Giwer, Email 2

From!mgiwer Sun Jul 21 00:15:01 1996
Received: by (Smail3.1.29.1 #8)
id m0uhsjE-000R0hC; Sun, 21 Jul 96 00:15 PDT
Received: from by ; 21 JUL 96 00:14:56 PDT
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01652 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:19:58 -0700
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:19:58 -0700
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”
To: [email protected]
From: Matt Giwer
Subject: query

Are you still interested in my sources?
Live fast, love well, and have a glorious Website.
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining (tips and tricks for webs) (eye candy, blantant advertising) (my son) (for internet advertising)

From!mgiwer Sun Jul 21 00:26:06 1996
Received: by (Smail3.1.29.1 #8)
id m0uhstx-000R1TC; Sun, 21 Jul 96 00:26 PDT
Received: from by ; 21 JUL 96 00:25:59 PDT
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA12457 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:25:39 -0700
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mr. Giwer’s Encouragements
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 05:22:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

On 20 Jul 1996 12:25:29 -0700, [email protected] (Ken McVay
OBC) wrote:


>Mr. Giwer is, as far as I can determine, a troller whose only
>interest is in causing fights. While he can sound superficially
>plausible, he has lied about what has been said in exchanges (while
>accusing others of lying), refused to document claims, pretended not to
>see posts which contain documented refutation of his claims (even when
>they have been emailed to him), engaged in actual libel, and generally
>conducted himself with such complete lack of intellectual and factual
>integrity that there seems to be no point in taking the time to read and
>respond. For detailed and documented evidence of this, please refer to

>Followups to Giwer trolls should be redirected to Mr. Giwer’s
>special newsgroup, alt.bonehead.matt-giwer, where they will be
>appropriately ignored.

>Nizkor Canada |
>———————–| Prince Myshkin’s Troll Bait Sold Here
> |————————————–

The slimey bastard who harrassed my parents has asked for whatever
happens to him.

He is obviously a holohugger. No ethics at all. That basest of
creatures upon the face of the earth.

The true incarnation of David Dahlman and Chuch Ferree in this disgrace
to the OBC.

From!mgiwer Sun Jul 21 03:01:17 1996
Received: by (Smail3.1.29.1 #8)
id m0uhvJz-000RDcC; Sun, 21 Jul 96 03:01 PDT
Received: from by ; 21 JUL 96 02:24:53 PDT
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07419 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:58:38 -0700
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:58:38 -0700
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=”=====================_837950144==_”
To: [email protected] (Ken McVay OBC)
From: Matt Giwer
Subject: Re: query
X-Attachments: D:\TX\CUR\TXCUR.ZIP;

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”

At 12:15 AM 7/21/96 PDT, you wrote:
>> Are you still interested in my sources?
>> Live fast, love well, and have a glorious Website.
>> Commentary from the right side of the curve
>>Maintaining (tips and tricks for webs)
>> (eye candy, blantant advertising)
>> (my son)
>> (for internet advertising)
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.history,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
>Subject: Eight Questions Matt Giwer won’t answer (Round 6)
>Summary: A collection of some of Matt Giwer’s best examples
> of the Holocaust denial mindset, with accompanying
> questions that he refuses to answer.
>Archive/File: people/g/giwer.matt/giwer-10q
>Last-Modified: 1996/07/17
>”He who makes a claim bears the responsibility
> of supporting it.” (Matt Giwer)
>Question 1 [February 1996]
> Mr. Giwer, during the course of discussions in February, 1996,
> in which you performed some truly amazing mental gymnastics in
> a futile attempt to confuse everyone, you made the following
> statement:
> Perhaps he is in league with the revisionists at Yad Vashem
> who reduced the official number from 6 million to a bit over
> 3 million. (Giwer, The 4-Million)
> In subsequent follow-up articles on the same general topic,
> that is, the number of Jewish victims to the Holocaust, you
> were repeatedly asked to support this claim with
> documentation. You have not, and will not, do this, since
> the statement you made is an outright lie; however, for the
> record, Mr. Giwer, when will you produce documentation,
> from Yad Vashem, in support of your assertion?
>Question 2 [February 1996]
> Also, in February of 1996, you claimed that since the United Nations
> did not come into existence until 1945 that reference to the United
> Nations could not have occured in 1944:
> In August 1944 (fourty FOUR) how could the United Nations have
> regarded him as anything when it would not even come into existence
> until 15 months later? (Giwer, Re: Jewish Census)
> Are you now prepared to retract that question in light of the fact
> that you have been presented evidence that term “United Nations” was
> used as early as 1942?
>Question 3 [February 1996]
> On February 7, 1996 you made the following comment in reference to
> the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge:
> I was paying attention at the time and not once did I notice any
> Jewish group protesting ouside of the Cambodian Embassy and I was
> living in the DC area at the time, Fairfax County, Virginia to be
> specific. (Giwer, Re: INTERNET FREE SPEECH WEB SITE ! (this
> one’s not a troll))
> Could you please specify the location of the Cambodian embassy to the
> United States at the time of the Khmer Rouge. After you discover that
> you are unable to do this, will you instead explain why you lied?
>Question 4 [February 1996]
> On February 22, 1996 you made some rather interesting comments on the
> production of “HCN” from burning atmospheric nitrogen:
> It appears you are unaware the CN is a by product of incomplete
> combustion. You see, you take a carbon based fuel and air which
> contains more nitrogen than oxygen and also supports combustion but
> at a higher temperature and you get a fractional production of CN
> as well as CO and a mess of other things. With enough oxygen and
> good design you will get all CO2 as the result. And of course if
> you have ever paying any attention to the causes of smog you know one
> of them nitrogen compounds emitted as gases. Do you think there is
> some way to prevent carbon from being included among those compounds?
> Of course there is a resident chemist here to confirm or deny this so
> lets wait for his commentary.
> …
> Yes, Virginia, there is nitrogen in the atomsphere and yes , Virginia,
> it does burn. (Giwer, Re: Open Gallon of Paint – paint one door –
> throw the rest away)
> Since you are a qualified chemist, perhaps you can explain how
> burning nitrogen results in reducing it rather than oxidizing it.
> Yes, we know that in fuel lean conditions that N2 is oxidized to NO and
> NO2 and that these species are an important component of photochemical
> smog. Yes, we agree that it is possible under fuel rich conditions that
> coal containing nitrogen could produce some uncombusted cyanides.
> The part that’s really difficult to understand is how atmospheric N2
> enters into the production of cyanides. Please be so kind as to
> explain.
>Question 5
> You have asserted that eyewitnesses to gassings have noted that
> the victims took “tens of minutes” to die, and you claim that
> this assertion contradicts your other assertion that Zyklon B
> would have killed them more quickly.
> Here is the relevant excerpt from what you wrote:
> For a moment there I thought had a way to salvage those stories
> that talk about the screaming going on for tens of minutes.
> After a few minutes there was silence. After some time had
> passed, it may have been ten to fifteen minutes, the gas
> chamber was opened.
> Note the ten to fifteen minutes. (Giwer, Re: the mechanism of
> hydrogen cyanide inhalation poisoning)
> Mr. Giwer, does the “ten to fifteen minutes” in the text you
> quoted (See URL
> refer to the time that the screaming went on — i.e. before
> the silence — or does it refer to something else?
> If it refers to something else, do you still stand by your
> statement that:
> …I am the only one who has read what people keep saying I
> should read. (Ibid.)
>Question Six [June 1996]
> You have written, of late, the following comments regarding
> the number of Holocaust victims:
> 6,000,000 are a tragedy, the other 6,000,000 a footnote.
> and …
> To the Holocaust museum folks the other 6 million are
> the footnote.
> Daniel Mittleman responded to these comments with the
> following:
> “Below … is the Mission Statement of the Holocaust Museum.
> (
> Please note in particular the second paragraph. The reader can
> determine for himself whether or not Mr. Giwer’s charge that
> ‘the other six million are a footnote’ is accurate:
> “Mission Statement
> The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is America’s
> national institution for the documentation, study, and
> interpretation of Holocaust history, and serves as this
> country’s memorial to the millions of people murdered during
> the Holocaust.
> The Holocaust was the state-sponsored, systematic persecution
> and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its
> collaborators between 1933 and 1945. Jews were the primary
> victims — six million were murdered; Gypsies, the handicapped,
> and Poles were also targeted for destruction or decimation for
> racial, ethnic, or national reasons. Millions more, including
> homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and
> political dissidents also suffered grievous oppression and
> death under Nazi tyranny.” (Mittleman, Both Sides)
> Mr. Giwer, please explain why you lied about the United States
> Holocaust Memorial Museum’s purpose and viewpoint.
>Question Seven
> On June 15, 1996, you stated that:
> “In the process of burning the two bones most likely
> to be left are the pelvis and the skull. (Giwer, Dem bones,
> dem bones, dem dry bones)
> In response to subsequent questioning about the truth of this
> statement, you have made some claims about the human skeleton
> which, if true, would set the science of human skeletal biology
> on its ear, bones and all.
> In reply to a poster who asked you how many bones there are in
> the human skull and pelvis, you wrote:
> “The skull, two in an adult, counting the jaw, discounting
> the six small bones in the ear. The pelvis, one. (Giwer;
> Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones; June 16, 1996)
> When questioned about the accuracy of your answer by a poster
> who pointed out that the skull consists of several bones,
> you replied:
> “You are talking about the skull of a child before the
> skull is fused. (Giwer; Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry
> bones; June 18, 1996)
> In response to this, another poster repeatedly asked you what
> degree of closure (or fusion, if you prefer) there is in the
> lambdoidal, sagittal and coronal sutures of the human cranium,
> on average, by age 35. She pointed out that these are the major
> sutures of the cranial vault (skull), and cited human skeletal
> anatomy texts in which the answer could be found.
> Your final statement related to this matter was reiteration of
> your original claim:
> “The fact remains that the pelvis and the skull are the bones
> most likely to survive any form of cremation and the skull is
> never mentioned by those so-called eyewitnesses. (Giwer; Re:
> Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones; June 22, 1996)
> As a qualified scientist perhaps you would answer the question
> about when and how completely the different bones of the skull
> fuse together. We know that in normal burial, the adult skull
> remains intact. But we also know that the skull consists of a
> number of bones, and that fusion of these different bones into
> a single mass remains incomplete well into adulthood. Please
> address the question related to closure and then explain why you
> think that after cremation, intact skulls should have been
> recovered and easily identified among the ashes removed from
> crematoria.
>Question Eight
> On July 10, 1996, you included the following assertion in
> an article which you published in alt.revisionism:
> “McVay is a self aggrandizing fool who permits hired
> underlings to speak for him while he refuses to speak
> for himself.” (Giwer, Re: Who would be Gannon?)
> Please identify these “hired underlings” or admit that you
> lied, apologize, and retract the statement.
>For Work Cited, see

Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=”TXCUR.ZIP”;
x-mac-type=”42494E41″; x-mac-creator=”6D646F73″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=”TXCUR.ZIP”