The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mock.steve/1997/smock.9709


From smock@netwave.ca Tue Sep  2 22:32:00 EDT 1997
Article: 135742 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!feta.direct.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed1-hme1!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Bellinger
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 19:04:03 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <340C6323.2E6D334C@netwave.ca>
References: <340d7420.3042468@personalnews.germany.eu.net> <5ug1qg$oik$5@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw79.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:135742

jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:

> >   JLangowski@transerve.en.eunet.de (Juergen Langowski) writes:
> >  On 28 Aug 1997 19:29:04 GMT,
> >  jbelling@sprynet.com
> >  wrote in <5u4ji0$33s$3@juliana.sprynet.com>:
> >
> >
> >  >REPLY:  Tell me, are you really unaware of Israeli interrogation methods?
> >  >Though this was spoken at the trial, it was an Israeli SHOW trial, and the
> >  >Israeli government publicly expressed its displeasure with the fact that the
> >  >international public was showing little interest in the proceedings.  I do
> >  >not accept Eichmann's testimony on this point.
> >
> >  If you have reason to believe that Eichmann told anything else but the
> >  truth in this trial, show your evidence. As long as you can't present
> >  any evidence to support your claim that Eichmann's testimony isn't
> >  trustworthy, it stands.
> >
> >  So, where's your evidence?
> >
> >  >  Others who were present
> >  >at the Konferenz tell a different story.
> >
> >  Like who? Sources, please.
> >
>
> REPLY:  Refer to Deja News re EICHMANN, where I posted rather
> voluminously on this very subject.

Don't bother.  All you'll find is more bluster.  Bellinger has yet to answer my
challenge that he refer to even one a.r. post that cites evidence to support his
claims.  And it would be a waste of much time to read pages and pages of Bellinger
"voluminously" repeating his famous "I say so!", followed by, "refer to Deja News"
over and over again.

Steve Mock




From smock@netwave.ca Wed Sep  3 20:33:12 EDT 1997
Article: 135867 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!feta.direct.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Why is everyone picking on poor Mr. Sabatini?
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 19:59:22 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <340DC19A.B9F6C958@netwave.ca>
References: <19970902183401.OAA04216@ladder01.news.aol.com> <340CD448.1789@concentric.net> <01bcb80e$877dc1f0$5937eccd@odin>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw58.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:135867

Anthony Sabatini wrote:

> Michael Ives  wrote in article
> <340CD448.1789@concentric.net>...
> >
> > When it suits their purposes, Nizkor somehow becomes a
> > spontaneously-generated entity.
>
> This is an old trick used by the Nizkooks. When it is convenient, they are
> a united front combating the Evil Forces of YANC (Yet Another Nazi
> Conspiracy). At other times, they will pretend to be working alone so as to
> avoid implicating their fellow travelers in whatever shenanigan they
> bumbled into. These fronts are liberally switched.

And he accuses us of being conspiracy minded...  Does it ever occur to Sabatini
that things aren't always black or white?  How hard is it for him to believe
that "Nizkor" is a group of volunteers who share a common revulsion towards
those who would whitewash murderers?  Just when has it proven to be anything
else?

Steve Mock




From smock@netwave.ca Wed Sep  3 20:33:13 EDT 1997
Article: 135868 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!feta.direct.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Why is everyone picking on poor Mr. Sabatini?
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 19:57:25 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <340DC125.F26F310A@netwave.ca>
References: <19970902183401.OAA04216@ladder01.news.aol.com> <340CD448.1789@concentric.net> <01bcb80e$877dc1f0$5937eccd@odin>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw58.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:135868

Anthony Sabatini wrote:

> Michael Ives  wrote in article
> <340CD448.1789@concentric.net>...
> >
> > When it suits their purposes, Nizkor somehow becomes a
> > spontaneously-generated entity.
>
> This is an old trick used by the Nizkooks. When it is convenient, they are
> a united front combating the Evil Forces of YANC (Yet Another Nazi
> Conspiracy). At other times, they will pretend to be working alone so as to
> avoid implicating their fellow travelers in whatever shenanigan they
> bumbled into. These fronts are liberally switched.

And he accuses us of being conspiracy minded...  Does it ever occur to Sabatini
that things aren't always black or white?  How hard is it for him to believe
that "Nizkor" is a group of volunteers who share a common revulsion towards
those who would whitewash murderers?  Just when has it proven to be anything
else?

Steve Mock




From smock@netwave.ca Thu Sep  4 07:51:53 EDT 1997
Article: 135886 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed1-hme1!newsfeed.internetmci.com!194.22.194.4!masternews.telia.net!news.lejonet.se!news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feta.direct.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: If no Lice. then no Holocaust story   (moran's)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:26:45 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <3406CE14.62A1BF7F@netwave.ca>
References: <19970821225201.SAA28678@ladder01.news.aol.com> 
	      <3469a9fb.405410872@199.0.216.204> 
	      <33FECBDD.6C18@veritas.nizkor.org> 
	      <34007a16$1$tzpsrr$mr2ice@news3.ibm.net> 
	      <3403230F.AA5C8211@netwave.ca> <3404eac7$6$tzpsrr$mr2ice@news2.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw76.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:135886

Gord McFee wrote:

> In <3403230F.AA5C8211@netwave.ca>, on 08/26/97
>    at 06:40 PM, steve mock  said:
>
> > Gord McFee wrote:
>
> > > In <33FECBDD.6C18@veritas.nizkor.org>, on 08/23/97
> > >    at 11:39 AM, Steve Mock  said:
> > >
> > > :> tom moran wrote:
> > > :> >
> > > :> > >Chuck Ferree wrote:
> > > :> > >Bullshit, Moran! There was lice in every camp, over 1500 Nazi
> > > :> > >camps, each and everyone had a lice problem. Now you take it from here.
> > > :> >
> > > :> >         Okay. Thank you for confirming the lice problem. If no lice, then
> > > :> > no Zyklon B. If no Zyklon B then no agent for mass extermination.
> > > :> > Thus, no agent, no Holocaust story.
> > >
> > > :> Does anyone out there have any idea what Moran is trying to get at
> > > :> here?
> > >
> > > He is trying to claim that the Zyklon B was only used to kill lice.  If
> > > he can establish there were no lice, then there was no Zyklon B.  No, it
> > > doesn't make any sense, but we are dealing with Moron here.
>
> > But I thought the typical Holocaust denier line was that Zyklon B was
> > ONLY used to
> > kill lice.  Since we have documented proof that it was ordered in
> > large quantities, it would seem counterproductive for Moran to argue
> > that there were no lice, as that leaves mass murder as the only other
> > possible use for the stuff.
>
> Steve, you have to suspend your thought processes (the rational ones
> that is) when you are dealing with zeyde Moron.  I say this based on
> much experience.  You will tend to see an idiotic point and assume that
> no rational person could be that dense.  That's your first mistake,
> confusing zeyde Moron with a rational human being.  You also seem to
> think he understands what he says and checks it for consistency.  Wrong
> again!
>
> Now what zeyde Moron seems to be saying is: no lice = no Zyklon B = no
> agent for mass extermination.  No agent = no Holocaust story.  Chuck had
> just finished saying there were lice in every camp.  Therefore, zeyde
> Moron, oblivious to it of course, formulates his equation without
> denying that there were lice in every camp.  Therefore, he strips the
> negatives from the previous formula.  I.e., lice = Zyklon B = agent for
> mass extermination = Holocaust story.  Don't tell zeyde Moron I told you
> this.
>
> Of course, both of these formulations are historically inaccurate,
> idiotic, illogical and just plain rubbish.  But we are talking Moron
> here.

Ah, now I get it!  Moran has accidentally proven that the Holocaust happened using a
formula just as illogical as the one he was using to prove that it didn't.

I suppose it could be expressed mathematically by saying that stupidity, if taken past
a certain extreme, actually cancels itself out.  An amazing discovery.

Steve Mock




From smock@netwave.ca Fri Sep  5 09:36:21 EDT 1997
Article: 135971 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!feta.direct.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed1-hme1!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Common "Revisionist" Lies Regarding Starvation
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 20:49:37 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <340F1EE0.288E97AC@netwave.ca>
References:  <5ug2d8$oik$8@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw95.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:135971

jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:

> >  ...On 15 April the British troops found thirteen thousand corpses in camp
> >  Number 1. The number that had died at Belsen since February and the firtst
> >  typhus outbreak was hardly less than forty thousand. They had not been
> >  exterminated, nor was their death due to Allied bombing which had
> >  paralysed the railways and disrupted the German supply system. The
> >  evidence at the Luenburg Trial showed that the bakeries and flour stores
> >  of the Panzergrenadier School at Bergen-Belsen could have kept the
> >  uninfected inmates of the camp alive for many weeks, had the authority
> >  been given to use them....
>
> REPLY:  Some 28,000 inmates died in the camp AFTER the british took over
> administration of the camp.  Also, about 30 million people in India died of
> starvation while under British administration during the war years.

Oh, so I guess its okay to lock up innocent people under starvation conditions.
After all, the British did it.  Good logic, Bellinger.

> >  Source: Reitlinger, _The SS: alibi of a nation_, p.425.
> >
> >  Yet Kramer let some forty thousand prisoners starve to death, die of
> >  thirst, and succumb to preventable diseases. According to Herta Ehlert,
> >  from her deposition at the Belsen Trial:
>
> REPLY:  Ehlert was a liar and I have already addressed this issue.

You have never once provided a single piece of cited evidence to support your
claims.  Saying "I've addressed this issue" only means you've said "Ehlert was a
liar" before.

Its been almost three weeks since I first asked you to refer to even one post in
which you have provided cited evidence in support of your claims.  Still waiting,
Bellinger.  For such a prolific poster as you, it should only be a matter of 30
seconds to dig up and respost such an article.  Why don't you just do it and shut
me up?  Maybe because you can't.

Steve Mock




From smock@netwave.ca Sun Sep  7 10:21:00 EDT 1997
Article: 136048 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.IAEhv.nl!news.oru.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feta.direct.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Bellinger
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 09:59:38 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <340FD809.F8462002@netwave.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw95.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136048

Hello all, and welcome to week 3 of Bellinger's categorical refusal to
prove that he's ever said anything besides "because I say so" on
alt.revisionism.  Every time anyone asks Bellinger to provide evidence
for one of his claims, his stock reply is, "I already did, check Deja
News".  But, lo and behold, a examination of Bellinger's posts as
recorded on Deja News reveals nothing more than the constant repetition
of "check Deja News".  Is he just blowing smoke to avoid having to prove
his points.  Perhaps.  But it would be unfair to judge without giving
him a chance to defend himself.  Perhaps there is really is one post,
way back in the annals of the a.r. archive, in which Bellinger actually
provided cited evidence to prove one of his claims.  If so, he is hereby
offered the opportunity to present it to us.  We're waiting...

In article <19970818081300.EAA14318@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
  fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:

> I don't have time to waste on frivolous questions.

It is noted that you consider your credibility to be a frivolous
question, but if I were you I would make time. Because I have decided
that I am going to post this message every week until you answer what
should be a very easy challenge for an honest debater to answer:

"For as long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided one

citation or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong,
please refer me specifically to a post that contradicts this assertion,
so that I might apologize."

It has been just over three (3) weeks since this challenge was first
posted.
Bellinger refuses to respond.  This message will be resposted every
Friday until such time as Bellinger: 1) Re-posts or refers to a message
in which he has provided cited evidence and an explanation for one of
his
claims; or, 2) admits that he never does.

Until Bellinger answers this question, his failure to do so will be
noted
as meaning that he cannot.  Any attempts by Bellinger to evade this
challenge will be appended to future postings.

The challenge in its entirety:

>In article <5sqk9t$44d$2@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
>>
>> >   smock@veritas.nizkor.org writes:
>> >
>> >  You really believe that saying so makes it so, don't you Joe?  For
as
>> >  long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided one
citation
>> >  or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong, please
refer
>> >  me specifically to a post that contradicts this assertion, so that
I
>> >  might apologize.
>> >
>> >  Steve Mock
>>
>> REPLY:  of course you are not only wrong, but a liar to boot.
>
>I repeat: If I am wrong, please refer me specifically to a post that
>contradicts my assertion, so that I might apologize.
>
>Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.
>
>In addition, please refer specifically to any statement or claim that I

>have made that has been or can be proven false.
>
>Calling me a liar doesn't make me one.
>
>Especially when such an accusation comes from someone who is a proven
>liar himself.  For one example of statements made by Bellinger that can

>easily be verified as false and irresponsible, please refer to a reply
>posted by myself (Steve Mock) entitled "Re: Mangling Mengele, Part
One",
>dated Monday, 30 June 1997, and freely available on Deja News.
>
>The above paragraph is what's known as providing evidence to support
your
>claims.  See how its done, Bellinger?
>
>Steve Mock





From smock@netwave.ca Thu Sep 11 22:17:05 EDT 1997
Article: 136494 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hitler and "ausrotten" - why won't the Revisionazis answer?
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:24:05 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <34181B25.DBC9B5E8@netwave.ca>
References:  <19970910202001.QAA00174@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw62.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136494

Fafner13 wrote:

> To Hans:  i do not spread lies.  I counter lies and propaganda with the
> truth.  Perhaps one day you will open your eyes and see it.

Perhaps one day you'll actually post evidence in support of your truth.

> Perhaps not.

I'm not holding my breath either.  You've already practically admitted that you
never do.  I've been waiting almost four weeks now for you to refer to even one
message in the history of your posting to alt.revisionism in which you have
provided cited evidence to back up one of your claims/

Where's your "truth" now, Bellinger.  Somewhere hidden in the spaces between
the words, "Because I Say So!"?

Steve Mock




From smock@netwave.ca Thu Sep 11 22:17:06 EDT 1997
Article: 136497 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:51:28 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: To A Kike
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874010759.16983@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <3414C2A8.A3AEBDB4@su1.edu> <19970909181701.OAA10633@ladder02.news.aol.com> <3416C475.CA2B0471@netwave.ca> <34176A5A.515F@earthlink.net>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 11 20:46:00 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.62 (nw62.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 85
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136497

In article <34176A5A.515F@earthlink.net>,
  rgphill@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> steve mock wrote:
> >
> > ChuckF2323 wrote:
> >
> > > Chuck Ferree wrote:
> > >
> > > Brad Wilson, whoever that is, rants about needing to be shown the ashes,
> > > how much did they weigh, where are the bones, all the denier crap, which
he
> > > knows is not available. My conclusion about Brad Wilson (whoever he is)
> > > Wilson, is a bigot, just like all the other deniers.
> >
> > Don't forget that he's also a liar, blatantly fabricating the contents of
the
> > Red Cross report, pretending that there was ever a forensic study of the gas
> > chambers that showed them to be "gas free", and making accusations, such as
the
> > use of torture against EVERY Nazi that spoke after the war about the
> > extermination of the Jews, without providing a shred of evidence to back
them
> > up.
>
> ====================================================
> Phillips
>
> Not a shread of evidence for the use of torture? There happens to be
> considerable.  I was reading newapapers back in '46 and word got into
> the daily papers about there being a liberal use of jaw-busting and
> ball-kicking to extract 'confessions' from SS prisoners.
> ==============================================

Good.  Then why not post some of it.  Come on, be the first. You don't
expect us to simply take your word for it, do you?  If the evidence is
indeed, "considerable", it shouldn't be hard to find, now, should it?

>  He also uses the traditional idiotic logic like the theory that the
> > existence of survivors disproves the Holocaust, or that all qualified
> > historians who acknowledge the overwheling evidence for the Holocaust are
> > de-facto disqualified as a "Jews or their sympathizers".  And lets not
forget
> > the traditional anti-Semitic slurs that the Jews have the power and desire
to
> > mount an elaborate conspiracy for financial and political gain.
> >
> > Then, of course, lets ressurect the long dead Leuchter report which any
idiot
> > can see proves nothing other than the fact that traces of cyanide gas WERE
on
> > the walls of buildings that deniers would like to say were bomb shelters or
> > morgues.  Anyone interested in the Leuchter report should not fail to read
> > http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/ for a good look at Leuchter's inane
> > conclusions has his qualifications to make them.
> >
> > > He askes a lot of
> > > questions, which any idiot can do, but offers up nothing of value to argue
> > > about.
> >
> > I'm still waiting for a denier to provide just one shred of concrete
evidence
> > for their position.
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> An entire book was written which refutes Leuchter;s detractors. If  you
> wish I will get the name and author for you.,
>
> =============================================

Alright.  I'm waiting.	Publisher, too, if you will... Unless you expect
us to simply accept the validity of this uncited evidence as well.

Steve Mock


>  When will they learn that the study of history means more
> > than just finding excuses to disregard existing evidence.
> >
> > Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Thu Sep 11 22:17:07 EDT 1997
Article: 136498 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!europa.clark.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:51:52 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Bellinger
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874010992.17284@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <873559615.19507@dejanews.com> <5v5aqn$kuo$3@juliana.sprynet.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 11 20:49:55 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.62 (nw62.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 153
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136498

In article <5v5aqn$kuo$3@juliana.sprynet.com>,
  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
>
> >   smock@netwave.ca writes:
> >
> >  In article <5upt3k$4h0$1@juliana.sprynet.com>,
> >    jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > >   steve mock  writes:
> >  > >  Hello all, and welcome to week 3 of Bellinger's categorical refusal to
> >  > >  prove that he's ever said anything besides "because I say so" on
> >  > >  alt.revisionism.
>
> REPLY:  Hypocrite.  You base YOUR case on lying, malicious
> "eyewitnesses" whose only proof was because they said so.

They were there.  You weren't.  Your move.

>  Every time anyone asks Bellinger to provide evidence
> >  > >  for one of his claims, his stock reply is, "I already did, check Deja
> >  > >  News".  But, lo and behold, a examination of Bellinger's posts as
> >  > >  recorded on Deja News reveals nothing more than the constant
repetition
> >  > >  of "check Deja News".  Is he just blowing smoke to avoid having to
prove
> >  > >  his points.  Perhaps.  But it would be unfair to judge without giving
> >  > >  him a chance to defend himself.  Perhaps there is really is one post,
> >  > >  way back in the annals of the a.r. archive, in which Bellinger
actually
> >  > >  provided cited evidence to prove one of his claims.  If so, he is
hereby
> >  > >  offered the opportunity to present it to us.  We're waiting...
>
> REPLY:  Instead of waiting, start doing some real research.
> >  > >
> >  > >  In article <19970818081300.EAA14318@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> >  > >    fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >  > I don't have time to waste on frivolous questions.
> >  > >
> >  > >  It is noted that you consider your credibility to be a frivolous
> >  > >  question, but if I were you I would make time. Because I have decided
> >  > >  that I am going to post this message every week until you answer what
> >  > >  should be a very easy challenge for an honest debater to answer:
> >  > >
> >  > >  "For as long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided
one
> >  > >
> >  > >  citation or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong,
> >  > >  please refer me specifically to a post that contradicts this
assertion,
> >  > >  so that I might apologize."
> >  > >
> >  > >  It has been just over three (3) weeks since this challenge was first
> >  > >  posted.
> >  > >  Bellinger refuses to respond.  This message will be resposted every
> >  > >  Friday until such time as Bellinger: 1) Re-posts or refers to a
message
> >  > >  in which he has provided cited evidence and an explanation for one of
> >  > >  his
> >  > >  claims; or, 2) admits that he never does.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Until Bellinger answers this question, his failure to do so will be
> >  > >  noted
> >  > >  as meaning that he cannot.  Any attempts by Bellinger to evade this
> >  > >  challenge will be appended to future postings.
> >  > >
> >  > >  The challenge in its entirety:
> >  > >
> >  > >  >In article <5sqk9t$44d$2@juliana.sprynet.com>,
> >  > >  >  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
> >  > >  >>
> >  > >  >> >   smock@veritas.nizkor.org writes:
> >  > >  >> >
> >  > >  >> >  You really believe that saying so makes it so, don't you Joe?
For
> >  > >  as
> >  > >  >> >  long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided one
> >  > >  citation
> >  > >  >> >  or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong,
please
> >  > >  refer
> >  > >  >> >  me specifically to a post that contradicts this assertion, so
that
> >  > >  I
> >  > >  >> >  might apologize.
> >  > >  >> >
> >  > >  >> >  Steve Mock
> >  > >  >>
> >  > >  >> REPLY:  of course you are not only wrong, but a liar to boot.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  >I repeat: If I am wrong, please refer me specifically to a post that
> >  > >  >contradicts my assertion, so that I might apologize.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  >Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  >In addition, please refer specifically to any statement or claim that
I
> >  > >
> >  > >  >have made that has been or can be proven false.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  >Calling me a liar doesn't make me one.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  >Especially when such an accusation comes from someone who is a proven
> >  > >  >liar himself.  For one example of statements made by Bellinger that
can
> >  > >
> >  > >  >easily be verified as false and irresponsible, please refer to a
reply
> >  > >  >posted by myself (Steve Mock) entitled "Re: Mangling Mengele, Part
> >  > >  One",
> >  > >  >dated Monday, 30 June 1997, and freely available on Deja News.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  >The above paragraph is what's known as providing evidence to support
> >  > >  your
> >  > >  >claims.  See how its done, Bellinger?
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  >Steve Mock
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > Your post is sio ludicrous that I am almost baffled for a reply.
> >  > How long have you been in this NG?  How far back in time
> >  > are Deja News files kept.  I will tell you that NOT to post a source
> >  > would be the exception to the rule for me, so I advise you to go back
> >  > and look again.  Since I am pressed for time, I will refer you to a few
> >  sources
> >  > I have used over the past two months:
> >  >
> >  > 1.  I was a doctor in Auschwitz-Perk
> >  > 2,  Mengele-the whole story--Posner
> >  > 3.  Eichmann-the man and his crimes
> >  > 4.  Nuremberg IMT Blue Series
> >  > 5.  Eye for an Eye-John Sack
> >  >
> >  > Etc, etc., etc, ad infinitum.
> >  >
> >  > Now, liar, retract your false claims.
> >
> >  Nice try, Bellinger.  I did not ask you to provide a bibliography.  I
> >  asked to to refer to an actual post in which you have cited evidence is
> >  support of your position.  Was that not clear in the question?	If so, I
> >  would be pleased to re-word it.  Anyway, I'm still waiting...
> >
> >  Steve Mock
> >
> >  -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> >        http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet
> >
> >>>>

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Thu Sep 11 22:17:07 EDT 1997
Article: 136499 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:02:45 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Grese on Trial
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874011345.17825@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <873923702.3021@dejanews.com> <19970911071000.DAA16547@ladder01.news.aol.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 11 20:55:46 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.62 (nw62.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 30
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136499

In article <19970911071000.DAA16547@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
  fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Grese on Trial
> >From: smock@netwave.ca
> >Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:41:47 -0600
> >Message-id: <873923702.3021@dejanews.com>
>
>
> >Tradition.  Of course, if you'll just admit that you've never posted
> >cited evidence to back up your claims, I'll desist.
> >
> >Steve Mock
>
> Give me one good reason why I should admit to a lie just to please you.

Fine.  The prove me wrong.  Re-post or refer specifically to one post in
which you have used cited evidence to back up one of your claims.  That
would meet the criterea of my challange just as well as admitting that
you do not.  If its so easy, then why have you avoided this question for
four weeks, and evaded it for one?

I'm just trying to teach you that calling something a lie or calling
someone a liar does not automatically make it so.  Prove me wrong.  We're
waiting.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Thu Sep 11 22:17:08 EDT 1997
Article: 136503 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:11:22 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Bellinger
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874011655.18317@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <873559615.19507@dejanews.com> <5v5aqn$kuo$3@juliana.sprynet.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 11 21:00:58 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.62 (nw62.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 39
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136503

In article <5v5aqn$kuo$3@juliana.sprynet.com>,
  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
>
> >   smock@netwave.ca writes:
> >
> >  In article <5upt3k$4h0$1@juliana.sprynet.com>,
> >    jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > >   steve mock  writes:

>  Every time anyone asks Bellinger to provide evidence
> >  > >  for one of his claims, his stock reply is, "I already did, check Deja
> >  > >  News".  But, lo and behold, a examination of Bellinger's posts as
> >  > >  recorded on Deja News reveals nothing more than the constant
repetition
> >  > >  of "check Deja News".  Is he just blowing smoke to avoid having to
prove
> >  > >  his points.  Perhaps.  But it would be unfair to judge without giving
> >  > >  him a chance to defend himself.  Perhaps there is really is one post,
> >  > >  way back in the annals of the a.r. archive, in which Bellinger
actually
> >  > >  provided cited evidence to prove one of his claims.  If so, he is
hereby
> >  > >  offered the opportunity to present it to us.  We're waiting...
>
> REPLY:  Instead of waiting, start doing some real research.

Defending your credibility is not my responsibility, Mr. Bellinger (thank
God!).

>From  what research I have done, I have concluded that you never back up
your accusations and claims with cited evidence.  If this is an incorrect
conclusion, please prove me wrong.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Thu Sep 11 22:17:09 EDT 1997
Article: 136538 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 6 millions lowered to  38000 -  Indisputable errors in the wartime calculations
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 19:30:37 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <341846DC.8F833F45@netwave.ca>
References: <34171f0f.34978969@news.image.dk> <19970909180601.OAA03553@ladder01.news.aol.com> <341a8635.105723933@news.image.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw66.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136538

Bo Warming wrote:

> On 9 Sep 1997 18:06:08 GMT, chuckf2323@aol.com (ChuckF2323) wrote:
>
> >Chuck Ferree wrote:
> >
> >Bo Warming posts a very confusing subject with considerable
> >mis-information regarding the "numbers game"  The claim that the final
> >death rate of Holocaust victims is somewhere near 38,000 is ludicris, and
> >unacceptable to any historian of credibility.
>
> Clear proven MISINFORMATION is
> when Nizkor-statistics say that 30 times more Danish Jews were missed
> than what ever were missed.

Care to be more specific?  According to Martin Gilbert, 77 Danish Jews were
killed directly as a result of the Nazis.  This was largely due to the mass
non-cooperation of the Danish population, and one of the most heroic and unique
episodes of mass rescue in the history of the Holocaust.

> In Denmark our numbers are not guesswork.
> In East-Europe they may be.
> When so immense misinformation is proven
> concerning Nizkors numbers about Denmark
> we must expect similar or worse incorrectness about the other 16
> countries.

Ah, the great leap of logic again.

> >In just one case, that of one camp located in the now Czech Republic:
> >Theresienstadt, (Terezin) approximatley 120,000 Jews were sent to
> >Auschwitch-Birkenau and other mass gassing camps in Poland and murdered.
> >This number from one small ghetto like camp, refutes any speculation that
> >the Holocaust Death count is anywhere below six million, and more likely
> >12-15 million. There is absolutley no proof anywhere that the death figures
> >are less that 4-6 million, at least 4 million Jews alone and probably as
> >many as six million Jews.
> >
> You have the burden of proof. When kz-camps were liberated allied
> top-officers accepted that hundredw of guards were executed without
> trial. They showed that USA can be worse than nazis - and in
> peacetime.
> Why should we believe numbers collected to smear the Germans

Why should we believe that these numbers were collected to smear the Germans?

> , when
> they are produced in this climate of hate and with no truthseeking.
> Remember how many years USA&UK lied that nazis killed 40000 polish
> officers at Katyn.

It was the Soviets who made this claim.  Their evidence was rejected by the
international Tribunal at Nuremberg.  Get your facts right.

> YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF - you are accusing. Get started.

A few quotes:

"hundreds of guards were executed without trial"

"USA can be worse than nazis"

"numbers collected to smear the Germans"

"USA&UK lied"

Sounds like you're the one making accusations.  But I suppose the burden of
proof does not apply to "revisionists".

Steve Mock




From smock@netwave.ca Fri Sep 12 20:48:16 EDT 1997
Article: 136654 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.shreve.net!news.cinenet.net!out2.nntp.cais.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!tcp.co.uk!news.uk0.vbc.net!knews.uk0.vbc.net!vbcnet-gb!exnet2!btnet-feed2!news-peer.bt.net!btnet!newsfeed1-hme1!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 10:33:21 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Bellinger
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <873559615.19507@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <340FD809.F8462002@netwave.ca> <5upt3k$4h0$1@juliana.sprynet.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Sep 06 15:26:55 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.53 (nw53.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 121
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136654

In article <5upt3k$4h0$1@juliana.sprynet.com>,
  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
>
>
> >   steve mock  writes:
> >  Hello all, and welcome to week 3 of Bellinger's categorical refusal to
> >  prove that he's ever said anything besides "because I say so" on
> >  alt.revisionism.  Every time anyone asks Bellinger to provide evidence
> >  for one of his claims, his stock reply is, "I already did, check Deja
> >  News".  But, lo and behold, a examination of Bellinger's posts as
> >  recorded on Deja News reveals nothing more than the constant repetition
> >  of "check Deja News".  Is he just blowing smoke to avoid having to prove
> >  his points.  Perhaps.  But it would be unfair to judge without giving
> >  him a chance to defend himself.  Perhaps there is really is one post,
> >  way back in the annals of the a.r. archive, in which Bellinger actually
> >  provided cited evidence to prove one of his claims.  If so, he is hereby
> >  offered the opportunity to present it to us.  We're waiting...
> >
> >  In article <19970818081300.EAA14318@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> >    fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
> >
> >  > I don't have time to waste on frivolous questions.
> >
> >  It is noted that you consider your credibility to be a frivolous
> >  question, but if I were you I would make time. Because I have decided
> >  that I am going to post this message every week until you answer what
> >  should be a very easy challenge for an honest debater to answer:
> >
> >  "For as long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided one
> >
> >  citation or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong,
> >  please refer me specifically to a post that contradicts this assertion,
> >  so that I might apologize."
> >
> >  It has been just over three (3) weeks since this challenge was first
> >  posted.
> >  Bellinger refuses to respond.  This message will be resposted every
> >  Friday until such time as Bellinger: 1) Re-posts or refers to a message
> >  in which he has provided cited evidence and an explanation for one of
> >  his
> >  claims; or, 2) admits that he never does.
> >
> >  Until Bellinger answers this question, his failure to do so will be
> >  noted
> >  as meaning that he cannot.  Any attempts by Bellinger to evade this
> >  challenge will be appended to future postings.
> >
> >  The challenge in its entirety:
> >
> >  >In article <5sqk9t$44d$2@juliana.sprynet.com>,
> >  >  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
> >  >>
> >  >> >   smock@veritas.nizkor.org writes:
> >  >> >
> >  >> >  You really believe that saying so makes it so, don't you Joe?  For
> >  as
> >  >> >  long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided one
> >  citation
> >  >> >  or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong, please
> >  refer
> >  >> >  me specifically to a post that contradicts this assertion, so that
> >  I
> >  >> >  might apologize.
> >  >> >
> >  >> >  Steve Mock
> >  >>
> >  >> REPLY:  of course you are not only wrong, but a liar to boot.
> >  >
> >  >I repeat: If I am wrong, please refer me specifically to a post that
> >  >contradicts my assertion, so that I might apologize.
> >  >
> >  >Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.
> >  >
> >  >In addition, please refer specifically to any statement or claim that I
> >
> >  >have made that has been or can be proven false.
> >  >
> >  >Calling me a liar doesn't make me one.
> >  >
> >  >Especially when such an accusation comes from someone who is a proven
> >  >liar himself.  For one example of statements made by Bellinger that can
> >
> >  >easily be verified as false and irresponsible, please refer to a reply
> >  >posted by myself (Steve Mock) entitled "Re: Mangling Mengele, Part
> >  One",
> >  >dated Monday, 30 June 1997, and freely available on Deja News.
> >  >
> >  >The above paragraph is what's known as providing evidence to support
> >  your
> >  >claims.  See how its done, Bellinger?
> >  >
> >  >Steve Mock
> >
>
> Your post is sio ludicrous that I am almost baffled for a reply.
> How long have you been in this NG?  How far back in time
> are Deja News files kept.  I will tell you that NOT to post a source
> would be the exception to the rule for me, so I advise you to go back
> and look again.  Since I am pressed for time, I will refer you to a few
sources
> I have used over the past two months:
>
> 1.  I was a doctor in Auschwitz-Perk
> 2,  Mengele-the whole story--Posner
> 3.  Eichmann-the man and his crimes
> 4.  Nuremberg IMT Blue Series
> 5.  Eye for an Eye-John Sack
>
> Etc, etc., etc, ad infinitum.
>
> Now, liar, retract your false claims.

Nice try, Bellinger.  I did not ask you to provide a bibliography.  I
asked to to refer to an actual post in which you have cited evidence is
support of your position.  Was that not clear in the question?	If so, I
would be pleased to re-word it.  Anyway, I'm still waiting...

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 13 20:38:14 EDT 1997
Article: 136892 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news-xfer.mccc.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed1-hme1!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:11:49 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: To A Kike
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874130792.28526@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <3414C2A8.A3AEBDB4@su1.edu> <19970909181701.OAA10633@ladder02.news.aol.com> <3416C475.CA2B0471@netwave.ca> <34176A5A.515F@earthlink.net> <874010759.16983@dejanews.com> <3418BDC8.6060@earthlink.net>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Sep 13 06:06:34 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.61 (nw61.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 253
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136892

In article <3418BDC8.6060@earthlink.net>,
  rgphill@earthlink.net wrote:

> smock@netwave.ca wrote:
> >
> > In article <34176A5A.515F@earthlink.net>,
> >   rgphill@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > ====================================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Not a shread of evidence for the use of torture? There happens to be
> > > considerable.  I was reading newapapers back in '46 and word got into
> > > the daily papers about there being a liberal use of jaw-busting and
> > > ball-kicking to extract 'confessions' from SS prisoners.
> >
> > Good.  Then why not post some of it.  Come on, be the first. You don't
> > expect us to simply take your word for it, do you?  If the evidence is
> > indeed, "considerable", it shouldn't be hard to find, now, should it?
>
> (1) Let us back up a bit and pose the question: On whom does the burden
> of proof lie? You made the statement that there is "not one shred of
> evidence" to support the allegations of torture.  OK.  How do you KNOW
> there is not one shread of evidence.

Because I've seen Holocaust deniers make this claim repeatedly since I've
been on alt.revisionism, yet getting them to actually post or reference
this evidence is like nailing jello to the wall.  I simply concluded that
if such conclusive evidence existed to prove a point they so often harp
on, it would have been shown to us by now.

> It will be useless for  you to
> evade by challenging me to produce such evidence.  You stated flatly
> that there isn't any, and you must prove that statement.

Let's see - you're saying that its my responsibility to prove a negative,
simply	because I asserted that no one has ever proven the positive
before.  Careful, Mr. Phillips - are you sure you want to set that
precedent?

I shall re-word the statement as you would prefer: You claim that there
is evidence that Hess was tortured.  Please refrain from making
unsupported accusations without referencing cited evidence.

> (2) For a man as perceptive as you would have us believe you are, have
> you ever asked the question of why men on trial for their lives would
> freely confess to acts that could get them hanged -- and in many cases
> did?

Hmmm... lets think about that one for a while

Answer 1: because there was a systematic and universial policy of torture
that was so well devised that 1) no evidence that it happened was ever
uncovered; 2) it compelled every one of them to admit, in detail, to
crimes they did not commit which neatly corroborated the available
documents and testimony of other witnesses; and 3) those who received
anything less than the death penalty never recanted or altered their
statements for the remainder of their lives.

Answer 2: that the evidence presented proving their crimes was so
conclusive, denying it was pointless, and the best they could hope for
was to minimize their personal responsibility.

Which is the most plausible answer?  You tell me.

> (3) As for the reports of torture that appeared in newspapers in 1946, I
> regret to confess that my saving of clippings does not go back that far.

Then don't make a statement you're not willing to back up.

> If you wish to call me a liar, I don't mind in the least.  A man who
> tells the truth has no problem with the word.

Truth is not in the eye of the beholder, Mr. Philips.  Back up your
accusations and refrain from using the word "truth" as a slogan.

> (4) The keystone upon which the entire Holocaust edifice rests is the
> "confession" of Auschwitz commandant Rudolph Hoess.

Of course, that's not at all true, and nowhere will you find any
historian making such an assertion.  But Mr. Phillips needs a straw-man,
and I guess this will do.

> That "confession"
> was obtained as the result of a little "session" he had with a unit of
> the British Military Field Police which lasted three days and nearly
> cost Hoess his life. The events are detailed in the book "Legion of the
> Damned."  The man responsible is a Bernard Clarke. Today he is a
> successful British businessman. If  you like go over there and look him
> up.  He will talk quite freely because, to this day, he feels no remorse
> whatever about what he did.

I would like to verify this information.  Please give me a specific
reference to where I can find it.

> > >  He also uses the traditional idiotic logic like the theory that the
> > > > existence of survivors disproves the Holocaust,
>
> NO, the mere existence of survivors does not disprove the holocaust.
> However, the fact of there being SO MANY of them certainly casts doubt
> on it.

Of course.  The more corroborating witnesses, the bigger and more
elaborate the conspiracy that fed them their lines.  This is what you're
arguing, isn't it?

> or that all qualified
> > > > historians who acknowledge the overwheling evidence for the Holocaust
are
> > > > de-facto disqualified as a "Jews or their sympathizers".  And lets not
> > forget
> > > > the traditional anti-Semitic slurs that the Jews have the power and
desire
> > to
> > > > mount an elaborate conspiracy for financial and political gain.
>
> ======================================================
> Phillips
>
> Can you deny that Jews have derived enormous mileage --both political
> and financial-- from the Holocaust?

Frankly, yes, I can deny it.  Please explain your reasoning further. 
After all, if this is, indeed, the crux of your accusation, I believe the
burden of proof is now on you.	Besides, I have a feeling your true
motives for denying the Holocaust will come blindingly to light if you do
elaborate on this point.

> (There's no business like Shoah
> business.}
>
> ===========================================================
>
> > > >
> > > > Then, of course, lets ressurect the long dead Leuchter report which any
> > idiot
> > > > can see proves nothing other than the fact that traces of cyanide gas
WERE
> > on
> > > > the walls of buildings that deniers would like to say were bomb shelters
or
> > > > morgues.
>
> =============================================================
> Phillips
>
> ONe notices that you make very free use of that word "idiot" and your
> doing so is bound to raise certain question about both you and your
> tactics.
>
> You make statements like: "Any idiot can see ..."  Well that's a fraud
> on the face of it for the good and simple reason that an idiot is --by
> definition-- someone with whom you cannot communicate anything.
>
> More importantly, the object of such statements is an attempt to win
> your argument by shaming your opponent. You seek to imply that the only
> reason he does not see things you way is NOT on account of flaws in your
> facts or your logic but only because the other guy is slow in the head.
> In other words: "any idiot can see ... "  yet you do not.

Three paragraphs on my improper use of a sarcastic idiom.  If I simply
say "I apologize", will you drop the issue and go on to say something of
substance...?

> It was not only Leuchter but several other scientists of varying
> nationalities and impeccable credentials who testified that the "gas
> chambers' could not possibly have been put the the use claimed for them.

 ... I guess not.  DO be more specific.	Seeing as this is entirely
untrue, I imagine that might be difficult.

There were a few other pseudo-scientific examinations as a follow up to
Leuchter, but repeating a lie does not make it true.  I would appreciate
your outlining the "impeccable credentials" of these additional
researchers.

> You tell me there were execution gas chamabers.  Ok, please point one
> out to me. Did  you know that the one at Auschwitz which for decades had
> been pointed out as such to visitors was recently exposed as having been
> built AFTER THE WAR. Did you know that?

I have been to the Auschwitz museum on two occasions.  And I can tell you
that there has been no reevaluation of the history of the significant
buildings therein.  The gas chamber at Auschwitz I - which is the present
day tourist site to which you refer - was built before the war and used
for the first experimental mass gassings in the summer of 1941 (the
victims were primarily Russian prisoners of war), until the extermination
center at Auschwitz II (Birkenau) was constructed the following September
and the original gas chamber at Auschwitz I was modified for other uses. 
After the war, these modifications were dismantled, and it was restored
approxiamtely to the state it was in when it was in use as a gas chamber.

If any of my information is wrong, you will have to tell me just when and
where it was "recently exposed" that the gas chamber building was built
"AFTER THE WAR", otherwise I will have to conclude that your vagueness in
the matter is intentional due to the fact that you are simply making this
up.

> And if there were execution gas
> chambers, then some German company designed them, transported them and
> did the on-site erection.  So tell me: in all those "tons of
> documentation" we keep hearing about has anyone ever found the
> construction plans for such a thing? Has anyone ever foound a manual of
> instruction for use use and maintenance.

Actually, yes.	And before making such sweeping claims that there are
not, I suggest you read Jean Claude Pressac's "Auschwitz: Technique and
operation of the gas chambers" (the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, NY, 1989)
where such documents are referenced extensively.

Some modest examples:

Report from Bischoff, head of construction management at Auschwitz, to
the SS economic and administrative head office in Berlin, regarding
construction at Auschwitz, 13 October 1942
[Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers - J.C Pressac,
the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, NY, 1989, p. 198]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As regards the construction of the new crematorium building, it was
necessary to start immediately in July 1942 because of the situation
caused by the special actions.


Report from SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Bischoff, of the Auschwitz construction
department, to SS General Kammler, January 29, 1943
[The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe,
1939-1945 - G. Reitlinger, South Brunswick, T. Yosellof, 1968, p. 158-159]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Crematorium No. 2. The completed furnaces have been started up in
the presence of Engineer Prufer from Messers. Topf (of Erfurt). The
planks cannot yet be moved from the ceiling of the mortuary cellar
on account of frost, but this is not important, as the gassing
cellar can be used for that purpose. The ventilation plant has
been held up by restrictions on rail transport, but the installation
should be ready by February 20th.


Report from SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Bischoff, March 6 1943
[Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers - J.C Pressac,
the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, NY, 1989, p. 434]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 ... order of 6/3/1943 concerning the delivery of a gas tight door
100 x 192 cm for cellar I of Krematorium III, to be produced to
the identical pattern and dimensions as the cellar door of
Krematorium II which is situated opposite, with peephole of
double 8 mm glass, with rubber sealing strip and frame.




Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 13 20:38:16 EDT 1997
Article: 136907 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.IAEhv.nl!usenet.logical.net!dciteleport.com!europa.clark.net!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 13:21:37 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Bellinger
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874174731.22288@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <34120682.D6CD606D@netwave.ca> <5uv3lp$m24$1@juliana.sprynet.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Sep 13 18:18:54 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.74 (nw74.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 395
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136907

In article <5uv3lp$m24$1@juliana.sprynet.com>,
  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:

> >   steve mock  writes:
> >  
> >
> >  First of all, you can check out
> >  http://search.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-14.html for
> >  documents that serve as proof that medical experiments on human beings
> >  at Auschwitz were approved at the highest levels of the Nazi hierarchy.
>
> REPLY:  What "proofs" are these, Steve?

First of all, it is proof that I post cited evidence to back up my
statements. That was the challenge you put to me and I answered it.  It
has been four weeks now since I put that same challenge to you.  Where
have you answered in as much detail?

> >  While it is true that many experiments were conducted ad hoc out of an
> >  SS doctor's curiousity, others were sponsered by the Nazi regime for
> >  specific ideological and military purposes.  Memos between Himmler's
> >  office
>
> REPLY:  Er, even if this is TRUE, Himmler was not the "Nazi regime."
> Let's have a few details, please.

Posted below.  Please keep reading.

>  and the SS doctors describe experiments that were of particular
> >  interest to the SS hierarchy.  For example, Dr. Clauberg corrosponded
> >  with Himmler's office over experiments related to sterilization.  In one
> >  letter, he commented that he would be "interested to learn... how long
> >  it would take to sterilize a thousand Jewesses."(pg.275, quoted from a
> >  memo dated July 10, 1942, NO-213, Nuremberg Medical Case, vol. I, pgs.
> >  713-14)  If you're interested in seeing more quotes from this
> >  corrospondance (documents, remember?) it's in Lifton, pgs. 274-275.
>
> REPLY:  Yes, I am interested in this subject.  However, I don't feel that
> I have the time to research it right now.  In the original thread we were
> referring to MENGELE.  Why don't we continue to stick with that topic?

No, in the original thread we were discussing the credibility of the
witnesses whose stories detail Mengele's crimes.  You rejected their
eyewitness reports on the grounds that they were "prima facie absurd" and
other such unsupported dismissals.  Here, I present documented evidence
that events very similar to those they discribe did take place in the
very place where the witnesses say they took place, with the approval of
the superiors of those they accuse of committing these crimes.	This adds
credibility to the witnesses' statements, by proving the plausibility of
their stories in the context in which they took place.	PLEASE tell me
you don't understand this concept.

> >  In another corrospondance, Dr. Brack suggested to Himmler that X-rays
> >  could be used as a convenient way to sterilze the "two or three million
> >  of the ten million Jews in Europe" who "were fit enough to work" who
> >  should be preserved from the Final Solution but kept "incapable of
> >  propegating", since ordinary sterilization methods used for hereditary
> >  diseases would take too much time and expense.  Himmler insisted that
> >  "sterilization by X-rays... be tried out at least once in one camp in a
> >  series of experiments" and authorized a doctor to work on this task in
> >  late 1942 at Block 30 in Birkenau.(pg.280)
>
> REPLY:  Proof?  Was this "suggestion" implemented in part or full?
> DETAILS, please.

In terms of documentation, I can only produce the order.  How do you
expect to prove implementation if you summarily reject all eyewitness
testimony.  It was done because people saw it done - because both Nazi
doctors and survivor victims testify that it was done, and they are
supported by the documentary evidence cited above.  I know that you'd
like to reserve judgement until a victim of one of these experiments
shows up at your front door for a full cross-examination and physical,
but, at this point, I simply have to fall back on: get real, Bellinger. 
It happened, deal with it.

> >  
> >
> >  Interested readers will note that in this same post, I prove, also with
cited
> >  evidence, that Bellinger blatently lied when he stated that officials of
I.G.
> >  Farben who visited Auschwitz later testified at Nuremberg that they saw
"nothing
> >  unusual".  In response to Bellinger's later statement, "I do not lie", I
reposted
> >  this same evidence in:
>
> REPLY:  I lied about nothing.  The quote came DIRECTLY from the trial,
> silly man.

Then why didn't you cite the full quote?  Am I supposed to take your word
that this "nothing unusual" came directly from the trial?  I cited two
excerpts of testimony from the Nuremberg trials detailing that "nothing
unusual", according to two different I.G. Farben officials, consisted of
gassings, cremations, and beatings.  Where does your two-word quote come
from?  Your butt?



Date:          Mon, 30 Jun 1997
From:          Steve Mock 
Subject:       Re: Mangling Mengele, Part One

(Bellinger:)

> > IG Farben
> > directors often visited Auschwitz on inspection tours and also received
> > monthly reports on their operations at the site.  Curiously,  they
> > testified later at Nuremberg that they had never noticed anything unusual
> > at the camp.

I replied, citing the following testimony by I.G. Farben directors at
Nuremberg, as quoted by Joseph Borkin in "The Crime and Punishment of
I.G. Farben" (Barnes and Noble Books, 1997 edition, pgs. 135-156), a
book which I recommend to anyone interested in reading detailed
testimony from employees, directors, and prisoners of I.G. Farben
regarding "nothing unusual":

> From the secretary of the I.G. managing board, Ernst A. Struss, who
> visited I.G. Auschwitz several times:
>
> COUNSEL: "The chief engineer of the Buna plant with whom you spoke in
> 1943, did he specifically tell you that people were being burned at
> Auschwitz?"
> STRUSS: "Yes, I think he also told me that before the burning, they were
> gassed..."
> COUNSEL: "And in the summer of 1943 you knew that people were being
> burned and gassed?"
> STRUSS: "Yes."
> COUNSEL: "And to your best recollection you told that to Ambros and Ter
> Meer?"
> STRUSS: "Yes."
> (National Archives Collection, World War II War Crimes Records, U.S. vs.
> Krauch et al., Prosecution Exhibit 1871, transcript of trial, pgs.
> 13566-13615)
>
> From Norbert Jaehne, certified engineer at IG Auschwitz from January,
> 1943 to the end of the war: "Of all the people employed in I.G.
> Auschwitz, the inmates received the worst treatment.  They were beaten
> by the Capos, who in their turn had to see to it that the amount of work
> prescribed them and their detachments by the I.G. foremen was carried
> out, because they otherwise were punished by being beaten in the evening
> in the Monowitz camp." (ibid.; Prosectution Exhibit 2059, pgs. 43-44)

This, therefore, is a much more blatant lie, and Faf.13, being a coward,
refused to address this evidence, rather preferring to pretend I had not
presented it.



> >  Date:          Mon, 30 Jun 1997
> >  From:          Steve Mock 
> >  Subject:       Re: Mangling Mengele, Part One
> >
> >  He has yet to refute it.
> >
> >  Other posts in which I have provided cited evidence in refutation to
Bellinger's
> >  unsupported accusations include:
> >
> >  Date:          Fri, 04 Jul 1997
> >  From:          Steve Mock 
> >  Subject:       Re: Hitler's Religion
> >
> >  Date:          Thu, 31 Jul 1997
> >  From:          smock@veritas.nizkor.org
> >  Subject:       Re: Gisela Perl vs. Irma Grese
> >  (which also has him refusing to check Deja News when referred to evidence
already
> >  posted)
> >
> >  That's called backing up your claims with evidence, Bellinger.  See how its
done?
>
> REPLY:  "SEE HOW IT'S DONE?!?  YOU have never done it.
> Hypocrite.

I just did, Joe.  You asked me to refer to posts where I have cited
evidence in support of my position, and I did - four of them in fact. 
I'm waiting for you to post one.

> >  It took me all of five minutes to come up with these four examples.  It has
taken
> >  you over three weeks to even evade the same challenge when it was posed to
you.
>
> REPLY:  It took you five minutes to come up with irrelevant
> and easily refuted nonsense.  It took me less than a minute to
> refute it.

You refuted nothing.  If you disagree with the content of the posts I
cited, you may deal with it on a point by point basis.	The fact remains
that I answered your counter-challange immediately in as much detail as I
have requested you answer my original challange.  If I can do it, why
can't you?

> >  > I will repeat:
> >  >
> >  > It is YOU who must provide EVIDENCE as you have assumed the role of
prosecutor.
> >
> >  Please refer me to the post in which I assumed the role of prosecutor.  I
never did
> >  so.  I have assumed the role of historical researcher.  It is noted that
you can't
> >  tell the difference.
>
> REPLY:  Historical researcher.  Ha.  Ja, that's a good one.  What are
> you researching, except to try and PROVE that the "Holocaust" occurred
> according to each and every lie and fabrication, based upon your religious
> conviction that this is indeed the truth.

Sigh... he hasn't yet proven that one piece of evidence I or anyone else
has cited is either a "lie" or "fabrication".  But he believes it with
his own religious conviction, so I won't try to argue with him.

> >  If anyone is in the role of prosecutor it is you, as you're the only one
making
> >  accusations - accusing witnesses of lying en masse in an intricate
conspiracy.
>
> REPLY:  Sorry.  This doesn't cut it.  YOU are the prosecutor.

Says you.  I never claimed such a role.

> And your witnesses, who made outrageous accusations against innocent
> human beings which led to their being legally LYNCHED, are despicable
> LIARS and fabricators.

He's amazing isn't he.	First he says I'm the prosecutor, then he follows
by making accusations that he won't support.

Calling some a "LIAR" in capital letters does not make it any more true
than doing it in lower case.  Prove it, or refer to a previous post in
which you have done so.  Period.

>   And
> >  seeing as you provide no evidence
>
> REPLY:  IT is up to YOU to provide the evidence, as you use the
> testimony and statements of these "witnesses" to bolster your
> case against the accused.  this is so simple John Morrisstein might
> even understand it.
>
>  - and even go so far as to play logical games to
> >  try and convince us you don't have to provide evidence for your
accusations, you're
> >  not even playing the role of prosecutor very well.
>
> REPLY:  That is because I am not the prosecutor, silly man.

Then answer this question: how do you expect someone to trust the claims
of a person who puts all of his effort into finding excuses to avoid
providing evidence for his accusations?

> >  > I need only shed doubt on your accusations, showing how preposterous they
> >  > appear without any actual EVIDENCE to support your claims.
> >
> >  I'm only without evidence to support my claims when you clip the evidence I
use to
> >  support my claims in your replies.
>
> REPLY:  You have never posted any evidence except "witness" testimony.

Amazing, again, Bellinger.  This very post contains excerpts of documents
which I posted earlier in support of witness testimony.  Your lie is
exposed in the very post in which you tell it.	Could you really be that
dense?

>   Hmmm... why would Bellinger engage in such
> >  obviously evasive behavior?
>
> REPLY:  Hmmm, why would YOU engage in such behavior?
>  Religious fervor, perhaps?

Don't even try to answer the question.

>  Perhaps because he fears that his imaginary legion of
> >  lurker-fans might realize that he has nothing more than his predjudices
backing up
> >  his opinion that the eyewitness evidence is presposterous.
>
> REPLY:  Keep dreaming, Steve.  Your tactics are easily exposed.

They are aren't they.  I post evidence that Bellinger has already labelled
"DRIVEL" with his unsupported accusations.  The nerve of me.

> In effect, you accuse me of being a  "flasher" while you yourself
> stand before us completely naked.
> >
> >  > So, if this is what you are waiting for, it will never happen, no matter
> >  > how long you keep reposting your drivel.  I do not need PROOF to show
that
> >  > the accusation of Mengele having eye-balls tacked to his walls was
> >  > fabricated, maliciously contrived DRIVEL,
> >
> >  At least two independant eyewitnesses whose statements have been posted on
this NG
>
> REPLY:  Voila!  There you are again.  Back to your witnesses.  I demand to see
> PROOF.  Now, where is it?
>
> >  corroborate this story, supported the fact that we know, through the
statements of
> >  other Nazi doctors and through the documented evidence contained in
Mengele's grant
> >  applications,
>
> REPLY:  No Nazi doctors ever said that Mengele had eyeballs tacked to his
> walls that I am aware of.

You didn't read Lifton, did you?

>  that Mengele was conducting research into eye color.
>
> REPLY:  This is obvious, but inmate rumours metamorphosized the
> story, just as they metamorphosized showers into "Gas chambers."

A fantasic theory.  Care to make an argument to support it, Mr.
Prosecutor?

>  Profession
> >  historians, who have researched the topic far more extensively than
yourself,
> >  accept this evidence as valid.
>
> REPLY:  I am not interested in hearing about "professional
> historians from the likes of you.  They need to earn a living,
> and the money flow will cease rapidly if they ever report
> these events honestly.

Ah, yes.  The world-wide conspiracy again.  A fantastic theory.  Care to
provide evidence to support it, Mr. Prosecutor?

Or do we just have to accept your word that everyone trained to
understand the discipline of history is simply wrong, and you are simply
right.

> I have been researching this subject
> for 20 years, and am fluent in German, so I am just as qualified
> to offer opinions on the subject.

Well, hey - I've never been to medical school, but I've been reading
about brain surgery for 20 years and own a scalpel...

>  Do you still think you don't even need to explain
> > the reasons why you don't, let alone provide any evidence casting doubt on
the
> >  reliability of any one of these sources?  Of course not.  Bellinger need
only call
> >  it "DRIVEL", and its thrown into the trash heap.
>
> REPLY:  One need only read what these witnesses testified to.  it
> is self-condemnatory.

Good for you.  Prove it with anything other than your biased opinion, or
refer to a post in which you have done so.  That's all I ask.

> >  > Prove to me that Jews really did NOT poison the wells of Europe.  Provide
> >  > the evidence, please.  Start with Genoa.
> >
> >  Another red herring.
>
> REPLY:  Anything that is uncomfortable for you to respond to is
> always a "red herring" to you, Steve.  Your witnesses are a red
> herring.

All of them, every one.  And all of the documentary evidence that supports
them, too.

>  I've been asking him for months to post the evidence he's
> >  referring to.  If he would, I'd be happy to explain to him the difference.
 But I'm
> >  not holding my breath.  Bellinger knows that the accusations against Jews
poisoning
> >  wells bear no resemblence to the evidence against the Nazis.
>
> REPLY:  I'm afraid that the substance is one and the same, and YOU know
> that as well.

Good.  Then post it and allow us to discuss the matter openly.	Why have
you made every effort to avoid doing so?

>  If someone were to
> >  clearly demonstrate this he'd lose one of his favorite propaganda tools.
>
> REPLY:  The only tool I refer to is the truth and reason.

The last time I looked in my thesuaurus, "tool" was not a synonym for
"slogan"

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Sun Sep 14 07:37:29 EDT 1997
Article: 136981 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!iagnet.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Bellinger - I'm a day late, but so what?
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:19:55 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 305
Message-ID: <341AAF18.1B52944C@netwave.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw95.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:136981

Welcome one and all, my friends
to the show that never ends
its the BELLINGER EVASION GAME

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it has now been four weeks since I first
challanged Bellinger to refer to one post in his sorry history with
alt.revisionism in which he provided cited evidence to back up one of
his claims.  And I have to say that this past week has been, by far, the
most fun, since this was the week that Bellinger chose to actually
attempt an answer.  A summary and listing of his evasive posts will be
provided at the end of this messgage, but, first, the challange itself:




In article <19970818081300.EAA14318@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
  fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:

> I don't have time to waste on frivolous questions.

It is noted that you consider your credibility to be a frivolous
question, but if I were you I would make time. Because I have decided
that I am going to post this message every week until you answer what
should be a very easy challenge for an honest debater to answer:

"For as long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided one

citation or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong,
please refer me specifically to a post that contradicts this assertion,
so that I might apologize."

It has been just over four (4) weeks since this challenge was first
posted.
Bellinger refuses to respond.  This message will be resposted every
Friday until such time as Bellinger: 1) Re-posts or refers to a message
in which he has provided cited evidence and an explanation for one of
his
claims; or, 2) admits that he never does.

Until Bellinger answers this question, his failure to do so will be
noted
as meaning that he cannot.  Any attempts by Bellinger to evade this
challenge will be appended to future postings.

The challenge in its entirety:

>In article <5sqk9t$44d$2@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
>>
>> >   smock@veritas.nizkor.org writes:
>> >
>> >  You really believe that saying so makes it so, don't you Joe?  For
as
>> >  long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided one
citation
>> >  or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong, please
refer
>> >  me specifically to a post that contradicts this assertion, so that
I
>> >  might apologize.
>> >
>> >  Steve Mock
>>
>> REPLY:  of course you are not only wrong, but a liar to boot.
>
>I repeat: If I am wrong, please refer me specifically to a post that
>contradicts my assertion, so that I might apologize.
>
>Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.
>
>In addition, please refer specifically to any statement or claim that I

>have made that has been or can be proven false.
>
>Calling me a liar doesn't make me one.
>
>Especially when such an accusation comes from someone who is a proven
>liar himself.  For one example of statements made by Bellinger that can

>easily be verified as false and irresponsible, please refer to a reply
>posted by myself (Steve Mock) entitled "Re: Mangling Mengele, Part
One",
>dated Monday, 30 June 1997, and freely available on Deja News.
>
>The above paragraph is what's known as providing evidence to support
your
>claims.  See how its done, Bellinger?
>
>Steve Mock



Well, ladies and gentlemen, it has been an exciting week 4.  This was
the week in which Bellinger decided that he was disappointing his
imaginary legion of lurker-fans with his failure to refer to even one
post in which he has cited documented evidence is support of his
claims.  He answered last weeks challange in the following post:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         jbelling@sprynet.com
Date:         1997/09/05
Message-Id:   <5upt3k$4h0$1@juliana.sprynet.com>

Beginning with his usual show of righteous indignation:

"Your post is sio ludicrous that I am almost baffled for a reply."

Then instead of answering the question and referring to a post in which
he has cited evidence in support of one of his claims, he provided for
us a bibliography, without any explanation as to how these works, which
make use of the eyewitness testimony he so causally rejects, have been
used by him in the past to support his accusations that these
eyewitnesses are liars.

He listed five perfectly respectible sources, and added "Etc, etc., etc,
ad infinitum."

Apparently, "ad infinitum" meant one more source, specified in:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         jbelling@sprynet.com
Date:         1997/09/05
Message-Id:   <5upt63$4h0$2@juliana.sprynet.com>

"PS:  Almost forgot to include this one:

"The Good Old Days, by Klee.  You know it.  If you don't, go
ask Prima Donna Keren, as he distorts from it regularly."

Aside from the fact that he doesn't feel he has to justify this smear
against Mr. Keren, he also doesn't explain how he managed to use a book
that provides first-hand documentation detailing the Nazi genocide
against the Jews to prove that witnesses to said genocide are all liars.

The following day, after he had posted this claim that he cited evidence
so regularly he was "almost baffled for a reply", Bellinger proceded to
explain that he is under no obligation to provide evidence for his
claims:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13)
Date:         1997/09/06
Message-Id:   <19970906173101.NAA12386@ladder01.news.aol.com>

"It is YOU who must provide EVIDENCE as you have assumed the role of
prosecutor."

"I need only shed doubt on your accusations,"

"I do not need PROOF"

He followed with his usual unsupported accusations:

"the accusation of Mengele having eye-balls tacked to his walls was
fabricated, maliciously contrived DRIVEL"

And cliches:

"Physician, heal thyself."

And his typical "argument" as to why all eye-witness evidence must be
rejected as a source for historical research:

"Prove to me that Jews really did NOT poison the wells of Europe.
Provide
the evidence, please.  Start with Genoa."

He also turned the challange around on me:

"When have YOU ever provided evidence, save of your own bias?"

I answered immediately in:

Subject:  Re: Bellinger
Date:  Sun, 07 Sep 1997 01:42:26 +0000
From:  steve mock 

With the following four citings:

Date:          Fri, 20 Jun 1997
From:          Steve Mock 
Subject:       Re: Josef Mengele-Fact and Fiction

Date:          Mon, 30 Jun 1997
From:          Steve Mock 
Subject:       Re: Mangling Mengele, Part One

Date:          Fri, 04 Jul 1997
From:          Steve Mock 
Subject:       Re: Hitler's Religion

Date:          Thu, 31 Jul 1997
From:          smock@veritas.nizkor.org
Subject:       Re: Gisela Perl vs. Irma Grese

... Including a reposting of the evidence cited on one of them, and
detailed description of the contents of a second.

Bellinger had the following to say about the fact that I responded in
such detail, so quickly:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         jbelling@sprynet.com
Date:         1997/09/07
Message-Id:   <5uv3lp$m24$1@juliana.sprynet.com>

"REPLY:  It took you five minutes to come up with irrelevant
and easily refuted nonsense.  It took me less than a minute to
refute it."

No explanation as to how the posts specified did not include cited
evidence in support of my claims was provided.

Bellinger repeated his excuse as to why he was under no obligation to
back up his accusations with evidence in another thread, entitled:

Subject:      Re: Grese on Trial
From:         steve mock 
Date:         1997/09/07
Message-Id:   <34120688.4B012967@netwave.ca>

> I do not need to prove palpably ludicrous statements to be unworthy
> of belief.  This is so preposterous, you might as well ask me to now
prove
> that little blue fairies exists, or ask me to catch a fart in a bottle
and
> color it yellow.

Meanwhile, in:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13)
Date:         1997/09/06
Message-Id:   <19970906170501.NAA09998@ladder01.news.aol.com>

He made another attempt at pretending to answer my challange, referring
to a post in which he had cited evidence in such vague terms as to make
it virtually impossible to find:

"I referred to "The Good Old Days" in reply to Keren's post:

"An SS Court says the Jews have to be exterminated, or some drivel to
that
effect.

"I don't remember the complete title.  Ask Keren or check in Deja News.
It
is only a couple of weeks old.  Then get back to me."

I was not familiar with that particular thread.  Fortunately, Gord McFee
was:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         Gord McFee 
Date:         1997/09/06
Message-Id:   <3411c41d$6$tzpsrr$mr2ice@news2.ibm.net>

"I seem to remember Joe's intervention on _The Good Old Days_ being a
claim that a quote given by Danny Keren had no reference given, until I
pointed out that the reference was on page 286.  };->"


In another thread, under:

Subject:      Re: Common "Revisionist" Lies Regarding Starvation
From:         jbelling@sprynet.com
Date:         1997/09/05
Message-Id:   <5uptq5$4h0$5@juliana.sprynet.com>

Bellinger made another vague reference to having posted cited evidence
before.

"I posted a whole article on Ehlert's testimony direct from
the pages of the Belsen Trial transcripts.  Now go look it up."

Sacrificing my self-respect, I've decided to actually waste the time to
do so.  I presume that the post to whch he was referring was:

Subject:      The Real Herta Ehlert
From:         rblackmore@juno.com
Date:         1996/12/21
Message-Id:   <59hlkd$9h0@juliana.sprynet.com>

While this post does indeed contain cited evidence, the precise point he
was attempting to prove with it escapes me.  All I saw was testimony
that conditions at Belsen were horrific towards the end of the war.  I
did not see any proof, outside of Bellinger's own unsupported fantasies
involving threats and torture, as to why the testimony of Ehlert is not
to be trusted, or a reason why any referece to it deserves the knee-jerk
response:

>  > REPLY:  Ehlert was a liar and I have already addressed this issue.


In summary, over the past week, Bellinger has dodged the challange with
smoke screens, turned the challange back on me, and provided excuses as
to why he was under no obligation to answer it.  What he has not done is
referred to even one post in his history with alt.revisionism in which
he has cited evidence in support of one of his accusations.  We shall,
as always, be waiting.

Steve Mock





From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 20 14:36:40 EDT 1997
Article: 137248 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.IAEhv.nl!news.oru.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:51:24 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Bellinger
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874345282.18795@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <874176288.23402@dejanews.com> <19970913193300.PAA24816@ladder01.news.aol.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Sep 15 17:41:23 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.83 (nw83.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 32
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:137248

In article <19970913193300.PAA24816@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
  fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Bellinger
> >From: smock@netwave.ca
> >Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 13:51:12 -0600
> >Message-id: <874176288.23402@dejanews.com>
>
> >Bellinger's claim in this thread was that Olga Lenygel was a liar, and
> >that her allegations regarding Irma Grese were false.  I see no statement
> >cited by Lenygel that is contradicted by the evidence posted below, and
> >therefore Bellinger has not, in any way, proved his claim using cited
> >evidence.
>
> REPLY:  Er, Steve, notice that I wrote  "IF Miss Fenelon is to be
> believed....."  I will get to Ugly Olga in detail one day soon.  Promise.

Your point, Joe?  All I was saying above was that this evidence did not
support your contention that Olga Lenygel lied.  Thank you for confirming
that.

I assume that by "in detail" you mean that some day soon you will repeat
"she's a liar" over and over again, in the hopes that someone out there
will believe you, right?  Or have you decided to start posting supporting
evidence along with accusations like that, because for the past four
weeks, you have dodged my every request that you repost an example of
your having done so in the past.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 20 14:36:43 EDT 1997
Article: 137268 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.visi.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:11:25 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Hitler and "ausrotten" - why won't the Revisionazis answer?
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874357309.742@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <874126463.24843@dejanews.com> <19970913185501.OAA28180@ladder02.news.aol.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Sep 15 21:01:53 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.63 (nw63.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 447
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:137268

In article <19970913185501.OAA28180@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
  fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Hitler and "ausrotten" - why won't the Revisionazis answer?
> >From: smock@netwave.ca
> >Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:01:18 -0600
> >Message-id: <874126463.24843@dejanews.com>
>
> >I don't see why you're speaking in terms of jurisprudence.
>
> Reply:  Of course not.  You prefer to sidestep any semblance of legalese
> when it comes to the Holocaust.

Hello?	When did we step into a courtroom?  Legal evidence must, of
necessity, meet technical standards that often have nothing to do with an
honest search for truth as much as the civil rights of the accused.  For
this reason, the standards of evidence in an honest search for historical
truth are different.

