From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 15:36:45 -0400 Organization: Absence Software Lines: 697 Message-ID:
References: <199605039728.ABC87127@infinity.c2.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: vixa.voyager.net What we have here is a first. Ingrid Rimland has previously said that she doesn't understand all this complicated scientific stuff, and that she leaves it up to Ernst Zuendel to decide whether it's all true or not. Actually, Ernst Zuendel makes the same claim about not understanding scientific stuff, which leaves it open as to which of them is actually making up whose mind. In any case, Ms. Rimland has now distributed pseudoscientific balderdash, masquerading as real science, to 6,000 people by her count. I am deliberately writing this refutation of that balderdash for a lay audience, so that she need not tune it out. I am sending it to her in email. She owes it to herself to read it. And she owes it to her readers to make them aware of it. I fear that both debts will go uncollected, but she is welcome to prove me wrong by providing me with her comments, and posting the URL to this article in her next Zgram: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/r/rimland.ingrid/science.01 Ingrid Rimland (email@example.com) began by quoting one anonymous source: > Being an Engineering graduate, I believe that math never lies, but you > don't have to be to understand the following logic (if you consider) > that one, roughly needs the heat energy of 300 Kg of coal to combust > one person. Multiply this by 6 Million (the persons in question) and > you get 1.8 Million Tons of coal-which is way above the capacities of > Germany during the war. This is a false conclusion based on a false premise. It does not require the heat energy of 300 kg of coal to burn a corpse; once the temperature is high enough, a corpse self-combusts. This provides more heat, which can be used to raise the temperature of the next corpse to the self-combustion point. What is self-combustion? Well, it takes a certain amount of heat energy to start a log burning, after which it burns by itself and actually gives off heat energy. It works the same way with meat, including human corpses. Once the temperature is high enough, flesh burns and gives off enough heat energy to continue the combustion process without any additional heat energy from a fuel source -- coal or otherwise. Calculations by Rich Green, presented on this newsgroup, clearly demonstrate that at the temperatures used by the Nazi crematory ovens, the heat energy released by the burning tissue was more than sufficient to maintain the incineration and to evaporate the water in the body. (This article is emailed to Rich Green, who is invited to provide the calculations in a followup article. Since this article is for a lay audience, I won't get too technical.) In fact, this is how the Nazi ovens were designed to work, starting with the Dachau ovens designed in 1937. (See Gutman, Yisrael, and Michael Berenbaum, Eds., _Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp_, 1995, pp. 183-186ff.) Once they were heated to the proper temperature, no additional fuel was required except the corpses themselves, and cool, fresh air which was blown through the oven, under pressure, to aid the combustion process. Ms. Rimland would know this if she had been reading alt.revisionism; this was a topic of discussion earlier this year. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > The question of time. One needs 2 hr. today with modern ovens to burn > one person and need to produce thousands of BTU 's of energy. Take > that 2 hr. and divide it by a day. This works out to 12 bodies > without time in between, even with 100 crematories (this is more than > existing sites today) Again, a false conclusion derived from a false premise. One needs two hours to burn a body today if one wishes to reduce the corpse to a fine, white ash suitable for presentation to the grieving family and friends. The Nazis were under no such obligation. They only needed to burn the body enough to reduce its mass significantly. Whether the large bones were reduced to a fine ash or not, they did not care. They pulled out the burnt remains and broke the largest bones into smaller pieces if necessary. Ms. Rimland would know this if she had been reading alt.revisionism; this was a topic of discussion earlier this year. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > Where would all that energy (have) come from to fuel these so-called > ovens? From the corpses themselves. > And nobody could miss the combustion products, the gases and smell. Strange; other "revisionists" argue that, at Auschwitz, the smell from the industrial plants would have been indistinguishable from the smell of incineration. In fact, this is one of Butz's points (_Hoax_, pp. 119-120). Another internal inconsistency in the "revisionist theory." In any case, people _did_ notice the smell of the cremation process and the general smell of death at the camp. There are numerous testimonies to this. > It does not make sense! Again and again we hear this from "revisionists" -- the Holocaust does not make sense! Imagine if all historians reasoned this way: "It did not make sense for the Nazis to have exterminated their physically handicapped citizens while