Two questions from someone who is somewhat new to Holocaust

[ClaudiaRothenbach]

There was a video posted here recently (Mr Death) where one of the chemists who examined the Auschwitz samples attempts to refute Leuchters findings. (Note: He only attempted to do this after he found out it was a court case surrounding Zundel, beforehand he was definitive in the opposite direction).

The testimony of Mr. Roth (the examiner of Leuchter's samples) contains three important statements:

1. The analysis results are correct. He says that by not casting doubt onto them.

2. The concentration of cyanides (prussian blue) in the walls of the gas chambers are low because Leuchter's samples are a mixture of inner material and surface material and HCN does not diffuse into the wall.

The latter is simply bullshit and that is why this statement is bullshit.

3. The prussian blue of the gas chambers was removed by weathering over 40 years. This again is a primitive lie because a) the solubility of prussian blue is lower than the solubility of CaCO3 or Ca2SiO4 (and other compounds that built up mortar and concrete) and b) the prussian blue on the outside of the delousing resisted the weathering while there was no weathering in crematorium 1 (it was never destroyed) and parts of crematorium 2 (the roof is broken into big pieces)

It looks like the industry pressed Roth to negate his chemical science knowledge. The problem is that Roth' testimony sound convincing to many people. For us it is simply embarrassing.

[Radar]

Tank, in your effort to put down Fred Leuchter you claim that he has been disqualified as an expert in court cases. Can you tell us which cases you are referring to? Since you say he was dismissed in the "voir dire" stage of the trials I have some doubts about your legal expertise since that process deals with the qualification of jurors, not witnesses.

Leuchter's report may have had some minor flaws but was quite sound in its major premises and there is no doubt that he was an expert if not the expert in the area of execution gassing in the US.

[Tank]

Hannover,

Do you have a link or URL for that study?


Lorne

[Hannover]

Lorne,

I assume you mean The Rudolf Report, read/download/buy here:
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html

- Hannover

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Hi AnonPoster: I like the way you think. For a short intro to revisionism, check my thing out at:
http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/Carto-nine-reasons.html

And you're right to go for the "refutation" angle. If we're wrong shouldn't they be able to refute us really well?

I like what you said below. I never thought of that. The guy saying it in Mr. Death, is a well-known person in the debate, Robert Van Pelt. There's another scene in the movie where he talks about how they are so careful about the printed word. Yet, at Auschwitz, they left 14,000 pounds of human hair. How could they be so careful about the printed word, and then leave a giant pile of hair? It's ridiculous. It's one giant fraud.

Supporters would call Auschwitz the Holiest of Holies, but then go on to say that every brick in there has been moved... that most of the bricks in the camp were never in the camp during the war. Well, it's either one or the other. It's either a holy site or a place where you replace the bricks every 2 weeks. Their arguments are contradictory... and I believe those were two statements that were actually given by the exact same person.

[Laurentz Dahl]

I like what you said below. I never thought of that. The guy saying it in Mr. Death, is a well-known person in the debate, Robert Van Pelt. There's another scene in the movie where he talks about how they are so careful about the printed word. Yet, at Auschwitz, they left 14,000 pounds of human hair. How could they be so careful about the printed word, and then leave a giant pile of hair? It's ridiculous. It's one giant fraud.

It's the usual contradictory claims about the accused:

On one hand, the Germans were efficient supercriminals able to erase every trace of their crimes and who planned their crime using telepathy and a magic (that is, never proven to have existed) code-language, on the other hand, they were bumbling fools that left "evidence" and "traces" (read: cut hair, shoes and empty Zyklon B cans used for desinfection) all over the place + countless "Holocaust survivors" (mostly saved because the satanic nazi killing machines broke down or "ran out of gas" every fifteen minutes or so, just before they were about to enter)...

[ASMarques]

they were bumbling fools that left "evidence" and "traces" (read: cut hair, shoes and empty Zyklon B cans used for desinfection) all over the place + countless "Holocaust survivors" (mostly saved because the satanic nazi killing machines broke down or "ran out of gas" every fifteen minutes or so, just before they were about to enter)...

Best of all, they have this nice gas chamber at Dachau ready for service -- the false showerheads to fool the victims are supposed to be still there! -- and yet they prefer to jam the wartime railroad traffic to take their Western victims to the Polish gas chambers. Then they surrender Dachau and forget to dismantle the false showerheads, even though they are supposed to have completely erased all traces of most of the Eastern "extermination camps", even rooting out the buildings...

[AnonPoster]

And you're right to go for the "refutation" angle. If we're wrong shouldn't they be able to refute us really well?

Yah. Exactly. If revisionists can put together a detailed, factual report that supports a coherent theory (which they have, Leuchter, Rudolf, etc.), and supporters are not able to put up a valid refutation or alternative, then revisionists must be right. Since there is no evidence against the revisionist theory, and there is much evidence against the Holocaust, you can conclude the Holocaust to be exaggerated/faked (some aspects of it) by Occam's razor.

If I can go through every single refutation of Leuchter/Rudolf and disprove it, then that's it. The game is over.

At any rate, I'm looking into what I'll need for this documentary... isn't looking pretty.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Hi AnonPoster,

For me it's not about a scientific document proving it didn't happen. I've never been interested in reading the Rudolf Report since I don't have a science background. It's simpler than that for me. Look at that Dahl/Marques interaction above. It's hilarious and simple.

It's not even a partial hoax, like "well they murdered 1.5 million but not 6 million." It's not like that. Rather, it's a full-on Giant Lie. And when I first got into this I couldn't really get my head around that.

I don't like the word "hoax" which for me implies a malicious joke. This is something different. It's a giant lie. It's the reason that we sell Apache Helicopters to Israel, and they used them to blow up a car in Gaza today. "Hoax" for me, just doesn't quite describe it.

Holocaust study is down to the level of "do bodies burn like wood logs on outdoor grills?" Answer: "No." Yet that is a postulate of Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor, which combined are bigger than Auschwitz, death-hoax-wise, that is.

Reading Carlo Mattogno's and Jurgen Graf's Treblinka. Now that I'd recommend. Free at Rudolf's VHO.org.

At any rate, I'm looking into what I'll need for this documentary... isn't looking pretty

What documentary?

[vincentferrer]

" No matter what religion he claims to be a member of, a Jew remains a Jew by birth...."


That is not entirely true. Keep in mind that the term Jew refers to a religion. The central core of ' being a Jew" is to affirm your rejection in Jesus. Some Jews follow Torah, ( or the Old Testament ) while a small number follow the Talmud, ( books composed by rabbi's post 70 a.d. ) Most " Jews " follow no particular practice of any kind, except maybe doning a skull cap on Yon Kippur. That is 80% of those who claim to be Jewish.

While most Jews stand upright and tell you they are related to the linage of abraham etc... the fact is 98% are not even of semitic blood. They are actually gentiles who converted in the 8th century to Judaism. Arthur Koestler wrote the book, " the thirteenth tribe" and proved it, and he is Jewish. They are Russian Khazars who migrated to Poland, Germany and America by the millions in the 1900's.

Once baptized, a Jew or pagan is no longer a Jew or pagan.
They are Christian, They can veer off into heresy or apostacy, but they remain a Christian,regardless of their Judaizing tendencies.

[Moderator]

vincentferrer and others,
Let's watch it here, stay on topic to the thread.

[Tom]

vincentferrer and others,
Let's watch it here, stay on topic to the thread.

My sincere apologies to any and all who I may have offended.
I have no intention of starting or engaging in a religious
discussion in a revisionist forum.

My post was in response to post #1 by AnonPoster asking
"where can I get statistics for Jewish population prior to
and after the war?" and to post #2 by Laurentz Dahl and
#3 by Haldan pointing out that "The demographics issue
is one of the most complicated and tangled parts of the story,".

The Jews use the race vs. religion question very effectively to
confuse the issue. That is a big part of why the demographics
are so tangled.

When we discuss Jews we must state (indicate) whether we
are defining Jews by their race (DNA) or their religion.
The Jews of today are, clearly, the descendants of the Jews
of 1933-45 and of the Jews of many centuries before that.

Again, my apologies, I am only interested in finding a way
to untangle a most twisted web of words. Clairity, in this
and all matters, is to our advantage I feel.

.

[AnonPoster]

What documentary?

The only reason I ever found out about Holocaust Revisionism was because some annoying prick (who I now like... but at the time, I considered him to be annoying) on a messageboard I visit kept bugging me to look at the evidence for 9/11. After reviewing data and photographs of the Shanksville crash, I realized it was fake within about 15 minutes. It goes on and on. WTC7... all sorts of stuff.

So then I start questioning everything... and instead of laughing it off when somebody said the Holocaust is an extreme exaggeration of the truth, possibly even an lie, (have to admit... I ignored him at first) I watched the David Cole documentary, which he linked. That got me thinking "ok... that particular gas chamber is fake... not a huge deal, but definitely annoying that they present it as being real", but then I started finding out that the lie wasn't really confined to the gas chamber at Auschwitz... or even the Dachau camp. It seems the Holocaust story is riddled with lies.

Now... perhaps Einsatzgruppen is real... I've not looked into it... but it's become quite obvious to me that all of the gas chambers are fake... the concentration camps were labor camps... not death camps.

And I'm also annoyed that nobody ever talks about The Great Inflation that happened in Germany in 1922 & 1923... which (and I can say this with complete certainty, as I'm an economist) are directly to blame on those who are in charge of the banks (Treaty of Versailles hurts the economy, but you can tighten the money supply to keep prices the same... which was not done because that doesn't make anybody any money. Bailing out on the currency and then jumping back in after the inflation has stopped DOES make you money though, which is why the hyperinflation happen)... which were primarily Jewish... which gets me to thinking that Nazis put Jews into labor camps for WWII because the Nazis knew they were responsible for The Great Inflation and didn't want to deal with their deceptions and objections to being blamed for it, so they just put all of them into forced labor.

At any rate, I'm here to learn, and I did read 50 pages of the Rudolf Report, but I'm wanting to finish this book on Pearl Harbor first... but as for the documentary, if I can secure an interview with this one particular person (who I won't name), I'm going to do it, and it is going to cover Pearl Harbor (which wasn't a surprise), 9/11, the "war on terror" (a complete hoax), the Holocaust, and then ultimately the Rothschilds & the Federal Reserve. I have no idea how long it's going to be... definitely over 4 hours though. Probably more like 6.

[AnonPoster]

vincentferrer and others,
Let's watch it here, stay on topic to the thread.

Well... my understanding of most of this stuff is not very complete. For instance, a few months ago, I had no idea what a "Jew" really was. Instead of plastering the board with a whole bunch of stupid questions, I think it's more appropriate to keep all of my (relatively) ignorant inquires in one thread.

And not that it's any of my business, but perhaps there should be two seperate forums so people like me can get our questions answered without annoying those who are more knowledgeable and want to deal only with threads that examine one particular issue.

But I'm going to shut up for now until I read that Rudolf Report.

[israelite]

And I apologize for making so many requests, but another thing that I was looking for was an English copy of each country's Holocaust Denial Law... I was told that seven countries have such a law, but I only know of Germany and Austria... but I heard France and Canada as well. Is there a list of these countries somewhere and also a place to find copies of these laws?

In France the law against revisionism is known as the The Fabius-Gayssot law of July 13, 1990. Don't know about Gaysott but Fabius is one of the chosen ones and once held high ministerial office in the French government.

While in government he was indicted on charges of causing the death of many people who were infected with Aids contaminated blood that had not been screened due to cost cutting measures introduced by Fabius. Of course he got off.

More recently an all encompassing law has been introduced throughout the EU which has a section on Racism and Xenophobia that is designed to address the problem of revisionism.

Although the UK is a signatory to the law it has stated it will not implement this part of the law.

However, under this European Law it is theoretically possible for anyone perceived as guilty of revisionism in the UK to be extradited to Germany to face trial if the German government should request extradition.

Once in Germany the defendant would face a judicial system based on Corpus Juris, no jury, and would have to prove himself innocent of the charge of revisionism.

Of course the defendant, in any attempt to prove himself innocent, would then fall foul of the infamous German penal code 130.

So, whichever way you look at it, you are well and truly buggered.

As for the laws in Canada, now more affectionately known as Absurdistan, check out the trials involving Ernst Zundel back in the 80s.