But even if we were in a courtroom, I know of no system of jurisprudence
that holds the the standards specified by Mr. Phillips.  But I tell you
what, Bellinger: I'll continue this argument on the condition that you
prove to me, using Mr. Phillips' standards of evidence, that YOU exist. 
Evidence I would accept will include:

1)  A signed statement from both of your parents announcing their
intention to conceive, whose language makes unmistakably clear that their
intention is to conceive YOU and not anyone else.  Please don't refer to
euphemisms used by your parents to refer to such actions, and it will be
useless to claim such a serious endeavor was put into execution by a mere
"nudge and wink".

2)  A certificate of birth that has undergone forensic study for its
authenticity, and is certified as authentic by two independant witnesses.

3)  A scientific report by experts with good credentials attesting to
your existence.  I would have to be assured that these men made their
report free of any financial or institutional pressures.

4)  Testimony of witnesses that stood up to hostile cross-examination.

Since I can't prove a negative, the burden is on you to prove that you
exist. If you can't even prove this most elementary assertion, I will
have to conclude that you're nothing more than a bot programmed to say
"physician, heal thyself" any time someone makes a point on this
newsgroup, and thereafter cease arguing with you.

> >This isn't a
> >trial.  Although I can see why you want to make it appear as one, since
> >that justifies your obvious bias in favor of the Nazis as "presumption of
> >innocence"
>
> Reply:  Demanding legal evidence is "obvious bias in favor of the Nazis?"
>  Hmmmm.

No.  Accepting ONLY evidence that meets your own personal and
unprecedented standards of legality is "obvious bias in favor of the
Nazis".

> >your wholesale dismissal of all forms evidence
>
> REPLY:  Huh?

If you hadn't cropped the last half of the sentence it might have
appeared to make more sense.

What I said was that "wholesale dismissal of all forms evidence that you
find the least bit problematic" is justified by him on the ground of
"reasonable doubt", as a means to explaining why the conduct of an honest
search for historical truth must, of necessity, be very different from
the conduct of a trial.

Our goal here is not to determine guilt or innocence.  That has been
done, whether you like it or not.  Our goal here is to find out what
really happened, in as much detail as possible, using all of the evidence
at our disposal.

> >particularly a claim that contradicts everything that
> >qualified experts who have researched the topic exhaustively say on the
> >subject - has to back that claim up with evidence and an argument, not
> >with excuses as to why he is under no burden to provide either.
>
> REPLY:  ho and what qualifies these people as experts?

Oh, university degrees, decades of experience on the topic, acknowledged
renown in a community of professionals... stuff like that.

> The rest of your
> comments are Nizkook hocus pocus mumbo jumbo.  It is up to the accuser to
> provide the evidence.

Funny.	A few lines down you accuse us of libel.  Where's your evidence
for that accusation?

> >It is noted that you fail to outline the credentials which qualify you to
> >determine the criterea by which evidence is to be considered valid
>
> REPLY:  Credentials are unnecessary in an honest search for truth against
> the gas chamber libel.

No, but a certain respect for those who have studied the topic in more
depth than you have is.  The extent to which you value education is
noted.

> >A glaring omission, considering that some of the criterea you have
> >specified appear carefully designed to exclude evidence that you know
> >exists.
>
> REPLY:  How do you know what this man is thinking?  Stop trying to second
> guess people.  Physician-heal thyself.

Bellingerisms notwithstanding, its quite clear in the way that he words
his criterea that he has specific forms of evidence in mind that he seeks
to exclude.  For example, when he asks for:

> (6) Testimony of survivors that stood up to hostile cross-examination.

He is obviously fully aware that there exists testimony from literally
thousands of witnesses.  Therefore, he specifies that he will only accept
the reports of witnesses who have been cross-examined.	However, he
further realizes that there are numerous witnesses who have submitted
their testimony and been cross-examined in recognized legal proceedings,
and therefore he needs the further qualification of the word "hostile",
so that he has a way out.  Any witness testimony given that has undergone
cross-examination can be dismissed by him on the grounds that the
cross-examiner was not sufficently "hostile". Therefore, though this
sentence, he is able to discard out of hand volumes of evidence that
would otherwise be considered legitimate in both a historiographical and
legal context.

> >Yet you haven't even done enough research to realize that some of the
> >evidence you request DOES in fact exist,
>
> REPLY:  where is it, what is it, and when will you finally post it?

Below.	I recommend that in the future you read to the end of a post
before starting your reply, Joe.

> > I suggest that you do some more research before you attempt another
> >effort at writing propaganda.  It seems you're just not ready to play
> >with the big boys.
>
> REPLY:  Physician-heal thyself.

Joe, will you please find a new cliche to spew when you have nothing to
say. This one's getting stale.

> >A "nudge and wink"?  Please.  Explain why every historian who has
> >seriously researched the bureucratic workings of the Third Reich say that
> >such a document is irrelevant to Holocaust historiography, and likely
> >never existed.
>
> REPLY:  What else could they say, seeing they have no proof?
> All they can do under the circumstances, is admit that no such order has
> never been found and probably never will be.  So far, things are not going
> well for you.

All you're doing, Joe, is proving that you know virtually nothing of the
bureucratic workings of the Third Reich.  Furher orders only came when
Hitler had to personally intervene in a situation.  Otherwise, things got
done by members of the inner circle and their subordinates working to put
the impulses they were receiving from higher levels into practice.  Those
who did so properly were promoted through the ranks, those who
misunderstood the furher's intentions were not.

I breifly described this process as it related to the extermination of
the Jews in a previous post, which I cited in (and you clipped from) my
last message under:

Subject:      Re: Hitler's Extermination Orders
From:         Steve Mock 
Date:         1997/08/18
Message-Id:   <33F8C757.1C53@veritas.nizkor.org>

If you have any complaint with the argument contained therin, please let
me know.

> >I don't see a signed order in "unmistakeable" language
> >for the invasion of Russia.  D
>
> REPLY:  There was a whole prepared case.  It was called Operation
> Barbarossa.  Armies cannot function without detailed and proper orders.

I know its was called Operation Barbarossa, Joe.  In fact, I said in the
next sentence which you clipped that it was called Operation Barbarossa. 
And yes, there were a whole series of orders at various levels detailing
the operation, just as there was for the Final Solution.  But the fact
remains that there was not a furherbefel.  By the logic you use regarding
the genocide against the Jews, that would imply that it didn't happen.

> >These too, of course, exist.  Please refer to J.C. Pressac, "Auschwitz:
> >Technique and operation of the gas chambers" (the Beate Klarsfeld
> >Foundation, NY, 1989) w
>
> REPLY:  He did not ask you to refer him to Pressac.  This book is out of
> print by the way.

No he didn't.  What he asked was for "construction plans for an execution
gas chamber along with detailed manuals on their use, transportation,
on-site commissioning, and maintenance", and I told him precisely where
such information was to be found.  If he had asked me to refer him to
Pressac, then that would mean that he already knew that these documents
existed and could be easily accessed, and therefore that his implication
that they do not exist would have been a result of intentional duplicity
rather than mere ignorance.

If you were honestly interested in the subject, you'd invest in a library
card, wouldn't you, Joe?

> Just post your best evidence and documentation and we
> can deal with that.

I do below.  The fact that you clipped the bulk of it doesn't change the
fact.

> >Report from SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Bischoff, of the Auschwitz construction
> >department, to SS General Kammler, January 29, 1943
>
> REPLY:  And"  Was the nature of the special actions mentioned?
> This document mentions nothing of gas chambers or killing people.

Alright then, Joe, what were the "special actions" that required an
additional crematorium building on the cite of Auschwitz II in July 1942?
 You tell me.



Report from Bischoff, head of construction management at Auschwitz, to
the SS economic and administrative head office in Berlin, regarding
construction at Auschwitz, 13 October 1942
[Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers - J.C Pressac,
the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, NY, 1989, p. 198]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As regards the construction of the new crematorium building, it was
necessary to start immediately in July 1942 because of the situation
caused by the special actions.



> >Crematorium No. 2. The completed furnaces have been started up in
> >the presence of Engineer Prufer from Messers. Topf (of Erfurt). The
> >planks cannot yet be moved from the ceiling of the mortuary cellar
> >on account of frost, but this is not important, as the gassing
> >cellar can be used for that purpose
>
> REPLY:  THis is the old Vergasungskammer again.  Let me save you time.
> Vergasung can most certainly refer to delousing and disinfestation.  It is
> a process for killing vermin.  Thus, this room could have been used for
> those purposes within the building.

"could have been" is as close to evidence as Bellinger gets.  A real
historian, in this situation, would look towards what the other forms of
evidence say regarding how this particular vergasungskammer was used.



Report from SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Bischoff, of the Auschwitz construction
department, to SS General Kammler, January 29, 1943
[The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe,
1939-1945 - G. Reitlinger, South Brunswick, T. Yosellof, 1968, p. 158-159]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Crematorium No. 2. The completed furnaces have been started up in
the presence of Engineer Prufer from Messers. Topf (of Erfurt). The
planks cannot yet be moved from the ceiling of the mortuary cellar
on account of frost, but this is not important, as the gassing
cellar can be used for that purpose. The ventilation plant has
been held up by restrictions on rail transport, but the installation
should be ready by February 20th.



> >Report from SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Bischoff, March 6 1943
> >[Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers - J.C Pressac,
> >the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, NY, 1989, p. 434]
>
> > ... order of 6/3/1943 concerning the delivery of a gas tight door
> >100 x 192 cm for cellar I of Krematorium III, to be produced to
> >the identical pattern and dimensions as the cellar door of
> >Krematorium II which is situated opposite, with peephole of
> >double 8 mm glass, with rubber sealing strip and frame.
>
> REPLY:  And?

And what?  He asked for documents relating to construction, use,
transportation, and maintenance of the gassing facilities at Auschwitz
and I provided three examples and a reference to a book that provides
many more for those who are honestly interested.  Any questions?

> >Does the International Red Cross count?
>
> REPLY:  Depends....

Allow me to finish the sentence:
Depends... on whether they say anything that contradicts my own foregone
conclusions, in which case, no.

> >I see.	But since deniers assume that all universities and government
> >institutions are under the contol of whatever evil conspiracy has
> >fabricated all of the evidence
>
> REPLY:  Did the man state this,.  No, it is a product of your own
> delusional thinking.

What he did state was:

"I would have to be assured that these men made their report free of
institutional pressures of any kind."

The implication being that a certain unnamed number of credible experts
are under pressure from an equally unnamed source to say something other
than the truth.  Do you have another explanation as to what
"institutional pressure" means and where it might come from?  It is
another example of his creating a fudge-factor by which he could exclude
the hundreds of well-researched studies that confirm and present the
evidence relating to the Holocaust.  Anything he doesn't like can be
written off to "institutional pressure".

> Also, you have offered no evidence of any intrinsic
> value, fabricated or otherwise.
>
> >t does not, apparently, exclude a professional con artist and proven
> >perjurer with a B.A. in history.  Please see
> >http://www.nizkor.org/leuchter/
>
> REPLY:  Oh, yes.  Always the slander.  Always libel.  Hippocrite.  It
> appears that it is you and your Nizkook friends who are the professional
> con artists.

I provided an URL where one could find detailed and conclusive proof that
Leuchter is both a con artist and a perjurer.  Will you point us to
evidence to back up your accusation that me and my "Nizkook friends" are
the same, or is it just more of your slander and libel?

> >Ah, but since you know that the nature of the evidence under your
> >categories (3) and (6) shows that most of these bodies were incinerated
> >(and, yes, ashes were found), I can only conclude that the only reason
>
> REPLY:  Six million victims and not ONE corpse available for autopsy
> purposes.  But wasn't it Dr. Larson who testified that he had conducted
> autopsies on individuals alleged to have died from gassing at Dachau,along
> with chemical analysis tests?  Lo and behold, I was promised these reports
> for a year and NEVER received them.  That is because they do not exist and
> never did.

I, for one, am not familiar with this evidence, so I'd appreciate it if
you'd refer me specifically to the post in which it was promised to you,
because I would like, for my own interest, to track this evidence down if
it does exist.

As for your first assertion: since, in the extermination centres, the
crematoria were located in the same building, and in fact connected to
the gas chambers, the chances that the SS left a body that had been
gassed by hydrogen cyanide lying around for autopsy are extremely slim.

Bodies of those who were executed by other means have been found.

> >You are specifying this critereon is because you know full well that it
> >can't be met.
>
> REPLY:  Of course not, because the gassing story is a figment of the
> imagination.

No, because you can't do autopsies on ashes, fifty years after the fact,
idiot.

> >Lawyers at Nuremberg and the Eichmann trial have to count, seeing as they
> >were chosen and employed by the defendants themselves to provide the best
> >possible defence.
>
> REPLY:  What can the "best possible defence" consist of when the verdict
> and sentence was already decided before the trial even began?

As I said, they were chosen and employed by the defendants, so "best
possible defence" consists of however those defendants wanted to be
defended.  If they thought they could prove that the crime for which they
were accused was never committed, I'm sure they would have tried.  In the
real world, the best they could do was attempt to minimize their own
responsibility, which they did to the best of their abilities.	If the
verdicts and sentences (including the jail terms and aquittals) were
decided beforehand, then why even bother?

> >Besides, if you are accusing these thousands of survivors of fabricating
> >their stories (and I can't imagine what else you could be implying),
> >shouldn't you offer at least SOME evidence that this is the case,
>
> REPLY:  I have offered plenty of material for him, but should he wish to
> include more, I for one would be delighted.

You have never once cited evidence to prove that any statement made by
any witness was untrue.  I have been asking you for four weeks to repost
or refer to a post in which you have done so, and you have either ignored
me or evaded the question.  Therefore, I must conclude that this
statement is merely one more example of Bellinger blowing smoke.

> >aside
> >from the fact that you personally have not taken the opportunity to
> >cross-examine them.
>
> REPLY:  And that day will NEVER arrive, and you know it.

Of course I know it.  Because you and your "revisionist" friends will
never get off your asses and make the effort to interview a genuine
witness.  If you did, you'd lose your right to whine about how some
mysterious force is "preventing" you from accessing this otherwise
readily available source of evidence.

> >If you're so convinced you could expose their
> >stories as faulty, would you mind explaining to us why?
>
> REPLY:  PErhaps he will post directly from their testimony, as I do.

Perhaps he will even demonstrate just what is wrong with said testimony,
as you don't.

> >And this evidence is the only acceptable evidence because HE SAYS SO.
>
> REPLY:  And YOUR "evidence" consists of "eyewitnesses" who throw
> accusations aroundlike ping ball balls.  Their basis:
> Because THEY say so....

They were there.  You weren't.

> >Those who actually understand the discipline of history think
> >differently, and acknowledge the validity of the overwhelming amount of
> >evidence for the Holocaust, despite the fact that not all of it falls
> >under Mr. Phillips' categories.
>
> REPLY:  In fact, none of it falls within his catagories.

Except for the evidence I posted under category (3), most of which
Bellinger clipped, and the evidence under category (2) which I will post
tomorrow.

> >Those interested in looking at ALL of the evidence, free from Mr.
> >Phillips' biased criterea, should start with
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/
>
> REPLY:  Those REALLY interested in looking for ALL the evidence should
> ignore Mock's advice and simply start thinking for themselves.

Yes.  Thinking is so much easier when you don't have all of those pesky
facts getting in your way.  Joe knows that.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 20 14:36:46 EDT 1997
Article: 137333 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!news-out.communique.net!communique!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:21:05 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: To A Kike
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874383098.27696@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <3414C2A8.A3AEBDB4@su1.edu> <19970909181701.OAA10633@ladder02.news.aol.com> <3416C475.CA2B0471@netwave.ca> <34176A5A.515F@earthlink.net> <874010759.16983@dejanews.com> <3418BDC8.6060@earthlink.net> <874130792.28526@dejanews.com> <341B6F89.65A2@earthlink.net> <874253396.6585@dejanews.com> <341C475C.195D@earthlink.net>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Sep 16 04:11:46 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.83 (nw83.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 351
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:137333

In article <341C475C.195D@earthlink.net>,
  rgphill@earthlink.net wrote:

> smock@netwave.ca wrote:
> >
> > In article <341B6F89.65A2@earthlink.net>,
> >   rgphill@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > > smock@netwave.ca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3418BDC8.6060@earthlink.net>,
> > > >   rgphill@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > (2) For a man as perceptive as you would have us believe you are, have
> > > > > you ever asked the question of why men on trial for their lives would
> > > > > freely confess to acts that could get them hanged -- and in many cases
> > > > > did?
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm... lets think about that one for a while
> > > >
> > > > Answer 1: because there was a systematic and universial policy of
torture
> > > > that was so well devised that 1) no evidence that it happened was ever
> > > > uncovered; 2) it compelled every one of them to admit, in detail, to
> > > > crimes they did not commit which neatly corroborated the available
> > > > documents and testimony of other witnesses; and 3) those who received
> > > > anything less than the death penalty never recanted or altered their
> > > > statements for the remainder of their lives.
> > > >
> > > > Answer 2: that the evidence presented proving their crimes was so
> > > > conclusive, denying it was pointless, and the best they could hope for
> > > > was to minimize their personal responsibility.
> > > >
> > > > Which is the most plausible answer?  You tell me.
> > >
> > > The answer to that question would be crushingly obvious to you if you
> > > had ever
> > >
> > > (1) Had your kneecaps systematically battered with a baton
> > > (2) Had  a needle driven under your fingernail
> > > (3) Had your balls slowly crushed
> > > (4) Had a thick object slowly forced up your south end
> > >
> > > If, God forbid, you ever have any of these things done to you, you are
> > > NOT going to calmly and rationally calculate your prospects, you are
> > > going to scream your fucking soul out and tell your questions whatever
> > > it is they want to hear, ANYTHING to get them to stop.
> >
> > (1) You have not yet provided evidence for any of the above, so this is
> > all, for the moment, nothing more than speculation on your part,
> > particularly on the point that these practices were so universal as to
> > have influenced every single Nazi who acknowledged the crimes of the
> > regime.
>
> ======================================================
> Phillips
>
> Let's back up a bit.  I osed the question of why men on trial for their
> lives would freely confess to acts that could et them hanged - and in
> many cases did.
>
> You proposed Answer 1 and Answer 2. To my straightforward mental
> processes, it seemed that an even more plausible reason was their having
> been subjected to physical agonies beyond the enduring of any human.
>
> No. This does not prove that torture took place. But it certainly helpes
> to make that possibility plausible.

