Article1, Beaulieu Jean Francois

(To All)
For those who where not there a couple of weeks ago, the discussion
did stop suddenly when M. P. Stein brough a reference, ‘Breaking the
Silence’, from Laqueurt. I was suppose to read it and this is what I
did.
Since there seems to be some new persons here, I’ll give a summary
of this revisionnist argument rather than to repost the previous
messages (december). After that, my response to M.P. Stein about this
book.
There was no possibility to keep a secret for Auschwitz over the war.
It was close to an important town, the SS families were able to visit
those one there. In the anti-revisionnist litterature, several references
can give a correct picture: hundreds of civilians were working there
in Auschwitz 1 on a permanent bases, and hundreds did work in Bikernau
before 1943 despite their number drop to a least few dozens after
january 1943. They were coming back home after their day of work.
hundreds of escapes an liberations from the camp did happen before
the end of the war according to the anti-revisionnist author Laqueurt
(the terrible secret). In 1942,43 and 1944. The inmates were frequently
shipped to annex camps were they were often in contact with civilians
also. In 1942 an emettor was in activity over 7 months in Bikernau
according to the anti-revisionnist author Galinsky (Fighting Auschwitz)
and the Polish resistance was able to catch the wavelenght, messages
were transmit on a daily bases to them. The inmates who were affect to
miscellaneous works (agriculture mainly) in the vicinity of the
camp were able in several cases to speak with civilians and letters
were hidden and given to the polish resistance while parcels were
collected in the same way, many SS ignored those facts in exchange
of food or cigarets. Those statements where referenced with anti-
revisionnist books a couple of weeks ago.

The polish resistance organized the collection of informations from
both camps and those informations were transmitted in London
easilly by the A.K. The polish fighting review was publish during
the war by the polish government in exile. It contain several references
to atrocities, but there was no reference about the mass gasing of jews
in Auschwitz before 1945 in that review. If we look to other sources
of information during the war, the propaganda about the mass gasing of
jews in Auschwitz started in the summer of 1944 but not before.
There was just a story about the gasing of a group of russian POW
in 1942 there, as if the polish resistance was able to collect
information about this single event but unable to learn the gasing
of hundreds of thousands of jews on a permanent bases. The propaganda
for Auschwitz did exist before the summer of 1944, but it was mainly
based on cases of torture, epidemies, hard work and so on. The
A.K. (polish resistance) had its own ceils in Auschwitz and Bikernau,
it is those inmates who were collecting in an organized way as much
information as possible before to give it to A.K. agents outside the
camp on a daily bases. Despite that, it seems that nobody was aware about
the systematic liquidation of hundreds of thousand of jews over 2 year
and a quarter, something hard to believe. There was, indeed, propaganda
during the war about mass gasing of jews, but not for the most
transparent camp before the mid-1944: Auschwitz.
My conclusion is simply that this is impossible, except if no gasing
occured there. The polish government in exile showed in many other
circonstances that it was extremelly involve on the diffusion of
stories of atrocities against jews, because it was of a vital
interest.
*************************************************************
(To M. P. Stein):
> Have you read “Breaking the Silence” by Breitman and Laqueur? German
>industrialist and Allied agent Eduard Schulte, who was considered quite
>reliable and sober by the OSS, brought out word that it was planned to
>build extermination facilities in Auschwitz. It is fairly recent
>information; apparently for a long time the identity of the agent was
>misplaced in the wrong box in the National Archives.

Ok, first, I wasn’t able to find in the book a clear evidence of
that. I’ve the impression that you were remembering hafly what you
read, or either my standard about what is evidence is not the same
than you when we talk about anti-revisionnist arguments. On page
14, there’s a reference to Auschwitz, but it’s the author of the
book. What I mean here is that Laqueurt is mixing fiction with reality,
in several cases one can read about discussions, or either the
attitude of Schulte when he take the train, it’s half a novel half
an historical book. Laqueurt was not there to see what mimic
Schulte did, what the person who was selling tickets to Zurich
could have think or say, but he’s filling an information that is
impossible to find with his own imagination. This is a bit normal,
the book would be boring without that. In the case of Auschwitz,
it’s Laqueurt who say that few time after Himmler’s visit to
Auschwitz, Schulte decided to give a warn to the world about the
decision about the final solution. This is true, but there it’s not
new stuff: several stories about atrocities started to circulate
in 1942, and Schulte was probably just reporting rumours that
he believed as a good anti-nazi. I must say that I’ve skip some
paragraphs or chapters, especially the biographie’s parts, I
was looking much more for Auschwitz. But I took a look at each
page on the other hand.

So the page 14 reference to Auschwitz is the choice of the Author,
among other statements, and Laqueurt do not claim directly that
Schulte did mention Auschwitz. If I’m looking to the reproduction
of telegrams in the middle of the book, there’s no mention of Auschwitz,
it’s the same stuff that may be found in other books, atrocities
with generalistic terms, and those ones are mention even in revisiionnist
books. At the end of the book, there’s no more precisions about the
contain of the documents that were found in the C.I.A files. I can’t
assume Auschwitz with that.

The only apparent reference to Auschwitz is at page 128-129.
It is say that in a private entertainment B. Sagalowitz did mention
a camp ‘on the east’ where a big crematoria was built and where
prussic acid was used to kill jews. Auschwitz is not name, but I
wont play with words too much neither, let’s assume for the moment
that it’s equivalent of Auschwitz (despite there was Majneck), I
don’t want to be too much capricious neither. It is not this sentence
that is quote, but another one previously, the reference to prussic
acid seems to be from the author. On the other hand, it doesn’t
look in the context as an invention of the author ( like for the page
14) but something that Laqueurt took really in documents.
I looked for the reference, and as much I can remember, it’s something
like: Part of Sagalowitz story were kept at Yad Vashem, but most are
still in private hands. There’s also a reference about a booklet
published after his death by his friends.
I’m not able to know with that in which document the reference to Auschwitz
was done. If it’s in a booklet published by his friends after the
war, even if those one did it honestly, it’s hard to believe that
it’s a proof that Schulte did talk about Auschwitz. He certanly talked
about atrocities that he believed, but I can’t imagine that 10 years
after, with the post war trial publicity that his friends where able
to remember correctly if he did talk about Auschwitz. If it’s another
document, than I don’t know, there’s no more clarification in the
footnote. I was much more looking for a telegram or a letter that
he wrote _at this moment_, but I didn’t find. It’s possible
that I missed something, but I don’t believe so, perhaps you were

refering to another part of the book?

I saw someone who suggested that the document that was found in the C.I.A.
files tardivelly could be a forgery. I don’t believe so for the moment.
I don’t see any reason for them to forge a document which was probably
not so spectacular since it seems in agreement with what was report
in the 1942 press: atrocity stories about mass gasing or electrocution
of jews in Treblinka, Belzec, or either with generalstic terms, but
no reference to Auschwitz apparently. But even if Auschwitz would be
mention in another document which wasn’t reproduce in the book, I’d be
still a bit skeptical about forgery, this is not one of
the best known revisionnist argument and I don’t believe that the CIA
is dedicated to forge proof on a full time bases to support the gas
chamber claim neither. Forgery is possible, but not probable to me.
And I could say: almost impossible in the case of a handwritten
document. But for the moment, I don’t know if there’s a
reference about Auschwitz in any of the document written before 1944
that Laqueurt examined, but I don’t believe so.

Post and email

From [email protected] Sun Feb 4 07:39:05 PST 1996
Article: 22643 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Auschwitz: A COUNTER FAQ
Date: 4 Feb 1996 04:50:27 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne17.vir.com

To Stephane Bruchfeld:

>of a post I mailed to the group and to you about 3 weeks ago, in
>the thread Re: AUSCHWITZ: A COUNTER FAQ, and to which your reply
>is still outstanding.

I did not respond because I felt that several of your questions
were, if I can borrow the expression from J. Morris:

>that the discussion has reached such a low level of technical
>quibbling that it is difficult to believe that your question is
>anything besides a matter of looking for excuses to believe that it

since I don’t know which other words to use in english.
Example: you fist said that there was no scientific on the revisionnist
side except the computer scientist Dr Butz, and then I brought
Luftl and Dr. Rudolphe, but you than asked on what applications
they mainly worked, or something like that. If someone in front
claim that Leuchter’s opinion on technical issues about the gas chambers
is stupid because Pressac proved that he was less competent than
himself, than I won’t ask to this person tha average price of
the suppositories that Pressac was selling when he was in business
as a pharmacist. Nevertheless, I’ll give an answer here, those
who dislike steril, boring and stupid discussionss about minor details
are just invite to go to the next message.

I’ll first reproduce a text that I sent to you before:

>> A concentration of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) is sometimes
>> used, with exposure times of up to 72 hours, to kill insects, but as
>> little as 300 ppm will cause death in humans within fifteen minutes

>> or so.
>>
>> Breitman offers background information about the development of
>> Zyklon B as a killing device, and provides clear evidence that the
>> Nazis determined the effective Zyklon B concentration through a
>> process of trial and error.
>> (Get pub/camps/auschwitz/auschwitz.faq1)
>>
>> When the difference in the concentration of gas required to kill
>> insects and humans was mentioned in Leuchter’s cross-examination in
>> the Zundel trial, Leuchter responded: “I’ve never killed beetles. I,
>> you know, I don’t know. I haven’t made computations for killing
>> beetles” – Hardly the response one would expect from an “expert” on
>> the subject…
>>
>> Because of the relatively small concentrations required to
>> exterminate humans as opposed to lice, and because of the far shorter
>> exposure time required, the HCN in the gas chambers used to kill
>> humans hardly had time to form chemical compounds on the walls.

Now from you:

>> Miloslav Billik, the same guy who posted recently a french article
>> here. He’s understanding of the Nizkor file was the same than mine,
>> if he took it from there and he brought the argument right after.

>I take note of the fact that you now spell Nizkor correctly. It
>wasn’t so difficult after all, was it? Could you provide a quote
>from Bilik which would support your claim as to what he has
>stated?

I don’t believe he will make any difficulty to say that he used
the argument that .4 or a bit more of HCN concentration was used
by the nazis. I can give you his email adress. My error was to think
that he took those data from the Nizkor site rather than elsewhere,
he told me in an email recently that he didn;t take this argument
from that file ( this was a valid assumption on my side) but from his
background of physician. It make little difference: the Nizkor argument
is quite clear:

>> A concentration of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) is sometimes
>> used, with exposure times of up to 72 hours, to kill insects, but as
>> little as 300 ppm will cause death in humans within fifteen minutes
[…]
>> exterminate humans as opposed to lice, and because of the far shorter
>> exposure time required, the HCN in the gas chambers used to kill
>> humans hardly had time to form chemical compounds on the walls.

If you want to claim that there’s no contradiction with Pressac claim,
that’s up to you but I see a major one. First M. P. Stein said that
I was perhaps confuzing the zyclon B quantity with the HCN concentration
in the air, but since Pressac claim 15 g /meter cube, he talks really
about HCN.

>I did not choose it arbitrarily at all. It was you, not I, who
>brought up the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Please see the quote

If memory deserve, I said Wiesenthal center OR Nizkor site, and this
was the last one.

>is not as precise as it could be. What is being explained here
>are the low levels of cyanide residues in the remains of the
>Birkenau crematoria. To my understanding the important thing is
>the short time of exposure together with the effects of wind and
>weather for over four decades.
>However, there is not in this paragraph, as claimed by you with
>some emphasis, a clear and specific statement as to the quantity
>of Zyklon B used by the SS for killing people.

Yes there is. It’s not relate to the danger after the gasing,
but to cyhanide compound: for me the phrasing is clear, it
contradict Pressac claim, the rest is just a game of words.
If the Nizkor site do not want to rejectn that 12 to 20 g /meter cube
was used to kill peoples, than hty’ll have to retire their
reference to 0.4 g /meter cube or either they can maintain it
but this mean that Pressac is a clown and that the killing time
was longer. My english may be not perfect but it’s hard for me
to believe that you’re not just playing with words in that case
since both statements are contradictory, this is clear and net.

>instead with the “remaining particles” which are “paste on walls
>and furnitures”. I think we can agree that there was not an
>abundance of furniture in the Auschwitz gas chambers. That leaves
>the walls.

No, that leave the corpses also but THE HAIRS, which were
certanly acting in the same way than textle. I dont see why
wood could retain HCN more than mortar, but textile probably
more.

>the walls.
>Now, what does it mean in more exact, chemical terms, that
>hydrogen cyanide is “pasted” to walls? In what circumstances
>would that happen? In all circumstances? If not, at what
>temperatures and levels of humidity? What is the kind of force
>that “pastes” the HCN molecules to walls? And, assuming that HCN
>molecules were indeed “pasted” to the walls, how large were the
>quantities and what danger did these residual quantities actually
>pose? In short, was it a real problem or a theoretical one?

A part of the explanations about that was done in the posting
‘cyhanide blue compounds:the gasing time made little difference’.

If you want the exact quantity that could have paste on the walls,
in the airs, on the corpses, this is impossible to calculate.
I though first that it was possible but then I discovered when
I read stuff about it that it’s an impossible problem to solve:
nobody on earth could calculate the exact figure. I could take the
pore dimensions in brick mortar and concrete and get an impressive
theorical figure, but things do not work like that in the life,
there’s several other variables that are not well know. Even the
dimension of the pores vary upon the type of concrete, and how it
was well fix at the bulding moment. Relevent data’s on HCN are
hard to find, even in the index of ‘chemical abstract’ the reference
to HCN datas were not enough close to my problem. All I can do
now is approximations: since you seems to have understand my point
about the ventilation time and the conception that I have (reminding
particles that paste on surfaces), I’ll say:
in a normal room, the walss are paint and I believe that those walls
are less receptives to HCN mollecules than mortar, but I’m not
sure if they are really less receptives than brick, all depends of
the kind of brick.
In a room, there’s furnitures, but wood make probably few difference.
Mattres like clothes are certanly much more receptives, but hairs
also. Human skin? I don’t know. Pellets? this is an important question,
in the case of Krema 1 there’s no porous pillar, and for Krema 4 and
5 if memory deserve it’s shower (where are the engineering descriptions????)
in the case of krema 2 and 3, in Hoess testimony showers, in some
other testimonies porous pillars, in at least a case pellets on the ground.
I didn’t see a reference about the removal of the pellets from the
porous pillars in the litterature, but I’ll assume such a case.
In the case of the 2 little farms in 1942 (out of Bikernau), pellets
through a hole in the wall, I figure that the nazis were just filling
those one after with chewing gum. In the case of krema 2 and 3, if
one accept the version that there was porous pillars, no reminding
danger from pellets but not elsewhere. How much HCN? for the 2 latest
building, certanly less than in a normal house if we divide by the
volume, but not 0 neither.
Suite tomorrow.

From [email protected] Sun Feb 4 08:00:33 PST 1996
Article: 22636 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!newsjunkie.ans.net!
Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: BRUCHFELD, I-HAVE-ENOUGH!
Date: 4 Feb 1996 06:25:37 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 167
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne22.vir.com

>> 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?

>This is only one sentence from the document you refer to, and for
>which you leave no source. Where did you find this document? I’d
>be interested to study it myself. Furthermore, it says nothing
>about whether ventilation is hard and long in all circumstances
>or in a certain kind of situation. See above again. This quote is
>not nearly enough for me to understand the problem. Is there
>anything relevant that comes before and after this sentence?

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. If you want to find it on your side,
you may search in a big library, normally a university library or
something. NI is for the serie ‘Nuremberg Industrial’, if you live
in Stockolm I presume that you may find the whole document at a
university, certanly not in a small library, but it’s better to
phone them before. If you don’t live in a big city, than perhaps
you could ask to someone from the Nizkor site. Or either wait a
couple of weeks since I’ll probably have to go there again a day.

>> This is the reason why the body of a
>> prisonner was wash in USA after an execution. The main zone of absorbtion
>> are muscous. But all the body’s surface can absorb HCN if we account
>> for the sweat.

>Is HCN absorbed by the body dangerous? Or do you mean to say that
>it is adsorbed?

I figure that if you touch it, probably since they are washing it.
Now, there’s danger and danger, it doesn’t mean neither that one
will die if he touch the body of a man who was submit to a gasing,
it would be hard to believe I think. A faint is much more probable
to me. In that case I imagine hardly that the sonderkommandos could
have bring up so much bodies without any accident of this sort,
so I believe that an evacuation of the bodies without gloves was
impossible if we expect that the SS wanted the job to be done
correctly. I don’t remember to have seen any reference to the use
of gloves.

>Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that you are right. I
>am not a chemist and I don’t pretend to be. I direct you again to
>my question above. If most of the gas was evacuated, how would
>the “pasted” residues present a real danger to the members of the
>Sonderkommando?

Because they are released slowly after. I figure that in a closed
room (or almost close room) the accumulation over half an hour
of those residual emissions will finally give a figure that
is dangerous. With what I know it seems reasonable to me to expect
an exponential decreasing law in that case too, so in the first
1 or 2 hours if I use the datas of the manufacturer, a danger
for the sonderkommandos but also for the SS behind. If both were
wearing gas mask, the danger of a faint or a more important intoxication
was much less present except if a continuous and strong physical
effort was involve. In the case of the 2 bunkers (1942) the danger
is certanly much more important I think: pellets were still active
in that case, and there there was no ventilation system, even
for the windows… more I think to the 1942 version, the 2 little
bunkers out of Bikernau, more that one sounds more ludicrous than
any other else.

>Maybe you didn’t understand my question. I’ll try to be more
>precise. There are many engineers in the world. What kind of an
>engineer is Lueftl? What has he published in scientific journals
>of repute that is relevant to the points here? What kind of a

I know that he’s the ex director of the Austrian engineering association,
so he’s not a legume I figure. ‘A publication about this topic
in a scientific journal’?????
In Austria, if one contest the gas chamber story it is jail.
You think perhaps that there’s a scientific journal that is publish
in Austria with government subsidies? Yes, he did publish. One of
his article is in the journal of historical review (IHR), but if
you consider that a ‘real’ scientific journal that is reliable must
get the approbation of a totalitary state, the answer is obviously
no. What kind of engineer? Since he didn’t publish a lot on
zyclon B, I doubt that he’s a chemical engineer. Nor an electric
engineer. He did publish on problems related to the heating of
a room, and also I know that he did something on crmeatories, so
my best intuition is that he’s probably a mechanical engineer.
You may ask to E. Zundel on the Zundel site, or perhaps to Marc
Lemire, personally I don’t know and I don’t care since most of my
arguments are not based on Luftl. Butz is definitivelly my preferate
author. But this is another story.

>chemist is Rudolf? Could you cite articles in journals of
>chemistry written by Rudolf? In short, what are the exact

No, and I don’t see why I should bother myself with that since I suspect
that even if I can get one after a month you’ll ask for the serbo-croat
version. I know just that he has a Phd and that he had worked
for the Max Planck institute.

>qualifications of the experts you wish to appeal to? How have
>they proven their expertise?

I’m too tired and lazy this night to search a long time, but I’ve
find that old file:

[email protected] (Agathist) wrote:

>>([email protected] — Do you still believe that the Leuchter
>>report has any value whatsoever as evidence?)

>>I cannot comment on the cremation details, but the chemical conclusions of
>>Leuchter’s work are confirmed with detail and precision in a doctoral
>>thesis submitted by a German chemist named Germar Rudolf, formerly with
>>the University of Stuttgart and the Max Planck Institute. In exchange for
>>his excellent demonstration of the scientific method and sharing of truths
>>discovered thereby, he was awarded a 14 month vacation with meals and
>>lodging at the expense of the German government, which promptly threw him
>>in prison.

And this one is from you:

>Excuse me, the Rudolf Gutachten a “doctoral thesis”? Submitted
>where? When? Who was Rudolf’s (aka Ernst Gauss) supervisor? Was
>the “thesis” accepted? Who commissioned the Rudolf Gutachten? For
<what purpose?

What did I say? you fisrt claimed that Butz was the only scientific
on the revisionnist side, despite I found in an old file that you
knew perfeclty who was Rudolphe from that posting a long time ago.
I’ve just discover that a couple of minutes ago.
When a guy give the thesis and the place, than you ask for the date,
and then the supevisor, and than in a totalitarian state you seems
to insinuate that normal condition may prevail, (BTW, perhaps his thesis
was accept ?) and then yopu ask who’s guy commisioned the guy,
and if it’s not enough you will ask where the supervisor of the thesis
received his Phd.

Normally I’m polite. Even with Daniel PitBull Keren I’m most of
the time polite. I prefer his style than yours. He send me to hell
but at least he think what he say. He’s funny sometimes.
You first sent me flowers about my english that improoved but than
you play this hypocrit game with me like you did with others.
I’m most of the time polite but there’s some limits to my patiente.
Mr Brushit, YOU ARE A FUCKING BASTARD FULL OF SHIT!!! CONTINUE
YOUR FUNCKING PSEUDO INNOCENT GAME WITH SOMEONE ELSE, I’LL JUST
IGNORE YOUR NEXT POSTINGS! Another name to add to my twit filter
list.

Post Only


From [email protected] Wed Feb 7 07:03:28 PST 1996
Article: 22866 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!istar.net!
news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Auschwitz, A COUNTER FAQ
Date: 4 Feb 1996 13:40:39 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne11.vir.com

Stephane Bruchfeld wrote:

>of a post I mailed to the group and to you about 3 weeks ago, in
>the thread Re: AUSCHWITZ: A COUNTER FAQ, and to which your reply
>is still outstanding.

I did not respond because I felt that several of your questions
were, if I can borrow the expression from J. Morris:

>that the discussion has reached such a low level of technical
>quibbling that it is difficult to believe that your question is
>anything besides a matter of looking for excuses to believe that it

since I don’t know which other words to use in english.
Example: you fist said that there was no scientific on the revisionnist
side except the computer scientist Dr Butz, and then I brought
Luftl and Dr. Rudolphe, but you than asked on what applications
they mainly worked, or something like that. If someone in front
claim that Leuchter’s opinion on technical issues about the gas chambers
is stupid because Pressac proved that he was less competent than
himself, than I won’t ask to this person tha average price of
the suppositories that Pressac was selling when he was in business
as a pharmacist. Nevertheless, I’ll give an answer here, those
who dislike steril, boring and stupid discussionss about minor details
are just invite to go to the next message.

I’ll first reproduce a text that I sent to you before:

>> A concentration of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) is sometimes
>> used, with exposure times of up to 72 hours, to kill insects, but as
>> little as 300 ppm will cause death in humans within fifteen minutes

>> or so.
>>
>> Breitman offers background information about the development of
>> Zyklon B as a killing device, and provides clear evidence that the
>> Nazis determined the effective Zyklon B concentration through a
>> process of trial and error.
>> (Get pub/camps/auschwitz/auschwitz.faq1)
>>
>> When the difference in the concentration of gas required to kill
>> insects and humans was mentioned in Leuchter’s cross-examination in
>> the Zundel trial, Leuchter responded: “I’ve never killed beetles. I,
>> you know, I don’t know. I haven’t made computations for killing
>> beetles” – Hardly the response one would expect from an “expert” on
>> the subject…
>>
>> Because of the relatively small concentrations required to
>> exterminate humans as opposed to lice, and because of the far shorter
>> exposure time required, the HCN in the gas chambers used to kill
>> humans hardly had time to form chemical compounds on the walls.

Now from you:

>> Miloslav Billik, the same guy who posted recently a french article
>> here. He’s understanding of the Nizkor file was the same than mine,
>> if he took it from there and he brought the argument right after.

>I take note of the fact that you now spell Nizkor correctly. It
>wasn’t so difficult after all, was it? Could you provide a quote
>from Bilik which would support your claim as to what he has
>stated?

I don’t believe he will make any difficulty to say that he used
the argument that .4 or a bit more of HCN concentration was used
by the nazis. I can give you his email adress. My error was to think
that he took those data from the Nizkor site rather than elsewhere,
he told me in an email recently that he didn;t take this argument
from that file ( this was a valid assumption on my side) but from his
background of physician. It make little difference: the Nizkor argument
is quite clear:

>> A concentration of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) is sometimes
>> used, with exposure times of up to 72 hours, to kill insects, but as
>> little as 300 ppm will cause death in humans within fifteen minutes
[…]
>> exterminate humans as opposed to lice, and because of the far shorter
>> exposure time required, the HCN in the gas chambers used to kill
>> humans hardly had time to form chemical compounds on the walls.

If you want to claim that there’s no contradiction with Pressac claim,
that’s up to you but I see a major one. First M. P. Stein said that
I was perhaps confuzing the zyclon B quantity with the HCN concentration
in the air, but since Pressac claim 15 g /meter cube, he talks really
about HCN.

>I did not choose it arbitrarily at all. It was you, not I, who
>brought up the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Please see the quote

If memory deserve, I said Wiesenthal center OR Nizkor site, and this
was the last one.

>is not as precise as it could be. What is being explained here
>are the low levels of cyanide residues in the remains of the
>Birkenau crematoria. To my understanding the important thing is
>the short time of exposure together with the effects of wind and
>weather for over four decades.
>However, there is not in this paragraph, as claimed by you with
>some emphasis, a clear and specific statement as to the quantity
>of Zyklon B used by the SS for killing people.

Yes there is. It’s not relate to the danger after the gasing,
but to cyhanide compound: for me the phrasing is clear, it
contradict Pressac claim, the rest is just a game of words.
If the Nizkor site do not want to rejectn that 12 to 20 g /meter cube
was used to kill peoples, than hty’ll have to retire their
reference to 0.4 g /meter cube or either they can maintain it
but this mean that Pressac is a clown and that the killing time
was longer. My english may be not perfect but it’s hard for me
to believe that you’re not just playing with words in that case
since both statements are contradictory, this is clear and net.

>instead with the “remaining particles” which are “paste on walls
>and furnitures”. I think we can agree that there was not an
>abundance of furniture in the Auschwitz gas chambers. That leaves
>the walls.

No, that leave the corpses also but THE HAIRS, which were
certanly acting in the same way than textle. I dont see why
wood could retain HCN more than mortar, but textile probably
more.

>the walls.
>Now, what does it mean in more exact, chemical terms, that
>hydrogen cyanide is “pasted” to walls? In what circumstances
>would that happen? In all circumstances? If not, at what
>temperatures and levels of humidity? What is the kind of force
>that “pastes” the HCN molecules to walls? And, assuming that HCN
>molecules were indeed “pasted” to the walls, how large were the
>quantities and what danger did these residual quantities actually
>pose? In short, was it a real problem or a theoretical one?

A part of the explanations about that was done in the posting
‘cyhanide blue compounds:the gasing time made little difference’.

If you want the exact quantity that could have paste on the walls,
in the airs, on the corpses, this is impossible to calculate.
I though first that it was possible but then I discovered when
I read stuff about it that it’s an impossible problem to solve:
nobody on earth could calculate the exact figure. I could take the
pore dimensions in brick mortar and concrete and get an impressive
theorical figure, but things do not work like that in the life,
there’s several other variables that are not well know. Even the
dimension of the pores vary upon the type of concrete, and how it
was well fix at the bulding moment. Relevent data’s on HCN are
hard to find, even in the index of ‘chemical abstract’ the reference
to HCN datas were not enough close to my problem. All I can do
now is approximations: since you seems to have understand my point
about the ventilation time and the conception that I have (reminding
particles that paste on surfaces), I’ll say:
in a normal room, the walss are paint and I believe that those walls
are less receptives to HCN mollecules than mortar, but I’m not
sure if they are really less receptives than brick, all depends of
the kind of brick.
In a room, there’s furnitures, but wood make probably few difference.
Mattres like clothes are certanly much more receptives, but hairs
also. Human skin? I don’t know. Pellets? this is an important question,
in the case of Krema 1 there’s no porous pillar, and for Krema 4 and
5 if memory deserve it’s shower (where are the engineering descriptions????)
in the case of krema 2 and 3, in Hoess testimony showers, in some
other testimonies porous pillars, in at least a case pellets on the ground.
I didn’t see a reference about the removal of the pellets from the
porous pillars in the litterature, but I’ll assume such a case.
In the case of the 2 little farms in 1942 (out of Bikernau), pellets
through a hole in the wall, I figure that the nazis were just filling
those one after with chewing gum. In the case of krema 2 and 3, if
one accept the version that there was porous pillars, no reminding
danger from pellets but not elsewhere. How much HCN? for the 2 latest
building, certanly less than in a normal house, but not 0 neither.
Suite tomorrow.


From [email protected] Wed Feb 7 11:41:03 PST 1996
Article: 22866 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!istar.net!
news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Auschwitz, A COUNTER FAQ
Date: 4 Feb 1996 13:40:39 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne11.vir.com

Stephane Bruchfeld wrote:

>of a post I mailed to the group and to you about 3 weeks ago, in
>the thread Re: AUSCHWITZ: A COUNTER FAQ, and to which your reply
>is still outstanding.

I did not respond because I felt that several of your questions
were, if I can borrow the expression from J. Morris:

>that the discussion has reached such a low level of technical
>quibbling that it is difficult to believe that your question is
>anything besides a matter of looking for excuses to believe that it

since I don’t know which other words to use in english.
Example: you fist said that there was no scientific on the revisionnist
side except the computer scientist Dr Butz, and then I brought
Luftl and Dr. Rudolphe, but you than asked on what applications
they mainly worked, or something like that. If someone in front
claim that Leuchter’s opinion on technical issues about the gas chambers
is stupid because Pressac proved that he was less competent than
himself, than I won’t ask to this person tha average price of
the suppositories that Pressac was selling when he was in business
as a pharmacist. Nevertheless, I’ll give an answer here, those
who dislike steril, boring and stupid discussionss about minor details
are just invite to go to the next message.

I’ll first reproduce a text that I sent to you before:

>> A concentration of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) is sometimes
>> used, with exposure times of up to 72 hours, to kill insects, but as
>> little as 300 ppm will cause death in humans within fifteen minutes

>> or so.
>> Breitman offers background information about the development of
>> Zyklon B as a killing device, and provides clear evidence that the
>> Nazis determined the effective Zyklon B concentration through a
>> process of trial and error.
>> (Get pub/camps/auschwitz/auschwitz.faq1)
>>
>> When the difference in the concentration of gas required to kill
>> insects and humans was mentioned in Leuchter’s cross-examination in
>> the Zundel trial, Leuchter responded: “I’ve never killed beetles. I,
>> you know, I don’t know. I haven’t made computations for killing
>> beetles” – Hardly the response one would expect from an “expert” on
>> the subject…
>>
>> Because of the relatively small concentrations required to
>> exterminate humans as opposed to lice, and because of the far shorter
>> exposure time required, the HCN in the gas chambers used to kill
>> humans hardly had time to form chemical compounds on the walls.

Now from you:

>> Miloslav Billik, the same guy who posted recently a french article
>> here. He’s understanding of the Nizkor file was the same than mine,
>> if he took it from there and he brought the argument right after.

>I take note of the fact that you now spell Nizkor correctly. It
>wasn’t so difficult after all, was it? Could you provide a quote
>from Bilik which would support your claim as to what he has
>stated?

I don’t believe he will make any difficulty to say that he used
the argument that .4 or a bit more of HCN concentration was used
by the nazis. I can give you his email adress. My error was to think
that he took those data from the Nizkor site rather than elsewhere,
he told me in an email recently that he didn;t take this argument
from that file ( this was a valid assumption on my side) but from his
background of physician. It make little difference: the Nizkor argument
is quite clear:

>> A concentration of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) is sometimes
>> used, with exposure times of up to 72 hours, to kill insects, but as
>> little as 300 ppm will cause death in humans within fifteen minutes
[…]
>> exterminate humans as opposed to lice, and because of the far shorter
>> exposure time required, the HCN in the gas chambers used to kill
>> humans hardly had time to form chemical compounds on the walls.

If you want to claim that there’s no contradiction with Pressac claim,
that’s up to you but I see a major one. First M. P. Stein said that
I was perhaps confuzing the zyclon B quantity with the HCN concentration
in the air, but since Pressac claim 15 g /meter cube, he talks really
about HCN.

>I did not choose it arbitrarily at all. It was you, not I, who
>brought up the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Please see the quote

If memory deserve, I said Wiesenthal center OR Nizkor site, and this
was the last one.

>is not as precise as it could be. What is being explained here
>are the low levels of cyanide residues in the remains of the
>Birkenau crematoria. To my understanding the important thing is
>the short time of exposure together with the effects of wind and
>weather for over four decades.
>However, there is not in this paragraph, as claimed by you with
>some emphasis, a clear and specific statement as to the quantity
>of Zyklon B used by the SS for killing people.

Yes there is. It’s not relate to the danger after the gasing,
but to cyhanide compound: for me the phrasing is clear, it
contradict Pressac claim, the rest is just a game of words.
If the Nizkor site do not want to rejectn that 12 to 20 g /meter cube
was used to kill peoples, than hty’ll have to retire their
reference to 0.4 g /meter cube or either they can maintain it
but this mean that Pressac is a clown and that the killing time
was longer. My english may be not perfect but it’s hard for me
to believe that you’re not just playing with words in that case
since both statements are contradictory, this is clear and net.

>instead with the “remaining particles” which are “paste on walls
>and furnitures”. I think we can agree that there was not an
>abundance of furniture in the Auschwitz gas chambers. That leaves
>the walls.

No, that leave the corpses also but THE HAIRS, which were
certanly acting in the same way than textle. I dont see why
wood could retain HCN more than mortar, but textile probably
more.

>the walls.
>Now, what does it mean in more exact, chemical terms, that
>hydrogen cyanide is “pasted” to walls? In what circumstances
>would that happen? In all circumstances? If not, at what
>temperatures and levels of humidity? What is the kind of force
>that “pastes” the HCN molecules to walls? And, assuming that HCN
>molecules were indeed “pasted” to the walls, how large were the
>quantities and what danger did these residual quantities actually
>pose? In short, was it a real problem or a theoretical one?

A part of the explanations about that was done in the posting
‘cyhanide blue compounds:the gasing time made little difference’.

If you want the exact quantity that could have paste on the walls,
in the airs, on the corpses, this is impossible to calculate.
I though first that it was possible but then I discovered when
I read stuff about it that it’s an impossible problem to solve:
nobody on earth could calculate the exact figure. I could take the
pore dimensions in brick mortar and concrete and get an impressive
theorical figure, but things do not work like that in the life,
there’s several other variables that are not well know. Even the
dimension of the pores vary upon the type of concrete, and how it
was well fix at the bulding moment. Relevent data’s on HCN are
hard to find, even in the index of ‘chemical abstract’ the reference
to HCN datas were not enough close to my problem. All I can do
now is approximations: since you seems to have understand my point
about the ventilation time and the conception that I have (reminding
particles that paste on surfaces), I’ll say:
in a normal room, the walss are paint and I believe that those walls
are less receptives to HCN mollecules than mortar, but I’m not
sure if they are really less receptives than brick, all depends of
the kind of brick.
In a room, there’s furnitures, but wood make probably few difference.
Mattres like clothes are certanly much more receptives, but hairs
also. Human skin? I don’t know. Pellets? this is an important question,
in the case of Krema 1 there’s no porous pillar, and for Krema 4 and
5 if memory deserve it’s shower (where are the engineering descriptions????)
in the case of krema 2 and 3, in Hoess testimony showers, in some
other testimonies porous pillars, in at least a case pellets on the ground.
I didn’t see a reference about the removal of the pellets from the
porous pillars in the litterature, but I’ll assume such a case.
In the case of the 2 little farms in 1942 (out of Bikernau), pellets
through a hole in the wall, I figure that the nazis were just filling
those one after with chewing gum. In the case of krema 2 and 3, if
one accept the version that there was porous pillars, no reminding
danger from pellets but not elsewhere. How much HCN? for the 2 latest
building, certanly less than in a normal house, but not 0 neither.
Suite tomorrow.

From [email protected] Sat Feb 10 12:41:43 PST 1996
Article: 23237 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!usc!chi-news.cic.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Auschwitz, A COUNTER FAQ
Date: 10 Feb 1996 15:56:55 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne1.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
# you fist said that there was no scientific on the revisionnist
# side except the computer scientist Dr Butz, and then I brought
# Luftl and Dr. Rudolphe,

>Luftl says that the exhaust of a 500 BHP engine won’t hurt
>anyone, while experiments proved that animals exposed to the
>exhaust of a tiny, 6 BHP diesel engine in a closed chamber, die.

>So far for this clown Luftl.

I’ve already reply to that 3 months ago, the diesel engine that you talk
was modified. In the post war trials, there’s no mention as far as
I know about the modification of a diesel engine. So Lueftl simply
consider a normal diesel and his statement about it was right.
I don’t know how you search this obscure 1951 british review but if I’d
have to give my opinion about a normal diesel engine, than my first
move wouldn’t be to search days after days in librairies to find if
an experiment was done with a modified diesel engine since there’s
no mention of that in the Holocaust litterature. The best I know.

>As for “Dr. Rudolphe”, I asked you already whether he has a
>Ph.D, and if so, from what institute and when was it awarded.
>You haven’t answered.

I’m not sending you an email duplicata since you don’t want emails
normally.
If you send me something, you are free to send a duplicate email
because I have several access problems with internet. I missed that
one apparently. I’ve look in my books and there’s no mention of
a Phd degree for Rudolf. It is say that he’s chimist and had work
for the Max Planck institute. I’ve search also in several post that
I sent and before the 4’th of February, it seems that I didn’t use
the qualificative ‘Phd’ or ‘Dr’ but chemist. I may be wrong, I’ve
not keep a copy of all those ones but most of it so I think simply
that I started to use the word ‘Phd’ the 4 February when I posted those
2 messages to Bruchfeld. Before that, I said that he was a chemist
and he asked me for publications that he wrote in journals. Since
I hadn’t that, I remeember an article written by a guy that I kept
and this is that stuff that I used the 4 th of february:
****************************************************************
>[email protected] (Agathist) wrote:

>>([email protected] — Do you still believe that the Leuchter
>>report has any value whatsoever as evidence?)

>>I cannot comment on the cremation details, but the chemical conclusions of
>>Leuchter’s work are confirmed with detail and precision in a doctoral
>>thesis submitted by a German chemist named Germar Rudolf, formerly with
>>the University of Stuttgart and the Max Planck Institute. In exchange for
>>his excellent demonstration of the scientific method and sharing of truths
>>discovered thereby, he was awarded a 14 month vacation with meals and
>>lodging at the expense of the German government, which promptly threw him
>>in prison.
****************************************************************
I reproduced a copy of it in my second message to Bruchfeld.
So here I simply believe that Rudolf has no Phd and that this stuff
that I found ([email protected]) was not a reliable source. It contradict
what I have in RHR, no 6 ( a revisionist review) where it is say that
Rudolf did
is report in connection to a trial and not for a Phd thesis.
There’s still a possibility that I confuzed with Dr. James Roth,
the chemist who analyzed Leuchter’s samples and testified for Zundel
at his 1988 trial. But I believe simply that I did not use the word
‘Dr’ before the 4 th of February.

>No, it has been proved that Leuchter is a liar (he lied about
>his alleged work regarding gas chambers and about being an
>engineer), and a complete idiot – and this has nothing to do
>with Pressac; Leuchter wrote such an idiotic report that even
>”leading revisionist” David Cole had to admit it’s a piece
>of worthless garbage. He wrote that Leuchter makes errors a
>3-year-old wouldn’t have made, and that’s one thing Cole is
>right about.

There’s a couple of errors or free assumptions in the Leuchter
report, but Pressac or Wellers were hardly qualified to say
that they had a better expertise. Now, if one talk about Butz
as an unreliable source because he’s not an historian, than
I will say that Hilberg is a sociolog, Reitlinger a critic of
art, etc…The quantities of errors that Butz did is weak, very
weak, the only that I know up to now is his first opinion about
the VergasungsKeller letter, an unsignifican portion of his book.



From [email protected] Sun Feb 11 08:09:18 PST 1996
Article: 23293 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!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: he tells his story
Date: 11 Feb 1996 00:22:22 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne7.vir.com

[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
>> You have to be frigging blind not to see this is a fake and a fraud. It
>>is internally inconsistent. It is all emotion and story telling and has
>>no fact content. You have to be a true believer to swallow this crap
>>story.

>And yet, you offer not one word to support your comment. That must be the
>denier way.

If the deniers provide evidence that Vrba lied in his book and testimony,
than it will be say that those lies do not mean the the rest of the
testimony is false, even if the lies are big ones. If the denier proove
that Elie Wiesel lied several times, than this doesn’t mean that everything
is a lie. If Hoess confession is full of contradictions, than there’s
a conveniant explanation for that. Mr McFee: it is hard, with a simple
text of 50 or 60 lines to proove that a man lie. I wouldn’t expect incon-
sistences and proovable lies in each eye witness sentence. But it’s unavoidable
that more one dig deeper, more there’s chances that lies will be detect.
Such sort of challendge were a selected excerp is present is irrelevant.
In that case, I wouldn’t expect a guy who want to proove that there’s
no lie to present the whole data.

Mr McFee, it took a while before I turned revisionnist: several books
were not enough, I had a doubt, but othere books an argument were
necessary, books in front also, but when I turned revisionnist, I
realized the absurdity of the situation.
The first argument that I saw, ‘at the end of the war, the jewish were
still there’, that appeared stupid to me became suddenly obvious.
So much holocaust survivors. The Tutsi who were caugh by the Hutus
were killed Mr McFee: with machets, guns, but in their case there is
really few,few,few, eye witness survivors. The arguments against that
sounds not convincing to me. I can see that some peoples like Green
will do a lot of efforts to proove that HCN can diffuse quickly
and so on, but I would say that such meticoulous analysis are just
stunning me sometimes. There was a day I realized that it was illogical
for the SS to deport hundreds of peoples in trains, to ship them
1,000 km away and transport them in 2 little farms and gas them
with an insecticide that they throw across a hole in the wall (how
did they filled that one?) and then to bring back their bodies
kilometers away to destroy it. Illogical except if the SS had
in the mind to deport them in eastern ghettos and use the more
robust persons as manpower as what their document were saying.
The best way would be to do the selection on
site, to shot them and recover the pit with lime. That’s simple.
The other counter-arguments on that point are unconvincing.

This kind of certanty that I got a day is made of rock. It’s the
sameone that A. Baron and Matt Giwer have. This is why a testimony
that you find ‘realistic’ will always be a lie to us. In that
case, it’s not always obvious to proove that each fragment of a
testimony is a lie, but when we talk about the gas chambers,
you can’t expect any other reaction from Matt Giwer, me or
A. Baron: fishy story. Because we know it. The deniers had devellop,
around that certanty, numerous arguments, some are the right one
and will resist to time, some others are valid but let a small
open door for the anti-deniers if they use contorsions to save
the appearances, and some others were the wrong ones.

I’ve sometimes some difficulties to put myself in your shoes,
I chandge drastically my opinion on that 3 years ago, and thus
I have to figure that a story that is believe by 98% of the population,
that has been use over 50 years became a kind of religion and that
some concepts that seems elementary to me are not for someone
else. Because the most confortable and safe approach is to think
like the others, and to follow what is an official credo I presume.
I’m not a psychologist. But sometimes I’m telling myself that when
the historians of the 21 century will look at the story they will
find incredible that intelligent peoples were trying to proove
their point with meticoulous calculus like Green is doing and
missed basic, important and obvious data. The analogy that Butz
used with the Donation of Constantin and the trees which are hiding
the forest is always coming to my mind.


From [email protected] Mon Feb 12 05:11:48 PST 1996
Article: 23353 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!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: BRUCHFELD, I-HAVE-ENOUGH!
Date: 11 Feb 1996 18:46:31 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne47.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
w————————————————————-
>Concerning the evacuation of the gas chamber in Krema I “through the
>roof,” what evidence do you have that this was, in fact, the case? You
>_do_ realize, Mr. Beaulieu, that when Krema I was modified to enable
>homicdal gassing to take place in the morgue, the ventilation system was
>also changed so that the air drawn from the morgue would be evacuated
>through the smokestack? A smokestack which was connected by underground
>flues, and was adjacent to Krema I? This meant that the poisonous gas
>(HCN) used in the gas-chamber (the morgue) would be mixed with the hot
>exhaust gases from the furnaces and released into the atmosphere from the
>top of the (10m) smomestack. [1] [2]

I’ve try to find this reference a week ago in antother circunsance
but I was unable to locate it. If you have the publisher’s name…
I never heard about a fan for Krema 1. On the photos there’s few
little flues and a smokestack for the Co2 and Co emissions (the crematoria
exhaust) but that’s the first time I see a reference to such a weird,
strange thing that sound completelly idiot to me Mr Alstine: is
it your opinion that the HCN was mixed with exhaust gases from the
furnaces or is it written in the book? The only thing that I believe
to be in your book for the moment Mr Alstine is the statements that
flues were there and that there was a smokestack for Krema 1.
You can’t extract HCN from this room without a pressurise system
or a fan and bring it to this smokestack through pipes. For that,
you need an air intake apparture to be place just behind your fan,
if not, you just stir up air unefficiently. There’s no mention of
such a system. It sounds ludicrous to me also to use a common flue
for such a purpose. So the only possibility was to evacuate the
gas either from the introduction apparture, either from the door.
Or little flues. It make few difference here since the flues are jus
3 or 4 meters above the ground, 6 meters less than your exhausstack.

> If now we have to figure a single disenfection,
> than it was possible and require to evacuate the upper
> floors of this hospital and to move peoples on the first
> floor when the evacuation of the gas began.

>Given the release height of the hot gases (10m), that hot air rises, that
>the poisonous gas was diluted by being mixed the hot exhaust gases from
>the furnace during the evacuation process and by turbulent diffusion in
>the atmosphere after release; how then do you assert that the HCN level in
>the surrounding area posed such a problem as to require the evacuation of

Given this confuzed paragraph of pseudo-scientific statements,
it’s obvious that you take me for a fool. You just pick up few words
from one of Green’s postings to put some sort of scientific caution
to your statement. That is simple: there was no fan for the mortuary
of krema 1 and there was an air injection system for the furnace.
So if the wind was in the right direction, and this was certanly the
case often, HCN would have been a danger 20 meters away (the hospital).
There’s just one ‘if’ in my statement, it’s the wind direction but
one could hardly imagine that the wind was always shuffling in a
safe direction.

>floors in the surrounding SS hosptial? What evidence and/or calculations
>do you offer to support this?

It seems that it’s a new fashion to ask calculus for each statement
that a guy is doing. BTW, did you calculate anything on your side to
support your claim? I’ll give you a short, simplistic, but accurate
calculus: with a 20 km/h wind it would have take less than 4 seconds
for a HCN mollecule to reach the hospital.

>Then, of course, there is the simple fact that the SS _did_ carry out many
>such gassings which killed many thousands of people, as evidenced by the
>residual level of HCN found in the gas-chamber of Krema I and the
>testimonies and other documentary evidence. Evidence that supports that
>gassings took place- all without, apparently, causing any such problem as
>you conject.

No Mr Alstine. Because as I said , Leuchter pick up also samples from
the washroom of krema 1 and cyhanides compounds were similar to what
was found in the mortuary. Now, in a fuzzy logic some could say that
Leuchter, since he was paid by Zundel, plant certanly his own sample
in the washroom. Then I’ll ask why he decided to plant samples with
few cyhanide compounds in the gas chamber rather than to plant samples
with no cyhanide compounds.

>Why? Couldn’t there be many reasons? Not the least of which being that
>Leuchter screwed up when he surreptitiously (and illegally?) took these
>samples? Leuchter’s “analysis” of the samples, and the implications he
>drew from them, show that he is a _very_ sloppy “researcher.” Not to
>mention he is a blatant and self-admitted fraud who misrepresented himself
>as an “expert” on gas-chambers when, in fact, he was anything but. And you
>consider this man’s “work” credible? (Such a trusting soul you are when it
>suits your purposes!)

Mr Alstine, when a fact bother you you use a method based on ‘free
assumptions’ apparently. A video was taken. If Leuchter had really
plant something than he had never challendge the international communauty
to name a neutral commission to verify it. He did it right after.
There was no response to that despite it would have been imperative
for the Auschwitz Museum to act immediatelly. After 2 years only
they asked to the institute for forensic research to do an expertise.
This institute was paid by the Auschwitz museum Mr. Alstine: they
certanly did not a work like that because they had free times.
I’m not claiming that they plant samples, contrarelly to you, I’m saying:
they were not interest to find cyhanide compounds in the Degesh and
the easiest way for the Degesh that they visited was to take one which
wasn’t the same than Leuchter. One that had been used less and and
where the walls were repaint. It tooks several years again before that
an other ‘investigation’ was conducted.
In that case Mr Elstine, I’m enough rationnal to think that there’s
few,few, chances to think that they plant samples or that they falsified
the chemical results. The easiest way to proceed is simply to take
the samples at places were you have more chances to find cyhanid in
the Leichenkeller (mortar, due to porosity) and to take samples were
you have less chances to find cyhanide in a Degesh. A video was
taken about Leuchter inquiry, but the video that the Polish took is
not sale. All you need is to take a brick sample in a place were you
don’t want to find cyhanide, or either plaster but on a lower extent,
and a sample of mortar were you want to find a lot. I’m not enough
stupid to think that after 1988 the Polish Museum didn’t carry on an
analysis to verify if the huge figure that Leuchter found at the
Degesh 1 on the same wall. They did it certanly right after but we
didn’t heard about it.

Mr Alstine, when Leuchter proposed that an itnernational comission
should verify his findings, it was simply that he had nothing to hide.
There was never a neutral comission Mr Alstine: to me, such a neutral
comission would have to include at least one revisionnist to check
if things are done honestly and a T.V. team that follow the group
and report openly were the samples are taken. All I know now is that
a video was taken but I’ve not access to this video. You see? my
standard are more honest than yours: I want simply those kind of things
to be done in a transparent manner, and I don’t ask a revisionnist
team: I’m just saying, at least one among the group.
I dont believe that the Cracow team ‘plant’ samples, but I’m not
enough stupid to imagine that the Auschwitz Museum, which receive
hundreds of thousands if not millions of visitors in a year is
interest to see this fantasy to be demolish. Their jobs are in the
balance. Money also. And I can hardly imagine that the Cracow team
was enough stupid to act objectivelly if it could displease their
employer. Leuchter neither. To me it is ridicoulous to think that
Leuchter plant samples, such a fraud was highly risky, but it is
obvious also that he wouldn’t have choose a degesh were there was
fewer prussian blue visible.

I gave also some elements about Leuchter a couple of weeks ago:
he had work on engineering programs for civilian and military
purposes according to some sources that I have, and I believe those
sources. But he didn’t graduate in engineering, indeed.

Now, the reason why Leuchter took samples in the washroom of
the Krema 1, is simply that his commissioner knew in advance that
there was few cyhanide compounds in all the room of Krema 1.
This is not say in the revisionnist litterature, but there was
thing that is say: Zundel ask to some friends to bring back samples
years before and those one were analysed, in a ‘too much unprofessional
way’. What this mean simply to me is that if Zundel had present such
findings he would have been accuse of forgery immediatly.
He needed a moral caution, and the probability that the unique
guy who had to maintain execution systems in USA could be a nazi
in advance was null.

>When asked if there is “anything relevant that comes before and after
>this sentence” you replied “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.”

>Thin gruel, indeed, Mr. Beaulieu, to base your claims that HCN “pasted” to
>corspes in high enough concentrations to be hazardous (or lethal) to the
>touch!

Mr Alstine, I couldn’t expect a manufacturer to give detailed precisions
about the pasting capacity on human skin, all what I can do is to
make deductions with that. You can not proove neither that few could
paste on human skin, but at least I have the honesty to say ‘i dont
know’. And I don’t believe, as I have already say, that such contacts
can lead someone to die.

From [email protected] Mon Feb 12 05:11:49 PST 1996
Article: 23366 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Censorship
Date: 12 Feb 1996 01:10:56 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

I think that according to some polls, the number of peoples who were
supporting censorship in Europe against revisionnism is not
under 30% (for France). In several countries, I hardly expect less
than a third. In Belgium, Germany, Austria, Sweden(?), France,
Switzerland, such a repression becamne effective. The strange thing
here is that among the numerous anti-deniers in front, it seems
that no one has the ball to say the he favorize censorship. I’m not
expecting all of them to favorize it, but obviously there must be some
who are not saying their real though. It’s a simple question of probability.
How could so much deputies vote that if the most agressives anti-deniers
are all against censorship? I’m just trusting 3 of them actually.
Is there anyone of the usual anti-deniers who will have the balls
to say it openly?

From [email protected] Mon Feb 12 11:49:28 PST 1996
Article: 23353 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!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: BRUCHFELD, I-HAVE-ENOUGH!
Date: 11 Feb 1996 18:46:31 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne47.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
w————————————————————
>Concerning the evacuation of the gas chamber in Krema I “through the
>roof,” what evidence do you have that this was, in fact, the case? You
>_do_ realize, Mr. Beaulieu, that when Krema I was modified to enable
>homicdal gassing to take place in the morgue, the ventilation system was
>also changed so that the air drawn from the morgue would be evacuated
>through the smokestack? A smokestack which was connected by underground
>flues, and was adjacent to Krema I? This meant that the poisonous gas
>(HCN) used in the gas-chamber (the morgue) would be mixed with the hot
>exhaust gases from the furnaces and released into the atmosphere from the
>top of the (10m) smomestack. [1] [2]

I’ve try to find this reference a week ago in antother circunsance
but I was unable to locate it. If you have the publisher’s name…
I never heard about a fan for Krema 1. On the photos there’s few
little flues and a smokestack for the Co2 and Co emissions (the crematoria
exhaust) but that’s the first time I see a reference to such a weird,
strange thing that sound completelly idiot to me Mr Alstine: is
it your opinion that the HCN was mixed with exhaust gases from the
furnaces or is it written in the book? The only thing that I believe
to be in your book for the moment Mr Alstine is the statements that
flues were there and that there was a smokestack for Krema 1.
You can’t extract HCN from this room without a pressurise system
or a fan and bring it to this smokestack through pipes. For that,
you need an air intake apparture to be place just behind your fan,
if not, you just stir up air unefficiently. There’s no mention of
such a system. It sounds ludicrous to me also to use a common flue
for such a purpose. So the only possibility was to evacuate the
gas either from the introduction apparture, either from the door.
Or little flues. It make few difference here since the flues are jus
3 or 4 meters above the ground, 6 meters less than your exhausstack.

> If now we have to figure a single disenfection,
> than it was possible and require to evacuate the upper
> floors of this hospital and to move peoples on the first
> floor when the evacuation of the gas began.

>Given the release height of the hot gases (10m), that hot air rises, that
>the poisonous gas was diluted by being mixed the hot exhaust gases from
>the furnace during the evacuation process and by turbulent diffusion in
>the atmosphere after release; how then do you assert that the HCN level in
>the surrounding area posed such a problem as to require the evacuation of

Given this confuzed paragraph of pseudo-scientific statements,
it’s obvious that you take me for a fool. You just pick up few words
from one of Green’s postings to put some sort of scientific caution
to your statement. That is simple: there was no fan for the mortuary
of krema 1 and there was an air injection system for the furnace.
So if the wind was in the right direction, and this was certanly the
case often, HCN would have been a danger 20 meters away (the hospital).
There’s just one ‘if’ in my statement, it’s the wind direction but
one could hardly imagine that the wind was always shuffling in a
safe direction.

>floors in the surrounding SS hosptial? What evidence and/or calculations
>do you offer to support this?

It seems that it’s a new fashion to ask calculus for each statement
that a guy is doing. BTW, did you calculate anything on your side to
support your claim? I’ll give you a short, simplistic, but accurate
calculus: with a 20 km/h wind it would have take less than 4 seconds
for a HCN mollecule to reach the hospital.

>Then, of course, there is the simple fact that the SS _did_ carry out many
>such gassings which killed many thousands of people, as evidenced by the
>residual level of HCN found in the gas-chamber of Krema I and the
>testimonies and other documentary evidence. Evidence that supports that
>gassings took place- all without, apparently, causing any such problem as
>you conject.

No Mr Alstine. Because as I said , Leuchter pick up also samples from
the washroom of krema 1 and cyhanides compounds were similar to what
was found in the mortuary. Now, in a fuzzy logic some could say that
Leuchter, since he was paid by Zundel, plant certanly his own sample
in the washroom. Then I’ll ask why he decided to plant samples with
few cyhanide compounds in the gas chamber rather than to plant samples
with no cyhanide compounds.

>Why? Couldn’t there be many reasons? Not the least of which being that
>Leuchter screwed up when he surreptitiously (and illegally?) took these
>samples? Leuchter’s “analysis” of the samples, and the implications he
>drew from them, show that he is a _very_ sloppy “researcher.” Not to
>mention he is a blatant and self-admitted fraud who misrepresented himself
>as an “expert” on gas-chambers when, in fact, he was anything but. And you
>consider this man’s “work” credible? (Such a trusting soul you are when it
>suits your purposes!)

Mr Alstine, when a fact bother you you use a method based on ‘free
assumptions’ apparently. A video was taken. If Leuchter had really
plant something than he had never challendge the international communauty
to name a neutral commission to verify it. He did it right after.
There was no response to that despite it would have been imperative
for the Auschwitz Museum to act immediatelly. After 2 years only
they asked to the institute for forensic research to do an expertise.
This institute was paid by the Auschwitz museum Mr. Alstine: they
certanly did not a work like that because they had free times.
I’m not claiming that they plant samples, contrarelly to you, I’m saying:
they were not interest to find cyhanide compounds in the Degesh and
the easiest way for the Degesh that they visited was to take one which
wasn’t the same than Leuchter. One that had been used less and and
where the walls were repaint. It tooks several years again before that
an other ‘investigation’ was conducted.
In that case Mr Elstine, I’m enough rationnal to think that there’s
few,few, chances to think that they plant samples or that they falsified
the chemical results. The easiest way to proceed is simply to take
the samples at places were you have more chances to find cyhanid in
the Leichenkeller (mortar, due to porosity) and to take samples were
you have less chances to find cyhanide in a Degesh. A video was
taken about Leuchter inquiry, but the video that the Polish took is
not sale. All you need is to take a brick sample in a place were you
don’t want to find cyhanide, or either plaster but on a lower extent,
and a sample of mortar were you want to find a lot. I’m not enough
stupid to think that after 1988 the Polish Museum didn’t carry on an
analysis to verify if the huge figure that Leuchter found at the
Degesh 1 on the same wall. They did it certanly right after but we
didn’t heard about it.

Mr Alstine, when Leuchter proposed that an itnernational comission
should verify his findings, it was simply that he had nothing to hide.
There was never a neutral comission Mr Alstine: to me, such a neutral
comission would have to include at least one revisionnist to check
if things are done honestly and a T.V. team that follow the group
and report openly were the samples are taken. All I know now is that
a video was taken but I’ve not access to this video. You see? my
standard are more honest than yours: I want simply those kind of things
to be done in a transparent manner, and I don’t ask a revisionnist
team: I’m just saying, at least one among the group.
I dont believe that the Cracow team ‘plant’ samples, but I’m not
enough stupid to imagine that the Auschwitz Museum, which receive
hundreds of thousands if not millions of visitors in a year is
interest to see this fantasy to be demolish. Their jobs are in the
balance. Money also. And I can hardly imagine that the Cracow team
was enough stupid to act objectivelly if it could displease their
employer. Leuchter neither. To me it is ridicoulous to think that
Leuchter plant samples, such a fraud was highly risky, but it is
obvious also that he wouldn’t have choose a degesh were there was
fewer prussian blue visible.

I gave also some elements about Leuchter a couple of weeks ago:
he had work on engineering programs for civilian and military
purposes according to some sources that I have, and I believe those
sources. But he didn’t graduate in engineering, indeed.

Now, the reason why Leuchter took samples in the washroom of
the Krema 1, is simply that his commissioner knew in advance that
there was few cyhanide compounds in all the room of Krema 1.
This is not say in the revisionnist litterature, but there was
thing that is say: Zundel ask to some friends to bring back samples
years before and those one were analysed, in a ‘too much unprofessional
way’. What this mean simply to me is that if Zundel had present such
findings he would have been accuse of forgery immediatly.
He needed a moral caution, and the probability that the unique
guy who had to maintain execution systems in USA could be a nazi
in advance was null.

>When asked if there is “anything relevant that comes before and after
>this sentence” you replied “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.”

>Thin gruel, indeed, Mr. Beaulieu, to base your claims that HCN “pasted” to
>corspes in high enough concentrations to be hazardous (or lethal) to the
>touch!

Mr Alstine, I couldn’t expect a manufacturer to give detailed precisions
about the pasting capacity on human skin, all what I can do is to
make deductions with that. You can not proove neither that few could
paste on human skin, but at least I have the honesty to say ‘i dont
know’. And I don’t believe, as I have already say, that such contacts
can lead someone to die.

From [email protected] Mon Feb 12 11:49:29 PST 1996
Article: 23366 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Censorship
Date: 12 Feb 1996 01:10:56 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

I think that according to some polls, the number of peoples who were
supporting censorship in Europe against revisionnism is not
under 30% (for France). In several countries, I hardly expect less
than a third. In Belgium, Germany, Austria, Sweden(?), France,
Switzerland, such a repression becamne effective. The strange thing
here is that among the numerous anti-deniers in front, it seems
that no one has the ball to say the he favorize censorship. I’m not
expecting all of them to favorize it, but obviously there must be some
who are not saying their real though. It’s a simple question of probability.
How could so much deputies vote that if the most agressives anti-deniers
are all against censorship? I’m just trusting 3 of them actually.
Is there anyone of the usual anti-deniers who will have the balls
to say it openly?

From [email protected] Mon Feb 12 17:22:16 PST 1996
Article: 23353 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!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: BRUCHFELD, I-HAVE-ENOUGH!
Date: 11 Feb 1996 18:46:31 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne47.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
w————————————————————-
>Concerning the evacuation of the gas chamber in Krema I “through the
>roof,” what evidence do you have that this was, in fact, the case? You
>_do_ realize, Mr. Beaulieu, that when Krema I was modified to enable
>homicdal gassing to take place in the morgue, the ventilation system was
>also changed so that the air drawn from the morgue would be evacuated
>through the smokestack? A smokestack which was connected by underground
>flues, and was adjacent to Krema I? This meant that the poisonous gas
>(HCN) used in the gas-chamber (the morgue) would be mixed with the hot
>exhaust gases from the furnaces and released into the atmosphere from the
>top of the (10m) smomestack. [1] [2]

I’ve try to find this reference a week ago in antother circunsance
but I was unable to locate it. If you have the publisher’s name…
I never heard about a fan for Krema 1. On the photos there’s few
little flues and a smokestack for the Co2 and Co emissions (the crematoria
exhaust) but that’s the first time I see a reference to such a weird,
strange thing that sound completelly idiot to me Mr Alstine: is
it your opinion that the HCN was mixed with exhaust gases from the
furnaces or is it written in the book? The only thing that I believe
to be in your book for the moment Mr Alstine is the statements that
flues were there and that there was a smokestack for Krema 1.
You can’t extract HCN from this room without a pressurise system
or a fan and bring it to this smokestack through pipes. For that,
you need an air intake apparture to be place just behind your fan,
if not, you just stir up air unefficiently. There’s no mention of
such a system. It sounds ludicrous to me also to use a common flue
for such a purpose. So the only possibility was to evacuate the
gas either from the introduction apparture, either from the door.
Or little flues. It make few difference here since the flues are jus
3 or 4 meters above the ground, 6 meters less than your exhausstack.

> If now we have to figure a single disenfection,
> than it was possible and require to evacuate the upper
> floors of this hospital and to move peoples on the first
> floor when the evacuation of the gas began.

>Given the release height of the hot gases (10m), that hot air rises, that
>the poisonous gas was diluted by being mixed the hot exhaust gases from
>the furnace during the evacuation process and by turbulent diffusion in
>the atmosphere after release; how then do you assert that the HCN level in
>the surrounding area posed such a problem as to require the evacuation of

Given this confuzed paragraph of pseudo-scientific statements,
it’s obvious that you take me for a fool. You just pick up few words
from one of Green’s postings to put some sort of scientific caution
to your statement. That is simple: there was no fan for the mortuary
of krema 1 and there was an air injection system for the furnace.
So if the wind was in the right direction, and this was certanly the
case often, HCN would have been a danger 20 meters away (the hospital).
There’s just one ‘if’ in my statement, it’s the wind direction but
one could hardly imagine that the wind was always shuffling in a
safe direction.

>floors in the surrounding SS hosptial? What evidence and/or calculations
>do you offer to support this?

It seems that it’s a new fashion to ask calculus for each statement
that a guy is doing. BTW, did you calculate anything on your side to
support your claim? I’ll give you a short, simplistic, but accurate
calculus: with a 20 km/h wind it would have take less than 4 seconds
for a HCN mollecule to reach the hospital.

>Then, of course, there is the simple fact that the SS _did_ carry out many
>such gassings which killed many thousands of people, as evidenced by the
>residual level of HCN found in the gas-chamber of Krema I and the
>testimonies and other documentary evidence. Evidence that supports that
>gassings took place- all without, apparently, causing any such problem as
>you conject.

No Mr Alstine. Because as I said , Leuchter pick up also samples from
the washroom of krema 1 and cyhanides compounds were similar to what
was found in the mortuary. Now, in a fuzzy logic some could say that
Leuchter, since he was paid by Zundel, plant certanly his own sample
in the washroom. Then I’ll ask why he decided to plant samples with
few cyhanide compounds in the gas chamber rather than to plant samples
with no cyhanide compounds.

>Why? Couldn’t there be many reasons? Not the least of which being that
>Leuchter screwed up when he surreptitiously (and illegally?) took these
>samples? Leuchter’s “analysis” of the samples, and the implications he
>drew from them, show that he is a _very_ sloppy “researcher.” Not to
>mention he is a blatant and self-admitted fraud who misrepresented himself
>as an “expert” on gas-chambers when, in fact, he was anything but. And you
>consider this man’s “work” credible? (Such a trusting soul you are when it
>suits your purposes!)

Mr Alstine, when a fact bother you you use a method based on ‘free
assumptions’ apparently. A video was taken. If Leuchter had really
plant something than he had never challendge the international communauty
to name a neutral commission to verify it. He did it right after.
There was no response to that despite it would have been imperative
for the Auschwitz Museum to act immediatelly. After 2 years only
they asked to the institute for forensic research to do an expertise.
This institute was paid by the Auschwitz museum Mr. Alstine: they
certanly did not a work like that because they had free times.
I’m not claiming that they plant samples, contrarelly to you, I’m saying:
they were not interest to find cyhanide compounds in the Degesh and
the easiest way for the Degesh that they visited was to take one which
wasn’t the same than Leuchter. One that had been used less and and
where the walls were repaint. It tooks several years again before that
an other ‘investigation’ was conducted.
In that case Mr Elstine, I’m enough rationnal to think that there’s
few,few, chances to think that they plant samples or that they falsified
the chemical results. The easiest way to proceed is simply to take
the samples at places were you have more chances to find cyhanid in
the Leichenkeller (mortar, due to porosity) and to take samples were
you have less chances to find cyhanide in a Degesh. A video was
taken about Leuchter inquiry, but the video that the Polish took is
not sale. All you need is to take a brick sample in a place were you
don’t want to find cyhanide, or either plaster but on a lower extent,
and a sample of mortar were you want to find a lot. I’m not enough
stupid to think that after 1988 the Polish Museum didn’t carry on an
analysis to verify if the huge figure that Leuchter found at the
Degesh 1 on the same wall. They did it certanly right after but we
didn’t heard about it.

Mr Alstine, when Leuchter proposed that an itnernational comission
should verify his findings, it was simply that he had nothing to hide.
There was never a neutral comission Mr Alstine: to me, such a neutral
comission would have to include at least one revisionnist to check
if things are done honestly and a T.V. team that follow the group
and report openly were the samples are taken. All I know now is that
a video was taken but I’ve not access to this video. You see? my
standard are more honest than yours: I want simply those kind of things
to be done in a transparent manner, and I don’t ask a revisionnist
team: I’m just saying, at least one among the group.
I dont believe that the Cracow team ‘plant’ samples, but I’m not
enough stupid to imagine that the Auschwitz Museum, which receive
hundreds of thousands if not millions of visitors in a year is
interest to see this fantasy to be demolish. Their jobs are in the
balance. Money also. And I can hardly imagine that the Cracow team
was enough stupid to act objectivelly if it could displease their
employer. Leuchter neither. To me it is ridicoulous to think that
Leuchter plant samples, such a fraud was highly risky, but it is
obvious also that he wouldn’t have choose a degesh were there was
fewer prussian blue visible.

I gave also some elements about Leuchter a couple of weeks ago:
he had work on engineering programs for civilian and military
purposes according to some sources that I have, and I believe those
sources. But he didn’t graduate in engineering, indeed.

Now, the reason why Leuchter took samples in the washroom of
the Krema 1, is simply that his commissioner knew in advance that
there was few cyhanide compounds in all the room of Krema 1.
This is not say in the revisionnist litterature, but there was
thing that is say: Zundel ask to some friends to bring back samples
years before and those one were analysed, in a ‘too much unprofessional
way’. What this mean simply to me is that if Zundel had present such
findings he would have been accuse of forgery immediatly.
He needed a moral caution, and the probability that the unique
guy who had to maintain execution systems in USA could be a nazi
in advance was null.

>When asked if there is “anything relevant that comes before and after
>this sentence” you replied “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.”

>Thin gruel, indeed, Mr. Beaulieu, to base your claims that HCN “pasted” to
>corspes in high enough concentrations to be hazardous (or lethal) to the
>touch!

Mr Alstine, I couldn’t expect a manufacturer to give detailed precisions
about the pasting capacity on human skin, all what I can do is to
make deductions with that. You can not proove neither that few could
paste on human skin, but at least I have the honesty to say ‘i dont
know’. And I don’t believe, as I have already say, that such contacts
can lead someone to die.

From [email protected] Tue Feb 13 15:45:59 PST 1996
Article: 23539 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: he tells his story
Date: 13 Feb 1996 04:23:43 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne29.vir.com

Russia:

The final solution was a programm of deportation there, you
know what is the revisionnist statement.
I think that a large amount of polish jews, who were russians before
1918, if they had better economic possibilities decided to stay there.
Perhaps a million jews, perhaps
more if we count some others countries. Russian borders were
shifted west to include a part of poland.
In the New-York Post, 1 july 1991 (p.16) an article from Uri Dan,
journalist of Tel Aviv, say that up to now Israelis authority
were estimating the jewish russians to a number between 2 and
3 millions. ‘But the israelis emissaries who can now travel freely
there report that a numer of 5 millions would be more accurate’.
What this mean is simply that someone can hardly take the 1945
statistic as given by the communist Russian government and say:
the revisionist can’t explain that jewish population drop from 3
millions to 2,3 millions there. It was said several weeks ago by
Yale Eideken that those jews were not descent of a german deportation
but jews who hide their origin to the soviet government because
anti-semitism was high there. Quite possible. But he said also that
the real number of jews in the ex USSR will not be known before
decades. What this mean to me is that no one could bring up the
statistic population of jews in USSR and claim that it can ‘disprove’
the revisionnis point of view.

Palestine:
The number jews increased of about 500,000 there between 1944 and
1949. The great majority of jews who came there before 1949 were
Europeens. Hundreds of thousands of jews immigrated there after
1949, but there it was a mix of Europeen jews and sepharadic
jews ( from the arab world). Nevertless, since a part of those
new immigrants after 1949 were also Europeen, it is hard to
take the jewish figures of 1970 in Europe and substract from the
1939 figures.

USA:
The number who came there may be 500,000 if not more. I’m talking
about illegal and legal immigration, but back those day there was
no policy to determine if an immigrant was a jew. It is clear to
me that the number involve couldn’t be ridicoulous: all the conditions
were there for a massive immigration. If 500,000 jews came in
Palestine between 1944-1949, a poor country, where they had
possibly no future, I can’t imagine that as much tried succesfully
to go in United states, the richest country in the World, a
country wich had a strong attraction, a tradition of freedom.
There was a lot of refugies in Europe, and jews had much more
reason to go there than before WWII.
If somebody present statistical
figures by such or such jewish organisation wich show a minor
immigration there after the war while around half million were
admit for the thirties, I think that those figures
are either politically oriented either taken from a previous
study provide by a group wich gaves politically oriented figures
(I dont think that jews proceed to census every year!!!) .
But anyway, this collide with another problem wich is: what
is the definition of a jew? and here, there can be a lot of
contradictions between jewish statistics.

I’ve look in one of Hilberg book and he gave something like 70,000
jewish immigrants in USA after WW 2. Here there’s a subtility. I said
that the UNRRA was
obligated to declare the DP’s who immigrated in USA and this is
true: for the period 1948-1952 it’s 409,674. It is said somewhere
that some UNRRA officials told that just a small fraction of them
were jews. Lets take a look at the UNRRA story.
Thw war refugee board was set up in 1944as an apparently joint venture
of the US State, Treasury and War Departement but it was, in the fact,
under the control of secretary of Treasury Morgenthau. The WRB worked
very closely with the Joint Distribution Comittee and the World Jewish
Congress.
The UNRRA had been set in 1943, and its first director, appointed by
Roosevelt, was Herbert Lehman, ex-Governor of New-York state.
Lehman was succeded in 1946 by Fiorello LaGuardia, who’s mother was
jewish. This organisation did a lot to help jew and was largely
under ‘jewish control’.
I mentioned earlier the lage amount of jews who were crossing the
border between poland and germany (us officials declarations)
but there’s other elements: in 1946, British General Sir Frederic
E. Morgan made a public issue about UNRRA operations: At a conference
press in Frankfurt he charged that an organized Jewish group was
sponsering an exodus of jews from Poland into the U.S. zone in Germany.
He ridiculed ‘all that talk about progroms within Poland”, pointing
out that jews arriving in trainload in Berlin were well fed, well
dressed and had plenty of money: ‘They certanly do not look like a
persecuted people. I believe that they have got a plan to get out
of Europe”. He added that their money was in a great extent occupation
marks, printed by the Russians.

Here I have a claim, that just a fraction of the DP’s admitted
by the UNRRA where jews. I have a statement that the bulk of the half
million DP, if not more if we count other periods and illegal
immigration, were mainly goyim that the leaders of the UNRRA were
helping 5 times more non jews than jews. There’s also many strange
coincidences about the original country: it wasn’t a state policy
to ask to a jew to declare himself as one after WWII, but the
board reproduce was clear:

Regular immigration DP’s, 1948-52 jewish pop total popul
1941-1950 int the 30’s
Austria 24,860 8,956 230,000
Belgium 12,189 951 60,000
Czechoslovakia 8,347 12,638 260,000
Denmark 5,393 62 7,000
Estonia 212 10,427 5,000
France 38,809 799 250,000
Germany 226,578 62,123 500,000
Greece 8,973 10,277 75,000
Hungary 3,469 16,627 320,000
Italy 57,661 2,268 50,000
Latvia 361 36,014 80,000
Lithuania 683 24,698 160,000
Netherland 14,860 64 120,000
Poland 7,571 135,302 3,100,000
Rumania 1,076 10,618 900,000
USSR 548 35,747 3,000,000
Yugoslavia 1,576 33,367 70,000

For the third column, I’ll mention that for germany and Austria data
are not reliable since jewish population drop drastically at the
end of the 30’s (40,000 for Austria and 180,000 for germany I think)
I’m interest also to mention the ration jews/population in the third
column: in latvia,80,000 jews over 2 millions was a lot more
than 75,000 in Greece for this ratio.
A jew deported in Latvia could also give ‘Latvia’ as it’s original
country in some cases.
So I have the statement that in countries were jews were massivelly
present before WW2, there ‘s a large proportion of DP’s admission
wich is often much important than regular immigration (Poland,
Rumania,USSR, Yugoslavia,Lituania,Latvia,Hungary,Estonia) while
in countries wehe there was a lower proportion of jews in the 30’s
(Germany,Greece,Austria, Czecoslovakia) data’s of regular immigration
and DP’S are comparable while in countries were there was a small
% of jews (Italy,Denmark) there’s almos no DP’s who came. Netherland
is the only enigma in that.

To me, the statement that a small fraction of those DP were jews
is a lie. If one would like to bring a serious proof that there wasn’t
500,000 jews or more admitted in USA, he’ll have to bring a story
in wich jews were obligated to declare themself as ‘jews’ on a sheet
that they signed when they immigrated, because in such a case it
would be a non sense to immagine 500,000 jews lying for an obscur
reason, an impossible large scale plot. But the classification in
the category ‘jews among other races’ was drop, and the data wich
claim that 70,000 jews came in USA were given by a couple of officials.
This is the reason why I stated earlier that a claim maden by a
top level jew who was in contact with the Nuremberg prosecution staff
is not a proof: there’s many coincidence to explain. And then I’m
not rejecting such a claim that few jes immigrated in USA because
it is convenient but because the story of the UNRRA doesn’t fit
with the official claim, and also because of the coincidence with
the countries of origin for those jews.

From [email protected] Tue Feb 13 15:46:00 PST 1996
Article: 23540 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: 13 Feb 1996 04:45:55 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne29.vir.com

[email protected] (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > that no one has the ball to say the he favorize censorship. I’m not
> > expecting all of them to favorize it, but obviously there must be some
> > who are not saying their real though. It’s a simple question of probability.
> > How could so much deputies vote that if the most agressives anti-deniers
> > are all against censorship? I’m just trusting 3 of them actually.
> > Is there anyone of the usual anti-deniers who will have the balls
> > to say it openly?
>
> Can’t speak for Europe, but our own Ernst Zundel has been
> quite open in his demands for censorship; he’s not
> “anti-denier,” of course, but perhaps you’ll agree he clearly
> supports censorship when it suits him to support it. URL
>
Beyon some ideological divergences, I keep respect for the man.
He has guts and I like that. Nevethless, when I received this
kind of petition I said “No, non,no, sigh, no please, not that”.
Perhaps that I’m a poor soldier, someone who will shut up and
act as a robot. I never signed that formula, nor did I send it
for your information. Neverthless, this is not an excuse for other
other censorship neither: Schindler’s List was not banned,
but censorship against revisionnism is an accomplish fact
in several countries so my question hold: Does anyone will
have the balls to say it?

From [email protected] Wed Feb 14 21:24:09 PST 1996
Article: 23634 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: BRUCHFELD, I-HAVE-ENOUGH!
Date: 15 Feb 1996 01:50:24 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<DMpDAC.3×[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne25.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
# So if the wind was in the right direction, and this was certanly
# the case often, HCN would have been a danger 20 meters away
# (the hospital).

>Enough already, for God’s sake. We’ve been through this garbage
>before.

>There are cyanide compounds in the walls of the Krema I gas
>chamber. This proves that HCN gas WAS USED in it. This proves
>that all these “dangers” you’re talking about were overcome.

Agree

>How many times do we have to go through this? Can’t Zundel’s pals
>in the South-Pole “German UFO base” give you people something new?

Well, I’ll do an effort in a week or two to find something very
new. But it’s funny Dan, I was close to do you the same remark:
how many thime will you repeat your ‘argument’?
That is simple: yes, those dangers can be overcome. You can take
special security measures for the hospital, you can take special
security measures to avoid some problems that are mentionned by
Leuchter for the other buildings, but if you planify to proceed
gasing on a regular base, than there’s other ways that are more
accurate then temporary measures.
But for UFO’S, you take me for a fool??? I don’t believe in UFO’S,
just in Santa Clauss.



From [email protected] Wed Feb 14 21:24:10 PST 1996
Article: 23635 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: BRUCHFELD, I-HAVE-ENOUGH!
Date: 15 Feb 1996 01:52:10 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<DMpDAC.3×[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne25.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
# So if the wind was in the right direction, and this was certanly
# the case often, HCN would have been a danger 20 meters away
# (the hospital).

>Enough already, for God’s sake. We’ve been through this garbage
>before.

>There are cyanide compounds in the walls of the Krema I gas
>chamber. This proves that HCN gas WAS USED in it. This proves
>that all these “dangers” you’re talking about were overcome.

Agree

>How many times do we have to go through this? Can’t Zundel’s pals
>in the South-Pole “German UFO base” give you people something new?

Well, I’ll do an effort in a week or two to find something very
new. But it’s funny Dan, I was close to do you the same remark:
how many thime will you repeat your ‘argument’?
That is simple: yes, those dangers can be overcome. You can take
special security measures for the hospital, you can take special
security measures to avoid some problems that are mentionned by
Leuchter for the other buildings, but if you planify to proceed
gasing on a regular base, than there’s other ways that are more
accurate then temporary measures.
But for UFO’S, you take me for a fool??? I don’t believe in UFO’S,
just in Santa Clauss.



From [email protected] Thu Feb 15 07:53:25 PST 1996
Article: 23658 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Auschwitz: the impossible secret (again…)
Date: 15 Feb 1996 01:55:15 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne25.vir.com

Well, Daniel will say that I have a tendency to repeat my stuff,
but what can I say? Since I’ve less the time then before to run
accross the librairies, my only alternative is to rewrite this
previous argument more extensivelly. By the way, the Nizkor repeat
it stuff frequently, I will only post the (almost) final version
each 10 weeks I think. After all, since I saw M. V. Alstine
refering to ‘the necessity of the secret’ to explain the use of
Zyclon B in a recent posting….. With a couple of new stuff in it.

First of all, the usual statement that the Germans have try to
keep the secret about their extermination policy is completelly
ridicoulous. This ‘attempt to preserve the secret’ is often use
to explain why the high level german documents captured by the
allieds are often refering to the ‘final solution’ as a program of
expulsion of the jews out of Europe.

The Auschwitz camp was built close to an important agglomeration.
Many civilians were working there during the day before to go back
home at the evening.
In ‘les crematoires d’Auschwitz’ (1993), the anti-revisionnist writer
J.C. Pressac who use germans documents write (p62):
“For the Bikernau crematories, the germans gaves the contracts to 12
civilians enterprises[…] Each working site was using between 100
and 150 peoples, 1/3 civilians.”
The number of ovens was growing with years with the expension of
the camp and the maintenance was unavoidable.
Auschwitz was critical for the allieds: Syntethic rubber production
was important for the americans, and it is not surprising that many
air photo missions concerning this camp took place.
The huge backwardness of the americans concerning the fabrication
of synthetic rubber after the lost of their usual source in Malaisia
in 1941-42 didn’t let them any choice: they had to know everything about
Auschwitz, and there’s no doubt that they took mesures to pick-up
as much information as possible.
We know, btw, that the americans broke the cryptology code that the
germans used in their communications. Over 2 years 1/2, no mention
of mass gasing was intercept despite the germans were ignoring that
their cryptology method was discovered.

But there’s more: the english historian Laqueurt in ‘the terrible secret’
gaves some hint despite he’s not revisionnist:
We learn, around page 25, that Auschwitz was an archipello, that
thousands of inmates were frequently shipped to annex camps,
mixed with civilians across Silesia, that hundreds of civiliasn were
working at Auschwitz 1, that journalist were travelling freely in
this region…
It is the same author who say that that there was hundreds of liberations
in 1942-43-44, among several jews ( page 169)

The jewish writter Reitlinger , in ‘the final solution’, talk also
of an emettor-receiver that was in activity in the inmate barracks
over months.
The amiral Canaris, chief of the conter-spying agency of the third reich
was a double agent. He gaves many informations to the allied countries
during the war, but nothing about mass liquidation at Auschwitz was
transmited.

There was an organize resistance in nazi camps. Groups of communist,
jews or others were able to send information to their fellows
outside the camp. By the way, one could give an accurate picture
of the power of such movement of resistance by reading ‘Fighting
Auschwitz’, J. Garlinski. This is not a revisionnist book.

As I said, it was impossible for the germans to avoid some contacts
between the inmates and the local population. Many polish
were, indeed, members of the resistance and some inmates had
conversation with local populations when they were bring out of
Auschwitz to execute misclellaneous labour tasks. Sometimes those
civilians were hidding food and parcels somewhere before the inmates
came to pick up those ones.
Often, the SS in charge of the commandos were faking ignorance about
those things in exchange of food or gifts. (J. Garlinski, Fighting
Auschwitz, p 43-45).
The contacts with the local population were develloped in such a way
that letters and parcels could be send off the camp by the internal
resistant ceils of Bikernau and Auschwitz on a regular basis. A group
of the Cracovia resistance was regulary inform via letters. In this
town were preserved 350 of those letters, ‘a small fraction of a very
much more important total’ (H. Langbein, ‘Hommes et femmes a Auschwitz’,
p.252).
Garlinski mention also this story about the emettor receiver which was
in activity over 7 months in 1942 in Auschwitz and due to its contacts,
the direction of the Silesia local AK ceil (Armia Krajowa) was soon able
to find the wavelenght used by the emettor.
(J. Garlinski, Fighting Auschwitz p 126)

The Armia Krajowa, or the interior (or secret ) army was formed in
1942 from a previous resistance movement. It was organised like a real
army. In 1944 the AK could count on about 300,000 members.
In Bikernau there was a secret organisation created in april 1942 by
colonel Karcz. The contacts between the Bikernau organisation and the main
camp of Auscwitz were taking place on a daily bases. The main task of Karcz
group wat to provide informations to the Ak elements outside.
In 1942 the organisation of W. Pilecki, an ex polish officer, could
count on 1000 members between Auschwitz and Bikernau (Fighting Auschwitz,
J. Garlinski,p 97-98).
In 1942-43 the resistant groups in Auschwitz were so powerfull that they
were contolling the Hospital, the kitchens, the main office and they
had their agent in key positions.

The activity of the resistance in the camp had a specific purpose:
feed the Polish government in exile with exhaustive informations about
the events that were occuring in the nazis camps.
The A.K could count also on the complicity of few SS to transmit some
messages outside ( Fighting Auschwitz, p 206-208). But often, messages
were simply transmitted with the liberation of inmates ( W. Laqueurt,
the terrible secret, p 169, Fighting Auschwitz, p 54-55, 112).

Communications between Poland and London were relativelly easy for the
resistance. The general Bor-Komorowski, commendant of the AK, said that
clandestine radio messages were regularelly transmitted to London and
that for the year 1942-43-44, there was almost 300 of those messages per
month. (T. Bor-Komorowski, ‘The secret Army’, p. 150). An other part of
the stuff was microfilm and send in London on a montly base. The polish
resistance had about 100 radio emettors wich were able to reach England.
But other messages were brought by newsmongers who were travelling to
Sweeden ( neutral) and then Great Britain.

Recently I got a copy of one of the most notorious revisionnist
booklet: ‘The Auschwitz lunge’, Thie Christophersen. Christophersen is
an ex German officer who had work in one of the peripherical camp
around Auschwitz: Raisenko. This booklet is not notorious not because one
could qualify it as a big scientific contribution to revisionnism,
it’s just a small booklet where an officer talk about his personnel
experiences there (he visited Bikernau severel times in 1944).

The notoriety of this booklet,publish in 1973, is mainly due to a
false reference that can be found: a fictive red cross report that is
suppose to claim that no more than 200,000 jews died in WWII.
Because of that, the Auschwitz lunge received immediatelly the status
of ‘bible of the revisionnist’, and it’s still frequent to see in
European books or magazine an unavoidable reference to that booklet
and this fictive reference with the devellopment (sous-entendus): this
is the bible of the revisionnist, it contain a lie, so the revisionnist
are just liars and it is a good think that revisionnist material is
banned since the public must be protect against those lies by peoples
who will tell them what they must read.
What amazed me the first time I took a look at it wasn’t the fact that
this false reference was just an isolated one among several otheres
that were valid, it was to see that Christophersen didn’t invent it:
he just quote a real brasilian newspaper that didn’t check before to
publish this mention about the ‘red cross report’. Anyway.
From the tale of Christophersen, we know that SS families were able to
visit the soldiers without any major problems in Auschwitz. We
learn also that the inmates fron Bikernau were frequently shipped in
other camps and could establish contact with the local population.
This fact, as I said, was confirmed by the anti-revisionnist historian
Laqueurt later.

Now, first statement: Hoess, in his ‘confession’, supposelly given
withous any cohercition, testified that when Himmler order him to
establish a programm of mass extermination in his camp ( a verbal order
to keep the secret) he received also instruction to not talk about
it to Gluecks, general inspector of the camps, because the absolute
secret was necessary. Can you believe it?

From [email protected] Thu Feb 15 07:53:27 PST 1996
Article: 23659 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Auschwitz, the impossible secret (2)
Date: 15 Feb 1996 01:56:26 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne25.vir.com

We will take a look now at the usual propaganda over the war. The american
Arthur Butz, especially, was the first to do an exhaustive inquiry about
it. What is clear from his review of american newspapers is that the
propaganda about mass extermination started as sson as 1942. It was
mainly statements made by zionist officials, Chaim Weizman among others,
that were often related to an appeal for the opening of Palestine to
jewish immigration. Several camps or atrocities are mentionned, Belzec,
Chelmo, Sobibor, Treblinka, and the accusations take miscellaneous forms:
jews who are shot, report about mass electrocution of jews in Belzec,
gasing methos in Treblinka, poison, sometimes the use of wagons were
lethal gas is used. It looks like the usual scrap that any war is
normally generating: propaganda. Several of those accusations were drop
after the war.

I was able to find recently a rare book: ‘the black book of the polish
jewry’, publish at the end of 1943. This book is totally consistent
with the war propaganda that can be found in the newspapers: Chelmo,
Treblinka, story of atrocities, in some cases details: 250 jewish
children allegedly killed in a jewish sanatorium, elsewhere 50 jews
executed in a township, the book is a collection of war propaganda,
probably a mix of thruth an falsehoods, an over few hundreds pages
we have an idea of what kind of stories were used by several jewish
organisations which had their large network of informant across
Europe. Nowhere Auschwitz is mention, despite the mass gasing of jews
is supposed to have start in the spring of 1942. The index, that contains
a large amount of places were atrocities are allegedly comitted,
do not contain the name of Auschwitz. Several minor stories, but
nothing about the gasing of hundreds of thousand of jews there.

Enrique Aynat made a deep inquiry with the review published
by the polish government in exile in London, the ‘Polish fighting
review’. It is similar stuff. Several stories about atrocities
against jews were put in circulation by this review ( the informations
were received in the same way that what was explained earlier, from
the A.K.) but Auschwitz appear just few times before 1945. But
there’s more: when it appear, it is not in connection with mass
gasing of jews. It is about case of torture, hard work, the
tough conditions of the inmates who have to work for the military
production. An example of that can be find in the 1 july 1942 article
(n0 47) where it is mention that the German use syringue to kill
prisonners of Bikernau. There’s a base of thruth: the method
was at least used for the dying prisonners who were affect by the
catastrophic typhus epidemy of 1942, but there’s no evidence that
it was use to liquidate them because of an extermination policy:
euthanasy was the real purpose. In several other articles during
2 years, very ‘low level’ details about some inmates who died
are given, and in a case it is say that few hundred russian
prisonners were gased at a specific date. What is astonishing here
is that over 2 years and a half, the systematic murder of hundreds
of thousands of jews seems to be ignored while the polish resistance
is suppose to be aware of a single gasing of russian pows at a time.
There is also a reference to the gasing of polish childrens at the end of
1943, despite today we never speak about the gasing of poles. But
among the huge amount of propaganda that was published over those
years, this is all. Before the mid 1944, the atrocities were generally
not concerning Auschwitz and when it was th case, the mass gasing
of jews was not mention. I said a couple of weeks ago that perhaps
I saw once such a story, but I’m unsure if I’ve not dream it.

The story about the mass gasing of jews in Auschwitz began
really in the summer of 1944 in the allied newspapers, and then we
can say that the persons who were spreading the atrocities stories
had no choice: the other camps were shut down several months before.

First remark: such stories are not ‘a proof’ of mass gasing,
simply because propaganda and false accusations were always a
part of war, and second because those accusations were made
in connection with a call to allied countries for negotiations
with germans. The zionist leaders of that time had clearly an objective
in the mind: put pressure on the British and force them to allow
the opening of the Palestine borders to jewish immigration.
Israel was not existing yet, and the arabs were the majority there.
Several declarations in the newspapers let no ambiguity about it.
Second remark: the real problem is that it is hard to believe that
such mounstruous events, the gasing of hundreds of thousand of jews
over 2 years, could be absent of publications like the ‘black book
of the Polish jewry’ while minor stories about the executions of
50 jews in a small township are present. That book was publish
expresselly for the sake of propaganda, to talk exhaustivelly about
the anti jewish persecutions. And it is not because Auschwitz was
‘secret’. We can have a clear indication of that with the anti-revisionnist
author Martin Gilbert in ‘Auschwitz and the allied’, p 340. After
an exhaustive review of the documentation, he conclude that Auschwitz
was absent of the war propaganda before the mid 1944.
There it’s like to say that events like those that happend in
Rwanda did exist over 2 years but that despite information was
collected on a daily based by A.K. agents in Bikernau and Auschwitz 1,
nobody seem aware of it. Imagine 2 Rwandas over 2 years and nobody
within that country noticed anything during this period except
at the end.
Third remark: such an absence of propaganda would be more acceptable
for camps like Belzec, simply because those one were isolated,
there was not an important towniship beside, there was not hundreds
of civilians who worked there, inmates were not frequently reshiped
in the vicinity of the camps and able to have contact with civilians,
Belzec was not of any strategical importance for the american
since it hadn’t any Buma plan industry: the inmates were suppose
to arrive there and to be killed quickly, nothing else.
But what we have in the WWII propaganda is the opposite: no possible
secret for Auschwitz, but it is there that an unexplanable silence
was keepen. It must be say also that according to the post war
confessions, Auschwitz was suppose to be the ‘metropol’ of the
extermination, the main camp. At Nuremberg, the bulk of the
extermination story was built on Auschwitz.

Fourth remark: The story about the ‘revelation of the secret’ is
of an uncommensurable absurdity. The WRB report, published in 1944,
is suppose to be an accurate description of the nature of Auschwitz.
The american press revealed that 2 inmates escaped and were able to go
in Switzerland to give a very accurate description of the gassing
procedure and the installations in Auscwitz. The authors of the WRB
report stayed anonymous during 16 years despite it had be more credible
to present those ones immediatelly.
They stayed anonymous for 16 years and the jewish
writter Reitlinger was a bit bothered in the first edition of the final
solution about this fact but those ones were produced before the
second edition of his book 150 miles away from his Sussex domicile
(London). Rudolph Vrba, author of a best seller a bit later, ‘I
cannot forgive’. Vrba is suppose to had the false identity of Walter
Rosenberg in Auschwitz despite he wrote that the other inmates called
him ‘Rudi’.

Several, a lot of contradictions exist in Vrba’s ‘memories’,
and Alexander Baron talk about it in the book he wrote. Vrba
affirmations were so contradictory that he was obligated to admit
that he lied at the Zundel trial. But if A. Baron want to talk
about it, up to him: just those contradictions could take few hundreds
lines, and I’m sure he know more than me, despite I know several
aspects. Let say just that when I read Vrba’s book, I saw that his escape
had a specific purpose: give a warn to the whole world about the fate
of the jews in Auschwitz, ‘breaking the secret’ in other words. One
have just to read the previous message to realize that it is ridicoulous.
Despite the inconsistences in his testimony, Vrba’s credibility is
essantial. The defenders of the legend can conceed that an obscur
eye witness could have lie, but Vrba is a kind of detonnator, a domino:
since he talk about his entertainment with F. Muller at the camp, since
the key eyewitness Sonderkommando F. Muller said also that he spoke
with Vrba several times in Auschwitz, if one of the testimony is false,
the other collapse. If Vrba testimony is false, then one would have
to explain why the real authors of the WRB report never challendge
Vrba’s story. And then we would conclude that the WRB report wasn’t
writen by S.Kommandos but by higher rank propagandist who had a large
amount of datas available: this is where the story began.


From [email protected] Thu Feb 15 07:53:27 PST 1996
Article: 23660 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: he tells his story
Date: 15 Feb 1996 02:51:53 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne72.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
>> Palestine:
>> The number jews increased of about 500,000 there between 1944 and
>> 1949. The great majority of jews who came there before 1949 were
>> Europeens.

> Nonsense. The immigration of Sephardic Jews began in 1948. In fact,
>until the recent influx of Russian Jews the *majority* of Jews in Israel had spehardic
>roots.

Well, you staed something just a bit different in our first exchange, but
not too much. I kept your postings about it, my main point was that
the Israelo-arab war couldn’t leed to a situation which could favorize
immigration before the enfd of the hostilities. You then explain with
several paragraph that the war had few armistices, but never show
that the bulk of those 500,000 immigrants came in the last months of
the war, and BTW the sepharadic jewish immigration wave really began in
1949. You seems to maintain that over a period of 5 years, hundreds of
thousands of jews arrived in Israel in few months. This is impossible,
Israel hadn’t the logistic to support such a massive immigration in less
than 6 months.

>> USA:
>> The number who came there may be 500,000 if not more. I’m talking
>> about illegal and legal immigration, but back those day there was
>> no policy to determine if an immigrant was a jew.

> You have stated this before. It is not true and you have been told it is
>not true. The questionaire for those claiming political refugee status includes the
>religion of those claiming such status may do so because of religious persecution.

Well, lets take a look at what you said previously:
***************************************************
jb> For the case of United states, this is wrong: united states immigration
jb> and naturalization service droped its policy to classify immigrants
jb> as ‘hebrew’ among ‘races and peoples’ in 1943. The UNRRA had to
jb> declare the number of refugies who came in USA via their camps: its
jb> between 400,000 to 500,000, if someone want the details they can find
jb> it in chapter 7 of the hoax, I’m not interest to retype it completelly.

> The classification of Jews was still used by the U.S. Immigration
>Service was continued until outlawed in by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The only
> classification that was dropped was the racial characterization. You are correct
>about the number of Jewish refugees admitted to the United States but that
>number was always well-known and has never been counted as part of the
>losses during the Holocaust.
************************************************************
So since you did accept a figure of 400,000 to 500,000, where is the problem?

>> If somebody present statistical
>> figures by such or such jewish organisation wich show a minor
>> immigration there after the war while around half million were
>> admit for the thirties, I think that those figures
>> are either politically oriented either taken from a previous
>> study provide by a group wich gaves politically oriented figures

> Since *total* immigration to the United States for the 1930’s is less than
>500,000 your figures for Jewsih immigration are nonsense.

My english may be bad here, or no, I think simply that I wrote it
too fast, I was refering to the same half a million figure (post war).

>> Here I have a claim, that just a fraction of the DP’s admitted
>> by the UNRRA where jews. I have a statement that the bulk of the half
>> million DP, if not more if we count other periods and illegal
>> immigration, were mainly goyim that the leaders of the UNRRA were
>> helping 5 times more non jews than jews.

> The UNRRA could not and did not affect U.S. immigration policy. The
>great influx of Jewish immigrants to the United States occurred *after* 1955.

I was talking about DP’s, not regular immigration.

>> To me, the statement that a small fraction of those DP were jews
>> is a lie. If one would like to bring a serious proof that there wasn’t
>> 500,000 jews or more admitted in USA, he’ll have to bring a story
>> in wich jews were obligated to declare themself as ‘jews’ on a sheet
>> that they signed when they immigrated,

> Since the immigration forms for refugees required persons to state their
>religion — they still do — it is not a hard story to substantiate. Moreover, the Jewish
>emigrees were helped by various Jewsih organizations in the United Stats — they
>still are — it would be insane for these organizations to understate, as you suggest,
>the number of people that they were helping.

It is in contradiction with your prior statement in our first exchange
that recognized half a million as a correct figure (who were never count
as a part of the Holocaust).

> would be a non sense to immagine 500,000 jews lying for an obscur
> reason, an impossible large scale plot. But the classification in
> the category ‘jews among other races’ was drop, and the data wich
> claim that 70,000 jews came in USA were given by a couple of officials.
> This is the reason why I stated earlier that a claim maden by a
> top level jew who was in contact with the Nuremberg prosecution staff
> is not a proof: there’s many coincidence to explain. And then I’m
> not rejecting such a claim that few jes immigrated in USA because
> it is convenient but because the story of the UNRRA doesn’t fit
> with the official claim, and also because of the coincidence with
> the countries of origin for those jews.

>information. This is grounds for deportation. The second inconsistancy can be
>found in the failure of the United States to admit Jewish refugees during the war
>when only about 1000 were admitted to the United States and most of these

I don’t believe those datas. An extensive study was maden in the revisionnist
litterature with valid arguments. Further more, it doesnt take in account
illegal immigration.



From [email protected] Thu Feb 15 18:16:15 PST 1996
Article: 23700 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: CREMATORY RATES AT BIRKENAU LUDICROUS SAYS EXPERT
Date: 15 Feb 1996 04:09:32 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com

[email protected] (John Morris) wrote:

[email protected] (John Morris) wrote:

>>However, it seems intuitively true that in a free-flowing system such
>>as a furnace, cold incoming air would either 1) reduce the temperature
>>of the furnace, or 2) require more fuel to maintain furnace temperature.

>At some point in the process, the corpse starts to burn. It becomes,
>in a manner of speaking, its own fuel. Compressed air might reduce the
>temperature inside the muffle, but it would hasten the burning of the
>corpse which would tend to raise the temperature again.

No.

From [email protected] Thu Feb 15 18:17:45 PST 1996
Article: 23700 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: CREMATORY RATES AT BIRKENAU LUDICROUS SAYS EXPERT
Date: 15 Feb 1996 04:09:32 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com

[email protected] (John Morris) wrote:

[email protected]berta.ca (John Morris) wrote:

>>However, it seems intuitively true that in a free-flowing system such
>>as a furnace, cold incoming air would either 1) reduce the temperature
>>of the furnace, or 2) require more fuel to maintain furnace temperature.

>At some point in the process, the corpse starts to burn. It becomes,
>in a manner of speaking, its own fuel. Compressed air might reduce the
>temperature inside the muffle, but it would hasten the burning of the
>corpse which would tend to raise the temperature again.

No.

From [email protected] Fri Feb 16 06:30:44 PST 1996
Article: 23740 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 16 Feb 1996 03:23:33 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne61.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>
>In Kremas IV and V the Zyclon-B was poured into vents down the induction
>shafts inside the gas-chambers. “About a half hour after the induction of
>the gas, the ventilation was turned on, the door opened, and the
>Sonderkommando prisoners wearing gas masks began dragging the corspes out
>of the chamber.” [3]

I NEVER saw any reference to an engineering document or invoices that
talk about a ventilation system for krema 4 and 5. Pressac gave documentations
for krema 2 and 3, and if the german didn’t destroy those ones, than
they certanly not destroy invoices and engineering documentations about
the other ones. I have not the pretention to say that I read all the available
material, but I still consider that the only places were a fan was used
is the kremas 2 and 3. I’ve some internet problems actually, I’m seeing
frequently quotes of an original message that I didn’t see, but if you
have something like documents that talk about it, post and email please.
I gave my opinion for the krema 1 in another message, I don’t know
if you received it, but as I say, a relevant document to me is not a post
war testimony but something that look like the material Pressac brought for
the fans of krema 2 and 3.

Post and email

From [email protected] Sat Feb 17 09:34:46 PST 1996
Article: 23822 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: he tells his story
Date: 17 Feb 1996 03:18:37 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne36.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:

> 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 Jews
>in camps waiting to immigrate to Israel. It was proposed that 100,000 be admitted
>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. 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. 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. Furthermore, jews could count in some
cases on the help of organisations to move elsewhere, in North Africa as
an example. Those one could also go to Palestine later, illegally or legally.
In that case, jews were following often a very irregular path over several
countries, and their sojourn in a camp was variable. Taking a figure
of the total DP’s at an exact date can hardly give an accurate picture
for 3 or 4 years.

> You are mixing *two* types of immigration. Visa immigration, in the
>immediate post-war period was based on the Immigration Act passed in the 1920’s.
> For that type of immigration, Jews were classified as “Jews” until the 1960’s.

I’m not, I didn’t talk even of regular immigration.

>refugees or under political asylum laws. You cannot obtain such status unless
>there is no other country which will accept you. Jews are, of course, free to
>emigrate to Israel.

The conditions in the 40’s were not the same,

>>
>> > The UNRRA could not and did not affect U.S. immigration policy. The
>> >great influx of Jewish immigrants to the United States occurred *after* 1955.
>>
>> I was talking about DP’s, not regular immigration.

> Exactly. Jews were not admitted to the U.S. as *refugees.* The bulk of
>Jewish immigration to the U.S. occurred as *visa* immigrants *after* the quotas
>were relaxed.

As I said, I’m not accepting the figures for 2 main reasons: Some elements
of the story of the UNRAA can hardly lead me to think that jews hadn’t
the preference (due to the fact that their leaders were jews and some other
aspects) and also because of strange coincidences about the country of origin.
If we talk now about a paper that someone sign, as I said I don’t believe that
400,000 jews could have lie in such a way except if there’s another reason than:
‘Ho, we’ll try to be nice with the future holocaust lobby’. It’s possible
that a reason or another can have discourage some to declare their
religion (if they had really to declare it since their ‘race’ wasn’t
request) but I’m unsure that such data’s are accessible. Between the
declaration of a UNRAA official and the real low level data, there might
be a difference. If such formularies of the 40’s are open for a public
inquiry, things are different.

>>
>> >information. This is grounds for deportation. The second inconsistancy can be
>> >found in the failure of the United States to admit Jewish refugees during the
wwar
>> >when only about 1000 were admitted to the United States and most of these
>>
>> I don’t believe those datas. An extensive study was maden in the revisionnist
>> litterature with valid arguments. Further more, it doesnt take in account
>> illegal immigration.

> Tough shit about what *you* want to believe, Charlie. Your “extensive”
>revisionist studies (which you do not name) are fraudulent. Your arguments are

My ‘extensive’ study is nothing else, in that case, than the chapter 7
of the Hoax and several other datas that I found. I could have use also
Walter Sannning book plus some other publications, but I did prefer
to limit myself to few hundred lines, that’s enough. There is absolutelly
no prrof that those sources are ‘fraudulent’, they are just colliding
with the usual claim of the Holocaust lobby.

>based upon confusion about U.S. immigration law (understandable as most
>U.S. lawyers have similar misunderstandings. I did until I represented two

I NEVER confuzed both despite I’m not american, we have similar
differences in Canada between refugees and immigrants, and I did not
bother myself to find the datas about regular jewish immigration.
It’s irrelevant, illegal immigration was there also and even if you
choose to minimize it (or claim that it didn’t exist) what I’m saying
is that the Holocaust lobby datas are meaningless.
In your case, you used a figure of 150,000 jews in camps at a specific
date (that you didn’t mention) but you can’t extend that figure to 3
or 4 years. I’m not able to watch a reference that concern the
jewish immigration in USA, but I’ll ask to one or 2 american revisionnist
if they have the opportunity to find this specific one a day. For the
question of the jewish immigration in Palestine, I think it’s possible
to find valid proofs that the bulk of those 500,000 were not sepharadic,
and I’ll start to search on that in 3 weeks. I have yet, some valid
clues but I want more. But I wont try to find
datas for the jewish refugees who poured from the Polish border at
each month over 3 years, it’s impossible to find such datas. But there’s
other ways to solve the problem.


From [email protected] Sat Feb 17 15:36:44 PST 1996
Article: 23895 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
chi-news.cic.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: You aren’t going to believe me, see for yourself.
Date: 17 Feb 1996 14:40:45 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne30.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

Hi Pit

>Giwer writes his “analysis” of the Auschwitz FAQ; I have rarely
>seen such a combination of ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity,
>as he displays.

>># From the Nizkor Auschwitz FAQ referring to the 1942 “experiment.”

>It was in 1941, not 1942.

Agree. 4 months before the Wansee conference and few months after june
1941 that Hoess used in the affidavit that he signed to place Himmler’s
extermination order. But most of the jewish authors claim now that
Hoess ‘did a mistake’ when he said that 1941 despite he put strong
emphases on that year and that he w\s just refering to 1942.
Look how it is convenient: since Hoess affidavit his full of contradictions,
dates among others, the trademark of the lie, one have just to take one
of those dates to say that someone else is an ignorant who doesn’t know
what he’s talking about. I migh recall here that Hoess said ‘voluntarelly’
that he was order to establish an extermination facility in june 1941
and after a visit at Treblinka, he was told that 80,000 jews were liquidated
there in 1/2 year with monoxide gas(!), so that he decided to use Zyklon
B in Auschwitz later as a more convenient way (affidavit signed the 5 april
1946). But this can only have happen in Treblinka in 1942 according to
official Holocaust sources. Nevertless, just an idiot can see contradictions
there.

# and the folks with gas masks freely moving around dispensing Zyklon-B.

>Stop being so stupid. The Zyklon was inserted from the outside.
>The SS-men, obviously, didn’t go around in the chamber dispensing it.

Well, the paragraph he quoted was that one:

>>On September 3 Fritsch decided to experiment. First he crammed five or six
>>hundred Russians and another 250 sick prisoners from the camp hospital into
>>an underground detention cell. Then the windows were covered with earth. SS
>>men wearing gas masks opened the Zyklon-B canisters to remove what looked
>>like blue chalk pellets about the size of peas, creating a cloud of poison gas.
>>After they left, the doors were sealed. (Höss, Commandant at Auschwitz, 173.
>>See also Yehuda Bauer, “Auschwitz,” in Jäckel and Rohwere, eds., Der Mord
>>an den Juden, 167-68)

‘After they left, the doors were sealed’. In the sery ‘He told his story’
the revisionnist were challendge to find in a selected excerp datas that
could proove tha falsehood. Now, I suppose that since he found such an
internal absurdity elsewhere, we shouldn’t take the words litterally
neither. What did I say? There’s always a convenient way.

# There you have it folks. Human fat, in the midst of flames cause
# by alchohol and oil, does not burn, does not soak into the soil.

>You burn a piece of meat, and you have fat flowing from it. You
>burn a very large amount of corpses, you have a great deal of fat
>flowing; so, some did not soak into the soil.

The reason why such fat was recuperable is probably related to
Fick’s second diffusion law I suppose: turbulences were creating
local cold pockets were canisters could be used close enough the
fire so the fat hadn’t the time to be absorb by the soil over
a long path (by the way, such absorbtion wasn’t possible due to
the presence of underground geysers that were creating an upper
pressure). This is why the fat stayed pure, not mix with sand,
but wait,wait,wait: a pit! Haaaa, one should not talk about the
gravity force here, but this another stupid attempt of ‘scientific’
revisionnist who do not understand what they are talking about:
the fat couldn’t pour in the bottom of the bit under the bodies
since fans installed around it were able to create a suscion to
reverse the normal path. BTW, according to new eye witness testimonies
recently discovered ( diaries which were burried in Auschwitz an
miracoulously discover recently)…


From [email protected] Sat Feb 17 15:36:45 PST 1996
Article: 23899 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!imci5!imci4!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: EizenGruppen SS (again)
Date: 17 Feb 1996 04:26:35 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4fp76u[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne18.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>

# I’m still receiving some laughable emails from a kind of lice

>”a kind of lice”?

>I would like to point out the attention of the readers to
>the usage of this term, so typical of the Nazis, by this
>”revisionist scholar”.

Well, if you want to use it to support any kind of acusation, I never
thought that this person was jew but I don’t care. On the
other hand, I apologize: my words were badly choosen. I really regret
that. It was really a bad choice and I feel a bit cheap about it. I’ve
check in my french english dictionnary and the singular is ‘louse’.

< unusefull stuff delete>

All those reports, Mr Keren, are not responding to the previous post.
I gave all the reasons ( or a big part) that tell me that such reports
are not trustable just because a guy claim ‘it is writtten’, and several
reasons were given. Retyping 600 of those reports will not change anything
about the reasons that I mentionned. There might be a samll fraction
of those reports which are true, but I’ve no way actually to know which
ones.
Now, just for you:
Despite the Nuremberg staff (the prosecution) had the authority to decide
which documents were accessible to the defense, few document seems to
have survive to destruction, and one concern the fate of the eastern ghettos:
The Steengracht document (NO-1624) is an order, 20 August 1943, by the
chief of the RuSHA, SS general Hildebrandt, to the administrations on
the east.

“It has been point out to me by various sources, that the behaviour of
German offices in the occupied Eastern territories towards Jews had
develloped in such a way in the past months as to give rise to misgivings.
In particular, Jews are being employed in jobs and services which,
in consideration of maintaining secrecy should only be assigned to
absolutely reliable persons, who should appear to be the confidential
representatives of the German offices in the eyes of the indigenous
population. Unfortunately, in addition to this, there is allegedly
personnal association of Reich Gerrmans with Jewesses which exceeds the
limits that must be strictly observed for ideological and racial
reasons. It is said to concern native Jews as well as Jews and Jewesses
who have been deported from the Old Reich to the occupied Eastern territories
This state of affairs has already led to the fact that Jews are exploiting
their apparently confidential position in exchange for the supply of
preferential rations by the indigenous population. It is said that
recently, when apprehensions were expressed in the East about a German
retreat, indigenous persons endeavored to ingratiate themselves particu-
larly with those Jews employed in German offices, in order to ensure better
treatment at the end of the Bolchevists.
[…]
I therefore request that the subordinate offices in the occupied Eastern
territories to be given the following instructions:
1)Jews and persons of a similar status may only be employed in manual
labor. It is prohibited to employ them in office work […]
2) It is forbidden to employ jews for general or personnal service,
for the discharging of orders, for the negotiation of business deals,
or for the procuring of goods.
3) Private association with Jews, Jewesses and persons of a similar status
is prohibited, as well as well as any relations beyond those officially
necessary.”


From [email protected] Sat Feb 17 19:29:19 PST 1996
Article: 23928 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: 17 Feb 1996 23:35:46 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne44.vir.com

[email protected] (Rich Graves) wrote:
> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
ot a fact that censorship against revisionism is in effect in
>several countries. This is a myth perpetuated by the more hateful
>deniers.

Sure, the worst is that even jail sentences are not suffisant to open
their eyes and force them to stop this lie about a so called anti-
revisionnist repression, na? Seems not to be a rare position btw.


From [email protected] Sun Feb 18 10:40:59 PST 1996
Article: 24053 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 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: he tells his story
Date: 18 Feb 1996 01:54:56 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne48.vir.com

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> […snip]
> > Here I have a claim, that just a fraction of the DP’s admitted
> > by the UNRRA where jews. I have a statement that the bulk of the half
> > million DP, if not more if we count other periods and illegal
> > immigration, were mainly goyim that the leaders of the UNRRA were
> > helping 5 times more non jews than jews. There’s also many strange
> > coincidences about the original country: it wasn’t a state policy
> > to ask to a jew to declare himself as one after WWII, but the
> > board reproduce was clear:
> >
> > Regular immigration DP’s Total Jewish
> > 1941-1950 1948-52 population in the 30’s
> >
> >Austria 24,860 8,956 230,000
> >Belgium 12,189 951 60,000
> >Czechoslovakia 8,347 12,638 260,000
> >Denmark 5,393 62 7,000
> >Estonia 212 10,427 5,000
> ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^
> >[…snip]
> and a little later:
>
> > So I have the statement that in countries were jews were massivelly
> > present before WW2, there ‘s a large proportion of DP’s admission
> > wich is often much important than regular immigration (Poland,
> > Rumania,USSR, Yugoslavia,Lituania,Latvia,Hungary,Estonia) while
> ^^^^^^^
> Never in history have Jews been “massively present” in Estonia (e.g., only
> 4,434 Jews were listed in the 1934 census = 0.4 % of Estonia’s population).
> Beats me how you cannot read your own numbers (the 5000 above).

An approximation, not too bad.

urope”.
> There is simply no way how any statistically significant number of
> Estonian Jews could have ended up in DP camps in 1948. Nearly all of

Yes. Jews deported from western countries there who declared their
last transit place. If a jew do not feel german and if he was
there 3 or 4 years, he may in several cases identify himself
‘from estnia’. There is proofs that jews where deported in Latvia,
but I dont remember if there is proofs that some were deported
in estonia.

From [email protected] Mon Feb 19 08:36:50 PST 1996
Article: 24168 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!
laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.uoregon.edu!chi-news.cic.net!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: he tells his story
Date: 17 Feb 1996 23:11:03 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne38.vir.com

[email protected] (Dannya A. Nijburg) wrote:
>
> The book contains the names of the more than 100,000 Jewish
> war-victims (of approx. 130,000 Jews) which were deported from the
> Netherlands during World-War II and of which no grave remains.
>
> The data are based on the records of the War Graves Registration
> Foundation in the Hague. They have been gathered with the help of the
> Netherlands Red Cross, the State Institute for War Documentation and
> the ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs. They have, where
> possible, been verified in the Civil Registries.
>
> The data are in the format:
> Name[-Name before marriage], First Name[s], date of birth place of
> birth, date of death place of death.
> An asterisk * at the end of the line means that date and place of
> death are not certain.
>
> Below is page 541 of 858 (typing errors are mine)

All that stuff remind me the memorial that Serge Klarsfield published
in 1978. It was contradicting the previous data of the Auschwitz
museum and le centre mondial de documentation juive (Paris)
were much more jews were allegedly gased upon arrival. It was
shown later that Henri Krazucki and Simone Weil, 2 notorious jews,
were count in the victim with a ‘scientific method’. Some readjustement
had to be done by Klarsfeld, but even in his new memorial he counted
jews who didn’t die there, like Krazucki’s mother. Meaningless.
Such data do just represent jews who were deported, despite several
netherland jews died during the war, it is absurd to say that they
necesserelly all died. Simply because many had the possibility
to emigrate in Palestine, America, Argentina or another country after
the war, they had no reason to return in Netherland since they were
deprivated of all their properties and had no more familly there.
Economically speaking, it wasn’t the best move to do. And, evidently,
many died also. But then I bet someone will say that he lost
a zillion parents or so and that I have no respect. Classical.


From [email protected] Mon Feb 19 08:36:51 PST 1996
Article: 24198 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: You aren’t going to believe me, see for yourself.
Date: 19 Feb 1996 01:17:15 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 363
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne14.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>> Rather it rolls uphill out of a pit…

>And where, exactly, was it written that the melted human fat rolled “uphill?”

>The text said “human fat [was] drained off.” Drained off does not mean
>”roll uphill.” It does not mean to “go _up_ the drain.” You seem to be
>unaware that each incineraton pit was 40 to 50 meters long, 8 meter wide,
>and 2 meters deep. Most importantly, at the _bottom_ of each pit a channel
>was dug to drain away the melted human fats for later reuse as fuel in the
>inceneration process. (_Anatotomy of the Auscwhitz Death Camp_, p.463.)
>The channels all flowed downhill in the pits, like any _sane_ person would
>assume, and the fat was “harvested” when it reached the downhill end of
>the pit.

Mr Alstine, I have some difficulties that someone can read that in a book
and then say ‘It happend!’. Mr Alstine, first, the fat would be partly
absorb by the soil, and if if a ‘saturation’ would have really occur,
than it would have burn long time before to flow out. Second, it is
completelly ridicoulous to dig a larger incineration pit just for that
purpose, you couldn’t recover it. Even if you could recover 5% of the
human fat that flow out through those chanels, and this is generous,
for 500 bodies it was more simple to use 250 liters of gasoline. Gasoline
has almost the same efficiency than fat (per weight) as a comburant if
you look at calorimetric datas.
Don’t tell me that there was a shortage of gasoline in 1942 so important
that the germans prefered to affect more prisonners to such extra works
( a larger pit) rather to use them in the military production. Economically,
it is ridicoulous. But I simply consider that no fat could be collect
in such a way. There’s no examples in the story of the world where a
method like that was used for humans, animals or whatsover to get ‘more
efficiency’ (sic). Another aspect is that you’d have to get enough closer
to the fire and throw it directly over the body, not beside. And…
what could I add? There’s a guy recently who claimed in a post that
looks like ‘a pattern is forming’ that ‘rationnal’ arguments were used
to demolish revisionnist arguments. In that specific case, we touch the
bottom of the insanity. I bet someone will now ask me to prrove by
calculus this ( too high) figure of 5% ot to provide an exhaustive
study about the real economic lost for the germans to affect
prisonners to the digging of a larger pit rather than to use them
in the military production. I think I’m dreaming.

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
> > For those of you “loving” the Nizkor Project. All of the references here are
> > direct from links on their index page under FAQ under Auschwitz. If you have
> > mtrouble identifying them from these references and if you have visited that
> > page, I frankly do not know how to make it any more clear.
>
> A URL perhaps?
>
> > And PLEASE do NOT believe me.
>
> I _never_ do, Giwer. You have been consistantly proven to be an idiot.
>
> > Go there yourself and verify what I have here by copy and paste. Never EVER,
> > believe anyone without verifying it yourself. Until you have verified a
> > statement it is always provisional.
>
> Like all _your_ statements about _steps_ on the “ramp” at Auschwitz
> II-Birkenua. Like all _your_ statements about the photo of Jews heading
> off to Krema II?
>
> Hmm. But _you_ never saw _these_ for yourself, right? Yet you felt free to
> “believe” that they don’t show what they _do_ show. Why is that?
>
> Sounds kinda like “do what I say and not what I do…” Hypocrite.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Note that they had previously been shot and this “gassing” is an experiment,
> > the FIRST experiment at least as far as Hoess has heard of as the experiment
> > was at least permitted if not authorized.

> [Breitman snipped]
>
> > On September 3 Fritsch decided to experiment. First he crammed five or
> > six hundred Russians and another 250 sick prisoners from the camp
> hospital
> > into an underground detention cell. Then the windows were covered with
> > earth. SS men wearing gas masks opened the Zyklon-B canisters to remove
> > what looked like blue chalk pellets about the size of peas, creating a
> > cloud of poison gas. After they left, the doors were sealed. (Höss,
> > Commandant at Auschwitz, 173. See also Yehuda Bauer, “Auschwitz,” in
> > Jäckel and Rohwere, eds., Der Mord an den Juden, 167-68)
>
> [Breitman snipped]
>
> Let’s remember this (above) part. Note that the date says “September 3.”
> (And _just_ “September 3.”)
>
> > That is a good start. Now from the Zyklon-B FAQ we have the following.
> > Note that it was in common use a full year before the first experiment. Not
> > only that but they knew what was happening to them so this was obviously not
> > the first use.
> >
> > From the statement of Hans Stark, registrar of new arrivals,
> > Auschwitz (Klee, 255):
> >
> > At another, later gassing — also in autumn 1941 — Grabner* ordered me
> > to pour Zyklon B into the opening because only one medical orderly had
> > shown up.During a gassing Zyklon B had to be poured through both openings
> > of the gas-chamber room at the same time. This gassing was also a
> > transport of 200-250 Jews, once again men, women and children. As the
> > Zyklon B — as already mentioned — was in granular form, it trickled
> > down over the people as it was being poured in….
>
> [Stark snipped]
>
> Let’s remember this, too, for later. Note that the date is in “autumn 1941.”
>
> > Houston, we have a problem here. This is from the fifth page I read under the
> > hotreference gas chambers and immediately following the reference to the
> > geographic location of Auschwitz and Birkenau.
> >
> >”There was a sign ‘to disinfection’. He said ‘you see, they are bringing
> >children now’. They opened the door, threw the children in and closed the
> door.
> >There was a terrible cry. A member of the SS climbed on the roof. The people
> >went on crying for about ten minutes. Then the prisoners opened the doors.
> >Everything was in disorder and contorted. Heat was given off. the bodies were
> >loaded on a rough wagon and taken to a ditch. The next batch were already
> >undressing in the huts. After that I didn’t look at my wife for four weeks.”
> >
> > From the testimony of SS private Boeck (Langbein, quoted in Pressac, 181)
> >
> > Here we have only children being brought and they were thrown in for some
> > reason.There is a reference to a terrible cry but there is no cause for
> > it save the throwing which occurred for no imaginable reason.
>
> Do you realize how utterly _stupid_ you sound, Giwer? Why don’t you just
> get on your knees and kiss some Nazi asses, for goodness sake? You are a
> piece of filth, Giwer. A regular Nazi lap-dog. Maybe if you apologize for
> _them_ enough they will toss you a bone or something….
>
> “They opened the door, threw the children in and closed the door.”
>
> Seems ptretty clear to me. They threw the children in the gas chamber.
>
> “There was a terrible cry.”
>
> The children, like all children, when torn away from their parents, abused
> by strangers, and thrown into a crowded room with _other_ terrified
> children, screamed bloody murder. And you say there is “no cause for it?”
> You’re sick.
>
> “A member of the SS climbed on the roof.”
>
> The Zyklon-B was inserted into the gas chamber.
>
> “The people went on crying for about ten minutes.”
>
> The terrified children were murdered with Zyklon-B by the Nazis.
>
> “Then the prisoners opened the doors.”
>
> Behold the handiwork of the Nazis: murdered innocents. (Sometimes stuff
> like this makes me wish we dropped the Bomb on Berlin.)
>
> “Everything was in disorder and contorted.”
>
> No shit.
>
> [Giwer’s stupidity snipped]
>
> > Next I read of Kremas 2 thru 5 and I find the following….
>
> [snip]
>
> The problem here, Giwer, (besides you being a twisted asshole) is that
> you’ve made a chain of erroneous assumptions. Probably due to your poor
> reading skills and lack of knowledge of the subject. (Of course, _that_
> has never prevented you from sticking your foot in your mouth before!)
>
> Pay attention now, Giwer. I’m getting tired of repeating myself to you.
>
> You cite Breitman concerning the first use of Zyclon-B at Auschwitz on
> September 3. Note that no _year_ is specifed. YOU _assumed_ it was
> September 3,1942 for some reason. In fact, by cross checking this, it is
> quickly shown that the date of this gassing of September 3, _1941_ and
> that it takes place in Block 11 at Auschwitz:
>
> ³Auschwitz Chronicle, 1939-1945²/ Danuta Czech. -1st American. Ed.
> (ISBN 0-8050-0938-8); pp. 85, 86.
>
> Reference to September 3: APMO, Hoss Trial, vol. 2, p. 97; vol. 4, pp.
> 21, 34, 99, 128; vol. 5 54, p. 207; Vol. 78, p. 1, Statements of Former
> Prisoners.
>
> Reference to September 4: APMO, Hoss Trial, vol. 2, pp. 21, 97;
> Statements of Former Prisoners Jan Krokowski and Michal Kula.
> ——————————————————————————–
> September 3 * [1941]
>
> ….Then about 600 Russian POW¹s, officers, and people¹s commissars are
> driven into the cellar. They have been chosen in the camp¹s
> prisoner-of-war section by special Gestapo commandos. As soon as they are
> pushed into the cellar and the SS men have thrown in the Zyklon B gas, the
> doors are locked and sealed.** This operation takes place after evening
> roll call, after the announcement of a so-called camp curfew, during which
> prisoners are forbidden to leave the blocks and move around in the camps.
>
> September 4 [1941]
>
> In the morning Roll Call Leader Gerhard Palitzsch, protected by a gas
> mask, opens the doors and discovers that one of the POW¹s is still alive.
> More Zyklon B is poured and the doors are closed once more…. In the
> afternoon all the doors of the bunker in Block 11 are opened and unsealed
> after it is ascertained that the second dose of Zyklon B has killed the
> Russian POW¹s….
>
> * The date comes from the analysis of the statements of former prisoners
> and of the Bunker Register, in which between August 31 and September 5 no
> entries occur regarding admission of prisoners onto the bunker.
>
> ** In his autobiography Rudolph Hoss writes: ³the gassing was carried out
> in the detention cells of Block 11. Protected by a gas mask, I watched the
> killing myself. In the crowded cells death came instantaneously the moment
> the Zyklon B was thrown in . A short, almost smothered cry, and it was all
> over² (Hoss,
> _Commandant in Auschwitz_, p. 126).
> ——————————————————————————–
> It is glaringly apparent that you jumped to an incorrect assuption in that
> this particular gassing took place on September 3, 1942. It didn’t. It
> took place on September 3, 1941.
>
> That’s mistake #1.
>
> Next, you cite Hans Stark’s statement regarding a “another, later gassing
> — also in autumn 1941” in an effort to show inconsistancies in the
> gassing dates. That if the _first_ gassing was (faslely) said to be in
> 1942, how could a subsequent gassing take place in 1941?
>
> Well, given that the September 3, 1941, gassing in Block 11 _was_ the
> first at Aushcwitz, and given that it happened in _early_ autumn of
> _1941_, I would say this would imply that this other, “later gassing, ”
> happened _afterwards_. After September 3, 1941.
>
> That’s mistake #2.
>
> > …Still completely shocked by what I had seen I wrote on my diary on 5
> > September 1942…
> >
> > Yes here we have it an established ritual of gas execution with a diary entry
> > of 5 September only two days AFTER the first experiment in gassing was
> > conducted at Aushwitz.
>
> Now, here you allude to the implausibility of having a “ritual” for
> homicidal gassing established in within two of the first gassing to be
> performed at Auschwitz. Such a statement, by itself, appears a rather
> reasonable assertion. But when the date of this diary entry (September 5,
> 1942) and the date of the first gassing (September 3, 1941) are taken into
> account, we quickly see the _diary entry_ was made over a _year_ AFTER the
> first gassing at Auscwitz took place. To argue that procedures for
> homicidal gassings could not be emplaced within a year’s time of the first
> gassing at Aushcwitz is rather far-fetched.
>
> That’s mistake #3.
>
> > Houston you better get off your ass and save this story.
>
> Mission Control here. Looks like we have a malfunction with Giwer
> here….Starting auto-destruct sequence. };->
>
> Mistake #1. ::tick::
>
> Mistake #2. ::tick::
>
> Mistake #3. ::tick::
>
> > Now to the next link. So help me, I am not making this up. It is right there
> > for you to read.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Thus, late in 1944, pit burning became the chief method of corpse disposal.
> > The pits had indentations at one end from which human fat drained off. To
> > keep the pits burning, the stokers poured oil, alcohol, and large quantities
> > of boiling human fat over the bodies.
> >
> > There you have it folks. Human fat, in the midst of flames cause by alchohol
> > and oil, does not burn, does not soak into the soil.
>
> And melted fat can’t be channeled away in a BBQ? Soil can’t saturate and
> seal from melted fat? Of course they can. Again, you are full of shit.
>
> That’s mistake #4.
>
> > Rather it rolls uphill out of a pit…
>
> And where, exactly, was it written that the melted human fat rolled “uphill?”
>
> The text said “human fat [was] drained off.” Drained off does not mean
> “roll uphill.” It does not mean to “go _up_ the drain.” You seem to be
> unaware that each incineraton pit was 40 to 50 meters long, 8 meter wide,
> and 2 meters deep. Most importantly, at the _bottom_ of each pit a channel
> was dug to drain away the melted human fats for later reuse as fuel in the
> inceneration process. (_Anatotomy of the Auscwhitz Death Camp_, p.463.)
> The channels all flowed downhill in the pits, like any _sane_ person would
> assume, and the fat was “harvested” when it reached the downhill end of
> the pit.
>
> Your statement claiming fat “rolls uphill” is a _very_ disingengous (and
> stupid) contriviance on your part. A lie, in fact. A fabrication alluding
> to something to what was clearly NOT written or implied.
>
> [snip]
>
> That’s mistake #5.
>
> >Houston, we are going back to Greenbelt. You assholes are an LBJ porkbarrel.
>
> MIssion Control here. Giwer is self-destructing…. Now!
>
> :::pffffft:::
>
> > At this point I have no particular interest in keeping track of where I am as
> > after the above it can hardly be more than a random sampling….
>
> Giwer, you are cleary such a enourmously stupid, lying, bastard that you
> couldn’t keep track of where you were if your feet were nailed to the
> floor.
> You are an asshole par excellance in your ability to excrete vast amounts
> of self-congratulatory verbal diarrhea. You are a dickless pedant, Giwer,
> who doesn’t have the brains to realize that what he says is transparently
> stupid; nor who has the balls to own up to his stupid “mistakes.” It’s
> funny at times. And contemptable all the time.
>
> [snip]
>
> But at this point in time, considering your paltry attempts at
> “resarching” the issues and in coming to your “conclusions,” I’d say this
> was a laughable _and_ contemptable “attempt.” I suggest you take your
> “conclusions” and shove them up your ass sideways so you can rethink them
> properly. Perhaps then the next time you dribble them out your mouth they
> may resemble reality slightly better.

> Mark
> ——————————————————————————–
> “Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
> not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties–but
> right through every human heart–and all human hearts.”
>
> — Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “The Gulag Archipelago”
> ——————————————————————————–
From [email protected] Mon Feb 19 20:38:59 PST 1996
Article: 24262 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 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: You won’t going to believe me neither
Date: 20 Feb 1996 02:30:09 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne26.vir.com

Since we are in the topic, I’d like to ask a question to Mr Keren,
Mr Stein, Mr Morris, Mr Alstine….

So fat is suppose to have flow out of the bodies in a considerable
extent without burning. This is implicitelly the claim, since never
the germans would have bother themselves to dig larger pits just
to recover few litters of fat. Gasoline has the same efficiency per
weight.

Suddenly I remembered this story, the Treblinka story: hundreds of
thousands of bodies burned in pyres, and I went back to this book
from Steiner: Treblinka.
Here the bodies were pilled up together in a ‘scientific way’.
It is say that Herbert Floss, a ‘specialist’ in cremation was
appointed to find a solution for the disposal of bodies with a
minimum of comburant. The story is that old peoples are supposed
to burn better than young peoples, fat peoples than thin persons,
woman better than childrens who burn themselves better than men.
So according to Steiner’s testimony and the official version, the
key was to pile those bodies in such a way that fat old womans
were under, and so on. It must be say here that it’s a truth
that woman body contain more fat per weight than men bodies.
In that case, it is suppose to be the reason why few comburant
was needed to destroy 800,000 bodies or more.

But there, I might ask why fat wasn’t flowing out of those bodies,
streaming down slowly without being burn, why those droplets stayed
in the body and burned there? The claim is, on a hand, that despite
a part would have burn or soak on the soil, a large amount could
flow out and this was suffisant to justify such a method of recovering
by the germans. So why in Treblinka things were different?
Why the disposal of layers in such a way was efficient in that case???

From [email protected] Mon Feb 19 20:39:00 PST 1996
Article: 24266 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 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: You aren’t going to believe me neither
Date: 20 Feb 1996 02:38:56 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne26.vir.com

Wooops, sorry for the last title

From [email protected] Mon Feb 19 20:39:01 PST 1996
Article: 24267 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 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: You aren’t going to believe me, see for yourself.
Date: 20 Feb 1996 02:56:44 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne26.vir.com

[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Daniel Keren) says:
> >
> >Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
> ># [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
> >
> >## Hi Pit
> >
> >Oh, this is sooo funny and mature.
> >
This message is for D. Keren:
it seems that you sent a reply, but I don’t know if it was
to me or M. Giwer, however I woud like to respond to it,
if you could email it, I do not consider as ‘fair’, if it’s
the case, to ‘fail to respond’ just because of that.
I’ve no problem to do the samething on my side most of the
time if someone is making the request by email, actually I’m
just doing it for some peoples.

From [email protected] Fri Feb 23 13:56:51 PST 1996
Article: 24727 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: he tells his story
Date: 23 Feb 1996 02:32:14 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne49.vir.com

Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> ^^^^^^^
> > There is simply no way how any statistically significant number of
> > Estonian Jews could have ended up in DP camps in 1948. Nearly all of
>
> Yes. Jews deported from western countries there who declared their
> last transit place. If a jew do not feel german and if he was
> there 3 or 4 years, he may in several cases identify himself
> ‘from estnia’. There is proofs that jews where deported in Latvia,
> but I dont remember if there is proofs that some were deported
> in estonia.
>
It’s a bit late to correct, by I’ve just check in my book and
I made a mistake here: the DP’s were obligated to declare their
country of birth, not their last transit country, so you were right:
in the case of estonian refugees, probably very few were jews.
In a couple of dozen of pages, the reasons that lead the author
to conclude that a majority of a DP’S were jews are explained,
but there is always several references to non jews in some
places, so for the estonian only a minority could have been jew, y
you were right.

From [email protected] Sat Feb 24 18:00:36 PST 1996
Article: 24945 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: CREMATORY RATES AT BIKERNAU LUDICROUS SAY EXPERT
Date: 24 Feb 1996 22:04:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne3.vir.com

Daniel Keren wrote:

>Greg “Hitler was a great man” Raven just doesn’t know
>when to quit.

>Someone should explain to Mr. Raven that no one needs four
>huge crematoriums to cremate people who die from ‘”natural”
>causes”‘. One small crematorium would certainly be enough.

>Holocaust deniers claim about 70,000 people died in Auschwitz,
>right? Let’s do a little calculation, assuming an average
>death rate:

>70,000/(365*4*52)=0.92

>(365 days a year times 4 years times 52 cremation furnaces).

>This would mean that, on the average, one furnace would cremate
>less than one corpse a day!

>This is obviously ridiculous; one furnace could easily dispose
>of far more corpses daily. Why, then, would the SS waste so
>much effort and money on building crematoriums they didn’t need?

>The answer is obvious: they needed all this cremation power
>because they killed far more than 70,000 people in the camp.

You know, I was close to send a message of protestation to
underline a spectacular case of intellectual dishonesty there,
but suddenly I realized that I’ve just confuze you with another guy
who’s posting regularly for years here. You won’t believe me:
there’s another Daniel Keren who is posting here, a true crank
this one. But for your information, I will just explain you
your error, since it’s just an error and not a deliberate distorsion.
There was 6 muffles in Auschwitz 1 and 46 muffles in Bikernau,
but they didn’t run over all the war. The 30 muffles of Bikernau
were working just after january 1943, and there was several breakndowns
that were documented by Pressac. Those aspects were use several
times, I remember even that the other Daniel Keren told me a day
that the crema 2 and 3 started to work in 1943.
May I suggest you a very basical book about the Holocaust before
to continue here? Holocaust for beginners, or something like that,
perhaps a cartoon will be more appropriate. You’ll see, if
you stay with us, this is a fascinating subject where fat is flowing
at a time and not flowing at another time, and so on…

Post and email.


From [email protected] Sat Feb 24 20:19:07 PST 1996
Article: 25007 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!torn!uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism,
alt.activism,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Louis Beam, Censorship, and the National Alliance
Date: 25 Feb 1996 01:52:41 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 31
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne2.vir.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:19886
alt.discrimination:43466 alt.revisionism:25007
alt.activism:31296 comp.org.eff.talk:61355

[email protected] (Sylvie Charbonneau) wrote:
>
> Laura Finsten ([email protected]) writes:
> > [email protected] (R.C. Richards) wrote:
> >>Laura Finsten <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>Statistically? Please do post the statistics that support this outrageous
> >>>claim. And do tell us your source. This will be of paramount interest
> >>>since crime statistics are neither recorded nor tabulated by race.
> >>
> >>fester, it’s clear you ain’t been around long. you can get the
> >>statistics from klanwatch. that’s right, klanwatch.
> >
> > I trust klanwatch’s statistics on anything about as much as I trust their
> > historical renderings and analysis, and the biological bs that white
> > supremacists put forward to justify their racism. Real reliable, as I
> > have seen over the past couple of weeks. I’ve been around long enough to
> > know that distortion and misinformation are the bases of the politics
> > of white supremacism.
>
> Boy, you must reaaly be new at this anti-racist gig. Klanwatch was set up
> to keep tabs on the Klan. They were compiling statistics on how many
> racially motivated murders occurred in the States. Did they ever get a
> shock to realize that a large proportion of them were committed by blacks
> on Whites. 46%, if I’m not mistaken.
>
That’s huge. Are you sure? I always though that more than halff
of the murders were comitted by blacks against blacks. If you have
the exact data a day, I’m interest to see it. That’s not an emergency
on the other hand

From [email protected] Sun Feb 25 10:37:57 PST 1996
Article: 19886 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!torn!uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism,
alt.activism,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Louis Beam, Censorship, and the National Alliance
Date: 25 Feb 1996 01:52:41 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 31
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne2.vir.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:19886
alt.discrimination:43466 alt.revisionism:25007
alt.activism:31296 comp.org.eff.talk:61355

[email protected] (Sylvie Charbonneau) wrote:
>
> Laura Finsten ([email protected]) writes:
> > [email protected] (R.C. Richards) wrote:
> >>Laura Finsten <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>Statistically? Please do post the statistics that support this outrageous
> >>>claim. And do tell us your source. This will be of paramount interest
> >>>since crime statistics are neither recorded nor tabulated by race.
> >>
> >>fester, it’s clear you ain’t been around long. you can get the
> >>statistics from klanwatch. that’s right, klanwatch.
> >
> > I trust klanwatch’s statistics on anything about as much as I trust their
> > historical renderings and analysis, and the biological bs that white
> > supremacists put forward to justify their racism. Real reliable, as I
> > have seen over the past couple of weeks. I’ve been around long enough to
> > know that distortion and misinformation are the bases of the politics
> > of white supremacism.
>
> Boy, you must reaaly be new at this anti-racist gig. Klanwatch was set up
> to keep tabs on the Klan. They were compiling statistics on how many
> racially motivated murders occurred in the States. Did they ever get a
> shock to realize that a large proportion of them were committed by blacks
> on Whites. 46%, if I’m not mistaken.
>
That’s huge. Are you sure? I always though that more than halff
of the murders were comitted by blacks against blacks. If you have
the exact data a day, I’m interest to see it. That’s not an emergency
on the other hand

From [email protected] Mon Feb 26 22:50:34 PST 1996
Article: 25185 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: ‘porous pillar’
Date: 26 Feb 1996 03:12:35 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

Recently, Ceacaa wrote that he was in Auschwitz and was able to
see that the porous pillar was a myth. I’ve not read all the stuff
that was end to him after, a part of it, and several persons
provided arguments that goes like that: the ceiling is almost
destroy, so you lie. I think it is just playing on words here
since the ceiling is just halfly collapse. For those who are interest,
several of his claims can be verify in a video: ‘The holocaust revisited:
part 2, Auschwitz-Bikernau”, Samisdat Publishers, 206 Carlton
Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5A-2L1. I think it’s about 35
canadian dollars plus shippment fees.

First, if we look at the krema 3, the central pillars are still there,
but partially destroy. They are equally space, about 4 meters between
each (at a first glance) and an explosion seems to have shuffle
those one about 1,5 meters above the ground. They are almost all
broken at the same height. They are not empty, twisted metallic stem
emerged from the center. For the crema 2, one pillar is show, it is
made of concrete, and again it is not empty. 2 holes are show
on the ceiling, almost at the center. The roof vents. This part of the
roof is broken, there’s a slope, but is is clear that those holes were
perforated after the construction of the ceiling, they were not
there when the concrete was pour. Twisted metallic stem emerge
from the sides of those holes, and they were cut, that is visible.
What this mean is that I have to imagine that the germans built the
crema 2 with a mix of solid and porous pillars, but that they didn’t take
the only rationnal approach that was require: pour the concrete
everywhere except over the porous pillars. Or either that they
perfored the roof after and then decide to built the porous pillars.
But we are told that the germans had in the mind to build those
crematories because they wanted to liquidate the jews in the
gas chambers.

I have to imagine also that the explosion selectivelly remove any
trace of the porous pilars but not the other ones. I saw a text
from Mazal and I’ll quote those 3 lines:

>take into consideration that the pillars were fastened to the _floor_ and
>passed _through_ the opening in the ceilings. I would suggest such
>objections _are_ a bit contentious. (Especially so if you were assuming

I’m not sure to understand well here, but if it mean that the concrete
part was pull from outside, this is ridicoulous.
The story is that the pillars were made of concrete, perfored and
empty at the center. And that a metallic wire mesh was introduce
inside so the Germans were pouring zyklon B from the top and this
one was spread into the wire mesh. But the main
aspect is the ‘selectivity’ of the explosion: the pillars in the
center of crema 3 were broken at the same height, but the porous
pillar were totally destroyed. And thus the germans had allegedly
built 1 solid pillar-1 porous-1 solid-1 porous-1 solid???
I must also add that those porous pillars do not exist on any
engineering draw that the germans left behind them. Never such
a ‘proof’ was bring in, so I have to assume that the germans
in their design prefered to not draw it. To keep the secret?
You are not obligated to mention ‘porous pillar’ on a draw.


From [email protected] Wed Feb 28 06:58:08 PST 1996
Article: 25340 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Aaaah, this pillar!
Date: 27 Feb 1996 03:33:11 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne32.vir.com

This message is based on the post Mon 26 feb 1996 13:17:11
that D. Keren wrote with the title ‘porous pillar’:

> The current status of the ceiling has nearly zero relevance to
> this question. The “porous pillar” was a wiremesh introduction
> device for the Zyklon. It could have simply been removed.
>
Here we return to it. I did receive a warning from someone, an email
a couple of weeks ago. Basically the guy told me that several
anti-revisionnist were playing a game with the pillar, changing the datas
depending upon what was convenient. A brief review here.
My first impression was that this pillar was a concrete pillar, an
empty pillar with holes. My opinion was mainly based on a representation
of the Holocaust museum in Washington. Then Daniel Keren wrote:

# But the holocaust museum in Washington show a picture in wich it
# is suppose to be through a ‘gas induction port that zyclon-B was
# introduce there and this gas found its way through a ‘porous
# pillar’ a couple of meters bellow, despite those one are maden
# of solid concrete (if someone want to visit it a day…).

>This is old garbage, from the “Leuchter report”. You are confusing
>the supporting pillars of the structure with the wiremesh introduction
>devices, which indeed resemble “hollow pillars”, or “porous pillars”,
>and are referred to as such by some authors.

Later I received some email informations about this pillar from an
anti-revisionnist with whom I maintained cordial relations: he tough
that this pillar was a pure wire mesh (metallic) and sent me a
description in an email.
But then I though that I had find a major contradiction in the
Holocaust litterature with F. Muller testimony:

>A porous pillar:
>
> The holocaust museum in Washington show a draw for wich the pillars
> are made of concrete. In Filip Muller’s book, ‘trois ans dans une
> chambre a gaz’, p 99, it is said that a porous pillar made of concrete
> with litle holes was used. The pillar was empty:
>
> “Des colonnes en beton se succedaient le long des murs lateraux: elles
> etaient creuses et servaient a deverser le zyclon-B que l’on jettait
> par des ouvertures amenagees dans leur partie superieure et qui com-
> muniquaient avec la chambre a gaz par des colones metalliques. Celles-ci
> etaient perforees a intervalles regulliers[..]”
>
> But here a different version was given by the ‘eye witness’ Kula
> at the Warsaw trial: the porous pillar was mainly made of metallic
> devices, a kind of grid. I have not put together all the informations
> about it, but in this version the ‘porous pillar’ has nothing in
> common with Muller’s explanation. My source for that is a recent

To that, Daniel Keren replied that the concrete was the ‘outer’ part
of the introduction device, with this nice comment:

>I asked a friend to translate it – here’s his response:

><begin>

> “Columns 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…”

>rate, it seems that Mr. Beaulieu’s control of French is about
>was poor as his control of English, and that he cannot tell the
>two main ingredients of the “revisioinist brain” – metal and
>concrete – apart.

For those 2 post, I have just the ascii version with no date
since it was before I began to use an offline editor, but
everyone could recognize the style.
So I said in my last post that the ‘porous pillar’ was made
of an external concrete part an an internal metallic wire mesh.
Now, as I underlined, there is no problem with the removal of
the metallic wiremesh. But in the french version of F. Muller
book, there’s also an external concrete part. This part wasn’t
certanly removed from the ceiling. Ok? do you accept those
datas at least for this week? So if Mr Van Alstine want to
say that I’m selectivelly reading, of course I do: I’m
destroyin 80% of what I’m receiving each day, thee’s 150 messages
and I said it: I didn’t read all about this topic, I can just
spend 1 hour 1/2 per day to read and write except the weekend.
I will just read the other half of Mr Van Alstine email later, but
I suppose that you will accept, according to F. Muller book,
an external concrete part with a metallic device inside till
next time, mmmmh? It’s possible that Mr. Van Alstine missed
that previous exchange about the outer concrete part,
but anyway, since it is in the book, for this week, mmm?

From [email protected] Wed Feb 28 06:58:09 PST 1996
Article: 25361 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Beaulieu and ‘Revisionist Math’ Again (Re: CREMATORY RATES
Date: 28 Feb 1996 01:05:40 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne40.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (DvdThomas) writes:
> > >#Jean-Francois Beaulieu >Daniel Keren
> >
> > ># The 30 muffles of Bikernau were working just after january 1943,
> > >
> > >Hmm, why did 46 furnaces suddenly become 30 furnaces? Maybe
> > >it’s because you can’t count? Or is the new “revisionist math”?
> >
> > It doesn’t take a lot of verbal dexterity to understand Beaulieu’s
> > comment, proof of that being that I got it. He is saying that of the 46
> > muffles, 30 came on line only after January, 1943. Pretty simple concept,
> >>>>
> Yes, all it takes is rearranging the words to mean something entirely
> different. “The 30 muffles of Birkernau” does not equal “30 of the muffles at
> Birkenau.” Some of this might be a problem Beaulieu has with the English
> language but, it should be noted, that he has played fast and loose with
> numbers several times.
> –YFE
If you want to know, when I wrote that I though that the 30
ovens of crema 2 and 3 were finished after january 1943 and
the 16 other ovens a bit before the end of 1942. I’ve
check quickly in a book and it seems that the 16 ovens of
crema 4 and 5 came a bit latter. To your information, in the original
post the words ‘crema 2 and 3’ were just under the wrong
mention ‘the 30 muffles of Bikernau’. And I could have used
the same wrong grammatical construction in french also since I was
tired (it as after the 5 other messages to John Morris)

From [email protected] Wed Feb 28 06:58:10 PST 1996
Article: 25362 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Beaulieu refuse to answer
Date: 28 Feb 1996 01:13:39 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne40.vir.com

>The following has been posted and e-mailed before
>Will Beaulieu answer?

Heh! my first moron!
Can you imagine that, I’ve been there for close to 4 months and I don’t
remember to have seen before any title like ‘Beaulieu lie again!’
or ‘Stupid Beaulieu!’, I though that my case was desesperate and suddenly,
my name appear, emotion… But Yale seems to come on an other
side now, since I’m suppose to have always difficulties with
numbers. In the usual trilogy moron-coward-liar I suppose
that I can feel now as fully accept as a revisionnist here.

Grow up child.

> All that stuff remind me the memorial that Serge Klarsfield published
> in 1978. It was contradicting the previous data of the Auschwitz
> museum and le centre mondial de documentation juive (Paris)
> were much more jews were allegedly gased upon arrival. It was
> shown later that Henri Krazucki and Simone Weil, 2 notorious jews,
> were count in the victim with a ‘scientific method’. Some readjustement
> had to be done by Klarsfeld, but even in his new memorial he counted
> jews who didn’t die there, like Krazucki’s mother. Meaningless.
> Such data do just represent jews who were deported, despite several
> netherland jews died during the war, it is absurd to say that they
> necesserelly all died. Simply because many had the possibility
> to emigrate in Palestine, America, Argentina or another country after
> the war, they had no reason to return in Netherland since they were
> deprivated of all their properties and had no more familly there.
> Economically speaking, it wasn’t the best move to do. And, evidently,
> many died also. But then I bet someone will say that he lost
> a zillion parents or so and that I have no respect. Classical.
>

>You little Nazi shit,

>will you please document where the above quoted official Dutch bodies
>are mistaken and which of the people mentioned emigrated to another
>country.

First of all, I did receive your first email but it wasn’t write at the
end ‘post and email’, so I wasn’t absolutelly sure since the public
part never appeared. Now, a bit of primary logic Mr…..ups, I
forgot but that doesn’t matter:
I brough some elements, french jews who were counted as dead or
‘gas upon arrival’ and in those cases it was wrong. My message was
simple: I said, perhaps all those jews died, perhaps a part survived,
but since there’s other examples were those monuments were counting
false victims, displaying the name of deportees on a memorial is
absolutelly not a proof of anything. Now you reverse the perspective and
say that I _must_ proove that several of the names that you wrote were
alive at the end of the war. Well, if you pay me the ticket for amsterdam,
New-York, if you spend a couple of hundreds of dollars, I will do
those research for you. But look how the situation is funny: do you
claim that _all_ the netherland jews that are on the memorial were
dead at the end of the war (100,000 I think) ? proove it for each of those one
sir,
the place, the date, 5 witness and an expertise of the bones.
Will Mr Nijburg refuse to respond…? suspeeeeense!
I just received Alexander Baron book recently, with a couple of
other cases of jews who were counted as dead and who survived. Then
Mr Nijburg, the doubt is possible for a fraction of the otheres.
Not all, but an unknow fraction. Will you now give such kind of
full proof that _all_ the netherland jews on the all memorials
were _all_ deads?

Post and email

From [email protected] Thu Feb 29 06:36:45 PST 1996
Article: 25512 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!
van-bc!news.mindlink.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!
newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!chi-news.cic.net!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,
alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Adolph Hitler and the 7 Dwarves
Date: 29 Feb 1996 02:23:52 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne73.vir.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14727
alt.politics.white-power:20419 alt.revisionism:25512 alt.skinheads:13453

[email protected] (ErnstZundl) wrote:
>
> Adolf Hitler and the 7 Dwarves
>
> Once upon a time there was a beautiful Aryan prince named Adolf Hitler.
> Prince Hitler lived in a far-away land called Austria and he loved nothing
> more than he loved to paint.
>
> Then one day, the young prince Hitler went for an interview at an art
> school. There at the school a mean old JEW interviewed him for admission.
>home in a small, wooden box. And so

You know, there was a time I did consider Ken McVay as a kind
of joker, some touch of humour, and I liked some of his postings.
Really, you can’t imagine, sometimes his style looks like yours.
But then you came with few postings, and I said, bof, this
joker is just there for a couple of post. Heeee no.
You really increased your output recently, you must have a lot
of free times, but I’m a bit tired of it after all.
I would prefer now to return to McVay posts, but they are
less frequent in this newsgroup actually, perhaps he ‘s busy.

From [email protected] Thu Feb 29 23:24:25 PST 1996
Article: 25628 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.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
news.uoregon.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
news.interlink.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: porous pillar: F Muller, the false eye-witness
Date: 29 Feb 1996 01:49:46 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne73.vir.com

So now I will repost it, I think it’s the time to do so…
Several peoples here seems to deny the outside concrete part
since it collide with common sense as soon as we take a look
at the video.
The porous pillar, according to Filip Muller testimony, one of the key
holocaust eye witness, is made of concrete and empty. Inside, the famous
metallic wiremesh can be found. There’s a representation of this pillar
at the holocaust museum in Washington, and this representation show
concrete. My sources for that are 1) a photo in a revisionnist book
(but this one show the maquette of the Polish Auschwitz museum)
2) a photo in one of Zundel sheet, and this one show the maquette
that is present at the holocaust Museum in Washington 3) The video
that I mentionned: ‘The holocaust revisited: part 2, Auschwitz-Bikernau”,
Samisdat Publishers, 206 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5A-2L1.
I think it’s about 35 canadian dollars plus shippment fees.
They are talking of the version of the Holocaust museum several times,
and they talk about a porous concrete pillar, so they took their datas
>from there, I can’t ask to McCalden if his source are more than the usual
maquette that is show . Tom Moran I think did visit this museum a day,
he may have some further informations.

Now, the other source that I have.

In Filip Muller’s book, ‘trois ans dans une
chambre a gaz’, p 99, it is said that a porous pillar made of concrete
was used:

“Des colonnes en beton se succedaient le long des murs lateraux: elles
etaient creuses et servaient a deverser le zyclon-B que l’on jettait
par des ouvertures amenagees dans leur partie superieure et qui com-
muniquaient avec la chambre a gaz par des colones metalliques. Celles-ci
etaient perforees a intervalles regulliers[..]”

When I posted that the first time, I received a translation from Mr
Keren who asked to someone else (he didn’t say to whom he asked this
service, perhaps M.P. Stein I don’t know)

> “Columns 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…”

This is the translation. It is impossible for someone to work 3
years in a gas chamber and confuzed concrete and metal. I don’t
know if the holocaust museum took its data from other sources, but
clearly here there’s a contradiction. I will try to see for other
sources later, but this one (3 years in a gas chamber, F. Muller)
talk explicitelly about concrete columns with a metallic wiremesh
inside. An interesting false eye-witness. You can’t work 3 years
in a gas chamber as a sonderkommando and confuze a metallic wiremesh
and concrete. Again, I’m talking about the external part.

From [email protected] Sun Feb 4 07:34:39 PST 1996
Article: 22608 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!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Auschwitz, a secret? (Breaking the silence)
Date: 4 Feb 1996 03:10:33 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne1.vir.com