9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[Amazer]

You mean the 'trial' that concluded that Dachau, Mauthausen and Sachsenhausen were extermination centers using gaschambers? The trial where the greatest mass murderers of history, the Soviets, sat on the side of the prosecution next to city nuking Americans? These same Soviets who over the radio encouraged Soviet soldiers to rape any German woman they could find? The trial that applied torture (American specialty) to extort ridiculous gassing claims from Hoess? The trial that accused the Germans of making lamp shades of human skin, of making soap of human body fat, that accused the Germans of operating pedal driven skull bashers? The trial that the highest US judge called a 'high-grade lynching party'?

That trial?

And your point is? Even if all of the above is all true, it doesn't diminish in any form or shape what the Nazis did during WW2.

 

[TSR]

.
Still waiting for you to post Krege's credentials in the use and interpretation of the results from GPR, and your justification of a "largely undisturbed" plot of land you agree contained a camp which was later farmed....
.

 

[Trojan]

You accuse, you prove.
Where is your proof for the gas chambers?
Aha, I see, you don't have any.

History is written, the burden is on the revisionist, hence the name.

 

[Trojan]

I can’t believe this is happening to me! Trojan put’s the ball for me in front of his open goal so I only have to kick it in. Thanks Trojan, if you were not there I had to invent you. Now let me see…

1. Toronto Great Holocaust Trial. First of all we have the Great Zuendel Trials that turned into Great Holocaust Trials in Toronto 1985-1989. The breakthrough was not that Zuendel was cleared of any acquisations, the real highlight was that holocaust pope Hilberg was exposed as the fraud that he was. Hilberg had to admit that there was no documentary evidence for mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers whatsoever. That there was no Hitler order. Furthermore Auschwitz crown witness Rudolf Vrba was exposed as a shameless liar.

http://www.codoh.com/author/portraits/port5zue.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p417_Faurisson.html

Zundel is found guility without the court taking judicial notice - and this is a victory?

2. Mark Weber and Ted O'Keefe :: 1990 :: KFI AM640 Los Angeles

Here a Jewish talk show host who had organized a meeting between representatives of the IHR and those of the Wiesenthal Center. They all agreed but in the last moment the holocaustians of the WC chickened out. So who is avoiding the debate? The sympathetic talk show host, who clearly believes in the holocaust, gave Mark Weber and Ted O’Keefe a fair treatment.

http://www.ihraudio.dreamhost.com/revisionism_on_kfi_am640.mp3

IHR: With its 24-hour 50,000-watt signal, and enormous listening audience in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, KFI is easily the biggest talk-radio station on the west coast. And Ted O'Keefe and Mark Weber were scheduled for a live in-studio debate with Aaron Breitbart, senior researcher from the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center. Breitbart chickened out at the last minute, so for over 2 hours — from 7:30 PM until 10:00 PM — on the evening of December 17, 1990, roughly a million KFI listeners from as far away as Oregon and Texas got an unforgettable dose of history in accord with the facts. This is probably the most effective case for Holocaust revisionism ever carried over the airwaves.

There was no debate here, it was just deniers spreading lies, how is a non-debate a win?

3. Recent discussion between Faurisson and a Danish holocaustian named Andersson. The sympathetic Dane is no match for the old fox Faurisson and gets destroyed in two-and-a-half hours:

http://www.codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5394
http://member.newsguy.com/~kreiberg/fdebat1.ram

As a consequence the Dane gave up his career of being a holocaust ayatollah. Something our own Nick Terry could take an example from.

Some forum-poster remarked:
This is an excellent debate. It’s a textbook-example of what happens when a good revisionist debates a holocaust believer and a good example why they always try to avoid a public debate. The first minutes are a little bit boring but after 17 minutes it gets really interesting. It’s a contant back and forth between Andersson and Faurisson. I found it very instructive how Faurisson responds to all of Anderssons claims and how he nails him down, and how Andersson tries to evade Faurissons precise questions. I sometimes wondered why so many other revisionists always called Faurisson one of the most important revisionists and one of their most influential mentors, since there are other revisionists who have produced much more literature. But after listening to this debate I know why. It’s obvious how much he knows about the topic, he never evades a question, and he has always a very convincing answer. It’s amazing how he corners his opponent with precise and strategic questions, almost like a chess-player. And both Faurisson and Andersson are always fair during the whole debate. I encourage everyone to carefully listen to and study this debate. I think learned a lot from it how to debate a believer.


4. Weber-Shermer debate 1995.

Google Video.

Here a 2 hour video of a unique event: a debat between a leading revisionist Mark Weber and the libertarian holocaustian Michael Shermer. It is unique because it doesn't happen that often that 2 representatives of both groups can get along with each other. It is obvious that the libertarian takes a libertarian core principle of free speech serious. The video is a model of how the debate should be engaged: businesslike, without ad hominem and to the point. My opponents here can learn a lot from the civilized behavior of Shermer.

Review of the debate from both sides:
IHR: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n1p22_Weber.html
Shermer: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/s/shermer-michael/july22-debate-comments.html

Oh, this is rich -- nothing like a revisionist site to give a favorable review of a revisionist debate. Got any unbiased sources that speak of these?

Why avoid Libstadt - the most famous of all, complete with Leuchter's original report and expert testimony?

 

[CptColumbo]

As we lose that generation more and more people are going to claim it never happened, and without people who have direct experience with the subject it will become harder to prove it to the pseudo-skeptics. Therefore, I'm thankful for the efforts of Steven Speilberg and others for recording the experiences of those who survived the Holocaust.

 

[Uzzy]

Regarding Treblinka, I quite like this thread on another forum. Lots of sourced information from various places, discussing the death camp there.

One should note that the SS Commander at Treblinka, Kurt Franz, has been quoted as saying (in 1998 of all things) this.

"I cannot say how many Jews in total were gassed in Treblinka. On average each day a large train arrived. Sometimes there were even two. This however was not so common."

"In Treblinka I was commander of the Ukrainian guard unit as I had been in Belzec. In Treblinka as in Belzec the unit consisted of sixty to eighty men. The Ukrainians' main task was to man the guard posts around the camp perimeter. After the uprising in August 1943 I ran the camp more or less single-handedly for a month; however, during that period no gassings were undertaken."

"It was during that period that the original camp was demolished. Everything was leveled off off and lupins were planted..."

Source:Klee, E., W. Dressen, V. Riess. The Good Old Days. New York: The Free Press, NY, 1988.

The Hofle Telegram also provides some firm evidence, taken directly from the Nazis, of how many Jews had been gassed at Treblinka.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Still waiting for you to post Krege's credentials in the use and interpretation of the results from GPR, and your justification of a "largely undisturbed" plot of land you agree contained a camp which was later farmed....
.

You should pay attention better, because I already showed you that Krege is working for an institute for earth sciences.

http://www.rses.anu.edu.au/research/ee/index.php?p=ee_staff

I don't know what experience you have with farming, but farming usually means 'scratching the surface', like ploughing the soil at a depth of maybe 20 cm, or whatever medieval units you are accustomed to. Until the end of the communist era that meant ploughing with a horse.

http://www.vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Krege62-64.html

Der nachfolgende Beitrag ist eine einleitende Vorabveröffentlichung einer Studie, die zur Zeit in Bearbeitung ist. Sie basiert auf der Verwendung moderner Radartechnologie, mit deren Hilfe man die Zusammensetzung des Erdreiches bis 30 Meter Tiefe unter der Oberfläche messen kann, ohne das Erdreich selbst zu bewegen.

He is able to look until 30 m depth. Who cares about the surface?

Die Australier haben ihr Gerät auf eine Tiefe bis 6 Meter eingestellt. Gegenstände in der Größenordnung eines Küchenmessers können damit leicht gefunden werden.

The Australians configured their equipment to look at depths until 6 m, enough to discern a knife.

Das Gerät sendet ein Radarsignal senkrecht durch den Boden und ein entsprechendes Bild erscheint auf einem Monitor. Diese digitalen Bilder können dann in einem Computer gespeichert werden. Unter normalen Umständen sieht man einen unberührten Erdboden als eine Anordnung relativ ununterbrochener horizontaler Schichten. Diese Schichten nennt man »Horizonte«. Alle Abweichungen von dieser gleichmäßigen Schichtung, wie Steine, Baumstümpfe und -wurzeln, Wasseradern, Hohlräume oder abweichende Bodenmaterialien (Sand, Ton, Stein usw.) erscheinen als Unterbrechungen oder Variationen in den Horizonten. Ein Spatenstich im Boden beispielsweise erscheint als eine senkrechte Unterbrechung der Horizonte, wobei die Tiefe des Stichs sehr genau gemessen werden kann.

The crux is that if the soil has not been disturbed you will see so-called 'horizons' on your screen, horizontal lines. If there are disturbances like tree roots or rabbit holes or stones or if the earth has been disturbed by digging a mass grave your will see clear disturbances in the horizontal lines.

These were not observed hence the simple conclusions: there never were mass graves here and Treblinka was a transit camp. Hence the absence of crematoria. End of story. You can put Treblinka to the long list of other lies like Dachau, Mauthausen or Sachsenhausen being extermination centers with gas chambers.

All lies. War propaganda.

 

[Simon39759]

You should pay attention better, because I already showed you that Krege is working for an institute for earth sciences.

http://www.rses.anu.edu.au/research/ee/index.php?p=ee_staff

!and you were already explained why it means nothing. "Earth Science" is very vague (it includes meterology, for example) and there is nothing on the site you link that suggest that Krege had any experience working with GPR equipement.
I also explained to you what you need to prove Krege's experience, a peer reviewed article authored before the Treblinka research that also relied on the use of that equipment.
Barred that, he does not have the credentials.

Once he produces these credentials, the debate can move as to his analysis.

 

[Maja]

I've been following this debate for some time and resisting the urge to join in, but I can't let this particular point remain unanswered:

1. Toronto Great Holocaust Trial. First of all we have the Great Zuendel Trials that turned into Great Holocaust Trials in Toronto 1985-1989. The breakthrough was not that Zuendel was cleared of any acquisations, the real highlight was that holocaust pope Hilberg was exposed as the fraud that he was. Hilberg had to admit that there was no documentary evidence for mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers whatsoever.

No, he most certainly did not admit that. This is what he said when Crown Attorney Peter Griffiths asked him to comment on the claim that there were no documents proving the mass extermination of Jews:

Griffiths returned to Did Six Million Really Die? and read from page 10:

"It should be emphasized straight away that there is not a single document in existence which proves that the Germans intended to, or carried out, the deliberate murder of Jews."

"Leaving aside what the authors meant by the term 'document'," said Hilberg, "my interpretation of German records is that there are, indeed, many hundreds of documents dealing with death- dealing operations directly, and reporting upon them, and giving figures and details... for example, when the German armies crossed the border into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941, they were accompanied by battalion-size units of Security Police and Security Service. These units called Einsatzgruppen reported back on a daily basis all their operations, above all, of course, the killings of people, and that is 90, 95 percent Jews, according to those reports, in various localities of the vast regions of the USSR from the Baltic to the Black Sea. That is just one example of direct reportage in the German documents." (4-697) These documents existed today, said Hilberg and he had seen them. "These documents were Nuremberg documents. They come from the pile of records that the United States captured, or they are photostatic copies, microfilm copies available from the National Archives of the United States. I would not describe them as rare." (4-698)

What he did "admit to" is that he didn't have the actual documents with him in the courtroom, because it isn't a witness's task to provide evidence (as defense attorney Christie was, apparently, trying to imply):

And isn't it true, asked Christie, that in your entire evidence, today and yesterday, in your broad, sweeping statements of fact, you have not yourself produced one single document to support anything you have said?

"I have made verbal, oral references to documents. The matter of introducing documents in the form of pieces of papers I need hardly tell you, as an attorney, is a matter for the government to decide. I am not the person introducing documents at any time in any court whatsoever. I am simply a witness trying to explain what I know," said Hilberg.

Then you would agree, said Christie, that the simple answer is 'no', and the reason is because the Crown hasn't introduced them through you. Is that your evidence?

"Well, as you just restated the matter, I could accept it broadly, but I wish to remain with my words." (4-765)

I want to understand your words, said Christie. Very simply, that you have yourself, whether it's through the Crown's decision or yours, not produced one single document to support what you have said. Isn't that true?

Hilberg replied, "I have not presented pieces of paper, nor do I deem it my function to do so, but I have orally referred to pieces of paper."

Yes, said Christie, you have mentioned the existence of hundreds of orders and hundreds of train railway schedules and special trains but you have not produced one single example, sir. Have you?

"I have given you oral examples, with leaving out only the document numbers. And if you wish, you can check them in a book I have written. Quite a few are in there."

To sum up, Hilberg claimed that there were many documents proving the Holocaust. He had examined them, he knew who had produced them and in which archives they were kept. He just didn't own them (historians rarely own the documents they use) and he didn't bring them to the trial (because he was a witness, not an attorney). That hardly "exposes him as a fraud."

The quotes I used are from a revisionist site: http://www.zundelsite.org/dsmrd/dsmrd09hilberg.html

 

[TSR]

You should pay attention better, because I already showed you that Krege is working for an institute for earth sciences.

.
And the proof that his job at this institute involved the use of GPR is ... ?

Once again, a *recognized* expert contradicts what Krege is supposed to have said.

Why don't you ask him to release the raw data to such experts so that his conclusions can be verified?

Or would you rather just admit that Krege has no training or expertise in the use of GPR, and so has only proved that deniers will grasp any straw?
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

And the proof that his job at this institute involved the use of GPR is ... ?

You mean the this institute of earth sciences? I agree with you that this Australian institute probably uses a plough and a horse to collect soil data.

For more serious people, here is a short video that shows GPR in action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHVyERIB-to

Quit appropiately this video is from... Poland.

Once again, a *recognized* expert contradicts what Krege is supposed to have said.

Any other opinion would brand this expert as a holocaust denier, basically a career killer.

Why don't you ask him to release the raw data to such experts so that his conclusions can be verified?

You really think that Krege will be triggered by an email from Holland?

Or would you rather just admit that Krege has no training or expertise in the use of GPR, and so has only proved that deniers will grasp any straw?

A look at the video reveals that not much expertise is needed to operate the thing. Anybody could do it, maybe even you. Nobody needs to be an 'expert photographer' in order to make nice pictures anyway. GPR same thing.

 

[Simon39759]

You mean the this institute of earth sciences? I agree with you that this Australian institute probably uses a plough and a horse to collect soil data.

Earth science =/= soil science.

Earth science = anything regarding the PLANET earth, from geology to meterology.


I have told you that several times now. The fact that you have no answer and choose to ignore it strongly suggests that you don't have an answer and one can assume your attitude to be an implicit admission that Krege is not, in fact, qualified.

 

[Arkyrion]

You mean the this institute of earth sciences? I agree with you that this Australian institute probably uses a plough and a horse to collect soil data.

My, oh my, 9/11, you've truly outdone yourself. Where most are content to make mere Ad Hominem attacks, you have attained a higher level in the Ad Patriam. Congratulations, good sir.

 

[Simon39759]

My, oh my, 9/11, you've truly outdone yourself. Where most are content to make mere Ad Hominem attacks, you have attained a higher level in the Ad Patriam. Congratulations, good sir.

Herm... His whole "argument" is plump with ad genesis

 

[TSR]

You mean the this institute of earth sciences? I agree with you that this Australian institute probably uses a plough and a horse to collect soil data.

A look at the video reveals that not much expertise is needed to operate the thing. Anybody could do it, maybe even you. Nobody needs to be an 'expert photographer' in order to make nice pictures anyway. GPR same thing.

.
So, you agree that Krege has no expertise in the use and interpretation of GPR.

Why, then, do you dismiss the opinion of a recognized expert in the field?
.

 

[Simon39759]

A look at the video reveals that not much expertise is needed to operate the thing. Anybody could do it, maybe even you. Nobody needs to be an 'expert photographer' in order to make nice pictures anyway. GPR same thing.

Well, I am glad that we have your expert opinion on the handling of GPR.
Just to be clear, how much experience do you have handling it?

Just to be clearer "taking the picture" is only the first part of the deal. You then need to Analyze the data. But I guess, that too is easy...


Brain surgery... Anybody could do it, I mean, how complicated could it be?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Sigh. Kurt Gerron, Karel Polacek, Benjamin Fondane, Charlotte Salomon, Itzhak Katzenelson, Regina Jones. Those are just a few of the names of people from various walks of life killed by the Nazis at Auschwitz.

Uzzy wants to suggest that I am defending the thesis that basically nobody got killed in the 3rd Reich. That's ridiculous. The theme of this thread is the alleged holocaust where millions were said to be exterminated in gas chambers.

1. Kurt Gerron. After the German army occupied the Netherlands, he was interned in the transit camp at Westerbork before being sent to Theresienstadt concentration camp. There he ran a cabaret called The Karussell to entertain the inmates. Here again we see this unexpected Vaudeville aspect of the holocaust, like we earlier say in the icon of the holocaust: Auschwitz.

Wikipedia continues: In 1944, Gerron was either persuaded or coerced[1] by the Nazis to make a propaganda film showing how humane the conditions were at Theresienstadt. After shooting finished, Gerron was deported on the camp's final[citation needed] transport to Auschwitz. He was murdered immediately upon arrival. Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler did not order the gas chambers shut down until the next day.[citation needed]. And here the story telling starts. There is no known order of Himmler shutting down the gas chambers. There is no doubt that Gerron was killed, possibly because of insubordination or simply out of frustration about the immanent defeat. But there is no proof that Gerron (or anybody else) was killed in the 'gas chambers of Auschwitz'.

Gerron movie about Theresienstadt.

2. Karel Polacek. Then he was hired by the Jewish religious community. By the end of 1943 he was transported to the concentration camp in Terezín and then transported to Auschwitz. He died in Gleiwitz camp. Not even the Wiesenthal Center will claim that Poplacek was gassed.

3. Benjamin Fondane. In March 1944, he was arrested by Vichy France policemen and held in the Drancy camp, until being deported to Auschwitz on May 30. He was killed in the infamous gas chamber. Obviously he died but not a shred of evidence that that happened in a gas chamber together with millions of others.

4. and so on...

 

[9/11-investigator]

.Why, then, do you dismiss the opinion of a recognized expert in the field?
.

You are not very attentive. Read #2951:

Any other opinion would brand this expert as a holocaust denier, basically a career killer.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I've been following this debate for some time and resisting the urge to join in, but I can't let this particular point remain unanswered:

No, he most certainly did not admit that. This is what he said when Crown Attorney Peter Griffiths asked him to comment on the claim that there were no documents proving the mass extermination of Jews:

Hilberg said: "Leaving aside what the authors meant by the term 'document'," said Hilberg, "my interpretation of German records is that there are, indeed, many hundreds of documents dealing with death- dealing operations directly, and reporting upon them, and giving figures and details... for example, when the German armies crossed the border into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941, they were accompanied by battalion-size units of Security Police and Security Service. These units called Einsatzgruppen reported back on a daily basis all their operations, above all, of course, the killings of people, and that is 90, 95 percent Jews, according to those reports, in various localities of the vast regions of the USSR from the Baltic to the Black Sea. That is just one example of direct reportage in the German documents." (4-697) These documents existed today, said Hilberg and he had seen them. "These documents were Nuremberg documents. They come from the pile of records that the United States captured, or they are photostatic copies, microfilm copies available from the National Archives of the United States. I would not describe them as rare." (4-698)

Hilberg ignores the gas chambers and starts rambling about the Einsatzgruppen, who were basically mopping up communist partisans and commisars, who very often happened to be Jews.

What he did "admit to" is that he didn't have the actual documents with him in the courtroom, because it isn't a witness's task to provide evidence (as defense attorney Christie was, apparently, trying to imply):

To sum up, Hilberg claimed that there were many documents proving the Holocaust. He had examined them, he knew who had produced them and in which archives they were kept. He just didn't own them (historians rarely own the documents they use) and he didn't bring them to the trial (because he was a witness, not an attorney).

Oh poor Hilberg had all the proof, unfortunately he had forgotten to put them in his briefcase together with his sandwhiches his wife had prepared for him. Of course he could have taken them with him the next day. He didn't. What a joke. During part-II of the trial he simply refused to show up. He didn't want to be embarrased again as a swindler. Hilber never ever produced any documentary proof that an extermination program existed. Reason: there was none.

That hardly "exposes him as a fraud."

No imbicil would be as appropiate, if what you claim was true..

 

[9/11-investigator]

!and you were already explained why it means nothing. "Earth Science" is very vague (it includes meterology, for example) and there is nothing on the site you link that suggest that Krege had any experience working with GPR equipement.
I also explained to you what you need to prove Krege's experience, a peer reviewed article authored before the Treblinka research that also relied on the use of that equipment.
Barred that, he does not have the credentials.

Once he produces these credentials, the debate can move as to his analysis.

I propose that we close the Krege subject as everything has been said about it.

- I say that it is nearly impossible to do anything wrong in this simple research.
- You say that it is unproven that he was qualified to do the job and that there is no peer-reviewed report.

Unless somebody (like me) comes up with a new point of view I stop answering future questions as everything has been said about it.