But the fact that it does not prove torture is not a point to be taken
lightly, particularly as you attempted to use the invented list of
heinous tortures above to make your point.  You can argue against ANY
confession for any crime on the grounds that torture MAY have been used,
but the facts that 1) no evidence has been presented suggesting that
these or any other manner of torture was used; and, 2) none of those who
confessed ever claimed to have been tortured or changed their stories
plays into the equation rather significantly, does it not?

> > (2) You have not explained why not one of those who survived this torture
> > program ever recanted their statement and told the "truth" (as you see
> > it) at any point for the rest of their lives.
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> The Nurmburg trials were NOT trials as you and I understand that word -
> an impartial judicial process that proceeds without preconception or
> prejudice. It was a little ceremony designed to provide some gloss of
> legality to decisions that had been reached beforehand.

Funny.	There were a number of very controversial decisions at Nuremberg
and not all of the judges always agreed.

Granted, Nuremberg was an exceptional situation, but I don't think I'm
out of line in asking you to back up this assertion that it was nothing
more than "a little ceremony designed to provide some gloss of legality
to decisions that had been reached beforehand."

> Leastways, that
> was the view of then Supreme court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone.

Fine.  So you are not the first to question the principles of
jurisprudence employed at Nuremberg, but this has no effect on the
instrinsic quality of the masses of evidence that were presented therein.

Please give me a reference on the Stone quote.	I'd like to find out what
he really said.

> So, if the defendants did not recant their testimony, it may have been
> because the judge gave them no opporrutnity to do so (In a court trial
> you speak when asked to) or it may have been because a man who has
> undergone torture does not allow himself to forget that there is more
> where that came from.

Then step away from Nuremberg for a moment and ask yourself why even
those defendants who did not receive the death sentence and went on to
live long and fruitful lives never once accused their captors of forcing
confessions out of them and never once recanted what they had said.

As I asked before, were Speer's balls in a vice the whole time he was
writing those two books that he wrote after the war?

> > > I had to confess that I have not saved newspaper clippings going as far
> > > back as 1946.  But suppposed I HAD saved them; what then. First you
> > > would claim that the newspaper itself was a fake, something I had
> > > printed specially for the purpose. Then you would claim that the
> > > reporter was "anti-Semitic." Next you would insist on having him brought
> > > before you for cross-examination.
> >
> > How do you know how I would react?  Have I ever used such evasive tactics
> > before?  I don't make such accusations without evidence or an argument to
> > back them up.
> >
> > Here's what I would do - I would take a walk to my local library to
> > confirm that you have represented the source properly.  Since you won't
> > give me the source in question, I can't do that.  How convenient for you.
> >
> > > > > (4) The keystone upon which the entire Holocaust edifice rests is the
> > > > > "confession" of Auschwitz commandant Rudolph Hoess.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, that's not at all true, and nowhere will you find any
> > > > historian making such an assertion.
> > > ==================================================
> > > Phillips
> > > I have seen at least one make it. Sorry I canot tell you more.
> > > ========================================
> >
> > Then don't make such sweeping generalizations unless you can back them
> > up. The Holocaust in no way rests on Hoess' statement.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> "In no way." Horseshit, it very much rests on the Hoess confession.

Says you and no one else.  Why don't you ask someone who actually studies
the Holocaust without a vested interest in proving it a hoax what
Holocaust historiography rests on.  Straw-man time again, Mr. Phillips? 
Or do you really think you can make such an absurd statement without
being required to back it up?

> > It is merely one
> > piece of the puzzle.  Holocaust deniers like to characterize the study of
> > history as requiring one piece of evidence that, in and of itself,
> > irrefutibly proves the entirely of the event in question.  In reality,
> > history requires a convergence of many forms of evidence, which,
> > together, form an overall picture.
> >
> > >  But Mr. Phillips needs a straw-man,
> > > > and I guess this will do.
> > > >
> > > > > That "confession"
> > > > > was obtained as the result of a little "session" he had with a unit of
> > > > > the British Military Field Police which lasted three days and nearly
> > > > > cost Hoess his life. The events are detailed in the book "Legion of
the
> > > > > Damned."  The man responsible is a Bernard Clarke. Today he is a
> > > > > successful British businessman. If you like go over there and look him
> > > > > up.  He will talk quite freely because, to this day, he feels no
remorse
> > > > > whatever about what he did.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to verify this information.  Please give me a specific
> > > > reference to where I can find it.
> > >
> > > =============================================
> > > Phillips
>
> It is spelled out in the book "Legion of the Damned."

I would recommend, in the future, Mr. Phillips, that you cite works from
more credible sources.	Citing a book distributed by a neo-Nazi outfit
without a qualified historian in its ranks, which is explicitly dedicated
to very little other than Holocaust denial does not do wonders for your
credibility.  Have you ever read a book about the Holocaust by a real
historian, Mr. Phillips?  Tell the truth.

More information on Mr. Phillips' most valued source for historical
information can be found at http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/ihr/

> > > You should be able to obtain the book from the
> > > Institute for Historical Review
> > > ================================
> >
> > Predictable.
> >
> > > > > NO, the mere existence of survivors does not disprove the holocaust.
> > > > > However, the fact of there being SO MANY of them certainly casts doubt
> > > > > on it.
> > > >
> > > > Of course.  The more corroborating witnesses, the bigger and more
> > > > elaborate the conspiracy that fed them their lines.  This is what you're
> > > > arguing, isn't it?
> > >
> > > Stick to the point. I said that the fact of there being SO MANY
> > > survivors casts doubt on there having been a policy of planned and
> > > deliberate extermination.
> > > Either discuss tht point or proceed to the next one.
> >
> > Have you been reading the newspapers?  Hitler lost the war.  He didn't
> > exactly have time to cross all the t's and dot all the i's.  Had he won,
> > I'm sure the number of survivors would have been fewer.
>
> IF (and I say IF) exterminations were taking place, the fact that the
> Krauts were facing defeat would hardly have caused them to ease off on
> the exterminations. If anything it would have caused them to speed up
> the process. Dead men tell no tales.

The extermination process was not slowed down, though some of its
fuctionaries were receiving conflicting orders toward the end.	The death
marches were designed to keep Jews within the Nazi sphere of influence
for as long as possible.  The fact is, the Nazis lost the war, and missed
out on killing all of the witnesses as efficiently as they would have
liked.	How hard is that to understand?

> And that is wny I say and say again that the huge number of survivors
> casts doubt on the whole thing.

And you still haven't answered by question: how does an abundance of
corroborating witnesses disprove the event that they witnessed?

> > Now please explain how the abundance of corroborating witnesses disproves
> > the event.
> >
> > > > > ======================================================
> > > > > Phillips
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you deny that Jews have derived enormous mileage --both political
> > > > > and financial-- from the Holocaust?
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, yes, I can deny it.  Please explain your reasoning further.
> > >
> > > YOu deny it.  Mister, where do you keep your eyes. Are you denying the
> > > enormous postwar reparations from Germany, reparations both to
> > > individuals and in the form of aid to the State of israel.
> >
> > Are you denying the Israel never asked for this aid?...  and, in fact,
> > that a controversy raged in Israel over the question of whether they
> > should even accept it?  Menachem Begin led what, at the time, had been
> > the largest mass demonstration in the history of the state, with the goal
> > of pressuring the government to reject Germany's offer.
>
> True, they took it reluctantly, but they took it and they took it and
> they continue to take it to this way.

>From  Germany?  Do your homework, sir. Your theory, already farfetched,
that the Jews invented the Holocaust because they predicted that someday
there would be a state of Israel that would be in need of aid and able to
milk reparations from Germany is damaged by the fact that Israel never
asked for these reparations once the opportunity arose, and was even
reluctant to take them when offered.

> > > And can you
> > > deny that this was based on a carefully inculcated feeling of collective
> > > guilt.
> >
> > No.  It was based on the amount of confiscated property that had gone
> > into the German economy as a result of Nazi policy (reparations from
> > German companies was based on their use of slave labor), as well as the
> > cost to Israel of absorbing thousands of European refugees.
>
> (1) Make the most meticulous calculations you like to determine the
> AMOUNT of reparation.  Still there isn't going to BE any reparation
> without either force or a feeling of guilt induced in the collective
> consciousness of the nation from whom the reparations are sought.

And does that automatically mean that the guilt is not genuine?  On the
contrary, why would a government - not even to mention private
corporations - pay such large quantities of money to a foreign country
with nary so much as a whimper if the event from which their guilt
derived was so easy to disprove?

> (2) Are you SERIOUSLY asking me to believe that the aggregate of German
> reparations --both to the State of israel and to individuals-- since
> 1945 is commensurate with the value of confiscated Jewish property and
> nor one pfennig above. The Jews just were not THAT rich.

Millions of people can have billions of dollars, Mr. Phillips...
businesses, properties, labor, never mind putting a dollar value on
lives.	But I never said that it was calculated down to the pfenning. 
That can never be done.  All I'm saying is that Germany owed for the
large quantity of property in their economy that had been illegally
obtained.  A country that wants to enter the democratic family of nations
does not want to be saddled with an economic history like that.  Wouldn't
you agree that it is better for German honor to know that they became an
economic giant in Europe through their own free enterprise, rather than
as a result of the legalized theft and slavery of the Nazi regime.

> > > And can you deny that the Jews have used their enormous media power to
> > > undermine our very sense of race and nation. How they have
> > > systematically inculcated the notion that such a sense is an evil thing
> > > because it might lead to the extermination of those who do not belong.
> >
> > Of course.  Back to the Nazi stereotype of the powerful media Jew.
>
> =========================================================
> Phillips
>
> Stereotype perhaps.  Fact it most certainly is.

Good.  Then you'll be willing to back up this vicious accusation with
some evidence.	You will have to explain to me exactly why you believe
that Jews have the power and the desire to "undermine our very sense of
race and nation". Otherwise I shall have to conclude that you are merely
spewing the same anti-Semitic mythology that caused otherwise sane people
to herd otherwise innocent people into gas chambers simply for the crime
of having been born to a certain religious minority.  Go for it, Mr.
Phillips - if this is the basis of your entire theory regarding the
Holocaust, let's see from whence this theory really derives.

You're the prosecutor now, Mr. Phillips.  Calling something fact does not
make it so.

>   This
> > is, as always, where Holocaust denial must rest its case.  As I said, his
> > true misconceptions come blindingly to light.  Some advice, Mr, Phillips
> > - put down your copy of Sturmer and rejoin civilized society where we
> > don't blame everything we don't like about our country on vulnerable
> > religious minorities.
>
> ==========================================================
> Phillips
>
> If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel then might it be that
> patronizing is the last refuge of the dialectically beleagured

I would submit that the last refuge of the "dialectically beleagured" is
to attack style rather than addressing content.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 20 14:36:47 EDT 1997
Article: 137711 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:51:24 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: A Public Challenge to Steve Mock
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874644363.17497@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <874545372.22892@dejanews.com> <5vrpbs$372$1@juliana.sprynet.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 19 04:46:03 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.69 (nw69.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 97
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:137711

In article <5vrpbs$372$1@juliana.sprynet.com>,
  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:

> >   smock@netwave.ca writes:
> >  Poor Joe.  How he must wish that he was capable of an original thought.
>
> REPLY:  Poor Steve.  How much he must wish that I would just
> disappear from the NG.

Then what would I do with my lunch breaks?

> >  In case you don't recall, I asked you to repost or refer to one post in
> >  your history with alt.revisionism in which you used cited evidence in
> >  support of one of your claims against witness testimony.
>
> REPLY:  Been there.  Done that.

No you didn't, Joe.  If you had, you'd accompany this claim with a
reference to the post in which you did.  I continue to submit that you
have never once posted cited evidence in support of one of your claims
against eyewitnesses.  If this is untrue, prove me wrong.  "Been there,
done that" doesn't cut it.

> >  I asked him to stand up for his integrity.  In response, he asks me to
> >  jump through hoops for his amusement.
> >
> >  But the truth is, I will make an effort to do his research for him.  Not
> >  because he wants me to, but because I have an honest desire to learn as
> >  much as I can about this period of history.  All that I ask is that he
> >  tell me what the hell he's talking about.  Recall that I had nothing to
> >  do with the thread in which the "Hirt-Struthof issue" was discussed.
> >  Therefore, if he wants me to follow up on something that someone else
> >  said, would it not be appropriate for him to refer to or re-post the
> >  message in which it was said, so that I will understand the context in
> >  which it was said and therefore know where to start my research?

So tell me, Joe: why are you afraid to tell me exactly where and when
this discussion took place?  Was this another case of your being made to
look like a complete fool?  Are you afraid that if I find the discussion
in question, I might repost it, and show that your characterization of it
below is utter bullshit?  Of course, this is all speculation on my part,
seeing as Bellinger won't provide the citing in question, but considering
his history of falling on his face time and time again, I consider it an
educated guess.

> And then
> the allies find tubs filled with headless corpses at the Institute of Anatomy.
> Photos were taken for the "edification" of the world and then the matter
> was raised and introduced during one of the famous "war crimes trials".
> Nizkooks refer to this case and alleged correspondence all the time, to
> continue with their brainwashing techniques.  However, that duck don't fly any
> more.  Even David Cole was seduced by this issue and had a fallout with
> Robert Faurisson over it.  But now, I am calling your bluff.

My bluff, Joe?

> Where are the autopsy
> reports to prove death by cyanide?  Why were these tests not conducted?

Joe, unless you're about to argue that typhus causes one's head to fall
off, it is pretty safe to assume that a headless corpse has met with some
manner of foul play.  Whether it was murdered by cyanide gassing or
phenol injection is little more than a detail.

> This is one issue I am going to keep HAMMERING this NG with until I
> obtain satisfaction.  I am also sending it on to other revisionist web-sites
> and ask that other revisionists do so as well.

Ah, look.  Bellinger thinks he's made a point.  How cute.

> REPLY:  I won't expect to be hearing anything soon.  Chalk one big one
> up for Revisionism.

Yes, Joe has beat another straw-man of his own making into the ground. 
That's what "revisionism" is all about.

> >  By the way, no Nazis were indicted or convicted at Stutthof or Dachau on
> >  the charge of murdering people by gas, as he claims ("Revisionists-take
> >  note of this point and file it for future reference" ).  They were
> >  charged and convicted for a number of other criminal acts, but that was
> >  not one of them.
>
> REPLY  The alleged correspondence between Hirt and Himmler was
> introduced at the trial along with the photos of corpses.

Evidence that would be admissable in any court of law towards proving
premeditated murder.  But the fact remains that at neither of those
trials was the charge of murdering people by gas specified.

Whether gas chambers were used in these cases or not, the victims are no
less dead, and were no less killed by the accused as a result of Nazi
policy.  Chalk that "big one" up for "revisionism".

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 20 14:36:48 EDT 1997
Article: 137735 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news3.buffnet.net!newscon01!Supernews60!supernews.com!News1.Toronto.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!ais.net!news.voicenet.com!news.good.net!news.good.net!news.cyberport.com!news.supernet.net!news.iosphere.net!news3.sprint-canada.net!news.onramp.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!news.shreve.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:35:28 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Do you agree with this?
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874193121.4378@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <19970911180900.OAA14964@ladder02.news.aol.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Sep 13 23:25:21 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.79 (nw79.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 78
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:137735

In article <19970911180900.OAA14964@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
  rwhita8200@aol.com (RWhita8200) wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Bellinger
> From: steve mock 
> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:33:39 +0000
> Message-id: <3416E802.4F847CC4@netwave.ca>
>
>      Everybody belongs to numerous groups, so if each person could take
> someone to court about things said about his group, the system couldn't
> handle it.

Precisely which, as I said, is why section 319 of the Canadian Criminal
Code is very clear on the point that it only applies to the "willful
promotion of hatred against an identifiable group", not all "things said
about his group".  That, very specifically, implies the despicable act of
targeting a vulnerable group with propaganda intentionally aimed at
creating a threatening a potentially violent atmosphere for them in our
otherwise democratic society.  Did you miss that part?

>      There is no problem for the system to handle it, because it only
> takes action in favor of fashionable groups.  As I said, you are the kind
> of person who would be defending Stalin against the obviously evil kilak
> threat or Hitler against the obviously evil Jews, if you had been raised
> under those systems.

I consider that a highly unfair characterization, considering how little
you know about me.  I happen to believe very strongly in the inherent
value of all human life, and I believe I would stand up for that
principle regardless of where it was being challanged.	Hitler and Stalin
rejected that principle, and I would like to think I would have stand
against them for that very reason.  At present, the government of the
free and democratic country in which I reside respects that principle. 
However, my humanity is offended by the existence of the Holocaust
deniers you associate with who would whitewash murder in the name of
promoting their obviously murderous ideology.  How hard is that for you
to understand?

>     We are all perfectly aware that these laws are never going to be used
> to protect Ukrainians against derogation of their holocaust.

We don't know that, do we Bob?	Seeing as no one has attempted propegate
their ideology by denying the massacre of Ukranians by Stalin, this
statement of yours has yet to be tested.

>     Your Canadian Thought Police wold be smarter if they did like the ACLU
> in the US.  The ACLU spends almost its entire time supporting the poltical
> left, but every now and then they represent the Nazis or the Klan to give
> themselves an impression of neutrality.

I happen to respect the position of the ACLU.  Ironically, I spoke to
their national president just last week, and she said something along the
lines of just what you're saying now - that true civil libertarians stand
up for freedom even for the speech that they hate, even speech that is
anti-civil liberties, even anti-Semitic and racist speech.  They're
certainly not hypocrites, unlike the neo-Nazis who seem to believe that
freedom of speech means everybody else shutting up and not calling them
what they are.

>      This won't happen with the Canadian Thought Police because there are
> too many Canadians like you who would never think of asking for any kind of
> balance.   Hence a Canadian Communist professor worshipping Stalin is OK.
> There is nothing fashionable about attacking Stalin.

Stalin was a murderer, pure and simple.  The only difference between him
and Hitler is that he killed innocent people who were politically
annoying to him, whereas Hitler killed innocent people simply for being
born.  There is a difference, but the innocent victims are no less dead
either way.  If someone was trying to deny that Stalin ever killed
anyone, I would no doubt be offended.  Fortunately, no one, to my
knowlegde, has sunk quite that low as of yet.

Am I still "PC" Bob?  Not that I care how you label me.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 20 14:36:49 EDT 1997
Article: 137783 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:22:47 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: A Public Challenge to Steve Mock
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874689339.18697@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <874545372.22892@dejanews.com> <5vrpbs$372$1@juliana.sprynet.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 19 17:15:41 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.92 (nw92.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 16
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:137783

In article <5vrpbs$372$1@juliana.sprynet.com>,
  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:

> REPLY:  Poor Steve.  How much he must wish that I would just
> disappear from the NG.

Bellinger, whatever you do, please don't ever, EVER stop posting to this
newsgroup.  You're posts serve as a better living demonstration of the
moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Holocaust denial than anything that
we could ever say or do.  We were just about ready to make you the
poster-boy for Holocaust education.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 20 14:36:50 EDT 1997
Article: 137787 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.visi.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Bellinger - Once Again, Now
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:36:57 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 330
Message-ID: <342271E8.AE917D0E@netwave.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw92.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:137787

It is now week five (5) of Bellinger's categorical refusal to refer to
even one post in his sorry history with alt.revisionism in which he has
provided cited evidence to back up one of his claims.  For someone who
makes as many controversial assertions as he does per day, one would
expect that it would be a very easy challenge to meet.  But Bellinger
does not need proof!  He has the TRUTH.  Everybody who disagrees with
him only has LIES.

It has been an interesting week five.  In:

Subject: A Public Challenge to Steve Mock
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:21:39
<19970917095201.FAA18727@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13)

... Bellinger tried to turn my tactics around on me by posing a
challenge of his own.  He challenged me to find evidence I've never
heard of, that had nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, that
he had apparently discussed with someone else on another thread that he
would not reference and that had nothing to do with me.  From what I
could gather, he placed ultimate importance on the question of whether
dismembered corpses - found at the Stutthof concentration camp along
with documentary evidence that they had been ordered dismembered by the
SS doctor on site with the approval of Himmler - had died from gassing
or lethal injection.  While his point continues to escape me, I told him
I'd look into it.



In article <19970818081300.EAA14318@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
  fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:

> I don't have time to waste on frivolous questions.

It is noted that you consider your credibility to be a frivolous
question, but if I were you I would make time. Because I have decided
that I am going to post this message every week until you answer what
should be a very easy challenge for an honest debater to answer:

"For as long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided one

citation or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong,
please refer me specifically to a post that contradicts this assertion,
so that I might apologize."

It has been just over five (5) weeks since this challenge was first
posted.
Bellinger refuses to respond.  This message will be resposted every
Friday until such time as Bellinger: 1) Re-posts or refers to a message
in which he has provided cited evidence and an explanation for one of
his claims; or, 2) admits that he never does.

Until Bellinger answers this question, his failure to do so will be
noted
as meaning that he cannot.  Any attempts by Bellinger to evade this
challenge will be appended to future postings.

The challenge in its entirety:

>In article <5sqk9t$44d$2@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>  jbelling@sprynet.com wrote:
>>
>> >   smock@veritas.nizkor.org writes:
>> >
>> >  You really believe that saying so makes it so, don't you Joe?  For
as
>> >  long as I have been on this NG, you have never once provided one
citation
>> >  or explanation for any one of your claims.  If I am wrong, please
refer
>> >  me specifically to a post that contradicts this assertion, so that
I
>> >  might apologize.
>> >
>> >  Steve Mock
>>
>> REPLY:  of course you are not only wrong, but a liar to boot.
>
>I repeat: If I am wrong, please refer me specifically to a post that
>contradicts my assertion, so that I might apologize.
>
>Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.
>
>In addition, please refer specifically to any statement or claim that I

>have made that has been or can be proven false.
>
>Calling me a liar doesn't make me one.
>
>Especially when such an accusation comes from someone who is a proven
>liar himself.  For one example of statements made by Bellinger that can

>easily be verified as false and irresponsible, please refer to a reply
>posted by myself (Steve Mock) entitled "Re: Mangling Mengele, Part
One",
>dated Monday, 30 June 1997, and freely available on Deja News.
>
>The above paragraph is what's known as providing evidence to support
your
>claims.  See how its done, Bellinger?
>
>Steve Mock



WEEK 4:



Well, ladies and gentlemen, it has been an exciting week 4.  This was
the week in which Bellinger decided that he was disappointing his
imaginary legion of lurker-fans with his failure to refer to even one
post in which he has cited documented evidence is support of his
claims.  He answered last weeks challange in the following post:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         jbelling@sprynet.com
Date:         1997/09/05
Message-Id:   <5upt3k$4h0$1@juliana.sprynet.com>

Beginning with his usual show of righteous indignation:

"Your post is sio ludicrous that I am almost baffled for a reply."

Then instead of answering the question and referring to a post in which
he has cited evidence in support of one of his claims, he provided for
us a bibliography, without any explanation as to how these works, which
make use of the eyewitness testimony he so causally rejects, have been
used by him in the past to support his accusations that these
eyewitnesses are liars.

He listed five perfectly respectible sources, and added "Etc, etc., etc,

ad infinitum."

Apparently, "ad infinitum" meant one more source, specified in:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         jbelling@sprynet.com
Date:         1997/09/05
Message-Id:   <5upt63$4h0$2@juliana.sprynet.com>

"PS:  Almost forgot to include this one:

"The Good Old Days, by Klee.  You know it.  If you don't, go
ask Prima Donna Keren, as he distorts from it regularly."

Aside from the fact that he doesn't feel he has to justify this smear
against Mr. Keren, he also doesn't explain how he managed to use a book
that provides first-hand documentation detailing the Nazi genocide
against the Jews to prove that witnesses to said genocide are all liars.

The following day, after he had posted this claim that he cited evidence

so regularly he was "almost baffled for a reply", Bellinger proceded to
explain that he is under no obligation to provide evidence for his
claims:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13)
Date:         1997/09/06
Message-Id:   <19970906173101.NAA12386@ladder01.news.aol.com>

"It is YOU who must provide EVIDENCE as you have assumed the role of
prosecutor."

"I need only shed doubt on your accusations,"

"I do not need PROOF"

He followed with his usual unsupported accusations:

"the accusation of Mengele having eye-balls tacked to his walls was
fabricated, maliciously contrived DRIVEL"

And cliches:

"Physician, heal thyself."

And his typical "argument" as to why all eye-witness evidence must be
rejected as a source for historical research:

"Prove to me that Jews really did NOT poison the wells of Europe.
Provide
the evidence, please.  Start with Genoa."

He also turned the challange around on me:

"When have YOU ever provided evidence, save of your own bias?"

I answered immediately in:

Subject:  Re: Bellinger
Date:  Sun, 07 Sep 1997 01:42:26 +0000
From:  steve mock 

With the following four citings:

Date:          Fri, 20 Jun 1997
From:          Steve Mock 
Subject:       Re: Josef Mengele-Fact and Fiction

Date:          Mon, 30 Jun 1997
From:          Steve Mock 
Subject:       Re: Mangling Mengele, Part One

Date:          Fri, 04 Jul 1997
From:          Steve Mock 
Subject:       Re: Hitler's Religion

Date:          Thu, 31 Jul 1997
From:          smock@veritas.nizkor.org
Subject:       Re: Gisela Perl vs. Irma Grese

... Including a reposting of the evidence cited on one of them, and
detailed description of the contents of a second.

Bellinger had the following to say about the fact that I responded in
such detail, so quickly:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         jbelling@sprynet.com
Date:         1997/09/07
Message-Id:   <5uv3lp$m24$1@juliana.sprynet.com>

"REPLY:  It took you five minutes to come up with irrelevant
and easily refuted nonsense.  It took me less than a minute to
refute it."

No explanation as to how the posts specified did not include cited
evidence in support of my claims was provided.

Bellinger repeated his excuse as to why he was under no obligation to
back up his accusations with evidence in another thread, entitled:

Subject:      Re: Grese on Trial
From:         steve mock 
Date:         1997/09/07
Message-Id:   <34120688.4B012967@netwave.ca>

> I do not need to prove palpably ludicrous statements to be unworthy
> of belief.  This is so preposterous, you might as well ask me to now
prove
> that little blue fairies exists, or ask me to catch a fart in a bottle
and
> color it yellow.

Meanwhile, in:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13)
Date:         1997/09/06
Message-Id:   <19970906170501.NAA09998@ladder01.news.aol.com>

He made another attempt at pretending to answer my challange, referring
to a post in which he had cited evidence in such vague terms as to make
it virtually impossible to find:

"I referred to "The Good Old Days" in reply to Keren's post:

"An SS Court says the Jews have to be exterminated, or some drivel to
that effect.

"I don't remember the complete title.  Ask Keren or check in Deja News.
It is only a couple of weeks old.  Then get back to me."

I was not familiar with that particular thread.  Fortunately, Gord McFee

was:

Subject:      Re: Bellinger
From:         Gord McFee 
Date:         1997/09/06
Message-Id:   <3411c41d$6$tzpsrr$mr2ice@news2.ibm.net>

"I seem to remember Joe's intervention on _The Good Old Days_ being a
claim that a quote given by Danny Keren had no reference given, until I
pointed out that the reference was on page 286.  };->"


In another thread, under:

Subject:      Re: Common "Revisionist" Lies Regarding Starvation
From:         jbelling@sprynet.com
Date:         1997/09/05
Message-Id:   <5uptq5$4h0$5@juliana.sprynet.com>

Bellinger made another vague reference to having posted cited evidence
before.

"I posted a whole article on Ehlert's testimony direct from
the pages of the Belsen Trial transcripts.  Now go look it up."

Sacrificing my self-respect, I've decided to actually waste the time to
do so.  I presume that the post to whch he was referring was:

Subject:      The Real Herta Ehlert
From:         rblackmore@juno.com
Date:         1996/12/21
Message-Id:   <59hlkd$9h0@juliana.sprynet.com>

While this post does indeed contain cited evidence, the precise point he

was attempting to prove with it escapes me.  All I saw was testimony
that conditions at Belsen were horrific towards the end of the war.  I
did not see any proof, outside of Bellinger's own unsupported fantasies
involving threats and torture, as to why the testimony of Ehlert is not
to be trusted, or a reason why any referece to it deserves the knee-jerk

response:

>  > REPLY:  Ehlert was a liar and I have already addressed this issue.


In summary, over the past week, Bellinger has dodged the challange with
smoke screens, turned the challange back on me, and provided excuses as
to why he was under no obligation to answer it.  What he has not done is

referred to even one post in his history with alt.revisionism in which
he has cited evidence in support of one of his accusations.  We shall,
as always, be waiting.



Steve Mock







From smock@netwave.ca Sat Sep 20 14:36:52 EDT 1997
Article: 137849 of alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:38:11 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Bellinger
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874463197.8149@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <874126942.25136@dejanews.com> <19970913193900.PAA01336@ladder02.news.aol.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Sep 17 02:26:42 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.88 (nw88.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 53
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.cs.ucla.edu!news.greennet.net!mozart.jlc.net!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:137849

In article <19970913193900.PAA01336@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
  fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Bellinger
> >From: smock@netwave.ca
> >Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:11:19 -0600
> >Message-id: <874126942.25136@dejanews.com>
>
> >Mike, you're giving him too much credit.  I don't think he read past the
> >second page of the Mengele chapter.  He kept reading only until he found
> >a passage he could distort.  Then, why bother reading on?
>
> REPLY:  Steve, you really should refrain from too much thinking.  It has a
> deleterious effect on your credibility.

Bellinger, your so called "demolition" of Dr. Lifton, in:

Subject:      Lifton's Soup, Part One
From:         fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13)
Date:         1997/06/29
Message-Id:   <19970629082801.EAA00226@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups:   alt.revisionism

 ... consisted of five cropped and out-of-context quotes all of which can
be found on pages 337 and 338, which, lo and behold, are the first two
pages of the chapter on Mengele. (The Nazi Doctors; Robert Jay Lifton;
Basic Books Inc. Publishers, 1986; ISBN 0-465-04904-4)

Your argument, I recall, correct me if I'm wrong, was that Lifton, after
speaking in his introduction to the chapter about how a great deal of
sensationalism has surrounded the figure of Mengele since the 1960's, was
dishonest not to have summarily discarded all eyewitness evidence that
had been documented on Mengele both before and after this time.

This is, of course, the dumbest argument ever to be suggested by a
revisionist on this newsgroup (and as you can imagine, that puts it up
against some pretty stiff competition).  It certainly does not give you
the right to say that you "demolished" Dr. Lifton every time someone
references his work.  Particularly after Mr. Curtis exposed the dishonest
and misleading way that you presented your quotes in:

Subject:      Re: Lifton's Soup, Part One
From:         mcurtis@inetport.com (Mike Curtis)
Date:         1997/06/29
Message-Id:   <33c1685e.5067435@news.inetport.com>
Newsgroups:   alt.revisionism

You never responded to the content of that post.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Mon Sep 22 20:58:14 EDT 1997
Article: 138245 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.ssi1.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!192.174.65.44!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.ecrc.net!4.1.16.34.NOMATCH!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:51:06 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Bellinger - Once Again, Now
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <874899623.30053@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <342271E8.AE917D0E@netwave.ca> <19970919222100.SAA05270@ladder02.news.aol.com> <34271bda.201306913@news.hollinet.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Sep 22 03:40:23 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.57 (nw57.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 27
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:138245

In article <34271bda.201306913@news.hollinet.com>,
  nationalist@juno.com (Michael) wrote:

> On 19 Sep 1997 22:21:39 GMT, fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Bellinger - Once Again, Now
> >>From: steve mock 
> >>Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:36:57 +0000
> >>Message-id: <342271E8.AE917D0E@netwave.ca>
>
> >Steve Mock-Up against the ropes and taking a hard pummeling.
> >Soon he will be down for the count unless he throws in the towel first.  I
> >better cover my ears......
>
> How unsurprising, Mr. Bellinger. Mr. smock likes to rant, be refuted, then
hide,
> reappear and claim that you never answered. And Everybody Knows It!!!!

So like Nazis to consider the above an answer. And so like Nazis to
consider themselves "everybody". And so like Michael the Nazi, in
particular, to avoid dealing with any of the substantive posts and save
his vast rhetorical talents for smears and innuendos.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Wed Sep 24 11:55:14 EDT 1997
Article: 138504 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.IAEhv.nl!news1.netusa.net!feed1.news.erols.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:51:18 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Hitler and "ausrotten" - why won't the Revisionazis answer?
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <875076305.21914@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <874898870.29548@dejanews.com> <19970922195201.PAA21750@ladder02.news.aol.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Sep 24 04:45:05 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.61 (nw61.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 97
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:138504

Once Bellinger has resorted to clipping my arguments down to the bald
assertions so that he can mischaracterize them and dismiss them with
vague one-liners, it seems pretty clear that he's given up.  Still, I'd
like to point out some of the more obvious "Bellingerisms" in his recent
post, if only for old-times sake.