a clubfoot was appointed Minister of Propaganda, so obviously they could not have done so!" "It did not make sense for the Nazis to have attacked the Soviets when they were allies, so obviously they could not have done so!" "It did not make sense for the Nazis to have spent so much effort on encamping and slaughtering the Jews, so obviously they could not have done so!" Fortunately, historians do not reason this way. To quote Greg Raven, from 1994: "It is sophistry to proclaim that something must have happened a certain way because your 'reason' demands it." History often does not make sense when seen in retrospect. When sense and facts collide, the facts must always be given the upper hand. Ms. Rimland's commentary on this argument was as follows: > Thank YOU! A little common sense and grammar school arithmetic will > go a long, long way! Well, now all this science and technical stuff seems to be quite within Ms. Rimland's grasp -- she calls it, in fact, "common sense" and "arithmetic." I hope she will be equally able to understand the debunking of that claim, and will share her comments with me. She then went on to cite another anonymous source, which attempted to perform a sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. This source began: > 1. The fourth law of thermodynamics, the so-called National-Socialist > one, asserts that under certain political conditions, the effects of > the other three laws may be limited. > > Proof: Corpses burn like dry wood in the force-field of National > Socialism . The burning can be enhanced with the addition of water, as > the following practical cases demonstrate. > > At the Jerusalem Trial of J. Demnjaniuk, eyewitness Elyiahu Rosenberg > stated that "after the Germans discovered that women and children burn > better than adult males, we had to throw the corpses of men into the > fire only at the end." (Muenchener Abendzeitung, 27.2.87) > > Remark: A person consists of between 60 and 70 % of water. The higher > percentage holds for the bodies children, which, according to > eye-witness testimony, burnt best of all. Here, the premises are correct, but faulty logic leads to a faulty conclusion. I will assume that it is true that the corpses of children contain more water, percentagewise, than the corpses of men. However, it is also true that the corpses of both women and children contain more _fat_, percentagewise, than the corpses of men. Fat is the substance in the human body that burns most easily, and it releases a great deal of heat. The flaw in the logic is the assumption that the relative volume of water is the only thing which is important. On the contrary, the volume of fuel affects the combustion process the most. Again, Mr. Green is welcome to provide technical commentary, specifically his approximation of the amount of heat energy available in fat and other flesh, and the amount of heat energy necessary to evaporate the water in the body. Ms. Rimland would know this if she had been reading alt.revisionism; this was a topic of discussion earlier this year. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > The witness Szyia Warszawsky stated that "when the corpses caught > fire, they burnt on their own." (Main record of The Investigation of > Nazi Crimes in Poland). This is almost certainly true, as explained above. > A statement by French-Jewish doctor C.S. Bendel, sworn on 2.3.46 > before an Allied military tribunal in Hamburg, stated that "it is an > actual fact that 1000 bodies thrown into such a ditch disappeared > within an hour, they turned into ashes". (Document reprinted in U. > Walendy, "Auschwitz in IG Farben Prozess", Vlotho 1981, p.58) If the ditch were large enough to hold them all, this could be true -- though they would not actually have "disappeared," of course. And I would guess that flammables would have to be used. But this is not prima facie impossible. > 2. The National-Socialist law of compact packing or the compression of > matter without pressure. > > This was applied in order to pack the optimum number of victims into a > gas chamber. According to eyewitness Dr. Bendel (ibid, p.55), "One > thousand people were brought into a room with dimensions 10 by 4 by > 1,6 meters (64 cubic meters) [...] This could only be achieved by the > German method." > > Explanation: The body of an adult fits into a National-Socialist cube > of side 40 centimetres. Well, Dr. Bendel obviously wasn't counting very carefully, was he? Most non-trained observers are _extremely_ poor at estimating the size of large crowds. This is something that eyewitnesses are notoriously poor at. Ask someone to estimate the size of a crowd of people and you'll get answers that are wildly off. Ask them, after the fact, to estimate the size of a crowd of people that are being herded into a gas chamber, killed, and incinerated, and you'll find that the specific numeric count was not tops on their list. What would _you_ be thinking about if hundreds of people were being slaughtered before your eyes? I personally would probably be incapable of maintaining the slightest bit of composure. Counting noses would be the farthest thing from my mind. Let's suppose Dr. Bendel overestimated by a factor of 2.5, which is entirely plausible. Let's suppose there were really only 400 people in this 10 by 4 square meter gas chamber. That would be 0.1 square meters, or about 1 square foot, per person. Quite reasonable. Crowded, but reasonable. Now, we have two competing theories: (1) The "revisionist" theory: Dr. Bendel was coerced by a secret Jewish/Zionist conspiracy into telling a totally fictitious story about gassings; he was coached in what to say by his Zionist masters; he willingly lied; and he never recanted that lie for as long as he lived; or (2) Jamie's theory: Dr. Bendel estimated 1000 people where there were only 400 or so. Which theory is more likely? > 3. The law of specific National-Socialist gas circulation. > (Spontaneous homogeneous diffusion in a strongly inhomogeneous > cavity-system). > > This was confirmed by Judge Melder who tried Ernst Zuendel in November > 1991 at Munich: > > In a gas chamber packed full with people the slowly liberated > poison-gas spreads itself evenly throughout the gas chamber without > any fall in concentration. Well, at this point we either get technical, and delve into the answer, or we don't. In the summer of 1987 I wrote a computer program on a Sun workstation to simulate the diffusion of gas through media of varying porosity. I mention this, although the simulation was on the molecular level and thus was not directly applicable to this question, to show that I do have some idea of the nature of gas-diffusion problems. Rich Green has commented that having a mass of people in the gas chamber would increase, rather than decrease, the diffusion rate of the gas, because the people would of course be moving around and creating turbulence. I submit that he knows a bit more about chemistry and gas diffusion than Ms. Rimland does. I submit that he probably knows more than our anonymous source, who offers no qualifications whatsoever. We can ask Mr. Green to provide us with a technical explanation, but you have indicated previously, Ms. Rimland, that you prefer not to get very technical. Do you take Mr. Green's word for it, Ms. Rimland? Or would you like him to go into some technical detail? It's up to you. The statement (quoted or paraphrased?) that the gas would spread without a loss of concentration, is difficult to judge out of context. It is obvious that the concentration near the source of the gas would be higher than elsewhere. The question is how long it would take to get a killing concentration of gas throughout the entire gas chamber. Rich Green has estimated that, after five minutes, the minimum gas concentration would be over 1800 parts per million, six times fatal, at low temperatures. His estimate -- and in fact the whole question of gas diffusion -- assumes that the Zyklon emitted its gas very quickly, which, as discussed elsewhere, is an assumption that is backed up with evidence. Ms. Rimland would be familiar with this topic if she had been reading alt.revisionism; this was a topic of much discussion last year. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > 4. The law of total annihilation of matter. > > Proof: At least at Treblinka around 800 000 murdered people > disappeared without leaving a trace. Falsehood. Ashes and human remains were discovered buried at Treblinka in pits, over twenty feet deep -- and this fact was reported by the _revisionists_ Andrew Allen and Mark Weber. I would think that pits of human ashes and remains twenty feet deep might be considered a "trace." Maybe in the revisionists' world, a "trace" means something more than twenty feet deep of human ashes and remains. I don't know. In any case, if you don't take my word for it, it's all at the IHR web site: In the area where the gas chambers were supposed to have been located, the commission's team of 30 excavation workers reportedly found "human remains, partially in the process of decay," and an unspecified amount of ash. Untouched sandy soil was reached at 7.5 meters, at which point the digging was halted. An accompanying photograph of an excavated pit reveals some large bones. (note 63) Poland's "Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes" reported that "large quantities of ashes mixed with sand, among which are numerous human bones, often with the remains of decomposing tissues," were found in the five acre (two hectare) burial area during an examination of the site shortly after the end of the war. (note 64) The presence of uncremated human remains is not consistent with the often-repeated allegation that all such remains were thoroughly destroyed. Significantly, none of the Polish reports specifies the quantity of human remains, the numbers of corpses, or the amount of ash found at the camp site, which suggests that evidence of hundreds of thousands of victims was not found. (note 65) http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/jhr/v12p133_Allen.html Notice the weak response by the "revisionists" -- since these two particular sources did not mention the exact quantity of human remains or ash, it "suggests" that, etc., etc. This will also be emailed to Andrew Allen (firstname.lastname@example.org), who is a regular on alt.revisionism. He is -- again -- invited to comment further on this passage which he co-authored. He has so far declined to comment, but perhaps this time he'll choose to join in. Ms. Rimland would know all this if she had been reading alt.revisionism; this was a topic of discussion earlier this year. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > 5. The National-Socialist principle of oxidation. (Burning with a > throttled supply of oxygen or without oxygen altogether). > > Applied for the disposal of traces during and after mass-murder of > Jews in Poland. > > According to perpetrator Rudolf Hoess, "[...] for the most part, those > gassed were burnt behind Crematorium IV [...] The bodies were at first > burnt with oil residue, later by pouring on methanol. In the ditches > corpses were burnt continuously, that is day and night." (Martin > Broszat (Ed.) "Commandant in Auschwitz", Munich 1981, p.165 and p.161 > respectively). > > Witness Szlama Dragon on the burning of corpses at Auschwitz > (statement made on 11.5.45): "[...] there were two 30m long 7m wide > and 3m deep ditches at Auschwitz. The edges of the pits were blackened > by smoke". (Kogon, Langbein & Roeckerl: "Nationalsozialistische > Massentoetung durch Giftgas" ("National-Socialist Mass-Murder with > Poison-Gas"), Frankfurt/M 1983, p.211). > > Explanation: In a hole in the ground fire has normally an insufficient > supply of oxygen. Without National-Socialist technology it is > impossible even today to burn wood and paper piles in a 3-metre deep > ditch, let alone heaps of bodies. Untrue. If the ditch is long enough and wide enough that fresh air can flow in to replace the hot smoke flowing up, there is no problem. Where is the evidence that these ditches were not long enough or wide enough? There is none. Ms. Rimland would know this if she had been reading alt.revisionism; this has been a topic of discussion, on and off, for years. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > Remark: Application of the National-Socialist oxidation principle > found its perfect fulfilment at Auschwitz, namely under water. For, in > the vicinity of the camp the water table reaches a level just beneath > the surface of the ground. (Compare the photograph in the Magazine of > the paper Suedeutschen Zeitung of 6.12.91, where one can observe a pool > of water next to Crematorium IV). The burning-ditches were thus full > of water. One of the oldest "revisionist" tricks. The Auschwitz area was drained while it was in operation. After the war's end, the drainage ditches filled in and the water table returned to normal. Note that "revisionists" are quick to point out the high water table when it comes to pit-burning in wartime. They don't mention, however, that some of the very gas chambers upon which Leuchter and Rudolf performed their "forensic tests" have stood in water three feet deep for much of the last fifty years. One might think that would influence the traces of chemicals which they would have found. (And these really _were_ traces -- parts per million and parts per billion.) Ms. Rimland would know this if she had been reading alt.revisionism; this has been a topic of discussion, on and off, for years. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > 6. The law of racially determined sensitivity to hydrocyanic acid. > (The selective effect of HCN on homo sapiens Hebraeicus). Is "homo sapiens Hebraeicus" supposed to be a joke? I know what Ms. Rimland would say if anyone suggested, even in jest, that there was a "homo sapiens Germanicus," separate from the rest of humanity. Such anti-German bias! Such bigotry! > Proof: The gas chambers at Auschwitz were in the immediate vicinity > of other camp facilities, for instance the SS field hospital. > Continuous ventilation of the gas chambers would certainly not have > affected the guard detail - clearly a genetically determined > phenomenon. False premises and faulty logic both. First, the gas chambers were not "continuously" ventilated. Gassing operations took from five to twenty minutes, after which there was a break of at least several hours while the corpses were incinerated. More importantly, what is the danger of venting cyanide into the open air? It disperses and becomes harmless. While a concentration of 300 parts per million is deadly in just a few minutes, a concentration of 10 ppm is tolerable even in the workplace, according to revisionists. All the Nazis had to do was be sure not to stand right next to the exhaust vent. If Ms. Rimland thinks that poison gas is always deadly no matter how far away one is or how much the gas has dispersed, then I ask her: has she ever walked down a busy street? She wouldn't want to breathe pure exhaust coming out a car's tailpipe, certainly -- that's deadly poisonous, people commit suicide that way. But I'm sure she feels no danger standing a mere five feet away from an idling car, its tailpipe emitting that exact same deadly poison! If "revisionist" logic held true, anyone walking down a sidewalk would have to keel over dead! Ms. Rimland would know this if she had been reading alt.revisionism; this has been a topic of discussion several times in the last year. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > Also, following a still to be unravelled > National-Socialist method, the Jewish work details would have been > immune to poison, since they hauled the corpses out of the gas > chambers without any protective clothing, gloves or gas-masks. (M. > Broszat, op. cit. p.130). In the chambers which were forcibly ventilated, no gas masks were used, nor other protective gear, because it was not necessary. The room had its air exhausted and replaced several times before the Jewish work details, the Sonderkommando, began removing corpses. In the chambers which were not forcibly ventilated, gas masks were used. No protective clothing was necessary. Prolonged skin exposure of liquid hydrocyanic acid is potentially dangerous, but that was not a serious concern at the amounts and concentrations that would have been present. Air exposure would have been the only serious factor. Ms. Rimland would know this if she had been reading alt.revisionism; this has been a topic of discussion, on and off, for years. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > 7. The gas chamber effect. > > In the force-field of a National-Socialist gas chamber there occurs a > wave alteration effect, so that the invisible becomes visible. > > Eyewitness Boeck, a member of the guard detail, announced during the > 1964-1965 Frankfurt Auschwitz trial that he saw disposal squads > working in the blue haze of Hydrogen cyanide gas. > > Hint: Hydrogen Cyanide is normally colourless; ie. invisible. * > *Remark of the translator. The German word for hydrocyanic acid (HCN), > Blausaeure, named after the blue in Prussian Blue, itself a cyanide > compound iron, might suggest to the ignorant that HCN should have a > blue coloration. In order to sound more authentic perhaps Boeck > thought this would be a realistic detail... I'd like to see a quote of this. Boeck's testimony has been twisted around by at least one other "revisionist" (Greg Raven) and frankly I don't trust our anonymous source, who has committed so many errors already. Note that direct quotes are provided in the points numbered 1, 2, possibly 3, 5, and 8. Boeck gets only a paraphrase. I suppose it is remotely possible that one of the irritant gases added to Zyklon had a bluish color to it. But that's a long shot; I think the more logical explanation is that Boeck is being wrongly paraphrased by a dishonest "revisionist." > 8. The National Socialist principle for generating carbon monoxide > with the help of a Diesel engine. > > Proof in the case of Treblinka: "There was a Diesel motor in an annex > which generated poison gas." (Kogon, Langbein, Roeckerl, op.cit., > p.163). > > Proof in the case of Belzec: "The engine itself stood there [...], it > was Diesel-driven. (K. Gerstein, quoted in Kogon, Langbein & Roeckerl, > op.cit. p.173). > > Hint: At that time, to all practical purposes the ideal poison-gas > generator would have been readily available in the form of one for > generating producer-gas from wood. With 32% of its volume consisting > of carbon monoxide, the propellant gas formed contained a high > proportion of this highly toxic gas. (Meyer's Encyclopedia/Lexicon, > 1974, vol. 12, p.207). If Ms. Rimland had been reading alt.revisionism, she might have noticed my article to "revisionist" Greg Raven on April 21st of this year: So, would the producer-gas vehicles have indeed made a good source of carbon monoxide? Well, one need only learn how they work, to answer that question. The producer-gas engine at the rear of the vehicle burns wood in an oxygen-poor environment, and generates CO at such high concentrations that it is flammable. The CO is then piped to the front of the vehicle, where it is burned in an internal combustion engine, essentially the same way that natural gas is burned in special modern cars. What Mr. Raven is suggesting is that the Nazis would have hooked up the wood-burning engine to the gas chambers, and pumped such high concentrations of CO directly into those rooms. CO has a very large range of flammable concentrations: from 12 to 75 percent, according to the Merck Index. Holocaust-denier Friedrich Berg says that the emissions of the wood-burning engines "always contained between 18% and 35% carbon monoxide." (This from the JHR, Spring 1984, p. 38 -- an article which Mr. Berg was kind enough to photocopy and personally mail to me.) So, what would be the result of pumping this flammable gas into a building? Think "Bic lighter." I submit that torching the building would have been an unpleasant side effect of using the producer-gas vehicles. Especially unpleasant for the victims in the gas chambers, of course, if they happened to still be alive. But also annoying and rather dangerous for the Nazis overseeing the operation. It's not very smart to build a gas chamber that's just going to burn down every time it gets used. Ms. Rimland would know this if she had been reading alt.revisionism; I posted it just two weeks ago. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. > It is clear that special wartime circumstances determined that > producer-gas generators should have been retained for the maintenance > of truck transport on the home front. Thus the extermination camps in > the East had to make do with Diesel engines, which even under present > political conditions can only emit non-dangerous concentrations of > about 0.5% carbon monoxide. (Meyer's Encyclopedia/Lexicon, 1971, > vol.1, p.88). Nevertheless, the circumstances prevailing during the > National Socialist reign made it clearly possible to gain > substantially greater emissions of carbon monoxide from a diesel > engine, contrary to the design of its inventor. Rev up the engine and block the air intake with a piece of cardboard, and a diesel engine will easily produce a respectable amount of carbon monoxide, about 1%, which "revisionist" Friedrich Berg says would kill people in the times reported by eyewitnesses. More importantly, its oxygen content drops to near-zero, which will kill people in just a few minutes in any case. If anyone wants the technical details of this, they are available in draft form at: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html And if only Ms. Rimland would read alt.revisionism, she would know this already. This point has been made again and again over the past year or two. But alas, she has decided that there is nothing on the newsgroup but mudslinging and hate. Ms. Rimland's source continues, sarcastically: > In any case one had to > sacrifice extremely scarce Diesel fuel for this purpose; the > producer-gas carburator would have had to make do with wood shavings. The producer gas engines would have burnt everything to the ground. Furthermore, the diesel engines were stripped from captured Soviet tanks, spoils of war -- net loss of equipment to the Reich, zero. And I understand that diesel fuel is easier to produce than gasoline, being less refined. So, here we are at the end of this Zgram already. Quite a bit of "revisionist science" has been shown to be pseudoscience. And since this Zgram has been posted at her site, with part of the contents (her second anonymous source) have been posted separately... And since this reply of mine will be put up at Nizkor... And since Ingrid Rimland has agreed to cross-linking our sites... One would think that Ms. Rimland would cross-link to this reply. Oh, wait a minute! I forgot! Ingrid Rimland is now choosing to post the Zgrams as Adobe Acrobat files, and she has put up her second anonymous piece as an Acrobat file as well! That means that there's no possible way she could link from them to this piece, because Acrobat is not part of the web at all. Very convenient for Ms. Rimland. She doesn't need to follow through on her promises, anymore. Since her mailing list for the Zgrams is available, I could be rude and spam it, as she spammed Usenet back in 1995. That would be one way to get its readers to see this reply. However, I choose to be more polite than Ms. Rimland. I hope, perhaps foolishly, that Mr. Rimland will not be able to keep her Zgram readers ignorant forever. Perhaps, somehow, word of Nizkor's replies will leak out to those readers, even though she has told them time and time again that we are not worth listening to, because, after all, we only deal in mudslinging and hate. In any case, here are the URLs to her Acrobat files, if you want to link back to her original words: http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/ZGRAMS/05-02-96.pdf http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/INCORR/Wonders.pdf And here again is the URL where this reply of mine will be stored: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/r/rimland.ingrid/science.01 How unfortunate that Ms. Rimland will not be able to return the favor and cross-link back to Nizkor! How unfortunate that she will choose not to post any reply on Usenet! How unfortunate that she will choose not to make her Zgram readers aware of this reply! How unfortunate that she will choose not to tell her Zgram readers that these issues have debated and redebated on alt.revisionism for years! And how very unfortunate that she will continue to propagate the myth that it is _Nizkor_ who is backing down from what she calls "debate"! Other interesting URLs include: Ms. Rimland's postings to Usenet, spam and otherwise: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/r/rimland.ingrid/1995 Ms. Rimland's spam classified as such and cancelled by an autocanceller: http://xp2.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=word&query=*&maxhits=50&filter=%7bdnserver.db95q3%20%7b%7ea%20%7brimland%20%26%20ingrid%7d%7d%7d General information on Ernst Zuendel: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/ Response to a Zgram from three months ago, regarding the claim that Nizkor is "backpedalling" from "debate," which Ms. Rimland has still not publicly acknowledged: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/z-open-letter/ Claim by Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance that he helped Ms. Rimland get set up with cts.com, and "advised Zuendel and Rimland on many topics": http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/m/metzger.tom/audio The White Aryan Resistance web site: http://www.free.cts.com/crash/m/metzger/ The Zuendelsite: http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/ The Institute for Historical Review web site: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/ The Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust web site: http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/ Posted. Emailed to Ingrid Rimland, Richard Green, Andrew Allen, Greg Raven, the Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust, the Ernst Zuendel Reposter, and a few other interested parties. -- Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ email@example.com Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email to be in the public domain. I speak only for myself.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor