Why The Holocaust Must Be Questioned

[Shamanskiss]

hey unculbact

Long post, I'll have to deal with these in detail..

Hey, I am working alone here. There isn't a team of me regurgitating so much ,preprepared , loved and cherished info, as with you cheerleaders.

I am coming at this fresh, as a formerly non-involved.
Not feeling all that converted yet , though.

I am one guy with a small shovel, trying to clear away so much of your shit.

 

[Shamanskiss]

Correction....

ref Lipstadt, not appearing...
my view on Irving's options may be wrong there.

 

[Shamanskiss]

My definition wouldn't have a David Irving in it.

Irving versus Lipstadt


In order to sustain their charges against Irving, Lipstadt's defence hired a half dozen tenured academic historians to go over every footnote in Irving's books, these experts received nice big fees for their work, upto $200,000 in the case of the Auschwitz expert, Robert Jan Van Pelt. Yet this free flow of money was not just about the resources which the defence had which David Irving didn't have. It also pointed to the time and effort that the defence was able to pay for in order to find fault with Irving's work, time and energy which Irving did not have available.

The sum total of their calculated expedition of academic assassination was only around a dozen or so points of "interpretation" in Irving's 30 books in which it does appear that Irving was wrong, or mistaken, or interpreted the material in an unconventional manner. These few errors, from a lifetime of work, could not reasonably sustain the claim that Irving was not a historian, and this was immediately pointed out by Donald Cameron Watt and Sir John Keegan, two British historians with even better credentials than Lipstadt's experts. In fact, in his judgment, Justice Gray was quick to reject the sweeping characterisation of the defence that Irving had no reputation as an historian to defend.

The defence's strategy was to destroy Irving's credibility and the integrity of his historical interpretations so that the judge would be bound by mainstream conventional bias to accept their version of events, not Irving's. Yet Irving had neither the time, the money, the resources, nor even the right through discovery to attempt to undercut the authority of the experts lined up against him.

Basically to a large extent, victory went to those with more money.




Except that David Irving has had at least 30 books published, and these books are still referred to by other historians. It doesn't necessarily require academic qualifications to be a historian. It requires expert knowledge which he's still famous for having (particularly on World War 2 and the 3rd Reich). You claim that Irving had no credible credentials as a researcher, but 30 published books that have long been referenced by other historians show otherwise.

David Irving admitted that he was not an expert on the holocaust, but then again Pelt (who went on and on about how great an expert on the Holocaust that he himself was) has been fairly criticised as not being entirely accurate as well.

There IS an argument as to whether Irving is a historian, but since some (including professional historians) are happy to call him a historian, and others (not always historians) wish to deny him this status it's not accurate to define him as not being a historian.

If you go through news reports of his conviction, over and over again you will find him described as a historian. Irving gives his readers more in-text citations than many historians noted for their "scholarship".

Now this is a very important question; DEFINE what YOU mean by "credible historian"?

Your interpretation of the court judgement is extremely flawed
The following material is taken from the judgement itself, not a report on it, not a biased view of it.
The actual judgement.

"Irving contends that Lipstadt in Denying the Holocaust makes an attack not only upon his competence as an historian but also upon his motivation. As I have already found, the book accuses Irving, amongst other things, of deliberate perversion of the historical evidence. I readily accept that, to any serious historian, his or her integrity is vital. That is no doubt why, in his evidence, Irving said that for him his reputation as a truth-seeking historian is more important than anything else. The other meanings which I have found the passages complained of to bear are also serious, although in my judgment less so. Irving is entitled to regard the passages in the book of which he complains as containing grave imputations against him in both his professional and personal capacity."


Professor Donald Watt
Sir John Keegan ... both spoke for Irving.
Judge Gray summed up their input in regard to this thread's topic ....
"Both Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan regarded as unacceptable the views expressed by Irving about the Holocaust and Hitler’s knowledge of it."


"On the evidence of the contents of the book itself, I accept that it does indeed represent a deliberate attack on Irving, mounted in order to discredit him as an historian and so to undermine any credence which might otherwise be given to his denials of the Holocaust. That is a factor which is to be taken into account, if the issue of damages arises. Beyond that finding, however, I do not consider that Irving’s claim to have been the victim of a conspiracy in which both Defendants were implicated is established by the evidence placed before me."


