Allen Andrew

 

Back to list

Dear Mr. Van Alstine:
I repeat that I am talking about roof of Leichenhalle 1
Crema II. Although there is a hole in the ground at the site of the
alleged gaschamber there is something in the hole.
I had hoped that J. Morris would make a clear response to my request
for confirmation what is there. All readers of this thread should rely on
Pressac. Please refer to Pressac Technique & Operation at page 354. This
will confirm for you, Mr. Van Alstine, that there is a concrete roof
collasped into the hole. Once you have satisfied yourself that I
am correct in this matter, I invite you to proceed with our discussion.
The construction of the roof should be of interest to both
Exterminationists and Revisionists.

Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete. F.L.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Feb 17 09:45:27 PST 1996
Article: 23864 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.cyberstore.ca!van-bc!uniserve!news.sol.net!daily-planet.execpc.com!
homer.alpha.net!uwm.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 16 Feb 1996 11:07:16 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 14
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4g2a3k$qc8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

From jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Sat Feb 17 09:47:01 PST 1996
Article: 23842 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!
imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
news.mindlink.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news
From: jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 06:33:14 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <4g3sou$7ls@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
References: <4fb5p2$mp6@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4fgp1a$1t62@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: async15-15.remote.ualberta.ca
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>In article <4fgp1a$1t62@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
>(John Morris) wrote:

>> ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Mr. Van Alstine:
>> > Thank you for your detailed response. I will track down
>> >your cites. I note that I was not writing about Crema I
>> >but about Crema II and III. The question is the lack of
>> >any fittings to hold pillars in place (either on the floor
>> >or in the roof) and the ad hoc nature of the “vents”, ie.
>> >crudely chipped with the re-bar still in place.
>>
>> So far I have found your description far too vague in terms of which
>> Krema still has its roof mostly intact though collapsed. In which
>> roof, II or III, are the crudely chipped in holes still visible?
>>

>Mr. Morris,

>I believe Ceacaa has stated that the Kremas in question are, in fact
>Kremas II and III. Below is an excerpt from my reply to the article where
>he mentions this:

>===============================================================================
>In article <4ferel$6jn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:

>> Dear Mazal Over Board Exterminationist:
>>
>> We are sorry that it would take you “many a merry hour” to
>> make a reconstruction of our initials. We had hoped for (although
>> not expected) some small show of wit from you rather than your
>> usual ad hominem stupidities.

>> Of course you totally miss the point of our comment. You
>> do not have to believe our description of the so-called
>> “vents” in the ceiling of Leichenhalle 1 Cremas II and III.
>> The holes still exist and can be viewed. What was there can
>> be sussed out from what is there now.

>Again, I feel compelled to point out that you claim to have seen firsthand
>these vent holes in the ceiling of the gas-chamber in Krema II. I find
>this interesting in that, according to a photgraph in _Auschwitz: a
>history in photograp[hs_, the gas-chamber of Krema II is nothing more than
>an open pit in the ground filled with the ruins of the structure and
>weeds. There is no ceiling to the gas-chamber, and thus no vent holes to
>see.

This really perplexes me. In the Nova television presentation
“Designers of Death,” Prof. Van Pelt is seen standing in the remains
of the gas chamber at Krema II, and it is as you describe: a pit full
of weeds and little else besides bits of foundation walls.

Messrs. Raven and Ceacaa claim to have seen otherwise. I am assured by
more reliable people in private e-mail that portions of one of the gas
chamber cielings is still largely intact. But it cannot be Krema II
unless my eyes deceive me. That is why I asked Ceacaa to specify which
cieling was still intact. He now specifies L.Keller I at Krema II
which was the gas chamber.

So I am still quite perplexed.

Nevertheless, the claim that the gas chamber cieling at either of
Krema II or III should have crudely chipped in holes for the grillwork
induction columns is consistent with what Prof. Van Pelt has
discovered about the series of decisions leading to the use of
L.Keller I as a gas chamber. It was originally planned to use the
L.Keller as a morgue just as its name suggests, and there was thus no
need to have made allowances for the induction columns. Instead, the
roof had one ventilation hole consistent with the needs of an ordinary
morgue.

As the inefficiency of transporting the bodies of the victims from
Bunker I became more apparent, the L.Keller was redeployed as a gas
chamber. Only then did it become necessary to cut holes into the
cieling for the induction columns. However crudely made these holes
may have been, it would be a fairly simple matter to seal them well
enough to prevent significant quantities of HCN from escaping through
the roof.

Mr. Ceacaa’s objection that the holes were cut into the roof by the
Soviets is thus far unsupported by any evidence. It is simply another
convenient way of displacing inconvenient evidence. One might almost
call it a “deus ex machina” method of adducing evidence.


John Morris
at University of Alberta
————————————————————————
The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
File archives – ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca
Web page – http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Feb 19 08:36:44 PST 1996
Article: 24100 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 18 Feb 1996 22:16:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4g8q32$bhe@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Dear Group:
This comment is on the thread of the “porous
pillars” however, Mark Van Alstein wrote that:
Kremas IV and V, having above ground gas-chambers,
on the relied natural draft generated
when the gas-chamber doors, which opened to the
outside, were opened to ventilate them.
This theory of ventilation is impossible as anyone who
has visited the ruins of KIV or KV knows. Only one of the
several rooms alleged to have been a gas chamber in K V
had an outside door. If one had relied on “natural drafts”
to clear the air of the gaschambers, you would have gassed
the whole building. For reference see Pressac pg. 391 Document
14

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Feb 22 12:12:48 PST 1996
Article: 24516 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 Feb 1996 01:19:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 14
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4gh1tv$75@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Dear Group
Mark Van Alstine writes, ” Hmm. I do believe, Ceacaa, that you are a
bit mistaken here. Unsuprising, considering you claims about the Krema
II.”

My claims (actually statements of the Absolute Truth) about the
Krema II consist solely of a discussion of the
roof of Leichenkeller 1, ie. what was there in May 1944 and is there
now, claims that Pressac and (apparently) J. Morris agree with.

But, Mr. Van Alstine, let’s take this one step at a time.
Do you agree that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II,
Birkenau was made of a poured in place concrete slab with
wooden forms?

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Feb 22 23:06:39 PST 1996
Article: 24638 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ceacaa’s eerie silence was (Re: Pellets, shower, porous pi
Date: 23 Feb 1996 00:04:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 9
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4gjhs3$o5b@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4fqr0q$3q1g@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Dear Gord McFee,
Our silence was due to ski week, members of the collective
hit the slopes, please see our response in “pellets, shower, porous
pillars. Of course, the issue is what was on the roof in 1944 and
what is presently on the roof of L 1 KII. Since most of the
exterminationist “experts” don’t seem to know what is there
now this discussion is moving rather slowly. It is hoped that
you and M VS will consult your Pressac and J. Morris and get up
to speed on this.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Feb 23 07:11:49 PST 1996
Article: 24638 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ceacaa’s eerie silence was (Re: Pellets, shower, porous pi
Date: 23 Feb 1996 00:04:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 9
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4gjhs3$o5b@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4fqr0q$3q1g@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Dear Gord McFee,
Our silence was due to ski week, members of the collective
hit the slopes, please see our response in “pellets, shower, porous
pillars. Of course, the issue is what was on the roof in 1944 and
what is presently on the roof of L 1 KII. Since most of the
exterminationist “experts” don’t seem to know what is there
now this discussion is moving rather slowly. It is hoped that
you and M VS will consult your Pressac and J. Morris and get up
to speed on this.

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Feb 26 22:50:33 PST 1996
Article: 25228 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ceacaa’s eerie silence was (Re: Pellets, shower, porou
Date: 26 Feb 1996 23:39:40 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 6
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4gu1uc$g5n@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4gtfdp$58u@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)

To readers of this thread:
You all should know that Gord McFee is
known as the Don Rickles of the Exterminationists
(only without the humor). If you are interested in
an attempt at a serious discussion go back
to “Pellets, shower, porous columns”

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Feb 28 06:58:05 PST 1996
Article: 25411 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!imci3!imci4!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘porous pillar’
Date: 28 Feb 1996 01:14:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 38
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4h0rsq$h1m@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren writes:
“The current status of the ceiling has nearly zero relevance to
this question.”
It seems here that D. Keren is now making a tacit admission
that the roof of Leichenhalle 1 of Crema II does still exist and
is made of poured in place concrete with re-bar. Bravo Daniel!

Poured in place concrete is a particularly immutable form
of construction and allows one to deduce the order of construction.
The roof, as it exists now, is the best evidence of what the roof
was like 52 years ago. Remember,
Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

“The “porous pillar” was a wiremesh introduction
device for the Zyklon. It could have simply been removed.”

Perhaps, but if it were attached either at the top (ceiling
or roof) and/or floor there would be bolt holes or clamps.

But before we go on too far, let us discuss the number of holes
that are on the roof today. I say that there are only three.
Most Exterminationists say there are 4. They are wrong.

Daniel, do you think that perhaps the Germans removed one of
the holes and took it back to Berlin with them or do you
agree that there are now just three holes on the roof?

Once you learn the correct number of holes, we should move on
to the condition of the holes. By then you might see some
relevance in the present “status” of the roof.

-Lu Xun.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Feb 28 06:58:07 PST 1996
Article: 25418 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘porous pillar’
Date: 28 Feb 1996 01:59:31 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 98
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4h0ugj$i1d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4gt86a$1sbu@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)

My goodness John Morris pops up too and writes:
But I have yet to see a photograph that shows the entire roof,
or a series of photographs that shows all the sections of roof. I am still
looking for such a photograph, and in the meantime, I am witholding
judgment.
(Good John, keep an open and skeptical mind. Some day you
might even become a Revisionist. Go look at Pressac at 265 for some
photographs or buy the David McCalden tape “Escape from Auschwitz”.)

John goes on to write:

There are any number of reasons why the holes would have been cut
after construction. (Such as they were part not of the original plan
or needed at the time of construction in Feb-March 1943)

It could have been that the Nazis kept the homocidal purpose of
the chamber from the construction engineers. (This is absurd,
the drawings were completed on 8/5/42 by SS Sergeant Ulmer,
Checked on 8/5/42 by SS Second Lieutenant Dajaco and SS
Sergeant Ertl, and final approved on 8/5/42 by SS
Captain Bischoff. These SS men were all part of the Auschwitz
staff.

It could have been an oversight. (Maybe they forgot the doors too!
Don’t forget the Myth is that Crema II was the result of Hoes’s
visit to Treblinka to learn the “best techniques”. He also
practiced at Crema I in the main camp. If Hoes’s confession
is true then the failure to put in the necessary vent holes
cannot have been an oversight.

It could have been that they realized that throwing Zyklon B
through the door was not very effective. (Especially if it was in
the basement of the building)

It could have been that they realized that throwing Zyklon B
through the ceiling vent was not very effective. (No John, the ceiling
vents were put in _after_ the ceiling was built)

It could have been that the wire mesh induction columns were an
afterthought. (This might be true but it does not address the
lack of attachment points of roof or floor.)

But the absence of direct proof about *why* the SS did things the way
they did is not proof that they did not do things.

In addition, we have only the word of a denier named Ceacaa who
*says* he visited Birkenau and who *says* the roof is intact and
who *says* that he found only two crudely cut holes. For all
anyone knows, Ceacaa simply read the descriptions by the deniers
David Cole and Fred Leuchter. (Mr. Morris, don’t you believe
eyewitness testimony. Actually, I said there are three holes,
two I could wiggle through and one too small to enter.

But still, I have to ask, why any holes at all would have been
cut into the roof? The deniers assert that the Poles or the
Russians cut the holes, but they offer no proof of that
assertion, and I am afraid that the claim that something must
have been forged or faked by the Soviets is used far too often
with inconvenient evidence to have any credibility at all. Some
might even call it a “deus ex machina” kind of argument. Indeed,
if the Russians did fake the holes, why didn’t they do a better
job of it? If they were trying to make the physical site match
the story, why didn’t they cut nice clean holes to match the
dimensions of the induction columns?
(I don’t assert that the Soviets cut the holes in the roof. This is
a straw argument. I am limiting my point to the clear evidence
of the existing state of the roof. There were no more than three
vents: They were put in after the original pour ie. January 1943:
The re-bar is still attached but cut in one place and bent out of
the way: there are no attachment fixtures or holes for attachments
around the holes)

For that matter, why were so many witnesses tortured into saying
that there were induction columns, and why were documents forged
to show how the induction columns ought to be made? If the
forgers were so good at making up such a convincing story with
such a finely-grained level of verisimiltude, why did they not
simply forge an order from Hitler for the extermination of the
Jews? Deniers have been convinced by much less sophisticated
forgeries such as the Lachout document.

Please, the term is Revisionist. “Deniers” is a vulgar term created
by those persons who cannot carry a discussion on facts. My point
is that the best evidence of what was there in 1943 is what is there
now.
Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in concrete F.L.


John Morris
at University of Alberta
————————————————————————
The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
File archives – ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca
Web page – http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Feb 29 06:36:44 PST 1996
Article: 25530 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ceacaa’s eerie silence was (Re: Pellets, shower, porou
Date: 29 Feb 1996 02:21:54 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 3
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4h3k6i$h29@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4h0mk8$1a7c@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)

Inane!? I thought my comments were as incisive as Holms (Sherlock)
and as penetrating as Holms (Larry).

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Mar 2 09:39:33 PST 1996
Article: 25796 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 2 Mar 1996 01:31:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 24
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4h8pve$ap8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3135afae.210417@news.pacificnet.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

D. Keren wrote:
The current status of the ceiling has nearly zero
relevance to the question of “porous Pillars”.
Keren’s position is absurd.
He denies that I have gone to Poland
He denies that I have been to Birkenau
He denies that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II still exists.
He denies that the “vents” still exist
Then he calls Ceacaa a “denier” . At least get your English
correct Keren. I am a denied.

The Revisionist position is simple; go to the scene of the
crime and view the alleged “murder weapon”.

The roof exists. There are three holes in it.
Your “porous pillar 70 cm sq. could not have fit through the holes

There is a very good video done by David McCalden
Called “The Holocaust Revisited” . Volume 3 deals
with Birkenau and the roof. It is available from
Zundel. Since Morris/Keren and the other Nizcor Hoaxters
don’t have the honesty to admit the roof is still there
anyone wanting to see the Truth in pictures should
order it from Zundel.

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Mar 4 23:30:53 PST 1996
Article: 26104 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!
nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 4 Mar 1996 21:48:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4hga1c$ql2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4hebu3$qth@nimitz.fibr.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I thought that the Web was the way of the future
for holding discussions.

Leichenkeller 1 Crema II is the so-called Gaschamber room.
It is the scene of the crime and the murder weapon. It is
the most important place in the Holocaust story.

The present existence of the roof of Leichenkeller 1
Crema II is a simple fact that should be of interest to
Hoaxters like McFee or Mazal. Instead I get japes and
catcalls from you guys…

The Revisionist or scientific position is to go to the
scene of the crime and view the murder weapon. This is what
I have done. The roof is there. It is made of concrete.
There are three holes in the roof. There were put in
after the roof was built.

The Exterminationist or Hoaxter position varies “expert to
expert”.

D. Keren. There is no roof and (anyway) “The current status
of the ceiling has nearly zero relevance” Keren’s position
has to be the stupidist one ever taken in the Holocaust debate.
You can tell that Keren probably teaches at a small college
or highschool. Actually doing some on the ground research
would jeopardize his Laputan theories and show that he
is an ignorant pompus ass.

J. Morris. Morris seems to be all over the place. There is
no roof; there is a roof but no holes; there are holes but
he needs to see a photograph; he agrees that the holes were
put in later but offers 5 absurd reasons why. I would have expected
better of someone with the pretension to embellish his
e-mail with Latin but at least he beats Keren. Perhaps,
he can’t admit McCalden/Leutcher are right and still
impress those co-ed cowgirls from Ponoka as being
a “Holocaust resource”.

G. McFee The Don Rickles of Exterminationists. His position
seems to be “There is no roof because F. Leuchter says there is.”

VanAlstein: Was he the one who said the roof does not exist
because he can’t see the bottom of the hole? At least he
provided an interesting set of cites which I am still
trying to look up. Thanks again.

I think that I have put all the parties positions down correctly.
I invite readers to get the McCalden tape “Holocaust Revisited”
Volume II.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Mar 6 18:42:01 PST 1996
Article: 26372 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Mar 1996 17:17:05 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 17
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4hl2t1$hl1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4hiihc$hip@dub-news-svc-1.compuserve.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Well, well we have our first excrement comment from
Mr. Miloslav Bilik. He must be one of D. Keren’s
“scientific peers”.

I have a feeling that Mr. Bilik was one of those weird guys
who sat in the back of class and snickered at “things”.
Today class, we are going to read “Moby Dick” Milik giggle giggle
The Incas lived by the shores of Lake Titicaca. Milik Yuk, yuk
The captain walked onto the poop deck Milik gasp, snerf snerf.

Anyway, the answers to your questions are:
Birkenau is open to the public.
At the time, a U.S citizen needed a visa to enter Poland
I have no prove that I can post

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Mar 7 08:59:20 PST 1996
Article: 26389 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.cyberstore.ca!helix.net!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!news1.io.org!
winternet.com!mr.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Mar 1996 16:51:26 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 40
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4hl1cu$h13@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

D. Keren writes that I should
“supply us with good photographic evidence of what you claim is there, so
we can analyze it?”
(I would like to but I have had poor success
scanning in photographs for posting (please, no engineer jokes).
I have tried to give the cites of photgraphs ie. Pressac at pg. 354
and the David McCalden tape. I should think that the site of
the gaschamber should have been photographed by someone.
However, I do have some clear slides which I will try to
put into usable form.)

Is this why you don’t tell us who you are? (No, I get enough
problems for being a Revisionist. I don’t want you to believe
the roof is still existant because I say so but because you
have independently confirmed it. I somehow suspect my word
alone would not convince you even if my initials were J.C.)

# The roof is there. It is made of concrete.
# There are three holes in the roof.

But doesn’t Faurisson, who is considered the “leader of revisionism”,
state that there are absolutely no holes in the roof?
(There are three holes in the roof, I have been through two
of them)

# D. Keren. There is no roof and (anyway) “The current status
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You’re lying, chump. I never, ever, said that or wrote that.
(Well then, do you agree the roof is still there with three
holes in it?)

Re your insults: I’ll be judged by my peers in the scientific
community. (Wrong, you’ll be judged by anyone who has
been to Birkenau, knows there is a roof with three holes in it,
and has seen that there is still re-bar in the holes. )


Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Mar 18 23:04:03 PST 1996
Article: 27519 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 19 Mar 1996 01:08:29 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ilj0t$g7v@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Daniel Keren writes:

Will you ever provide some proof that you were in Birkenau, and
some good photographic reproduction of these 3 holes you claim
are in the roof? I think even a mentally retarded person, or
someone with a Fred Leuchter compatible brain, would understand
by now that someone who posts anonymously, without giving any
proof to anything he writes, cannot be taken seriously.

My goodness, Mr. Keren, I have cited both Pressac at pg. 354 et seq.
and the excellent David McCalden video “Holocaust Revisited vol 2.
I am sorry that I don’t have the time and money to post photographs
which would completely show that you are incorrect.

# The holes are in the position shown on the plaster model of
# Krematorium II exhibited on the First floor of Block 4 of the
# Auschwitz main Camp. See Pressac pg. 345

“This is a model. Show us real photographs, or shut your trap. This
is boring already.”

So you think that the Polish Museum is lying? Perhaps you
are just avoiding the issue of the “vents” by obdurate obfuscation.
The fact that the vents were put in after March 1943 has some
important ramifications.

I will probably do that one day. And if I do, I will *document*
what I see, and post it. Under my real name. Not like a mentally
retarded clown, who posts under an alias and refuses to support
what he writes.

Mr. Keren, such intemperate language. It will make people think
that you don’t have anything intellegent to write. Although,
please let me know when you plan to visit Birkenau. I would
like to see your face when you look at the existing roof of
the “gaschamber”, the three holes, and the re-bar


Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:32 PST 1996
Article: 27768 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!news.uoregon.edu!news.inc.net!
imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Sheet Metal Columns in Krema II
Date: 19 Mar 1996 01:35:48 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ilkk4$glp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4hjk55$aq8@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(John Morris) writes,

“Jean-Francois Beaulieu, “Ceacaa,” and other Holocaust deniers
have been making much of the discrepancies between the
testimonies of Filip Mueller and other Sonderkommando survivors
regarding the sheet metal induction columns for Zyklon B in Krema
II at Birkenau. ”

You have entirely missed my point. The internal consistency of
“survivor” accounts is a seperate question. My point is that none
of the “testimonies” jibes with the ruins presently on site. Thus,
your discussion of various testimonies as proof of anything is Laputan.
The existing 3 holes in the roof conflict with Muller’s account, ergo
Muller is incorrect.

You are the only Hoaxter who even admits that the “vents” were
put in after the original pour. The true ramifications of this
seem to have escaped you. D. Keren keeps up the ridiculous claim
that the roof of the “gaschamber” isn’t there.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:38 PST 1996
Article: 27866 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 Mar 1996 03:41:58 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 32
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4itp4m$mm9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren writes regarding Pressac at pg. 354 et seq.

#It shows a roof that is largely destroyed, with one hole which
Pressac suggests is one of the holes via which the Zyklon was
inserted. #

Now I know why poor Daniel is so slow in his lessons; he can’t
read. What Pressac writes in the caption to photo b”’ is,
“North/south view of the western part of the ceiling of
Leichenkeller 1, with the south wall at the far end. Upper
left, the hole in the ceiling is assumed to be one of the
Zyclon-B introduction openings, but the positions
of the two holes that can be seen today do not correspond
to those of the US Air Force photograph taken on 25th
August 1944.”
Two holes that can be seen today.
Now Daniel, I want you to think real hard about this…
If the hole is there today, is the roof there today?

When you have figured out the answer come back
and we can talk about whether there are two holes
there today or, as I have tried to teach you, two big
holes and one little hole.


Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

-Lu Xun.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Mar 26 18:55:57 PST 1996
Article: 28206 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!news.sprintlink.net!cioeserv.cioe.com!news.hsonline.net!
news.ac.net!news1.erols.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!wb3ffv!
cs.umd.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 Mar 1996 04:01:57 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4itqa5$mtl@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I am surprised when I read the long discussions
of what the Zyclon-B introduction were like.
These discussions are held with an absolute
disregard for what is actually at the site of
the alleged “gas chambers” today.
The scientific or Revisionist method is simple:
go to the scene of the crime and look at the
murder weapon. I am proud to have been one
of the first Revisionists to visit the camps
and video them.
The Revisionist position is simple:
The roof of the so-called gaschamber of Crema II
at Birkenau is 90% complete. It is of poured in
place concrete. It has two large holes
and one small hole in it. These holes were put in
after the original pour in about February 1943.
They were crudely chipped in and are still
transected by re-bar. There are no marks or
signs that would show that any fittings or
“porous pillars” were attached to the roof.
Further, these holes are not in the same
position as the marks shown on the August
25, 1944 aerial photograps.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Mar 26 18:56:04 PST 1996
Article: 28310 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.orst.edu!
news.orst.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!pravda.aa.msen.com!nntp.coast.net!
sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 25 Mar 1996 00:26:58 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 45
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4j5ar2$7lb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

# The best evidence would be the McCallden video from Bradley Smith
# or Zundel or send me $10 and I will make you a copy.

To which Daniel Keren wrote:

Thanks for the offer; maybe one of the other posters here will accept
it. It is against my principles, however, to send money to or hold
personal contacts with Nazis. I would rather take a thousand of my
hard-earned dollars and burn them, than give a Nazi two bloody cents.

I have noticed two epithets come easily to D. Keren, “Liar” and “Nazi”.
I think that someone who would use the above lame excuse to avoid
learning the truth about Crema II is halfway to being a Nazi
himself.

# positions on the roof itself. In the August aerial photograph
# the vents are in a line down the center of the roof.

It’s different for Krema II and III; in II, they are in a
straight line, in III they are not.

In other photographs the vent holes do not show up at all, or
are all on the east side of the roof.

The question is – what holes are you talking about? Are these,
possibly, holes torn by the explosion?

I am talking about the same 2 vent holes that Pressac is writing
about on page 354. Why do you Hoaxters have such a hard time
with these holes? They are the only holes in the roof of the
so-called gaschamber. So unless you think the explosion blew
the holes off the roof or the SS took the vent holes with them
back to Germany* you’ve got to explain the facts:
1. The roof is as hard and impenetrable as Ford McGee’s head;
2. The holes were put in the roof after it was poured (01/43)
3. The holes were crudely chipped in and the re-bar is in place still
4. There are no fittings around the holes to secure Zyclon induction
“pillars” .

*Ford McGee says they found a “whole salt mine full of holes”
after the war in Bavaria.


Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Mar 26 18:56:06 PST 1996
Article: 28327 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!lamarck.sura.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
cpk-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!nntp-hub3.barrnet.net!
nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 Mar 1996 21:07:24 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 44
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ivmcs$adj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

D. Keren writes:
#I was hoping that even someone who’s mentally retarded, as yourself,
#would understand already: I never claimed that the roof is not there,
#only that it is heavily damaged.
Ceacaa asks: Since the roof is there, do you think that some
or all of the vent holes are in the roof?

#I was hoping that even someone who’s mentally retarded, as yourself,
#would understand already: it is impossible to accept anything you
#write as long as you don’t post any evidence; a good photograph,
#for instance.
I do not expect you to “accept” what I write. That is why I have
cited the clear supporting evidence of Pressac and the Auschwitz
Museum. The existing evidence at the scene of the crime is more
relevant and probative to the question of genocide (at least at
Birkenau) than 85% of what is written in alt.revisionism. If
you were really serious about studying the matter, you exterminationists
should do a little honest research too rather than accusing
everyone else of lying.

The best evidence would be the McCallden video from Bradley Smith
or Zundel or send me $10 and I will make you a copy.

As to Mr. Pressac’s theory that the holes “shifted” during
the partial destruction of the gaschamber: Once you understand
what is on the site presently, it will be clear that the holes
could not have shifted their relative positions and their
positions on the roof itself. In the August aerial photograph
the vents are in a line down the center of the roof. In reality
the holes are staggered on the sides of the roof (exactly as
shown in the Auschwitz Museum model). There is a large
concrete beam which runs the lenght of and supports the
ceiling of the Leichenkeller.

Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:40 PST 1996
Article: 28494 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.orst.edu!
news.orst.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!chi-news.cic.net!
news.math.psu.edu!psuvax1!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!
dsinc!ub!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Leuchter Report
Date: 24 Mar 1996 18:34:37 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 33
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4j4m6d$sg5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <19MAR199623272222@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

D.D. Mittleman writes:
>
1. There is merit in going to the sites and examining the “murder
weapon” if the examination is done rigorously. There is ample
evidence
that Leuchter did not do rigorous work. I direct you to the Leuchter
files at Nizkor for this evidence.

I am not sure what you mean by “rigorous”. I think that, except
for Mr. Pressac, the Revisionists have generally been more rigourous
in testing theories against the evidence. I am surprised that
the vent holes of Krema II have missed any rigorous examination
by Exterminationists as have aerial photographs
When I visitied Birkenau, my rigor was somewhat disrupted
by having to avoid the guards. Even so, a visit to the site
raised numerous questions about the Kremas II and III having
been used for mass exterminations (as opposed to mass
cremations). Right now I am just trying to focus on the
alleged murder weapon, to so-called vents.

2. You have been asked directly whether or not you are Fred Leuchter
writing under a pen name. I have not seen your response. So I ask
you
again, are you or are you not Fred Leuchter, Mr. Ceacaa?

No, I am not. I think all that started when Ford McGee tried to
think Revisionisticly although I admit to having added the initials
F.L. to a quote. I didn’t disabuse Ford because I felt it was
therapeutic for him to vent a little.

daniel david mittleman

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:56 PST 1996
Article: 28886 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.tcst.com!news.spectrum.titan.com!
dildog.lgc.com!news.sesqui.net!oitnews.harvard.edu!cmcl2!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 27 Mar 1996 00:26:48 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 28
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4jajio$ur@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4jae9k$21oq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

We should recap the importance of the vents for the
Readers.
One of the most common of the stories of the Holocaust
is that hundreds of thousands (or millions) of persons were
killed by cyanide gas in one room at the crematoria II at Birkenau
Camp. Pressac claims that 400,000 people died in this room.
He also claims that 350,000 people died in a similar room in
Crema III, a building which is a miror image of Crema II.
Thus, Crema II and Crema III are the scene of the alleged crime
and the room generally labeled Leichenkeller 1 and the vent holes
in the roof were the alleged murder weapon.
At the time I came into this thread, the Nizcor “experts”
were writing long confabulations about how the Zyclon pellets
were introduced into the room through “porous pillars” of sheet
metal. Evidently, John Morris and D. Keren were unaware that
the roof of the alleged gaschamber still exists and it is possible
to view the all important vents.
One doesn’t need to be an expert on building gaschambers to
see that the vents were chipped through the concrete roof
after the roof was poured. Quite simply, the size, position,
and present condition of the vent holes and surrounding roof
make Morris and Keren’s porous pillars stories impossible.
My belief is that three holes were chipped through the roof
as part of the demolition process in November or December of
1944

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Mar 31 09:11:59 PST 1996
Article: 29087 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!
newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 29 Mar 1996 18:25:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 111
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4jhrgm$eiu@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3158e70e.21187097@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris writes

>The roof of the gas chamber is only 50% intact
[snip]
>I suspect Ceacaa believes that the gas chamber ended at the first
>underground wall away from the main building. But that wall was added
>after the SS realized that the gas chamber was simply too large. The
>remainder of the roof beyond that wall is not intact.

Too large? Too large for what?
Remember that the “gaschamber” runs on a north/south axis.
It is possible to crawl under the roof from the southern wall
of the roof to within two meters of the north (and only) door
into the room. Therefore I do not know what you are writing
about with your “first wall away from the building”.
Maybe you are just having a math problem here, John.
(I can guess that your doctorate is not in math)
If 100% of the 50% of the roof beyond the southern wall is
destroyed and100% of the 50% of the roof of the gaschamber
exists. How much of the gaschamber roof exists?
100%
50%
none.
Remember that I chose 90%
Anyway, 50% is still enough to work with. What does the
existing roof show? How many holes? and How many
of these holes were vent holes used as part of the
killing operations?

>My general take on denier “methodology” is that it refuses not
>only any facts that conflict with its conclusions but that
>the methodology itself is progressively trimmed so that whole
>classes of facts can be ignored. Your claim that it is sufficient
>to look at the “murder weapon” exclusive of all other
>considerations merges neatly into the standard denier
>methodology. For me to argue with you about whether you have
>properly understood the evidence of your own eyes means that I
>have to argue on your terrain. But your terrain is so rigorously
>circumscribed that you cannot come to any conclusion but, in this
>case, that the induction holes in the gas chamber were cut after
>the roof was poured, as I shall explain below.
You are correct: there is a vast amount of other evidence of
many types, physical evidence, photographic evidence, documentary
evidence, eye-witness testimonys or confessions. It is not
that I am ignoring it; I am trying to focus on a primary piece
of physical evidence and get an agreement that a several
ton piece of concrete is lying in a Polish field and has only
three holes in it.

>When I reviewed the Nova video, the feature that struck me most
>was that the roof did appear to be only about 50% intact, as Dr.
>Keren has said. . Van Pelt, however, has confirmed only 50% of
>the roof is sufficiently intact to determine whether there were any
>induction holes at all. He described the roof to me as being in what I
take
>to be two halves: for one half, the roof is as you describe it, a
>fairly intact slab that collapsed into the room below; for the
>other half; he describes it as being “crumpled like a piece of
>paper.”

So it appears that there is something we all can analysize.

>The thing that has always stuck in my head about the way you have
>described the three holes in the roof of L.Keller 1 (aka, the gas
>chamber) is that they sound just like chunks of the roof that
>have been displaced by the explosion that destroyed the roof in
>the first place. As I recall, you have described them as
>irregularly-shaped, crudely chipped-in, and altogether too small
>to accomodate the supposed dimensions of the sheet metal
>induction columns. You have also mentioned that the rebar is
>broken off and bent back. I would submit that what you have
>observed is exactly as I say: chunks of the roof displaced by the
>explosion and not fake induction holes added after the fact.

I do not think that the existing holes are fakes. I believe
that they were chipped through the roof in December 1944
as part of the demolition process. The rebar is sawed, not
cut.

>But physical evidence is as open to skeptical interpretation as
>the wildest survivor testimony.
This is literaly “solid evidence”, empirical evidence you
can bump your head against.

>Van Pelt suggested to me that the holes were not, as has been
>supposed, evenly spaced between the concrete support pillars, but
>that they were immediately adjacent to the concrete pillars
This makes more sense since there was and is a concrete
beam running between the pillars

>themselves destroyed when the pillars were dynamited to collapse
>the roof. As Van Pelt, also says, his theory about the placement
>of the holes is unprovable since they no longer exist.
This is incorrect. In most of the pillars, the roof pillar
connection is obvious. No missing holes.What I find really interesting is that the blotches are not atall as irregularly spaced as might it seem from the photos.

As I have noted in other threads, I have wondered about
the aerial photographs too. You may have a good point.

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Apr 1 09:55:51 PST 1996
Article: 29291 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.tcst.com!news.spectrum.titan.com!
dildog.lgc.com!news.sesqui.net!oitnews.harvard.edu!cmcl2!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 29 Mar 1996 18:34:04 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 17
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4jhs1c$eq6@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine writes:

>How about when the Nazis designed Krema II they weren’t origionally
>planning on gassing people in it?

I agree.

>So what this means, as indicated above, is that L.Keller 1 in Krema II
was
>NOT origionaly designed to be a gas chamber. There are
>too many converging pieces of evidence that support this view.
> One could easily argue that if the vents were added, so then the vent
>_holes_
>in the roof of L.Keller 1 of Krema II were added.

Mark, I agree. But tell us, how many holes are on the
roof today?

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Apr 1 23:02:24 PST 1996
Article: 29546 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Apr 1996 18:18:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4jpo7b$25f@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4jm6sn$q35@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I have been surprised that the present state of the
alleged gaschambers at Crema II and III at
Birkenau was not better known to the Exterminationist
“experts” on this thread and that, after several months
of trying, we can’t any agreement on the subject.
Perhaps this is because it is generally accepted
that the gaschambers were “blown up” as part of an
attempt to remove the “evidence”. Therefore, there is
no evidence at the site of the crime.
It may also be because a cursory view of the roof of
L. 1 of Crema II does not show much. That is because the
roof of Leichenkeller 1 was/is composed of three elements.
The slab roof of poured in place concrete;
a waterproof covering over the slab made of an asphalt-like
material;
and, on top of the asphalt, another layer of concrete.
This last layer of concrete is broken into small pieces
and has grass and moss growing on it. At first impression,
it looks as if the roof is destroyed. Of course, as I have
stated, the concrete slab roof underneath, is generally
intact. But this might also explain why so many people
claim the roof is destroyed.

I have tried to accurately put forward my observations
of the present state of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II
because I think that the present state of the Leichenkeller
is the best evidence of what was on the site 52 years ago.
My observations were made a decade ago, under the
constraints of avoiding patroling guards, and in an extempore
manner, without a guide to what I should be looking for, or a
plan of the Crema. I clearly missed investigating relevant
material such as the state of the roof of Leichenkeller 2
or the roofs of Crema III. It seems clear that some form of
solid “proof” is required to move this discussion along.
So, I propose that the “poor doctorial candidate” from
Alberta, John Morris go to Birkenau and see for himself if
the roof is there and report back to us. The trip should not
cost more than $2,000 U.S. I am willing to contribute $200
just to have D. Keren stop nattering at me. Plus it will
let Mr. Morris get out of Edmonton and see a really big
sophisticated city like Bielsko-Biala.
John, are you ready for a summer trip to Europe in the
name of Truth? Are you “Holocaust experts” ready to put
your money where your e-mail is?

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Apr 2 07:24:06 PST 1996
Article: 29575 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!news.his.com!
news.frontiernet.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Apr 1996 16:56:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 11
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4jpjer$t5h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <315DC686.553B@kaiwan.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Dear Mr. Raven:
One would think that D. Keren would be able to answer
the simple question as the the number of the important
vent holes in the roof of the alleged gaschamber but
I think you are pushing D. Keren too hard. As a Hoaxter,
he is unable to tell the truth about anything; as an ignoramus
he doesn’t know the truth about anything; as a petty academic
posturing as a Holocaust expert, Keren won’t admit that he
doesn’t know anything. He keeps calling people “Nazi”
because he can’t answer their arguments with anything
intelligent.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Apr 3 13:44:44 PST 1996
Article: 29768 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 3 Apr 1996 09:48:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 78
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ju34b$hhl@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On 01 Apr 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote

[section on use of asphalt snipped]
>This sounds reasonable as the walls and floors of the
>L.Kellers were underground and the water table of the camp
>was high. Not so for the roof of the L.Kellers. The roof of L.Keller
>1 of Krema II, for
>instance, extended a couple of feet above ground level, as can be seen in
>the photos on p.318 in _Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945_ or p.57 (photo
>7a) in _Air Photo Evidence_. Groundwater seepage would not then be an
>issue for the roof of L.Keller 1. (And presumably for L.Keller 1 of Krema
>III).
I believe that Mark is correct that the walls of the
L.Kellers extended several feet above the ground. In passing I mention
that
the walls were not made of concrete but were composed of brick.
The brick was layed in several courses, had waterproofing on the
exterior wall and, if my memory serves me, was plastered on
the inside walls, at least on the western wall.
The room of the L.Keller was partially filled with water
when I was there.

In addition, the one image image of that shows the remains of the gas
chamber of Krema II I have so far located on the Web at:

http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/chambr01.html

> However, given your current claims as to the state of Krema II’s
>L.Keller 1, your conclusions are far from certain. Furthermore,
>to ignore the convergence of the _other_ evidence that indicates that
>L.Keller was was indeed used as a gas chamber, solely in
>favor of evidence based on what you cite, but
>decline to make available, leaves your argument significantly weaker.
I would agree that there is much other evidence which I have not
discussed. However, I feel that the evidence of the present
state of the L.Kellers in Crema II and III is powerful. I am
just trying to reach an agreement as to what is presently on
the site so that we have a common ground to work from.

>Indeed. Have you contacted the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and
>inquired for detailed photos of Krema II’s L.Keller 1, specifically the
>roof and any vent holes? Has anyone? If not, don’t you agree that
>contacting them would be the a good idea? Perhaps somebody in the
>newsgroup knows of a contact point at the museum?
Good points

>Interesting. If Mr. Morris is willing then I would be happy to also
>contribute U.S. $200 for such a trip. I would stipulate, however, that
>_this_ trip should be done with the full cooperation of the
>Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. I would also stipulate that an agenda
>and goals for such a trip be planned and declared ahead of time
>and that the research methods for gathering evidence be agreed
>upon as well.
>(Photographic, video, and documentation, I would assume.)
Agreed, if possible, agreed, andf agreed

>No sneaking around to surreptitiously pinch samples from a state
>historical site. Bad manners that.
So many Revisionists have done this that I wonder if the
roof is still there

# John, are you ready for a summer trip to Europe in the
# name of Truth? Are you “Holocaust experts” ready to put
# your money where your e-mail is?

>I think, more aptly, Mr, Leu… er, Ceacaa, the question should be are
the
>deniers ready to do so?
Well, I am. I would suggest that you, Mark, are the escrow of the
funds, if such a task is not too onerous.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Apr 6 23:06:33 PST 1996
Article: 30033 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.umbc.edu!
cs.umd.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!admaix.sunydutchess.edu!ub!csn!
news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Apr 1996 13:17:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 13
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4k6cgg$cap@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

MORRISON KEITH MURRAY writes: “Moronic drivel” when
asked how many holes are presently on the roof of the
alleged gas chamber.
I think we have another victim of the “Mad Keren disease”
acquired by exposure to the half-cook bull of D. Keren.
The syptoms of this disease are that the victim, when asked
how many holes are in the roof of the alleged gas chamber,
rolls his eyes, gives incoherent or contradictory answers,
and finally exhibits hostile agressive behavior.
However, I admit that I don’t have a particularly
powerful anwer to the question, “if the holes weren’t
there for gas induction vents, what were they for?”

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Apr 8 06:54:55 PDT 1996
Article: 30166 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!
sbctri.tri.sbc.com!newspump.wustl.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!
oitnews.harvard.edu!cmcl2!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Apr 1996 13:05:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 53
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4k6bpn$c42@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

>John Morris 3/29writes

>Pressac says that the gas chamber was divided in two to reduce the
>number of persons gassed to 1000 at a time. He claims that this was
>done after better estimates were made of the capacity of the crematory
>furnaces. Franciszek Piper also confirms that the gas chamber was
>divided in two, and he adds that the southern part of the room was
>used as the gas chamber after it was divided. Piper bases his
>assertion on testimony by Sonderkommando members H. Tauber and
>Wladyslaw Girsa given at the Hoess trial. Pressac refers back to his
>first book (which I am still waiting for).
This really does not make much sense. First of all, the roof
of the L.Keller is best preserved exactly on the Southern end of the
room. This can be seen in the Pressac book at pag. 354. One of
the “vent holes” is in the south west corner of the roof.
Secondly, I did not see any sign of a subdividing wall in
the so-called “gas chamber” although I had not heard of this one and
was not looking for it.
However, the agrument that the gas chambers were made
smaller in order to tie in with the capacity of the crematory
furnaces does not seem logical. Just think Revisionisticly
for a second. 1. If you only wish to kill 1,000 people at a time
(as opposed to 2,000) why not just put 1,000 people into the
room? 2. If you have a trainload of victims standing around
the central road of the camp waiting to take an underground
bath, are you going to make them wait, catch-on that something
is odd and dangerous and riot or just try to kill them as fast
as possible. 3. The bodies couldn’t wait 24 hours for their
turn to be cremated. 4. What about the famous “burning pits”
Finally, since the victims entered the gaschamber from the
north end of the room, it would be more logical to expect that
the northern half of the room would have been used as the
gaschamber, not the southern end. This would have kept the
victims from having to walk through another room prior to
being killed, facilitated crowd controll and body removal.

>Leichenkeller I was divided into two parts late in 1943. The northern
>half of the roof collapsed nearly intact during demolition late in
>1944; the southern half was completely destroyed.
Again, this conflicts with what is presently on the site

However, on March 31, 1943, the SS took delivery of Krema II. The
acknowledgment of receipt indicates that the four grillwork columns
were already installed. If any evidence of the induction holes for the
grillwork columns had survived demolition, there should have been only
two such holes in the surviving portion of the roof.
Makes sense but, again, it conflicts with the evidence on the
site. Again, I ask the questions
What does the existing roof show? How many holes? and How many of these
holes were vent holes used as part of the
killing operations?
Rest of reply will be posted later

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Apr 8 10:37:24 PDT 1996
Article: 30219 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!news.sojourn.com!
newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!
news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 8 Apr 1996 00:10:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 60
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ka3k9$j8j@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4k9649$bcb@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Reply to John Morris posting of 3/29

> This is literaly “solid evidence”, empirical evidence you
>can bump your head against.

[snip discussion of discovery of skull of primative
AustralioMcFeeicus]

>>Van Pelt suggested to me that the holes were not, as has been
>>supposed, evenly spaced between the concrete support pillars, but
>>that they were immediately adjacent to the concrete pillars.
> This makes more sense since there was and is a concrete
>beam running between the pillars.
It would also make sense in that the pillars would have
had more support to resist crowd pressures but make less
sense in that one side of the pillar would have been against
the column and not open to release gas.

>>themselves destroyed when the pillars were dynamited to collapse
>>the roof. As Van Pelt, also says, his theory about the placement
>>of the holes is unprovable since they no longer exist.
> This is incorrect. In most of the pillars, the roof pillar
>connection is obvious. No missing holes.

Although I assume that Van Pelt has been to the site most
Exterminationists have not made comment on the vent
holes. As we are all finding out, it is hard to find a
photograph of the holes through which the Zyclon was
poured. Most exterminationists look at these vent
“comme une poule qui a trouve un couteau”

>>What I find really interesting is that the blotches are not at
>>all as irregularly spaced as might it seem from the photos.

>> As I have noted in other threads, I have wondered about
>>the aerial photographs too. You may have a good point.

>Whew! This is better than flattery! I must say that this is very
>refreshing. Not that you agree with me, but that unlike the
>usual run
>of alt.revisionists, you considered the merits of what I was saying
>rather than taking issue with my use of words like “speculate,”
>”unprovable,” and “theory.”
I think that the aerial photographs are worth a lot of study.
I took some blow-ups when I went to Birkenau.

>Nevertheless, I still find your explanation of the “murder weapon”
>less compelling than the explanation already posited by historians.
My comments on the vent holes is not really an explaination
of the murder weapon as an attempt to clarify what is
presently on the site. The vent holes are only one issue
of many but I had thought it would have been the easiest
to prove.
There is a great deal of heat and little light on this
subject. That is why I think that it would be a great
idea for you to go look for yourself and all of us
here on Alt. rev. So far there seems to be about
$600 in the Morris Mission pot. Are you game?
June in Poland is lovely, er well, not so bad.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Apr 9 07:14:28 PDT 1996
Article: 30315 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 9 Apr 1996 02:14:44 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 80
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4kcv8k$igb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)

The single most important site in the Holocaust
story would have to be the two alleged “gaschambers”
located in the two crematorium at the Birkenau Camp
at Auschwitz. These rooms were constructed in early
1943 and it is claimed that they were the location of
the murder of hundreds of thousands or even millions
of people. This thread has concentrated on one
of the rooms, commonly identified as Leichenkeller 1
of Crema II and, specifically, what is on the site today,
April 8, 1996. Surprisingly enough, there is little agreement
on this simple fundamental factual question.
The generally accepted story is that Zyclon was poured
through vents in the roof into some sort of hollow
“pillars” which then allowed for the cynanide gas to
seep out of the pillar and into the room. So far this thread
has tried to concentrate on the present state of the roof
and the present state and location of the holes through
that roof.

The Revisionist position is that the best evidence of
what was at the so-called gas chamber in 1944 is the
evidence of what is there today. Revisionists subscribe
to the empirical method of “going to the scene of the
crime and looking at the murder weapon.”
They have found that the roof was/is made
of poured in place concrete and is a substantially complete
but broken whole. There are only two large and one small
hole visible in the slab today. These three holes were
crudely chipped into the roof after the original pour and
have rebar, cut in one place and bent out of the way, tran-
secting the holes. There are no bolts, bolt holes or
other sign of attachments around either the top of the
holes or the bottom or ceiling entry of the hole. Thus,
it would no be possible to have have any “hollow pillar”
attached to the slab. In the course of this thread
other specific information was given regarding the
construction of the roof and walls of the Leichenkeller 1.
It was suggested that the holes were put in in December
1944 as part of the demolition process.

The Exterminationist position is widely varied.
The roof was “totally destroyed”, the roof exists
but the holes were destroyed”, the roof is 50% in existance
but all the vents were destroyed and new holes created
by the Germans. Some Exterminationist/Hoaxters, D.
Keren is the prime example, are trying to obfuscate the
issue by refusing to state any position to the questions
given below and “demanding” that photographs of the
holes be posted. Most Exterminationists writers look at
the existing vent holes “comme une poule qui a trouve un
couteau”.

Since Revisionists recognize that there is
reasonable confusion on basic observable and cardinal
issues, Ceacaa has offered to help pay for the
Heroic John Morris (a prominent Exterminationist)
to venture to Birkenau and resolve the questions
which have delayed the advancment of the this
thread. This offer has been matched by several
generous members of the exterminationist camp.
It has been proposed that Mark V.A. be the guardian
of the funds. A specific itinerary and agenda would
be developed if Mr. Morris agrees to carry the torch
to light the darkness which presently covers
Leichenkeller 1.

Having tried to clearly state the Revisionist view of
what is on the site of Leichenkeller 1, I restate my
questions to the Exterminationist community.

What does the existing roof show? How many holes are
presently in the roof? How many of these holes were vent holes used as
part of the killing operations?
Will you help send a poor doctorial candidate from
Canada to Poland in the name of Truth?

Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in concrete.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Apr 12 09:36:01 PDT 1996
Article: 30651 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!
news.sojourn.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!
news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 11 Apr 1996 02:20:53 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 85
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ki8c5$eu2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4khvrl$el2@wi.combase.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote:

>(Ceacaa) wrote:

>> I have tried to state clearly what I remember:
>> That the concrete roof of the L.Keller 1 exists in broken pieces;
>> That it is possible to see almost the total roof;
>> That there are only three holes presently on the roof;
>> That they correspond in position with the model in
>> the Auschwitz Museum;
>> That the holes were put in after the original pour of the
>> roof, are crudely chipped in, transected by cut rebar;
>> That there are not any bolts, bolt holes, are other signs
>> of attachment around the holes.

>And the evidence for these assertions is at where, exactly?

Mark, the evidence is in a field in Poland for anyone to see.
Since you don’t believe Pressac or the Auschwitz State
Museum or me, get J. Morris to go Poland and confirm this
question. Or get a little information out of the Auschwitz
Museum.
Your bickering over the number of holes on the roof is a
waste of time. The simple answer is “Go
Look.” You seem to have gone over to the darkside of
the debate (the Keren side), rather than try and resolve an
important series of questions, you parrot Keren.

>Actually, the questions of deniers deal with contriving “conflicting”
>evidence. Typically by ignoring the totality of the evidence to narrowly
focus on a supposed “conflict.”

This is absurd. Any honest scholar admits there are
many conflicts in Holocaust stories. That does not mean
that all stories are untrue, some might be. But to claim
that Revisionists “create conflicting” evidence is a
mischaracterization.
Take this very thread.
Do you agree with VanPelt’s argument (dixit Morris) that
the vents were all off center and next to
columns? Do you agree that Leichenkeller 1 was divided
into two rooms sometime after 1943 and only the southern
end was used as the gas chamber?
And that only two vents were used in the extermination process?
Your Canadian collegue does. I do not mean to make light
of or belittle Mr. (soon to be doctor) Morris’ agruments but,
instead, hold them up as an example of thoughtful consideration
of a confusing subject or confused subject.

But let’s look at your “theories” in the same light as you
look at others:
> The metal introduction pillars were comprised of an outer grid,
>an inner grid, and a removable core. The outer grid was comprised of a
>wire grid, the with a cross-section measuring 70 cm square and seperated
>from the inner grid by 150mm. This would imply the inner grid had a
>cross-section of 55 cm square. The moveable core, which was introduced
>through an opening in the ceiling and was surrounded by the outer and
>inner wire grids, had a cross-section of 150 mm x 150 mm.

>Now, that’s 15 cm x 15 cm for the core, the part that actually was
>introduced and removed via the hole in the ceiling. A hole that you claim
>was 40 cm x 40 cm. Hardly a “conflict,” IMO….

This detailed description of Mark’s “Magic Double Layered
Column” is absurd on its face in light of the present state
of the vent holes and the uses he claims it was put but let’s
all see how far Mark will carry his stupid farce of the magic
column.

Gee, Mark, you’ve told us before but please mention it again
for the other readers of this thread. This 70 cm outer grid
was not attached to the ceiling was it? And you are not claiming
that a 70 cm “column” can go through a 40 cm hole?

And please tell us all a little more about your 15 cm by
15 cm “core”. I think you said it extended above the
roof of the Leichenkeller. Could you please tell how
far? And did your “core” go all the way to the floor
of the Leichenkeller? Any other information about your
column that you can make up, er, I mean “discover”, please
post for us. Thank you

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Apr 17 07:15:41 PDT 1996
Article: 31588 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 16 Apr 1996 17:51:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 187
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4l14oj$ai8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4kv27s$db6@wi.combase.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote 14 Apr 1996 04:11:06 GMT

>In the aerial photograph of January 14, 1945 both Kremas II and III
>are seen to be still standing. Their roofs are snow-covered,
>indicating that they had fallen into disuse by that time. I would
>suggest that the dynamite was to be used to destroyed the remains >of the
Kremas.
I was looking at the aerial photograph of December 21,
1944, the best reproduction is in John Ball’s book
Air Photo Evidence at page 66. In that picture it appears
that the roof of Leichenkellers 1 and 2 of Crema 1 have
been dropped. Ball writes: “the roofs appear to have
been removed” This is what I was writing about, Leichenkeller
1.
It is also apparent that further demolition of the Cremas took
place after December 21st

[snip review of photograph for now]

> First, it could be that you simply do not know because you were >too
busy playing Revisionist Hero
>and avoiding the guards to take proper measurements. It all sounds
>very gallant, but there is really no reason for that kind of
>silliness.
Really? Propounding Revisionist views is/was a felony
in Germany and not likely to be viewed with sympathy in
Poland. Think of going to the People’s Republic of North
Korea with pro democracy literature or to Myamar with a
Aung San Suu Kyi T-shirt as comparison.
But I agree with you, my method could surely have used
refinement.

>Secondly, it occurs to me that you know where the holes are but >won’t
say.
I have said that the 3 existing holes are exactly where
they are shown in the model in the Polish State Museum
except for the northern most hole. Whoever made the model
and I agree.
I will also state that I got involved in this discussion
with a simple statement of fact (I thought): that the
roof still exists and the vent holes can be viewed. I had
expected this to be rapidly agreed upon and we could move
on to a discussion of how the “porous pillars” might have
been attached. No luck for Ceacaa! We have widely divergent
views on the simple fact of whether the roof exists!

Interpretive and methodological questions can only be
addressed after there is an agreement on basic data. I
assumed that the roof would be the foundation (so to speak) of
any interpretive discussion. However, because I recognize
defects in my methodology and my inability to present
clear evidence of what I write, I proposed that this thread
send an investigator to Poland.

> I had hoped that this exchange might result in some evidence that
>Revisionists were capable of theorizing their position.
> You have yet to explain why vent holes were necessary to lessen >the
force of the blast meant to destroy the gas chamber roof.

I agree that my argument regarding demolition blasts may
have more holes in it than the roof does. However, the condition
of the holes (which I have stated before) makes it evident that
they were hastily made and made after the original pour.
I did not look for what evidence of the demolition process
exists today. Which is another reason to send an investigator.

As to the physical description of the holes, you say you observed the
following during an on-site visit ten years ago:

I have tried to state clearly what I remember:
That the concrete roof of the L.Keller 1 exists in broken pieces;
That it is possible to see almost the total roof;
That there are only three holes presently on the roof;
That they correspond in position with the model in
the Auschwitz Museum;
That the holes were put in after the original pour of the
roof, are crudely chipped in, transected by cut rebar;
That there are not any bolts, bolt holes, are other signs
of attachment around the holes.

>Robert-Jan Van Pelt also visited the site and says that the roof is
>broken in pieces, but that only part of it can be seen intact.

Even 50% is enough to start to draw some conclusions
from and one does not have to be a Champollion to
decipher some of the mystries of the roof.

>He appears not to think the three holes are at all relevant to the
>question of the gas induction columns because he believes they >were
located at some other position, probably adjacent to the >support pillars.

Of course he has to say that (!) because the three holes
I am writing about could NOT have been vent holes. There
are no attachment points on the roof, there are probably
no attachment points on the floor, and the holes are too far
>from the support columns or wall to be attached to them.
The central supporting columns DO have holes in them
which could have provided support to an “induction pillar”. Thus,
Van Pelt is the only Exterminationist who (in my view)
deals with the on site evidence.
The trouble with Van Pelt’s theory is that the roof area
around the top of the support columns is not obliterated
enough. At least, that is what I remember. But again this
is something for our investigator to investigate.

[snip discussion on holes]

> Until you tell us exactly where the holes are, we can only >speculate as
to their purpose and history. The rebar could have >been cut at almost any
time for any number of reasons none of >which necessarily having to do
with the gas induction columns.

>Aside from the issue of the holes, I have not seen any satisfactory
>explanation for why the Kremas were singled out for destruction. >Your
explanation that the Soviets would have made propaganda out >of the
existence of a mass cremation facility cuts both ways. >Either the Nazis
were destroying evidence of deaths from mass >murder or evidence of
massive deaths from other causes of >persons in their custody.

I believe that is about what I wrote.

>Mr. Van Alstine has covered the issue of why the gas chamber was
divided… [snip]
The alleged division of the gas chamber makes little
sense to me but I still have to read Mr. Van Alstine’s posting.
One more thing for our investigator to investigate.

>Lastly as to the proposal to send me to Birkenau to make my own
>examination of the site, I assume that this was largely posturing >on
your part, since $400 or $600 dollars would not make it >possible…
Nevertheless, I cannot possibly go before
>August when I will be in England on the second part of a three part
>research trip for an historian at U Alberta. The lowest quote I >could
get for current return fares from London to Crakow was >slightly more than
$400 US. Since I am already in some difficulties >covering an
>additional week-and-a-half of accommodations while I do my own
>research and read a paper at a conference, most of the full $600 >will be
necessary to defray my incidentals and accommodations >while in Poland.
Unfortunately, I have only seen posts pledging >$400. Where is the
additional $200 coming from?

I thought that it had been pledged. If I am mistaken, I
will cover it. However, without putting ANY condition on
my commitment, I think that we should aim for a budget
of $1,200.

>There is, however, an alternative to sending me. Stephane >Bruchfeld will
be travelling to Birkenau in a few weeks time, and I >understand through a
third party that he is prepared to conduct an >examination of the site
for us.
>If you are concerned about whether he will give an honest account, >I
would point
>out that Miloslav Bilik has also offered to go to Birkenau using the
>money pledged so far. I am sure that the two of them can keep each
>other honest.

I believe that most people following this thread would
report honestly even if they have strong feelings on
the subject; that includes Mr. Bilik. I found the Camp very
depressing; two investigators may work better together and
have a more interesting time. I have no objection to Mr. Bilik.

>One way or another, it is time for us to be defining our research
>parameters. Any suggestions?

Yes. I have a string of questions to investigate. They relate to
the windows on the guard towers, the steps into Leichenkeller 2,
the connection between L.2 and L.1, drainage ditches,
security at the back (western), condition of the firebrick
>from the chimneys which is around Crema III, ground evidence
of aerial photographs around Crema II, demolition of Cremas
IV and V, nightime security around “Mexico”, and, of course,
the condition of Leichenkeller 1, Crema II. I will try and
get them organized.

I suggest that copies of the aerial photographs could be very useful
as would the French version of “Auschwitz Album”. I
assume that copies of all or some would be at the Auschwitz
State Museum.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Apr 17 22:49:58 PDT 1996
Article: 31707 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!
imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 17 Apr 1996 02:36:45 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 149
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4l23ht$mqk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4kv288$db6@wi.combase.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote 4/12/96
[snip section on getting and posting photographic
evidence]

>Meanwhile,I have cited
>http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/chambr01.html
>as showing the current state of the gas chamber of Krema II. This >photo
is from Pressac’s _Technique_ (p.261) and show L.Keller 1 do >be
completely demolished, the with much rubble and debris in the >floor of
the gas chamber.

“Completely demolished”???? So, is it your position that
there is no roof left to see? Arrggh, backsliding to square one.

[snip]

> Or get a little information out of the Auschwitz Museum.

Tak, Dobre pojecie

>It is clear from Dr. Piper’s account that the _four_ introduction
>columns passed through holes in the ceiling of the gas chamber. >Ergo,
_four_holes.

My question to you, to be answered once we can agree
on how much of the roof still exists, is “How many of the
vent holes exist today?” I say 3. More particularly,
2 large and one small holes, Specifically the three
southern most holes as shown on the model of the
Leichenkeller at the Auschwitz State Museum.
Once we have determined this we can proceed to see
what can be learned from the vent holes.

>Need I remind you that it was YOU who brought up this whole >sordid issue
about the number of the holes in the attempt to >”disprove” that Zyklon B
was not introduced through the metal >introduction columns?

I object to your use of the word “sordid” in connection with
the Leichenkeller. Tragic or macbre, not sordid.

[snip section on Revisionists being dishonest humbugs
who spend all their time concocting devilish but false
contradictions on evidence]

>> Take this very thread. Do you agree with VanPelt’s argument (dixit
Morris)
>> that the vents were all off center and next to columns?

>Your cite for this, please?
My cite was an earilier posting of Mr. Morris on this
thread wherein Mr. Morris quoted a discussion with
Mr. Van Pelt.

[snip Van Pelt and Pressac’s description of stacks ]
> Not implanted off center and next to the pillars,
>but between them.

I agree that this was Van Pelt’s earlier position
but Mr. Morris indicated that Van Pelt’s position is changing.
That Van Pelt’s position would change makes sense to
me as it is a logical response to the observable
condition of the roof. Direct observation shows that
there are no holes between the columns.

>”Photographs taken by the Allies in 1944 indicate that the gas
>introductin columns of crematorium II were arrayed in a straight >line.

The aerial photographs are a subject worth their own major
discussion. The vents show up in one or maybe two of the
aerial photographs and not in others. They are placed
on L.1 Crema II down the center of the room just where
there is a very large concrete beam (although on Crema III
they are scattered). This thread is trying to stick to the
existing physical evidence which can then be used later
to analysize the photograph evidence.

>> Do you agree that Leichenkeller 1 was divided into two rooms >>sometime
after 1943 and only the southern end was used
>>as the gas chamber?

>L.Keller 1, according to Pressac (_Anatomy_, p.224) was divided >into two
smaller gas chambers at the end of 1943 to “regularize” >the gassings. It
>had operated up until then as one large gas chamber with four >Zyklon B
>introduction columns.

Again Dr. Piper comments (_Anatomy_, p.167):

>”At the end of 1943, each of the gas chambers in both crematoria >was
divided by a wall, and the passgae linking them was closed by >a door
identical to the entrance door. After that time, smaller >transports were
led into the back room.”

>From Dr. Piper’s description I understand him to be saying that the
>backmost (southern) gas chamber was used to gas transport that >had a
>”small” number of people on them. This doesn’t mean that _both_ >gas
>chambers weren’t used to gas large numbers of people at one time.

>After the division of L.Keller 1 into two equal size gas chambers, I
>would assume, as the vents appear to be more or less evenly space
>out in the ariel photos, that each gas chamber would have had two
>introduction columns. Don’t you?

Sounds reasonable, but it is the division of Leichenkeller 1 into
two rooms that I question. Consider the ventilation system, was it
divided too? However, I will address your comments in your earlier
post on the subject

[snip]

>Pardon me while I blow my nose in your general direction.

Readers of this thread should know that this is a
dreaded Dutch curse which causes flue-like symtoms
in the victim.

> it was a removeable core. You know, like it could be
>_removed_ from the introduction columns that were inside the gas
>chamber?
>That’s how the spent Zyklon B was extracted. What extended above >the
roof
>of L.Keller 1 was what Dr. Piper called “little chimneys” and >Pressac
called “stacks that opened into the four grillwork columns.” Dr. Nyiszli,
a prisoner in Birkenau, described them as “short concrete pipes [that]
jutted up from the ground.”

>> Could you please tell how far?

>How tall is “little” or “short?”
I guess it depends on what you are measuring
but when one is writing about “stacks” does one meter
sound right to you?

>> And did your “core” go all the way to the floor of the Leichenkeller?

>According to Dr. Piper the introduction column was fastened to the floor.

I was asking about the “core”. It couldn’t have been
fastened to the floor and also have been removable

>My assumption is that it probably did. I would assume,
>though, that the Nazis placed at whatever height they determined
>was most condusive to ensure the “rapid and uniform spread” of
>the HCN gas.

Then can we assume that the “removable core” had the
biggest surface area and, therefore, probably went to the
floor? TO BE BLUNT, HOW LONG WAS YOUR REMOVABLE CORE????

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Apr 27 06:43:57 PDT 1996
Article: 32972 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!
hunter.premier.net!insync!news.io.com!news2.cais.net!
news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 26 Apr 1996 02:38:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 47
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4lpr0b$ve@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote on 24 Apr 1996

>But who said there were three holes in the roof? You claim that
>currently there are three holes. But a large portion of the
>roof was totally destroyed.
Actually, Pressac says that there are 2 holes presently on the
roof. He doesn’t count a small hole at a crackline.

>You’re claiming that 90% of the roof is intact? How long do you
>claim this “90%” is? The gas chamber was 30 meters long. Are
>you claiming that the part of the roof that is still intact is
>about 27 meters long? Or didn’t you bother to measure it?

The roof consisted of three components, the poured in place
concrete slab, the asphalt covering, and a concrete cap.
(please note that Pressac writes in Technique at pg. 322
that the the roof had a bituminous felt covering and was also
covered with earth). I do not remember any earth covering and
doubt that the Leichenkeller was ever covered in earth.

The concrete cap is scattered into small pieces, the average
size of about 12 cm. These pieces cover the slab.

The slab was poured into wooden forms. The imprint of
the wooden forms is very clear on the lower ceiling side
of the slab. The slab is heavily reenforced with steel
rebar.
This slab is broken into approximately 20 pieces. Many
of the pieces are still held together by the rebar and the
pattern of the forms is not destroyed by the cracks between
the pieces. The pieces generally are broken in lines that run
east/west (across the room) although some parts of the
slab rest on the side walls and slant into the room. The roof
is still very solid and can be walked upon with no give or apparent
shifting.

The broken pieces do not lie on the floor of the Leichenkeller
but rest on the concrete columns or side walls. It is possible
to climb through one of the existing holes and stand in the room
itself. The height of the room varies due to the tilt of the
ceiling.
The slab is clearly exposed at the ceiling of the room.
It is here where the traces of any marks, fixtures, or fittings can
best be seen.
The condition of the pillars is very interesting but I must
go. I will try to post about them soon.
How ’bout helping Mr. Morris go to Poland?

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Apr 27 15:12:07 PDT 1996
Article: 33160 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
news.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!admaix.sunydutchess.edu!ub!csn!news-1.csn.net!
csus.edu!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!imci3!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 23 Apr 1996 18:18:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 216
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ljl0b$osp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3178b970.59624521@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van wrote Apr 18, 1996

Sorry to have been slow in replying but I have been
out with the flu. I also want to thank you for the postings of
photographs. I can see that this is a good way to introduce the
evidence. Unfortunatly, we had a problem with our server
software which I am just resolving

>The photo mentioned (_Technique_, p.261) shows that the roof of L.Keller
>one is completely demolished. You have, I believe, claimed
>that much of the south end of the roof is
>intact. That is not apparent from this photo.
The photograph on page 261 is a view of the entire roof
looking north. The southern end of the roof consists of the
large blocks in the foreground of the picture.
As I have noted before, the roof is comprised of three layers,
the lower concrete slab, the asphalt covering and a second layer
of concrete. It is the top layer of concrete which has broken up
and gives the impression that the slab is demolished. The best pictures
of the state of the slab roof are on pages 353-354 of _Technique_
These pictures show clearly what I was writing about re.
the construction of the roof, ie. poured in place concrete.
The imprint of the wooden forms are distinct. They also show
the condition of the southern end of the slab, intact

[snip]

Much can already be determined about the L.Keller, introduction columns,
and therefore the vent holes already. We know, for instance that the metal
introduction columns for fabricated in the metalwork shop at Auschwitz
(_Anatomy_, p.180ff) and that when Krema II was delivered om March 31,
1943, that the memorandum acknowledging this indicated that L.Keller 1 was
equipped with a gas-tight door, four _Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung_, or
“wire netting inserting devices,” i.e. the metal grillwork columns four
pouring Zyklon B into the gas chamber. (_Anatomy_, p.233.)
Now why would the Nazis go to the trouble of making and installing _four_
introduction columns and only make three holes in the roof?

Mark, I think you missed what I was saying about the number
and position of the holes. It is my estimation that the slab is 90%
intact and in the EXPOSED part of the roof are three holes.
The location of the fourth northern most hole on the roof (as placed
on the model in the Auschwitz State
Museum) is covered by rubble from the Crema building so I couldn’t
check that so-called vent hole. In fact I suspect that there is a hole
there simply because the Polish Museum officials put one in the model.
That part of the roof is not easily accessible from below either.

The reason I emphasize that there are only three holes in the
_visible_ part of the slab, was, besides it being true, to focus
our attention on these holes. Since the slab exists, since there
are only three holes in it, ergo these must have been the “vent
holes”. One extra hole somewhere on the roof is only one extra
piece of evidence to examine.

[snip]

#> >> Take this very thread. Do you agree with VanPelt’s argument
#> >> (dixit Morris) that the vents were all off center and next to
#columns?
>
>> >Your cite for this, please?
>
>> My cite was an earilier posting of Mr. Morris on this
>> thread wherein Mr. Morris quoted a discussion with
>> Mr. Van Pelt.

>Which post, exactly, was this? Perhaps Mr. Morris would be so kind as to
>repost this?
On 3/29/96 John Morris posted …

>>Van Pelt suggested to me that the holes were not, as has been
>>supposed, evenly spaced between the concrete support pillars, but
>>that they were immediately adjacent to the concrete pillars.

>>themselves destroyed when the pillars were dynamited to collapse
>>the roof. As Van Pelt, also says, his theory about the placement
>>of the holes is unprovable since they no longer exist.

>>What I find really interesting is that the blotches are not at
>>all as irregularly spaced as might it seem from the photos.

>> As I have noted in other threads, I have wondered about
>>the aerial photographs too. You may have a good point.

>Whew! This is better than flattery! I must say that this is very
>refreshing. Not that you agree with me, but that unlike the
>usual run
>of alt.revisionists, you considered the merits of what I was saying
>rather than taking issue with my use of words like “speculate,”
>”unprovable,” and “theo
[ End of quote]

I am sorry not to have to entire posting but it was deleted
>from my server.

>Then I would ask for the primary cite that indicates Van Pelt’s position
has chaged.
I am quoting Mr. Morris. Otherwise, we will have to wait until
his book comes out. However it makes sense that Van Pelt’s
position would change. Exterminationists who have visited the
“gaschamber” are uncertain about these vents that I keep
writing about. Note that Pressac says the hole he shows
is “assumed” to be a vent hole.

>Such assumptions, of course, are unsubstantiated. In contrast, air photos
>show the vents, or “little chimneys,” to be arranged along the centerline
>of Krema II’s L.Keller 1. Eyewitness accounts also reported that the
>introduction columns were arrayed along the centerline of L.Keller 1.

Pressac writes (_Technique- pg. 354 Photo b”’),
Upper left, the hole in the ceiling is assumed to be one of
the Zyclon-B introduction openings, but the positions of the
two holes that can be seen today do not correspond to those
of the U.S Air Force photograph taken on 25th August 1944.
The reason for this yet unexplained difference could well
be simply that the roof shifted considerably when dynamited.”

This quote from Pressac, along with the pictures, confirms
what I have been writing except for the number of holes
presently on site. I believe that Pressac does not count
the small hole that is at a crack at the slab. This small hole
is counted by the Polish Museum as the site of one of the
“vent holes”.
If you agree with Pressac that “two holes … can be seen
today” then I will ask you the question that stumped
Dan Keren;
If the holes exist today, does the roof exist today?

[snip interesting discussion of aerial photographs]

>In which direction is this beam placed? Along the centerline of the roof?
>Or _across_ the centerline of the roof? Again, looking at the photo from
>_Technique_ (p.261) I see no evidence of a beam running _along_ the
>centerline of L.Keller 1. I see what is perhaps the remains of a beam,
>about midway along L.Keller 1, running _across_ L.Keller 1.

Flip to pg. 354 photograph B for a picture of the north/south
beam.

>I would imagine it would be a trivial exercise to place the introduction
>columns so that they wouldn’t be under such a cross-wise beam.
The beam was not “cross-wise” but north/south or lenght-wise.
This is why Van Pelt’s new theory will be the “next to the column”
theory. Van Pelt is trying to reconcile the aerial photograph of
8/24/44 with the fact that there is a central beam. He is
happy to abandon the existing holes since they couldn’t have been
used as vent holes.

>Even if both gas chambers were vented when only one was
>used this would be rather irrelevent, as the purpose for dividing them
>appears to be so that the gassings were “regularized” to economize,
>among other things, on how much Zyclon B was used in the gassings. The
>aeration/deaeration of the gas chambers would not effect the amount of
>Zyklon B used.
If the ventilation system ran in both rooms, then both rooms
would have becomed poisoned during any gassing and had to have
been aereated after each “use”. The building of an underground
wall and double door which matched the northern door into the room
would have been an expensive and time consuming matter. All to
save some Zyclon? Perhaps, however, the best evidence is
at the site, if the wall is still in the Leichenkeller
then the existing physical evidence will speak for itself.

[snip]

>> Then can we assume that the “removable core” had the
>> biggest surface area and, therefore, probably went to the
>> floor? TO BE BLUNT, HOW LONG WAS YOUR REMOVABLE CORE????

>Yet again, I don’t know for sure. In trying to “stick to the existing
>physical evidence” I thought it best not to guess until I had more
>information.
[snip calculations]
>Call it 1 g/cu cm.

Isn’t that the density of water?

>Using coarse salt as a substitute for Zyklon B, as they at least, _look_
>aproximately the same; and because we know that diatomite (the HCN
>carrier in Zyclon B) absorbs twice its weight; and that liquid HCN has a
>specific
>weight of 0.682 (water is 1.0), assuming 1 g/cu cm is a reasonble
>number. (_Nazi Mass Murder_, p. 206.)

>In addition, according to Pressac (_Anatomy_, p.232) on March 13, 1943,
>1,492 Jews were killed in the gas chamber of Krema II. Six kilos of
>Zyklon
>B were used. That would be 1.5 kilos per introduction column, which is
>exactly what largest size cannister of Zyklon B held. (_Anatomy_, p.209.)

>Now, we have something to go on. Using our guestimated value of 1 g/cu
>cm for Zyklon B, we see that it would require 1,500 cu cm of volume in
>the core. As each linear cm of the core has a volume of 175 cu cm, that
>would mean that it would imply a minimum core length of about 9 cm. In
>other words, not very much.
I follow your calculations. Except for the density of the
Zyclon, they make sense to me. I would have thought that the
diatomatious earth along with the absorbed liquid HCN would have
been more dense.

>So, to anwser your question, Ceacaa, less than 1 meter. Probably much
>less.
While a 9 cm. long column does not quite qualify as a
Costa minimal surface structure, I would wonder if such a
short structure would allow for efficent gas diffusion.
Particularly, if the structure is at the ceiling of the room.

Have you heard from Mr. Morris? I would like to plan for
the expedition to Birkenau. I am ready to post my funds and
write the agenda for the trip.

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Apr 28 10:08:47 PDT 1996
Article: 33269 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 28 Apr 1996 00:12:22 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4lur76$fp0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <31829b70.13018421@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On 27 Apr 1996 John Morris writes:

>Stephane Bruchfeld is definitely going to Birkenau, and I have
>forwarded your questions to him.

>Keep your money, Mr. Allen. I am not going to Birkenau.

Why the change in heart? I would expect someone who spends
as much time on the subject of the Holocaust as you do want
to see the site of the crimes. I think that you must also admit
that there are numerous unanswered questions about the
state of the Cremas that can only be answered by an on site
investigator.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Apr 28 10:08:53 PDT 1996
Article: 33403 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 28 Apr 1996 12:07:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 80
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m053b$orb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Van Alstine wrote:

>Ceacaa, your above claim is quite interesting. Especially in the face of
>the photo of L.Keller 1 (_Techique_, p.261) which does NOT appear to
>agree with your description.

>The photo is located at:

>http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/chambr01.html

>Would you care to explain this apparant discrepency?

Mark! Please pay attention. This is what I wrote a few days
ago in response to exactly the same question:

# The photograph on page 261 is a view of the entire roof
#looking north. The southern end of the roof consists of the
#large blocks in the foreground of the picture.
# As I have noted before, the roof is comprised of three layers,
#the lower concrete slab, the asphalt covering and a second layer
#of concrete. It is the top layer of concrete which has broken up
#and gives the impression that the slab is demolished. The best pictures
#of the state of the slab roof are on pages 353-354 of _Technique_
#These pictures show clearly what I was writing about re.
#the construction of the roof, ie. poured in place concrete.
#The imprint of the wooden forms are distinct. They also show
#the condition of the southern end of the slab, INTACT (empasis
added)
The ceiling of the Leichenkeller, consisting of the exposed concrete
slab, is the easiest place to view the so-called vent hole. The two
other holes in the roof can be seen from above. The slab of
the roof is coherent but broken into about 20 pieces.

Flip your Pressac Technique to pages 353 and 354.
These are a series of photographs of the _inside_
of Leichenkeller 1. There is even a picture of the underside of
one of the all important vent holes. Since you have never answered
my question, “If the holes exist, does the roof exist” I will try
a simpler one for you:
If Pressac publishes pictures of the INSIDE of the Leichenkeller’s
ceiling, does the roof exist?
Of course, I have cited other film references to the INSIDE of
the Leichenkeller. McCallden’ video being the best and easily
availible from either Zundel or Bradley Smith.

The southern end of the Leichenkeller roof is the most elevated part
of the roof. It is accessable through the one and only vent hole in the
Southwest quadrant of the roof. Through this so-called vent about
30% of the ceiling can be easily inspected. Then the ceiling slants
too near the floor (or touches it in part) to allow easy passage.
The roof rises up again near the second vent holes and then touches the
floor of the Leichenkeller at the northern end.

The Leichenkeller also fills up partly with water after a rain but the
drainage system still works

Mark, although you seem to be the most capable and informed of the
Exterminationists on this thread, your continued confusion over the
state of the Leichenkeller roof shows the dangers of your
Armchair Style of Exterminationism. The best evidence about the alleged
“gaschambers” is the physical evidence at the site of the gaschambers.
Unfortunately, Armchair Exterminationist Experts like Morris and
Keren would rather spend weeks and months pontificating on the subject of
the roof than spend an hour on the site actually seeing the
subject of their theories. (See below)

Note Re. Van Pelt. Van Pelt’s book is due out this May. I have heard
that it is a history of Auschwitz starting in the 1200’s with a
general theme of Germanic expansion in the east, ie. Auschwitz
Camp is but the culmination of a historic German trend. Expect
him to crib Pressac’s pictures of the plans of a developed German
Auschwitz. These pictures are in the back of _Technique_.
I am further informed that Van Pelt does “move the vent holes”
>from the traditional position to one next to the columns.

Note Re. Morris . Morris seems to be backpedaling on his offer to
go to Birkenau in August. This is a shame. Mr. Morris remains
cryptic on the reasons for his change of heart.

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Apr 28 10:08:54 PDT 1996
Article: 33405 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 28 Apr 1996 12:19:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m05pr$p31@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote on
28 Apr 1996
Some questions are:

>1) Why do you keep posting your unsupported garbage here, while
> posting a photo of the holes you claim you took in Birkenau
> would be much more informative?
Unsupported? I have referred you to two seperate confirming
photographic sources, Pressac and McCalden. You have even
tried to quote Pressac yourself, although you had trouble with
the difference between one hole and two holes. That is why I
asked you the simple question, If the holes exist (dixit
Pressac) does the roof exist? You never answered this
question.

>2) Why don’t you tell us what is the length of the remaining
> portion of the roof? You claim you saw it a few years ago.
> So why don’t you tell us?
See the previous posts for a detailed description of the state of
the roof. The roof is broken but coherent. It’s lenght is approximately
30 meters

Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

-Lu Xun.

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Apr 29 08:07:45 PDT 1996
Article: 33557 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 29 Apr 1996 00:46:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 35
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m1hj9$c3j@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4m05pr$p31@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van wrote on Apr 18, 1996

Ceacaa wrote:
>> Then can we assume that the “removable core” had the
>> biggest surface area and, therefore, probably went to the
>> floor? TO BE BLUNT, HOW LONG WAS YOUR REMOVABLE CORE????

>In addition, according to Pressac (_Anatomy_, p.232) on March 13, 1943,
>1,492 Jews were killed in the gas chamber of Krema II. Six kilos of
>Zyklon
>B were used. That would be 1.5 kilos per introduction column, which is
>exactly what largest size cannister of Zyklon B held. (_Anatomy_, p.209.)

>Now, we have something to go on. Using our guestimated value of 1 g/cu
>cm for Zyklon B, we see that it would require 1,500 cu cm of volume in
>the core. As each linear cm of the core has a volume of 175 cu cm, that
>would mean that it would imply a minimum core length of about 9 cm. In
>other words, not very much.

>So, to anwser your question, Ceacaa, less than 1 meter. Probably much
>less.

For persons just arriving on this thread, Mark Van Alstine is
the first person to have tried to calculate something about the
size of the “murder weapon”, ie. the core which held the
poisonous Zyclon and which was used to kill hundreds of thousands
of persons.

In fact, according to Mark’s calculations, this core pillar was
at least 9 cm. long. That is, for you all in the United States, less than
5 inches, about the lenght of a cigarette.

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu May 2 07:02:17 PDT 1996
Article: 34198 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 2 May 1996 01:09:19 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 33
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m9g1v$59l@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren 30 Apr 1996
Ceacaa wrote:

# That is why I
# asked you the simple question, If the holes exist (dixit
# Pressac) does the roof exist? You never answered this question.

>No, Reichsdummkopf. I answered it every time you asked. The
>roof exists, but it’s severely damaged.
What is the present state of the vent holes? Can one see them?
Where are they located?

# The roof is broken but coherent. It’s lenght is approximately
# 30 meters.

>We’ll know soon enough if this is true or not.
Are you going to be using Mark Van Alstine measuring tape?

>How many supporting pillars are still there, Reichsdummkopf? I’ve
>asked this about six times already.
Actually, you have asked me this twice already but I am
getting the impression that you can’t count very well
(remember when you told me that Pressac said that there was
only ONE hole in the roof?). But I cannot remember distinctly and
will have to get my film out to give you an answer. My
impression is that several of the middle columns of the original
7 have been shortened (demolished).

Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu May 2 07:02:18 PDT 1996
Article: 34201 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 2 May 1996 00:57:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 31
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m9fcm$51p@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(Mark Van Alstine
wrote 29 Apr 1996 (Ceacaa) wrote:

> Mark Van wrote on Apr 18, 1996
>
> Ceacaa wrote:
> >> Then can we assume that the “removable core” had the
> >> biggest surface area and, therefore, probably went to the
> >> floor? TO BE BLUNT, HOW LONG WAS YOUR REMOVABLE CORE????
embled a “pillar.” (_Anatomy_.p.167.)

>> …was at least 9 cm. long. That is, for you all in the United States,
>>less than 5 inches, about the lenght of a cigarette.

>Actually, it’s a bit longer than a cigarette. It is actually a bit longer
>than one’s hand (if one’s hand if large) when measured from the base of
>the palm to the tip of the middle finger. And that’s just the _minimum_
>length required to hold 1.5 kg of Zyklon B.

>Furthermore, I notice no disagreement from you either, Ceacaa. What, cat
>got your tongue? No pertinent repartee? Amazing.

I don’t do pertinent repartee on Mondays. I was also looking for
a metric ruler before I commented on what looks like a strange
measurement of your bodyparts.

Note on Professor Shermer. He is now writing a book on
Revisionism with an emphasis on the aerial photographs

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri May 10 06:53:27 PDT 1996
Article: 35728 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!
imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 9 May 1996 01:36:22 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 83
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ms08m$6og@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mqmib$e0b@news.nyu.edu>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

May 8, 1996 Michael P. Stein wrote:

#>Ceacaa wrote:
#>>> Then can we assume that the “removable core” had the
#>>> biggest surface area and, therefore, probably went to the
#>>> floor? TO BE BLUNT, HOW LONG WAS YOUR REMOVABLE CORE????

Van Alstine wrote:
. As each linear cm of the core has a volume of 175 cu cm, that
>>would mean that it would imply a minimum core length of about 9 cm. In
>>other words, not very much.
>
>>So, to anwser your question, Ceacaa, less than 1 meter. Probably much
>>less.
>
>> For persons just arriving on this thread, Mark Van Alstine is
>>the first person to have tried to calculate something about the
>>size of the “murder weapon”, ie. the core which held the
>>poisonous Zyclon and which was used to kill hundreds of >thousands of
persons.
>
>> In fact, according to Mark’s calculations, this core pillar was
>>at least 9 cm. long. That is, for you all in the United States, less
>than 5 inches, about the lenght of a cigarette.

> My interpretation when I read Pressac’s textual description of >the
>core was a bit different. My understanding was like this: think of a
>common nail standing on its head. From the nail-head, project a
>wire-mesh
>cylinder up. The shaft of the nail presses an elongated and thinner
>layer
>of Zyklon against the wire mesh, which exposes more surface area >to the
>outside and increases the outgassing speed. Of course this >requires a
>longer core because of the space occupied by the central shaft.

> Reread the description again and see what you think.

I would agree with M. Stein. I wonder if the 9 cm. space which
Mark Van Alstine posits had enough surface area to allow for the
rapid evaporation of the cyanide from the diatomatious earth
of the Zyclon. Further, since cyanide gas rises, the core would
have to be long enough to get the gas to dispurse into the
room. I see what Mark describes as more of a wire basket.
On the otherhand, Van Alstine’s proposal has merit (to me)
in that it would allow the containment of the Zyclon.
Containment of the Zyclon would have been important to
facilitate removal of the Zyclon prior to aeriation of the
room. I assume that it would be hard to clear the air of
the room while the Zyclon was still in the room emitting
more cyanide.

However, the most efficient method of Zyclon use was
the actual Degesch system. The Zyclon was spread on
a wire mesh and warm air was blown through it. This
lead to the very rapid evaporation of the cyanide. Mark’s
system would make much more sense if there were a system
which would have blown air THROUGH the 9 cm. pile of
Zyclon.

If I were an Exterminationist I would wonder what the
little chimneys on the top of the induction holes were
for. If they were too tall to simply keep rain out or hold
the “induction system” they might have actually held a
simple blower system.
Then Mark’s description makes a great deal of sense.
Zyclon would be dumped into the hole, landing in and
contained by the basket. The fan would be turned on and
would blow air through the Zyclon and into the room. The
fan could be very low volume since its purpose was not
to ventilate the room but merely to create poisonous
gas. The major (internal) ventilation system of the Leichenkeller
would serve to aeriate the room.

In short, Mr. Stein’s position makes sense if the use
of Zyclon was a crude “dump in the hole” method. Mr.
VanAlstine’s makes sense if the production of gas was
more technologically advanced system based on the
Degesch method.

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri May 10 06:53:33 PDT 1996
Article: 35814 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!
imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 10 May 1996 01:17:53 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 18
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4muji1$6go@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mthiv$n6l@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Richard J. Green writes on
9 May 1996

>Ceacaa’s argument about HCN rising makes no sense. Does >Ceacaa also
>believe that nitrogen rises? It’s the temperature of the >gas and the
>turbulence that will determine the dispersion.

Mr. Green, in the conditions of Leichenkeller 1
Crema 2, do you think that dumping Zyclon into
a 9 cm. basket at the level of the ceiling is an
efficient, or even an effective, method of dispersing
HCN throughout a room?

With five minutes of thought, could you imagine a more effective system
for HCN dispersal, such as one
which would effect the temperature of the gas and the
turbulence, such as a fan?

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat May 11 20:33:47 PDT 1996
Article: 36256 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
in2.uu.net!lexis-nexis!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 11 May 1996 12:23:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 147
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4n2et7$dt5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4n1ddp$aa3@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:36256 talk.origins:123603

On May 5, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

[snip]

>> The ceiling of the Leichenkeller, consisting of the exposed concrete
>> slab, is the easiest place to view the so-called vent hole. The two
>> other holes in the roof can be seen from above. The slab of
>> the roof is coherent but broken into about 20 pieces.
>
>> Flip your Pressac Technique to pages 353 and 354.

>Alas, as I’ve stated before, I don’t have Pressac’s _Technique_ on hand.
>It’s rather hard to come by unfortunately. I’ve been trying to buy it
>for
>_months_ now.

>This, of course, is one of the reasons why you’ve beeen asked >countless
to
>times to post the photographs you say you have….

I am sorry, I thought that you had Pressac’s _Technique_.
I think that it is a very valuable book. I will try in the next
week to post some photographs.

>> If Pressac publishes pictures of the INSIDE of the Leichenkeller’s
>> ceiling, does the roof exist?

>How about: If areal photos show four structures on the roof of the
>L.Keller in corrosponding to eyewitness descriptions of the >placement
to,
>and purpose of, the four Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung on the >meorandum
of
>receipt for Krema II which Pressac mentions, and the construction >od
which
>Piper describes, how many holes in the roof to you think there >were?
HOLES IN THE ROOF OF LEICHENKELLER 1 CREMA 2
I agree with Pressac, that no holes were put in the roof
as part of the original construction. Sometime after the
original pour 3, or perhaps 4, holes were chipped through
to original concrete and rebar slab. I say “perhaps” because
the position of the 4th hole (in the north-most section of the
roof was covered with rubble at the time of my visit).
Pressac says that there are presently TWO HOLES in
the roof. These are the large hole at the south western
quadrent of the roof and a smaller hole in the center
section. What the Polish Museum and I count as a third
hole is a smaller ( 9 inch) hole at a crack in the slab in
the center section of the roof.

I would like to mention that there are some questions
about the aerial photograph which shows the 4 “holes” in
the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema 2. First, the holes do
NOT show on several other photgraphs of the roof.
Secondly, the holes appear to run along the center of the room. Quite
simply, there are not presently any holes in the roof at
these locations on the roof. Under the center of the roof
is a very thick concrete beam. This conflict between
what the one aerial photograph shows and what is actually
at the site is difficult to explain. Van Pelt attempts to
resolve this by claiming that the vent holes were really
next to the columns but were destroyed in the demolition
process. I bet that Prof. Van Pelt would claim that the
existing holes in the roof were put there as part of the
demolition process! (We will have to await his new book)

>And, of course, multiple eyewitnesses also described the four
>introduction
>columns. But be that as it may, would you mind e-mailing me the >ordering
>info for these videos?

Bradley Smith’s mailing address is P.O. Box 3267
Visalia California 93278
He has a Internet site
http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/
I can’t find Zundel’s right now.

>> The best evidence about the alleged “gaschambers” is the >>physical
evidence at
>> the site of the gaschambers.

>Indeed some of the best evidence about the gas chambers is >physical. It
by
>no means, however, is the _only_ best evidence. In fact, the >_really_
best
>evidence is the almagmation and cross-checking of _all_ the >evidence.
That
>way one can hope to ovoid “historical myopia” induced by bias. Or, >as in
the case of deniers, by intent.

I agree with you that a comprenhensive history should
deal with all the evidence but the question arises about
conflicts in evidence. For example, what if a photograph
appears to show a hole in a concrete block but an inspection
of the block revealed NO hole? What would you believe?
That is the sort of problem we are dealing with here.
Generally speaking, the law has established a hierarchy
of reliability of evidence to establish the Truth.
Physical evidence is usually considered the most reliable.
Photographic evidence, documentary evidence, eye-witness
testimony are other classes of evidence listed in a generally
accepted order of lessening reliability.
I believe that the physical evidence at the scene of the
crime is quite clear which is why I am even bothering to
post anything on the subject. It is also why I was hoping
that J. Morris would bother to go take a look. As I have
written, it does not take a Champollion to decypher the
riddle of the roof.

>> Unfortunately, Armchair Exterminationist Experts like Morris and Keren
would
>> rather spend weeks and months pontificating on the subject of the roof
than
>> spend an hour on the site actually seeing the subject of their
>>theories.

>Unfortunately, many of us “archair experts” have to hold down real jobs,
>pay the mortgage, have real lives, etc. and can’t simply pack up and head
>off to Europe whenever we want to….
Of course, but Morris was going to be in Europe anyway.
His given reason for not going to Poland was monetary, ie. the
$600 plane fare to Crakow from London. His visit to the site
would have been an interesting expedition for someone who
is obviously interested in the subject of the Holocaust and
would have answered some important questions that
seemed to be unresolved on this thread and in Holocaust
studies.

>But anyways, you still haven’t really explained the discrepency >between
>the photo I cited and the one you talk about (but won’t post).
I agree that the photographs of the Leichenkeller 1 Crema
II look as if the roof has been totally broken into pieces that
are incoherent without significant reconstruction. However,
my position is that the slab of the roof is a broken but
understandable whole. My position is supported by the Pressac
pictures and available video.
I have tried to explain that the roof was composed of
three layers, slab, asphalt and thin concrete cap. The cap
was severely broken during the demolition process.
It is the broken cap which “appears” in the photographs
not the more complete slab.

CEACAA

From ihrgreg@kaiwan.com Thu May 16 12:13:00 PDT 1996
Article: 37175 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!
csulb.edu!drivel.ics.uci.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.kaiwan.com!usenet
From: Greg Raven
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 17:55:06 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <319A8AFA.357C@kaiwan.com>
References: <4n1ddp$aa3@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4n2et7$dt5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ihrgreg@kaiwan.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan086.kaiwan.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
To: Ceacaa

Ceacaa wrote:
> I agree that the photographs of the Leichenkeller 1 Crema
> II look as if the roof has been totally broken into pieces that
> are incoherent without significant reconstruction. However,
> my position is that the slab of the roof is a broken but
> understandable whole. My position is supported by the Pressac
> pictures and available video.
> I have tried to explain that the roof was composed of
> three layers, slab, asphalt and thin concrete cap. The cap
> was severely broken during the demolition process.
> It is the broken cap which “appears” in the photographs
> not the more complete slab.
>
> CEACAA

Isn’t it Faurisson’s position that there are no holes in the roof over
what was supposed to have been the “gas chamber”? I believe that is why
he now says, “No holes, no Holcaust.”


Greg Raven (ihrgreg@kaiwan.com)
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat May 18 07:36:16 PDT 1996
Article: 37624 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!news.inc.net!laslo.netnet.net!
en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!
sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 17 May 1996 03:36:10 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 39
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4nha9a$7tj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <319A8AFA.357C@kaiwan.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Greg Raven 15 May 1996 writes

>Isn’t it Faurisson’s position that there are no holes in the roof over
>what was supposed to have been the “gas chamber”? I believe that is why
>he now says, “No holes, no Holcaust.”

Greg Raven (ihrgreg@kaiwan.com)
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg

The existing holes in the concrete roof of one of the major gaschambers
(Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II at Birkenau appear to have been hastily
chipped in and have no sign of any attachments or fittings. Re-bar
still transects the holes. Pressac and others admit that these holes
were not part of the original pour. That means the holes were made
sometime after March 1943.
In fact, it is almost impossible to believe that the holes had anything
to do with introducing Zyclon into the room below. That is why
Van Pelt has reportedly given up claiming that the existing holes
were the “vent holes” and created “new” holes next to columns
running down the center of the room. Pressac appears to agree with
Van Pelt as far as expressing doubt about the existing holes. Therefore,
Faurisson’s position re. the existing holes is being vindicated.

I do not agree with Professor Faurisson’s statement,
“No holes, no Holocaust”. However, the statement emphasizes the
importance of the physical evidence at the scene of the crime and
the present state of the “murder weapon.” Without the holes in
the roof, Zyclon could not have been dumped into the room below.
Since the concrete roof of the so-called gaschamber is still
resting in a Polish field, it is not hard for anyone look at the
roof. That is what Revisionists like McCalden, Cole, Faurisson and
others have done. Revisionists emphasize the physical evidence
and ignore other types of evidence such as confessions and
eye-witness testimony. Exterminationists do the reverse.
My arguments on this thread have been limited to establishing what
is the state of the physical condition of the Leichenkeller, its
roof and the three holes in the roof.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed May 22 23:47:10 PDT 1996
Article: 38121 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 May 1996 10:15:36 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 79
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4npuq8$oe3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4np02m$ic3@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote17 May 1996

>Pressac’s book contains a photo of a portion of the roof that
>contains a hole with the rebar still in it. However, this hole
>is rather close to the wall (that is, it’s on the side of the
>roof). It could not have been one of the Zyklon insertion
>holes, as these were in the middle.

My goodness, I have got to download this one before
D. Keren denies he posted it! Keren has just confirmed a
major Revisionist premise, that being that the hole that
is presently in the roof could NOT have been a Zyklon
induction vent. The model in the Polish State Museum
at Auschwitz has it as an Zyclon vent.

>Moreover, the portion of the roof which contains this hole is
>collapsed and heavily damaged.

Danny, as everyone has been telling you for several months, the whole roof
is collapsed. However, the southern 1/3 of the
Leichenkeller roof is the LEAST damaged section of the
roof. In fact, it is rather complete, only being cracked into
3 or 4 large pieces. Since you are viewing the Pressac photograph you
should be able to see this.
Why don’t you post a copy of Pressac’s photograph so that
everyone can see the condition of the vent hole and the southern
end of the Leichenkeller?

>It’s quite obvious that this hole was created when the chamber
>was dynamited. Your point is therefore moot; this was not one
>of the introduction holes.

I am often left amazed by D. Keren’s unique combination
of ignorance and pedantry, even in this case, where Keren
has inadvertently confirmed what I have been posting.

Keren is an example of being right but still being wrong.
Actually, the hole was not created when the “chamber
was dynamited.” This is obvious for several reasons; the easist to
explain is that the 6 pieces of rebar transecting the hole were
cut, in one place and bent out of the way downward into
the hole below.

>I suspect that’s the real reason you have not posted the photos
>you claim to have of the holes. You knew your bluff would be
>called. [snip]

On an’ off, for four months, I have been posting that the hole
in the southwest quadrant of the roof of Leichenkeller 1
of Crema 2 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN a Zyclon introduction hole.
With his usual incisive Exterminationist logic, Keren
“suspects” that I did not post pictures because they
would have proven my point. Now he admits that I was right
but somehow I don’t think he thinks that is what he is doing.

Anyway, now that we agree that one of Pressac’s two holes
is NOT a Zyclon introduction hole we can move on to show
that there were NEVER any Zyclon induction vents in the
roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II.

Danny, Mr. Pressac mentions that there are two (2) existing
holes in the roof. See Technique at page 354. Do you think
that the other unpictured hole was an induction vent?

Then we can move on and you can tell us all where you
think the Zyclon introduction vents were.

By the way, you never made any comment on the fact that
the existing roof is approximately 30 meters long. I thought
you were building up some sort of argument in support of
Morris’ theory of the half-sized gaschamber.

Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed May 22 23:47:11 PDT 1996
Article: 38125 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!
news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.inc.net!
laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!
rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 17 May 1996 03:35:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 72
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4nha8u$7t8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <319A6526.7575@rio.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On May 10, 1996 (Mark Van Alstine)

Oh, my. I see that Ceacaa has discombobulated himself in regards to his
_demand_ that I tell him how long the removeable core of the Zyklon B
introduction columns used in Kremas II and III were. Perhaps, for the
benifit of the rest of the group, so that Ceacaa doesn’t bamboozle them as
to what I wrote, I think I should reiterate my assumptions and then
further explain them:

(Ceacaa) wrote:

>> Then can we assume that the “removable core” had the
>> biggest surface area and, therefore, probably went to the
>> floor? TO BE BLUNT, HOW LONG WAS YOUR REMOVABLE CORE????

>To which I responded:
[snip]

> that would mean that it would imply a minimum core length of >about 9
cm. In other words, not very much.

9 cm.!?? Mark, you missed my question (which for some
reason you call a “demand”). I understand your theory on the
hypothetical cone prism distribution system. I know that you also
mentioned that 9 cm. was the length of your hand, to which I can only say
that you have very little hands. For the rest of the
world, 9 cm. is about 3 1/2 inches, or, Mark, the lenght of
my middle finger, no offense intended.

But your core-with-a-tin-cone-inside had to have some
lenght. You say a minimum lenght of 9 cm. That is little more
than the thickness of the ceiling. Surely, you think that the
“core” extended into the Leichenkeller room? That is what I
mean by “how long was the core.”

This ties into my question about HCN rising. Green wrote:
> “It’s the temperature of the gas and the
> turbulence that will determine the dispersion.”

Exactly so. If your cone was at the ceiling level, the vaporising
HCN would have the same temperature as the surrounding
warm air at the ceiling level. I speculate that it would not
drop to the colder denser air of the floor level but would, in
effect, create an inversion level. A fan would be an obvious
answer to the dispersion problem but you haven’t mentioned
one yet.

_Where in the world is John Morris_?
By the way, I noticed that John Morris, after quoting
Van Pelt that 50% of the roof of the Leichenkeller exists
and tersely bailing from his promised fact finding mission
has gone mum. 50% of the roof is enough to examine.
Why bridle at a discussion of the real murder weapon?

Is Morris trying to figure out what Danny Keren
could possible mean when Keren writes that the roof of
Leichenkeller is “there but is destroyed” ? Is Morris wondering
where the 3 existing holes in roof came from if Van Pelt is
right and all the real (circa April 1943) holes were destroyed
as part of the demolition process?

Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in concrete.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue May 28 06:59:11 PDT 1996
Article: 39765 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 28 May 1996 04:09:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 43
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4oecbb$4cf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4nr5rp$6qv@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

May 20, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote

>BTW, Ceacaa, what evidence do you have that the Zyklon B in the
>removeable
>core was suspended near the ceiling?
I believe that this discussion was about the lenght of the
Zyclon containing “core” of the pillar.
I asked, “HOW LONG WAS THE REMOVABLE CORE?”
You estimated that the height of the Zyclon
containing core of the pillar was approximately 9 cm.
(3 1/2 inches). That lenght (alone) would put the
device at or above ceiling level.

And if there _was_ (which I >doubt) a
>problem with HCN dispersion if the Zyklon was so suspended, what >would
>have stopped the Nazis from simply lowering it on subsequent >gassing
until
>they found the optimun height for maximum lethality? After all, >we KNOW
>the Nazis used Zyklon B with maximum lethal effects….

I speculated that keeping the Zyclon at ceiling level
would have greatly slowed the dispersion of the gas.
Further, there would have been a tendency, on cold days,
for the warm air of the Leichenkeller to escape upward
out through the vents, taking the gas with it.

>Tsk Tsk! Sounds like you’re simply setting up and knocking down a
>strawman of your own we are writing about the
device which allegedly killed hundreds of thousands of
persons. To simply write “who cares? the Nazis would
have finally gotten it right.” seems rather indifferent
to an important question.

Ceacaa

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed May 29 09:57:01 PDT 1996
Article: 39986 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 29 May 1996 05:52:35 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4oh6p3$mbk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4oecbb$4cf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On April 14 John Morris wrote:

[snip]
>It is rather disappointing to see you go into a wholesale
>retreat from interpretive and methodological questions.
By that I
>mean simply that I had hoped for some evidence that
Revisionists
>could offer up an alternative explanation of a subset of
the events >of the Holocaust that gave a satisfying account
of the evidence.

The Exterminationists on this thread have little
understanding of the evidence at the scene of the crime.
Until you all can get a grasp of the “evidence” it is pointless
to try and give you an explaination. The point of suggesting
that you go to Poland is simply to get evidence in a form
usable by members of this group. Then you, Keren,
VanAlstine and other armchair experts would finally know something about
what is actually there at Birkenau.
That is, gather evidence prior to propounding theories.
[snip]

>I can see why this retreat might be necessary: the explanation
>that you offered was pretty much of a bust.

Actually, the theory that the three existing holes were
created as part of the demolition process seems to becoming
the Standard Exterminationist Explaination. The only difference
is that the Revisionists feel the presently existing holes
were put in “by hand” while those Exterminationists who have
the intellectual honesty to actually visit the site seem
to believe the holes were created by a blast. In fact that is
what you have posted just below. However any but the most
cursory inspection will show that the Revisionists are right.
[snip]
>Robert-Jan Van Pelt also visited the site and says that the roof
>is
>broken in pieces, but that only part of it can be seen intact.
How much? And how much can be seen from inside the
room? I say approximately 35% of the roof can be inspected
>from below.
>He appears not to think the three holes are at all relevant to
>the question of the gas induction columns because
>he believes they >were located at some other position,
>probably adjacent to the >support pillars.

Van Pelt is correct that the three existing holes were
NOT gas induction holes. Please be aware that this is not
been the traditional Exterminationist position. Van Pelt’s
is revising the location of the vent holes from the
position shown on the model at the Auschwitz State Museum.

Van Pelt had to “move” the vent holes somewhere else since
it is obvious that the existing 3 holes could not have been “vent holes”
.
From ceacaa@aol.com Wed May 29 09:57:02 PDT 1996
Article: 39987 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 29 May 1996 05:52:37 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 88
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4oh6p5$mbl@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4oecbb$4cf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Reply to Morris continued
Since a row of 4 spots appear on one or two of several aerial
photographs of Crema II Van Pelt has gone for a down the
center North/South axis of the building arrangment.
Since there is a central beam running the lenght of the
room he has to fudge a little and put the holes to the side.

Of course the problem with all Van Pelt’s theorizing (I almost
wrote “theologizing”) is that there ARE NO HOLES where he
claims they should be.

This brings us back to the question of how much of the roof
still exists. Exterminationists now have to become Deniers
and deny that the roof exists since thay cannot point to any
hole that was a vent. You have posted that 50% of the roof
exists. Therefore, you should be able to find 2 of the 4 hypothectical
vent holes. You can’t.

In fact, 90% or more of the roof exists.

>It is a reasonable inference that no bolt holes >would appear
>if the >holes for the induction columns were >destroyed
>along with the >roof.
First, bolt holes would extend into the roof. Unless you
claim the whole chunks of roof around each vent were blown
up then you would have existing bolt holes. That is not t you claiming
that the explosion
blew the bolt holes out of the floor too?

>Van Pelt would obviously not agree >with you that the roof
>was
>sufficiently intact to observe the connections between the
>roof, >the roof beam, and the support pillars.
The roof is 30 meters long with 7 columns. As far as I
know Van Pelt is vague on where he would put the vent holes. However,
more than enough roof exists to show that Van Pelt
is wrong.

>Aside from the issue of the holes, I have not seen any
>satisfactory
>explanation for why the Kremas were singled out for
>destruction. >Your explanation that the Soviets would have
>made propaganda out >of the existence of a mass cremation facility cuts
both ways.
Why does it cut both ways? I believe that the Soviets
made a major propaganda play from the Madajnak crematoria.
Sometime after the liberation of Lublin (9/44) the Germans recognized the
“photo opportunity” for the Soviets in the row of ovens at Birkenau. The
destruction of “evidence” at Auschwitz/Birkenau was focused on the
crematoria ovens,
not on the alleged gas chambers. The walls, floors, and roofs
of the Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II and III still exist. The
ae main camp was NOT touched.
Why? Because its crematoria had been removed before. Huge amounts of
documents relating to the Crema were left,
including drawings, specifications,and lists of S.S. personel
serving at the site.

My interpretive and methodological anyalysis of the evidence
shows that the Germans made a hasty attempt at destroying
evidence and it was focused solely on the Crematoria ovens,
not on the alleged gaschambers.

>Lastly as to the proposal to send me to Birkenau to make
>my own
>examination of the site, I assume that this was largely
>posturing >on your part,
>There is, however, an alternative to sending me. Stephane >Bruchfeld will
be travelling to Birkenau in a few weeks time,
>and I understand [snip] that he is prepared to conduct an >examination
of the site for us.
[snip]

>One way or another, it is time for us to be defining our
>research
>parameters. Any suggestions?

Speaking of wholesale retreats, busts and posturing, why
did you bail on going to Birkenau? And what is Bruchfeld doing?
Any chance of some honest investigation here?

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Jun 3 08:18:47 PDT 1996
Article: 40803 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!imci5!imci4!imci3!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!news.math.psu.edu!
news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 3 Jun 1996 00:19:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 77
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4otp3l$e6u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4ora0n$l58@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

what are the exterminationist theories on
how the existing holes in the roof were
created? posting 3
Back to the point that that the three existing holes were
>> created as part of the demolition process seems to becoming
>> the Standard Exterminationist Explaination.

A little set theory would help and since our resident
mathamatician is getting all ready to visit private libraries
at Chatsworth and Alnwick Castle in the Mother Country, I
will venture some.

Think of 3 sets.
Set one is all holes in the roof of L.1.
Set two is all existing holes that were VENT holes.
Set three is all existing holes that were not vent holes.

Right now we are just trying to put the numbers in the right
set. Van Pelt puts O (zero) holes in set two.

The Van Pelt theory was stated by Moris on 04/14 as:
>Robert-Jan Van Pelt also visited the site.. He appears not
>to think the three holes are at all relevant to the
>question of the gas induction columns because he believes
>they were located at some other position, probably adjacent
>to the support pillars.

Mark, guess how Van Pelt explains the three irrelevant
existing holes?: Part of the demolition process!

For a variety of reasons, I think that Van Pelt’s positioning
of the vent holes makes more sense than the traditional
placement.

Right now, we should try to figure out the right number
to put in each set.

Set three is all existing holes that were NOT vent holes. It is
not a particularly interesting set and I would venture a
guess that all holes in this set were created during the
demolition process. I don’t think that any of the existing
holes looks like a hole created when the roof was poured.
For a picture of a “poured in place hole” see Pressac
at page 366 Document 21.

During my visit, after a somewhat cursory search, I found the
three “traditional” holes. However, the photographs in Pressac at page
265 photo 108 and 109 show another hole at the western ( and middle?) of
the Leichenkeller roof.
( This is Keren’s hole, I think) .
I agree with Keren that this hole was not a vent and
was also created as part of the destruction process.
I also suspect that there is one hole under some rubble at the north end
of the roof at the roof.

Therefore, as a start, we have probably have 5 holes in
set one and 5 holes in set three.

Mark, so unless you think that there IS an existing hole
that was also a VENT holes, you have to agree with
with my amazing statement.
If you you think that there is an existing hole
that was also a VENT holes, then I would like to know
where you think it is, ie. are you a traditionalist or
a “straight line down the middle” sort of Exterminationist.

By the way, I am not trying to “hold you” to any position.
It is only to point out that there is a conflict as to the
true position, and even existence, of the vent holes.
This conflict has led to some confusion in the
discussion.
What is really needed here is a survey of the roof and the
holes in the roof.

Best, CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Jun 3 08:18:49 PDT 1996
Article: 40824 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!
bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 2 Jun 1996 01:49:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 54
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ora0e$l56@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 5/30
>> Actually, the theory that the three existing holes were
>> created as part of the demolition process seems to becoming
>> the Standard Exterminationist Explaination.

[snip]
>Ceacaa, that’s a pretty amazing statement. It is also untrue. The >claim
>that “the three existing vent holes were created as part of the
>demolition
>process” was origionally put forward by none other than
yourself…

Mark, please read what I wrote. I did not say that the VENT
holes were created as part of the demolition process. I am not
sure where the vent holes really were. I said
that the existing three holes in the roof were part of the
demolition process, ie. the holes that are presently on the roof.
(I am going to have to revise the present number of holes on the roof due
to something D. Keren pointed out.)

On 5/17/96 Keren wrote:
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:09:30 GMT
Message-ID:

[snip]
>Pressac’s book contains a photo of a portion of the roof that
>contains a hole with the rebar still in it. However, this hole
>is rather close to the wall (that is, it’s on the side of the
>roof). It could not have been one of the Zyklon insertion
>holes, as these were in the middle.
>Moreover, the portion of the roof which contains this hole is
>collapsed and heavily damaged.
>It’s quite obvious that this hole was created when the chamber
>was dynamited.

John (the Mum) Morris wrote:
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 04:11:06 GMT

[snip]

>In the one readily available photograph, what appear to be two >holes
>are visible. Only one appears to be near enough to the central axis >of
>the L.Keller to have been a gas induction hole, but it also appears >to
>be to the west of the axis. It is impossible to tell from the photo
>whether it is near any support pillar, which we have agreed, though
>not proved, would have been a sensible arrangement for protecting >the
induction columns from damage.

Holes in the roof which are not near enough the central axis are deemed by
some Exterminationists as not having been vent holes.

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Jun 3 08:18:50 PDT 1996
Article: 40825 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!
bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 2 Jun 1996 01:49:11 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ora0n$l58@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

part 2

When I visited Birkenau, there was a strong implication
that three particular holes were the actual vent holes used as
part of the extermination process. Concrete covers had been
placed next to each of the holes (see Pressac pg. 354 caption to Photo
b”), the holes were in the same position as the columns
and holes in the model of Crema II at the State Museum (see
Pressac pg. 345 Photo 27 and Page 378 ), and a picture of one of the holes
was shown in a booklet and identified as the “hole through
which gas was put.”
I started my arguments on the assumption that everybody
knew about and agreed where the “Traditional” vent holes were.
Without being critical, I think that there is confusion in the
Exterminationist postition as to where and/or if, any
of the vent holes exists today.

I would venture to say that the current Exterminationist position
is that there were four vents running north/south along the
center of the Leichenkeller, slightly to the west of the center.
This position is supported by the aerial photograph of
08/25/44 among other things.

The traditional position is shown on the Auschwitz model.
It is supported by the factat the locations on the model.
Traditional vents 2 and 3 are sort of in the center of the roof.
(The vent numbers are the ones assigned by Pressac on
page 378 and run lowest north to highest south). Traditional
vents 1 and 4 clearly conflict with the positioning of the
vents in the 08/25/44 photograph.

Some of this ambivalence comes through if you read
Pressac on page 354 Photocture b”’. The picture is of a hole
in the ceiling ASSUMED to be one of the Zyclon B introduction
vents.

With this confusion over where the vents holes were, I can
see how my remarks were also confusing. Everyone, or at least
those with suspicious minds, thought that I had found some
little irrelevant hole off on the edge of the roof and was
obfuscating things.

So far, does this seem correct to you? The I can point
out why at least two of the “traditional” vent holes
are now considered as having been created by the
demolition process.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Jun 7 12:45:48 PDT 1996
Article: 41645 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!
ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Jun 1996 01:01:24 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 53
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4p8d34$kla@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(Ceacaa) wrote:
“My question to you, to be answered once we can agree on how much of the
roof still exists, is “How many of the vent holes exist today?” I say
3.”

Response to Claim 3:

>Pressac states that there are TWO remaining Zyklon B introduction >holes
in the roof of L.Keller 1 of Krema II (Photo b”’ and caption,
>_Technique_; p.354.)

>Where is your evidence, Ceacaa, of the third remaining Zyklon B
>introduction hole?

I have answered this one before. The three holes that I found and
inspected are the three “traditional holes” as shown on the
model at the Auschwitz Museum. (see Pressac pg. 345 Photo 27
and Page 378 in which he numbers the holes) These holes are each of
different sizes. The largest is hole 4. That is the one Pressac
took a picture of (kind of).
I am confused as to the respective attributes of vent holes 3 and 2.
One of them is about 30 cm. across and is simply
a hole in the concrete roof. A concrete manhole cover was
placed next to it too.
The other hole is even smaller, about15 cm. It is at a crack in the roof,
that is, could be viewed as am expansion in the fault line rather than a
real hole. I do not think that Pressac counted this
hole as existing.
Finally, I will again note that I couldn’t inspect the position
of hole number 1 on the Auschwitz Museum model. This area was covered by
rubble. Since the museum model is based on an
actual inspection of the Leichenkeller roof, I would suspect
that there is a hole there too.

>It is also important to note that on the memorandum acknowleding >the
>receipt of Krema II there were FOUR >Drahtnetzeinscheibvorrichtung (wire
>netting inserting devices) listed, which clearly implies that there >were
>FOUR Zyklon B introduction holes in the roof of L.Keller 1. >(_Anatomy_,
>p.233; _Techique_, p.232, 430.)
I thought that the Drahtnetzeinscheibvorrichtung were
fabricated at the camp metal shop. Why would they be
part of the turn over documents? Does this mean the
Drahtnetzeinscheibvorrichtung were made prior to the
turn over date at the end of March 1943? Perhaps
one or two the these things were spares? They were made
of 15 mm tubing and 10 mm. angle iron. Not particularly
sturdy in 3 meter lenghts. Do you think that these
things lasted a whole year and half of use or were they
ever replaced?

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Jun 8 06:43:29 PDT 1996
Article: 41713 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Jun 1996 10:09:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 73
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4p9d6c$31h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4p8d34$kla@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote 05 Jun 1996

>Just a quick reply to say that I resent this ceaseless baiting
>presented in lieu of a serious discussion.
Gosh, try being a Revisionist. I have been trying to
get a straight answer out of you for several months to the
question “How much of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 exists?”
That is a serious question. Instead you make a crack about
“playing Revisionist Hero” and then reproach me for baiting
you. Mon Dieu!
The main reason I hoped that you would go visit
Birkenau is because I fully recognize the weakness in
my survey of the roof. I believe that a thorough survey of
the roof (and holes therein) is needed. Then I don’t have
to spend anymore time on this thread.
You have sort of mumbled that VanPelt thinks 50% of the roof is still
there. Other Exterminationists/Hoaxters are all over the
map on it.

[snip Morris’ baiting in lieu of serious discussion]

>Months go by, and Mr. Allen cannot address the very simple >question of
>the locations of the positions of holes which he claims to have
>observed in the L.Keller roof.

I have posted answer to that comment several times as
follows.
When I visited Bithree particular holes were the actual vent holes
used as
part of the extermination process. Concrete covers had been
placed next to each of the holes (see Pressac pg. 354 caption to Photo
b”), the holes were in the same position as the columns
and holes in the model of Crema II at the State Museum (see
Pressac pg. 345 Photo 27 and Page 378 ), and a picture of one of the holes
was shown in a booklet and identified as the “hole through
which gas was put.”
I started my arguments on the assumption that everybody
knew about and agreed where the “Traditional” vent holes were.
Without being critical, I think that there is confusion in the
Exterminationist postition as to where and/or if, any
of the vent holes exists today.

I would venture to say that the current Exterminationist position
is that there were four vents running north/south along the
center of the Leichenkeller, slightly to the west of the center.
This position is supported by the aerial photograph of
08/25/44 among other things.

The traditional position is shown on the Auschwitz model.
It is supported by the fact that there are, indeed, holes
in the roof at the locations on the model.
Traditional vents 2 and 3 are sort of in the center of the roof.
(The vent numbers are the ones assigned by Pressac on
page 378 and run lowest north to highest south). Traditional
vents 1 and 4 clearly conflict with the positioning of the
vents in the 08/25/44 photograph.

Some of this ambivalence comes through if you read
Pressac on page 354 Photocture b”’. The picture is of a hole
in the ceiling ASSUMED to be one of the Zyclon B introduction
vents.

With this confusion over where the vents holes were, I can
see how my remarks were also confusing. Everyone, or at least
those with suspicious minds, thought that I had found some
little irrelevant hole off on the edge of the roof and was
obfuscating things.

Does John Morris have any serious thoughts on the comments
of traditional vent holes vs. down the center positioning?

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Jun 8 06:43:32 PDT 1996
Article: 41728 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Jun 1996 11:40:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 89
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4p9ihh$656@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

“My assumption that the holes were part of the demolition process arises
>from the state of the holes, not from any expert understanding of
demolition. The holes presently on the roof are of irregular shape,
varing size, chipped in after the roof was origninally poured. The rebar
of the roof is still in the holes, cut in one place and bent out of the
way.”

In addition, Ceacaa, you have made several other past claims regarding the
holes through which Zyklon B was introduced which I am now, having
procurred a copy of Pressac’s _Techique_, prepared to address in detail:

Claim 1:

In article <4ev93t$cv1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
wrote:
“I have been into the so-called gaschambers of Crema II and III. There are
no remains of any porous pillars. The structure’s roof is built of
poured-in-place concrete. The pattern of the woodforms is visible in the
concrete, as are holes for fitings and conduit. Anything which was
attached to the ceiling would have left holes or fittings. There are none
around the 3 “vents” through which the pellets were poured and the porous
pillars attached.”

>Response to Claim 1:

>As to the alleged lack of any retaining fixtures in the ceiling for >the
>Zyklon B introduction columns, this would be in accordance
>with the fact
>that the columns passed _through_ the roof of the L.Keller
> and was likley surrounded by a “chimney,” much like that
>found in the reconstruction of
>the Zyklon B vents of Krema I (_Technique_, p.150), which would >firmly
hold the top of the column in place.

>The fixed portion of the introduction column was approximately 3 >meters
in
>length. If you were to study the Huta drawings 109/13A and >109/14A of
>21/9/43 (_Technique_, pp.322-325), you would see the inside >dimension
for
>the floor to ceiling height of L.Keller 1 to be 2.40 meters and that >the
roof of L.Keller 1 is about 26 cm thick. This would imply that >the fixed
>portion of the introduction columns protruded about 40 cm
>above the
>concrete roof of L.Keller 1. This is in general accord with Piper’s
>description that says: “…they passed through openenings in the
>ceiling,
>ending outside as little chimneys closed with a concrete cover >equipped
with two handles.” (_Anatomy_, p.167.)

Response to the response.

So your response is that the “little chimneys” were not attached
to the roof in a manner that would leave any trace? Nor was
the pillar attached to the roof and/or ceiling in any manner which
would leave a mark?
This does not seem likely to me. Remember the pillar was
supposed to withstand the pressure of hundreds of stampeding
persons.
One would think that the column would have to attached
somewhere. Since it wasn’t attached at the top it must have
been attached at the bottom. We should be able to find some
bolt holes there.

But , if we look at the Schematic Diagram of the
so-called Introduction Column on page 487 of Pressac,
we come upon another surprise!
Oddly enough, the column doesn’t have any attachment
points at the bottom either, no bolt holes, straps, or rivets!

What do you think Mark? This column was the actual murder
device. Was it just free standing? Or are there bolt holes
somewhere?

I should also note that Pressac confirms what I posted
about the ceiling of the Leichenkeller being poured in place
concrete. Please note in the photographs on page 354 that
the wood grain of the forms in visible in the concrete. His
other photographs confirm exactly what I have stated.

The problem comes because Pressac avoids any clear
picture of the all important vent holes and avoids any
discussion of the state of the roof of the Leichenkeller.
It is the official Hoaxter position to
pretend that nothing can be learned from visiting the
site of the alleged “gaschamber. Unfortunately,
it seems to be the posture of many of the
armchair Exterminationists on this thread.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Jun 11 01:36:56 PDT 1996
Article: 42515 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 10 Jun 1996 21:21:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 42
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4pihm3$360@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Reply VanAlstine part 2
>> But , if we look at the Schematic Diagram of the
>> so-called Introduction Column on page 487 of Pressac,
>> we come upon another surprise! Oddly enough, the column doesn’t >have
any
>> attachment points at the bottom either, no bolt holes, straps, or
>>rivets!

> Indeed, the sketch doesn’t show how the column was anchored to >the
floor. Neither does it show the column passing throught the >roof of the
L.Keller. What it shows is a simplistic rendering of the >fixed wire mesh
column and the removeablecore.

Actually, it is a fairly detailed description giving the
size and type of material used in the construction, the net,
the type of tubing use, as well as the dimensions of the
“pillar”.
This otherwise detailed description avoided the embarassing
but important question: How did the darn thing stay in place?

>The simple act of them passing through the roof, in combination >that
they _were_
>anchored to the floor, constrained them against any movement >whatsoever.

That’s a pretty powerful statement, partner. You’re talking
“anchored”. Why don’t you zip on down to Orchard Supply
again and pick yourself up a 3 meter long strip of angle
iron just like the one they used in your pillar. Bolt it to the floor.
Go back across the room and then run
into the darn thing, preferably head down. Do this three or
four times. Are you still an Exterminationist? If so, look
at the bolts. I’ll bet you 50 cents that they are sprung.
If you are looking for any support from the roof, then you are
going to have to have a very, very tight fit.
To say that this unsupported structure was
“constrained them against any movement whatsoever”
is dogmatic prevarication.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Jun 11 06:44:41 PDT 1996
Article: 42559 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 11 Jun 1996 01:34:18 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 37
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4pj0gq$aii@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4pisld$92q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 05 Jun 1996
Ceacaa wrote:
>>This brings us back to the question of how much of the roof
>>still exists. Exterminationists now have to become Deniers
>>and deny that the roof exists since thay cannot point to any
>>hole that was a vent. You have posted that 50% of the roof
>>exists. Therefore, you should be able to find 2 of
>>the 4 hypothectical vent holes. You can’t.

>Oh, but can’t I? But you, apparently cannot bring yourself to >describe
>the locations of the holes you claim are “crudely chipped-in” after
>the fact and with bent and cut rebar. Where are they? Cat got your
>tongue?

Wha you mean ca go my ongue? Wook at wha I posted before:
“The three holes that I found and
inspected are the three “traditional holes” as shown on the
model at the Auschwitz Museum. (see Pressac pg. 345 Photo 27
and Page 378 in which he numbers the holes) These holes are each of
different sizes. The largest is hole 4. That is the one Pressac
took a picture of (kind of). …

Finally, I will again note that I couldn’t inspect the position
of hole number 1 on the Auschwitz Museum model. This area was covered by
rubble. Since the museum model is based on an
actual inspection of the Leichenkeller roof, I would suspect
that there is a hole there too.”

What better could you ask for than a picture?

>But let’s consider the two holes along the west side of the centre
>beam at approximately the first and third pillars from the south,
>shall we? Let’s start with an analogy.

Hold it, hold it…I thought that you said that the Southern
end of the Leichenkeller was totally destroyed? Are you,
ah, well, revising that position?

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Jun 11 17:09:00 PDT 1996
Article: 42632 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 11 Jun 1996 00:28:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 68
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4pisld$92q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On Jun 8, 1996
Mark Van Alstine wrote:

>> So your response is that the “little chimneys” were not attached
>> to the roof in a manner that would leave any trace?
>And where did I say that, Mr. Allen?

You didn’t. It simply follows logically from the
fact that there are NO traces of your little chimneys
anywhere on the roof of the Leichenkeller. Ipso facto the
chimneys were not attached in a trace leaving manner.

>> Nor was the pillar attached to the roof and/or ceiling in any >>manner
which would leave a mark?
>Yes, this is very likely, as the Zyklon B introduction columns >passed
through the ceiling and would not have needed to have been >anchored to
the ceiling with bolts as you have claimed.

VERY LIKELY? This is one of the stupidest comments that I have
yet read on this thread. Maybe you should just insist that
the Germans GLUED the column in place. The slightest
consideration of the forces that crowds of people
would have exerted your “pillar” shows that it would need to
have been well secured.

>> One would think that the column would have to attached
>> somewhere. Since it wasn’t attached at the top it must have
>> been attached at the bottom. We should be able to find some
>>bolt holes there.

>Indeed you should be able to Mr. Allen.
>Did you examine the floor of L.Keller 1 in detail for such holes Mr.
Allen? You know, the floor >that is
>under many centimeters of water. The floor that is basically, as I
>understand it, missing near the suriving pillars. The floor that is
>almost entirely burried under the collapsed roof and rubble?

Are you trying to discuss a subject honestly or jiber at me?

Alstine’s points are:
1. The bolt holes ARE there.
2. But the floor ISN’T there.
3. But you can’t see anything anyway because everything
is covered in water.
4. But you can’t see anything anyway because everything
is covered in rubble.
Your discussion has gone beyond tendentiousness
to being strident and contradictory. Cool your jets, get
back with the dialectic.

I do not know if there are any bolt holes anywhere on the
floor.
You do not know if there are any bolt holes on the floor.
I doubt that there are.
You assert that there are.

At this point all you and I should be able to agree upon is that
if you are right about your columns and the floor is in place,
we should find your bolt holes. If the floor “is basically,
as I understand it, missing near the suriving pillars” then
that will show too.
That is, either the bolt holes are there or the floor isn’t.

Of course, the amazing point of all this is that neither remains
of little chimneys or bolt holes on the floor have ever been
found.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Jun 14 07:16:44 PDT 1996
Article: 43087 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!news5.digex.net!news2.digex.net!
uunet!uunet!in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 13 Jun 1996 01:00:11 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 81
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4po78r$7d2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4pkov6$cm0@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 05 Jun 1996

>You seem to believe that physical evidence is >self-evident and
unproblematical,
Some physical evidence is, much physical evidence is
inconclusive. My point is that physical evidence tends to
be more reliable than other forms of evidence. The position and
condition of the Traditional vent holes is self-evident and nearly
conclusive that the holes were chipped in after the roof was poured etc.
etc.
The physical condition of the so-called holes is an anomaly in the
standard story of mass extermination at Crema II.

>so tell me: did the Soviets do this to my >basement
>and sidewalk?
Maybe a hockey team threw a party in your basement?
Please try not to waste everyone’s time with
stupid questions, irony is best in small dosage. If you think you have a
good point, see if you can express yourself clearly.

>My description does, after all, match your description
>of the Krema II ruins. Or do you think that it is just possible that
>what you have taken to be “crudely chipped-in” holes might be more
>crude than they once were because of the natural effects of
>weathering.
No. Look at Pressac pg. 366. photo 21 and 22. These are
pictures of holes in the concrete floor of Crema II that
were built as part of the original pour. Note the effect
of weathering on this hole. The edges of the hole are still
clear and defined. 50 years of weathering did not create
a crudely chipped in effect.

>But more: tell me about your experience with rebar. Have you ever
>actually seen a straight piece?
Yes. straight pieces are visible at breaks in the concrete.
>Is it impossible that an end could be bent before the concrete was
>poured over it?
Not likely.
>Have you ever seen a piece of rebar that *wasn’t* cut?
At other parts of the roof and column there are but not
in the three traditional holes that I inspected.

>You have been so reticent to admit that you went to Auschwitz >with a
theory to test that perhaps you really didn’t have a theory >to test.
>Maybe you just went there looking for any straw to grasp to prove >that
>the Holocaust was a hoax. Maybe, just maybe, you “overlooked” the
>effects of forty or fifty years of weather,
the westward shift of >the
>roof because of the blast, that fact that the ends of rebar are
>*always* cut, maybe you overlooked all that so you could “prove” >the
hoax.
Great closing arguments. You should try out as a prosecutor at the
next Zundel trial. What do you mean “theory to test?”
I went to Auschwitz to see what was there; to see the scene of the crime
and look at the murder weapon.
If the evidence was not so strong in support of the Revisionist position I
would be an Exterminationist. Further, I don’t particularly think that
the Holocaut was a “hoax”. I believe that the evidence is very strong
that Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II could not have been used as a gaschamber.
My appelation of certain posters on this thread as “Hoaxters” is meant to

express my contempt for their obtuse dogmatisim, not to
demean the tragedy that was Auschwitz.
Let’s review your arguments:
1. Weathering- Wrong as show above;
2. Explosion making a westward shift of the roof-Wrong.
The edges of the roof are at the edges of the room
below. There has been no “westward shift” of the
roof. Further, the traditional vent holes are not
in line. Hole 4 is two or three meters to the west
of holes 3 and 2. So, unless you believe that the
explosion moved only1 of 3 of the holes and moved it
across a solid concrete roof, then Pressac’s tenative
explaination, which you seem to have ferverently
embrased, can only be described as absurd
Hoaxterism.
3.The ends of rebar are*always* cut. -Right but Wrong. Numerous rebar
are cut and bent out of the way. The continuation of the rebar extends
>from the other side of the hole. In several instances, one can look at
the entire lenght of rebar not at an end (or begining).

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Jun 14 21:13:16 PDT 1996
Article: 43276 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!
imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!
usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 14 Jun 1996 00:23:19 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 43
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4pqpfn$50u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4pocv4$806@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 6/5
>You have been so reticent to admit that you went to Auschwitz >with a
theory to test that perhaps you really didn’t have a theory >to test.
>Maybe you just went there looking for any straw to grasp to prove >that
>the Holocaust was a hoax. Maybe, just maybe, you “overlooked” the
>effects of forty or fifty years of weather, the westward shift of >the
>roof because of the blast, that fact that the ends of rebar are
>*always* cut, maybe you overlooked all that so you could “prove” >the
hoax.
There is a great deal of vehemence in your arguments but
not much acurracy. You should try out as a prosecutor
at the next Zundel trial. What do you mean “theory to test?”
I went to Auschwitz to see what was there, to view the scene
of the crime and look at the murder weapon. The condition
of the vents was only one of a dozen powerful reasons supporting
the Revisionist position. If the evidence was not so strong in support of
the Revisionist position I would be an
Exterminationist. Further, I don’t particularly think that the Holocaut
was a “hoax”. I believe that the evidence is very strong that
Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II could not have been used as a gaschamber. My
appelation of certain posters on this thread as “Hoaxters” is meant to
express my contempt for their obtuse dogmatisim not to demean the tragedy
that was Auschwitz.
Let’s review your arguments:
1. Weathering- Wrong as show above;
2. Explosion making a westward shift of the roof-Wrong.
The edges of the roof are at the edges of the room
below. There has been no “westward shift” of the
roof. Waive, waive Pressac pg. 265 Document 106
which shows both edges of the roof next to the
edges of the wall.
Further, the traditional vent holes are not
in line. Hole 4 is two or three meters to the west
of holes 3 and 2. So, unless you believe that the
explosion moved only1 of 3 of the holes and moved it
across a solid concrete roof, then Pressac’s tenative
explaination, which you seem to have ferverently
embrased, can only be described as absurd Hoaxterism.
3. The ends of rebar are*always* cut. -Right but Wrong. Numerous
rebar are cut and bent out of the way. The continuation of
the rebar extends from the other side of the hole. In several
instances, one can look at the entire lenght of rebar not at
an end (or begining).

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Jun 15 10:18:41 PDT 1996
Article: 43368 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!
news.sover.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!
imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 14 Jun 1996 01:55:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 38
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4pqurp$748@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4pocv4$806@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 05 Jun 1996

>You seem to believe that physical evidence is self-evident and
>unproblematical,
Some physical evidence is, much physical evidence is
inconclusive. My point is that physical evidence tends to
be more reliable than other forms of evidence. The position and
condition of the Traditional vent holes is self-evident and nearly
conclusive that the holes were chipped in after the roof was
poured etc. etc.

>so tell me: did the Soviets do this to my >basement
>and sidewalk?
Maybe a hockey team threw a party in your basement?
By the way, I don’t think the Soviets trashed Crema II

>My description does, after all, match your description
>of the Krema II ruins. Or do you think that it is just possible that
>what you have taken to be “crudely chipped-in” holes might be more
>crude than they once were because of the natural effects of
>weathering.
No. Look at Pressac pg. 366. photo 21 and 22. These are
pictures of holes in the concrete floor of Crema II that
were built as part of the original pour. Note the effect
of weathering on this hole. The edges of the hole are still
clear and defined. 50 years of weathering did not create
a crudely chipped in effect.

>But more: tell me about your experience with rebar. Have you ever
>actually seen a straight piece?
Yes. straight pieces are visible at breaks in the concrete.
>Is it impossible that an end could be bent before the concrete was
>poured over it?
No.
>Have you ever seen a piece of rebar that *wasn’t* cut?
At other parts of the roof and column there are but not
in the three traditional holes that I inspected.
CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Jun 15 10:18:42 PDT 1996
Article: 43380 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!
news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!
hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 14 Jun 1996 21:14:08 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 85
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4pt2p0$pge@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <31c12e50.58392742@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 6/5
>Yes, Van Pelt was vague about the exact position of the vent holes,
>because I didn’t ask and he didn’t tell me.

Maybe he was vague because he didn’t know.

>.>Sometime after the liberation of Lublin (9/44) the Germans >.recognized
the
>>”photo opportunity” for the Soviets in the row of ovens at >Birkenau.
The
>>destruction of “evidence” at Auschwitz/Birkenau was
>>focused on the
>>crematoria ovens,
>not on the alleged gas chambers.

>Goodness me! Is it your position now that the SS did not dynamite >the
>L.Keller?
>That it fell down of its own accord? The blew the whole
>installation, crematory and gas chambers both.

The Germans did attempt to destroy the Leichenkeller but were more
concerned with the crematorium. In the main structure they destroyed the
roof and walls, only the floor remains with its rail tracks.
>> The walls, floors, and roofs
>of the Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II and III still exist. The
> ae main camp was NOT touched.

>The Main Camp was not touched because traces of
>the extermination
>process had long before been removed.
>The entire operation was moved to Birkenau by
>the end of 1943.

What are you talking about? The entire alleged
gaschamber was left standing. A gaschamber, if it were
one, is a “trace(s) of extermination.”

>>Why? Because its crematoria had been removed before.
>>Huge amounts of
>>documents relating to the Crema were left,
>>including drawings, specifications,and lists of S.S. personel
>>serving at the site.
>
[snip]
> If the SS *did* blow up
>the L.Kellers how does that make their efforts to destroy
>evidence “focused solely on the Crematoria ovens.”

Your right. I overstated the argument. Strike “solely”.

>Come to think of it, if they were so careful to destroy he evidence >of
>mass cremations, why did they, as you say above, not destroy all of
>the documents a well? Oh right: hasty retreat even though they had
>known for months that the Soviets were coming and knew that the
>Soviets would make propaganda hay out of any indication of the >mass
destruction of human lives.

That is the point. They weren’t “careful” to destroy the evidence
of the Cremas. The Germans did not start the destruction process until
December 1944. They blew up the “evidence” just before the Soviets came
into the camp.
On Crema II and III they did an incomplete job.
As you point out, they knew for months (or years) that the
Soviets were coming.

Majdanek was liberated by the Soviets July 24, 1944.
Photographs of the crematorium were a
major Allied propaganda item in August. In December the
Germans reacted by starting to dismantle the Cremas.

The point is, of course, that the Germans were not careful to
destroy the evidence of the Cremas. Huge amounts of plans, prints,
orders, even photographs of the construction were just left by the Germans
when they retreated. These documents had the names of everyone who worked
with the Bauleitung.
We know the individuals who built the Cremas: SS Captain
Bischoff, Lieutenant Dejaco, Lieutenant Jothann et al. from
the construction documents THEY LEFT BEHIND.
They even left behind photographs of themselves building the so-called
“gaschamber”.
Not a very organized destruction of evidence.
CEACAA Fiat lux.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Jun 15 10:18:43 PDT 1996
Article: 43381 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!
nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 14 Jun 1996 21:14:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 54
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4pt2ov$pgd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <31c12e50.58392742@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 6/5

>According to the conservation of energy, 100% of the roof
> still exists in some form. The question is: in what form?
Mr. Morris, please try not be sophmoric. 90% of the
roof exists in a coherent form which allows a viewer to
determine the number of holes presently in the roof.

>What floor? Are you claiming that the floor is intact under a roof
>slab that collapsed intact onto the floor below? Did you
>excavate to find this intact floor?

>You seem to like waving Pressac’s _Technique_ under
>our noses. Look at
>the pictures on pp. 353-354. How much intact floor do
>you see there
>beside the partially destroyed support pillars?

Actually I have been banging you about the ears with it,
thumping its cover, insistently citing its pages. That is
because it is the best source of primary evidence of
the condition of the so-called gaschambers.

Pressac, being an Exterminationist, has avoided giving
evidence on certain embarassing subjects such as the
amount of roof still available for inspection and the condition
and location of the all important vent holes. For the same
reason he avoids any pictures of the floor of the Leichenkeller
and, of course, any bolt holes.

>Did you look for bolt holes? Did it occur to you that even if there
>was an intact floor there that a holes that were partially >submerged at
different times of the year might have filled with >mud and debris?

More obscurantism. If the floor is there then Exterminationists
should easily point to the bolt holes. The destruction of
the floor can also easily be shown. They have done neither.

I believe the floor is intact without bolt holes. I do not claim
to know.
You seem to believe something else but I don’t think that
you claim to know either.
The obvious solution to the question is to go and look.

We are discussing something which can be tested.
This is another advantage of concentrating on
physical evidence at the site. Ultimately the argument
can be resolved by somebody actually getting a little
dirty and seeing what is there.
I am pleased to put my beliefs to the test.

Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in
concrete.

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Jul 1 09:08:01 PDT 1996
Article: 47287 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 26 Jun 1996 01:03:54 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 67
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4qqgbq$7fk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on18 Jun 1996

> My question to you, Mr. Allen, was did YOU actually carry out a
>thourough examination of the ENTIRE floor where the introduction columns
would have been anchored?

No. I posted the following before:

>> I do not know if there are any bolt holes anywhere on >>the floor.
>>You do not know if there are any bolt holes on the floor.
>> I doubt that there are.
>>You assert that there are.

and the following

>> At this point all you and I should be able to agree upon is that
>> if you are right about your columns and the floor is in place,
>> we should find your bolt holes.
>> That is, either the bolt holes are there or the
>>floor isn’t.

>How did you copme to your “understanding” of the state of the >floor, Mr.
Allen? Idle speculation or research?
I discussed the state of the floor with several individuals
who had the interest and integrity to actually visit the
site. Those who had checked stated that the floor exists.
Furthermore, I believe that the drainage system works and I
known that the inside walls are generally intact.
This would indicate that the original floor is still there waiting for
somebody to find bolt holes in it.

>> Of course, the amazing point of all this is that neither remains
>> of little chimneys or bolt holes on the floor have ever been
>> found.

>Considering that the “little chimneys” were probably brick,
>do you find this suprising Mr. Allen? How can you tell the
>bricks from a little chimney apart from bricks in rubble? Or from >bricks
in a pile of other bricks elsewhere?
Yes, it is suprising. The bricks, (if that is what you want
to claim the chimneys were made of) would have been
cemented to the roof both to hold them in place and to
create a water tight seal to keep rain and snow from
going into the room below.

>But let us not forget, Mr. Allen, that there is a photograph of three >of
the “little chinmeys” on the roof of L.Keller 1 taken by the SS; th >ere
are Allied aerial photos of four “little chimneys” on the roof of
> L.Keller 1; that the inventory receipt for Krema II shows four
>”Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrivhtung” (wire mesh introduction devices) >and
four
>”Holzblenden” (wooden covers); and the multiople eyewitness >testimonies
confirming their existance and installation.
>Given all this, Mr. Allen, your bickering over bolt holes and such
>appears rather anti-climatic. To say the least.
We have gone over this before, ie. the issue of the relative value
of physical evidence vs. other types of evidence. I have asked you
this question once before;
If you have a picture of a wall with a hole showing in it but you can
inspect the wall and there is NO hole,
what do you believe, hole or no hole? That is, I believe, the basis of
the debate between Revisionists and Exterminationists.
Of course there are several pictures of the roof of Leichenkeller where
NO vent holes can be seen and
where they would have shown if they were there

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Jul 1 09:08:01 PDT 1996
Article: 47382 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 26 Jun 1996 00:42:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 39
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4qqf4i$6rd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on18 Jun 1996
>These are two seperate things, Mr. Allen. Even a toddler
>could tell the difference between a “little chimneys” ON
> TOP of the roof of L.Keller 1
>and wire mesh columns INSIDE the homicidal gas
>chamber that pass THROUGH the roof of L.Keller 1 to
>end up outside and SURROUNDED by the “little chimneys.”

We are back to the Exterminationist starting point:
Nothing has left any traces which can be examined;
no base for the “little chimneys”, to attachment points for
the wire columns, no wire columns, no bolt holes,
no roof, no holes, no floor. And you call us “deniers”.

>First, You have claimed, in essence, that as no bolt holes can be >found
in the ceiling of L.Keller 1 the introduction columns were, >pardon the
pun, a
>fabrication. You willfully ignore the simple explination that as the
>columns, which measured 70 cm x 70 cm, passed through holes in >the roof,
>which also likely measured 70 cm x 70 cm, the columns did not >need to be
>fastened to the roof as they were, for all practical purposes, >already
>”fastened” as they could not be moved laterally BECAUSE THE ROOF
>CONSTRAINED THEM.
Actually, my starting point is that there are NO 70 cm x 70
cm holes in the roof of Leichenkeller 1. The discussion of
the hypothetical pillar started with my further observation
that there are no bolt holes around the three “traditional”
vent holes in the roof of Leichenkeller 1.
As to your “simple explaination”, I am not ignoring it.
I have thought about it, it’s stupid. I feel that it is absurd to suppose
that the wire pillar could have withstood the alleged use without being
fastened at the roof. At best, you can assert that the metal tubes were
only prevented from moving laterally. Any fex in the tubing, any
horizontal or vertical pressure was unrestrained. Any pressures or
impacts would have been transmitted and levered by the lenght on the
tubing to the hypothecal “anchor bolts” on
the floor.
Your arguments that people somehow avoided bumping into the columns
during gasssing are specious.

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Jul 4 17:22:23 PDT 1996
Article: 48306 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news-out.microserve.net!
news-in.microserve.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 4 Jul 1996 17:41:23 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 87
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rhdq3$b2m@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4rak3r$m02@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jul 1, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote
> Actually, my starting point is that there are NO 70 cm x 70
> cm holes in the roof of Leichenkeller 1.

>Then please explain Document 46 on p.228 of _Technique_ and >explain why
the hole in the roof of L.Keller 1 is larger than the >sewer manhole cover
>which, when examining the Bauleitung drawing 1300, implies that >the
manhole cover should be at _least_ 60 cm x 60 cm.
My poor giddy Van Alstine. No wonder you are confused.
Document 46 is NOT a picture of a hole in the roof of
Leichenkeller 1. It is a picture of a drainage manhole with
a drainage manhole cover next to it.
Pressac, like all Hoaxters, avoids any clear pictures of what
he claims are vent holes.

>>Furthermore, your “observsation” regarding the lack of “bolt >holes”
applied to the roof of L.Keller 1.
It appears that you are agreeing with me that I am right
about there being no bolt holes on the roof.
[snip]

> Perhaps you would care to explain away all the above
>evidence for the existance of these “hypothetical” Zyklon B >introduction
columns?
I will, after I pin you down on the physical evidence
existing at the scene of the crime. Remember, it has only
been a few weeks since you admitted that the Leichenkeller
roof still exists.

[snip discussion of strenght of column, for now]
>And your reply to this is to “hypothesize” that there were no “bolt
>holes” in the floor? Simply amazing.
What is amazing is that no one has ever found the
bolt holes in the floor necessary to sustain your story
that there was a porous column.
No bolt holes equals no columns.
Find some bolt holes and you will have the pleasure of
seeing me eat my words!

[snip 2nd discussion of strenght of column, for now]

>> Your arguments that people somehow avoided bumping into the >>columns
during gasssing are specious.

>Simply put: Bullshit. You’re being an ass by saying this. Both Dr.
>Nyiszli
>and Henryk Tauber told of the victims piling up _away_ from the >pillars
when they died.

This is interesting. There were four columns. What did the
victims do, die in 5 lines between the columns?
I * I * I * I * I How thoughtful of the victims.
Did the Germans leave the lights on during
the executions so that the victims could see and avoid the
columns? How clever of the Germans.
Did the victims, having been led halfway around the
Crema building (please don’t look in the windows, the chimneys
are just for heating bath water), down a narrow stairway, into
a low ceilinged basement, through small room*, right turn into another low
ceilinged room (all on belief that they were going to take an
underground shower) suddenly realize that these strange wire columns were
emitting poison gas? What a sudden loss of innocence and scientific
insight of the victims.

*Some Hoaxters, such as John Morris, claim that they even went through
ANOTHER small room to finally get to the so-called
gaschamber at the south end of Leichenkeller.

>Ho”ess told of 1/3 of the victims in the gas chamber,
>those immediately near the Zyklon B introduction columns, dying
>immediately when the Zyklon B was introduced.
Did the Germans open the cans of Zyclon and
pour them down all four vent holes at the same time?
What skilled synchroneity!
Hoess’s story has more holes in it than your porous
pillars

“Gradually, over months on the Internet, it was disclosed to me that the
line separating Science (Revisionism) and Dogmatisim (Exterminationism)
passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political
parties–but right through every human mind–and all human minds.”

–David Cole–

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Jul 5 06:39:21 PDT 1996
Article: 48417 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!
news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!news-res.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 4 Jul 1996 17:39:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 38
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rhdmv$b13@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4rak3r$m02@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jul 1, 1996 (Mark Van Alstine) wrote

>> Furthermore, I believe that the drainage system works and I
>> known that the inside walls are generally intact.

>And your basis for such assumptions, Mr. Allen?
Been there, seen it.

>> This would indicate that the original floor is still there waiting for
>> somebody to find bolt holes in it.

> >> Of course, the amazing point of all this is that neither remains
> >> of little chimneys or bolt holes on the floor have ever been
> >> found.
>
> >Considering that the “little chimneys” were probably brick,
> >do you find this suprising Mr. Allen? How can you tell the
> >bricks from a little chimney apart from bricks in rubble? Or from
>bricks
> in a pile of other bricks elsewhere?

> Yes, it is suprising. The bricks, (if that is what you want
> to claim the chimneys were made of) would have been
> cemented to the roof both to hold them in place and to
> create a water tight seal to keep rain and snow from
> going into the room below.

>And. Mr. Allen? Are you asserting that no indications that these >”little
chimneys” now exist on the roof of L.Keller 1, Mr. Allen.
YES
>And that >because of this said “little chimneys _never_ existed?
AND YES

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Jul 6 08:00:52 PDT 1996
Article: 48598 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Jul 1996 04:04:26 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 91
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rl6ma$ksp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On Jul 5, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

>The caption to Document 46 (_Technique_, pp.228-229) reads as >follows:

>”Concrete cover with metal handle, weighing about 20 kg, >origionally
made
>for the manhole of documents 44 and 45, now next to the remains >of an
>opening on the roof of Leichenkeller 1 (the gas chamber) of >Krematorium
>II, through which Zyklon B was poured.”

>Note that it is “an opening on the roof of Leichenkeller 1.”

You are wrong about what Document 46 shows.
Document 46 is a picture Pressac took to prove his point
that the “covers” that are next to the two “traditional”
vent holes on the roof of Leichenkeller 1 are really from
the manholes. Pressac MOVED the cover next to a manhole
to show that the cover “belonged” with the manhole.
The picture was not taken on the roof of the Leichenkeller.
I repeat, Document 46 is not a picture of any of the
“traditional” vent holes.
I do have some good news for the Truth seekers on this
thread. I found my pictures of vent hole D (the furthest to
the South). This is the hole that no Exterminationist dares
to photograph. I will send them up to Bradley Smith to
post or see if I can do it here.

> >>Furthermore, your “observsation” regarding the lack of “bolt >holes”
> applied to the roof of L.Keller 1.
> It appears that you are agreeing with me that I am right
> about there being no bolt holes on the roof.
> [snip]
>
> > Perhaps you would care to explain away all the above
> >evidence for the existance of these “hypothetical” Zyklon B
>introduction
> columns?
> I will, after I pin you down on the physical evidence
> existing at the scene of the crime.

>Mr. Allen, considering your above problem as to your intellectual
>abilities regarding the Zyklon B introduction hole in the roof of
>L.Keller
>1, I would suggest you be more concerned about not “pinning” >yourself in
the foot!
Mark, you are looking at the WRONG hole, boy. I hope that you
don’t have this problem in other fields too.

>> Remember, it has only been a few weeks since you admitted >>that the
>> Leichenkeller roof still exists.

>Mr. Allen, I have “admitted” that the roof of L.Keller has existed for
>many _months_. In fact, I have never denied it’s _existance_, I >have
>simply questioned how much of it was _intact_.
Gee, you sound as sophmoric as John Morris. Didn’t you
write something about “grass growing in the hole?” Anyway, you are
getting up to speed now.

> [snip discussion of strenght of column.]

>Oh? And why is this? I rather enjoued this discussion. I _do_ hope >we
can continue with it soon….
I don’t have the time to research the accounts of the victims’
reactions to being gassed. The stories range from people
singing patriot and religious songs, to screaming, to ripping
the rebar ventilation covers off and smashing the peephole
in the door to the Leichenkeller. The latter accounts would
conflict with your wire and tube Zyclon introduction device.

> >And your reply to this is to “hypothesize” that there were no “bolt
> >holes” in the floor? Simply amazing.
> What is amazing is that no one has ever found the bolt holes in
the floor necessary to sustain your story that there was a porous column.

>And who has looked for them? Nobody to my knowledge yet. >Certainly no
scholars of repute that I know of.
Ha! Then you should be eager to the corroborating
evidence which elegantly confirms your theories and
confounds all those dratted Revisionists.
Actually, there have been at least two archeological
investigations of the Leichenkeller. One by Polish authorities after the
war and one by some Germans in the mid-1960’s
> No bolt holes equals no columns.
>Actually, your empty assertions equals no argument.
I am not making an assertion. I am proposing a method
to TEST our respective views. You insist that the pillars were _anchored_
to the floor. And not attached to the ceiling. Ergo, bolt holes. I say
no signs of
attachment-no pillars.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Jul 6 12:40:48 PDT 1996
Article: 48693 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Jul 1996 02:53:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 27
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rl2ht$js3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthY wrote on 04 Jul 1996

>Let’s see — we all agree that, if there are bolt holes >there, the bolt
>holes would be on the floor, directly underneath the four >evenly-spaced
>insertion holes on the roof.
Yes

>We may disagree about whether those four holes are >there, but we can
>all point to those four evenly-spaced locations, without >much problem.
Actually, you can’t disagree. The roof is there
sans vent holes. However, I know what you mean, ie.
if the roof were not there, then we could still estimate
were on the floor the bolt holes would be.

>The question before you, Ceacaa, is:

>Is there any way we could observe those four places on >the floor?
Not all four. 35% of the Leichenkeller is easily
accessable. 75% of the floor is accessable with
some crawling. Therefore, 3 floor sites should be
visible without excavation.

>In other words, does the small crawl-space under the >collapsed ceiling
>of L.1, Krema II extend far enough that one could >photograph one of
>those locations on the floor?
Certainly 2, possibly 3

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Jul 8 08:50:49 PDT 1996
Article: 48975 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Jul 1996 20:07:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 71
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rpjgf$ql5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Jul 5, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote

>Just to clarify things, Mr. Allen, did _you_ actually go to >Auschwitz
and
>carefully examine the remains of the floor and drainge system of >the
Krema II’s L.Keller 1? If so, did you document this?
A triple conjuctive sentence! Yes and no and yes. Yes.

> >> This would indicate that the original floor is still there waiting
for
> >> somebody to find bolt holes in it.
>

> Perhaps you would care to walk through _all_ your assumptions,
>citing all corrobarating evidence, step-by-step for us?

That the floor is there? Sure, but first would you state
your position regarding the existence of the floor. I have
been informed that other persons are interested in this thread,
have been recording our words and plan on publishing them.
Therefore, I would like to get you “on the record” as it were.

#> >And. Mr. Allen? Are you asserting that no indications that these
#”little
#> chimneys” now exist on the roof of L.Keller 1, Mr. Allen.
>> YES
#> >And that >because of this said “little chimneys _never_ #existed?
> > AND YES

>Then please explain, Mr. Allen, the photo of Krema II, taken by the
>Bauleitung, that _clearly_ shows three “little chimneys” on the >roof of
L.Keller 1 (_Technique_, p.340, photos 17/17a). I am >_still_ awaiting
what must be a very illuminating answer….
Well, let’s start Revisi… er, Scientifically. When was the
photograph taken? Early in the construction. Pressac
guesses that it was between 9th and 11th of February 1943.
But the source of the photograph is L’Album D’Auschwitz.
They identify the photo (pg. 210 of the French version)
as La photo P.M.O. neg. n. 20995/504 date a peu de
janvier 1943.
This is odd because we are also informed that the
pour for the roof of Leichenkeller 2 Crema 1 was done
on January 25th or 26th (see Technique, pg. 338 Photo
14). That would mean that Leichenkeller 1 would have to
have been completed (with little chimneys installed) prior to
Leichenkeller 2 even having its roof poured. Hmmm.
There is an earlier picture of the roof of Leichenkeller 1
clearly without anything on its roof. Technique pg. 373.
It is hard to tell since there is a light covering of snow
on the roof, but the roof may be just the concrete slab without the
asphalt layer and the concrete cap.
It is not much earlier though, since the crematory furnaces have been
working. Note the melted snow. I would guess
that the picture was taken the day of the test firing. We
can track down that date. By the way, the picture on pg 373
proves what I have been writing that the vents were “put in”
after the roof was poured.
Then if we look at pg. 341 of Teccnique we see a
later photograph of the roof of the Leichenkeller.
Pressac notes that the “Zyclon-B introduction chimneys
scarcely visible”. Can you see the “chimneys” in the picture?
They definatively are less prominate than in the photos on
340.
I am have trouble with the photos on pg. 340. I cannot
tell anything about the state of Leichenkeller 2. I am also
wondering what the small square object under the middle
of the 5th window from the left (west). Is it on the roof too or beyond
the Leichenkeller?
CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Jul 8 08:50:50 PDT 1996
Article: 48981 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Jul 1996 21:05:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rpms1$sg8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote on 06 Jul 1996

>The question then appears to be:

>Why have no “revisionist scholars” decided to test this >theory?
Money. Also, I would doubt that the Auschwitz camp
authorities want anyone to make a careful survey of
Leichenkeller 1. Finally, you are asking that Revisionists
“prove” the nonexistance of the boltholes. You must
understand that the supposed location of the vent holes
has “moved” over the last three years from the
“traditional” location as shown on the model of Crema
II at the Auschwitz State Museum to an “in-line”
arrangement.

>Why have we not seen careful maps of the floor of L.1 >showing the lack
>of signs of attachment, thus providing evidence for the >truth of
revisionist” claims?
Money
They should probably be done in much the same way that Pressac shows a
careful map of the _ceiling_ of L.1, showing the _presence_ of signs of
attachment of the dummy showerheads, thus providing evidence for the
truth of historians’ claims.