In article <19970922195201.PAA21750@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
  fafner13@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:

> REPLY:  This is not an answer to my criticism of Hilberg.

All you said was that he was "anti-German" without explaining or proving
how. You could (and do) dismiss anyone who disagrees with your
preconceived notions with that label.  It still doesn't explain the fact
that nobody qualified to study the subject takes your conspiracy theories
seriously.

> And I AM an expert on the subject of the Third Reich.

Well I'll have you know I AM a heart surgeon.  Can I perform a bypass on
you now?

> >Does the fact
> >that the allies wanted to show the world how evil Nazism was
> >automatically mean that Nazism wasn't evil?
>
> REPLY:  It does not mean that all Nazis were evil.

I never said that, Bellinger.  There were, in fact, acts of genuine
humanity even among the SS.  If you had really read Lifton, like you
claim to have, you would know that at least one SS doctor was aquitted of
war crimes on the basis of survivor testimony that he had acted as
humanely as possible under the circumstances.  Kind of knocks a hole or
two in your theory of an nefarious conspiracy of survivors concocting
lies to smear otherwise innocent men. Explain why Mengele was targeted in
this way whereas this other doctor wasn't.

Now answer my question without twisting my words:  Does the fact that the
allies wanted to show the world how evil Nazism was automatically mean
that Nazism wasn't evil?

> >Every person accused and tried of crimes relating to
> >the Holocaust was given the opportunity to have witnesses against them
> >cross-examined by the lawyers of their choice."  Are you now admitting
> >that this is true, that Eichmann and the defendants at Nuremberg DID in
> >fact hire their own lawyers, as I stated, and that therefore you were out
> >of line in labelling me a liar when I made this obvious insinuation?
> >Apology accepted.
>
> REPLY:  Ther eis no apology given.  Eichmann's capture, kidnaping and
> trial were illegal and his sentence had been predetermined.  It would not
> matter WHO defended him, even if it were God himself.

Unsupported, untrue, and, anyway, beside the point.  We were discussing
whether the witnesses had ever been subjected to legitimate
cross-examination.  You called me a liar when I said that Eichmann had
appointed his own lawyer.  Now you are admitting that this is in fact
true, and therefore, I can assume you understand that you were out of
line in calling me a liar for saying so. Apology accepted.

> >he Wansee conference, in wh
>
> REPLY:  The Wahnsinn Conference.  You are missing the deeper point here I
> think.

We might not be missing it if you hadn't clipped it.  You asked me when
Heydrich was assasinated, and I told you.  You then said that if he was
dead by May, 1942, we could not blame him for planning the Final
Solution.  I said that the conference at which the plans for the Final
Solution were settled was completed four months previous.  Are you
admitting now that I was right again?  Apology accepted (unless of
course, you care to enlighten us regarding this "deeper point" you seem
to have in mind).

> >But the bottom line is that Bellinger
> >asked for an account that agrees with the physical evidence and I gave
> >him one.
>
> REPLY:  And I am telling you that this man's testimony is unacceptable.

Because it meets the criterea you requested, and since you can't come up
with a GOOD reason to cast it aside, this one liner will have to do.

> REPLY:  Irrelevant.  Many of the lies are so constructed that it would be
> impossible to disprove them.

I love that line.  I'm going to print it out in big letters and post it
on my wall.

Anyone who had any doubts about Bellinger's methodology can see the proof
right there: the more conclusive the evidence against my theory, the more
shrewd the conspiracy was that fabricated this evidence.

Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


From smock@netwave.ca Tue Oct  7 16:44:25 EDT 1997
Article: 140310 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news3.buffnet.net!buffnet2.buffnet.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!news.netwave.ca!newsmaster@netwave.ca
From: steve mock 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: BBBTF Admits the Holocaust! (was Re: A Call to all Revisionists)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 00:20:29 +0000
Organization: Another Netscape News Server User
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <3432E8CC.77D4E240@netwave.ca>
References: <60q1q8$f50$2@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <19970930083900.EAA08641@ladder02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw94.netwave.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:140310

Fafner13 wrote:

> >Subject: Re: BBBTF Admits the Holocaust! (was Re: A Call to all Revisionists)
> >From: schultr@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
> >Date: 30 Sep 1997 05:13:44 GMT
> >Message-id: <60q1q8$f50$2@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>
>
> >you would find that most of the Jews who fled east were caught during
> >the German invasion of the USSR and killed by the Einsatzgruppen.
> >
> >-----
> >Richard Schultz
>
> Proof?

"OPERATIONAL SITUATION REPORT USSR NO. 101

"Einsatzgruppe C
"Location: Kiev

"Sonderkommando 4a in collaboration with Einsatzgruppe HQ and two
Kommandos of police regiment South, executed 33,771 Jews in Kiev on
September 29 and 30, 1941"

(The Einsatzgruppen Reports; Arad, Spector, Krakowski; pg. 160)



Just one example, Joe.  The 195 reports published in the book cited above
(available in the original German as well as English translation) account for
about 1.5 million Jews, in clear and unequivocal language.  Any questions?

Steve Mock



From smock@netwave.ca Tue Oct  7 16:44:30 EDT 1997
Article: 140405 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.sprintisp.com!sprintisp!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 20:41:58 -0600
From: smock@netwave.ca
Subject: Re: Phillips vs. Mock
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <876187729.28473@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: smock@netwave.ca
References: <3435CC54.D7C@earthlink.net>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Oct 07 01:28:53 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 204.101.215.93 (nw93.netwave.ca)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Authenticated-Sender: smock@netwave.ca
Lines: 316
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:140405

In article <3435CC54.D7C@earthlink.net>,
  rgphill@earthlink.net wrote:

> > smock@netwave.ca wrote:
> >
> > > In article <34319DEC.6985@earthlink.net>,
> > >   rgphill@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > I'll say it, I think, for the third time.  I WANT TO SEE THE COMPLETE
> > > > CONSTRUCTIONS PLANS FOR AN EXECUTION GAS CHAMBER AND THE MANUALS
> > > > DESCRIBING THEIR PREPARATION FOR SHIPMENT, ON-SITE ERECTION AND
> > > > COMMISSIONING, USE, AND MAINTENANCE.
> > >
> > > And I'll say it in as clear language as I can: I'd like to have million
> > > dollars and a private jet, but we can't have everything and sometimes we
> > > have to play the cards we've been dealt.
>
> ==============================================================
> Phillips
>
> You're a pretty slippery character but it won't do you the slightest
> good with me. You tell us you would be glad to get the evidence I ask
> for if ONLY you had a private jet and unlimited wealth to go searching
> all over the face of the earth.  Well, Mr. MOck, getting this evidence
> does NOT require a million bucks, it does NOT require a private jet,it
> does not require so much as the price of a single airline ticket,
> indeed, it would not even require a bus ticket. I'll tell you why.
> Because, if you people are to be believed, the evidence already HAS been
> collected.  For the past fifty years you have insisted that you HAVE all
> the evidence - leastways you had enough to hang several men.

It has indeed been collected.  Whether it is in a format that is easily
accessible 50 years later, and can be easily posted on the Internet is
another matter.  But, of course, you must realize this.  Why else would
you refuse to acknowledge all evidence until 20-30 drawings of 17"x22"
each and a 200-300 page booklet were presented to you?

> So all I'm asking you is this: from the evidence WHICH YOU PEOPLE INSIST
> YOU ALREADY HAVE get me the plans for an execution gas chamber and  the
> accompanying manuals.  You don't have to fly to anywhere.  All you have
> to do is send a letter to
>
> Simon Wiesenthal Documentation Center
> 9760 West Pico Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90035

Do you really think that this is the only archive of Holocaust documents
in the world?  Do you really believe that if its not here, it's not
anywhere?

I tell ya what - it so happens I'll be in L.A. this December.  I'll see
what they've got.

>   A great deal of evidence has
> > > already been presented on this NG, and in books that are repeatedly
> > > referenced on this NG, and much of this evidence relates to the
> > > construction and maintenance of the gas chambers. No, we don't have every
> > > piece of paper that was ever produced in that regard - some are lost,
> > > some are destroyed, some take more effort to find than those of us who
> > > post to this newgroup have time for.
>
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> I am not asking for EVERY piece of paper.

No, only 30 pieces of paper of no less than 17"x22" and a book containing
no less than 200 pieces of paper.  Any other evidence, no matter how
conclusive, may be dismissed by you with a casual "Conclusive, my ass".

>   Historians have to draw conclusions
> > > from the evidence that is available
>
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> No historian HAS to draw his conclusions on such a basis, though
> half-assed ones generally do so. A serious historian does not draw
> conclusions until he is certain he has all the facts that matter.

A serious historian takes every piece of evidence available and carefully
analyzes what he can and can't learn from it.  Have you done that with the
evidence I've already posted?

> > > Therefore, if you don't have anything to say about the evidence we DO
> > > have and DO post, then you have nothing to say.
>
> ============================================================
> Phillips
>
> Wrong, I have lots to say; mainly that it is worthless because it is all
> second or third hand.

Really.  Just what evidence did I post that was second or third hand? 
The original train records?  The transcripts of memos?	The eyewitness
testimony?

> > > > My experience in engineering design and engineering documentation
> > > > extends over close to 50 years and, on the strength of that experience,
> > > > I am saying that such plans could not possibly occupy less than 30 to 50
> > > > large-size drawings and God-knows how many smaller-size detail drawings.
> > > > Do you tell me that all these drawings are in Pressac's book. If you are
> > > > telling me that, then I am telling you that you are a fool.
> > >
> > > Well, you haven't even read Pressac's book, so how would you know?
>
> =======================================================
> Phillips
>
> By a rare human faculty known as plain horse sense. I didn't HAVE to
> read Pressac's book to know that it does not contain those 30 to 50
> large fold out drawings.

And thank you for admitting that it is highly implausible that any
researcher would have made such documents readily available, even if they
do exist.  The next step in the intellectually honesty game is admitting
that this is the only reason you're demanding this specific piece of
evidence to begin with.

> But I don't ask you to take my word.  I have
> given you an opoortunity to prove me wrong.  Mail the book to me (which
> I will pay for) then we will see.  That is the offer I made to you.  You
> declined it. Do you expect me to do your homework for you?

No, I expect you to do your own homework.  You made the claim.	I
referred you to a book that proves you wrong.  I suggest you look up that
book before making a fool of yourself again.

> > > You
> > > see, the great thing about researchers like Pressac is that they sift
> > > through the piles and piles of documents and present to us only the
> > > relevent ones that sigificantly add to our knowledge of what actually
> > > happened.
>
> ====================================================
> Phillips
>
> Mock, try to keep in the back of your head that you're talking to one of
> the adults. Researchers like Pressac "sift through the piles and piles
> of documents" and present those that support their case; period.

Have you decided to actually read the book yet?

> > > No, he doesn't reproduce every single document.  He reproduces
> > > some of them, references others, and describes in detail, as any good
> > > researcher should, the SOURCES of his information.
>
> Phillips
> The first thing I would point out is that your logic is flawed. IF those
> gas chambers were execution chambers, then they most certainly would
> have been top secret. UP to that point you are on safe ground. But if
> they were top secret (not to be exhibited to the vulgar public) then
> what possibly NEED would there have been to avoid markings that would
> reveal their purpose. Tell me; what need?

There are levels of secrecy, Mr. Phillips.  Plus the fact that the Nazis
weren't stupid.  Unlike most Holocaust deniers, they were aware that its
functionally impossible to keep a secret between more than about four
people.  These documents had to be circulated to a number of different
departments, despite their secretive nature (which is why we have copies
of so many of them).  One who has actually studied the documents will
note that the language used in them varies depending on the departments
that had access to them (eg. the vagueness of the language in the minutes
of the Wansee conference which were circulated to 30 different
departments, vs. the very clear language in the Einsatzgruppen reports
which went directly from the field commanders to SS headquarters).

> > Strange, is it not.  The Holocaustniks are forever cackling about those
> > "tons of documentation" that support their case, BUT TRY TO NAIL THEM
> > DOWN FOR ONE -- JUST ONE-- that would really suppport their case and
> > then watch for the interminable litany of excuses, evasions,
> > obfuscations that will follow.  "The Nazis 'must' have destroyed them."
> > "I can't afford the plane fare."  "So much time has gone by." Too bad,
> > friend.  No tickee; no shirtee. NO original documentation; no case.
>
> But this isn't about the fact that I can't produce ANY original
> documentation. I have already posted two scans of the original train
> records, at Mr. Phillips' request,
>
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> Train schedules.  So what about it.  Of course their were train
> schedules for taking the Jews to Auschwitz and other such places.  No
> one is denying that Jews were deported there.  The question is: what was
> done to them when they GOT there.

Ask the eyewitnesses.

> YOu say they were exterminated.  I'm
> still waiting for the  evidence.

The documents I have already produced show that what the eyewitnesses
claim was entirely possible.  Care to refute them?

>  as well as three documents directly
> related to the construction, maintainence and use of gas chambers,
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> What I seem to recall is some record of memo from Obergruppehfuhrer This
> to Sturmbannfuhrer That. Mock, if I have to keep on saying it ad nauseam
> I will keep on saying it ad nauseam. I am not interested in memos or
> references to things.  I WANT TO SEE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

Memos are original documents, Mr. Phillips.  Many of them contain
precisely those detailed instructions that you require.  Please do your
research before you try to make authoritative statements.

>  as
> well as referring him to a book where many more such original documents
> are reproduced and referenced.
>
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> Ah, yes: that treasured tome by Mr. Pressac.  You have only to read it
> and all things will be revealed to you. Well, I invited  you to mail it
> to me and you declined.  If it is a matter of trust, I will be glad to
> send you the money in advance. HOw's that?

Mr. Phillips, rather than jump to the conclusion that I'm avoiding this
challenge in order to help cover up an elaborate hoax, you could jump to
the far more obvious conclusions that:

1) The book is out of print; and, 2) Even if it were still in print,
you're assuming that I could care less what you, personally, think about
the Holocaust.	My only purpose in responding to your original post was
to show that the logic and methodology you employ is flawed to the point
where it could be nothing but a deliberate attempt at obfuscation on your
part.

As I told you when first asked me to mail you the book: please invest in
a library card.  It would save us both a lot of trouble.  And, if you
would use it next time before announcing to the world that there are no
documents relating to the constuction, use and maintenance of the gas
chambers, it would save you quite a bit of embarrassment.

> His problem is that we don't post the exact piece of evidence that he
> claims, against all logic, to require.
>
> ====================================================================
> Phillips
>
> HOrseshit. It is not a question of what I require.  I am asking for no
> more than an Anglo-Saxon court of law would require to convict a man of
> murder - a crime which you are laying on an entire nation.

"Your honor, the prosecution has presented documents proving that my
client had the murder weapon in his possession, transportation records
proving that he was at the scene of the crime, numerous witnesses
claiming that they saw the murder committed by my client, and recordings
made by my client prior to the murder announcing his intention to committ
it.  But they have not produced the 200 page instruction manual for the
murder weapon, without which this crime would have been impossible, and
therefore he must not be guilty."

> 	He doesn't deal with the evidence
> that we do post - he can't.  Therefore he keeps asking for more,
>
> ===========================================================
> Phillips
>
> Wrong. I do not keep asking for more.  I keep asking for the same thing
> and I will go on asking for it until you either produce it or confess
> that you cannot.

Fine.  I, Steve Mock, being of sound mind and body, do confess that at
this time I do not personally have access to 20-30 17"x22" blueprints of
gas chambers and a 200 page instruction manual called "Crematoria for
Dummies".  I further confess that I have no idea whatsoever where such
materials are to be found, or whether or not they are to be found at all.
 I further confess that I don't care, since we've already posted
documents relating to the construction, use and maintenance of gas
chambers, and referred to a source where more such documents can be found
and referrenced, and you haven't even bothered to acknowledge, let alone
refute this evidence that I, along with every historian who deals with
the subject professionally, find quite conclusive.

Happy now?

>  and
> waits to score a propaganda victory when he finally hits on something
> that we can't provide - either because its so irrelevant or redundant
> that no researcher has bothered to publish it, or because the nature of
> the evidence makes it functionally impossible to present by this medium.
>
> =====================================================
> Phillips
>
> Irrelevant? You insist that six million Jews were executed in gas
> chambers and then treat is "irrelevant" a demand for proof that they so
> much as existed.

You never asked for proof that they existed.  You asked for 20-30
drawings of 17"x22" each and a 200-300 page booklet.  Functionally
irrelevent when you consider the documentary evidence that has already
been posted, which you don't.

> If Mr. Phillips could deal with the evidence that we DO produce, he
> wouldn't have to resort to this tactic.  But because the evidence we
> produce is so conclusive,
>
> ===========================
> Phillips
>
> "Conclusive," my ass.

I suppose that's the best he can do.



Steve Mock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet



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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.