------.mp3
http://sydney.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/private3.mp3
--
http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/psychological-warfare_.mp3
/ / "why should we afford the same liberties and privileges of
justice to the Taliban. Like why should we give them the same
rights we afford ourselves. They're the bad guys. Why do we want
to do any favors for the bad guys." And really that's an
irrationalism. And yet, it was there. You know, people go "you
don't need any evidence, what do you need evidence for, they're
guilty." And the rational, TRUE AMERICAN PATIOTS, would go, "no,
no, no, that's wrong. We want to actually follow the crimes scene
leads at the real murder scene to arrest the true evil doers." \ \
http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/psychological-warfare_.mp3
/ / [Bush] wants to get rid of this, evidence requirement to convince
ourselves of something. You know he's just going to live in his
own fantasy world, while WE suffer the consequences for not
speaking out for our equal rights to be heard, on these CRITICALLY
important issues. Particularly when it comes to war. CNN they
don't want to commit ourselves to covering the facts impartially,
In fact they will work to mislead you soldier. not only will they
not tell you about the hazards of depleted uranium, But they're not
even going to tell you about these outragious crimes that are being
committed [IN YOUR NAME] \ \
Please, I beg you, on behalf of my Humanity,
send this post to a Church for God of your choosing.
After making my defense public regarding an unshackled word, I
realized they have decided not to attempt to convince a jury, that
"sanctioned" acts, within any erotic depiction that were in my
possession, were not then therefore proof, that I would condone
myself such, as a twisted behavior in reality. [Ah, but how many
others falsely have?] And, two, the total of images, that will be
used against me has totaled to approximately 2300 of the 37,333
jpgs that were in my possession, 2300 to be argued, depict my life
in an unfavorable light. Such as "Ukrainian nymphs"?, and Home
Lolita. The Prosecution who would like to see me serve major
penitentiary time, [more than two years, along with psychological
counseling on my appreciation of the female form, and my desire to
know what is going on in the public domain as a political writer of
the workings of, the human mind, sexuality, and the sadomasicistic
victization of the innocent. Among other things. I believe the
prosecution will SUGGESTIVELY use a statement that will be made
from a NSIS agent, suggesting, he felt, there were -000 images he
had chosen to be considered for indictment. A number that would
must include every depiction of nude adults, fashion models, and
French fries. The SAME individual who will also say, after
reviewing all my writings, he found nothing that would indicate a
legitimate threat against the original complainant, Our Mr. George
W. Bush. Yeah, gee, let's make sure a jury doesn't catch on who
Johnny is as writer of our world, and to what is truly going on in
the court room of our laws we guess.
In my mind, there are maybe, roughly, 10 to 12 images, [deleted or
otherwise] that could be argued as criminal depictions. Depictions
I did not ever distribute, or even would have left without
Deletion, THROUGH CONSIDERATION.
--
Oh my God.
This is the information regarding my criminal matter. I will tell
you however, most of the intelligence officers I have spoken with,
are not in disagreement to what I am doing. Not all though. I
figure all I need is some media exposure regarding my position, and
the result I believe, will ultimately bring to real justice, those
responsible for 9/11, and the reversal of the un-American Patriot
Acts. I have nothing to hide, and am completely open to any
questions. I have big dreams it's true, but my dream, is where all
Peoples are granted equal rights under the law, and where
investigating journalists, are as straight forward and direct as
you could be. I just finished the last day of my preliminary
trial, where the video tape of me speaking on 9/11 briefly, was
cursorily debated whether it was truly given voluntary. (the two
Bush fan officers lied to me that I would be able to address the
uncontended, standing irrespective of opinion documented evidence
against the Bush regime, publicly reiterating what I freely spoke
with the NSIS-RCMP and the secret service on, and instead,
attempted to twist my/their comments on pornography, while ending
the recording prematurely in midstream of me speaking. Speaking
thus: On the fact that, using no crime scene evidence was the "top
secret" documented plan reported on by MSNBC, a plan in writing
used by the Bush regime, as a prerequisite strategy to gain access
into Afghanistan. The Judge found the officers were playing
"tricks", lying, but apparently, sighting a ruling by some other
judge somewhere, this conduct was perfectly acceptable for our
justice officers to practice in attempting to go after the found
guilty we presume?. The two police officers fundamentally undercut
our national security interests, by turning out to be, as they
confessed during my arrest, to be big bush backers, and in direct
opposition regarding my public position on Afghanistan. I do
believe however that Justice, as truth, will win out in the end.
The true American Patriot,
your friendly stranger,
Johnny Wizard
If you do not attempt to forward this document to anyone, and
everyone else sides the same as cowards, my freedom will be stolen
by the will of bushite, and our world will loose my ever valiant
presence as sworn eternal defender. Not good.
You
decide.
--
Synopsis: I had been writing critically of the Bush
Administration, when the Secret Service top secretly requested I be
arrested for threatening the life of George W. Bush. They
tentatively planned to have me arrested under the Mental Health Act
to avoid a public criminal proceeding, but however during the
process, I managed to publicly speak on local Manitoba radio for no
less than forty hours regarding Bush in total, and was also well
known throughout my community involvement in live theatrical
productions I've been a part of for more than a decade. [I was
Renfield in a stage production of Dracula, and I think I might be
saved the cutting room floor in Woody Haralson and Robin William's
new flick, "White Elephant" (I played a drunk white elephant.]
Hi everyone.
As many now know, through a bogus top secret warrant requested by
one person at the secret service, passed to one Cnst. at the
National Security branch of the RCMP, I had my computer property
seized, not for the reason stated in the warrant, but to allow a
trial/witch hunt to take place, in attempts to incarcerate me for a
lengthy prison stint at the will of two self confessed ex-military
bushite bombing, child porn pushers. When being arrested, I was
asked if I would make a statement on the contents of my computer, I
could then also use the opportunity to talk about the evidence
against ------ -. ----. I agreed, but now the testimony ends
abruptly before the actual closing. While the bogus warrant will
be refused by the courts to challenge, as it has been deemed
irrelevant, as a completely separate matter. You know?, how I come
about to be in the, potentially life depriving court room? I can
only pray a public jury will consider something fishy is afoot as
foul play, when the matter isn't even allowed for our discussion as
hugely relevant.
/ / As for written material or visual representations that advocate
or counsel sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years
that would be an offence under the Criminal Code, the requirement
that the material "advocates" or "counsels" signifies that, when
viewed objectively, the material must be seen as actively inducing
or encouraging the described offences with children. \ \
What is it in you, to judge such material as actual, to not then
have it immediately taken to your own self as an automatic change
in personal judgment? When you read of a faulting murderous
character in a Ramsey Campbell book let's say, does such insight
created, make you less capable in discerning you own deciding
factor? The living state of fiction, is to remain as it always
has, an unbound canvass of art through imagination. Johnny says:
book burning is always wrong. In my case for one example of many
that could end becoming thousands, the expert of experts, states
without equivocation, a fully developed ample breasted 22 year old,
with her shirt off, is between 10 and 12. And, through what they
call "collateral" images, any legal nude picture of adults with
claimed youthful features, or completely clothed children laughing,
can be thrown on the heap of total to totals as an overall picture
of my depraved character. Do they include my fantasy art
collection? My movie poster collections? Animals from the wild?
My guitar playing? My drawings? Or my written works regarding the
documented crimes of the traitor, George W. Bush Jr.? Or how
about, the picture of the Talliban sign in Afghanistan stating,
selling heroin is against Allah's interest, so stop doing it cause
it is officially outlawed everywhere here forever now, but for
where the lying bush backed Northern Alliance partners are. The
two ex-military cops involved in my case, are confessed supporters
of the war action of indiscriminate bombing in Afghanistan. How
can that be so? Only through the silencing of truth in our media
circles, with their avocation of censorship in regards to me
publicly speaking, do they escape public ridicule as dummies of the
state in confusion.
The prosecution is seeking major penitentiary time on this first
time offense, considering all the human rights positions I've
fought heavily on a continuous basis internationally for the last
seven years or so while discussing the inner workings of the human
mind, and then there's the CRIMINALLY sadistic torturers I've
advocated the personal arrest of, and then of course there's that,
as everybody knows, bravely fighting global tyranny by bringing
forward the documented, standing without contention crime scene
evidence, regarding un-accountable as "lawless" George W. Bush's
complicity in the crimes of 9/11 thing. [See, there can only be
one Lawless, and that's spot is already taken by the one and only
Lucy.]
As I've stated, Usenet services do not allow any participator in
viewing imagery, without firstly, downloading the images. So, if
your like many, you simply participate in using it's services, (of
which I'm unashamedly the largest in the history of Humanity as
political contributor) and download something you would offer for
immediate deletion if some phony cops with a phony warrant had
announced they were coming on a fishing trip to see what they could
nab you suggestively with, (all done 'secretly' to stop you
speaking truthful about the documented crimes of George W. Bush
Jr.,) is still not good enough though, because even if you didn't
witness their 'professional' depictions offered, and just deleted
everything glorious and beautiful, (just to be on the same fearful
side of irrational totalitarianism), you'd still be charged for
cleaning up your room to convey a good public impression. While
child porn relationships are broadcasted on the national news to
impressionable viewers. Again!, not to outlaw criminal
DISTRIBUTION by practicing protections there, where factual
evidence would be crucial in determinations, let's say with a cop
full time monitoring a Usenet server, but no, as like in my case, a
few offensible images, along with un-ending falsehoods on the age
range of us consenting adults, or children being beautiful as
clothed, or in swimsuits. I had 37,333 images of every description
imaginable. And weather you know of everything on your,
information warehouse of a computer system, guilty or innocent, the
information system is still to be found worthy for police
auctioning with the potential loss of your loving family, and the
tentative spot on the greatest teacher achievement awards ceremony.
Remember, rarely does anyone try to defend themselves on such
charges, due to the fact, demonizing such individuals in our new
bushite culture, is done before a criminal case is even heard.
[like with 9/11 and Jay Leno] This is why I try to articulate my
position now, before they perhaps, deny me an ability to speak in
my own defense. I've spoken to a few lawyers, and almost none of
them want anything to do with me, for my lack of big money, and the
blatant fascistic nature of the, use to be, top secret warrant that
the Crown can not possibly be un-aware of. Besides, in honesty, I
am most capable of speaking in my own defense, if granted the right
to say as much in normal speech. I don't know the precedents,
however I'm learning, I don't know the tricks of the trade, but I'm
counting on a human jury, and a little bit of public scrutiny.
Does the Court support the ends and means of Justice, to not offer
support to the 9/11 investigating FBI officers, by having me
quickly silenced on their behalf through incarceration? I fear, if
I am denied a public platform to express my defense, I will be
railroaded into a situation where I will be refused an opportunity
to speak openly. So, I come to the world now, as a safety
precaution, to insure any attempted demonization of my better name
later, will at least have this out here to counter measure. Please
forward this post to someone somewhere please.
/ / Section 163.1(6) creates a further defence for material that
serves an "educational, scientific or medical purpose". This
refers to the purpose the material, viewed objectively, may serve,
not the purpose for which the possessor actually holds it. \ \
Under Canadian law referenced in the Supreme Court of Canada Sharpe
case, it is acknowledged that if a public good can be shown, that
the accused could have benefited by having witnessed questionable
pornography, the crime then therefore, never really happened.
(Think of it: who is the victim here?, the alleged ill thinking
perceiver they want to send up the river?) The expert expert of
experts regarding pornography in my case, who holds - out -
official platitude after platitude regarding the personal
investment he has made to advance his professional career in the
illegal porn industry, comes truly from an alternate illusionary
world, where everything that surrounds himself, looks like a young
girl in a sexually explicit depiction. Can an appreciation for
female beauty that includes nudity, be comprised of a definition
outside of what someone else tells you your thinking then about
committing a real sexual assault? Appreciating the beauty of
people, doesn't automatically lead to thoughts of grunting sweats,
like visions of cute little boys, fully dressed, doesn't turn the
bushite automatically into a sadomasochistic homo, but then again,
perhaps it does.
By exercising a right to perceive representations of that which is
freely available, is of in itself, important to the sociologist,
psychologist, concerned parent, and of course, the conceptualizing
artist reflecting on our shared reality. For me however, in
addition, the symbology of sexuality is a subject I've often danced
with, and have even considered to hold potential solutions to why,
or how, a sexually dysfunctional bushite, the enemy, can commit
such criminal brutality against those they only know as innocent,
(like a rapist or torturer does), while excusing it only on our
lack of perceived moral outrage as the public, regarding their
ungodly criminal conduct. Bushite are terrified of a free to be
world, brought about by ourselves as a truth conveyor of ever
lasting wisdoms. Why? One to one, we all make them as they are,
cowardly weak morons, with not an ounce of manhood, honor,
patriotism, or skill at independent free thinking. Their phony
disguises or secret intelligence gathering capabilities, expose to
everyone, their complete failures of stringing more than a few base
words in the form of a question. Instead of facing their
weaknesses, (as then creating an ability to become something
greater,) they instead express their slavish dying hatred of a
liberating People, a People committed solely to the principles of
freedom as Justice for US all.
To suggest an image on my computer, could be construed to hold a
explicit sexual element in the minds of some viewers, is not who my
Court case is about. My case isn't about running a Girls being
Girls website to attract business for some thing sly on the side.
I'm not running a server for illicit materials sold as a perk to
all new paying internet subscribers. It's about me, Johnny Wizard,
challenging the TRUE intent of a small few disgruntled bushite, who
are in our names, standing beside me waving cuffs hidden in these
shadows, appearing to work having me incarcerated by a completely
bogus bushite warrant that was secretly alleged by only a single
person to state, I'm "anti-government", with a proceeding, planned
to put me away silenced, with mostly naked lies on their
measurement for my thinking openly about this suffering world in
which we all share uniquely.
Sure, It can be argued, that depictions of brutality taken during
the nazi war, could provide sadomasochistic gratification to some
wannabe fascist bushite bitches, but the freedom to express such
films teaches us that the nazi soldier often without leadership as
direction, had no true ability to respect the lives of any other.
For they victimized any, as Sattler did irrationally to the entire
Peoples of Fallujah, which include the now dead Marines spoken for
as unimportant to the bottom line at being losers. Why must
America die sacrificed for no better good I ask again, but this
time, closer to an end.
Help me break into Our news media, or leave me all to fall victim
to the further enslavement of the human condition.
Johnny Wizard
--
The Crown's Crown
/ / The EVIL anti-Christ "un-accountable to American law cos hees
duh president" demon bush Jr., has ordered the commitment of mass
murder in our names, while his enemy bush ***** cult following in
the corporate news establishments, have refused our communities to
publicly address the DOCUMENTED evidence made public by the FBI.
Alleging, General Ahmad, bush's business partner, was "secretly"
responsible for a wire transfer of 100,000.00 to 9/11's "ring
leader" Mohamed Atta, and in addition, that the demon anti-Christ,
Our Mr. bush Jr,, had a top secret CRIMINAL war plan in place,
worked on with condoleeza rice, and implemented in part by General
Ahmad, to criminally invade Afghanistan signed September 9th, 2001,
provided to and reported on by Jim at MSNBC. All centered on not
apprehending bin Laden, (prior, during, or after) as a prerequisite
to guarantee invasion. (, to secure a liquefied natural gas
pipeline for pension thievers Enron.) THEREBY, forbidding the
apprehension of the true culprits through following the crime scene
leads at the real murder scene. \ \
Damn. I am so desperately in need your help.
You see my friend, there are people in this world that deprive our
rights to freedom, through unjust acts committed in your name, done
by hiding their true intent from our public's view. One RCMP Cnst,
was able to argue to a judge that my writing was anti-government,
and she needed to establish who I was, to enforce the law of,
"threatening an international person". The warrant was to be made
top secret, but through a miracle, was provided for my defense with
a stack of bushite evil. I can successfully defend myself when
speaking freely on the facts, but the Crown has deemed my voice
inadmissible when it comes to anything in relationship to the
bogusness of the warrant. The Crown is well aware that she holds
the victims of 9/11 in contempt, but wagers, you Personally won't
have the godly Humanity in yourself, to demand I face her politely,
in the open, for our public good on national radio. If I try to
speak of the reason I am in front of a jury, I will be found in
contempt. While the very same guy who faked searching my computer
for the single RCMP Cnst., was the same guy who searched my
computer for child pornography. (Remember: through Usenet, images
or movies are downloaded before getting to witness them.)
What did he find amongst 37,333 images?
OPENLY a woman of about 22 with fully developed breasts, is termed
between ten to twelve, like of a woman's behind with womanly hips
and pubic hair, ten to twelve also. And on and on and on, with
those few photographs (I've seen no more than maybe 10 or 12 of),
that would constitute an actual legal argument, thrown in to make
it all look bad. Like a short video of a young girl standing in a
bath smiling. The worst depiction they have is a video of several
seconds, appearing to be a young boy being sexually fondled, but I
certainly don't advocate such unbalanced behavior, believing it
would be harmful in dealing with, as a growing up in through
sexuality as the developing adolescent. So, knowing this then,
what am I guilty of, that they are truly, as bushite, going to try
to put me in prison for? Loving children? I didn't commit the
sexual assault, take the footage, didn't distribute it, nor would I
have kept it from deletion. Deletion doesn't even matter to these
geniuses. They'll scan what you deleted, and charge you for that
decision also. You can't win to continue going in silence. By
continuing bushite fascist tyranny censorship for enslavement of
our species, will suck for all concerned if you don't speak up for
our rights denied NOW!
Think of how many curious seekers of youthful beauty out there the
bushite could seek for demonization? They refuse to enforce the
law regarding distribution. It would be nothing WITH A TRUE LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION to block a site, or scan free public access Usenet
for truly illegal materials.
But they don't.
So what the single RCMP cnst has done, is LIED about the true
reason for obtaining the therefore bogus warrant, for she has
refused to enforce the law on which she argued was the reason to be
granted my personal belongings. The refusal of the fascist enemy
bushite to charge me for the alleged criminal matter, would surely
get George W. Bush arrested, tried, and rightly executed for 9/11,
and then, the war of terrorism would be over. My writings on
behalf of police investigations made public, and Jim at MSNBC,
along with the documented fact demon bush used no evidence
whatsoever in his allegations against bin Laden while closing
criminal investigations, have been deemed by the, protect the demon
anti-Christ at all costs Crown, as inadmissible, along with my
essays in psychology and sexuality. When receiving my computers, a
Cnst. --lling was told to look for the phrase, "bush is dead", he
stated because the term wasn't found, the warrant couldn't be fully
carried out. The quotes however in the top secret, nobody was
suppose to see it, warrant provided to the judge, were from "The
Trial and Conviction of Our Mr. bush Jr.", and none of the quoted
text, contained "bush is dead". Then, on top of that, when they
seized my property, I told them exactly where my writing was
located. And proudly confessed to stand on the principles of
Universal Justice, in serving for America's best. Instead of
defending our rights, they are, as cowards, and what true fascism
is, attempting to help flee, those responsible for the terrorist
crimes of 9/11 back in New York City. And don't you think for a
second, the Crown involved in my particulars doesn't know that. An
enemy of Justice is our Court in knowing directly with the evidence
in front of everyone, they sell out honorable FBI officers for
death, all to please the false deity G.W. for YOUR losses too my
American friend. Please, again, I beg you to help my cause, the
cause of every true patriot soldier, and grieving mother. To be
left without Justice for Humanity in silence, is to do an injustice
no real man should want to see happen quietly to another. Once I'm
silently convicted, you'll be too late to help be my witness. And
if you knew my mother, you'd love her too. So please, I beg you,
forward this to your favorite journalist, get on Coast to Coast,
get on CBC radio or on Winnipeg's local CJOB, and demand I be
allowed to face the bushite false accusers wide OPENLY in our
public arena. They don't let any of us on now when we speak of
General Ahmad, Afghanistan, Iraq, Enron, Social Security, Health
care, and on and on and on, so your | | |
