Autopsies

[Dresden]

GinSkinPivot posted a video five days ago about Larson and the Wichita Eagle article, here:



"Wichita Eagle article refuting both the IHR and Dennis Spencer on their lies about Larson telling the Wichita Eagle he never found a case of poison gas. He did no such thing - he told them he'd never found a case of poisoning. Holocaust Deniers......proof that vegetables can communicate"


Why didn't he zoom in on the article at the beginning of the video and scroll down so we could read the whole thing?

Because he has something to hide.

[Kingfisher]

GinSkinPivot posted a video five days ago about Larson and the Wichita Eagle article, here:

"Wichita Eagle article refuting both the IHR and Dennis Spencer on their lies about Larson telling the Wichita Eagle he never found a case of poison gas. He did no such thing - he told them he'd never found a case of poisoning. Holocaust Deniers......proof that vegetables can communicate"


Why didn't he zoom in on the article at the beginning of the video and scroll down so we could read the whole thing?

Because he has something to hide.

True, and GinSkinPivot is an idiot not worth trying to talk to (I put him on ignore) but what he has given us is, to say the least, ambiguous as to Larson's meaning. Larson does not say he identified a death by gassing (or indeed by shooting, though in this case no one would claim there were none) as he did not autopsy every body in his sector. He says they were rare, which is consistent with him not having found any. Whether you consider he did or did not find any depends on your interpretation of "poisoning". We talk of cyanide poisoning when cyanide is ingested. I would expect an autopsist looking for traces of cyanide in the body to count any such as "poisoning" regardless of whether the substances was ingested or breathed in, but I acknowledge there is room for some uncertainty. It certainly doesn't prove the opposite (that he found no "poisoning" but did find some gassings).

The most favourable interpretation you can put on this for an exterminationist is that a few very rare cases of gassing took place. This is hardly consistent with the orthodox Holocaust narrative of millions gassed in a mass extermination.

1-0 to the Revisionists I think.

[borjastick]

The bottom line here, me thinks, is that if he had verifiably found deaths caused by gassing he would have stated so and that would have been shouted loud by the media ever since. We would not be having this conversation or arguing semantics of the English language and its common usage, such as the use of the word 'rare'.

He didn't find any proof whatsoever of gassings because if he did we would all know about it. This then leads to the generally accepted position of Wiesenthal's statement that there were no death camps in Germany.

Giving GinSkinPivot air time is a waste of air time in itself. Kingfisher is right. My conclusion is the man is a knob.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

I made a mistake reading this the other day. Timpoviking is right, O'Keefe did misquote this article.

- "never was a case of poison gas uncovered." - O'Keefe's version

- "Never was a case of poisoning uncovered." - Wichita Eagle version

Dr. Larson's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he [...] confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas uncovered." [4]

https://archive.org/stream/TheJournalOfHistoricalReviewVolume15Number4/TheJournalOfHistoricalReviewVolume15-number-4-1995#page/n19/mode/2up

Larson said that in southern Germany, where he served, autopsies showed that death by gassing and shooting were rare. Never was a case of poisoning uncovered, he said.

[Atigun]

Larson said that in southern Germany, where he served, autopsies showed that death by gassing and shooting were rare. Never was a case of poisoning uncovered, he said.

Well, that does it then. That proves that the 6 million were (sniff) killed. I shall now have to renounce revisionism (sob) and return to the truth and purity of the sacred holocaust.

Actually, it looks as though O'Keefe simply misread the final phrase of the article, "Never was a case of poisoning uncovered" as "Never was a case of poison gas uncovered." If anyone is acquainted with O'Keefe perhaps they could contact him and let him know that he popped one. Unless he amends his statement, anyone using him as a source is open to the charge that, "O'Keefe is a proven liar."

Thanks, Rabbit, for the work and expertise to get this straightened out.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Thanks Atigun.

I've discovered that O'Keefe's article "The 'Liberation of the Camps' : Facts vs. Lies" was actually first published in the June 1988 [Vol. 15, no.8] edition of The Liberty Bell,; over seven years before it appeared in the July-August 1995 edition of Journal of Historical Review.

O'Keefe makes the same mistake/falsehood about with line from The Witchia Eagle article, but as you can see on the image below, the paragraph in which it's found was heavily edited for the later JHR version:





On a more positive note, Revisionist John Cobden correctly represented and quoted from the The Witchia Eagle article in his excellent 1994 IHR-published study "Dachau: Reality and Myth"; an adapted version of which was published in the March-April 1995 edition of the JHR.



So on the first occasion The Wichita Eagle article was mentioned in the JHR , no mistake/falsehood was made about its contents.

[Hannover]

- Ask your opponent if Simon Wiesenthal and Martin Martin Broszat were lying when they said there were no gas chambers in Germany?

Neither of them said that.

Wiesenthal said there were "no extermination camps on German soil", he didn't say anything about no gas chambers.

So there were supposedly "extermination camps on German soil" without gas chambers?

It is true that there were no extermination camps on German soil and thus no mass gassings such as those that took place at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps. A gas chamber was in the process of being built at Dachau, but it was never completed.

Gassing did, however, take place at Mauthausen, which at that time belonged to Germany.

[he went on to mention the gas chambers in the T4 institutes]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n3p-9_Staff.html

Odd considering Mauthausen (Austria) was not considered part of Germany by those opposed to Germany.
And what proof for "Mauthausen gassings" is available?
And what "T4 gas chambers"?

Broszat said there were no gassings in Belsen, Buchenwald or Dachau, he didn't refer to the alleged gas chambers of Neuengamme, nor Ravensbrueck, Sachsenhausen (both then in Soviet East Germany) and Mauthausen (Austria).

Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never entirely finished or put "into operation."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n3p12_Broszat.html

So in other words Broszat said there were no gassings is West Germany.

As has been documented elsewhere, the Dachau museum rewrote history in the early noughties when they began to claim that some experimental or test gassings did occur there, although they deliberately give the impression to tourists that the gas chamber was used frequently.

Yes, they lied.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Wiesenthal said there were "no extermination camps on German soil", he didn't say anything about no gas chambers.

So there were supposedly "extermination camps on German soil" without gas chambers?

That's not what he wrote. His (linked above) letter to the Stars and Stripes is short, written in clear English, and is very easy to understand.

Odd considering Mauthausen (Austria) was not considered part of Germany by those opposed to Germany.

The construction of Mauthausen began after Anschluss. This is basic stuff.

And what proof for "Mauthausen gassings" is available?

I suggest you read the appropriate chapter in the Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas (2011) for an reasonably up to date version of the orthodox presentation.

And what "T4 gas chambers"?

There's probably a thread or two on this fourm about them. See the search function top left ↖

Broszat said there were no gassings in Belsen, Buchenwald or Dachau, he didn't refer to the alleged gas chambers of Neuengamme, nor Ravensbrueck, Sachsenhausen (both then in Soviet East Germany) and Mauthausen (Austria).

Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never entirely finished or put "into operation."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n3p12_Broszat.html

So in other words Broszat said there were no gassings is West Germany.

No. He was cognisant of Neuengamme's location: a few miles south-east of Hamburg (i.e. West Germany)

As has been documented elsewhere, the Dachau museum rewrote history in the early noughties when they began to claim that some experimental or test gassings did occur there, although they deliberately give the impression to tourists that the gas chamber was used frequently.

Yes, they lied.

Alrighty then.


Hopefully this thread can now get back on topic.

[Hannover]

Rabbit:

No. He was cognisant of Neuengamme's location: a few miles south-east of Hamburg (i.e. West Germany)

Location? So what? What did he say about Neuengamme's "gas chamber"? Quote, please.


Rabbit:

That's not what he wrote. His (linked above) letter to the Stars and Stripes is short, written in clear English, and is very easy to understand.

So easy to understand yet you actually dodged the point. Where did he write 'extermination camps on German soil did not have gas chambers'? Show me.


Rabbit:

The construction of Mauthausen began after Anschluss. This is basic stuff.

No kidding, but so what? the Anschluss was officially denounced by the Allies in 1943. Wiesenthal made his statement when?
Very basic stuff indeed, Rabbit.

I note that no proof is given for Mauthausen's claimed gas chambers.

Challenge to Rabbit:
You raised the issue in this thread, so where is your proof for the T4 "gas chambers"?

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[borjastick]

Surely gas chambers and extermination camps are essentially one and the same thing. All the claimed extermination camps supposedly had gas chambers for that is how the exterminating was claimed to have been done.

As for the word 'rare' in Larson's summary it's just like using 'somewhat' or 'likely' when covering one's own arse in a report. Doctors don't say to a terminally ill patient 'hey sorry bud but you're a dead cert for the morgue'. They say 'we'll do everything in our power to overcome this thing but it's unlikely to change the outcome' or some such soothing nonsense.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

I recently got hold of an English translation of the narration of Die Todesmühlen (1945), which is the German version of Billy Wilder's film Death Mills.

The narrator completely contradicts Larson about the cause of death of the bodies he and his colleagues examined:

Allied doctors did thousands of autopsies and recorded the results. The finds were always the same : gased [sic], poisoned, starved and shot dead.

- "Text of 'Die Todesmühlen' (translation)" an appendix to "Film as an Instrument of the U.S. Re-education Programme in Germany after 1945 and the example of Todesmühlen" by Michael Hoenisch, in E. Krippendorff (ed.), The Role of The United States in the Reconstruction of Italy and West Germany 1946-1949, John F. Kennedy-Institut fur̈ Nordamerikastudien, Freie Universität Berlin, 1981, p. 156.

In the Death Mills version, the narrator states:

Allied members of the War Crimes Commission opened thousands of bodies. The record of their autopsies shows the same murder system at work everywhere: slow suffocation, starvation, poison injections, burning, shooting. Hitler's henchmen tried them all.

- From 11:41 on the version shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Mills

Edit.

What a surprise. My previous post has been deleted.

This forum is a joke.

[hermod]

He says they were rare, which is consistent with him not having found any.

I agree on that. That's how I understand Larson's words too. He was seemingly trying to explain why he had found no gassed corpse in Germany without calling his country's propagandists liars. The alleged rarity of homicidal gassings served both purposes. It explained that he had found no gassed corpse because homicidal gassings were very rare, and that U.S. propagandists were not liars because gassings had indeed taken place at Dachau, even if on a smaller scale than previously believed. Sounds like an attempted damage control.

Whether you consider he did or did not find any depends on your interpretation of "poisoning". We talk of cyanide poisoning when cyanide is ingested. I would expect an autopsist looking for traces of cyanide in the body to count any such as "poisoning" regardless of whether the substances was ingested or breathed in, but I acknowledge there is room for some uncertainty. It certainly doesn't prove the opposite (that he found no "poisoning" but did find some gassings).

About Hadamar, Allied propagandists claimed in the propaganda movie "Nazi Murder Mills!" that:

"Autopsies showed overdoses of morphine and quick-acting poisons in many cases." [01:43 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-6tCERMLv4]

Was Dr. Larson really the only doctor performing autopsies there? Or were Allied propagandists just making fake autopsy results up out of thin air? (The latter would explain why no autopsy reports showing "overdoses of morphine and quick-acting poisons" were ever introduced as evidence at Nuremberg.)

[Moderator]

TheBlackRabbitofInlé, you stated:

Edit.
What a surprise. My previous post has been deleted.
This forum is a joke.

Well sir, the issues are your name calling first and then false claims that someone else has changed the subject of this thread when in fact it was you who posted arguments which 'derailed' the thread. You seem to think that no one can respond to what you post.

Also, your posting of just a few of your correctly deleted posts at some juvenile site while excluding your other deleted, offensive, & incriminating posts is a highly questionable practice.

I suggest the joke is on you.
M1

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

About Hadamar, Allied propagandists claimed in the propaganda movie "Nazi Murder Mills!" that:

"Autopsies showed overdoses of morphine and quick-acting poisons in many cases." [01:43 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-6tCERMLv4]

That was a news report made by Universal Studios, dated April 26, 1945. One of the old-time ones shown in cinemas before the main picture.
https://archive.org/details/universal_newsreels

Which means it was produced prior to the American capture of Dachau and Larson's subsequent work there.

Was Dr. Larson really the only doctor performing autopsies there?

Larson's biographer wrote:

While Dr. Larson was at Verdun [France], that mysterious machine in the subcellars of the Pentagon was programmed to find forensic pathologists. When the wheels stopped whirring, it came up with the only two that were serving in the European Theatre. Major Charles P. Larson. 35. and Dr. Vincent Sneedon. who today is Professor of Pathology at the University of Oregon.

"Dr. Sneedon was not primarily a forensic pathologist," Dr. Larson told me recently, "so I believe I was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theater — which is why I was detailed ultimately to conduct the autopsies at Dachau. So whether the authorities liked what I did or not, they were stuck with the only top- qualified man in my field and they had to take me!

Larson claimed to be the only "forensic pathologist" in Europe, but he fails to mention the pathologist Dr. Herman Bolker, who was the man who performed the autopsies on some of the bodies exhumed at Hadamar.

On October 9, 1945, Bolker was introduced as follows at the Hadamar trial

By the PROSECUTION -I am a Major, Medical Corps, War Crimes Investigating Team 6822, Hq. Seventh Army, and am and the same team as Major Vowell and I am its pathologist. I obtained my degree at Long Island College Hospital in New York City and was licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York. I am pathologist to the Brooklyn Cancer Institute, Department of Hospitals, New York City; associate, Bethel Hospital ; pathologist, Brooklyn Home and Hospital for the Aged ; and a Diplomat of the American Board of Pathology. For varying periods between 1931 and 1941 I was acting assistant medical examiner in the office of the Chief Medical Examiner of New York City. In service in the United States Army, I have been Chief of Laboratories, 83rd and 166th General Hospitals; Consultant Specialist, 6th Hospital Group ; Pathologist, War Crimes Commission, SHAEF ; and I am a member of the following societies: The American Association of Pathologists and Bacteriologists, New York State Society of Pathologists, New York Pathological Society, King's County Medical Society. I was license.d. to practice medicine in 1928, and have been practicing medicine ever since that time.

Or were Allied propagandists just making fake autopsy results up out of thin air? (The latter would explain why no autopsy reports showing "overdoses of morphine and quick-acting poisons" were ever introduced as evidence at Nuremberg.)

As I said, pathologist Dr. Herman Bolker testified at the American-run Hadamar trial, where he gave details of six full autopsies he performed at Hadamar.

According to the list of exhibits in the published version of the trial transcript, no actual autopsy reports were submitted as evidence; presumably Bolker's detailing of them (found here) was sufficient for the court.

A review of the Hadamar trial was submitted to the Nuremberg Doctors trial, along with lists of non-German victims and various statements by the defendants (also detailed on the hyperlink above).

[hermod]

Thank you very much for clarifying that, Black Rabbit. As useful and knowledgeable as usually, I see.