Article 2, Beaulieu Jean Francois

I’ve just see a fragment of John Morris reply about this topic
quoted by Mat Giwer. I’d like to reply to those postings.
Could any revisionnist send me an email duplicata of the original post of
J. Morris?

From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 16:01:41 PST 1996
Article: 25937 of alt.revisionism
Path:news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Beaulieu refuse to answer
Date: 3 Mar 1996 19:33:52 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne36.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > Jean-Francois Beaulieu writes:
> > >The following has been posted and e-mailed before
> > >Will Beaulieu answer?

> Sorry, that wasn’t my post. Have you played fast and loose with
> numbers? You certainly have. Your statistics for immigration of Jews to Israel
> were easily refuted and your answer was first to whine about “illegal immigration”
> and then to invent numbers to fit your preconceived notions. You did the same
> thing was done with immigration into the United States. Your sole support for both
> these contentions was your own personal belief.
> –YFE

You are not refuting anything. You seems to play a game with
regular immigration and illegal immigration, refugees and immigrant
and then after you accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about
after. I simply dropped this discussion because I saw that all
what it could lead was name-calling. I’ve also on my side to
look for some complementary datas about Palestine, I’ll see
what I’ll be able to find. Probably I’ll retalk about it in several weeks.

From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 16:01:42 PST 1996
Article: 25938 of alt.revisionism
Path:news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uiowa.edu!chi-news.cic.net!
nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: You won’t going to believe me neither
Date: 3 Mar 1996 01:20:21 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne33.vir.com

[email protected] (John Morris) wrote:
>

Subject: Re: You won’t going to believe me neither

>> This is simple: if a lot of fat was flowing out of those bodies
>> in Auschwitz, this mean also that this fat wasn’t burning on the
>> corpses. So, in Treblinka, the key was suppose to pile up
>> the bodies in such a way that fat persons were under.
>> More fat is flowing out, less credible the Treblinka story
>> is. Less fat is flowing out without burning, less the Auschwitz
>> ditch is credible. And then I’d ask for the appropriate calculus
>> that can save both story together…

>My guess is that unburnt fat from the corpses at Treblinka is
>still in the ground. It is a guess because I don’t know whether
>the Polish investigating commission noted its existence. I
>suppose they should have thought that you would come along fifty
>years later with your silly objections.

‘In the ground’? No relation with what I said.
What I mean here is how much fat was flowing out of a body without
burning? Both stories (Treblinka and the Auschwitz ditches) are
incompatible. If fat was used to burn the corpses on the above
layer in Treblinka (the way that Steiner describe) than it didn’t
flow out of the body without burning. If a little amount of fat
only was able to flow out of the bodies, than it was completelly
ridicoulous to affect prisonners to the construction of larger
ditches accounting for those facts:
a) A part (important) would have soak in the ground
b) the prisonners couldn’t throw canisters of fat from several
meters away efficiently in a fire of such importance. Most
of it would have drop on the ground before to reach the corpses.
Have you ever try to trhow water from a canister 5 meters
away to reach a target? Since we talk about an important
source of heat, it’s hard to come closer enough. But anyway
fat would have burn a while before to flow in those chanels.

Accounting for all those factors, a small fraction of this fat
could be use efficiently.
The only way is to say that a very,very important fraction of
the fat in a human body can flow out without burning, and then,
Treblinka is the problem.

Post and email

From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 16:01:43 PST 1996
Article: 25939 of alt.revisionism
Path:news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uiowa.edu!chi-news.cic.net!
nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: CREMATORY RATES AT BIKERNAU LUDICROUS SAY EXPERT
Date: 3 Mar 1996 01:14:53 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<4h6h33$23d[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne33.vir.com

[email protected] (Hilary Ostrov) wrote:

>> have to believe in miracles, flying saucers and so on. But there is

>Flying saucers, M. Beaulieu? But of course, why not! From your
>ill-informed posts it would seem that you and Mr. Zundel have much in
>common.

Zundel is Zundel and Beaulieu is Beaulieu. If he decide to jump
from the top of the CN tower in Toronto I’m not obligate to follow him.
I’m supporting his right for free speech and I think his contribution
to revisionism was fantastic. I don’t know if he believe in UFO’s
today as a long time ago but I don’t believe in UFO.

> on that topic doesn’t come, I don’t care but really there’s players
> who are more interesting than you. Sorry.

>Translation: Don’t confuse me with the facts. I like playing games –
>preferably in ignorance.

I will soon retire this statement that I did to M.V.Alstine: I don’t
think that he’s so an isolated case after all. But for you, it’s hard
to judge, you post so seldomly that I can’t know. Gracias.


From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 16:01:44 PST 1996
Article: 25940 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uiowa.edu!chi-news.cic.net!
news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: I lied
Date: 3 Mar 1996 01:12:40 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne33.vir.com

Title was: Adolph Hitler and the 7 dwarf (I think)

>McVay didn’t write that piece.

>And neither did Ernst Zundel.

>*I* wrote it!

>Did you really think a CANADIAN could write that well???

Well, since you admit that you lied and signed with Ernest Zundel
name Mr Leuchter, I’ll have to confess that I lied too: I never enjoyed
Ken McVay’s postings.

From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 16:01:44 PST 1996
Article: 25942 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!news-w.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!
usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Himmler’s speech (Posdan)
Date: 3 Mar 1996 19:39:40 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne36.vir.com

In response to several remarks from M.P. Stein a couple of days
ago:

Himmler’s speech, normally pronounced at Poznan, 4 october 1943:

“I also want to refer here very frankly to a very serious matter.

Just as we did not hesitate on June 30, 1934, to perform
our duty as ordered and put comrades who had failed up against
the wall and execute them, we also never spoke about it,
nor will we ever speak about it.

Let us thank God that we had within us enough self-evident
fortitude never to discuss it among us, and we never talked
about it. Every one of us was horrified, and yet
every one clearly understood that we would do it next time,
when the order is given and when it becomes necessary.

I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the
extermination of the Jewish people. This is something
that is easily said: “The Jewish people will be exterminated,”
says every Party member, “this is very obvious, it is in our
program — elimination of the Jews, extermination, will do.”
And then they turn up, the brave 80 million
Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. It is of course
obvious that the others are pigs, but this particular one is
a splendid Jew. But of all those who talk this way, none had
observed it, none had endured it.
Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next
to each other, when 500 lie there or when 1000 are lined up.
To have endured this and at the same time to have
remained a decent person – with exceptions due to human weaknesses
– has made us tough. This is an honor roll in our
history which has never been and never will be put in writing,
because we know how difficult it would be for us if we still had
Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and rabble rousers in
every city, what with the bombings, with the burden and with
the hardships of the war.”

A phonographic record is suppose to exist, and it was play during
the trial but only some parts of the speech. I don;t know if an
authentification of the voice was done later but I don’t believe so.
I don’t know neither the accuracy of a test to authentify a
voice. The polygraph test do not give accurate results in several
cases and if memory deserve it is not accept here in Canada as
a proof. However, ADN test are 99,9999% accurate except if you
claim that you have some trouble to put a ‘too small’ glove, in that
case I know that ADN test are not accurate. I’ve discover recently
an interesting article of Carlos Porter about the Nuremberg trial
on the CODOH site, it seems that the Nuremberg documents presented by
the western countries are even less trustable than what I though first.
I don’t know if the phonograph record is a forgery: the second sentence
‘We can now very openly talk about this among ourselves, and
yet we will never discuss this publicly.’, is suppose to refer to
an ultra-secret speech that was record on a phonograph, and
that record is suppose to have been found in Rosenberg’s files.
It’s hard to explain how a man who was controlling Gestapo could
have been so stupid to record an ultra-secret speech and that this
record could fall in the hand of his political rival.

But for the sake of the discussion, I will consider that this record
is really authentic.
I think I saw some anti-deniers who did accept a dual interpretation
for ‘Ausrottung’ in the original document, one which is ‘evacuation’
and another which is ‘extermination’. The main point here is that
the anti-deniers seems to claim that only the word ‘extermination’
can be use because Himmler refer to 500 or 1000 bodies. First of all,
Himmler do refer to partisan activities in his speech. Jews are closely
associated to those sabotage activities in his mind. The speech
contain references to sabotage activities, and thus, the 500 or 1000
bodies can be simply a reference to execution of partisans. In the
same speech, Himmler talk about the final solution and about sabotage
activities, in the same text. Other speech show clearly that Himmler
did consider jews as peoples who were dangerous for those reasons,
and that their evacuation is a must to avoid a collapse of Germany
during WW II ( he refered somewhere else to the 1917-18 German
implosion). The best I could see is that Himmler may have in the mind
the brutal repression of a jewish insurrection, or that the expulsion
of jews in several cases was brutal. But the text contain 2 topics:
the ‘Ausrottung’ of the jews and their anti-nazi activities behind
the front. In that case, it is not possible to say that the interpretation
‘extermination of the jews’ is obviously a fallacy, I think simply
that if I consider that speech alone 2 interpretations are possibles.

Post and email

From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 18:25:20 PST 1996
Article: 25959 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: I lied
Date: 3 Mar 1996 22:59:03 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne9.vir.com

There’s days like that, you say that you have seen too much scums
and another one is too much. I said that I wasn’t interest to talk
with him, but than if I’m not, several peoples will say that I’m a
coward. I’ll do an exception for today.

>Speaking about lying Beaulieu, have you had time to dig up the
>NI-9098 document yet? If memory “deserve” you stated:

>> You asked for an exact statement that zyclon-B is hard to ventilate and
>> can paste on surfaces:

>> “Luftbarkeit: wegen starken Haftvermogens des Gases an Oeberflachen
>> erschwert u. langwierig”. NI-9098

>> “Ventilability: hard and long since this gas paste strongly to surfaces”
>> NI-9098

>> So it’s publish by the manufacturer: what do you want more?

>>Since this sentence is apparently the basis of the “revisionist”
>>claim that HCN is “hard to ventilate” I was naturally interested
>>to find out more about it. But when asked about the whereabouts
>>of the NI-9098 document you said:

>>No, if memory deserve, I’ve not keep a copy of all of it but from
>>the page that I was able to find, no. The only place where I could
>>find the whole dtata again is McGill university but I’m not planning
>>to go there for the moment.

>To which I replied:
>
> M. Beaulieu, it is my belief that you are not honest about this.
> Again, where did you find this quote? It wouldn’t surprise me if
> you have it much closer at hand than at McGill.

>Your answer: Total silence. And a reference to my person in a
>post to Dr. Keren as “a kind of lice”.

>I’ll give you a hint. I think you found the quote from this
>alleged document in your bookshelf. Will you please tell us in
>which book, or is this too much to ask?

3 years ago, I have run across several libraries,10 15 I don’t know,
and I took notes, photocopies and I bough books also. I have read the
entire document in an appendix of one of Faurisson book, I’m not 100%
sure if it’s the same one from which I took photocopies, but I think
so. The document was a technical describtion of
zyclon-B, and there was nothing about respective surfaces, the best
I can remember. It was describing Zyklon B properties. I’ve just
100 pages of photocopies of this book (memoire en defense) but
I remember to have read an exhaustive reproduction of Z.B properties and 2
documents. Since I know just 2 documents (NI-9092 and this one)
the second that I saw in that book was certanly the NI-9098.
I dont see any difference between a document which is
reproduce entirelly in a revisionnist book an the same document that
is reproduce in another book. If you consider that such a source is
not credible that’s your problem, not mine. I may try to go to
to McGill or l’UQUAM a day, the page that I was able to find in my
pile of photocopies was somewhere else in the book where a fragment
was reproduced with few explanations. But I think simply that even if I find
this reproduction
again you will then say that it is a forgery from Faurisson.

From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 18:25:21 PST 1996
Article: 25967 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: I lied
Date: 3 Mar 1996 23:42:59 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne12.vir.com

Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote:

This is a minor point Mr Bruchfeld, but if I remember well
you accused me first to lie and to hide other datas related
to the pasting capacity because I knew much more than what
I was saying. I’ve just check the previous quoted and one
paragraph sounded a bit strange to me. I’ve try to find the
original but I’ve deleted those emails. I can’t know then
if your own quotations are correct or not since I have no data
to compare. But as much I’m trying to remember, your insinuation
was (and is still?) that I had much more datas in the hands than
what I admitting.

From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 19:59:35 PST 1996
Article: 25974 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Crematories: the fuel
Date: 4 Mar 1996 01:03:40 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne39.vir.com

I would like jus to correct some of my statements about the fuel.
I found in a book, ‘les chambres a gaz ont existe’, that the temperature
of the ovens was normally 800 deg celcius, or about 1,100 Kelvin if
wer round up. In that case, since the Auschwitz ventilation system
is not clearly defined as I discovered recently, I think the best
is to take the datas for a normal crematory here with a rate of
625 feets per minutes. At 1,100 K, the quantity of cold air from
this figure (1,400 meter cube of hot air per hour for a furnace that burn a
corpse in 2 hours) is about 75% of what I calculated for 1500 Kelvin,
381 meter cube per oven. But this is compense by the heat that is
absorb, 65% of the first calculus if I’m taking the integration of
the equations. So there’s a minor difference, one correction cancel
the other. If one claim that the ventilation system in Auschwitz was
lower, than the cremation time was lower also.

I have to admit that I didn’t ask to my chemist if those datas (625
feet cube) were for hot or cold air, but the quantity of coke require
if this figure is for cold air is *huge*, much more than what was
provided here. So I assumed that those datas were related to hot air,
if not the Auschwitz ovens would have work a couple of weeks only.

I said what I had in the mind for the question related to the fat.
I think also that the loading of corpses in the ovens is
not important as a data simply because it can’t take more than few
minutes each time. My purpose was simply to say: the Auschwitz
ovens didn’t work over 18 months 24h/24h, but no more than few hours
a day so there was no extermination policy. In that case, the
interruption that is necessary to load corpses is irrelevant.



From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 22:10:38 PST 1996
Article: 25984 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Morris is lucky
Date: 4 Mar 1996 02:53:23 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com

I’ve just receive 2 emails, the duplicata of J. Morris public post (he
sent me those ones).
I’m unsure about the carbone in the body, I have no way actually to know
if the mollecular configuration can allow a significative exothermic reaction,
all what I know is that from a (TRUE) bacon slice experiment and a fictive
story after, the meat, once it was isolated from the fat, never start
to burn alone. In that case however, I suspect that the same aspects
that did exist with fat ( it start to burn really after a while, and it
burn fast then) may exist here also. But here I must add that I sent a
public message ‘Crematories, the fuel’ 2 or 3 hours ago and it contain a reply
to your statements.

>they open the muffle door. Lastly, your calculation is based upon
>an air flow of 8300 m^3/hr which was a mistake on my part. The
>figure was for the ventilation of the whole Krema I building. If
>nothing else, it suggests that you done your calculation of coke
>consumption based upon figures which you have not bothered to
>check.

I’ve just decide to take the 1400 meter cube for a 2 hour cremation in the
new calculus, this is more accurate. If you claim that the ventilation
was lower for a muffle in Auschwitz, than the cremation time is higher.
I discovered also that this quote that I took was a mistake on your side.
Imagine how you are lucky Mr Morris: if you would be a revisionnist,
than over 2 years several pit bulls would have use your mistake and claim
that you deliberatelly wrote a false data with the title: ‘Morris-Moron
lied!’. I didn’t know that it was a mistake on your side, I’ve not check
all the posts, but I think it’s a mistake. Your style appear sincere
most of the time, and I though first that your statements were based on
free assumptions, and then I had a doubt and I said: perhaps he’s convince
in his crusade for truth so much that he find normal to introduce little
lies to fight for his truth, since the essantial is ‘Anyway, it happened
and they are liars’. And now I’m not sure. Its not easy to know what
someone else has in the mind. However, you are lucky: your error will
not lead several peoples to demolish your reputation with a simple error.
If you would be a revisionnist, 10 guys would have jump on this error
to attack you.
But for the other questions related to crematories, I think that the game
will not be so easy than it was in the past. I’ll keep a record of your
statements and try to verify which part is free assumptions or not.

From [email protected] Sun Mar 3 23:06:54 PST 1996
Article: 25991 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Crematories: the fuel
Date: 4 Mar 1996 03:11:22 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com

Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote:

>tas for a normal crematory here with a rate of
> 625 feets per minutes. At 1,100 K, the quantity of cold air from
> this figure (1,400 meter cube of hot air per hour for a furnace that burn a
> corpse in 2 hours) is about 75% of what I calculated for 1500 Kelvin,
> 381 meter cube per oven. But this is compense by the heat that is

Little correction here: this figure is not lower but higher
than the previous one. Yale will enjoy this bone. Unfortunatelly,
my name is not easy to be use like with Tom (Moran-Moron) but
I apologize.

From [email protected] Mon Mar 4 08:27:30 PST 1996
Article: 26045 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!
swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Bolender Testifies About the Death Camps
Date: 4 Mar 1996 11:42:44 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne3.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> Testimony of SS-Oberscharfuehrer Kurt Bolender, In the
> Belzec-Oberhauser trial:
> [Quoted in “BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA – the Operation Reinhard
> Death Camps”, Indiana University Press – Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 76].
> ——————————————————————-
You know, I think that a day I will try to find records about
the wichcraft trials and the Moscow trials and send a copy
of one confession here one week after the other.

From [email protected] Mon Mar 4 08:27:31 PST 1996
Article: 26048 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.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads
Subject: I lied
Date: 3 Mar 1996 14:38:56 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne24.vir.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14930
alt.politics.white-power:20881 alt.revisionism:26048 alt.skinheads:13942

Subject was: Adolph Hitler and the 7 Dwarves

[email protected] (FredLechtr) wrote:
>
>McVay didn’t write that piece.

>And neither did Ernst Zundel.

>*I* wrote it!

>Did you really think a CANADIAN could write that well???

Well, since you admit that you lied and signed with Ernest Zundel
name Mr Leuchter, I’ll have to confess that I lied too: I never enjoyed
Ken McVay’s postings.

From [email protected] Mon Mar 4 23:30:54 PST 1996
Article: 26109 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Aaaaaah! this pillar…
Date: 5 Mar 1996 05:08:45 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne18.vir.com

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

Mark Van Alstine wrote

>Mr. Beaulieu, you make issue about Muller’s description of the
>introduction columns, citing him as saying the “[c]olumns of concrete were
>lined up against the lateral walls; they were hollow, and used for pouring
>Zyclon-B which was thrown in through openings in their upper part, and
>which communicated with the gaz chamber through metal columns. The latter
>had holes at regular intervals….”

You don’t mention the date of the previous post, of course: it is the 2/26/96

>Yet you ignore other aspects related by Muller:

>on, and Tueber; who all seemed to have been of
>the opinion that the introduction columns were made of metal. Why is that?
>You were also quite mistaken when you said that Nyiszli said they were
>made of concrete when, in fact, he wrote that they were made of metal. Why
> is that? Now it seems that Muller was not describing the introduction
>columns themselves, as you said, but the “vents” on top of the roof of
>L.Keller 1. Why is that?

>What explination do you have for this, Mr. Beaulieu? Will you plead
>”selective” reading? That you “didn’t read all about this topic, “being
>only able to
> “spend 1 hour 1/2 per day to read and write except the weekend?” Yet you
>obviously had time to “read” Muller’s recollections- and misinterpret them
>it seems. Is this why you berate people for relying so much on reference
> texts, Mr. Beaulieu? Because they can expose your poor “research” and
>analytical skills so readily?

>I would suggest in the future, Mr. Beaulieu, that if you are
> insufficiently prepared to carry on an informed discussion about aspects
>and the details concerning the Holocaust, that you refrain from doing so
>until you ARE sufficiently prepared.

>Otherwise people may misconstrue your “ignorance” for willfull deception.

Mr Van Alstine, the way you quote me and M. Billik posts, someone
would believe that I ignore what he wrote several days after my prior
postings. Why is that? I’ve not see the original french part from
M. Billik, but the word ‘short column’ seems to be in the text of
the book if I’m taking this quote, I’ll have to go at Rosemont library
where I’ll have to take a look
at this text. Or perhaps M. Billik will send me the french excerp, he
is the only anti-denier with whom I maintained a durable email exchange.
All I can see in that text is that he concluded that the above part
was made of concrete, but I don’t know if the text:
>saw the furnaces and the gas chamber, and then he knew what was above the
>metal columns. Since he described the inside of the metal columns, it’s
is his deduction or what is in the book. Muller’s describtion seems
a bit confuzed in the text that I read, and it seems that M. Billik is the
first who rose up this hypothesis here, prior to that, everybody was
talking about a pure metallic wiremesh except D. Keren who tough first
a couple of weeks ago that the concrete part was probably something
surrounding the wiremesh after he received the translation. You say
that I ignored 3 others ‘eye-witness’: I didnt. First, I though that
the orthodox version was a pure wiremesh surround by concrete according
to D. Keren reply, than I said F. Muller testimony collide with
the other testimonies since everybody seems to accept the pure metallic
wiremesh device. But now you seems to accept a variance that M. Billik
recently brough, a concrete upper part. Does your 3 ‘eye-witness’ talk
about it? I don’t think so. It seems that you accuse me to ignore
the ‘orthodox’ version but this one seems to not be clearly define.
The best I can see of what ‘s happening here, the description is not
fix and several peoples are changing their views about it with time.
Nobody mentionned the upper concrete part before M. Billik the first
time I posted on that several weeks ago. Finally, you seems to use
a claim that I did, I said ‘I think that Miklos Nyzkly described concrete
porous pillars’, and I added: If memory deserve. Simply because I hadn’t
this book with me. Do you think that I have all the holocaust books with
me? You claimed yourself once that crema 4 and 5 had a mechanic ventilation
system a day despite you had the book with you. Simply because you
made an error. And when I mentionned this error to you you corrected
it, simply. You think you’re the only one who can make errors?

For the ‘upper concrete part’, I’ll have to take a look at a french
email that M. Billik sent me, but for the moment, I can see that it
is not compatible with the perforation of holes after the construction
of the ceiling. But definitivelly, I can not ‘know’ an official version
that is not ‘know’ by the counterpart neither.


From [email protected] Thu Mar 7 08:59:24 PST 1996
Article: 26447 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
helix.net!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Beaulieu refuse to answer
Date: 7 Mar 1996 03:47:56 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne41.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> Please note that I did *not* write the first post that you attribute to me.
> The one who is playing the game with numbers is *you*. The simple fact is that
> you claimed that Jews were admitted to the United States as refugees and that it
> was impossible to determine the exact number is impossible because the
> classification of refugees by religion was “dropped.” It was pointed out to you,
> first, that Jews were *not* admitted to the United States as refugee. It was
> further pointed out that the religious classification of refugees was never
> discontinued; it is used to this day. At this point you started to babble about
> there being “illegal” immigration to the United States. This is, apparently, a
> figment of your imagination.

No Yale. I said that illegal immigration was a part of the data
even at my first posting. I’m, unfortunatelly, in front of several
statements from you and I can not verify some of them. Geographically,
I’m not well located to verify one or two of your statements,
especially about USA. But I have some other possibilities about
Palestine on the other hand.
>
> Your litany or poor mathmatics continues with your misconceptions
> about Jewish immigration to Isreal. For some reason you insist on using the
> periodfrom 1945-1950. This totally ignores the fact that immigration to Israel was
> prohibited in the period from 1945-May 15, 1948. Those attempting to immigrate
> were interned at various concentration camps by the British. When it was
> pointed out to you that in 1946 the U.S. asked Britain to admit 100,000 Jews
> immediately because 150,000 Jews were interned waiting for admission to Israel
> and that this request was rejected, you responded by counting those 150,000 as
> having been admitted to Isreal *by the British.* You confounded your mistake by
> stating that the amount of *illegal* immigration to Israel in this period is unknown.
> Nothing ccould be further from the truth. Those that were evading the illegal
> British restrictions upon immigration are and were heroes in Israel. Their exploits
> are not only well-known, but probably exaggerated to some extent. If you would
> take your nose out of “revisionist studies” and read some history most of your
> confusion would disappear.

I think we will have an interesting discussion about it in
2 months. For the moment, Mr Nijburg will take me a part of my weekend.
If you want to claim victory, that’s up to you, but take care,
I’ve discover a day that all I guy need to show clearly his point
is simply to do extra efforts in libraries.

From [email protected] Sat Mar 9 08:46:11 PST 1996
Article: 26704 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!news-w.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!
usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: CREMATORY RATES AT BIKERNAU LUDICROUS SAY EXPERT
Date: 9 Mar 1996 02:44:04 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne15.vir.com

[email protected] (Jeremy A. Litt) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu ([email protected]) wrote:
> : [email protected] (Hilary Ostrov) wrote:
>
> : > on that topic doesn’t come, I don’t care but really there’s players
> : > who are more interesting than you. Sorry.
>
> : >Translation: Don’t confuse me with the facts. I like playing games –
> : >preferably in ignorance.
>
> : I will soon retire this statement that I did to M.V.Alstine: I don’t
> : think that he’s so an isolated case after all. But for you, it’s hard
> : to judge, you post so seldomly that I can’t know. Gracias.
>
> I see, M. Beaulieu. So you won’t answer people like Mr. Van Alstine, who
> post with “books” instead or rambling off the top of their heads like
> you. You won’t answer Hilary Ostrov, becasuse it’s not the intelligence
> of the post that matters, it’s how often one posts that matters.
>
> So your beliefs, summed up are:
>
> THE WISDOM OF M. BEAULIEU:
>
> “The best arguments are made by posting repeatedly over a long period,
> without any use of books or other references.”
>
> Yep. Sounds just like you.

By the way, are you able to explain why the Auschwitz crematories
had such an extraordinnary output?

From [email protected] Sat Mar 9 08:46:12 PST 1996
Article: 26705 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!news-w.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Beaulieu refuse to answer
Date: 9 Mar 1996 02:55:22 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne15.vir.com

[email protected] wrote:

>As proof of what Mr. Edeiken is saying, I present the official document
>on the subject:
>
>_The DP Story_
>The Displaced Persons Commission
>John W. Gibson, Chairman
>Superintendent of Documents,
>U.S. Government Printing Office
>August 15, 1952
>
>Page 248:
>
>”Religion”
>
>Forty-seven percent of all the immigrants under the DP Act were of the
>Catholic faith; 35 percent of the Protestant and Orthodox faith; 16
>percent of the Jewish faith; and one percent of other faiths.
>
>More than half of the German expelee group, 51 percent, were of the
>Catholic faith, the remaining 49 percent were of the Protestant and
>Orthodox faith.”
>
>Mr. Beaulieu will probably stamp his little feet in anger and demand that
>we give the absolute numbers. Very well:
>
>Page 243
>
>”By June 30, 1952, a total of 393,542 immigrants had been admitted
>under the Displaced Persons Act. (It is to be noted that this number
>includes only those actually admitted and not those visaed.) Eighty
>five and seven tenths percent of all immigrants admitted under the
>act by this date were displaced persons; 13.6 were German
>expelees and less than 1 percent were orphans and adopted
>children of German ethnic origin.”
>
>Let’s see now, 16 percent of 393,542 equals 69,667 Jews. This
>hardly makes a dent in the millions that went missing.
>
>[The remainder of Mr. Edeiken’s text deleted with apologies]

I knew this document Mr Mazal. At page 233 of the Hoax, this
declaration is mention indirectly:
” The official account goes on to claim that only 16% of these
400,000 were Jewish, but that is just the official account of
a Government which had taken specific steps to assure that the
relevant data would not exist”.
A reference is given to this document. I know at least one supplementary
way to contest the conclusion of this commision, but I’ll send it
with my reply about the Palestinian question in a couple of weeks.
I gave some reasons why I did contest those datas, including the
strange coincidences with the country of origin but it’s quite
possible that I’ll find more than the one I have in the mind actually.
But your datas are not a surprise to me , I did refer to this 16%
figure previously.


From [email protected] Sun Mar 10 06:57:47 PST 1996
Article: 26745 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
van-bc!news1.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!istar.net!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Sheet Metal Columns in Krema II
Date: 10 Mar 1996 00:55:12 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne7.vir.com

[email protected] (John Morris) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu, “Ceacaa,” and other Holocaust deniers
> have been making much of the discrepancies between the

For Ceacaa as far I can remember it wasn’t his point but for
me, it was one of my 7 or 8 arguments, yes. I was waiting
for the public part of your email duplicata to say it:
I wouldn’t call it a bad translation, I think that the
translator wrote a new novel with the previous one.

From [email protected] Sun Mar 10 06:57:48 PST 1996
Article: 26746 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
van-bc!news1.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!istar.net!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Himmler’s speech
Date: 10 Mar 1996 01:03:21 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne7.vir.com

I saw several responses to my 3 post, D. mittelman, U. roessler,
this always sympathic H. Mazal (ouch!) and S. Lice, among others.
I would just like to say that I prefer to respond when J. McCarthy
reply will appear on my side, to all of them together also.
I’m busy with a part time job and my customer want his software
quickly so I’m not planning to post here before 3 or 4 days
except for one single posting about the Luther Memorendum.
Sorry for the delay.

From [email protected] Sun Mar 10 12:33:02 PST 1996
Article: 26794 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
chi-news.cic.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: CREMATORIES: the fuel
Date: 10 Mar 1996 18:07:32 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne46.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

Mark Van Alstine wrote:

>> If you don’t believe me, you are free to call a funeral home and
>> ask just as I did.
>>
>> And, are you really arguing that crematoria have no external heat
>> source?

>And are you arguing that the Topf furnace, which injected compressed air
>into the muffle to use the body to more efficiently incinerate itself did
>not reduce the fuel requirements of the furnace?

I don’t know if he claimed that, I didn’t see is response but I’m
claiming it certanly and he has certanly not a different opinion.
If you want to produce x kilojoules and you apply air to burning coke
or fat you will not increase the total amount of energy that is
produce, you will just speed up the process but you won’t spare
fuel, certanly not. Do you claim that the total energy that has been
produce after the comburant has gone is be more important ????

I think I know were you took this fishy idea: ‘anatomy of a death camp’,
page 186. ‘a second and third incineration on the same day would not
require any extra fuel, thanks to the compressed air’.
There’s a document, a letter that is given as a reference but there’s
no way to see if this ‘thanks for the compressed air’ is Pressac’s
opinion or in the document, the document is not fully reproduce.
Pressac frequently mixed his own statements with references in such
a way that you don’t know what is in the original document. However,
I’m a bit mefiant about the couples of documents that he brought, there’s
at least one which is an obvious forgery and for 2 of the others I’m unsure.
The authentification of those original documents would require the
comparison of a handwritten signature on a relevant page with the
real signature, and I’m trusting such a method only for peoples who
didn’t falled into Allied’s or Russian hands. D. Irving mentionned the
diary of General Engel that turned to have been written on a post war
paper (it is in the sery L-… documents). A statement handwritten
by Goebbel, Bormann, Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich among others is
certanly trustable. Nevertless, I will assume that most of the documents
that he’s quoting are genuine.

There’s one thing that is not convincing: the claim that an air
compressor will spare fuel.
I’ll have to add also that I don’t see how someone can add up the air
that is bringing in with the compressor
with the air that is taken off the krema 1 with the exhaust
stack . There’s as much air that is going out than what is going in,
in weight. I saw someone who added both a day.

> >You are invited to demonstrate this to yourself with a
> >steak and a match and no other fuel.
>
> Please explain how this is an apt analogy. Is a crematorium only
> has hot as a match? In the case of a coke-fired furnace, does it
> have no continous external heat source?

>And in the case of the Topf furnace were they not more fuel efficient than
>other furnaces that used an “economizer?”

In the book, the economizer wasn’t use in Auschwitz, it was just drop
in the 20’s or the early 30’s. The economizer was built to recover heat
loss in the structure. But its complex system of overlapping circuits
took sometimes 2/3 of the mass of the structure. It was expensive
to construct. It is true that the Germans introduced a cold air
injection system later but Pressac seems to claim that its main
purpose was to spare fuel. On what does he based his hypothesis?
You take a slice of steak, you put it on a grill to burn it and
it will burn, indeed. As soon you retire it from there it will stop
to burn. It is not a self sustaining reaction. You need to add
energy constently to maintain the reaction so the use of the human
body alone as a comburant is impossible. Except for the fat. Even
if we take calorimetric datas that do not change anything to the
nature of this simple fact: you need to add more energy than you
retire to maintain the reaction. Try to burn a steak on a grid and
retire the grid if you don’t believe it. We will see if the steak
continue to burn.
If you try to spare fuel, than you have to take in account the
exothermic reaction in the process. How can you guess that after
7min 33 sec, the first layer of fat under the skin has gone, so you must
increase temperature, and that after 44 minutes 21 second you must
shut up the flame since the most deep fat is reach. And then you
start it again at 61 minutes 12 seconds, and so on? How can you
guess in advance that the water has gone in a place and that the body will
produce more energy then? All you can get is rough estimations
that you can’t use to spare fuel.
If you try to play with those factors you will simply increase
the cremation time. We are told that it wasn’t the thing that the
nazis wanted. The more efficient way to not get a too slow cremation is
simply to apply the heat constently. If you are able to ligh a steak
and get a self-sustain reaction a day Mr Van Alstine, let me know.
But anyway, a cold air injector will not reduce the total quantity of fuel
that is necessary. It will just play on a single factor, the cremation
speed. If someone could explain how technically this compressor
can spare fuel, I’d be curious because I don’t believe a single
word of Pressac interpretation

From [email protected] Mon Mar 11 23:04:28 PST 1996
Article: 26984 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!lexis-nexis!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Crematory: the ashes
Date: 12 Mar 1996 03:25:35 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne34.vir.com

I’ve post that about a week ago but I’ll repost it. I had in the
mind to get a second interview with a crematory operator for humans
to see if the responses could be identical but I decided to drop it,
it take too much time to call and call again. However, for this particular
aspect I was more astonish than from any other one about the response
that I got. I’m curious about this law on the ashes, I’ve no doubt
that a law which state that a body must be burn in a coffin can exist,
but I don’t understand why a law would be necessary in this case.
I really don’t know how to interpret it actually:
******************************************************************
>> I never burned a body but I did burn wood in my life, the best analogy
>> I could take is a door, or something a bit thicker. In a crematoria
>> all the conditions are put to favorize combustion, intense heat but
>> also artificial oxygenetion. So the statement that the ‘greatest amount
>> of time’ is require to reduce the coffin is ludicrous.
>
>You have left out the reason why the greatest amount of time in a
>cremation is spent on reducing the coffin. There are laws and
>professional regulations in respect to the dignity of human
>remains. The fine ash delivered to the bereaved must not contain
>any identifiable trace of ash from the coffin. Corpse and coffin
>are therefore burnt until nothing but fine white ash is left,
>which means that the burning goes on for a period of time longer
>than necessary simply to reduce the corpse.

I’ve miss several postings from you on the topic ‘crematories’, I
would like to see an email duplicata if possible. Perhaps a revisionnist
will send it to me. For the moment I can just reply to this fragment
that Matt Giwer quoted.

This is astonishing. You mean that there’s a law about the ashes???
The man let me a photocopy of recommendations, one was about the
1000 degres that must exist in the after burner. I don’t remember
to have seen anything else. Morever, I asked him questions about
coffin ashes since there was a reference to that on your site.
My first suspiscion was that this cosmetic concern was done after
the cremation, not during. Wrongo. The man simply told me: there’s
no ashes left by the coffin. I don’t understand. Contrarely to him,
I think that a little amount of ashes would be left by the coffin,
but from his answer I could just conclude that those ashes are not
of a different color, or are there in a so minor proportion that
such a law seems unusefull. It’s possible that things run differently
elsewhere, but his answer was clear. Since I think, contrarely to
him, that the coffin would let some ashes, I imagine that a light
dust like that may be evacuate for most of it with the ventilation
system. Not in the cheminey, but in the structure, probably they
are obligated to do a clean up often.
What he told me is that friable bones are left, and they are crunch
in a kind of machine after. This is definitivelly the main ashes
that are restitute to the familly. But he wasn’t aware about a
difficulty related to such textures according to his answer.
Which law?
******************************************************************
Post and email to J. Morris

From [email protected] Sat Mar 16 08:48:10 PST 1996
Article: 27210 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Crematories: round 2 (1)
Date: 16 Mar 1996 14:59:22 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne35.vir.com

A copy will be email to John Morris soon:

Well, I took a day of wensday to continue my inquiry on crematories
since there’s still a contreversy about the fuel. It cost me a
day of salary but I don’t regreat it.

I’ve join 6 other crematory operators, and I’ve try with several
others. I will now, Mr Morris, begin by this statement: the longuest
aspect of the cremation is due to the necessity to reduce the ashes
of the coffin. In the 2 first interviews that I got several weeks
ago, I had a contrary opinion. I’ve send you twice a post and
an email copy about this ‘law’ about the dignity of the human,
and as I said, to me it is probable that such a law mention the
necessity to burn a body in a coffin but I don’t believe that it
claims that the coffin ashes need to be unidentifiable from the ashes
of a body. I never received any answer when I asked you ‘which law’,
you kept the silence. In all the others interview that I got,
nobody was aware about such a law. Further more, several told me
that there was no ashes left by the coffin. I think in that case
Mr Morris, you lied. This is the only case where I’m absolutelly
sure that you lied. In several other cases, your statements are based
on real facts but free assumption, but not there.
I’m not 100% sure that such a reference to the ashes exist in the
law, sometimes politicians adopt stupid laws, but your silence about
it is strange, from a man who is accustom to jump in the battle and
who was a day Mr Crematory in this newsgroup…
However, nowhere there was a problem related to the coffin ashes
when I spoke with those peoples, wether there’s a law or not.
Before to continue on that, I will present here an excerp of
this lie present on Nizkor site:

*****************************************************************
(http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/qar/ – (Page doesn`t exist) Question 42

For example, Legace is bound by Canadian law to use a coffin, and to
incinerate it so thoroughly that the ashes of the wood are
indistinguishable from the ashes of the human body. This is a lengthy
process. Legace forgets that such cosmetic concerns were not of
importance to the Nazis.
****************************************************************
The chemist didn’t consider any problem related to the ashes,
Mr Poirier said ‘no ashes left by the coffin’ , and now I got
some other statements with the others.
I’ve speak with S. Ouellet, from the Funeral house ‘Urgel Bourgie’
in Montreal (160 Graham Mt Royal street) and he explained that
he wasn’t aware about a problem of that sort. The first method
that he know to dispose of the ashes is to use a sieve to keep
the bones. Those one are crunch after and give to the behaves.
The second method is to crunch them in a machine. In the first
method, it is obvious that no ‘lenghtly’ process would be
need. But he wasn’t aware about any law related to the texture.
I asked him when they decide that a cremation is over and he
said that they open the door after 2 hour, 2 hour 1/2 or watsover
and if the texture of the body is brown than they continue.
He mentionned the ‘ashes of the body or the coffin’ which
are crunch or remove from the oven, but he wasn’t aware about
a texture difference.
At le ‘Crematorium D’arche’, Cure Poirier Blv, Longueuil,
Mr Choiniere said that there was no ashes left by the coffin.
At the crematorium Mont-Royal, they told me that the ashes
(either the coffin or the body) were crunch but they were not
aware about such a law.
All the interviews were done by phone, except with Mr. Poirier.

The difference here is probably related to their own knowledge,
I figure that since the problem of the coffin ashes do not exist,
they are just giving the opinion that is based on their common
sense.
I said previously that I though that the coffin would left few
ashes, but really I’m less sure now if it’s the case. The
reader may try an experience: all he need is to take a piece
of wood, let say 6 inches x 6 inches x 2 1/2 inch, and apply
a burner on it. Of course, you will not reach the 1200 or
1500 degrees of a modern oven, but if the piece of wood is
still there after 20 minutes, than you must repeat the experience
but light the gas jet this time, it’s a bit more efficient.
If after 45 minutes the ashes are stll brown, than remove your
protection glass. What? you say that a small brize that
remove some ashes can not give an accurate experience? Well,
there’s a ventilation system in a crematoria.

From [email protected] Sat Mar 16 08:48:11 PST 1996
Article: 27211 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Crematories: round 2 (2)
Date: 16 Mar 1996 15:00:28 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne35.vir.com

A copy will be email to John Morris soon:

Now, we will take a look at this contreversy about the fuel that
is necessary to burn a body in a modern oven.
First, the temperature in a modern oven. I asked just to few
peoples: At the crematorium Mont Royal, they told me 1300 degres
(celcius). At le crematorium D’Arche, 1600 degrees. At ‘le cimetiere
du bas du fleuve’ (before the name was Alfred Dallaire funeral house)
the guy told me that the equipment is generally use at 1,000,000
BTU per hour, and temperature more than 1,300 degrees. One British
Thermal Unity is about 0.252 Kcal, and since in one of my book the
calorimetric value for coal is about 7000 Kcal per kg, this is about 35 kg
of coke per hour. He told me that the flamme was applied during
almost all the process. I must add here that the figures that I got
for the cremation time everywhere were between 2 hours and 2 hours
1/2 for a normal body. There’s also a preheating time of 30 minutes
that must be add to that for the first cremation since the after
burner region must have a temperature of 1,000 degrees (a Canadian
law). The main part of the heat during the cremation is apply
to the coffin but there’s another location where the smoke is
going and where they dissociate the residual smoke with a single
burner. Several burners are applied to the coffin.
Incineration plus is cremating animal (Montreal) and the guy told me
that it take more than 45 minutes to cremate a 15 kg dog at
1,000,000 BTU. Since the Auschwitz ovens, according to Jan Sehn
and the Polish War Crime Investigation Comitte were operating at
800 degres Celcius while the normal crematories today are operating
at 1,300 degrees or more (1 million BTU for le cimetiere du bas du
fleuve), I can see that those ovens where not so much fantastic
compare to the modern ovens. I presume that this war crime commission
based its statement on documents ceased in the hand of the nazis
and the normal temperature of oven back those days.
In that case, since we are told that in an oven that was built to
receive a single body the nazis were able to cremate 3 personns
packed together ( 200 kg?) in 30 minutes, than the only rationnal
conclusion that come to my mind is that dogs are always cremated
in a coffin. All the other explanations that came to my mind are
anti-semit, so forbidden.

I asked to Mr Choiniere from le crematorium D’Arche if a second
or a third cremation was taking less fuel accounting for the heat
absorb by the structure but he said ‘not really, we need to cool
down the oven before to remove the bones’. I was close to say that
you lied when you stated that this crematory operator told you
that they needed just a tiny amount of fuel for a second
cremation. But today I’ve call back le crematorium Mont-Royal about
an information that I asked them Wensday. They told me that sometimes
a tiny amount of fuel is necessary to burn a body at the third or fourth
cremation sometimes. I was stunned. The only explanation that I have
for the moment for such a contradiction is that they are not cooling
the structure because of the design. The explanation that I received
about the whole process was complex and I didn’t catch everything.
It seems that they are crunching the bones in another part of the
crematoria automatically, I’m not sure, but apparently they are not
obligated to remove the bones manually. I think that there’s several
models of ovens and that in one of those model, if they remove the
bones manually, they can’t proceed quickly because they risk to
let some bones there and mix bones of 2 persons after the second
cremation, I don’t know.
What is interesting here is that I asked them the _average_ quantity
of natural gas that was necessary to cremate a body. I received
the answer yesterday: 23 meter cube of natural gas. Wensday I called
Gaz Metropolitain to get in advance the equivalence: 37.84 Mega joule
per meter cube. If we do the conversion this gives between 30
to 35 kg of coke per body. And now I asked them the big question:
how this ‘average’ is relevant? They are cremating 8 bodies per day
they told me, they have 2 ovens. Wonderfull. It’s not a small
funeral house where a single body is cremate sometimes, they are
cremating in sery and they even told me that a tiny amount of fuel
was necessary after 2 or 3 cremations. They told me also that a
body can produce energy, a thing that I knew, I received the same
comment at ‘le crematorium d’Arche’, the temperature can rise up
because of that. I said a stupidity some days ago:
Since I had just one interview with a crematory operator, I had just
an approximative idea about it, and I said that fat is a variable
that can’t be controll. It’s partially true only: they can adjust
the machine if the temperature rise up too much, but this is done
just after a delay. However, their datas are closed to D. irving
statement. But this is an average, and quite valid. If we consider
the 2,200,000 kg of coke that were delivered to Auschwitz, this
account for almost the number of inmates who were registered
in the nazis records, death from ‘natural causes’.
But before to go in further details, I will underline 1 difference
that can exist in that case:
A heavy coffin can produce a lot of energy. Last time that I
checked wood had a calorimetric value of 4,500 kcal /kg.
A 60 or 70 pounds coffin will definitivelly ‘spare fuel’ if
we take that in account, e:g the retention of energy in the structure.
Some may point here that I’ve a double standard since I neglect
the time that is necessary to burn a coffin but this is not
the case. Simply because a coffin is empty, so the ratio
surface/volume is definitivelly much more important that what
exist for a human body. I said ’empty’ in the sense that I’m
interest by the flammability of the coffin alone, the body is
another part that must be calculated after.
In other words, the coffin will burn
quickly, it contain definitivelly less water that need to be
boil off than a human body, and it surface/volume, the key for
a quick cremation, is present. This doesn’t change anything
to the calorimetric output.

I will know return to this famous question, the steady state.
Or the big question: can a body compense for the heat loss
for a whole cremation?


From [email protected] Sat Mar 16 08:48:11 PST 1996
Article: 27213 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Crematories: round 2 (3)
Date: 16 Mar 1996 15:01:36 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne35.vir.com

A copy will be email to John Morris soon:

Muller’s claim is that 175 kg was necessary for the first
cremation and 100 kg the day after for a single furnace. I then
conclude that the equivalen of 75kg of coke was lost in the cooling
of the structure during the night. It is say also that the furnace
wasn’t built when he claimed that, so despite there’s a base of
truth it’s probable that since he wanted to sell his product
things were a bit less efficient after.

We have an example that is close to Auscwhitz wth the crematorium
Monr Royal: they are operating 5 days /7, not 20 hours a day
but almost half of that and since Muller’s claim is that few
heat is lost in the period between the last cremation and the
first one the day after, than 8-10 hours of operation is certanly
close to what Muller was refering when he made his claim before the
war. If I’m taking their result of 30 kg of coke per body and
do the appropriate comparison with Muller figure, indeed a tiny
amount of fuel is necessary:
175 kg + 4* 100 kg (for the 4 other day) + 15* ‘a tiny amount
of fuel (Muller ‘s claim) for a whole week=20* 30 kg.
Here I took 4 bodies a day, the normal output of the crematorium
Mont royal, so the ’15’ is simply due to the 3 last bodies time
5 days. 25 kg of coke for 15 supplementary cremations. But the more
important variable that change everything has to be taken in account:
the calorimetric output of the coffin. When they burn someone in
a heavy oak coffin, they told me that this is heating the structure
*a lot*. I didn’t think to ask them the average weight of a coffin,
I figure that it’s 80 pounds or more, I don’t know. But this small
comparison is interesting: it show me that that the average extra
coke per body that is necessary after the first cremation is almost
equivalent to the heat that a coffin can give times the fraction
that is absorb in the structure.
This is why I think that Muller’s estimation was a bit optimistic,
for ‘selling purpose’. Peoples in Dachau were not cremated in a coffin,
so this extra-source of energy to heat a structure wasn’t there.

Before to go into details about this revision of my previous calculus,
I will say some preliminary considerations that must be take in acount:

1) You used a figure of 20 hours over 24 for the cremation of bodies
in Auschwitz to support your claim that the ovens were not cooled
down and that few heat loss occured since heat was permanently
retain by the ovens. Since we are told that the 30 to 46 ovens
of Bikernau had an output of 2 or 3 bodies in 1/2 hour, than
this mean 1200 to 1800 corpses per day _just_ for the ovens
that were in activity for the longuest period (krema 2 and 3).
If you consider 1 body at a time, this is at least 600 bodies a
day. But I’ve check back in the chronicle, and as I expected,
the alleged cremation of jews ‘killed in the gas chamber’
do not account for such an output except for the summer of 1944.
The figures are irregular, 277 a day, 800 3 days after, but for
the period 1942-1944, except for the Hungarian jew period, in
a lot of cases you have periods for which all the cremation
could be complete a long time before the next shipment. So the
ovens would have the time to loose a lot of energy there.

2) The doors had to be open few minutes to remove the bones and
place another corpse. In that case, heat was lost. I’ve not
try to read the theorical part that could help me to derive
this figure, perhaps I’ll do it sunday but my instinct
ell me that for 5 minutes and 800 degrees for a 1 m square door,
it won’t be more than few hundreds grams of coke, perhaps
few dozens. This is nothing for a cremation that require
35 kg, but if your point is that the average cremation required

2 kg, it has more importance.

3) I don’t consider that a human body can generate heat with a
constant power. In other words, since you need to boil up the water,
since each state is applied to a different part of the body,
it is quite obvious that at many stages the energetic ouput
drop. In that case, heat release will be, for a part, lost in
the ventilation system.

4) Sparing fuel and getting a quick cremation are not compatible
datas. The cremation speed is higher if the temperature is
rise up.

But now, I’ll revise my previous estimation simply because
I got more accurate datas in books. In anatomy of a death camps,
page 189, it is say that in 1940 the krema 1 was equipped
with a system that was able to remove 4,000 meter cube per
hour. There was only 2 muffles back those days in krema 1.
A the same page where figure 18 is represent in the same chapter,
there’s a reference to 45,000 meter cube per hour for crema 2,,
but in the text it seems that this include the aeration of
the other rooms (including teh B. Keller, 8,000 meter cube).
In that case, a more accurate figure seems to be 2,000 meter
cube per hour per oven. With the equations that I used several
weeks ago, this gives a bit mor than 20 kg of coke per hour
that is lost in the ventilation system, plus the heat that is
lost by radiation in the structure.
I’m not accepting a 1/2 hour cremation, with a ventilation system
that is 33% less important (625 feets cube/minutes according to
the chemist) but a temperature which is sometimes as much as
the double of the Auscwitz ovens, it takes 2 hours or more.
In we take in account other heat loss by radiation , a minimum
of 45 or 50 kg of coke would be necessary per cremation. And
this is just without considering the 4 points that I mentionned
at the begining. I must add also that the efficiency of a body
for the production of energy is not 100%, simply because there’s
not a regular energetic output, as what you would have with a
wet log perhaps. It take a certain time to get the maximum output,
and after a delay the heat production decrease since the most
flammable part had burn, at the end you have just a little flamme.
In the higher energetic period, temperature can rise up to
more than the average of the cremation temp. of operation and
this part is not totally absorb by the structure.
To that, I must add the important point 1, the fact that even
when someone check carefully the calendarium, it is obvious
that in a lot of cases the crematories could not work 20 hours/24
simply because shipments of jews were not regular. In that case,
the extra fuel that is necesary to heat the structure each morning
is necessary. It was certanly necessary also to cool down those muffles
often to clean it up or for reparations.
There’s some uncertanties here, I don’t know if a body can generate
enough heat to cover at least 45 to 50 kg of coke but as I said,
several other elements increase this amount, like the non 100%
efficiency of absorbtion in the structure, energetic peaks, etc…

Accounting for those datas, your estimation of 2 or 3 kg per
body for Auschwitz is hardly defendable. I’m taking now the revisionist
claim: the jews who were cremated died from ordinnary causes and
are those who figure in the nazi records ( less than 100,000 after
jan 1943). The missing jews who were shipped to Auschwitz, often
childrens and women, were not sent to the gas chambers but reship
to eastern ghettos since the ‘transfer to eastern ghettos’ was
not a coding terminology to say: kill in the gas chamber.
If I consider the fact that thypic were often thin, that there was
in their case fewer musles and fat than in a normal body, than
this calorimetric value of 45 kg to 50 kg of coke for a 2 hour
cremation at 800 degrees could not be reach, especially since
there was no coffin. Half of that, accounting for fat and the musles.
And we return to the 30 kg figure for 2,200 tons of coke.


From [email protected] Sat Mar 16 15:43:41 PST 1996
Article: 27231 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Crematories: round 2 (3)
Date: 16 Mar 1996 22:34:35 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne48.vir.com

Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote:
>
> A copy will be email to John Morris soon:
>
> Muller’s claim is that 175 kg was necessary for the first
> cremation and 100 kg the day after for a single furnace. I then
> conclude that the equivalen of 75kg of coke was lost in the cooling
> of the structure during the night. It is say also that the furnace
> wasn’t built when he claimed that, so despite there’s a base of
> truth it’s probable that since he wanted to sell his product
> things were a bit less efficient after.
>
> We have an example that is close to Auscwhitz wth the crematorium
> Monr Royal: they are operating 5 days /7, not 20 hours a day
> but almost half of that and since Muller’s claim is that few
> heat is lost in the period between the last cremation and the
> first one the day after, than 8-10 hours of operation is certanly
> close to what Muller was refering when he made his claim before the
> war. If I’m taking their result of 30 kg of coke per body and
> do the appropriate comparison with Muller figure, indeed a tiny
> amount of fuel is necessary:
> 175 kg + 4* 100 kg (for the 4 other day) + 15* ‘a tiny amount
> of fuel (Muller ‘s claim) for a whole week=20* 30 kg.
> Here I took 4 bodies a day, the normal output of the crematorium
> Mont royal, so the ’15’ is simply due to the 3 last bodies time
> 5 days. 25 kg of coke for 15 supplementary cremations. But the more
> important variable that change everything has to be taken in account:
> the calorimetric output of the coffin. When they burn someone in
> a heavy oak coffin, they told me that this is heating the structure
> *a lot*. I didn’t think to ask them the average weight of a coffin,
> I figure that it’s 80 pounds or more, I don’t know. But this small
> comparison is interesting: it show me that that the average extra
> coke per body that is necessary after the first cremation is almost
> equivalent to the heat that a coffin can give times the fraction
> that is absorb in the structure.
> This is why I think that Muller’s estimation was a bit optimistic,
> for ‘selling purpose’. Peoples in Dachau were not cremated in a coffin,
> so this extra-source of energy to heat a structure wasn’t there.

‘Selling purpose’?
I think so. But this problem came back to my mind this afternoon
and the datas between this modern crematory and Allach figures
are so closed that I have an impression lightly different now:
Muller probably used real datas from civilian crematories that the Allach
firm built before and did a projection to sell his product to
concentration camp. Since peoples were certanly cremated with a coffin
in the other crematories, than Muller’s figure were probably even
not a lie. But the heat that is generate without a coffin in
a concentration camp is different.

From [email protected] Sun Mar 17 11:23:41 PST 1996
Article: 27321 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The Luther memorendum
Date: 17 Mar 1996 15:58:37 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne8.vir.com

For a while I wanted to present that, probably that several peoples
here have read it entirelly before, but perhaps some did not.
Marthin Luther was occupying a key position in the foreign office,
and this memorendum was redact in august 1942. I’ve not actually the
books that were dealing with the story surrounding the Luther memorendum
redaction, I’ve not take a deep look to that part for years. The closest
book that I have here is the hoax of the twentieth century, page 205.
But the best I can remember it was for the preparation of a meeting
of high rank SS officers for the discussion surrounding the progress
of the final solution.
The reader may put himself in the context and ask ‘why did the german used
a coding terminology in their high level documents?”.
Hilberg quote only few parts of the original documents, which is suppose
to refer to an extermination policy. Some paragraph, especially the 2 last
ones of the long post, are interesting if we have to imagine that the man
who wrote that knew what was the real sense of the final solution. In
that case, for an obscur reason he used a coding terminology rather than
to talk about an extermination policy in a document which was classified
in a private file. I’ve not the time to retype it entirelly, but I’ll
show with a ****cut***** where I’m skipping a long ,boring and irrelvant
part and go there to the end. I’ve not the time to type all that stuff
today:

Date of the signature: 21 August 1942.

“1) The principle of the German Jewish policy after the seizure of the
power consisted in promoting with all the means the Jewish emmigration.
For this purpose the 1939 Field Marshall Goerring in his capacity as
Plenipotenciary for the Four Year Plan established a Reich Central
Office for Jewish Emigration and the direction was given to SS lieutenant
General Heydrich in his capacity as chief of the Security Police.
The Foreign Office is represented in the committee of the Reich
Central Office. The draft of a letter to this effect to the Chief of
the Security Police was approved by the Reich Foreign Minister as
83/24 B in February 1939.
2) The present war gives Germany the opportunity and also the duty
of solving the Jewish problem in Europe. In consideration of the
favorable course of the war against France, D lll (department Gemrmany
lll) proposed in July 1940 as a solution – the removal of all Jews
from Europe and the demanding of the Island of Madagascar from
France as a territory for the reception of the Jews. The Reich Foreign
Minister has basically agreed to the begining of the preliminary work
for the deportation of the Jews from Europe. This should be done in close
cooperation with the offices of the Reichfuehrer SS (compare D lll 200/40)
The Madagascar plan was enthusiastically accepted by the RSHA which in the
opinion of the Foreign Office is the agency which alone is in the position
technically and by experience to carry out a Jewich evacuation on a large
scale and to guarantee the supervision of the people evacuated, the
competency agency of the RSHA thereupon worked out a plan going into
detail for the evacuation of the Jews to Madagascar and for their
Settlement there. This plan was approved by the RerichFuhrer SS SS
lieutenant General Heydrich submitted this plan directly to the Reich
Foreign Minister in August 1940 (compare D lll 2171). The Madagascar
plan in fact had been outdated as the result of the political
devellopment.
The fact that the Fuehrer intends to evacuate all Jews from Europe
was communicated to me as early as August 1940 by Ambassador Abetz after
an interview with the Fuehrer (compare D lll 2298).
Hence the basic instruction of the Reich Foreign Minister, to promote
the evacuation of the Jews in closest cooperation with the agencies of the
Reichfuehrer SS, is still in force and will therefore be observed by D lll.

3) The administration of the occupied territories brought with the problem
of the threatment of Jews living in these territories. First, the military
commander in France saw himself compelled as the first one to issue
on 27 September 1940 a decree on the treatment of the Jews in occupied
France. The decree was issued with the agreement of the German Embassy in
Paris. The pertinent instruction was issued directly by the Reich Foreign
Minister to Ambassador Abetz on the occasion of a verbal report.
After the pattern of the Paris decree similar decrees have been issued
in the Netherlands and Belgium. As these decrees, in the same way as German
law concerning by foreign powers, among others protest by the Embassy of
the United States of America, althought the military commander in France
through internal regulation had ordered that the Jewish measures whould
not be applied to the citizens of neutral countries.
The Reich Foreign Minister has decided in the case of the American protests
that he does not consider it right to have military regulations issued for
making an exception of the American Jews. It would be a mistake to reject
objections of friendly states (Spain and Hungary) and on the other hand
to show weakness toward the Americans. The Reich Foreign Minister considers
it necessary to make these instructions to the field commanders retroactive
(compare D lll 5449).
In accordance with this direction the Jewish measures have been given
general application.
4) In his letter of 24 June 1940 – Pol X ll 136 SS Lieutenant General
Heydrich informed the Reich Foreign Minister that the whole problem
of the approximately three and a quarter million jews in the areas under
German control can no longer be solved by emigration -a territorial final
solution would be necessary.
In recognition of this the Reich Marshall Goering on 31 July 1941
commisioned SS Lieutnant General Heydrich to make, in conjunction with
the interested German Control agencies, all necessary preparations
for a total solution of the Jewish problem in the German sphere of
influence in Europe (compare D lll 709 secret).
On the basis of this instruction, SS Lieutenant General Heydrich arranged
a conference of all the interested German agencies for 20 January 1942,
at which the State Secrataries were present from the other ministeries
and I myself from the Foreign Office. In the conference General Heydrich
explained that Reich Marshall Goering’s assigment to him had been made
on the Fuehrer’s instruction and that the Fuehrer instead of the emigration
had now authorized the evacuation of the Jews to the East as the solution
(compare page 5 of the enclosure to D lll 29/42 Secret). State Secretary
Weizsaecker had been informed on the conference, because SS Lieutenant
General Heydrich agreed to holding a new conference in the near future
in which more details of the total solution should be discussed. This
conference has never taken place due to Lieutenant General Heydrich’s
appointment as acting Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia and due to his
death.

In the conference on 20 January 1942 I demanded that all questions
concerned with countries outside Germany must first have the agreement of
the Foreign Office, a demand to which SS Lieutenant General Heydrich
agreed and also has faithfully complied with, as in fact, the office of
the RSHA handling Jewish matters has from the beginining carried out
all measures in frictionless cooperation with the Foreign Office.
The RSHA has in this matter proceeded indeed almost over cautiously.

5) On the basis of the Fuehrer’s instruction mentionned under 4 (above),
the evacuation of the Jews from Germany was begun. It was urged that
at the same time these Jews should also be taken who were nationals
of the countries which had also undertaken Jewish measures. The RSHA
accordingly made an inquiry of the Foreign Office. For reasons of
courtesy, inquiry was made by way of the German Legislation in
Bratislava (Slovakia), Zagreb (Croatia), and Bucharest (Rumania)
to the governments there as to whether they wanted to recall their
Jews from Germany in due time or to agree to their deportation to
the ghettos in the East. To the issuance of this instruction agreement
was given before dispatch by State Secretary, the Under State Secretary
in charge of the Political Division, the Director of the Division
for Economic Policy and the Director of the Legal Division (compare
D lll 336 Secret).

The German Legation in Bucharest reports with reference to D lll
602 Secret, that the Rumanian Gouvernment would leave it to the
Reich Government to deport their Jews along with the German Jews
to ghettos in the East. They are not interest in having the Rumanian
jews return to Rumania.
The Legation in Zagreb has informed us that the Croat Government expresses
gratitude for the gesture of the German Government; but it would appreciate
the deportation of it Jews to the East ( compare D lll 624 Secret).
The Legation in Bratislava reported with reference to D lll 661 Secret
that the Slovak Government is fundamentally in agreement with the
deportation to the eastern ghettos. But the Slovak claims to the proper-
ty of these Jews should not be endammaged.
The wire reports have also been submitted, as customary, to the Reich
Foreign Minister’s Bureau.
********************** cut ********************************
[….]
*********** last part *********
The intended deportations are a further step forward on the way of the
total solution and are in respect to the other countries (Hungary) very
important. The deportation to the Government General is a temporary
measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern
Territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given.

I therefore request approval for the continuation of the negociations
and measures under these terms and according to the arrangement made.
Signed: LUTHER

I’ve not yet understand totally why the document wasn’t falsified
as some others (see Carlos Porter articles posted by Jeff) but
my instinct tell me that in the case of such a high level document,
things were more risky. But I’ll explain my idea later, if someone
come back on that.


From [email protected] Sun Mar 17 21:12:37 PST 1996
Article: 27361 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!lexis-nexis!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Crematories: round 2 (1)
Date: 18 Mar 1996 00:03:09 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne1.vir.com

Micheal P. Stein contacted Mr. Looker by phone. I asked him what the maximum
>throughput would be if the only concern were burning as fast as possible –
>say, in case of plague – with no thought to niceties of color or returning
>the right ashes to the right relatives. He said one average adult body
>per hour. The rating is really in terms of mass – he said ovens vary from

First, the response that I got from one crematory operator is that
if the corpse is still brown, than it means that there’s still carbonize
flesh. Bones are not brown even after an incineration I presume.
If you claim that the nazis were carrying the incineration of a corpse
just hafly and let some carbonize flesh for economical reason, than
I will accept that argument for the moment. However, I noticed that
those ovens operate at 1,400 degrees: this is 600 degrees _more_
than what I saw in ‘Les chambres a gaz ont existe’, G. Wellers, were
Jan Sehn described the Auschwitz ovens. I said that I didn’t think
his opinion was based on a ‘free assumption’ but on the reading
of the Germans documents that were captured by the Russians. Or
either on the normal temperature that was used back those days probably.
Pressac have read _a lot_ of German records dealing with crematories,
and he never, to my knowledge, claimed that the ovens were operating
at 1,400 degrees. If he had done this, then it would be difficult
to explain how the Polish War Crime Comission (Jan Sehn) could have
claim 800 degrees despite they had access to the _same_ documents.
I will take back a look at this report next weekend to see if it wasn’t
900 degrees, but since I read that figure 3 or 4 weeks ago, I think
that my memory is not faulty. The temperature has an impact on the
cremation speed.

2)
>course you’d expect him to say that.) He agreed it would be quite possible
>to handle two undersized and emaciated women or 3-4 small children in the
>same period of time if they were equivalent in total mass. Without any

But I _never_ said the opposite. I said that here, I was told several
times that the efficiency was related to the volume. Two emaciated
women correspond to a normal man. And he said it to you: the equivalent
in total mass. The same response that I got, despite I didn’t ask them
for more than one corpse but just about the volume of one corpse, it
make little difference. But the problem is that in the Holocaust classical
version, most of the victims were not Auschwitz inmates but jews shipped
from Western or center Europe (France, Netherland, Germany, Yougoslavia,
Greece) and gas upon arrival. When M. Giwer submited the argument
that the Auschwitz inmates were thin and had little fat to produce fuel,
M.V. Alstine said that he was an idiot because he didn’t take in account
the fact that in the Holocaust story most of the jews who were gassed
were not so much thin because they didn’t spend several months in
Auschwitz. In that case, the ’emaciated bodies’ can’t account for most of
the death figures. Now the childrens: I was told that very little
bodies could take 1 hour 1/4 to burn here. I agree, you can place
3 childrens and even 4 childrens of 20 kg in an oven. Since your
man told you also that the best way to calculate the speed is the mass,
this is the equivalent of a man, 2 bodies on the first layer and 2
others over. But there was not 85% childrens of 20 kg in the story,
nor 90% of emaciated woman. In the Holocaust story, there’s a larger
proportion of children than what can be find in an average cremation
today, but definitivelly not enough to match your hypothesis.
I’ll take a sample over 2 months in a couple of days and give the
equivalent.

3)
> about 100 to 200 lbs per hour. (His model is top-of-the-line, but of
> prompting from me, he mentioned in passing that older crematoria were
> quite capable of shooting out flames if overloaded, a phenomenon he called
> a “candle.” True, he did not say thirty feet; his figure was “only” eight
> to ten feet. His own product is designed to avoid this. Even so, he said
> that if he actively tried for it, there is a reasonable chance he could
> produce the effect as well.

Interesting, I’ll take note of that.

4)
> The Romans also practiced cremation. But as with the Greeks, only
>members of the wealthier classes could afford a private cremation. Indeed,
>calling a fellow Roman’s ancestors “half-burned” was a grievous insult that
>implied that those forebears had been cremated on one of the public mass
>pyres used to dispose of the poor.[3]

>[3]Obviously a hoax perpetrated by a JOOSH historian. We all know that
> open-air mass burning is impossible, right?

From another one then you I would have say that this was deliberate
distorsion but not in your case: I think simply that you misunderstood
my point: I’m not claiming that burning in pit are impossibles.
I consider that they are less efficient than what can be done
in a crematoria and that parcels of flesh are left. I’ve already
say that a notorious pathologist said that Hinduish pyres created
a serious problem because remains of carbonized flesh are throw in
the Gange. And I’m now claiming that I don’t believe that it’s possible
to burn bodies with other bodies, a layer of corpses can produce
heat but not enough for a total combustion of the above layer.

5)
>[1]Obviously they never heard that they could only do three or four or else
> they’d damage their oven. After all, Lagace _is_ an expert.

I’ve not read the big book ‘Did six million really died?’, just
the booklet. I wasn’t told anywhere that more than 4 corpses in a
day could dammage the oven, Mr Poirier had the impression that
an over utilisation was more efficient energitically. I asked
him if crematories were submitted to several breakdown and reparations
and, as a revisionnist, I got some deception from the answer:
Not so much. I don’t know why the Auswchitz ovens had so much troubles,
since I’m rejecting the over-utilisation, Murphy’s law can
be the reason.

The only argument that I’m taking in account is this story about
the uncompleted cremation with dark bones mixed with flesh. I had
such an impression but I told myself: this account probably for little.
I will respond to the question of the stench in 2 or 3 days, I’ve
all the informations with me but I’m too tired this evening.
However, despite it wasn’t your intention, you have just demolish
the fetiche argument of J. Morris about the coffin ashes: they are
not cremated in a coffin and this make little difference in time.
And my best impression now is that this story about the coffin
ashes (and the law?) is a pure lie, created by Morris or McVay.
And, not a minor point, the temperature difference between Auscwitz
ovens and today’s ovens tha can elapse of few dozen minutes the
cremation time back those days. But I’ll come back with what was
the everage weight of the peoples who were cremated in the
Holocaust version soon.

Post and email

From [email protected] Mon Mar 18 07:18:46 PST 1996
Article: 27422 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Jewish immigration in Palestine: oh yeah Yale?
Date: 18 Mar 1996 02:00:16 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne34.vir.com

Well, as I said previously, Yale is living in USA, I’m living in Canada
and since he’s a lawer, I can’t debate a long time with him about the jews
who immigrated in USA: he has access to more information than me and
can present it the way he want. However, I said also previously that
my new puepose was to find evidence that the bulk of the 500,000 increase
of jews between 1944 and 1949 in Palestine was due to Europeen immigration.
I said that I had better chance in that case to find informations.
I was expecting a long, hard research but I found what I needed in the
first book that I opened: ‘Integration and devellopment in Israel’,
edited by S.N. Eisenstadt [ the second name that I wrote on my seheet is
illisible, it finish with Bar Yosef] and Chaim Adler, Jerusalem, 1970.

First, lets review the main claims of YaLe but also Hilberg. Basically,
Yale claimed that there wasn’t as much as close to 400-500,000 European
jews who immigrated in Israel between 1944-1949 as Butz claim. I’ve
a couple of other post but for reason of brievety, I’ll requote this one:

Date: 17 Feb 1996 16:16:09 GMT

>> > No. What I told you was that the actual hostilities — not the armistices —
>> >lasted an insignificant amount of time. Further the British restricted immigration to
>> >Israel until May, 1948. In 1946 there were approximately 150,000 European
JJews
>> >in camps waiting to immigrate to Israel. It was proposed that 100,000 be
aadmitted
>> >instantly. The British refused. Over the next two years less than 75,000 were
>> >admitted to the Mandate. Source “From Time Immemorial” Joan Peters (Harper
&&
>> >Row, 1985). The *illegal* immigration during that period was less than 10,000.
>> >Your figure of 500,000 European Jews immigrating to Israel during this period is
>> >fantasy.
>>
>> The illegal immigration can hardly be count by definition.

> Why not? Those actually doing the smuggling of Jews into Israel were,
>after the British left, the heros of the moment. They were not shy about talking.
>Many are still alive. They say it was a trickle.

>> Second, you state
>> that there was 150,000 jews who were waiting for admission in Israel, but
>> the flow of jews who poured on the western side was an irregular movement,
>> and just fragments of that one can be given: your figure is just taken
>> a specific date (you don’t give it except ‘1946’) and you extend this number
>> to the period 1945-49, since you seems to say that those 150,000 jews
>> were the only ones who immmigrated in Israel.

> No. I said they were *waiting* for immigration. The British confined them
>to concentration camps in various locations including Malta and South Africa. There
>were *not* admitted to Israel en masse as immigrants by the British despite demands
>from the U.S. that 100,000 be admitted instantly.

>> There was refugees also at the
>> end of 1946, and there’s no reason to believe that this flow drop
>> suddenly to zero in January 1947.

> There is also no evidence to support your contention that they went to
>Israel. In fact, the opposite is true.

>> Furthermore, jews could count in some
>> cases on the help of organisations to move elsewhere, in North Africa as
>> an example.

> I know of no mass movement of Jews to North Africe. This is a figment of
>your imagination.

>>Those one could also go to Palestine later, illegally or legally.

> Wrong again. There was no significant immigration to Israel until the
>British were ejected.

Now, I’m taking Butz figure: he support with a reference his claim that
in 1944 there was 528,702 Jews in Palestine and, in july 1949, 925,000.
Yale main point was that a non negligeable fraction of those Jews were
Sepharadic expelled from their country during the Israelo-arab war.
Not all, but an important fraction.
At page 316, it is say:
“In November, 1948, six month after the end of the Mandate and Israel’s
emergence as an independent state, the first enumeration of the
population was conducted. The Jewish population of Israel in November,
1948, totalled 716,678 persons.”
At page 317:
“The first priority on the immigration agenda concerned the Jews in the
displaces persons camps in Germany, Austria, and Italy, and in the
period from September, 1948, to July, 1949, some fifty two Displaced
Persons camps were emptied in Germany alone. After actual residents of
the camps emigrated, some of these camps remained transit centers
for Jews not previously resident in camps, but joining the stream
of the immigrants to Israel. In the winter of 1948-49 the last of the
“illegal” immigrants who had been caught by British authorities and
held in detention camps in Cyprus were brough to Israel. In that same
winter practically the entire Bulgarian Jewish community and large
proportions of the Turkish and Yugoslavian Jewish communities
immigrated to Israel. At the same time news of the establishment of Israel
spread to Jewish communities of French North Africa, and the stream
of immigration from tjose countries was organized and begun.”

Later in the text it is say that between the summer of 1949 and the
summer of 1950, 40,000 Jews from Yemen flowed in Israel. In the same
period, most of the population of Lybia was transfered. In 1950-51,
124,000 Jews from Iraq and 27,000 Jews from Persia immigrated.

My point was simple: I accept Butz statement that the bulk of those
400,000 immigrants before July 1949 were Europeen. In the text, it is
say that during the winter of 1949 the first arabian countries
were Jews were living (North Africa) learned about this mass movement
and that this immigration _begun_ in the winter of 1949. This mean
simply that till november 1948, 716,678-528,702= approximativelly
188,000 europeen jews immigrated in Israel, and we can say the great
majority were europeens and not arabs, and that from september
1948 to July 1949 52 D.P camps in Europe were emptied from their Jews.
And also from Bulgaria, Turkish and Yougoslavia. Bulgaria itself
is a case: 40,000 jews there were count there according to Hilberg
in the first edition of his book. Morever, the number of Jews in
those 52 camps was certanly more than 100,000 if I’m taking your
explanation: Less than 75,000 (of the 175,000) were admitted and,
as I expected, the text specifically state that new jews poured
into those DP’s camps to replace the previous ones. In other words,
there’s serious proofs that at least the 3/4 of those 400,000 Jews
were Europeen and there’s just an indication that immigration from
North Africa began before July 1949, but this is not accounting
necesserelly for the remaining 25% of those 400,000. Morever, there
was also Jewish immigration from Europe after July 1949, despite
Sepharadic came in a larger extent. So Butz figure about 400,000
Europeen jews between 1944 and 1949 is approximativelly correct.
I’ve not check exhaustivelly country by country, and I’ve not
access to several USA archives, not the statistics that the UNRAA
decided to provide, but some other elements that could help me
in the case of USA, but for the only country were I checked,
it is obvious that most of those 400,000 Jews were European. And
you see how it is, even a non revisionnist book tell that new
DP’s were replacing those who quit those camps for a destination!
Hilberg or your statement about a ‘flash’ were you take the number
of DP’s at a certain date and deal only with those ones, without
accounting for the continuous arrival, is meaningless.

Post and email


From [email protected] Mon Mar 18 17:24:52 PST 1996
Article: 27437 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!lexis-nexis!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jewish immigration in Palestine: oh yeah Yale?
Date: 18 Mar 1996 02:16:01 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne12.vir.com

Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote:
immigration.
> I said that I had better chance in that case to find informations.
> I was expecting a long, hard research but I found what I needed in the
> first book that I opened: ‘Integration and devellopment in Israel’,
> edited by S.N. Eisenstadt [ the second name that I wrote on my seheet is
> illisible, it finish with Bar Yosef] and Chaim Adler, Jerusalem, 1970.
>
Just a small specification for the reader: most of the time in that
previous posting, I’m not quotin Butz but this book publish in
Israel. Except when I gave the 500,000 figure of 1944 and 925,000
of 1949, that he took from Jewish reference anyway. But this
is this Israeli’s book that I quoted.

From [email protected] Mon Mar 18 23:04:04 PST 1996
Article: 27511 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re:Crematories round 2 (1)
Date: 19 Mar 1996 04:07:47 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

A copy will be send to M.P. stein:

Now I’ve take a look at the chronicle and few other datas and I’ll come
back on 2 of your arguments. The first concern the average weigh
of a jew who was deported in Auschwitz and the second concern the
incomplete combustion of the body.

I ‘ve try to imagine what was the average pyramid of age for an
average Jew from France, Netherland, Greece, Germany and Czecoslovakia.
I’ve no typical demographical study with me but the best I could
remember how it look for a population of Western Europe (and so not
Lubavich most of the time for Auschwitz) it was probably something
like 33% from 0 to 18, 27% from 19 to 36, 22% from 37 to 56 and 18%
of others if I want to follow the shape of a pyramide. But really,
it doesn’t satisfy myself. The other data that I have is the Red Cross
report for the departure of Jews from Netherland to Auschwitz in the
summer of 1942, and this gives:

total 0-12 13-15 16-17 18-35 +35
men 6,233 611 162 601 3203 1656
women 4,842 622 138 368 2513 1201

In the story, since most of the childrens of less 15 years were suppose
to be gas, I have a bit more than 13% who are satisfying this criteria here.
However, something tell me that those figures are not representative
of the normal Jewish population: they do not follow the very approximative
data that I gave a bit above, the group 13-15 is unexplicably small compare
to the group 16-17. Something tell me that a kind of preselection was done
for an obscur reason. I have to datas, the first one is a quick attempt
from me to derive an almost regular shape for a pyramid of ages, the
second is a real figure for Jews who were deported in Auschwitz. I think
that if a preselection was done in Netherland in a mysterious way
this may have happend elsewhere, but really the first figure is not
totally ‘scientific’ neither. My best impression with those 2 contradictory
datas is that between 20 to 25% of the Jews who were shipped in Auschwitz
were childrens of less than 15 years old.

I’m not taking those figures to apply directly them to the crematories,
those ones were not working at the summer of 1942 in Bikernau. But
they will be helpfull later. I’ve not read more than few dozens pages of the
‘chronicle’ from Danuta Czek, but it appear that during the summer of
1942 a large fraction of men were admitted while often childrens and
several women were ‘killed in the gas chamber’ (to me reship elsewhere).
This is perfectly explanable since the typhus epidemy was decimating
the manpower of Auschwitz. But this larger proportion of childrens is not
usefull in your case since there was no crematories that were working
in Bikernau.
I’ve now take the chronicle for 2 periods, first of may 1943 to 8 th of
june 1943. I’ve just count those who were allegedly killed in the gas
chamber for the sake of simplicity since the others (typhus) account
for little in the total. Except if I did a small error, the total
is (round up) to 1850 men selected as ready for work, 1150 women
ready for work and 13,700 ‘killed in the gas chamber’. For then shippment,
it’s possible that 1 escape to me since I tried to do fast before they
closed the library, but I don’t think so. To that the gasing of approximativelly
1,000 adult gypsies, half men half women must be add. If we take back this
proportion of 20% childrens this gives 20% x (all the jews who were
shipped)=20% * (1850+1150+13,700)=3,340 childrens for the total.
I included the men and the women adult in the calculus simply because I’m
not suppose to know in advance if they were children before the selection.
With the less probable figure of 25%, this gives approximativelly
4,175 childrens. So the % of the childrens among the ‘gas upon arrival’
is between 3,340/(13700+1000 gypsies)= 23% and 28% for the 4,175 figure.

The second sample was not take: it’s the Hungarian Jews. I didn;t not
take it simply because the bulk of them were suppose to be gas, and
thus it is reasonable to take the ’20 to 25%’ figure without any
transformation. I think that in the story the Hungarian jews were,
for half of them, cremated rather than burn in open pits. In that
case the total figure is something like between 22% to 27% of childrens.
Again, the year 1942 is not count for obvious reasons: the crematories
were not built. I do not accept a figure of 10 kg for an average children,
I think at 7-8 years’ old it’s about 30 kg. With all of that Mr Stein,
all I can get is a figure of about 58 kg, if we take 75 kg for a man
and 62 kg for a woman. And those Jews where not emaciated like the
inmates who died from typhus or starvation. I presume that this
‘average’ weight for a human being in a modern crematory is about 68 kg
since there’s almost no childrens who die actually (man+woman)/2.
In other words, the case of one woman with 2 childrens of 10 kg is
exceptionnal, since this expert gave you rough figures that were
explaning the cremation time in terms of total pounds also, like what I was
told, most of the time if you wanted to reach the equivalent of an
average body all what you could get is a single woman, a single man
or either 2 childrens of 8 years old.

Second argument now: the incomplete combustion of the corpse.
I just remember to have seen in a book the pictures of bones in a
Buchenwald oven. The book is ‘Les crematoires d’Auschwitz, J.C. Pressac,
p 97. The picture was taken by the allied right after the liberation
of the camp, despite there was certanly several shortages of coke in
that camp in 1945.
The bones are white,white,white. However, there’s some stuff beside that
is brown. This ‘stuff’ is not bind to the bones, as I would expect
for carbonized flesh. It has no human form, just few white-white bones
and a smal heap of a brown stuff in a corner, as if someone swept
that there. The oven is extremelly durty. The second oven on the
right has a little door under the oven door, and this one is open:
several white-white bones with few of this brown stuff. Someone
drop the bones there.The brown stuff could be a dish cloth, or
soot, or either carbonized flesh, but in the lates case, it is
not attach to any bones. I was told that if a brown texture exist
around the bones, than it means that the combustion is not complete
and they close the door to continue. You are talking about the white
texture of the bones that is not reach after an hour, and I think
that’s because flesh is around it, paste on the bones. If not, it
would be easy to pick up the bones and sweep out the carbonize
flesh after and hour. The second picture is in ‘Auschwitz, a history
in photograph’, and it’s about the remains of bones in crema 5 as
discovered by the russians according to the legend of the photos.
There’s no brown stuff, few bones that are grey. But the picture
is also gray, every details around are gray, a bad exposure perhaps.
I’m not sure here. The eye witness are claimng that bodies were
reduced into ashes, I think even that when Yale brought something
about ‘He tells his story’ there was a mention about ashes, but
no carbonized flesh. My impression is simply that if the nazis
didn’t burn the body enough and let some carbonized flesh, then
it wasn’t as easy to crunch the bones, especially because I suspect
that they were a lot less friables in that case. So we would
expect to find a fantastic quantity of bones that were burried there,
and a reference to that by the peoples who were operating the
crematories. But the tales are generally talking about the
fantastic output of the crematories, the efficiency of the killing
machine, but no problem of that sort.
As you know, I don’t believe in the gas chamber story. My impression
is simply that such commercial cosmetic concern do exist and that
the nazis were not preoccupy by that in Dachau, Buchenwald, etc…
But that they needed to get friable bones with few or no flesh.
In other words, I believe that between the ‘1 hour figure’ that he
gave to you to get bones surround by carbonize flesh ( this is
my interpretation actually) and the 2 hours figure to get clean
bones, the Germans were probly doing something in the middle.

Post and email

From [email protected] Sun Mar 24 15:01:57 PST 1996
Article: 27759 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
hookup!ra.nrl.navy.mil!news.math.psu.edu!psuvax1!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!
netnews.upenn.edu!msunews!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!lexis-nexis!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Beaulieu refuse to answer
Date: 16 Mar 1996 16:12:29 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne13.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
deflect the
> criticism. Moreover Butz (and you) make a serious error of fact in your argument.
> As has been pointed out to you before there are two different admission
> procedures. That for refugees has always considered the religion of the
> applicant; it does so today.
>
This one is a part that I can hardly check exhaustivelly from here.
Since you repeat it I think it’s quite possible that they had
to declare their religion. However, if someone can’t take a look
at the record that they signed(?) to verify, the difference between
an official statement from a member of the UNRAA and the real
data can be huge. Butz do not mention the question of the religion.
I’m not aware if it is easy or not to check back in such individual
declarations or not. As I said, I consider as perfectly possible
a manipulation between individual declarations and an official
statement. There’s other elements that were brough about
the the weird claim about the low demographical increase of
jew after WW ll and this collide with several datas. The other
datas that I’ll start to check next week are not directly related
to the DP’S declaration since I’ve not access to it. For me it
turns around: is it possible for an independant person to take
a look at those sheets that they signed (probably) in the 40’s
and built a random sample of 1000? Example, declaration no 1,
500,100,1500 in the chronological order? I reject your usual
claim of the constant anti-semit conspiracy however.
The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

From [email protected] Sat Mar 2 09:39:40 PST 1996
Article: 25856 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: crematories
Date: 2 Mar 1996 13:07:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne13.vir.com