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.
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 !