rarely mentioned statements on 'gas chambers'

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9944
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

rarely mentioned statements on 'gas chambers'

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:59 am)

An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her Auschwitz experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. Upon arrival, Maria and another women were ordered to undress and go into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. Instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads. She saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings, or of any extermination program.

A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of "gas chambers" during the time she was interned there. She heard the gassing stories only later.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

nny
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:43 pm

Postby nny » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:31 pm)

Hannover wrote:An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her Auschwitz experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. Upon arrival, Maria and another women were ordered to undress and go into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. Instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads. She saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings, or of any extermination program.

A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of "gas chambers" during the time she was interned there. She heard the gassing stories only later.

- Hannover



How about the story of Gena Turgel who survived a water shower in one of the Auschwitz 'gas chambers' :
"We waited a while and then water came through the walls. It was wonderful. For many weeks we had had no water on our backs. We were all drinking it."
When confronted with surprise by the other inmates when they exited the 'gas chambers' (what she thought were showers) she didn't understand until one woman made it clear to her that she had just been in the 'gas chambers'.
"They said 'Don't you know? You were in the gas chamber.' I lost my voice. I couldn't produce any saliva."

so the gas chambers had a dual purpose depending on if the nazis wanted to clean the jews or gas them, how nifty.

semblance7
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:23 pm

Postby semblance7 » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:39 pm)

Gentlemen,

Devil's advocate here - how can you renounce others' eyewitnesses, and yet, tout these?

Mind you, they are speaking of innocuous things (like simple showers) and yet if we're throwing all eye-witness testimony out then we must do 'just that' and if thrown out, what's your point?
semblance7

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:47 pm)

semblance7 wrote:Gentlemen,

Devil's advocate here - how can you renounce others' eyewitnesses, and yet, tout these?


What other "eyewitnesses"? If their tales speak about impossibilities such as "gassings" then I say; how about some vertification of these foul allegations? There is nothing unusual about taking a shower. That is what people do when they enter a shower, and that is what people did when they entered the showers at Auschwitz.

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

semblance7
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:23 pm

Postby semblance7 » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:05 pm)

Thanks Halden

There have been many references (please acknowledge my point without my listing references) to eyewitness accounts being false.

My simple suggestion is that if eyewitness accounts are not being taken into consideration (no matter who they were, gas or no) then perhaps these eyewitnesses must be discarded as well.

More a point of 'order' than anything.
semblance7

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9944
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:03 am)

My simple suggestion is that if eyewitness accounts are not being taken into consideration (no matter who they were, gas or no) then perhaps these eyewitnesses must be discarded as well.

The problem for alleged 'eyewitnesses' to gassings is that the gas chambers they claim are scientifically impossible. Investigation after investigation has shown the 'gas chambers' to be simply absurd as alleged.

The alleged gassings could not / would not happen as stated in the bizarre 'holocau$t' stories

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

semblance7
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:23 pm

Postby semblance7 » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:16 am)

And so - you would proffer-up witness accounts of 'innocuousness' and still hold-forth about witness-fabrication?

Hannover - we must do better - It's going to take more ...
semblance7

Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:45 am)

Devil's advocate here - how can you renounce others' eyewitnesses, and yet, tout these?




What is your point? That these ladies were lying and were actually gassed?

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:49 am)

Hi Semblance7

Your argument is an example of sophistry. You know full well that their side gets witnesses that support their side, and our side looks for witnesses that support our side. What's so outrageous about that?
Then we look at the witnesses their side produces, and we point out reasons why their story couldn't be true. It's just like a courtroom in some ways.

I think you're the only one seemingly advocating throwing out all witnesses altogether as some kind of high-moral-ground thing to do.

One of the first revisionists, Paul Rassinier? was a witness who'd been at a camp afterall.

semblance7
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:23 pm

Postby semblance7 » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:32 am)

CCS, Thank you,

As to my 'sophistry", I say (all in good sport, piss-off !)

My thought is this - Why and how should anyone's stated experience under Nazi control be treated differently than any one else's stated experience.

All I'm saying is if you throw out one account then, by necessity, you must throw out the rest.
semblance7

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:20 am)

semblance7 wrote:All I'm saying is if you throw out one account then, by necessity, you must throw out the rest.


That doesn't make much sense at all. Suppose somebody would follow that logic in regards with the "eyewitnesses", OK, let's throw them all out. So what is next? The "documents"? OK, let's throw them out too. If we keep doing that there won't be anything left of the impossible story. Maybe not such a bad idea afterall.

:D

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:11 am)

To throw out the testimony of an eyewitness simply because this person claims to have witnessed a homicidal gassing is in my opinion not ethical and I don't think that this happened so far on this forum.

But what should I do with the testimony of a Henryk Tauber, who witnessed by looking through a window of the crematoriumm how an SS man with a gas mask on poured some stuff into insertion chutes on the roof of the alleged gas chamber, and then no one can find the holes for these insertion chutes?

Anyone can go to Birkenau and take a look at the crumbled roof of the chamber and check it out.

I for one would be very skeptical about what this man claimed he saw at that time.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9944
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:31 am)

semblance7 said:
And so - you would proffer-up witness accounts of 'innocuousness' and still hold-forth about witness-fabrication?

Oh please.
I can see semblance hasn't read what 'eyewitnesses' to the alleged gas chambers actually have to say. In fact, I challenge him to bring to this forum any of them that he finds credible, in a separate thread. Will he take the challenge?

Revisionists look at each and every one, we do not simply dismiss them, we dissect & debunk .... all of them. There is case after case at The Revisionist Forum for all to read. We point out, in quite clear terms, why their stories are absurd. It would appear that semblance is ignoring that fact, which renders him quite uninformed.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

semblance7
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:23 pm

Postby semblance7 » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:20 am)

My final point - then I'll stand down on this one:

Where would Maria Vanherwaarden have taken a shower? Were there such facilities for new arrivals? (I'm asking because I truly don't know.)
semblance7

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:43 am)

Yes, showers were an integral part of the hygiene process.

The eyewitness statements are tricky because they vary so much in how detailed they are. When an eyewitness doesn't offer any detail which can be demonstrated to be false, then what can be done with it? All we can do is consider whether their claims are backed up by any corroborating evidence.
I don't believe in the gas chambers so I am automatically skeptical of any claim made about them. There is no physical or documentary evidence to support the claims. On the other hand, if an eyewitness speaks of a shower I am inclined to believe the story because there is no reason for them to be lying or mistaken and there is plenty of evidence for camp inmates being showered.

I think the eyewitnesses can be placed into three categories: Those who lie (many have been exposed), those who mistake innocent procedures for gassing (These mistakes are documented and IMO form the majority) and those who develop false memories (an accepted phenomenon in psychology). The anecdotes quoted above show how fear, ignorance and rumour led to people believing they were to be gassed. (These people must be those who now claim to have survived being gassed multiple times) Those same mistakes would have been made by people witnessing the showering procedure from outside, creating future eyewitnesses to homicidal gassings.

Sam Crowell's The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes: An Attempt at a Literary Analysis of the Holocaust Gassing Claim is an absolute must-read.

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/SC/sh.html


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests