Holocaust Revisionism

That's what I thought . . .

 

I have noticed this too, not just from Odon but in general.

All Holocaust revisionists seem to get slandered or have a lot of "skeletons in the closet".

I'm not sure which of those is true. Either, they are subjected to a lot of slander due to their controversial position, or they genuinely are dubious individuals.

Or perhaps anybody who seriously goes into Holocaust revisionism is just a little unusual anyway!

It certainly doesn't mean that they're all definitely wrong though, I can tell you that much


EDIT -- I guess another thing about me though is a like to "get my hands mucky". I'm not put off by controversy, being labelled extreme, or anything like that. I just dive right in anyway. I've been a conspiracy theorist casually over a wide range of topics for the last 10 years. You get pretty brave after a while!

 

I'm just wondering why we are the ones having to do all of the leg work.
We could both go away and then post what we agree/disagree with his work.
I don't think you have done that yet.
That's all I was saying.
Maybe Hoppípolla can have a bash at it, too.

 

He's provided walls of cited research...

His whole point is that you've attacked the sources but not actually spent much time refuting the points made and evidence presented.

 

Thanks, Hopp'.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for someone to explain what their research uncovered concerning the gassing operation. I think we should have a discussion about the feasability of such a thing. As you've said, all they've done so far is attack sources.

I don't know what they have against Bill Lindsey. He had a bachelor of science degree from the University of Texas, and a doctorate in chemistry from Indiana University. He worked for 33 years as a research chemist for the Dupont corporation.

As a professional chemist, he was curious about the claims of wartime mass killings of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau using hydrogen cyanide gas from Zyklon B, a commercial insecticide and pesticide. He conducted several inspection visits of the sites in Poland of alleged wartime extermination camps, including Auschwitz, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek.

In February 1985 he testified in the Holocaust trial in Toronto of Ernst Zündel. He was recognized by the court as an expert witness on hydrogen cyanide. Based on a careful on-site examination of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience, he declared under oath:

"After looking over the evidence … I've been forced to conclude it is impossible for it to have happened the way it's been described…. There are too many inconsistencies…. I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with Zyklon B in this manner. I consider it absolutely impossible."

What I want is for someone to refute that finding.

 

And what I mean by that is that it would be good at this point for someone to post something about what they know about how the gassing operation worked. For instance, an answer to the question of whether or not a thousand or so people were gassed at once would be a good beginning to a good discussion.

 

He's linked to/pasted info regarding Leuchter and so have I.

I've explained what I took from the material I posted.

He posted:

Rudolf proved that the walls of the tiny delousing rooms at Auschwitz had high cyanide concentrations whilst the large putative "gas chambers" rooms had zero or negligible cyanide content. Rudolf's findings were corroborated by at least three independent expert analyses.

...and then said: I found that to be of interest. Do you have anything to refute it?

Well, I found what I posted of interest, too. And if you go look, they refute the above.

I've done know more or less than he has done.

He's mentioned David Irving and I have mentioned that David Irving has changed his mind with regards to the gas chambers.

He has said: First of all, this thread is not an attempt to refute or deny the holocaust.

Did you question him on that? No.

He pasted:

A leading American gas chamber expert, Fred A. Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically impossible. At the time he conducted his examination, Leuchter was acknowledged as the foremost specialist on the design and installation of gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals. For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state penitentiary.

In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter described every aspect of his investigation. He concluded that the alleged gassing facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also killing German camp personnel. Again, why would this make anyone angry or to become incensed? It's just someone's testimony. If anyone has testimony to refute this, they're welcome to present it.

Did he post why HE thinks it is 'technically impossible'? erm, no.

His 'walls of cited research' amount to a handful of links.
If that's your idea of 'walls of cited research' then I have done the same to refute his 'walls of cited research'

Like I say, he's expecting us (not you) to do all the leg work - why we agree/disagree with the information we have provided.
So I'm asking the same of him, and you.

Get your hands mucky!

 

Hopps you seem to only be into conspiracy theories for the controversy, not because you actually want to shed light on things you think are invalid.

 

Nope, not at all. Absolutely 100% not the case, I can assure you of that.

I think I posted this earlier in the thread, but either way this quote I wrote yesterday is appropriate here:

"Conspiracy theorizing is not about causing drama, it's about digging a little deeper and seeing what comes up. It could be junk, it could be gold, but you'll never know until you reach for that shovel."

 

Why do you keep writing the same thing?

 

Mate, come on, it feels like all of your posts are based on scan-reads. Nearly all of them could be answered if you just read the post(s) before them more carefully.

 

Let's get real, killing people with poison gas doesn't require any special facilities. Military organizations use it outdoors all the time. You can gas yourself in an ordinary garage. Just crank up your car, and let it run for a while. People do it every day.

 

You've already clarified why you keep writing the exact same words?

I just thought it was a little strange to quote yourself.

 

Don't you think you're being just a little pedantic?

 

If you are asking me if I a have a degree in chemistry or engineering, then I do not.

