Article 0896, Allen Andrew

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: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (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: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (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: <[email protected]>

[email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Subj: RE:
Date: Thu, Aug 29, 1996 8:47 AM EDT
From: [email protected]
X-From: [email protected] (Mike Curtis)
To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote on
27 Aug 1996

[email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected]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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy WROTE ON, 31 Aug 1996
[email protected] (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 [email protected] 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: [email protected] (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: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com