From mvanalst@rbi.com Tue Aug 13 23:40:22 PDT 1996
Article: 57179 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!noos.hooked.net!news1.best.com!nntp1.best.com!rbi146.rbi.com!user
From: mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust extermination claims
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:53:18 -0800
Organization: rbi software systems
Lines: 243
Message-ID: 
References:  <4uq2dn$h5a@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbi146.rbi.com
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.0.5b5

In article <4uq2dn$h5a@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com
(Ehrlich606) wrote:

> In article ,
> jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) writes:
> 
> First of all, I want to thank Jamie for summarizing some of Pressac's
> arguments.  If Pressac's book was more widely distributed then it wouldn't
> be necessary to get these arguments second hand.
> 
> >And indeed, Pressac demonstrates in his "complementary proof" (ibid),
> >with drawing 2197 and photographs he has taken from inside the gas
> >chamber as it stands today, that the showerheads were dummies.
> >
> >He even goes so far as to calculate the number of showerheads which
> >would have been required for Leichenkeller 1, based on average areas
> >covered by showerheads in six other buildings at Auschwitz.  By his
> >calculations, one would expect that 115 showerheads would be required
> >per Leichenkeller (ibid), but only 14 were planned and installed.
> >Pressac spares no effort to find many corroborations of his proof.
> 
> This is an instance of a place where I have a problem with Pressac's
> reasoning.  The Leichenkeller is about 100 feet by 25 feet.  I can
> visualize this.  And, I can visualize a communal shower in such a space,
> for which 14 shower heads would be sufficient.  Such is my experience with
> communal showers, anyway.  But _115_ showerheads?  Not in any communal
> shower I have ever seen, either in the service or in school.  Not to
> mention the water pressure to operate such an extravaganza, or the water
> wastage that would result.  So, without questioning Pressac's conclusion,
> I consider this a weak criminal trace.

Faulty reasoning on your part, actually. Simply because _you_ haven't seen
a communal shower with large numbers of showerheads you dismiss Pressac's
argument? Or simply because _you_ rationalize that 14 shower heads in a
"sauna" measuring 30m x 7m x 2.4m "would be sufficient" you dismiss
Pressac's argument?

But what did the _Nazis_ think "would be [a] sufficient" number of
showerheads in a communal shower at Auschwitz? I would argue (as does Mr.
McCarthy) that the answer can be found by examining the construction
drawings and photos of the Zentral Sauna (and other similar facilities) at
Auschwitz. In the Bauleitung drawing 1841 (an initial drawing which was
unrealized) one can see that the Brauseraum (shower room) contained 54
showerheads in a room measuring approximately 10m x 8m. (_Technique_,
p.68.) Clearly, early on the _Nazis_ thought that a communal shower needed
more showerheads than _you_ do. 

Considering that Bauleitung drawing 1841 was never realized, it would be
best to  reference a drawing that _was_ realized to forstall the
inevitable denier objections. I then would bring to your attention
Bauleitung drawing 3084 (Ibid. p.76.). The shower room of this drawing, by
my count, shows 50 showerheads in the shower room, which by my
measurement, is about 11m x 8m. In addition, Photo 25 (Ibid. p.80), shows
(at least) 30 of these 50 showerheads.

Yet L.Keller 1, which measured 30m x 7m, having nearly 2.4 times the area
as the shower room in the Zentral Sauna, contained less than 1/3 the
number of (faux) showerheads. Put it another way, the shower room in the
Zentral Sauna had one showerhead per 1.76 sq m of floorspace . K.Keller 1,
other the otherhand, had one (faux) showerhead per 15 sq. m of floorspace.


And you see nothing _wrong_ with this picture? (Besides the fact that the
showerheads in L.Keller 1 were _non-functional_.) Amazing. Must by that
blind eye of your's acting up again.... 

> >I should point out that revisionists, up until the publication of
> >Pressac's work, considered the Leichenkeller 1 to be morgues, Leuchter
> >of course leading the way.  Pressac demolished that argument with his
> >numerous demonstrations that the room was for gassing.  In response,
> >revisionists like Mattogno have started arguing that the room was for
> >_delousing_ gassing (never mind that they contradict other
> >revisionists, principally Leuchter).  But Pressac _also_ anticipated
> >_that_ argument and eliminated it as well.
> 
> Leuchter, Krakow, and Rudolf have all found small traces of HCN in the
> walls.  That means either cyanide gas that is not allowed to linger
> (convention), fumigated once (Leuchter), or null values (Rudolf).  

> From what I understand, Mattogno has found documentation in Moscow 
> stating that the room was marked off as *Entlauesungskammer* i.e., 
> delousing chamber, but this is supposed to mean in the showering sense. 

Hardly a revelation. It is known from eyewitness testimonies that the gas
chambers were labeled with signs that said, in essense, "Zum Baden und
Desinfektion" (to bath and disinfection), "Bath and disinfecting Room," or
"To disinfection." (cf. Tauber, Ibid. p.483; Nyiszli, _Auschwitz_, p.49;
Broad, _KL Auschwitz_, p.177.) In addition, the victims were _also_ told
that they were going to be bathed and deloused. (cf. Ho"ss, _Death
Dealer_,  p.43; Broad, _KL Aushwitz_, p.175.)

> ...Van Pelt has a photo of a document in his latest book that claims that 
> 19 (or some similar number) gas chambers were designed for the Auschwitz.  
> I look at the drawing, I see what look to be cubicles (i.e., like shower 
> cubicles) and they are marked on the drawing *Entlauesungskammern*.

Full citation, please. On what page, exactly, was this mentioned? What
page was the photo on? 

> Query:  were showers ever referred to as *delousing chambers* at any
> location? 

Not to my knowledge. The delousing chambers were strictly for the 
articles of clothing and other personal effects taken from the prisoners
and victims. The series of Bauleitung drawings 801, 1293, 1715, and 2540,
for the delousing installations (buildings BW5a and BW5b) loacated in the
Womens' Camp clearly delineates between the delousing facilities and the
shower room: "Gaskammer" vs, "Wasch und Brauseraum" or "Kammer" vs.
"Brauseraum". (cf. _Technique_, pp.55-58.)

BTW, the shower room (Bauleitung drawing 2540) also clearly shows that it
too had 50 showerheads in the shower room which measured about 14m x 9m.
(Ibid. p.58.)  

> Is it possible to combine HCN in any concentration with water for
> delousing purposes?  I am open here.

Yes. Photos 22, 23, and 24 (_Technique_, p.79) show a shallow concrete
trough (located in the Zentral Sauna) that held a solution of water and
prussic acid and was used to disinfest the prisoners. The caption to the
photos reads:

"Three views of the shallow bath situated at the entrance to the showers,
filled with water and hydrocyanic acid in which the prisoners' body hair
was disinfested just before the shower." (Ibid.) 

In addition, the following excerpt, an adaptation of a letter from a
former Czech prisoner to the head of the PMO, also helps clarify the
procedure:

"Before the shower and during the disinfestation, the prisoners underwent
a disinfesting treatment. Just inside the entrance door to the showers [in
the Zentral Sauna] there was a small concrete bath full of a mixture of
water and hydrocyanic acid, obtained by pouring Zyklon-B crystals in the
water. The prisoners arriving for his shower, naked and with his head
shaved, stepped into this basin and another stationed alongside the basin,
his hand protected by a glove, passed the mixture over his head, under the
arms and over the pubic hair." (Ibid.) 

Needless to say, no such troughs appear on the drawings for the Kremas and
no eyetwitness testimony, to my knowledge, mentions such a trough in the
Kremas. 

> >His "supplementary proof" is that an inventory of Leichenkeller 1 of
> >Krema II contained 4 wire mesh introduction devices and 4 wooden covers
> >(pp. 429-430).  These could only be used to exterminate human beings.
> >As he points out, we have everything but signed affidavits to the
> >murders themselves:  "It would be too much to expect the SS to have
> >formally written that Zyclon-B was poured into these introduction
> >devices." (p. 430)
> 
> Again, the only problem I have with these devices is that while they may
> be listed on the inventory I have never seen one of things...

Just because _you_ never saw a wire mesh introduction column doesn't mean
they never existed! (Such a _subjective_ world view you have! Tsk tsk.)
The fact is that they were removed from the L.Keller when the Kremas II
and II were dismantled. Along with, for instance the gas-tight door to
L.Kller 1 and the benches that were in L.Keller 2. (A gas-tight door- with
a heavy wire grid covering the peephole -and benches were revovered in the
Auschwizt Bauhof in 1945. [cf. Ibid. p.486.) 

>...and apparently neither has anyone else.

David Ole`re did. He even drew the wire mesh introduction column in the
background of a sketch he made in 1946 that depicted the "dentists"
extracting the gold teeth from the bodies of the victims who were killed
in the gas chambers. (Ibid. Document 31, p.493.) 

Michal Kula did. One can see a drawing of the introduction column based on
his June 11, 1945, deposition that looks like the one in Ole`re's sketch.
(cf. Ibid. 487.) 

Henryk Tauber did. He described the wire mesh introduction columns in his
deposition taken at the Ho"ss Trial. It sounds like the one described in
the drawing made from Kula' deposition. (cf. Ibid. pp.483-484.) 

Nyiszli did. His description is similar to Tauber's. (cf. Nyiszli,
_Auschwitz_, p.50.) 

And you claim "apparently" nobody else saw the wire mesh Zyklon B
introduction columns? Telling whoppers, are we now? Tsk tsk. You should
_know_ better- especially as _I've_ informed _you_ about Tauber, Nyiszli,
and Kula(?) before.  

> >And Pressac has other proofs as well.  He cites documents which refer to
> >Leichenkeller 2, the room next to Leichenkeller 1, as an "undressing
> >room" (pp. 432-434, 438).  Why would the Nazis need a room where a
> >thousand or more people could undress simultaneously, unless, of
> >course, they were about to be killed in the adjoining room?  There's an
> >order for an urgently-needed peephole with a double layer of 8 mm thick
> >glass.  (p. 434)  Why would two layers of third-of-an-inch-thick glass
> >be required for the peephole in a morgue?
> 
> The problem you have with this is that the undressing room is about 175
> feet by 25 feet.  I have seen undressing rooms for bathers at swimming
> pools that are crowded for undressing purposes with just a couple hundred
> people inside.  Yet, there is this insistence on a thousand, two thousand,
> three thousand ....

Your appeals to incredulity (not to mention your ersatz "authority") are
wearing thin. Obviously, you have no substantial rebuttal and must instead
wave your hands and say it cannot be Because! Ehrlich606! Says! So!

Talk about lowest common (denier) denominators! 

> >In his "39 criminal traces" section, he doesn't even mention the
> >architectural modifications to the Krema, which also establish clearly
> >that the rooms were not morgues.  (pp. 267-331)
> 
> such as?

The elimination of the corspe chutes and the addition of a stairway
leading to the basement antechamber between L.Kellers 1 and 2. Also the
addition of the western access stairway to L.Keller 2. 

> >Nor does he mention
> >the photographs which corroborate the existence of the wire mesh
> >introduction devices and their "little chimneys" (pp. 340-342).  Again,
> >this is because these are merely _corroborating_ evidence, not _proof_,
> >by Pressac's phenomenally strict standards.
> >
> 
> Again, what photos do you mean, unless it is the crate photograph or the
> aerial photos.  I am listening to you here. 

The very one. The one which you (and Mr. Allen) keep flip-flopping over in
your claims as to what the "little chimneys" are. The ones you are purely
_speculating_ as to what the "little chimneys" are while dogmatically
ignoring the plentitude of evidence for their being part of the Zyklon B
introduction system for L.Keller 1. 

Mark

posted/e-mailed to Mr. McCarthy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes 
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts." 

-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From mvanalst@rbi.com Wed Aug 14 13:55:21 PDT 1996
Article: 57310 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!noos.hooked.net!news1.best.com!nntp1.best.com!rbi148.rbi.com!user
From: mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust extermination claims
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 04:37:33 -0800
Organization: rbi software systems
Lines: 412
Message-ID: 
References:  <4us3ti$g8i@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbi148.rbi.com
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.0.5b5

In article <4us3ti$g8i@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com
(Ehrlich606) wrote:

> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
> (Mark Van Alstine) writes:
> 
> >> This is an instance of a place where I have a problem with Pressac's
> >> reasoning.  The Leichenkeller is about 100 feet by 25 feet.  I can
> >> visualize this.  And, I can visualize a communal shower in such a
> >> space, for which 14 shower heads would be sufficient.  Such is my 
> >> experience with communal showers, anyway.  But _115_ showerheads?  
> >> Not in any communal shower I have ever seen, either in the service 
> >> or in school.  Not to mention the water pressure to operate such an 
> >> extravaganza, or the water wastage that would result. So, without 
> >> questioning Pressac's conclusion, I consider this a weak criminal trace.
> >
> >Faulty reasoning on your part, actually. Simply because _you_ haven't
> >seen a communal shower with large numbers of showerheads you dismiss 
> >Pressac's argument? Or simply because _you_ rationalize that 14 shower 
> >heads in a "sauna" measuring 30m x 7m x 2.4m "would be sufficient" you 
> >dismiss Pressac's argument?
> 
> Are you suggesting that _my_ reservations have to take a back seat to
> someone else's authority?  LOL!  

Nope. I'm saying that your reservations rely on your appealing to your
"authority" and/or incredulity. Basically, you simply stick your head in
the sand under the guise of your "reservations" when you can't marshall a
meaningful rebuttal. That, or simply walk away. 

> These are the kinds of things that bother me, that's all.

A well worn and hollow excuse. 

> But, by the way, thanks for the information.

I'd say "you're welcome" but I suspect it went in one ear and out the other.... 

> >But what did the _Nazis_ think "would be [a] sufficient" number of
> >showerheads in a communal shower at Auschwitz? I would argue (as does Mr.
> >McCarthy) that the answer can be found by examining the construction
> >drawings and photos of the Zentral Sauna (and other similar facilities)
> >at Auschwitz. In the Bauleitung drawing 1841 (an initial drawing which was
> >unrealized) one can see that the Brauseraum (shower room) contained 54
> >showerheads in a room measuring approximately 10m x 8m. (_Technique_,
> >p.68.) Clearly, early on the _Nazis_ thought that a communal shower
> >needed more showerheads than _you_ do. 
> 
> How are these showerheads arranged?  And, indeed, how are they arranged in
> the LK?

The short of it is that _none_ of the (faux) showerheads (nor any 
plumbing for them) are on the plans for the L.Kellers. The _functional_
showerheads (and plumbing) _are_ on the construction plans for the Zentral
Sauna and BW5a/b. 

Don't you consider that a bit odd? Or will you continue to squirm to avoid
facing reality? 

> >Considering that Bauleitung drawing 1841 was never realized, it would be
> >best to  reference a drawing that _was_ realized to forstall the
> >inevitable denier objections. I then would bring to your attention
> >Bauleitung drawing 3084 (Ibid. p.76.). The shower room of this drawing,
> >by my count, shows 50 showerheads in the shower room, which by my
> >measurement, is about 11m x 8m. In addition, Photo 25 (Ibid. p.80), shows
> >(at least) 30 of these 50 showerheads.
> >
> >Yet L.Keller 1, which measured 30m x 7m, having nearly 2.4 times the area
> >as the shower room in the Zentral Sauna, contained less than 1/3 the
> >number of (faux) showerheads. Put it another way, the shower room in the
> >Zentral Sauna had one showerhead per 1.76 sq m of floorspace. K.Keller 1,
> >other the otherhand, had one (faux) showerhead per 15 sq. m of floorspace.
> 
> Again, the question I would ask is how these were arranged, and how did
> you arrive at your count?

In the plans for the Zentral Suana and BW5a/b they are arranged in a grid.
The number of showerheads was _printed_ on drawings 1841 and 2540:
"54-Brausen" and "50 Brausen," respectively. On drawing 3084 I simply
counted the dots that represented the showerheads in the shower room. 

Again, will you continue your squirming to avoid facing reality? Or will
stop these denier charades and admit you are being muleheaded in regards
to this? 

> >And you see nothing _wrong_ with this picture? (Besides the fact that the
> >showerheads in L.Keller 1 were _non-functional_.) Amazing. Must by that
> >blind eye of your's acting up again.... 
> 
> I don't know anything about them being non-functional.

Understandable, considering you are evidencing very litle knowledge of the
subject. Yet this doesn't seem to stop you from venturing opinions. Why is
that? Can't resist? Have a denier post quota to fullfill? 

But to the non-fuctionality of the faux showerheads: No working plumbing
for them. Kind of hard to get water coming out of showerheads when they
aren't hooked up, wouldn't you agree? 

> >> >I should point out that revisionists, up until the publication of
> >> >Pressac's work, considered the Leichenkeller 1 to be morgues, Leuchter
> >> >of course leading the way.  Pressac demolished that argument with his
> >> >numerous demonstrations that the room was for gassing.  In response,
> >> >revisionists like Mattogno have started arguing that the room was for
> >> >_delousing_ gassing (never mind that they contradict other
> >> >revisionists, principally Leuchter).  But Pressac _also_ anticipated
> >> >_that_ argument and eliminated it as well.
> >> 
> >> Leuchter, Krakow, and Rudolf have all found small traces of HCN in the
> >> walls.  That means either cyanide gas that is not allowed to linger
> >> (convention), fumigated once (Leuchter), or null values (Rudolf).  
> >
> >> From what I understand, Mattogno has found documentation in Moscow 
> >> stating that the room was marked off as *Entlauesungskammer* i.e., 
> >> delousing chamber, but this is supposed to mean in the showering sense.
> 
> >Hardly a revelation. It is known from eyewitness testimonies that the gas
> >chambers were labeled with signs that said, in essense, "Zum Baden und
> >Desinfektion" (to bath and disinfection), "Bath and disinfecting Room,"
> >or "To disinfection." (cf. Tauber, Ibid. p.483; Nyiszli, _Auschwitz_, p.49;
> >Broad, _KL Auschwitz_, p.177.) In addition, the victims were _also_ told
> >that they were going to be bathed and deloused. (cf. Ho"ss, _Death
> >Dealer_,  p.43; Broad, _KL Aushwitz_, p.175.)
> 
> Yes, Yes, I know that part.  The question is whether *Badeanstalten fuer
> Sonderaktionen* and *Entlauesungskammern* are synonymous in terms of what
> they describe, and whether these terms have anything but a sinister or
> homicidal connotation.

No, no, the question is why _you_ (and other deniers) try to obfuscate the
issues with such specious "interpretations?" Why _do_ you? 

> >> ...Van Pelt has a photo of a document in his latest book that claims
> >> that 19 (or some similar number) gas chambers were designed for the
> >> Auschwitz. look at the drawing, I see what look to be cubicles (i.e., 
> >> like shower cubicles) and they are marked on the drawing 
> >> *Entlauesungskammern*.
> >
> >Full citation, please. On what page, exactly, was this mentioned? What
> >page was the photo on? 
> 
> I can't give you the citation straight off because I don't have the book. 
> I browsed through it at a bookstore, looking, frankly, at the pictures. 
> But I assume you have the book, since you have referenced it once.  It is
> in one of the glossy photo inserts. I will try to give you a more precise
> reference as soon as I can.

In the meantime I have the book here in front of me and opened to the
(glossy) section entitled "Bluprints of Genocide," starting after p. 320.
I see on Plate 8 the "early design sketch for the prisoner reception
building in the main camp.... To the left is the laundry, to the right the
baths, and the center wing houses the prisoner reception facilities and
the pavillion with nineteen Zyklon B gas chambers." 

In the _main_ camp. To "the right the baths, and the center wing houses
the prisoner reception facilities and the pavillion with nineteen Zyklon B
gas chambers." Sure sounds like those "*Entlauesungskammern*" cubicles
weren't "shower cubicles." (You really should take more care when browsing
books....) 

The Bauleitung drawing 1361 (_Technique_ p.35) gives much better detail.
In the drawing it can be seen that the plan of the prisonerss bath
("Grundriss-Ha"ftlingsbad") which contains the shower room ("Brausenraum")
is in a seperate section from the delousing pavillion ("Entlausung") and
its delousing gas chambers. 

BTW, by my count, there are 60 showerheads laid out in a grid in the
shower room. Also, Photo 12 (Ibid. p. 38), which is a detail of Bauleitung
drawing 916 (Ibid. p.34), shows that the delousing pavillion was labeled
"Blausa"ure-Entlausunganlage" (prussic acid delousing installation). The
(gas) chambers ("Kammers") were numbered from 1 to 19. The caption to
Photo 12 reads:

"Detail of drawing 916 showing location of the 19 delousing gas chambers
each with a volume 10.80 cubic meters." (Ibid.) 

> >> Query:  were showers ever referred to as *delousing chambers* at any
> >> location? 
> >
> >Not to my knowledge. The delousing chambers were strictly for the 
> >articles of clothing and other personal effects taken from the prisoners
> >and victims. The series of Bauleitung drawings 801, 1293, 1715, and 2540,
> >for the delousing installations (buildings BW5a and BW5b) loacated in the
> >Womens' Camp clearly delineates between the delousing facilities and the
> >shower room: "Gaskammer" vs, "Wasch und Brauseraum" or "Kammer" vs.
> >"Brauseraum". (cf. _Technique_, pp.55-58.)
> >
> >BTW, the shower room (Bauleitung drawing 2540) also clearly shows that it
> >too had 50 showerheads in the shower room which measured about 14m x 9m.
> >(Ibid. p.58.)  
> 
> OK, this is better information.

And it keeps getting better too. Unless you're a denier wedded to the idea
that the L.Kellers were _delousing_ chambers that is....

> >> Is it possible to combine HCN in any concentration with water for
> >> delousing purposes?  I am open here.
> >
> >Yes. Photos 22, 23, and 24 (_Technique_, p.79) show a shallow concrete
> >trough (located in the Zentral Sauna) that held a solution of water and
> >prussic acid and was used to disinfest the prisoners. The caption to the
> >photos reads:
> >
> >"Three views of the shallow bath situated at the entrance to the showers,
> >filled with water and hydrocyanic acid in which the prisoners' body hair
> >was disinfested just before the shower." (Ibid.) 
> >
> >In addition, the following excerpt, an adaptation of a letter from a
> >former Czech prisoner to the head of the PMO, also helps clarify the
> >procedure:
> >
> >"Before the shower and during the disinfestation, the prisoners underwent
> >a disinfesting treatment. Just inside the entrance door to the showers
> >[in the Zentral Sauna] there was a small concrete bath full of a mixture of
> >water and hydrocyanic acid, obtained by pouring Zyklon-B crystals in the
> >water. The prisoners arriving for his shower, naked and with his head
> >shaved, stepped into this basin and another stationed alongside the
> >basin, his hand protected by a glove, passed the mixture over his head, under
> >the arms and over the pubic hair." (Ibid.) 
> >
> >Needless to say, no such troughs appear on the drawings for the Kremas
> >and no eyetwitness testimony, to my knowledge, mentions such a trough in the
> >Kremas. 
> 
> OK, that's fine.  This is good information.

Better and better.... 

> >> >His "supplementary proof" is that an inventory of Leichenkeller 1 of
> >> >Krema II contained 4 wire mesh introduction devices and 4 wooden
> >> >covers (pp. 429-430).  These could only be used to exterminate human 
> >> >beings.As he points out, we have everything but signed affidavits to 
> >> >the murders themselves:  "It would be too much to expect the SS to have
> >> >formally written that Zyclon-B was poured into these introduction
> >> >devices." (p. 430)
> >> 
> >> Again, the only problem I have with these devices is that while they
> >> may be listed on the inventory I have never seen one of things...
> >
> >Just because _you_ never saw a wire mesh introduction column doesn't mean
> >they never existed! (Such a _subjective_ world view you have! Tsk tsk.)
> >The fact is that they were removed from the L.Keller when the Kremas II
> >and II were dismantled. Along with, for instance the gas-tight door to
> >L.Kller 1 and the benches that were in L.Keller 2. (A gas-tight door-
> >with a heavy wire grid covering the peephole -and benches were revovered in
> >the Auschwizt Bauhof in 1945. [cf. Ibid. p.486.) 
> >
> >>...and apparently neither has anyone else.
> >
> >David Ole`re did. He even drew the wire mesh introduction column in the
> >background of a sketch he made in 1946 that depicted the "dentists"
> >extracting the gold teeth from the bodies of the victims who were killed
> >in the gas chambers. (Ibid. Document 31, p.493.) 
> >
> >Michal Kula did. One can see a drawing of the introduction column based
> >on his June 11, 1945, deposition that looks like the one in Ole`re's sketch.
> >(cf. Ibid. 487.) 
> >
> >Henryk Tauber did. He described the wire mesh introduction columns in his
> >deposition taken at the Ho"ss Trial. It sounds like the one described in
> >the drawing made from Kula' deposition. (cf. Ibid. pp.483-484.) 
> >
> >Nyiszli did. His description is similar to Tauber's. (cf. Nyiszli,
> >_Auschwitz_, p.50.) 
> >
> >And you claim "apparently" nobody else saw the wire mesh Zyklon B
> >introduction columns? Telling whoppers, are we now? Tsk tsk. You should
> >_know_ better- especially as _I've_ informed _you_ about Tauber, Nyiszli,
> >and Kula(?) before.  
> 
> Actually, I don't mean at the period you are describing, that is, the
> period of the Hoess trial.  I know that witnesses describe the things, but
> I didn't know how many or where.  This is useful information. 

And better and better and better.... (Just like the Energizer Bunny!)  

> In your prior information on this subject, you named names but didn't provide
> sources.  

I beg your pardon. In one post I origionally did not, but when _you_
immediately asked for sources I most certainly _did_ supply them. Sure
beats your "my books are in the attic" or "I can't give you the citation
straight off because I don't have the book" crap. 

> And besides, what I mean is that I would feel a lot more
> comfortable with these devices if there was one physically existing, had
> been photographed, etc.

:::queue itty-bitty violin:::: 

I could care less about your "comfort" level. Look at the evidence
available and quit whining! 

> >> >And Pressac has other proofs as well.  He cites documents which refer
> >> >to Leichenkeller 2, the room next to Leichenkeller 1, as an "undressing
> >> >room" (pp. 432-434, 438).  Why would the Nazis need a room where a
> >> >thousand or more people could undress simultaneously, unless, of
> >> >course, they were about to be killed in the adjoining room?  There's
> >> > an order for an urgently-needed peephole with a double layer of 8 mm
> >> >thick glass.  (p. 434)  Why would two layers of third-of-an-inch-thick 
> >> >glass be required for the peephole in a morgue?
> >> 
> >> The problem you have with this is that the undressing room is about 175
> >> feet by 25 feet.  I have seen undressing rooms for bathers at swimming
> >> pools that are crowded for undressing purposes with just a couple
> >> hundred people inside.  Yet, there is this insistence on a thousand, two
> >> thousand, three thousand ....
> >
> >Your appeals to incredulity (not to mention your ersatz "authority") are
> >wearing thin. Obviously, you have no substantial rebuttal and must
> instead wave your hands and say it cannot be Because! Ehrlich606! Says! So!
> 
> What you seem to be neglecting here, Mark, is that a person can't go
> against their own minds.  The claim about *Because! I! Say! So!* is simply
> a demand that I subordinate my personal opinion to the claims of someone
> else's authority. It don't work like that. 

Sure does. The caveat, of course, is that the person the appeal to
authority is made to is generally _recognized_ and specifically
_qualified_ as being an authority. This is accepted convention. Here
Presac is and you are not. The _fallacious_ appeal to authority is when
one appeals to a person as an authority and is _not_ recognized and
qualified as being an authority. Like when _you_ appeal to yourself as an
authority. (A much better- and far more humorous -example, btw, is the
Troll) It's as simple as that. 

> Moreover, arguments about magnitude are the main problem that I have with 
> the conventionalist stress on mass gassings as a primary means of mass murder.

Yes, you _do_ have a problem then. Especially considering that the
homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz killed somewhere between 15%-20% of
the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. 

> >Talk about lowest common (denier) denominators! 
> >
> >> >In his "39 criminal traces" section, he doesn't even mention the
> >> >architectural modifications to the Krema, which also establish clearly
> >> >that the rooms were not morgues.  (pp. 267-331)
> >> 
> >> such as?
> >
> >The elimination of the corspe chutes and the addition of a stairway
> >leading to the basement antechamber between L.Kellers 1 and 2. Also the
> >addition of the western access stairway to L.Keller 2. 
> 
> How were the corpse chutes supposed to operate?  

Do you know how childrens' slide works?  Same idea.  

> And where would they have been located? 

In Krema II, at the south-west corner of the building. It is labelled
"Rutsche" (corspe chute) on Bauleitung drawing 933. (_Technique_, p. 276.)
The corpse chute then went down to the vestibule ("Vorraum") between
L.Kellers 1 and 2. (Where the elevator to the furnace hall was also
located.) 

> >> >Nor does he mention the photographs which corroborate the existence of 
> >> >the wire mesh introduction devices and their "little chimneys" 
> >> >(pp. 340-342). Again, this is because these are merely _corroborating_ 
> >> >evidence, not _proof_, by Pressac's phenomenally strict standards.
> >> 
> >> Again, what photos do you mean, unless it is the crate photograph or
> >> the aerial photos.  I am listening to you here. 
> >
> >The very one. The one which you (and Mr. Allen) keep flip-flopping over
> >in your claims as to what the "little chimneys" are. The ones you are purely
> >_speculating_ as to what the "little chimneys" are while dogmatically
> >ignoring the plentitude of evidence for their being part of the Zyklon B
> >introduction system for L.Keller 1. 
> >
> Actually, Mark, this is not quite fair. Caecaa has never claimed that
> they were anything but boxes.  

Mr. Allen has flip-flopped all over the place as to what the "little
chimneys" actually were. (Everywhere except the truth, that is.) Just as
he has done with the Zyklon B introduction columns. 

> ...I was the one who erred.... 

Yes. Big time. I must congratulate you, however, on admitting your error.
It's good to see you still have some integrity left. That is more than I
can say for almost all of the other deniers in alt.revisionism. 

> But again, I just don't see how they match up with either your drawing 
> or the aerial photographs.  

Then you are blind. 

> There is good, not so good, and bad evidence. I consider that photo 
> to be not particularly good evidence.

I don't consider that you have aprticularly good judgement as to what
comprises "good, not so good, and bad evidence" either.... 

> OTOH, the fact that I have not seen convincing discussion of what happened
> to either the elderly or the very young either when the ghettoes were
> emptied or when arrivals took place at camp are among the indications
> which I think weigh heavily on the German concentration camp system.

:::Ping!:::  Did you just richochet off on _another_ tangent? 

Mark

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes 
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts." 

-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor