Everyone should be watching developments in Israel

The Righterzpen said:

There were no further studies done. There were only two studies done looking for Zyclon B in "gas chambers" and they didn't find any. No one ever did any follow up studies to prove these were wrong; forged or produced any studies contradicting them. If there were gas chambers with Zyclon B in them; that would certainly be easy enough to prove!


Photos of people who died of diseases.


They've yet to find them.


They've yet to find these too.


Not all eyewitness claim to have seen gas chambers. Not all eyewitnesses tell the truth.

Explain these peoples' experiences:
The Holocaust Testimonies You DIDN'T Hear : CODOH - Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


It's known coercion was used.


Research for yourself. Can you actually kill someone with diesel exhaust. Matter of fact; you actually can't.

Gas Wagons - fiction or fact?

Click to expand...

Ok, let's start here -"There were no further studies done. There were only two studies done looking for Zyclon B in "gas chambers" and they didn't find any. No one ever did any follow up studies to prove these were wrong; forged or produced any studies contradicting them"

I'm sorry but this is easy for anyone to look up. Feb 1990, the investigation was carried out by Professor Jan Markiewicz, director of The Institute for Forensic Research (IFRC) in Kraków.
Those credentials are important because, as I mentioned before and you did not address - Leuchters' credentials are well, .........let's see...........
THE COURT: How do you function as an engineer if you don't have an engineering degree?

THE WITNESS: Well, I would question, Your Honour, what an engineering degree is. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree and I have the required background training both on the college level and in the field to perform my function as an engineer.

THE COURT: Who determines that? You?

— Exchange between Leuchter and Judge Thomas, Her Majesty the Queen vs. Ernst Zündel, District Court of Ontario 1988, p. 8973.[2]:164

Enough said I think.

Next, - "Research for yourself. Can you actually kill someone with diesel exhaust. Matter of fact; you actually can't."

Well, actually you can. Carbon monoxide poisoning is a common method of suicide, and has been for a long time.
Let's start here -

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carbon monoxide poisoning typically occurs from breathing in carbon monoxide (CO) at excessive levels.[3] Symptoms are often described as "flu-like" and commonly include headache, dizziness, weakness, vomiting, chest pain, and confusion.[1] Large exposures can result in loss of consciousness, arrhythmias, seizures, or death"

1,600 ppm (0.16%), (1.6‰) Headache, increased heart rate, dizziness, and nausea within 20 min; death in less than 2 hours
3,200 ppm (0.32%), (3.2‰) Headache, dizziness and nausea in five to ten minutes. Death within 30 minutes.
6,400 ppm (0.64%), (6.4‰) Headache and dizziness in one to two minutes. Convulsions, respiratory arrest, and death in less than 20 minutes.
12,800 ppm (1.28%), (12.8‰) Unconsciousness after 2–3 breaths. Death in less than three minutes.
Acute poisoning

Carbon monoxide death figures revealed
Carbon Monoxide
From that link - "Every year, at least 430 people die in the U.S. from accidental CO poisoning. Approximately 50,000 people in the U.S. visit the emergency department each year due to accidental CO poisoning" - and that's from accidental poisoning !
Carbon Monoxide Kills More Americans Than Mass Shootings, Terrorism Combined

I suppose those reports, articles and figures are all one big conspiracy too ?

Nige55 said:

I'm sorry but this is easy for anyone to look up. Feb 1990, the investigation was carried out by Professor Jan Markiewicz, director of The Institute for Forensic Research (IFRC) in Kraków.

Click to expand...

LOL - Are you even aware of what the Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow found? (The same thing Leuchter's Report stated.) Leuchter sent his samples to Alpha Analytical Laboratories in Massachusetts. And people claim Leuchter's collection method was faulty, when the Institute for Forensic Research turned back the same results Leuchter's Report stated.

No one has done forensic testing on the alleged gas chambers since; or if they have, it hasn't been publicized! (Gee, I wonder why?)

Now as for your objection to Leuchter's credentials. A lot of people perform jobs in fields they did not go to school for. Often times to get certain types of jobs only requires a certain level of education and does not specify what that has to be in. Someone with an engineering BA can become a medical doctor if they go on to school to get a PhD in medicine. The undergrad degree doesn't matter as much as the specialty degree or certification.

Leuchter was a technician who assembled gas chambers for facilities in the US that executed criminals. Did his job title designate him as an engineer? (That may have been the case.) He had all the requirements, training and certifications to perform his job; even though he did not have an undergraduate engineering degree. Apparently he did not need an undergraduate engineering degree to be employed as a gas chamber technician to begin with. He did have a BA though, which got him "in the door" as far as level of education, to attend the further trainings / college courses required to be certified as a gas chamber technician.