>Pressac’s photographic study of the ceiling was done at >least seven
>years ago. Why have no revisionists conducted a study of >the floor in
>the last seven years?
Money

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Jul 9 07:36:59 PDT 1996
Article: 49119 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 8 Jul 1996 16:37:47 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 45
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rrrir$nu3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote on July 7

> Then please explain, Mr. Allen, the photo of Krema II, taken by the
> Bauleitung, that _clearly_ shows three “little chimneys”

>Ceacaa then went on to write a lot of verbiage about the >photograph:
words without any apparent point or conclusion.
[snip stupid attempt at recapitualtion]
What is the point of all this?
Maybe you have a problem with analytical method, Jamie?
To put it simply, for your simple mind, since you are
confused by the dates I cite, What if the
photograph were taken in 1942? What would that mean?
I doubt if you even understand.

>Look, the photograph shows chimneys in the roof of
>Leichenkeller 1, right?
WRONG.
>Apparently we can agree on that much, because Ceacaa has not
>denied it anywhere in the morass of digressions he posted.
Wrong again
>What Mark Van Alstine and I would like to know is: if there
>were at
>least three chimneys on the roof of L. 1, when the photo was taken,
>how does Ceacaa reconcile this with his view that there
>never were any holes for those chimneys in the roof?

Sorry to bore you with the facts but it is pretty obvious
that the three boxes shown on the roof of Leichenkeller 1
were not “little chimneys”. The dates and facts of construction
of Crema II make this obvious. Conflicts with other photographic
evidence also makes this obvious. Finally, and decisively,
there are no holes in the roof where the boxes are sitting.
In fact, it is pretty obvious what the boxes are, if you
can be bothered to look at them and look at other pictures
of the construction site of Crema II and III.
Since I detect that you are a committed Hoaxter,
eager to believe any “proof” supporting the proposition
that there were mass gassings at Crema II, I was laying
a groundwork of accepted facts, from which the discussion
could proceed. I have wasted my time.
In short, the three boxes are just that, three boxes of
roofing material laid out at the job site.
Ceaaca

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Jul 9 07:37:00 PDT 1996
Article: 49152 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 8 Jul 1996 18:05:54 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rs0o2$q7m@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4qqf4i$6rd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON July 5, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote

>Then please explain, Mr. Allen, the photo of Krema II, taken by the
>Bauleitung, that _clearly_ shows three “little chimneys” on the >roof of
L.Keller 1 (_Technique_, p.340, photos 17/17a).
It does not clearly show three “little chimneys” unless you want to
believe that is what the three boxes are. In fact,
it is pretty clear from the date of the photograph, that the
three boxes could not have been “little chimneys”. Of
course, other evidence also rebutts the
claim that the boxes are little brick chimneys.
The photograph was taken in late January 1943.
see. L’Album D’Auschwitz. (pg. 210 of the French version)
as La photo P.M.O. neg. n. 20995/504 date a peu de
janvier 1943.
When one looks at the schedule of events that Pressac gives
regarding Crema II. see pg. 223 of Technique it is clear that completed
“vent holes” in January were way out of sync with the rest of the project.
Pressac writes that the work on the ventilation system of Leichenkeller 1
was worked on from March 1 through March 7 of 1943. Plans for a further
ventilation/heating system were also drafted in March. That is the same
time period when the door to Leichenkeller 1 was ORDERED (March 6). Both
the door and the ventilation system would be necessary to make
Leichenkeller 1 a gas chamber. A modification in either the door or
ventilation system could eliminate the need for ventholes in the roof yet,
if the picture does show “chimneys”, they would have to have been planned
and installed well over a month prior to other requisite parts even
having been ORDERED.
Another anomaly appears in timing if we agree that the
vents were not part of the original pour. (which I think is
generally admitted). That is, the pouring of the concrete
and the creation of the holes and chimneys would have had
to have happened within days of each other. This would
require a change in plans of the Leichenkeller sometime
early in January, 1943.
Another anomaly exists between the photos on page 340 and the aerial
photograph which showed FOUR marks spaced equidistant down the roof of the
Leichenkeller.
Of course, for me, the determinative fact, is that there
are NO holes in the roof at the locations of the three boxes
in the pictures.
Thus, the facile claim that the three boxes are “proof”
of anything is very weak and is supported more by a desperate eagerness to
believe than anything else. The claim that the picture proves your
“little chimneys” theory is contradicted by 1) documents of
construction, 2) other photographs and 3) physical evidence at the site.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Jul 9 11:52:22 PDT 1996
Article: 49191 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news1.io.org!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!news.nstn.ca!
newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!
news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!news-res.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 8 Jul 1996 18:07:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rs0ql$q9c@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

However, let’s look at the pictures as closely as we can.
The pictures of the three boxes are not clear but
it appears that the three boxes are covered with a light snow. That
makes sense since we can see from the rest of the picture that a light
snow has fallen.

That would mean that the objects are covered or have a top.
It also means that the top of the box is not warm enough to melt snow, ie.
it is not connected to the room below.

The top of the boxes also seems to be square, ie. there is not lip or
overhang around the edges of the boxes or a handle on top.
In fact, the boxes look just like boxes.

But if the three boxes are are NOT Homocidal
vent chimneys, what are they? Probably the three boxes
had something to do with the construction process.

Remember that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 was not a single layer but was
composed of at least three layers, including an ashpalt layer of damp
proofing. In January, 1943, it is likely that the roof of Leichenkeller 1
was incomplete but was in the process of having the last two layers put
on.
This would tie its construction in with that of L. 2. We know that the
roof pour of L2 was just taking place.
Therefore, I would propose that the three boxes are just that, three
boxes. As an aside, I worked for awhile as a carpenter. On any large
job, materials and lumber were
laid out on the job prior to starting the actual work. This
is exactly what happened in this picture. The slab of the
roof was poured, it was then to be waterproofed or treated.
Do similar boxes appear in other photographs of the
construction site? Of course! And, as would make sense,
in conjuction with treating a concrete floor. In both photo
1 and photo 1 pg. 332 of Technique there are similar, if not
identical boxes, sitting on the the newly poured
roof(floor) of the main crema building.
The boxes as boxes theory ties the date of the picture in with a actual
schedule of construction of Crema II and does not conflict with any other
known
facts.

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Jul 9 14:22:35 PDT 1996
Article: 49243 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 8 Jul 1996 21:49:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rsdqs$2vp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote on 07 Jul 1996
#> > Why have no “revisionist scholars” decided to test this theory?
>> Money.

>Didn’t you just offer to fly John Morris to Auschwitz, all
>expenses paid?
I offered $600 but Morris chickened out.

> Also, I would doubt that the Auschwitz camp
> authorities want anyone to make a careful survey of
> Leichenkeller 1.

>No, I don’t imagine they would be too happy with Holocaust-deniers
>poking around the ruins of Auschwitz, and particularly crawling >around
in the very site which saw more mass murder than probably >any other
single room in the history of mankind. I can’t blame >them for that.
Whether the room “saw” any mass murder is the question
being discussed. You are probably genuflecting at the wrong spot.
However, the very fact that you BELIEVE that Leichenkeller 1
“saw” so many murders show impell you to want to
investigate the site.
As to the duty of Museum officials to allow an archeological
investigation of the site: Of course they should!

>Still, Leuchter went fence-hurdling to avoid the guards, so I don’t >see
>why this would be any different. Not that I’m encouraging >revisionists
>to do this sort of thing. It just seems odd that respect for >authority
is being offered as a reason, that’s all.
Looking at the visible ruins is one thing. Digging in
the rubble and spending the time mapping the floor is
a timeconsumming different thing. Further, camp officials
have become far more guarded in allowing contact with
the public since they were caught on film making
embarassing admissions.

>> Finally, you are asking that Revisionists “prove” the nonexistance of
>> the boltholes. You must understand that the supposed location of the
>> vent holes has “moved” over the last three years from the
>>”traditional”
>> location as shown on the model of Crema II at the Auschwitz >>State
Museum to an “in-line” arrangement.

>Fair enough. Over the last three years, you say? I’ll have
>to go check
>Pressac again but I think I remember that Pressac strongly >criticized
the Museum’s model, and that was seven years ago.

>> Money
>> Money

>Didn’t you just offer to fly John Morris to Auschwitz,
>all expenses paid?
See above. An archeologic investigation of the site
would cost $20,000 to $50,000 and would be opposed by
everybody from the Polish Tourist Board to various
religious groups. It will have to wait another 25 years or so.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Jul 10 06:53:24 PDT 1996
Article: 49397 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!news.his.com!news.frontiernet.net!
news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!hunter.premier.net!
news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 10 Jul 1996 01:55:32 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 79
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rvgkk$dr2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Jul 9, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

>But, of course, Mr. Allen, this has nothing to do with the
>fact that you now claim that the “little chimneys” were
>boxes of roofing material left on the roofs of the L.Kellers for >nearly
18 months!

The aerial photograph shows 4 marks on the roof of
Leichenkeller 1, not three, and, more importantly, shows
the marks in different locations than the boxes in the
late January 1943 photograph.
It contradicts the January photograph!
HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

Why is it that you Hoaxter guys have such problems with holes?
Morris thinks the Germans “forgot” to put the holes in; Pressac thinks the
holes “shifted” because of the collapse of the roof; Keren can’t count
holes, you mix up manholes and vent holes?
HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

Of course, the simple fact, written in concrete, is that
there are NO HOLES at the location of the boxes in the
January 1943 photograph.

Of course, the starting point is that the one clear photograph that
we have of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II, Technique pg. 373 shows
NO HOLES. This picture (taken in midjanuary) was probably taken just a
few days before the picture with the boxes (late January). Again, the
starting point of any discussion is that the roof was poured without
holes.

Since you now have learned (hopefully) that the roof
has 3 layers, you will also realize that the laying of the
asphalt layers (or layers) as well of the pouring of the
concrete cap, let alone the chipping of your alleged “vent
holes” and the building of your little chimneys could not
have taken place in the time between the holeless picture
of midJanuary and the one with the boxes. (late January)

Since you now know that the door to Leichenkeller one
was not ordered until March 10th you will recognize that it is out of the
normal order of events to claim that the “vents”and chimneys were designed
and built 1 1/2 months earlier.
ie. if you are putting in vent holes you know you are going to need a
gaschamber door too, why wait to order it?

Since you know that the ventilation system was still
being designed and installed in March you will recognize that it is out of
the normal order of events to claim that the “vents” and chimneys were
designed and built by late January since the design and installation of
the ventilation system could effect the need for “vent holes”.

Since I have pointed out to you that the snow on the
Leichenkeller roof has melted in the box picture but seems
to still be on the top of the boxes you can figure out if warm air was
rising out of holes in the roof inside the boxes.

In short, whatever the boxes on the roof were, the
evidence is massive that they were not little chimneys
around vent holes.

My guess that the boxes were just that, boxes, is
supported by the shape of the objects, the snow on
them, the fact that similar boxes show in other
photographs of the Crema II construction site
particularly in relation to “finishing” a concrete floor,
the fact that the roof was in the process of
have a waterproof layer and/or a concrete cap put on
and, therefor, more material was to be delivered to
the job, and then general observation that materials
are laid out at a job site prior to commencment of
work.

If anyone plans to write to me (or reads these
postings), they should know that I am going to be
away for two weeks and will not be able to respond.
A pleasant summer to all. Ceacaa

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Jul 10 14:57:33 PDT 1996
Article: 49476 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 10 Jul 1996 16:06:37 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 76
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4s12gd$10p@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4rvgkk$dr2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

> ON July 10, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote
> >Then please explain, Mr. Allen, the photo of Krema II, taken by the
> >Bauleitung, that _clearly_ shows three “little chimneys” on the >roof
of
> L.Keller 1 (_Technique_, p.340, photos 17/17a).

> It does not clearly show three “little chimneys” unless you want >to
believe that is what the three boxes are.

>It cuts both ways, Mr. Allen. The difference being is that _I_ can >point
to multiple independant pieces of _evidence_
>that indicate that they are indeed “little chimneys,” while _you_ >cannot
“support” _your_ thesis
>wthout resort to wild speculation.
You call it “wild speculation” to see boxes of roofing
material on a roof during a roofing job?

>> In fact, it is pretty clear from the date of the photograph,
>>that the
>> three boxes could not have been “little chimneys”.

>Nope. It only your wishful interpretation that, for
>some as yet unspecified reason, you assert that
>L.Keller 1 could not have been
>completed before L.Keller 2 was.
You have missed my point. Projects usually work in
phases. L 1’s ceiling has its first pour, then L2’s; L 1’s steel
is put in, then L2’s, etc. We know that in late January
Leichenkeller 2 was having its second roof pour, that would
imply that L.Keller had its final pour and was ready for
application of waterproofing.
> Of course, other evidence also rebutts the claim that the boxes are
little
> brick chimneys.

Nope. To date you ahve offered no such “other” evidence. (See below.)

> The photograph was taken in late January 1943.
> see. L’Album D’Auschwitz. (pg. 210 of the French version)
> as La photo P.M.O. neg. n. 20995/504 date a peu de
> janvier 1943.

Pressac cites this photograph as being taken between February 9 and 11,
1943. It is part of the “Kamann series” which also includes photos 14-16
(_Technique_, pp.338-339).

> When one looks at the schedule of events that Pressac gives
> regarding Crema II. see pg. 223 of Technique it is clear that
completed
> “vent holes” in January were way out of sync with the rest of the
project.

Let us examine the relevent chronology of Krema II:

>Photo 14 (Ibid, p.338) shows the the roof to L.Keller 2 being >prepared
for the pouring of the final layer of concrete. The date is >January 25 or
26, 1943.
That is true. You are claiming that L.Keller 1 is waterproofed,
roofed, had vent holes knocked in, and little chimneys built by
the same date.

>In the summary of Kirschneck’s inspection report, dated January >29,
1943,
>he wrote (Ibid. p.214):
[snip report]
>[Pressac notes: “In fact it was oficially handed over on 31/3/43, a
>month and a half late.”]
Yes, Pressac does… what are the rest of Pressac’s comments
on the validity of the reports. They are relevant to the
discussion of the progress of the work.
Pressac, pg. 217 Technique, ” Then Bischoff, in response to a
request…for a progress report, sent the Prufer report off to
his chief…informing him that Krematorium II was completed
and claiming it was operational, WHICH WAS FAR FROM THE
CASE. (emphasis added).

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Jul 11 07:22:30 PDT 1996
Article: 49565 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
torn!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!
news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 9 Jul 1996 10:24:23 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 28
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4rtq2n$jko@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Jul 8, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

> And? Your point, Mr. Allen? That the “little chimneys”
>should be less visable after the _berm_ over the roof was
>added is hardly suprising….

Berm over the roof? Having learned that the roof and
the floor exist you have gotten too excited and are adding things now.
The roof was made of three layers
and does not appear to have been covered with earth. Some plans of the
Leichenkeller show it covered with earth, some do not. However, the
photographs taken at the
Liberation of the show a clean, although broken, roof.

This supports the Exterminationist position to
some degree in that it shows the Germans were
less concerned with insulation of the Leichenkeller.

____________________________________________________

“Gradually, over months on the Internet, it was disclosed to me that
the line separating Science (Revisionism) and Dogmatisim
(Exterminationism) passes not through states, nor between classes, nor
between political parties–but right through every human mind–and all
human minds.”

–David Cole–

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Jul 11 07:22:31 PDT 1996
Article: 49620 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!news.jumppoint.com!n2van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!
ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!news.inforamp.net!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!
newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 10 Jul 1996 15:55:12 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 37
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4s11r0$m3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4rvgkk$dr2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

[snip Bischof’s memo and discussion of “Vergasunskeller.”]
“Vergasunskeller” is an interesting subject but I
would like to stick to the subject of the construction
schedule of our porous pillars.
>Clearly, the construction of L.Keller 1 was completed before >L.Keller 2.
>Both L.Kellers, and Krema II, were “completed but for minor >details” at
>this time. Therefore it is safe to assume that the roof of L.Keller 1
>was
>completed by the end of January 1943.
You are relying on a report which was admittedly a month
and a half out of schedule. Pressac is right about the
reports!
How can you cite the photographs of the roof of Leichekeller
2 being poured as being taken between February 9 and 11,
1943. photos 14-16 (_Technique_, pp.338-339). and claim
that the project was substantially completed two weeks earlier?
Except for the admittedly optomistic report of Prufer
all documentary and photographic evidence shows that
work on the Leichenkellars 1 and 2 of Crema II was progressing
in late January 1943 and they were being roofed in this period
or later. Of course, the end result is that the Crena II was not
completed until March 31, 1943.

>An interesting aside is that on Febraury 10, 1942, work began on >making
an opening in Krema III’s L.Keller 2 for the _western access >stairway_.
This was completed on February 15, 1942. (Ibid. p.217.) >Obviously, such
things
>as cutting concrete to “retrofit” the L.Kellers for homicidal
>use was undertaken. Why not “vent holes” in the roofs as well?
Perhaps. But we are talking about what a picture taken in late
January/early February shows. You are telling me that other
possible homocidal modifications took place AFTER the latest possible date
of the “box” picture.
In fact, I believe that ALL the allegedly homocidal modifications
of the Leichenkeller occurred after the latest possible date
of the “box” picture.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Jul 19 07:29:21 PDT 1996
Article: 51329 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.fibr.net!
nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 19 Jul 1996 00:52:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 27
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4sn4ao$gac@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Jul12, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

> CEACAA wrote:
>> The aerial photograph shows 4 marks on the roof of
>> Leichenkeller 1, not three, and, more importantly, shows
>> the marks in different locations than the boxes in the
> late January 1943 photograph.
> It contradicts the January photograph!
> HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

>Mr. Allen, the Bauleitung photo of Krema II that shows the three >”little
>chimneys” also shows that the chimney of Krema II was >incomplete. Yet in
>the aerial photographs that show the Kremas with four “little >chimneys”
>Krema III has a completed chimney. By your (above) reasoning the >photos
>would “contradict” each other because of this! Such a conclusion, >of
>course, would be erroneous because the two photos were taken at >(widely)
>different times from each other. The Bauleitung photo was taken >while
the
>Kremas were still under construction and the air
.photo was taken well
>after they were completed.

You lost me on this one. The Bauleitung photo shows
three boxes; the aerial photograph of Aug. 25, 1944 shows
4 marks in DIFFERENT locations on the roof.
HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Jul 19 07:29:22 PDT 1996
Article: 51330 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 19 Jul 1996 01:07:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 36
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4sn56r$gr4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Reply to Van Alstine 7/12
The picture of three boxes is tenuous proof that there
are holes UNDER the boxes. Your repeated presentation
of the photograph is more indicative of your
desire to believe than of the probative value of the
picture. Clear and direct evidence which
rebutts the strained inferences you would draw
about what might be under the boxes.

1. There are NO holes in the roof where the boxes were:
2. A picture taken earlier (days or weeks) clearly shows
NO holes in the roof:
3. No other Holocaust story claims that there were THREE
holes:
4. The picture was taken at a time when the roof was
probably being waterproofed and/or having a concrete
cap applied:
5. The installation of “vent holes” in late January is out of
syn with the rest of the construction schedule of
Leichenkeller 1 Crema II. Of example, ventilation
system was not complete until March 13th.
6. The picture itself shows the snow melted on the roof
but not on the top of the boxes.

Mark, your insistance that there “really are vent holes
under the boxes in the picture” is as stupid as your
insistance that a picture of a manhole totally off the
roof was a “vent hole” in the roof. You have tried to
make your point. Move on to something new.

“Gradually, over months on the Internet, it was disclosed to me that the
line separating Science (Revisionism) and Dogmatisim (Exterminationism)
passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political
parties–but right through every human mind–and all human minds.”

–David Cole–

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Jul 19 07:29:23 PDT 1996
Article: 51371 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!netaxs.com!tezcat.com!imci5!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 19 Jul 1996 01:01:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 68
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4sn4rt$ghq@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Reply to Van Alstine 7/12

>> Since you now have learned (hopefully) that the roof
>> has 3 layers, you will also realize that the laying of the
>> asphalt layers (or layers) as well of the pouring of the
>> concrete cap, let alone the chipping of your alleged “vent
>> holes” and the building of your little chimneys could not
>> have taken place in the time between the holeless picture
>> of midJanuary and the one with the boxes. (late January)

>Really? I would disgaree, Mr. Allen. You seem to think,
>for unspecified reasons, that holes for the Zyklon B
>introduction columns could not be
>made in the roof in a “few days.”
“Could not” is too strong. “Unlikely” is more correct.
>
> Since you know that the ventilation system was still
> being designed and installed in March you will recognize that it is out
of
> the normal order of events to claim that the “vents” and chimneys were
> designed and built by late January since the design and installation of
> the ventilation system could effect the need for “vent holes”.

Mr. Allen I’ve dealt with these phony issues of yours in another post. To
recap, however, let me point out that the gas-tight door to L.Keller 1 you
speak of was for Krema III. Your claim that the ventilation system was
“being desinged” in March is false, as the ventilation system was simply
modified slightly to preheat L.Keller 1 with hot air from the forced
draught installation. Your concern over the ventilation system being
finished in March (work on the Krema II’s ventilation system was begun in
February) “could effect the need for ‘vent holes'” is specious as L.Keller
1’s ventilation system was desinged to aerate/deaerate the L.Keller from
the begining.

In short, Mr. Allen, your claims are baseless and without merit.

Your claim that Crema II was “complete” at the end of
January 1943 is incorrect. Pressac spends several pages
describing the large amount of work done in the first
weeks of March. See Technique pg.s 223 et seq.
As a example Pressac writes, On 10th March, Messing worked
for SIXTEEN HOURS straight, testing the ventilation and
air extraction systems of Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II.”
emphasis NOT added.
In March, plans for a warm air system were considered.
This is exactly the type of system that
would have been used in the Degesch system
(utilizing Zyclon) and which would have made the
“drop down the vent holes” method useless.

>> Since I have pointed out to you that the snow on the
>> Leichenkeller roof has melted in the box picture but seems
>> to still be on the top of the boxes you can figure out if
>>warm air was
>> rising out of holes in the roof inside the boxes.

>A specious comparison, Mr. Allen. L.Keller 1 did not have 5
>tripple-muffle
>Topf furnaces burning away in it. The furnace hall of
>Krema II did. The
>furnaces were probably operational some time between
>January 24 and 29, 1943. (cf. Ibid., pp.211, 213).
You missed the point, Mark. In the “little boxes”
picture, the snow has melted from the ROOF of the
Leichenkeller but not from the top of the boxes.
The boxes appear to be insulating the snow from the
heat of the Leichenkeller, not conducting warm air
up out of the Leichenkeller.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Jul 19 16:19:48 PDT 1996
Article: 51480 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!globe.indirect.com!imci4!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
news.fibr.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 19 Jul 1996 00:53:38 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 32
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4sn4ci$gap@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ALSTINE WROTE ON 7/12
So too, for the same reason, is your assertion of a
>”contradiction” in the
>number of “little chimneys” also erroneous. Obviously,
>in the Bauleitung photo, not all the “little chimneys” had been
>contructed when the photo was taken. When the (much)
>later air photos of the _completed_ (and
>operational) Kremas were taken the “little chimney”
>that was “missing” on
>Krema III’s L.Keller 1 in the Bauleitung photo had
>been erected.

While it is possible to add holes to the concrete roof
it is unlikely that the Germans would cut, waterproof,
and build one chimney and then go on through the same
process with the next chimney. The expected and common
method of building would be to cut FOUR holes and then
have a crew of masons build FOUR chimneys.
Unless you want to claim the Germans ADDED another
hole at a later date, the Bauleitung photo shows three complete square
boxes and nothing at all which indicates that a
fourth chimney is being built.

>> Why is it that you …guys have such problems
>>with holes?
[snip]
>> HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

>And you, Mr. Allen, are grasping at straws with
>such absurd conjecture.
You lost me again.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Jul 20 14:45:13 PDT 1996
Article: 51684 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!
news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!news.inc.net!
newspump.sol.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!
oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 19 Jul 1996 00:55:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4sn4fi$gc0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

REPLY TO VAN ALSTINE 7/12

>> Of course, the simple fact, written in concrete, is that
>> there are NO HOLES at the location of the boxes in the
>> January 1943 photograph.

>By “January 1943 photograph” I assume you mean the
>Bauleitung photo (cf. _Technique_, p.373) that shows
>L.Keller 1 with snow on its roof and no
>”little chimneys?”
No, the box picture. Ain’t no holes in the roof where
the boxes was. I know ‘cus I’ve been there and looked.
Of course, there ain’t no holes in the Bauleitung photo
either.
>So? If the holes were not made when the roof
>was poured, could not the
>holes simply be made in the roof afterwards, Mr. Allen?
>It would seem a rather mundane task, I would think,
>to make holes in the concrete roof.

The holes could have been made afterward, although
it would have been very much easier to box them in prior
to the pour.
Cutting SQUARE holes is actually rather hard to do.
Particularly, if you do not want to have something
called “overcuts” and particularly is you are cutting through
rebar. Round holes are very much easier to cut.
This leads to the question, Why square holes?
Why not round holes and a pipe column?

>> Of course, the starting point is that the one
>>clear photograph that
>> we have of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II,
>>Technique pg. 373 shows > NO HOLES. This picture
>>(taken in midjanuary) was probably taken just a
>> few days before the picture with the boxes
>>(late January).

>The time between the two photos, Mr. Allen is certainly under >dispute.
You say a “few days.” By the dates for the phots that >Pressac gives, it
>appears to be a few _weeks_.

>> Again, the starting point of any discussion is
>>that the roof was poured
>> without holes.

>An irrelevent “starting point,” Mr. Allen.
A truculent response!` The discussion is about the
existence of “vent holes” on the roof of Leichenkeller
1 of Crema II. The fact the the roof started without vent
holes is highly relevant. It is also intertesting to note
that the conversion of the Leichenkeller to a gaschamber
(if it ever occurred) happened after this date.
The “snow on the roof” Bauleitung photo
(cf. _Technique_, p.373) shows that the roof started out
WITHOUT vent holes.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Jul 27 11:56:55 PDT 1996
Article: 53561 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 26 Jul 1996 19:24:50 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 14
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4tbk42$78j@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4svn52$sfg@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On Jul 20, 1996 Jamie McCarthy wrote

>You say these items were boxes of roofing material.
>One quick, simple question: why would boxes of roofing
>material be so tall?
How tall and wide do you think the boxes are in the
picture?

Also please simply post your comments.
I do not wish to receive your posts in my mailbox.
This address is a collective site.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Jul 28 07:10:22 PDT 1996
Article: 53795 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 27 Jul 1996 18:03:22 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 68
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4te3na$3o6@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 20 Jul 1996

>Here’s another one for Mr. Allen: The damp
>proofing material used in the
>L.Kellers was bituminous felt (cf. _Technique_, p.202).
>So where are these _rolls_ of “roofing material,” Mr. Allen?
>I don’t see_rolls_ of tar paper on the roof of L.Keller 1,
>Mr. Allen. Do you?
Gee Mark. Just a few weeks ago I was having
to painfully pound into your Hoaxter brain the fact
that the roof consisted of THREE layers, including a
layer of waterproofing. Today you have the pretension and
unmitigated gall to lecture everyone on the composition
of the roof. Of course, you are wrong. The roof was not
waterproofed with”tar paper”.

Further, the waterproofing material for the roof
was not necessarily
the same for the walls or floor. If you read my earlier
posts on the subject, I do NOT say the roof waterproofing
system (to use the Americanism for “type of application”)
is a simple tar and paper system. I do not think it is.
You will NOT see rolls of tar paper.

The three boxes shown in the photograph may have
been connected with any one of several steps in
the finishing of the Leichenkeller 1 roof slab or of
the application of the waterproofing layer or
of the concrete cap. These steps would have been
taken in the period Jan. 20 1943 through completion
of the project in March. The period 1/20 – 2/20 is
the likely period for waterproofing of the roof.

I regard Jamie McCarthy as the Tertullian of the Hoaxter
set. However, I found the following post in my mailbox
and wondered if Mark VanAlstine agreed with
the estimations of height-width given.

Date: Sat, Jul 20, 1996 12:12 AM EDT
From: jamie@voyager.net
X-From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
To: ceacaa@aol.com

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
alt.revisionism)

Mr. Allen, these items photographed on the roof of L.1
are skinny. At a rough approximation, the left two
items are twice as tall as they are
wide. The right items is fainter and blurrier,
and looks about four times as tall as wide, but
it’s difficult to say for sure.

Here’s another one for Mr. Van Alstine then:
Is Jamie right?
******************************************

“Gradually, over months on the Internet, it was disclosed
to me that the line separating Science (Revisionism) and Dogmatisim
(Exterminationism) passes not through states, nor between classes, nor
between political parties–but right through every human mind–and all
human minds.”

–David Cole–

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Jul 31 13:57:59 PDT 1996
Article: 54611 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!
news.cais.net!chi-news.cic.net!newspump.sol.net!news.inc.net!
arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!
uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!psinntp!psinntp!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 30 Jul 1996 20:05:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 70
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4tm816$a3d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine made
the following post relevant to the size
of the alleged “little chimneys” claimed
to have been on the roof of Leichenkeller
1, Crema II.

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 12:37:38 -0700
Message-ID:

[snip]
>Given that the holes in the roof
>were about 70 cm x 70 cm; the fixed part of the Zyklon B >introduction
columns extended through the
>ceiling and about 40 cm above the concrete roof; that the introduction
columns were likely surrounded by bricking
>and/or concrete since they have
>been described as “little chimneys” and
>”short concrete pipes” (probably
>similar to the reconstruction of the Zyklon B
>vents found at Krema I)

For readers of this thread, these “little chimneys”
were a necessary attribute of the claimed vent holes
in the roof of the Leichenkeller. These “vent holes”, in turn, are needed
to support claims that Zyclon was
poured into a primative wire and tube contraption
called a “porous pillar”.
The “porous pillar”, in turn, allegedly held an “inner
porous pillar” which in turn, it has been speculated,
held a little cone devise which was needed to
disperse and retrieve the used Zyclon.
Belief in this Rube Goldberg device of little chimneys,
porous pillars, little cones, wires, tubes
and vent holes is NECESSARY to sustain faith in the
the story that Leichenkeller 1 “probably killed more people …than both
the atomic bombs dropped on Japan did.
And for a fraction of the cost.” as one Exterminationist
Pundit oddly put it.
The roof of the so-called “gas chamber” still
exists and can be inspected. People who have the good
sense and the time, simply go to the scene of the crime and examine the
alleged “murder weapon.” Of course, there
are no holes in the roof that were “vent holes”, no signs
of “little chimneys”, no bolt holes are fittings for
“porous pillars”. It is actually quite simple.

However, a photograph of Leichenkeller 1 taken in late
January early/ February of shows three boxes on the roof. This discussion
arose because of Exterminationist claims that these three boxes were
“proof” that there were holes UNDER the boxes.

Back to VanAlstine’s posting.
If the “little chimneys ever existed,
must have fit around the porous pillars, that is, the chimney must have
been approximately 40 cm. tall and
70 cm. wide plus the width of two courses of bricks.
Roughly 40 cm. tall and 90 cm. wide.

A review of the picture shows that the
demensions of the “boxes” are just the opposite
of what they would be if they were “chimneys”.
They are, quoting Jamie, two to four times as
high as wide. Hey, Mark, Do you think the Germans
built the chimneys on there sid

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Aug 3 07:03:16 PDT 1996
Article: 54978 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Aug 1996 20:11:55 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 70
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4trh4b$fat@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4tqqs7$6nn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine made
the following post relevant to the size
of the alleged “little chimneys” claimed
to have been on the roof of Leichenkeller
1, Crema II.

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 12:37:38 -0700
Message-ID:

[snip]
>Given that the holes in the roof
>were about 70 cm x 70 cm; the fixed part of the Zyklon B >introduction
columns extended through the
>ceiling and about 40 cm above the concrete roof; that the introduction
columns were likely surrounded by bricking
>and/or concrete since they have
>been described as “little chimneys” and
>”short concrete pipes” (probably
>similar to the reconstruction of the Zyklon B
>vents found at Krema I)

For readers of this thread, these “little chimneys”
were a necessary attribute of the claimed vent holes
in the roof of the Leichenkeller. These “vent holes”, in turn, are needed
to support claims that Zyclon was
poured into a primative wire and tube contraption
called a “porous pillar”.
The “porous pillar”, in turn, allegedly held an “inner
porous pillar” which in turn, it has been speculated,
held a little cone devise which was needed to
disperse and retrieve the used Zyclon.
Belief in this Rube Goldberg device of little chimneys,
porous pillars, little cones, wires, tubes
and vent holes is NECESSARY to sustain faith in the
the story that Leichenkeller 1 “probably killed more people …than both
the atomic bombs dropped on Japan did.
And for a fraction of the cost.” as one Exterminationist
Pundit oddly put it.
The roof of the so-called “gas chamber” still
exists and can be inspected. People who have the good
sense and the time, simply go to the scene of the crime and examine the
alleged “murder weapon.” Of course, there
are no holes in the roof that were “vent holes”, no signs
of “little chimneys”, no bolt holes are fittings for
“porous pillars”. It is actually quite simple.

However, a photograph of Leichenkeller 1 taken in late
January early/ February of shows three boxes on the roof. This discussion
arose because of Exterminationist claims that these three boxes were
“proof” that there were holes UNDER the boxes.

Back to VanAlstine’s posting.
If the “little chimneys ever existed,
must have fit around the porous pillars, that is, the chimney must have
been approximately 40 cm. tall and
70 cm. wide plus the width of two courses of bricks.
Roughly 40 cm. tall and 90 cm. wide.

A review of the picture shows that the
demensions of the “boxes” are just the opposite
of what they would be if they were “chimneys”.
They are, quoting Jamie, two to four times as
high as wide. Hey, Mark, do you think the Germans
built the chimneys on their side?

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Aug 3 07:03:17 PDT 1996
Article: 55133 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!nntp04.primenet.com!
news.shkoo.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!hunter.premier.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 2 Aug 1996 01:02:47 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 60
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ts25n$mul@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4trh4b$fat@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine never responded to the question of
what he thought of Jamie McCarthy’s post of
Jul 20, 1996
>Mr. Allen, these items photographed on the roof of L.1
> are skinny. At a rough approximation, the left two items
>are twice as tall as they are
>wide. The right items is fainter and blurrier,
>and looks about four
>times as tall as wide, but it’s difficult
>to say for sure.

Mark Van Alstine made
the following post relevant to the size
of the alleged “little chimneys” claimed
to have been on the roof of Leichenkeller
1, Crema II.

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 12:37:38 -0700
Message-ID:

[snip]
>Given that the holes in the roof
>were about 70 cm x 70 cm; the fixed part of the Zyklon B >introduction
columns extended through the
>ceiling and about 40 cm above the concrete roof; that the introduction
columns were likely surrounded by bricking
>and/or concrete since they have
>been described as “little chimneys” and
>”short concrete pipes” (probably
>similar to the reconstruction of the Zyklon B
>vents found at Krema I)

Therefore, the “little chimneys” , if they ever existed,
must have fit around the porous pillars, that is, the chimney
must have been approximately 40 cm. tall and 70 cm. wide
plus the width of two courses of bricks.
Roughly 40 cm. tall and 90 cm. wide.

If
1) Mark is right and the “little chimneys were 90 cm.wide and
2) Jamie is right and the objects in the picture are
2 to 4 times as tall as wide:
3. can the objects in the picture really be the “little chimenys”?

Mark, if you are still having problems with the metric system,
may be Mr Erlich can help you.

____________________________________________________

“Gradually, over months on the Internet, it was disclosed to me that
the line separating Science (Revisionism) and Dogmatisim
(Exterminationism) passes not through states, nor between classes, nor
between political parties–but right through every human mind–and all
human minds.”

–David Cole–

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Aug 4 07:46:25 PDT 1996
Article: 55205 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!
news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 3 Aug 1996 17:58:31 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 83
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4u0i27$b2e@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4tsgrr$krr@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

After several months of discussion it is time to
recapitulate the progress of this thread.

This thread has focused on the epicenter of the
Holocaust story, the so-called gas chamber of Crema II
at Birkenau, Leichenkeller 1. To a remarkable degree we
have been able to stay on track with our discussion.

The standard Holocaust story has hundreds of thousands
of persons being murdered in Leichenkeller 1. Because this
room is so important to the claims of Exterminationists
I visited the site and examined the “murder weapon”.
The comments that I made in November 1995 regarding
the condition of the “gaschamber” have uniformily been
shown to be correct.

1). The room still exists and can be inspected.
The floor, the walls and most of the roof still exist.
Although the roof has collapsed into the room below
approximately 35% of the roof is elevated above the floor
and can be inspected from below. It is possible to enter
the room and examine the ceiling of the room.

2). There are no signs in the roof of any holes which
could have been “vent holes”.

3). There are no signs of attachment of the so-called
“porous pillars” which are a necessary part of the claims of
Exterminationists.

4) That the Leichenkeller was built in January 1943
WITHOUT vent holes. One Exterminationist, John
Morris, tried to explain this problem away by
claiming the Germans “forgot” to put the vent
holes in.

5) Destruction of the Cremas. It was shown that the German
destruction of the “evidence” occurred as a hasty response to
the Soviet propaganda use of the crematorium at Majdanek.
The German destruction focused on crematorium, NOT
on so-called “gas chambers”. The Auschwitz/Birkenau
crematorium were all dismantled while “gas chambers”
at the main camp and Crema II and III were generally left
standing.
The extemporaneous nature of the German destruction of
evidence is shown by the masses of documentary evidence concerning the
construction of the so-called gas chambers
which were left. These included the names of the persons building the
structures and even photographs of the individual SS
personel working on the site.

6) That a photograph of Leichkeller 1 taken in late January/
early February 1943 which is widely cited by Exterminationists
as “proof” that Leichenkeller 1 was a gas chamber probably
has nothing to do with “porous pillars” or “little chimneys”,
the mechanism of mass murder.
It is more likely the photograp is a picture of
constuction supplies.

The point of this thread is not the Sisyphean task of
trying to educate obdurate folks of the Nizcor/Hoaxter group.
It is pretty clear from the comments of Morris, Keren, McFee
and others that they do NOT know much about the
the physical condition of Leichenkeller 1.
The point is to show that a mass of powerful physical
evidence exists in a field in Poland which should be
preserved, catalogued and examined.
The events of the Holocaust are well worthy of serious
study. Unfortunately, the events are obfuscated by a
great deal of inaccurate information and obscured
by strong emotions.
In the spirt of Ibn Rochd this thread calls for rationalism
over faith and for analysis of history based on
firm empirical data.

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Aug 9 17:39:19 PDT 1996
Article: 56133 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 9 Aug 1996 01:24:09 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 27
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4uei1p$blq@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Aug 8, 1996 Jamie McCarthy wrote:

>> Ehrlich606 is too scared to reply, but they look like >shade on the
>> side of square little chimneys. But then I was able to >>view the
>> original this weekend. 🙂
[snip]
>There is a rectangle
>to the right of the shadowed areas which is
>slightly but recognizably
>lighter than the Krema wall behind it.

>I would also very much like to hear how Ceacaa
>explains this.

I have been out of the discussion for several days.
The discussion is about the shape of the objects
on the roof of Leichenkeller 1 in the picture??
I would agree with M. VanAlstine if he says that
the boxes are rectangular. This is pretty evident
if one looks at photograph 17 on pg. 340 of Pressac.

The shadows indicate that the picture was taken
in early morning, for a Polish January/February
on a mildly windy day.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Aug 11 07:34:32 PDT 1996
Article: 56469 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 9 Aug 1996 20:32:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 40
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4uglb7$rkp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4ufhbh$cmc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Ehrlich606 wrote on 9 Aug 1996
>Yes, Jamie’s detective work, along with looking at the
>overall picture which captures the brightness values better, >convinces
me that the tar
>paper thesis will not stand.

I do not think that Mr. Ehrlich should abandon the idea that the crates
contained roofing material. Similar crates appear in
other photographs of the construction of Cremas II and III,
particularly in conjuction with the “finishing ” of concrete
floors. The photograph of discussion was taken during the construction
period when roofing would have been going on.
The photograph was also taken to “document” the construction process.
None of these points is overwhelming but they
do provide a convergence of evidence.
It is my recollection that the Leichenkeller was roofed
with an asphalt-like coating. Whatever the roofing material
was, it is quite likely that it arrived in crates. Remember
that there were two layers of roof over the original slab.
Proof of what these boxes were is probably in the
construction records at Auschwitz. If Bituminous felt
came in 3 x 4 crates then we have an important piece of
the puzzle.

In discussions it is usually much easier to poke holes
in someone else’s hypothosis than create an airtight
argument of one’s own. However, the claims that these
boxes were “little chimneys” is far less likely than
the possiblity that they had something to do with
construction. Quite simply, the boxes are the wrong
number, the wrong place, the wrong size, the wrong
shape, probably the wrong time in the construction
schedule to be “little chimneys”. Plus, there ain’t
no holes there!

Here is a question for Jamie. Why did the Germans
bother to convert Leichenkeller 1 into a homicidal
gas chamber at all?

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Aug 19 16:03:39 PDT 1996
Article: 57931 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
hunter.premier.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 17 Aug 1996 09:52:09 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4v4iq9$j2f@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4ujjj5$4qbk@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Gord McFee wrote on11 Aug 1996
(Ceacaa) wrote:

:>> The shadows indicate that the picture was taken
:>> in early morning, for a Polish January/February
:>> on a mildly windy day.

:>Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser…. I’d very _much_ like for you, Mr.
Allen,
:>to explain- in detail -how you “determined” the the date from the shadow
:>angle. I’m sure it will be “interesting.”

>I suspect that Mr. Allen was being a tad sarcastic, Mark.

I am sorry to see that the Nizcor/Hoaxter group has
such a hard time with science. The date of the
photograph was given by Pressac as Jan/Feb. This
is generally confirmed by the snow on the ground.
The length and direction of the shadows allows
a good estimate of the time the photograph was
taken.


Gord McFee
I’ll write no line before its time

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Aug 19 16:03:40 PDT 1996
Article: 58192 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.nap.net!
nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 19 Aug 1996 01:23:38 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 93
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4v8toq$hcr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 10 Aug 1996
CEACAA wrote
> None of these points is overwhelming but they do \
>provide a convergence of evidence.

>Indeed. Convergence of the evidence that three
>of the “little chimneys”
>are completed and the fourth yet to be built.
Indeed NOT. Your wild speculation that the
“little chimneys” were built one at a time
shows a profound ignorance of normal construction
processes. Further, there is no sign of any fourth being
built, no sign of any preparations for the fourth
such as hole being chipped in the roof, bricks or
morter. The photograph would have had to have been taken
just as the third “Lt. Chim.” was completed but before
any work was started on the fourth.
Thus, your claim that three of the “little
chimneys” are completed and a fourth “yet to be built”
requires both an unusually method of job proceedure
as well as a miraculous timing of the photograph.

>> It is my recollection that the Leichenkeller was roofed
>> with an asphalt-like coating.

>Your recollection is faulty, Mr. Allen. The roof to the
>L.Kellers were of concrete that _contained_ a layer
>of bituminous felt damp-proofing.

Mark, you are a contentious goofball. Go look up
a definition of asphalt. American Heritage def.
is as follows:
A brownish-black solid or semisolid mixture of
BITUMENS obtained from native deposits or as
a petroleum byproduct, used in paving, roofing,
and waterproofing. (emphasis added)
You are so eager to argue that you make a fool out of
yourself.

>> Whatever the roofing material was, it is quite likely
>>that it arrived in crates.

>That is irrelevent, Mr. Allen, as the roofs were
>completed weeks before the photo was taken.
It is highly relevant. And, as show above, you are
wrong about the dates of completion of the roofs.

> Remember that there were two layers of roof over the original slab.

>That is not in accordance with the construction
>drawings, Mr. Allen. the
>Huta drawing 109/13A, for instance, clearly shows
>that the roof consisted of just two layer, which sandwiched the
>damp-proofing between them. (Ibid.
>p.323.)
Mark, you poor simpleton, go make yourself a baloney
sandwich (no insult intended). Wonderbread, baloney,
wonderbread. Take a bite. As you sit and masticate,
look at the sandwich. Are there three layers in the
sandwich or two with one layer between them?

> Proof of what these boxes were is probably in the
> construction records at Auschwitz. If Bituminous felt
> came in 3 x 4 crates then we have an important piece of
> the puzzle.
This information and much more would be found if
Revisionists had funds to carry on review of
primary source material.

>Such baloney, Mr. Allen. Such a blind eye you turn
>to the plethora of evidence to the contrary! Such intellectual
>dishonesty. Tsk tsk.
Actually, it was you who presented the photograph as
powerful evidence of there being holes in the roof
of Leichenkeller 1, Crema II. That had all the impact
of Comet Kahoutek.
Now, you site a “plethora of evidence”
to support a position which has no inherent strenght
of itself, ie. the picture of three boxes shows that
there were four holes in the roof of Leichenkeller 1.

You’ve equivicated, paltered, and avoided reconciling
your earlier pronouncment about the size of the
“little chimneys” with the size and shape of the boxes
in the picture.
Or have you forgotten your claim that the “lt. Chim.s”
were 70 cm x 70 cm and extended about 40 cm above
the concrete roof?????

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Aug 19 16:03:41 PDT 1996
Article: 58220 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!
hunter.premier.net!news.cais.net!mr.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 19 Aug 1996 01:21:44 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 48
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4v8tl8$hb2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote10 Aug 1996

>And where may these photgraphs be found, Mr. Allen?
>Please cite them.
Pressac, Technique pg. 332 photo 1, possibly photo 2
ibid, pg. 338 photo 338.

>> The photograph of discussion was taken during the construction
>> period when roofing would have been going on.

>The roofing to _what_, Mr. Allen? The L.Kellers?
>Not quite. [snip]. The roof of the L.Kellers had
>been _completed_ before the end of January. The
>photo in question was probably taken between
>February 9 and 11.
Your assumption that the roofs
were completed before the end of January is wrong.
They clearly were NOT.
The water proofing layer of the roof was _above_
the rebar enforced slab.
If you refer to Pressac pg. 338. Photo 14 dated
1/25 or 26/43 you will see that on that the picture
shows a first or second pour of the slab which contained
the rebar. Dispite your interpretation of Pressac’s note,
this pour was done well before the waterproof layer
was put on, let alone the final concrete cap.

>> The photograph was also taken to “document” the
>>construction process.

>Indeed. It shows Krema II nearly completed and Krema III
>under construction.
Indeed NOT. The window frames are not even all in. The
earth not piled against the sides of the Leichenkeller.
Actual completion of Crema II was almost two months
away, despite priority rush construction.

Your interpretation would have the Germans “documenting”
the homocidal nature of the Leichenkeller. This does not
make sense in light of the fact that that you also claim that
the Crema project was “top secret”.
The Revisionist view is that the the picture
was taken by the construction firm to document the
progress of their work. As part of the scene the
photographer had a train engine puffing away in the
foreground and the three boxes of roofing material
laid out (ready to apply) in the background.
CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Aug 20 22:43:14 PDT 1996
Article: 58580 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.cstone.net!
newshost.cyberramp.net!news4.agis.net!agis!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.jersey.net!
homer.alpha.net!daily-planet.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Aug 1996 00:39:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 15
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4vbfh8$jm0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 10 Aug 1996
re. CEACAA’s question
>> Here is a question for Jamie. Why did the Germans
>> bother to convert Leichenkeller 1 into a homicidal
>> gas chamber at all?

>Why, to kill people, of course. Hundreds of thousands of people.
Gee, Mark, can’t Jamie speak for his littleself?
Anyway, didn’t you (Mark) write something about
“cold Silesian winters”. Care to state the Exterminationist position with
more exactitude?

Let’s see how rational the Hoaxter position is regarding the conversion of
Leichenkeller 1 into a gaschamber
’round about January 25, 1943.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Aug 21 07:07:10 PDT 1996
Article: 58649 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
newsreader.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!
news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news-res.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!
caen!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 21 Aug 1996 00:40:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ve3ve$n4d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 19 Aug 1996

> Chuck Ferree writes:
>
>> I can believe what I’m reading here. Two grown men, >>neither one
>> experts on the subject matter, looking at old beat up >>aerial photos,
>> and trying to have a coherant conversation
>> about what did or didn’t
>> happen at Auschwitz. Hair-splitting by
>>both sides, and bluffing too.
>> What a waste of potential.
>> Besides it’s boring as hell.
>> Chuck

>Then don’t read it Chuck.
>Mark

I have to agree with Mark. In fact, I would go
much farther: What happened at Auschwitz/Birkenau
is of great significance with or without a
policy of mass murder.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Aug 21 16:05:37 PDT 1996
Article: 58781 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!
ddsw1!news.mcs.net!nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
news.asu.edu!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 21 Aug 1996 00:08:08 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 38
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ve238$mao@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4vbfnb$jof@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(Daniel Keren wrote on19 Aug 1996
>Mark Van Alstine writes:

# And then, please explain why it would have been _necessary_ to
# “chip” all four holes at the same time beforehand-thus exposing
# the interior of the .Keller to the elements while the “little
# chimneys” were being constructed -instead of cutting the holes
# as each “little chimney” was built.
Try covering the hole with a board, Mark.

>Mark, Mr. Allen’s hypothesis is so stupid that I must assume
>he consulted “leading revisionist scholar”, Bradley Smith,
>on these matters. Don’t forget that Smith was a construction
>worker before he became a “leading revisionist scholar”.
[snip Keren garbage. also note the
vile anti-Working class attitude for someone
who gibbers so much about NAZIs. ]

Stupid? That there are boxes of construction material
in a picture of a construction site?
Anyway, I worked as a construction laborer(even _more_ menial
that Mr. Bradley Smith). Smith was in construction too.
We both know that the Hoaxter story of building the “little
chimneys” is contrary to normal methods of construction.
To paraphrase one of Gibbering Dan Keren’s earlier pompous stupidities:
“The Revisionist position will be judged by my
construction laborer peers.”
—-
>For a summary of the “revisionist” position, look at what
>Nazi propagandist and “revisionist”, Kurt Stele, wrote:
[snip]
Gibbering Dan, you’re a stupid goofball and as confused as
to what the Revisionist position is (capital R, please) as you
are about the present condition of Leichenkeller 1.
Aren’t you embarassed to post such a constant stream
of misinformation?

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Aug 22 06:45:13 PDT 1996
Article: 58876 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!chi-news.cic.net!news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!
news2.acs.oakland.edu!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!
izzy.net!news.goodnet.com!nntp.wwwi.com!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news1.best.com!sdd.hp.com!
usc!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Aug 1996 00:42:19 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 43
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4vbfnb$jof@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4v8toq$hcr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote on10 Aug 1996
Ehrlich606) writes:

# Finally, we have the fact that no holes exist either in these
# locations or the center line in the still existing (though
# broken) roof of the Krema.

>What is your evidence for this? Pressac’s book contains
>a photograph of a rather neat, square hole in the Krema’s
>roof.
Danny (ain’t no roof there) Keren pops back with more
misinformation. Pressac has a picture of a manhole
which is not even on the roof. Ehrlich606 is absolutely
correct: Keren is absolutely wrong. Keren, go crawl
back under your rock.

# Nor is there any trace of the masonry for the
# *little chimneys*.

>I thought they were simply put around the openings; that
>would be good enough, with the earth around making
>for support. The sealing itself was done by the wiremesh
>device. I don’t see any necessity for masonry to hold
>the little chimneys in place.
“that would be good enough” for what? What was the
purpose of the “little chimneys if they were not attached to
the roof and did not provide a seal?
Further, it is unlikely that there was earth on
the roof of the Leichenkeller to support the “lt. chim.”

>Re the size, you’re probably overestimating the height
>by a large factor. I think it’s best to compare the height
>of the chimneys to the height of the Krema’s wall, for
>instance; this gives a more realistic estimate.

What is your estimate of the height of the boxes in
the photograph?

Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Aug 23 15:10:58 PDT 1996
Article: 59182 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!chi-news.cic.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!
uknet!psinntp!psinntp!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 23 Aug 1996 16:07:36 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 27
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4vl328$8hj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote 21 Aug 1996

## For a summary of the “revisionist” position, look at what
## Nazi propagandist and “revisionist”, Kurt Stele, wrote:

# Gibbering Dan, you’re a stupid goofball and as confused as
# to what the Revisionist position is (capital R, please)

>So why did you delete what Kurt Stele wrote?
The same reason I snip most of what you write, ie.
I snip irrelevant garbage.
# as you are about the present condition of Leichenkeller 1.

>I am not confused one bit. Now, you’ll lie again and
>claim that I wrote that the roof is not there, won’t you?
Must have been your evil twin. But let’s clear the
record: do you think the roof of Leichenkeller 1
Crema II “is there” and, if so how much?

>BTW, where does this “Ceacaa” come from? Is it in tribute
>to Seka?
Seka? The movie star/dancer?
CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Aug 27 07:31:39 PDT 1996
Article: 60291 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!
enews.sgi.com!news.corp.sgi.com!walter.cray.com!timbuk.cray.com!
news4.mr.net!mr.net!nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 27 Aug 1996 00:56:56 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 113
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4vtv6o$nvg@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3219a3e2.1583809@news.inetport.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:06:50 GMT
Message-ID: <3219a3e2.1583809@news.inetport.com>

ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:

>Mark Van Alstine wrote on 10 Aug 1996
#Convergence of the evidence that three
#>>of the “little chimneys”
#>>are completed and the fourth yet to be built.
>> Indeed NOT. Your wild speculation that the
>> “little chimneys” were built one at a time
>> shows a profound ignorance of normal construction
>> processes.

>And this is based on what source? What source
>discusses the “normal construction process” for
>the Germans at this camp?
Normal as in today’s world.

>> Further, there is no sign of any fourth being
> > built, no sign of any preparations for the fourth
> such as hole being chipped in the roof, bricks or
> morter.

>Was there a fourth?
SHM (Standard Holocaust Mythology) has there being
four vent holes in the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II.
This thread has been discussing if and where these
holes were supposed to be.

>Was there reason to document it for future
>holocaust deneirs to pick at?

>> The photograph would have had to have been taken
>> just as the third “Lt. Chim.” was completed but before
>> any work was started on the fourth.

>Who says so? What source is this?

>>Thus, your claim that three of the “little
>> chimneys” are completed and a fourth “yet to be built”
>> requires both an unusually method of job proceedure
>> as well as a miraculous timing of the photograph.

>Prove it. Cite your sources. Mark always cites his.
Gosh, do we have another contentious Hoaxter here?
I am not citing a “source”, I am drawing a
conclusion based on Mark’s claims of what the
photograph shows.

#>>> It is my recollection that the Leichenkeller was roofed
#>>> with an asphalt-like coating.
>
>>>Your recollection is faulty, Mr. Allen. The roof to the
>>>L.Kellers were of concrete that _contained_ a layer
>>>of bituminous felt damp-proofing.
>
>> Mark, you are a contentious goofball.

>There we go! Now we are on the road to
>proper denier argument.
Proper Revisionist argument? Mark said, “It’s not
asphalt, it’s bituminous …” or ”

> Go look up
> a definition of asphalt. American Heritage def.
> is as follows:
> A brownish-black solid or semisolid mixture of
> BITUMENS obtained from native deposits or as
> a petroleum byproduct, used in paving, roofing,
> and waterproofing. (emphasis added)

>So? You rude point being?
That I am right, of course.

>>You are so eager to argue that you make a fool out of
>>yourself.
>
>Don’t break your style now.

VanAlstine tells me, “It’s not asphalt it’s bitumen
or “It’s not three layers on the roof: It’s two with one
layer in between”. You let all that stupidity slide and
get on my case for calling VanAlstine to task for
his excessivly tendacious manner. You’re as big a
hypocrite as VanAlstine is a simpleton.

#>> Remember that there were two layers of roof
#>>over the original slab.
>
>>That is not in accordance with the construction
>>drawings, Mr. Allen. the
>>Huta drawing 109/13A, for instance, clearly shows
>>that the roof consisted of just two layer, which sandwiched the
>>damp-proofing between them. (Ibid.
>>p.323.)
> Mark, you poor simpleton, go make yourself a baloney
> sandwich (no insult intended). Wonderbread, baloney,
> wonderbread. Take a bite. As you sit and masticate,
> look at the sandwich. Are there three layers in the
> sandwich or two with one layer between them?

#>> Actually, it was you who presented the photograph as
#>>”powerful evidence” of there being holes in the roof
>>of Leichenkeller 1, Crema II. That had all the impact
>>of Comet Kahoutek.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Aug 27 20:57:42 PDT 1996
Article: 60390 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news.dra.com!
news.mid.net!mr.net!chi-news.cic.net!newspump.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!
agate!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 27 Aug 1996 01:07:55 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 31
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4vtvrb$occ@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote on 20 Aug 1996

> >> Here is a question for Jamie. Why did the Germans
> >> bother to convert Leichenkeller 1 into a homicidal
> >> gas chamber at all?

[snip]

>With the context removed, I can’t tell what the
>point of the question was.
The point of the question was that the conversion of
Leichenkeller 1 Crema II (or III) made no sense according
to SHM (standard Holocaust Mythology) if done in late
January 1943.
SHM on the subject is that the the Germans had to give
up using Bunker 1 because the cold Silesian winter
kept the Zyclon from working.

>Obviously, if Pressac’s thesis is correct and the room
>was converted from a morgue to a homicidal gas
>chamber (rather than having
>been designed that way), it was done because they
>wanted a homicidal gas
>chamber. I.e., they wanted to kill lots of people.

They had one already, the “Bunker” again SHM.
Either the “Bunker” story is wrong or the SHM
of the reason for the conversion is wrong.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Aug 27 20:57:43 PDT 1996
Article: 60410 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.cstone.net!
news1.slip.net!news.zeitgeist.net!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
newsreader.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!
news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!demos!news.stealth.net!cdc2.cdc.net!
news.texas.net!nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 27 Aug 1996 01:08:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4vtvsq$odt@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3219a3e2.1583809@news.inetport.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Curtis wrote on 20 Aug 1996 1

>They were not exactly perfect in their secrecy.
(re. the alleged mass gassings at Crema II and III)
No, they were not. In fact, the construction and
operation of the so-called “gaschambers” is
remarkably well documented. The names and
function of the SS individuals who worked on the
project were all carefully preserved by
the Germans themselves. Doesn’t make much sense,
does it?

>>The Revisionist view is that the the picture
>>was taken by the construction firm to document the
>>progress of their work. As part of the scene the
>>photographer had a train engine puffing away in the
>>foreground and the three boxes of roofing material
>>laid out (ready to apply) in the background.

>And again I see no substantiation for your claim.
>Nothing new,
>just more begging of the issue after you have
>been proven incorrect.

Substantiation that the picture shows a
construction scene? LOOK AT THE PICTURE.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Aug 28 16:17:31 PDT 1996
Article: 60648 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!mcsun!EU.net!
usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!
uknet!psinntp!psinntp!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 28 Aug 1996 17:06:27 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 19
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <502ccj$g1v@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <322362f4.96409828@news.zilker.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

To: Mike Curtis
I have missed the point of most of your posting
of 8/27. However, rather than discuss personalities
or styles of discussion, I suggest that we get
back to the point of this thread, ie. the present
condition of Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II at
Birkenau/Auschwitz and what can be learned from
it.

The starting point of the discussion was that
most (90%) of the orginal slab roof exists.
Would you agree with this? I am asking you
in your capcity as a Nizcor expert.

CEACAA

My “source” for
this assertion is the fact that I have visited the
site and inspected the Leichenkeller.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Aug 31 10:04:20 PDT 1996
Article: 61166 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 30 Aug 1996 22:47:50 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 32
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50894m$i9d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <322362f4.96409828@news.zilker.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Subj: RE:
Date: Thu, Aug 29, 1996 8:47 AM EDT
From: mike@aimetering.com
X-From: mike@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis)
To: ceacaa@aol.com (ceacaa)

<>most (90%) of the orginal slab roof exists.
>>Would you agree with this? I am asking you
>>in your capcity as a Nizcor expert.>>

>Define exists along with intact. There seems
>to be much rubble.
>Maybe most of the roof is still there in
>various forms. You might have a
>quarter of it _intact_. Maybe.

By “exists” and “intact” I mean as something that
is coherent. An anology is a jigsaw puzzle that
has been dropped on the floor. It is in pieces but
one can still disern the picture.
From personal observation I know that the 90%
of the roof is in a “coherent” state. This makes
sense since the roof was only dropped into the room
below and is in (approximately) 20 pieces.

What is your source that only 25% of the roof is “intact”?
And how can we resolve the question?

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Aug 31 13:42:23 PDT 1996
Article: 61274 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!
enews.sgi.com!ames!agate!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 31 Aug 1996 10:35:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <509iiq$ps@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote on
27 Aug 1996

ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:

>> The point of the question was that the conversion of
>> Leichenkeller 1 Crema II (or III) made no sense >>according
>> to SHM (standard Holocaust Mythology) if done
>>in late
>> January 1943.

>Then it was a rhetorical question, wasn’t it?
No it wasn’t.

[snip]

>Please explain (1) what the word “conversion”
>refers to in the above
>sentence and (2) why you think it makes no
>sense at that time. Thanks.
Conversion from a Leichenkeller (morgue) to
a homocidal gaschamber. Leichenkeller 1 was
designed and built (dixit Pressac) as a non-homocidal
morgue.
Why spend the time and money to convert it to a
gas chamber when the Germans were already allegedly
operating the “Bunker” with a capacity of
2,000 persons?
CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Aug 31 13:42:24 PDT 1996
Article: 61295 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 31 Aug 1996 10:23:57 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 53
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <509htt$g2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on28 Aug 1996
>> The starting point of the discussion was that
>> most (90%) of the orginal slab roof exists.
>> Would you agree with this? I am asking you
>> in your capcity as a Nizcor expert.

>Irregardless, Mr. Allen, based on the photos of L.Keller 1 in
>_Technique_
>it is self-evident that nowhere 90% of a roof for L.Keller 1 exists.

>roof n. 1 the outside top covering of a building

>There are, however, some broken concrete slabs and
>much rubble and debris at the floor of L.Keller 1. About
>all one can say with certainty is that
>perhaps a fourth to a third of the roof at
>the end furthest from the ruins
>of the Krema shell is only _partially_ collapsed.
>This is the part of the
>”roof” where Pressac climbed underneath
>and took photos.

Is this the same Mark VanAlstine who wrote contentiously:
The roof didn’t have three layers but
“consisted of just two layer [sic], which sandwiched
the >damp-proofing between them.”?
Or said that the roof didn’t have ashphalt on it but
bitumens?
After those whoppers, we had hoped that you would
have the decency to maintain a little embarassed
silence.

Anyway, the whole roof is about in the same intact
condition as the 35% that Pressac crawled under
and took a picture of. The complete roof is there.
It wasn’t blown up but was dropped into the room
below.
You know that a large percentage of the roof is in
reasonable condition. Why would the rest of the
slab not be in the same condition?

You even admit that you cannot be certain
about the remaining 70% of the roof, yet
you get on my case for saying that it is
a coherent set of pieces.
Anyway, how can we resolve the question?
What would it take to convince Mark VanAlstine
that the roof “is there” and how do we marshall the
evidence?

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Aug 31 20:44:33 PDT 1996
Article: 61380 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 31 Aug 1996 23:01:25 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 24
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50aua5$f1i@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy WROTE ON, 31 Aug 1996
ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:

> Conversion from a Leichenkeller (morgue) to
> a homocidal gaschamber. Leichenkeller 1 was
> designed and built (dixit Pressac) as a non-homocidal
> morgue.

Designed that way? Or built that way? Or both? Please be explicit,
and back up your assertions with quotations from Pressac. Thank you.

DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF PRESSAC TECHNIQUE?

> Why spend the time and money to convert it to a
> gas chamber when the Germans were already allegedly
> operating the “Bunker” with a capacity of
> 2,000 persons?

Perhaps you can answer this question for me. Please document the
capacity of the earlier homicidal gas chambers in the camp. Also,
what was the rated capacity of the ovens in Krema II through V,
and what was the rated capacity of the earlier ovens in the camp?

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Sep 3 07:43:46 PDT 1996
Article: 61853 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!
newshub.sdsu.edu!news1.best.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 3 Sep 1996 00:30:13 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50gc8l$g2g@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 02 Sep 1996 ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:

> >> The starting point of the discussion was that
> >> most (90%) of the orginal slab roof exists.
> >> Would you agree with this? I am asking you
> >> in your capcity as a Nizcor expert.
Mark’s answer (a hesitating reluctant answer) is
below in the second part of this reply.

>> Is this the same Mark VanAlstine who wrote >>contentiously:
>> The roof didn’t have three layers but “consisted
>>of just two
>> layer [sic], which sandwiched the damp-proofing >>between them.”?
>Yep.
Yep? Well, Mark, you’re a fool but a proud fool.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Sep 3 07:43:46 PDT 1996
Article: 61861 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.emf.net!
gatech!nntp0.mindspring.com!news.mindspring.com!newspump.sol.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 3 Sep 1996 00:43:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 51
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50gd0n$g82@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <322a00f3.7100424@news.inetport.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mike Curti swrote on 01 Sep 1996

ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:

> > Anyway, the whole roof is about in the same intact
>> condition as the 35% that Pressac crawled under
>> and took a picture of.

>Who claims it was 35%? How can one tell
>if it is 35%? Define intact?
>Intact to me means that it is full and unbroken,
>complete.
Coherent. One can look at the pieces and easily discern
what the original roof was like.

> The complete roof is there.

Complete in what form?

>> It wasn’t blown up but was dropped into the room
>> below.

>This usually happens when things get blown up.
>Are you suggesting that
>this structure wasn’t blown up?
Blown up means blown UP^. The roof wasn’t. The
supporting columns were blasted and the roof dropped.

>> You know that a large percentage of the roof is in
>> reasonable condition. Why would the rest of the
>> slab not be in the same condition?
You didn’t answer the question, Mike.

>> Anyway, how can we resolve the question?
You didn’t answer the question, Mike.
>> What would it take to convince Mark VanAlstine
>> that the roof “is there” and how do we marshall the
>> evidence?
You didn’t answer the question, Mike.

>I don’t think the question is that there are
>forms of the roof there.
Yes. It is exactly the question. And it is the starting
point of any rational discussion of the so-called
gaschamber at Crema II.
>I think the question concerns what can
>be said about what is there.
Once we all admit that the roof is still there then
we can proceed to see if there is any evidence of the
so-called gaschamber.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Sep 4 07:04:59 PDT 1996
Article: 62109 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 3 Sep 1996 23:37:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 54
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50iti7$eka@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine Wrote on 02 Sep 1996 (Ceacaa) wrote:

#> >> The starting point of the discussion was that
#> >> most (90%) of the orginal slab roof exists.
#> >> Would you agree with this? I am asking you
#> >> in your capcity as a Nizcor expert.

#>> You know that a large percentage of the roof is
#>>in reasonable condition.
#>> Why would the rest of the slab not be in the same condition?

>Why _should_ it, Mr. Allen?

>> You even admit that you cannot be certain about
>>the remaining 70% of the
>> roof, yet you get on my case for saying that it is a
>>coherent set of pieces.

>Indeed I do, Mr. Allen. Deservedly so, I might add.
I don’t expect Mark VanAlstine to have the
brains or honesty to admit that most of the
roof of Leichenkeller 1 is still in a coherent
form. It would be nice if he could try not
to dissemble so much.

>> What would it take to convince Mark VanAlstine that the roof “is
there”
>> and how do we marshall the evidence?

>Unequivoicable evidence, Mr. Allen. Like a detailed and
>objective examination of the ruins. With photos.
I am always amazed at the LACK of information the
Nizcor bunch has regarding the present condition of
the most important physical evidence of mass killings
at Birkenau. I am also amazed that you can equivocate
for months in answering a simple question, “How much
of the roof is still there?”
Months ago I suggested that somebody we all more or
less trust go make your “detailed and objective
examination. Unfortunately, Morris the Hoaxter
chickened out.
While disappointed in Morris’ craven behavior, it
still remains the most resonable way of confirming
the Revisionist position.
So, Mark, do you know any honest Exterminationists
out there who know what a slab of concrete looks
like and have more sense of honor than Morris?

______________________________________________
Scientific Revisionism, firmly based on empirical data
is Most Excellent. Heard at meeting of bicycle messagers
8/31/96

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Sep 6 10:59:34 PDT 1996
Article: 62941 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!
news-pen-4.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!
news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news.inc.net!
newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Sep 1996 10:45:57 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 57
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50pdf5$ldj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <322dafc8.72925527@news.zilker.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Sep 4, 1996 Mike Curtis wrote:

(Ceacaa) wrote:
>
>#> >> The starting point of the discussion was that
>#> >> most (90%) of the orginal slab roof exists.
>#> >> Would you agree with this? I am asking you
>#> >> in your capcity as a Nizcor expert.
>
>#>> You know that a large percentage of the roof is
>#>>in reasonable condition.
>#>> Why would the rest of the slab not be in the same condition?
>
[snip]

>Pot. Kettle. Black. This type of discussion is
>going know where. He
>doesn’t have to admit to a thing until you
>give him a reason to admit
>to something. IOW _you_ have to be convincing.

VanAlstine is not doing ME a favor by admitting
that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 is a coherent but
broken whole. He owes it to the Truth.
I doubt that Mr. VanAlstine would be convinced by me
about anything even if I had a halo and wings. BUT
there is enough evidence to suggest that I might be right,
therefore VanAlstine, Keren, et al. have a duty to
due a little investigation of their own.

>You have have to be specific about how you arrive
>at your points.
I went to Auschwitz/Birkenau and climbed around on and in
the ruins of Crema II. The concrete slab of the roof should
still be there. Even a cursory viewing would substantiate
what I have been posting, ie. the roof of Leichenkeller 1 is
still there. Pressac has clear pictures of the southern
30% of the roof which shows the general condition of the
slab. David McCalden did a pretty good video which shows
the roof. David Cole the same. I ain’t asking anyone to take
my word for nothing.

>After all, it is you who
>claims to be a revisionist. So the burden of revisionism
>is clearly in your court. Historical revisionism is
>not an easy chore, I know. You,
>however, have chosen to accept that burden. Along with that >acceptance
goes the work.
You are right but this has turned out to be
Sisyphean. While I expected some tendentiousness,
the Exterminationists who post on this thread
are obdurate. It is not as if I am asserting any
complicated theory. I claim that a several ton
slab of concrete is presently lying in a Polish
field; ready for anyone to bump their toe or
theories on.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Sep 7 09:23:12 PDT 1996
Article: 63090 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Sep 1996 10:46:22 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 61
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50pdfu$ldq@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <322dafc8.72925527@news.zilker.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I do not know that the present condition is the most
>important
>physical evidence or evidence of mass killings at
>A-B. This is your
>claim. You are tasked with justifying that this
>assertion is in fact
>true. I haven’t seen much from you at all.
>I’ve seen pictures posted
>by Nizkor (not Nizcor).

[snip]
>> Months ago I suggested that somebody we all more or
>> less trust go make your “detailed and objective
>> examination. Unfortunately, Morris the Hoaxter
>> chickened out.

>Well, considering the name you called him just now,
>I doubt that he
>would mean your standard of mutual trust.
I would trust Morris in a situation where he couldn’t
avoid the truth. Confirming that the roof of Leichenkeller
1 is still there is such a situation.

>You guys want to
>FUND a two
>man trip, I’d even go.
I am still good for about a $350 contribution. That may
not be much but I have gotten involved investigating what
is probably the 2nd most important historical/psycological
mystery of the 20th Century.* Donations may be made to
support vital research into this historical question.

>> While disappointed in Morris’ craven behavior, it
>> still remains the most resonable way of confirming
>> the Revisionist position.

>Give me the URL to your article please. Seems I’ve
>lost your original
>claim because of all the dust being tossed around.
I don’t understand what you mean by “my orignial article”.

> So, Mark, do you know any honest Exterminationists
> out there who know what a slab of concrete looks
> like and have more sense of honor than Morris?

>It wouldn’t be yurself, I can tell. I’m extremely disappointed
>at the sense of integrity you so another human being here.

Most Exterminationists on this thread are not much more
than prevaricating obfuscators. It is irritating to argue
whether a twenty ton slab of concrete is really lying in
a Polish field with people claiming to be “experts” on
the Holocaust. I’ve cited some pretty good pictures of
Pressac and some pretty good Revisionist video’s.

*send to: Committee to Investigate Why the French Like
Jerry Lewis.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Sep 7 11:51:21 PDT 1996
Article: 63199 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Sep 1996 11:05:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 33
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50s2vb$kvo@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <50kmpf$3qm@arl-news-svc-3.compuserve.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(Miloslav Bilik wrote on 04 Sep 1996

>Is anyone here to explain, what’s the difference
>between a roof made
>of three layers, and a roof made of two layers
>which sandwitched a
>third damp-proofing layer ?

>I doesn’t unsderstand it.

Pane Bilik:
Don’t feel badly if you don’t understand it. It doesn’t
make any sense but VanAlstine keeps repeating it because
it is his most powerful and intellegent argument so far.

VanAlstine first presented it on Aug. 10:
CEACAA wrote
>> Remember that there were two layers of roof over
>>the original slab.
That is not in accordance with the construction drawings,
Mr. Allen. The roof consisted of just two layer [sic], which
sandwiched the damp-proofing between them.
(Now known as the VanAlstine Theorem)

I would also like to inquire if you are still willing to
travel to Auschwitz/Birkenau to investigate some of
the questions which have arisen on this thread? John
Morris was unable to complete his promised task.
I hope that we could raise the cost of travelling
expenses on this thread. Please post reply.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Sep 7 18:06:51 PDT 1996
Article: 63281 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!
new-news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Sep 1996 14:04:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50sdgb$or6@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <50s2vb$kvo@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine) writes 04 Sep 1996

>More ad hominems? Obviously,
>you have nothing else to
>offer this discussion except your typical denier insults and >hypocrisy.

After denouncing personal attacks, Mark goes on to
present HIS arguments:

>the denier “position” (i.e. bent over with
>head-up-ass).

> are you _always_ such a stupid fuck?

Pot, Kettle, Black, Mark? Or can’t you see the contradiction
contained in your posting?
CEACAA

P.S. We are all waiting for you to clearly state your position
on the condition of the roof. Please try.
P.P.S. Your “theory” on layers (the VanAlstine Theorem)
is really confusing everyone (see 9/4 posting of Biak
as example). Maybe you should take a little break for
a week or two, smoke a J, try and get laid, you know,
chill. Trying to defend the Hoaxter position is
clearly getting to you.
P.P.P.S. Picture of vent will come soon!

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Sep 7 21:44:55 PDT 1996
Article: 63328 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.cstone.net!
news.accessone.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-ana-24.sprintlink.net!
news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Sep 1996 15:09:38 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 57
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <50sh9i$q8e@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <50sdgb$or6@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

New Subject raised below:

To be honest (I always am), I have
gotten tired of waiting for Mark VanAlstine
and the CyberHoaxters to come up with
a clear admission that the roof of Leichenkeller 1
Crema II (the roof of the so-called gaschamber)
is still there in several large but coherent pieces.
The evidences supporting the Revisionist position are
numberous photographs taken by Pressac, video’s
taken by David McCalden (available from Bradley Smith),
and eyewitness testimony.

Mark and the CyberHoaxters haven’t come up with
any reasonable explaination as to why there are no
holes in the roof which could have been the infamous
gasvents.

So while we wait for some brave Exterminationist to
go look at the scene of the crime, view the “murder weapon”
and report back, let’s move on to a totally new area of
Revisionist debate;
Security at the Birkenau Cremas.

I put foreward the amazing proposition that the windows
of the guardtower guarding the western (back) fence and
Crema III could NOT have been opened.

Remember that the Standard Holocaust Mythology (SHM)
has hundreds of thousands of persons being tricked into
going down two little stairways for an underground
shower in either Crema II or Crema III. All that kept
anybody from running into the fields and woods at the
west end of Birkenau camp were two guard towers.
The windows in one tower (south tower) were a type
of vertical sliding panes, but the windows of the
north tower could NOT even have been opened!!
Thus, any guard who wanted to shoot an escaping
prisoner had to break the window first!

To compound the security problem of dealing with
hundreds of thousands (or millions) of soon to be
murder victims:
1. The west end of the camp had several drainage
ditches which would provide full concealment and
led out of the camp.
2. There was no fence or gate on the west end of
the broad “Lagerstrasser”
3. The view from the northern tower was blocked by
a large tree.

Also remember that SHM has hundreds of “Sondercommandos”
living in the two Crema building (all condemded to death).
What are we to make of the German’s security arrangments???

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Sep 14 08:50:38 PDT 1996
Article: 65408 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!
enews.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 14 Sep 1996 10:49:48 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 14
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <51egmc$imm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3234ae99.3850242@news.awinc.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Ken Lewis wrote on 10 Sep 1996

>Strange that you have to vouch for your
>own honesty.
>No one else willing to go out on a limb
and do it for you?
Ken: Now that you’ve made a stab at
insults, can you answer the question
I posted about security at Birkenau?
Or have you just expended all your wit
and wisdom?

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Sep 17 09:10:45 PDT 1996
Article: 66332 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!
news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 16 Sep 1996 22:34:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <51l2ms$1q7@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <51egmc$imm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Security at Crema II and III

According to Standard Holocaust Mythology (STM)
Crema II and III were the home of hundreds
of “Sondercomandos”. These were healthy
men who supposedly ran the gas chambers.
They organized and sorted the clothing
and belongings of hundreds of thousands
(or millions) of victims. Every few months
(STM) they were all killed.
One would imagine that the security arrangements
guarding these condemed men would be rather
high, especially as the Soviet armies approached
the Camp.
Oddly enough, the records and plans of the
Cremas LACK any sign of heightened security.
No bars on windows, on locks on doors, no
special fittings such as bolt holes. As noted
in a posting of several days ago, Crema III
was only watched by a small guardtower with
windows that didn’t open!
Exterminations have no explaination for this.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Sep 21 09:50:45 PDT 1996
Article: 67237 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!uunet!
in2.uu.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!
news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Sep 1996 20:14:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 54
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <51vc0e$1s0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <51ofuk$iq6@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

:Brian Harmon wrote on,17 Sep 1996

Ceacaa wrote:
>
> Security at Crema II and III
>
>> According to Standard Holocaust Mythology (STM)
>> Crema II and III were the home of hundreds
>> of “Sondercomandos”. These were healthy
>> men who supposedly ran the gas chambers.
>> They organized and sorted the clothing
>> and belongings of hundreds of thousands
>> (or millions) of victims. Every few months
>> (STM) they were all killed.

>And your citation for this is ???
You’re asking me what you Exterminationists believe?
If you don’t believe it, just say so and we can move
on to something else. However a typical cite would
be Martin Gilbert’s anthology of myths and fairie tales
(with a few true stories thrown in) HOLOCAUST.
As example of numbers and condition of
“Sonnderkommando” and need
for security see pg. 656-656
“on February 24, two hundred of the eight
hundred prisoners in the Sonderkommando
were transported to Majdanek”

>a few questions:

> 1) how do you know there were _hundreds_ of
> Sonderkommando at any given time?
See above

> 2) What makes you say they were healthy?
See above. SHM is that they were hand-picked.

>> One would imagine that the security arrangements
>> guarding these condemed men would be rather
>> high, especially as the Soviet armies approached
>> the Camp.

> Why would it need to be any higher than the rest
>of the camp? they were on the _inside_ of a well guarded
>extermination camp loaded with soldiers and guns?
This is not true. Cremas II and III were located at
the far Western end of the Camp. A single line of
wire seperated then Cremas from the woods and
fields surrounding Birkenau Camp. Drainage ditches
and trees provided cover for escape. These Cremas
had next to NO security.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Sep 21 09:50:46 PDT 1996
Article: 67265 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Sep 1996 21:06:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 42
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <51vf28$2vo@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <51ofuk$iq6@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy writes 17 Sep 1996
Brian Harmon wrote:

>> Why would it need to be any higher than the rest
>> of the camp? they were on the _inside_ of a well guarded
>> extermination camp loaded with soldiers and guns?
This is not true. Cremas II and III were located at
the far Western end of the Camp. A single line of
wire seperated then Cremas from the woods and
fields surrounding Birkenau Camp. Drainage ditches
and trees provided cover for escape. These Cremas
had next to NO security. In the very complete records
of supplies for the building, the photographs of it,
and the existing ruins, no Exterminationist can
find any sight or trace of a barred window, a prison
grade lock or anything else which would be used
to control hundreds of men condemed to death.

>Exactly. The Sonderkommando were treated
>better than most of the rest
>of the Jewish inmates — according to the accounts
>I’ve read, they ate
>better and had a heated place to sleep in the winter.
Sure, like on top of Crema ovens at 1,200 degrees.

>(Until they were killed, of course, but they never
>knew exactly when
>that would be, and 90% of the remaining Jews
>in the camp would be
>killed anyway.)

>Where could they have run to?
Into the Tatra Mountains
>What would have been gained?
Their lives.
>What exactly is Ceacaa proposing
>is wrong with this picture?
A deathrow with no bars, or no security. Don’t make no
sense.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Sep 21 15:07:08 PDT 1996
Article: 67399 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Sep 1996 21:03:30 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <51vet2$2sk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <51ofuk$iq6@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote on 17 Sep 1996

(Ceacaa) (Andrew Allen) writes:

# One would imagine that the security arrangements
# guarding these condemed men would be rather
# high, especially as the Soviet armies approached
# the Camp.

>They were.

Gee, Dan. Try looking at a picture of the completed
Cremas. Pressac Technique pages 342 and 343 have
such pictures. One wire fence. No lights. No guard towers
except at westend of buildings. No bars on windows. No gate on exit to
Camp.

# Oddly enough, the records and plans of the
# Cremas LACK any sign of heightened security.
# No bars on windows, on locks on doors, no
# special fittings such as bolt holes.

>What plans? Who said *all* the plans survived?
Pressac. See Technique. As an example of records
Pressac cites a 103 page book of Bauleitung
Orders concering the four Crema. pg. 91.
Also see the “turn over” list of equipment
dated march 1943.
>Who
>said that every tiny detail would appear in the plans?
Pressac. See Technique.
>Every bloody lock on the door would appear in the plans?
Locks are expensive. More expensive than many items
which appeared on the plans.

# As noted in a posting of several days ago, Crema III
# was only watched by a small guardtower with
# windows that didn’t open!

>Says who?
Keren, I am suprised and shocked that you don’t
know such simple and obvious facts. I thought you
were holding yourself out as a Holocaust Resource
or something.

>You’re really desperate, aren’t you?
Bored waiting for you Hoaxters to admit the
roof is there with no vent holes in it. Desperate
in the fight for the Truth.

>-Danny Keren.
What happened to the quote from Lu Xun?

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Sep 22 07:51:48 PDT 1996
Article: 67577 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!
news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 Sep 1996 01:30:35 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 25
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <522itr$6mn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <51ofuk$iq6@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Richard Schultz WROTE ON 18 Sep 1996

: Obviously the poor man suffers from chronic ITCPA
: (Inability To Create Proper Acronyms).

>Don’t you mean IOCPA (Inability To Create Proper >Acronyms)?

>FWIW, I believe that ITCPA stands for
>Incompetent, Totally Confused
>Photographic Analysis — from which he also suffers.

—–
Richard Schultz schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
—–
I’m sorry if I hurt you when I fell asleep last night,
But I was just exhausted from the act of being polite.

It appears that Schultz thinks that the discussion
about the homicidal gaschambers should be
carried out with vulgar personal “witisism”.
Here, Dick, I will make another typo for you
to giggle at. Tens of thousands of persons
surffered and died at Auschwitz but not millions.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Sep 25 01:57:37 PDT 1996
Article: 68572 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!
news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 24 Sep 1996 23:09:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 66
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <52a7og$5b@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <529usj$osu@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 21 Sep 1996
Re. Security at Crema II and III

>Mr. Allen, may I direct your attention to
> _Air Photo Evidence_, pp. 38-39?
You may.
There, if you dare, you will see that the
>Holocaust denier, Mr. Ball, has,
>from the May 31, 1944, aerial photo of
>Birkenau (RG 373 Can D 1508,
>exp.3055), identified the guard towers
>surrounding the Kremas.

>In fact, from the map Mr. Ball so convientantly
>provides (p.38),
Glad you are finally using some more reliable
sources. Even so, the map on pg. 38 (not prepared by Ball but
>from the Auschwitz Museum) is not correct in the
placement of the towers. The tower which is shown
at the Western end of the
LagerStrasse was really 10 meters further to
the South. This
is evident from the photograph Ball provided on
pg. 39.

> one can
>see that the four guard towers at the western
>perimeter of Kremas II and
>II are but part of the 37 (as identified by Mr. Ball)
>perimeter guard
>towers surrounding the Birkenau extermination camp.
>However, examining
>Photo 17 bis (_Technique_, p.341), one can also see that
>there is _also_ a guard tower at the _eastern_
>perimeter of Krema II, between Camp B-Ib and
>the grounds of Krema II.

If you look at the AUSCHWITZ ALBUM Random House New York
pg. s 4, 15, and 19 you will see three pictures of wide central
road of the camp, which included the so-called Ramps.
These pictures all look to the west. These photographs
show clearly that there were no guard towers on the
eastern perimeter of Crema II. The one large and one
small guard towers (exactly as I described) are visible at
the far western end of the camp.

A small unoccupied
platform is visible in two of the pictures. Are you
claiming this platform is a watchtower? On what
basis? There are three pictures of the small structure
on three different occasions (including a so-called
selection) and the structure is never occupied.

The perimiter of the camp was guarded by a line of
one large tower and then two small towers.
The large towers were two story, with a small
first floor room. (For non-US that would be 2nd floor).
The windows on the top floor of the large towers could
slide open vertically.

Crema III appears to have been guarded by one
small tower only on its western side. At one time
there may have been a platform (which VanAlstine
claims is a “guardtower”) on the northern side of
the central corridor.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Sep 25 07:38:44 PDT 1996
Article: 68665 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 24 Sep 1996 20:37:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 76
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <529usj$osu@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3245af4d.97689983@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 21 Sep 1996
Re. Security at Crema II and III

>As to to the “one wire fence,” which was part
>of the perimeter fence
>system, you seem to have “forgotten,” Mr. Allen,
>that the perimeter fence
>system at the Birkenau extermination camp was
>electrified (cf. _Anatomy_,
>p.503) -as were the fences surrounding the Kremas:

I had not forgotten that. The wires were held to
the concrete posts by white ceramic insulators.

But even an electrified wire fence
is easily snipped, knocked down, or shorted out.
50 or 60 Sondercommandos should have gone
through the fence with no problem, let alone
the 500 men supposedly in each Crema (SHM).
As you should know, the Sondercomandos were
(again SHM) workers equiped with many tools
useful in going through a wire fence. They
had shears, pliers, iron bars, etc. etc.
Compare the securtiy at the Crema with the
security at the Main Auschwitz Camp. Main Camp
had a WALL, lights, multiple electrified fences,
and closer guard towers.

BUT MORE IMPORTANT IS THE PHOTOGRAPH OF
MAY 31, 1944. This photograph shows that there
was not even a fence around Crema II. More
accurately, the fence only went 3/4 around the
building. In May 1943, there was no physical
barrier to keep Sondercommandos from walking
out of Crema II and into the woods!!!!
NO FENCE, ELECTRIFIED OR NOT. NO FENCE-NO WALL.
Only The good Soldier Schweik and his 6 shot
Mausner between 500 condemned men and
freedom.

The prisioners walking away from Crema II would
have had to pass between two of the small guard
towers but they would have been screened from sight
by water purification tanks in an area not lighted.

>Furthermore, Mr. Allen, your claim that there
is “no gate on [the] exit to
>[the] Camp” (the ramp actually) in the photos
>on pages 342 and 343 is
>quite in error.
[snip]
You missed what I posted, try reading it again.
The enclosures around the Cremas had TWO gates
on the sides facing into the “ramp” or large central
street which ran the length of the camp. They
also had at least one and perhaps two gates on the
side opposite to the central coridor.
The Crema enclosures had LOTS of gates.
What did NOT have a gate, fence, or wall
of wide central road of the camp. This would have
been more important for crowd control of the
hundreds of thousands of victims tricked into
believing that they were going to take an
underground bath. The wide central area also
had at least two drainage ditches in it and
a tree in it! Some security.
Only The good Soldier Schweik and his 6 shot
Mausner between 500 condemned men and
freedom.

Thus the Aerial photographs show NO Gates
and, at least in May 1944, NO Fence around
Crema II.

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Sep 25 10:21:39 PDT 1996
Article: 68693 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.erols.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 24 Sep 1996 22:53:46 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 38
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <52a6rq$sok@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <529usj$osu@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
John Morris wrote on 22 Sep 1996

>Having considered the arguments of the Revisionist
>Brain Trust,
>represented by Messrs. Giwer and Allen,
>it is unclear as to why
>Birkenau was surrounded by guard towers
>and electrified barbed wire at all.

Having considered this argument of John Morris, I realize
why his incisive wit has gained him renown as
the Fibonacci of Ponoka. Of course, after his craven
backing out of his visit to Birkenau he should be known
as the FIB onacci of Ponoka.

Birkenau was surrounded by barbed wire
because it was established as a P.O.W. camp
for Soviet prisoners. Later tens of thousands
of Jewish civilians were imprisoned there.
The camp was so big because tens of thousands
of persons were living there.

However, as we can see from the aerial photograph
of May 31, 1944 the allegedly (SHM) high-security
Crema II did NOT have a fence around it. The
whole southeast side of the building was unfenced.

>Clearly, the Brain Trust will have to conclude
>that the inmates of
>Birkenau were in the camp of their own free
>will and that the wire and
>towers were there to keep someone out. I wonder who?
John, do you know what a “strawman” is?

> John Morris
>at University of Alberta

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Sep 25 20:05:05 PDT 1996
Article: 68857 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!nova.thezone.net!hookup!
gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!
spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!
news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 25 Sep 1996 19:39:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 49
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <52cfru$m78@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <52a7og$5b@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On 21 Sep 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote
trying to claim that the security at Crema II and III
was something other than very lax.

The story that there were hundreds of
“Sondercommandos” who worked away in
Cremas II and III at Birkenau is a key to
the belief that mass gassings occurred at
these locations. These Sondercommandos
were supposed to have helped move the
hundreds of thousands of victims into the
small stairway down into the underground
baths, gassed them, clipped hair, pulled teeth,
cremated bodies, sorted the victims clothes,
etc. Every two or three months
they were all murdered. SHM is that the
first job of a new set of Sondercommandos
was to cremate the bodies of their
predecessors. SHM is that 500 of these
condemed men were housed in Crema II
and 500 in Crema III.
Any signs of security relating to the Sondercommandos?

A visit to the ruins of the two Crema would
show that there are no signs of any security
necessary to contain hundreds of men condemed
to death: No lights, no bars on windows, no security
systems on doorways.
A review of the very complete plans and material
lists for the two Crema presented by Pressac in TECHNIQUE
reveals a TOTAL LACK of any security in either of the
two Crema buildings.
A review of numerous photographs of the buildings
presented in Auschwitz Album and other places
confirms that there were no modifications such
as bars on windows or doors, or exterior lighting
which would prevent escape by prisoners.
Finally a review of the aerial photograph of
MAY 31, 1944 shows that there
was not even a fence around Crema II. More
accurately, the fence only went 3/4 around the
building. The entire Southeastern quadrant of
Crema II had no physical barrier to keep
Sondercommandos from walking
out of Crema II and into the woods!!!!
The obvious conclusion is that Crema II and III
were not built as a high security facility.

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Sep 27 08:57:33 PDT 1996
Article: 69267 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 25 Sep 1996 20:08:08 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <52chh8$mvm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <529jhu$d11@hil-news-svc-4.compuserve.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Miloslav Bilik wrote on
24 Sep 1996

ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:

>> As example of numbers and condition of
>> “Sonnderkommando” and need
>> for security see pg. 656-656
> > “on February 24, two hundred of the eight
> hundred prisoners in the Sonderkommando
> were transported to Majdanek”

>Yes. It was a reason for the uprise of the K4 further.
I am sorry but I am not sure of the story of the
uprising at K4. Would be please be so kind as to
explain. Also, are there still claims of a gun
battle at Crema II or Crema III between
prisoners and SS?

>I didn’t count the wires, but the first was electrified an >deadly.
>Some SK commit suicid with it.
That is the story. Please note that in the
May 31, 1944 aerial photograph, the fence does
NOT cover the southeastern part of Crema II.
So whatever the effect of an electricifed fence
would be, it appears irrelevant to security at
K.II at least prior to May 31, 1944.
Best

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Sep 27 08:57:34 PDT 1996
Article: 69272 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 27 Sep 1996 00:10:10 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 19
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <52fk32$r6t@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <52cfru$m78@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On 21 Sep 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote
regarding the security arrangements for
the “Sondercommandos” at Crema II and III.

I was wondering if Mr. Van Alstine could help
the readers of this thread with a synopsis of
the story of the “Sondercommandos”: How many,
what they were supposed to have done, etc.
However, since we want to do more than just
spin baseless stories, would Mr. Van Alstine
fill in the details of were all these “Sondercommandos”
slept, ate, bathed, etc.
We can all check the stories against the blue prints
of the Cremas, which were part of the masses of
documents the Germans left.

Nizcor is bedeviled by questions it can’t answer
and answers it can’t question.
Bradley Smith

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Oct 2 08:16:42 PDT 1996
Article: 70756 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!
news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Oct 1996 22:17:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 59
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <52sjbt$mr0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on
26 Sep 1996
CEACAA wrote
>> I was wondering if Mr. Van Alstine could help
>> the readers of this thread with a synopsis of
>> the story of the “Sondercommandos”: How many,
>> what they were supposed to have done, etc.
>> However, since we want to do more than just
>> spin baseless stories, would Mr. Van Alstine
>> fill in the details of were all these “Sondercommandos”
>> slept, ate, bathed, etc.
>> We can all check the stories against the blue prints
>> of the Cremas, which were part of the masses of
>> documents the Germans left.

>After you, Mr. Allen. Care to give it a go?
>I’m sure I’ll have _plenty_ to
>criticize regarding your typically abysmal “research.”

If you are sure you’ll “have plenty
to criticize” why not just honesty write what you
feel is the true story and have done with it?

Since you are the one who advocates belief in
Exterminationism, you should present your own views.
It is hard for a non-believer to do. As Pressac
writes, “The tendency to turn the history of the camp
into legend was very strong indeed in the 50’s…”

Of course, my “research” consists of having visited
the site and having an idea of what is actually
there at the “scene of the crime”.
There is NO possibility that 1,000 men condemed
to death worked and lived in the Crema II and III.
The security was low. There was not
enough space for sleeping, eating, or bathrooms.
Of course, SHM also has a foundry, a carpentry shop,
a dissecting room, a room for a doctor or two,
some SS guards, storage rooms, and a few other
uses all crammed into the two Cremas. This is on
top of storage of all the coal, the undressing room,
and the alleged gaschamber.

The Revolt of the Sondercommandos

The whole story of the “Revolt of the
Sondercommandos” is entirely a legend.

None of the Cremas show any sign of
having been the site of gun battles. There are
no bullet marks on any of the ruins of Crema II or III
nor on any of the bricks that remain from the
walls of Crema IV or V. Since the legend (or legends)
have Sondercommando revolts occuring at different
Cremas at different times and in different degrees of
intensity of fighting it’s rather hard to disprove all
the legends at once. However, the stories of prolonged
gun battles at Crema II or III are not supported by any
physical signs on the existing ruins.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Oct 4 07:05:51 PDT 1996
Article: 71553 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!
istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!
newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!
howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 4 Oct 1996 01:05:26 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 120
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <5325um$s15@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(Mark Van Alstine Wrote on 01 Oct 1996
CEACAA wrote
#> >> I was wondering if Mr. Van Alstine could help
#> >> the readers of this thread with a synopsis of
#> >> the story of the “Sondercommandos

>> >After you, Mr. Allen. Care to give it a go?
> >>I’m sure I’ll have _plenty_ to
> >>criticize regarding your typically abysmal “research.”
>
>> If you are sure you’ll “have plenty
>> to criticize” why not just honesty write what you
>> feel is the true story and have done with it?

>Because, Mr. Allen, I would like to criticize what _you_ write.

>> Since you are the one who advocates belief in
>> Exterminationism, you should present your own views.

>If one wishes to better understand what I
>believe about the Holocaust, one need only read the works of the
>plethora
>of historians and Holocaust researchers
>who have written and researched
>the Holocuast.

Like Olga Lengyel?? Is she a solid source that
you rely on?

>> As Pressac writes, “The tendency to turn
>>the history of the camp
>> into legend was very strong indeed in the 50’s…”

>So?
So, the “Four Million Myth” was once part of
“history”, now you disavow it. What parts of
the Sondercomando story do you believe in
and what parts will you disavow?

> Of course, my “research” consists of having visited
> the site and having an idea of what is actually
> there at the “scene of the crime”.

>> There is NO possibility that 1,000 men condemed
>> to death worked and lived in the Crema II and III.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> The security was low.

No answer from VanAlstine

> There was not enough space for sleeping, eating, or bathrooms.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> Of course, SHM also has a foundry, a carpentry shop,
>> a dissecting room, a room for a doctor or two,
>> some SS guards, storage rooms, and a few other
>> uses all crammed into the two Cremas.

>So?
So you believe this stupid garbage? You are dumber
and more dishonest than I thought.

>> This is on top of storage of all the coal, the undressing room,
>> and the alleged gaschamber.

>So?
So what you call the “history” and I call the Standard
Holocaust Myth is wrong.

>> The Revolt of the Sondercommandos
>
>> The whole story of the “Revolt of the
>> Sondercommandos” is entirely a legend.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> None of the Cremas show any sign of
>> having been the site of gun battles.

>Oh, please, Mr. Allen. It hurts to watch
>you grasp at straws so. The
>Kremas were demolished by the Nazis with explosives.
There are extensive ruins. Take a look at Pressac
Technique. Ruins with no bullet holes. pg. 261, 257, 265
pg. 237 pictures of handrails of access stairways
pg. 232 pictures of doors.

>> There are no bullet marks on any of the ruins of Crema II or III
>> nor on any of the bricks that remain from the
>> walls of Crema IV or V.

No answer from VanAlstine

> Since the legend (or legends) have Sondercommando revolts occuring at
> different Cremas at different times and in different degrees of
> intensity of fighting it’s rather hard to disprove all
> the legends at once. However, the stories of prolonged
> gun battles at Crema II or III are not supported by any
> physical signs on the existing ruins.

No answer from VanAlstine

VanAlstine has no answer to some simple and clear
observations about the present condition of the
ruins of Crema II and III and Birkenau. Any visitor to
the site can see this. Anyone with photographs of the
ruins can verify the Revisionist point.
VanAlstine could win his point simply by pointing
to any evidence of any bullet hole anywhere on
the ample ruins. He cannot. Rather than address
this problem he “takes the offensive” with personal
insults and indignate posturing. Note that he obfuscates
the real or best Exterminationist story and
DENIES THE VALUE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
AT THE SITE. The real “Deniers” are people
like Mark VanAlstine.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Oct 5 08:55:05 PDT 1996
Article: 71832 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!
istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!
newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!howland.erols.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 4 Oct 1996 23:40:30 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 116
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <534lbe$md2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(Mark Van Alstine Wrote on 01 Oct 1996
CEACAA wrote
#> >> I was wondering if Mr. Van Alstine could help
#> >> the readers of this thread with a synopsis of
#> >> the story of the “Sondercommandos

>> >After you, Mr. Allen. Care to give it a go?
> >>I’m sure I’ll have _plenty_ to
> >>criticize regarding your typically abysmal “research.”
>
>> If you are sure you’ll “have plenty
>> to criticize” why not just honesty write what you
>> feel is the true story and have done with it?

>Because, Mr. Allen, I would like to criticize what _you_ write.

>> Since you are the one who advocates belief in
>> Exterminationism, you should present your own views.

>If one wishes to better understand what I
>believe about the Holocaust, one need only read the works of the
>plethora
>of historians and Holocaust researchers
>who have written and researched
>the Holocuast.

Like Olga Lengyel?? Is she a solid source that
you rely on?

>> As Pressac writes, “The tendency to turn
>>the history of the camp
>> into legend was very strong indeed in the 50’s…”

>So?
So, the “Four Million Myth” was once part of
“history”, now you disavow it. What parts of
the Sondercomando story do you believe in
and what parts will you disavow?

> Of course, my “research” consists of having visited
> the site and having an idea of what is actually
> there at the “scene of the crime”.

>> There is NO possibility that 1,000 men condemed
>> to death worked and lived in the Crema II and III.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> The security was low.

No answer from VanAlstine

> There was not enough space for sleeping, eating, or bathrooms.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> Of course, SHM also has a foundry, a carpentry shop,
>> a dissecting room, a room for a doctor or two,
>> some SS guards, storage rooms, and a few other
>> uses all crammed into the two Cremas.

>So?
So you believe this stupid garbage? You are dumber
and more dishonest than I thought.

>> This is on top of storage of all the coal, the undressing room,
>> and the alleged gaschamber.

>So?
So what you call the “history” and I call the Standard
Holocaust Myth is wrong.

>> The Revolt of the Sondercommandos
>
>> The whole story of the “Revolt of the
>> Sondercommandos” is entirely a legend.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> None of the Cremas show any sign of
>> having been the site of gun battles.

>Oh, please, Mr. Allen. It hurts to watch
>you grasp at straws so. The
>Kremas were demolished by the Nazis with explosives.
There are extensive ruins. Take a look at Pressac
Technique. Ruins with no bullet holes. pg. 261, 257, 265
pg. 237 pictures of handrails of access stairways
pg. 232 pictures of doors.

>> There are no bullet marks on any of the ruins of Crema II or III
>> nor on any of the bricks that remain from the
>> walls of Crema IV or V.

No answer from VanAlstine

> Since the legend (or legends) have Sondercommando revolts occuring at
> different Cremas at different times and in different degrees of
> intensity of fighting it’s rather hard to disprove all
> the legends at once. However, the stories of prolonged
> gun battles at Crema II or III are not supported by any
> physical signs on the existing ruins.

No answer from VanAlstine

VanAlstine has no answer to some simple and clear
observations about the present condition of the
ruins of Crema II and III and Birkenau. Any visitor to
the site can see this. Anyone with photographs of the
ruins can verify the Revisionist point.
VanAlstine could win his point simply by pointing
to any evidence of any bullet hole anywhere on
the ample ruins. He cannot. Rather than address
this problem he “takes the offensive” with personal
insults and indignate posturing.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Oct 5 08:55:06 PDT 1996
Article: 71833 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!
ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news.nstn.ca!
newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!
newsgate.duke.edu!agate!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 4 Oct 1996 23:40:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 15
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <534lbo$md5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I has also struck me that there was no
security to guard against external attack
(specifically a partisan attack). The guardtowers
were of wood with no protection from an attack
>from the outside. 25 partisans could have
attacked and destroyed the Cremas and liberated
the hundreds of prisoners there.

The question for Exterminationists is,
IF THE CREMATORIA WERE REALLY GASCHAMBERS
WHEREIN HUNDREDS OF MEN WERE IMPRISONED
WHY WAS THERE NO EXTERNAL SECURITY TO
PROTECT THE CREMAS FROM ATTACK FROM THE
OUTSIDE?

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Oct 9 08:06:46 PDT 1996
Article: 72828 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
spool.mu.edu!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 9 Oct 1996 01:08:27 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 50
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <53fc0b$gs6@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <534lbo$md5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 07 Sep 1996

>Does it really make any difference if the
>roof slab is fully intact if
>most of it is obscured beneath tons of rubble?
Yes. It means that the physical evidence is still
there for examimation. Of course, you are wrong
about it being “obscured beneath tons of rubble”.
Anyone can go climb on the slab and LOOK
for themselves.

[snip]

>No, Mr. Allen is not ever going to tell us
>his remarkable theory of
>how the mere fact of the existence of
>the L.Keller roof proves that
>there was no Holocaust.

See above. The L.Keller roof is a piece of evidence
not dealt with by Exterminationist theory.

>After all, in his previous attempt to explain
>this “self-evident” roof
>slab, he asserted that holes had been cut
>through concrete and rebar
>in order to vent the destructive force of
>the demolition charges [snip]
That was a tenative hypothosis based on
the state of the so-called vent holes. Try dealing
with some REAL arguments such as:
1. the fact that Leichenkeller 1 was built WITHOUT
any vent holes at all.
2. Or that there are no holes on the roof that could
have been vent holes.
3. Or that the so-called “porous pillars” could
not have been attached at the roof level.
4. Or that there were no bars or locks on either
Crema II or III to confine the “Sondercommandos”.

In short, j. Morris, please do something better than
create strawmen and then natter about it. You
have not dealt with the evidence on the ground
at Birkenau nor any or the serious questions the
evidence raises. Instead, you have dishonestly and falsely
mistated what I and other Revisionists have written
and prevaricated and dissembled about what is
actually at the scene of the crime.
[snip]
CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Oct 9 17:33:11 PDT 1996
Article: 72939 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!
news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 9 Oct 1996 01:05:41 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 95
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <53fbr5$gpd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <534lbo$md5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 07 Sep 1996

Ceacaa) wrote:

>[It’s slab of concrete, dammit! Don’t you
>understand? Are you blind?
>Concrete! It proves there was no Holocaust!
>Why can’t you see that!?]

Poor John has been reduced to trying to
win debating points by false attributions.
Of course, the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II is
a slab of concrete but I don’t think John Morris is
blind (and wouldn’t comment on it if he were). I know
he makes stupid arguments and strongly suspect that
he is a somewhat silly twit. Although he came up
with a glimmer of intelligence when he raised some
questions about the positioning of the vent holes in
aerial photographs his analytic abilities have faded like
aurora borealis in summer.

[snip]
>In another message, Mr. Allen called me “craven”
>for not going the
>Birkenau at his behest this summer.
>Now I have to wonder who is
>”craven,” since he accuses me publicly of
>failing to keep a promise I never made, and
>since he does not do me the courtesy of
>cc’ing me with his accusations.
Sorry John. I would have answered sooner but
you DIDN’T copy me either. Pot, Kettle Black?

>It should be apparent after my long absence
>that I am no longer a
>regular participant in alt.revisionism.
>How easy it is to lie behind
>someone’s back. How “courageous”
>of our Revisionist friend.
Long absence? John, maybe your evil twin brother
is posting under your name? We have postings from you
in June and one on July 17. Now you are back on
September 7. “Long absence” is a rather pretentious
and misleading discription of an absence that nobody
noticed anyway.

>And how will this gutless wonder Andrew Allen
>respond to my annoyance
>that he is lying about me again?
>The same way as last time he got
>caught: he will say nothing.

By reposting what you wrote on April 14, 1996:

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 04:11:06 GMT

# I cannot possibly go before
#August when I will be in England on the
#second part of a three part
#research trip for an historian at U Alberta.
#The lowest quote I could
#get for current return fares from
#London to Crakow was slightly more than $400 US.

#One way or another, it is time for us
#to be defining our research
#parameters. Any suggestions?

Actually, I am not writing to annoy you, John. That
is too easy but your April 14 posting would seem
to be a commitment to do some honest “on the
ground” research, at least if you were a gentleman.

>Meanwhile, it is beyond me how anyone
>in their right mind could insist
>for nine months running on the importance of
>the state of the gas
>chamber roof at Birkenau Krema and never
>quite get around to saying
>why it is all so important.
Your ARE such a dummy. If the slab does not have
vent holes now, it didn’t in 1944.
No vent holes = no Zyclon through the vent holes =
no mass gassings.

> Does it really matter
>whether the roof had
>tar paper on it?
Yes. Everything should matter to an honest
historian and it should matter to get it right. If you don’t
believe this then stop your pretentious self-promotion
as a “Holocaust resource”.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Oct 12 10:53:45 PDT 1996
Article: 73556 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news1.wtn.mci.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 12 Oct 1996 10:35:12 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 96
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <53oab0$fdp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <53fc0b$gs6@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Since, as has been noted elsewhere,
the Exterminationists cannot
answer Revisionist Questions
and cannot question Revisionist Answers”,
the Nizkor people have faded away from this
thread. Some of them have been posting directly me.
Rarely anything nice. Often, the most uncivilized
hate mail.

John Morris wrote on 10/10 1996 saying that I
wasn’t nice and made fun of him and am Andrew Allen
and never said he was going to go to Poland.

> I suggested an alternative…
> Stephane Bruchfeld will be travelling to Birkenau
>in a few weeks time,
> and I understand through a third party (Stephane is off-line
> due to a computer breakdown) that he is prepared to conduct
>an examination of the site for us.

Well, my sensitive Canadian friend, whatever happened
to your colleague, Stephane Bruchfeld?

>At this point, you might want to get a clue:
>I am not answering your
>posts in this thread anymore except to demonstrate
>that you are an
>habitual liar.
>There is no point in attempting
>to debate with liars.
Actually, the reason you have
stumbled off the thread is because you have
nothing much to add to the discussion.
If you had anything GREAT to say I doubt you
could restrain yourself from posting it.
The last intelligent thing you put up was about
anomalies with the positions of the marks
on the roof of Leichenkeller 1 in the aerial photographs.
Other than that I am impressed and irritated by your
LACK of knowledge about basic facts regarding the
so-called gaschambers and the silly arguments
you come up with.
Look at the 5 reasons you gave
for why the Germans built Leichenkeller 1
Crema II WITHOUT the vent holes necessary
to use the room as a gaschamber.
It should be of interest to you that the Germans did
not plan on building a gaschamber as of 1/15/43
but it seems to be a fact which you cannot deal with.
Therefore you ignore it.

>There is no point in attempting
>to debate with liars.
What I have posted relates to
the physical evidence at the “scene of the crime”
and how that evidence effects the traditional
story of mass gassings. For the most part all
I have been doing is repeating that “there is
physical evidence to be examined, there is
physical evidence to be examined!!” like
a retrospective Cassandra.
The slab roof is there. Guardtowers are there.
Enough ruins are there to learn something from.
These are observable facts; not a debate.

While there are grounds to debate, the attempt
of the Nizkor group to deny the existence of
the existing evidence is both irritating and stupid.
Anyone who visits the site can see, instantly, the
state of the evidence. To me, Nizkor comes across as
little more than obfuscationists.
It is also ironic since you guys try to label
Revisionist as “deniers”.

Anyway, don’t take it so personally that I have
called you a craven, prevaricating, Exterminationist
dog (and from Ponoka at that). I can’t pretend to
respect you until you come up with a few intelligent
arguments. Anyway you are supposed to be in this
thing for the Truth.
Try dealing with some real questions:
1. the fact that Leichenkeller 1 was built WITHOUT
any vent holes at all.
2. Or that there are no holes on the roof that could
have been vent holes.
3. Or that the so-called “porous pillars” could
not have been attached at the roof level.
4. Or that there were no bars or locks on either
Crema II or III to confine the “Sondercommandos”.

CEACAA

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Oct 15 07:58:47 PDT 1996
Article: 74302 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!
newspump.sol.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 15 Oct 1996 01:30:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 75
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <53v7gr$3vc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <53oab0$fdp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Post of Bilik 10/4

>> My interpretation that the Southeast corner of
>>Crema II did not have a fence is based on the
>>May 1944 aerial photograph. However, there are
>>some odd things about the aerial photograph, ie
>>the lines on the photograph do not correspond to
>>where the actual fence was. Do you have a
>>copy of the aerial photographs or of John Ball’s
book?
[snip]
>> I do not mean to say that there was NO security
>>at the west end of the camp. However, it is clear that
>>there were serious gaps if hundreds of men were
>>actually imprisoned at the Cremas. I also believe
>>that the level of security the camp dropped as the use of
>>Birkenau changed from a Soviet prisoner of War
>>camp to confining civilains.

The security was odd, but it was perhaps
more economical for such a surface. You
have the towers around, and in the Lagerstrasse, the Hauptstrasse also;
and around the camp,
external squadrons that went to the point
required when something was wrong.
The tower you see for the K2 is at a good
place; the blind
view is behind, near the south,
and this place is covered from the Hauptstrasse.

So, when troubles occured with the K4
(stones throwes from the selection aso),
the internal squadrons went to the K4, and
for the security some SS to the K2
and K3. At this time, the SK seeing these
few SS coming cutted the fence with
electrical pliers they had since six monthes
(as explosives) and ran toward the
NW. The SS here were totally upset
when they get the explosives. After some
miles the escaping prisoners were joined, and killed
after a short time (they had one or
two guns). A total of three SS were killed.

During this time, the SK in the courtyard of
the K4 were simply killed with
machine-guns.

The total is I believe (I didn’t give a look, it’s an indication) 350
deathes.

Keep in mind that the SK were during a long
time in barracks, btw the 13 of B2.
It was only near the end that the SK slept in the
second floor of K2 and K3,
or dressroom and coal bunkers of K4 and K5.
I don’t think as you: this measure
enforced the security, since the SK could less easily communicate with the
another inmates to prepare an uprising
(the example of the explosives from
Auschwitz 3..).

>From 100644.317@CompuServe.COM Fri Oct 4 15:42:51 1996
Return-Path: 100644.317@CompuServe.COM
Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com
[149.174.217.135]) by emin02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id
PAA14381 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 15:42:50 -0400
Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id PAA26753; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 15:42:47 -0400
Date: 04 Oct 96 15:35:05 EDT
From: Miloslav Bilik <100644.317@CompuServe.COM>
To: “INTERNET:Ceacaa@aol.com”
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Message-ID: <961004193504_100644.317_JHB95-1@CompuServe.COM>\

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Oct 18 09:25:15 PDT 1996
Article: 75308 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 17 Oct 1996 22:53:00 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 35
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <546rec$qe@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <53v7gr$3vc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

A large part of the claims that the Germans
murdered millions of people by poison gas
is centered on two buildings at the southwestern
corner of Birkenau Camp in Poland: Crema II and
Crema III.
The physical remains of the so-called gaschambers
still exists but, thanks to M. Pressac,
we also know that almost the entire record of the
construction and operation of the Cremas still
exists too.
From the record and from photographs taken during
the construction process, we know that Crema II and
III were not designed or built as “gaschambers” but,
according to Pressac, were modified sometime after
January 1943 or even later. In the records is a
picture of the concrete slab of the roof of
Leichenkeller 1 Crema II. See Pressac Technique
at pg. 373 Document 34. The roof was built
WITHOUT the vent holes. These vent holes were
a vital part of the story that Zyclon was dropped
through the holes.

According to Standard Holocaust Mythology (SHM)
the Germans had a gas chamber in use in the summer and
winter of 1942- the so-called “Bunker”. This building
could (SHM) be used to kill 2,800 people at a time-
the same number as Crema II. The “Bunker” according
to the story was convenient, isolated, right next to
burning pits. The question becomes, why abandon its
use and go to the vast expense (millions of marks)
of converting Crema II into another gaschamber?
This is particularly true when Exterminationist stories
about reducing the size of the Crema II gaschamber
are considered.
Any answers out there from Exterminationists?

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Oct 21 07:02:05 PDT 1996
Article: 76047 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
nova.thezone.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!
xara.net!emerald.xara.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 21 Oct 1996 01:47:00 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 59
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54f2ok$3qv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote18 Oct 1996

>Ceacaa)” writes:

># The question becomes, why abandon its use and go to the
># vast expense (millions of marks) of converting Crema II
># into another gaschamber?

>”millions of marks”? For converting it into a gas chamber??

>To put there a gas-tight door, make a few holes in
>the roof, and build the introduction columns (very
>cheap, very simple)?

>You’re joking, right?

Actually, I am incorrect. The figure per crematoria is
closer to 1,000,000 Reichmarks for total construction.
Pressac gives a base figure for Crema II of 646,000 RM
with extras for chimneys, architectural work, etc.
The Huta contract was 116,000 RM with various subcontractors
receiving more. The chimney was built by Messrs Robert
Koehler; Topf & Sons got 110,000 Rm per crematorium.
For the record, we should note that there were other
“additions” to convert the Leichenkeller into a gaschamber,
a ventilation system being the biggest one.

However, the basic point remains-prior to the construction
of Crema II and III, SHM has people being killed in groups of
2,500 in the “Bunker” and then cremated the bodies in pits.
PIT CREMATION
The same cremation system that allegedly worked so well
at Treblinka (900,000) Sobibor (250,000), Baba Yar. In fact,
the “pit” method was supposedly never abandoned at Birkenau
but was used to cremate a large majority of the bodies there
too.
-so-
Why spend approximately 2,000,000 RM on a system which
only increased the cremation capacity slightly (25%)
over a proven Treblinka style pitcremation method ?

>I recall you posted that you used to be a construction
>worker (no offense intended – you did post this, right,
>unless I’m confusing you with someone else?). Based upon
>your experience, how much would it cost to drill a few
>holes in the roof of the gas chamber?
No offense taken.
Depends: Union work with government contract $115,285.35;
Non-Union with Independent contractor $ 125.00.

Of course, you do raise an interesting point:
Are gas chambers hard to build or easy to build?
Do you believe that a “gaschamber” can be built by
putting on a gas tight door and putting a few holes in
the roof?

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Oct 22 23:07:44 PDT 1996
Article: 76429 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!
howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 Oct 1996 18:02:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 33
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54jga2$md4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <534lbe$md2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Kurt Stele wrote on18 Oct 1996

>It doesn’t appear as yet the exterminationists
>want to debate you about the real points of
>the Holocaust. Evidently they are too busy trying to smear
>revisionists. I guess it’s
>easier and more enjoyable to them to personally
>attack revisionists than defend a soundly
>debunked, thoroughly discredited, and indefensible HOAX.

The Exterminationists are rather like the defenders of
the Ptolmeic system in 1500 A.D. Most of them firmly
believe in their own position and they cannot conceive of
anyone honestly holding a contrary view.

This is also my explaination of how Exterminationists
disregard the clear evidence that I find so convincing.
There is a saying in French is, “Une poule qui a trouve’ un
couteau”, a chicken that found a knife.

In reading Pressac’s Technique… I am impressed time
and time again how Mr. Pressac ignores (what seems to me)
powerful evidence that there could NOT have been gas
chambers at Leichenkeller 1 of the Cremas; solid physical
evidence such as the lack of vent holes or the impossiblity
that “porous pillars” were attached to the roof or floor.
Pressac seems more than content with what he calls
“criminal traces”, usually little “slips” in the masses
of documents that the Germans left. Ask Pressac
to look at the actual ruins, Une poule qui a trouve’ un
couteau!

Best Revisionist Regards

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Oct 22 23:07:45 PDT 1996
Article: 76432 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 Oct 1996 21:04:36 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 65
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54jqv4$rj0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote 21 Oct 1996 .

>But the price of converting LK1 into a gas chamber
>was much smaller, of course. All they had to do
>was drill holes in the roof, add a gas-tight door,
>and the introduction devices.

# Why spend approximately 2,000,000 RM on a system which
# only increased the cremation capacity slightly (25%)
# over a proven Treblinka style pitcremation method ?

>Probably because they wanted to kill far more people.
>But your point is moot; the Kremas were built.
>You don’t deny that, do you?

The point is NOT moot. If you believe in the
pit cremation stories then there is NO NEED for
the Crematorium. Why not just dig another pit?

If you believe that 100% of the bodies at Treblinka
were “pit cremated” , and 100% of the bodies at
Sobibor were pit cremated, and 75% of the bodies
at Birkenau were pit cremated; then the building of
2,000,000 RM buildings MAKES NO SENSE.
The building of the Crematorium and the
stories of pit cremations are incompatable.

# Of course, you do raise an interesting point:
# Are gas chambers hard to build or easy to build?

>They are quite easy to build. All you need is a
>gas-tight room with a strong gas-tight door,
>and a simple mechanism to
>introduce Zyklon-B. You don’t even have to install
>a ventilation system, if the gas chamber is above
>ground level and you have, say, two or three doors to
>allow faster natural ventilation.

Mr. Keren, I AGREE WITH YOU 100%
Of course, your view raises a serious question,
if gas chambers “are quite easy to build” then
why ship people all the way from Greece to
Birkenau to kill them? Especially during a war when
rail usage is at a premium?
Why not just have a barn somewhere in
Serbia to bump off all the nonworking “underhumans”
in the Balkans? Save the cost and trouble of
transporting a Million people across the Continent?
The fact that gaschambers are easy to build
and the fact that the Germans shipped people
clear across Europe is inconsistant.

>You don’t even have to install
>a ventilation system, if the gas chamber is above
>ground level and you have, say, two or three doors to
>allow faster natural ventilation.

Mr. Keren, AGAIN I AGREE WITH YOU 100%
Of course, your view raises a serious question,
to wit, Why then did the Germans build the alleged
gas chambers UNDERGROUND? This made an
expensive ventilation system necessary and
lead to a longer ventilation time. Why not
a nice big shed with two or three doors?

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Oct 24 08:19:32 PDT 1996
Article: 76675 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
spool.mu.edu!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 24 Oct 1996 01:41:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 53
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54mvht$7in@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy writes on
23 Oct 1996
Ceacaa) wrote:

>> Pressac seems more than content with what he calls
>> “criminal traces”, usually little “slips” in the masses
>> of documents that the Germans left. Ask Pressac
>> to look at the actual ruins,

>I assume you can explain how Pressac found
>the places where the dummy
>showerheads were attached to the ceiling of L.1.
Actually, I cannot explain how Pressac found
the places where “dummy showerheads were
attached to the ceiling” because I looked
for them and COULD NOT find them.
There were some wooden blocks set into the
ceiling (this is a never before printed or posted
item) but Pressac is not clear if he bases
his claims on these wooden blocks. He
neglected to take any pictures.

>You know, the showerheads that show up in
>he inventory document, a copy
>of which he reproduces.
Could you please post a citation for this.

>You know, the showerheads that many eyewitnesses
>have testified to.

Do you actually think that 1,000,000 people were
uniformly dumb enough to think that they were going
UNDERGROUND to take a shower? Further
both Leichenkeller 1 and 2 were low ceilinged,
untiled rooms, about as bathlike as a root celler.
Remember this is also after the victims
had been made to walk around the Crema
building itself (please don’t look in the
windows at the crematorium). The story
doesn’t fit with the physical layout of the
two Crematoria buildings.

>I’m sure it’s just a “little ‘slip'” — but why don’t
>you explain them
>for us anyway. After all, you’re an expert on the
>actual ruins.
I am not really an expert; I just have been
there. That seems, unfortunately, more than
you Nizkor guys have bothered to do.

>Thanks.
Welcome

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Oct 24 11:43:09 PDT 1996
Article: 76728 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!news-stock.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
news-hk.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 24 Oct 1996 01:18:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 59
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54mu6m$77q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <54jrrb$mm@atlas.uniserve.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON 21 Oct 1996 Daniel Keren raised an
important point asking,

>the Kremas were built.
>You don’t deny that, do you?

No, Revisionists don’t deny that the Kremas
were built. The fact that the Kremas WERE built
is a significant Revisionist argument. The
building of the Kremas makes no sense in the
standard Holocaust story.
Remember that Kremas II and III at Birkenau were
built in March and June of 1943 respectively. This was
after over 1.2 million people were murdered
and cremated in pits at Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec
(SHM). This had been done very efficiently in a matter of
about 12 months and all done cheaply with “pit cremation”.
Also remember that “pit cremation” was supposed to
have been used at Auschwitz/Birkenau both prior to
and after the construction of the Kremas. The question
becomes, why spend two million Reichmarks and
six months on building two Crematorium which only
increases your “capacity” 25% when it is possible to reach
the same end immediately (and for free) by digging another
pit? Further, why give up a proven reliable system for the
the problems of a system that had various complexities
and has subject to breakdowns such as the burn out of the
chimneys at Kremas IV and V.
The construction of Kremas II and III is a significant
anomaly in the Holocaust story.

The building of the Kremas only makes sense in a
Revisionist context, ie. that Birkenau was a place
of mass confinement but not mass murder. In
that context the capcity of the two Krema is
in-line with the total need of the Auschwitz
Birkenau complex

Revisionists claim that Kremas II and III were
built as a result of the typhus outbreaks in
Auschwitz/Birkenau in the summers of
1941 and 1942. In thoses outbreaks two or three
thousand inmates died each week.
Further, the Kremas were designed to deal with
the massive increase in inmates planned for
Birkenau. The “Mexico” project in the north area
of the camp would have more than doubled the
housing in the camp to approximately 120,000
persons.
The projected capacity of Kremas II and III
was in line with the projected increase in
camp population but at a slightly higher
muffle to prisoner ratio than camps in Germany
due to the experience of typhus outbreaks.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Oct 25 09:00:44 PDT 1996
Article: 76821 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!
news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 25 Oct 1996 00:06:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 93
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54peci$45l@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On Oct 23, 1996 Jamie McCarthy wrote:
(Ceacaa) wrote:

>> The fact that gaschambers are easy to build
>> and the fact that the Germans shipped people
>> clear across Europe is inconsistant.

>This is kindergarten-level stuff, and Ceacaa
>only looks foolish by posting it.

>Auschwitz was a work camp and a death camp
>simultaneously; arrivals
>were gassed within hours if they were unfit
>for work, but they would be
>used as slaves for weeks or months. When their usefulness >expired, due
>to malnutrition or disease, they were
>killed in the gas chambers.
Jamie, not only did you NOT answer the original
question-Why ship people all the way across
Europe to kill them in Poland?, but you raise a second
question,
“Why ship people all across Europe, set up
expensive camps, require hundreds of guards
if you are going to work the “slaves” to death
doing simple manual labor in a matter of weeks?
The value of a few weeks of slave labor is
clearly outweighed by the costs of camps,
guards, transportation, administration.

As a comparison the cost of guarding and
feeding one prisoner in the US Federal system
is approximately $25,000 per year. Chain gangs
and prision labor have never paid its way.

>> Why not just have a barn somewhere in
>> Serbia to bump off all the nonworking “underhumans”
>> in the Balkans? Save the cost and trouble of
>> transporting a Million people across the Continent?

>Once against, “Ceacaa” knows the answer quite
>well, but is pretending
>otherwise.
Actually, you didn’t answer the first question as
will be shown below.

>The problem is not killing a few hundred thousand people;
So we all agree!!

>the problem
>is doing it secretly, and then disposing of their bodies.
Exactly!! So combining a labor camp with a death
camp does NOT make sense. Why have 60,000
witnesses to murder and body disposal, especially
husbands mothers, etc. particularly concerned with
their loved ones who just disappeared “up the ramp”??
Does not make any sense.

No. The obvious thing to do would be to seperate the
workers from the non-workers at the “collection site”.
Only transport the workers across Europe.

>To do it secretly requires a base staffed by
>military men, or a
>concentration camp.
Jamie, to be blunt, I am shocked by your ignorance
of basic Holocaust history. Do you know how big
the German “staff” at Treblinka was?, or at Sobibor?,
or at Belzec? Ever hear about the Einsatzgruppen?
Or about Baba Yar? Do you actually claim that
a killing facility had to be a huge operation like
Auschwitz? You are wrong, wrong, wrong. (once
for each of the Operation Reinhard “death Camps”)

>To dispose of the bodies requires being out in
>the middle of nowhere.
Right-not next to a big town like Oswiecim. But,
as I suggested, a small valley in the Balkens.

>To dispose of the bodies most efficiently
>requires a large crematory facility.
Jamie, to be blunt, I am shocked by your ignorance
of basic Holocaust history. Do you know how bodies
were disposed of at Treblinka ?, or at Sobibor?,
or at Belzec? Or at Baba Yar? These “disposals”
didn’t cost anything but the time of the guards.
The Kremas at Birkenau cost millions. Not very
“efficient”.

My questions may be “kindergarten level” but it
looks like you flunked kindergarten.
Tommorow we will look at your “defense” of
underground gas chambers.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Oct 25 14:09:28 PDT 1996
Article: 76997 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!
feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 25 Oct 1996 12:19:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 97
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54qp9r$evn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote on 24 Oct 1996(Ceacaa)” writes:

># Remember that Kremas II and III at Birkenau were
># built in March and June of 1943 respectively.

>Can you tell the difference between “built” and
>”completed”?
??? Built can mean “completed”. The building process
took from October 1942.

># The question becomes, why spend two million Reichmarks
># and six months on building two Crematorium which only
># increases your “capacity” 25% when it is possible to reach
># the same end immediately (and for free) by digging another
># pit?

>Yet again, you’re confusing the price of the whole
>crematorium with the price of the cremation furnaces,
>which was much lower. I posted the figures yesterday,
>Why did you ignore them?
Sorry. I made the post prior to reading your figures.
I am just quoting Pressac. But I fail to see the point
of seperating the cost of the furnaces from the
cost of the chimney needed to have the furaces
or the cost of the building needed to support the
chimneys. All in all the total figure was around
2,000,000 RM.

>The gas chambers had to be built anyway, no
>matter how
>the corpses were to be burned.
My goodness, you are forgetting Bunker 2?
(subsequently renamed the “White House”).
The Germans already HAD a gas chamber,
See Pressac pg. 171 of Technique.
This structure could dispach 2,500 people
at a time. More than Leichkeller 1 could.
And remember that Leichenkeller 1 was
supposed to have been divided in half (SHM)
to accomodate smaller groups.
And building a gas chamber is one thing-
building it UNDERGROUND is an very expensive,
illogical, different thing. Consider excavation
problems, drainage and waterproofing problems,
and, as you correctly mentioned, ventilation problems.
Also think of all the problems of tricking people
into going down underground to take a shower.
No, the slightest consideration will show that
you were right in your last posts, an above ground
structure with two or three doors would have been
simple and easy to build (or built?)

># In that context the capcity of the two Krema is in-line
># with the total need of the Auschwitz Birkenau complex

>No, it’s about 20 times higher.
Where did you get these figures? Pressac makes
it 4.5 times higher than the other camp ratios but
he includes Crema I (abandoned) Kremas IV and V
(which were also abandoned) to increase the number
of muffles (retorts) and does not count any of
the planned increases in camp population to
120,000 persons.

># Revisionists claim that Kremas II and III were
># built as a result of the typhus outbreaks in
># Auschwitz/Birkenau in the summers of 1941 and 1942.

>This is ridiculous. No one builds so many
>crematoriums unless he’s expecting huge numbers
>of people to die,
>over a long period of time.

>Try to think. If you have this camp in which you’re
>expecting mass death from “typhus”, why would you
>keep sending so many people there?
Dealing with a problem and wanting a problem
are two different things. I was a fireman
for some time. We didn’t want fires. We tried
to prevent fires but we kept our LaFrance and VanPelt
ready.
The evidence shows massive deaths in the
camps from typhus but there is also significant
evidence that the Germans took many steps to
combat typhus and other diseases. I have
been into the Zentral Sauna building at Birkenau.
It is a very impressive structure, entirely built to
control contagion. From shaving inmates heads
to posting the famous Eine Laus Dein Tod! poster
around the Camp vigourous efforts were made to
combat Typhus.
Pressac, himself, notes that over 95% of Zyclon-B
was destined for delousing pg. 15 of Technique.
I would venture to guess that the Germans spent
many times more on the Zentral Sauna building,
the camp hospital, and on Typhus control than they
did on the admittedly expensive Krema II and III.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Oct 26 00:07:32 PDT 1996
Article: 77117 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 26 Oct 1996 01:06:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 115
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54s67q$2ma@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Sara aka Perrrfect wrote on 24 Oct 1996
(Ceacaa) wrote:

>> Do you actually think that 1,000,000 people were
>> uniformly dumb enough to think that they were going
>> UNDERGROUND to take a shower? Further
>> both Leichenkeller 1 and 2 were low ceilinged,
>> untiled rooms, about as bathlike as a root celler.
>> Remember this is also after the victims
>> had been made to walk around the Crema
>> building itself (please don’t look in the
>> windows at the crematorium). The story
>> doesn’t fit with the physical layout of the
>> two Crematoria buildings.

>Well, let’s see.

[snip description of events prior to arrival]

>Suddenly the train stops. They are herded out
of the dark car into the bright light by shouting
soldiers and barking dogs. Many of them can barely
walk now, they are so exhausted and dehydrated.
Perhaps a gun is fired to
hurry them along. Perhaps someone is shot for
dawdling. Or perhaps they
whole group moves out without incident.
Okay with that so far?

They’re in a strange place. Nothing is familiar.
They are herded along, not
kindly, by the soldiers. They are told to go
“over there” and take off
their clothing. It might be summer. It might be
winter and freezing. But
there are men and guns and dogs and
children crying and old people praying,
and they are tired, and hungry, and dirty, and
disoriented. Their clothes
are soiled. So they do what they’re told.
Okay with that so far?

Maybe they’re told they’re going to a
shower. Shower! What a relief!
Finally they can get clean, feel water on
their bodies again. Do they
believe it? Does it matter? Any hope, no
matter how feeble, is worth
clinging to.
Okay with that so far?

Perhaps one man objects. “That’s not a shower,
it’s in a basement,” he
shouts. The parents may shout him down;
they don’t want to frighten their
children. Or perhaps a soldier silences
him with a gun butt or a bullet.
Either way, no one WANTS to believe him.
Okay with that so far?

So these hungry, tired, frightened,
filthy, dehydrated, scared, resigned,
disoriented people go where they are told by the
men with the bright uniforms and polished
boots and guns and barking dogs. They hold
their children in their arms, and they
go to the showers they’re told to go to.

And they go to their deaths.

>What part of this don’t you understand?

>Sara

Your description implies that there was no need
for deception, security or crowd control measures.
My belief is that people, when deeply afraid,
will often freeze or could stampede. But, the
psycology of crowds aside, I am interested
how you explain the following descriptions:

“All these people were unaware of the fate
awaiting them. They were merely upset at being separated…
To render their welcome more pleasant at this time-
June, July 1944- an orchestra composed of internees-
all young and pretty girls, dressed in little white
blouses and navy blue skirts-
played, during the selection… gay tunes such as “the
Merry Widow. ” Martin Gilbert The Holocaust at pg 686
quoting Claude Vaillant Couturier.
-and-
“To the captivating tunes played played by the internee
musicians…the cortege of the condmned wound toward
Birkenau. Fortunately, they were unconscious of the fate
that awaited them…The S.S. TROUPS ESCORTING THEM
WERE IRREPROACHABLY ‘CORRECT’ … the newly arrived
had to be handled properly to the very end…The
‘bath Director’, in a white blouse, distributed towels
and soap.” emphasis added.

Dr. Olga Lengyel Five Chimneys The Ziff-Davis Publishing Co.
London (1984) at page 84.

How do you reconcile your description which emphasizes
force with the actual survivor eyewitness accounts
which clearly state that the victims were tricked into the
gaschamber?

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Oct 27 01:02:04 PDT 1996
Article: 77248 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!
news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 27 Oct 1996 01:07:57 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 78
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54uqnd$1m5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <54tpti$ism@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren writes on 23 Oct 1996:
CEACAA wrote:
># Why then did the Germans build the alleged
># gas chambers UNDERGROUND? This made an
># expensive ventilation system necessary and
># lead to a longer ventilation time.

>Remember that the gas chambers of Kremas IV and V
>were above ground.
That may be true but it doesn’t answer the question
about why Krema II and III’s alleged gaschambers were UNDERGROUND.

>The ventilation system was not that expensive. On p.
>233 of “Anatomy” we see that the offer for the Krema
>IV and V ventilation systems was for 2,510 RM.
I will have to check Pressac but I think he quoted
more. However, the ventilation time and possible
breakdown problems also seem to be significant
disadvantages of a ventilation system and reasons
not to make the gaschamber underground. There would also be some logistic
problems of herding people underground and then getting the bodies back
up.

># Why not a nice big shed with two or three doors?

>It’s very possible that Pressac is right, and that the
>gas chambers of Kremas II and III were planned as
>morgues,
>and then converted to gas chambers. But, again, your
>point is moot, because they *did* build them. What
>for, do you suggest, did they built them?

The Leichenkellers 1 were built to be and were used
as Leichenkellers.
I will toss out my theory. Maybe even John Morris
will be lured back to take a shot at it.
The Leichenkeller 1s were built to tie in with the
operating schedule of the crematorium. I do not think
that it is possible to continuously run the crematoria
furnice without burning out the chimney or damaging the
ovens. Pressac mention this as happening to K.IV and K.V.
The operating cycle of the Kremas.
I believe that a furnice, once fired-up, takes an
hour to warm to operating temperature, and then can
operate for a period of several hours (I guess 12-14)
without damaging the interior of the chimney or the
muffles. At that point, it has to be shut down for
a period of time to cool off, perhaps two or three
days. The cooling is not the real problem
but cracking due to too rapid a cooling.
In K.II and K.III there may have been some
rotation among the 5 furnices however,
sooner or later, the whole furnice had to have been
shut down and allowed to cool and be serviced.
If the furnices was not run continously, the bodies
had to be collected until the furnice was fired-up.
Even the local crematoria “collects” the bodies
for a day or two before “firing up”. And the local
plant must deal with the constraints of dealing
with the public.

In its operatation period of 12 hours K.II could probably have
dealt with around 1,200 bodies. T
his would tie in with the capacity of the Leichenkeller.
Why UNDERGROUND.
Since a body might wait several days before 1,200
bodies were collected, it would have to be stored in
a cool place, UNDERGROUND. This explains why the
trouble was taken to insulate the Leichenkeller and
put weather stripping on the door. A cool place was
needed until the furnice was ready to be fired up.
Why SMOKE
Many survivors remember smoke and then the smell
of cremation. However, Crematoria do NOT smoke when
running. However the Crema would smoke while heating
up, until the temperature rose enough to prevent smoke.
This would be just prior to cremations.
( continued)

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Oct 27 15:59:17 PST 1996
Article: 77366 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!news.umbc.edu!news.ums.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 26 Oct 1996 15:48:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 80
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <54tpti$ism@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren writes on 23 Oct 1996:
CEACAA writes:
># If you believe that 100% of the bodies at Treblinka
># were “pit cremated” , and 100% of the bodies at
># Sobibor were pit cremated, and 75% of the bodies
># at Birkenau were pit cremated;

>Not 75%; much less.
Why do you say that? I have NOT seen any analysis but
have relied on the stories of massive pit burnings.
[discussion of added cost of crematoria snipped as
being discussed elsewhere]

>Now, why didn’t they use (only) cremation ditches in
>Birkenau as well? Good question, actually. Possibly,
>because they didn’t know in advance how efficient the
>ditches would be.
Except that by January 1943 they had the experience
of Treblinka, Sobibor behind them. Hoess was supposed
to have even visited Treblinka to learn “techniques”.

>Possibly, because digging the ditches,
>and always collecting all that wood and fuel refuse to
>burn the corpses, seemed rather cumbersome to them.
This seems like a posibility.
However part of the Treblinka story is that the
corpses, once started and with old ladies on the bottom,
burned on their own, ie. little fuel actually had to
be gathered. I do not know if this is “official”
Holocaust history or not. or what is the offical position
on how the 900,000 bodies at Treblinka were burned.
Clearly, if Treblinka was “efficient” or cheap (just
using camp labor) then that should have been the
method used at Auschwitz two years later.

# Of course, your view raises a serious question,
# if gas chambers “are quite easy to build” then
# why ship people all the way from Greece to
# Birkenau to kill them?

>To the best of my knowledge, the answer is very simple:
>if people know they are being led to their death, they
>may revolt. They may run away and hide.
I agree with you on that but see the posting of
Sara Prrrfect on this thread.

>The attempt to
>use gas chambers for the mass murder of the
>mentally retarded
>and insane Germans (the “euthanasia” murders), caused
>problems: the local German population learned of what
>was going on, and screamed bloody murder.
>It would not have been easy to, say, build a few
>gas chambers right
>outside of Paris and kill the French Jews there.
In the Ardennes, perhaps? That would save 1,200 kms.
of travel and keep trains full of people crossing the Reich.
Actually, the situation of the 75,000 deported French
Jews is somewhat unique. I was thinking of Vilnus
or the unfortunates from Greece.

>Rumors would travel around, and the Jews
>would start to escape
>and rebel, just like they did in the
>Warsaw Ghetto;
>and one thing the Nazis surely didn’t
>want was another
>such uprising.
Another reason to keep from transporting people
too far.
Actually British and then Soviet radio propaganda
(or news) started mentioning Nazi deathcamps by summer
of 1942. The history of these reports is worth
some thesis by a grad student.
You ask a fair question-what the Leichenkellers
were for? I will try to answer that tommorow.
It is an important question.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Oct 29 12:00:51 PST 1996
Article: 77698 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 27 Oct 1996 23:57:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 57
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <551ef4$ag@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On Oct 23, 1996 Jamie McCarthy wrote:
CEACAA wrote

>> Of course, your view raises a serious question,
>> to wit, Why then did the Germans build the alleged
>> gas chambers UNDERGROUND? This made an
>> expensive ventilation system necessary and
>> lead to a longer ventilation time. Why not
>> a nice big shed with two or three doors?

>I recall Ross Vicksell raising the exact
>same question over two years
>ago; I answered him with a laundry-list
>of reasons why an underground
>gas chamber is superior, and he never
>answered. I wonder if “Ceacaa”
>will be any different.
>Here are the first three reasons that come to mind:

>* It was warmer in the winter,
>aiding in the Zyklon outgassing (you
> know, the outgassing that Rudolf says
>couldn’t happen because it was
> too cold).
Gee, Jamie, do you think that “Rudolf” ever
heard about a heater? Cost about 15 bucks, much
cheaper than trying to bury a whole room underground.
Or are you refering to the reindeer?

>* The walls couldn’t be pushed over or kicked
>down from the inside.
Gee, Jamie, the answer to this fairytale is in
another fairytail, The Three Little Pigs.
In all the “above ground”
gas chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor, at Auschwitz
Main Camp, at the Bunker, or Krema IV or V,
did you ever hear of a story of the walls being “pushed
over or kicked down”. No.
Why don’t you make-up a real winner like,
“It was clearly built underground
to withstand tornados”

>* A solid concrete room deadened the screams
>of the dying, aiding the
> secrecy effort a bit more.
Maybe, but the question was, “why bury it underground?”
If secrecy was so important as to require a
“bit more” effort why were Krema II and III
right in plain view from much of the camp, with
the camp soccer field next to K. III and living units
next to K. I? If fact, why was the alleged
extermination effort done with 60,000
witnesses?
If Ross Vicksell didn’t bother to reply to you
it was because you didn’t post that was
worth responding to.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Oct 29 21:45:49 PST 1996
Article: 77741 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!
news.mindspring.com!mindspring!psinntp!psinntp!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 29 Oct 1996 19:18:55 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 91
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <5566tf$mbh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <551ef4$ag@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote 26 Oct 1996

CEACAA wrote:

>> Jamie, not only did you NOT answer the original
>> question-Why ship people all the way across
>> Europe to kill them in Poland?,

>The six extermination camps were located where
>the majority of the Jews
>who were killed were located — in Poland.
>Poland saw three million of
>its Jews exterminated, as many as the rest of
> Europe and the Soviet
>Union put together.
>If the camps were _not_ located in Poland,
>you would be asking me why.
That’s true. But since we agree that a gaschamber
is easy to built, why not one in France, one in Serbia,
one in Vilna. Save shipping that other three million
1,000 KM.s. That was the question. Please try an
answer.

>> but you raise a second question,
>> “Why ship people all across Europe, set up
>> expensive camps, require hundreds of guards
>> if you are going to work the “slaves” to death
>> doing simple manual labor in a matter of weeks?
>> The value of a few weeks of slave labor is
>> clearly outweighed by the costs of camps,
>> guards, transportation, administration.

>I see, so you have evidence that the Nazis
>undertook an economic
>analysis, found that it would be inefficient to
>have slave labor, and
>then went ahead and did it anyway?
>No, of course not.

>Have you done an economic analysis yourself,
>comparing the “bottom line”
>as the Nazis might have seen it?
No, of course you haven’t.
Yes I have. Four weeks of slave labor was not worth
the price of a train ride from Vilna to Crakow, let alone
>from Paris. Throw on the cost of the guards, the camp,
the disinfectant, the security problems and you have
a system that screams “red ink.”

>In short, you expect us to take your word for it
>that the cost of guarding the Jews outweighed
>whatever reasons the Nazis might have had
>for imprisoning them, using them as slaves,
>and killing them.
No, but I do expect you to be able to add. If you
do, you can quickly see that the idea of transporting
somebody 1,000 Km.s to work him to death in
6 weeks does not make economic sense.

[snip]
>This is insanity, of course. The Jews were killed
>because Nazi ideals on racial purity demanded their
>removal or extermination. And as long
>as they were going to be killed, they might
>as well do a little hard
>work before they died.
You miss the point. There is a conflict between
the story of easy to build extermination camps
and the costs of creating a huge guarded city
like Auschwitz/Birkenau.
There is a conflict between value of 6 weeks
forced labor and the immense cost of getting that
slave labor.

> >the problem
> >is doing it secretly, and then disposing of their bodies.
> Exactly!! So combining a labor camp with a death
> camp does NOT make sense. Why have 60,000
> witnesses to murder and body disposal, especially
> husbands mothers, etc. particularly concerned with
> their loved ones who just disappeared “up the ramp”??
> Does not make any sense.It makes perfect sense if everyone  (or nearly everyone) in the camps is

>under a death sentence.
Earlier you said that 10% of inmates were not
killed. If there were 1,000,000 inmates, how
many witness does that leave? No, your story
is not consistent.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Nov 1 11:52:35 PST 1996
Article: 78123 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
newspump.sol.net!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!
howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 30 Oct 1996 23:50:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 66
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <559b62$sod@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <5566tf$mbh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote 26 Oct 1996
> And they were of course more efficient at
>incinerating corpses than the method of pit-burning.
[SNIP]
I submit that one (one!) reason for building the
>crematoria was
>to conserve fuel — it doesn’t take motor oil or
>methanol, only coke, and after the ovens are heated
>for the day, the incineration process is
>self-sustaining. The corpses themselves are the fuel.

Hold it, hold it. The Treblinka pyres were self-sustaining
(SHM). Read Pressac to learn that one needed coke to
run the Birkenau Krema.
Secondly, the Treblinka pyres were started
with wood gathered by “free” slave labor. not methanol.

>All we have seen from your responses is that
>you are eager to declare
>everything about the Holocaust to be incorrect,
>because it doesn’t
>correspond to your after-the-fact analysis of
>how it _should_ have been done.
No, the “Holocaust” is not an event but the name
given to many millions of events. Many, if not most,
of the alleged events are real, to wit, the passage of
the Nuremberg Laws or the establishment of Birkenau
Camp. Many “events are not real, to wit, killing people
by steam or factories making soap out of humans.
You and I disagree on whether there was a gas
chamber at Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II at Birkenau.
The physical evidence at the scene of the crime
makes impossible the standard story of a gas chamber.
That horse has been ridden enough until we can post
pictures that even you Hoaxters can’t deny.
The points re. costs of building the Kremas vs. Treblinka
style pyres and point of transporting
millions of people across Europe
are really logical inconsistancies within the
gaschamber story.

>The problem with that line of reasoning
>is that it did happen;
Ipse dixit. This is why you are known as the
Tertulian of the Nizkor set.

>all the “shoulds” in the world melt
>away in the face of solid,
>documented evidence of the slaughter
“Documented”??? Jamie, you have found a
document evidencing the killings at Birkenau? Why, this
is important news!!! Call Professor Mayer,
he says original documents are rare and
hard to find. Please post your documents
for us Jamie.
In fact, there is NO solid documented evidence.
In a modern (carbon paper equiped) bureaucracy the
lack of ANY documents relating to the
alleged killing of 1,000,000 people at
Krema II and III is a true miracle.

>which took place in those
>showerhead-filled, gas-tight-door-equipped rooms.
Gas-tight door? My refrigerator has a “gas-tight”
door on it. The Leichenkeller was a leichenkeller;
it had to be kept cool.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Nov 1 14:04:59 PST 1996
Article: 78143 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Nov 1996 01:14:46 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 59
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55c4gm$rop@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <55bd4f$i8q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on28 Oct 1996 (Ceacaa) wrote:

>> At that point, it has to be shut down for
>> a period of time to cool off, perhaps two or three
>> days. The cooling is not the real problem
>> but cracking due to too rapid a cooling.

>The Topf operating instructions for the
>double-muffle furnace simply
>states that: “Every evening, the furnace fire bars
>must be cleaned of
>clinker and the cinders removed.”
>(cf. Pressac, _Technique_, p.136.) There
>is no mention that the furnace _must_ be
>shutdown and cooled off before
>routine maintenance takes place.
Every evening?

>Furthermore, according to Dr. Roman Dawidowski,
>the furnaces of the crematorien required a break of
>three hours per every thwenty-four to
>allow for deslaging and other smaller
>stoppages due to constant use.
>Similar time requirements were also given
>by Sonderkommandos Henry Tauber,
>ALter Feinsleiber, and Stanislaw Kankowskin
>[KL-PMO, p.134]. (cf. Ho”ss,
>_Death Dealer_, p.45fn.)

Alright, every 24 hours a three hour break was required.
So the furnace couldn’t have run more than 24 hours.

> If the furnices was not run continously, the bodies
> had to be collected until the furnice was fired-up.

>Why, Mr. Allen? Considering the incineration
>capacity of just _one_ of the
>Kremas, it would have been a simple
>matter to have whichever Krema was
>on-line that day incinerate the _entire_ ”
>daily” batch of prisoners who
>died from “natural” causes.

The key is your assumption
“whichever Krema was on-line that day to
incinerate the entire daily batch of prisoners who
died from “natural” cause.
IT WAS NOT PLANNED TO KEEP ONE OF THE
KREMAS “ON-LINE” EVERY DAY. If that were planned they
would NOT have needed the Leichenkeller.

The Leichenkeller were built underground
to serve as a cool place to store bodies:
(they make a bad gaschamber but a good morgue)
They are inherently a contradiction to the idea
of continous cremation (and therefore mass
extermination).
We know that the Leichenkeller were designed and built.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Nov 1 14:05:01 PST 1996
Article: 78144 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Nov 1996 01:14:47 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 99
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55c4gn$roq@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <55bd4f$i8q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

[VanAlstine]
>As for incinerations when the “special actions”
>took place? According to
>Ho”ss, the special actions took place at
>regular intervals: [snip]
>During those four to six weeks two or three trains
>containing about 2,000 persons each, arrived daily.

>Clearly, up until Aktion Ho”ss in 1944,
>the furnaces were not operating
>continuously, day in and day out for months
>on end. They were, instead,
>operated at regular intervals of a few weeks duration.
>This, of course, would have afforded the
>Auschwitz SS time to schedule and undertake
>repairs and any maintainance that required
>the furnaces to be cold.

>Given the above, may I again suggest you
>rethink your “theory,” Mr. Allen?
As show above, running a furnace for a week straight
will burn it out-the quote has things cooking for 4
to 6 weeks straight. Including periods of time when
only Crema V might have been working (summer of ’43)

The question boils down to how long can a furnace
be run continually. The Exterminationists MUST
believe in long or continous runs-Revisionists
probably expect short runs of two days or less.

This argument avoids the basic point:
The Leichenkeller are inherently a contradiction
to the idea of continous cremation (and therefore mass
extermination).

>> Even the local crematoria “collects” the bodies
>> for a day or two before “firing up”. And the local
>> plant must deal with the constraints of dealing
>> with the public.
>What “public” was their at Birkenau, Mr. Allen?
None. That is why bodies could sit around longer
prior to a convient time to cremate them.

> Why UNDERGROUND.
>> Since a body might wait several days before 1,200
>> bodies were collected, it would have to be stored in
>> a cool place, UNDERGROUND.

>> This explains why the trouble was taken to
>>insulate the Leichenkeller and
>> put weather stripping on the door.

>And did the order for the door to L.Keller 1
>say it had “weather stripping?” No. Did it say
>that it was a “weather-tight” door? No. The
>order for the door said “gas-tight.”
>Please, Mr. Allen, enough with the
>silly canards.
My construction background comming through.
Actually, you wouldn’t want “weather stripping”
one would want a better seal, one that is air or gas
tight. Good point, Mark. To keep the Leichenkeller
cool, an airtight seal would be needed on the door.

> A cool place was needed until the furnice was ready to be fired up.

>For a morgue, yes. How odd then that deniers
>have claimed that the forced
>draft system that was origionally installed to
>ventilate L.Keller 1 with
>HOT AIR to keep the corpses WARM (!),
>wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Allen? Of
>_course_ you do! How then do you explain
>the purpose of this hot-air
>ventilation system for L.Keller 1 if you
>(rightly so, I might add) claim
>that a morgue should be kept cool
>and contrary to this L.Keller 1 was to
>be HEATED?

>I eagerly await your next set of limp
>rationalizations and absurd canards
>in regard to this, Mr. Allen. You have yet to dissapoint!

Pressac makes a big issue of the same point. The
answer is obvious. Remember your cold Silesian
Winters? What would happen to 1,000 bodies that
got down to around 10 below 0 C? That’s right,
they would be very stiff, stick to the floor,
hard to undress, check for gold, etc. It is
obvious that a morgue should not be too cold.
I would guess slightly above freezing, maybe
warmer. Of course, call your local morgue
and find out the optimum temperature for
body storage.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Nov 1 15:18:21 PST 1996
Article: 78151 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!news.nstn.ca!
coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.unb.ca!news.uoregon.edu!
hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Nov 1996 01:07:59 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 79
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55c43v$rk7@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <55bd4f$i8q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on28 Oct 1996 (Ceacaa) wrote:

>> I do not think that it is possible to continuously
>> run the crematoria
>> furnice without burning out the chimney
>>or damaging the
>> ovens. Pressac mention this as happening to K.IV and K.V.
[VanAlstine’s stunning admission]
>Krema IV and V suffered from design flaws
>to their 8-muffle furnace. Krema
>IV was permanently disabled due to this,
Readers please make note of this important fact.
**By May 18,1943 Krema IV was premanently disabled***

>while Krema V’s furnace was
>modified and returned to service.
Actually, this is an overstatement. Pressac feels
that the operation of Krema V is uncertain but
makes a guess that 15,000 were cremated in it
in 1943.
Thus, there is a two or three month period in
1943 when:
Krema I was abandoned, permenently
Krema II was out of service,
Krema III was not yet complete,
Krema IV was abandoned, permenently
Krema V may or may not have been working.
All this is very odd if your believe in Exterminationist
theories. It proves exactly what I have asked before,
Why build millions of RM worth of crematoria which
break down when you have the proven Treblinka
“pit method” to use for free????
In the alternative, if Crematoria were so important,
why abandon Krema I and IV?

>Krema II suffered from several initial
problems:
Sure did, was shut down.

>> The operating cycle of the Kremas.
>> I believe that a furnice, once fired-up, takes an
>> hour to warm to operating temperature, and then can
>> operate for a period of several hours (I guess 12-14)
>> without damaging the interior of the chimney or the
>> muffles.

>According to Topf “it is not harmful to operate the
>incinerators day and night, if required, since the fire
>clay lasts longer when an even oven
>temperature is maintained.”
>(cf. Czech, _Auschwitz Chronicle_, >pp.71-72.)

Mark, please read what Pressac writes on page 379 of
Technique about the summer of 1943:
Kr.II had to be shut down with a damaged chimney,
IV was completely out of service and V had its furnaces
and/or chimney burnt out.
On page 386 Pressac writes: Krematoriam IV
had been in operation for one or two weeks…
1. The furnace was starting to crack.

In short, exactly what I said.
Czech and _Auschwitz Chronicle_ is wrong.
Overuse of the
Krema (not even continual use but 140 hours straight)
will and did destroy the Krema. It did it with THREE
of the FOUR Kremas when they first started opperation.
Were the Kremas REBUILT???? NOOOO.
Krema II and III were just operated according to
schedule, ie. shut down regularly.

Perhaps “Day and night” does not mean continously here;
the emphasis is on even temperature. As I posted, it
is a rapid temperature change which everybody knows
causes the most damage. The furnaces could be run
in various weather if the temperature remained
constant but running them for more than a day or two
would and did cause failure of the chimney.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Nov 2 09:31:04 PST 1996
Article: 78200 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!
news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Nov 1996 22:41:41 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 53
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55eftl$o4o@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <55bp92$kd8@news.enter.net>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Yale F. Edeiken wrote on1 Nov 1996
Date: 1 Nov 1996 03:02:58 GMT
Message-ID: <55bp92$kd8@news.enter.net>

> ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) writes:

>> My question was why ship millions of people
>> across Europe to kill them in Birkenau when killing
>> centers were cheap and easy to set-up?

> That’s your problem. The rest of the world is asking: “Why kill
>millions of people at all?”

Yale F. Edeiken,
Are you really such a morally spineless pusillanimous
whimp as to have to ask “Why kill millions of people?”
Anybody with any brains and/or any decency wouldn’t
bother to ask such a stupid question. The answer is
that THERE IS NO REASON.

>”That’s your problem”
Well, you are right Yale F. Edeiken,
It’s my problem, why on February 22, 1943 eleven thousand
people were shipped from the railroad stations
of Demir-Hisar and Simitli in Thrace to Birkenau.
The plight of these people troubles me: I doubt that it
troubles many people but at least most people are
not like Yale F. Edeiken, at least they don’t bray out
their indifference.

>The rest of the world is asking:

Well, Yale F. Edeiken, you show yourself to be a pompous
ignoramus.
“The rest of the world”, in Cairo, in Jakarta, in Sao Paulo,
doesn’t know much the Holocaust and isn’t asking
about it.

Actually, I doubt that you are a spineless whimp,
Yale F. Edeiken. Your abrasive preamble shows that
you probably thought that you were being clever.

It is more probable that Yale F. Edeiken is an inarticulate
and boorish dolt who has taken his own limited and
self-rightous view and grandiously attributed to
“The rest of the World” rather than come up with
an intelligent argument.
Rather than go to a nice Halloween party Yale F.
Edeiken stayed home on October 31st, ate too many
miniSnickers, and posted a couplet unique in its
pretension, superciliousness and multifarious levels
of Stupidity

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Nov 2 09:31:05 PST 1996
Article: 78264 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 2 Nov 1996 12:29:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 48
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55g0d8$8ph@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Brian Harmon wrote on 1 Nov 1996
(Ceacaa) wrote:
>>The Leichenkeller were built underground
>>to serve as a cool place to store bodies:
>>(they make a bad gaschamber but a good morgue)
>>They are inherently a contradiction to the idea
>>of continous cremation (and therefore mass
>>extermination).

>And yet, the corpse chute in the Leichenkeller
>was _removed_ and annotated in the plans.

Wrong. The chute was built. It didn’t show in Bauleitung
drawing 2003. The removal was not annotated.
Pressac writes in Technique pg. 303,
“This drawing was made at a time when work
was well advanced…The stairway was built,
as can be seen in the ruins, but the corpse chute
was also built…”
Again on pg. 304,
“The corpse chute was built in Krema III and
can still be seen in the ruins.”

>Why remove a corpse chute from a morgue, thereby
>making it even harder to get corpses into the
>Leichenkeller?
>Simple, because ‘the corpses’ walked themselves into
>the leichenkeller before they were gassed.

In both K. II and III the chute was built but may have
been closed off by a wooden (removable) wall.
Corpses were first brought into Leichenkeller 2,
the room nearest the central Camp Road. There they
were undressed, checked for valuables, and other
wise “processed”. They were then carried into
Leichenkeller 1 (which served as cool storage).
When the furnaces were ignited the corpses were
lifted from the basement to the level of the
crematoriam by a small elevator (Aufzug).
There was no need for a “corpse chute” into L.Keller
1 from the second level. It would have caused problems
warming the Leichenkeller during the summer
so it may have been blocked.

Thus, chute WAS built…just didn’t show on a plan.
What this all really shows is how desperate
Exterminationists are for some sort of evidence
of homicidal intent.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Nov 2 12:28:34 PST 1996
Article: 78273 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!
istar.net!news.nstn.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!
news.unb.ca!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!
news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!
uunet!in3.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 31 Oct 1996 18:32:01 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 68
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55bcth$i6k@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <559b62$sod@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on28 Oct 1996 (Ceacaa) wrote:
CEACAA wrote:
>> Why then did the Germans build the alleged
>> gas chambers UNDERGROUND? This made an
>> expensive ventilation system necessary and
> > lead to a longer ventilation time.

>Because, Mr. Allen, they were _origionally_ designed as >UNDERGROUND
morgues and were to be built,
>along with the Krema, in Auschwitz I. That’s
>why they were called Leichenkeller 1 and Leichenkeller 2
>on the construction plans, you know.
>(Or _don’t_ you know, Mr. Allen?)
Now, now, Mark, don’t be pedantic. Of course WE
know that the Leichenkeller were designed as morgues.
It is a basic Revisionist argument. I was trying to
point it out to D. Keren. Thanks for helping Mr. Keren along.
[Keren’s posting]
> >#The ventilation system was not that expensive. On p.
> >#233 of “Anatomy” we see that the offer for the Krema
> >#IV and V ventilation systems was for 2,510 RM.
[back to VanAlstine]
>You “think” wrong then, Mr. Allen. The price Dr. Keren
>quoted was correct: 2,510 RM.
Yes, but that was for Krema IV and V which were
above ground and had windows. Of course their ventilation
system was much cheaper.

>Furthermore, a cast-iron blower for the
>ventilation system to
>Krema II’s L.Keller 1 cost 522 RM.
>(cf. Gutman, _Anatomy_, p.230.)
>Clearly, such costs indicate that the
>costs of the ventilation systems to
>the L.Kellers was not overly significant
>when copmpared to the overall
>cost of the Kremas.
You sound like a bureaucrat, “overly significant”.
Please never get a job with the Department of Defense.
“This here missle is not ‘overly significant’ when
compared to the overall cost of an Aircraft Carrier.
Get real, Mark! Kremas II and III were immensely expensive;
around 2,000,000 RM. That is a WHOLE 2 RM per victim (of Auschwitz) and
that is just for disposal. If you think that
if even half of the victims (the number) were cremated
in pits, or elsewhere then you are up to 4 RMs per victim.
The Treblinka method was free.
The ventilation costs, ducting, fans etc. was a
significate cost.

>> However, the ventilation time and possible
>> breakdown problems also seem to be significant
>> disadvantages of a ventilation system and reasons
>> not to make the gaschamber underground.

>And what possible “breakdown problems”
>with the ventilation system of
>L.Keller 1 are you suggesting, Mr. Allen?
Mechanical systems break down, fan belts, rotors,
widgets. Especially new, untested ones. Nobody would
put a new expensive, untested system in when they
had a working existing system.
D. Keren’s suggestion of a barn with two or three doors
is a simple logical idea which existed (SHM) at Birkenau
prior to December 1942 in the form of “the Bunker”.
Do you remember that the Bunker could “handle”
2,500 victims at a time? More than Krema II.
Why build a SMALLER gaschamber, Mark?

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Nov 2 23:15:27 PST 1996
Article: 78323 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!cpk-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!
cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!
cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 3 Nov 1996 00:19:47 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 42
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55ha1j$omf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote 02 Nov 1996
(Ceacaa) wrote:
>> The question boils down to how long can a furnace
>> be run continually….

>Obviously, for at least four to six weeks!
Six weeks! As I said…
…The Exterminationists MUST believe in long or
continous runs if their stories are going to hold
together.
The question is… can a crema furnace
run six weeks straight? I doubt it.
[snip VanAlstine’s equivocations]
[snip VanAlstine’s ramblings about UFO’s]

>> The Leichenkeller are inherently a contradict
>> the idea of continous cremation (and therefore mass
>> extermination).

>See what I mean? Weird.

You are avoiding the question, Mark.
Why build four underground morgues if there is a
system of continous cremation? We all await
your answer

>> > Why UNDERGROUND.
> >> Since a body might wait several days before 1,200
> >> bodies were collected, it would have to be stored in
> >> a cool place, UNDERGROUND.
>> The Leichenkeller was insulated with air-tight
>> doors

>Uh huh. Amazing then, is not Mr. Allen, how all
>those “potato cellars” in the Mid-West manage
>to keep cool in the summer without air-tight doors?
Mark, I hope you know the difference between
a potato and a body.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Nov 3 22:09:48 PST 1996
Article: 78401 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!
news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!news.stealth.net!
demos!news1.relcom.ru!EU.net!news-peer.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 4 Nov 1996 00:10:48 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 50
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55jtso$ode@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.news-fddi.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine WROTE ON 03 Nov 1996

> Brian Harmon wrote on 1 Nov 1996

> >#And yet, the corpse chute in the Leichenkeller
> >#was _removed_ and annotated in the plans.
>> Ceacaa wrote:
>> Wrong. The chute was built. It didn’t show in Bauleitung
>> drawing 2003. The removal was not annotated.

VanAlstine writes:
>Clearly, Mr. Allen, you have lied by ommision in
>trying to offer your lame Nazi apologia as to why
>the homicidal modifications to Kremas II and III
>were _not_ a clear indication of the homicidal
>intent of the Nazis.

Uh, Mark. Was the corpse chute built or not?

and was the removal annotated in drawing 2003?

Ceacaa writes:
>> Corpses were first brought into Leichenkeller 2,
>> the room nearest the central Camp Road. There they
>> were undressed, checked for valuables, and other
>> wise “processed”.
Van Alstine asks:
>And how were these “corpses” brought into L.Keller 2, Mr. Allen?

The installation of an acess stairway leading
directly from the northyard of Krematorium II to
a basement antechamber between the “goldworking”
room and the associated office, and then to the junction between
Leichenkeller 2 and 1. The western access stairway direct to Leichenkeller
2 was not yet planned [the first mention
of it found in the PMO Bauleitung files being
dated 26th February 1943],

>> They were then carried into
>> Leichenkeller 1 (which served as cool storage).

>Why would these “corpses” be carried from
>one “morgue” to another, Mr. Allen?
Leichenkeller 2 was a working room
where the corpses were undressed, searched.
Leichenkeller 1 was kept cooler for dead storage.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Nov 5 07:31:54 PST 1996
Article: 78575 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 5 Nov 1996 15:12:41 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 69
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961105151500.KAA10685@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <55maqo$ej4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news-fddi.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote 04 Nov 1996
> Mark Van Alstine WROTE ON 03 Nov 1996
>
> >># Brian Harmon wrote on 1 Nov 1996
> > >#And yet, the corpse chute in the Leichenkeller
> > >#was _removed_ and annotated in the plans.
> >>>> Ceacaa wrote:
> >>>> Wrong. The chute WAS built. It didn’t show in Bauleitung
> >>>> drawing 2003. The removal was NOT annotated.

> > VanAlstine writes:
>> >Clearly, Mr. Allen, you have lied by ommision in
>> >trying to offer your lame Nazi apologia as to why
> >>the homicidal modifications to Kremas II and III
>> >were _not_ a clear indication of the homicidal
> >>intent of the Nazis.
> CEACAA asked
>> Uh, Mark. Was the corpse chute built or not?

>Mr. Allen, you dishonestly quoted Pressac.
>You lied by ommision.
CEACAA asks again
Uh, Mark. Was the corpse chute built or not?

> >>>> Ceacaa wrote:
>>>>> and was the removal annotated in drawing 2003?
[VanAlstine]
>Mr. Allen, was not the corspe chute in previous drawings?
[Ceacaa asks again]
and was the removal ANNOTATED in drawing 2003?

THE USE OF THE LEICHENKELLERS AS LEICHENKELLERS
>>> Ceacaa writes:
> >> Corpses were first brought into Leichenkeller 2,
> >> the room nearest the central Camp Road. There they
> >> were undressed, checked for valuables, and other
> >> wise “processed”.
>. Van Alstine asks:
> >And how were these “corpses” brought into L.Keller 2, Mr. Allen?

>> The installation of an acess stairway leading
>> directly from the northyard of Krematorium II to
>> a basement antechamber between the “goldworking”
>> room and the associated office, and then to the junction >>between
>> Leichenkeller 2 and 1. The western access stairway >>direct to
Leichenkeller
>> 2 was not yet planned [the first mention
>> of it found in the PMO Bauleitung files being
>> dated 26th February 1943],

> >> They were then carried into
> >> Leichenkeller 1 (which served as cool storage).
>
> >Why would these “corpses” be carried from
> >one “morgue” to another, Mr. Allen?
> Leichenkeller 2 was a working room
> where the corpses were undressed, searched.
> Leichenkeller 1 was kept cooler for dead storage.
[VanAlstine]
>Kept cooler? I see. I guess that’s why Pru”fer
> planned to HEAT L.Keller 1,
>eh, Mr. Allen? Too keep it “cooler.”
A morgue is not a frozen meat locker, Mark.
For three or four months of the year, the room
would probably have to be kept above freezing.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Nov 5 17:44:57 PST 1996
Article: 78578 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 5 Nov 1996 15:14:36 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 65
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961105151700.KAA10698@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <55maqo$ej4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news-fddi.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 04 Nov 1996 (Ceacaa) wrote:
>
> >> Yes I have. Four weeks of slave labor was not worth
> >> the price of a train ride from Vilna to Crakow, let alone
> >> from Paris. Throw on the cost of the guards, the camp,
> >> the disinfectant, the security problems and you have
> >> a system that screams “red ink.”
>
> >Really, Mr. Allen? Perchance you forgot to
>>include the value of the
> >victims’ possesions that were stolen
>>from them by the Nazis?
> >”The highest echelons of the SS once estimated the profit
>>generated by the average concentration camp prisoner.
>>The value of money, valuables, clothing, personal belongings,
>> and teeth of precious metals reached 200 RM
> >($91) after the costs of burning the body had been deducted.
>> not including the value of the victim’s bones,
[kurtstel]
> All these still could have been obtained through
>on-site gas chambers,
> completely eliminating the need for superfluous and expensive
transportation.
> Try again.
[alstine]
>I see. Mr. Smith, evidently you do not understand
>the concept of “economies of scale?” Pity. It _might_
>have saved you from looking the
>fool.
TREBLINKA VS. AUSCHWITZ
When the Holocaust myth was first forming
Auschwitz was thought to have claimed 4,000,000
victims while Treblinka was thought to have claimed
1,000,000. Therefore, part of the myth was that
Auschwitz was the “modern, effiecient, industrial”
way the clever Germans had designed mass murder
and Treblinka was the primative test.
Clearly this appeared true if one looked at the
respective camp facilities; Auschwitz/Birkenau had big
brick and concrete buildings, covered a vast area
over 1 km. square: Treblinka was just an acre or two
which never had more than a few buildings.

Under the new figures of one million or less
for Auschwitz vs. one million for Treblinka this
old picture does not fit. Further, Treblinka allegedly
killed people much faster. If you NOW compare
Treblinka with Auschwitz/Birkenau, Treblikna
comes out as a faster, more effective, easier to
establish and a cheaper method of mass murder.
Treblinka and Auschwitz were equally “secure”
locations from a secrecy point of view. In fact, since
it was small and unconnected with any Buna plants,
a Treblinka style location would have less subject
to the aerial scrutiny that Monowitz invited.

The point here is that, theft of victims personal
property aside, Mr. VanAlstine’s concept of
“economies of scale” does NOT seem to apply to the
present day stories of Treblinka and Auschwitz/Birkenau
as killing centers. The Treblinka method was clearly
more economic.

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Nov 7 06:12:39 PST 1996
Article: 78734 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!
news.texas.net!news1.best.com!noos.hooked.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Nov 1996 05:09:28 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 62
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961107051200.AAA28883@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <55r90b$f75@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news-fddi.aol.com

Popular stories offer something for everybody.
The Holocaust myth is no exception.
On one hand we are told that the Germans were
insane people who
“at a time when Germany’s military position
was deteriorating …it was plainly an act of madness
to divert precious resources to mass murder.”
William Carr “Nazi policy towards the Jews”
_History Today_ 11/85

Now we have Mark Van Alstine, who wrote on
04 Nov 1996
(Ceacaa) wrote:
>
> >> Four weeks of slave labor was not worth
> >> the price of a train ride from Vilna to Crakow, let alone
> >> from Paris. Throw on the cost of the guards, the camp,
> >> the disinfectant, the security problems and you have
> >> a system that screams “red ink.”
>
> >Really, Mr. Allen? Perchance you forgot to
>>include the value of the
> >victims’ possesions that were stolen from
>>them by the Nazis? >>Given your
> >uninformed claim that the Nazi pogrom of
>>genocide screamed “red ink,” it
> >appears so! To whit:

> >”The highest echelons of the SS once estimated the profit >>generated
by the
> >average concentration camp prisoner. The value of money, valuables,
> >clothing, personal belongings, and teeth of precious metals reached 200
RM
> >($91) after the costs of burning the body had been deducted.
not including the value of the victim’s bones,(Gutman, _Anatomy_, p.262.)

Mark, This is amazing! Do you realize here that you
have the SOLID PROOF that the whole Extermination
program was planned in incredible detail (except
for the value ofthe victim’s bone’s). 91 dollars, what
astonishing detail.
What you have here, Mark, shows that the “highest echelons”
not only knew that they were going to transport
people from France and people from Thrace but
that they knew the value of their personal belongings.
Gee, Mark, just out of curiosity What was the value
of a French transportee’s personal property compared
to a Romanian’s? I bet alot more!
“cost of burning the body” It also shows that the “highest
echelons” most have know what facilities were going
to be used as gas chambers.
Gosh, Mark, just out of curiosity, when did the
“highest echelons of the SS” make their findings?
Were there any other amazing supporting documents?
Do you realize that this incredible “estimate” contradicts
the findings of Pressac and Arno Mayer and
probably shakes the Mommsen-Broszat school
or “structuralist” school too!!
I think you should write Professor Carr today
and let him know just how wrong he is.

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Nov 7 06:12:39 PST 1996
Article: 78735 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!
news.texas.net!news1.best.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 7 Nov 1996 05:19:24 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 27
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961107052200.AAA28966@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news-fddi.aol.com

> Mark Van Alstine wrote 04 Nov 1996

> >Mr. Allen, you dishonestly quoted Pressac. You lied by ommision.

> CEACAA asks again Uh, Mark. Was the corpse chute built or not?

>Uh. Mr. Allen, did you or did you not dishonestly quote >Pressac?
Obviously not. I quoted Pressac to show that
the chute was built…not to discuss his other two
points. Remember, the issue raised was that
the chute WAS NOT BUILT.

[snip]

> >Mr. Allen, was not the corspe chute in previous drawings?
Yes it was but it’s deletion was not annotated.

> [Ceacaa asks again] and was the removal ANNOTATED in drawing 2003?

Now, > CEACAA asks again Mark. Was the corpse chute built or not?
Now, [Ceacaa asks again] and was the removal ANNOTATED in drawing 2003?
Come on Mark, you can do it. Try, Mark
Try telling the truth even if it means agreeing with
a “Denier”. Admit the chute WAS BUILT and the
deletion from the plans WAS NOT annotated.\

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Nov 8 10:57:35 PST 1996
Article: 78853 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!mindspring!uunet!in2.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 8 Nov 1996 05:13:25 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 23
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961108051600.AAA18616@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com

On 04 Nov 1996 wrote:

> >”The highest echelons of the SS once estimated the profit generated by
the
> >average concentration camp prisoner. Based on an average prisoner life
> >expectancy of nine months, the profit totaled 1,431 RM (about $654) per
> >prisoner after deducting costs of upkeep. The value of money,
valuables,
> >clothing, personal belongings, and teeth of precious metals reached 200
RM
> >($91) after the costs of burning the body had been deducted. Thus
> >according to calculations made by the Nazis themselves, the total
average
> >profit from one prisoner, not including the value of the victim’s
bones,
> >totaled 1,631 RM ($745).” (Gutman, _Anatomy_, p.262.)

Mark, if these figures are right then The Germans made
a whole $654 in value presumably in forced labor?
Are you claiming that a Camp inmate was worth $75
per month in forced labor? And why the nine month
figure?
Thank you for explaining yourself.

From ceacaa@aol.com Fri Nov 8 10:57:35 PST 1996
Article: 78854 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!
pipex!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
news.mindspring.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 8 Nov 1996 05:19:04 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 23
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961108052100.AAA18696@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com

OLD CLOTHES NOTHING. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FARM?

>>Mark Van Alstine wrote on 04 Nov 1996
>> Perchance you forgot to include the value of the
> >victims’ possesions that were stolen from them by the Nazis?
He goes on to claim that the estimated value of
old clothes and gold teeth (but excluding the value
of bones) was around 91 dollars.
It struck me that Mark and the silly Nazis forgot
the real value of robbing people. the value of the
houses, farms, cars left behind. $91 (plus bones) is
nothing compared to a nice house in Dietva.
It varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
but the possessions left behind by deported Jews
was put into trustand was to be converted to “Aryan
use” with the proceeds of a allegedly fair market sale being
returned to the dispossessed owners. The reports
were to the effect that the owners got some
money but only a pittance for the fair amount.
Thus, Mark’s dramatic stories about shoes and
bones aside, the Germans created a system that
required compensation for confiscated property.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sat Nov 9 05:37:56 PST 1996
Article: 78954 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!
feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
uunet!in3.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 8 Nov 1996 05:37:36 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 60
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961108054000.AAA19150@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com

The case of the missing corpse chute or
Mark’s missing answer.

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 07 Nov 1996 1

.> > CEACAA asks again Uh, Mark. Was the
>>corpse chute built or not?
>
> >Uh. Mr. Allen, did you or did you not dishonestly quote >Pressac?
>
>> Obviously not. I quoted Pressac to show that
>> the chute was built…not to discuss his other two
>> points.

>Really, Mr. Allen. Amazing than that
>you OMITTED the middle of a sentance
>doing so. I’m afraid that dog don’t hunt.
>You lied then and you just lied
>now.
>Liar.

Looks like Mark has gotten a little giddy again.
Just can’t bring himself to admit that I am
right. Anyway, trying to get Mark VanAlstine
to give an honest answer may have gotten a
little confusing to everybody else.
Pressac makes a big point of the fact
the the corpse chute did not appear on
some late plans of Krema II. There
was NOT an annotation to explain the
deletion of the chute.
In fact the chute appears to have been built.
One can still be seen in the ruins of K. III
A mirror Pressac argument is that
a heating system for Leichenkeller 1
was planned but NOT built.

Thus, the Exterminationist argument
is:
Corpse chute not planned (but built) ahha!!
Heating planned (but not built) Ahha!!!

This is not to dismiss all of Pressac’s
“criminal traces” but these to are
not very powerful.

What is interesting about the plan
(Bauleitung drawing 2003) is that
it was first prepared 12/19/42 but
was not signed off on until MAY 1943.
This indicates a later completion
date and a later approval of the
changes made in the plan.

It is also interest to note that
many plans of the Krema were
prepared by civilian firms,
indicating a much lower level
of security for the “gas chamber”
project that a in house SS planning.

From ceacaa@aol.com Sun Nov 10 06:53:35 PST 1996
Article: 79031 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.good.net!news.good.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!
news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 9 Nov 1996 05:16:23 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 63
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961109051900.AAA09882@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <19961107051200.AAA28883@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine REGURGITATED ABSURDITIES ON
08 Nov 1996 as follows:
>
> > >”The highest echelons of the SS once estimated the profit generated
by
> > >the average concentration camp prisoner. Based on an average prisoner
life
> > >expectancy of nine months, the profit totaled 1,431 RM (about $654)
per
> > >prisoner after deducting costs of upkeep. The value of money,
> > >valuables,clothing, personal belongings, and teeth of precious metals

> > >reached 200 RM ($91) after the costs of burning
>>>the body had been
>>>deducted.
> > >Thus according to calculations made by the Nazis
>>>themselves, the total
> > >average profit from one prisoner, not including
>>>the value of the victim’s
> > >bones, totaled 1,631 RM ($745).” (Gutman, _Anatomy_, p.262.)
> [ CEACA asks]
>> Mark, if these figures are right then The Germans made
>> a whole $654 in value presumably in forced labor?

>Presumably.
[ CEACA asks]
>> Are you claiming that a Camp inmate was worth
>>$75 per month in forced labor?

>Are you claiming they weren’t?
A typical stupid Alstine reply

>> And why the nine month figure?

>Because they didn’t live to ten months?

>> Thank you for explaining yourself.

>You should try it some time!

Then may be you can explain some obvious
inconsistencies in your theory of forced
labor costs (not counting value of bones)
If the Germans were in the forced labor business
for money and making an alleged net profit
of $75 per month per laborer why did they let
their laborer die after nine months?
Also, if labor is so valuable so as to take the
time and cost to set up the camp, guard system
and housing, along with expensive hospital,
saunas, and crematoria, why did they kill
90% (SHM) of the arriving workers?
Your rational of the extermination/labor
camps is that the Germans set them up to
make a profit but then you have them
killing off their labor supply and trained
workers.
Second question-you never bothered to let us
know the date of the amazing estimate by “the highest
echelons of the SS” of profit. It really is a fantastic
document, Mark, please try explaining some of the
assumptions of the estimate.

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Nov 14 10:19:35 PST 1996
Article: 79486 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
winternet.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!news.idt.net!
news.cerf.net!mvb.saic.com!homer.alpha.net!news.ultranet.com!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!
uunet!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 4 Nov 1996 22:03:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55maqo$ej4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <55jttg$oe3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.news-fddi.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 03 Nov 1996

>Furthermore, Mr. Allen, you dishonestly gloss
>over the glaring fact that
>to CARRY corpses down a stairway into
>the L.Kellers was for more time
>consuming, burdensome, and inefficient
>than to simply pull up a cart (or
>truck, etc.) next to the ground level
>antechember where the corpse chute
>was and simply slide the corspes down
>into the vestibule below, where they
>would have been dragged into one of the L.Kellers.

Oddly enough, this was an argument that I raised
as a disadvantage of an UNDERGROUND gas chamber.
Herding people into an underground “shower” and
getting the bodies up to the crematory level.

How do you claim all the bodies were moved?
Are you going to claim that the
Aufzug (corpse lift)was a powerful mechanism capable
of moving a fifty bodies at a time?
How many bodies do you claim were sent up
the little elevator shaft? 250,000, 350,000
450,000?
Was the “aufzug” (corpse lift) designed to handle
two or three bodies at a time or 50-100 bodies?
What does Gutman say?

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Nov 20 06:02:02 PST 1996
Article: 80460 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!
news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Nov 1996 04:27:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <19961120042900.XAA08889@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <56hatd$hqb@news3.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

This way to the Bath, please., or the VanAlstine Tales.

Obviously a vast number of stories about the
“showers” at Birkenau are confused, contradictory
and clearly at odds with the physical evidence at the
site. The stories are of two types:
Whips and dogs-emphasis on force driving the victims
underground; and
Girls in blue skirts playing gay music-emphasis on
pure trickery.
However, as a Revisionist, it was not the most
ridiculous Holocaust story that had to be explained
but the most cogent one. I had shrugged the matter off,
sort of going along with the Whips and Dogs approach.
Then Mark Van Alstine wrote on 07 Nov 1996 a list
of stories. From his quotes, it appears that the
“trickery” stories are clearly SHM. Of course, all of
Alstine’s stories have clear impossiblities in them
but that is grist for another posting.

The physical layout of Kremas II and III does not lend
itself to tricking people into an underground gaschamber.
There was no fence or gate at the back (western)
end of the camp. No crowd control measures and ditches
and trees at the critical area of the turn into the
“gaschambers”. The stairs into the Leichenkeller were
narrow and steep. The Leichenkeller itself was low ceilinged.
By low ceilinged, I mean about 1.9 meters high.
(That’s about 6 feet for you, Mark)
The victims had to walk around the Krema itself (no
looking into the windows). This was an criticism of
the “Girls in blue skirts playing gay music” stories.

Here are the VanAlstine tales snipped to demonstrate the
paramont importance of trickery to the Birkenau
story.

The VanAlstine Tales

SS Unterscarfu”hrer Broad, Political Section (Gestapo) at KL Auschwitz:

“…There at the ramp the cattle vans were being
unloaded and the people who had arrived in them,
were slowly marching towards their unknown
destination.. A few guards without guns, but with
pistols well hidden in their pockets, escorted
the procession to the crematorium. The
SS men promised the people, who were begining to
feel more hopeful, that
they would be employed at suitable work, according
to their occupations.
Explicit instructions as to thier behaviour were
given the SS men by
Ho”ssler. their (sic) were no
uncivil words at that moment. The more fiendish the
whole plan!
Both leaves of the big entrance gate to the
crematorium were wide open.
Suspecting nothing the column marched in,
in lines of five persons, and
stood in the yard.
Somewhat nerviously the SS guard at
the entrance waited
for the last man to enter the yard.
Quickly he shut the gate and bolted
it. Grabner and Ho”ssler were standing on the roof of the crematorium.
Grabner spoke to the Jews who unsuspectingly
awaited their fate.
“‘You will now bathe and be disinfeted, we don’t
wan’t any epidemics in
the camp.
“They willingy followed those instructions,
given them in a friendly,
warm-hearted voice.
Grabner and Ho”ssler continued
>from the roof to give freindly advice which had
a calming effect upon the
people. ‘Put your shoes close to your
clothes bundle, so that you can find
them after the bath’. – “Is the water
warm? Of course, warm showers. –
What is your trade? A shoemaker? We need
them urgently, report to me
immediately after!’ – Such words dispelled
last doubts or lingering
suspicions.
Several SS men had entered
with them, full of jokes and small talk. They
inobtrusuvely kept their
eyes on the entrance. As soon as the last person
had entered, they
dissapeared without much ado. .

(Czech, _KL Auschwitz_, pp.175-176.)

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Nov 20 06:02:02 PST 1996
Article: 80494 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!
istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!
news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Nov 1996 04:29:22 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <19961120043100.XAA08948@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <56hatd$hqb@news3.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

The VanAlstine Tales continued.

SS Obersturmbannfu”hrer Ho”ss, 1st Kommandant of KL Auschwitz:

“In the spring of 1942 [January] the first transports
of Jews arrived from
Upper Silesia. [Camp Commander] Aumeier,
Palitzch, and a few
other block leaders led them and spoke
to them as one would in casual
conversation, asking them about their occupations and their schooling in
order to fool them.

The presence of the Sonderkommando and their
soothing behavior also helped calm the restless
and suspicious. Some of
the SOnderkommando even went with them into the rooms and stayed until the
last moment to keep them calm while
an SS soldier stood in the doorway.
The most important thing, of course,
was to maintain as mucg peace and
quitr as possible during the process
of arriving and undressing. If some
did not want to undress, some of
those already undressed as well as the
Sonderkommando had to help them undress.

“With quite talk and persuasion even those who resisted were soothed and
udressed.
The Sonderkommando, which was composed
of prisoners, took great
pains that the process of undressing took
place very quickly so that the
victims had no time to think about what
was happening. Actually the eager
assistance of the Sonderkommando during
the undressing and the processin
into the gas chambers was very peculiar.
Never did I see or hear even a
syllable breathed to those who were
going to be gassed as to what their
fate was. On the contrary, they tried
everything to fool them. Most of
all, they tried to calm those who
seeed to guess what was ahead/ Even
though they might not believe the
SS soldiers, they would have complete
trust in those of their own race. For this
reon the SOnderkommando was
always composed of Jews from
the same country as those who were being sent
to the gas chambers.” (Ho”ss, _Death Dealer_, pp. 157-158.)

Prisoner Doctor, and Auschwitz survivor, Miklos Nyiszli :

“…Five abreast the group entered the courtyard;
And not, as the German lie had made the
right-hand column suppose in order to
allay their anxiety, a camp for the
sick and children, where the infirm
cared for the little ones.

“They advanced with slow weary steps.
The SS guards who recieved the convoys were
used to the scene. They waited patiently till each
had quenched his thirst
and filled his container. IN any case, the guards
knew that as long as
they not drunk their (sic) would be no getting
them back in line.
Slowly they
began to re-form their ranks. Then
they advanced for about 100 yards along
a cinder path edged with green grass to an
iron ramp, from which 10 or 12
concrete steps led underground to an
enourmus room dominated by a large
sign in German, French, Greek and Hungarian:
‘Bath and Disinfecting Room.’
The sign was reassuring, and allayed the m
isgivings of fears of even the
most suspicious among them. They went down
the stairs almost gaily.
Numerous signs in several
languages drew everyoe’s attention to the necessity of tying his clothes
and shoes together

“‘That’s really a German order,’ commented those
who had long been
inclined to admire the Germans.
(Nyiszli, _Auschwitz_,
pp.48-51.)

From ceacaa@aol.com Wed Nov 20 06:02:03 PST 1996
Article: 80530 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!dciteleport.com!
feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Nov 1996 05:56:04 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <19961120055800.AAA10664@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <19961120043800.XAA09140@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

The VanAlstine Tales (continued)

In the center of the room, at thirty-yard intervals,
columns rose from the concrete floor to the
ceiling.
THIRTY-YARD INTERVALS? THAT IS NOT CORRECT,
IS IT, MARK?
(Nyiszli, _Auschwitz_,
pp.48-51.)

Well Mark. Your stories, supposedly given by
eyewitnesses-Nyiszli claims to have lived in
the Krema, right next to the gaschambers-
seem to be full of significant inaccuracies
when compared to the actual building structures.

How do you explain the descriptions of:
1. Standing on the Crematorium roof;
2. The entrance “hall”;
3. The “iron ramp”
4. The enourmus (sic) room with the 6 foot ceiling;
5. The description of the Leichenkeller as being
200 yards long;
6. 3,000 people undressing in the room;
7. The claim that Leichekeller 1 and 2 connected;
8. Thirty yards between porous pillars?
Or do you just accept these stories without
thinking about them? And get furious with
people who do?

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Nov 25 06:23:06 PST 1996
Article: 80714 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Nov 1996 05:53:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <19961120055600.AAA10637@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <19961120043800.XAA09140@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 07 Nov 1996
Comments in Capitals

SS Unterscarfu”hrer Broad, Political Section (Gestapo) at KL Auschwitz:

Somewhat nerviously the SS guard at the entrance waited
for the last man to enter the yard. Quickly he shut the gate and bolted
it. GEE, MARK, JUST ONE GUARD AND THREE
THOUSAND VICTIMS. NO WONDER HE WAS NERVOUS!

Grabner and Ho”ssler were standing on the roof
of the crematorium.
THE CREMATORIUM HAS A SHARPLY PEAKED ROOF-
NO STANDING POSSIBLE-

Grabner spoke to the Jews
You wil be employed in accordance with your professional
qualifications.
GEE, MARK, WHY KILL THESE “PROFESSIONALS”-THAT’S
NOT PART OF THE STORY YOU GAVE LAST WEEK.
REMEMBER, MAKE MONEY FROM THEM-SLAVE LABOR,
ETC.
Grabner and Ho”ssler continued
>from the roof to give freindly (SIC)advice.
MARK, DO YOU THINK THEY WERE REALLY ON THE
ROOF OF THE CREMATORIUM?

What is your trade? A shoemaker? We need
them urgently,
UH, DIDN’T THEY?

The first lines entered the morturary thrugh the hall.
MARK, YOU KNOW THERE IS NO “HALL” AT
ANY OF THE CREMAS.

They looked in vain for showers or water pipes fixed to the
ceiling. TRY GETTING YOUR STORY STRAIGHT-LAST WEEK
THE “BIG PROOF” WAS THE SUPPOSED SHOWER HEADS
IN CREMA 2.

Suddenly the door was closed.
DOOR OR DOORS?

They were screwed with screws,
NO SCREWS ON THE DOOR TO LEICHENKELLER 2.

Several victims noticed that the covers
had been removed from the six
holes in the ceiling.
SIX HOLES? I THOUGHT YOU SAID FOUR, MARK

They uttered a loud cry of terror when they saw a
head in a gas-mask in one opening.
IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE GIVEN THE ALLEGED
STRUCTURE OF MARK’S MAGIC POROUS PILLAR

Immediately after opening
the tins, their contents was thrown into the holes
which were then quickly
covered….”
WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR POROUS PILLARS, MARK?
(Czech, _KL Auschwitz_, pp.175-176.)

Prisoner Doctor, and Auschwitz survivor, Miklos Nyiszli :

Then they advanced for about 100 yards along
a cinder path edged with green grass to an iron ramp,
IRON RAMP?? NO SIGN OF THAT ANYWHERE.

>from which 10 or 12 concrete steps led underground
to an enourmus (SIC) room dominated by a large
sign in German, French, Greek and Hungarian:
‘Bath and Disinfecting Room.’
MARK, YOU SHOULD TELL EVERYBODY HOW TALL THE
CEILING IS IN THE LEICHENKELLER- HINT. ABOUT 6 FEET.

They went down the stairs almost gaily.
MARK, TELL THE PEOPLE HOW WIDE THE STAIRS ARE.

“The room in which the convoy proceeeded
was about 200 yards long:
MARK, TELL THE PEOPLE HOW LONG THE ROOM REALLY
IS.

its walls were whitewashed
ANY SIGN OF WHITEWASH? NO.
and it was brightly lit.
MORE MISSTATEMENTS. ACTUALLY THE ROOM WAS
LIGHTED BY A SINGLE ROW OF LIGHTS DOWN THE
MIDDLE.

so that thousands of pairs of good shoes
sorely needed by the THird Reich would not get mixed up.
RIGHT, KILL THE SHOEMAKER BUT STEAL HIS SHOES.

“There were 3,000 people in the room: men, women and children.
DIDN’T THEY SEPERATE THE MEN AND WOMEN (SHM)?
MARK, DO YOU THINK 3,000 PEOPLE COULD HAVE
UNDRESSED IN LEICHENKELLER 2?
SOme of the soldiers arrived
MAKE THAT 3000 PLUS SOME SOLDIERS

were helped by a Sonderkommando squad sent for that
purpose.
HERE IS “THE EAGER SONDERKOMMANDO” AGAIN-STRANGE.

In ten minutes all were completely naked, their clothes hung on
the pegs, their shoes attached together by their laces. As for the number
of each clothes hanger, it had been carefully noted.

“Making his way through the crowd, an SS opend the swig-doors of the large
oaken gate at the end of the room. The crowd flowed through into another
equally well-lighted room.
ACTUALLY, WE KNOW THAT THE TWO LEICHENKELLER
ARE NOT CONNECTED, DON’T WE MARK?-THERE ARE
SEVERAL SMALL ROOMS AND AN “ANTECHAMBER”
SEPERATING THEM.

The second room ws the same size as the first,
IT IS NOT 200 YARDS LONG

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Nov 25 06:23:07 PST 1996
Article: 80781 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!newsfeed.luth.se!news.luth.se!
newsfeed.sunet.se!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news.sprintlink.net!
news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 Nov 1996 04:36:41 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <19961120043800.XAA09140@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <56hatd$hqb@news3.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

The VanAlstine Tales, Continued
“Suspecting nothing the column marched in,”
“A few guards without guns,”
advice “given them in a friendly,
warm-hearted voice.”
SS men “full of jokes and small talk.”
“With quite talk and persuasion ”

The whole thing was based on tricks!!!
Even the Germans were aware of the precariousness
of their “fiendish” plan, “Somewhat nerviously the
SS guard at the entrance waited…”
but of course, they didn’t
do anything about it like put up a fence or design a
gaschamber that looked a little like a shower.
They even kept their guns hidden.

Of course, nothing actually at the site today
supports VanAlstines stories.
The Auschwitz Album has pictures of an actual
arrival at Birkenau. Needless to say, all of VanAlstine’s
stories are contradicted by real photographs.

The eager Sondercommando
If you really believed these stories, the very odd
but vital role of the Sondercommandos becomes
apparent. “The eager assistance of the Sonderkommando”
as Hoess calls it. The testimony of these
“eager” assistants like Tauber, who told incredible
stories about the Germans to justify his own actions,
which are a key support of the stories of
mass gassings.
The Sondercommando were given special
treatment, they lived at the edge of camp with
little or no security, and they eagerly assisted the
Germans.

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Nov 25 06:23:08 PST 1996
Article: 80794 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 21 Nov 1996 05:26:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <19961121052800.AAA03299@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <32939ec0.76799650@news.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

>> 6. 3,000 people undressing in the room;
>Do you not think that 3,000 people could _not_ be
>crammed into L.Keller 1.
Your quote was about 3,000 people being tricked into
a room and UNDRESSING there, not being “crammed”
into a particular space. L.Keller 2’s interior measured
7.93 m x 49.43 m. (TECHNIQUE. p.327.) That’s
about 26′ x 164′ or 4264 square feet, NOT counting
pillars, benches, guards. The story you quoted
has 3,000 people (plus the eager Sondercommandos
and guards) packed into and getting UNDRESSED
in about 1.4 square feet per person.
I suggest you, Danny Keren, J. Morris, Yale, (maybe Sara
Perrrfect will go too), Gord McFee, Jamie and 2 others
all get into your regular 3′ by 4′ shower (only with 6.5
feet of headroom). Please try to disrobe. Multiply
the scene by 300 and you will see why the story you
fervently quote actually might seem a little “incorrect”

>> 7. The claim that Leichekeller 1 and 2 connected;

>No such explicit claim was made, Mr. Allen.
>When one has the werewithall to examine the
>construction documents of
>Krema II to before commenting on this, it
>becomes quite obvious that a
>small vestibule connected L.Kellers 1 and 2.
Little connecting room left out. Sort impedes the
“flow” of people doesn’t it? Especially at densities
of 1.4 people per sq. foot. Forgot the other basement
rooms too, didn’t he?

> Considering this,
Considering what? That Nysizli didn’t look at the
plans before giving his “testimony”?

>one can easily forgive Nysizli for
>not being more explicit and mentioning such
>a small room as the vestibule was.

Yes, such a small room, so inconvient to the story.
Why be explicit when talking about the murder scene
of 100,000’s of people? Why bother with a an
extra room or two? Nysizli was only a self-proclaimed
rare “eyewitness” to murders, no need to be accurate,
no historical value here.

>It simply was not important to the narrative.
>A narrative who’s purpose, lest we forget, was
>in describing the horror of a mass homicidal
>gassing -and not the minutae of the Krema’s
contruction and layout.
Nyiszli spends a lot of time describing the Krema’s
layout, most of it wrong.
Of course, the point is to get some idea of the accuracy
of Nyiszli. As you just write, he is not accurate.

>Your nit-picking over Nyiszli’s ommision of
>such minutae, for example,
>makes one wonder as to your motivations.
“nit-picking”? Missing the lenght of the gas chamber
by 450 feet is minutae? Forgetting rooms, putting
people into Undressing rooms at 1 per 1.4 sq. feet
minutae. Rember, this guy claims to be a doctor
who lived in Krema II. Not a guess based on a quick peek.
Let’s see what your “eyewitness” says about the
vital Zyclon induction holes.

>> 8. Thirty yards between porous pillars?

>>Incorrect. The spacing was likely on the order of 4.45 meters

Your eyewitness is incorrect again by a factor of 6.
By the way, he implys that there were 200 yards divided
by 30 yards or SIX vents. This ties in with the number
in another quote you posted. Of course, ol’ Doctor N.
couldn’t bothered to be clear on such minor details
as the number of vents. What do you think he meant?

Why you post stories with so many inaccuracies in them?
You just admitted that these stories do not conform to
what you know is at the site in any specific point,
ie. size, number of rooms, number of people in rooms,
SS officers on the roof, Hallways into the Leichenkeller.
As I asked
>> Do you just accept these stories without
>> thinking about them? And get furious with
>> people who do?

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Nov 25 06:23:09 PST 1996
Article: 81031 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ridgecrest.ca.us!
news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!dciteleport.com!
phase2.worldnet.att.net!feed1.news.erols.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 Nov 1996 05:31:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <19961122053300.AAA25254@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 21 Nov 1996

>Mr. Smith is indeed lying through his teeth.
>I find that rather duplicitous and evidence of a lack of
>integrity on Mr. Smith’s part.

>But then who ever claimed that Mr. Smith
> _wasn’t_ duplicitous or _had_ any integrity? Not I.

>For those interested in proof…[snip Mark’s gibbering]

Now, now,Mark, you have posted stories of a 200 yard-long
gaschambers, of 3,000 people undressing in a 4,000 Square
foot room, of people going into halls which never existed,
stories which omit inconvient rooms. You admit that
these elements of the stories are “incorrect” (your
own word) but seem to get furious when other people
question the accuracy of the stories.
You post stories you know are incorrect: Does that
mean you are lying and duplicitious? You keep telling
everyone that the events were incredible. Well, some
people are incredulous.
Anyway, why don’t you try dealing with some valid
questions about the so-called “eyewitness” tesimony you
have such faith in.

Reflections of the 4,000,000 Story
For example, these stories were usually recorded at
a time when the claimed death count at Auschwitz was
4,000,000. By your own lights a 4 fold exaggeration.
Did you notice that Nyiszli gave an approximately 4 fold exaggeration in
the size of the Leichenkeller/gaschamber?
Hoess “confession” also ties in with the 4,000,000
figure, he claimed to have killed 2,500,000 before
he left the camp in 1944. You never replied when I
asked you about Olga Lengyel’s story entitled
Five Chimneys. She has stories of ladling boiling
human fat and using babies as kindling and SHE
claims 4,000,000 died at Auschwitz.
Would it surprise you too much if the testimonies
you have such faith in were adapted to accomodate
the 4,000,000 figure? Or do you consider them
gospel-like “narratives”?

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Nov 25 06:23:09 PST 1996
Article: 81327 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!
news.clic.net!news.alfred.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!mr.net!news.idt.net!news.bbnplanet.com!
cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 Nov 1996 05:30:04 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <19961122053200.AAA25211@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <3293d184.237679440@news.micron.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 21 Nov 1996

>Mr. Smith is indeed lying through his teeth.
>I find that rather duplicitous and evidence of a lack of
>integrity on Mr. Smith’s part.

>But then who ever claimed that Mr. Smith
> _wasn’t_ duplicitous or _had_ any integrity? Not I.

>For those interested in proof…[snip Mark’s gibbering]

Now, now,Mark, you have posted stories of a 200 yard-long
gaschambers, of 3,000 people undressing in a 4,000 Square
foot room, of people going into halls which never existed,
stories which omit inconvient rooms. You admit that
these elements of the stories are “incorrect” (your
own word) but seem to get furious when other people
question the accuracy of the stories.
You post stories you know are incorrect: Does that
mean you are lying and duplicitious? You keep telling
everyone that the events were incredible. Well, some
people are incredulous.
Anyway, why don’t you try dealing with some valid
questions about the so-called “eyewitness” tesimony you
have such faith in.

Reflections of the 4,000,000 Story
For example, these stories were usually recorded at
a time when the claimed death count at Auschwitz was
4,000,000. By your own lights a 4 fold exaggeration.
Did you notice that Nyiszli gave an approximately 4 fold exaggeration in
the size of the Leichenkeller/gaschamber?
Hoess “confession” also ties in with the 4,000,000
figure, he claimed to have killed 2,500,000 before
he left the camp in 1944. You never replied when I
asked you about Olga Lengyel’s story entitled
Five Chimneys. She has stories of ladling boiling
human fat and using babies as kindling and SHE
claims 4,000,000 died at Auschwitz.
Would it surprise you too much if the testimonies
you have such faith in were adapted to accomodate
the 4,000,000 figure? Would it surprise you
if Stalin’s propaganda machine cranked out a
few whoppers at the time? Or do you consider all
testimony gospel-like “narratives”?

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Nov 25 06:23:10 PST 1996
Article: 81560 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!
hookup!chi-news.cic.net!feeder.chicago.cic.net!
wolverine.hq.cic.net!news.worldpath.net!news-out.internetmci.com!
peerfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!
howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 24 Nov 1996 17:21:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <19961124172300.MAA22056@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

(Jamie McCarthy 23 Nov 1996
mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

> Whining about Nysizli not mentioning the vestibule
> between the L.Kellers […]

Chief@rabbi.com (a troll) wrote:

>> Between the two LKs, right? BETWEEN the two, as >>in LK I and
LK II
>> right?
>
>> As in those two buildings that were behind
>>KR II and KR III right?

>Wrong.

NO, JAMIE IS WRONG. The little vestibule, along
witn elevator shaft and other rooms is between
Leichenkeller 1 and Leichenkeller 2.
This room would impede crowd movement,
especially at the Hoaxter numbers claimed,
ie. at one person per 1.4 square feet.
Of course, Hoaxters like Jamie and VanAlstine
never mention this and then DENY its importance
when brought up.
It is only one omission in a string made by
Nyiszli, Gaschambers which are two football
fields long, 90 feet beween the (nonexistent)
Zyclon induction vents.

From ceacaa@aol.com Tue Nov 26 06:24:38 PST 1996
Article: 82021 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!
news.eznet.net!news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!
dciteleport.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!
portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 26 Nov 1996 05:02:27 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <19961126050400.AAA01927@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <32997b4c.5404729@news.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote 23 Nov 1996

#> >Mr. Smith is indeed lying through his teeth.

CEACAA
>> Now, now,Mark, you have posted stories of a 200 yard-long
>> gaschambers, of 3,000 people undressing in a 4,000 Square
>> foot room, of people going into halls which never existed,
>> stories which omit inconvient rooms. You admit that
>> these elements of the stories are “incorrect” (your
>> own word) but seem to get furious when other people
>> question the accuracy of the stories….

>I _agreed_ with you that these
>estimates were wrong.
>The _real_ issue here, Mr. Allen, is that _you_ assert
>that because a few
>of the details of Nyiszli’s narrative are wrong and that this >”proves”
>that Nyiszli is an unreliable witness; that by
>implication _all_ the
>details of his narrative are wrong; and by
>extension that homicidal
>gassings _didn’t_ take place at Krema II!

“By implication”? “extenstion” , I have not argued any
of that. You are projecting, Mark.
As I have said before:
“Revisionist must explain the best “witness” account,
not simply point out the obvious frauds.
I know next to nothing about Nyiszli other than
that his account is most remarkable and
has the inaccuracies in it (as we have both agreed).
Nyiszli may have been at Birkenau or he may
not really have existed. I am not in a position to
say. It would make an interesting paper for
some history student.

Anyway, I think the inaccuarcies are important.
You don’t. Once we have identified them, that is
about as far as we can take this one. So…

Back to Nyiszli’s account of Krema II:
Nyiszli claimed that 3,000 people at a time undressed
in Leichenkeller 2. You and I know that Leichenkeller 2
is approximately 4,000 sq. ft. in size subtracting the
columns adding a few guards and Sondercommandos.
That’s is (generously) about 1.5 sq. ft per person to undress
in.

For anyone out there in cyberland who is interested
(hello, hello) and wants to test Nyiszli’s story.
Put a yard stick (or a one meter rod) on the floor.
Mark off a three foot by three foot space. 9 sq. feet.
Then get six people to stand inside the space. Then
get them to take off their cloths. (Note: They should
be very good friends).
To be fair, I should note that Mark VanAlstine
once posted that the distance from the tip of his
index finger to his wrist was 9 cm. so maybe he
wouldn’t have a problem
undressing in 1.5 sq. ft.

As to the other “few details”, res ipsa locutor.
In this same posting you admit he is off by a factor
of 400 percent: a gas chamber twice as large as a
football field, etc. etc.

>> You post stories you know are incorrect….

>No. I have no reason to disbelieve what Nyiszli wrote…
400 percent off?-200 yard gaschambers?
3,000 people undressing in a 4,000 sq. ft. room?
You giggle it off with your “theories” it
was a “coded message in regard that the Soviet
claim of 4 million killed at Auschwitz incorrect”:
You have an insouciance which is next to sick.
As I wrote: You post stories you know are incorrect
and then freely accuse others of “intellectual dishonesty”.
Well, at least you admit the connection beween these
stories and Soviet propaganda.

For others who may not know it (and Mark the Hoaxter
isn’t about to point it out) Nyiszli claimed to have
lived in Krema II, to have been a doctor and a trained
observer, an eyewitness to every major type of Nazi
crime at Birkenau, an assistane to Mengele, and,
a miraclous survivor. As I said, an amazing story.

From ceacaa@aol.com Thu Nov 28 07:01:27 PST 1996
Article: 82179 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
news.mci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dciteleport.com!
feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!
audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 26 Nov 1996 05:13:10 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <19961126051500.AAA02108@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <329aa02a.951332675@news.zilker.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

Mike Curtis 25 Nov 1996
>Well, I would say, because they are the
>memories of one individual who
>was there. Human memories are tricky
>things and not all individuals
>spend time thinking about being exact
>when confronted with
>documentation that shows that
>their memories exaggerated distances or
>numberic values gathered during
>difficult situations.

Don’t let any Texan hear you say that!
Actually, I would agree with you. The “value”
of a witness is not precluded by mistakes in
numeric values or distances.
However, Nyiszli was a Ph.d, had months
to make his observations and a definite
sense of the importance of his observations.
These factors make his mistakes odd.

Without knowing more about the man
or at least the genisis of his book, it is
hard to really evaluate his story.

From ceacaa@aol.com Mon Dec 9 05:18:39 PST 1996
Article: 84602 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!
news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!
newspump.sol.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ceacaa@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 5 Dec 1996 03:01:52 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <19961205030300.WAA17020@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

The fact that Chief@rabbi.com is
wrong about the association of
the Leichenkellers with Krema II and III
does not make you Right.

In both Krema II and Krema III
Leichenkeller 1 and 2 were seperated by
a small antechamber with elevator shaft
and other small rooms attached.
The point is that the actual floorplan was
misstated by Nyiszli and would have impeded
the “flow” of victims at anything at the crowd
densities Nyiszli claims ie. 3,000 in the
Leichenkeller’s 4,000 sq. feet.

From mvanalst@rbi.com Thu May 30 20:44:46 PDT 1996
Article: 40264 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!
imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.zeitgeist.net!rbi144.rbi.com!user
From: mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 15:18:40 -0700
Organization: rbi software systems
Lines: 168
Message-ID:
References: <4oecbb$4cf@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4oh6p3$mbk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbi142.rbi.com
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.0.5b5

In article <4oh6p3$mbk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:

> On April 14 John Morris wrote:

[snip]

> >I can see why this retreat might be necessary: the explanation
> >that you offered was pretty much of a bust.
>
> Actually, the theory that the three existing holes were
> created as part of the demolition process seems to becoming
> the Standard Exterminationist Explaination.

[snip]

Ceacaa, that’s a pretty amazing statement. It is also untrue. The claim
that “the three existing vent holes were created as part of the demolition
process” was origionally put forward by none other than yourself, and to
which the traditionalists, myself included, have never (to my knowledge)
endorsed!

To whit:

In article <4jajio$ur@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
“My belief is that three holes were chipped through the roof as part of
the demolition process in November or December of 1944.”

In article <4k2eu8$74p@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
“My assumption that the holes were part of the demolition process arises
>from the state of the holes, not from any expert understanding of
demolition. The holes presently on the roof are of irregular shape,
varing size, chipped in after the roof was origninally poured. The rebar
of the roof is still in the holes, cut in one place and bent out of the
way.”

In addition, Ceacaa, you have made several other past claims regarding the
holes through which Zyklon B was introduced which I am now, having
procurred a copy of Pressac’s _Techique_, prepared to address in detail:

Claim 1:

In article <4ev93t$cv1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
“I have been into the so-called gaschambers of Crema II and III. There are
no remains of any porous pillars. The structure’s roof is built of
poured-in-place concrete. The pattern of the woodforms is visible in the
concrete, as are holes for fitings and conduit. Anything which was
attached to the ceiling would have left holes or fittings. There are none
around the 3 “vents” through which the pellets were poured and the porous
pillars attached.”

Response to Claim 1:

As to the alleged lack of any retaining fixtures in the ceiling for the
Zyklon B introduction columns, this would be in accordance with the fact
that the columns passed _through_ the roof of the L.Keller and was likley
surrounded by a “chimney,” much like that found in the reconstruction of
the Zyklon B vents of Krema I (_Technique_, p.150), which would firmly
hold the top of the column in place.

The fixed portion of the introduction column was approximately 3 meters in
length. If you were to study the Huta drawings 109/13A and 109/14A of
21/9/43 (_Technique_, pp.322-325), you would see the inside dimension for
the floor to ceiling height of L.Keller 1 to be 2.40 meters and that the
roof of L.Keller 1 is about 26 cm thick. This would imply that the fixed
portion of the introduction columns protruded about 40 cm above the
concrete roof of L.Keller 1. This is in general accord with Piper’s
description that says: “…they passed through openenings in the ceiling,
ending outside as little chimneys closed with a concrete cover equipped
with two handles.” (_Anatomy_, p.167.)

Claim 2:

In article <4ev93t$cv1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
“The vent holes are crudely chipped in. Re-enforcing steel rods are in the
roof. These rods transversed the holes. The re-bar was cut in one place
and bent out of the way at the vents. Whoever chipped the holes in the
roof did not even bother to finish cutting the re-bar., it is still in
place.”

In article <4g2a3k$qc8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
“I repeat that I am talking about roof of Leichenhalle 1 Crema II.
Although there is a hole in the ground at the site of the alleged
gaschamber there is something in the hole. I had hoped that J. Morris
would make a clear response to my request for confirmation what is there.
All readers of this thread should rely on Pressac. Please refer to Pressac
Technique & Operation at page 354….”

In article <4gnu3d$728@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
“…You would come to a conclusion regarding the roof of the alleged
gaschamber by reference to the sources upon which you normally rely. I
refered you to Pressac _Auschwitz Technique …_ at page 354 et seq. I
would hope that other informed persons would confirm my personal
observations….”

Response to Claim 2:

In regards to the photo on page 354 of _Technique_ being a Zyklon B
introduction hole, Pressac indeed states that this is one of the _two_
remaining Zyklon B introduction holes. However, I see no evidence (as you
claim) that the “rebar of the roof is still in the holes, cut in one place
and bent out of the way.” What I see are some bent or flattened weed/grass
stems protruding into the left of the hole. There is no evidence of any
rebar.

Furthermore, a close-up photograph of a Zyklon B introduction hole of
L.Keller 1 of Krema II also shows no evidence of rebar in it, nor does it
appear to be
“crudely chipped in.” (Document 46 and caption, _Technique_; pp.228-229.)

Claim 3:

In article <4l23ht$mqk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
“My question to you, to be answered once we can agree on how much of the
roof still exists, is “How many of the vent holes exist today?” I say
3.”

Response to Claim 3:

Pressac states that there are TWO remaining Zyklon B introduction holes in
the roof of L.Keller 1 of Krema II (Photo b”’ and caption, _Technique_;
p.354.)

Where is your evidence, Ceacaa, of the third remaining Zyklon B
introduction hole?

It is also important to note that on the memorandum acknowleding the
receipt of Krema II there were FOUR Drahtnetzeinscheibvorrichtung (wire
netting inserting devices) listed, which clearly implies that there were
FOUR Zyklon B introduction holes in the roof of L.Keller 1. (_Anatomy_,
p.233; _Techique_, p.232, 430.) An Allied air photograph of Krema II,
taken on August 25, 1944, appears confirm that there were FOUR holes in
the roof of L.Keller 1, as they show FOUR “chimneys” on its roof. (_Air
Photo Evidence_, p.46. Source: National Archives Air Photo Library,
Washington, D.C.; RG 373 Can F 5367, exp. 3185.)

Claim 4:

In article <4k7mou$qas@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
“But my question is what to make of a conflict between the document and
what is on the site today, for example the document says the mesh pillar
was 70 cm by 70 cm but the holes are all less than 40 cm?”

Response to Claim 4:

The existance and size of the vent holes are confirmed by Document 46 and
caption, and the Bauleitung drawing 1300 (_Technique_, pp. 228-229,297). A
measurment of the drainage manholes in drawing 1300 gives the size of the
manhole to be about 60 cm x 60 cm. Document 46 show the _manhole_ cover in
the photo to be smaller than the Zyklon B vent hole. Given that the
introduction column is described as going _through_ the roof (_Anantomy_,
p.167) it is very likely then that the dimensions of the Zyklon B vent
holes were about 70 cm x 70 cm, which corrosponds to the dimensions of the
fixed portion of the Zyklon B introduction column that would pass through
it.

Mark

posted/e-mailed to Mr. Morris, Dr. Keren, and Ceacaa.

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

— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “The Gulag Archipelago”
——————————————————————————–

From jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Sun Sep 8 08:20:54 PDT 1996
Article: 63449 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.cstone.net!newshost.cyberramp.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!
tribune.usask.ca!news.uregina.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news
From: jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Ceacaa’s Honor (was: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…)
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 22:03:45 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <3231e7ed.13746893@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
References: <50kmpf$3qm@arl-news-svc-3.compuserve.com> <50s2vb$kvo@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: async10-4.remote.ualberta.ca
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227

ceacaa@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:

[It’s slab of concrete, dammit! Don’t you understand? Are you blind?
Concrete! It proves there was no Holocaust! Why can’t you see that!?]

And also wrote:

>I would also like to inquire if you are still willing to
>travel to Auschwitz/Birkenau to investigate some of
>the questions which have arisen on this thread? John
>Morris was unable to complete his promised task.
>I hope that we could raise the cost of travelling
>expenses on this thread. Please post reply.

Golly, I stick my nose back into alt.revisionism for two seconds, and
what do I find? Andrew Allen still beating a horse that is not only
long dead, but thoroughly putrefied.

And still lying about me.

In another message, Mr. Allen called me “craven” for not going the
Birkenau at his behest this summer. Now I have to wonder who is
“craven,” since he accuses me publicly of failing to keep a promise I
never made, and since he does not do me the courtesy of cc’ing me with
his accusations.

It should be apparent after my long absence that I am no longer a
regular participant in alt.revisionism. How easy it is to lie behind
someone’s back. How “courageous” of our Revisionist friend.

And how will this gutless wonder Andrew Allen respond to my annoyance
that he is lying about me again? The same way as last time he got
caught: he will say nothing.

Meanwhile, it is beyond me how anyone in their right mind could insist
for nine months running on the importance of the state of the gas
chamber roof at Birkenau Krema and never quite get around to saying
why it is all so important. Does it really matter whether the roof had
tar paper on it? If there was or was not tar paper, would it have made
a difference to the tens of thousands murdered underneath that roof?
Does it make a difference now?

Does it really make any difference if the roof slab is fully intact if
most of it is obscured beneath tons of rubble? There is certainly
enough roof there to talk about. But Mr. Allen has, in any case, not
made the kind of examination that he insists that others make: the
McCalden Expedition was just a very tasteless joke.

No, Mr. Allen is not ever going to tell us his remarkable theory of
how the mere fact of the existence of the L.Keller roof proves that
there was no Holocaust. Rather, he is content to carry on peeing in
the sandbox about how the other kids won’t help him make his
sandcastle.

I suspect that Mr. Allen is also loath to put forward his theory.
After all, in his previous attempt to explain this “self-evident” roof
slab, he asserted that holes had been cut through concrete and rebar
in order to vent the destructive force of the demolition charges, a
claim almost as absurd as his claim that the presence of human remains
in a huge mass grave at Treblinka proved there were no killings there
on the grounds that the witnesses said that the corpses were destroyed
utterly by cremation.

Yes, gentle reader, Mr. Allen really *does* indeed say such abysmally
stupid things! Please visit the crypto-Nazi IHR web site if you have a
taste for more of Mr. Allen’s cogent analyses.

As for myself, I would submit to the general readership the merely
obvious that Andrew Allen is a crackpot with a crank theory and
without the intellectual equipment even to articulate his theory.

From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: I’ll ask again: Why is Holocaust denial a “bad thing”? (Was: Clack, clack, clack, clack, clack)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:56:32 -0500
Organization: Voyager Information Networks, Inc.
Lines: 32
Message-ID:
References: <01bc2a34$b5b4c400$4a7213cc@server> <19970319061800.BAA11887@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: clmx17.dial.voyager.net

jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

> This is typical of “revisionist scholarship,” it would appear.
> When it is shown that your figures are inflated, respond by ignoring
> your opponent and inflate the figures even more.
>
> Posted/emailed to Mr. Van Alstine and Mr./Ms. Ceacaa. Archived as
> camps/auschwitz/finances-02.

Meanwhile, two other articles of Mr. Van Alstine’s have been archived
as

https://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/finances-01
and
https://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/finances-03

All three of these show serious errors in “Ceacaa”‘s argument, and point
up his/her utter and complete failure to do even basic research. And the
second in the series demonstrates “Ceacaa”‘s dishonesty as well. After
having been corrected, and her/his research done for her/him, s/he
continues to emit the same lie.

Any comment, Mr./Ms. “Ceacaa”?

If you would care to comment on these files, I will be happy to append
your commentary to any or all of them.

Posted; emailed to “Ceacaa.”

Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
jamie@nizkor.org Director of Operations, The Nizkor Project

Home

From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: TREBLINKA
Date: 28 Apr 1996 17:20:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 576
Message-ID: <4m09c6$khn@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne67.vir.com

TREBLINKA

Wartime Aerial Photos of Treblinka Cast New Doubt on Death Camp Claims

by Mark Weber and Andrew Allen

Treblinka is widely regarded as the second most important German wartime
extermination center. Only Auschwitz-Birkenau is supposed to have claimed
more lives.

Treblinka became the focus of worldwide attention in 1987-1988 during the
14-month trial in Jerusalem of John (Ivan) Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian-born American
factory worker. As Treblinka’s Ivan the Terrible, Demjanjuk
supposedly operated the machinery used to gas hundreds of thousands of Jews
there. Citing testimony by Jewish survivors, the Israeli court that condemned
him to death in April 1988 declared that more than 850,000 Jews were killed
at Treblinka between July 1942 and August 1943.

After the death sentence was handed down, Demjanjuk’s family was able to
discover previously suppressed evidence — much of it from Soviet Russian
archives — indicating that the real Ivan the Terrible was another
Ukrainian named Ivan Marchenko (or Marczenko). This new evidence discredited
the courtroom testimony of five Jewish camp survivors, each of whom had
positively identified Demjanjuk as the sadistic mass murderer
of Treblinka. (note 1)

As historians know, and as common sense would suggest, such decades-old
testimony is far less trustworthy than contemporary records or forensic
evidence. (note 2)

And yet, Treblinka’s reputation as a mass extermination center is based
almost entirely on precisely such subjective and unprovable testimony by
former prisoners — evidence that has proven to be notoriously unreliable
in several major trials of alleged Nazi war criminals. (note
3)

There is no documentary evidence that Treblinka was an extermination center.
In fact, contemporary records suggest that the camp had a very different
function.

Aerial reconnaissance photographs taken in 1944 of the Treblinka death
camp site — and forgotten for almost 45 years in the National Archives
in Washington, DC — cast serious doubts on the widely accepted story that
it was a mass extermination center.

Discovered in 1989, and published here for the first time in the United
States, these German reconnaissance photos corroborate other evidence indicating
that Treblinka was actually a transit camp. (note 4)

These photographs indicate that the remarkably small camp was not isolated,
or even particularly well guarded. (They clearly show that fields where
Polish farmers planted and cultivated crops were directly adjacent to the
camp perimeter.)

Moreover, the camp’s burial area quite obviously appears too small to contain
the hundreds of thousands of bodies supposedly buried there. (Casting doubt
on the widely accepted story of hundreds of thousands of Treblinka victims,
these photos suggest instead that only those deportees who died during the
sometimes protracted rail journey to the camp were buried there.)
‘Steam Chambers’
The generally accepted story today is that hundreds of thousands of Jews
were killed at Treblinka in gas chambers with poisonous exhaust from engines.
But the original Treblinka extermination story was that Jews
were steamed to death there in steam chambers.

According to an eyewitness account received in November 1942
in London from the Warsaw ghetto underground organization, Jews were exterminated
in death rooms at Treblinka with steam coming out of the
numerous holes in the pipes. (note 5) In August 1943, the New York
Times reported that two million Jews had already been killed at Treblinka
by steaming them to death. (note 6)

The Treblinka steam story is also given in detail in The Black Book of Polish
Jewry, a work published in New York in 1943 and sponsored by
Albert Einstein, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Congressman Sol Bloom, New York
Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, and other personalities. (note 7) Another book,
Lest We Forget, published in New York in 1943 by the World Jewish Congress,
describes in detail how Jews were steamed to death, and provides a diagram

showing the location of the purported boiler room that produced
the live steam. (note 8)

According to a 1944 eyewitness account compiled by the OSS,
the principle US intelligence agency, Jews at Treblinka were in general
killed by steam and not by gas as had been at first suspected. (note
9)

At the main Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, two conflicting stories were given:
steaming and gassing. Former Treblinka prisoner Samuel Rajzman testified
that Jews were killed there in gas chambers. (note 10) (To confuse matters
still more, a few months earlier Rajzman claimed that during the time he
was in Treblinka, Jews were suffocated to death there with a
machine that pumped air out of death chambers.) (note 11)

American prosecutors at the main Nuremberg trial supported the steam story.
As proof, a Polish government report dated December 5, 1945, was submitted
as prosecution exhibit USA-293. It charged that Jews were killed at the
camp by suffocating them in steam-filled chambers. This report,
which says nothing about poison gas killings, was published in the official
Nuremberg trial record as document PS-3311. (note 12) An American prosecutor
quoted from this report during his address to the Tribunal on December 14,
1945. (note 13)

Although no reputable historian now supports the steam story,
and little has been heard of it during the last several decades, it was
revived in a widely-circulated booklet published in 1979 and 1985 by the
influential Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. (note 14)

There may have been a factual basis for the steam chamber stories.
It is quite possible that there was indeed some kind of steaming operation
at Treblinka — but one designed to kill disease-carrying lice, not people.
Such disinfection steaming was commonly used in German camps for Allied
prisoners of war. (note 15)

Shortly after the war, the World Jewish Congress published The Black Book,
a 559-page volume of real and imagined wartime atrocities against Jews.
At Treblinka alone, the book alleges, three million persons were killed.
Three diabolical techniques, including poison gas and steam, were supposedly
used there to kill some 10,000 Jews daily. But the most widespread
method consisted of pumping all the air out from the chambers with
large special pumps. (note 16) A former inmate testified shortly after
the war that Treblinka’s victims were poisoned by the different gasses
or asphyxiated when the chamber was turned into a vacuum and all the air
sucked out. (note 17)

In the Nuremberg trial of Oswald Pohl, U.S. Judge Michael A. Musmanno declared
that death was inflicted here [at Treblinka] by gas and steam, as
well as by electric current. Citing Nuremberg document PS-3311, Musmanno
declared: After being filled up to capacity the chambers were hermetically
closed and steam was let in. (note 18)

Adolf Eichmann, the wartime head of the SS Jewish affairs section, said
in 1961 during pre-trial interrogation in Israel that during the war he
was told that Jews were gassed at Treblinka with potassium
cyanide. (note 19)

One of the strangest Treblinka extermination stories, which appeared in
September 1942 in a Polish underground periodical, claimed that Jews were
killed there with a delayed action gas: (note 20)
H2>BLOCKQUOTE>They enter it [the gas chamber] in groups of 300-500 people.
Each group is immediately closed hermetically inside, and gassed. The gas
does not affect them immediately, because the Jews still have to continue
on to the pits that are a few dozen meters away, and whose depth is 30 meters.
There they fall unconscious, and a digger covers them with a thin layer
of earth. Then another group arrives. H2>/BLOCKQUOTE>
According to the testimony of yet another eyewitness, a Jew
named Oskar Berger who escaped from the camp, many Jews were systematically
put to death at Treblinka by shooting them with rifle and machine-gun fire.
(note 21)
Diesel Gassing
In recent years, the most widely-circulated story has been that Jews were
gassed at Treblinka with carbon monoxide from the exhaust of a diesel engine.
(note 22)

However, as American engineer Friedrich Berg has established, this story
is improbable for technical reasons. (note 23) In spite of the obnoxious
odor of diesel exhaust, diesel engines produce much smaller quantities of
toxic carbon monoxide than ordinary gasoline motors. (note 24) It would
thus be difficult efficiently to gas large numbers of people using diesel
exhaust. A normal gasoline engine would be much more logical. (note 25)

It is important to keep in mind that the evidence now usually
cited for diesel gassing at Treblinka is no more credible than the evidence
that was once presented for steaming and suffocating. Apparently the steaming
and suffocating stories have been dropped for the sake of credible consistency.

Solid evidence for gassings at Treblinka has proven to be very elusive.
For example, it turned out that none of the witnesses in the 1951 West German
Treblinka court case ever actually saw anyone being gassed.
The type of gas used to kill the people there [Treblinka] cannot be
determined with certainty because none of the witnesses was able to witness
this procedure, the judges declared in their verdict. (note 26)

At least some former Treblinka prisoners testified in postwar West German
trials that they not only never saw a gas chamber, but did not even hear
about gassings from others. (note 27)

Holocaust historians today are not able to agree about the number of homicidal
gas chambers at Treblinka. Raul Hilberg maintains that there
were three at first, but because they were allegedly not adequate for the
job, more were built later on. There were eventually six or perhaps ten
chambers, he reports. (note 28) Others have reported the existence of 13
gas chambers at Treblinka. (note 29)
Bomba’s Testimony
One of the most memorable testimonies about Treblinka presented in Shoah,
the nine-and-a-half-hour Holocaust film by French Jewish film maker Claude
Lanzmann, is that of Abraham Bomba. He told how he and other Jewish barbers
cut the hair of the naked Jews who were about to be gassed. They worked
inside the gas chamber (he always spoke of one chamber), which
was around four by four meters (about 12 feet by 12 feet). Bomba
also reported that 140 or 150 women, with children, as well
as 16 or 17 barbers, were inside this small room. In addition, there were
benches where the women sat while their hair was cut, as well as two or
more German guards.

The barbers had to leave the chamber for five minutes while the victims
were gassed, Bomba said, and it took just one minute to clear out the 140
or so corpses, and clean the floor and walls, before everything was ready
for the next batch of victims. (note 30)

Bomba’s moving testimony, which conservative writer George Will called the
most stunning in this shattering film, is simply not credible.
Treblinka Labor Camp
About one mile (1.5 km) from the extermination camp, which was
known as Treblinka II, was a penal labor camp for Poles and
Jews known as Treblinka I. It was not at all secret. The 1941
directive announcing the establishment of the Treblinka Labor Camp
was published in both Polish and German in widely distributed official journals.
(note 31) Poles and Jews worked in a large sand and gravel quarry at the
Treblinka labor camp. (note 32)

As wartime aerial reconnaissance photographs clearly show, the Treblinka
T-I labor camp was located at the end of the rail spur on which the Treblinka
T-II extermination (transit) camp was also located. This fact
strengthens the thesis that the T-II camp was not particularly secret, since
penal labor prisoners being taken by train to and from the publicly known
T-I camp passed directly by the supposedly top secret T-II extermination
camp. (note 33)
Documentary Evidence
Documents found after the war confirm that large numbers of Jews were deported
to Treblinka in 1942 and 1943. German railway records report the transfer
of trainloads of settlers (Umsiedler) and workers
to Treblinka from various places in Poland and from other countries. (note
34)

In July 1942, a senior German railway official reported to the chief of
Himmler’s personal staff that 5,000 Jews were being transported daily to
Treblinka. (note 35) An August 3, 1942, German Ostbahn railway
directive similarly reported that special trains would be carrying resettlers
from Warsaw to Treblinka daily, until further notice. (note 36)

Interestingly, it was not until September 1, 1942, that the Treblinka train
station was closed to passenger rail travel by the general public (to
permit a smooth handling of the special resettlement trains), which
suggests that German officials were not particularly concerned with keeping
the deportations or the station secret. (note 37)

Other records mention trains to Treblinka in March 1943 from Vienna, Bulgaria
and Greece. (note 38) From Vienna and Luxembourg, Jews reportedly arrived
at the camp in passenger train coaches, and the deportees were given food
and medical care during their journey. (note 39) In at least one case, a
train with sleeping cars and a dining car arrived at Treblinka. (note 40)

German railway records have been cited as evidence that hundreds of thousands
of Jews were exterminated at Treblinka. (note 41) While there is little
doubt that these documents are genuine, and that they confirm transports
of Jews to Treblinka, they are not proof of an extermination program. (note
42)
Transit Camp
If Treblinka was not an extermination center, what was it? As already mentioned,
the balance of evidence indicates that Treblinka II — along with Belzec
and Sobibor — was a transit camp, where Jewish deportees were stripped
of their property and valuables before being transferred eastwards into
German-occupied Soviet territories. (note 43)

The generally-accepted story is that Treblinka II was a pure
extermination center, from which no Jew was permitted to leave alive. (note
44) However, credible reports of deportations of Jews from Treblinka refute
the allegation that all Jews sent there were destined for extermination,
and indicate instead that the camp functioned as a transit center.

In the aftermath of the April 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising, for example,
Jews were transported from Warsaw to Treblinka II. As some of the deportees
later confirmed, after a selection in the camp, trainloads of
hundreds of Jews were taken from Treblinka to Lublin (Majdanek), and possibly
other camps. (note 45) Several thousand Jews (at least) were transferred
by German authorities from Treblinka to other camps, a postwar German court
determined. (note 46)

Letters and postcards that arrived in the Warsaw ghetto from Jews who, by
all accounts, had been deported to Treblinka, indicate that the camp was
a transit center from where Jews were resettled in the occupied Soviet territories.
These messages, which arrived from settlements and camps in Belarus (Byelorussia),
Ukraine, and even Russia proper (near Smolensk), were written by Jews who
had been deported in 1942. Some letters and cards had been sent by mail
and some had arrived through the underground. Many mentioned that the senders
were working hard, but confirmed that they (and often their children) were
being fed. (note 47)

Completely contrary to its supposed character as a top secret extermination
center, Treblinka was neither secret nor even closely guarded, as both former
inmates and officials have confirmed. Secrecy? Good heavens, there
was no secrecy about Treblinka, Jewish prisoner Richard Glazer later
testified. All the Poles between there and Warsaw must have known
about it, and lived off the proceeds. All the peasants came to barter, the
Warsaw whores did business with the Ukrainians — it was a circus for all
of them. Polish farmers worked the fields that directly adjoined the
camp. And many others, said Jewish survivor Berek Rojzman, came
to the fence to barter, mostly with the Ukrainians, but with us too.
(note 48)

Even regular German concentration camps such as Dachau and Buchenwald were
much more closely guarded than Treblinka. As already mentioned, aerial reconnaissance
photographs taken in 1944 confirm that the area around Treblinka was not
cleared. The photos show that one perimeter of the camp passed through a
wooded area, and that cultivated fields where Polish farmers worked were
directly adjacent to the camp perimeter. (note 49)
How Many Victims?
Shortly after the end of the war, the World Jewish Congress and at least
one former Treblinka prisoner alleged that more than three million Jews
had been exterminated there. (note 50) More recent estimates of the number
of people allegedly killed at Treblinka range from between 700,000 (Leon
Poliakov and Uwe Adam), 750,000 (Raul Hilberg and Encyclopaedia Judaica),
870,000 (Yitzhak Arad), to more than 900,000 (Wolfgang Scheffler and Washington
Post). (note 51)

There is no documentary or physical evidence for any of these figures, which
are simply conjectural estimates.
Layout and Size
Diagrams published in recent years that show Treblinka as a neatly organized,
rectangular-shaped camp are not accurate. (note 52) As already mentioned,
though, wartime aerial reconnaissance photographs confirm that the Treblinka
II camp was actually unsymmetrically four-sided and irregularly shaped.
(note 53)

One of the most remarkable features of the Treblinka death camp
is its small size. The entire Treblinka II camp area was only 32 or 33 acres
(13 hectares), or about onetwentieth of a square mile. (note 54) Even smaller
was the alleged extermination area of the camp, which was 200
by 250 meters in size (or five hectares) according to purportedly authoritative
sources. (note 55)

Poland’s Central Commission announced shortly after the war
that the burial or ditches area where the bodies of Treblinka’s
victims were buried (before they were supposedly later dug up for burning)
was about two hectares or five acres (or some 20,235 square meters). (note
56) And according to a diagram in a book about Treblinka by Jewish Holocaust
historian Alexander Donat, the camp’s ditches area was not more
than 80 or 100 meters in length and about 50 meters wide — that is, a maximum
of 5,000 square meters or half a hectare. (note 57)

By comparison, the mass graves area in the Katyn forest (near Smolensk),
which held the bodies of some 4,500 Polish officers who had been killed
by Soviet secret police and buried there in 1940, measured about 500 square
meters. (note 58)

In short, it is very difficult to accept that anything like 700,000 or 800,000
bodies could have been buried in the minuscule area allegedly set aside
at Treblinka for this purpose.
Cremation Inconsistencies
Between April and July 1943, the corpses of Treblinka’s hundreds of thousands
of victims were allegedly dug up from the burial pits and burned with dry
wood and branches on grids made of rails in batches of 2,000 or 2,500.
The residual ash and bits of bone were dumped back into the
burial pits, and covered with a layer of sand and dirt two meters deep.
This was done, it is said, in order to eliminate the physical evidence of
mass extermination. (note 59)

Although enormous amounts of fuel would have been needed to cremate the
hundreds of thousands of alleged corpses, there is no documentary record
or witness recollection of the great quantities of firewood that would have
been required. According to Polish-Jewish historian Rachel Auerbach, fuel
to burn bodies was not needed at Treblinka because the bodies of woman,
which had more fat, were used to kindle, or more accurately put, to
build the fires among the piles of corpses. Even more incredible,
blood, too, was found to be first-class combustion material,
she wrote. (note 60)
Missing Remains
A wartime Warsaw ghetto internee, Dr. Adolf Berman, testified in the 1961
Eichmann trial that he visited the Treblinka camp site shortly after the
Soviet occupation of Poland. He told the Jerusalem court that he saw an
area of several square kilometers covered with bones and skulls, and nearby
tens upon tens of thousands of shoes, many of them children’s shoes.
(note 61)

Berman’s testimony, which was considered one of the most emotionally moving
of the Eichmann trial, is completely inconsistent with known facts. For
one thing, the entire Treblinka camp was much smaller than one square kilometer
in size, and no other witness has confirmed the presence of tens of
thousands of shoes.

Jewish historian Rachel Auerbach, a member of an official Polish commission
that inspected the camp site in November 1945 — that is, a few months after
the end of the war — reported finding large human bones, rotted masses
of corpses, pieces of half-rotted corpses, and fully
dressed corpses, at the Treblinka camp site. (note 62)

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)

In spite of its often inconsistent, contradictory and implausible character,
testimony indicating that many Jews lost their lives at Treblinka cannot
easily be dismissed. Many Jewish prisoners doubtless perished during their
rail journey to the camp site, and were almost certainly buried there. Furthermore,
it is plausible and even likely that hundreds and perhaps thousands of Jews
who were too weak or ill to continue the eastbound journey from the camp
were killed there by officials acting on their own authority.

All the same, there is no hard or compelling evidence that Treblinka was
a mass extermination center where hundreds of thousands of Jews were systematically
put to death. To the contrary, credible reports of transfers of Jews from
Treblinka eastwards to the occupied Soviet territories, the relative lack
of secrecy and security in the camp, and the small size of the area where
the bodies were supposedly buried, all suggest instead that this was a transit
center.
Notes0H2>/H2>

F. Dannen, How Terrible is Ivan?, Vanity Fair (New York),
June 1992, pp. 132 ff. New Evidence: Demjanjuk a Nazi Guard, Probably
Not ‘Ivan’, Los Angeles Times, January 16, 1992. C. Haberman, Soviet
Files Are Presented… , The New York Times, June 2, 1992, p. A6.
On the unreliability of such testimony, see John Cobden’s review of
Witness for the Defense (by E. Loftus and K. Ketcham) in The Journal of
Historical Review, Summer 1991, pp. 238-249. Samuel Gringauz, a Jewish
historian who was himself interned in the Kaunas ghetto during the war,
wrote: Most of the memoirs and reports [of Holocaust survivors] are
full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects,
overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism,
unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies. (Jewish Social
Studies, New York, January 1950, Vol. 12, p. 65.).
On the unreliability of such eyewitness testimony in the
illustrative case of Frank Walus, who was falsely accused of murdering Jews
as a Gestapo officer in Poland, see, for example, The Nazi Who Never
Was, The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.
These aerial reconnaissance photos are on file in the National Archives
(Washington, DC), Cartographic Division (Record Group 373).
Several of these reconnaissance photos were published in Germany in
1990 by Udo Walendy in the booklet Der Fall Treblinka, Historische
Tatsachen, Nr. 44, 1990. (Postfach 1643, D-4973 Vlotho, Germany). See especially
pages 13, 31, 34, 35, 38. In this booklet, Walendy cites specific archival
source references from the US National Archives for these photographs. Unfortunately,
these specific references are not always quite accurate. The specific source
references cited by Walendy are:
GX 12225 (or 122225?), Exp. 257 (and 258, 259?). (November or May 1944)

GX 180 D F 934/44 SK , Exp. 246 (May 18, 1944)
GX 12299 B A -2249, Exp. 014 (July 10, 1944)
GX 72 F 933/44 SK, Exp. 139, 140 (May 13, 1944)
GX 1946 F 2926 /44 SK, Exp. 062 (Sept. 18, 1944)
GX 937 F 13 A 6099, Exp. 74
GX 12250 F 2795 SK, Exp. 045 (Sept. 2, 1944)
GX 12290 F 3086 SK r 2600, Exp. 68 (Oct. 16, 1944)
GX 1946 / 44 SD, Exp. 076.
GX 12373, Exp. 11 (Sept. 2, 1944)
The most important of these Treblinka aerial photographs were made public
for the first time in the United States in January 1991 at a meeting in
Palo Alto, California. (IHR Newsletter, Feb. 1991, p. 3.).
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Polish Historical Society
(Stamford, Connecticut) in compiling this essay.
Soviet wartime aerial reconnaissance photographs of the Treblinka camp
site almost certainly exist, and are very probably still held in Russian
archives. If so, they should be made public.
Likwidacja zydowskiej Warszawy, Treblinka, Biuleytn Zydowskiego
Instytutu Historycznego (Warsaw), Jan.-June 1951, pp. 93-100. Quoted in:
Carlo Mattogno, The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews, The
Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1988, pp. 273-274, 295 (n. 16).
New York Times, Aug. 8, 1943, p. 11. Reprinted in: The Record: The Holocaust
in History (New York: ADL, 1985), p. 10. (The Record was also distributed
as an advertising supplement to the New York Post, April 17, 1978.)
Jacob Apenszlak, ed., The Black Book of Polish Jewry (New York: 1943),
pp. 142-143, 145.
World Jewish Congress, Lest We Forget (New York: 1943), pp. 4, 6-7.
See also the reference to killings at Treblinka by hot steam
in Hitler’s Ten-Year War On the Jews (p. 149), a book published in New York
in 1943 by the Institute of Jewish Affairs, an agency of the
American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress.
OSS document, April 13, 1944. National Archives (Washington, DC), Military
Branch, Record Group 226 (OSS records), No. 67231.
International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before
the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg: 1947-1949, (blue series),
Vol. 8, p. 325. (Feb. 27, 1946)
Rajzman text in: Yuri Suhl, ed., They Fought Back (New York: 1967),
p. 130. This story also appears in: Isaiah Trunk, Jewish Responses (New
York: 1982), p. 263.
IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military
Tribunal (IMT blue series/ 1947-1949), vol. 32, pp. 153-158
Also published in: Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (NC&A red series/
1946-1948), Vol. 5, pp. 1104-1108. See also: NC&A (red series),
vol. 1, pp. 1005-1006.
IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals (blue series), vol.
3, p. 567-568.
The Record: The Holocaust in History. (The NYT report of Aug. 8, 1943,
is reproduced here.)
Major S. G. Cowper, A Note on a Disinfestation Plant Used in a
Typhus Hospital for Prisoners of War in Germany, Journal of the Royal
Army Medical Corps, Sept. 1946, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 173-176. Typhus,
1922 supplement to Encyclopaedia Britannica. Facsimile reprint in: Carlos
Porter, Made in Russia (1988), p. 364. Globocnik reported in Jan. 1944
that textile goods seized in the course of Aktion Reinhardt
were disinfected. See: 4024-PS. IMT blue series, vol. 34, p.
84. Jacob Seewald, a Polish Jew, spent the war years working as a forester
in a German labor camp. When he came down with a severe illness, he was
transferred to a hospital, where he recovered. After the war he emigrated
to the United States. In a 1983 interview, he recalled that the camp authorities
took us [Jewish workers] into a shower for the steam to kill lice.
There we got no clothes, just a bundle with our names on them. Naked. Then
they turn on the water for a second — scalding water. (John C. Bromely,
Stories from the Darkness, The Denver Post Magazine, Sunday,
June 12, 1983, p. 20.) Similar events at Treblinka may perhaps have provided
a basis for the camp’s steam legend.
Jewish Black Book Comm., The Black Book (1946), pp. 407-408.
Isaiah Trunk, Jewish Responses (New York: 1982), p. 263.
Trials of the War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals
(NMT green series/ Washington, DC: 1949-1953), vol. 5, pp. 1133-1134.
Jochen von Lang, ed., Eichmann Interrogated (New York: 1983), p. 84.
See also: R. Aschenauer, ed., Ich, Adolf Eichmann (1980), pp. 179, 183.
Information Bulletin, Sept. 8, 1942, published by the command
of the Polish underground Armia Krajowa. Quoted in: Yitzhak
Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka (Bloomington: 1987), pp. 353 f.
E. Kogon, Theory and Practice of Hell (New York: Berkley, pb., 1981),
pp. 183-185.
Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (New York: 1985),
p. 878. Treblinka, Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971), vol. 15, p.
1368. Eugen Kogon, et al., Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen (1986),
p. 163 Yitzhak Arad, Treblinka, in: I. Gutman, ed., Encyclopedia
of the Holocaust, pp. 1483, 1484.
F. Berg, The Diesel Gas Chambers, The Journal of Historical
Review, Spring 1984, pp. 15-46.
R. Schmidt, A. Carey, and R. Kamo, Exhaust Characteristics of
the Automotive Diesel, Society of Automotive Engineers Transactions
(New York), Vol. 75, Sec. 3, 1967, pp. 106, 107. (paper 660550).
Even more logical and efficient than a gasoline engine — in the view
of engineer Friedrich Berg — would have been the Holzgas generator,
which were in very widespread use in Europe during the war years. See: F.
Berg, The Diesel Gas Chambers, The Journal of Historical Review,
Spring 1984, pp. 38-41.
Case against J. Hirtreiter, LG Frankfurt, 1951. Justiz und NS-Verbrechen
(Amsterdam: 1972), Band 8, p. 264 (270 a-4).
Hans Peter Rullmann, Der Fall Demjanjuk (Sonnenbühl: 1987), p.
149. Source cited: Adalbert Rückerl, NS-Vernichtungslager (1977).
An unsatisfactory explanation has been offered for this remarkable testimony:
these witnesses must have been inmates of the nearby Treblinka labor camp,
or for some other reason were never in the extermination section
of the T-II camp.
R. Hilberg, Destruction (1985), p. 879.
Central Commission…, German Crimes in Poland (Warsaw: 1946-1947),
vol. 1, p. 97. Yitzhak Arad, Treblinka, in: I. Gutman, ed.,
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, pp. 1483, 1485.
Shoah (Paris: Fayard, 1985), pp. 126-129. (I am thankful to Dr. Faurisson
for pointing this out.) See also: Bradley R. Smith, Shoah: Abraham
Bomba, the Barber, The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1986,
pp. 244-253.
Directive of Nov. 15, 1941. Amtsblatt für den Distrikt Warschau,
Dec. 16, 1941, p. 116. Facsimile reproduction in: S. Wojtczak, Karny

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
Subject: Re: TREBLINKA
Message-ID:
Organization: The World, Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA
References: <4m09c6$khn@Vir.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:25:23 GMT
Lines: 102

Jean-Francois Beaulieu writes:

[Repost of old “revisionist” hogwash]

# Wartime Aerial Photos of Treblinka Cast New Doubt on
# Death Camp Claims

[…]

# Aerial reconnaissance photographs taken in 1944 of the
# Treblinka death camp site — and forgotten for almost 45 years
# in the National Archives in Washington, DC — cast serious
doubts
# on the widely accepted story that it was a mass extermination
# center.

This is truly amazing, as the camp was destroyed after the
rebellion of August 1943. Didn’t bother to check this out, did you?
Maybe my hunch was right: the photos were taken from one of
Zundel’s UFO’s, a light-year away, so, although taken in
1944, they showed what happened in 1943? We have surely heard
“revisionist” claims no less insane than this one…

# Moreover, the camp’s burial area quite obviously appears too
# small to contain the hundreds of thousands of bodies supposedly
# buried there.

Only if you practice “revisionist math”. Do a little exercise.
Compute the volume of an average corpse (remember that many
of the victims were infants and children). Then, compute how
many fit into a mass grave, say 50 X 20 X 8 meters. Allow
some inefficiency in the “packing” of the corpses. Post
your result here.

# According to an eyewitness account received in November 1942
# in London from the Warsaw ghetto underground organization,
# Jews were exterminated in death rooms at Treblinka with steam
# coming out of the numerous holes in the pipes.

An incorrect observation by members of the Polish underground,
who were spying on the camp from a distance. When the doors
of the gas chambers were opened, a cloud of the engine’s
exhaust came out. This was probably mistaken for steam.

# However, as American engineer Friedrich Berg has established,
# this story is improbable for technical reasons. (note 23) In
spite
# of the obnoxious odor of diesel exhaust, diesel engines produce
# much smaller quantities of toxic carbon monoxide than ordinary
# gasoline motors.

As noted here numerous times, a long series of experiments, conducted
in Britain in 1957, proved that the exhaust of a tiny (6 BHP)
diesel engine kills animals which are locked in a closed chamber.
Surely, the exhaust of a 500 BHP engine (of a tank) would also
be lethal.

BTW, Friedrich Berg appeared on this newsgroup about 2 years
ago. Whenever someone refuted his claims, Berg began calling
him “creature”, “Jewish trash”, etc. A true “revisionist
scholar”.

# For example, it turned out that none of the witnesses in the
# 1951 West German Treblinka court case ever actually saw anyone
# being gassed.

This is typical “revisionist” insanity. These people – both
survivors and Germans who ran the camp – testified that the
victims were herded into the chambers, the engine turned on,
and the victims later taken out, dead. The witnesses were not
inside the chambers, and they didn’t have closed circuit TV to
watch what was happening inside them. A peephole was installed
in some chambers but, as Prof. Pfannenstiel testified, it
was quickly covered with steam.

# Polish farmers worked the fields that directly adjoined the
# camp.

And one can look in the movie “Shoa” and see what they said
took place in Treblinka… but don’t expect a “revisionist”
to mention this, of course. That’s the good old “lying by
omission” trick.

# 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.

Again, note the depth of the graves. The claims about the size
of the burial area being too small to hold hundreds-of-thousands
of corpses are false. A simple calculation will prove this. Let’s
see our “revisionist scholars” here at work…

-Danny Keren.


Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.

-Lu Xun.

From: 100644.317@compuserve.com (Miloslav Bilik)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: TREBLINKA
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 22:33:24 GMT
Organization: Compuserve
Lines: 273
Message-ID: <4m8ot2$nce@arl-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
References: <4m09c6$khn@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ad48-219.compuserve.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote:

>Aerial reconnaissance photographs taken in 1944 of the Treblinka death
>camp site — and forgotten for almost 45 years in the National Archives
>in Washington, DC — cast serious doubts on the widely accepted story that
>it was a mass extermination center.

Treblinka was erected in late May- earlier June 42; first “transport”
on July 23; and dismantled at the end of November 43. A former
Ukrainian guard named Strebel with his family became a farmer on this
area, planted pine woods, saw lupin,.. So in 44, a photograph would
hardly show anything.

>Discovered in 1989, and published here for the first time in the United
>States, these German reconnaissance photos corroborate other evidence indicating
>that Treblinka was actually a transit camp. (note 4)
>These photographs indicate that the remarkably small camp was not isolated,
>or even particularly well guarded. (They clearly show that fields where
>Polish farmers planted and cultivated crops were directly adjacent to the
>camp perimeter.)

It sounds strange to set a “transit” camp as small, on a blind
railroad way. But it is true that the Polish peasants cultivated
fields close to the camp; it was strongly forbidden to come closer or
to look inside, but there was a trade with ukranians guards who bought
food with money extorted to the “gold Jews”.

True also that it was quickly no secret about what happened into the
camp. But some deported in the close labor camps were sending mails,
and for a few months it confused the Jews from Warsaw.

Stangl said to Sereny: “Nobody knew nothing, nothing clear, guessed
nothing. But hundreds of soldiers and civilian came to the entry of
the camp; along the barriers, trying to buy things because they knew
the existence of all this business. During a time, we even saw planes
flying low to see what happened [..]. We shot and they stopped. But we
were never able to stop the others. They saw corpses of Jews on the
terrain or carried out of the station. They photographed them. The
whole place stank miles away. Two weeks after a “visit”, many people
told they could no longer eat. But no, they knew nothing clear,
nothing. Of course..”

>Moreover, the camp’s burial area quite obviously appears too small to contain
>the hundreds of thousands of bodies supposedly buried there. (Casting doubt
>on the widely accepted story of hundreds of thousands of Treblinka victims,
>these photos suggest instead that only those deportees who died during the
>sometimes protracted rail journey to the camp were buried there.)

Photographs of 1944 are of no interest. But you should think about the
volume of 900000 victims’ ashes. There were six roasters in the worse
time. The ashes were buried beside, mixed to earth and dust, and later
placed in the former burying pits.

>’Steam Chambers’

>According to an eyewitness account received in November 1942
>in London from the Warsaw ghetto underground organization, Jews were exterminated
>in death rooms at Treblinka with steam coming out of the
>numerous holes in the pipes. (note 5) In August 1943, the New York

The underground newspaper of the Bund, On Guard, September 20, 1942:

“The women and children from the arriving transport were divided into
groups of 200 each and were taken to the “baths”, which was located
closest to the digging machine. From the bath nobody returned, and
news groups were entering there constantly. That bath was actually a
house of murder. The floor in this barrack opened up and the people
fell into a machine. According to the opinion of some of thouse who
escaped, the people in the barrack were gassed. According to another
opinion they were killed by electrical current. From the small tower
over the bath, there were constant shots. [..]. The bath absorbs 200
people every fifteen minutes, so in twenty-four hours the capacity is
20000 people. That was the explanation for the incessant arrival of
people in the camp, from where there was no return, except a few
hundred who succeeded in escaping during the whole time..”

So, in September 42, indications are precise, quoting even the
Lazarett, and the uncertainty concerns the exact mode of execution.
That’s logical since there is no escape once in the highest part of
the camp, and very few contacts between the two parts. It is the best
testimony possible at this time. A lot believed that the noise of
Diesel was coming from the digger.

>American prosecutors at the main Nuremberg trial supported the steam story.
>As proof, a Polish government report dated December 5, 1945, was submitted
>as prosecution exhibit USA-293. It charged that Jews were killed at the
>camp by suffocating them in steam-filled chambers. This report,
>which says nothing about poison gas killings, was published in the official
>Nuremberg trial record as document PS-3311. (note 12) An American prosecutor
>quoted from this report during his address to the Tribunal on December 14,
>1945. (note 13)

Less than 70 escaped prisoners of Treblinka were still alive at the
end of the war. Far mostly of the lower part. In the main Nuremberg
trial (see some exchanges between Jackson and the French prosecutor
btw) they didn’t explore the differences between the different camps.
The mass murder was admitted as a general policy, it was sufficient
for **this** trial.

>One of the strangest Treblinka extermination stories, which appeared in
>September 1942 in a Polish underground periodical, claimed that Jews were
>killed there with a delayed action gas.

See above. Polish also imagined that poison could be mixed with the
engine’s exhaust (they noticed a few weeks later that an engine was
connected to the gassroom). That’s the best that you can guess from
100 or 200m away.

>Diesel Gassing

>In recent years, the most widely-circulated story has been that Jews were
>gassed at Treblinka with carbon monoxide from the exhaust of a diesel engine.
>However, as American engineer Friedrich Berg has established, this story
>is improbable for technical reasons. (note 23) In spite of the obnoxious

You missed the recent, complete and detailed post of Ken MacVay on the
analysis of Berg. He stated, with the same sources than Berg, that the
rate of O2 could be below 6% (lethal by itself, and, supererogatorly,
the high toxicity of CO is strongly related to the low rate of O2),
without considering the rate of NOx, and other irritants equally
mortal alone at their rates in the smokes of a diesel engine like the
Berg’s ones.

>At least some former Treblinka prisoners testified in postwar West German
>trials that they not only never saw a gas chamber, but did not even hear
>about gassings from others. (note 27)

Astonishing. That’s why they uprised and escaped at the risk of their
life? A trial: where, when, who said he didn’t even hear about
gassings? In Treblinka, they uprised because they were all in concern;
in Birkenau, it wasn’t the case and everyone knew the gassings.

>Holocaust historians today are not able to agree about the number of homicidal
>gas chambers at Treblinka. Raul Hilberg maintains that there
>were three at first, but because they were allegedly not adequate for the
>job, more were built later on. There were eventually six or perhaps ten
>chambers, he reports.

Well, six, some witnesses telling ten. The SS had few interest to show
a good memory, they said if they could that they worked only in the
lowest part, and the direct witnesses still alive were rare in
Dusseldorf in 64-65.

>Bomba’s Testimony

>Bomba’s moving testimony, which conservative writer George Will called the
>most stunning in this shattering film, is simply not credible.

Since you didn’t see the movie, it will be simplier if I summarize the
testimony of Bomba. Effectively he tells that he cutted hair of the
women right in the gassroom, and had to left the place when the
following women were incoming (therefore without cutting hair of one
hundred women). He doesn’t explain that later the barbers were at the
entry of the “tube” and were no longer in the gassroom. He can’t speak
during a long space of time. The movie is focusing on his feelings,
and he’s still all upset after these 30 years. Bomba repeats he can’t
speak, and please to stop the record.

>Treblinka Labor Camp

>penal labor prisoners being taken by train to and from the publicly known
>T-I camp passed directly by the supposedly top secret T-II extermination
>camp.

If not killed in T2, that means that there were a million of prisoners
in Treblinka I?

>Documentary Evidence
>Documents found after the war confirm that large numbers of Jews were deported
>to Treblinka in 1942 and 1943. German railway records report the transfer
>of trainloads of settlers (Umsiedler) and workers
>to Treblinka from various places in Poland and from other countries. (note
>34)

>Interestingly, it was not until September 1, 1942, that the Treblinka train
>station was closed to passenger rail travel by the general public (to
>permit a smooth handling of the special resettlement trains), which
>suggests that German officials were not particularly concerned with keeping
>the deportations or the station secret. (note 37)

You therefore noticed that enormously Jews were deported by this path?
The main railroad is Malkinia-Siedlice. Treblinka is a cul-de-sac.

>Transit Camp

>If Treblinka was not an extermination center, what was it? As already mentioned,
>the balance of evidence indicates that Treblinka II — along with Belzec
>and Sobibor — was a transit camp, where Jewish deportees were stripped
>of their property and valuables before being transferred eastwards into
>German-occupied Soviet territories. (note 43)

Stripped, indeed. See the album of Kurt Franz.. Nobody saw them coming
back, excepted for a very few number.

>other camps. (note 45) Several thousand Jews (at least) were transferred
>by German authorities from Treblinka to other camps, a postwar German court
>determined. (note 46)

Several thousands, it’s very impressive.

>There is no documentary or physical evidence for any of these figures, which
>are simply conjectural estimates.

The testimony of Zabecki, perhaps, at the station, who daily added,
from the first day to the last, the numbers marked with a chalk on
each car? He found 1,200,000.

>Cremation Inconsistencies

>Although enormous amounts of fuel would have been needed to cremate the
>hundreds of thousands of alleged corpses, there is no documentary record
>or witness recollection of the great quantities of firewood that would have
>been required.

For the wood, the existence of the “Waldkommando” is well known.
Forests were near the camp. For the “huge amount” of wood, you can
read everywhere that the unburied bodies burned nearly without fuel,
and that it’s when the common pits were emptied that fuel was needed.

>Missing Remains

>Jewish historian Rachel Auerbach, a member of an official Polish commission
>that inspected the camp site in November 1945 — that is, a few months after
>the end of the war — reported finding large human bones, rotted masses
>of corpses, pieces of half-rotted corpses, and fully
>dressed corpses, at the Treblinka camp site. (note 62)

>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)

>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)

Nobody told that **all** the bodies were thoroughly incinerated. On
the contrary, when they emptied the common pits, they put into the
ashes with partly burnt bone, what added to remaining half-decomposed
bodies not pulled of. The remaining corpses couldn’t be pulled of the
graves. Wirth **beated** the SS to do it with the inmates, since
several inmates choose the death instead of pulling the bodies of.

That explains why one found humain rests, in the same place where all
witnesses told that there was.

The local peasants were so adviced that corpses were in these places,
that before the arrival of the commission they returned the ground of
all the zone (as for Belsen or Sobibor), hoping to find some gold or
money.

>All the same, there is no hard or compelling evidence that Treblinka was
>a mass extermination center where hundreds of thousands of Jews were systematically
>put to death. To the contrary, credible reports of transfers of Jews from
>Treblinka eastwards to the occupied Soviet territories, the relative lack
>of secrecy and security in the camp, and the small size of the area where
>the bodies were supposedly buried, all suggest instead that this was a transit
>center.

There is **no** plausible clue that a significant number of deported
followed the reverse way. But, there are full railway statements in
the direct way, and the extermination was so well known in the whole
region that the inhabitants showed (while laughing) to the occupants
of convoys that their throat will soon be cutted of; and that they
returned the surface of the camp when the Germen were gone, searching
gold, jewels or other currencies (having selled during a full year to
the ukranians guard, supplies at the price of gold).