From jfbe@vir.com Sat Nov  2 18:05:50 PST 1996
Article: 78298 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: question for D. Keren
Date: 1 Nov 1996 02:32:32 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <55bng0$l99@Vir.com>
References: <550onv$78h@Vir.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne1.vir.com

mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>

> >Gaskammern.jpg
> >Construction document which mentions a "gas chamber"
> >(Gaskammer) in Krema no. 5 in Birkenau.
>
>   What's this document? I've take a look and the image is very pale,
>  nowere I saw the word 'gaskammer' in the typewritten part and the
>  handwritten part is illisible. If you don't have an equivalent that
>  you can send here, preferably in english but at least typewritten,
>  it's hard to call that a proof of anything whatsover.

>Mr. Beaulieu you might look at the timeheet for March 2, 1943, from Riedel
>& Sons, who were involved in the construction of Kremas IV and V. Item
>five (5) on the timesheet one can PLAINLY AND CLEARLY see:

>"...betonieren im Gasskammer" [concrete in gas chamber]

>cf. Pressac, _Technique_; Photo 25, p.446.

>And again, on the daily report for March 2, 1943, one can PLAINLY AND
>CLEARLY see:

>"und Fußboden betonieren im Gasskammer" [and concrete floor in gas chamber]

>cf. Pressac, _Technique_; p.447, Photo 28 [line 28] and Photo 30 [line 1] p.450.


  I wont be able to see A.T.O. before december, however, this 2 march 1942
 correspond to a date that I have in one of my books: In one of Faurrisson's
 book, a reference to a concrete floor in a gas chamber is done, but he
 add 'one must take a look at the locksmithing register (Schlosserei) to see
 that it is a delousing gas chamber. It sounds like the same document you
 quote. Without an explicit location of this 'gas chamber' in the krema 4
 building, you may, as Pressac, try to fool anybody with such false evidence.
 However, since I've not access to all the documents, I can hardly start a
 long discussion on this. But since Pressac didn't even present this as a
 'proof' 4 years later in 'Les crematoires d'Auschwitz' while he had, in
 appearence, something far much stronger than a document about 10 gas testers,
 a document that say explicitelly a gas chamber (not in connection with a
 krema) there's certanly a reason for that, and I think that Faurisson is
 right and that other documents show that this letter refer to an Entwesumg
 skammer rather than an homicidal gas chamber. Otherwise, the fact that he
 dropped it as a proof can be hardly explained.




From jfbe@vir.com Sun Nov  3 08:09:09 PST 1996
Article: 78364 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: He snatched the baby away and threw it into a blazing oven
Date: 30 Oct 1996 02:39:17 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <556f4l$7k2@Vir.com>
References:  <3273E77C.65AE@ccnis.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne41.vir.com

"Annie Alpert, OFB"  wrote:
>
> Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > 
> > ³It often happened that when the doors were opened too early some of the
> > people were still alive. Once, to the horror of the men in the
> > _Sonderkommando_, a tiny baby was found still sucking at it¹s mother¹s
> > breast. It had probably been sucking all the time and so had not inhaled
> > the deadly fumes. S.S. man Wagner was furious. He snatched the baby away
> > and threw it into a blazing oven.²
> > 
> > Hart, _Return to Auschwitz_ (ISBN 0-689-70637-5), p.122-123.
> > 
> Mark, the silence from the deniers over your recent series of posts
> recounting the evidence of acts of genocide is DEAFENING!  The silence
> is the answer--there is no answer.

 How about boring and old stuff? I even not read more than 20%
 and there was no surprise. The titles were suffisant.

http://www.codoh.com/


From jfbe@vir.com Wed Nov 13 06:28:07 PST 1996
Article: 79218 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:21:23 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne51.vir.com


 One funny argument to proove the extermination charge for Treblinka is
 Suchomel's testimony. It is claim that Suchomel was (falsely) promised
 anonymity in exchange for this interview.  In the interview 'Suchomel' ask
 himself to not mention his name. I've see most of the movie and it is
 strange that only in Suchomel' interview we have a bluerred picture were
 the face of the man is not easilly recognizable. I suppose that the claim
 is that Suchomel was filmed without being aware of it and this can explain
 the poor quality of the image. However, if one look carefully at the image
 the picture do not shake, it's hard to claim that someone has the camera
 in a bag. I don't see how such an interview conducted with a 'hidden camera'
 could give such a poor image: the way it looks, it is as if an original
 clear picture was shown with a TV and that a camera was used again to film
 what appear on a screen. I saw several times pictures taken by a camera
 from a TV screen and it looks like that. I saw also many sketch were an
 actor used a rubber or plastic mask to looks like that or that politician.
 Here, such an imitation is not perfect and it is possible to recognize the
 imitation unless the image is of a poor quality.

    The funny aspect in 'Suchomel' testimony is that we have to believe that
  he's not supposed to be aware about the hidden camera since he request
  anonymity. However he turn his his head a couple of times toward the
  camera. But the odd here is that when he shows something on the Treblinka
  map (on the wall) with his stick the camera move in this direction and
  we have a picture of the map from a couple of inches!!! The samething
  can be say about the distance between 'Suchomel' head, there's 2 different
  distances in the movie. Now I'd have to believe that a man, hidding a camera
  in a bag, stand up with his bag an get it near the map each time that
  Suchomel show something with his stick on it (see cassette 2, 9 or 10
  minutes after the beginning).


    There's also a couple of funny claims done by the man, but let say
   that this aspect is hardly explanable.




From jfbe@vir.com Wed Nov 13 06:28:08 PST 1996
Article: 79228 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!panix!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Still waiting for a public response from
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:08:16 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <568f5g$5d8@Vir.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne22.vir.com

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>

[snip]


  man objects. "That's not a shower, it's in a basement," he
> shouts. The parents may shout him down; they don't want to frighten their
> children. Or perhaps a soldier silences him with a gun butt or a bullet.
> Either way, no one WANTS to believe him.
> Okay with that so far?
>  
> So these hungry, tired, frightened, filthy, dehydrated, scared, resigned,
> disoriented people go where they are told by the men with the bright
> uniforms and polished boots and guns and barking dogs. They hold their
> children in their arms, and they go to the showers they're told to go to.
>  
> And they go to their deaths.
>  
> What part of this don't you understand?

 The last sentence. Because...

  http://www.codoh.com/
  http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/


From jfbe@vir.com Thu Nov 14 08:00:57 PST 1996
Article: 79437 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The return of the porous pillar (part 47)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 04:14:40 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <56bhvg$a75@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne33.vir.com


  Veteran dogs here remember perhaps how my clothes were teared and
 my calfs were bitten to blood when I brought as an argument that
 the 'porous pillars' of the holocaust claim were solid concrete
 rather than empty. I've still the marks of H. Mazal canine teeths
 in my right buttock.

   Basically he explained me that I was stup.. wrong because it is
 a wiremesh that was used. However my claim was based on a video
 sell by Zundel, 'the holocaust revisited, part 2'. I remember also
 that I brought a book, the french edition of Filip Muller' book
 where he stated that the pillars used to spread the gaz were of
 concrete and perforated with holes. However, the german edition
 state something quite different, closer to what seems to be the
 more official version. So we have now at least Dragon, Tauber,
 Muller who talked about metallic wiremesh. In shoah however, at
 the end of cassette 4 or 3 (I think it is 3) a voice (Muller) describe
 the maquette at the Auschwitz museum and say 'porous pillar that heldup 
 this structure'... ouach!! Well, it seems that we have an official
 version that vary sometimes here also. The maquette show really
 concrete empty pillars and the voice (Muller) say: porous pillars
 that held up this structure. Ok, I'm not claiming anything, I just
 found it funny.

  Ok, I've the impression now that a dutch spaniel will bit my leg
 with a 800 lines incisive reply.




From jfbe@vir.com Fri Nov 15 06:32:29 PST 1996
Article: 79516 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Lanzmann, kaputt!
Date: 14 Nov 1996 00:29:33 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <56dp5d$4o7@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne50.vir.com


  Recently I posted something on Suchomel and there was a couple of
 arguments develloped in alt.revisionism.
 One of the argument is that more than one camera may have been involved.
 Another one is that the picture could have been taken from outside, through
 a window. Another one, Annie Halpert, said that Suchomel asked to not reveal
 his name but accepted to be filmed. Obviously the latest one is a
 non-sense. However, there's an index of the N.Y Times at Concordia Univer-
 sity and I was able to find a couple of articles printed in 1985.
 The 20 october 1985, page H-17, Lanzmann explain how he filmed Suchomel:
 he brough with him a woman, and she hide a camera in a bag. There was a
 little hole in the bag. This is his version. It is thus impossible to
 film from 3 different distances and get a closed picture of the map in
 such a case. Obviously Lanzmann lied. Don't ask me why a man who invest
 10 years of his life to make such a film with millions is enough stupid
 to take 3 different views in such a way and give us the rope to hang
 him: perhaps it is typical of the holocaust mythology. I'm not aware
 that this important aspect has been in the last 11 years but anyway,
 you'll have to live with it now.


   Now, Jamie McCarthy remark: why did Suchomel never sue in law Lanzmann?
 Well, the first explanation may be that he was dead in 1985, he's born in
 1908. But perhaps he was alive. Now, what could he win in case of victory?
 That someone dammaged his reputation? Lanzmann drived the 'interview'
 in a such a way that Suchomel do not appear as a monster but as a not so
 bad guy who hadn't any choice. Suchomel spent 7 years in jail and the
 hagas chambers of Treblinka were supposed to be a fact. He certanly
 confessed these one in court to not challendge the autorithy of the
 tribunal, as we know, his only choice was to reject the blame on someone
 else since people prior to him had 'shown' that the gas chambers were
 a 'fact' , prior confessions or jewish witness.

   And now, we have to consider that Suchomel was cardiac, that his only
 wish was to end his life quietly without being submitted to troubles.
 If he had sue the millionaire Lanzmann, the last one would have claim:
 Oh yeah? and you stated yourself that you didn't want to be recognize,
 to bad that I filmed you. His word against Lanzmann word, with the
 press against him, and 99% of the population who would have say: tsss
 tsss, now that he was caught he try desesperatelly to lie! The picture
 is bluerred, but with a rubber mask it certanly looks approximativelly
 like Suchomel. As I said, there is frequent sketch on TV from people
 who use such a plastic or rubber mask, and the imitations are quite
 good, although they are not perfect. But here Lanzmann claim that he
 took those pictures in Suchomel's appartment with a transmitter, and
 that his team in the van received it, and that this is why the image
 is of a so poor quality. This doesn't explain the picture of the map
 from few inches, nor that the camera never shake, nor the 2 different
 distances for Suchomel's face. So if Suchomel was still alive in 1985,
 he hadn't any reason to prosecute Lanzmann. And the voice? who claim
 that the voice is a perfect imitation? It is certanly not a perfect
 one. But it is probably close to some extent. There's dozens of imita-
 tors in Quebec, perhaps hundreds if we count amators. It's a profes-
 sion, it's something that we can learn. If someone give me a quarter
 million dolalrs to play a role and say: you'll have to spend 500
 hours to learn how to imitate a voice, well, that's 500$ the hour.




From jfbe@vir.com Fri Nov 15 06:32:30 PST 1996
Article: 79564 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 14 Nov 1996 13:28:07 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <56f6p7$f22@Vir.com>
References: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com> <3287a6c3.9663559@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne23.vir.com

John.Morris@UAlberta.CA (John Morris) wrote:
>
> In <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu  wrote:
> 
> [a rather stupid argument that the Suchomel interviewed in Lanzmann's
> documentary was not the real Suchomel]
> 
> Golly, you have become awfully predictable. If you don't like a
> document, it is a forgery. If you don't like a witness, he is lying or
> was tortured. Now we can add to your list of predictable responses
> that, if you don't like an interview, the person being interviewed was
> an actor.

 And if you don't like an interview given by a crematory operator, you
 tampered it and you invent a fictive canadian law?


From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 19 06:44:35 PST 1996
Article: 79878 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Lanzmann, kaputt!
Date: 16 Nov 1996 16:58:43 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <56krs3$nqu@Vir.com>
References: <56dp5d$4o7@Vir.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne36.vir.com

karlpov@access5.digex.net (Charles R.L. Power) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu  writes:
> 
> > The 20 october 1985, page H-17, Lanzmann explain how he filmed Suchomel:
> > he brough with him a woman, and she hide a camera in a bag. There was a
> > little hole in the bag. This is his version. It is thus impossible to
> > film from 3 different distances and get a closed picture of the map in
> > such a case. 
> 
> Why? A picture of a map could obviously be inserted afterwards. A woman is
> capable of moving herself. What is "impossible"?
> 
> >Obviously Lanzmann lied.
> 
> Obviously to whom?


  Obviously to anyone honnest who whatched the first minutes of the interview
  recently and ask himself: how could the camera be really hidden ?
  I wont discuss with someone who didn't see again the video in the.
  previous week. See my post to Miloslav Bilik.


> 
> > If he had sue the millionaire Lanzmann, the last one would have claim:
> > Oh yeah? and you stated yourself that you didn't want to be recognize,
> > to bad that I filmed you. 
> 
> Excuse me, but who said Lanzmann was a millionaire? In what currency?
>

  It's a minor element, but I don't believe that someone who produce
  a movie that is wordly aclaimed can be poor. If he was before, if,
 he certanly wasn't after. That's my guess, althought it doesn't make
 a big difference.
 
 
> Your pathetic wriggling certainly justifies the previous posts about
> your attitude.





From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 19 06:44:36 PST 1996
Article: 80127 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: THE FATE OF THE POLISH JEWS DURING WW2
Date: 17 Nov 1996 14:30:08 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <56n7hg$ml6@Vir.com>
References:    <32879c37.15656920@news.sprynet.com>  <328ee68e.148407@news.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne14.vir.com

100644.317@compuserve.com (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>
> olk@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
> 
> >In article <32879c37.15656920@news.sprynet.com>, Miloslav Bilik wrote:
> >>
> >>An example from a few years ago. Le Pen at the TV, kind-looking,
> >>telling his usual ideas: he would like his family more than a
> >>stranger, there are a lot of French without job and a lot Non-French
> >>inhabitants, and so on. And suddenly the presenter showed him a report
> >>of Leon Degrelle (it was before 94 and he was still alive), in Spain
> >>and quietly telling that his friend JM Le Pen visits him each year.
> >>
> >>You know certainly who was Leon Degrelle. This evening, Le Pen found
> >>nothing to add.
> >
> >  Leon Degrelle was the leader of the Belgian Rex movement. When Belgium
> >was occupied by Germany, Degrelle allied himself with the Germans by 
> >joining the Waffen SS in the Struggle against bolshevism. Many Danes did
> >the same. Regular armies from a long array of European countries joined
> >the Germans on the crusade against communism. In 1941 the Danish government
> >led by a social democratic prime minister signed the so called anti-
> >commintern treaty in Berlin that implied that Denmark sent voluntaries
> >to fight in the Waffen SS under the Danish flag. Was Leon Degrelle ever
> >a true nazi or was he just a fanatic anti-communist and after the war
> >just a nazi-apologist?
> 
> Well, he was freed by the Wehrmacht, founded the 'Legion Wallonie' in
> 1941. This 'Legion Wallonie' became a SS division in 1944 and fighted
> against the Russians, as you said.
> 
> After he was wounded, Degrelle was awarded by Hitler himself with the
> 'Croix de fer'.
> 
> Was he a nazi ? Yes, beyond doubt. He proclaimed in a meeting
> (Bruxelles, Jan 17 43) that the 'Wallons' were Germans and that they
> were to be integrated in the Reich. Thus, he wished the annexation on
> the ground of a racial identity, it was more than a fight against the
> communists.
> 
> And in the latest years, he was a denier too ('Le mensonge
> d'Auschwitz', aso).


 Degrelle never wrote 'le mensonge d'Auschwitz', it's Thie Christophersen.
 However, he wrote few articles and became revisionist,




From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 19 06:44:36 PST 1996
Article: 80129 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 17 Nov 1996 14:48:27 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <56n8jr$ml6@Vir.com>
References: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com>    <328B7F34.4AE6@ccnis.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne14.vir.com

Annie Alpert  wrote:
>
> Jamie McCarthy wrote:
> >> # From: jfbe@vir.com (Jean-Francois Beaulieu)
> 
> > # Recently I posted something on Suchomel and there was a couple of
> > #  arguments develloped in alt.revisionism.> #  One of the argument is that more than one camera may have been involved.> #  Another one is that the picture could have been taken from outside, through> #  a window. Another one, Annie Halpert, said that Suchomel asked to not reveal
> > #  his name but accepted to be filmed. Obviously the latest one is a
> > #  non-sense. 
> > 
> > Again, I don't think any comment is necessary (except to point out that
> > Annie Alpert's argument has been quite distorted).
> 
> No kidding!  I said nothing of the sort.  J-F, I realize your English is
> limited, but this time you went too far. 
> > -- 

 oh yeah? you will sue me for dammages done to your reputation
 perhaps? I've check again in dejanews and I think
 you said 'he was being' or something that seems to refer to
a past action, indeed, I read too fast. Now, I suppose that you'll
 ask a million? how about a compromise, 500,000$ ?

http://www.codoh.com/


From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 19 06:44:39 PST 1996
Article: 80172 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 17 Nov 1996 19:41:42 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <56nppm$b9c@Vir.com>
References: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne41.vir.com

jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
> In article ,
> jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> > Posted;  emailed;  please reply publicly.
> 
> I asked for public replies and got this.
> 
> # Received: from Vir.com (News.Vir.com [199.84.154.68]) by vixa.voyager.net (8.8.0/CICNet) with ESMTP id WAA06989 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:50:02 -0500 (EST)
> # Received: from ipdyne14.vir.com [199.202.197.14] by Vir.com (8.7.1/v1.1) with SMTP       id WAA30733 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:47:36 -0500 (est)
> # Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:47:36 -0500 (est)
> # Message-Id: <199611120347.WAA30733@Vir.com>
> # X-Sender: jfbe@vir.com
> # X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
> # Mime-Version: 1.0
> # Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> # To: jamie@voyager.net
> # X-UIDL: 847770616.000
> # From: jfbe@vir.com (Jean-Francois Beaulieu)
> # Subject: Suchomel and shoah
> # Status: U
> # 
> # 
> # >Oh, it isn't really Franz Suchomel on the tape.  I see.
> # 
> #  Actually, I don't think so.
> # 
> # >Please explain why the real Franz Suchomel has not denounced this
> # >interview as a forgery and sued the hell out of the filmmakers.
> # 
> #   Suing in law Lanzmann????????
> # 
> #   How could he? If he was alive, hiw word had little credibility. In the movie
> #  'Suchomel', or the man who took his identity, claimed: you wont give my name?
> #  Obviously  in a state where the population wasn't less hysterical than the
> # average nizkorian, he hadn't any chance to be taken seriously. Perhaps a
> # journalist got an interview with him and asked: 'Was it you?'. An perhaps
> # Suchomel said: no! Perhaps the journalist decided top drop his reply. The
> # way the medias works,since revisionist view point are almnost never allowed,
> # it wouldn't surprised me. Perhaps he reported such a claim and added: 'You
> # see, dear reader? Suchomel was caught and now he try to deny!!
> # 
> #   Perhaps no journalist asked Suchomel his opinion. Suchomel spent 7 years
> # in jail and wasn't interested, imagine, a cardiac, to sue in law lanzmann
> # without any other argument than: I didn't give this interview! 'Oh ya Mr
> # Suchomel? but you said yourself in the interview that you didn't want to be
> # recognized!!!'
> # YOU-ARE-A-LIAR! And than, a press campain, really, he hadn't anything in the
> # hands. All your claim is based on the assumption that Germany was a normal state
> # while it is not the case. And Lanzmann knew that. Perhaps Suchomel was dead
> # once the movie was distributed also. In the shoes of Suchomel, I would say:
> # I'll sue this bastard! But immediatelly someone around me would say: it is
> # your word against the word of the medias, Lanzmann, the survivors, your
> # heart is sick,
> # you won't support the press campain against you, you have no chance, they
> # will use this statement: 'you won't reveal my name!'. If Lanzmann hadn't
> # used this artifice: 'you won't give my name?', a public protesting was
> # possible, but not in this case: the gassing were a certanty for 99% of the
> # population. Your argument is a nonsense.
> # 
> # >Posted;  emailed;  please reply publicly.
> # 
> #  I'll reply publically when your message will appear.
> #  Actually, you DIDN'T try to explain the inconsistencies that I underlined.
> # 
> # 
> 
> I don't think this requires comment.
> -- 
>  Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
>  jamie@voyager.net        Co-Webmaster of http://www.nizkor.org/


  My guess it that this gesture smell frustration, but.... could anyone
 explain me which part is so much shocking? I've the impression that
  you're playing comedy here.


From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 19 06:44:42 PST 1996
Article: 80320 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nova.thezone.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.erols.net!torn!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 19 Nov 1996 02:40:34 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <56r6n2$nop@Vir.com>
References: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com>   <56nppm$b9c@Vir.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne34.vir.com

jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu  wrote:
> 
> >   My guess it that this gesture smell frustration, but.... could anyone
> >  explain me which part is so much shocking? I've the impression that
> >   you're playing comedy here.
> 
> It's not shocking;  it's typical of Holocaust-denial.
> 
> The thesis of denial, rarely spoken, is that everything is a forgery,
> it's all a fraud, a hoax -- that the Jews and their lackeys have faked
> everything throughout history in a massive yet totally undetected scam.
> 
> One example is Udo Walendy's claim that nearly every photograph taken
> of a Nazi or a Jew from 1930 to 1945 is a forgery.

 you mean the Walendy that anyone can read at
 http://www.codoh.com/   to verify if you didn't lie with such
 a claim? I've not read everything but he seems to give good references
 oten.


From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 19 08:38:16 PST 1996
Article: 80382 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!panix!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: suchomel:r.i.p.
Date: 19 Nov 1996 13:17:49 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <56sc1t$7p7@Vir.com>
References: <56rebi$btt@Vir.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne16.vir.com

mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
> In article <56rebi$btt@Vir.com>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu  wrote:
> 
> >  I saw at least one, perhaps two who said here that Suchomel
> >  was still alive in 1985... evidence please?
> 
> And the evidence that Mr. Beaulieu is alive is? 
> 

 No one. I'm Matt Giwer. 
 and Al Baron.
 Now I asked a serious question: the film was done over 10 years:
 it was claimed here (I think that it is J. Morris but also McCarthy)
 that my hypothesis (a false Suchomel) and my certanty (the camera
 wasn't hidden) is wrong because Suchomel would have sue in law
 lanzmann. That Suchomel was still alive. How can they know? 
 because 'he''s in the movie? I'm sure Lanzmann met Suchomel a day.
 He certanly talked to him. He certanly filmed him during few seconds.
 Probably the other refused an interview and than he was just few
 seconds on the film. If Suchomel died the year after, let say in 1982,
 this could have give an idea to Lanzmann. Just hypothesis? of course.
 one among several.
 But what's about Jamie or John claim that Suchomel was alive in 1985?
 Where did they take that?
 



From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 19 09:34:10 PST 1996
Article: 80400 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!netcom.com!howland.erols.net!torn!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel:reply to Miloslav Bilik
Date: 19 Nov 1996 02:44:03 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <56r6tj$nop@Vir.com>
References: <56ggh3$pse@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne34.vir.com


miloslav bilik wrote:

>The dark line in the middle of the screen is likely related to the
>copy on 35mm (a problem of vertical synchronization) and not to the
>lens, since this line is not on the interview of Franz Schalling where

  Not to the len, but I consider much more that the image was bluered
 after. Schalling face can be identified. Suchomel's face is far much
 bluerred.


>For the interview of Suchomel, the camera seems to have been slightly
>displaced.  In the beginning of the interview (Lanzmann asks Suchomel

 slightly??? It is far much closer, and the camera's level is approxima-
 tivelly Lanzmann's shoulders: once Lanzmann rise up his hands with his
 cigarette, they are very close to the lens: at this moment we can  be
 sure that the camera is at the same level than Lanzmann's shoulders.

>In the first site of the camera, that lasts no long, the camera is a
>bit shaken with sudden changes of direction and if Suchomel is
>centered almost correctly, his stick on the map is the most often
>missed.

 No, it is caught always, despite sometimes there's a delay when Suchomel
remove the wand. The camera doesn't turn just horizontally: it turns
also slightly verticaly when the stick show another place higher on the
map. a bit before the sentence: "what was the capacity of the new gas
chambers?", and after 'disposing of the bodies would have been too
complicated (about 35 minutes after the begining of the cassette).
this happen twice. The camera follow even the little movements
of the stick twice, horizontally and vertically. Several times it turn
back to Suchomel, but a bit too hight and too much on the left, and than
it is adjust to catch most of his face. Several times. How could she
'respect her mark' if it's the first time that she's there, if she
don't know how look the picture in the van???


>Then the assistant found rapidly a better site for the camera, kept
>her hand on the bag and took her marks (Suchomel never moves) for
>Suchomel and the map. Suchomel's attention was focused on Lanzmann,
>who was a bit in withdrawal. This assistant is obviously professional
>and well trained with this camera (we can see several interviews on
>the movie).

  Give me a break. The camera is driven intelligently. The person
who drive it has some natural reflex: slight movement up when the ex-
tremity is no longer visible, a cameraman reflex. Twice. And it is hard
to believe that someone would take the risk to move it each time to show
the map, and suceed to catch correctly those details. Even at the begining
of the interview, it is more clear: when he say: 'stack like wood', we
have a very close view of the map: then the camera follow very carefully
the end of the stick, from right to left, bottom to top. This is obvious
at this moment: we must expect that Suchomel look at his stick, and the
camera is very close to this extremity. During 5 second, the camera
follow the hieratic movement of the stick at a distance of few centimeters.
It's impossible that the female assistant could move her bag just for
such a stupid detail which is not essantial while she know that he look at
her bag. It's the second nature of a cameraman who is too much accustom to
have his target correctly in the collimator.


>For this plastic mask, your video copy has to be of a poor quality.
>The image is bad, but Suchomel is easily recognizable and we can see
>its mimicries: he lift up his eyes with eyebrows that move, stands
>open-mouthed and so on.

  so? maquillage perhaps. I'm not absolutelly sure it is not Suchomel.
 But I'm sure the camera is not hidden.




From jfbe@vir.com Wed Nov 20 06:02:17 PST 1996
Article: 80470 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 20 Nov 1996 04:14:07 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <56u0if$ot8@Vir.com>
References: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne29.vir.com

jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
 
> #    Now, Jamie McCarthy remark: why did Suchomel never sue in law Lanzmann?
> #  Well, the first explanation may be that he was dead in 1985, he's born in
> #  1908. But perhaps he was alive. Now, what could he win in case of victory?
> #  That someone dammaged his reputation? Lanzmann drived the 'interview'
> #  in a such a way that Suchomel do not appear as a monster but as a not so
> #  bad guy who hadn't any choice. Suchomel spent 7 years in jail and the
> #  hagas chambers of Treblinka were supposed to be a fact. He certanly
> #  confessed these one in court to not challendge the autorithy of the
> #  tribunal, as we know, his only choice was to reject the blame on someone
> #  else since people prior to him had 'shown' that the gas chambers were
> #  a 'fact' , prior confessions or jewish witness.
> # 

 [snip]

   I've think again and again to this story, and I don't believe
 Lanzmann searched an actor and hired him. I think it came accidently.
 I don't believe he paid 500,000$ for a voice imitator.  And I wasn't
 able to see if Suchomel died between 1975 and 1985, but I find
 really interesting the idea that he got this idea after Suchomel's
 death. They tried to interview several dozens former SS, and probably
 that they had 1,2,3 minutes of Suchomel on a film. Something where he
 would have say that he don't want to give an interview, remove the
 camera or whatsover.

   And than, a day , they learn months after that he died. Lanzmann
 team was very small, few people, they were taking lunches together,
 they were drinking together. They were kidding together. And , during
 a dinner, one say: 'too bad! it would have been great to have Suchomel
 describing the Treblinka gas chambers!' And than, one of them start
 an imitation of Suchomel, with few mimics, and the other laught around...
 and then someone remark with a smile: hey! you could have been a good
 Suchomel! a joke like that, and than the idea make it way, accidentally.
 A supplementary proof? why not! People who share the same views, friends...
 Really I don't see why so much people here claim that a false Suchomel
 is so much ridiculous.  A movie like 'Holocaust' was wordly aclaimed
 despite Eric Dorf never existed. Here at least, no journalist felt the
 need to make an inquiry, it was presented as a 'document'.

 http://www.codoh.com






From jfbe@vir.com Wed Nov 20 06:02:18 PST 1996
Article: 80519 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More lies and tortured confessions?
Date: 20 Nov 1996 03:46:34 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <56tuuq$7e5@Vir.com>
References: <56q24b$jrk@access5.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne29.vir.com

mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>     Here are two actual excerpts.  I did not make them up.
> 
>     I would like to ask the revisionists: could this be a true testimony
> from a member of the Einsatzgruppen, or must this be anti-German
> propaganda or a confession extracted by torture?  What are your reasons
> for your answer?
> 
>      "[S]eeing a baby ... crawling away from a ditch already filled with
>      dead and dying villagers, [he] seized the child by the leg, threw it
>      back in the pit, and shot it."
> 

  It can be anyone among the three. There's no physical impossibility
 here, so it can be anyone among the three.    

> 
>     I would like to ask the revisionists: could this be an authentic quote
> from Heinrich Himmler or must it be a Soviet forgery?  What are your
> reasons for your answer?
> 
>      "[I]f your son is killed by those babies you'll cry at me, 'Why
>      didn't you kill those babies that day?'"
>


  samething.


http://www.codoh.com/


 -- 
> Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
> POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
> Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.



From jfbe@vir.com Wed Nov 20 06:02:18 PST 1996
Article: 80534 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!wi.combase.com!imci5!peerfeed.internetmci.com!msfc!news.msfc.nasa.gov!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Suchomel: r.i.p again
Date: 20 Nov 1996 02:22:22 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 3
Message-ID: <56tq0u$djg@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

I've see Jamie McCarthy who stated again that Suchomel would have
sue in law Lanzmann. I'm still asking how you from Nizkor can use
such an 'argument' if you don't even know when he died.


From jfbe@vir.com Wed Nov 20 06:02:19 PST 1996
Article: 80535 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!wi.combase.com!imci5!peerfeed.internetmci.com!msfc!news.msfc.nasa.gov!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 20 Nov 1996 02:33:53 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <56tqmh$djg@Vir.com>
References: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com>   <56nppm$b9c@Vir.com> <329776cc.736324@199.0.216.204>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
> >jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:/
> 
> Mr.Beaulieu:
> 
> >  My guess it that this gesture smell frustration, but.... could anyone
> > explain me which part is so much shocking? I've the impression that
> >  you're playing comedy here.
> 
> 	Mr. Beaulieu, I would say their just doing the best they can.
> Trying to defend lies is no easy job.
> 
> 	I read your post. I never saw "Shoah". But if and when I do, I'm
> going to listen real close to what they have to saw as to what the
> conditions of the interview were, and then I'm going to look for the
> points you have made. 


  Well, they do not explain in the movie the conditions, not the
 7 or 8 hours over 9 1/2 that I've seen. Those descriptions (hidden camera)
 are mentionned in newspapers.


From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:26 PST 1996
Article: 80750 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 21 Nov 1996 02:51:38 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <570g3q$tnf@Vir.com>
References: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com> <3287a6c3.9663559@news.srv.ualberta.ca> <56f6p7$f22@Vir.com> <328c8977.2982357@news.srv.ualberta.ca> <56rcb3$uv1@Vir.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
> In article <56rcb3$uv1@Vir.com>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu  wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >  The claim of a hidden camera in a bag is ludicrous.
> 
> Not nearly as ludicrous as Mr. Beaulieu's claims that an actor played the
> part of Suchomel, etc.
> 
> Isn't it about time that this sad farce of Mr. Beaulieu's be put to rest? 


  I've see those minutes about the interview perhaps 20 or 25
 times. I sat down in front of a wall with a bag and imagined Suchomel
 showing an element with his stick, and I've try to move it and
 to keep in the mind that my main concern is to not be discovered.
 I've no doubt. There's too much weird features with this interview.

  And what is your main rebuttal? an unproven claim that Suchomel
  could have sue in law Lanzmann. I've not see anyone here bringing
  a reason to justify the claim that Suchomel reached his 77 and was
  alive in 1985. I've see also some posts of Miloslav Bilik, he may come
  back also althought I've the impression we are going into details,
  but I'll see.


From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:27 PST 1996
Article: 81159 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re:Treblinka
Date: 23 Nov 1996 03:11:05 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <575q09$gtk@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne38.vir.com


Daniel Keren wrote:

# I'd say that 45 meters of depth is
# really a generous estimation.

>I'd say that, like the other "revisionists" here (Moran,
>Giwer, etc), you simply cannot handle third-grade
>arithmetic.

>Assume an average weight of 40 Kg per corpse (this may
>well be an overestimate, accounting for the infants and
>children among the victims). This gives

>800,000*40 Kg = 32,000 tons.

>Assuming the density to be about as that of water
>(and I understand the density of humans to be rather
>close to that of water), the 32,000 tons translate
>to 32,000 cubic meters.

>Over the area you gave - 5,000 sq. meters - this results
>in an average depth of 32,000/5,000 = 6.4 meters.

>I would add some for uneven packing etc, so make it
>7-8 meters or so.

>Your figure is absurd; you cannot handle basic arithmetic.
>But have no fear - you can still be a "leading revisionist".


  Can anyone explain to this 'Phd' in mathematic the notion of
 empty space between solids? Can anyone explain him that in a cube of
 2 meter by 2 meter by 2 meter we can put 8,000 kg of water but
 not 100 people of 80 kg? Can anyone?
 I will not say that you are unskill when you try to be dishonest
 Dan. I suspect rather that you are  a secret member of the NSWPP
 who have infiltrate Nizkor for sabotage activities.



From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:27 PST 1996
Article: 81184 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re:Jamie McCarthy shows his analytical capacities
Date: 23 Nov 1996 01:59:19 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <575lpn$f25@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne38.vir.com


 Ulrich Roessler wrote:

>How silly this can get - but the game of supposing and hypothetical
>theories can be used also the other way round.

>Suppose, someone could provide testimony by some relatives of Suchomel
>that he was still alive in 1985 and that he usually didn't like
>to speak about his duties in Treblinka. But, provoked by Claude Lanzmann,
>he did speak only to regret this later because he didn't like to be
>shown in this film. I hear M Beaulieu shouting: - testimonies do not count.

  You mean the milkman who 'remember' such a thing that he was told?

>Then someone could provide an authenticated death certificate of Franz
>Suchomel, dated let's say 1991 or so. Not impossible to get one.
>Probably, a German agency issued Suchomel's certificate. M Beaulieu
>or another Revisionist will claim that such a document
>does not count because in Germany Holocaust denial was illegal.


 Germany is protecting lies by laws. I don't believe that the forgery of
a document like that however is probable. A death certificate is worthless:
there is perhaps hundreds of Franz Suchomel there, as there is hundreds of
Pierre Tremblay in Canada. A death certificate is usefull only if you can
make the relation with a Franz Suchomel, former SS gard, by a way or another.
But this is up to your imagination, althought I'm afraid that the second
part is not necessary easy. There's a very simple proof however, that someone
can give with a death certificate: it is a necrologic notice in a newspaper.
In a death certificate, you probably have the city also, so someone who
lives in Berlin can check very quickly the 3 days that follows the death:
most of the times, a photo is present, and with a bit of luck, a reference
to the past of the men in the newspaper. The two latest ones are a formal
proof. You see, I'm not so bad, I'm even giving you some hints if you want
to go further. I'm not here to lie, I've simply a certanty about Treblinka.

>Or, M Beaulieu would ask for a forensic test of it, may be, he'll argue
>someone has planted such a document in the files. If anyone took
>pains to provide it he'd ask for another forensic test by a "neutral"
>commission. (I think Anne Frank's diary was tested independently by


  Don't be ridiculous. I accept the claim that a large amnount of Jews
died in WW II. I've in the mind between 1 and 2 millions. I consider
propable that hundreds of thousands among them were killed, but not gassed
in camps like Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec or Auschwitz. I consider
also that the Holocaust was boosted and is used too much to justificate
a zionist political agenda in USA. I've revised my position on some aspects
of it over the last year, simply because I'm not rejecting a priori the
evidence that someone else can bring, contrarelly to you.



>So, when another forensic test would be provided, M Beaulieu could ask
>for a conclusive prove, that the F.Suchomel in C.Lanzmann's film, the
>guard in Treblinka, and the person reported dead in that authenticated
>certificate were really the same person. May be, he'll argue, there

 As I said, I'd have VALID reasons to ask for that, but I proposed you
 a way to support such a claim with a necrologic notice.
Now, I read also somewhere in a french newspaper I think that there
was a false interview of Fidel Castro by a journalist in France a day, and
I think it was on TV. I don't believe impossible that Lanzmann could
have done that even if the real Suchomel was alive, but it would require
someone audacious, since there's a risk. The real Suchomel wouldn't
sue in law Lanzmann, since he couldn't expect money, but if he was still
alive, he was a risk by a way or another. So I would say that if Suchomel
was alive in 1985, it is a serious handicap, unless I imagine that
Lanzmann bought his silence after, or that he had a very good imitation
of the voice in the movie, something that is possible but less probable.
In other words, an argument that you could use, and which would make
my theory less credible probably for many people.

   I've read a lot of stuff on Treblinka, and I have in the mind many
elements that leaded me to the conclusion that no gassing took place
there. It is a question of probability. The unique strong argument to
proove the charge that I know up to now is Suchomel. He may have turn
insane, and believe the post war charge, but after having seen the
movie several times, I'm not giving very much credibility to that. My
first hypothesis was blackmail, but this was before I saw the video.
I'm putting little weight on that now. A possibility a bit more credible
is that he was bought, but I'm saying 'a bit', it's not very probable.
So I think simply that you may get  such a certificate, but that you
won't try to get the necrologic notice, simply because he probably
died between 1978 and 1985.






From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:28 PST 1996
Article: 81266 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Treblinka
Date: 21 Nov 1996 03:10:29 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <570h75$lea@Vir.com>
References: <56rdj4$jo8@Vir.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

dpbkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Pitbull Keren) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu  writes:
>
> # For a 5,000 meter square area, how much deep would you
> # have to dig if you want to burry 800,000 persons?
>
> I'd say about 7 meters. Depends, of course, on the
> average weight.
>
> # I've already done my calculus,
>
> And the world is, no doubt, anxiously waiting to hear
> your results. Have you consulted the other two great
> "revisionist mathematicians", Giwer and Moran?
>

   The proportion of childrens (less than 15 years old) in the population
  back those days was about 20%, I gave the reference few months ago. For
  an adult, an average lenght of 1,70 meters, a width of 50 centimeters
  (for the trunk) and a height of 20 to 25 centimeters (for the trunk)
  is an acceptable estimation. I've check the back of many people and
  50 centimeters is certanly not an exageration for the width. Van Alstine
  though that he made a great discovery by retyping as usual a paragraph in
  a book but I read those books about Treblinka few months ago. This fishy
  story about the 'scientific arrangment', with alternate layers wouldn't
  change really the things: bodies are never identicals, there's protuberences
  like bullocks, breast or sometimes billies which can be piled up at the
  same place, the bodies lenght are not the same, so its not really serious
  to consider the trunk thickness plus a part of a leg, you have billies
  and thighs also, but I'll be generous and conceed you a 15 centimneters
  for the second layer. However, after 3 or 4 layers as I said such an
  arrangment become a nonsense, bodies are not pieces of puzzles that
  match correctly and you can no longer respect this pattern. But I'll
  take those datas, about 40 centimeters for 2 layers. Since you talk
  about rows, normally it is the longer bodies that count, not the
  'average lenght' and it is more reasonable to take 1,80 meter lenght.
  The story give us several mass graves, but since only the area count,
  I'll take a fictive area of 500 x 10 meters. The arrays given by
  the witness are not identicals, I've 2 different versions, but the
  average of both gives this area. 280 corpses gives your 500 meters,
  since we have 1,80 meter lenght. 20 corpses of 50 centimeters for the
  width, this give us 11,200 corpses for a 40 centimeter height, 2
  layers here for this 40 centimeters. About 26,000 corpses per meter
  height, and thus around 30 to 35 meters for all the Treblinka corpses.
  The childrens make little difference, they are no more than 20% of the
  population. However, in the story a layer of sand and chlorine was
  put over those layers after each day (Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka p:112).
  So this 30 to 35 meters should be 40 or even 50 meters, if we count
  the final layer above, but also the fact that space can't be minimize
  correctly at the borders of the grave especially, at some place you'll
  loose 50 centimeters, elsewhere 1 meter, etc... Since you have several
  graves, this is also a factor. I'd say that 45 meters of depth is
  really a generous estimation. This is close to 5 times more than
  the 10 meters usually given by the witness.





From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:29 PST 1996
Article: 81267 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 21 Nov 1996 03:00:10 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <570gjq$tnf@Vir.com>
References: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com>   <56nppm$b9c@Vir.com> <328fef61.24450673@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

John.Morris@UAlberta.CA (John Morris) wrote:

> I would have thought there were delusions which even you were not
> capable of, but apparently I have been wrong. It is quite insane to
> suppose that forty years after the fact Lanzmann would interview a
> fake Suchomel while the real Suchomel was very much alive. I suspect

  Unless you proove your statement, ie that Suchomel was alive in
  1985, or that you retract, you'll be consider as... gasp!
  Jamie asked me to not pronounce the word.

> Let's take a simple example from your "Auschwitz: A Revisionist FAQ."
> Obviously, you have read the summary of the Lagace testimony from the
> Zuendelsite and have been able to compare it to Pressac's first book.
> Yet you overlook Lagace's statement that his retort starts off at
> roughly the same temperature as the Topf retorts at Auschwitz and gets
> hotter as the body burns. At the same time, you assume that the start

  And where did he say that?
  The ovens of Birkenau, according to one letter posted here a while
  ago by Van Alstine worked at 800 degrees and it was recommanded
  to not heat too much the structure accounting for the heat generated
  by the bodies, ie to bring up fresh air in such a case. This is
  approximativelly how I remember this letter. Oven today can support
  temperatures which are sometimes twice. You are again playing with
   words.
  
http://www.codoh.com/


From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:30 PST 1996
Article: 81424 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A matter of links, Part 2 of 2
Date: 23 Nov 1996 15:18:50 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <5774kq$3nn@Vir.com>
References: <56ig1d$ao1@access5.digex.net> <19961116213800.QAA21094@ladder01.news.aol.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com

jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
> dvdthomas@aol.com ("DThomas") wrote:
> 
> > A liar, in my book, is
> > someone who in a cold, calculated and persistent manner presents
> > knowingly false statements with the intent of misleading.
> 
> Bingo!  Got it in one!
> 
> Ernst Zuendel was convicted _twice_ in a court of law for doing
> precisely that:  presenting knowingly false statements with the intent
> of misleading.  I don't have the wording of the "false news" statute in
> front of me but it's very similar to that exact turn of phrase you used.
> 
> Twelve jurors good and true decided that he was guilty beyond a
> reasonable doubt of presenting knowingly false statements with the
> intent of misleading.  And then after a technicality was found, twelve
> more jurors, three years later, decided exactly the same thing.
> 

   The errors in the booklet, especially the numbers, and few wrong
 citations, were not from Zundel but from Harwood-Vera. A man can't
 change the contain of a booklet without the permission of the author,
 it is not his job. I agree that the way Vera calculate his final death
 figure for the Jews is full of errors, he's not even quoting Rassinier
 correctly. You can use the word lie if you want, doesn't change anything.
 However, the booklet contain also many accurate statements which show
 lies and forgeries in classical holocaust books, including tampered photo
 were supperpositions of two pictures are done. It was also shown
 at Zundel trial that the same kind of errors or lies, depending of
 the point of view, that existed in 'Did Six Million Really Die?' exist
 also in many holocaust books. When did I hear that those authors
 were sue in law by a british or a Canadian government? Several of 
 Vrba 's claim were shown as falsehoods, but he was not arrest after
 and prosecute by the canadian government. The whole matter here is
 politic: Zundel was convicted because he published a booklet that he
 didn't write while others can lie freely without being prosecute.
 Far right ideas are not popular generally, and this is the real reason.
 It is a good thing that the list of these errors or misrepresentations
 was added at the end of the booklet with a summary of what was said
 in court in further editions: it help someone who read it to make up
 his mind, but also to verify, 'by default', that the other statements
 are correct.
 

 http://www.codoh.com/ 
 




From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:30 PST 1996
Article: 81425 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel and Shoah
Date: 23 Nov 1996 15:27:38 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <57755a$3nn@Vir.com>
References: <565v2j$ohh@Vir.com>   <56nppm$b9c@Vir.com> <328fef61.24450673@news.srv.ualberta.ca> <570gjq$tnf@Vir.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com

mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

> For those interested in Mr. Beaulieu's prolific Holocaust denial and
> crackpot "theories," please visit:
> 
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/beaulieu.jean-francois
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/beaulieu.jean-francois/beaulieu-misrepresents-hoess
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/beaulieu.jean-francois/shoah-suchomel-faked.01
> 

  By the way Mr Van Alstine, will you accuse also Filip Muller to
 have deliberatelly misrepresent the introduction devices as solid
 concrete pillars with the same frenesy you did when it was me?
 It's at the end of the third cassette of shoah, his voice, and the
 english translation is given.


From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:31 PST 1996
Article: 81557 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Treblinka mass graves: errata
Date: 24 Nov 1996 17:43:10 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <57a1fe$o9e@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne50.vir.com


 I wrote something like '500 meters depht' while I wanted to write
 50 meters. In the Treblinka story, the Lazareth is supposed to be
 another mass grave, but less important, where Jews were burned
 after the had being shot. The bulk of the numbers is suppose to be
 in the other mass graves that I described, thus I stated '50 meters'
 to conceed a 200,000 for the Lazareth, but this is certanly too much
 if I compare with the story.  The best I can remember, the Lazareth
  was allegedly used for executions and old people who couldn't be 
 lead to the gas chamber, or something like that.  In the story, most of
 the Jews were buried in this 5000 meter square area, and if we take
 in account the layer of sand after each gassing, the 10 meters
 given by the testimonies is off by a factor 5,6 or 7 certanly.


From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:32 PST 1996
Article: 81568 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jamie McCarthy shows his analytical capacities
Date: 24 Nov 1996 17:12:47 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <579vmf$vei@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne44.vir.com


  I've serious problems with my news server actually and I'm unable to reply
 below the appropriate post apparently. However, this one is a reply to U.
 Roessler post.

    During a moment I had to decide if it was necessary to respond to that
 garbage. Mr Roessler, you build scenarios about me and claim that I would
 refuse in advance any proof that Suchomel was alive in 1985, but as soon
 as I proposed you one kind (necrologic notice with a photo) you discarded
 it and claim that the movie itself is a proof and than add several smear
 attacks by distording my claim. Most of those notices here bear a photo.
 I could say that this is not the only reliable proof:
 in 'The death camp Treblinka',1979, we have the name of the former guards
 and the year the were born, etc... Any holocaust book, any thing in any
 langage is a proof also, because obviously an author could not write in
 advance a fictive date because he would have a premonition about an
 argument bring here by me. I know that there's a series like 'the enci-
 clopedy of the shoah', but I've not access to this here. Any reference
 to his death in a newspaper is also a proof. I will probably search
 soon in 'le monde', when the movie was published, if a journalist didn't
 say in a small sentence: 'Suchomel, who was cardiac and died few months
 after the interview took place', or either a feedback about Suchomel's
 reaction, but unfortunatelly I've not access to an index in this case,
 just for the London Times and the New-York Times. I had to ask myself
 if you didn't know yourself this date, the way you distorsed my state-
 ments leave me to believe that it's possible. I don't know how many
 hundreds books in german were published about the holocaust, but perhaps
 you got it, don't know.

   I don't see why I would accept such a testimony as 'an evidence by
 itself' since there's also contrary arguments that you refuse to see.
 Nizkor have just try to give a rebutal to few of it, and it is hard
 to claim that the air-photo of Auschwitz were not tampered with the
 demonstration of Ball ( the smoking gun, http://www.air-photo.com ),
 the depht of the mass graves according to the witness, etc...
 If it appear that someone could proove that this man is really Suchomel,
 I've no reason to consider that such a proof abolish the contrary argu-
 ments. But since I've a bug with the hallucination theory, I would
 simply say 'I don't know: this is strange.' But actually, all I can
 see here is the usual boring game where several considerations about
 the camera are given, and a bunch of people who yelp a week after:
 'You didn't bring any argument!'.  It become predictable.




From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:33 PST 1996
Article: 81624 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Treblinka
Date: 23 Nov 1996 23:40:14 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <57820u$5h6@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com


John Morris wrote:

>>  Can anyone explain to this 'Phd' in mathematic the notion of
>> empty space between solids?

>Can anyone explain to this benighted fool that the bodies of the
>victims of Treblinka were cremated?

  What did you eat recently John?
  Ok, for those who eventually are not aware: the above claim is irrelevant
  since in the story is that the bodies were burried and than after
  dig up before to be burned. The dept that witness gives is 10 meters,
  for a 5,000 square area. I will post more details tomorrow.


> I will not say that you are unskill when you try to be dishonest
> Dan. I suspect rather that you are  a secret member of the NSWPP
> who have infiltrate Nizkor for sabotage activities.

>But I will say that you are completely without any mental skills at
>all.


  Is it another invention from you or did Al really wrote such a thing
 a day? When?

>And have you no shame? Stealing Al Baron's lines while the poor dear
>rots in a jail cell.




From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:33 PST 1996
Article: 81685 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Action Rehnardt
Date: 24 Nov 1996 18:19:04 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <57a3io$fk4@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne11.vir.com


  Since we are on Treblinka here, I think I'll post gradually some of
 the contrary evidence against the extermination charge, perhaps one per
 week.


    THE LACK OF EVIDENCE IN THE VALUABLES SEASED BY THE GERMANS


  During WWII, the Germans set up a program, action Rehnhardt, which purpose
was to deprivate the Jews of their goods for the profit of the german state.
Several german organisations received a fraction of these ones and redistri-
buted it to people who were in necessity. Other ones were sale to the profit
of the state. Since this program had to deal with a very important quantity
of goods, we may expect that a corresponding amount of documents were captured
by the allieds. It is, indeed, what happened. However, as usual in these trials,
the prosecution had the priviledge to select the documents and only few dozens
were presented in court as exhibit. Three items are relevant to an extermina-
tion policy: gold teeths, glasses and shoes. There was a cruel lack of shoes
during WWII and no doubt that such an item was of a great interest for the
Germans. Glasses, also, could be resell to optometricians, and in all the
cases it is unlikelly that the Germans didn't consider the frame as an
important source of income. As a matter of fact, the stories offered by
Treblinka 'survivors' describe the extraction of gold teeths and the classi-
fication of glasses before their expediture to the Reich.

   If we now look at case 4, we have an interesting feature for the 'incrimi-
 nating documents that were shown (1). The plunder was mainly done by 2 diffe-
 rent sections: Globocnick, chief of the Lublin police was also in charge of
 the supervision of 3 camps: Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor. August Frank on his
 side insured the reshipment of seased goods for 2 other camps, Auschwitz and
 Majdaneck. The two latest ones were not pure transit camps and an important
 number of inmates worked, and died there accounting for the typhus epidemy
 (just for Auschwitz, the number was above 70,000 in 1943 and 4 time less for
 Lublin-Majdanek) Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor are described as pure 'exte-
 rmination camps', places were no more than few hundreds inmates were present
 at a time.

     In a letter dated january, 15, 1943 Himmler talks about the plunder of
 the Warsaw ghetto and watch glasses which are 'lying there'. The letter is
 signed. About 15 letters signed by Globocnick (who died in 1945), Himmler,
 Pohl, Hohberg, August Frank dealing with this action were registered as
 exhibit, but no one of these deal with the hundreds of thousands of glasses
 or gold teeths that we may expect. The most interesting document is NO-060:
 it is a letter signed by Globocnick to which an exhaustive list of items
 picked up from the Jews is attached. The attached document, NO-061, is
 signed by one of Globocnick subordinate, Wippern. It contain a long enumara-
 tiom of goods, '5 pieces gold automatic pencils', '2894 pieces gold gentlemen's
 pocket watches', 49 kg of pearls, 477 pieces sun glasses, many currencies from
 miscellaneous countries, 51,370 pieces watches to be repaired, 1900 boxcars of
 clothes (subclassified in several categories), etc...

    The interesting feature here is that for these 3 camps we don't find any
 mention of gold teeths, shoes, and the number of spectacles (22,324) can
 hardly account for the 1,5 million Jews who have been shipped to these camps
 up to february,3, 1943. We should expect in this case around 500,000 spectacles
 accounting for the number of Jews who were allegedly exterminated there. It
 is possible that several of these ones came from Jews who died during the
 transport, however the more plausible explanation is that in a limited number
 of cases glasses that were found in spectacle cases were confiscated, those
 which were used by those people only to read. There's nothing which can explain
 why so few spectacles were found and seased on 1,5 million persons if these
 persons where really exterminated in those camps. The absence of shoes is
 also strongly contradicting the extermination claim. A brief mention about
 shoes is done in one of Globocnick letter (NO-059) but no number is given.
 The explanation can be found in Vogt testimony for the case 4: Vogt explained
 how right after the Warsaw operation, where thousands of Jews perished after
 the assault led by the Germans, Globocnick guided him to 4 to 5 barracks
 were clothes and shoes were disposed. Vogt' interpretation about the shoes
 was that these ones came from deceased Jews during the Warsaw operation.
 The Warsaw operation took place _after_ february 1943, which is the date
 of NO-061.


       NO-724 is a letter signed by Frank to the SS garnison of Auschwitz
 and Majdanek (or Lublin) where Frank talks about the redistribution of
 cash,shoes,gold watches, men's clothings, but no number is mentionned.
 NO-1257 is a letter from Frank also, but were shoes and clothes are listed.
 It concern Auschwitz and Majdaneck, however there's a strange feature here:
 all of the 20 or 25 other documents in this section are signed while this
 one is a 'certified copy' which bear a typewritten signature. Its possible
 that the numbers written there are the right one, but since this document
 is not signed, contrarelly to all the others, I've no reason to believe
 that the numbers there are identical than what they were in the original
 document.

(1) [Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals -
   Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. V, p. 695-731]





From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:34 PST 1996
Article: 81704 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Lanzmann, kaputt!
Date: 24 Nov 1996 17:16:50 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <579vu2$oc@Vir.com>
References:  <56u00k$4ju@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne44.vir.com

M.P. Stein wrote:


>    Excuse me, but you are always demanding that Dr. Keren, Jamie
>McCarthy, etc. provide proof and proof of the proof and proof of proof of
>proof.
>
>    The millionaire claim was Mr. Beaulieu's.  His claim, his burden of
>proof.  But all of a sudden you think it is Charles Power who bears the
>burden of finding out the facts, not Mr. Beaulieu.
>
>    If I didn't know what an honest fellow you were, I would swear I was
>seeing some hypocrisy on your part, hmn?


  The message seems to be adress to rblackmore, althought it speaks also
 about me. As I said, I consider very probable that a man who produce a
 wordly aclamed movie become millionaire. In the sentence were millionaire
 was used, there wasn't a reference to the period precceding the distribution
 of the movie originally. I've no idea about his cash flow before 1985,
 and I've drop my first idea given 'on the spot' (an important reward).
 There's no need for such an important retribution to get an actor, by
 a way or another.




From jfbe@vir.com Mon Nov 25 06:24:35 PST 1996
Article: 81762 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Action Rehnardht
Date: 25 Nov 1996 04:44:08 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <57b86o$g58@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne14.vir.com


# The interesting feature here is that for these 3 camps
# we don't find any mention of gold teeths, shoes,

>Letter from SS-Gruppenfuehrer Katzmann to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer
>Kruger, regarding the solution of the Jewish problem in Galicia,
>and giving a breakdown of property taken from the Jews, June 30,
>1943
>[Documents on the Holocaust - Edited by Y. Arad, Y. Gutman,
>A. Margaliot, NY, Ktav Pub. House in Association with Yad-Vashem,
>1981, p. 335-341]
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Valuables were secured and handed over to the special staff
>Reinhard Apart from furniture and large quantities of textile,
>etc., the following were confiscated and delivered to special staff
>Reinhard;:
>
>As of June 30, 1943:
> .
> .
>20.952 Kg - wedding rings - gold
>22.740 Kg - pearls
>11.730 Kg - gold teeth

 It's the same letter that you used few weeks ago, and I don't know if
 is signed or not. Anyway, As I said, for the 3 transit camps (Treblinka,
 Belzec Sobibor) there's no document that speaks about gold teeths. Here
 11 kg of gold teeths can be teeths of people who were killed during the
 Warsaw ghetto uprising, or people who died in Majdaneck from ordinary
 causes. It was a current practice in Germany to recover the gold teeths
 of people before their cremation. The best I can remember the specific
 weight of gold is about 20, so 11 kg is about the size of 1/2 liter
 of water. For the 1,500,000 persons shipped in Treblinka, Belzec and
 Sobibor? surely not.


>Report by SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl to Himmler's office, February
>6 1943, listing items plundered from Jewish victims and delivered
>to various Nazi organizations
>[Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals -
>Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. V, p. 699-703]

 And this report is the NO-1257 that I explained in my previous post.



# and the number of spectacles (22,324) can hardly account
# for the 1,5 million Jews who have been shipped to these
# camps up to february,3, 1943.

>Do you have any statistics to offer as to what percentage
>of Polish Jews (including infants and children) had eyeglasses?

  Certanly not 1,5%. And I have the impression, as many, that myopia
  is frequent into the jewish population.






From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 26 06:24:44 PST 1996
Article: 81880 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Treblinka mass graves
Date: 24 Nov 1996 15:39:26 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <579q7e$c8d@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne13.vir.com

  The number of people that could be burried in Treblinka can be estimate
  by a simple way:
we have to imagine is a cofin of 1 meter square area, and 2 meter long:
how many people can be put there? I'm saying no more than 5. with a
5,000 meter square surface, 10 meters depht we have about 120,000 corpses.
Keren's claim would require 25 persons in this coffin, and the proportion
of childrens in the population is around 20%.(1) The minimum depht would
be thus about 500 meters, althought we must add to that the sand between
the layers.


There's not a perfect concordance between the different witnesses
concerning the graves' dimensions: S. Wilenberg (Surviving Treblinka)
describes a very large pit of 100 metres by 50 and 2 small ones of 60 by
30 metres on a map. The more frequent version according to other witness
is of 2 pits of 50 metres by 25, one of 25 by 35 and one of 10 metres by
20 (2). The number of graves and their orientations is not identical, in
spite of their always being described as located on the south east extre-
mity of the camp. The 'gas chambers', but also the inmate barracks, are
placed just on the west side of the graves while coniferous trees and
are extremely close here on those on the north east and south according
to drawings. The place is thus, strictly surrounded and in spite of what
the witness said, gives an area  between 3,400 square metres and to
6,800 square metres; the total can be hardly greater. With those contra-
dictions, the best thing to do is to take an average dimension of
5,000 square metres. A depth of 10 metres (3) is also given according to
those witness.

Those ones stated also that the Germans formed a special team that had
the task of disposing of the corpses in such a way that space was minimised.
Hence, inmates had supposedly to pile up the bodies layer upon layer. After
each batch of bodies, a layer of sand and chlorine was allegedly spread
to remove the smell. (4)


Those ones say that it is whit an excavator, to which 2 other ones of the
same type will be add (the 'Kopachke'), that the Germans proceeded.  A photo
of the Kurt Franz album show s even one of those ones in Treblinka. The
photos do not show its use for criminal purposes, like any other photo.
The depth of 10 metres is normally at the limit bearing in mind the length
of the arm of a mechanical shovel.

  Since the massgraves are adjacent on the map, the only way to reach this
depht was to dig a slope few dozen meter a way. However, the perimeter
described is surrounded by gas chambers on one side and by tress on the
other. The fact that the story offered talks about many adjacent graves
rather than a single one demolishes such an hypothesis. Furthermore, it
would be stupid for the Germans to dig over a so long distance without
using this supplementary section as a grave, a thing that eyewitness do
not mention. Finally the Jews had to walk down  to dispose of the bodies

(1) (Deuxieme recensement general de la population du 9 decembre 1931;
    logements et menages, population), Warsaw, 1938, reproduce in
    W. Sanning, page 28-29.
(2) See the map 'Into the Darkness', G. Sereny, or the representation
    in 'Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka', page 39
(3) Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka p:42
(4) Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka p:112



From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 26 06:24:45 PST 1996
Article: 81884 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Suchomel: a reply to Miloslav Bilik
Date: 24 Nov 1996 15:58:38 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <579rbe$p5u@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne13.vir.com


>No. You can see the same problem with the V sync on the monitor in the
>van in **all** the interviews, including Schalling's interview. The

   I'm just saying that Schalling's face is certanly more clear, and
  we agree on that.

>image is slightly poorer for Suchomel because of some noise in
>receiving (the van is likely more distant from the apartment than in
>the other interviews). The bar is useless to hide the Suchomel's face
>what is always recognizable and entirely visible in many occurrences.

  You misunderstood my claim: first, I thought that the bar was due to a
 len default, but now I consider also that this is due to a synchronisation
 problem. The difference is that I can get the same kind of bluerring effect
 by turning the wheel of my TV, deliberatelly. And I think this is something
 like that that was done after. I never claimed that the noisy line was used
 to hide Suchomel's face, but that the bluerring effect can mask little
 default that could make a mask recognizable. Actually I think it is
 the reason why the picture is bluerred.

> No, it is caught always, despite sometimes there's a delay when Suchomel
>remove the wand. The camera doesn't turn just horizontally: it turns
>also slightly verticaly when the stick show another place higher on the
>map. a bit before the sentence: "what was the capacity of the new gas
>chambers?", and after 'disposing of the bodies would have been too
>complicated (about 35 minutes after the begining of the cassette).
>this happen twice.

>I'm standing by it. The stick is the most often missed when the camera
>is in the first place (it lasts only some minutes). In the second
>place, the camera is propped up, the map is more distant, and the
>stick is easier to catch.

I just remember once where the stick was missed and where the camera showed
an element on the map instead, but this may be the decision of the cameraman.
About 10 times the stick is caught, sometimes in the center, sometimes a bit
on the right, since the camera move to follow it (globally during the inter-
view). In the second view, about 12 minutes after the begining of the interview,
the camera is certanly not distant of more than 30 or 40 centimeters. Again,
the rotation are horizontal but can be diagonal also, I think we agree on
that. The stick is caught there. We seems to say the samething almost except
that I consider the situation unbelievable for the reasons that I gave.


>>This is obvious
>>at this moment: we must expect that Suchomel look at his stick, and the
>>camera is very close to this extremity. During 5 second, the camera
>>follow the hieratic movement of the stick at a distance of few centimeters.
>>It's impossible that the female assistant could move her bag just for
>>such a stupid detail which is not essantial while she know that he look at
>>her bag. It's the second nature of a cameraman who is too much accustom to
>>have his target correctly in the collimator.

>Well, does Suchomel look at the stick or at the bag ? He doesn't
>squint. It's obvious that the camera only rotates and has a rather
>long focal distance. The optical field is about 15 (Suchomel gives at
>one moment the dimensions of his room as an example).

   I consider that anyone who see this part, which is not 5 seconds but
 13 seconds, can't doubt that the camera is close to the map, hard to
 say but less than a feet. It turn back immediatelly after to Suchomel,
 the whole scene can show the close distance. So Suchomel certanly look
 at the bag, or let say can see it, because it is too close to the stick.

>>>For this plastic mask, your video copy has to be of a poor quality.
>>>The image is bad, but Suchomel is easily recognizable and we can see
>>>its mimicries: he lift up his eyes with eyebrows that move, stands
>>>open-mouthed and so on.

>>  so? maquillage perhaps. I'm not absolutelly sure it is not Suchomel.
>> But I'm sure the camera is not hidden.

>But what's indeed the matter ? Suchomel witnessed many times and
>always in the same way. Wirth gave detailed instructions as to the
>liquidations of the transports[..]. For example,[..] the disembarking
>of the Jews, the passage through the 'tube' to the upper part of the

   We are still falling back on the usual 'proof' for which I've already
 give my opinion. I don't believe it is necessary to come back on that.
 The thing which is supposed to be extraordinary in Suchomel's testimony
 is that no cohercition is possible, that he doesnt seem to hallucinate
 and that no direct explication  is possible, according to the anti-
 revisionist claim, since he's not in jail an is not waiting for an
 appeal.


> (second Treblinka trial). So, you wonder if Suchomel is unaware
>of being on the record and not about the truthful of what he says ?

  Yes I do, because Lanzmann caimed that the camera was hidden, because
'Suchomel' ask to not reveal his name in the movie, and because the
image is bluerred. Since I consider as a certanty that the camera wasn't
hidden, the conclusion for me is that the man is probably not Suchomel.
As I said, the movement of the eyes is not a proof of anything whatsover:
a rubber or a plastic mask is certanly something that one who is in the
showbizz can order, or perhaps even do himself, maquillage can be add
after. The actor, since I think it's an actor, is convincing and is doing
several mimics, indeed. But what should we expect? that an actor play
deliberatelly bad? I've no blame against him: it's the cameraman and the
scenarist who play bad. I don't believe a canvas bag is so easy to
manipulate, I've try and the female assistant would have to make a real
performance without being discovered. I consider also that she couldn't
concentrate so much on her bag, etc,etc,....


>Was an actor testifying in the trials, writing to Sereny and
>mentioning the gas chambers at least twice, aso ?

   At the trial, certanly not, but now, can you explain to what you refer
 when you speaks about 2 letters to Sereny?




From jfbe@vir.com Tue Nov 26 06:24:46 PST 1996
Article: 82026 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Last Call for Yale to Retract his Lies
Date: 26 Nov 1996 05:02:37 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <57dtld$glp@Vir.com>
References: <329a0481.3842151@news.micron.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com

kurtstel@micron.net (Kurt Stele) wrote:
>
> Yale has persisted in the lie that the Freeman brothers of
> Pennsylvania were NA members.  
> 
> Yale has not only has persisted in this lie, but he has gone so far as
> to given extremely detailed information regarding his assertion.   In
> other words, Yale has given eyewitness testimony to the effect that he
> has first-hand knowledge of it.  (Sound familiar?)
> 
> I am giving Yale one last, final chance, before his lies are exposed,
> to retract it in public.  For the sake of fairness, rehabilitation,
> redemption, absolution, and even whatever microscopic credibility Yale
> wishes to maintain, I am giving him the opportunity to step down, to
> be a man about it, to be "an honest Jew", to contradict the existing
> wisdom regarding the duplicity of lawyers -- in short, to do the right
> thing.  
> 
> Yale, I am hereby exhorting you to categorically and absolutely
> retract your lie about the Freeman brothers being NA members, along
> with the entire body of fictive minutiae you augmented to your Tale,
> in the following format, and/or to append your signature at the bottom
> thereto:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "I, Yale, do here retract my lie about the Freeman brothers
> Pennsylvania, publicly and duly, for the sake of truth, fairness, and
> honesty and do hereby apologize for my deliberate and extensive
> fabrications,  and my several concommitant lies as well.  In the
> future, I will strive to be honest and to desist from such
> prevarication, or at least I bid my commitment to using my utmost
> efforts to doing so."
> 
> Signed,
> _________________   <-----(sign here Yale)
> 

  Well, I don't know very much the Freeman brothers, but it sounds
 like an honest proposition which leave him a generous possibility
 to save the face :-)


From jfbe@vir.com Thu Nov 28 07:01:48 PST 1996
Article: 82182 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Treblinka mass graves
Date: 25 Nov 1996 03:47:18 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <57b4s6$s5e@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne21.vir.com

Daniel Keren wrote:

# we have to imagine is a cofin of 1 meter square area,
# and 2 meter long: how many people can be put there? I'm
# saying no more than 5.

>First, note the source I posted. It shows a photo of
>22 undergrads squeezed into a phone booth about 2 cubic
>meters in volume (same to the volume you give). The text
>says that a number of 34 was reached. You obviously have
>a serious problem with your estimate of 5 people in that
>volume, more so since the photo shows undergrads (that is,
>people at least 18-years-old), and in Treblinka etc there
>were many infants and children present.

 I've not see this photo, which may be under another title.
 I suspect however that it concern a group of students who
 wanted to establish a guiness record, so a group of people
 where individual who where not enough small were reject in
 advance. A first remark, there's not 'many' infants in the
 Treblinka sample, but 21 or 22% of childrens of less than
 15 year's old in the jewish population according to the
 source I posted yesterday. Second remark, this example is
 a guiness record that most of the people couldn't reach.
 They certanly tried several methods before to  get it.
 The main thing here is that they can use their musles to
 squeeze each others, and bodies do not use their musles. This
 is certanly an important feature. If you piled up bodies at
 the open, they will certanly not try to push bodies around
 and fill empty space. They can't neither use the wall of a
 phone cabine, and I suspect that in your photo they probably
 raise up their hands, since the shoulders are a problem. I
 got a meter however, and I underestimated the number, it
 would be probably around 8 or 9 rather than 5. So if we
 count the layer of sand and chlorine between each gassing,
 and the final layer of sand above, it wouldn't be 60 or 70
 meters but around 40 meters. An exemple of people who can
 use their musles and the walls of a phone cabine is irrelevant.





From jfbe@vir.com Thu Nov 28 07:01:49 PST 1996
Article: 82380 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Treblinka mass graves
Date: 27 Nov 1996 05:55:23 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <57gl4b$pbl@Vir.com>
References: <579q7e$c8d@Vir.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

the 0-14 year's old childs in 1942. The infants dying in the first
>five years is given, page 89: 5.0% for polish Jews. It would be
>possible to take this formula, l'interet compose, I don't know the
>translation, it's the (1.05)*n where n is the number of years, but
>since both the births and the dividor (total population) are supposed
>to grow, it's an unusefull complexity. So with an approximation,
>an almost stable population, you get 9.65% of 5 years old childrens
>less 0.5%=9,15% of childrens of this age. This gives 27,45% of childrens

  The above text wasn't perhaps clear: I meant 1,93%*5 years =
  9.65% of children who are 5 years old OR LESS. And than I substracted
  the 5% infantile mortality over this 9.6 %, about 0.5 %.




From jfbe@vir.com Sat Nov 30 11:27:39 PST 1996
Article: 82713 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!pumpkin.pangea.ca!news.mira.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jamie McCarthy shows his analytical capacities
Date: 29 Nov 1996 06:01:16 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <57lu7c$48o@Vir.com>
References: <579vmf$vei@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com


uroess@urz.tu-dresden.de (Ulrich Roessler) wrote:


>Anyhow, witnesses if they testify something, he doesn't like, are always
>told what to say in his opinion. Official documents, like a death
>certificate with a later date than 1985, are worthless because there could
>be other persons with the same name.  Suchomel when appearing before

    Of course, there were possibly many Franz Suchomel in Germany. Just in
Canada you could find hundreds of Pierre Tremblay, and it's quite possible
that such a name is frequent in Germany, which count 10 times more people
than the french descent who lives in Canada. I added also that this could be
a valid proof if you can relate it to the Suchomel former gard, by a way or
another.

>What he'd apparently accept as proof - an obituary with picture from
>a newspaper, is something very unlikely to exist. Anybody familiar
> with German newspapers could know that something like that was hardly
>published on occasion of the death of a small former SS-man and
>destruction camp guard.

  So? we have here photos of people who were student only in the necrologic
section. Suchomel became a celibrity after Lanzmann movie. Your claim that I
would refuse any kind of proof is contradict by my earlier statements: I
gave you 3 kind of proofs that are formal proofs: a necrologic notice which
refer to Suchomel with a photo or either a text that talks even a bit about
his past, a reference to his death in one of the multitute of Holocaust
books that were published in several langages, and I've access to only few
of them. Among these: The death camp Treblinka, where the year that he's
born is given. There's something like 'l'encyclopedie de la Shoah', perhaps
a german or english equivalent, but I've not access to. And finally a
statement done by anybody, doesn't matter, in a newspaper, german, english,
american, about Suchomel's death. There's an index for some newspapers like
the New York Times and the London Times, and one can search for subjects
like Suchomel, or any related words, and this is what I'll do in the next
months. But even for some other newspapers like 'Le Monde' are usefull,
I've no index of it but it is quite possible that someone talked briefly
about his death when he was a 'hot topic', let say when the movie was
first shown.

I could even add others: you suggested that his SS member file was present in
Berlin and that it may shown the same birth day than a death certificate.
If the last one is typewritten bu bear at least a stamp, than it seems to
me that both document appear as a good evidence on a first glance. Of
course, anyone can try to forge such kind of document, but there's a risk:
the risk that if it's a lie, someone like may find in 'Le Monde' or
any other newspaper a contrary statement in the next months. Or in a book.
Or either that someone verify who is this Suchomel a day. And I'm enough
crazy to do it. But anyway you may search or not for that, I will do it
on a part time basis also.


  Now, as I said, my direct claim is that the camera wasn't hidden. From
that, since the man says 'don't giveup my name', since Lanzmann's claim
is that the camera was hidden in a canvas bag, since the picture is bluerred,
I conclude that probably he wasn't, althought it is not the only possibility
but the most probable. Personally, I wouldn't make such a hoax if the man
is alive. And as I say, I give little weight to the possibility that the
man was victim of blackmail or either bought. If you or someone bring a
proof that Suchomel was alive in 1985, he would rebecome a kind of mystery
to me. But really I don't believe he was alive.


  The remaining of your bulshit distorsion is [snipped].





From jfbe@vir.com Sat Nov 30 11:27:40 PST 1996
Article: 82779 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Auschwitz, a secret? (2) (Repost)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 04:27:41 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <57j4bt$mk@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

  We will take a look now at the usual propaganda over the war. The american
   Arthur Butz, especially, was the first to do an exhaustive inquiry about
   it. What is clear from his review of american newspapers is that the
   propaganda about mass extermination started as sson as 1942. It was
   mainly statements made by zionist officials, Chaim Weizman among others,
   that were often related to an appeal for the opening of Palestine to
   jewish immigration. Several camps or atrocities are mentionned, Belzec,
   Chelmo, Sobibor, Treblinka, and the accusations take miscellaneous forms:
   jews who are shot, report about mass electrocution of jews in Belzec,
   gasing methos in Treblinka, poison, sometimes the use of wagons were
   lethal gas is used. It looks like the usual scrap that any war is
   normally generating: propaganda. Several of those accusations were drop
   after the war.

      Into an interesting book: 'the black book of the polish jewry',
  publish at the end of 1943, we find interesting things. This book is
  totally consistent with the war propaganda that can be found in the
  newspapers: Chelmo, Treblinka, story of atrocities, in some cases details:
  250 jewish children allegedly killed in a jewish sanatorium, elsewhere
  50 jews executed in a township, the book is a collection of war propaganda,
  probably a mix of thruth an falsehoods, an over few hundreds pages
  we have an idea of what kind of stories were used by several jewish
  organisations which had their large network of informant across
  Europe. Nowhere Auschwitz is mention, despite the mass gasing of jews
  is supposed to have start in the spring of 1942. The index, that contains
  a large amount of places were atrocities are allegedly comitted,
  do not contain the name of Auschwitz. Several minor stories, but
  nothing about the gasing of hundreds of thousand of jews there.

      Enrique Aynat made a deep inquiry with the review published
  by the polish government in exile in London, the 'Polish fighting
  review'. It is similar stuff. Several stories about atrocities
  against jews were put in circulation by this review ( the informations
  were received in the same way that what was explained earlier, from
  the A.K.) but Auschwitz appear just few times before 1945. But
  there's more: when it appear, it is not in connection with mass
  gasing of jews. It is about case of torture, hard work, the
  tough conditions of the inmates who have to work for the military
  production. An example of that can be find in the 1 july 1942 article
  (n0 47) where it is mention that the German use syringue to kill
  prisonners of Bikernau. There's a base of thruth: the method
  was at least used for the dying prisonners who were affect by the
  catastrophic typhus epidemy of 1942, but there's no evidence that
  it was use to liquidate them because of an extermination policy:
  euthanasy was the real purpose. In several other articles during
  2 years, very 'low level' details about some inmates who died
  are given, and in a case it is say that few hundred russian
  prisonners were gased at a specific date. What is astonishing here
  is that over 2 years and a half, the systematic murder of hundreds
  of thousands of jews seems to be ignored while the polish resistance
  is suppose to be aware of a single gasing of russian pows at a time.
  There is also a reference to the gasing of polish childrens at the end of
  1943, despite today we never speak about the gasing of poles. But
  among the huge amount of propaganda that was published over those
  years, this is all. Before the mid 1944, the atrocities were generally
  not concerning Auschwitz and when it was th case, the mass gasing
  of jews was not mentioned.

     The story about the mass gasing of jews in Auschwitz began
  really in the summer of 1944 in the allied newspapers, and then we
  can say that the persons who were spreading the atrocities stories
  had no choice: the other camps were shut down several months before.

    First remark: such stories are not 'a proof' of mass gasing,
  simply because propaganda and false accusations were always a
  part of war, and second because those accusations were made
  in connection with a call to allied countries for negotiations
  with germans. The zionist leaders of that time had clearly an objective
  in the mind: put pressure on the British and force them to allow
  the opening of the Palestine borders to jewish immigration.
  Israel was not existing yet, and the arabs were the majority there.
  Several declarations in the newspapers let no ambiguity about it.
    Second remark: the real problem is that it is hard to believe that
  such mounstruous events, the gasing of hundreds of thousand of jews
  over 2 years, could be absent of publications like the 'black book
  of the Polish jewry' while minor stories about the executions of
  50 jews in a small township are present. That book was published
  expresselly for the sake of propaganda, to talk exhaustivelly about
  the anti jewish persecutions. And it is not because Auschwitz was
  'secret'. We can have a clear indication of that with the anti-revisionnist
  author Martin Gilbert in 'Auschwitz and the allied', p 340. After
  an exhaustive review of the documentation, he conclude that Auschwitz
  was absent of the war propaganda before the mid 1944.
  There it's like to say that events like those that happend in
  Rwanda did exist over 2 years but that despite information was
  collected on a daily based by A.K. agents in Bikernau and Auschwitz 1,
  nobody seem aware of it. Imagine 2 Rwandas over 2 years and nobody
  within that country noticed anything during this period except
  at the end.
    Third remark: such an absence of propaganda would be more acceptable
  for camps like Belzec, simply because those one were isolated,
  there was not an important towniship beside, there was not hundreds
  of civilians who worked there, inmates were not frequently reshiped
  in the vicinity of the camps and able to have contact with civilians,
  Belzec was not of any strategical importance for the american
  since it hadn't any Buma plan industry: the inmates were suppose
  to arrive there and to be killed quickly, nothing else.
  But what we have in the WWII propaganda is the opposite: no possible
  secret for Auschwitz, but it is there that an unexplanable silence
  was keepen. It must be say also that according to the post war
  confessions, Auschwitz was suppose to be the 'metropol' of the
  extermination, the main camp. At Nuremberg, the bulk of the
  extermination story was built on Auschwitz.

    Fourth remark: The story about the 'revelation of the secret' is
  of an uncommensurable absurdity. The WRB report, published in 1944,
  is suppose to be an accurate description of the nature of Auschwitz.
  The american press revealed that 2 inmates escaped and were able to go
  in Switzerland to give a very accurate description of the gassing
  procedure and the installations in Auscwitz. The authors of the WRB
  report stayed anonymous during 16 years despite it had be more credible
  to present those ones immediatelly. As Butz noticed they stayed anonymous
  for 16 years and the jewish writter Reitlinger was a bit bothered in the
  first edition of the final solution about this fact but those ones were
  produced before the second edition of his book 150 miles away from his
  Sussex domicile (London). Rudolph Vrba, author of a best seller a bit later,
  'I cannot forgive'. Vrba is suppose to had the false identity of Walter
  Rosenberg in Auschwitz despite he wrote that the other inmates called
  him 'Rudi'.

Several, a lot of contradictions exist in Vrba's 'memories', the description
of the ovens (number, location) is absolutelly wrong, despite he was supposed
to be in contact with a SK like Muller and that the purpose of his mission
was to bring informations about the crematorias. He invented a fictive bom-
bardment on Auschwitz in april 1944. Let say just that when I read Vrba's book,
I saw that his escape had a specific purpose: give a warn to the whole world
about the fate of the jews in Auschwitz, 'breaking the secret' in other words.
One have just to read the previous message to realize that it is ridicoulous.
There was hundreds of escapes and liberations before him. Despite the incon-
sistences in his testimony, Vrba's credibility is essantial. The defenders of
the legend can conceed that an obscur eye witness could have lie, but Vrba is
a kind of detonnator, a domino:
since he talk about his entertainment with F. Muller at the camp, since
the key eyewitness Sonderkommando F. Muller said also that he spoke
with Vrba several times in Auschwitz, if one of the testimony is false,
the other collapse. If Vrba testimony is false, then one would have
to explain why the real authors of the WRB report never challendge
Vrba's story.  And then we would conclude that the WRB report wasn't
writen by  an ex-inmate but by higher rank propagandist who had a large
amount of datas available: this is where the story began.




From jfbe@vir.com Sat Nov 30 11:27:41 PST 1996
Article: 82784 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Auschwitz, a secret? (1) Repost
Date: 28 Nov 1996 04:26:28 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <57j49k$mk@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

 The present article was written at the end of 1995 and the english syntax
 was revised by Alexander Baron. 50% of my sources here are one of Enrique
 Aynat article, and perhaps 25% of Butz findings. I put this stuff together
 in a summary to which I added some elements that I found in few books.


First of all, the usual statement that the Germans have tried to keep secret
their extermination policy is completely ridiculous. This 'attempt to preserve
the secret' is often used to explain why the high level German documents
captured by the Allies refer to the 'Final Solution' as a program for the
expulsion of the Jews from Europe.

The Auschwitz complex was built close to an important agglomeration. Many ci-
vilians worked there during the day and went home in the evening. On page 62
of his 1993 study 'Les Crematoires d'Auschwitz', the anti-Revisionist author
Jean-Claude Pressac (who uses German documents) writes: "For the Birkenau
cremator- ies, the Germans gave the contracts to 12 civilian enterprises [...]
Each working site was employed between 100 and 150 workers, a third of them
civilians." The number of ovens was growing with years with the expansion of
the camp, and the maintenance was unavoidable. Auschwitz was critical for the
Allies: Synthetic rubber production was important for the Americans, and it is
not surprising that many air photo missions concerning this camp took place.
The huge backwardness of the Americans concerning the fabrication of synthetic
rubber after the lost of their usual source in Malaysia in 1941-42 didn't permit
them any choice: they had to know everything about Auschwitz, and there's no
doubt that they took measures to pick up as much information as possible. We
know, that the Americans had broken the German military codes. Over two and a
half years there was no mention of mass gassing in any intercept in spite of
the Germans being unaware that their codes had been cracked.

But there is even more, in 'The Terrible Secret', the Jewish historian Walter
Laqueur gives some hints in spite of being no manner of Revisionist. From him
we learn (page 25), that Auschwitz was an archipelago, that thousands of
inmates were frequently shipped to annex camps, mixed with civilians across
Silesia, that hundreds of civilians were working at Auschwitz 1, that journa-
lists were travelling freely in this region...This is the same author who says
that there were hundreds of liberations in 1942-4, among them several Jews
(page 169). But also there were hundreds of escapes in those years!

In 'The Final Solution', Reitlinger talks also of a a radio receiver that was
active in the inmate barracks over a period of months. Admiral Canaris, chief
of the counter-spying agency of the Third Reich, was a double agent. He gave
much information to the Allies during the war, but said nothing about alleged
mass liquidations at Auschwitz.

There was organised resistance in the camps. Groups of communists, Jews and
others were able to send information out of the camp. A fairly accurate picture
of this resistance is given by the book 'Fighting Auschwitz'.

As stated, it was impossible for the Germans to avoid some contacts between
the inmates and the local population. Many Poles were, indeed, members of the
resistance, and some inmates had conversations with local populations when they
were brought out of Auschwitz to execute miscellaneous labour tasks. Sometimes
these civilians hid food and for the inmates. Often, the SS in charge of the
commandos were faking ignorance about those things in exchange for food or
gifts. (See for example Garlinski, 'Fighting Auschwitz', pages 43-5). The
contacts with the local population were developed in such a way that letters
and parcels could be sent out of the camp by the internal resistant cells of
Birkenau and Auschwitz on a regular basis. A group of the Cracovia resistance
was in regular touch via letters. In this town were preserved 350 of those
letters, 'a small fraction of a very much more important total' (Langbein,
'Hommes et femmes a Auschwitz', page 252). Letters successfully reached the
Netherlands also. In spite of this, such records are used to endorse the
extermination claim. As Butz pointed out, quoting L. Dawidowicz in her intro-
ductory chapter (page 221):

   "One impediment was inadequacy of Jewish documentation in spite
   of its enormous quantity... The absence of vital subjects from
   the records may be explained by the predicament of terror and
   censorship; yet, lacking evidence to corroborate or disprove, the
   historian will never know with certainty whether that absence is
   a consequence of an institutional decision not to deal with such
   matters or whether it was merely a consequence of prudent policy
   not to mention such matters. The terror was so great that even
   private personal diaries, composed in Yiddish or Hebrew, were
   written circumspectly, with recourse to Scripture and the Talmud
   as a form of esoteric expression and self-imposed reticence."

Garlinski mention also this story about the radio transmitter/receiver which
was active over 7 months in 1942 in Auschwitz and due to its contacts, the
direction of the Silesia local AK ceil (Armia Krajowa) was soon able to find
the wavelength used by the transmitter. (Garlinski, 'Fighting Auschwitz', page
126).

The Armia Krajowa, or the interior (or secret) army was formed in 1942 from
a previous resistance movement. It was organised like a real army. In 1944
the AK could count on about 300,000 members. In Birkenau there was a secret
organisation created in April 1942 by Colonel Karcz. Contact between the
Birkenau organisation and the main camp of Auschwitz took place on a daily
basis. The main task of the Karcz group was to provide information to the AK
elements outside. In 1942 the organisation of W. Pilecki, an ex-Polish officer,
could count on 1000 members between Auschwitz and Birkenau (Garlinski,
'Fighting Auschwitz', pages 97-8). In 1942-43 the resistant groups in Auschwitz
were so powerful that they controlled the Hospital, the kitchens, the main
office and had their agent in key positions.

The activity of the resistance in the camp had a specific purpose: feed the
Polish government in exile with exhaustive information about the events that
were occurring in the Nazi camps. The AK could count also on the complicity of
a few SS to transmit some messages outside (Garlinski, 'Fighting Auschwitz', pages
206-8). But often, messages were simply transmitted with the liberation of
inmates (Laqueur, 'The Terrible Secret', page 169 and Garlinsi, 'Fighting
Auschwitz', pages 54-5 & 112).

Communications between Poland and London were relatively easy for the Resis-
tance. The general Bor-Komorowski, commandant of the AK, said that clandestine
radio messages were regularly transmitted to London and that for the year
1942-43-44, there were almost 300 such messages per month. (T. Bor-Komorowski,
'The secret Army', page 150). Another source of information was the microfilms
which were sent to London on a monthly basis. The Polish Resistance had about
100 radio transmitters which were able to reach England. But other messages
were brought by newsmongers who were travelling to Sweden (neutral) and then
Great Britain.

Recently I obtained a copy of one of the most notorious Revisionist pamphlets:
'The Auschwitz Lie', by Thies Christophersen. Christophersen is an ex-German
officer who had worked in one of the camps peripheral to Auschwitz: Raisenko.
This booklet is not notorious not because one could qualify it as a big scien-
tific contribution to Revisionism, it's just a small pamphlet where an
officer talks about his personnel experiences, (he visited Birkenau several
times in 1944).

The notoriety of this pamphlet, published in 1973, is mainly due to a false
reference that can be found: a fictive Red Cross report that is supposed to
claim that no more than 300,000 Jews died in WWII. Because of that, 'The
Auschwitz Lie' received immediately the status of 'Bible of the Revisionists',
and one still finds frequent reference in European books or magazine to this
pamphlet and this fictive reference with the development (hint as sth): this
is the Bible of the Revisionists, it contains a lie, so the Revisionist are
just liars and it is a good thing that Revisionist material is banned since
the public must be protected against those lies by people who will tell them
what they must read. What amazed me the first time I took a look at it wasn't
the fact that this false reference was just an isolated one among several
others that were valid, it was to see that Christophersen didn't invent it:
he just quoted a real Brazilian newspaper that didn't check before publishing
this report about the 'Red Cross Report'. Anyway, from Christophersen, we
learn that SS families were able to visit the soldiers without any major
problems in Auschwitz. We learn too that inmates from Birkenau were frequently
shipped to other camps and could establish contact with the local population.
This fact, as I said, was subsequently confirmed by the anti-Revisionist
historian Laqueur.

Now, first statement: Hoess, in his 'confession', supposedly given without
any coercion, testified that when Himmler ordered him to establish a program
of mass extermination in his camp (a verbal order to keep the secret) he
received also instructions not to discuss it with Gluecks, general inspector
of the camps, because absolute secrecy was necessary. Can you believe that?




From jfbe@vir.com Sun Dec  1 16:05:55 PST 1996
Article: 82938 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suchomel:reply to Miloslav Bilik
Date: 30 Nov 1996 23:57:25 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <57qhl5$hr0@Vir.com>
References: <56ggh3$pse@Vir.com> <56r6tj$nop@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne17.vir.com

 Miloslav Bilik wrote:

>>I just remember once where the stick was missed and where the camera showed
>>an element on the map instead, but this may be the decision of the cameraman.
>>About 10 times the stick is caught, sometimes in the center, sometimes a bit
>>on the right, since the camera move to follow it (globally during the inter-
>>view). In the second view, about 12 minutes after the begining of the interview,

>I'm still standing by it. The stick is perhaps caught once or twice in
>a dozen of occurrences. I think that you haven't the same estimation
>than me about the instant where the camera goes in the second place.

  Well, to me it was quite clear. Indeed, we disagree.

>>   I consider that anyone who see this part, which is not 5 seconds but
>> 13 seconds, can't doubt that the camera is close to the map, hard to
>> say but less than a feet. It turn back immediatelly after to Suchomel,
>> the whole scene can show the close distance. So Suchomel certanly look
>> at the bag, or let say can see it, because it is too close to the stick.

>How can you estimate the distance of the camera ? A long distance

 The same way I'm recognizing distances with my eyes. The focal distance
 could be an explanation, however the camera rotate back write after to
 Suchomel and he's obviously much far than the map. Also I think that
 a big part of his body was inside the screen a fraction of second after,
 so it's not the focal distance that allow a large picture.


>focal will do the same job. I doubt really that the camera is close to
>the map; it is 2 meters away, I think. When it rotates back, Suchomel
>is at perhaps 2.5m. If you admit that the Suchomel's head is about 30
>cm wide, you have the same scale with what we see on this very big
>map.

  Just an observation, a head is normally 15 cm large.



>>>Was an actor testifying in the trials, writing to Sereny and
>>>mentioning the gas chambers at least twice, aso ?
>>
>>   At the trial, certanly not, but now, can you explain to what you refer
>> when you speaks about 2 letters to Sereny?

>Two places in the book of Sereny where Suchomel wrote something about
>the gas chambers.

 [snip]

  The first time I tried to read this book one year ago or 1 1/2 year ago,
 I stopped after 30 pages maximum because I found it boring. I thought
 it was mainly a series of interviews just with Stangl and since Sereny
 explain how the man was waiting for an appeal, the psychological consi-
 derations of Sereny were without interest. I returned to this book this
 afternoon and really I was stroke by the number of former SS or relatives
 that she interviewed. Four or five former SS, she popup more than one,
 not just Suchomel and Stangl. Butz explanation about Stangl was that the
 man was waiting for a liberation and wanted to be free with such a colla-
 boration. Since this impression is given even by Sereny, I was satisfied
 with this explanation. It's still quite possible that Stangl sentences
 were reported correctly, but with the number of former SS that she bring
 up, I can't consider seriously that hallucinations were behind that. For
 one, maximum 2 former SS gards from Treblinka who turned a bit crazy,
 this is still possible althought 2 is a lot. But for 3,4,5 impossible.
 There's just 2 possibilities: either Sereny lied or either mass gasing
 took place in Treblinka. No comments.




From jfbe@vir.com Sun Dec  1 16:05:56 PST 1996
Article: 82939 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Treblinka
Date: 1 Dec 1996 00:05:06 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <57qi3i$77h@Vir.com>
References: <57820u$5h6@Vir.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne17.vir.com

dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
# Now, we can take the average weight, 56 kg (mix of
# children-adults).

>I don't accept this figure. Many of the Polish Jews, especially
>those who were deported from the Warsaw Ghetto (and these were
>a large percentage of the Treblinka victims), were emaciated.
>You must have seen the photos of skeletal corpses being
>buried in the Ghetto. I don't accept that an average adult

 I never saw such photo, althought they may exist but I would be surprised.
I mean here that photos of mass graves exist elsewhere, but I can hardly
imagine the Jews burying their fellow without at least a pall. I'm not contes-
ting that shortages of food existed in these ghettos, althought the usual
claims (1,200 calories a day or so) are unbelievable for me for a simple
reason: I think that no one could survive 2 years 1/2 or even 1 year with
such quantities. I saw once a claim about the death rate in the ghetto, it
was around 5,000 a month, for 500,000 people. Mainly epidemies. Here I
believe that the Germans supplies were not suffisant but that black market
activities compensed to some extent. It's quite possible, and probable that
photos of Jews in the ghetto exist, I'll try to find some but althought I'm
not expecting very fat persons I don't believe they will be as worst as
people in hte mass graves of Belsen.

   However, this has little importance: your methode to calculate this is
not valid. You assume that the human body is of the density of water, and
this is not correct, there's air in the stomach, the lungs, etc... Even
drownings whose lungs are filled with water fleet. So the volume is certanly
higher / kg accounting for other elements in the corpses, etc... You still
bring your photo and claim that there's not 60% empty space: well, I don't
know in this case, but the way those people are pilled up in this case is
not the same that what was given in the Treblinka story.



>Anyway, once you have an estimation of the total weight, and
>hence the total volume, all you have to do is estimate the
>inefficiency in the packing. You're actually claiming it's
>about 60 percent or more, that it, that 60 percent of the
>grave will consist of the space between the corpses. This
>is simply preposterous. There is nothing to debate here; it

  If really the density of flesh, bones, blood, etc.. is close to water
density, I'm saying that the total empty space between the corpses and
inside the corpses is 60% or more, yes.





From jfbe@vir.com Sun Dec  1 16:05:57 PST 1996
Article: 83051 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Ausrotten
Date: 30 Nov 1996 16:08:34 GMT
Organization: Hookup Montreal, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <57pm62$k26@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne44.vir.com

 Ibokor wrote:

>As I recall, you claimed that in your French-German
>dictionary, there was no mention of extermination;
>in connection with Ausrottung and that it is
>false and misleading to translate Ausrottung
>into English as extermination.
>
>When I checked the Larousse dictionary in a bookshop
>in Freiburg im Breisgau in September this year, I
>found, as I posted, that ausrotten was rendered into
>French as extirper, exterminer;.
>
>I then asked you, Monsieur, to explain the difference
>in meanings between the French verb exterminer
>and the English verb to exterminate.

>To this date, your response has not appeared at this site.

  I've claim several times that I found dictionnaries were 2 words,
extirper or exterminer were given, without any specification for
the livings. In other dictionnaries it seems that such a specification
is given. How many times will I have to repeat it? You state that my
claim was that in a french-german dictionnary there was no mention of
the word 'exterminer', but you don't give any reference to a specific
post for that. This is simply because I never said that. Is it enought
or will I have to make this clarification in 3 months again?


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