You have been banned for the following reason:
SPAM/Single issue poster/disruptive
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
The Reason was this:
Nazi gassings in Auschwitz were propaganda
(Neither did they happen anywhere else http://vho.org/GB/Books/HHS.html), but his concerns only the alleged execution ‘gas chambers’ of Auschwitz.)
This will be based on the hierarchy of evidence, which is widely used in courts. In this hierarchy forensic evidence (material evidence) will always refute documentary evidence and eyewitness evidence; and documents and eyewitnesses CANNOT refute forensic evidence. If the readers do not follow this hierarchy, this discussion is not for you; you can keep believing into your holocaust religion (as well as alien fantasies, tooth fairy and Santa Claus or whatever...).
This method will be applied because:
1) Among the Holocaust claims there are many admitted lies/false claims and propaganda claims, such as: ‘gassings’ of humans in Dachaus, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, in which former inmates claimed (and lied) about having seen ‘gassings’, but it is now admitted that these claims were false. The only basis for them was ‘eyewitness statements’.
2) Also, there are many propaganda lies about propaganda/false killing methods by steam, electricity, vacuum, ‘delayed action’ gas; and lies about soap, lamp shades, sausages, gloves, etc. being made of Jews. And these were only based on ‘eyewitness evidence’; there is no other evidence about ‘Zyklon B gassings’. These admitted lies/propaganda/mistakes seriously shake the foundations of the Holocaust story, making it propagandist in nature. Some of these propaganda lies were similar to atrocity propaganda during WW1. Among these admittedly false claims (propaganda lies) were also crazy, impossible, or unproven claims.
http://www.historiography-project.org/n ... sense.html
3) And Jewish organizations and Jewish publications already during the First World War alleged that “6 million Jews are dying in Europe”, by “extermination of hunger and disease”, in this “threatened Holocaust of human life”. Already in 1900 Rabbi Stephen Wise claimed that “'There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.”
This text will be mostly focused on the alleged ‘gas chambers’ of Krematorium II and III at Auschwitz Birkenau. In Krematorium II morgue 1 (alleged ’gas chamber’) about 400,000 – 500,000 people were allegedly killed with Zyklon B gas (hydrogen cyanide gas, HCN). Allegedly 1000 – 3000 people per 'gassing'. That is, about 400 gassings altogether or more. In Krematorium III, which was a mirror image of Krema II in which the alleged ’gassings’ happened the same way, in morgue 1 (alleged 'gas chamber') about 350,000 or more were allegedly killed. Altogether, in Kremas II and III, allegedly 750,000 – 850,000. Mostly we will focus on Krematorium II morgue 1, because its’ ruins are in fairly good shape still, so that an investigation can still be conducted about its’ ruins. If the gassings in these facilities turn out to be untrue, then all Auschwitz ‘gassing’ will also, because the eyewitness evidence is the only basis for it. Therefore, if eyewitness evidence was wrong about 75%, or more, about the gassings, then the same eyewitness evidence has to dismissed as too unreliable to prove the ‘gassings’ (more about the unreliability of ‘Holocaust witnesses in the end’).
NO HOLES, NO ‘HOLOCAUST’
As the video footage shows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dioq1obDKE ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMlKDXK4qjk )
and photos of better quality reveal ( http://moranen.blogspot.com/2008/02/aus ... osa-1.html ; http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/noholes.html ), there were no alleged four square holes [70 x 70 cm] in the ruins of Krematorium II morgue 1 (alleged 'gas chamber'). Cracks and breaks in the ruins are simply irregular rubble, caused by the explosion of the room and its' collapse. The two clear holes, that were the only identifiable holes (not visible in 2007), are irregular holes of wrong size, that were made after the roof had collapsed. This is also due to the fact that there are cracks in the roof that are next to the holes, do not go through them; this proves that they were added after the war, because according to structural engineering the cracks would have to go through the holes if they had been made into the roof before it was blown up and collapsed (because those holes would have weakened the roof in the areas of holes, making all the cracks and breaks go through those weakest points). In addition there is no evidence clear documentary evidence about the alleged 'Zyklon B introduction columns', and there is absolutely no recognizable evidence about the remnants of the alleged ’Zyklon B columns’ in the ruins on the areas of the four alleged ‘Zyklon B holes’ (that definitely should have been there; and since there are no remnants, this fact proves clearly that the ’Zyklon B columns’ were never installed). Therefore it has to be concluded based on structural engineering: "NO HOLES, NO 'HOLOCAUST'." And because Krematorium III was a mirror image where the ’gassings’ allegedly happened the same way, claimed by the same ’witnesses’, alleged ’gassings in Krematorium III morgue 1 (’gas chamber’) also collapse.
NO ZYKLON B RESIDUES, NO GASSINGS; NO ‘HOLOCAUST’
(Now, this talk about ’gassing scenarios is not even necessary, because of the fact that the alleged ‘gas chamber’ of Krematorium II has already been refuted, but since this will be further and final evidence about the fact that the alleged ‘gassings’ could not have happened, we will deal with it.)
Because the 'witnesses' claimed very short gassing times, about 0-5 minutes or max 0-10 minutes, the gas would have to have been thrown in with huge overdose, in order to reach the quick killing times, because the Zyklon B granules evaporate to gas slowly.
Insects and especially their eggs are considerably less sensitive to HCN. For the most part it is necessary to expose them for several hours to rather high concentrations (0.3 to 2%/vol.) before their death is certain. Right until the end of World War Two, Zyklon B, a substance produced and licensed by the company DEGESCH of Frankfurt/Main, was of paramount importance in combating insects and rodents in food storerooms, large-capacity transports (trains, ships), public buildings, barracks, prisoner-of-war camps, concentration camps, and of course for hygiene and for disease control in general in many countries around the world. The Zyklon B allegedly used for gassing human beings consisted of lumps of gypsum mixed with starch 1/4" to 1/2" in diameter and soaked with hydrogen cyanide. The evaporation of the poison gas from its carrier proceeds rather slowly. The characteristics of HCN evaporating from the carrier substance were documented in 1942 by an employee of DEGESCH. On dry air of 15°C (59ºF), HCN evaporated from the carrier as indicated in Graph 1, i.e., it took 1.5 to 2 hours until 90% of the HCN had been released.
At lower temperatures this process slows down at a rate proportional to the decreasing vapor pressure of the HCN. It is worth noting that according to Irmscher the evaporation rate decreases remarkably if the surrounding air has a high relative humidity, as it must be expected in unheated underground rooms, filled with many human beings. The reason for this is that the Zyklon B carrier cools down while HCN evaporates. Subsequently water from the surrounding damp air condenses on the carrier. Since HCN is extremely soluble in water, a wet carrier would release the remaining HCN only very slowly.
For future reference, we shall point out the probability that at a temperature of 15° C (59ºF), in a highly humid environment, a maximum of not more than 10% of the HCN will be released by the carrier substance during the first five, probably even ten minutes.
So although humans are more sensitive to Zyklon B than insects (and despite of the fact that human body warmth slightly accelerates Zyklon B evaporation), because of the very short gassing times (0-5 minutes), and due to humidity and temperature of underground morgues 1 of Krematorium II and III, Zyklon B evaporation to gas would have "seriously delayed". These are the reasons why Zyklon B had to be thrown in with even greater amounts as to disinfestation chambers.
Assuming an execution time approximately corresponding to those in US execution gas chambers (ten minutes and more at 3,200 ppm HCN, see chapter 7.1.), a concentration of at least 3,000 ppm (3.6g/m3) would have had to have reached even the remotest corner of the chamber after only half this time (five minutes). With a free volume of 430 m3 in morgue 1 of crematoria II and III, this corresponds to a quantity of hydrogen cyanide of approximately 1.5 kg released and spread out after five minutes. Since the carrier material only releases approximately 10% of its hydrogen cyanide content after five minutes (see chapter 7.2.), at least ten times that amount would have been required in order to kill in only a few minutes, i.e., this would mean the utilization of at least 15 kg of Zyklon B. This, of course, only applies on the condition that the hydrogen cyanide released reached the victims immediately, which cannot be expected in large, overcrowded cellars. It must therefore be considered established that quantities of at least 20 kg of Zyklon B per gassing (ten 2 kg cans or twenty 1 kg cans) would probably have had to have been used for the gassing procedures described.
The conditions in Krema II and III morgues 1 (alleged 'gas chambers') would have been likely to form ten times more Zyklon B residues, than the disinfestation gas chambers. So even though the alleged gassing times of humans would have been shorter than delousing times, they could not have been shorter than 3-4 hours because there are no remnants of the alleged 'Zyklon B columns'.
So we have no established that the Zyklon B gas would have to have been thrown in with huge overdose, even greater amount than used in delousings. And we have established that the conditions in Kremas II and III would have formed ten times more Zyklon B residues into the walls. So the fact is that there should be at least as much Zyklon B residues as in the delousing rooms, as a result of the alleged 400+ 'gassings' (all of them lasting about 3-4 hours).
In addition, in a Bavarian church, in 1977, only one fumigation with Zyklon B caused blue Zyklon B residues to form into the walls of the church. The wall material of the church was similar to that of the Krema II morgue 1 (alleged 'gas chamber').
The fact is that there is only 0-7 mg/kg of Zyklon B residue. In the disinfestation gas chambers there are 1000 - 13,500 mg/kg. That is, in the disinfestation gas chambers there are 1000 times more Zyklon B residue! Meaning: very much in the disinfestation gas chambers, and none in the alleged 'gas chambers' of Kremas II and III. In other words: the alleged gassings in Kremas II and III did not happen, according to chemistry. (Chemistry refutes, and will always refute, unproven claims.) NO ZYKLON B RESIDUES, NO HOLOCAUST!
and this fact was to some degree even confirmed by the 1990 study conducted by the Krakow Forensic Institute, with the help of Auschwitz museum:
(the 1994 study by Krakow Forensic Institute did not refute these facts, and it did not prove the gassings, the Poles simply used an analytical method that excluded 99,9% of cyanide residues, this method did not analyze total cyanide! The results of Krakow 1994 study were 0-8 mg/kg in disinfestation gas chambers and 0-6 mg/kg in the alleged lethal ‘gas chambers’
Again: NO ZYKLON B RESIDUES, NO ‘HOLOCAUST’.
Nothing was refuted in Green's critique (holocaust-history.org), nor proven. Green could not prove that there were the alleged ‘Zyklon B holes’ in Krema II morgue 1 ruins (alleged ‘gas chamber’); according to structural engineering: “No Holes, No ‘Holocaust’.” Green basically agreed that Rudolf is about correct concerning Zyklon B formation into ferrocyanide residues into the walls, and he could not refute the fact that the conditions in Kremas II and III morgues were such that those walls would have acquired ten times more Zyklon B residues than the disinfestation gas chambers, and the fact is also that the Zyklon B gas would have to have been thrown into the alleged ‘gas chambers’ of Krema II and III at least in same amounts as in disinfestations, due to great humidity, low temperature and very short gassing times (0-10 minutes). and Green did not refute the fact that there is 1000 times more Zyklon B residue in the disinfestation gas chambers than in the alleged 'gas chambers'.
If we assume, as the propaganda claims, that there were about 400 gassings (that would have lasted about 3-4 hours because there were no alleged 'Zyklon B columns' ever installed); and the walls would have acquired about ten times more Zyklon B gas; then it's absolutely clear that there would have to have been at least as much residue as in the disinfestation gas chambers. There is none.
Responses to criticism:
CONCERNING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
(If there had been any documentary evidence about Execution Gas Chambers it would have been refuted based on engineering and chemistry, which was presented here earlier, but...)
There is no documentary evidence about Execution Gas Chambers, that refers to “execution gas chambers” or “lethal gas chambers” used to “kill people”, NONE! However there IS documentary evidence about the disinfestation gas chambers that were referred to as “gas chambers” (Gaskammer) in the wartime documents. Therefore it has to be made clear in the documents that the gas chambers in question do indeed mean lethal gas chambers, otherwise it can always be assumed that “gas chamber” meant disinfestation gas chamber (as it indeed did). If one points out to gas tight doors in some buildings, I simply point out to the fact that any room could be used as disinfestation chamber, to which gas tight doors would have been installed. In addition, many buildings, including underground morgues of Krematoriums at Birkenau, could be converted into air raid shelters, and into air raid shelters, gas tight doors were often installed. (And as already pointed out, material evidence has already refuted the documentary evidence, so we have to form our opinions based on material evidence.)
CONCERNING EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE
(...It has all been refuted by engineering and chemistry.)
Claims of the ‘Holocaust witness’ are the most unreliable of all witness statements, as the Jewish professor Elisabeth Loftus concluded it too. ( http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html#ftnref21 )
This is due to many factors such as: The time elapsed since the end of World War II; pre-trial publicity in the ‘Holocaust trials’; Prosecutors have asked witnesses leading questions; It is fairly certain that witnesses have discussed identifications among themselves, which facilitated subsequent ‘identifications’ by other witnesses; Photos of defendants have been exhibited repeatedly, each additional showing of the pictures making witnesses more familiar with the face of the accused, and thus increasingly certain; The extremely emotional nature of these cases further increases the risk of a distortion of memory...
And of course because it has been demonstrated by structural engineering and chemistry, that the witnesses were all wrong or lied about the alleged ‘gas chambers’ of Krematorium II and III, where majority of the gassings happened.
In addition there is plenty of other evidence about the unreliability of the ‘holocaust witnesses’:
6. Examples of Absurd Claims Regarding the Alleged National Socialist Genocide
Remarkable Nonsense about the Holocaust
http://www.historiography-project.org/n ... sense.html
During the first Zündel trial in Canada 1985. Two ‘holocaust witnesses’ were finally cross-examined in court, Rudolf Vrba and Arnold Friedman. Both of these witnesses completely collapsed; Friedman had to admit that he had not seen what he had claimed (being able to tell by the color of the smoke which nationality was being burned or that fires were shooting out of chimneys), and Vrba had to admit that he had “used poetic license” when talking about the ‘gassings’ and other atrocities (in other words, his claims were fiction).
In addition, during the Demjanjuk Trial, in which Ivan Demjanjuk was accused of being “Ivan the Terrible” in Treblinka camp during WW2. Many ‘holocaust witnesses’ claimed him being this person and accused him of various atrocities. It turned out that Ivan was innocent and all the ‘witnesses’ either lied or were wrong.
Therefore 750,000 – 850,000 of the alleged ‘gassing victims’ will have to reduced from the gassing claims and from the Auschwitz death toll. And because we have to do this, we also have to conclude that the other gassing claims in Auschwitz were also propaganda lies (‘mistakes’, ‘errors’, ‘inaccuracies’, ‘false information’, etc.). This is due to the unreliability of the ‘eyewitnesses’.
HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM IS ACADEMIC
(Unlike official Holocaust ‘historiography’.)
The late mainstream historian Dr. Joachim Hoffmann analyzed the revisionist book Dissecting the Holocaust http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/ , and prepared his expert opinion about the book. Dr. Hoffmann stated and concluded:
“Regarding my personal qualifications, I wish to state that I was a member of the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt [Centre for Research in Military History] in Freiburg from 1960 to 1995. For almost three decades my work has focused exclusively on matters related to the German-Soviet war. Through the publication of academic books and periodical articles on this topic I am well established as an expert in my field, both at home and abroad.
The individual contributions to this anthology are logically consistent and objectively descriptive in structure, even though at times a polemic note does become evident - as is perhaps inevitable in such emotionally charged topics, and as is also quite common in political and historical controversies. In any case, a striving for new understanding is tangibly apparent throughout the book. From this perspective, therefore, the anthology cannot be denied an academic character, particularly if one compares it with many a publication from its opposing side, whose academic nature is also never questioned. There is much in the various contributions that strikes one as thoroughly convincing. Much else may be merely noted with objective interest. Elsewhere, doubts and criticisms also come to mind. The issue may perhaps be simplified by pointing out that what we are dealing with in this great controversy is a rather more accusatory style of literature on the one hand, and a rather more apologetic one on the other. This is to suggest that in the heat of controversy, both sides may be overly inclined to overshoot the mark and to leave the solid ground of provable facts behind. One might perhaps summarize by saying that the time for conclusive declarations regarding the great persecution of the Jews has not yet come.
The Problem of Eyewitness Testimony
Several contributions to this anthology point out, and rightly so, that the testimony of eyewitnesses is unreliable; these contributions back their claims with numerous examples, some of which are indeed truly grotesque. Such experiences certainly agree with those of other historians of the Second World War. This is not to say that eyewitness statements are entirely superfluous, but practical experience definitely has shown that they must always be examined and corroborated with authentic documents. My personal experience has been that as early as 1970 eyewitness testimony about details of the events of the war was so unreliable that it would have been a breach of professional duties to base a historical treatise on them alone.
[... The book] is on a respectable academic level and which doubtless contributes much to our understanding of aspects of the war, despite any reservations one may have.”
Now, this same Bruno Baum [a communist propaganidst in Auschiwtz], like many
of his comrades, wrote reports for the
Soviets immediately after the war. One of these reports, written in June 1945,
was a “Report on the Activities of the Communist Party in Auschwitz Concentration
Camp,” which was coordinated and approved by a “Decision-making
Committee” of the Communist Party collective. These consultations and reporting
arrangements, in connection with the Report of the Extraordinary Soviet
Committee for the Investigation of War Crimes later formed the core of Soviet
propaganda on Auschwitz until 1990, including the propaganda figure of four
Three months after the end of the war, on July 31, 1945, this same Bruno Baum
boasted as follows in an article entitled “We Were Radioing From Hell,” published
in the German newspaper Deutsche Volkszeitung¸ the central organ of
the German Communist Party at that time:913
“All the propaganda that now began to circulate about Auschwitz in foreign
countries originated with us, assisted by our Polish comrades.”
Since the Political Department at Auschwitz, that is, the camp Gestapo, were
unsuccessful in discovering the identity of the camp partisans at that time, but
wished to pre-empt any negative propaganda as far as possible, the SS camp
leadership improved the working and camp conditions in Auschwitz to such an
extent that – according to Bruno Baum himself – “Auschwitz became a model
camp in the end.”
The way in which this communist propaganda actually worked is revealed from
the changes made to the above quoted passage from Baum’s article. In Baum’s
book Widerstand in Auschwitz (Resistance in Auschwitz) published in 1949, it
still states clearly:914
“I believe it is no exaggeration if I say that the biggest part of Auschwitz
propaganda, which was spread in the world around that time, has been written
by us in the camp.”
In the 1957 edition of the same book, however, this reads as follows:915
“It is no exaggeration if I say that the largest part of publications about
Auschwitz spread in the world around that time originated with us.”
For another example, there is the following passage from the 1949 edition:
“We spread this propaganda to the public at large until the very last day of
our stay in Auschwitz.” (p. 35)
In 1957, this in turn became:
“Until the last day of our stay in Auschwitz we informed the public at large
in this way.” (1957, p. 89, and 1961, p. 88)
But “writing propaganda ourselves” is something quite different than “informing
the public at large.”
Of course. In 1949, after the end of the war and when all the post-war trials
were over, they thought they could write quite openly about these things. The
flood of criminal trials which began in West Germany in the mid-1950s, however,
changed this situation: since Moscow quite correctly recognized these
proceedings as an opportunity to take the moral high ground among political
leftists through continuous accusations and the exaggeration of “fascist,” i.e.,
“right-wing” crimes in West Germany. It was therefore decided not to admit
that anything written during the war was just propaganda. We will discuss the
exploitation of West German National Socialist crimes by the Eastern Block at
a later time.
(Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 362-364)
To conclude this I will quote the Jewish author Joseph Burg (Ginzburg) who testified under oath in Canada 1988, about his views, research and experiences about the Holocaust claims:
”Joseph G. Burg was the twelfth witness called by the defense. He testified on Tuesday, March 29 and Wednesday, March 30, 1988.
In his books, Burg dealt with the subject of the alleged Nazi extermination camps. Burg had spoken to hundreds of people who had been in Auschwitz and had visited the camp in the fall of 1945. Burg had wanted to see the crematoria, the hospitals, and in particular, a large new bakery. He also wanted to find the gas chambers although at that time gassings were not yet in fashion. He did not find any gas chambers. Burg formed the opinion that there were no "extermination" camps at all, that gas chambers had never existed and that there had been no plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe. These opinions were published in his books and in his correspondence with Zündel. (25-6825 to 6838)
Burg also visited Majdanek three times. He did find gas chambers in Majdanek, but testified that they were disinfection gas chambers for liquidating lice and fleas: bugs which caused epidemics. The chambers were standard in each camp and had the German words "Attention! Poisonous Gas!" under a death skull. Zyklon B was the new formula used to disinfect the clothing. It destroyed the bugs but not the fabric. (25-6839)
After the war, Burg heard a lot about the allegations that people were gassed at Auschwitz and Majdanek. He proved that it was either out of stupidity or propaganda. Up to now, he pointed out, no document had been found showing who gave the order for gassings, who built them and where they were built. The German authorities especially had been called the "super-bureaucracism." It therefore couldn't be that after all these years not a document could be found. (25 6840)
Burg testified that he spoke to hundreds of people who serviced and operated the crematoria but the people who operated gas chambers were impossible to find. Nobody had published anything in which it was claimed that he worked in a gassing institution for human beings. There was literature about gassing that was completely contradictory. Why? Because it was all made up. These opinions were published in his books. (25-6840)
In every camp there were crematoria. It was a practical issue. People died. When the Germans occupied the eastern territories, the huge camps were established and there were larger and more crematoria as the war progressed. Epidemics broke out causing an increased number of deaths. The question of crematoria was one of hygiene: the process was more hygienic than burial and took less space. (26-6897, 6898)
Like all other activities in the camp, the inmates looked after the crematoria. It was the most difficult work because of the heat and the lifting of corpses into the ovens. The inmates worked very often in three shifts around the clock. (26-6998) These workers did it voluntarily. They were asked by the Jewish council or the Jewish police. It was important to ask how the Jewish council or police co-operated with the German SS. (26-6900)
When they were in full operation, the chimneys had an increased amount of smoke. So, logically, depending on the weather or the time of day, the colour of the flames was different. People invented stories that inside devilish things were going on. They said living human beings were being burned. They invented the story that every crematorium was a gas chamber. It had even gotten to the point that the authors had such large imaginations that when they saw the blue colour of the smoke, they knew that Jews were being burned. (26-6898, 6899)
Others invented the story that living Jews were being pushed in to be burned. Burg testified that he would like to see a Jew who had given such statements during a trial. He said such a Jew should be forced to take an oath under the rabbi rites with the skull cap, without pictures of Christ, with the Hebrew Bible, in the presence of a rabbi or a pious religious Jew. Then he should swear an oath that he had seen something like that. Then these false statements, these sick statements, would go down by 99.5 percent because the superficial oath was not morally binding for these Jews. (26-6900)
At the time he was in a displaced persons camp, Burg spoke to thirty or forty people about gas chambers and to about five to ten people about the crematoria. He had a special permit allowing him to visit the different areas where Jewish displaced persons were. He tried to get interviews from various ghettos and camps because at that time he had already checked various false statements. (26-6901)
In 1946 Burg attended the Nuremberg trials at times when matters involving Jews were being raised. During one of these attendances he met Ilya Ehrenburg and a Jewish publisher who had been in Auschwitz for several years. Burg asked the publisher whether he had seen any gassing institutions for human beings and he said no. Ehrenburg, who had been the head of propaganda for the Red Army during the war, told Burg he had been to Auschwitz but he too had not seen anything of gassings.
The Crown chose not to cross-examine Burg.”
OTHER HOLOCAUST STORIES ANALYSED, CRITICIZED AND REFUTED BY EXPERTS
The majority of the Holocaust stories have been analyzed and refuted by historians, engineers, chemists, execution technology expert, disinfection experts, cremation experts, professors of literature, textual analysis experts, and even by some Jews:
Holocaust was simply wartime atrocity propaganda, to justify the war. Afterwards it has become a great myth and a great benefactor for the Jewish controlled mass media in the Western countries that has been, and is, used by the Jews and their ideological allies to further their goals.