The other part of Leuchter's report is what involved his training as a gas chamber technician. The guy was certified to assemble gas chambers to execute criminals in the US; so of course he would know what would be required as far as the physical facility goes to be able to carry out an execution and his report stated that the alleged gas chamber facilities could never be able to function as such.

And his expertise as someone who assembles gas chambers is why the judge questioned his education. That had nothing to do with the results the lab turned back. Leuchter did not test the samples himself. He sent them to an accredited lab.

So as a result of the labs findings in the Leuchter Report; the people who run the museum facility at Auschwitz had a Polish lab run tests of their own. And they came back with the same results Leuchter had.

Now people have tried to discredit the Leuchter Report, but his evidence is pretty solid and is backed up by what the lab in Poland found.

The Leuchter Report Vindicated

Nige55 said:

Well, actually you can. Carbon monoxide poisoning is a common method of suicide, and has been for a long time.

Click to expand...

You are aware that diesel engines don't produce the same amount of carbon monoxide as gas engines; aren't you? (If you're not, you should be now.)

Diesel engines that are not running to manufacture's specs can produce more carbon monoxide than diesel engines that are. Yet, diesel engine exhaust also produces oxygen. Diesel engines running to specs, don't produce enough carbon monoxide to kill a person. And if you don't run a diesel engine to specs, you eliminate what you save in fuel efficiency; which defeats the purpose of a diesel engine in the first place.

So if you were going to try and kill people with diesel engines; that would not be very efficient / or effective.

The Righterzpen said:

LOL - Are you even aware of what the Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow found? (The same thing Leuchter's Report stated.) Leuchter sent his samples to Alpha Analytical Laboratories in Massachusetts. And people claim Leuchter's collection method was faulty, when the Institute for Forensic Research turned back the same results Leuchter's Report stated.

No one has done forensic testing on the alleged gas chambers since; or if they have, it hasn't been publicized! (Gee, I wonder why?)

Now as for your objection to Leuchter's credentials. A lot of people perform jobs in fields they did not go to school for. Often times to get certain types of jobs only requires a certain level of education and does not specify what that has to be in. Someone with an engineering BA can become a medical doctor if they go on to school to get a PhD in medicine. The undergrad degree doesn't matter as much as the specialty degree or certification.

Leuchter was a technician who assembled gas chambers for facilities in the US that executed criminals. Did his job title designate him as an engineer? (That may have been the case.) He had all the requirements, training and certifications to perform his job; even though he did not have an undergraduate engineering degree. Apparently he did not need an undergraduate engineering degree to be employed as a gas chamber technician to begin with. He did have a BA though, which got him "in the door" as far as level of education, to attend the further trainings / college courses required to be certified as a gas chamber technician.

The other part of Leuchter's report is what involved his training as a gas chamber technician. The guy was certified to assemble gas chambers to execute criminals in the US; so of course he would know what would be required as far as the physical facility goes to be able to carry out an execution and his report stated that the alleged gas chamber facilities could never be able to function as such.

And his expertise as someone who assembles gas chambers is why the judge questioned his education. That had nothing to do with the results the lab turned back. Leuchter did not test the samples himself. He sent them to an accredited lab.

So as a result of the labs findings in the Leuchter Report; the people who run the museum facility at Auschwitz had a Polish lab run tests of their own. And they came back with the same results Leuchter had.

Now people have tried to discredit the Leuchter Report, but his evidence is pretty solid and is backed up by what the lab in Poland found.

The Leuchter Report Vindicated



You are aware that diesel engines don't produce the same amount of carbon monoxide as gas engines; aren't you? (If you're not, you should be now.)

Diesel engines that are not running to manufacture's specs can produce more carbon monoxide than diesel engines that are. Yet, diesel engine exhaust also produces oxygen. Diesel engines running to specs, don't produce enough carbon monoxide to kill a person. And if you don't run a diesel engine to specs, you eliminate what you save in fuel efficiency; which defeats the purpose of a diesel engine in the first place.

So if you were going to try and kill people with diesel engines; that would not be very efficient / or effective.

Click to expand...

"Are you even aware of what the Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow found? (The same thing Leuchter's Report stated.)"

-Then you haven't read the findings of that report properly. I would go back and read the full findings.
Markiewicz's report also states a factor that highlights the difficulty in obtaining accurate results due to the washing of the chambers over time, an area that the Leuchter report does not take into account.
And consider that Markiewicz's report came only 2 years after Leuchter's.

I'm not sure why you write "No one has done forensic testing on the alleged gas chambers since; or if they have, it hasn't been publicized!" a paragraph after referencing the report by the "Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow" which came 2 years later.
Does the report exist or not ?

You can try to justify, reason and work around Leuchters' credentials all you like, - firstly, as you stated - he was involved in ASSEMBLING gas chambers. He's not a trained (qualified or not) Forensic scientist. I.e. - he doesn't have the experience to determine the effects of the forensics over time, and considering varying environmental factors. Forensics and engineering are 2 very, very different fields.
Secondly, I don't think many people would be happy to have an unqualified doctor operate on them over a qualified one.
His BA was in art !
I wouldn't base my assumptions on someone who's unqualified in the field they claim to be (forensics, not engineering).

Regards diesel engines, - read back to my earlier post (post #201) on that, - I wrote that carbon monoxide had been employed as a method of killing. It was you who jumped to the diesel engine topic.

And for the record, whilst the output is lower than petrol engines (when un-tampered with), it's still absolutely possible to kill someone with the output (especially given the right conditions, some of those conditions being that people were often quite ill, suffering disease, suffering malnutrition and very weak).
https://www.researchgate.net/public...year_Retrospective_Case_and_Literature_Review

Nige55 said:

Markiewicz's report also states a factor that highlights the difficulty in obtaining accurate results due to the washing of the chambers over time, an area that the Leuchter report does not take into account.

Click to expand...

Both these tests were run in the late 80's to early 90's. This is about 45 years after the war. Both the American and the Polish lab tested multiple buildings in the camp, including the fumigation chambers. And 45 years post war the fumigation chambers still had very high concentration of cyanid residue on the walls. If weathering had not washed the cyanid residue off the walls of the fumigation chambers, why would anyone conclude that it would wash the residue off the walls of the "gas" chambers?

Final conclusion - they weren't gas chambers!

The architectural plans for the lay out of the camp, have these buildings marked as mortuaries. A couple of these buildings had been converted toward the end of the war as bomb shelters for the camp guards, because the SS barracks were right next to the crematoriums. That is in the records the Germans kept.

Nige55 said:

I'm not sure why you write "No one has done forensic testing on the alleged gas chambers since; or if they have, it hasn't been publicized!" a paragraph after referencing the report by the "Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow" which came 2 years later.

Click to expand...

After the lab in Krakow did their testing; as far as I'm aware, no one has done testing since; or if they have, their findings have not been made public.

Nige55 said:

He's not a trained (qualified or not) Forensic scientist. I.e. - he doesn't have the experience to determine the effects of the forensics over time, and considering varying environmental factors.

Click to expand...

Leuchter did not do the forensic testing; an American lab (that had the forensic expertise did the testing. The only thing Leuchter did was hand the court a copy of the lab's report. And the lab's report said there was not a higher concentration of cyanid residue in the "gas chambers" than existed in the rest of the camp; with the exception of the fumigation chambers.

And the fumigation chambers had very high levels of cyanid; where the rest of the camp buildings (including the "gas chambers") had almost none.

Nige55 said:

Regards diesel engines, - read back to my earlier post (post #201) on that, - I wrote that carbon monoxide had been employed as a method of killing.

Click to expand...

And I pointed out that diesel engines would have been a very inefficient way of killing people.

Nige55 said:

And for the record, whilst the output is lower than petrol engines (when un-tampered with), it's still absolutely possible to kill someone with the output (especially given the right conditions, some of those conditions being that people were often quite ill, suffering disease, suffering malnutrition and very weak).

Click to expand...

Except the one allied forensic doctor who autopsied camp inmates in Buchenwald and Dachau; had stated that no body he'd examined had been killed by carbon monoxide poisoning either.

The piles of dead bodies you see in photos at the end of the war; many of those the allies themselves had dug up post the Germans having buried them. Now the Germans buried them because they had Typhus and to try and control the spread of Typhus; which became epidemic in the last 6 weeks of the war (on account of the allied bombing) they were rather hastily buried.

So, in that sense it does make some sense that the allies would dig up some of these bodies for forensic analysis; but they dug up lots of bodies for the purpose of photographing them for propaganda reasons. The evidence that the allies did this can be found in their own productions.

This is a very interesting documentary; you should actually watch the whole thing. You might learn something. (Or if you want to try and debunk it - you'd still need to watch it!)

Holocaust Handbooks: Dean Irebodd: 'Buchenwald'

Ok, let's start with - "If weathering had not washed the cyanid residue off the walls of the fumigation chambers, why would anyone conclude that it would wash the residue off the walls of the "gas" chambers?"

-Answer - because the fumigation chambers were still in tact, and not exposed to the elements. It's clear from Leuchter's own report that his samples were taken from the remains of the reported gas chambers, which supports the statement.

Next -"The architectural plans for the lay out of the camp, have these buildings marked as mortuaries. A couple of these buildings had been converted toward the end of the war as bomb shelters for the camp guards, because the SS barracks were right next to the crematoriums. That is in the records the Germans kept. "

-Could we please see these plans you're referring to ?

"After the lab in Krakow did their testing; as far as I'm aware, no one has done testing since; or if they have, their findings have not been made public."

-As I mentioned before - the IFRC report highlights flaws in the Leuchter report. Cyanide salts are highly soluble in water, and given that the chambers remains had been exposed to the elements, and the fumigation chambers not - it's not hard to understand the results. This is all assuming that the samples he took under pressure (of being caught) were correctly sourced and representative.

"Except the one allied forensic doctor who autopsied camp inmates in Buchenwald and Dachau; had stated that no body he'd examined had been killed by carbon monoxide poisoning either."

- That will be because ;
A). Buchenwald had no gas chambers, here's a list of accounted for deaths-

• Deaths according to material left behind by the SS: 33,462[26]
• Executions by shooting: 8,483
• Executions by hanging (estimate): 1,100
• Deaths during evacuation transports (estimate): 13,500[27]

B). Neither Dachau or Birkenwald are in this list of camps using gassing as a predominant method of killing -

Camp Estimated
deaths Operational Occupied territory Current country of location Primary means for mass killings
Auschwitz–Birkenau 1,100,000 [67] May 1940 – January 1945 Province of Upper Silesia Poland Zyklon B gas chambers
Treblinka 800,000 [68] 23 July 1942 – 19 October 1943 General Government district Poland Carbon monoxide gas chambers
Bełżec 600,000 [69] 17 March 1942 – end of June 1943 General Government district Poland Carbon monoxide gas chambers
Chełmno 320,000 [70] 8 December 1941 – March 1943,
June 1944 – 18 January 1945 District of Reichsgau Wartheland Poland Carbon monoxide vans
Sobibór 250,000[71] 16 May 1942 – 17 October 1943 General Government district Poland Carbon monoxide gas chambers
Majdanek at least 80,000 [72] 1 October 1941 – 22 July 1944 General Government district Poland Zyklon B gas chambers
Maly Trostinets 65,000 [73] Middle of 1941 to 28 June 1944 Reichskommissariat Ostland Belarus Mass shootings, gas van[74]
Sajmište 23,000 [75] 28 October 1941 – July 1944 Independent State of Croatia Serbia Carbon monoxide van
Total 3,115,000 – 3,215,000 [76][77]

Just out of interest, could we please see this report ? Judging by your previous examples of 'authorities' on the subject, I'm not sure that I'd trust that he actually had credentials as a Doctor. Always good to check.

"Holocaust Handbooks: Dean Irebodd: 'Buchenwald'[/QUOTE]"
I'll try to watch some later. However I'm not massively motivated following the majority of our posts being focused around a discredited historian, and un-qualified engineer. I'll try to watch it though.

Nige55 said:

-Answer - because the fumigation chambers were still in tact, and not exposed to the elements.

Click to expand...

The lab in Krakow had access to "in tact" "gas chambers" and their testing of those were consistent with the rest of the camp; that they did not contain cyanid levels that were any higher than other buildings in the camp (outside of the fumigation chambers).

Nige55 said:

-Could we please see these plans you're referring to ?

Click to expand...

Germar Rudolf: The Rudolf Report

ROBERT FAURISSON: A look back at my discovery, on March 19, 1976, of the building plans for the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria

Where are blueprints, schematics and plans?

Nige55 said:

-As I mentioned before - the IFRC report highlights flaws in the Leuchter report. Cyanide salts are highly soluble in water, and given that the chambers remains had been exposed to the elements, and the fumigation chambers not - it's not hard to understand the results. This is all assuming that the samples he took under pressure (of being caught) were correctly sourced and representative.

Click to expand...

See above answer.

Nige55 said:

B). Neither Dachau or Birkenwald are in this list of camps using gassing as a predominant method of killing -

Click to expand...

Yet Dachau contains a "reconstructed gas chamber" that was built by the allies post war. And come the 60's after the conventional holocaust narrative was being questioned; the story than became "Well all the gassings happened in the east". Yet after the Soviet Union fell apart and "the east" was open for scrutiny. The question now is: "Well, where were the gas chambers?" Since they seem to be mysteriously missing!

Nige55 said:

Just out of interest, could we please see this report ? Judging by your previous examples of 'authorities' on the subject, I'm not sure that I'd trust that he actually had credentials as a Doctor. Always good to check.

Click to expand...

(This was posted before; but apparently you didn't look at it.)

Allied Forensic Autopsies Confirm Disease, Not Gas

Nige55 said:

I'll try to watch some later. However I'm not massively motivated following the majority of our posts being focused around a discredited historian, and un-qualified engineer. I'll try to watch it though.

Click to expand...

Discredited because you don't want to believe it; is really the only reason it's "discredited". Yet you have presented no reasonable arguments to refute any explanation to your objections that I've given either.

What about Kennedy's assignation or 9/11? Do you believe the government's narratives of those events?

The Righterzpen said:

The lab in Krakow had access to "in tact" "gas chambers" and their testing of those were consistent with the rest of the camp; that they did not contain cyanid levels that were any higher than other buildings in the camp (outside of the fumigation chambers).



Germar Rudolf: The Rudolf Report

ROBERT FAURISSON: A look back at my discovery, on March 19, 1976, of the building plans for the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria

Where are blueprints, schematics and plans?



See above answer.



Yet Dachau contains a "reconstructed gas chamber" that was built by the allies post war. And come the 60's after the conventional holocaust narrative was being questioned; the story than became "Well all the gassings happened in the east". Yet after the Soviet Union fell apart and "the east" was open for scrutiny. The question now is: "Well, where were the gas chambers?" Since they seem to be mysteriously missing!



(This was posted before; but apparently you didn't look at it.)

Allied Forensic Autopsies Confirm Disease, Not Gas



Discredited because you don't want to believe it; is really the only reason it's "discredited". Yet you have presented no reasonable arguments to refute any explanation to your objections that I've given either.

What about Kennedy's assignation or 9/11? Do you believe the government's narratives of those events?

Click to expand...

I'll start where you start - "The lab in Krakow had access to "in tact" "gas chambers""

-Wrong ! - No where does it say that.
"In February 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, director of The Institute for Forensic Research (IFRC) in Kraków conducted a fair experiment where iron compounds were excluded.[6] Given that the ruins of the gas chambers at Birkenau have been washed by a column of water at least 35m in height based on climatological records since 1945"

"The question now is: "Well, where were the gas chambers?" Since they seem to be mysteriously missing!" - maybe the fact that many of them lay in ruins, or were purposely destroyed might have something to do with that ?

"(This was posted before; but apparently you didn't look at it.)
Allied Forensic Autopsies Confirm Disease, Not Gas" Ok, - I can see where an exert from that book claims he carried out over a thousand autopsies. That's a fraction of the 55,000+ deaths that occurred there. i'd hardly say his findings were representative and wide reaching.

"
Discredited because you don't want to believe it; is really the only reason it's "discredited". Yet you have presented no reasonable arguments to refute any explanation to your objections that I've given either.
What about Kennedy's assignation or 9/11? Do you believe the government's narratives of those events?[/QUOTE]

It's nothing to do with what I 'want' (I would actually love for the holocaust to have been less severe than it was), it's to do with how we process information. People who lean towards conspiracy theories tend to pick out a question mark, and use it like a discovery that overrides the possibility of a simple answer.
Irving is not discredited because I, or others don't 'want' to believe him, he's discredited because a court found him to have been falsifying, distorting and misrepresenting material. Unless you can prove the court wrong on the falsifications of those documents, it's just a hunch.

I'll write one thing that I found from many years of living in Germany (actually the very place came up in that video) - I can see very easily the capacity they had to do what they did. I can still see some of it there today.

Nige55 said:

-Wrong ! - No where does it say that.

Click to expand...

The director / heads / board of the Auschwitz museum are the ones who contacted the Krakow lab to do the analysis. They absolutely and most certainly had access to an alleged gas chamber that's still standing. I know personally at least one is still standing, because I was inside it back in the summer of 1990.

Now assuming that the Auschwitz museum would have had the Krakow lab test this gas chamber; because if they wanted to prove every word of this narrative was true; that would have been the best way to do it. And if they didn't have their standing gas chambers tested; well then why not? They are telling everyone it's a "gas chamber". And, so if it really was a gas chamber; there'd be plenty of evidence inside of it!

And here's your evidence that at least a few of these alleged gas chambers are still standing at Auschwitz. The person conducting the interview (David Cole) is Jewish.

David Cole In Auschwitz ( Full Documentary) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Nige55 said:

That's a fraction of the 55,000+ deaths that occurred there. i'd hardly say his findings were representative and wide reaching.

Click to expand...

This forensic doctor stated that he believed he was the only forensic doctor doing autopsies for the allied military at the end of the war. What makes you think that if the first 1000 bodies he autopsied showed no signs of being gassed that the next 55,000. to autopsy would have?

He was one man. It was not practical, nor reasonable to have autopsied every body buried.

Nige55 said:

it's to do with how we process information.

Click to expand...

I believed the conventional holocaust narrative until about 4 years ago. I accidentally stumbled across holocaust revisionism on the Internet when researching something about Israel. (Aint the Internet great! - It is the leveler of many things.)

Nige55 said:

People who lean towards conspiracy theories tend to pick out a question mark, and use it like a discovery that overrides the possibility of a simple answer.

Click to expand...

Except when the "simpler answer" doesn't make sense. Or a person has seen propaganda at work from first hand experience.

I learned really quickly back during Desert Storm that what the media was telling the American public about that war was not the truth. I knew we were exposed to chemical and biological weapons, because I saw evidence of that first hand.

I was involved in cleaning equipment that was coming back to the US and I watched civilian contractors I worked with take gager counters to this equipment as we cleaned it and it was "hot". We knew that. We had the chemical weapons detection equipment to prove it. A lot of us got really sick! Yet when we'd sit and watch the news of what CNN, or MSNBC, or whoever was saying; we knew it was all a pack of lies. We knew that! It took another 15 to 20 years before the VA would "service connect" us for it; but we knew the news media and the government was lying to the American public about this.

So what would make me think they would not lie about other historical events? They wouldn't lie about 9/11 or they wouldn't lie about the holocaust? At this point; I'm quite suspect of almost anything I hear (unless it's local news) in the media today.

So, you can thank Desert Storm for "red pilling" me!

Nige55 said:

Irving is not discredited because I, or others don't 'want' to believe him, he's discredited because a court found him to have been falsifying, distorting and misrepresenting material. Unless you can prove the court wrong on the falsifications of those documents, it's just a hunch.

Click to expand...

The court "found (Irving) guilty" because the only way they could make the conventional narrative stick was to disallow the evidence he presented. I hardly call that a "victory" for the court!

If the evidence he presented was truly faulty; they could have very easily countered it with verifiable, era documentation that wasn't. They didn't take that route though. They only forbid him from presenting what he had.

Nige55 said:

I can see very easily the capacity they had to do what they did. I can still see some of it there today.

Click to expand...

?? - Are you referring to the fact that very few Germans ever "admitted" to the holocaust?

Now, if you know anything about psychology; to attain to that level of pathology in an entire society would require an awful lot of extreme dysfunction in every German nuclear family for the previous 50 years prior to Hitler. Sociopaths aren't created out of thin air; nor does that level of pathology in a society happen in a bubble.

If you want to study a pathological leadership; study Stalin and his era.

The Righterzpen said:

The director / heads / board of the Auschwitz museum are the ones who contacted the Krakow lab to do the analysis. They absolutely and most certainly had access to an alleged gas chamber that's still standing. I know personally at least one is still standing, because I was inside it back in the summer of 1990.

Now assuming that the Auschwitz museum would have had the Krakow lab test this gas chamber; because if they wanted to prove every word of this narrative was true; that would have been the best way to do it. And if they didn't have their standing gas chambers tested; well then why not? They are telling everyone it's a "gas chamber". And, so if it really was a gas chamber; there'd be plenty of evidence inside of it!

And here's your evidence that at least a few of these alleged gas chambers are still standing at Auschwitz. The person conducting the interview (David Cole) is Jewish.

David Cole In Auschwitz ( Full Documentary) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This forensic doctor stated that he believed he was the only forensic doctor doing autopsies for the allied military at the end of the war. What makes you think that if the first 1000 bodies he autopsied showed no signs of being gassed that the next 55,000. to autopsy would have?

He was one man. It was not practical, nor reasonable to have autopsied every body buried.



I believed the conventional holocaust narrative until about 4 years ago. I accidentally stumbled across holocaust revisionism on the Internet when researching something about Israel. (Aint the Internet great! - It is the leveler of many things.)



Except when the "simpler answer" doesn't make sense. Or a person has seen propaganda at work from first hand experience.

I learned really quickly back during Desert Storm that what the media was telling the American public about that war was not the truth. I knew we were exposed to chemical and biological weapons, because I saw evidence of that first hand.

I was involved in cleaning equipment that was coming back to the US and I watched civilian contractors I worked with take gager counters to this equipment as we cleaned it and it was "hot". We knew that. We had the chemical weapons detection equipment to prove it. A lot of us got really sick! Yet when we'd sit and watch the news of what CNN, or MSNBC, or whoever was saying; we knew it was all a pack of lies. We knew that! It took another 15 to 20 years before the VA would "service connect" us for it; but we knew the news media and the government was lying to the American public about this.

So what would make me think they would not lie about other historical events? They wouldn't lie about 9/11 or they wouldn't lie about the holocaust? At this point; I'm quite suspect of almost anything I hear (unless it's local news) in the media today.

So, you can thank Desert Storm for "red pilling" me!



The court "found (Irving) guilty" because the only way they could make the conventional narrative stick was to disallow the evidence he presented. I hardly call that a "victory" for the court!

If the evidence he presented was truly faulty; they could have very easily countered it with verifiable, era documentation that wasn't. They didn't take that route though. They only forbid him from presenting what he had.



?? - Are you referring to the fact that very few Germans ever "admitted" to the holocaust?

Now, if you know anything about psychology; to attain to that level of pathology in an entire society would require an awful lot of extreme dysfunction in every German nuclear family for the previous 50 years prior to Hitler. Sociopaths aren't created out of thin air; nor does that level of pathology in a society happen in a bubble.

If you want to study a pathological leadership; study Stalin and his era.

Click to expand...

The IFRC report specifically discusses the samples being collected from ruins, and to suggest otherwise is simply adding something to the report that's not there. Did they have access to in tact chambers ? I don't know. You can assume they did, but unless we know the background to this, there's not much point speculating or assuming (besides which, I prefer not to base my stance on assumptions).
Maybe that's worth further research.

Regarding "What makes you think that if the first 1000 bodies he autopsied showed no signs of being gassed that the next 55,000. to autopsy would have?"

Another example of your thought pattern taking a leap that isn't there. Did I actually say the remainder of the 55,000 would have showed signs ? No. Of course I didn't.
If 1000 were gassed by carbon monoxide, I would expect 1000 of that 55,000 (or more, as that figure was what was recorded) would show signs.
If you take a class of 50 children and find that 10 don't have the flu, it may be that 10 do. I'm not saying that the other 40 would !
You're calling something out to be untrue based on assumptions that no one is making (just as we went through with the 6 million figure).

"I believed the conventional holocaust narrative until about 4 years ago. I accidentally stumbled across holocaust revisionism on the Internet when researching something about Israel. (Aint the Internet great! - It is the leveler of many things.)" -

So far, I don't have a great deal of faith in your sources. That video for one was full of absolute conjecture.
One thing we share is not not believe what we see in the media (and to the same degree, - on the internet).
BTW - *It's finding 'sources' on the internet that have people utterly convinced that the world is flat, and we've been lied to all along by governments and a web of corruption.

That must have been a harrowing ordeal during desert storm, and I'm sure it would impact someone for the rest of their life.
As I mentioned, I've also seen first hand flat out deception and misrepresentation regarding the time I spent in the middle east during the second intifada. I was lucky to have made it back alive.

I can see that you've taken this experience and applied it across the board. It's that suspicion that there are lies and corruption behind every major event. Yes I distrust the media, and we know there are and have been cover ups and misinformation. However hanging onto a determination to believe that if one element of a historical event is intrue- and therefore none of it is true is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You're essentially projecting your experience onto other events. I wouldn't apply that principal as every case is different, and every contextural history surrounding it complex and hard to unravel.

"The court "found (Irving) guilty" because the only way they could make the conventional narrative stick was to disallow the evidence he presented. I hardly call that a "victory" for the court!"

Once again, they didn't disallow his evidence, - they found the 'evidence' he submitted to have been falsified and distorted by him ! In order to do so, they had to have evidence of their own to highlight his deception. We are talking about detail here - he was proven to have tampered with specific documents, - we're not talking about a court sitting around discussing did it/ didn't it happen.
And again - the burden of proof is on you as it's you who claims he was wrongly convicted.

"Now, if you know anything about psychology; to attain to that level of pathology in an entire society would require an awful lot of extreme dysfunction in every German nuclear family for the previous 50 years prior to Hitler. Sociopaths aren't created out of thin air; nor does that level of pathology in a society happen in a bubble."

- I'm well aware of your points above, I believe it was a spiritual matter, and that's why I wrote that I still see evidence of it today.

I'll repeat a point above as I think it's important -
*It's finding 'sources' on the internet that have people utterly convinced that the world is flat, and we've been lied to all along by governments and a web of corruption.


Fortunately it's that time of the year where I get to take a couple of weeks of and spend some time away with family. I'll have a look back in a couple of weeks when I'm back. Und tschuss !

Oh, and when I'm back, maybe we could discuss the levels of cyanide residue found in the fumigation chambers, and the levels required to kill parasites.

Nige55 said:

Did they have access to in tact chambers ?

Click to expand...

The Krakow lab most certainly had; because they were asked by the Auschwitz museum. So it would not have made sense for the museum to not give them access to the in-tact gas chambers.

Which again; if the narrative was true, they could have very easily presented evidence to prove it. They have yet to do that though!

Nige55 said:

Maybe that's worth further research.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Yet understanding that what was made public of the Krakow lab's findings may not be the entirety of what they tested.

Nige55 said:

Another example of your thought pattern taking a leap that isn't there. Did I actually say the remainder of the 55,000 would have showed signs ?

Click to expand...

LOL - cognitive dissonance. I asked you what would make you think the remaining 55,000. would show signs, when the first 1000 did not? If the first 1000 showed signs of only dying of disease, why would the 55,000. show signs of dying of other than disease?

Nige55 said:

One thing we share is not not believe what we see in the media (and to the same degree, - on the internet).

Click to expand...

Agreed. Yet when logic dictates that if there is no forensic evidence; it is reasonable to question if a crime was committed. One can draw that conclusion without ever even having looked at the counter arguments presented by the other side. If you never look at the theories revisionists pose as to "why"; you are still left with the question of where's the evidence.

It's just like 9/11. The story they are telling you does not match the evidence you are seeing. So, where is the truth? No human with any sense of justice would neglect to ask that question.

Nige55 said:

However hanging onto a determination to believe that if one element of a historical event is intrue- and therefore none of it is true is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Click to expand...

No one has done that here though. No one is saying that these camps didn't exist, and no one is saying people didn't die in them. No one is saying there was not racism in Europe. No one is saying there were populations who were't treated fairly. What people are saying though is: "What we are being told is not the entire truth".

Nige55 said:

Once again, they didn't disallow his evidence, - they found the 'evidence' he submitted to have been falsified and distorted by him

Click to expand...

To my understanding; Irving's argument was "Show me the evidence." I have all this era historical documentation that does not give any evidence of some organized plan to exterminate anyone. And if they claim that he altered that evidence; what's their proof that he did?

Now one could argue "interpretation of evidence" but in this sense Irving is absolutely right; there's no evidence of an organized plan of extermination. Irving did admit that Nazi officials did witness people being killed in the field. Now who and how many; no one can make a claim on, because the officials who wrote about witnessing this; did not elaborate upon what they saw. They'd only stated that they witnessed this. You can't extrapolate on information that isn't there.

Any Russian, American or British soldier could state the same thing. "I saw X happen at Y time." and if it was a war crime, the individuals guilty should be brought to justice. But just because individuals commit war crimes; does not mean that is a state sponsored policy. If there is no documentation on the state level; just saying "well, we just haven't found it yet" doesn't prove anything.

Nige55 said:

We are talking about detail here - he was proven to have tampered with specific documents, - we're not talking about a court sitting around discussing did it/ didn't it happen.
And again - the burden of proof is on you as it's you who claims he was wrongly convicted.

Click to expand...

What documents do the claim he tampered with and what do they claim he did to them? He's archived documents he's collected with notable archive sources. They can look up those archived documents and scrutinize them.

I know there are some era documents Irving has stated that he did not believe are now in their original format. (Things added to them post war.) That is the case with some of the memos from Berlin that had been found. They knew these had been added to post war because the type style was not congruent to era documents. I think there's another discrepancy in someone's memoir (found in Soviet archives) where the handwriting doesn't match.

Those types of things are harder to prove because if one does not recognize the unknown handwriting as being that of a known era person; it's hard to eliminate X other thousands of possibilities.

There are instances in forensics where there's too much evidence to make an easily delineated case. That happened in the Jon' Bene Ramsey murder case. There was so much scene contamination that the investigators could not get a clear picture of what happened. All they knew was they had a dead 6 year old and they could not figure out, not just who did it; but also what exactly happened.

Nige55 said:

Oh, and when I'm back, maybe we could discuss the levels of cyanide residue found in the fumigation chambers, and the levels required to kill parasites.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we could look at that; because it would require much more to kill humans in large numbers than to kill lice.