attempted switch from alleged diesel 'gassings' to gasoline

[max]

Ofcourse there is no reason to accept the description given by Fuchs as there is no forensic/ physical evidence to support him.

What has Fuchs claimed that lacks of physical evidence, Hannover?

UFOs/aliens are fiction, killing with gasoline engine not. It happens every year.

And why is Fuchs' testimony fraudelent. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

I notice the you have ignored the original posted statement of Poliakov, who was quite clear that diesel was supposed to be the weapon, not gasoline.

Historian Poliakov's claim is trumped by the well informed SS witness Fuchs.

[max]

I have the man's book. Where does he describe the murder tools?

For example on page 163 the homicidal gas-chamber in Sobibor.

Or is this one of those "Offensichtlich" (self-evident) events?

What does Sailor mean here?

[Hannover]

Max asks:

What has Fuchs claimed that lacks of physical evidence, Hannover?
UFOs/aliens are fiction, killing with gasoline engine not. It happens every year. And why is Fuchs' testimony fraudelent?

Fuchs attempts to support the entire story of Sobibor, there is no forensic/physical evidence to support his claims.
Killing with gasoline or diesel has not been proven at Sobibor, only assertions that it happened. Hence, it's a fraud, it too is fiction. And the 'evidence' that the Industry attempts to present is absurdly contradictory, therefore lacks any credibility. Either way you cut here, the story is preposterous.

- Hannover

[Sailor]

For example on page 163 the homicidal gas-chamber in Sobibor.

The description of the Sobibor camp starts on page 145 of the book. On pages 160/161 is is a plan view sketched of the camp. From pages 162 through to 165 is a verbal description of the plan from 160/161.
This is not enough to backup Fuchs’s gasoline engine version. Or did I misunderstand something here?

Or is this one of those "Offensichtlich" (self-evident) events?

What does Sailor mean here?

Did the German court take judicial notice about the murder of 150,000 Jews with exhaust fumes from a Diesel or any other engine? Was it the court’s opinion that it is self-evident that 150,000 Jews perished this way? Or could this be questioned during the trial?

Since we don’t have the trial procedures we don’t know. They probably did. I think that it is written in the German constitution.

I simply have problems with the concept of of gassing 150,000 people in Sobibor with exhaust fumes from any type of combustion engine, whether diesel, gasoline or “Holz-Gas” (wood gas) (which we used in Germany at that time quite a bit). (In Treblinka they even went to 10,000 up to 20,000 people gassed per day according to eyewitness Viernik).

I am getting off the topic of the thread. I better stop.

[bernad_law]

Let us be perfectly clear about this. I know that all revisionist can agree on this one: Germany never gassed any jews but it is sad that they dit not get all of them.

It is no meaning to discuss with you lot. You wish to have der Fürer back, and in order to do so you must make the nazis more like a "normal" regime. Your evidence is not worth to examine, it is no meaning to meet you in debate and futhermore, I am not afraid att all. This has nothing to do with sience, history or anything else. It is just pure nazism, brutal and ignorant.

Daniel

[Hannover]

What's up 'Daniel'? Did you just fall off the turnip truck? You went to all the trouble of registering just to mumble nonsense? Oy!

There was no '6,000,000 Jews (12,000,000 alleged grand total....even more absurd) or gas chambers', and there's no argument you can make that can change that; in fact I see you don't even dare try....probably the only strategy that anti-science True Believers have.

Nazism? For those who like socialist governments, the only thing that can be said is that there's the National Socialists with the '6,000,000 & gas chambers' and there's the National Socialists without the laughable '6,000,000 & gas chambers'.

Only those with no arguments to support their superstition make posts such as yours. We have science, logic, and rational thought; you have lies and scientific absurdities, and you know it. We're not going to go away, get used to it.

You did provide a bit of humour, however.

Regards, Hannover

[Moderator]

Daniel:

You're off topic for this thread, I have deleted your 'all over the place', namecalling post. Start a new thread for each topic you wish to pursue or respond to existing threads.

Remember, you may be challenged for specifics to back-up your assertions, something unique to this Forum.

Please re-read the posting guidelines that you agreed to when you registered.

Thanks, Revisionist Forum Moderator

[Turpitz]

Is that the best you can do bernad ? Tired, dribbling worn out refrain.

[bernad_law]

Right.

[Moderator]

OK gents, let it go. Daniel has been notified and will hopefully post as I mentioned.

- Moderator

[Turpitz]

Whose Daniel ?

[code yellow]

As to Hannover mustering up court standards Scott says:
"No, it is not a court case. They don't have to do anything at this point. It is a war of Greuelpropaganda and individual viewpoints. If their story is compelling and convincing then they have won. Period."

'Period'. That sounds pretty authoritative. Personally I think a good case is made against the case for a Holocaust story by comparing it to court standards. Witnesses not subjected to cross examination, conflicting testimonies, physically impossible claims and, and, and the biggest and of them all - no forensic proof. Any case like that presented to an American jury would get a Not Guilty. It would probably be thrown out after the opening statement of the prosecution.

Scott also said:
"If we don't think it is true it is up to us to "disprove" it convincingly. We also have to be respective of other viewpoints and open to some compromise or our skeptical position becomes dogmatic in its own right."

Personally, and I say 'personally' I don't think one has to 'compromise' at all when dealing with something you know to be totally false. What would an example of 'compromise' be? To admit to say 500,000 gassed at Auschwitz in stead of none? Or, say, shoes only piled 30 feet high in stead of the Holocaust tale that says 70 feet? Of how about compromising on the claim that a Holocaust body would burn on its own without the need of external fuel.

No one has to compromise on anything if there's no room for it.

"If we don't think it's true,then it's up to us to disprove it."That is actualy a revisioninists ultimate goal,the search for truth.However,it is an undisputable fact that pro holocaust forces are very sucessfull at keeping debate or court hearings as suppressed as possible.Irving and Zundel's cases were against them before they entered the courtrooms.Remember,no one is allowed to publicly doubt aspects of the holocaust because it would be defaming the dead.I can understand if that were actualy the case,but I think it is just another cleaver use of wording to hide their true reasons for avoiding the issue.The only way debate on any aspect of the holocaust would be fair ground is if revisionist veiws are finaly allowed broader public forum.Of course that is against them too,because it is known that forces behind the holocaust dominate high positions in American media.So,all we have are these forums to vent,but don't worry,it won't be much longer.