"Irving established, that Denying the Holocaust contains passages which are defamatory of him, it was thus necessary for the Defendants, if they were to avoid liability, to establish a defence. The burden of doing so rests, under the English system of law, upon the Defendants. Thus , they had to prove their statements ref' Irving, and the work he produced were valid.

As I have already mentioned, the burden of proving the defence of justification rests upon the publishers. Defamatory words are presumed under English law to be untrue."

I liked stumbling on this piece, as what it says is that inorder to prove that they have not defamed Irving, the defendants had to demonstrate that their view of the holocaust was accurate, thereby rendering their remarks re' Irving as accurate statements in regard to his work, knowledge and contribution.

You say..."The sum total of their calculated expedition of academic assassination was only around a dozen or so points of "interpretation"
The judgement details at least
240 items of lies, avoidable errors, and manipulations of evidence.
38 admissions of ignored evidence , and lacking awareness of
existing or new evidence, on Irvings part (ADMISSIONS).
29 items where Irving admitted error, or accepted he had applied
limited analysis to skew the truth.
several points where Irving admitted
..a euthenasia programme was authorised by hitler.
..the existence and operation of gas vans.
..Irving accepted the reality and use of gas vans, limiting his
opposition to the numbers they killed that way.
...Accepted the existence of a systematic genocide.
...conceded gassing had been the case at auschwitz
...he used 7 different figures for the Dresden raid.
All as contradictions of earlier statements.

All of the above rips the shit out of the very soul of your holohoax stance.
That disembowelment is what Irving bestowed on your cause.

"Having considered the arguments, which I have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that the criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably well-founded. For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the question of Irving’s motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the Defendants Irving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined, reveals.

In the course of his prolonged cross-examination, Evans justified each and every one of the criticisms on which the Defendants have chosen to rely. In several instances his criticisms were supported by the Defendants’ other experts, van Pelt, Browning and Longerich. I am satisfied that each of them is outstanding in his field. I take note of the fact that the expert witnesses who were summoned by Irving to give evidence on his behalf did not in their evidence dispute the validity of the points made by Evans; nor did they seek to support or justify Irving’s portrayal of Hitler."

As well as the hundreds of lies errors etc above Judge Gray Identified,
"I have concluded that Irving has misrepresented the evidence (Judge Gray) re'
-Hitler’s trial in 1924
-Crime statistics for Berlin in 1932
-The events of Kristallnacht
-Goebbels of the events of 9 and 10 November 1938
-His (Irving’s) endeavour to cast sole blame for the pogrom onto Goebbels
To write, as Irving did, that Hitler was “totally unaware of what Goebbels had done” is in my view to pervert the evidence."
-The claim that during that night Hitler did everything he could to prevent violence against the Jews and their property is in my judgment based upon misrepresentation, misconstruction and omission of the documentary evidence.
-The aftermath of Kristallnacht
-Irving’s account of the investigation into the events of Kristallnacht and such disciplinary action was taken thereafter fails lamentably to reveal to his readers how much of a whitewash it was.
-There is no evidence that Hitler “summoned” Himmler to his headquarters and “obliged” him to telephone to Heydrich an order that Jews were not to be liquidated.
-In Hitler’s War (1977 edition) Irving misrepresents Himmler’s note as “incontrovertible evidence”
-Himmler’s log .Irving accepted that he misrepresented this document. I do not accept that the error is immaterial
-The shooting of the Jews in Riga Irving has perverted the sense of Bruns’s account
-Riga shooting..Irving also suppressed the evidence of the widow of Schultz-Dubois
-Hitler’s views on the Jewish question . Irving accepted in the course of this trial that the evidence shows that Hitler knew about and approved of the wholesale shooting of Jews in the East and, later, was complicit in the gassing of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Reinhard and other death camps.
-The evidence is incontrovertible (and Irving does not seek to dispute it) that Hitler was rabidly anti-semitic from the earliest days. He spoke, in his famous speech of 30 January 1939 and on other occasions, in the most sinister and menacing terms of the fate which awaited the Jews: they were a bacillus which had to be destroyed.
-Irving accepted the argument of the Defendants’ experts that the Nazis often resorted to euphemism and camouflage when discussing the radical solutions to the Jewish question.
- Irving’s claim that Frank was telling his audience what he had told the authorities in Berlin (and not the other way round) appears to me to be wholly untenable.
-I accept the conclusion of Evans that the chain of documents does little to justify or excuse Irving’s portrayal of Hitler’s views on the Jewish question.
-It is my conclusion that the Defendants are justified in their assertion that Irving has seriously misrepresented Hitler’s views on the Jewish question. He has done so in some instances by misinterpreting and mistranslating documents and in other instances by omitting documents or parts of them. In the result the picture which he provides to readers of Hitler and his attitude towards the Jews is at odds with the evidence.
-In my opinion Irving’s treatment of the Schlegelberger note and the importance which he attaches to it shed important light on the quality of his historiography. the note does not possess the significance which Irving attaches to it.
-Goebbels’s diary I have concluded without hesitation that the manner in which Irving deals in Hitler’s War is misleading and unsupported by the circumstantial evidence. account provided by Irving to his readers (see paragraph 5.173) reveals stark discrepancies.
-I accept the validity of the criticism that there was no warrant for the claim made by Irving that at that meeting Himmler pulled the wool over Hitler’s eyes. In my judgment, that claim ignores the circumstantial evidence as to the state of Hitler’s knowledge by September 1942 of the use of gas chambers to kill Jews. It also runs counter to the evidence of the nature of the relationship between Hitler and Himmler.Irving’s treatment of this minute is unjustifiably favourable to Hitler.
-Himmler’s note the reference in the note to keeping the well-to-do French Jews “healthy and alive” should have alerted an objective historian to the sinister significance of the note in regard to the fate awaiting the other French Jews.
- In my judgment Irving materially perverts the evidence of what passed between the Nazis and Horthy on 17 April.
-The deportation and murder of the Roman Jews. it was a culpable omission on Irving’s part not to inform his readers that these Jews were ultimately murdered
-Himmler’s speechesThe absence of any mention of that speech in the 1991 edition of Hitler’s War was in my judgment another culpable omission
-Ribbentrop’s testimony Irving fails to observe historian's duty / obligation on them not to give the reader a distorted impression by selective
quotation.
-Marie Vaillant-Couturier Irving’s claim that Judge Biddle thought she was “a bloody liar” is a travesty of the evidence.
-Kurt Aumeier Irving minimised the significance of Aumeier’s evidence
-Findings in relation to the instances of Irving’s historiography cited by the Defendants
13.51 For the reasons which I have given, I find that in most of the instances which they cite the Defendants’ criticisms are justified. In those instances it is my conclusion that, judged objectively, Irving treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian. Irving in those respects misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him.
-Auschwitz My conclusion is that the various categories of evidence do “converge” in the manner suggested by the Defendants
-The Leuchter report...agreed that the Leuchter report was fundamentally flawed. In regard to the chemical analysis, Irving was unable to controvert the evidence of Dr Roth (summarised at paragraph 7.106 above) that, because the cyanide would have penetrated the brickwork and plaster to a depth of no more than one tenth of the breadth of a human hair, any cyanide present in the relatively large samples taken by Leuchter (which had to be pulverised before analysis) would have been so diluted that the results on which Leuchter relied had effectively no validity. What is more significant is that Leuchter assumed, wrongly as Irving agreed, that a greater concentration of cyanide would have been required to kill humans than was required to fumigate clothing. In fact the concentration required to kill humans is 22 times less than is required for fumigation purposes.
Irving conceded the existence of many other factual errors in the Leuchter report.
I do not accept that an objective historian would be persuaded that the gas chambers served only the purposes of fumigation. The evidence points firmly in the direction of a homicidal use of the chambers as well.
-there appear to me to be cogent pragmatic reasons for a historian to conclude that the evidence does not support the air-raid shelter argument.
-Irving advanced a number of subsidiary arguments. I can deal with them briefly because they did not impress me. I do not consider that they would have impressed a dispassionate historian either.
-I accept that the evidence of van Pelt, which was based on contemporaneous documents (see paragraph 7.125 above), that, if the incinerators were operated continuously and many corpses were burnt together so themselves providing fuel, no more than 3.5kg of coke would have been required per corpse.
-Conclusion
it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.
-it appears to me to be incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms.
-Irving’s denials of propositions were contrary to evidence.
-In my judgment the evidence does not support the claim made by Irving.
-Irving is anti-semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to semitic people, their characteristics and appearances
-Irving is anti-semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to semitic people, their characteristics and appearances
-I have concluded that the allegation that Irving is a racist is also established
-Irving himself was aware that Goebbels had been seeking to take propagandist advantage of the raid by making exaggerated claims as to the number of deaths. Irving in1963 described the so-called TB47 as “spurious” He should have verified the provenance of the document with Funfack and with anyone else in a position to assist. In the meantime he should not have made use of so suspect a document.
-it was reprehensible for Irving to write to the Provost of Coventry Cathedral enclosing a copy of the supposed TB47 and expressing himself to be in no doubt as to its authenticity. It was equally reprehensible of Irving to write in similar terms to his German publisher.
-he was told by Funfack that he was in no position to vouch for TB47
-The subsequent publication of TB47 in an appendix to the 1966 Corgi edition of Dresden without the expression of any reservations about its genuineness or the figures contained in it was in my view another grave lapse on Irving’s part.
-Irving should have discounted altogether the unsatisfactory evidence collected ..estimates of 100,000 and more deaths which Irving continued to put about in the 1990s lacked any evidential basis and were such as no responsible historian would have made.
-I accept the Defendants’ contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving.
-Irving’s treatment of the historical evidence is so perverse and egregious that it is difficult to accept that it is inadvertence on his part.
-he has deliberately skewed the evidence to bring it into line with his political beliefs.
-Irving’s misrepresentation of the historical record was not inadvertent.
- Irving on occasion applies double standards to the documentary evidence, accepting documents which fit in with his thesis and rejecting those which do not.
-Irving is seeking to manipulate the evidence rather than approaching it as a dispassionate, if sometimes mistaken, historian.
-he agreed without any great protest that the vast majority of Leuchter’s findings were wrong and the report was fundamentally flawed.
-Irving manifests a determination to adhere to his preferred version of history, even if the evidence does not support it.
-he perverts the historical evidence so as to make it conform with his ideological beliefs.
-This disposes him, where he deems it necessary, to manipulate the historical record in order to make it conform with his political beliefs.
-for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence. "

HE concluded,
-It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants.

As for your claims for him as an Historian. No, he is a writer,.. I would go so far as to concede he has done work regarding the Wehrmacht, and non-contentious military areas that is thorough and well presented. However, he has no credibility as an Historian. His 'sins' deny him that claim.
Only those destitute of source, and desperate for affirmation of their view could allow him any credibility.

Inadvertently, Irving served the cause you detest and decry, as what he in effect did was put masses of anti holocaust evidence on trial, in a court of Law. And....he manufactured the detailed destruction its claims to validity.
In effect Irving created an outcome where the evidence and expertise was weighed, and the verdict returned stated that the Holocaust was verifiable, and that Irving's ( ergo, many on this thread's view ) was a tissue of lies, fabrications, manipulations, and desperation.

Again, I urge you, rather than rely on partisan summaries ( by all means include mine ) and lies regarding that case, read the full judgement itself..

So, in brief, (there's a laugh) .
All of you,
stop puking the same 'yeah but no buts'...
There are plenty of rich Nazi's around, have a pan world whip round,
TAKE IT TO COURT.......
PROVE IT....

I will keep an eye out for the verdict.

 

[krastner]

stop puking the same 'yeah but no buts'..


Now why did you have to get a case of verbal diarrhea just to make that last statement , which was all the real substance to your entire post. I understand that Jews are notorious for being long winded. They hope that you will get tired of waiting for a simple answer to a simple question and go home or fall asleep..

 

[Lovelynice]

As for your claims for him as an Historian. No, he is a writer,.. I would go so far as to concede he has done work regarding the Wehrmacht, and non-contentious military areas that is thorough and well presented. However, he has no credibility as an Historian. His 'sins' deny him that claim.
Only those destitute of source, and desperate for affirmation of their view could allow him any credibility.

Many other historians still consider David Irving to be an historian. He is labelled as such in the news reports about him. He's still an historian even if his credibility has been devastated in public opinion...because people still call him an historian, and many other historians refer to his books.

 

[Lovelynice]

stop puking the same 'yeah but no buts'..


Now why did you have to get a case of verbal diarrhea just to make that last statement , which was all the real substance to your entire post. I understand that Jews are notorious for being long winded. They hope that you will get tired of waiting for a simple answer to a simple question and go home or fall asleep..

He cut & pasted most of it. You can tell when you read it because it doesn't all say entirely what he thinks it says.

 

[krastner]

He cut & pasted most of it. You can tell when you read it because it doesn't all say entirely what he thinks it says.

I also cut and paste but I also have my own comments. This jackass doesn't have enough of a mind to have his own anything..just the constant parroting of the Jewish leader zionist. He is pitiful...but not so much that I will give him a break...Your PM was well taken.

 

[Shamanskiss]

you just didn't understand it dumb fuck

stop puking the same 'yeah but no buts'..


Now why did you have to get a case of verbal diarrhea just to make that last statement , which was all the real substance to your entire post. I understand that Jews are notorious for being long winded. They hope that you will get tired of waiting for a simple answer to a simple question and go home or fall asleep..

you don't understand anything Krastner.
Some Jewish guy, whipped your as in school, in sports, in romance, or in business, and you are just terminally fucked up about it. Either that or you just didn't have as much as some Jews that lived near you.
Get over it.
Christ you're an apology for a Moron.
You patently don't understand the majority of posts.
Meaning flies straight past you without pausing.
The saddest thing about you and this whole thread , is your life is interwoven in it.
You don't live it.
It lives you.
The obsession owns you.
It isn't a crusade for truth,
it's a sad obsessive glorification of failure.
But then that suits you.
As for verbal diarrhea , look at your first post. Like any Nazi, you only have trouble with amounts when they're not balanced in your favour.
And for christsake try harder with the insults, or get help,
because yours are about as effective as the Reich's victory in '45.

 

[Shamanskiss]

No.

Many other historians still consider David Irving to be an historian. He is labelled as such in the news reports about him. He's still an historian even if his credibility has been devastated in public opinion...because people still call him an historian, and many other historians refer to his books.

The majority of Historians won't be associated with him or his work.
The few that do, usually stress they disagree with his work on Hitler and the Holocaust.
Those that do, stress they have time for his work on the Wehrmacht, and 'straight' military history.
What they call him in the News, is an irrelevance. In the News they call Tony Blair a politician. Point proven.The news is not a definitive source.
More people in Britain call him a second rate Nazi hack, so by your argument that is what he must be.
Any historian that refers to his books about the holocaust or Hitler/Nazi matters etc, would have no serious credibility with anyone beyond people like you lot.
He has no credibility in any academic institution in the UK. Nor have I been able to identify any in other countries not befuddled by his bias.
When historians refer to his books it usually to destroy the man, qv. court case that was mentioned above.

 

[Shamanskiss]

Of course I did...

He cut & pasted most of it. You can tell when you read it because it doesn't all say entirely what he thinks it says.

the second line says...

"The following material is taken from the judgement itself, not a report on it, not a biased view of it.
The actual judgement".

I told you it was cut and pasted.
Keeerist, this is like trying to teach a brick to float.

I cannot believe some dumb bitch reads the post.
It tells her it is taken directly from the court report/judgement. That is the whole point, ie its not my version, its the actual form...
as in what the Judge said,
(that's the guy at the front with the wig, the boss man in the court room) when he gave judgment (like when he made his mind up on who was right and wrong).

Fucking hell....you and Krastner have to be related, that level of stupid should not be allowed to escape from one family. Interbreeding starts it, interbreeding should finish it.
No that's not fair, I apologise for that l'nice...Krastner is a lower order all together , Krastner is spiritually and intellectually Eta.

Get over the fact, Japan's biggest fuck up was the couple of decades where it had totally the wrong right wing militarist cliques pulling the strings. Upto WW1 they were doing ok.
Japan had some valid grievances in terms of how the west encouraged her modernisation and industrialisation , then sought to limit any expansion into essential markets.
But the rightist brigade went the wrong route.
Why not try and see those decades as the furyu of Japanese history.
A blight on the rest.
Otherwise you will just drown in the fact nothing will change about Germany and Japan getting its ass kicked.
The Japanese kicked ass for centuries with the same code and martial traditions, then, just like in Germany, one bunch of losers threw it all away. Why not grow up and blame the asses that flushed it.

 

[Shamanskiss]

'scuse me....

I also cut and paste but I also have my own comments. This jackass doesn't have enough of a mind to have his own anything..just the constant parroting of the Jewish leader zionist. He is pitiful...but not so much that I will give him a break...Your PM was well taken.

could you post the numbers for the entries where you put the pressure on,
I didn't register anything I need a break from.
Krastner, ineffectual would be several steps up for you.

BTW...who is the Jewish Leader Zionist ?

And Krastner, apart from your spluttering little outbursts of tantrums, your whole existence is cut and pasted from the debacle of a failure's collapse.
Hey you ever see The Producers.
There is a role for you in there.
Come to think of it, your rabid little outbursts aren't even original are they.
We saw all that back in the 30/40's didn't 'we'.

 

[krastner]

.
Come to think of it, your rabid little outbursts aren't even original are they.
We saw all that back in the 30/40's didn't 'we'.

You are going to be hearing more about it.

 

[Shamanskiss]

This thread

You are going to be hearing more about it.

just shifted into the Twilight Zone...

Now we get threats of the Fourth Reich.....
All I can see is a Nuremburg Rally populated by smurfs.

What a waste of time...

Just curious...
Why the hell did you start a thread if you didn't want the cut n thrust of debate?

Surely you'd be better off sending each other pm's.

Enjoy yourself Krastner.
I doubt anyone else will.
Live the delusion as you mistake your dismissal for some hollow victory..

 

[krastner]

just shifted into the Twilight Zone...

Now we get threats of the Fourth Reich.....
All I can see is a Nuremburg Rally populated by smurfs.

What a waste of time...

Just curious...
Why the hell did you start a thread if you didn't want the cut n thrust of debate?

Surely you'd be better off sending each other pm's.

Enjoy yourself Krastner.
I doubt anyone else will.
Live the delusion as you mistake your dismissal for some hollow victory..

Just a fukin minute you mealy mouth sleezey creature of deciet. Why do you call everyone that disputes your lies a nazi..I am not a Nazi..The closest thing to Nazis in the world is the Israelis. Even when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the holocaust didn't happen like the Jews claim, you pitiful loosers will still be like you are now on the defensive...and loosing ground...The day of the Jewish lies are over..The day's of Jewish conquest of Arabs is over. You are so over...and you pitiful thing you don't even know it...Talk about dumb...

 

[Lovelynice]

Those that do, stress they have time for his work on the Wehrmacht, and 'straight' military history.

Then you admit that he is an historian, and good enough that other historians refer to his work in their own research.

They do this in spite of public opinion, because on those subjects you have just mentioned, he is an expert. David Irving has been controversial in his public flamboyance and irritating behaviour for decades, yet, other historians still consider him an historian.

The media knows he's an historian too. On Wikipedia despite tense debates about this, he is still called an historian.

The British court judgment and decades of harrassment by Jewish lobby groups have gone against him, doesn't seem to have stopped other historians from calling him an historian. That's what counts. Not public opinion, not a court judgment, and not the opinion of Jewish hate groups who can't stand anyone questioning the holocaust.

 

[miles]

Just a fukin minute you mealy mouth sleezey creature of deciet. Why do you call everyone that disputes your lies a nazi..I am not a Nazi..The closest thing to Nazis in the world is the Israelis. Even when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the holocaust didn't happen like the Jews claim, you pitiful loosers will still be like you are now on the defensive...and loosing ground...The day of the Jewish lies are over..The day's of Jewish conquest of Arabs is over. You are so over...and you pitiful thing you don't even know it...Talk about dumb...

No, dumb is when every one of your posts appears to be written by a 2nd grader with a room temp IQ.

 

[-geisha.grrrl-]

is this thing still going? LOL

 

[Drinking Cap]

is this thing still going? LOL

No kidding. I want the crazies to move on to debating the moon landing.

 

[-geisha.grrrl-]

No kidding. I want the crazies to move on to debating the moon landing.

You didn't know they filmed that in a studio?

 

[krastner]

No kidding. I want the crazies to move on to debating the moon landing.

Then go start your thread about the moon landing. This forum is for any view point what so ever. Your , if you really have an opnion about it, may well be a valid one. However, I have no opnion about the moon landing . By all means do it. But like the old saying goes either shit or get off the pot.. Well I think it means.....you know....like taking a real....shit....... and not just shitting from your lips which is what you have been doing so far ..I am sure you get the gist of this message to you from me...Right? KRASTNER.

 

[Lovelynice]

You didn't know they filmed that in a studio?

You must be one of the gullible ones, and this thread isn't about the moon landings, it's about silly idiots who believe tall-tales like this one...

 

[Lovelynice]

Mr. Leuchter (ref' Zundel) is supposed to be an expert in executions by toxic gas who has actually built gas chambers used for executions in the USA...

Expert is a subjective term. He worked with creating and upgrading execution equipment for nine years. He designed an improved electric chair and lethal injection machine that many US states use and worked 1979-1988 with various states execution equipment.

In fact only two penal establishments in the USA had ever heard of him.

That's an interesting claim. Actually, he designed electric chairs and lethal injection machines for numerous states. His work was so respected that simply mentioning what he did it opened doors ("you're the guy who designed the helmet? you're hired!"). The man was referenced in numerous 'death penalty' related media as a consultant, a simple search of the web stipulates this.

At one they had a vague recollection of him being a SALESMAN who tried to sell them a new heart monitor that was fitted to the chair in which the condemned would sit. The second could not even be sure in what context he had contacted them, but they were positive he had NO role WHATSOEVER in the design, construction or maintenance of their gassing room.Leuchter himself later admitted he had lied. He also admitted that not only had he never had any training as an engineer, had never worked as an engineeer, he had NO qualifications as an engineer , and no experience with any kind of gassing facility..

Execution chambers aren't the kind of thing you can go to college for learning a trade about. What does count is actual experience in the field, and Leuchter had nine years of it. It's not like you could go out and get some unaffiliated university professor in the field of execution studies; I suspect nearly all of the experts in the field are selling execution equipment of one sort or another. Basically, they'd all be salesmen. One and the same. So that isn't much of an argument.

In February of 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Forensic Institute of Kracow, did his own analysis. According to the tests conducted by Professor Jan Markiewicz, Crematorium II ruins there were 6 micrograms per 100 grams of material. This is equal to .06 milligrams of cyanide per kilogram of material (mg/kg). This is less than the minimum amount that could be detected by the measuring instrument of the Alpha laboratory that Leuchter sent his samples to.. The minimum trace level of cyanide that could be detected by Alpha was one mg/kg. Anything below this amount is inconsequential. Leuchter's findings then are consistent with those of Poland's Institute of Forensic Research; no significant cyanide residue in material taken from Crematorium II's "gas chamber.".

Now here's a curious thing, those alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz are only RECONSTRUCTIONS built in the 1950s (a fact which both Leuchter and Pressac were unaware of back at the time of the courtcase), so really there shouldn't have been ANY residue of HCN on the walls of the gas chambers anyway...

 

[Lovelynice]

No, dumb is when every one of your posts appears to be written by a 2nd grader with a room temp IQ.

That's only because you ARE a 2nd grader with a room temp IQ. That level of comprehension is the best you can achieve.

 

[Lovelynice]

Shamanskiss mentioned about Joel Hayward.

From (New Zealand Herald, June 2003)

An article which revisited the storm that surrounded the 1993 masters thesis of former Canterbury student Joel Hayward, which questioned the validity of Holocaust history sparked a "book burning" scandal at Canterbury University in May 2003.

Canterbury lecturer Dr Thomas Fudge, who wrote the offending article, resigned in disgust over the university administration's decision to destroy all 500 copies of the history department's journal "History Now". Dr Fudge said he could not remain at a university that suppressed academic freedom. "It made me a hypocrite trying to teach my students to think critically and ask the tough questions - all of the academic values that universities are about - and here my department was saying, effectively, we're going to burn books." Dr Fudge, who lectures on medieval religious dissent and witch-hunting, explored what for Dr Hayward became a career-ending controversy.

He revealed in the article that Dr Hayward had been harassed and received death threats against his children. Dr Hayward suffered an emotional breakdown and left his teaching post at Massey University in June last year. He now cannot get a job (Update: he was a job now, under a strict contract which keeps him from discussing the holocaust, and he doesn't dare come out with his real opinions. So much for academic tolerance and free speech ).

On May 14, Dr Fudge defended his article at a special meeting of history department academics, calling the censorship "unconscionable". Last week, he confirmed to his students that he had resigned.From (New Zealand Herald, June 2003)

 

[Sean Renaud]

Any historian that refers to his books about the holocaust or Hitler/Nazi matters etc, would have no serious credibility with anyone beyond people like you lot.

Doesn't anybody who believes int he Holocaust see a bit of a problem with this reality? The fact that if you as a historian even take a seriuos look at this claim that you are instantly discredited? I believe in the Holocaust but this thinking sounds like the people who thought the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.