The scenario that those buildings were used to fumigate only some people and that those people were then never seen again is rather difficult to logically explain.

I discount what he testified to given he had no accreditation to back up his opinions.

He was your credible source, not mine.

Bill Lindsey is associated with IHR. You may wish to state that does not discredit him but that does show that he has a predetermined view and the results of his research could also.

 

Today's genocide, brought to you by Dominican/Haitian relations.

 

Yeah, we say 'Never Again'... but it has happened again. Several times.

 

This has been happening for a long, long time on the island of Hispaniola. Have you heard about the Parsley Massacre of 1937? The feelings between the nations have remained much the same since then. The DR helped a bit after the earthquake in 2010, but since then has returned to harsh policies towards Haitians.

 

We seem to have some on here who are revisionists.

I think most people accept that the numbers were wrongly stated and that they have been revised to a more probable accounting.

I would like to know why it is that they feel that is not enough. More to the point what is the gain or outcome of any other changes.

What is the end goal that is hoped for here? And why?

What does it change? And how?

What are the ramifications that are wished for by revisionists? Who do you wish held accountable?

 

What ever you people do, don't get jobs in which research is involved! Seriously. You were asked to describe the gassing operation according to your "research." You have come up empty handed . . . again!

___________________________________________

Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt is a professor of architecture at the University of Waterloo, Canada, and is widely considered to be the foremost expert on the technique and operation of the Auschwitz gas chambers. He claimed that the ventilation systems of the gas chambers were efficient enough to remove virtually all of the remaining HCN after a mass gassing so that the Sonderkommandos could enter the chambers within a very short time after the death of all of the victims in order to do their work. He said, "The situation in the gas chambers was different. With its powerful ventilation system and with the fact that most of the hydrogen cyanide was absorbed by the victims' bodies, the time needed to ventilate the gas chambers so the Sonderkommandos could safely enter them to remove the bodies could be reduced to twenty minutes."

David Olere was a French-Jewish man who was deported to Auschwitz in 1943. Dr. Van Pelt claimed that Olere is one of the most important eyewitnesses to the operation of the gas chambers. In Van Pelt's own words, the sketches of Olere "provide a very important visual record of the design and operation of the gas chamber and incinerators of Crematorium 3." Throughout his entire study he promotes the idea that Olere is a credible eyewitness by showing how his sketches are consistent with physical evidence.

However, in his book, van Pelt failed to include one of Olere's most important drawings. That painting shows the Sonderkommandos opening the gas chamber door and pulling the bodies out after a mass gassing. In the painting, the inmates are shirtless, and they are not wearing any gas masks, rubber gloves or protective suits. It seems likely that van Pelt failed to include this important sketch because he realized it could not have happened the way Olere claimed it did. Authoritative industrial sources confirm the extreme danger surrounding the use of HCN. Poisoning can easily occur by inhalation or skin absorption.

Bill Armontrout, was an expert witness at the second Ernst Zundel trial in Toronto. He was warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary, which includes an execution gas chamber. He said, "One of the things that cyanide gas does, it goes in the pores of your skin. You hose the body down, see. You have to use rubber gloves, and you hose the body down to decontaminate it before you do anything else." Armontrout testified that there was only one consultant in the United States that he knew of in the design, operation, and maintenance of gas chambers. That consultant was Fred Leuchter.

In court, Armontrout testified to the safety precautions that were necessary to prevent those who handled the dead criminal's body from being poisoned by the deadly HCN themselves. He said, "The ventilation fan ran for approximately one hour before two officers equipped with Scott air-packs could opened the hatch of the gas chamber and remove the lead bucket containing the cyanide residue. The two officers wore rubberized disposable clothing and long rubber gloves. They hosed down the condemned man's body in the chair, paying particular attention to the hair and the clothing because of the cyanide residue, then removed him and placed him on a gurney where further decontamination took place."

Since Leuchter is part of this discussion, it should be noted that he spoke of the dangers surrounding the handling of just one victim that was poisoned by HCN in a gas chamber: "You go in. The inmate has to be completely washed down with chlorine bleach or with ammonia. The poison exudes right out through his skin. And if you gave the body to an undertaker, you'd kill the undertaker. You've got to go in; you've got to completely wash the body."

Authoritative industrial sources confirm the extreme danger surrounding the use of HCN; poisoning can easily occur by inhalation or skin absorption.

________________________________________

I'm hoping that I don't have to explain how van Pelt's claim that, due to the poison gas being absorbed by all the dead bodies, the ventilation fans made the environment safe enough in twenty minutes for the Sonderkommandos to go in and haul out lots and lots and lots of bodies. That's my hope anyway. But I have my doubts.

And now, Heat, you can go ahead and say that this all means nothing because science, too, has a secret agenda. You might want to think about doing what Karen failed to do: describe the gassing operation at Auschwitz. She seems to have forgotten that we're talking about the operation at Auschwitz, and not some outdoors operation or carbon monoxide deal.