Giwer Matt, 1-1996 – p6

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:17:58 PDT 1996
Article: 39506 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 00:22:56 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 5:23:27 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree wrote:

>”Crucifixion” may be the wrong word here, but the persecution of Jews,
>and every other group by the bigots should certainly stop. Moran and
>all of the other bigots around should be ashamed of themselves.

>tom moran wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > _The American Hebrew_, October 31, 1919, page 582:
>> >
>> > THE CRUCIFIXION OF JEWS MUST STOP!
>> > By MARTIN H. GLYNN
>> > (Former Governor of the State of N.Y.)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Giwer, whats the story with the date, “1919”?

>Who cares, it should be stopped.

You mean those starving in Germany in 1919 should stop starving?

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:17:59 PDT 1996
Article: 39507 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 00:21:12 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 23
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]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 5:21:41 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (M Huber) wrote:

>>Which is it: Should we be ashamed for killing too many Jews or ashamed
>>for letting too many of them live?
>>
>>-Ahlf

>The latter would seem to be appropriate. The alleged survivors are meting
>out punishment to Americans via social degeneration in a manner unheard
>of throughout history. Be assured their beloved ‘6,000,000’ can become a
>reality tomorrow.

Know where I can find some of that degeneration? I can never
quite get enough degeneracy despite what some people say.

Beyond that, what in the hell are you talking about?

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:17:59 PDT 1996
Article: 39515 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Crematorium Rates
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 01:48:42 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 195
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 8:49:14 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>>>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>>>>> Maybe you should expand on what relevance collecting ashes for
>>>>>>relatives has to do with the gross differnce in cremation times.

>>>>>Because laws dictate certain prosedures be carried out.

>>>> No laws of man dictate cremation times.

>>>Really. It is dictated to the degree that the end result MUST be a
>>>certain way. I’ve read that Canada requires the large bones be reduced
>>>to a fine white ash. This will dictate a from of cremation the Germans
>>>didn’t need to concern themselves over. This also suggests a
>>>difference in technique between modern requirements and WW2 German
>>>extermination camp requirements. If you have the laws available please
>>>present them. It might be worth going to the library and getting those
>>>Canadian and American laws concerning the funeral service and posting
>>>them. This will go a long way twoard your presenting a better argument
>>>than your foes.

>>GIWER >Good sir, from the “eyewitness” statements, the reduction of
>>bones to ash was exactly the objective of the Kremas AND at only
>>800 degrees.

>Can you point me to this testimony so I can read it in context? I
>don’t think the concern was all that high since the bones could be
>crushed by hand and burned again with fresh bodies. But, by all means,
>post the citations so *I* can check it out.

It is difficult to believe you have been reading this conference
and still ask such a question. Did you miss the recent answers
to the question, where did the ashes go? Have you really missed
the multiple postings where the bone grinding (however
questionable the statement) was the exception?

Rather you appear to be playing the game, one more more time,
that if I do not post it immediately then you can, for purposes
of this exachange alone, claim that I am making it up.

>>GIWER>Even if they objective was not a “fine white ash” the lower
>>temperature would keep the time at least in the same league.

>Well, Mr. Giwer, was it or wasn’t it? I’m confused now.

(Note that you have to start at absolute zero in such matters.)

Of course you are. Bear in mind that combustion rate is an
exponential function of temperature what might appear to be a 1/3
fractional change from 1300 K to 1700 K the result is going to be
a combustion rate with more than 1/3 difference. It has been a
bit too long make a better statement than that.

But even with a linear relationship, which gives the minimum time
difference. if it is 2 hours at 1700 then it is going to be 2.5
hours at 1300. Take off a half hour for bone whitening as we are
back at 2 hours.

However what you folks are trying to do is get three bodies at
once down to some degree of ash state close to but not quite this
in 20-30 minutes. Lets give you the best of it, 30 minutes.
That is four times faster. Multiply by three bodies and it is 12
times faster. (Remember that burn time is directly related to
body weight. Three do not burn faster than one.)

Now we also know from Jean-Francois Beaulieu who
has actually taken the time to talk to people who know and
operate crematoria, that (from his description at least) they do
not even bother to look until about two hours and often “give it
another half hour” at these higher temperatures.

>> And if you have been reading what has been posted about
>>cremation, in 20-30 minutes there is still most of the flesh left
>>even at the much higher temperatures.

>So? It gets to be burned more than once. No one cared about mixing
>ashes. What next of kin was there to be concerned about. BTW, this is
>part of what is wrong with the Beaurlieu FAQ.

You are laboring under a misapprehension here. Burning time is
burning time whether you do it all at once or you or in separate
operations. All you do by taking them out and putting them back
in is have to reheat them. And your hypothetical (that is, not
in any of the reports) would take marginally more time due to the
cooling by opening to insert another triplet of bodies.

That is perhaps the value of the three at a time story. To save
the lost time from opening it three separate times. The
experimentation would them have been to trade off the extra time
>from the multiple bodies with the time saved by opening it fewer
times.

Overall, I think you are missing the distinction between
temperature and heat. The temperature of your house is where you
set the thermostat. The heat used is how many times the furnace
comes on. No matter what the temperature of the Kremas the same
amount of heat is required, to a first order approximation.

>> You also know if you have been reading that the time is a direct
>>function of body weight and that multiple bodies simply take
>>longer.

>Well, I haven’t been paying close attention. The fires were pretty hot
>after they had gotten going and the time to make room for more bodies
>was more of an issue than burning them completely. They were not
>preparing ashes to give to relatives.

It was in fact a reported issue of having them fine enough to
fertilize fields and use on icy streets and sidewalks. You
should have at least have seen similar things used for the latter
and have an idea of what size is used.

And if you want to get back to that bone grinding remember that
reports vary from a wooden mortar to a machine. The entire point
of bones is that the organic structure allows them to bend
without breaking. Whatever the point of burning that was “good
enough” it had to be passed the point where that structure is
gone.

One step further. I presume you are familiar with making soup.
You can boil a soupbone for hours and it will not get into the
above state. Yet in the first part of the process where the
liquid is being boiled out of the body that is the highest
temperature it can receive. Then it has to be subjected to the
temperature that will break down those organic compounds. Only
at that point can you even think about mechanical grinding.

But there is more. The references to the grinding are always in
the sense that it was an occasional or exceptional usage. By
that I do not imply weekly, probably daily but with a few bones
>from here and a few from there. The implication is always that
not achieving ash was a failure of the process and not a regular
part of it.

>> No matter what laws are passed by man, the above can not be
>>changed.

>This is not on issue. The laws passed, that you failed to present, are
>there to properly cremate the body in an ethical way and a complete
>way to provide loving relatives with the ashes of the one they loved.
>The German killers didn’t have to worry about this.

As above you are putting way to much emphasis upon this without
even beginning to attempt to quantify it. And what you want this
to explain away is 12 times faster solely for the last step of
breaking down the organic fibers that hold the calcium deposits
in place. You are trying to hold that 92% of the cremation time
today is in this last step.

To put it another way, you are trying to say that everything BUT
this last step today occurs in 10 minutes. I would be surprised
if you could bring 140 pounds of water to a boil at 800 C in that
time and that has convection distribution of the heat whereas a
body does not. But then these are temperature ranges where there
is little everyday experience.

>>>Not if one doesn’t care about the end result and remember the furnaces
>>>are quite hot.

>> They are four hundred or more degrees cooler than the ovens of
>>today which can NOT achieve the same results in the required time
>>period. That is a fact.

>So you say. I’ve not seen any reference at to where these temperatures
>are derived.

Holohuggers have posted the source, Pressac if I remember
correctly.

But then if one considers that the Germans didn’t care
>about perfection, then the temperature can become a nonissue.

Then why did they not save a lot of coke and do it at 200
degrees? Charred flesh is a good as anything, right?

>> The story is not going to wash no matter how you look at it.

>Yours? No, it won’t.

You want everything but the whitening to happen today in only ten
minutes. You need to think through what you are saying before
you post. Get a calculator. It won’t hurt you.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From mgiwe[email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:00 PDT 1996
Article: 39516 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 01:52:30 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 8:53:00 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Mike Curtis wrote:
>>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You are of course a willfully deceitful, character assassinating,
>>>atheist Jew.
>>
>>I guess we need to store this in the Gewish anti-Semitic statement
>>file.

>Indeed!

>Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:

And of course all out of context of the exchange with the
deliberate intention of character assassination. You have to be
an atheist. No observant Jew would do such a thing.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:01 PDT 1996
Article: 39519 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!bofh.dot!inter2.interstice.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!bofh.dot!usenet.seri.re.kr!bofh.dot!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 19:18:24 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 2:18:51 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Kimberley Ahlf wrote:

>[Previous text deleted for brevity]

>You wrote:

>> Excuse me but in your first post to me I identified that you were
>>biased and you admitted it in your first response. The actual
>>kicker in your statement is “come to KNOW the truth” rather than
>>”come to FIND the truth.” You obviously had in mind something
>>that I would come to know rather than find. It is a religious
>>form of expession. And of course you have agreed that I was
>>correct.
>>
>> Is this really so hard for you to see?

>With all due respect, that is a VERY contrived distinction: the final
>stage in setting about to FIND the truth is to KNOW the truth. You are
>doing precisely what you insist on ascribing to me: reading into my
>statements what best suits your pre-concieved notions of me.

Contrived or not, it was one of the cues I correctly picked up.

>>>Despite your assumption, I have in fact confronted the orthodox view
>>>with a skeptical eye. That is why I sought this conference. The
>>>Goldhagen controversy has indeed inspired me to re-examine orthodox
>>>notions of holocaust scholarship and I came to this NG expecting to find
>>>lively and informed debate.

>> Goldhagen is hardly a controvery outside of this conference and
>>then it only goes to his attempt at a blanket indictment. So far
>>as I am aware, in this country there has been exactly one airing
>>but the claim was to it being on the McNeal Newshour that I have
>>watched at least the first half hour of for the last three months
>>without missing a show and have never heard a mention of it much
>>less see the interview.

>> Where did you hear of a “controversy”?

>I did a net-search on Monday, I think it was, and it turned up almost 100
>postings with Goldhagen. That may not constitute controversy but it did
>indicate discussion. Goldhagen is definitely revisionist from a
>individual/society motivational standpoint which, in my opinion, is more
>important to the past, present and future of the human race than
>nailing-down the exact number of dead.

WHERE did you get the idea to do a search on the name Goldhagen?
WHAT did you use for this search?

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:02 PDT 1996
Article: 39520 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!bofh.dot!inter2.interstice.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!bofh.dot!usenet.seri.re.kr!bofh.dot!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 19:27:03 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 2:27:29 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>Kimberley Ahlf wrote:

>[snip]

>>>Despite your assumption, I have in fact confronted the orthodox view with
>>>a skeptical eye. That is why I sought this conference. The Goldhagen
>>>controversy has indeed inspired me to re-examine orthodox notions of
>>>holocaust scholarship and I came to this NG expecting to find lively and
>>>informed debate.
>>
>> Goldhagen is hardly a controvery outside of this conference and
>>then it only goes to his attempt at a blanket indictment. So far
>>as I am aware, in this country there has been exactly one airing
>>but the claim was to it being on the McNeal Newshour that I have
>>watched at least the first half hour of for the last three months
>>without missing a show and have never heard a mention of it much
>>less see the interview.
>>
>> Where did you hear of a “controversy”?

> I had lunch last weekend with a friend who is a Professor of
> Comparative Politics and was a Humbolt Scholar in Berlin four years
> ago. (You, no doubt, are aware the the Humbolt Scholarship program was
> established about a decade ago as a German program modeled after the
> Rhodes Scholar program at Oxford. It is, of course, not nearly as
> prestigeous as the Rhodes program but aspires to be similar.) She was
> at a meeting of Humbolt Alums in Washington DC last month and said that
> the Goldhagen book was the center of conversation for them. it stirred
> up emotions and there were strong arguments made within this group to
> several points in Goldhagen’s thesis.

> I see this as controversy. Of course it is an academic controversy –
> and you may not function very well at that strata.

That is cute but not productive. As you know the discussion here
is not about any academic controversy. It is someone claiming no
particular prior interest in this subject hearing of this
particular controversy.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:02 PDT 1996
Article: 39521 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 02:37:35 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 9:38:04 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>>>>>Now, if Giwer is talking about the bodies in the muffles, and NOT coke
>>>>>combusted in the furnace- as he was ORIGIONALLY, I would say that Giwer is
>>>>>trying to change his claim of HCN production in the furnaces! Could it be
>>>>>that Giwer, knowing that his claim of HCN production from coke in the in
>>>>>the furnaces is completely bogus, is desperately trying to jump ship and
>>>>>claim that he was taling about _bodies combusting in the muffle_?
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me, but you are not making much sense here. Are you
>>>>saying there were not bodies burned? Or are you saying bodies
>>>>are not organic? Are you saying that 120-160 lbs of human body
>>>>is not “plenty”?
>>
>>>Bodies contain organics and yes these organics burn. I believe the
>>>topic was production of HCN. Mr. Giwer fails to present evidence for
>>>its production. I note that he has dropped his original claim that N2
>>>burns and forms HCN (a laughable statement).
>>
>> Actually it was you who attempted in mid stream to change the
>>criteria for bodies self combusting and failed to continue the
>>discussion. It was also you who got me called a liar for
>>claiming that bones burn.

>I believe the topic of conversation was the production of HCN in
>furnaces and not the fact that combustion of bodies is exothermic
>(another area in which Mr. Giwer has advertised his ignorance.).

You appear to be admitting you were playing another of your
deceptive games on the difference between “self combusting” and
exothermic.

Take your games and play with someone else or yourself if no one
else is available.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:03 PDT 1996
Article: 39522 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nizkor: Proof is for Goyim
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 20:32:16 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 1:32:42 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> I will note that you and Alec have come forward to support at
>>least the existance of Al Gentile, not one person has come
>>forward to support even the existance of any one person who has
>>been cited as knowing somthing about what happened.

>We don’t have to. The work has been done.

How do you know it has been done? To what extent, if any, have
the circumstances of these usually unexplained and out of context
statements been investigated? We know that even the US
interrogation methods of the time would get a case thrown out of
court today. And if you don’t know that, you should.

Those who testified at the
>trials testified in person. The court verified that they were where
>they said they were. As in most trials witnesses are examined and
>cross-examined.

Not one crossexamination for the defense has ever been presented
nor has the disposition of the case. Everything posted has been
completely out of context. (In reference to the mindless Kerin
posts of course.)

These posts are not only out of context but from books where they
are already taken out of context. Shall we at least agree that
the authors of the books put them into a context of the author’s
design? That is what writing a book is all about.

>They are usually real people.

And which are the ones who were not?

This is what my
>experience tells me. After they are shown to be flesh and blood the
>investigation continues. This I did.

Excuse me, but are you in fact the first person here to claim to
have actually done original research into the original materials?
Have you published? It would at least be a contribution if you
would post some of your original research here.

You claims that Al Gentile is a
>Righteous Gentile have so far not been validated. His claims to have
>worked in the Nuremburg trials has not been substantiated and we can’t
>yet place him where he says he was. Until we can do this, we can move
>on to the specifics of his “testimony.” It appears that Sue doesn’t
>give his “testimony” much credence. Do you, Sue?

Unless you have done the original research you appear to be
claiming you have not put these requirements upon any of the
other statements. And if you have done it, please point out to
which statements your research applies.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:04 PDT 1996
Article: 39523 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: j*ws hid scrolls for 40 years
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 02:41:06 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 9:41:37 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (M Huber) wrote:

>>–
>>Harry Katz
>>
>>An Israelite is prohibited from deceiving even an idolator.
>> — The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed.

>Since ‘American j*ws’ are the biggest source of deception, this would
>prove they are not of the House of Israel. Probably Kulaks.

And further proof that our California Chemist has to be an
atheist. Or perhaps he has split a rabbinic hair and determined
that it refers only to citizens of Israel.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:05 PDT 1996
Article: 39530 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,soc.culture.usa,alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.revisionism,alt.fan.kevin-walsh
Subject: Re: Desert Storm (was: Vietnam: THE US LOST THE BLOODY WAR)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 21:18:57 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 4:19:26 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.flame:12694 soc.culture.usa:84237 alt.nuke.the.USA:41222 alt.revisionism:39530 alt.fan.kevin-walsh:660

Kevin Walsh wrote:

>In article <[email protected]> Frank Morse writes:
>> Kevin Walsh wrote:
>> >
>> > In article Demon Knight writes:
>> > > That is all you need to hear. The US army is the greatest
>> > > military fighting force ever assembled, and a 6 man recon team should not
>> > > be expected to fight, even if it was against 10 guys. The key word here
>> > > “RECON”. That means: NOT FIGHTING.
>> > >
>> > You said that your Army “should not be expected to fight”.
>> > I think you’ll find that no one has ever expected the US Army
>> > to fight. It has been stated by various people in this newsgroup,
>> > your “soldiers” either carpet bomb their opposition from a safe
>> > distance or run for their life through the marshes.
>> >
>> > By your own definition, it appears that your entire Army is one
>> > large “recon” unit.
>> >
>> If our Army is one large ‘recon’ unit, what is the British Army in comparative terms?
>> As a U.S. Military serviceman I fail to see the relevance of your post.
>> If it wasn’t for the U.S Army (AND the British, French, et al.) you would be spending
>> a hell of a lot more money on gasoline these days.
>>
>You have been misinformed. If it wasn’t for the US Army,
>the gulf war would have been won anyway, and so have no
>effect on petrol prices. The real difference is that,
>if it wasn’t for the US Army, a lot more of the UN forces
>would have come home alive at the end of it.

>Without the US war mongerers and arms dealers, the would
>would be a much safer place.

>It’s your national arrogance that leads you to believe that
>nothing can be achieved without the “support” of the USA.
>World War II is a prime example of that, as is the Gulf
>War. It’s a sad fact that when you do go to war without
>the support of the British Army, the French and the rest,
>you fail miserably and end up having to run for your lives
>through rice fields, or whatever you can find. I suggest that
>it’s us who are carring you, and that you should accept that
>fact and stop implying the opposite.

This is going to come as quite a shock to all the countries that
insisted the US had to lead to efforts to organize the Gulf War.
But it would have been interesting to see what the UN could have
done on its own. It hasn’t been in a real shooting war since it
conducted the slaughter in Katanga back in the 60s.

—————————————————————
Live fast, love well, and have a glorious Website.

http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/tech/ (tips and tricks for webs)
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/mgiwer4/ (eye candy, blantant advertising)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/ (my son)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/mega/ (for internet advertising)

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:05 PDT 1996
Article: 39531 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Diesel exhaust that looks like steam
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 21:15:32 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 4:16:01 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

># First off, you are reporting a one time test, not two years of
># continuous operation. Second, there was casual open pit burning
># in lots of pits according to you folks and obviously there is
># always the wind.

>Not close enough to the gas chambers.

No wind close enough? Please. But then, where did you get the
layout of the camp?

>And, as usual, you have failed to prove that the necessary
>concentration for explosion was reached.

I thought we were talking about the oil soaked buildings also.

>It’s like the “HCN would explode” garbage the nazi-boys were
>trying to peddle for years, till they finally gave up on it.

I thought that one had to do with how did they get gas out of
showerheads you folks were peddling.

># Third there are always sparks from the
># locomotives that were coming in and out either once or three
># times a day and the wind.

>Nowhere close enough to the gas chambers.

The layout please and what about the wind?

># And last but not least, BACKFIREs.

>Which would send a spark into the gas chambers?

The exhaust goes into the gas chambers. A backfire occurs in the
exhaust pipe. Where do you think it is going to go?

>And *if* the necessary concentration would have been reached?

Dense enough to be confused with steam is your basic premise.
That needs a droplet separation on the order of a wavelength of
blue light.

>And *if* a high fuel-air ratio was used (and the Pattle et. al. paper
>notes that white fumes were also present in low fuel-air ratios)?

You have not presented the colorless exhaust ratio as yet. Until
you do that we have no idea what was the proper ratio for the
engine he was using for the test.

># Ah, yes, Baysian Analysis. That which requires the assumption of
># both the conclusion and that Baysian analysis applies and is not
># admissable in court as it violates the presumption of
># innocense.

>Could you elaborate on “Bayesian analysis” for us? Tell us more
>about maximum entropy and Bayesian analysis, oh Giwer.

I would have to read his paper to do know what he means by
maximum entropy in this context. My only familiarity with it is
>from attempts by the RM&A folks to apply it to system
reliability predictions for proper sparing levels in cost
esitmating. We tried applying it for a while back in the 70s but
we found its predictions were way too short when compared to
experience. It did not turn out to be a useful predictor as it
would have required sparing levels that were beyond what was
needed.

>What in the blazes does this have to do with the law escapes me.
>I never claimed to be a legal expert, nor that my work relates to
>legal matters. You’re hallucinating.

Sorry about your knowledge here. Baysian statistics requires
that a particular conclusion be assumed before the calculations
can be made. For example, using these methods on the blood at
the murder scene was OJ’s it would first be required to assume it
was his blood and then the calculation would be the probability
of it not being his blood. That would be a violation of the
presumption of OJ’s innocense.

># What would a mathematics type know about science?

>In my experience, this is typically the reaction of someone with
>an inferiority complex. See a shrink.

Your professional opinion?

># I will certainly be interested in reading about the use of device
># that is made necessary by the type of door and construction used.
># But wait, you said gassing vans. We are talking about buildings
># here, quite large buildings. Will you find a description of that?

>Are you saying it will work only for gassing vans, and not for gas
>chamebrs? What’s the difference?

You appear to be missing the point of all of this. Any normal
building construction would be so leaky to air in the first place
that the idea of a “hermetic” door is a joke. There would be no
reason in the world for any kind of pressure relief device much
less any hermetic door. Yet your witness noted this kind of
door.

That is what makes it appear to be the result of a “tell me a
gassing story and I’ll help you get it right” kind of statement.

And if I remember this story correctly, the person added that it
was read to him before he signed it indicating he could not even
read the language it was written in and had no way of verifying
that it was what he said or not.

># Or did you never have to defend a thesis? And if not, what is
># this doctoral claim of yours all about? Or did they let you
># simply give your paper and then demand the faculty prove it
># wrong?

>My thesis was submitted to three experts in my area and approved.

>Do you want to take a look at it? Maybe you’ll find an error?

You are saying you never had to defend it? Or are you suggesting
your presentations here are up to that standard?

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:06 PDT 1996
Article: 39535 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!news.mindspring.com!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘Jews who are not fit for work can be eliminated witho
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 03:24:28 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 10:24:57 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (M Huber) wrote:

>>
>>
>>>>Giwer, does it ever accure to you to wonder why some innocent little
>>>>girl like Anne Frank had to die like that?
>>>>Chuckles

>anne FRANK is hereself a FRAUD, like the alleged 6,000,000. The novel was
>used & abused for political gain & sympathy by the j*ws who saw
>opportunity.

On the other hand, let us assume for the moment it is true. Look
at the heat directed at me for not giving an “it was so terrible”
response.

And at essentially the same time a message was posted that all
under 15 on her train were killed immediately.

Where was his question save for the famous?

Ah, but you can’t tell tear jerking stories about nameless,
faceless people.

And where is the compassion of all those who were trying to get
to me for all of those who died without a name?

You are quite correct, she is too useful, as has been
demonstrated here.

When it is one famous name it is a tragedy. When it is many more
nameless ones on the same train it is forgetable. But when it
gets up around a million, it is a tragedy again.

And these are the kind of people who expect others to wail at the
wall of their favorite icons?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:07 PDT 1996
Article: 39536 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!news.mindspring.com!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: A question
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 03:29:45 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 8:30:14 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Everyone knows that all gypsies are thieves.

Am I an anti-gypsite yet?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:08 PDT 1996
Article: 39537 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!news.mindspring.com!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Al Gentile Hoax
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 03:43:22 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 26
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]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 8:43:52 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>What these idiots don’t realize is; there are warehouses in Europe,
>and elsewhere filled with personal belongings of millions of innocent
>people murdered by the Nazis. No shortages at at all. Stacks and
>stacks of everything you can think of, stolen by the Nazi and SS
>bastards.

This claim is even better than your many war record claims. Can
you explain who is paying for these climate controlled vermin
proof warehouses? Do you happen to have the address of a few of
them?

It has been a long time since I rented storage space but it was
$30 per month. So that is $30 million per month, $360M per year,
which leaves us with a 50 year tab in today’s dollars of $18B.
And all of this being saved for people who will never claim it or
for relatives who could never identify it.

Here is some good advice, Chuckles. Still to the claims of
singlehandedly winning WW II. They are more credible.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:09 PDT 1996
Article: 39538 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!news.mindspring.com!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!oleane!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: alt.revisionism
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 03:48:15 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 10:48:45 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Hilary Ostrov) wrote:

>>Translation: This isn’t fair. I want a newsgroup all to myself where
>>I can indulge my fantasies without being repeatedly exposed as the
>>ignorant, ill-informed fool that I am.

>Mr. Giwer _has_ a newsgroup all to himself,
>alt.bonehead.matt-giwer, so he has absolutely no excuses for
>putting up with anything less than receiving the complete and
>unswerving attention of his fans (all of him)… but it won’t
>happen in alt.revisionism, where trolls have come, and trolls
>have gone, for lo these many years.

Why am I always the last to know these things?

Say OB (I can call you OB can’t I?) as we left it last time,
Nizkor was still await its tax exemption and Alec G. reported
that tax receipts can only be given to tax free organizations and
that the synagogue was still offering tax receipts for your
non-tax exempt organization.

Do you have it straightened out yet?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:10 PDT 1996
Article: 39541 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: alt.revisionism
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 03:55:08 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 10:55:38 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree wrote:

>What’s a holohugger? My Random House Dictionary of the English
>Language, which is about six inches thick, has no such word. So maybe
>it’s slang for something Gywer made up, like a lot of other stuff he
>makes up

English is famous for neolgisms. You should know that by now.

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] (Karl Kluge) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>
>> > Lets see if you holohuggers can deal with this for the first
>> > time.

>For the first time, he says. That’s balony too!

>clips

>>
>> > The purpose of this conference, alt.revisionism, is for the
>> > discussion of the revision of the orthodox beliefs about the
>> > holocaust. Perhaps that can be expanded to the discussion of the
>> > revision of other aspects of history.
>> books written about people who claimed they were
>> eyewitnesses.

>Might I ask Senior Gywer, what books he uses to get his massive doses
>of bullshit which he then posts all over the place.

>You tell me a better source of information than from eyewitnesses, and
>I’ll send you a bottle of good Cherman wine.

That is Cherman Vine.

But as to the better source, physical evidence. Or are you
claiming that testimony that a person is dead is a better source
of information than the living person walking into the room?

Which would you take as the best evidence? Or would you say,
shut up, you’re dead. From what I have seen so far, probably the
latter.

>> And beyond that we here have an organized effort by at least six
>> of them to continue this preaching and not to discuss revisions
>> where so many of them are so obviously needed. For example,
>> there needs be a better explanation than charred ash to white ash
>> to explain the 25 fold decrease in cremation time at a 400 degree
>> lower temperature. I would think any reasonable person would
>> admit that but then preachers are not reasonable people.

>Some preachers are reasonable people. Tammy and Jim Bakker are not
>good examples, nor are all those other TV money-raisers. But I’ll take
>the word of most preachers over the word of guys like proven
>liars…Moran, the raven, even the baron,

Anyone who would take the word of a preacher is terminally
stupid.

and musn’t leave out the
>best liar of them all, good old Matt.

At least you think I am good at something, even if it is with
faint praise.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:11 PDT 1996
Article: 39543 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Al Gentile existed, and therefore???
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 05:30:52 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 12:31:23 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>I admit I was one of the first to question the existance of Al
>Gentile.
>I read and printed out and studied the conversation he and Giwer had
>several years ago. The main thing that threw me for a loop, was that
>Giwer told us in the post, that Alec Grynspan would give us the rest
>of the story of Gentile being recognized in Israel as a “Righteous
>Person.” That didn’t happen. When Grynspan finally started speaking
>out about what he remembered about Gentile, he said he knew Gentile,
>and other stuff, but most of what Grynspan said was hedged by doubts
>on his part of the facts. In the end Grynspan finally ‘fessed up that
>he really didn’t know the truth, gave us incorrect information as to
>the military unit Gentile was with, and copped out on the rest. As a
>”Witness-Liberator,”

A fighter pilot who was a camp liberator. Let me try to clarify
your actions to make both of those claims.

There was a specific air defense for the camp you liberated.

You straffed the camp in order to save it.

Can you come up with another scenario by which you can claim to
be both?

I really hoped Gentile was real and I could get
>his story as a “Liberator”

Once more you have screwed up. That is no place in his
statement. He claimed to have acted as a war crimes
investigator. I do not recall any indication of rank but from
the way he writes I would guess he was a sergeant or at best a
junior 2nd Lt. as he appears to have been doing the grunt work
for the prosecutors.

to post on the Cybrary of the Holocaust
>webb site, where many true personal, first-hand experiences are for
>public view. The water got so muddied by Giwer and Grynspan and
>others, that I concluded the whole thing was another one of Giwers
>hoaxes. Now I believe Gentile is a real person, because his family
>told us so. That’s about as far as it got. But had Grynspan or Giwer
>been helpful rather than throwing out more BS, this argument over
>Gentile would have lasted about 15 minutes, instead of weeks.

Actually it was the rather immaterial question of righteous
gentile that took all the flack. However, when he did list the
people by name that his unit had brought to justice, he did not
imply any personal credit, only unit credit.

It has also been specifically stated that he will say anything to
win an argument. My exchange with him was not an argument rather
completely non-confrontational in the manner of an interviewer.
His propensity to make up things to win was rather clear from the
time I had been reading his messages. In fact I had taken a
strong dislike to his style and did not read most of them.

It was only his claim of first hand knowledge and original notes
(which he does not indicate he consulted to respond nor the last
time he consulted them) that got my interest and I proceeded in a
manner that would not excite what I had seen. If you read
carefully you will note two or three points of moderate impact
that are very questionable. I did not bring those up to him at
the time in order to avoid setting him off.

From what I can find in the messages, I see it as one persons
very consistent reasonable viewpoint with only minor
accomodations for his age and for the elapsed time. It gives me
more the impression of a variation on one of the often given
lectures he also claim. By that I mean he personalizes the
canned lecture to the subject at hand much as a good lecturer
does tailor his to the expectations of the audience.

I find his statements to be mostly internally consistant and when
appearing to be inconsistent it is in a most inconsequential
matter. He does not report the impossible. He does not report
both liberating camps and then bringing war criminals to justice.
He simply says he was an investigator in the manner someone would
say he was an rifleman or a tank driver.

There is the expected unit pride but no personal ego expressed.
He claims personal credit for nothing but his own thoughts and
impressions. I find his comments generally quite credible.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:11 PDT 1996
Article: 39546 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Declaration Of Deficiency
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 05:35:27 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 12:35:59 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (tom moran) writes…
>>
>> They who refuse to debate, oppose debate or stifle debate,
>>declare they don’t have the will, the substance or the guts to meet
>>the challenge. It is a sign of cowardice.
>> It is tacit declaration they know they would lose, that they
>>don’t have faith in their position, that they know deep down inside or
>>are conciously aware their own position sucks.
>> This applies to any of those persons and groups that oppose free
>>open discussion on the Holocaust.

> 1. I don’t recall ANYONE among the regulars here ever opposing free and
> open discussion.

> 2. There is another hypothesis as to why people don’t choose to debate
> you. It is that your arguments are so stupid and prima facia false
> that it is a waste of time to counter them. I can’t speak for others,
> but this certainly drives my behavior in not bothering with many of
> your posts.

On the other hand, as the Nizkorites have so often asserted for
the other side, failure to respond means they have no answer.

Using personal opinion for avoidance of debate is a rather
circular justification for the avoidance.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:12 PDT 1996
Article: 39561 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Chkdsk Weirdness
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 21:52:06 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 4:52:34 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>> And to think, Matt Giwer is claiming that the Gang-of-Six are posting
>> off topic articles.

>Right. the claim is that this is a revisionists forum. To Giwer this
>means Holocuast denial apparently. To Giwer true Revisionism would
>appear to be off-topic.

Would you care to post a few examples of TRUE revision and which
of the Nizkorites provided the discussion? I would like to have
them as examples of what you are talking about.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:13 PDT 1996
Article: 39563 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!bofh.dot!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!bofh.dot!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 02:04:46 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 7:05:16 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:

>In this paragraph Mr. Giwer claims that a victim of CO poisoning should
>not look cyanotic. In actuality cyanosis is a sgn of CO poisoning.
>The pinkish color is only present in some victims:

As was previously noted, reports of color are very rare. Do you
have a point with this?

>>>> But of course in either case a more complete work up or pathology
>>>>needs be done. And again I note references to color are rather
>>>>rare. And it was striking the first place we find the right
>>>>indication for cyanide it is in a camp that used CO where if
>>>>there was any mention of color it should have been of pink.

>I previously posted evidence that OSHA claims cyanosis as a sign of CO
>poisoning. I asked:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The creators of
the 46 page document of safety rules for the construction of
ladders. The people who intended to but were stopped from
regulating the design and construction of home lawn mowers. The
people who require handrails for any level change of more than
two steps.

Are you really telling me those are the experts you consulted?
Who did you ask, a secretary? A ladder expert? A handrail
expert?

I would have thought a grad student could have found a better
source of information than OSHA.

At this point 1) have no interest in OSHA and given your
propensity for deception 2) no interest in anything you might say
about much of anything.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:14 PDT 1996
Article: 39565 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another revision of alt.revision based thoughts
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 09:01:34 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 2:02:06 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt
>Giwer) writes:

>>
>> And just who in the hell is Dr. Peters? Does he have a doctorate
>>in theology? chemistry, letters, honorary? in what?
>>
>>

>Dr. Peters was the guy at Degesch who used to push Zyklon as a miracle
>cure. His book states 1/2 hour for most of the substance to be released,
>from the reference I saw. I have also heard a six hour max emission time.
> Release is apparently a function of the size of carrier substance
>(higher the ratio of surface area to total area) plus temperature.

Anyone familiar with even high school General Science would know
that. Of course the holohuggers pretend not to be knowledgeable
of even that.

>Interestingly, forcing air through a delousing chamber can expedite
>release also. The problem with all of this is that I have never read a
>survivor account on the usage of Zyklon (not to say that there are that
>many, there aren’t) that describes gathering up the Zyklon detritus, which
>common sense dictates would have to be done.

That is on the order of “what happened to the coke ashes?”
question. Well asked.

You know, it is amazing how long it takes for the obvious
questions to be be asked. One of my hobbies over the years has
been following the UFO scene. Roswell occurred two years after
I was born. I started hearing of it I do not remember when, as I
was that young.

Just tonight my son ask one question I have not heard in all of
more than 30 years, in all of these years of following the story.

Where was the rescue mission?

Is that an obvious question or is it not? It is the first time I
have heard it. I do not presume it is original only that if it
is not original, I have missed it.

It is hardly surprising that gassing has at least one such
question unasked.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:15 PDT 1996
Article: 39575 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 19:34:58 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 2:35:25 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>>>Let us get something straight right now. I do not care if you do
>>>>or do not. Your participation in the Nizkor objectives, you
>>>>bias, in fact even this digression into motives and agendas is
>>>>off topic and is part of thwarting the purpose of this newsgroup.
>>
>>> Matt Giwer, content policeman. Guarding newsgroups against off-topic
>>> postings since 1996.
>>
>> Excuse me but your prior agreement with my position regarding
>>content has been noted.

> Actually, what you noted was your observation and interpretation of the
> phenomenon (my post), not the content of the phenomenon itself. Errors
> like that can get a physicist in a lot of trouble. (not that anyone
> has ever claimed you were a GOOD physicist.)

Back out of it any way you can.

>> This one is particularly in regard to the so far hypocritical
>>claim of Nizkorites to be encouraging an analytic and skeptical
>>review of history.

> Actually, I believe they do encourage analytic and skeptical review of
> history. They simply encourage good analytic and sekptical review of
> history – that may be why they haven’t communicated much support to
> you.

They why do not they do what they encourage? What does the
mindless reposting of out of context quotes have to do with that?
What do claims that SS Kremas burn without air have to do with
that? Why are they not reviewing their own material in that
manner?

Not once has there been a critical review of anyone of their
original sources in a.r. If there are such things on the site
they are very well hidden.

So beyond making up excuses for them, how about simply pointing
to a few examples of them doing what they claim?

>> No Nizkorite or amen corner type has ever encouraged that.

> Too bad we know you don’t have the credibility to make such assertions
> as:

> 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: URL
> http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

Nice mantra. Now how about those examples.

Or do you admit there are none?

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:15 PDT 1996
Article: 39578 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 09:37:50 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 4:38:24 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Can’t keep out of it, can you Gywer? I’ll bet in a real one on one
>conversation, even I couldn’t get a word in edge-wise!
>People starve all over the world all the time, like right now, but you
>don’t see them rounding up Jews and other innocents and spending money
>which they should have spent on fighting their war, gassing and
>murdering people, setting up concentration camps all over Europe,
>using their resources like a bunch of dumb-shits that they were, for
>antiSemitic, and other biggoted reasons. If any of those dumbshit
>leaders had any brains, they’d have gone with Hess and parachuted into
>the loch where the Loch Ness Monster hangs out.
>Just incidently, Hess, who hanged himself or was killed by some kind
>guard, doesn’t matter one way or another, had serious intentions of
>making a deal with Churchill. But old foxey Winston, threw his ass in
>the slammer so he could think about his mentor.

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> Chuck Ferree wrote:
>>
>> >Chuck Ferree wrote:
>>
>> >”Crucifixion” may be the wrong word here, but the persecution of Jews,
>> >and every other group by the bigots should certainly stop. Moran and
>> >all of the other bigots around should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> >tom moran wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > _The American Hebrew_, October 31, 1919, page 582:
>> >> >
>> >> > THE CRUCIFIXION OF JEWS MUST STOP!
>> >> > By MARTIN H. GLYNN
>> >> > (Former Governor of the State of N.Y.)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Giwer, whats the story with the date, “1919”?
>>
>> >Who cares, it should be stopped.
>>
>> You mean those starving in Germany in 1919 should stop starving?

>Hell yes, stop starving, get a job, earn your keep, build a munitions
>factory, invent poison gas to be used later on the Jews who started
>the whole enchilada. Gotta blame some one, might just as well be the
>Jews. Listen, pal, things weren’t going too swift for lots of
>countries in 1919. But you don’t read about them voting in some crazy
>bastard like A. Hitler, and going on a 14 year long rampage.
>Chuck Ferree

You are a whacko but at least you are the most honest the
orthodox have to offer.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:18:16 PDT 1996
Article: 39579 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: A wonderful weekend
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 09:35:46 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 4:36:18 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

OK, this in only an American three day weekend. But it was good
for us designated revisionists for another reason.

Good old Hillary Ostrov crossposted a press release saying that
the proof of the holocaust was in the was in the meticulous
record keeping and in the tattoos. Fine. That has been the
contention of the anti-gassing camp all along.

If we ignore the “no records kept” protestation then everything
falls into line with the coke usage, the cremation time and the
deaths being due to disease and such without invoking gassing.

Every serious calculation of A-B has confirmed the recorded
number of people who were sent there.

The only problems have been with the claim of a million or more
others sent there.

MS Ostrov’s crosspost says that we need only concern ourselves
with the recorded people in the camp for evidence of the
holocaust. Gassing is now officially negated as a cause of death
as all the recorded people and deaths are in line with everything
else as has been said all along.

In other words MS Ostrav has posted the final nail in the coffin
of the gassing story. If she does not agree with this, she
should take it up with the person she quoted in the crosspost and
not with anyone in this conference.

Until HE changes HIS statement in public, that is a retraction,
the subject of gassing is closed. It did not happen. Only he
can reopen it under the present circumstances. Of course he may
be denounced as a revisionist.
—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:19:01 PDT 1996
Article: 103307 of alt.politics.correct
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!serv.hinet.net!news.cc.nctu.edu.tw!nctuccca.edu.tw!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!xs4all!mail
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.correct,alt.syntax.tactical,alt.gothic,alt.discrimination,ba.israelis,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: ‘Jews who are not fit for work can be eliminated without qualms’
Followup-To: alt.flame,alt.smokers,alt.revisionism,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.correct,alt.syntax.tactical,alt.gothic,alt.discrimination,ba.israelis,alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 25 May 1996 12:10:40 +0200
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 25
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: basement.replay.com
X-XS4ALL-Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 12:10:43 MET DST
X-To: [email protected]
Remailed-By: The NEXUS-Berkeley Remailer
Complaints-To: remailer-owner
Errors-To: [email protected]
X-Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-17.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 17 6:35:23 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
X-Mail2News-Errors-To: [email protected]
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.flame:12560 alt.conspiracy:53273 alt.politics.correct:103307 alt.syntax.tactical:1685 alt.gothic:94052 alt.discrimination:47550 alt.usenet.kooks:24333

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>Letter from Dr. Erhard Wetzel to Reichskommissar Lohse, October 25, 1941
>[Hitler and the Final Solution – G. Fleming, University of California
>Press, 1984, p. 70]

Invoking the Gentile rule…

>————————————————————————
>With regard to my letter of 18 October 1941, please be informed that
>Oberdiensleiter [Chief Executive Officer] Brack from the Fuehrer’s
>Chancellory

Do you know this Brack? Can you prove he ever existed? Do you
have any evidence he is telling the truth? Have you even seen
the original of this letter? How do you know it is authentic?
How did you verify it?

Another imaginary Nazi made up the holohuggers.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:50:53 PDT 1996
Article: 39580 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsreader.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Crematorium Rates
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 09:43:34 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 22
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: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 4:44:07 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Matt Giwer wrote:

>Chuck Ferree wrote, (please see previous post).

>Gywer, will you guys shut the hell up with this nonsense! Who cares!
>What’s the point, nobody proves a thing with this stuff.
>IT HAPPENED, MAN! GET IT…IT fucking happened!
>Chuck Ferree

Would please get back to telling your grandchildren you war
stories instead an adult adience?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:50:54 PDT 1996
Article: 39581 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsreader.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 09:47:37 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 4:48:09 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…

>>>Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:
>>
>> And of course all out of context of the exchange with the
>>deliberate intention of character assassination. You have to be
>>an atheist. No observant Jew would do such a thing.

> Funny how the rest of us haven’t said such things – even out of
> context.

Fact, you have.

My “liar” reputation used to rest upon my truthful statement that
bones burn and that HCN was a component of combustion. Both of
those are now admitted to be true by the person who was the
source of the claim that I was a liar.

Now that he has admitted the game, the label continues without
the source.

Sorry about that but you are no better than he is.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:50:55 PDT 1996
Article: 39582 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsreader.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 09:56:46 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 2:57:19 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> Cyanotic skin of course. But this was a specific reference to
>>lips and the tip of the nose. That links fairly directly to
>>cyanide poisoning with the two mechanisms of toxicity in that
>>there is not enough time to completely turn the blood a lovely
>>shade of prussian blue so it would only show up where it is
>>easiest to see.

>You’re mixed-up with your Prussian blue. No Prussian blue in the acute
>HCN human poisoning, not even a beginning of this mechanism. One more
>again, you should read some rudimentary manuals.

Excuse me good sir but I would like to try to explain all of this
to you in words so simple even you can understand them.

YOU first addressed ME with your insulting “prince” method fo
quoation so you did not get off on a good start with me from the
beginning.

Next you posted a reference to one and only one obscure paper
withtout posting the contents which is a very, very old
diversionary tactic.

And now finally you are playing games by pretending taking me
very obvious word games as literal statements.

I will give you two points of a possible language barrier but
take away all your points for being so predictable.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:50:56 PDT 1996
Article: 39583 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer’s eagle eye strikes again!
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 10:00:43 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <26MA[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 3:01:17 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…

>>># The person speaking in what was posted reported to was
>>># Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.
>>
>>># Now who the hell was he?
>>
>>>I told you. Chief of the Gestapo. Heinrich Mueller.
>>
>>>You never heard of this one either, right?
>>
>>>What, exactly, is so difficult for you to understand about
>>>Eichmann’s testimony?
>>
>> That was one of the possibilities I suggested, that the rank
>>system would be overturned to support these statements.

> I am not sure where your insanity comes from on this simple point of
> fact.

Another professional opinion? Excuse me, good sir, but people
who truly occupy academic positions sully them by such
statements. Or do I confuse you with a person who has one?

I did not see the original posts in this thread so I don’t know
> which testimony you all are referring to, but if you take a look at
> Martin Gilbert’s _The Holocaust_ on page 166 you will find that
> Heinrich Muller is referred to as “Chief of the Gestapo” and on page
> 168 Eichman, during testimony, refers to him as “Gruppenfuhrer Muller”.

> I don’t see why you are getting bent out of shape over this. As you
> say, you make mistakes.

Sorry about your problem in this. IF what you say is correct
Eichmann was a staff officer. He had no line authority. He was
wrongfully prosecuted.

He was therefore murdered.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:50:56 PDT 1996
Article: 39585 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 00:39:41 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 7:40:11 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>[email protected] (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>
>>>> _The American Hebrew_, October 31, 1919, page 582:
>>>>
>>>> THE CRUCIFIXION OF JEWS MUST STOP!
>>>> By MARTIN H. GLYNN
>>>> (Former Governor of the State of N.Y.)
>>
>>> Giwer, whats the story with the date, “1919”?
>>
>> What story? That is the publication date. This has been around
>>for quite some time. No one has claimed it is a forgery or
>>anything like that.
>>
>> The worst claim about it has been that it is out of context.

> It is not a forgery. If one uses it to claim that Glynn was charges
> there were six million Jews killed in Europe just prior to 1919, then
> it is out of context.

I posted all of the article that I have and that part clearly
referred to it being a matter of hunger.

>>However no one has explained the coincidence of the name and
>>number being the same as for the consequences of the next big war
>>to come along.

> He calls the unnecessary death of 6,900,000 a holocaust. As the word
> is used to mean things like this, it is not all that surprising a
> choice of terms. And note, he does not talk about the death of
> 6,000,000 but of 6,000,000 and 900,000 children. The numbers are not
> the same.

Where did I say that he did?

>> Perhaps it is just one of those, the more things change the more
>>they remain the same.

> Perhaps. After all, there have been threat and pogroms against the
> Jews in Europe for centuries.

Certainly and that is a better explanation for “going willingly”
to the camps than any holohugger has come up with yet. It was a
“one more time” issue for them. But of course it still requires
an complete ignorance of what everyonen is supposed to know was
happening.

>> Myself, I do not believe in coincidence.

> Well, the woman who has an office across the hall from me is named
> M. Glynn and she’s from the NYC area. Coincidence or some sinister
> plot?

I would say this was a convenient name and number that was
resurrected from the previous war. Both of them stuck and it is
quite difficult for even the historians to keep a number in that
range.

It was only some 25 or so years later that the name and number
were adopted. Jewish concern for what Germany was doing to their
Jewish citizens got serious in 1933 only 14 years later.
Certainly someone did some research into what had happened in the
previous war by then to know what to expect and plan for.

Now you want to go further, but only on my memory of course, the
first book use of holocaust after WW II was in Elie Wiesel’s (or
maybe Wisenthal) first book where he used it to refer to the
outdoor pit burning of the dead. If I have heard correctly he
does not mention any gassing in this first book. But again, this
is only from memory and not personally confirmed.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:50:57 PDT 1996
Article: 39586 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Where Did the Ashes Go?
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 10:32:16 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 5:32:50 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Richard Schultz) wrote:

>Prince Myshkin ([email protected]) wrote:

>: Of course the ashes will still form a layer of sediment in the
>: nearby ponds. Yet no one reports finding it. Then perhaps, no
>: one looked.

>Of course, in the television series “The Ascent of Man,” Jacob
>Bronowski stood in one of those ponds and held some of those ashes in
>his hands. You can see a photograph of him doing so in the book version.

>But how much better can we expect from our resident troll? Apparently,
>he has given up on trying to provoke people with arguments that even
>appear reasonable. I guess he hopes that if he acts like an anti-Semitic
>idiot, we’ll all get mad at him. Fat chance.

>—–
>Richard Schultz [email protected]
>Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
>Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
>—–
>”It would have been like discussing sundials with a bat.”

I find it most intriguing that I have missed that one episode in
the entire series. Can you narrow it down for me better than
that?

I also find it truly amazing that after all these years the
sedimentation would possibly permit one to simply reach in and
grab a handful of it.

Do you really not realize how stupid this claim sounds even if it
was on television?

We are talking a deep layer that could only show up in a core
sample and no one could simply reach in and get a handful for the
cameras. Reality, far from academia, does not work that way.

At best what you saw was a dramatic re-enactment of what might
have been possible if reality were different. If in fact you did
see the episode I missed, you saw a pious fraud perpetrated upon
you.

Gedanken experiment. Pour anything into a pond. Come back 50
years later. Pull out a handful of it. How do you make that
possible?

Why is that ridiculous suggestion only credible to you when the
substance is human ash?

There are enough burrowing and boring species and calcium using
species in any active pond that over 50 years that layer is
diffuse and readable only by chemical analysis of the core
sample. NO ONE could possible show anything visible on a TV
screen.

One more true believing chemist.

Look, jerk off, I have left you folks more than sufficient ways
to trip me up in my earlier claims about core sampling. And yet
the best that a member of a university chemistry department
can do is point to a TV dramatization.

You can guess what I left open to trip me up at your leisure. I
really would have thought it was obvious. But here is a small
hint. Where do herbivores get calcium for their bones? Call the
bio department for another hint.

Are you truly an example of the state of higher education in
Israel?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:50:58 PDT 1996
Article: 39590 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Cyanide Traces at Auschwitz Today
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 10:40:18 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 3:40:50 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> Another idiot who believes that fire can be maintained in the
>>absense of oxygen. It must be a real shit ass university.

>Can you imagine that it is possible to heat coal in an oven, without
>oxygen in the oven? Or to cook a boiled-egg without hydrogen peroxyd ?

>Is it a ‘shit ass university’ question ?

Excuse me, good sir, but the first holohugger post regarding the
production of coke from coal was that it was produced in an
oxygen starved process. You are now claiming it is produced is
in zero oxygen environment.

Would you please and him to raise his hand and then get together
with him offline to come up with one consistant story that I can
address?

Until you two do that I have no further interest in this subject.
I am not interested in dealing with conflicting stories at the
same time. You and him go fight and I will deal with the winner.

I have have enough of this dealing on two fronts at once and the
non-loser declaring himself a winner because he was the least
vocal.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:50:59 PDT 1996
Article: 39591 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘Jews who are not fit for work can be eliminated witho
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 10:46:21 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 121
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: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 3:46:55 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>Get your stories straight, Gywer. You don’t even know who said what
>about what!
>You’re such an easy target, I’m almost embarrassed to kick your ass so
>often.
>Further more, when you use Huber as a source, you’d be better off
>going into your bathroom and reading a while.

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] (M Huber) wrote:

>Giwer, does it ever **accure

>I spelled it correctly, so Gywer not only steals other people’s stuff,
>he mispells a lot of it too.

> to you to wonder why some innocent little
>> >>>>girl like Anne Frank had to die like that?
>> >>>>*Chuckles

>thas’ me, old Chuckles the multi-engine airplane guy!

>M Huber didn’t write that…I wrote that! But no mis-spelling
>>
>> >anne FRANK is hereself a FRAUD, like the alleged 6,000,000. The novel was

>He’s into that cheap wine, I tried to warn him about that stuff.

>The Anne Frank Diary certainly isn’t a novel. If anything about Anne
>Frank is fraudulent, it’s these hyperbolic, lies spread by the likes
>of M Huber (Elvis’s current houseboy) and promoted by the likes of
>idiots like Gywer.

>> >used & abused for political gain & sympathy by the j*ws who saw
>> >opportunity.

>Opportunity to do exactly what?

>>
>> On the other hand, let us assume for the moment it is true. Look
>> at the heat directed at me

>poor baby, can’t stand the heat get the hell out of the kitchen, as my
>old pal; Harry S. Truman once said.

> for not giving an “it was so terrible”
>> response.
>>
>> And at essentially the same time a message was posted that all
>> under 15 on her train were killed immediately.
>>
>> Where was his question save for the famous?

>I hope no one believes that Anne Frank received special treatment by
>the Nazi SS bastards because she was “somebody.” No one ever heard of
>Anne Frank until ten-twelve years after she had died in Belsen.
>>
>> Ah, but you can’t tell tear jerking stories about nameless,
>> faceless people.

>Oh yes you can! But you gotta have a little heart. Nazis by their very
>nature had no heart nor pity for any human, save themselves. Same goes
>for the denier crowd.

>>
>> And where is the compassion of all those who were trying to get
>> to me for all of those who died without a name?

>Jeez, I can’t believe this! Any one who has the slightest clue about
>what happened during the Holocaust, is filled with compassion for
>every victim.

>>
>> You are quite correct, she is too useful, as has been
>> demonstrated here.

>Useful, the man says. She died a horrible death at the hands of
>Germans. SS men and SS women, who didn’t give a shit about any of
>those thousands of people who died of neglect and or were murdered by
>Germans.
>>
>> When it is one famous name it is a tragedy.

>Yeah right, a teenager killed in an auto accident is a tragedy, the
>airplane with 109 passengers which disappeared in the Florida swamp is
>a tragedy. Twelve million plus Jews and others murdered by the German
>Nazis and SS are just a statistic.

>clip

>> And these are the kind of people who expect others to wail at the
>> wall of their favorite icons?
>>
>> —-
>> *Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
>> that he was not an eyewitness.

>*Gywer gobbledygook! An eyewitness is one who witnessed an event.
>Eyewitness testimony is more valuable than all the hearsay in the
>world.
>Chuck Ferree

Get back to your pysrinck, Chuckles. You are obviously
incapable of telling who said what.
—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:00 PDT 1996
Article: 39597 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Chkdsk Weirdness
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 11:04:25 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 6:04:58 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>>
>>>> And to think, Matt Giwer is claiming that the Gang-of-Six are posting
>>>> off topic articles.
>>
>>>Right. the claim is that this is a revisionists forum. To Giwer this
>>>means Holocuast denial apparently. To Giwer true Revisionism would
>>>appear to be off-topic.
>>
>> Would you care to post a few examples of TRUE revision and which
>>of the Nizkorites provided the discussion? I would like to have
>>them as examples of what you are talking about.

> Sure. As I mentioned today in another thread, Gord McFee has brought
> up the topic of functionalism vs. intentionalism in regard to whether
> the Holocaust was planned or unfolded in an unplanned manner (of course
> the full discussion is much more complex than my one sentence summary).

You really mean that the best you can come up with is
pseudointellectual nonsense as a question like that when we
clearly have a concrete document like the Wannsee Protocol before
us?

The only question before us in light of that document is who
perverted its intention if anyone.

> And this all grows out of a healthy discussion of Goldhagen’s thesis.

Excuse me, but he is promoting orthodoxy.

> I recall Mike Stein bringing up true revisionist topics in the past,
> though I don’t recall at the moment what they were.

When you do, post them.

> I have asserted in the past that it will take another generation or so
> to fully understand Hitler’s role as it is still awkward to take a
> truely objective look at him as a person and as a leader (sorry Mike,
> this is/was just conjecture, I have nothing to back it up with.)

And when I noted you sounded like Marge Schott you got all bent
out of shape over it. So far this is the only seriously
revisionist example you have given yet you objected to it at the
time.

> Posters to this group have been active in evaluating the legitimacy of
> the human soap claims.

Those were rejected decades ago. Probably before there was an
arpanet.

Member of this group, I believe, have broken
> from what has been written in several standard histories regarding the
> presence of human soap.

Most likely also rejected before most of them were born.

Do you have any better examples?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:01 PDT 1996
Article: 39602 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: one more time
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 04:20:12 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 9:20:43 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt
>Giwer) said:

>>
>> Who was the person speaking in that post that so many claimed was Adolph
>>Eichmann? Does anyone know yet?

>The person was Eichmann.

Lets us review the bidding.

The claim is now that a Lt. Col.’s immediate superior was a two
star General.

I believe that is correct.

As his immediate superior so greatly outranked him he was not a
line officer but a staff officer. Therefore he was clearly only
following orders and had no authority to make decisions or issue
orders on his own initiative.

Again he is exonerated of the charges.

So now we have three choices.

1) he reported to a different Mueller and was not The Eichmann

2) he is the real Eichmann but was improperly found guilty as he
was a staff officer

3) we distort the entire rank system to find him guilty.

Lets keep this one going for a while. I am curious what you are
going to do with this one.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:02 PDT 1996
Article: 39603 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nizkor: Proof is for Goyim
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 02:25:44 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 127
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: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 9:26:14 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>>>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>>> I will note that you and Alec have come forward to support at
>>>>least the existance of Al Gentile, not one person has come
>>>>forward to support even the existance of any one person who has
>>>>been cited as knowing somthing about what happened.

>>>We don’t have to. The work has been done.

>> How do you know it has been done? To what extent, if any, have
>>the circumstances of these usually unexplained and out of context
>>statements been investigated? We know that even the US
>>interrogation methods of the time would get a case thrown out of
>>court today. And if you don’t know that, you should.

>Damn, there’s that opinion stuff with no backing to it. Not much I can
>do with your empty claims, Mr. Giwer.

Are you really claiming ignorance of the hot lights, no attorney,
no food or water, round the clock interrogation techniques that
were use back then? I had thought you were an aculturated
person. Go learn about it and come to deal with it. When you
can handle that I will tell you about the rubber hose.

You’re a baby. Amazing.

But here is an easy one for you. A person does not waive his
rights and is questioned or tricked into talking without an
attorney present. What happens to the case? And a simpler
question, did you ever hear of Miranda? (He was killed in a bar
fight four years after the SC case if that helps any.)

>>Those who testified at the
>>>trials testified in person. The court verified that they were where
>>>they said they were. As in most trials witnesses are examined and
>>>cross-examined.

>> Not one crossexamination for the defense has ever been presented
>>nor has the disposition of the case. Everything posted has been
>>completely out of context. (In reference to the mindless Kerin
>>posts of course.)

>Damn, there’s that opinion stuff with no backing to it. Not much I can
>do with your empty claims, Mr. Giwer.

If you have not been reading the conference that is your problem.
If you have been you might mention some of the crossexamination
that was posted. You might want to ask Kerin to find some and
post it.

>> These posts are not only out of context but from books where they
>>are already taken out of context. Shall we at least agree that
>>the authors of the books put them into a context of the author’s
>>design? That is what writing a book is all about.

>Damn, there’s that opinion stuff with no backing to it. Not much I can
>do with your empty claims, Mr. Giwer.

Gee, you mastered creating a macro. Must have taken months.

But as you remember the “Eichmann” statement was from a book that
was taken from another book. That is twice removed from context.

>I can’t agree with you if I don’t know what I’m to agree with.

You apparently do not read anything in this NG except what I
post. Although flattering it would be better if you would take
more time to prepare yourself for participation here.

>>>They are usually real people.

>> And which are the ones who were not?

>Would everyone who is absent please write to me this second.

Who are the people whose statements have been posted that have
turned not to be real people?

>>This is what my
>>>experience tells me. After they are shown to be flesh and blood the
>>>investigation continues. This I did.

>> Excuse me, but are you in fact the first person here to claim to
>>have actually done original research into the original materials?

>This is not my area of specialty. I do read critically and examine the
>methods used when I care deeply enough.

Then you did not verify the actual existance of these people.

>>Have you published? It would at least be a contribution if you
>>would post some of your original research here.

>It is not on subject.

Certainly verifying the actual existance of the people making
these statements is on topic.

>>You claims that Al Gentile is a
>>>Righteous Gentile have so far not been validated. His claims to have
>>>worked in the Nuremburg trials has not been substantiated and we can’t
>>>yet place him where he says he was. Until we can do this, we can move
>>>on to the specifics of his “testimony.” It appears that Sue doesn’t
>>>give his “testimony” much credence. Do you, Sue?

>> Unless you have done the original research you appear to be
>>claiming you have not put these requirements upon any of the
>>other statements. And if you have done it, please point out to
>>which statements your research applies.

>See the above paragraph.

Then please be more careful not to leave false impressions. Do
not say you have done something that you have not done.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:02 PDT 1996
Article: 39604 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ysu.edu!news.cps.udayton.edu!news.conterra.com!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: j*w eyewitness rebukes holocaust
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:33:59 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 4:34:28 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (M Huber) wrote:

>Date: Thursday, 09-May-96 05:36 PM

>Thursday, April 18, 1996 – The NEWS-JOURNAL – 5C

>Scholar rebuts Holocaust deniers

> By GINA GINSBURG
> News-Journal Correspondent
> ORMOND BEACH – Holocaust revisionism, the movement to deny the
>breadth of the holcaust, “is not about history,” said Marc Pollick, a
>guest lecturer at the Yom Hashoah Holocaust Memorial Observance.
> Pollick spoke Sunday night at the Ormond Beach Performing Arts
>Center
>as part of a community-wide memorial service.
> The new antisemitism – people who deny the holocaust – is a slick,
>well-financed movement with clear motives and a distinct political agenda,

I notice it doesn’t say where to get financing. Maybe it is from
those rich KKK types.

>Pollick said.
> Their motives are to attack Jewish history and memory, rehabilitate
>the Nazi regime and attack and undermine Israel, he said.
> “Their agenda is to resurrect Nazism ” Pollick said, and they are
>”dangerous because they have learned to mainstream themselves.”
> As an example, Pollick told the audience about an organization
>called
>the Institute for Historical Review, which produces many scholarly
>looking
>publications denying the Holocaust ever happened.
> Pollick, who is from Boston and a doctoral candidate in holocaust
>studies, said holocaust deniers try to argue that there was never a
>single
>document outlining the plan to exterminate the Jews. They claim the 6
>million deaths were caused only by disease and harsh conditions in the
>concentration camps rather than by gas chambers.
> The Germans, however, were meticulous at record keeping and had an
>identification number for every Jew sent to the camps, Pollick said The
>holocaust deniers fail to tell about warehouses full of documentation as
>well as the lists of names at the Yad Vashem Memorial Museum in Jerusalem.

Wasn’t it just last week that the truth was that only those who
were to become inmates rather than gassed at A-B received
tattoos? If this is a true statement hasn’t he just revised the
gas chambers out of existance? It becomes only necessary to
account for those with records.

> Pollick urged everyone to hear stories, first hand, from survivors of
>the contration Camps.
> He quoted survivor and Nobel winner Elie Wiesel and said to use
>”truth
>and memory as weapons” to fight against igorance and hate.
>”If you can deny the holocaust, then no history is safe,” Pollick said.
> Holocaust survivors were asked to come forward to light a candle, and
>then eventually all the pro- gram participants and audience members held
>a lit candle before silently leaving the auditorium.
> “The children today are so far removed from this,” said Marilyn
>Richard,
>whose mother and father were both holcaust survivors. “The memory has to
>go
>on and impact the next generation.”
> The memorial observance was sponsored by the Jewish Federation of
>Volusia and Flagler counties in conjunction with Temple Beth El, Ormond
>Beach, Temple Israel, Day- tona Beach, and Temple Beth Shalom, Palm Coast.

>————————————————————
>It would be well to note that the j*wish conspiracy invented the idea of
>revisionism, particularly as it applies to the curriculum being taught in
>our nation’s schools. An example of their revisionism is the undermining
>of traditional beliefs previously taught in this country such as honoring
>Christopher Columbus. To scatter our heritage, they teach Columbus was a
>purveyor of genocide against the indigenous American Indians, raping,
>stealing and killing.
> -Ed
>Submitted by Slayer

But then there is the other camp that says he was Jewish. It
appears the only way to get rid of the currently fashionable
image of Columbus as someone evil is to agree that he was Jewish
and make such talk socially unacceptable.

There, see how easy it is to control how history is taught?

Maybe if we can come up with positive proof Hitler was Jewish we
will discover it was all Himmlers’ fault.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:03 PDT 1996
Article: 39608 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Redemption of the Giwer-troll
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 11:44:38 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 6:45:11 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Gord
>McFee) writes:

>>
>>>
>>>[email protected] (Harry W. Mazal OBE) writes:
>>>>Mr. Stein is quite right. It is one thing to be retired because one
>>>>has the financial ability to maintain a high style of living; another
>>>>to be retired because one’s business has collapsed. Evil tongues hint
>>>>that the gentleman in question is hampered by a severe disability.
>>>>Can this brought upon by the less than moderate consumption of
>>>>certain ethanolic beverages?
>>
>The above is, apparently, a reference to Matt Giwer, and not a reference
>to anyone affiliated with Nizkor.

>I WAS JUST ABOUT TO DISMISS GIWER when I came across a reference that is
>very interesting. Miklos Nyiszli, “Auschwitz”, Fawcett:1960, pb, p. 97 —
>according to “revisionist” source Dr. Nysizli (a Hungarian) claims that
>the gas chamber was used as a bomb shelter during an Allied bombing raid.
>In the “Who, Me?” vein, I would also point out that Monsieur Pressac
>deliberately wrote his book around Dr. Nyiszli’s memoirs, although I
>personally find them unbelievable and would never use them in a history of
>the Holocaust. But as a result of Pressac’s usage, Nyiszli’s memoirs have
>been reissued and should be consulted, and if the reference is correct,
>everyone, starting with Mark van Alstine, IMHO, owes the Giwer an apology.

If you had come to this conclusion by your own reasoning rather
than having to read it from someone else first I would have
congratuated you. As it is you have only acted as a scholar and
have no ability to critically analyze this resource. Your
contribution may therefore be lacking.

HOWEVER

I expected anyone seriously thinking about the subject would have
recognized the dual utility instantly. Alstine should simply
have agreed and said “all three” uses and made a very good point.

It was obvious from the roof of the LK that there was an extra
effort expended for no gassing or morgue reason and in fact
detrimental to the temperature reason for a morgue.

I have almost posted the above three times now but erased it in
hopes that someone would learn to think for themselves rather
than mindlessly quoting others whom they can not critically
evaluate as the sole source of authority. It appears the ability
to think for one’s self is sorely lacking in the holohuggers.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:04 PDT 1996
Article: 39609 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Subject: Re: My Complaint About Matt Giwer
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 02:28:27 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 9:28:58 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:39609 alt.bonehead.matt-giwer:17

[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) said:

>> Then at least you will admit that all of the orthodox holocaust
>>quotations and sources are off topic and only the actual addressing of the
>>revisions is on topic. Endlessly reposting the originals of what has been
>>discredited is not “arguing against revisionism.”

>Why would they be off topic? How can one address the “revisions” without
>adducing the truth?

Because they are only stories about the holocaust. It is not
about the holocaust itself.

>> To in fact argue against revisionism, one would have to address what has
>>been revised and show that the revision was incorrectly made. It could
>>also consist of showing that what has been discredited should not have
>>been discredited.

>Precisely why the truth is quoted.

You know so many things are clearly impossible. You should know
the impossible can not be true.

>> There are a lot of things that would fit the category you have described.
>>The mindless posting and reposting of orthodoxy is not that. That is like
>>trying to convert an atheist by posting from the bible. It is in no way
>>arguing against the revisions.

>Posting the truth is off topic? One sees where the Giwer-troll is coming
>from. So, with no further ado…..

The impossible can not be true.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:05 PDT 1996
Article: 39620 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Consequences
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 22:45:27 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 5:45:58 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>> Let us take two extreme cases regarding searching for a credible
>>truth regarding the holocaust.

> There are problems with both extremes presented:

>>1) After a critical analysis everything the Gang of Seven
>>supports is conceded to be true.

> The problem here is that if Giwer polled his “gang of seven” he would
> find that all seven of them support continued research into the
> Holocaust and are willing to accept whatever evidence real historical
> investigation turns up. If fact, I suspect that none of the seven
> would say that what we know today is the complete truth and that all
> seven would say that real historians will push closer to the real truth
> as time goes on.

Your expections hardly consitute problems.

>> The consequences of this, despite the Nizkorite assumption of the
>>return of Nazism and the fall of democracy, are absolutely zero,
>>nada, nothing. No change in anything that exists today.
>>
>>2) The stories of mass extermination of undocumented people are
>>found to be false.

> If that is what real historical research uncovers, then fine. Given
> the research done to date, that is a very unlikely future finding.

So far as I am aware (great straight line for you folks there)
the current research has been in supporting a preconceived
conclusion, that the camp rumors were true.

For example they apparently did realize the Krema capacity was
inadequate for the number of people they wanted to process so
they dug up the multiple bodies story. Unfortunately they did
not realize that made the problem with the capacity worse not
better. But then they let the explanation advance to
unquestionable dogma.

> Given the historical research done to date, real historians have
> discounted the possibility that millions of people lived but were
> simply missing.

Excuse me, sir, but the last time I came across the number the
total for all the civilians who disappeared without a trace
during that war was 32 million. That is not to say they were
dead or alive after the war, simply that their fate is unknown.

You can certainly include civilians being caught in the
crossfire, winding up in another country and taking a local
sounding name, and consider those who escaped to Siberia, a great
place to survive, right? How many might have disappeared right
into Stalin’s Gulags? In the 30s about half a million foreigners
disappeared into them along with a quarter million who were
summarily executed.

It is unclear how anyone, historian or not, could isolate 12 out
of these 32 million and establish an otherwise untraceable fate
for them. Obviously we can discount an actual person by person
trace. That does leave us with gross population statistics at
best.

To give a specific example. Part of the family of one person
here got east to Siberia, then back west to a DP camp and finally
to Canada or perhaps even a more circuitous route. What
population statistic column, if any, would they have appeared in?
And perhaps a better question is, how many would have felt safe
enough to identify themselves as Jewish immediately after that
war?

And we know how difficult it is to conduct even a well planned
census with errors on the order of a couple of percent. In post
war conditions with people busy with other things, what kind of
errors would you expect?

So just what have these historians “discounted”? Something about
the 12 million they isolated from the 32 million? It is not
clear what could have been done with anything resembling
confidence.

Only a few crackpots who selectively test evidence
> have come to this conclusion. The work of those crackpots does not
> stand up to thorough historical investigation, but they don’t seem to
> understand this and they don’t seem to go away. (They also don’t seem
> to realize they are crackpots.)

You mean you would consider the above crackpot? Why?

> There is nothing wrong with pursuing historical theses which run
> counter to the orthodox understandings of the Holocaust. However,
> extraordinary theses require extraordinary evidence. These crackpots
> do not even come close to building a real case.

It would then appear you do not consider the mass exterminations
extraordinary or you do not realize it bears the burden of
providing the extraordinary evidence. The need to invoke gassing
given camp conditions is truly extraordinary. Or, of course,
camp condition descriptions are in great need of revision.

>> People who now presume they have lost entire families can start
>>searching for them again. Millions (double counting of course)
>>will mutually discover they still do have relatives they thought
>>were long dead. Reunions around the world. Much happiness and
>>joy for people who have been sorrowing for decades. Tons of
>>material tabloid TV.

> Cute. But this overly simple analysis discounts the personal
> investigations done by thousands if not millions of people on their own
> looking for relatives in the 40s, 50s, 60s and beyond.

Just how does one go about finding a person under the conditions
I have described above. Likely name changes, unknown coutry,
that sort of thing? It is not as though they left a solid paper
trail. It is not as though there were computers to help. And we
have a total of 32 million people to deal with, not just the
isolation of these particular 12 million.

Since the other 20 million have not been traced, what is the
point of a 3 or 4 of these 12 million being untraced? What is
the reason for not adding these 3 or 4 in with the 20?

This overly
> simple analysis discounts both formal and informal censuses taken by
> cities and nations over the past 50 years.

Formal and careful and planned for ten years census have errors
in the range of 2-3%. Of what value an informal census?

This overly simple analysis
> discounts immigration and emigration statistics from the past 50 years.

Statistics again. The US still does not ask for religion on
those despite the implications of some people. So any country
that does not including the US leaves that a huge blank.

> This overly simple analysis discounts thorough historiographical
> reseach undertaken over the past 50 year.

And how have they answered all (any) of the above?

This overly simple analysis
> discounts the tesimony of BOTH nazi perpetrators and prison camp
> inmates taken shortly after the Holocaust.

We have been over many of them as relates to gassing. They do
not stand very well.

This overly simple analysis
> discounts the prison camp and train records made by the Nazis.

But we keep being told there were no records kept of those who
were to immediately gassed. Nothing there or, for the purpose of
this arguement, were records kept?

This
> overly simple analysis selects only some of the physical and chemical
> evidence to build a case that MAYBE it was not possible for SOME of the
> gassing events to happen exactly as reported and extrapolates from that
> that MAYBE no gassing events happened – IN SPITE OF ALL OF THE OTHER
> EVIDENCE ALLUDED TO ABOVE THAT THEY DID.

Testimony from an eyewitness that does not comport with physical
law is only evidence that the person was not an eyewitness.

And thus, no legitimate
> historian studying these events gives credence to theses that the
> gassing did not happen. Only the crackpots who ignore all of the above
> hold to those theses.

When the historians have started with the conclusion there was
gassing they have established nothing.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:06 PDT 1996
Article: 39621 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 19:59:56 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 1:00:23 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

># Excuse me. This was at Treblinka was it not?

>No. It was in a different death camp.

Which one?

># Someone did switch on an engine, did they not?

>Yes.

What kind of engine?

># What are you suggesting was the gas in this case?

>The gas was engine exhaust.

That is what I said.

>According to common sense and
>to experiments, there’s more than one way in which it can
>be lethal. According to the Pattle et. al. paper, death
>can result form various factors, according to the running
>condition: it can be either CO, NO2, or irritants.

Please post the pathology part of the paper. I really would like
to read the death by irritants and death by nitrous oxide parts
of it. You have already misunderstood enough of it with your
ratio confusion.

>And lack of oxygen contributes to all of the above, right?

So far as I can see, the only lethal thing you have named is CO.
A lack of oxygen to breath has nothing to do with CO poisoning.
A mixture of pure oxygen and a small percent of CO is quite
lethal. It binds to hemoglobin and stops the blood from being
able to exchange CO2 for O2.

>## What can you expect from a miserable clown, who boasts of his
>## B.Sc degree obtained 30 years ago, and thinks that Belsen camp
>## was in Poland?

># Just deal with the first three questions.

>Done. Now tell us, where in the world is Belsen camp? As the
>”revisionist” with the highest IQ here (163, WOW!) your
>opinion is of crucial importance.

I make mistakes. You exhibit a serious lack of fundamental
knowledge. For example your confusion on “low ratio” and now
your “lack of oxygen” confusion.

I’ll take mistakes any day.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:07 PDT 1996
Article: 39623 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer’s eagle eye strikes again!
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 20:15:53 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 3:16:20 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
># [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[About Eichmann]

>## His superior was Chief of the Gestapo.

># The person speaking in what was posted reported to was
># Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.

># Now who the hell was he?

>I told you. Chief of the Gestapo. Heinrich Mueller.

>You never heard of this one either, right?

>What, exactly, is so difficult for you to understand about
>Eichmann’s testimony?

That was one of the possibilities I suggested, that the rank
system would be overturned to support these statements.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:08 PDT 1996
Article: 39624 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another revision of alt.revision based thoughts
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 00:04:56 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 5:05:25 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) said:

>>>> This conference is for the discussion of the revision of the orthodox
>>>>holocaust stories. Discussion of the orthodox holocaust is off topic.

>>>Now the Giwer-troll would define the “rules” of this newsgroup? If he had
>>>any understanding of common sense, let alone logic, he would be pretty
>hard
>>>pressed to explain how one can discuss the orthodoxy of something without
>>>considering its antithesis.

>> At least you agree it is not for holocaust orthodoxy.

>What I said was that it is for the discussion of “revisionism”, which
>implies that some readers will not agree with that approach and will inject
>the truth into the discussion. How can one discuss the “revision of the
>orthodox holocaust stories” (Mr. Giwer’s words) without discussing the
>”orthodox holocaust stories” themselves? The mind boggles.

That was an unfortunate phrasing. In this case I meant to
attempt to piece together the evidence to determine what in fact
happened rather than to merely change stories or create new
stories.

I am trying to say we should be discussing the holocaust rather
than stories about the holocaust.

What this group has become is a discussion of the stories rather
than of the holocaust itself.

It is like pretending to discuss WW II while actually discussing
veterans’ stories about WW II. I think Ferre’s claims of wartime
accomplishments are quite an adequate example of the futility of
that approach. But that is what a lot of bandwidth is being
wasted on right now.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:09 PDT 1996
Article: 39625 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!bofh.dot!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: US Jew harrasses Internet user
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 02:06:38 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 7:07:07 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (M Huber) wrote:

>>
>>>!>Let me get this right.
>>>!>FACT — ComBase Communications (as did Giwer)emailed VOLANT to have
>my
>>>!>website taken down with threats of a lawsuit because I inferred Matt
>>>!>Giwer was *associated* with them.

>While you gentlemen are squabbling over one site, the honcho j*ws are in
>the process of removing ALL web-sites not pro-j*wish. SPIELBERG testified
>before Congress, but was ignored, as censorship goes against the American
>grain. Now his buddies, edgar BRONFMAN and mickey mouse EISNER are in the
>process of purchasing all major net-windows in the U.S. of A. Remember,
>too, Congress DID, however, pass the resolution proclaiming the alleged
>holocaust to be an historical fact. Soon it will be criminal to deny this
>hoax called ‘ holocaust.’

Do you have specifics on this claim?

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:10 PDT 1996
Article: 39628 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!bofh.dot!insync!uuneo.neosoft.com!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 20:14:37 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 3:15:03 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> You are of course a willfully deceitful, character assassinating,
>>atheist Jew.

>I guess we need to store this in the Gewish anti-Semitic statement
>file.

Yes, you certainly should take it out of context of what Green
has deliberately done and pretend this was out of no where. That
way you will be no better than him.

But that is what I have come to expect.

That is what Nizkor and the amen corner are all about.

The last I heard the Hebrew religion puts character assassination
right up there with murder. Katz’s tagline puller occasionally
comes up with the one from the Talmud about guarding the
reputation of others as zealously as your own. Therefore he can
not be an observant Jew. It is best to call him an atheist than
to sully the Jewish reputation for integrity.

In that regard all of Nizkor and the amen corner must be
considered atheist for the same reason.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:10 PDT 1996
Article: 39645 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.iag.net!news.math.psu.edu!scramble.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: People like Hoess, Pery Broad & Kremer
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 11:23:05 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 6:23:39 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Had Adolf Hitler not seized power in Germany in 1933,

What does “siezed” mean to you? The last I heard he was asked to
form a government. He did form a government. And in no manner
did he violate any laws at the time in anything that followed.

Perhaps you could justify this “siezed” claim a bit?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:11 PDT 1996
Article: 39665 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 06:25:20 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 11:25:51 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:
>>The suffering of the Jewish people in WW2 deserves respect. It is not
>>respected by pretending that it hinges on whether there were or were not
>>gas chambers. Nor is it respected by pretending that it hinges on how
>>many CAN be crammed into gas chambers.

>In a way I can agree. It is a silly nit-pick on the part of the
>deniers here. To actually think that whether the Germans could burn x
>number of bodies or that Zyklon-B behaved in a particular fashion is a
>suggestion that the Holocaust didn’t happen IS self-delusional. It is
>true that all bodies were not burned. It is true that not all people
>were gassed. It is ture that other methods were used. Some were more
>efficient than others. Still, in the end, 12,000,000 non-combantants
>during war were murdered. They were not murdered because they were
>enemies of the state, but because they were viewed as inferior.

How do you separate 12M as murdered from the 32M unaccounted for?
Please be specific in your response.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:12 PDT 1996
Article: 39668 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 06:24:09 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 11:24:42 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:

>I find that this newsgroup seems to spend all of its time debating whether
>or not there were gas chambers, or more precisely, how many people died in
>them. Frankly, I don’t dwell on the extermination aspect very much
>because it is vitriolic and not just on this board, it is in the
>literature also (Sorry, Mike, no titles.)

>Let’s just suppose there were no gas chambers. What would change?

Roughly three million fewer dead Jews for openers. It would
bring the death rate in line with the records of documented
inmates. It would get rid of the magical crematoria. Little
things like that.

In fact those little things gone would be the elimination of the
entire focus of the holocaust but in the interests of truth it
would be a small sacrifice.

The
>fact that the Germans had a systematic plan for expelling all Jews from
>Europe? No.

We have already established that the Wannsee plan was to
establish the equivalent of the Soviet Gulag system. Expelling
was the pre-Wannsee plan.

The fact that the Germans escalated that policy to one of sex
>segregated work camps where (according to Goebbels’ Diary) at least 60%
>were expected to die from “natural”causes? No. Read the Wannsee minutes.

You apparently read the document itself as the above indicates
you have not.

>The fact that perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed under the
>aegis of the Commissar Order, because, since some Jews were Communists,
>the Nazis assumed that ALL Jews were communists, and therefore fell under
>the Commissar Order rubric? No.

Want to post some details on this one?

>The fact that tens of thousands of Jews were shot out of hand in the
>general anomie that accompanied the German invasion of the Soviet Union,
>particularly in Moldavia and the Baltics? No. The fact that tens of
>thousands of German Jews, many of whom who had risked their lives for the
>Fatherland 20 years before were deprived of their property and standing,
>and in many cases their lives? No. The fact that probably hundreds of
>thousands died from mass shootings, famine, disease, overwork, and so on?
>No.

Perhaps it might impact the commonly accepted fact that more than
twice as many none Jews had the same fate. Or are you surprised
at my reminding you of this?

>The fact that hundreds of thousands were exposed to the havoc of war and
>died therefrom? No. The fact that hundreds of thousands of deeply rooted
>families were torn apart, separated, and strewn all over a continent, so
>much so that reunions between family members have been delayed for fifty
>years in some cases? No.

We can ascribe 32 million people to these categories. What makes
12M significant much less 5.2M?

>The fact that there was no East European Jewish
>COMMUNITY after WW2 even though there may have been an indeterminate
>number of people of Jewish ethnic or religious affiliation? No.

This will come as quite a shock to a Hungarian Jew OB/GYN friend
of mine. I have never sought independent verification but he
told me that the Communist Party that took over Hungary was
primarily Jewish. (OK folks, demand that I get him on line to
repeat it and the rest of the routine while you are at it.)

>The suffering of the Jewish people in WW2 deserves respect. It is not
>respected by pretending that it hinges on whether there were or were not
>gas chambers. Nor is it respected by pretending that it hinges on how
>many CAN be crammed into gas chambers.

What about the other 26 million that are in the same or related
categories? If you take away the gas chambers then the other 26
million are in the same boat. That is quite a difference.

>Gas Chambers have nothing to do with German reparations, the State of
>Israel, or any other aspect of the current political reality.

Excuse me but what of the countries of the 26 million who have
written it off as an incident in history?

Gas
>Chambers have nothing to do with Zionism, or a Jewish conspiracy.

Then why is that the central focus of every Jewish presentation
of it? Why do you never hear lamenting and teeth gnashing over
being sent to labor camps or we were going to be worked to death?
Gassing is the central focus of the entire story.

>Consider: The Holocaust Museum tested several bars of soap to see if they
>were human. They were not. But the fact is that they tested them. Why?

To verify the original discounting of the story.

>Because they thought that they might be! What does that tell you?

That they hoped it might be.

It
>tells you that Jews, too, can be the victims of propaganda, and can
>agonize and torture themselves for decades.

Or that they would not believe anyone but a fellow Jew but that
can not be true as Jews are not clannish in any respect or
manner.

>Gas Chambers are not good for anybody, and are largely irrelevant. This
>issue will be settled when that is realized.

They are the central focus and exploited as such. With out them,
they are no different than the 26 million others unaccounted for.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:13 PDT 1996
Article: 39676 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!newsreader.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Intolerance and Bigotry Promoted on CKST AM 1040?
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 08:30:08 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 205
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 3:30:43 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Hilary Ostrov) wrote:

>Is Vancouver-based CKST AM 1040’s Charles Maclean a promoter of
>hatred, intolerance and bigotry? You be the judge.

>On March 18, 1996 radio station CKST’s NightLine BC call-in radio
>forum, hosted by Maclean, featured British writer David Irving. Now,
>Irving is not exactly a household word (except in the circles of those
>who mistakenly call themselves Holocaust “revisionists”. But I have
>yet to encounter one of these so-called “revisionists” whose agenda
>does not include promoting hatred against Jews and/or other groups.
>Irving is no exception.)

>The Nizkor Project has extensive
>documentation on Irving, his writings and his “record” (including the
>transcript of his Canadian Immigration Adjudication Hearing – it makes
>for very interesting reading).

>Here’s how Robert Fulford describes Irving’s material in his Foreword
>to the translation of two essays on Irving by historian Eberhard
>Ja”ckel, _David Irving’s Hitler, A Faulty History Dissected_
>translated by H. David Kirk:

>”[… He provides] a kind of retrospective moral upgrading of the
>Third Reich and its leader … his writings have been flowing into the
>swelling river of Holocaust denial, refreshing it with bits of
>near-fact and pseudo-fact, all intended to move a few more readers
>toward the acceptance of an absurdity: the relative innocence of the
>Nazis, or at least, the moral equivalence of the Nazis and their
>enemies in the Second World War.

No refutation of the evidence.

>[…] Irving manipulates evidence, collecting whatever fits his
>preconceptions, misinterpreting as he chooses, and ignoring whatever
>fails to support his views. Over the years Irving has persuaded many
>readers in the English-speaking countries that he provides an
>understanding of the contents of certain German archives, but it will
>be hard for anyone, after reading Ja”ckel, to think of Irving as
>anything but a propagandist.”

No refutation of the evidence.

>The essays are available on Nizkor at:

>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/hweb/people/i/irving-david/jackel/

>During the program, both Maclean and Irving wrapped their vocal chords
>in the flag of “freedom of speech” and encouraged likeminded callers
>to follow suit. Together they filled the ears of their audience with
>venomous characterizations of Jewish people. Irving, who had been
>highly praised by Maclean in his introduction, declared as “fact”
>unsubstantiated and patently false assertions regarding actions of the
>leadership of Jewish groups in Canada and other countries.

>Complaints have been filed with the CRTC. And lest there be any doubt
>about how strenuously Radio One Broadcasting/CKST AM 1040 feels about
>”freedom of speech”, you should know that they are _suing_ a newspaper
>which reported on the complaints. Yes, that’s right, suing.

>Sorry, but I _heard_ the program and I _read_ the articles. Something
>is really wrong with this picture. Can it be that AM 1040’s
>self-touted “Concept of Intelligent Radio” is “We have the _right_
>to freedom of speech … and you have the _responsibility_ to agree
>with me”?

>I am not amongst Maclean’s regular listeners, but it would seem that
>he has no intention of disengaging his vitriolic vocal chords – and is
>still exercising his right to “freedom of speech” in the same
>responsibility-free way. The following was sent to the CRTC by a
>friend, who also forwarded me a copy:

>

>[typos corrected. hro]

>Date: Fri, 24 May 96 23:02 PDT
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Racist Broadcasting

>I was driving home from my office this Friday, May 24th, and happened
>to tune into CKST AM 1040 on my radio. The program, NightLine BC
>hosted by Charles Maclean, was having a forum on the BC election.

>Mr. Maclean was speaking with a caller from Vancouver Island. During
>this call, both the caller and Mr. Maclean made several racist and
>homophobic comments. Mr. Maclean made direct anti-semitic statements
>concerning Jews and their newspaper.

>I am a strong believer in free speech and am strongly against
>censorship, but I feel Mr. Maclean’s entire purpose during the short
>segment of the program which I heard was to foster intolerance and
>bigotry.

A freedom not exercised is a freedom lost.

>Am I the only person who finds this program offensive?

What in the hell does this person think offensive radio is all
about but to gain listeners? His letter probably got more
listeners than all the ads the program ran.

I would be
>interested in hearing from the CRTC if any other complaints have been
>received regarding this program and whether the CRTC has monitored any
>of Mr. Maclean’s broadcasts. You can reach me via e-mail. Thanks for
>looking into this matter.

>[sender’s name and e-mail address deleted. hro]

>

>Would you like further evidence? If you live in the Vancouver area,
>listen to his program (weekdays 6-9 p.m.). And if you find him
>guilty, perhaps you should tell the CRTC what your verdict is.

>(Follow-ups set to alt.revisionism)

And you too are dumb enough to encourage people to listen,
increase their market share so they can increase their
advertising rates, and then increase this kind of programming.

Woman, it is obvious why HTML is such a challenge for you after
you have posted this message which can only increase the type of
programming you are objecting to.

In the ideal world, you folks would learn that what you are
increasing the audience by advertising and keep your mouths shut.

But as you folks accuse me of trolling you admit you susceptible
to it at every level. A few years ago WFLA, Tampa had both
Lionel and Jay Marvin inviting controversy, trolling if you will.
The former is now at WABC, NYC and the latter at WOR, Chicago.
Now, except for Rush Limbaugh, the WFLA ratings are way down AND
both Lionel and Marvin had very low opinions of Limbuagh on the
air.

Why do you not give it a break and learn some basic rules of
public discourse? You folks are giving more air time to your
opposition than they could ever hope to garner on their own.

You folks are absolute fools for pursuing this line of
condemnation. Remember Mary Had a Little Lamb?

Leave them alone and they will go home.

Since you folks love anectodotal stories let me give you one. I
have about a 400k bookmark file, no exaggeration and were I to
check right now it is probably larger than that.

I will tell you this for a fact. The only sources I have ever
heard of racist or any other form of politically incorrect
websites has been from people who are condemning them.

“This site is evil, condemn it.”

I would never have known they even existed were it not for such
posts.

Let me give you PR lesson number one. IGNORE what you do not
like. If you attack it, your attack is free advertising for it.

Lesson two, ONLY make a public statement if a third party has
picke up and is advertising what you disagree with. And then
only portray it as not worth the time rather than a source of
controversy. People love to see a cat fight.

Lesson three, hire a public relations expert as I obviously am
not one and I can point to what you are doing wrong.

But do not forget, if you or anyone comes down negatively on this
post I could care in the least as, in my opinion, you are
forwarding my position.

Even the Nizkor dossier on me only gives me a greater public
status than Leuchter. I have not made the effort to add them all
up but at 2.x megs of files you have PROBABLY (remember that word
PROBABLY) given me a greater public status than Hitler himself.

I have never hardcopy published a word on this subject yet I have
been given more status and attention by you folks than Hoess
himself. And what have I done to deserve this attention? Please
be specific in you answer.

I have no public reputation outside of a very small fraction of
people who play with computers. Yet you give me an entire 2% and
growing fraction of you entire website content.

THANK YOU.

I could not have done better if I were trying and I was not.

I could even get a book contract out of this.

PLEASE continue as you are.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:51:14 PDT 1996
Article: 39678 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 09:20:31 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 4:21:05 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I believe they do encourage analytic and skeptical review of
>>> history. They simply encourage good analytic and sekptical review of
>>> history – that may be why they haven’t communicated much support to
>>> you.
>>
>> They why do not they do what they encourage? What does the
>>mindless reposting of out of context quotes have to do with that?
>>What do claims that SS Kremas burn without air have to do with
>>that? Why are they not reviewing their own material in that
>>manner?
>>
>> Not once has there been a critical review of anyone of their
>>original sources in a.r. If there are such things on the site
>>they are very well hidden.
>>
>> So beyond making up excuses for them, how about simply pointing
>>to a few examples of them doing what they claim?
>>
> [mantra deleted]
>>
>> Nice mantra. Now how about those examples.
>>
>> Or do you admit there are none?

> Ok, we have two levels of discussion going here. Lets separate them.
> First, the regular archivists on this group (with maybe one or two
> exceptions) are not professional historians.

But who insist upon mindlessly posting out of context quotations
>from out of context books and who want to keep the discussion to
stories about the holocaust rather than the holocaust itself.

They are, however for the
> most part, capable of understanding research methodology. I asserted
> up above

But who are not doing it themselves as they are quoting other
people who are often quoting other people and even at times
quoting other people who are quoting other people.

> “Actually, I believe they do encourage analytic and skeptical
> review of history. They simply encourage good analytic and
> sekptical review of history…”

> I think that if you question each of these people you will find that to
> be true. I, for one, welcome Mike Curtis and Ehrlich and others who
> are interested in addressing real holocaust revisionism issues.

Excuse me, but other than what I have posted from Al Gentile I
have never seen anything but second hand and at times as far as
fourth hand derivative quotations. I do not believe I am
exaggerating in this in any manner whatsoever.

> However (and this is level two), this conference was created to focus
> the attention of the deniers who were posting to many usenet groups
> circa 1991. It was created for them to have an outlet for their denial
> without cluttering up groups discussing real history. In a sense, its
> a ghetto for deniers.

Excuse me, but if it were for “deniers” then that would have been
the name of it. Your claim is false.

> Now while the archivists here do occasionally spend time debating the
> theses of these deniers, the archivists are doing several other tasks
> in this group. Chief among them is tracking the methods and arguments
> of deniers. Differentiate if you will the difference between studying
> the Holocaust as someone like Gilbert did and studying the deniers as
> Lipstadt did. We are focused more on the latter than the former here.
> Think of it as an ongoing participant ethnographic study. You guys are
> the rats being studied.

You are invited to post examples of such activity in this
conference. My newsfeed apparently is trained to exclude all
such exmples of what you are talking about.

> And while there are real issues about the Holocaust which merit
> historical review and maybe revision, as the deniers are for the most
> part not addressing those issues (their arguments are basic,
> antisemitic, and error-prone) there is little reason to debate those
> arguments other than to [1] make clear to lurkers the fallacies of the
> arguments, and [2] catalog the rebuttals to the arguments so they can
> be archived. The archivists occasionally visit the real historical
> revisionism issues (eg. Gord McFee and Ehrlich discussing funcitonalist
> vs. intentionalist theses), but it is not the focus here.

Again, my newsfeed is trained to eliminate such posts. And of
course I realize it will also delete your posts of examples of
this. So we must agree you are capable of reading what I can not
read because of the well trained AI interface that NETCOM uses.

Of course the better explanation is that because of your biases
you are seeing different things posted than I am.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 16:22:13 PDT 1996
Article: 78633 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,edm.general,ab.general,can.general,tor.general,van.general,calgary.general
Subject: Re: Guns and Liberty
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 21:29:16 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 4:29:43 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:39475 ab.general:9764 can.general:78633 van.general:8763

[email protected] (Scott Marsden) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> All I observed is the obvious. That Canadians would be just like
>>Americans if they had similar access to guns. Or are you saying
>>there is something inherently different about Canadians?

>Ah, but you are ignoring some important, and little-used (and know)
>statistics. Few Canadians are aware that the murder rate in Alberta
>higher than murder rate in the northwestern states of Idaho, Montana,
>and Wyoming — the three states combined have a population about the
>same as Alberta’s. The difference is not in the gun laws, but in the
>population of each region’s urban centers. Out of the three states,
>only the city of Boise, Idaho exceeds a population 100,000 people
>(around 150,000). Of course, as well all know, both Calgary and
>Edmonton’s populations exceed 600,000, and they also have a much
>higher murder rate than anywhere in the 3 states mentioned.

>Truth be told, a person is safer from being shot with a gun in rural
>America than they are in urban Canada. If gun laws make all the
>difference, why is this so?

The simple minded, gun fearing people are fixated upon the means
rather than the causes.

I may be able to dig up the file if you are interested but from
memory it was some time 1960s that handguns became the weapon of
choice used in the majority of murders. There was no particular
change in the murder rate nor did the increase in the murder rate
track the increasing use of handguns.

Also this is far from the highest rate of murders per capita nor
was it in the Prohibition days but back in the 1890s. So far as
I am aware no one has come up with an explanation for that. Also
the lowest murder rate was during the Depression which certainly
eliminates poverty as a factor.

Taking a godlike guess without evidence it would appear that the
crime rate is a long term variable in society just like men
wearing hats or women’s hemlines.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 17:44:23 PDT 1996
Article: 39686 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!news.his.com!news.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘I Witnessed a Gassing’
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 06:32:42 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 1:33:12 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (M Huber) wrote:

>>
>> It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
>>the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

>Nice add-on. Giwer, with so many eyewitnesses and survivors, one HAS to
>wonder, “Where are the victims?”

Actually the point is that if the conditions in the camps were as
bad as portrayed none should have survived. Therefore either the
gassing or the conditions needs to be revised.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 17:44:24 PDT 1996
Article: 39691 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newsreader.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Al Gentile existed, and therefore???
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 11:19:47 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-24.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 6:20:22 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>Gotta have the last word, huh, Gywer? O.K. Let’s see about that.

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> Chuck Ferree wrote:
>>
>> >Chuck Ferree writes:
>>
>> >I admit I was one of the first to question the existance of Al
>> >Gentile.
>> >I read and printed out and studied the conversation he and Giwer had
>> >several years ago. The main thing that threw me for a loop, was that
>> >Giwer told us in the post, that Alec Grynspan would give us the rest
>> >of the story of Gentile being recognized in Israel as a “Righteous
>> >Person.” That didn’t happen. When Grynspan finally started speaking
>> >out about what he remembered about Gentile, he said he knew Gentile,
>> >and other stuff, but most of what Grynspan said was hedged by doubts
>> >on his part of the facts. In the end Grynspan finally ‘fessed up that
>> >he really didn’t know the truth, gave us incorrect information as to
>> >the military unit Gentile was with, and copped out on the rest. As
>>
>> I really hoped Gentile was real and I could get
>> >his story as a “Liberator”
>>
>> Once more you have screwed up. That is no place in his
>> statement. He claimed to have acted as a war crimes
>> investigator.

>That’s more bullshit! Why don’t you quit while you are ahead? Gentile
>said he was one of the few men sent to England to investigate war
>crimes. He also said he went into camps to investigate and follow up.

So you are saying that he was sent to investigate camps but to
liberate them first? Even in your advanced state has it not
dawned upon you that they had to have been liberated before
people could have been sent to investigate?

And he did not say “few” in any related context. His only
comment upon the flying from England was the apparently late
introduction of the claim of gassing and that they had to go
investigate it. He also stated that there was no evidence of it
found as a result of that investigation.

> I do not recall any indication of rank but from
>> the way he writes I would guess

>More guessing? Look, pal you brought this mess up, you fucked it up
>royally, and you are still tap dancing all over the place.

I said I was guessing, inferring if you will. You have
demonstrated no ability to read what was posted even though you
claim to have a printout to work from.

> he was a sergeant or at best a
>> junior 2nd Lt.

>No such rank as junior 2nd. Lt. What a dummy, this guy is!

Would anyone like to make a show of hands on having heard of the
rank of 2nd Lt.?

> as he appears to have been doing the grunt work
>> for the prosecutors.

>”He appears to have been?” Is this more speculation on your part? If
>you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s often better to shut
>up!

I would have thought that the entire context and here
specifically the “appears” would indicate it is all speculation.
So why are you telling me the obvious?

>> Actually it was the rather immaterial question of righteous
>> gentile that took all the flack. However, when he did list the
>> people by name that his unit had brought to justice, he did not
>> imply any personal credit, only unit credit.

>He did “list the people by name that his unit had brought to justice?”
>Where is that information stashed?

In your printout if in fact you really have one.

>. In fact I had taken a
>> strong dislike to his style and did not read most of them.

>You didn’t read most of it, but you posted it. What does that say
>about your credibility, my man?

That is a clear reference to his other message traffic and
clearly has nothing to do with what I posted. Are you trying to
prove you are into dementia for SSI?

>clips

>> From what I can find in the messages, I see it as one persons
>> very consistent reasonable viewpoint with only minor
>> accomodations for his age and for the elapsed time. It gives me
>> more the impression of a variation on one of the often given
>> lectures he also claim. By that I mean he personalizes the
>> canned lecture to the subject at hand much as a good lecturer
>> does tailor his to the expectations of the audience.

>In other words he lies, and is full of shit, just kindda like Gwyer.
>Give us all a break and drop Gentile, it’s like scrambled eggs, you
>can’t unscramble them.

You qualify for SSI.

>> I find his statements to be mostly internally consistant and when

>clip

>Why don’t you just give it up? Everyone has your number by now.
>Everyone is sick and tired of Gentile, and your fables.

Excuse me but we have progressed from he does not exist to his
daughter posting here. If you do not believe he exists, talk to
her. I got the big part right did I not?

>> There is the expected unit pride but no personal ego expressed.
>> He claims personal credit for nothing but his own thoughts and
>> impressions. I find his comments generally quite credible.

>Of course you would, otherwise you lied, Gentile lied to you and his
>family, and you got your ass into this sling, and you can’t get it
>out.

Tell that to his daughter. She is reading this group and you can
deal with her yourself.

>He who punts on his 50 yard line, doesn’t know how the game is played.
>Chuck

He who straffed a camp in order to liberate it is a murderer.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 20:47:20 PDT 1996
Article: 39704 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Part of an interesting document
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 22:07:35 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 3:08:14 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

The numbers refer document pages from the Nuremberg trials.

===

MARTIN BORMANN

Bormann was accused of “persecution of religion” and many other
crimes. Bormann’s attorney, Dr. Bergold, pointed out that many
modern countries (meaning the Soviet Union) are avowedly atheist,
and that orders forbidding priests from holding high Party
offices (that is, offices in the Nazi Party) could not be called
“persecution”.

In Dr. Bergold’s words: “The party is described as criminal – as
a conspiracy. Is it a crime to exclude certain people from
membership in a criminal conspiracy? Is that considered a crime?”
(V 312 <<353>>).

Documents were produced in which Bormann prohibited persecution
of religion and expressly allowed religion to be taught (XXI
462-465 <<512- 515>>).

A condition of this order was that the full Bibilical text had to
be used; deletions, manipulations or distortions of the text were
forbidden. Churches received government subsidies until the end
of the war. Due to wartime paper shortages, restrictions were
placed upon the printing of all newspapers, not just religious
ones (XIX 111-124 <<125-139>>; XXI 262-263; 346; 534; 539;
<<292-293; 383; 589; 595>>; XXII 40-41 <<52-53>>).

Bormann’s attorney had little difficulty in showing that Bormann
could not be convicted of a criminal offense under the laws of
any country, since it is clear that stenographers are not
criminally responsible for every document they sign. It was not
clear to what extent Bormann acted merely as stenographer or
secretary. To the prosecution, however, law was irrelevant, and
Bormann was sentenced to be hanged. Sentence was to be carried
out immediately, ignoring extensive testimony that he had been
killed by the explosion of a tank and was unlikely to be in one
piece, presenting certain problems of a practical nature (XVII
261-271 <<287-297>>).

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 20:47:21 PDT 1996
Article: 39719 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another revision of alt.revision based thoughts
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 00:31:49 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 5:32:28 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

>[Regarding the opinion of Dr. Gerhard Peters about the rate
> of release of the HCN from the Zyklon]
>
># And just who in the hell is Dr. Peters? Does he have a doctorate
># in theology? chemistry, letters, honorary? in what?

>Dr. Peters was the general manager of Degesch, the firm that
>manufactured Zyklon-B. He also wrote a book about Zyklon-B.

>But what would he know about Zyklon, eh Giwer?

Something presumably. But General Manager is not a doctoral
field I am aware of.

But then, one of these days, when you folks get around to posting
the entire statement in context or at LEAST the temperature and
carrier material and size he is referring to we will learn how
much he does know.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 20:47:21 PDT 1996
Article: 39720 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Hoess Memoir and ‘Revisionist’ Insanity
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 00:33:45 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 5:34:24 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt
>Giwer) wrote:

>[snip]
>> Excuse me but if you go to Nizkor and read QARs 10 and 11 you
>> will find that there is an acceptance by the Nizkorites of the
>> worldwide organized boycott of German products that started in
>> 1933. If it were unsuccessful one would expect that to be the
>> response rather than placid acceptance of it.
>>

>Who are “Nizkorites”?
>
>Please identify them. Am I one of them? If so, my membership card got lost
>in the mail.

Go to the Nizkor site and read the list of contributors. Get
your. You name does not appear to be on the list.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 20:47:22 PDT 1996
Article: 39721 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 00:40:54 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 7:41:33 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Kimberley Ahlf wrote:

>[Previous text deleted for brevity]

>>>If so, why should revisionist history be imune to the same critical
>>>skepticism which you complain is sorely lacking from orthodox history?

>> It is not and should not be but there has been none here. That
>>would be interesting. Unfortunately what we get in response are
>>far out of context quotations, deliberate deception and claims of
>>the impossible.

>Well if your revisionist views are in fact open to questions and
>criticisms, then why do you continue to berate me for the fact that my
>initial posting to you was a question regarding your revisionism?

I have not berated you in the least. You keep going back to it
and I keep responding. If you were not to do that you would get
no responses about it.

To the above list you can add the heavy realiance upon War Crimes
Tribunal documents of hearsay by people who were never
established to have heard anything nor were they present in court
nor are the documents sworn to. Add to that they were rarely
originals and often in a language they did not speak.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 20:47:23 PDT 1996
Article: 39725 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 01:39:58 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 8:40:39 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>tom moran wrote:

># Professor, are you saying the Hoilocaust story has not been
># modified over the years as to numbers, places and methods?

>Not really. Take the most important single piece of data – the
>number of Jews murdered by the Nazis. It hardly changed. There’s
>a range of numbers, but it’s rather tight. Nothing like the
>wide margin of estimates for Stalin’s victims; I’ve seen
>figures from 7 million to 50 million.

>Recently, BTW, even the most well-known “revisionist”, David Irving,
>stated that 4 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis. This
>is still lower than the true figure, but it probably means
>that even he realised the figures peddled by the Nazi rabble
>cannot be defended any more.

>As to methods, we have been through that. There were incorrect
>claims about the methods of murder in the “Einsatz Reinhard”
>camps. These claims originated from people who spied on the
>camps from a distance (these were members of the Polish
>underground). They saw the dead being carried from the
>chambers to the graves, but they couldn’t see into the
>chambers and know how the killing was done. Some of their
>reports were erroneous in this regard.

Is this the erroneous report that vanished after the war you are
talking about or is this the conviction based upon it having been
“proven” in a court of something or other?

WALTER FUNK Funk was a classical pianist from a highly respected
artistic family, married for 25 years at the time of the trial,
and former financial editor. Like most of the defendants, Funk
was accused of performing “immoral acts” such as accepting
birthday gifts from Hitler, proving “willing participation in the
Common Plan”. (Obviously, such acts are not illegal.)Funk claimed
that the British and the Poles had conspired to provoke Germany
into war in the belief that the generals would overthrow Hitler
(XIII 111-112 <<125-126>>).

Funk was accused of conspiring with the SS to murder
concentration camp inmates in order to finance the war effort by
pulling their teeth out. The gold teeth were stored in a vault at
the Reichsbank, along with shaving kits, fountain pens, large
alarm clocks, and other more or less useless junk. Forgotten was
Rudolf Hoess’s testimony that the teeth were melted at Auschwitz
(XI 417 <<460>>).

Funk testified that the amounts and kinds of loot were “absurd”
and pointed out that the SS acted as customs police and enforced
exchange control regulations, including a prohibition against the
ownership of gold, silver, and foreign coins or currency. It was
quite natural that the SS should confiscate large amounts of
valuables, and that the SS, as a government agency, should have
financial accounts, and that these accounts would contain
valuables. Germans kept valuables in the same vaults as well, to
which the Reichsbank had no access, since they were private
safety deposit accounts. With the increased bombing raids, more
and more valuables were deposited in the vaults by ordinary
German citizens. Finally, after a particularly damaging raid on
the bank, the valuables were removed to a potassium mine in
Thuringen. The Americans found the valuables there, and falsified
a film of it. Funk and his attorney showed the falsity of the
film using an opposing witness, in some of the shrewdest
testimony and cross examination in the entire trial (XIII 169
<<189-190>>, 203-204 <<227-228>>, 562-576 <<619- 636>>; XXI
233-245 <<262-275>>).

Also given short shrift was the ridiculous Oswald Pohl affidavit,
Document 4045-PS, in which Funk was accused of discussing the use
of gold teeth from dead Jews to finance the war at a dinner party
attended by dozens of people, including waiters (XVIII 220-263
<<245-291>>).

This affidavit is in German and is witnessed by Robert Kempner.
Pohl was later convicted of”steaming” people to death in 10
“steam chambers” at Treblinka, and making doormats out of their
hair (NMT IV 1119-1152) (Fourth National Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg).

Funk believed, like other defendants, that crimes had occurred,
but maintained that he knew nothing about it. His belief that
crimes had occurred does not, in itself, prove that that belief
was true.

If this is what you are talking about there was more than
sufficient evidence of it for one of the Tribunals to convict a
man.

Or is all of your evidence in this same league?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 21:26:51 PDT 1996
Article: 39726 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer & His Phanthom Al Gentile
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 01:50:13 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 37
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]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 8:50:53 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected]@ wrote:

>In <[email protected]>, [email protected] (!Rack Jite) writes:

>>What argument are you trying to win Alec?

>None. You’ve presented none. But the material that you provide will be very
>useful.

>>Your year-long battle to censor me on Smartnet was over me claiming Al
>>Gentile was a pathological liar and anti-Semite. He was both.

>Once again your lies come out.

>That “year long battle” was a minor item in my life and your purported claims about
>Al were such a minor thing in the little kerfuffle that they got lost in the second
>week.

>Nor did I try to censor you.

>But you definitely tried to censor others.

>>Your entrance here was to defend your friend Matt Giwer from claims he
>>is an anti-Semite. He is.

>False again. My entrance here and talk.politics.mideast was in 1989 or so. Matt
>was never near this newsgroup or any other back then.

Except for about six months in 92 through a Fido gateway.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 21:26:52 PDT 1996
Article: 39733 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 02:18:34 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 7:19:16 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>
>>>>>Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:
>>>>
>>>> And of course all out of context of the exchange with the
>>>>deliberate intention of character assassination. You have to be
>>>>an atheist. No observant Jew would do such a thing.
>>
>>> Funny how the rest of us haven’t said such things – even out of
>>> context.
>>
>> Fact, you have.

> Please present even one potential antisemitic comment I have made. You
> can’t because I have not made any. Short of presenting one candidate,
> please retract your lie. As usual your claims are hollow.

> Here is a sampling of your antisemitic statements:

>From [email protected] Sat Mar 23 14:39:28 PST 1996
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Is Giwer a Troll? Message-ID:
><[email protected]>

> You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike.

> You folks should get your sociologic parallels straight. David and
> Montezuma were equals. Today’s Jews are adhering to a social form that
> died out in the civilized world thousands of years ago. By any
> definition today’s Jews are a living anachronism that should be
> preserved under some endangered species act.
>
> Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we
> should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David.

Lets see here. In context I had simply pointed out the tribal
natural of the rules about who is a Jew. In return I was called
antisemtic. I responded.

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
>said:

> I don’t know how to indentify jews. Why don’t you tell me?
>
> The nose, the funny hats, the names, the beards, the “I want a
> Mercedes” whine? How are they identifiable? What identifies them?
> Ask three jews what is a jew and you get four opinions. Maybe you
> can do better.

I say I do not know how to identify a Jew. I ask you to tell me.
I throw in a few stereotypes that I obviously mean do not
identify Jews to me. I repeat the question. I throw in a
Yiddish saying about Jews and opinions. I ask you to do better.

What is antisemitic there?

>From [email protected] Sun Mar 17 16:36:49 PST 1996
>From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian “hate-speech” l
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>

> Right, come get me, it will make my religous fervor come true.
>
> I know it is going to happen so just say anything and I will
> know I am being persecuted. I can be a martyr! Please let me take a
> number for a gas chamber.

> You assholes sound just like the nuns with the glossy eyes
> talking about the Christian martyrs.

> I don’t really mean to interrupt your sexual arousal but please
> stop inflicting this upon the rest of the world.

I suggest it is a trivial observation of the behavior of BOTH
nuns and holohugging Jews. It is an obvious focus upon being
killed by others for being Christians or Jews in both cases. I
do not see how a comment about BOTH Christians (at least the
Roman Catholic nuns) and Jews can be taken as antisemitic if it
is not described as anti-Catholic also. Or perhaps it should be
described as anti-martyr fascination.

>Article 83469 of alt.revisionism:
>Path: nntp.Stanford.EDU!news.Stanford.EDU!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!cmcl2!news.nyu.edu!is.nyu.edu!jal5266
>From: [email protected] (Jeremy A. Litt)
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
>Subject: Re: Michael is a big, fat idiot like Rush Limbaugh
>Followup-To: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
>Date: 30 Apr 1996 00:32:30 GMT
>Organization: New York University
>Lines: 10
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: is.nyu.edu
>NNTP-Posting-User: root
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>Xref: nntp.Stanford.EDU alt.revisionism:83469 soc.culture.jewish:188818

>Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

>: You lovers of a hyphenated god need to grow up.

You are the folks who think you diety has a first and last name,
Yahweh God. It is hardly antisemitic to note that people are
being very silly.

>Article 89860 of alt.revisionism:
>Path: nntp.Stanford.EDU!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!usenet.etri.re.kr!news.kreonet.re.kr!bofh.dot!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
>From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
>Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 07:02:50 GMT
>Organization: images incarnate
>Lines: 43
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-59.ix.netcom.com
>X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 2:03:11 AM CDT 1996
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:

>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer wrote:

>>> But of course in either case a more complete work up or pathology
>>>needs be done. And again I note references to color are rather
>>>rare. And it was striking the first place we find the right
>>>indication for cyanide it is in a camp that used CO where if
>>>there was any mention of color it should have been of pink.

>>Does Mr. Giwer disagree with OSHA on cyanosis being a symptom of CO
>>poisoning?

> You are of course a willfully deceitful, character assassinating,
>atheist Jew. Now I have no idea what game you are trying to play
>at this point in the message but I have said nothing about OSHA
>so why do you not post it first? Or so you disagree with the
>NAVSEA manual on turbine exhaust poisoning? But of course, YOU
>FIRST! I made up mine. you deal with yours first.

>>> But as a bottom line we really should not make too much of the
>>>color. It was simply striking by its rarity and being in the
>>>wrong place.

>>Translation: Mr. Giwer recognizes he was wrong, but as usual will not
>>admit it.

> A better translation is

> You are of course a willfully deceitful, character assassinating,
>atheist Jew.

> But if this is not clear enough I can and have gone further in
>noting that all the Jews in this conference have condoned your
>behavior by their silence and are no better than you. And that
>includes all of them and yes, that means you.

Are you saying that I should have insulting the Jewish reputation
for integrity by saying only Jew and thus implying that we is
observant?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 21:26:53 PDT 1996
Article: 39736 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer’s eagle eye strikes again!
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 02:28:03 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 9:28:43 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>
>>>>># The person speaking in what was posted reported to was
>>>>># Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.
>>>>
>>>>># Now who the hell was he?
>>>>
>>>>>I told you. Chief of the Gestapo. Heinrich Mueller.
>>>>
>>>>>You never heard of this one either, right?
>>>>
>>>>>What, exactly, is so difficult for you to understand about
>>>>>Eichmann’s testimony?
>>>>
>>>> That was one of the possibilities I suggested, that the rank
>>>>system would be overturned to support these statements.
>>
>>> I am not sure where your insanity comes from on this simple point of
>>> fact.
>>
>> Another professional opinion? Excuse me, good sir, but people
>>who truly occupy academic positions sully them by such
>>statements. Or do I confuse you with a person who has one?

> That’s true. I don’t know you are insane. You could merely be very
> stupid or you could be lying through your teeth. I was giving you the
> benefit of the doubt. Something funny is going on with you though as
> evidenced below:

Even you had even a rudimentary knowledge of psychiatric matters
you would know the symptoms you believe you have diagnosed at
long distance have no relationship to anything that would bear
upon the common use of the word “insane.” Of course you could
look through the DSMO for the word insane some day.

>>> I did not see the original posts in this thread so I don’t know
>>> which testimony you all are referring to, but if you take a look at
>>> Martin Gilbert’s _The Holocaust_ on page 166 you will find that
>>> Heinrich Muller is referred to as “Chief of the Gestapo” and on page
>>> 168 Eichman, during testimony, refers to him as “Gruppenfuhrer Muller”.
>>
>>> I don’t see why you are getting bent out of shape over this. As you
>>> say, you make mistakes.
>>
>> Sorry about your problem in this. IF what you say is correct
>>Eichmann was a staff officer. He had no line authority. He was
>>wrongfully prosecuted.
>>
>> He was therefore murdered.

> I don’t have an opinion on this one way or another – I don’t know if he
> was a staff officer or if as such he would be outside responsibility
> for his actions. But that was not the point being debated as best I
> could tell. You were disputing identities and titles. I gave you a
> cite for them. That is all.

I still am disputing the identity. And I am still pointing out
that either way you folks want to have it, he was murdered.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:17 PDT 1996
Article: 39742 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Diesel exhaust that looks like steam
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 02:56:12 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 7:56:53 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
># [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>## The ratios which resulted in white fumes were 0.0121
>## and 0.033, according to the Pattle et. al. paper.

># And what was the NORMAL ratio?

>0.0193. Now, do you claim that running the engine under light
>load with a .0121 ratio would also result in a lot of unburnt
>oil in the exhaust?

Now you are claiming white with both lean and rich mixture.
There is something very wrong with what you are saying. I will
mail you my address if you will run a copy at the office and mail
it to me.

And I have no problem digging into more about diesel engine
design to get to the bottom of this. As I believe you will agree
as will I and everyone else here, they have not seen white
exhaust coming out of a diesel even idling. And I have noticed
more than one cowboy reving the engine in neutral — by being on
the wrong end of the exhaust.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:18 PDT 1996
Article: 39744 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust?
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 04:18:46 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 177
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 11:19:31 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Bud wrote:

>Wes Kreider wrote:
>>
>> Why is it that if you question the Holocaust you get branded a Nazi?

>I know what you mean, Wes. Although not branded a Nazi, I have met with
>some caustic treatment for even expressing some interest in
>”investigating” the subject. I admit that prior to certain experiences,
>I generally just accepted the holocaust as some sort of “fact” but I was
>eventually motivated to investigate it more closely by some sources I
>consider quite reliable and most certainly not “anti-semitic.” I have
>become increasingly suspicious by the reactions (and even threatening
>tones) of some of the exterminationists; and, I must admit that this
>”push” for legal sanctions against opposing views is very very
>suspicious. Still, this does not mean the exterminionists are entirely
>wrong. One can’t simply discount the testimony of hundreds of people and
>call them all liars, can they?!

When you look into the details of the “testimony” you find so
many problems with them that it is easy to presume they are all
the same.

Take this for example

ERNST KALTENBRUNNER During Kaltenbrunner’s cross examination, he
was indignantly asked how he had the nerve to pretend he was
telling the truth and that 20 or 30 witnesses were lying (XI 349
<<385>>).

The “eyewitnesses”, of course, did not appear in court; they were
merely names on pieces of paper. One of these names is that of
Franz Ziereis, commandant of Mauthausen concentration camp.
Ziereis “confessed” to gassing 65,000 people; making lampshades
out of human skin; manufacturing counterfeit money; and supplied
a complicated table of statistical information containing the
exact number of inmates in 31 different camps. He then accused
Kaltenbrunner of ordering the entire camp (Mauthausen) to be
killed upon the approach of the Americans. Ziereis had been dead
for 10 and a half months when he made this “confession”.
Fortunately, the “confession” has been “remembered” by someone
else: a concentration camp inmate named Hans Marsalek, who never
appeared in court, but whose signature appears on the document
(Document 3870-PS, XXXIII 279-286).

Pages 1 through 6 of this document are in quotation marks(!),
including the statistical table, which states, for example, that
there were 12,000 inmates at Ebensee; 12,000 at Mauthausen;
24,000 at Gusen I and II; 20 inmates at Schloss-Lindt, 70 inmates
at Klagenfurt-Junkerschule, etc, for all of 31 camps in the
table. The document is not signed by anyone else alleged to have
been present at Ziereis’s “confession”, and no notes alleged to
have been taken at the time are appended to the document. The
document bears two signatures only: that of Hans Marsalek, the
inmate; and that of Smith W. Brookhart Jr. U.S. Army.
The document bears the date 8 April 1946. Ziereis died 23 May
1945. The pretense was that Ziereis was too seriously injured (he
died of multiple gunshot wounds through the stomach) to sign
anything at the time, but he was healthy enough to dictate this
lengthy and complex document, which was then “remembered” exactly
and verbatim by Marsalek for 10 and a half months. Marsalek
would, of course, have had no motivation to lie. The document is
in German. Brookhart was a confession ghostwriter who also wrote
the “confessions” of Rudolf Höss (in English, Document 3868-PS)
and Otto Ohlendorf (in German, Document 2620-PS). (Brookhart was
the son of a Senator from Washington Iowa. Address in 1992: 18
Hillside Drive, Denver Colorado, USA. Brookhart never answered my
letter as to whether he had any papers or memoirs.)

Ziereis’s “confession” continues to be taken seriously by
Reitlinger, Shirer, Hilberg, and other itinerant peddlars of
Holo-Schlock. Kaltenbrunner claimed that there were 13 central
concentration camps or “Stammlager” during the war (XI 268-269
<<298-299>>). The prosecution total of 300 concentration camps
was achieved by including perfectly normal work camps.

The 13th camp, Matzgau, near Danzig, was a special camp whose
prisoners were SS guards and police who had been sentenced to
imprisonment for offenses against prisoners in their charge:
physical mistreatment, embezzlement, theft of personal property,
etc. This camp with its inmate SS men fell into the hands of the
Russians at the end of the war (XI 312, 316 <<345, 350>>).

Kaltenbrunner claimed that sentences passed by SS and police
courts were far more severe than sentences passed by other courts
for the same offenses. The SS carried out frequent trials of
their own men for offenses against inmates and violations of
discipline (XXI 264-291, 369-370 <<294- 323, 408-409>>).

Third degree methods of interrogation were permitted by law for
the sole purpose of obtaining information relating to future
resistance activity; it was forbidden for the purpose of
obtaining confessions. These interrogators required the presence
of a doctor, and allowed a total of 20 blows with a stick once
only, on the bare buttocks, a process which could not be repeated
later. Other forms of legal “Nazi torture” included confinement
in a dark cell, or standing during lengthy interrogations (XX
164, 180-181 <<184, 202-203>>; XXI 502-510; 528-530 <<556-565, 583-584>>).

Kaltenbrunner and many other defense witnesses claimed that
similar methods were used by police all over the world (XI 312
<<346>>) and that respected police officials visited Germany to
study German procedures (XXI 373 <<412>>). Defense evidence on
this and related topics amounts to many thousands of pages
divided between the Tribunal and “commission”, and 136,000
affidavits (XXI 346-373 <<382-412>>; 415 <<458>>, 444 <<492>>).

Kaltenbrunner was convicted of conspiring to “lynch” Allied
airmen who committed mass bombings of civilians. The lynchings
would have been illegal, but did not occur. Many airmen were
saved from mobs by German officials. The Germans refused to
contemplate such a matter, fearing it would lead to a general
slaughter of parchuted fliers. Like so many other German crimes,
this remained an idea without effect (XXI 406-407 <<449- 450>>,
472-476 <<522-527>>).

Another crime committed by Kaltenbrunner was responsibility for
the so- called “Bullet Order”. This is supposed to have been an
order to shoot prisoners of war using a measuring contraption
(probably inspired by the Paul Waldmann pedal-driven brain
bashing machine, Document USSR-52, VII 377 <<416-417>>).
The “Bullet Order”, Document 1650-PS, if it is an authentic
document, which it probably is not (XVIII 35-36 <<43-44>>) is a
mistranslation: the sense of the order is that prisoners who
attempt to escape should be chained to an iron ball (Kugel), and
not that they should be shot with a “bullet” (also Kugel). The
word “chained” appears in the document, but the word “shot” does
not (III 506 <<565>>; XXI 514 <<568>>); Gestapo affidavit 75; XXI
299 <<332>>).

The document is a “teletype” thus, without a signature (XXVII
424-428). “Sonderbehandlung” (special treatment) is an example of
the ugly jargon used in all bureaucracies, and is probably best
translated as “treatment on a case by case basis”. Kaltenbrunner
was able to show that it meant, in the context of one document,
the right to drink champagne and take French lessons. The
prosecution got a winter resort mixed up with a concentration
camp (XI 338-339 <<374-375>>); (XI 232-386 <<259-427>>; XVIII
40-68 <<49-80>>). (The winter resort document is Document
3839-PS, XXXIII 197- 199, an “affidavit”).

If this is the sort of thing that passes for evidence in your
mind then we appear to have a fundamental difference here.

I suspect that as is the case with most
>such historical matters, the truth is somewhere in betweenst all this
>name-calling. “More heat than light” as the expression goes. Too, I
>find it sometimes offensive that there are some who seem to think that
>this period in history represents the only worthwhile commentary or
>”play” when there are myriad examples of human suffering being heaped on
>may different nations and religions of people, not just the “Jews.” As I
>said, the truth is, I think, somewhere betweenst; but I just wish that
>everyone on these newsgroups would pray for less suffering for all of the
>human race, and not engage in some of the negative rhetoric . No, Wes,
>not everyone who questions this period and its accuracy is a Nazi, but
>there are some evidently highly prejudiced people on both sides, as is
>starkly manifested by some of the postings on this group.

In fact the truth appears to be what is very well known in
government circles, that it was war propaganda and victors’
justice that got enshrined into dogma more or less by accident.
The original expectation was that the trials would simply die out
in a few years as the world got back to normal. But that
unfortunately it turned out to be a cult phenomenon.

That is still continues is an object lesson in the creation of
legends.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:19 PDT 1996
Article: 39745 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,edm.general,ab.general,can.general,tor.general,van.general,calgary.general
Subject: Re: Guns and Liberty
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 04:20:47 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 11:21:29 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:39745 ab.general:9801 can.general:78715 van.general:8786

Martin Tolton wrote:

>On Fri, 24 May 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:

>> Martin Tolton wrote:
>>
>> I don’t. Here are some real numbers and comparisons.

>I’m satisfied with the numbers given and only one word comes to mind;
>chaos.

Why? No chaos here that I can see.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:19 PDT 1996
Article: 39749 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!aanews.merit.net!news.gmi.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Diesel exhaust that looks like steam
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 03:46:18 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 10:47:00 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

># No wind close enough? Please. But then, where did you get the
># layout of the camp?

>The wind would take a spark from the trains all the way to the
>gas chambers?

>You’re claiming it could happen? You draw the layout of the
>camp and prove it to us. But, before, it would be better if
>you give us your estimate to the distance a spark can travel
>in the wind and still ignite something.

WHERE did you get the layout of the camp? Please scan and post a
copy of it. I do not have the layout of the camp. As the last I
heard here they even dug of the foundations and footings to hide
the evidence. I was lead to believe NO ONE had any camp layout.

But to claim that the SS build such a huge complex on the hope
and the prayer that it would never be dry enough for a brush
fire, that there would never be a wind to drive it towards the
buildings, both applying to the open pits and the train is
preposterous.

Add to that they had the same hope and prayer of NO electrical
sparks, no unauthorized smoking, never once close to any of the
buildings SOLELY to use a methods requiring abandoned Russian
tanks is absurd.

># The exhaust goes into the gas chambers. A backfire occurs
># in the exhaust pipe. Where do you think it is going to go?

>How far does it go in the pipe?

You must have grown up after catalytic converters to have never
seen the flash out out the end of the exhaust pipe. Or more
directly, into the room.

Why were no such explosions
>reported in the experiments the British researchers held?

Laboratory conditions are not the real world. Do you think there
are backfires in the engines testing labs in Detroit?

>Now, in the Just to Rauff letter about the gassing vans in
>Chelmno, the following paragraph appears:

> “The well-known explosion in Kulmhof (Chelmno) must be treated
>as a special case. It was caused by faulty practice. Special
>instructions have been given to the relevant offices in order
>to avoid such accidents”.

>The letter doesn’t go into details of what caused the explosion.
>So, you may have a point; I don’t know.

From what you have posted you do not know if it has any
relationship whatsoever to anything we are talking about. You
have no idea where the explosion was or what exploded. It could
have been a space heater for all this says.

You have failed to
>prove it. My assumption was that it was caused by a buildup
>of pressure in the gassing van. The letter also contains the
>following:

> “In order to facilitate the rapid distribution of CO, as
>well as to avoid a buildup of pressure, two slots, ten by one
>centimeters, will be bored at the top of the rear wall. The
>excess pressure would be controlled by an easily adjustable
>hinged metal valve on the outside of the vents”.

The top rear wall of what? The one claimed picture of a gas
wagon I could find at Nizkor appears to be the rather common
design that would have a rear door not wall.

>It may be worthwhile to try and find out what caused the
>explosion Just mentioned.

Excess exhaust pressure could not cause an explosion. Try
sticking a potato on your exhaust pipe and discover the engine
shuts down. Even if not this would require pressure vessel
construction and doors for these vans. That means VERY major
modifications as in taking off the entire van and installing a
specially constructed pressure vessel.

Otherwise no pressure buildup. The maximum total area of leaks
for the entire van need only be the same area as the exhaust pipe
exist for zero pressure buildup. Do you think that would not
exist in a newly manufactured van today? much less one with lots
of miles on it under war time conditions.

># Sorry about your knowledge here. Baysian statistics requires
># that a particular conclusion be assumed before the calculations
># can be made.

>Not really. Bayesian analysis uses the Bayes rule. You
>don’t need to assume any conclusion. You simply have to
>assume a prior on the “conclusions” (which can be a flat
>prior). Then, after having made the measurements, you
>update the probability of the “conclusions”.

Close enough for me. I have never been asked to lecture on it or
do it, only to test it.

>In physics and applied mathematics, a very common prior
>is one that assigns higher probabilities to “smooth” systems
>or functions.

As in what does anomolous really mean.

Maximum entropy uses a similar criterion,
>usually by measuring the “smoothness” of the system/function in
>entropic terms. Then you have MDL = Minimum Description
>Length methods, which, roughly, look for systems/functions
>which can be described with a small number of parameters. A
>fascinating and yet unsolved problem is to tie all these
>models together. One thing I’m trying to do is find a
>connection between MDL and smoothness based models.

Are you really that interested in wearing a tux in Oslo? Sounds
like you are looking for a discrimination for anomolous data
being worth investigating. Of course it is unclear how this is
going to apply to anything but the math representation of the
data. Or is this pure math?

>## And *if* the necessary concentration would have been reached?

># Dense enough to be confused with steam is your basic premise.
># That needs a droplet separation on the order of a wavelength of
># blue light.

>Where are the numbers? What is the minimal concentration
>that would result in an explosion? And where is your proof that
>it would have been reached?

I am working on that right now. I can do a pretty fair one for
vapors but not droplets at the moment. With vapors it goes bang
without question simply by analogy to clouds of the same color.
Usually when I am stuck like this, it is something very
straightforward that I am missing. Considering it has been so
many days I am going to have to find some time to do some reading
on aerosols.

Obviously I can argue from the spray can analogy that is never
dense enough to look like a cloud but will still ignite far from
the source —– (that was an A HAH!)

The difference between a spray can and oil droplets is droplet
size not flammability. The packing ratio of spheres is a
constant regardless of size. The flame front will not be
dependent upon droplet size.

Get back to me. I should have something better soon.

># And if I remember this story correctly, the person added that it
># was read to him before he signed it indicating he could not even
># read the language it was written in and had no way of verifying
># that it was what he said or not.

>I have no idea who you’re talking about. Schulch? The SS-man
>who testified about Belzec? The SS-men from these camps were
>tried in Germany before a German court. Everything was in
>German.

I really should save all of your posts just for reference. I
never seem to know what the ones worth discussing are the first
time.

But it is also suprising that you posted it and do not know the
one that says that. Which gets us back to my assertion of
mindless posting. I am talking about the one that ends, “this
post was read to me …”

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:20 PDT 1996
Article: 39750 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Chkdsk Weirdness
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 04:54:47 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 9:55:27 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>> Sure. As I mentioned today in another thread, Gord McFee has brought
>> up the topic of functionalism vs. intentionalism in regard to whether
>> the Holocaust was planned or unfolded in an unplanned manner (of course
>> the full discussion is much more complex than my one sentence summary).

>Heck, that we waisted our time with Giwer comes at no surprise. I read
>his post replying to yours after I added more. Giwer doesn’t
>understand what historical revisionism is. Goldhagen is orthodox?
>Naaa, it is a work that is stirring up a lot buzz in the discipline.

Historical revision is changing Andersonville from a death camp
to a POW camp run as best as possible due to the fortunes of war.

Revision is beginning to admit that people really are the same
all over and do not become demons simply because the were on the
losing side of a war.

Revision in this particular case is realizing that the evidence
for death camps is slim to none.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:21 PDT 1996
Article: 39762 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!aanews.merit.net!news.gmi.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Condolences to Memorial Day
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 06:12:42 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 1:13:24 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Rich Graves) wrote:

>[email protected] (tom moran) writes:
>>
>> To all those who died fighting to create and preserve the the
>>basic freedoms of our system, number one – The First Amendment – the
>>right to freedom of speech – the right to question history – I hope it
>>wasn’t all in vain.

>Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. You digust me. Our absolte
>commitment to freedom is what enables people like us to tolerate people
>like you.

Enables? Would you want it any other way?

>In his efforts to defend the murders of millions of innocent civilians by
>the Nazi regime, Mr. Moran can cite no serious effort to infringe on his
>right to lie.

But of course if you ever take a look at the adult v child
numbers you will find out that Jews were already dying out for
lack of procreation. Quite a strange phenomenon actually.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:22 PDT 1996
Article: 39763 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msunews!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 01:01:18 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 8:01:58 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>> Ok, we have two levels of discussion going here. Lets separate them.
>>> First, the regular archivists on this group (with maybe one or two
>>> exceptions) are not professional historians.

>> But who insist upon mindlessly posting out of context quotations
>>from out of context books and who want to keep the discussion to
>>stories about the holocaust rather than the holocaust itself.

>I think this works both ways. There are several different methods
>going on here. If you are so concerned with out-of-context quotes,
>then prove they are out of context.

By inspection. Is that not obvious to you?

Most of those you want to disagree
>with post references. I realize this is a new concept for you, but if
>you take the reference then you should be able to put it back in
>context. This is a major clue for you, Mr. Giwer. Proving that
>something is out of context works both ways.

Which of course still avoids the issue that there is no point in
discussion of stories about the holocaust rather than the
holocaust itself.

>>They are, however for the
>>> most part, capable of understanding research methodology. I asserted
>>> up above
>>
>> But who are not doing it themselves as they are quoting other
>>people who are often quoting other people and even at times
>>quoting other people who are quoting other people.

>At least you know who they are quoting and the reference is given.
>From there you can get the reference and see if it was presented in a
>misleading way. You must understand that it is difficult in a forum
>like this to present full research papers on so large a subject. So we
>don’t. The burden is also with tose who claim to be “revisionists”
>because they are trying to revise a standard understanding of history.

I would rather have described it as bringing the understanding of
history in line with the evidence considering how greatly it
deviates from the available evidence at the moment.

>Claiming that records are false, pictures are fake, docments are
>forged, and other claims against the whole history of the holocuast
>suggests a massive conspiracy that is ridiculous when one considers
>the massive scope of this denial. This is part of where the Butz book
>fails. Butz blaims the “zionist international”, Communists, U.S.
>Goverment War Refugee Board, the Office of Strategic Services, YIVO,
>U.S. Government officials, the persecutors and judges of the war
>crimes trials, Polish-Jewish Propagandists, Soviet Officials, and the
>media with help from the Red Cross. Not one of these conspirators have
>come forward to this day.[Lipstadt, _Denying the Holocaust_ pg. 126]
>So if you have a problem with the quotes, do the work to prove them
>out of context or false.

You continue to confuse gassing with events for which there is
evidence.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:23 PDT 1996
Article: 39766 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 01:14:21 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 6:15:03 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt
>Giwer) writes:

>>
>>Kimberley Ahlf wrote:
>>
>>>[previous text editted for brevity, see above postings for complete
>text]

>[Another huge cut]
>>
>> Let us look as the Wannsee Protocol. This is one of the very few
>>documents that exist. And you will find that it has been claimed
>>to support every aspect of all of the holocaust stories.
>>However, if take the time to read it in its entirety, it is
>>clearly one of the most “revisionist” documents around.
>>
>> It contradicts almost every major claim about the holocaust YET
>>people will still read it and claim that is supports every major
>>claim. You may read it for yourself and see what I am talking
>>about.
>>
>> You will note this is a high level conference that discusses both
>>the pre and the post conference plans. Before the conference
>>there were not even plans for work camps. After the conference
>>there were plans for work camps from which they would not return
>>alive. But there were thousands perhaps tens of thousands of
>>Jews that would have qualified for the exceptions contained in
>>the new plan.
>>
>> The document is damning as to ultimate intent but it is
>>completely “revisionist” if it is to be accepted as true and
>>genuine. But as you should have read by now, people will read
>>into anything they want to read into it.

>This is a fair analysis of the Wannsee Protocols as several historians
>have read it for years. That doesn’t mean these historians have published
>on it, however.
>>
>[Big cut]

>> I am doing something that has not been done in the holohugger
>>movement, critical analysis. What areas of “scholarship” would
>>you suggest? Reading the credulous work of “scholars” who have
>>clearly accepted testimony contrary to science? What value are
>>they?
>>

>Again, you give youself too much credit. Critical analysis of documents
>and witness testimony has been around for a long time; at least 30 years
>in the revisionist movement.

Excuse me. I am talking about the holohuggers. They will accept
anything.

Just last week, was there “testimony” posted which ended with the
words “this has been read to me” posted? Would you like to bet
no one ever had a copy of it with a signature? Want to bet he
was not under oath at the time?

But to stick to the point, someone who could not read what it
said trusted a reading or perhaps even a verbal translation. No
court would accept that. Why should anyone?

>> Excuse me, I AM THE ONLY ONE citing physical law in this matter
>>and it appears that other than a chemist who deliberately
>>misleads people, the only person with the credentials to back up
>>citation of physical law.

>Again, your references to analysis of physical law are not as singular as
>you seem to think. As far as I know, Butz was the first to inject a small
>part of technical analysis into his work, and in the meantime, there has
>been Leuchter, Lueftl, and even Pressac, to an extent, although he is not
>officially a revisionist.

Fine, one other person did once. Is that supposed to be a point?

But again, I am waiting for the holohuggers to compare their
stories to science one of these days.

I really want to see if they can explain how some of these things
can happen in the face of physical law without sounding like the
Monty Python witch routine.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:23 PDT 1996
Article: 39771 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Crematorium Rates
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 01:47:17 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 183
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: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 8:47:59 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> It is difficult to believe you have been reading this conference
>>and still ask such a question. Did you miss the recent answers
>>to the question, where did the ashes go? Have you really missed
>>the multiple postings where the bone grinding (however
>>questionable the statement) was the exception?

>Well, to be honest, I don’t read much of hwat you write.

I did not write the bone grinding “testimony.” That came right
>from the holohuggers.

I tend to
>delete anything that has “holohuggers” and other taunts in the
>message. If your message starts out taunting, it usually goes unread.
>So if you actually posted references, post them again. Cut and paste,
>it ought to be easy.

You will have to ask them for it again or search Nizkor.

>> Rather you appear to be playing the game, one more more time,
>>that if I do not post it immediately then you can, for purposes
>>of this exachange alone, claim that I am making it up.

>So you are making it up.

Try Nizkor if you need to. Or keep reading the holohuggers. One
of them will post it again.

>>>>GIWER>Even if they objective was not a “fine white ash” the lower
>>>>temperature would keep the time at least in the same league.

>>>Well, Mr. Giwer, was it or wasn’t it? I’m confused now.

>> (Note that you have to start at absolute zero in such matters.)

>> Of course you are. Bear in mind that combustion rate is an
>>exponential function of temperature what might appear to be a 1/3
>>fractional change from 1300 K to 1700 K the result is going to be
>>a combustion rate with more than 1/3 difference. It has been a
>>bit too long make a better statement than that.

>> But even with a linear relationship, which gives the minimum time
>>difference. if it is 2 hours at 1700 then it is going to be 2.5
>>hours at 1300. Take off a half hour for bone whitening as we are
>>back at 2 hours.

>The Germans didn’t care about bone whitening.

>> However what you folks are trying to do is get three bodies at
>>once down to some degree of ash state close to but not quite this
>>in 20-30 minutes.

>Nope, we admit that the remains were constantly added to. Ash mixing
>and remain mixing was not a concern. You haven’t once answered that
>point.

>> Lets give you the best of it, 30 minutes.
>>That is four times faster. Multiply by three bodies and it is 12
>>times faster. (Remember that burn time is directly related to
>>body weight. Three do not burn faster than one.)

>> Now we also know from Jean-Francois Beaulieu who
>>has actually taken the time to talk to people who know and
>>operate crematoria, that (from his description at least) they do
>>not even bother to look until about two hours and often “give it
>>another half hour” at these higher temperatures.

>You failed to recognize the laws and the differences of care taken in
>the German camp process and the methodical legal modern practice. I
>don’t think readers are missing the fact that you are conveniently
>ignoring this fact.

>>>> And if you have been reading what has been posted about
>>>>cremation, in 20-30 minutes there is still most of the flesh left
>>>>even at the much higher temperatures.

>>>So? It gets to be burned more than once. No one cared about mixing
>>>ashes. What next of kin was there to be concerned about. BTW, this is
>>>part of what is wrong with the Beaurlieu FAQ.

>> You are laboring under a misapprehension here. Burning time is
>>burning time whether you do it all at once or you or in separate
>>operations. All you do by taking them out and putting them back
>>in is have to reheat them. And your hypothetical (that is, not
>>in any of the reports) would take marginally more time due to the
>>cooling by opening to insert another triplet of bodies.

>There deosn’t seem to have been any cooling.

Amazing that you can open an oven door without cooling it when no
one else can.

If you have testimony
>suggesting the methods used in modern cremations is the same as that
>used in the extermination camps I await to see it.

You are suggesting there was another method than fire?

Until then we are
>viewing things in different ways. Yours is convenient to your claims
>but does not follow what was actually done. I have to work with what
>was testified to.

>> That is perhaps the value of the three at a time story. To save
>>the lost time from opening it three separate times. The
>>experimentation would them have been to trade off the extra time
>>from the multiple bodies with the time saved by opening it fewer
>>times.

>> Overall, I think you are missing the distinction between
>>temperature and heat. The temperature of your house is where you
>>set the thermostat. The heat used is how many times the furnace
>>comes on. No matter what the temperature of the Kremas the same
>>amount of heat is required, to a first order approximation.

>I think you are missing the concern over method.

All but whitening in ten minutes at Birkenau. Think we could
have the Enterprise go back in time and investigate the time warp
that had to have been present?

>>>> You also know if you have been reading that the time is a direct
>>>>function of body weight and that multiple bodies simply take
>>>>longer.

>>>Well, I haven’t been paying close attention. The fires were pretty hot
>>>after they had gotten going and the time to make room for more bodies
>>>was more of an issue than burning them completely. They were not
>>>preparing ashes to give to relatives.

>> It was in fact a reported issue of having them fine enough to
>>fertilize fields and use on icy streets and sidewalks. You
>>should have at least have seen similar things used for the latter
>>and have an idea of what size is used.

>> And if you want to get back to that bone grinding remember that
>>reports vary from a wooden mortar to a machine. The entire point
>>of bones is that the organic structure allows them to bend
>>without breaking. Whatever the point of burning that was “good
>>enough” it had to be passed the point where that structure is
>>gone.

>Present testimony of the Germans and sonderkommando that this was a
>problem.

>> Holohuggers have posted the source, Pressac if I remember
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>correctly.

>I’m outa here.

If you can’ take the heat, get out of the oven.

>>But then if one considers that the Germans didn’t care
>>>about perfection, then the temperature can become a nonissue.

>> Then why did they not save a lot of coke and do it at 200
>>degrees? Charred flesh is a good as anything, right?

>>>> The story is not going to wash no matter how you look at it.

>>>Yours? No, it won’t.

>> You want everything but the whitening to happen today in only ten
>>minutes. You need to think through what you are saying before
>>you post. Get a calculator. It won’t hurt you.

And this of course is why you ran away.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:24 PDT 1996
Article: 39772 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 01:57:06 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 6:57:46 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
># [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>## No. It was in a different death camp.

># Which one?

>Belzec.
>
># What kind of engine?

>It is not mentioned in this excerpt what engine was used.
>
># Please post the pathology part of the paper.

>I doubt that I will sit and type all of it. I have a job. I
>can’t really do all your work for you. I’ll try to type the
>important parts during the weekend.

If you would like my address I will be happy to scan in a Xerox
and post here. Text conversion of course. I have new software
and haven’t had the change to give it a good test.

># I really would like to read the death by irritants and death by
># nitrous oxide parts of it.

>With high fuel-air ratio, the main cause of death was CO. Under
>normal conditions, NO2. Under light load, irritants.

>Note the “main cause”. Not the only cause. In the gas chambers,
>you had people packed in tightly. This results in a drop in
>oxygen levels. In addition, you had the exhaust, which contained
>various poisons: CO, NO2, irritants. Death was caused by a
>combination of all these factors. As the Pattle et. al.
>experiments prove, different running conditions can influence
>the weight these various factors had in causing death.

That is exacly why I would like to read the pathology part. To
read his words not what you are saying about them.

>## Done. Now tell us, where in the world is Belsen camp? As the
>## “revisionist” with the highest IQ here (163, WOW!) your
>## opinion is of crucial importance.
>
># I make mistakes.

>Too many.

># You exhibit a serious lack of fundamental knowledge. For example
># your confusion on “low ratio” and now your “lack of oxygen” confusion.

>Huh? What did I confuse?

Post the ratio for no visible exhaust and we will see.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:25 PDT 1996
Article: 39787 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Where Did the Ashes Go?
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 02:42:28 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 7:43:08 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (tom moran) wrote:

>[email protected] (Richard Schultz) wrote:

>>Prince Myshkin ([email protected]) wrote:
>>
>>: Of course the ashes will still form a layer of sediment in the
>>: nearby ponds. Yet no one reports finding it. Then perhaps, no
>>: one looked.
>>
>>Of course, in the television series “The Ascent of Man,” Jacob
>>Bronowski stood in one of those ponds and held some of those ashes in
>>his hands. You can see a photograph of him doing so in the book version.

> Really? You report here there is a photo of someone standing in a
>swamp and holding up some ashes? What is this like? Does he have a big
>wad of swamp gloop drooling down off of his hand? Should any viewer
>accept this as evidence. What could a viewer determine from this
>posture other than what any commentary would say?
> One real method for the investigation would be to take core
>samples and look for the ash layer. Then it would be necessary to
>determine they are human ashes.
> Personally I think the ash question is really moot since any ash
>left over from cremation would be very small.
> Considering a million people are said to have been exterminated
>and cremated, with maybe 700,000 being cremated in the ovens, as the
>story goes, we would have less than 1/2 pound of ashes left over,
>times the 700,000, 350,000 pounds divided by 2000, which would come
>out to only 175 tons.
> I’ve seen the ashes of human remains after cremation and the real
>wieght would be closer to 4 ounces each or about 85 tons in the case
>above.

Remember the Force, Luke.

These were NOT burned down to that level. In fact they did not
bother with legal whitening (quothe one holohugger.) And then
another holohugger did not like my ten pounds estimate and
insisted upon two pounds. (A presumed WAG of course.)

So don’t be suckered in by this revisionist 4 ounces nonsense.
It really was on the order of two pounds per body OR we have the
full time of cremation required today PLUS the difference amount
required for the lower temperature.

So lets get that back up to 700 tons where it belongs.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 10:58:40 PDT 1996
Article: 380606 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!hookup!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Here is some questions for you McVay
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 06:51:04 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 1:51:46 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:48035 talk.politics.misc:380606

[email protected] (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Joe Lockhart wrote:

>>”I did at that time approve [of] Canadian actions against Zundel against
>>Keegstra, ah it was sort of a gut reaction because they offended me so
>>deeply I said good shut them up put them in jail do what ever it takes, …no
>>free speech.”

>>ECDL:
>>Instead of locking them up, it now appears that McVay likes to have them
>>deported. You still have not answered why Ernst Zundel deserves to be
>>sent to a country to serve time in jail for something that is not against the
>>law in this country? (not yet)
>>Please explain??

>The government of Canada has designated Ernst Zundel as a
>threat to the security of the country. As the SIRC hearings
>have only just begun, neither I, nor anyone else (outside
>CSIS) can explain why.

It would appear Canada is a very insecure country. You folks
must be hiding a very unstable government through control of the
media.

I can just see the headlilnes, Nutcase endangers the security of
Canada.

What a primitive country you have.

>Ernst Zundel, it would seem, is not fit to be a citizen of
>this country – that is the CSIS position, as I understand it.

Singlehandly he is a threat to Canada. He must certainly be
impressed with his power and influence. At least as much as the
government of Canada is. I laughed my ass off when our
government declared that Linda Thompson was a threat to the
security of the Waco siege. But of course I have to take this
one seriously.

>Unless SIRC reverses that position, Mr. Zundel deserves
>deportation on that merit alone.

If he is not removed Canada will be plunged into chaos. Everyone
will have to speak French under penalty of a terrible taunting.
Real biblical proportion disasters are in store if he is allowed
to remain.

—————————————————————
Live fast, love well, and have a glorious Website.

http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/tech/ (tips and tricks for webs)
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/mgiwer4/ (eye candy, blantant advertising)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/ (my son)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/mega/ (for internet advertising)

From [email protected] Tue May 28 11:03:40 PDT 1996
Article: 39824 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 05:53:10 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 12:53:51 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

>[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:

>> I find that this newsgroup seems to spend all of its time debating whether
>> or not there were gas chambers, or more precisely, how many people died in
>> them.

>Not “this newsgroup” — Holocaust-deniers bring up the issue consistently.
>It is one of the three tenets of Holocaust-denial, the other two being
>that there was no Nazi policy to exterminate Jews, and that nowhere near
>six million died.

Six what? I thought the number was 12 million. Judeaification
of the work camps continues unabated.

>I would say that “no gas chambers” is the most important of the three.
>Fred Leuchter sums up “revisionism” well when he says, “no gas chambers,
>no gas chambers, no damn gas chambers!”

Precisely the point is it not? Of course if you folks are
willing to drastically revise camp conditions for the better then
we will need another explanation for the death rate. Until then,
gassing is superfluous.

>> Let’s just suppose there were no gas chambers.

>This is about as far as I got in your post; I skimmed the rest. The
>fact is that there _were_ gas chambers. I don’t see any need to take
>seriously someone who submits a counterfactual postulate, any more
>than I would take seriously someone who says “let’s just suppose there
>were no ocean liners” or “let’s just suppose there were no nematodes.”

Lets just supposed that all of the eyewitness testimony that is
contrary to reality were thrown out as it should have been over
50 years ago. Then we are in the same position, no gassing.

>> Gas Chambers are not good for anybody, and are largely irrelevant. This
>> issue will be settled when that is realized.

>Gas chambers were especially not good for the millions of people who
>gasped their last breaths in them. However, they must have seemed quite
>relevant at the time.

Particularly lacking the evidence for their existance in the
first place. But then the propaganda did get out of hand.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:11 PDT 1996
Article: 39832 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!news.tufts.edu!blanket.mitre.org!bone.think.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Chkdsk Weirdness
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 04:48:40 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 9:49:22 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>>>[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> And to think, Matt Giwer is claiming that the Gang-of-Six are posting
>>>>>> off topic articles.
>>>>
>>>>>Right. the claim is that this is a revisionists forum. To Giwer this
>>>>>means Holocuast denial apparently. To Giwer true Revisionism would
>>>>>appear to be off-topic.
>>>>
>>>> Would you care to post a few examples of TRUE revision and which
>>>>of the Nizkorites provided the discussion? I would like to have
>>>>them as examples of what you are talking about.
>>
>>> Sure. As I mentioned today in another thread, Gord McFee has brought
>>> up the topic of functionalism vs. intentionalism in regard to whether
>>> the Holocaust was planned or unfolded in an unplanned manner (of course
>>> the full discussion is much more complex than my one sentence summary).
>>
>> You really mean that the best you can come up with is
>>pseudointellectual nonsense as a question like that when we
>>clearly have a concrete document like the Wannsee Protocol before
>>us?
>>
>> The only question before us in light of that document is who
>>perverted its intention if anyone.

> I suspect the discussion is well over your head. Keep quiet and listen
> to it for awhile and maybe you will learn something. I must confess
> that some of it is over my head too.

I know exactly what it is about and it is no more that
hairsplitting over the degree of culpability of for actions of
which there is no evidence. The issue is the events in the first
place, not who is responsible for what lacks evidence of
occurance.

>>> And this all grows out of a healthy discussion of Goldhagen’s thesis.
>>
>> Excuse me, but he is promoting orthodoxy.

> Not really. He is taking a very strong intentionalist position while
> orthodoxy seems to have drifted towards a mixed intentionalist /
> functionalist position over the years. The more I read (I am reading
> Gilbert at the moment) the less comfortable I am wiht Goldhagen’s
> position. But I really need to read a lot more before I am willing to
> say anything authoritative on the subject.

Orthodoxy is, if nothing else, the clear assumption that the
entire holocaust was a “jewish” matter. From what has been
reported about the book it fixates upon antisemitism as the cause
of a minority of total “vicitms? as the cause. And again from
what has been reported it appears the presumption is that 6.8
million would never have gone to the camps were it not for
antisemitism.

>>> I recall Mike Stein bringing up true revisionist topics in the past,
>>> though I don’t recall at the moment what they were.
>>
>> When you do, post them.

> I will if I come across them. But they may be too subtle for you also.

I do agree that arguing the number of angels on the head of a pin
is too subtle for me. I prefer to deal with the lack of evidence
for the existance of angels and gas chambers.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:11 PDT 1996
Article: 39833 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!bofh.dot!insync!news.io.com!arlut.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nizkor: Proof is for Goyim
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 02:31:48 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 20
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]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 9:32:29 PM CDT 1996

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> You’re a baby. Amazing.

>You can’t win without this? The post went unread. You want your posts
>read? Act like the mature man your supposed to be.

You were quite on the bandwagon when you started that you are now
objecting to.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:12 PDT 1996
Article: 39838 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dees loses this battle
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 07:08:27 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 2:09:09 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>Anything A Huber says, or anything anyone from his outfit says is
>first of all,

>a crock of BS, fabricated at that, they guy is with Elvis (his current
>houseboy) and I have this from unquestionable sources. (same place
>Huber get his)
>It’s not my job to defend Morris Dees, he can take care of himself.
>But I am very proud that this attorney, nailed that used condom from
>San Diego… Metzger, who is of the same stripe as Huber, only
>smarter. This is another cock and bull story invented by some writer
>of fiction working with Huber. All of those Huberites…suck!
>Save a round for them.

>A Huber wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Fwd: Morris Dees runs like slime
>>
>> Date: Friday, 24-May-96 07:53 PM
>>
>> From: Jim Floyd

>Jim Floyd is another asshole, who puts stuff on the internet about
>Rabbis sucking blood from Jewish boys after their circumcision. He’s a
>slime ball of the worst kind. (save a round for him too)

> \ Internet: ([email protected])
>>
>> Subject: Dees Day, doo dah, doo dah
>>
>> Yesterday was a rare day, indeed. Carl Dettmer, a talk-show host at WSTD,
>>
>> 1370, Toledo, Ohio had the infamous Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty
>> Law
>> Center

>Morris Dees is a decent person who fights bigotry where ever he finds
>it.

Excuse me. If this is so, can you explain why he has identified
and never retracted the claim that the Dogtown Rangers are a
racist and armed militia group that is a threat to our country?

I would like to have an answer to this question should you find
the time.
—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:13 PDT 1996
Article: 39841 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: j*w eyewitness rebukes holocaust
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 05:46:09 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 12:46:50 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (A Huber) wrote:

> But then there is the other camp that says he was Jewish. It
>>appears the only way to get rid of the currently fashionable
>>image of Columbus as someone evil is to agree that he was Jewish
>>and make such talk socially unacceptable.
>>
>> There, see how easy it is to control how history is taught?
>>
>> Maybe if we can come up with positive proof Hitler was Jewish we
>>will discover it was all Himmlers’ fault.

>You are, of course, being facetious. But then, your idea is politically
>correct.

Is there really a difference between the two? It is a great act
of will to deliver a politically correct admonishment with a
straight face.

>Since it is slowly becoming a felony to not agree with a j*w, I
>embrace your idea. Whenever we are attacked by the Zi*nists, we merely
>tell them WE are radical right wing j*ws. We will be honored for our hard
>work, therefore, at the WIESENTHAL’s next circumcision ceremony.

Since my mother was always thought the clever one by the
neighbors she must have been Jewish.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:14 PDT 1996
Article: 39843 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!aanews.merit.net!news.gmi.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Every Day, Yellow School Buses
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 05:13:20 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 12:14:01 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>The funny thing is that this Nazi rabble don’t even realize
>that, as long as they are spreading their hateful propaganda –
>Holocaust denial and other racist nonsense – they are only
>contributing to this very effort which enrages them so much:
>the effort to teach people about the horrors of Nazism.

You took a good lead from me but you got it all wrong.

>More and more people will visit the museums; even more people
>will visit the web sites. Technology is advancing; the texts,
>the images, and the voices of the Holocaust, can be transmitted
>to more and more households, at greater and greater speed and
>quality.

Nazism is a dead issue. No one in their right mind can possibly
believe disliking ethnic groups was ever the cause of their rise
to power even if the very unusual set of circumstances were in
some manner repeated.

>Heck, this must drive them out of their minds (er, ah, whatever).
>Here they are, telling us all what great guys the Nazis were,
>how they only tried to help the Jews, bla-bla. And, after all
>this mighty effort, one takes a look at a photo of these
>plump, overweight SS-women in Belsen, throwing all these
>emaciated corpses into a mass grave, and says “hey, these
>’revisionists’ are full of crap”.

>And here they are, telling us all that there’s no documentary
>evidence about homicidal gas chambers. And one takes a trip
>to a web site, and sees pictures of documents about gas
>chambers and gassing, and says “hey, these ‘revisionists’
>are damned liars”.
>
>And so on.
>
>It seems that some of them realized that they cannot win an
>objective debate. Hence, the recent increase in blatant
>antisemitism and racism in their articles (Giwer, for instance).

You may continue to support your unsubstantiated gassing nonsense
and your judeaification of the work camps all you wish.

No rational person is going to accept that if the gassing story
goes away Nazis will come to political power. No rational person
is going to accept what if the Judeocentrism of the work camps
goes away that Nazis will come to political power.

More specifically, no rational person thinks Jews are that
important, period.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:15 PDT 1996
Article: 39844 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Web-sites revised listing
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 06:39:06 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 1:39:47 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (A Huber) wrote:

>Revised 05/25/96
>For new posters, the following web-sites may be of interest. They are of
>related interest to those wishing to know the TRUTH about j*wish
>propaganda, and cover a wide spectrum of topics from Revisionism to
>Patriot pride to in-bred j*wish genetic diseases.

>NATIONAL ALLIANCE
>http://www.natvan.com/

>At the Center of a Storm
>http://www11.cyber24.com/html/2_27.html

>Zundel Site
>http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/

>neopage
>http://bluemoon.net/~frenz/

>The Genetic-Disease E-Mail Discussion List
>http://q.continuum.net/~wrosen/list.html

>Adelaide Institute – The final intellectual adventure
>http://www.adam.com.au/~fredadin/adins.html

>Holocaust revisionism
>http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/

>Greg Raven’s IHR materials
>http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/

>The Nation Of Islam Online
>http://www.afrinet.net/~islam/

>Radio Islam – English
>http://flashback.se/~rislam/english/english.htm

>CODOH INTERNATIONAL Index
>http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/inter/inter.html

>KBBS
>http://kbbs.kbbsnet.com/

>Commission on Global governance
>http://www.cgg.ch/

>Zi*nist PIGS-israel
>http://rvik.ismennt.is/~elias/zion/zionrac07.html

>Nizkor PIGS-Canada (holocaust trivia)
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/

>United States Holocaust Research Institute Reading Room
>http://www.ushmm.org/ushmm_ia.html

>On Tactics USENET (j*w board)
>http://www.io.com/~wlp/aryan-page/cng/tac.html

>ANTI-holocaust
>http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/thoughtcrimes/9205HON.HTML

>Matt Giwer’s World
>http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/

I appreciate the advertising but I hardly belong in this list. I
have only one tangentially related article, “Sean O’Clast, Icon
Smasher” on the entire 4+Meg site. This is really too minor an
issue for me to highlite.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:15 PDT 1996
Article: 39850 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 16:57:37 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl6-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 11:58:23 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Kimberley Ahlf wrote:

>> To the above list you can add the heavy realiance upon War Crimes
>> Tribunal documents of hearsay by people who were never
>> established to have heard anything nor were they present in court
>> nor are the documents sworn to. Add to that they were rarely
>> originals and often in a language they did not speak.
>>

>Under your ‘physics’ approach, which invalidates testimony, aren’t all
>aspects legal proceedings just irrelevant anyway?

In a trial there is evidence and then testimony about the
evidence. What you have to realize about the holocaust is that
it relies almost completely upon testimony with no solid
evidence. What little evidence there is, is force fit into the
testimony rather than vice versa.

Also most all of the testimony is such that it would be
inadmissable in court.

>> —-
>> Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
>> evidence that he was not an eyewitness.
>>
> /\
> / \
> ||
> ||
> Can’t disagree with that.

And that is the problem with much of the testimony. Every time
it gets near a detail that would offer something to check against
something that we know is true the testimony will include things
we know are not true.

Yet these are the evidence poor eyewitnesses upon which the
claims of gassing rest.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:16 PDT 1996
Article: 39853 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: McMartin Trial
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 07:57:52 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 12:58:35 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

I happen to have an HBO rerun of it going on in the background
while playing with this group. It is of the McMartin trial.

Trial by testimony. Testimony of being taken to graveyards and
digging up the dead but not ONE bit of evidence of any grave
being dug up.

Trial by testimony. Not trial by evidence.

The children testified they were taken to a church to cut up
animals on the altar. No church reported any such incident. No
evidence. Trial by testimony only.

Never at any time one bit of physical evidence introduced at the
trial despite testimony of underground tunnels, vast underground
rooms all connected to the preschool. NEVER on bit of physical
evidence, all of the malicious prosecution based upon testimony.

And beyond that, the parents involved never being convinced by
the lack of physical evidence but continuing to demand justice
for non-existant crimes.

That is the McMartin persecution, that is the holocaust at its
best.

The holocaust is worse than this. Zero evidence and forged at
best testimony.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:17 PDT 1996
Article: 39862 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 17:08:01 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl6-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 12:08:48 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Kimberley Ahlf wrote:

>I should be finishing Goldhagen’s book now, but instead here I sit.

>What’s most telling to me about his thesis is that it is more agreeable at
>a visceral level than the stock ‘following orders’ explanation of
>the past. His technique of pushing backwards the historical context in
>which the study of German motivations must take place is something which
>makes a lot of sense. His simple question: If exterminationist
>anti-semitism can be shown to be prevalent in Germany long before the
>birth of Hitler, why then should the assumption be made that it
>disappeared only to be reinvented and imposed upon a reluctant culture by
>the Nazis?

>His answer, that the assumption can’t be made, makes the motivations of the
>perpetrators far easier to understand than the more orthodox explanations.
>It makes more sense to believe that German’s were culturally programmed
>from birth to view Jews as sinister and non-human than to believe that a
>propoganda fog somehow temporarily clouded the minds and judgement of so
>many.

Since you are reading it without making some issue of defending
it, a question.

Given that the Jews were only 5.2 million out of a total of 12
million, to what does he ascribe the motivation for the other 6.8
million?

And then, if he does not attempt to explain the motivation for
the majority, what is the credibility of finding a specific cause
for a less than half fraction when there is no explanation for a
larger number?
—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 13:57:18 PDT 1996
Article: 39863 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!aanews.merit.net!news.gmi.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: People like Hoess, Pery Broad & Kremer
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 05:35:51 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 12:36:33 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>Chuck Ferree wrote:

>>>Had Adolf Hitler not seized power in Germany in 1933,

>> What does “siezed” mean to you? The last I heard he was asked to
>>form a government. He did form a government. And in no manner
>>did he violate any laws at the time in anything that followed.

>That’s true. He used the loop-holes in the Constitution and the
>gullibility of the opposition to gain power and declare martial law by
>designing a false emergency. Gotta love him. 🙂

I am very well versed in how to make political charges without
legal substance. Apparently you are also. Now would you care to
go into the substance of your allegation?

Cite the loopholes, cite who was gullible and why, and of course
cite the legal violations that occurred in anything you have
said. And if you can not, cite any violations of the law please
have the courtesy to admit that is what every rational person
does.

>> Perhaps you could justify this “siezed” claim a bit?

>I’ll go out on a limp and guess that Chuck is thinking about what I
>mention above. Then there was the Night of the Long Knives to
>consider. Killing the opposition also points to a criminal regime.
>See(ha!) Anton Gill’s _An Honorable Defeat_ for a fuller picture or
>Heinz Ho”hne’s _The Order of the Death’s Head_ for a really exciting
>telling of the seizing of power from the Constitutional government.

>Reading is fun, Mr. Giwer. It’s the stuff of data that makes up GOOD
>discussion.

Reading from sources with an opposite viewpoint is also quite
worthwhile.

For example do you know the German side of the invasion of
Polannd? Have you never heard that Poland was expelling over a
million Polish citizens of German ancestory (race in the
vernacular of the times) into Germany along with Jews that had
come to Poland on invitation some 400 years earlier?

Did you know that Germany was operating a refuge camp system
along to Polish border to handle these people before the
invasion?

Did you ever here that Poland clearly refused all diplomatic
overtures to stop this on the stated belief that if Germany
started a war that civil war would engulf Germany? Have you
never heard that Poland had troops ready to conquer Germany?

Do you not consider that provoking a war? Not from our
perspective but from the perspective of Europe for some 2000
years.

But one final question, do you have the slightest comprehension
that the holocaust propaganda is perhaps the smallest part of the
WW II propaganda that is still in full force and effect?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 14:42:07 PDT 1996
Article: 48035 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!hookup!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Here is some questions for you McVay
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 06:51:04 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl3-25.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 1:51:46 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:48035 talk.politics.misc:380606

[email protected] (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Joe Lockhart wrote:

>>”I did at that time approve [of] Canadian actions against Zundel against
>>Keegstra, ah it was sort of a gut reaction because they offended me so
>>deeply I said good shut them up put them in jail do what ever it takes, …no
>>free speech.”

>>ECDL:
>>Instead of locking them up, it now appears that McVay likes to have them
>>deported. You still have not answered why Ernst Zundel deserves to be
>>sent to a country to serve time in jail for something that is not against the
>>law in this country? (not yet)
>>Please explain??

>The government of Canada has designated Ernst Zundel as a
>threat to the security of the country. As the SIRC hearings
>have only just begun, neither I, nor anyone else (outside
>CSIS) can explain why.

It would appear Canada is a very insecure country. You folks
must be hiding a very unstable government through control of the
media.

I can just see the headlilnes, Nutcase endangers the security of
Canada.

What a primitive country you have.

>Ernst Zundel, it would seem, is not fit to be a citizen of
>this country – that is the CSIS position, as I understand it.

Singlehandly he is a threat to Canada. He must certainly be
impressed with his power and influence. At least as much as the
government of Canada is. I laughed my ass off when our
government declared that Linda Thompson was a threat to the
security of the Waco siege. But of course I have to take this
one seriously.

>Unless SIRC reverses that position, Mr. Zundel deserves
>deportation on that merit alone.

If he is not removed Canada will be plunged into chaos. Everyone
will have to speak French under penalty of a terrible taunting.
Real biblical proportion disasters are in store if he is allowed
to remain.

—————————————————————
Live fast, love well, and have a glorious Website.

http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/tech/ (tips and tricks for webs)
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/mgiwer4/ (eye candy, blantant advertising)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/ (my son)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/mega/ (for internet advertising)

From [email protected] Tue May 28 20:19:11 PDT 1996
Article: 39895 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer’s eagle eye strikes again!
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 21:30:58 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl6-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 2:31:47 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:
>Jeez, Giwer, will you give us a break? First we tell you, then we tell
>you that we told you, then we tell you again. Common, old buddy,
>enough awready!
> O.K. Here’s the scoop…now pay, by God, Attention!!!

>These are Commandant Hoss’s words. He lied, sometimes but not about
>this stuff.
>”THE FINAL SOLUTION OF THE JEWISH QUESTION”
>IN THE AUSCHWITZ CONCENTRATION CAMP

All you have here is what appears to be an extract from a book in
which someone appears to be claiming Hoess said this with any
indication of where the original material is to be found or how
the original material was authenticated.

>”In the summer of 1941, I cannot remember the exact date. I was
>suddenly summoned to the REICHSFUHER SS, directtly by his adjutant’s
>office. Contrary to his usual custom, Himmler received me without his
>adjutant being present, and said in effect.
> “The Fuhrer has ordered that the Jewish question be solved once and
>for all and that we, the SS, are to implement that order.
>”The existing extermination camps in the East are not in a position to
>carry out the large actions which are anticipated. I have therefore
>ear-marked Auschwitz for this purpose, both because of it’s good
>position as regards communications and because the area can be easily
>isolated and camouflaged.”

How does one camoflauge a small city? Why has no one else
reported any attempt at camoflauge of Auschwitz? This sounds
like the person who wrote this had no more than a vague notion of
what Auchwitz was like when he wrote it.

How does one hide a pre-existing Polish POW camp? If it was
isolated why was it, in other stories, chosen for having good
rail access? If they had wanted to keep it hidden why did they
build war materiel factories near it?

You should be aware that before any Nuremberg evidence can be
accepted today the original of it has to be reviewed. There are
too many known cases of inadmissable evidence and statements
having been used not to mention the patently false one.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 20:19:12 PDT 1996
Article: 39901 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: People like Hoess, Pery Broad & Kremer
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 22:14:31 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl6-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 3:15:21 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>Now Giwer is gonna blame World War Two on the Poles.

You should learn to read some time. Every war has two sides or
do you still believe all the war propaganda you were fed?

The Germans, were
>just sitting around with their finger in ther asses as usual, when the
>Polish hordes attacked them with horse-drawn cannons, from the war of
>1812. Be real, Giwer, Hitler seized power,

He was selected to create a government and did so in a
constitutional manner.

>he set up a dictatorship,

And there was authorization in the Constitution to do so.

>and set about to conquer the whole world.

Then perhaps you could explain why Germany was not prepared for
war when England declared war. Don’t you think they might have
had more than 27 submarines if they expected war with England?
Don’t you think they might have been in war production? What was
one of her battleships doing making a training cruise out in the
Atlantic without an ammunition load out at the time of the attack
on Poland?

Perhaps you could explain why England declared war on Germany
without being attacked?

That’s what the man had in
>mind. First the Jews, then the commies, then, the homosexuals, then
>the Catholics, then the… you name it!

They were in constant brawls with the communists all through 20s.
If you were to stop listening to the selected extracts about Jews
you would have a better perspective. They were not that large a
part of his speeches and are largely deliberately
misinterpretated.

He did not have any particular run in with Catholics either. It
was primarily with the Lutherans because they were sending money
out of the country to support and extensive missionary system.
He simply prohibited them from doing that as part of the plan to
bring economic stability to the country.

>Jeez I hope you buy some better quality wine.

>Chuckles

You are probably too old to ever get over all the propaganda you
were fed about that war. It really isn’t that important.
—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:42 PDT 1996
Article: 39920 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Part of an interesting document
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 01:49:09 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 6:49:48 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>There you go again. Sticking up for a convicted war criminal. Martin
>Bormann, was as bad as they come.

>*”The second private secretary was one Martin BORMANN a mole like man
>who preferred to burrow in the dark recesses of party life to further
>his intrigues and who once had served a year in prison for complicity
>in a political murder.”

>”Privately, Hitler gave orders to have Hess shot at once if he
>returned and publicly he stripped his old comrade of all his offices,
>replacing him as deputy leader of the party by MARTIN BORMANN, a more
>sinister and conniving character.”

>”Not many Germans lost much sleep over the arrests of a few thousand
>pastors and priests or over the quarreling of the various Protestant
>sects. And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of
>Rosenberg, BORMANN and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler the Nazi
>regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it
>could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal German gods
>and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As BORMANN, one of the
>men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, ‘National Socialism and
>Christianity are irreconcilable.’ ”

>*William L. Shirer
>The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich

Gee, that really is sinister. They wanted to change the
currently popular superstition to another superstition.

You do realize that you folks could make a less than laughable
case if you could document one ritual, one ceremony, for any of
these gods.

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> The numbers refer document pages from the Nuremberg trials.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> MARTIN BORMANN
>>
>> Bormann was accused of “persecution of religion” and many other
>> crimes. Bormann’s attorney, Dr. Bergold, pointed out that many
>> modern countries (meaning the Soviet Union) are avowedly atheist,
>> and that orders forbidding priests from holding high Party
>> offices (that is, offices in the Nazi Party) could not be called
>> “persecution”.
>>
>> In Dr. Bergold’s words: “The party is described as criminal – as
>> a conspiracy. Is it a crime to exclude certain people from
>> membership in a criminal conspiracy? Is that considered a crime?”
>> (V 312 <<353>>).

>> Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
>> evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

>clips

>Chuck Ferree

>Now let’s see you defend some more Nazi War criminals!
>How can you speak well of these men who perpetrated the worst,
>cruelest, most inhumane acts in modern history?

A secretary? Secretaries have authority?

They plotted to rid
>Europe of millions of Jews, and they came mighty close to doing it.
>Not to mention the millions of others, who were also murdered by the
>Nazis.

I fail to see what posting what happened as indicated from his
trial has to do with defending anyone. Perhaps you could
explain.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:43 PDT 1996
Article: 39921 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust?
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 01:57:47 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 8:58:21 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>These three guys drink too much beer together!!! 🙂

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> Bud wrote:
>>
>> >Wes Kreider wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Why is it that if you question the Holocaust you get branded a Nazi?

>Giwer very patiently tells these turkeys how to build a watch. All
>they really asked for was the time of day.
>Giwer reads only revisionist books.

Never read a one in my life.

So now I for one understand why he
>asks so many stupid questions, and uses so many incorrect arguments.
>It don’t help my medical bills one bit. So, would you just read one or
>two credible books, as a personal favor? Huh? Please

From a person who consistently who said what reversed just what
should I make of your abiliy to tell a credible book from an
incredible one?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:44 PDT 1996
Article: 39923 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.inc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust?
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:08:01 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 9:08:35 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

># When you look into the details of the “testimony” you
># find so many problems with them that it is easy to
># presume they are all the same.
>#
># Take this for example

>[Long piece of “revisionist” material]

>Where did you copy this from? Porter?

Porter who?

># The “eyewitnesses”, of course, did not appear in court;
># they were merely names on pieces of paper.

>Quite a few people who were in Mauthausen appeared in Allied
>and German courts and testified about the gas chamber in
>that camp.

That was not the context in which the statement was made. Of
course you free to post what those who did appear in court said.

># “Sonderbehandlung” (special treatment) is an example of
># the ugly jargon used in all bureaucracies, and is probably best
># translated as “treatment on a case by case basis”.

>Memorandum of Gestapo Headquarters, 15 June 1944
>[Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals
>-
>Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. IV, p. 1166]
>————————————————————————–
>In amending my directive of June 20 1944, I request that those people
>subject to special treatment be sent to a crematorium to be cremated
>if possible.

>

>Some “treatment on a case by case basis”, indeed.

I repeat the testimony. But if course if you suppose that one
example is a legitimate one, if there were a signature, if there
were a chain of evidence that would convince anyone other than
someone who knows the conclusion he wants to read into it you
might have a point.

># Kaltenbrunner was able to show that it meant, in the context of
># one document, the right to drink champagne and take French lessons.

>This guy was a real comedian. “He was able to show”?

Excuse me, was there no defense permitted? You never appear to
post any.

># The prosecution total of 300 concentration camps
># was achieved by including perfectly normal work camps.

>”Perfectly normal”… in the pig’s rear section. A document which
>even our “revisionists” agree is genuine, states that during
>the second half of 1942, about 60 percent of the people sent
>to these “normal camps”, have died.

In what year? Given the Gulag life span that is.

>This is really old “revisionist” garbage, BTW. I recall Dan Gannon
>used to post it 3-4 years ago.

The original stuff is even older, 1945 and 46 in fact. Or does
age of materials invalidate them?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:45 PDT 1996
Article: 39930 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A wonderful weekend
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 05:37:45 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]m.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 12:38:21 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> OK, this in only an American three day weekend. But it was good
>> for us designated revisionists for another reason.
>>
>> Good old Hillary Ostrov crossposted a press release saying that
>> the proof of the holocaust was in the was in the meticulous
>> record keeping and in the tattoos. Fine. That has been the
>> contention of the anti-gassing camp all along.

>Actually, no, it hasn’t.

Whatever your objection is, take it up with her and the source
she quoted without comment.

>Certainly not by Giwer. If it was, then Giwer,
>would have been well aware of the transport records that indicate that for
>for people were deported to Auschwitz than would have been indicated
>simply by going by the number of registered (i.e. tattooed) prisoners, or
>the camp’s death registry.

Those numbers are reported to match. You see, you folks are
looking solely at “transport to” and ignoring “transport from”
to in fact come to your 1.x million number.

For example, one of the things you folks do not realize you are
still supporting about Auschwitz is a cremation rate and coke
usage rate that is in line with 4 million rather than one
million. If on simply looks at the low end of “under a million”
the everything falls into place with no gassing.

>> If we ignore the “no records kept” protestation then everything
>> falls into line with the coke usage, the cremation time and the
>> deaths being due to disease and such without invoking gassing.

>Again, no, it doesn’t. Obviously, Giwer is not aware that records of coke
>shipments to Auschwitz _were_ kept. If he was he would have been aware of
>the some two hundred and forty coke delivery receipts to Auschwitz that
>indicate, for exampole, that from Jan-Oct of 1943 some 704 tonnes of coke
>was delivered to Auschwitz. (_Technique_, p.224.) This was far more than
>would be required to incinerate the prisoners who died from “natural
>causes” at Auschwitz for that year.

Excuse me but you folks are still defending the human body being
self combusting in order to justify there not being enough coke
to cremate 4 million. As to its other uses, I have no idea.

>> Every serious calculation of A-B has confirmed the recorded
>> number of people who were sent there.

>Indeed. As have all “serious calculation[s]” also acknowledged the deaths
>in the death registry. This, however, by no means indicates that all
>prisoners sent to Auschwitz were registered- just is it does not mean that
>all deaths of prisoners at Auschwitz were entered into the death register.
>More importantly, no serious study of the Auschwitz-Birkenau has ever
>claimed such things.

Take that up with MS Ostrov and her source, not me. The
registered and the death registry match.

>> The only problems have been with the claim of a million or more
>> others sent there.

>Indeed there have been “problems” with the number of peole who were sent
>to Auschwitz and perished there. Most of these “problems,” however, has
>been addressed over the years. If Giwer problems with the death toll of
>Auschwitz being about 1.13 million, then I suggest he take it up with Dr.
>Piper of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum.

No. You with Ostrov and her source.

>> MS Ostrov’s crosspost says that we need only concern ourselves
>> with the recorded people in the camp for evidence of the
>> holocaust. Gassing is now officially negated as a cause of death
>> as all the recorded people and deaths are in line with everything
>> else as has been said all along.

>> In other words MS Ostrav has posted the final nail in the coffin
>> of the gassing story. If she does not agree with this, she
>> should take it up with the person she quoted in the crosspost and
>> not with anyone in this conference.
>>
>> Until HE changes HIS statement in public, that is a retraction,
>> the subject of gassing is closed. It did not happen. Only he
>> can reopen it under the present circumstances. Of course he may
>> be denounced as a revisionist.

>Giwer, as usual, is barking up the wrong tree. Giwer’s specious
>proclamations are taken about as seriously as the babblings of a drunkard
>who is face-down in the gutter. It is once more another truly impressive
>display of both his enourmous chutzpah and immense ignorance in making
>such absurd and misanthropic claims. All of which simply confirms that:

Drunkard? Is that the best you can do without reviewing the
record? Or at least breaking out a calculator?

>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

>URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

I should have skipped ahead to realize you would think the mantra
of the mindless is a response.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:46 PDT 1996
Article: 39936 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news-feed.iguide.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:54:54 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 9:55:28 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (tom moran) wrote:

>Chuck Ferree wrote:

>>Chuck Ferree writes:
>>Won’t somebody please hit Moran over the head with at least a frying
>>pan? This no brainer, haunts the internet for anything which will help
>>him look good. And what does he come up with? This French guy, who
>>asks really dumb questions.
>>Moran, do your own research, like everyone else. Quit stealing other
>>peoples stuff, and also quit re-writing other people’s posts, like you
>>did with my Dachau gas chamber bit. That’s plain old chicken-shit,
>>pal!
>>
> Mr.Chuck, what does Mr.Beaulieu’s being a “French guy” have to do
>with anything?

Perhaps he hates the French Race. Considering that he consider
someone from Montreal to be French.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:46 PDT 1996
Article: 39941 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Prima Facie Extermination
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:39:39 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 7:40:14 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:

>The other day I put up a post entitled “Holocaust w/o Gas Chambers” which
>touched on some points, including 1) the ultimate futility of denialism,
>2) the obsessive focus, IMHO, on gassings,by both sides, 3) and my own
>discomfiture with the evidence of mass gassings.

>Of course, I could have been a lot less strident but then I would not have
>gotten a full box of mail.

>Most of the responses were predictable from both sides, but two struck me
>in particular: one, from Gord McFee, which claims that without gas
>chambers there is no extermination policy, and two, from Rich Graves,
>which basically dismisses me as a drooling, paretic elderly uncle with
>eccentric ideas. That’s ok!

>BUT THERE IS PROOF OF AN EXTERMINATION POLICY, PEOPLE, RIGHT UNDER YOUR
>NOSE

>1) The Wannsee Protocols state clearly that all of the Jews of Europe
>must be gathered, and split into single sex work gangs, whereby a number
>may be expected to perish from natural causes, and then we have to think
>really hard about letting the survivors go, because they will represent
>the hardiest element [this is a paraphrase, but an accurate paraphrase].
>Now, this may not be a plan for extermination outright, but I don’t see
>how anyone can say that it is not a plan for ultimate extermination for,
>if not all, then certainly, most of the Jews who fall under Nazi control.
>As far as “proof of extermination” goes, this is good enough for me.
>Comments?

I brought this up months ago. No luck. There was still gassing.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:47 PDT 1996
Article: 39948 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:51:08 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 7:51:44 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Say OB (I can call you OB can’t I?) as we left it last time,
>>Nizkor was still await its tax exemption and Alec G. reported
>>that tax receipts can only be given to tax free organizations and
>>that the synagogue was still offering tax receipts for your
>>non-tax exempt organization.
>>
>> Do you have it straightened out yet?

> I posted a factual discussion of the issues in misc.taxes some time
>ago, with a note posted here that I had done so. The fact that you did
>not choose to read and discuss that issue in the appropriate newsgroup
>shows that you are just a troll who is not interested in facts, only in
>causing arguments.

Right. You could post it there, in a conference my provider
might not even carry, but you were unable to post it here.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:48 PDT 1996
Article: 39949 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another revision of alt.revision based thoughts
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 04:02:34 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 11:03:09 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Ehrlich606) wrote:

>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>
>> >
>> >[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>> >
>> >>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>> >
>> >># Give it up. You have no technical background much less any
>> >># experience with patents.
>> >
>> >>Ok. Let’s go over it again.
>> >
>> >>The naziboys claim that it took a very long time for the
>> >>HCN to evaporate from the Zyklon. The Zyklon patent and
>> >>the book by Dr. Peters, the leading scientist of the firm
>> >>that used to manufacture it, give a much shorter time.
>> >
>> >
>> Now let’s get this straight: the HCN is not 100% exhausted from the
>> carrier material in 10 minutes. No one says this: neither Peters nor
>> Keren. That means the carrier material continues to be a risk. I can
>> accept that the Zyklon was lethal in 10 minutes, but to claim that it was
>> inert in 10 minutes does not follow.

>And who claims it was inert in ten minutes? The claims of 10 minutes are
>for the time it took for homicidal gassings. That the Zyklon B would kill
>within 10 minutes. It is interesting to note that within 10 minutes nearly
>all the HCN would be exhausted from the diatomite. Given that the
>Sonderkommandos didn’t usually enter the gas chambers until after twenty
>minutes or more from when the Zyklon B was administered, it is not
>unlikely that the Zyklon B _was_ inert by the time the Sonderkommandos
>entered the gas chambers. (Dr. Peters also writes that the Zklon B
>carrier, typically diatomite, was non-toxic after the HCN was exhausted
>from it.)

How does HCN become inert? Please answer the question.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:49 PDT 1996
Article: 39954 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Al Gentile existed, and therefore???
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 05:03:40 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 12:04:17 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Su Majewski) wrote:

>>Once more you have screwed up. That is no place in his
>>statement. He claimed to have acted as a war crimes
>>investigator. I do not recall any indication of rank but from
>>the way he writes I would guess he was a sergeant or at best a
>>junior 2nd Lt. as he appears to have been doing the grunt work
>>for the prosecutors.

>Matt … there is *nobody* who knows the truth or falsehood of AG’s
>claims better than me. Until recently I had absolutely no knowledge
>that he was a “war crime investigator”. And, believe me, if I never
>heard of it until now then it never occurred; if it had he would not
>have shut up about it. And as far as rank goes, was that before or
>after he was busted down to private? (which I saw written on his
>discharge papers).

If that is the case then this is one outstanding fabrication. I
will email them to you if you wish. It was certainly not a spur
of the moment invention. And it certainly does read like an
unrehersed narration. It does read like the difference between
DA and cop or detective and cop to me.

>> By that I mean he personalizes the canned lecture to the subject at
>>hand much as a good lecturer does tailor his to the expectations of
>>the audience.

>IOW, he’s a great story teller. So were the late Richard Burton and
>Orson Welles.

Perhaps he is. If you would read the email you could certainly
identify that.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:50 PDT 1996
Article: 39957 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!bofh.dot!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Diesel exhaust that looks like steam
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 18:43:24 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl6-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 1:44:11 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree (yawn) wrote:

>Are you saying, Giwer, that you have no layout of Auschwitz?

The subject is Treblinka, or did you nod off there for a while?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:51 PDT 1996
Article: 39960 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Guns and Liberty
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:52:09 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 22
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: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 7:52:45 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Alec Grynspan wrote:

>Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>>
>> HYPOCRISY ALERT: Giwer, the ever whining hypocrite who rails against
>> people posting things NOT about Holcaust “revisionism,” shows his true
>> colors once more by posting irrelevent drivel in an off-topic discussion
>> that has absolutley nothing to do with Holocaust “revisionism” at all.

>More likely Matt simply responded to a post that happens to have been
>started elsewhere and doesn’t realise how many newsgroups are being
>covered.

>His knowledge of the workings of USENET is rather low.

You mean to say that nothing has changed since last we talked.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:52 PDT 1996
Article: 39961 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Picture File: SS-Women in Belsen Camp
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 05:57:10 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 12:57:46 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Nele Abels) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>[I wrote:]

>>> These overseers led sometimes up to 150 female guards. In the hierarchy of the
>>>concentration camp they were mainly responsible for the “Apelle” and administrative
>>>tasks. Although they were first not formally linked to the SS in Ravensbrück (apart
>>>from those who volunteered as the female guards Binz, Closius, Mewes Mohneke
>>>and Rabe), they soon came closer due to their uniform and the constant contact to
>>>the formal SS.
>>
>> So although they were not SS at all they became linked with the
>>SS. Thank you very much. They were not SS.

>You’re welcome. They were.

Excuse me, but what does “not formally linked” and “came closer”
mean to you? When did they become formally linked as in taking
an oath and receiving a formal rank? Never of course.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:53 PDT 1996
Article: 39964 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 06:28:36 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 1:29:13 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Kimberley Ahlf wrote:

>On Tue, 28 May 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:

>> Kimberley Ahlf wrote:
>>
>> >I should be finishing Goldhagen’s book now, but instead here I sit.
>>
>> >What’s most telling to me about his thesis is that it is more agreeable at
>> >a visceral level than the stock ‘following orders’ explanation of
>> >the past. His technique of pushing backwards the historical context in
>> >which the study of German motivations must take place is something which
>> >makes a lot of sense. His simple question: If exterminationist
>> >anti-semitism can be shown to be prevalent in Germany long before the
>> >birth of Hitler, why then should the assumption be made that it
>> >disappeared only to be reinvented and imposed upon a reluctant culture by
>> >the Nazis?
>>
>> >His answer, that the assumption can’t be made, makes the motivations of the
>> >perpetrators far easier to understand than the more orthodox explanations.
>> >It makes more sense to believe that German’s were culturally programmed
>> >from birth to view Jews as sinister and non-human than to believe that a
>> >propoganda fog somehow temporarily clouded the minds and judgement of so
>> >many.
>>
>> Since you are reading it without making some issue of defending
>> it, a question.
>>
>> Given that the Jews were only 5.2 million out of a total of 12
>> million, to what does he ascribe the motivation for the other 6.8
>> million?

> Goldhagen supports his thesis not on the numerical differences but on the
>qualitative differences in the treatment between the Jews and non-Jewish
>victims of the Nazis (at least up until pg 388- as far as I’ve read so
>far)

>He gives numerous examples of this disparity of intention and treatment,
>such as the death marches where sometimes the non-Jewish prisoners
>were allowed to remain in the camps while the Jews were sent on
>debilitating marches with no destination (pg 365), or the methods of
>killing such as the Gardelegen death mrach where all the Jews were herded
>into a barn which was then set on fire (pg 367). On another death march
>non-Jewish prisoners were even enlisted to help guard the Jews.

>The most telling characteristic of the disparity in treatment between
>the Nazi’s Jewish and non-Jewish victims is the fact that the non-Jews who
>were killed were mainly mature males, who could be construed or somehow
>justifiably executed as potential military threat, where-as the Nazis
>killed outright Jewish women, children and elderly- those who by no
>stretch of the imagination possessed military potential. The exceptions
>to this, which he notes, were other ethnic groups such as the gypsies or
>reprisal executions where whole communities were destroyed to terrorize
>the local populations into submission.

If these are the claims then we have a very serious problem with
the results. We have two numbers, 5.2M Jews and 6.8M non-Jews.
If the treatment was so much better, why the larger number?

>> And then, if he does not attempt to explain the motivation for
>> the majority, what is the credibility of finding a specific cause
>> for a less than half fraction when there is no explanation for a
>> larger number?

>Well that’s just it- the Jews were the majority- the remainder of the
>Nazis victims being made up of diverse groups such as prisoners of war,
>gypsies, political prisoners or slavish peoples who were worked to death
>in production facilities. (Goldhagen makes a case for the fact that the
>’work’ that Jews were forced to undertake, in contrast to the slave work
>performed by other peoples, was mainly non-benificial to the German
>economy and only designed and executed as a means of denigrating and
>killing the Jews).

>Read it- the book will give you lots of examples where orthodox
>scholarship has probably fallen well short of the facts.

Some day I may get to it. In the mean time, shall we take the
difference, and find 10.4 if Slavs and Jews were equal. It is
difficult to imagine they found 1.6M gypsies and homosexuals.

If there was some great disparity in the kind of work then the
camp capacities have to be greatlly increased and the fraction of
survivors would be overwhelming non-Jewish.

One can not make these kinds of claims and not have them
reflected in the results.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:53 PDT 1996
Article: 39965 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another revision of alt.revision based thoughts
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 03:58:38 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 10:59:12 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> [email protected] (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] (DvdThomas) wrote:
>>
>> >>Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>[A great deal of general info about patents which has no connection to
>> >>what I wrote.]
>> >>
>> >>And (almost) concludes with this statement:
>> >>
>> >>>So, it would appear, contrary to your assertion, that a patent must not
>> >>>only have something to do with what is being patented, but it must
>> >>>_specifically_ state the “manner and process of making and using it, in
>> >>>such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person
>> >>skilled
>> >>>in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
>> >>>connected, to make and use the same.”
>> >>
>> >>You substitute the word “patent” for my word “claim”:

>Actually, no. The context of the discussion is quite clear: patent claims.
>For you to say that the _claims_ in the patent is not the same thingt as
>what is written in the patent claim, simply evidences your churlishness at
>being shown you are wrong in your specious claims.

Although I did not say it, having read through hundreds of them,
the first page says patent, a subsection of it says claims. You
appear to be saying that all chapters are books and that all legs
are bodies.

>> >This is one of their practices – to replace the poster’s words
>> >with their own words to respond to.

>Actually, no. It is DvdThomas being dishonest in his trying to imply
>something that is not there. It is _your_ utter lack of integrity, Moran,
>that allows you blindly second DvdThomas dishonesty.

>> What else can peole bereft of integrity do?

>I dunno Giwer, what do YOU do?

There has never been a question that you folks defending this
particular patent are either unfamiliar with patents or are lying
about what you do know in posting false information. That is
what I consider lack of integrity.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:54 PDT 1996
Article: 39967 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 06:32:37 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 1:33:12 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) writes:

>>
>>Also given short shrift was the ridiculous Oswald Pohl affidavit,
>>Document 4045-PS, in which Funk was accused of discussing the use
>>of gold teeth from dead Jews to finance the war at a dinner party
>>attended by dozens of people, including waiters (XVIII 220-263
>><<245-291>>).
>>
>>This affidavit is in German and is witnessed by Robert Kempner.
>>Pohl was later convicted of”steaming” people to death in 10
>>”steam chambers” at Treblinka, and making doormats out of their
>>hair (NMT IV 1119-1152) (Fourth National Military Tribunal,
>>Nuremberg).

>Excuse the expression, Matt, but you have him by the short hairs on this
>one. And that is why at some point we have to recognize that we cannot
>accept everything generated at Nuremberg.

Which is where most all of it comes from even if the tribunals
rejected it. In fact, given the many examples, NOTHING can be
accepted from Nuremberg unless the original is provided with full
and complete explanation of the research that supports its
authenticity.

But then, he has already indicated he has no short hairs.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:55 PDT 1996
Article: 39971 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Cyanide Traces at Auschwitz Today
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 04:17:09 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 43
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: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 9:17:44 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>>> Another idiot who believes that fire can be maintained in the
>>>>absense of oxygen. It must be a real shit ass university.

>>>Can you imagine that it is possible to heat coal in an oven, without
>>>oxygen in the oven? Or to cook a boiled-egg without hydrogen peroxyd ?

>>>Is it a ‘shit ass university’ question ?

>> Excuse me, good sir, but the first holohugger post regarding the
>>production of coke from coal was that it was produced in an
>>oxygen starved process. You are now claiming it is produced is
>>in zero oxygen environment.

>Sorry, I didn’t read this post. But I read from your part that the
>combustion of coke would produce HCN; some replies about the
>difference between production of coke and combustion of coke; and
>recently that you thought that perhaps the corpses could produce the
>HCN not produced by the coke combustion.

>In the same way, you smoothly told first that Ca could burn and a few
>later that **bones** could burn, obviously because it is only Ca++ in
>the bones.

My original statement was that bones burn. I have been fully
aware that the flexibilty of bones is due to the organic
structure containing the calcium for decades. The confusion was
not introduced the confusion.

>Quote the posts, it will be easy to see who denies even his own posts.

I do not save anything.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:56 PDT 1996
Article: 39972 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 04:10:39 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 9:11:14 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>>I previously posted evidence that OSHA claims cyanosis as a sign of CO
>>>poisoning. I asked:

>> Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The creators of
>>the 46 page document of safety rules for the construction of
>>ladders. The people who intended to but were stopped from
>>regulating the design and construction of home lawn mowers. The
>>people who require handrails for any level change of more than
>>two steps.

>> Are you really telling me those are the experts you consulted?
>>Who did you ask, a secretary? A ladder expert? A handrail
>>expert?

>Sorry, but you’re talking through your hat. Even if there are other
>american (ACGIH, Z-37) or no-american sources, the OSHA is widely
>well-reputed. On the top, the advices of the different sources are the
>more often similar.

>The OSHA is known throughout the world. Do you think that the OSHA
>said falsely that the CO poisoning results the more often in cyanosis
>? Some issues to support your opinion ?

I have no idea where you are writing from but in the US it is a
running joke. Perhaps you don’t know them the way we do. Here
it is one of those agencies that is regularly under attack for
gross stupidity.

>>I would have thought a grad student could have found a better
>>source of information than OSHA.

>I would have thought that a self-called graduate will take a while to
>contradict the OSHA advices. You said nothing positive at this time.

I would not take OSHA’s word for anything. The best that can be
said about them is that they are consumate bureaucrats, the
damning with faint praise sort of thing.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:57 PDT 1996
Article: 39975 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.sojourn.com!news.gmi.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nizkor: Proof is for Goyim
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 06:49:17 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 11:49:53 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>> [email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Are you really claiming ignorance of the hot lights, no attorney,
>> no food or water, round the clock interrogation techniques that
>> were use back then? I had thought you were an aculturated
>> person. Go learn about it and come to deal with it. When you
>> can handle that I will tell you about the rubber hose.

> And your evidence that these tactics were used on the Nazi
>defendats is?

> The silence is deafening.

The evidence is as good or better than for the “eyewitnesses” who
swore to death by steaming and making doormats of their hair at
Treblinka, don’t you think? It is a very strange thing to find
you folks arguing the quality of the evidence.

But I have simply pointed to standard procedures at the time.
And, as you know, those procedures were only dropped by some form
of social progress as it is described. It is unclear that such
progress occurred overnight in the course of war crimes
investigations.

It is also unclear why anyone would suggest that the progress did
happen save to pretend the rules then were the same as the rules
today. You are of course invited to provide examples of the
accused being read their rights or having their attorney present
during all questioning.

>> But here is an easy one for you. A person does not waive his
>> rights and is questioned or tricked into talking without an
>> attorney present. What happens to the case? And a simpler
>> question, did you ever hear of Miranda? (He was killed in a bar
>> fight four years after the SC case if that helps any.)

> Miranda was remanded for a new trial.

And he was found not guilty.

The only thing that they could
>not use was his confession and evidence obtained as a result of the
>confession. Moreover your evidence that such tactics were used on the
>defendants as Nurmeberg is?

> The silence is still deafening.

Why would you suggest that the questioning jumped 35 years into
the future and followed those rules?

There are reports of what happened to Hoess and Gerstein and they
have at least the credibility of the above doormats and steaming.
Quality is quality. Admit one, admit them all.

>> If you have not been reading the conference that is your problem.
>> If you have been you might mention some of the crossexamination
>> that was posted. You might want to ask Kerin to find some and
>> post it.

> Why haven’t you?

> The silence is deafening.

I have posted the problem to him many times. But as his books
only have the prosecution side of it he has never responded.

What more do you want?
—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:58 PDT 1996
Article: 39976 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Diesel exhaust that looks like steam
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 20:00:20 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl6-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 3:01:09 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
># [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

># WHERE did you get the layout of the camp?

>Prof. Arad’s book “BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA – the Operation
>Reinhard Death Camps”, Indiana University Press, 1987. I will
>try to scan it and post.

Just a while back the story was that there was no sign of it
left. Suddenly there is a layout diagram. This is getting
interesting.

># You must have grown up after catalytic converters to
># have never seen the flash out out the end of the exhaust
># pipe. Or more directly, into the room.

>My question was “how far does it travel in the pipe”?

Note the term “flash out of the end of”. That mean out of it and
in this case into the room. What else are you asking?

>## Why were no such explosions reported in the experiments
>## the British researchers held?

># Laboratory conditions are not the real world. Do you think
># there are backfires in the engines testing labs in Detroit?

>This is not very convincing. An engine is an engine, whether
>it’s run in Detroit or in Treblinka. If the danger of explosion
>was so high as you claim it was, this would still be a danger
>with the Pattle et. al. experiments.

It doesn’t sound reasonable to you to compare engines run under
research condition with Russian tank engines under field
maintance conditions and no direct line to spare parts?

>[Regarding the Just to Rauff letter about the gassing vans]

># The top rear wall of what?

>The gassing vans, of course.

># The one claimed picture of a gas wagon I could find at Nizkor
># appears to be the rather common design that would have a rear
># door not wall.

>Perhaps a mistranslation. “Nazi Mass Murder” contains a photo
>of the letter; one can check the original German term used.

># Are you really that interested in wearing a tux in Oslo?

>Heck no, they can just mail me the check – good enough for me! 🙂

># Sounds like you are looking for a discrimination for anomolous
># data being worth investigating.

>That’s one goal. The general goal, however, is restoring
>a function that underwent some kind of degradation: typical
>examples are additive/multiplicative noise, and blurring by
>convolution.

># Of course it is unclear how this is going to apply to anything
># but the math representation of the data. Or is this pure math?

>This is one topic which is hard to classify as “pure” or
>”applied” math. However, smoothness-based regularization and
>maximum entropy methods are applied to a very wide spectrum
>of problems in science and engineering. I am mostly familiar
>with application of these ideas to computer vision, but they
>are also used to solve numerous other interpolation/restoration
>problems, including weather prediction and even the gravitational
>field of the earth.

>[About testimony]

># But it is also surprising that you posted it and do not know
># the one that says that. Which gets us back to my assertion of
># mindless posting. I am talking about the one that ends, “this
># post was read to me …”

>I really can’t recall ever having posted anything like this. Who
>is the person testifying?

I didn’t save that one. It will come up again. I have several
other examples. It isn’t that it was that unusual.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:58 PDT 1996
Article: 39978 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 04:53:04 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 11:53:39 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:

>> May 20, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote
>>
>>
>> >BTW, Ceacaa, what evidence do you have that the Zyklon B in the
>> >removeable
>> >core was suspended near the ceiling?

>> I believe that this discussion was about the lenght of the
>> Zyclon containing “core” of the pillar.
>> I asked, “HOW LONG WAS THE REMOVABLE CORE?”
>> You estimated that the height of the Zyclon
>> containing core of the pillar was approximately 9 cm.
>> (3 1/2 inches). That lenght (alone) would put the
>> device at or above ceiling level.

>Well, Ceacaa, again I ask you what evidence do you have that the Zyklon B
>in the removeable core was suspended near the ceiling? Is this a too
>difficult question for you to answer?

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

>Second, the removeable core that held the Zyklon B was lowered into and
>pulled out of the introduction with a wire. (_Technique_, p.484.)
>Obviously, then, it can be assumed that the core was lowered into the the
>gas chamber. My impression was that it was lowered to the floor of the gas
>chamber.

Excuse me but just a few messages back you were telling me these
holes were .9 meters square were you not? Some wire. Some hot
shot being able to straddle that and pull it straight up.

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

>Indeed. Which is rather odd. Why would the Nazis wish to “greatly” slow
>the dispersion of the HCN gas? (Not that holding the core near the ceiling
>would have done this.) Again, you are constructing strawmen to knock down.
>I’m unimpressed.

>> Further, there would have been a tendency, on cold days,
>> for the warm air of the Leichenkeller to escape upward
>> out through the vents, taking the gas with it.

>Not if the vent covers were in place- which they would be. After the gas
>chambers were aerated this would be much less of a concern. (Not to
>mention that the SS men pouring the Zyklon B into the introduction columns
>wore gas masks.) Yet again, you are constructing strawmen to knock down.
>I’m _really_ unimpressed.

Back to those 10 foot square vent covers.

>> >Tsk Tsk! Sounds like you’re simply setting up and knocking down a
>> >strawman of your own

>> we are writing about the device which allegedly killed hundreds of thousands
>> of persons. To simply write “who cares? the Nazis would
>> have finally gotten it right.” seems rather indifferent
>> to an important question.

>Actually, Ceacaa, in essence you are making purile excuses implying as to
>why gassing could not have taken place in the gas chambers of Kremas II
>and III as they did. To support these excuses you have offered a series of
>strawman arguments in lieu of any factual evidence. And you wonder why I
>dismiss them?

They are critiques of the stories used to force fit them into gas
chambers.

>And when they _are_ dismissed by pointing out that the Nazis had plenty of
>opportunity to correct any problems with the gassings and that, by the
>evidence of hundreds of thousands of people who were gassed to death, the
>Nazis _did_ solve any problems that arose, you accuse me of indifference?
>Amazing.

The evidence of gassing is the building and the building is
evidence of the gassing, even though not one “eyewitness”
testimony any identifiable feature of this building.

And then you have them so poorly designed that there are things
inside that can be destroyed by those being gassed.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:59 PDT 1996
Article: 39979 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Every Day, Yellow School Buses
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 05:09:19 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 12:09:54 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>tom moran wrote:
>>
>> Chuck Ferree wrote:
>>
>> >Chuck Ferree writes:
>> >
>> >Really pisses you off, huh, Moran.
>>
>> Chuck, I forgot to respond to this sentence. Chuck, I don’t get
>> “pissed off”, I post you respond “pissed off”. Its on the record. My
>> posts, your responses.

>Right, it’s on the record. You didn’t answer my questions about
>Auschwitz. Have you ever been there? Did you walk through the horse
>stables the inmates lived in? Are you aware that this place was
>located in a swampy area, and usually had mud six-eight inches deep?
>Answer the questions, Moran. Prove some of your statements. Don’t just
>talk through your hat.

Swampy area? Mud six inches deep? That certainly shoots the
shit out of those open pit burnings doesn’t it? In addition we
need to look for heavy duty sump pumps in those Leichenkellars.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:03:00 PDT 1996
Article: 39981 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.sojourn.com!news.gmi.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: From Whence 12 Million?
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 07:32:45 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 2:33:21 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:

>It is customary to bandy about a figure of 12 million victims of Nazism.
>I would like to know the derivation of this figure, and I would like to
>know how it is allocated. Of course, I am assuming that 6 million refers
>to the Jewish Holocaust.

Both were invented.

The interesting point is that the more the holocaust is
judeaified the less room there is for anyone else. The more all
the camps become Jews Only the less room for anyone else.

Of course if the published camp numbers are everyone then the
Jewish numbers are reduced by more than half.

It is a very strange corner these “historians” are painting
themselves into. Of course, the make a living selling books.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:03:01 PDT 1996
Article: 39982 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!news.sojourn.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!news-in.tiac.net!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 17:59:44 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl6-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 1:00:32 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

># Is this the erroneous report that vanished after the
># war you are talking about or is this the conviction based
># upon it having been “proven” in a court of something
># or other?

>[Material about looting the victims of the death camps]

>This looting indeed took place; I don’t think even the
>”revisionists” deny this. As for the “steam chambers”,
>we’ve been through this many times.

Also given short shrift was the ridiculous Oswald Pohl affidavit,
Document 4045-PS, in which Funk was accused of discussing the use
of gold teeth from dead Jews to finance the war at a dinner party
attended by dozens of people, including waiters (XVIII 220-263
<<245-291>>).

This affidavit is in German and is witnessed by Robert Kempner.
Pohl was later convicted of”steaming” people to death in 10
“steam chambers” at Treblinka, and making doormats out of their
hair (NMT IV 1119-1152) (Fourth National Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg).

>What, exactly, is your point?

You have been saying the steaming story was discarded after the
war because people learned what really happened.

Yet here we have a man convicted and presumably hung for doing
something that was not believed after the war. One would presume
it was based upon testimony of some sort but obviously without
evidence as you have also been saying that all evidence has
vanished.

You have explained this as confusion because the “eyewitnesses”
could not get close enough yet in fact the “eyewitnesses” were
close enough to have noted the composition of the doormats.
Clearly your explanation of the confusion is wrong.

It would therefore be my conclusion that these eyewitnesses were
claiming to have been inside the camp and were in fact lying
about what went on inside the camp or they were never any where
near the camp and made up the entire story.

This puts us right back where we started with the creation of
these stories out of whole cloth as your confusion explanation is
clearly untenable as whoever made up the gassing story was also
claiming to have been inside.

We may also cease to consider this white exhause for a diesel as
we know the source of the steam story was lying no matter how you
look at it.

That puts us right back with the lying testimony and no way to
pick and choose which, if any, were not lying.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:03:02 PDT 1996
Article: 39984 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another Time For A Showdown
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 06:36:19 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 1:36:54 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>
>> Lie? Are you not the person who said that the testimony of a
>> witness was “The EVIDENCE I am about to give shall be the truth,
>> the whole truth and nothing but the truth”?

> There is a crime called “perjury.” I realize that your knowledge of the
>law come principally from old “Perry Mason” reruns. Please note as well that L’il
>Tommy has resolutely refused to make such statements under oath.

A transcript can be introduced in a separate trial as evidence of
perjury of course. It is only testimony and not evidence in the
trial in which it is given DESPITE what you claimed was the
witness oath in Pennsylvania.

>> Are you still maintaining the Pennsylvania is the strange state
>> that uses the word evidence instead of testimony?

> Are you still maintaining that Wigmore, McCormack, and the others are
>wrong.

You answer first.

>> As I have previously noted and demonstrated you folks will lie
>> and slander to preserve your precious little holocaust all to
>> yourselves. You are disgusting.

> Y ou have demonstrated nothing. You haven’t the cvapacity for
>rational thought.

And you are clearly misleading people just for the fun of
judeaification of the holocaust.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 12:46:17 PDT 1996
Article: 40050 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 00:57:03 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 5:57:46 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Ehrlich606) said:

>>I find that this newsgroup seems to spend all of its time debating whether
>>or not there were gas chambers, or more precisely, how many people died in
>>them. Frankly, I don’t dwell on the extermination aspect very much
>>because it is vitriolic and not just on this board, it is in the
>>literature also (Sorry, Mike, no titles.)

>Part of the reason for the debate as to whether or not there were gas
>chambers is the continuing attempt by the deniers to pretend that there were
>no gas chambers. Since gas chambers were the most efficient means the Nazis
>found to exterminate large numbers of Jews quickly, and because millions of
>Jews died in gas chambers, it is obvious why the deniers try this trick.
>And it therefore becomes necessary to present the overwhelming evidence that
>there were gas chambers. Should one simply accept this historical fact,
>there would be no debate on it in this newsgroup, or anywhere else. But
>deniers won’t, since that would frustrate their attempt to whitewash Hitler
>and the Nazi movement.

It is appears you are only judeifying the gas chambers.

>>Let’s just suppose there were no gas chambers. What would change? The
>>fact that the Germans had a systematic plan for expelling all Jews from
>>Europe? No. The fact that the Germans escalated that policy to one of sex
>>segregated work camps where (according to Goebbels’ Diary) at least 60%
>>were expected to die from “natural”causes? No. Read the Wannsee minutes.
>>The fact that perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed under the
>>aegis of the Commissar Order, because, since some Jews were Communists,
>>the Nazis assumed that ALL Jews were communists, and therefore fell under
>>the Commissar Order rubric? No.

>This assumes that the purpose of Holocaust debate is to argue the gas
>chamber point. That is not true. The purpose of Holocaust debate is to
>oppose the deniers’ lie whereby they say that there was no systematic plan
>to murder the Jews. The means whereby that was carried out only become
>relevant when one first accepts that it took place. Deniers try to claim
>that there was no concerted attempt and hence, no plan, to murder the Jews.
>This is, of course, rubbish.

Judaification of a system plan too.

>The issue here therefore is not *how* the Jews were murdered. The issue is
>that some people would deny that they were murdered at all, and/or would try
>to pretend that it was accidental and/or try to minimize the numbers
>involved.

>*How* Jews were murdered only enters the picture because some falsely claim
>that it didn’t happen at all. Remove the gas chambers, and what is left?
>The deniers will then try to claim that the Einsatzgruppen were simply
>uncoordinated gangs who ran around shooting people and happened in that
>process to knock off a few Jews. Sorry, that’sa not what happened. The gas
>chambers existed; their inclusion in the discussion becomes therefore
>necessary.

Judaification of murder also. Eisatzgruppen thoroughly
Judaified.

>>The fact that tens of thousands of Jews were shot out of hand in the
>>general anomie that accompanied the German invasion of the Soviet Union,
>>particularly in Moldavia and the Baltics? No. The fact that tens of
>>thousands of German Jews, many of whom who had risked their lives for the
>>Fatherland 20 years before were deprived of their property and standing,
>>and in many cases their lives? No. The fact that probably hundreds of
>>thousands died from mass shootings, famine, disease, overwork, and so on?
>>No.

>>The fact that hundreds of thousands were exposed to the havoc of war and
>>died therefrom? No. The fact that hundreds of thousands of deeply rooted
>>families were torn apart, separated, and strewn all over a continent, so
>>much so that reunions between family members have been delayed for fifty
>>years in some cases? No. The fact that there was no East European Jewish
>>COMMUNITY after WW2 even though there may have been an indeterminate
>>number of people of Jewish ethnic or religious affiliation? No.

>>The suffering of the Jewish people in WW2 deserves respect. It is not
>>respected by pretending that it hinges on whether there were or were not
>>gas chambers. Nor is it respected by pretending that it hinges on how
>>many CAN be crammed into gas chambers.

>Arguing these trivialities is a favorite denier trick. They seek to divert
>peoples’ attention from the real point, which is of course that the Nazis
>planned to murder European Jewry and nearly succeeded in so doing.

What about the other 6.8 million killed? Did they not merit a
systematic plan?

>>Gas Chambers have nothing to do with German reparations, the State of
>>Israel, or any other aspect of the current political reality. Gas
>>Chambers have nothing to do with Zionism, or a Jewish conspiracy.
>>Consider: The Holocaust Museum tested several bars of soap to see if
>>they were human. They were not. But the fact is that they tested them.
>>Why? Because they thought that they might be! What does that tell you?
>>It tells you that Jews, too, can be the victims of propaganda, and can
>>agonize and torture themselves for decades.

>>Gas Chambers are not good for anybody, and are largely irrelevant. This
>>issue will be settled when that is realized.

>Does that stand for the proposition that one simply denies their existence
>without missing the point? It’s the “slippery slope” argument. Or you may
>have seen the statement “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”.

>In its simplest manifestation, this newsgroup is simply about denial on the
>one hand, and opposition to it on the other. The gas chambers are, sadly,
>relevant to that discussion, as disgusting a topic as they are.

And not one of these judaifications explains what happened to the
other 6.8 million. I guess they weren’t touched.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 14:23:57 PDT 1996
Article: 40060 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ehrlich
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 03:47:49 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 189
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 28 8:48:29 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>> This is from Ehrlich:
>>
>> I WAS JUST ABOUT TO DISMISS GIWER when I came across a reference that
>> is very interesting. Miklos Nyiszli, “Auschwitz”, Fawcett:1960, pb, p. 97
>> —
>> according to “revisionist” source Dr. Nysizli (a Hungarian) claims
>> that the gas chamber was used as a bomb shelter during an Allied bombing
>> raid. In the “Who, Me?” vein, I would also point out that Monsieur Pressac
>> deliberately wrote his book around Dr. Nyiszli’s memoirs, although I
>> personally find them unbelievable and would never use them in a
>> history of the Holocaust. But as a result of Pressac’s usage, Nyiszli’s
>> memoirs have been reissued and should be consulted, and if the reference is
>> correct, everyone, starting with Mark van Alstine, IMHO, owes the Giwer an
>> apology.
>>
>> Someone should check this reference and report back here.

>Actually, in the new(?) release (Arcade: 1993, pbk.) it is on page 128:

>”I was in the habit of reading each night before I went to sleep. One
>night, while I was doing just that, the lights suddenly went out and the
>KZ alerm siren began its dismal wail. Whenever there was an alert we were
>taken, conveyed by well-armed SS gaurds, to the Sonderkommando shelter,
>that is to the gas chamber.

>”We crossed the threshold of the gas chamber with heavy hearts. The whole
>ko,mmando was present, 200 strong. It was a terrible feeling to remain in
>this room, knowing that hundreds of thousands of peole had met a
>frightfull end here. Besides, we knew that the life of the Sonderkommando
>was drawing to a close. This being the case, the SS could very easily have
>closed the gas chamber doors and dumped four cases of cylon gas down the
>chimmneys to liquidate us all.

Four CASES?!!

>Now, as to Ehrlich’s claim that I owe Giwer an apology- I think not.
>Giwer’s claim- and my refutation of it -is in regards to the L.Kellers
>being _designed_ as bomb shelters rather than being _designed as morgues
>and then _converted_ into homicidal gas chambers.

Nice try but I agreed they started off as morgues and that that
design changer permitted them to double as bomb shelters. No
wonder you were so confused.

Giwer has gone through
>some serious intellectual contortions- gas-tight doors with peepholes
>being normal for bomb shelters and a semi-buried cellar with a concrete
>roof being _abnormal_ for a morgue cum homicidal gas chamber (as if ad hoc
>homicidal gas-chambrs were “normal!”) -to try and make it appear as if the
>purpose of the L.Kellers was to that of bomb shelters.

None of which I said.

>Of course, if we are to accept Dr. Nyiszli account of the Sonderkommado
>being ushered into the L.Keller 1 during an alert, we must then also take
>seriously his other accounts as well. I’m more than willing to accept
>this. Is Giwer? Is Ehrlich?

>Dr. Nyiszli’s account sparked a few questions in my mind as I read it:
>First, _only_ the Sonderkommado was put into the gas chamber during the
>alert. That’s only 200 people in _one_ of the L.Kellers that could easily
>hold 1,500. Why this disparity if the L.Kellers were designed as bomb
>shelters? Especially as it appears that only the Sonderkommandos in the
>Krema used it. A smaller bomb shelter, like the one on the ramp between
>the Kremas, would have been more cost-effective. Of course, the mystery
>clears up if one accepts that the L.Kellers were indeed homicidal gas
>chambers that, in lieu of any _real_ bomb shelters nearby, were the next
>best thing.

Who was going to be in there with them if the lights went out?
Next question.

>Second, Dr. Nyiszli reminds the reader that _if_ the SS had wanted to they
>could have liquidated the Sonderkommando by simply _closing_ the door to
>L.Keller 1 and dropping the Zyklon into the introduction columns.

Four cases of. They must have used one hell of a lot of it
normally. That goes against the small amount extra stories

Now that
>too is interesting in that since when did bomb shelters have doors that
>could be opened (and closed) _only_ from the OUTSIDE? That this was the
>case becomes quite apparrant from Henryk Tauber’s accoutn of Krema II,
>where he describes the door to L.Keller 1:

Overpressure would blow the door inward. Thus the entire
perimeter of the door prevents it from being blown into the room.
If closed from the inside only the hinges and the latch would
prevent that.

>”…It was a wooden door, made of two layers of short pieces of wood
>arrainged like parquet. Betwee these layers there was a single sheet of
>material sealing the edges of the door and the rabbets of the frame were
>also fitted with sealing strips of felt.

It is unclear why, with four good sized holes in the ceiling,
what possible value this construction would have been.

At about head height for an
>average man this door had a round glass peephole, On the other side of the
>door, i.e. on the gas chamber side, this opening was protected by a
>hemispherical grid.

The attempt to minimize flying glass and possible fragmentation
>from entering the room.

This grid was fitted because people in the gas
>chamber, feeling they were going to die, used to break the glass od the
>peep-hole. But the grid still did not provide sufficient and similar
>incidents recurred. The opening was blocked with a piece of metal or wood.

Or perhaps it was late in the war and there were no replacements?

>The people going to be gassed and those in the gas chamber damaged the
>electrical installations, tearing the cables out and damaging the
>ventilation equipment.

Out of curiosity, who in their right mind would have put anything
that could be damaged inside a gas chamber?

>The door was closed hermetically

Here again we have this “hermetically” out of no where and in a
place where, with the four holes in the ceiling AND the
ventilation system, we do not have a “hermetically” sealed room.
It is as though people thought it a good touch for such a story.

>from the corridor
>side by means of [two] iron bars which were screwed tight [by means of two
>angle bolts which screwed through the catches onto the bars, which were
>themselves fitted with handles].” (Pressac, _Technique_, p.483.)

All of this from the dynamited LK I? Suddenly there is an
underground corridor. And not only was the door discovered a
couple hundred feet away, the bars and screws. And all of that
rather than technique that has been known since people barred
doors, an L-shaped angle BRACKET on each side of the door. Why
do these Germans always to things the hard way?

>Since when do purpose-designed bomb shelters

Which I never claimed. And I clearly restated that many times.

have wooden doors with
>peep-holes and are closed using iron bars that are screwed tight from the
>OUTSIDE? They don’t, of course. But homicidal gas chambers do.

Obviously if you leave this Rube Goldberg description out of it
which appears to be no more than an attempt to explain four
screwholes in the door frame, it closes and works.

>Then theres the little issue of the introduction columns in the ceiling.
>Now, Giwer has made some noise about the roof being made of concrete with
>re-bar. As if only “bomb shelters” could use concrete and re-bar!

I am still awaiting your explanation of why a MORE expensive roof
type was used than on the other two buildings in the complex.

What is
>interesting though is that along the roof of the alleged “bomb shelters”
>were four holes measuring about 70 cm x 70 cm. that led directly into the
>gas chambers via the introduction columns. Since when do the roofs of bomb
>shelters have holes big enough for a man to fall through? They don’t. But
>the homicidal gas chambers of Kremas II and III did.

That is what shoots the shit out of the hermetic door claim.

>Note: The existance and size of the vent holes are confirmed by Document
>46 and caption, p. 228-229, and Bauleitung drawing 1300, p. 297, of
>_Technique_. A measurment of the drainage manholes in drawing 1300 gives
>the size of the manhole to be about 60 cm x 60 cm. Document 46 show the
>_manhole_ cover in the photo to be smaller than the Zyklon B vent hole.
>Given that the introduction column is described as going _through_ the
>roof [_Anantomy_, p.167] it is very likely that the dimensions of the
>Zyklon B vent hole is about 70 cm x 70 cm.

Then they are obviously to large for a gas chamber also.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 16:53:01 PDT 1996
Article: 40080 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.sojourn.com!news.gmi.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dees loses this battle
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 07:25:09 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 2:25:45 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (A Huber) wrote:

>>—-
>>Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
>>evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

>Mr. Giwer, the above addendum is indeed applicable to the holocaust liars.
> One problem, though: the WIESENTHAL center has sent out utter-panic
>pamphlets acknowledging there won’t be any eye-witnesses left in 15 years.

>The lies will then abruptly halt.

What I find interesting is that I do take a watch at most of the
PBS and other holocaust documentaries. I can not remember ever
seeing anyone on camera, even from old filmclips, talking about
actually seeing people being gassed.

I am beginning to wonder if in fact they ever existed save for
the unsigned statements the may not even have been admitted at
Nuremberg. I am left with the very strong impression they have
overestimated the panic.

Every war takes two generations before it can be discussed
impartially. The first generation wins the wars and controls the
history of it. The second is taught that history. It is only
the third generation that is free to put it in perspective.

At the moment we are still in the control of the second
generation with enough first generation types still around to
have “saved the world for democracy” to make serious changes
difficult. Consider at this point it is not a problem to
demonstrate (save to those who “know” it was all about slavery)
that the US war between the states was either caused by some
hotheads in Charleston, South Carolina or President Lincoln. But
try to tell the German side of WW II these days.

A minor part of all of this is the second generation Jewish
contingent that wants a special place in the war for no reason
other than birth, not even participation.

But it is a fate that is going face every aspect of all of the
stories of WW II in 20 or so years. Panic does not appear to
face the rest of them.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 16:53:02 PDT 1996
Article: 40081 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.sojourn.com!news.gmi.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dees loses this battle
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 07:26:49 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl1-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 12:27:26 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>A Huber wrote:

>Like hell A Huber wrote. Who you think you’re kidding?
>>
>> >—-
>> >Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
>> >evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

>Mr. Giwer doesn’t really believe this addendum, he just has a better
>sense of humor that A Huber, or whoever, whatever, writes for these
>lying MFs.
>>
>> Mr. Giwer, the above addendum is indeed applicable to the holocaust liars.
>> One problem, though: the WIESENTHAL center has sent out utter-panic
>> pamphlets acknowledging there won’t be any eye-witnesses left in 15 years.

>Yeah, I talked to a real Nazi once who said the same thing. When he
>picked himself up off the floor, he was doing the Heil Hitler bit, and
>his eyes were crossed.

You, who can luckily stand without a cane make this claim? Your
minimum age is 72. Do you really want to keep this up?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Wed May 29 20:39:22 PDT 1996
Article: 47550 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!serv.hinet.net!news.cc.nctu.edu.tw!nctuccca.edu.tw!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!xs4all!mail
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.correct,alt.syntax.tactical,alt.gothic,alt.discrimination,ba.israelis,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: ‘Jews who are not fit for work can be eliminated without qualms’
Followup-To: alt.flame,alt.smokers,alt.revisionism,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.correct,alt.syntax.tactical,alt.gothic,alt.discrimination,ba.israelis,alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 25 May 1996 12:10:40 +0200
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 25
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: basement.replay.com
X-XS4ALL-Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 12:10:43 MET DST
X-To: [email protected]
Remailed-By: The NEXUS-Berkeley Remailer
Complaints-To: remailer-owner
Errors-To: [email protected]
X-Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-17.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 17 6:35:23 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
X-Mail2News-Errors-To: [email protected]
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.flame:12560 alt.conspiracy:53273 alt.politics.correct:103307 alt.syntax.tactical:1685 alt.gothic:94052 alt.discrimination:47550 alt.usenet.kooks:24333

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>Letter from Dr. Erhard Wetzel to Reichskommissar Lohse, October 25, 1941
>[Hitler and the Final Solution – G. Fleming, University of California
>Press, 1984, p. 70]

Invoking the Gentile rule…

>————————————————————————
>With regard to my letter of 18 October 1941, please be informed that
>Oberdiensleiter [Chief Executive Officer] Brack from the Fuehrer’s
>Chancellory

Do you know this Brack? Can you prove he ever existed? Do you
have any evidence he is telling the truth? Have you even seen
the original of this letter? How do you know it is authentic?
How did you verify it?

Another imaginary Nazi made up the holohuggers.

—–

It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:40 PDT 1996
Article: 40115 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Al Gentile existed, and therefore???
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 21:36:07 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>,<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 4:36:49 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Alec Grynspan wrote:

>
>>
>> He was arguing with another person who was giving him a hard time.
>
>I done seen it! It is true.
>
>Aside to Matt: You blew it, Matt. That was a classic “win at any cost” style of “debating”.

This was not a debate.

>> Are you ever gullible. The other reason is that he was saying stuff
>> you wanted to here. Whether it was true or not didn’t and doesn’t
>> matter.
>
>Based on when Matt changed his stories, I’d say that Matt was definitely the
>lollipop here – as in all-day sucker.

What story have you been told that I changed?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:41 PDT 1996
Article: 40116 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Al Gentile existed, and therefore???
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 21:34:45 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 4:35:28 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Alec Grynspan wrote:

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> If that is the case then this is one outstanding fabrication. I
>> will email them to you if you wish. It was certainly not a spur
>> of the moment invention. And it certainly does read like an
>> unrehersed narration. It does read like the difference between
>> DA and cop or detective and cop to me.
>>

>Matt, he wasn’t “talking” those messages, he was writing them – and not
>on a chat channel. He had time to edit the material so it was pricisely
>what you thought you saw.

I am not arguing against the possibility. Expending the effort
for me does not appear reasonable to me. I certainly would not
have spent the time on him. Had I been interested in doing so it
would have been only a few hundred words.

And I assure you, if there were any precise editting it would be
a lot better than this.

Or, as I said, an outstanding fabrication.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:42 PDT 1996
Article: 40123 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ehrlich
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 03:20:53 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 8:21:39 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>Well said, Mark.
>
>But, if Giwer suggests that the mention of a “gas chamber” in
>the construction documents of the Kremas was due to “a morbid
>sense of humor” on the side of the SS, he can also claim
>that they designed “bomb shelters” with holes in their roof.

There has never been a claim there was such a mention in any
construction document. But you know that.

>And he can also claim that they destroyed these “bomb shelters”
>so the Soviets could not use them, while they left the bomb
>shelter near the SS-hospital – which we indeed *know* was a
>bomb shelter – intact.

Given your propensity for editting out what makes your claims
nonsense we have no idea what existed or did not exist. But as
we know, dynamiting it only made the evidence harder to collect.
It did not destroy it in any manner.

>And he can also say that Belsen camp was in Poland.
>
>And that the Head of the Gestapo wasn’t named Muller.

But if it was that Mueller then Eichmann is exonerated and was
murdered by Israel.

>Etc. etc. etc.
>
>But, Giwer said he has an IQ of 163, and that we are all
>mentally retarded when compared to him. So who are we to argue…

Doctor, your editting is now a matter of record, even at Nizkor.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:43 PDT 1996
Article: 40132 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: That lovely bomb morgue/bomb shelter
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 05:31:00 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 10:31:48 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt
>> >Giwer) wrote:
>>
>> >> It was a lovely discussion. My protagonist insisting with every
>> >> fiber of his being that they were really morgues turned gas
>> >> chambers, never answering a single critical question, and then
>> >> finally declaring victory because the design changes from II/III
>> >> to the IV/V design proved his case for gas chambers.
>>
>> >REALITY CHECK: Giwer, of course, must turn his blind eye to the fact that
>> >his dogmatic- and unsupported -assertion that the L.Kellers of Kremas II
>> >and III remain just that- a dogmatic and unsupported assertion -else his
>> >little fantasy regarding bomb shelters will come crashing down around his
>> >head.
>>
>> >As to not answering “a single critical question,” Giwer once more
>> >demonstrates his capacity for chutzpah, as it has been Giwer who has
>> >strenously avoided reconciling the historical evidence regarding the
>> >L.Kelllers being origionally designed as morgues, and then converted ad
>> >hoc into homicidal gassing chambers, with his claim that there were
>> >instead bomb shelters!
>>
>> That’s fine. Answer the question of why a morgue or a gas
>> chamber needs a more expensive reinforced concrete roof when the
>> other two buildings have cheaper peaked wooden roofs?

>REALITY CHECK: How about Giwer instead telling us why semi-buried morgues
>that are bermed and covered with topsoil _shouldn’t_ have concrete roofs?
>(Note that said berming and covering would have an insulative effect,
>helping to regulate the temperature to keep the morgues at a constant
>temperature- just like it does in root cellars. Not to mention that the
>topsoil and snow during the winter is rather heavy- thus requiring a
>sturdy roof for such an expanse. Or that such a flat roof, being exposed
>to seepage from rain and snow, would also need to be water resistant-
>hence the use of a concrete and water-proof felt composite.)

Obviously you will not answer the question. As you know there is
no indication of covered from the artist’s conception with
topsoil else your gas introduction holes could not exist.
Further you know that a gas chamber would need to be as warm as
possible for the speed of the outgassing of the pellets so that
insulation would be counter productive. The huge expanse of an
uninsulated roof would be counterproductive to a morgue yet those
are the only drawings known to exist.

But the question is, why was there a more expensive flat roof in
the first place? Why will you not answer that question? Why not
the much cheaper peaked wood roof as with the other two
structures? A common exhaust fan in that would have kept it
cooler.

>> >> But then I had to tell him that at IV, according to Nizkor’s site
>> >> and sworn to be several of the Gang of Six, that a different
>> >> building entirely was used for this “gassing” at IV. With that
>> >> of course, his design improvements and therefore his entire
>> >> argument collapsed.
>>
>> >REALITY CHECK: In reality Giwer once again dabbles in obersvational
>> >selectivity, simply ignoring all evidence that doesn’t support his absurd
>> >theory regarding the L.Kellers being bomb shelters, else _his_ entire
>> >argument would collapse! The simple fact remains that Krema IV, which is
>> >of a entirely different design that that of Kremas II and III, contained
>> >homicidal gas chambers connected to the Krema building (the split roof
>> >between the gas chambers on the rest of the Krema gave the _appearance_
>> >that it might be an outbuilding, while in fact it was part of the Krema)
>> >and was used for homicidal gassings. All this, of course, has no bearing
>> >on the fact that L.Keller 1 of Kreams II and III were also homicidal gas
>> >chambers. That Giwer attempts to divert the discussion from Kremas II and
>> >III to Krema IV is nothing more than a ruse to draw attention away from
>> >his absurd, and defunct, theory that the L.Kellers were bomb shelters.
>>
>> Answer the question of WHY you claimed that LK IV and V design
>> changed supported your case for gas chambers when and entirely
>> different building was used at Kremas IV and V?

>REALITY CHECK: Giwer, being perpetually confused regarding the differences
>between Kremas and L.Kellers, babbles about “LK IV and V.” There was no
>L.Keller IV and V! There were L.Kellers 1 and 2 of Kremas II and III.
>There were also Kreamas IV and V, which had no L.Kellers- as their gas
>chambers were above ground and part of the Krema buildings.

That is what I told you. You however claimed that design
improvements in LK IV and V proved your case that all four were
gas chambers. You claimed specifically that the design changes
in LK IV and V proved your position. Now you attempt to change
your entire position.

But of course you have already put yourself in the “lie to a goy”
category so this is superfluous discussion which is now
terminated.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:44 PDT 1996
Article: 40133 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Picture File: SS-Women in Belsen Camp
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 05:32:29 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]RZ.Uni-Marburg.DE> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 10:33:15 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>The SS had many sworn women members. Some were tried, convicted of War
>crimes and executed. Most had been prostitutes or criminals. Some of
>the meanest bitches they SS could round up. Even Hoess, Commandant of
>Auschwitz, tells us that they were scum, and sloppy broads. Most were
>so ugly, the horny SS troopers wouldn’t even have sex with them.

The holohuggers do not agree with you on this point. It appears
they are calling you a liar.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:44 PDT 1996
Article: 40143 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news-feed.iguide.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Diesel exhaust that looks like steam
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 02:24:30 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 9:25:15 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
># [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>[About a backfire in an engine]

>## My question was “how far does it travel in the pipe”?
>
># Note the term “flash out of the end of”. That mean out of it and
># in this case into the room. What else are you asking?

>I am asking a very simple question. “How far can it travel in
>the exhaust pipe”? If you have an engine and its exhaust pipe is
>extended by a 10 yard pipe which is attached to it, and there’s
>a back fire, will a spark come out of the 10 yard pipe?

The backfire extends the length of the pipe where the density of
what ignited once continues, i.e., the entire length. It is not
a spark. It is a miniature fuel air bomb

But in any event we know the witnesses who started this story
were close enough to determine the composition of doormats so
could not have been confused. This is OBE. Your explanation
completely your fantasy and not supported by actual events.

># It doesn’t sound reasonable to you to compare engines run
># under research condition with Russian tank engines under field
># maintance conditions and no direct line to spare parts?

>An engine is an engine.

Spoken like a true academic.

If the danger of backfire that would
>cause an explosion was so terrible as you make it out to be,
>the British researchers would have taken steps to avoid it.

At this point, given your deliberate deletion of the part of my
original post about the human hair doormats I seriously question
you are representing the contents of this paper correctly. That
also explains why you will not mail me a copy.

I WILL reimburse the postage.

>You’re trolling; you have nothing to say. You began by claiming
>diesels can’t releases white fumes. You were proven wrong. So
>you’re trying to save your case. But it’s a desperate and
>pathetic effort. Better admit you were wrong, as you were
>wrong about every other issue you tried to discuss.

You deliberately deleted the human hair doormats to preserve your
fantasy explanation. That is more than enough to condemn you.

>## I really can’t recall ever having posted anything like this.
>## Who is the person testifying?
>
># I didn’t save that one.

>”I didn’t save that one”. How typical. How scholarly.

I will be saving my original and your deleted messages as
evidence of what holohuggers are like.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:45 PDT 1996
Article: 40152 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Every Day, Yellow School Buses
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 02:38:59 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 7:39:44 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (tom moran) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>Chuck Ferree wrote:
>>
>>>tom moran wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Ferree wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Chuck Ferree writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >Really pisses you off, huh, Moran.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck, I forgot to respond to this sentence. Chuck, I don’t get
>>>> “pissed off”, I post you respond “pissed off”. Its on the record. My
>>>> posts, your responses.
>>
>>>Right, it’s on the record. You didn’t answer my questions about
>>>Auschwitz. Have you ever been there? Did you walk through the horse
>>>stables the inmates lived in? Are you aware that this place was
>>>located in a swampy area, and usually had mud six-eight inches deep?
>>>Answer the questions, Moran. Prove some of your statements. Don’t just
>>>talk through your hat.
>>
>> Swampy area? Mud six inches deep? That certainly shoots the
>>shit out of those open pit burnings doesn’t it? In addition we
>>need to look for heavy duty sump pumps in those Leichenkellars.
>>
>>—-
>>Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
>>evidence that he was not an eyewitness.
>>
> ‘Mind witnesses’ is more like it. Or, more accurately, ‘mindless
>witnesses’.

Holocaust swami. Knows all, sees all, speaks all. (Cross my
palm.)

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:46 PDT 1996
Article: 40156 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.inc.net!news.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:55:46 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 6:56:32 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (MORRISON KEITH MURRAY) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

>> Perhaps he hates the French Race. Considering that he consider
>>someone from Montreal to be French.

>Well, having lived in Montreal for three years, saying that someone from the
>city is French is probably a good bet.

I would have thought they were Canadian or Quebeceques or however
they spell it. Or do you too believe there is a French race?

Sounds like you would agree that it is a good bet that anyone
>from Toronto is British also.

Is it any wonder there is so much sentiment to secede from Canada
with attitudes like yours?
—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:47 PDT 1996
Article: 40158 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 04:24:55 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 56
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]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 11:25:40 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>>

>[snip]

>> >> You have lost me completely here. The subject was crematoria not
>> >> furnaces.
>>
>> >IGNORANCE ALERT: Giwer, obviously has not done his homework. Again.
>> >Crematoria have furnaces, be they fired by natural gas, oil, or coke. How
>> >else does Giwer suppose the muffles, in which the deceased are cremated,
>> >of the crematoria FURNACES are heated? By Giwer blowing hot air into them?
>>
>> So in this context you are claiming the home furnaces are also
>> crematoria? You are very strange.

>PAUPACY ALERT: Giwer, scrabbling for a fig leaf to mask his ignorance,
>must concot fantasies from whole-cloth! Given that I specicically stated
>crematoria furnaces and that Giwer then “interpets” this to mean _home_
>furnaces might leave one to believe that Giwer “thinks” homes are equipped
>with crematory furnaces for heating! I think it safe to say that Giwer is
>the very strange one here!

>[snip]

>> >> CO2 is not an acid.
>>
>> >REALITY CHECK: No, CO2 is not an acid itself. It is, however, the acid
>> >anhydride of carbonic acid: CO2(aq) + H2O(l) <-> H2C03(aq). The
>> >acid-ionization constant (at 25C) for carbonic acid (H2CO3) is 4.3E-7, as
>> >compared to that of hydrocyanic acid (HCN) which is 4.9E-10. So
>> >hydrocyanic acid is less acidic than carbonic acid, which has a pH
>> >slightly less than that of milk. (_General Chemistry_, ISBN 0-395-43302-9;
>> >pp.639,645.)
>>
>> The subject here is CO2 and nothing else. If he wants to talk
>> about something else he can of course bring that up.

>REALITY CHECK: The subject here, as I choose to bring it up, is now
>carbonic acid, of which CO2 is the acid anhydride. If Giwer has a problem
>with this he is invited to go to alt.whine.whine.whine and throw one of
>his tantrums!

That makes three unethical liars, Shultz, Green and Van Alstine.
The Talmud really does encourage it.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:48 PDT 1996
Article: 40159 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: GOLDHAGEN’s book & H*ber’s lies
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:19:40 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 12:20:26 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>”The antisemitically derived ideological impulse to force Jews
>to ‘work’ for its own sake was given expression throughout the
>German dominion. Nowhere, however, was it more striking than
>in Austria in March 1938, where it welled up spontaneously
>during the euphoria accompanying its annexation by Germany.
>The Austrians’ hearty celebrations included immediate symbolic
>acts of revenge upon the Jews, who in Austria, no less than in
>Germany, were believed to have exploited and injured the
>larger society. As seen here, again and again, the circus of
>Jewish men, women, and children — commanded to don their
>finest clothes, being forced to wash streets, sidewalks, and
>buildings of Vienna (frequently with small brushes and water
>mixed with burning acid) — was met by the cheers and jeers of
>crowds of Austrian onlookers. ‘In Waehring, one of Vienna’s
>wealthier sections, Nazis, after ordering Jewish women to
>scrub streets in their fur coats, then stood over them and
>urinated on their heads,’<18> This was the purest form of
>’non-instrumental’ labor, and the purest expression of its
>ideational and psychological sources.” (Goldhagen, 286-7)

> Work Cited

>Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Hitler’s Willing Executioners. New
>York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996

War propaganda is wonderful is it not?

>–
>The Nizkor Project (Canada) – An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
> Over 100Megs of data: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?
> Europe: ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
>Nizkor Web: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction – permanently!)

The mother of all paranoid websites.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:49 PDT 1996
Article: 40169 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: unethical liars for the Talmud
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 04:37:25 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 9:38:11 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Van Alstine, Green and Shultz.

All of claimed that the gas, CO2, is an acid.

It is like the “a claim is a patent” fervor of true belief.

Now as everyone but these unethical liars knows, the primary
sources of the world’s CO2 are not from carbonic acid. Carbonic
acid is a secondary reaction of water and CO2 and would not exist
without the primary sources.

Anyone wishing to review any material on this subject can confirm
this. It is very, very basic information. It is on the same
level as oxygen comes from plant life.

Yet these three, two of whom claim credentials in chemistry, are
willing to DECEIVE people as to the nature of CO2 for no other
purpose than deception. It is lying for the sake of lying. This
is apparently something these people receive some pleasure from
doing. I have no other explanation for this behavior.

It has been said that the Talmud encourages lying to non-Jews.
This appears to be a perfect example of it. I would not have
believed it were true. After these three people doing it, there
may be some truth in it.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:50 PDT 1996
Article: 40171 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 03:16:54 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 8:17:42 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Keith Morrison wrote:

>Matt Giwer wrote:

>> >The OSHA is known throughout the world. Do you think that the OSHA
>> >said falsely that the CO poisoning results the more often in cyanosis
>> >? Some issues to support your opinion ?
>>
>> I have no idea where you are writing from but in the US it is a
>> running joke. Perhaps you don’t know them the way we do. Here
>> it is one of those agencies that is regularly under attack for
>> gross stupidity.
>>
>> >>I would have thought a grad student could have found a better
>> >>source of information than OSHA.
>>
>> >I would have thought that a self-called graduate will take a while to
>> >contradict the OSHA advices. You said nothing positive at this time.
>>
>> I would not take OSHA’s word for anything. The best that can be
>> said about them is that they are consumate bureaucrats, the
>> damning with faint praise sort of thing.

>Funny. During my days as a firefighter most of the equipment we had
>had to meet OSHA certification, even if manufactured in Canada, as the
>agency certification was used internationally as a baseline standard.
>Firefighter training is also based on OSHA guidelines (or was) and a great
>many firefighters are probably alive today because of the standards
>they have imposed.

>Now Mr Giwer will inform us that I know nothing about firefighting…

I report only that you know nothing about OSHA.

It is rather a testimony to the power of the US bureaucracy that
companies in Canada can not sell in the US unless it meets its
bureaucratic rules. Or are you suggesting Canada is incapable of
designing firefighting equipment without the rules of OSHA?

Of course to make your claim of “being alive today” you would
have to show that firefighters were previously buying inadequate
equipment. You would also have to show that the OSHA standards
are better than those. You will also have to show that some
companies did not lower their quality down to OSHA standards.

It reminds me of the time that one of those gov agencies wanted
to regulate gun companies the same as the auto industry,
enforcing recalls and the like.

It received a bit of popularity until it was pointed out that the
US gun industry invented the product recall and would do so on as
little as four failures in which no one was harmed, simply that
the gun failed to function as expected. There was a mild “make
sure they keep it up” response but the answer was that if a
finish did not last as long as expected, it would be refinished
upon request.

It would have been quite a disaster to find that a gun could
claim to meet auto industry standards and not have to fix a
design fault until a few dozen people had been killed.

In that light I would be very careful about any claims you make
for OSHA. Meeting government standards is an excellent defense
in court. That is why you will find companies love them. It is
also why professionals abjure them. It lets in anyone who can
meet the letter of the spec. That is why the gun industry
objected. They have established too high a reputation for basic
quality.

You should be very careful before you ascribe improvments to OSHA
rather than detriments. Unless of course you never did have a
purchasing department that bought any old crap based upon the
brochures and the sales pitch and the lunches.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:51 PDT 1996
Article: 40178 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Part of an interesting document
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 04:55:26 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 11:56:11 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> The numbers refer document pages from the Nuremberg trials.

>>===

>>MARTIN BORMANN

>> Bormann was accused of “persecution of religion” and many other
>>crimes. Bormann’s attorney, Dr. Bergold, pointed out that many
>>modern countries (meaning the Soviet Union) are avowedly atheist,
>>and that orders forbidding priests from holding high Party
>>offices (that is, offices in the Nazi Party) could not be called
>>”persecution”.

>> In Dr. Bergold’s words: “The party is described as criminal – as
>>a conspiracy. Is it a crime to exclude certain people from
>>membership in a criminal conspiracy? Is that considered a crime?”
>>(V 312 <<353>>).

>Who’se work are you stealing now, Mr. Giwer?

Does that impact the material?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:51 PDT 1996
Article: 40179 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dees loses this battle
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 04:52:11 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 11:52:55 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Chuck Ferree writes:

>Not only do I walk without a cane, I run on a treadmill thirty minutes
>every other day. Also swim 20-30 laps in an olympic size swimming
>pool. My only problem health-wise, is my spouse tells me that I’m
>still a sex maniac. Can’t get enough.

Right on! Ready to singlehandedly wipe out the Nazis again.

Do you really think this is credible?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:52 PDT 1996
Article: 40181 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 03:45:04 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 10:45:50 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote:

>> Up to now, I have serious doubts about Goebbel’s Diary but no certanty.
>> For the Wannsee minutes, it is a typewritten document which is not signed
>> so I consider it as a forged document.

>Since when is it a condition of forgery that a document is not signed.
>None of the Bible is signed.

QED, the bible that is.

>Many documents are not signed.

For a document to be accepted as authentic there must be a chain
of evidence. Lacking that it is open to speculation. In his own
handwriting, fine. Typewritten? Sorry. If he had ordered it
typed as to want it to be known then he would certainly have
known that basics of authentication.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:53 PDT 1996
Article: 40186 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Matt Giwer, Civil Defense Engineer (was Re: Ehrlich)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 06:08:47 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 1:09:32 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Keith Morrison wrote:

>Matt Giwer wrote:

>> > Now that
>> >too is interesting in that since when did bomb shelters have doors that
>> >could be opened (and closed) _only_ from the OUTSIDE? That this was the
>> >case becomes quite apparrant from Henryk Tauber’s accoutn of Krema II,
>> >where he describes the door to L.Keller 1:
>>
>> Overpressure would blow the door inward. Thus the entire
>> perimeter of the door prevents it from being blown into the room.
>> If closed from the inside only the hinges and the latch would
>> prevent that.

>I see. So who volunteered to stay *outside* this magical bomb shelter
>during the air raid? Where did they go and hide? What heroism on the
>part of those SS guards, saving the prisoners while staying outside
>themselves to face possible death from bombs. Stupid, but heroic.

You deleted the rest of the post which indicated that there was
no need for the complicated iron bars and screws arrangement
where the simple L-shaped hook would suffice. The method is an
obvious contrivance by the author.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:54 PDT 1996
Article: 40187 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 06:22:00 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 11:22:46 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ok, we have two levels of discussion going here. Lets separate them.
>>>>> First, the regular archivists on this group (with maybe one or two
>>>>> exceptions) are not professional historians.
>>
>>>> But who insist upon mindlessly posting out of context quotations
>>>>from out of context books and who want to keep the discussion to
>>>>stories about the holocaust rather than the holocaust itself.
>>
>>>I think this works both ways. There are several different methods
>>>going on here. If you are so concerned with out-of-context quotes,
>>>then prove they are out of context.
>>
>> By inspection. Is that not obvious to you?

> Fine. You claim that something is taken out of context somewhere,
>present the actual text or a pointer to it so that people can inspect your
>evidence and decide if they agree with your judgement. That’s what I do –
>I have posted specific DejaNews URLs so that people can see exactly what I
>am claiming is evidence of your lying.

What in the hell is your problem? Anything not presented as a
complete document is taken out of context. I do not see the
problem you are laboring under. Is this too hard for you?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:55 PDT 1996
Article: 40188 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Plea
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 06:26:57 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 11:27:44 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>Kimberley Ahlf wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 May 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>>>> Kimberley Ahlf wrote:
>>>I am sorry if my ignorance is not extensive enough to be non-threatening
>>>to you. Hitler’s quotation from the Nuremburg speech is quite famous
>>>(as you indicated when you ridiculed me earlier for citing it.) I found
>>>it in the one book I own which pertains exclusively to the holocaust.
>>
>> Please do not kid yourself into thinking that anything you are
>>ever going to do are say short of pointing a gun at me will be
>>considered threatening. In which case you better be faster than
>>me or you die without a second thought.

> Aren’t we paranoid.

Your WE may be. I am not. A statement of fact is all I made.

> Better watch out for that ringing telephone too. Since you refuse to
>believe me when I tell you anyone could have done it, if the Israeli
>government mailbombed you then the Mossad putting a bomb in your phone is
>a distinct possibility. They do that, you know.

I said an employee of the Israeli government did it and that is
the same as the government itself unless their laws are different
in that regard from those of the US.

You are very strange person to remember so incorrectly.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:56 PDT 1996
Article: 40189 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Crematorium Rates
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 06:44:59 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 11:45:44 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Harry Katz) wrote:

>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>tom moran ([email protected]) wrote:

>> Even though modern day cremation facilities take two and half
>> hours to cremate one body, the cremation ovens at Auschwitz,
>> barely the size of a regrigerator, could cremate up to three
>> bodies in twenty minutes, as the Holocaust story has it.

>Even though modern day Indy racing cars attain speeds in
>excess of 200 miles per hour, the Indy cars of the 1940’s,
>barely the size of ,
>could not, as the Indy story has it…. therefore there are
>no racing cars, no “Indy” racing oval, no “racing commentators”
>and no “sponsors.”

Except of course you are presenting it backwards.

Rather you should be presenting the case that since people 50
years ago could drive at 200 mph we can not do so today.

It is is only a religiously brainwashed holohugger who could
create and miss your inversion of the position.

But even then automotive engineering improves but does not get
worse without explanation. Cremation engineering improves and
changes but does not go backwards. You require it to go
backwards but then no holohugger will notice this.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:56 PDT 1996
Article: 40191 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nizkor: Proof is for Goyim
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:12:41 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 12:13:28 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>> [email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:

>> > And your evidence that these tactics were used on the Nazi
>> >defendats is?
>>
>> > The silence is deafening.
>>
>> The evidence is as good or better than for the “eyewitnesses” who
>> swore to death by steaming and making doormats of their hair at
>> Treblinka, don’t you think? It is a very strange thing to find
>> you folks arguing the quality of the evidence.

> There is no such evidence.

Excuse me but we have a conviction on those grounds and the
Nuremberg references were included.

>> But I have simply pointed to standard procedures at the time.
>> And, as you know, those procedures were only dropped by some form
>> of social progress as it is described. It is unclear that such
>> progress occurred overnight in the course of war crimes
>> investigations.

> You most certainly did not point to the “standard procedures.” You
>seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of them. The “Miranda” warnings
>have been the standard in federal — including military — investigations since
>1943 when the provision that if a defendant could not afford an attorney one
>would be provided was added (McNabb v. U.S. 318 U.S. 332, 1943). The
>other warnings and procedures were mandated in 1910. (Weems v. US 217
>U.S. 349)

Obviously one who has previously stated that the oath a witness
takes in Philadelphia is “The EVIDENCE I am about to give …”
can not be considered to be an honest person.

>> It is also unclear why anyone would suggest that the progress did
>> happen save to pretend the rules then were the same as the rules
>> today. You are of course invited to provide examples of the
>> accused being read their rights or having their attorney present
>> during all questioning.

> Because they are, as far as federal and military investigations are
>concerned, the same rules. Read “Miranda”384 U.S. 436 especially pages
>483-5 and 489 which gives a history of the reading of rights. As a matter of fact
>it *was* the standard used in all federal and military arrests. It was mandated by
>Weems v. U.S. 217 U.S. 349 (1910) and was known as the McNabb-Maloney
>Rule. As Warren noted the procedures prescribed by Miranda were not unique
>”our holding is not an innovation in our jurisprudence but is an application of
>principles long recognized and applied in other settings.” (384 U.S. at 442).
>Miranda merely mandated that the *states* follow the m as well. Had you read
>the decison you would have noted the brief amicus curii from Telford Taylor
>which discussed the historical perspective. I find that very significant, don’t
>you?

But as you know, unsigned, typed statements were admitted as
evidence without the non-affident present and without his
existence being established. You know this. What is your
problem with admitting it?

>> Why would you suggest that the questioning jumped 35 years into
>> the future and followed those rules?

> Because it did *not* jump into the future. They were the standard
>procedures of the time for federal and military agencies. They were the
>organizations that did the interrogations for trial not the the Los Angeles Police
>Department or New York’s “finest.”. See above.

But AS YOU KNOW, IF US rules were in effect there would have been
a jury trial and there were none. That has already been
established by you. So any any all appeals to the US legal
system are wasted as the most fundamental right was not in place.

You are really making an ass of yourself with this one.

>> I have posted the problem to him many times. But as his books
>> only have the prosecution side of it he has never responded.

> That certainly is not true. The standard book on the trials is “Justice
>at Nurmeberg” by Robert E. Conot presents the defense in as much detail as it
>does the prosecution. Further the IMT transcripts and evidence are available to
>those who wish to look. You have neither read the book or looked at the
>record. Further the burden is, at this point, upon you.

Excuse me but no book can possibly deal with it unless we are
talking a thousand volumes or so.

>> What more do you want?

> An argument that does not make any lawyer giggle. The rules you
>wish to have applied, were mandated to the authorities that did the
>investigations. The burden is on you to provide some specific evidence that
>the organizations did not follow their own rules. Which defendants had coerced
>confessions used in evidence against them in proceedings in which American
>authorities were involved?

If you are giggling you are not an attorney. You are clearly
perverting your purported credentials to support the holohugger
fantasy. You did that very clearly with your “oath” citation.

No rational attorney would pretend, given how many people paid
attention to the OJ trial, that the burden of proof is upon
anyone but the prosecution to establish the chain of evidence.

But as you have demonstrated, American rules were NOT governing
else there would have been jury trials as a minimum.

You are shooting down your own case. What are you? Ten years
retired and five years senile?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:57 PDT 1996
Article: 40192 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:16:19 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 12:17:06 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu said:

>> Up to now, I have serious doubts about Goebbel’s Diary but no certanty.
>> For the Wannsee minutes, it is a typewritten document which is not signed
>> so I consider it as a forged document. I have several reasons but the
>>best

>Since your post is a typed, unsigned document, it must also be forged,
>according to your logic.

>–
>Gord McFee

Only for dumbshits who can not read headers and think no one else
can.
—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:58 PDT 1996
Article: 40193 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: GOLDHAGEN’s book & H*ber’s lies
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:21:57 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 12:22:44 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (A Huber) wrote:

>>It is of decisive importance, from an historian’s view, and should be
>>from yours. You are now giving your ignorance of history away. YES,
>>Hitler was Austrian. So, in fact, were Eichmann and Kaltenbrunner (head
>>of the Gestapo). Austrians were never blamed for any atrocities and no
>>war-crimes trials were held in Austria. The reason was that the Allies
>>decided ‘at the table’ to make Austria a victim of the Nazis rather than
>>a collaborator. In many other countries where trails were held, a full 40
>>to 60% of the CONVICTED criminals were Austrian.

>…which has exactly what to do with your lies concerning Mr.
>Goldhagen’s thesis, and, er, “little German babies?” Mr.
>H*ber? Surely you didn’t think we’d forgotten that particular
>bit of forgery, did you?

>Funny how the white power rangers run (“like a leaky condom,”
>I think Bobby called it) when faced with clear evidence of
>their lies….

You have read it. You are the expert. What is the explanation
for the other 6.8 million? What explains the lack of evidence
for their inclusion? Or do you want to claim they were included?

>–
>The Nizkor Project (Canada) – An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
> Over 100Megs of data: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?
> Europe: ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
>Nizkor Web: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction – permanently!)

The mother of all conspiracy websites.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:33:59 PDT 1996
Article: 40194 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another Time For A Showdown
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:28:05 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 2:28:50 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>
>>
>> A transcript can be introduced in a separate trial as evidence of
>> perjury of course. It is only testimony and not evidence in the
>> trial in which it is given DESPITE what you claimed was the
>> witness oath in Pennsylvania.

> It is the oath that arbitrators are instructed to give. Most court deputies
>use whatever they want. The one in the court-room I was in last week used the
>English oath which uses neither “testimony” or “evidence” but is a simple promise
>to tell the truth. Testimony is evidence. Period.

You deliberatly and falsely implied the oath was other than it
was and now you defend it. You should simply admit you made a
false implication and get on with life.

>> > Are you still maintaining that Wigmore, McCormack, and the others are
>> >wrong.
>>
>> You answer first.

> I have. Now I want to hear you make an ass of yourself again.

>> And you are clearly misleading people just for the fun of
>> judeaification of the holocaust.

> That is a lie and you know it.

It is what happened. So sue me a second time.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:34:00 PDT 1996
Article: 40195 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Am I sued yet?
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:30:11 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 2:30:58 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> A certain Gord McFee has been making an ass of the entire
>>holohugger community by claiming he is going to sue me.

> Excuse me, but I seem to have missed this definite claim that he was
>going to sue you. Please repost it.

You obviously also missed the holohugger messages to him to sue
me or shut up about it. But then, you miss a lot. Or you lie
about it.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 07:34:01 PDT 1996
Article: 40196 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: From Whence 12 Million?
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 05:53:29 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 10:54:15 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:
>>
>>>It is customary to bandy about a figure of 12 million victims of Nazism.
>>>I would like to know the derivation of this figure, and I would like to
>>>know how it is allocated. Of course, I am assuming that 6 million refers
>>>to the Jewish Holocaust.
>>
>> Both were invented.

> Because! I! Say! So!

> The number of Jewish victims was computed by comparison of the prewar
>Jewish population of Europe with those who could be accounted for after
>the war.

We already know that the claim of immediately after the war is
not true. We know it is claimed to have been established by the
War Crimes Tribunal which fully accepted the 4 M Jews at
Auschwitz and 2 M Jews at Treblinka. We also know they accepted
6 M Jews total. What is it that you have missed in all of this?

The “accounted for” effort never included those inducted into the
Red Army at gun point. The “accounted for” effort never included
an independent review of Russian records which we know for
certain at this point never matched their public statements.

> The non-Jewish victims include Gypsies, homosexuals, political
>prisoners, and (the largest group) Soviet prisoners killed through both
>active execution and deliberate mistreatment for political reasons. One
>could, I suppose, quibble over such things as whether the Stalingrad
>prisoner deaths were avoidable, given the brutality of the conditions
>under which the battle was fought.

And of course there was a separate KZ for those who mistreated
prisoners, violated the established rules in any manner.

But if you really want to argue Russian sources explain Kaytin
Woods first.

>> The interesting point is that the more the holocaust is
>>judeaified the less room there is for anyone else. The more all
>>the camps become Jews Only the less room for anyone else.

> But Jews were disproportionately represented in the camps.

ONLY if you presume there were so many undocumented that were
gassed immediately which is the fact in evidence. Otherwise that
is not correct.

>The other
>group picked on for racial reasons, Gypsies, was not as large and
>prominent.

Perhaps you could open on of your holocaust book and list the
constituants of the 6.8 million others? It must be right there
in a prominent position in the book unless it is judeaified.

Strangely there is no other group or groups mentioned that come
close to the 6.8 M number.

>> Of course if the published camp numbers are everyone then the
>>Jewish numbers are reduced by more than half.

> But of course the published camp numbers are not everyone. The
>Einsatzgruppen, for example, reported killing about a million people in
>the field in the occupied Soviet Union. So I do not understand why the
>Giwer-troll is bringing up this irrelevant observation, unless of course
>it is simply more trolling.

Excuse me but I think one million is about the number the US Army
reported killing during Vietnam.

But then in other stories they rounded them up and shipped them
off but the documentation either exists or does not exist
depending upon the needs of the refutation claim.

>> It is a very strange corner these “historians” are painting
>>themselves into. Of course, the make a living selling books.

> Since the Giwer-troll does not understand the history (or the English
>language) he does not realize that he is the one painting himself into a
>strange corner. At least he has admitted he does not earn a living.

I have only said that I did earn a living and no longer have to
earn a living. So how are you doing?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 12:18:03 PDT 1996
Article: 40198 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: People like Hoess, Pery Broad & Kremer
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 03:36:58 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 8:37:45 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>
>Hardly surprising to see Giwer defending Hitler on all
>fronts. In response to Mr. Ferre’s statement:

A hundred years ago, saying what is now common knowledge about
the US Civil War was considered defending the slavery. It is
nothing new.

>## and set about to conquer the whole world.
>
>Giwer comes up with
>
># Then perhaps you could explain why Germany was not prepared
># for war when England declared war.
>
>This is typical Nazi trash, which our Hitler-lovers spew out
>continuously. Hitler began an aggressive war during which Nazi
>Germany occupied nearly all of Europe, and a large portion
>of the USSR. It seems that the scum here is trying to deny not
>only the Holocaust, but all of Nazi Germany’s acts of aggression
>and war.

Then perhaps you can explain why the only recorded and official
act of aggression committed by Germany in all of WW II was
against Poland? Please post any other act of aggression in which
a single life was lost. PROVE your contention that it was a war
of agression for control of Europe. (Throw in the world if you
are up to it.)

But of course you can not post any such evidence.

You folks will continue to pretend that the attitude in Europe at
the time was just like it is in our modern and happy times of the
European Union. It was not. Poland was prepared for war with
Germany and expected to win. England was prepared to use any
pretext to conquer Germany and took the attack upon Poland as the
excuse.

Of course if England had really cared about an attack upon Poland
England would have declared war against both Germany and Russia
but chose not to. The immediate British blockade of Germany was
expected to result in an easy conquest. England didn’t give a
rat’s ass about Poland. It was a simple pretext for conquering
Germany.

># He did not have any particular run in with Catholics either.
>
>Except for Polish Catholic priests, who were sent to
>concentration camps and murdered.

Really? Please tell the entire story without editting this time.

>BTW, didn’t the Nazis forbid public showing of the cross (as
>in schools, etc?).

Excuse me but the US today does not permit that in public
schools. Does Canada? Excuse me, yes there were some church run
schools that took government money, in fact there was and
continues to be an income tax to support churches in Germany.
Same rules apply today in the US, you take tax money you follow
government rules. Does that not apply in Canada?

>Like Baron before him, Giwer spews forth pro-Nazi and rabid
>antisemitic statements, and then claims that he’s neither a
>supporter of Nazism nor an antisemite. This claim, however,
>seems as about as accurate as his claim that his IQ is 163.

I am not a supporter of slavery. But discussing the truth about
how the US War between the States started is no longer imputed to
be support of slavery. The population of the US has matured
passed that point.

Some day holohuggers may mature also. At the moment it does not
appear that way but, as they say, it is always darkest before the
dawn.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 16:24:59 PDT 1996
Article: 40243 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 02:14:01 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 7:14:48 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

># Also given short shrift was the ridiculous Oswald Pohl affidavit,
># Document 4045-PS, in which Funk was accused of discussing the use
># of gold teeth from dead Jews to finance the war at a dinner party
># attended by dozens of people, including waiters (XVIII 220-263).

>I’ll take a look at it. However, gold teeth were collected and
>sent to the Reichsbank; I don’t think even our crazy “revisionists”
>deny this.

># This affidavit is in German and is witnessed by Robert Kempner.
># Pohl was later convicted of “steaming” people to death in 10
># “steam chambers” at Treblinka,

>Was he convicted of this, or was this simply something that
>was included in the prosecution material? We know about these
>reports. They are erroneous reports sent *during the war* by
>Poles who were spying on the camp, and probably confused the diesel
>fumes for steam. Now, you naziboys claimed it’s impossible for
>a diesel to release white fumes, but you know you were wrong.

Your REVISION, rather quite obviously deliberate deletion of what
I post is obvious. What I did post follows. NOTE! the doormats
out of their hair part of it.

This affidavit is in German and is witnessed by Robert Kempner.
Pohl was later convicted of”steaming” people to death in 10
“steam chambers” at Treblinka, and making doormats out of their
hair (NMT IV 1119-1152) (Fourth National Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg).

It was noted you have no short hairs as the conviction was upon
claiming to be close enough to determine the composition of
doormats.

And with your deliberate deletion of what makes a joke of your
made up explanation you have demonstrated the actions of the
orthodox class. Anything to promote orthodoxy and damn the truth
in any manner you can.

># Yet here we have a man convicted and presumably hung for doing
># something that was not believed after the war.

>Hold it. Are you claiming Pohl was convicted for this? And *only*
>this? And that’s why he was hung? Is this what you’re claiming?

I presumed he was hung. I said he was convicted of BOTH steaming
people to death AND AND AND making doormats of their hair. So
how was someone close enough to examine the doormats and miss the
oil you are claiming?

No, forget the diversion. We are still with the doormats of
human hair and you editting that out of what I posted. Sorry,
simply editting it out does not make your imagination in the
least bit credible. And perhaps better explains why you do not
wish to mail me a copy of what you claim to have.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 16:25:00 PDT 1996
Article: 40244 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Crematorium Rates
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 02:16:43 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 23
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]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 7:17:30 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>>> Holohuggers have posted the source, Pressac if I remember
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>correctly.

>>>I’m outa here.

>> If you can’ take the heat, get out of the oven.

>Nope. You offer very little in the way of heat, Mr. Giwer. You provide
>insults 98% of the time. This makes your replies useless.

I do not insult, I describe correctly. If the correct
description offends you folks, stop reading.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 16:25:01 PDT 1996
Article: 40245 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Diesel exhaust that looks like steam
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 02:35:46 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 7:36:32 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:

>[snip]

>> WHERE did you get the layout of the camp? Please scan and post a
>> copy of it. I do not have the layout of the camp. As the last I
>> heard here they even dug of the foundations and footings to hide
>> the evidence. I was lead to believe NO ONE had any camp layout.

>_Encyclopedia of the Holocaust_ vol 3, ISBN 0-02-864527-8; p.1485.

>_Historical Atlas of the Holocaust_, ISBN 0-02-897451-4; p. 91.

>> WHERE did you get the layout of the camp? Please scan and post a
>> copy of it. I do not have the layout of the camp. As the last I
>> heard here they even dug of the foundations and footings to hide
>> the evidence. I was lead to believe NO ONE had any camp layout.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 16:25:02 PDT 1996
Article: 40248 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. McVay’s translation service needed!
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 05:14:41 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 12:15:27 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) requested the
>services of a Giwerundean literary scholar to assist in the
>translation of the following comment from Matt Giwer:

> “Are you saying that I should have insulting the Jewish
> reputation for integrity by saying only Jew and thus
> implying that we is observant?”

>This is, I believe, the first sample extant from a PHP (Primary Hootch
>Period). While Post-Hootch samples abound (indeed, we have
>examined many of them here, to the point where they have
>passed into the mundane and become normalized within the
>Giwerundean Experience), they are defined as such by their
>ability to be deciphered by scholastic teams from a variety of
>disciplines.

You are no more than a mere contributor to Zundelsite, errr,
Nizkor. You are a peon at best, perhaps one article at best.

So bugger off.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 18:16:53 PDT 1996
Article: 40253 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Who Stole the Records?
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 05:17:47 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 12:18:33 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>>

>[snip]

>> >Liar, I never posted anything like this. You’re lying again.
>>
>> I agree it is difficult to keep you holohuggers straight. Van
>> Alstine actually.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> “The delivery system worked dependably until March, 1944, when
>> the Dessau Zyklon plant was bombed and heavily damaged.[6]
>>
>> 6. “DEGESCH business report for 1944, April 23, 1946, NI-9093.”
>> (Ibid. p.571fn.)
>>
>> ===
>>
>> >## 2) State your source for these being the only production facilities.
>> >
>> ># I presumed what you posted was complete. So where did it come
>> ># from?
>>
>> >Liar, I never posted anything like this. You’re lying again.
>>
>> Can I not simply be mistaken?
>>
>> But take it up with Alstine.
>>

>Giwer, as can be seen by his purile behavior, tries to extricate himself
>from his lies by accusing others of such deeds! The plain fact is that
>Giwer claimed that the Zyklon production facilities were _destroyed_, yet
>five tons of Zyklon were ordered and delivered- implying that some funny
>business was afoot. Just as plain is that Giwer was patently wrong in
>making such a claim based on what _I_ origionally posted. What I wrote was
>that the Dessau Zyklon plant was bombed and heavily _damaged_ and NOT
>destroyed. Furthermore, I also subsequently posted that the Dessau plant
>was but one of _two_ Zyklon production plants. The other was in Kolin and
>to my knowledge untouched and in full operation.

As you konw it was posted by a holohugger that they were damaged.
And as you know it was posted that an unprecendented order was
made and delivered.

As you know it was stated that what killed insects lasted for six
months but what killed people only lasted for six weeks.

Obviously two different substances. But you read that.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 19:11:06 PDT 1996
Article: 40257 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 06:31:19 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 11:32:07 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>>
>> >tom moran wrote:
>>
>> ># Professor, are you saying the Hoilocaust story has not been
>> ># modified over the years as to numbers, places and methods?
>>
>> >Not really. Take the most important single piece of data – the
>> >number of Jews murdered by the Nazis. It hardly changed. There’s
>> >a range of numbers, but it’s rather tight. Nothing like the
>> >wide margin of estimates for Stalin’s victims; I’ve seen
>> >figures from 7 million to 50 million.
>>
>> >Recently, BTW, even the most well-known “revisionist”, David Irving,
>> >stated that 4 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis. This
>> >is still lower than the true figure, but it probably means
>> >that even he realised the figures peddled by the Nazi rabble
>> >cannot be defended any more.
>>
>> >As to methods, we have been through that. There were incorrect
>> >claims about the methods of murder in the “Einsatz Reinhard”
>> >camps. These claims originated from people who spied on the
>> >camps from a distance (these were members of the Polish
>> >underground). They saw the dead being carried from the
>> >chambers to the graves, but they couldn’t see into the
>> >chambers and know how the killing was done. Some of their
>> >reports were erroneous in this regard.
>>
>> Is this the erroneous report that vanished after the war you are
>> talking about or is this the conviction based upon it having been
>> “proven” in a court of something or other?
>>
>> WALTER FUNK Funk was a classical pianist from a highly respected
>> artistic family, married for 25 years at the time of the trial,
>> and former financial editor. Like most of the defendants, Funk
>> was accused of performing “immoral acts” such as accepting
>> birthday gifts from Hitler, proving “willing participation in the
>> Common Plan”. (Obviously, such acts are not illegal.)Funk claimed
>> that the British and the Poles had conspired to provoke Germany
>> into war in the belief that the generals would overthrow Hitler
>> (XIII 111-112 <<125-126>>).
>>
>> Funk was accused of conspiring with the SS to murder
>> concentration camp inmates in order to finance the war effort by
>> pulling their teeth out. The gold teeth were stored in a vault at
>> the Reichsbank, along with shaving kits, fountain pens, large
>> alarm clocks, and other more or less useless junk. Forgotten was
>> Rudolf Hoess’s testimony that the teeth were melted at Auschwitz
>> (XI 417 <<460>>).
>>
>> Funk testified that the amounts and kinds of loot were “absurd”
>> and pointed out that the SS acted as customs police and enforced
>> exchange control regulations, including a prohibition against the
>> ownership of gold, silver, and foreign coins or currency. It was
>> quite natural that the SS should confiscate large amounts of
>> valuables, and that the SS, as a government agency, should have
>> financial accounts, and that these accounts would contain
>> valuables. Germans kept valuables in the same vaults as well, to
>> which the Reichsbank had no access, since they were private
>> safety deposit accounts. With the increased bombing raids, more
>> and more valuables were deposited in the vaults by ordinary
>> German citizens. Finally, after a particularly damaging raid on
>> the bank, the valuables were removed to a potassium mine in
>> Thuringen. The Americans found the valuables there, and falsified
>> a film of it. Funk and his attorney showed the falsity of the
>> film using an opposing witness, in some of the shrewdest
>> testimony and cross examination in the entire trial (XIII 169
>> <<189-190>>, 203-204 <<227-228>>, 562-576 <<619- 636>>; XXI
>> 233-245 <<262-275>>).

>From the _Enclyclopedia of the Holocaust_ vol 1, pp.534-535:

>FUNK, WALTHER (1890-1960), Nazi economist and politician. Funk was born in
>East Prussia and studied law and economics at the Universities of Berlin
>and Leipzig. From 1922 to 1930 he was editor in chief of the _Berliner
>Bo”rsenzeitung (Berlin Stock Exchange Journal). An early member of the
>Nazi Party, he joined in 1924 and became one of its leading figures. In
>1931 Adolf HITLER appointed Funk to be his personal adviser on economic
>affairs. Funk was the party’s liaison with top figures in German industry,
>among them Emil Kirdorf, Fritz Thyssen, Albert Voegler, and Friedrich
>Flick.

>Owing to Funk’s initiative and influence, leading companies in the Reich,
>such as the chemical conglomerate I.G. FARBEN, made large contributions to
>the Nazi party treasury. It was also Funk who impressed upon Hitler the
>importance for the Nazi cause of German heavy industry and private
>enterprise.

Your source fails to give the Nuremberg references, without whidh
there is no source material.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 19:11:07 PDT 1996
Article: 40259 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another revision of alt.revision based thoughts
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:00:07 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 2:00:55 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (DvdThomas) wrote:

>M Giwer wrote:

>>There has never been a question that you folks defending this
>>particular patent are either unfamiliar with patents or are lying
>>about what you do know in posting false information. That is
>>what I consider lack of integrity.

>I’ve been puzzled for some time about things like this discussion of
>patents where clear and simple meanings are denied by folks like Mr. Van
>Alstine. (A logic Denier? An English Denier?) I am loathe to conclude
>that people are purposely lying when the situation is as cut and dried as
>this one, but the other conclusion, limited intelligence, seems to be
>belied by their conversational abilities (excluding the childish name
>calling which erupts frequently). I’d like to continue giving the benefit
>of the doubt, but don’t see another excuse that I can offer. Suggestions
>are welcomed.
At 08:22 PM 5/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Subject: Re: Another revision of alt.revision based thoughts
>X-Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>References: <[email protected]>
>In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
>
>M Giwer wrote:
>
>>There has never been a question that you folks defending this
>>particular patent are either unfamiliar with patents or are lying
>>about what you do know in posting false information. That is
>>what I consider lack of integrity.
>
>I’ve been puzzled for some time about things like this discussion of
>patents where clear and simple meanings are denied by folks like Mr. Van
>Alstine. (A logic Denier? An English Denier?) I am loathe to conclude
>that people are purposely lying when the situation is as cut and dried as
>this one, but the other conclusion, limited intelligence, seems to be
>belied by their conversational abilities (excluding the childish name
>calling which erupts frequently). I’d like to continue giving the benefit
>of the doubt, but don’t see another excuse that I can offer. Suggestions
>are welcomed.

I have used it many times when I started again and
perhaps it is time to go back to it again, a fanatical belief in
a holocaust. Try talk.origins and you will find (some) people
who are eloquent defenders of creationism but can not see passed
the point where creation has to be true.

I am not exaggerating in the least when I use the
creationist analogy.

Believing what you are told as a child has a very high
survival value. It prevent children from petting the nice hyena
or eating the poison berries or jumping off of the roof.

In some people this trait appears to be stronger than
others.

Now consider that most of these people are Jewish and
those that are not probably close ties from childhood with Jews
(like my stepmother was a Jew or some such) but will never admit
it. Now if you were indoctrinated in a religion that included
the holocaust, and make not mistake that it does not, from
earliest childhood do you think you could walk away from it so
easily? As a recovering Catholic I can tell you that it is not
easy at all.

Add to that the general us agains them attitude. Yes, I
know it is a stereotype but I caught more than enough of them
more than once speaking for “us” and using “we.” So if you give
up being a Jew you have to give up all of this. It is like
leaving an extended family that is all around the world if you
quit.

Further, this Jewish by birth and religion, can only
leave by conversion crap. One of these days I am going come
across what I know had to have been there until recently, that
atheism would get one kicked out of the congregation. It is
quite unbelieveable that they were the only religion that would
accept atheists from the beginning.

That makes it a religion for the religious and something
for the atheits to use to affirm they are still Jews. It is as
though I could say that I could be an atheist and a Catholic if
only I believe Mexico persecuted the Catholic Church in the
manner the RC propaganda would have it. Why I could even boycott
products mad in Mexico and derive satisfaction.

>I’ll state it as plainly as I can. Let’s limit this to patents covering
>things like Zyklon-B (not use patents).

>Let me now summarize all this in even clearer language.
>
>Patents contain a lot of bullshit. It’s the nature of the beast. Some
>claims in them are not true, some are not even possible. If you want to
>prove that an item possessed or possesses a particular characteristic, a
>patent claim cannot be used. At best, a patent claim is an indicator that
>something *might* have any specific characteristic, trait or feature
>described, or was intended to have it. That’s all. No more. No fancy
>semantics needed–unless you want to cloud a simple issue.

Nor am I exaggerating when I say I have reviewed hundreds
of patents. I was a young kid, a new hire at the time. No one
wanted the job. It was just another duty as assigned. When they
were submitted through the Navy, I reviewed the disclosures also.
I found very quickly all I had to read was introduction (this is
a novel method for), the claims, and scan what was in between.

I learned patents well enough that when I became senior
and the boss wanted to put a younger person on the job the NAVSEA
Patent Office raised hell and I officially became the first
Patent Officer for Sonar.

So you are preaching to the choir here. I have read more
bullshit than you can imagine. RARELY did I find a case where
the real claim (my opinion) was hidden in the middle of a mess of
nonsense. They were most always listed in descending order of
plausibility.

BTW: I have a patent. For reasons that were clear at
the time it was a good idea to patent it. By the time it was
issued, it was commonly agreed that I had revinented rope,
meaning that for a time, rope was patented.

>Peter’s book may say something of substance. I don’t know. Haven’t read
>it, and the vague passages selectively quoted here don’t offer much clue.
>
>I will put the question (HCN evaporation rate) to some very knowlegeable
>sources on the matter and report when I receive a reply. I find the claim
>that all the HCN would evaporate in ten minutes (no temperature and no
>mass distribution indicated of course) to be highly questionable based on
>what little I know of the substance. Or that anyone else here knows, for
>that matter.

Knowing that at 0 C it could not happen, this is clearly
absurd. BTW: If you can dig up the Leuchter report (not that I
am going to indicate I have read it for a while longer) you will
find some numbers I consider reasonable given vapor pressure and
the like. Certainly ballpark numbers.

It is not as though there is any problem with actually
making this work. It is just that we are talking massive
overkill to get the times reported. That one post that talks
about two cases is about what I would expect.

>Does Peters say 10 minutes, or does the patent say it? The first may have
>some significance, depending on the associated details. The latter has no
>significance whatsoever. Anyone who asserts that patent claims are hard
>facts is wrong, and they cannot support the position.

Who knows if there is such a patent at all given the way
that some of them post.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Thu May 30 20:42:25 PDT 1996
Article: 40265 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!world1.bawave.com!news.clark.net!mr.net!chi-news.cic.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected]m (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Consequences
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:46:30 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 448
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed May 29 8:47:22 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>[Note: there is much in the quoted article I did not bother to address and
>cut without ellipses marking each individual place.]

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>>> Let us take two extreme cases regarding searching for a credible
>>>>truth regarding the holocaust.
>>
>>> There are problems with both extremes presented:
>>
>>>>1) After a critical analysis everything the Gang of Seven
>>>>supports is conceded to be true.
>>
>>> The problem here is that if Giwer polled his “gang of seven” he would
>>> find that all seven of them support continued research into the
>>> Holocaust and are willing to accept whatever evidence real historical
>>> investigation turns up. If fact, I suspect that none of the seven
>>> would say that what we know today is the complete truth and that all
>>> seven would say that real historians will push closer to the real truth
>>> as time goes on.
>>
>> Your expections hardly consitute problems.

> The interesting thing is that the “revisionists” continually claim
>that _their_ expectations _do_ constitute problems.

You “suspicions” more precisely have nothing to do with that
subject as you can see.

If fact, I suspect that none of the seven
>>> would say that what we know today is the complete truth and that all
>>> seven would say that real historians will push closer to the real truth
>>> as time goes on.

In other words, you are appealing to their authority. You do
remember that being a logical fallacy, do you not?

Now tell me how that constitutes a problem with what I have
written? Are they historians? Scientists? Engineers?

Rather they are people with a mission, to promote a particular
brand of holocaust orthodoxy.

Take for example the
>Giwer-troll’s comments about the lack of description of defecation in some
>eyewitness accounts of gassing victims. He has insinuated that this is a
>problem for the testimony. Perhaps Giwer would have made a point of
>mentioning such things had he been there. But he fails to take into
>consideration that either the witness or the editor may have considered
>such matters disgusting and simply omitted the descriptions from
>prudishness. For this reason, the lack of such descriptions cannot be
>taken as any kind of strong evidence that the testimony is faked.

So you see, your suspicions regarding what people on a mission
would say have nothing to do with this subject.

As to what I have failed to consider, it is quite difficult to
see what, in light of the lurid descriptions of hundreds of
bodies, would be considered “disgusting.”

Rather you will note that you have become, as have so many,
become innured to the idea of masses of dead bodies that it no
longer affects you. And besides, the certain thing to see and
smell is urine which is certainly not in the delicate sensibility
category for anyone.

> Although to be frank, it has occurred to me that the witnesses at
>Auschwitz may not have seen such things. Remember, those gassed on
>arrival from Hungary had been on a very long trip locked in cattle cars
>without food and water. Therefore I would expect that quite a few of the
>victims would therefore have wet and/or soiled themselves during the trip
>and so not have had anything left to eliminate by the time they entered
>the gas chambers. Yet I do not recall seeing any such descriptions. Is
>this therefore a problem for the story that _anyone_ was shipped to
>Auschwitz-Birkenau in cattle cars?

That is one possibility but it applies only to those cases.
However this is a uniform absense, just like the uniform absense
of cleaning up the pellets.

>>>>2) The stories of mass extermination of undocumented people are
>>>>found to be false.
>>
>>> If that is what real historical research uncovers, then fine. Given
>>> the research done to date, that is a very unlikely future finding.
>>
>> So far as I am aware (great straight line for you folks there)
>>the current research has been in supporting a preconceived
>>conclusion, that the camp rumors were true.
>>
>> For example they apparently did realize the Krema capacity was
>>inadequate for the number of people they wanted to process so
>>they dug up the multiple bodies story.

> Of course “revisionists” have long pretended that a body is a body is
>a body, but since a normal cremation oven must be designed to deal with a
>person at the large end of normal – there is indeed no problem in putting
>two 60-kg women or three 40-kg children into the space which must be able
>to accept a 120-kg man. The Giwer-troll once again claims psychic powers
>in announcing the reason for the testimonies.

My friend, if you have a 260 lb man. You don’t gas him. You run
him around the block a few times and give him a heart attack.
But when you get back to a 75 kg man you don’t get any such
result.

In addition, YOUR supposition has NOT been reported. What has
been reported is a mix of men and women. And now that it has
been researched and reported here that that takes as long as if
burned separately. This is the story that is reported and it
does nothing to explain where all the bodies went.

>>Unfortunately they did
>>not realize that made the problem with the capacity worse not
>>better.

> How so? When it comes to theoretical limits, cremation capacity is
>best expressed in mass per hour, not bodies per hour.

That is quite correct. For the story that has been reported (not
your fat man story) there is a problem with restricted air flow
due to the increased volume of bodies.

>>But then they let the explanation advance to
>>unquestionable dogma.

> Perhaps I should repost the cremation article I excerpted from the
>local free weekly paper, plus the comments made to me over the phone by
>the designer of the oven used by the crematorium featured in the article.
>According to the designer, the rate claimed was indeed not achievable for
>complete cremation of a full-sized adult body and I do not question that.

Perhaps you should repost. I don’t remember it by that
description.

>>> Given the historical research done to date, real historians have
>>> discounted the possibility that millions of people lived but were
>>> simply missing.
>>
>> Excuse me, sir, but the last time I came across the number the
>>total for all the civilians who disappeared without a trace
>>during that war was 32 million. That is not to say they were
>>dead or alive after the war, simply that their fate is unknown.
>>
>> You can certainly include civilians being caught in the
>>crossfire, winding up in another country and taking a local
>>sounding name, and consider those who escaped to Siberia, a great
>>place to survive, right? How many might have disappeared right
>>into Stalin’s Gulags? In the 30s about half a million foreigners
>>disappeared into them along with a quarter million who were
>>summarily executed.

> The Giwer-troll complains long and load about how there is no physical
>evidence for gas chambers (ignoring the cyanide traces found in them, the
>Bischoff to Kammler letter mentioning a Vergasungskeller, the physical
>equipment consistent with gas chambers, the inventory sheet with
>showerheads and “wire-mesh introduction devices” consistent with neither a
>morgue nor an air-raid shelter, nor, in the case of the showerheads,
>consistent with the architectural drawings of the plumbing service to the
>room). Yet here he proposes an alternative theory with, so far as I can
>tell, even less physical evidence.

In fact the information on this comes right from the archives in
Moscow, written by the Russians, and were for the purpose of
authorizing it to be done and to verify that it was done. Did
you have the idea the only thing they had were caputured WW II
records?

It has been an open question for a long time just what happened
to them. They were traced to Russia to help create the worker’s
paradise. They never came back. So people started looking at
the records and there was their paper trail. A documentary on it
was run on TLC a couple weeks ago. There were even interviews
with some people who had beat the odds and survived and said they
were too old to change and were going to stay.

And the history of this goes back to Kruschev who tried to
abolish them, it was in the news at the time, but the hardliners
stopped him. It was Gorbechev, also in the news at the time, who
abolished them in 1986.

So in this case we have public acknowledgement at the highest
level twice and a solid paper trail for all the people. In fact
everything we have for the Nazi camp system if we don’t try to
shove a few million extra people into the system.

So you see, the only place there is a lack of a parallel is when
we try to shove the extra millions into the Nazi camp system.

>> It is unclear how anyone, historian or not, could isolate 12 out
>>of these 32 million and establish an otherwise untraceable fate
>>for them. Obviously we can discount an actual person by person
>>trace. That does leave us with gross population statistics at
>>best.

> Except that we can use statistical methods on some important subsets.
>There are railroad records of transports to all three of the Reinhard
>camps (Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka) – the estimates are well over a
>million. Yet only a couple of hundred survivors have been found – in the
>case of Belzec, where there was not a successful prisoner revolt, the
>highest figure I have heard for survivors is _two_.

You have just highlited one of the problems. In fact you have
become a denier. There are paper trails for the documented
people. If they were shipped their fate is known. It is the
gospel that it all the deaths were those simply rounded up and
shipped who were gassed.

This is not to say there are not other dogmatic stories such as
1) immediate selection by ability to work and only the workers
documented and 2) automatic gassing of all women and children and
3) immediate gassing of all children under 15 and those unfit to
work but kept records by name of everyone.

In the last few weeks I have read all three of those stories as
explanations of specific problems with different objections to
gassing yet you will note they are conflicting.

So you see one of the problems I am up against here. Any problem
I find with any story ( 3 was introduced to explain Anne Frank)
someone comes up with a different description of what happened an
orthodox type will come up with a story that satisfies the
problem even though it conflicts with other stories. And of
course the orthodox do not correct each other on these conflicts
in these stories.

Don’t you think that is a bit suspicious?

> Those camps could not hold the number of people sent to them for any
>length of time. The “revisionist” explanation is that they were transit
>camps (with no convincing explanation of why it was necessary to change
>trains, and no supporting records of such trains)

I have never heard that one. Where did you? And in saying they
could not have been there at once does not deal with the deaths
>from all causes not just the few typhus outbreaks the orthodox
want to stick with.

However on one hand you suggest there was not enough room for all
of them and on the other there are many orthodox stories along
the lines of “five to the bunk” for sleeping when they want to
talk about body lice. The capacity multiplies by five (or
whatever the story is) right there.

So upon what basis do you say there was not enough room?

or delousing
>installations (again, no supporting evidence or explanation of why people
>could not be deloused on arrival at their ultimate destination).

I have not heard a story where they were not. Want to try that
again?

> So what were these camps for?

Internment camps for anyone they felt was a security risk in time
of war. Perfectly legal then and now.

>And why can so few people be found who
>were sent to them?

I have been plenty of reason as to why so few. If you want to
disappear in this country, don’t leave a forwarding address and
get a phone under a different name. It won’t be forever but it
depends what it is worth to find you. Next, leave the country,
change your name and the above. How much to find you?

But then how many are missing as in fate unknown? If we stick
with the documented people (admitting the variety of stories that
exist as above) more than enough to be explained by clerical
error and missing records.

It is as I noted, only when the arbitrary segregation of 12 from
the 32 million is done that there are problems with accounting
for people.

Why would they have (at best) disappeared at a rate
>10,000 times greater than Auschwitz? Bad luck? I look forward to seeing
>Mr. Giwer apply his critical thinking skills to this problem.

What 10,000 times greater? Would you show me how you derived
that number.

>>> There is nothing wrong with pursuing historical theses which run
>>> counter to the orthodox understandings of the Holocaust. However,
>>> extraordinary theses require extraordinary evidence. These crackpots
>>> do not even come close to building a real case.
>>
>> It would then appear you do not consider the mass exterminations
>>extraordinary or you do not realize it bears the burden of
>>providing the extraordinary evidence. The need to invoke gassing
>>given camp conditions is truly extraordinary. Or, of course,
>>camp condition descriptions are in great need of revision.

> An alternative, more plausible theory of what happened at Treblinka,
>Belzec, and Sobibor is eagerly awaited. As for any “need” to invoke
>gassing at Auschwitz, I fail to understand it. Is the Giwer-troll
>suggesting that the only reason someone mentioned gassing was because they
>could not understand how so many could have died otherwise, not
>recognizing that disease could have taken care of that many with no murder
>required?

So how could so many die so quickly?

Let us turn to “The Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander
Soltenitzen [sp?] for our first clue. He reports that the
average life expectancy in them in our post antibiotic world was
seven years in the Gulags. With this we have a baseline for
survival time.
If you are willing to ignore Treblinka for the moment and
concentrate upon the more famous Auschwitz-Birkenau complex we
have 1.8 million people going in and 0.6 million coming out over
a 5 year period. In other words, in a pre-antibiotic world the
average life expectancy was on the order of four years.
Perhaps that is too extreme a difference. But first we have
the most common agreement of deaths from typhus. That is only
the beginning of the causes of deaths from disease from such
living conditions.
Unless sanitation was much better than is commonly reported,
and that means nearly up to the standards on Berlin, deaths from
cholera and dysentery would be at least as bad. Unless the
heating and clothing standards were up to those Berlin standards,
deaths from the flu and the common cold and the follow-on
pneumonia would be up to those typhus levels every winter.
Unless food standards were far better than commonly reported
people do not live very long working 18 hours a day, seven days a
week without rest if they have the least health problems.
But if we look at the time when most of the people are
supposed to have been gassed, it was in the summer of 1944 when
Germany was in retreat every place and could not adequately feed
its own troops or people. Not only was food in short supply but
everything was including medical supplies. There was nothing
going well for anyone.
Even with the best intentions in the world it is certain
that things would have been bad for the people at Auschwitz. Add
to this that the US was bombing rail lines that would have served
the camp as there was a synthetic rubber and other military
plants in the area. Also those rail lines were what was
supplying the front against the Russians. Stopping supplies to
the Germany armies would would aid the Russian advance.
* * * * *
It is not so much a question of how many died without
gassing but rather a miracle so many could have survived with it.

===

The point of ignoring Treblinka is that despite the claims there
is still serious question of it ever having been more than an
inmate transfer point. It certainly does have the widest variety
of means of execution used whether or not they are being repeated
today. And the one that is left, gassing, has no better
credibility than the steaming, electrocution and suffocation
stories.

I have yet to look into the other two camps. If the basis for
the claims are no better, then I would discount them also.

> Of course our critical thinker could not be advancing that argument
>seriously. For that would still require the disposal of the bodies. And
>the Giwer-troll has argued that there are not enough ashes (apparently
>declaring by his own great personal authority that the witnesses were
>making up the stories about trucking the ashes to the river and other
>places) and not enough cremation capacity (ignoring the stories about
>open-air burning, which has some support from the air photo evidence –
>Mattogno arbitrarily tries to explain it away as a trash fire – and I have
>been told but have not yet confirmed that even Holocaust denier Thies
>Christopherson admits to having seen some open-air corpse burning at
>Auschwitz).

Excuse me, sir, but the claim for Treblinka is that 1,600,000 lb
of bone ash was buried in a 5 acre area. At least that is one
orthodox view that has been posted here. 800 tons if that
appears smaller to you.

For Auschwitz if they were trucking ashes it was certainly a
mixture of bone ash and coke ash and presumably a larger quantity
of the latter. And of course there are also stories of dumping
all this ash in ponds never to be seen again save by gullible
journalists with a handful. And then they were used on the
sidewalks and streets inside the camps … paved streets and
sidewalks!!! And of course two fertilize fields. Still no
trace.

As to open air corpse burning, the question has never been the
means of body disposal rather the cause of death.

> Then again, in order to explain away the cyanide traces found in the
>underground rooms in Kremas II and III but not in the surrounding
>buildings, he appears to have posited at various times that either there
>was after all a functional gas chamber there, or that there was magic
>cyanide emission from the cremation ovens which leaked only into those
>underground chambers and nowhere else. It is strange how he has not
>noticed that he has suggested his own contradictory true truths which also
>contradict science, but what can you expect from a troll?

I have no idea what anyone else is talking about. If you have a
problem with him, talk to him. I have not read the book. But we
do have the Krakow Forensic report and a single data point is
quite useless.

>> Testimony from an eyewitness that does not comport with physical
>>law is only evidence that the person was not an eyewitness.

> Perhaps someday the Giwer-troll will explain what gas chamber
>testimonies unambiguously contradict physical law, when read by someone
>with a normal adult reading comprehension.

Pay attention to my responses to the stories when they are
posted. But keep in mind that reading comprehension does not
mean telling me what he really meant to say.

>>And thus, no legitimate
>>> historian studying these events gives credence to theses that the
>>> gassing did not happen. Only the crackpots who ignore all of the above
>>> hold to those theses.
>>
>> When the historians have started with the conclusion there was
>>gassing they have established nothing.

> I await the alternate theory which better explains ALL observations,
>physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence.

Disease as a normal course of events and disease and starvation
as the Allies destroyed all transportation means to the camps and
made a target of everything that moved and the Germans putting
precious resources into their retreating armies rather than the
camps for openers.

However, if you want to give a read to the condition of the
people in those armies as they were retreating, they were
dropping from disease and starvation and guess what? They were
doing a forced marched too save they were being forced by the
Russians.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Fri May 31 09:01:48 PDT 1996
Article: 40287 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:10:14 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 1:11:06 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>>>[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:
>>>>The suffering of the Jewish people in WW2 deserves respect. It is not
>>>>respected by pretending that it hinges on whether there were or were not
>>>>gas chambers. Nor is it respected by pretending that it hinges on how
>>>>many CAN be crammed into gas chambers.

>>>In a way I can agree. It is a silly nit-pick on the part of the
>>>deniers here. To actually think that whether the Germans could burn x
>>>number of bodies or that Zyklon-B behaved in a particular fashion is a
>>>suggestion that the Holocaust didn’t happen IS self-delusional. It is
>>>true that all bodies were not burned. It is true that not all people
>>>were gassed. It is ture that other methods were used. Some were more
>>>efficient than others. Still, in the end, 12,000,000 non-combantants
>>>during war were murdered. They were not murdered because they were
>>>enemies of the state, but because they were viewed as inferior.

>> How do you separate 12M as murdered from the 32M unaccounted for?
>>Please be specific in your response.

>Who is unnaccounted for and what are the references for this. You
>start bringing in stuff outside of this thread I get confused.

I don’t know who is unacconted for. The same estimating methods
were used. If you question 32M you equally question 12M.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Fri May 31 09:01:49 PDT 1996
Article: 40288 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:12:19 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 1:13:12 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (MORRISON KEITH MURRAY) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
>>Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
>>Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:16:19 GMT

>>[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:

>>>In article <[email protected]>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu said:

>>>> Up to now, I have serious doubts about Goebbel’s Diary but no certanty.
>>>> For the Wannsee minutes, it is a typewritten document which is not signed
>>>> so I consider it as a forged document. I have several reasons but the
>>>>best

>>>Since your post is a typed, unsigned document, it must also be forged,
>>>according to your logic.

>>>–
>>>Gord McFee

>> Only for dumbshits who can not read headers and think no one else
>>can.

>Ah, but is Mr Giwer not the one who claimed he could perfectly forge a
>header so that no one would know that the message was faked?

>Hypocrisy at work? With Giwer, that goes without saying.

Never claimed I could forge a header in my life. What are you
talking about?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Fri May 31 11:48:19 PDT 1996
Article: 40304 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!nntp.primenet.com!news1.best.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!hole.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Cyanide Traces at Auschwitz Today
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:43:48 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 37
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]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 1:44:40 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

mil[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>>In the same way, you smoothly told first that Ca could burn and a few
>>>later that **bones** could burn, obviously because it is only Ca++ in
>>>the bones.

>> My original statement was that bones burn. I have been fully
>>aware that the flexibilty of bones is due to the organic
>>structure containing the calcium for decades. The confusion was
>>not introduced the confusion.

>>>Quote the posts, it will be easy to see who denies even his own posts.

>> I do not save anything.

>You’re right to save anything, it will be more comfortable.

>I’m sorry, but you said first that Ca in bones will burn. I lost these
>posts, but as you’re recorded in Nizkor, if you will argue with this,
>we could retrieve your posts. OK ? Or perhaps the Nizkor recording is
>faked too ? In the middle-time, I will increase the time for deleting
>my records. It seems to be sometime useful.

Of course you will continue to lie and Nizkor will continue to
keep out of context information to support the lies they want to
perpetrate. That is the way Jews and pro-Jews work as Nizkor is
demonstrating.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Fri May 31 11:48:20 PDT 1996
Article: 40305 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What is trolling?
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 09:45:25 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 4:46:17 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>> I see a lot of dubbing of “troller” or “trolling” out here. What
>>does that mean?
>> Hold it! Don’t just post something and say ‘Heres an example’.
>>You have to post the example and then show that it is trolling.

>I am not surprised that you do not understand, given your
>inability to use the English language properly, brush your
>teeth, enjoy normal sex, or understand something if you _do_
>manage to read it. You are simply too stupid to deal with it.

>There. See if you have brains enough to figure it out, Morin.
>(Somehow, I doubt it.)

The claim of “trolling” is well understood to be a perjorative
and nothing more.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Fri May 31 11:48:21 PDT 1996
Article: 40306 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Andersonville vs. the Death Camps
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 09:51:12 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 4:52:04 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>It could well be said that Andersonville was a death camp in that many
>soldiers neadlessly died there, but Matt Giwer wants to insinuate (on
>the basis of a TV-movie)

If fact, you lying asshole, I suggested that if the books were
too hard for you that you watch Gone with the Wind to see the
conditions civilians were living under. You then immediately
claimed my information came from that movie and retreated from
your claim of an extensive collection on POW materials that
included the War between the States.

Other than that, you are compounding your lie with this post.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Fri May 31 12:52:23 PDT 1996
Article: 40313 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Al Gentile existed, and therefore???
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 06:32:21 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>,<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 11:33:11 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Alec Grynspan wrote:

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> Alec Grynspan wrote:

>> >
>> >Aside to Matt: You blew it, Matt. That was a classic “win at any cost” style of “debating”.
>>
>> This was not a debate.

>Al definitely *WAS* debating – AL Gentile style!

>> >
>> >Based on when Matt changed his stories, I’d say that Matt was definitely the
>> >lollipop here – as in all-day sucker.
>>
>> What story have you been told that I changed?

>Not that I have been told. That I saw from your posts and our
>conversations.

>You were presenting the fact that Diesels had been used to provide
>poison gas in some locations and that caused quite a furor – including
>one wiener who posts here.

>Suddenly we have – with a timing that matches Al’s messages – a new
>story about how the whole gas thing was a fake and that the deaths were
>due to typhus, bad conditions, etcetera.

Actually the messages say that they were never permitted to
investigate any camps under Soviet control and thus he couild
not say a thing about any of those claimed to have used diesel
engines.

His statements clearly reflect the kind of stories that every
camp in Germany had a gas chamber and we was saying they never
found one. At the moment there is only one dubious claim of one
camp in Germany having one.

In context of what was being discussed in that conference at the
time the clown he was dealing with was claiming that all the
camps including those in Germany had gas chambers.

>Jeez, Matt! Your predilection for revising history to match what you
>last heard is getting to you!

Actually, good sir, for all the years that I read the stories of
gassing and assumed it was some form of nerve gas I had no
problem. It was when I heard what Zyklon-B was that the house of
cards started to crumble.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Fri May 31 14:34:52 PDT 1996
Article: 40318 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 06:32:23 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 11:33:14 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (MORRISON KEITH MURRAY) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

>>>> Perhaps he hates the French Race. Considering that he consider
>>>>someone from Montreal to be French.

>>>Well, having lived in Montreal for three years, saying that someone from the
>>>city is French is probably a good bet.

>> I would have thought they were Canadian or Quebeceques or however
>>they spell it. Or do you too believe there is a French race?

>No. But many people speak the French language, therefore they are called
>French. My mother tongue happens to be English (unlike whatever odd
>language you use) thus people frequently refer to me as English.

>The correct terms would be, of course, Anglophone and Francophone, but no
>one in Canada gets particularily confused if you call them English instead
>of Anglophone. In fact, if a speaker is referring to someone who is
>strictly English or French (from England or France) there is usually a
>qualification to indicate the person’s nationality.

>I know it is hard for someone with an IQ of 163 to understand something like
>that, but hey, I suppose I can’t blame someone who has demonstrated
>ignorance of just about anything he has spoken on to do any better vis a vis
>anything to do with Canada.

That is one more thing that separates the US and Canada. Our
French speakers are called creole. We do not suggest they are a
different nationality or race because of their choice of
language. As I said, I can see why Montreal would consider
secession.

>> Is it any wonder there is so much sentiment to secede from Canada
>>with attitudes like yours?

>You have demonstrated ignorance of your own damned Constitution so how
>exactly are you qualified to make statements about the politics of other
>countries? Oh sorry, I forgot. The I AM Giwer So! I! Say! So! Rule. How
>silly of me.

Actually, the canucks here mutually declared victory despite
being wrong.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Fri May 31 14:34:53 PDT 1996
Article: 40319 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Al Gentile existed, and therefore???
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 06:32:17 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <[email protected]5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 30 11:33:08 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Alec Grynspan wrote:

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> Alec Grynspan wrote:
>>
>> >Matt, he wasn’t “talking” those messages, he was writing them – and not
>> >on a chat channel. He had time to edit the material so it was pricisely
>> >what you thought you saw.
>>
>> I am not arguing against the possibility. Expending the effort
>> for me does not appear reasonable to me. I certainly would not

>I agree that you would not put in the effort. Based on your style, the
>idea that you review your messages before sending them is a tad
>ludicrous.

>But Al Gentile was/is a wizard at this kind of thing. He can lie and
>fabricate a sequence that will pass muster to the ignorant while half
>asleep!

He could have had a sucessful career with the KGB. You really
should read it.

>> for me does not appear reasonable to me. I certainly would not
>> have spent the time on him. Had I been interested in doing so it
>> would have been only a few hundred words.
>>

>But you did! I know that you think that Jews tend to be defensive about
>the events of the Holocaust, so you would have grabbed Al’s testimony as
>likely. It makes such good troll material!

Actually it does not as, as you noticed in reading it, it
contains several clearly falst statements. Knowing how the
people here will latch onto a typo for a diversion it has serious
problems as trolling material.

>> And I assure you, if there were any precise editting it would be
>> a lot better than this.

>Not true. I said that Al could easily have edited the messages to give
>that precise effect – not that he edited precisely.

You imbue him with superhuman abilities.

>> Or, as I said, an outstanding fabrication.

>Not particularly. You accepted material based on the say-so of the
>person making the statements. You did *NOT* verify some of those
>statements with one of the individuals who might have been able to
>verify the claims – me. I hadn’t disappeared.

I have not said that I have excepted it in the least. I have
presented it for what it is worth, one more eyewitness. I think
you have read my opinion of eyewitnesses.

However, I did volunteer to me a voucher for his Righteious
Gentile status which lent greater weight to his messages than
otherwise. I have no particular reason to run the actual
messages passed you as at no time did you represent yourself as
an expert on the subject. And in fact you were the one who told
me the story of the mechanical fat collection system so I had no
reason to suspect you were one.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Fri May 31 17:27:12 PDT 1996
Article: 40339 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!news.his.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!bofh.dot!nntp.primenet.com!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Where Did the Ashes Go?
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:56:13 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <[email protected]etcom.com>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 1:57:06 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Harry Katz) wrote:

>Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

> Of course the ashes will still form a layer of sediment in the
> nearby ponds. Yet no one reports finding it. Then perhaps, no
> one looked.

>[email protected] (Richard Schultz) shows him up for the
>dunce he really is:

> Of course, in the television series “The Ascent of Man,” Jacob
> Bronowski stood in one of those ponds and held some of those
> ashes in his hands. You can see a photograph of him doing so in
> the book version.

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer ([email protected]) demonstrates once again that
>provoking anger is more important to him than arriving at the truth:

What anger?

> I find it most intriguing that I have missed that one episode in
> the entire series.

>Even more intriguing is Mr. Giwer’s belief that his television viewing
>habits are relevent to this discussion. Given Mr. Giwer’s difficulty
>in following discussions, chances are that he did indeed see this
>episode, but just did not understand what was going on at the time.

Even more interesting that I saw no such episode as in a
suggestion that the wrong serious was named.

> Can you narrow it down for me better than that?

>Sure! Just as soon as Mr. Giwer answers any one of the myriad
>of questions that have been put to him!

In other words, you can not.

> I also find it truly amazing that after all these years the
> sedimentation would possibly permit one to simply reach in and
> grab a handful of it.

>As if to prove what I wrote above, Mr. Giwer displays his inability
>to follow the discussion. Mr. Schultz wrote, “Jacob Bronowski stood in
>one of those ponds and held some of those ashes in his hands.”
>Nowhere does it says that Bronowski “simply reached in and grabbed a
>handful,” as Mr. Giwer so colorfully, and inaccurately, put it.

Good sir, your knowledge of limnoly is as lacking as your
knowledge of reality.

>This is the heart and soul of Mr. Giwer’s method: He reads some
>detail into the writings of others that is not there to begin with,
>and then he criticises this detail that he himself invented.

> Do you really not realize how stupid this claim sounds even
> if it was on television?

>Of course we realize “how stupid this claim sounds” because we know
>it comes from the master of stupidity, Mr. Giwer himself! But does
>Mr. Giwer realize how stupid he sounds when he first claims the ashes
>ought to be in the pond for anyone to find, and then claims that
>Bronowski is a fraud because he did find it.

Of course, you believe a JOURNALIST knows what he is talking
about. Sure you are stupid enough to believe that brown colored
muck is ashes just as he did.

> We are talking a deep layer that could only show up in a core
> sample and no one could simply reach in and get a handful for
> the cameras.

>That implies that Mr. Giwer knows the sedimentation rate for this
>particular pond, but then again, Mr. Giwer is a swami who sees all
>and knows all, while the rest of the world wallows in ignorance.

After 50 years? I don’t have to know a thing about rate.
Remember Ferre has announced from on high that this was swamp
land and, although making a joke of burning pits, has given it as
the baseline. But you know that.

> Reality, far from academia, does not work that way.

>Mr. Giwer has never even seen this television program, but presumes
>to know the intimate details of how it was produced. In other words,
>he is filling in with his own fantasy of how it went. In Mr. Giwer’s
>world, fantasy is indistinguishable from reality. Academia is indeed
>very far from endorsing Mr. Giwer’s personal fantasies as reality!

In other words, you are taking the word of a journalist, fool.

> At best what you saw was a dramatic re-enactment of what might
> have been possible if reality were different.

>Mr. Giwer must know as he did not see it at all! Once again he tries
>to parlay his own ignorance into an indictment of knowledge.

The knowledge of a journalist of course. The edges of the pond
were exactly as they were 50 years earlier or he was in hip boots
and reached underwater for the sample.

> If in fact you did see the episode I missed,…

>Once again, Mr. Giwer introduces his personal viewing habits as some
>sort of evidence.

OI course.

> …you saw a pious fraud perpetrated upon you.

>The only “pious fraud” here is this post from Mr. Giwer.

Pious means believing the Talmud is “theologically correct” like
a brain dead idiot. There is no god, fool. Not even any of the
seven gods of Israel.

>–
>Harry Katz

>He who has no wife is esteemed as dead.
> — The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed.

You are the fool who believes the Talmud is theologically
correct. What an idiot.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:21 PDT 1996
Article: 40400 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: My Complaint About Matt Giwer
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 19:43:37 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:44:34 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt
>Giwer) writes:

>> If you want more on semantics itself, look for the works of S.I.
>>Hiyakawa, perhaps the best introductory works around. Later you
>>can try Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski if you are up to
>>it.

>These are excellent books.

I don’t think these people would know what to do with them. They
do not appear to realize that words mean things.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:22 PDT 1996
Article: 40401 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Turner Diaries
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 19:43:34 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:44:30 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:40401 alt.politics.white-power:30553 alt.politics.nationalism.white:21256

[email protected] (Whitey) wrote:

>[email protected] (Andrew Mathis) wrote:

>>Alexander Baron wrote:

>>>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] “Rich Graves” writes:
>>>> No, I bet YOU are working for the ADL. All this unsubstantiated nonsense
>>>> about how Hitler never had it in for the Jews; my God, man, read your
>>>> Mein Kampf. You DO own a copy, don’t you?

>>>I have a copy of the James Murphy translation. So that “proves” that Hitler
>>>”gassed” Jews? Hmm…

>>No, all those dead Jews do.

>>Duh.
>>————————————-
>>”If they give you ruled paper,
>>Write the other way.”
>> –Juan Ramon Jimenez

>Actually, his point was that his words of intent to destroy the Jews
>did not amount to proof that he actually did. All those dead jews were
>definitely circumstantial evidence that he gassed ’em like he said he
>would, but it isn’t the smoking gun. The smoking gun was the paper
>trail that outlines the plans for methods of transport, housing and
>execution and Hitler’s signature of approval on these documents. The
>Nazis were positively anal in the beurocratic nature of their
>brutality.

Three quotes from his speeches were posted in alt.revisionism and
all of those “threats” refer to something that would happen as a
consequence of war. In the same group no one has been able to
provide tht paper trail and specifically no Hitler signatures.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:22 PDT 1996
Article: 40402 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 19:43:41 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:44:37 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> Say OB (I can call you OB can’t I?) as we left it last time,
>>>>Nizkor was still await its tax exemption and Alec G. reported
>>>>that tax receipts can only be given to tax free organizations and
>>>>that the synagogue was still offering tax receipts for your
>>>>non-tax exempt organization.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have it straightened out yet?
>>
>>> I posted a factual discussion of the issues in misc.taxes some time
>>>ago, with a note posted here that I had done so. The fact that you did
>>>not choose to read and discuss that issue in the appropriate newsgroup
>>>shows that you are just a troll who is not interested in facts, only in
>>>causing arguments.
>>
>> Right. You could post it there, in a conference my provider
>>might not even carry, but you were unable to post it here.

> Excuse me, good sir, but we both know quite well that Netcom is one of
>the largest ISPs in the country and carries a full newsfeed.

That claim is no place on its website. Where did you read it?

Furthermore
>if there is any real question of “might not carry,” misc.taxes is far
>likelier to be carried even by a small provider than anything in the alt
>hierarchy. So this “might not carry” nonsense is nothing but more
>juvenile game playing by a dishonest troll with no real interest in facts,
>only in argument.

So without knowledge of it being carried. You posted it in that
conference without notification of posting it in that conference
and then make reference to it long after the fact when it would
have scrolled off anyway.

But rather than indulge in this diversion, why not post it here?
Or is Nizkor off topic?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:23 PDT 1996
Article: 40403 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dees loses this battle
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 19:43:47 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:44:43 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (MORRISON KEITH MURRAY) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

>>># What I find interesting is that I do take a watch at most of the
>>># PBS and other holocaust documentaries. I can not remember ever
>>># seeing anyone on camera, even from old filmclips, talking about
>>># actually seeing people being gassed.

>>>Try the BBC’s “World At War” and “Shoa”.

>> BBC? From the country that gave us the Zimmerman note? Britain
>>was the country that chose to start war with Germany by invoking
>>a treaty with Poland and then selectively declaring war on
>>Germany but not Russia which also invaded Poland.

>GIWER EVASION TECHNIQUE #5: When someone proves you wrong, attempt to
>impunge the country said proof orignates from, preferably mentioning
>something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that was actually
>being talked about.

> Example: “The US clearly faked the moon landings.”
> “Why?”
> “Because US troops massacred civilians at My Lai.”
> “Huh?”
> “How can you trust a country like that?”

The reference is specifically to the BBC’s World at War. In what
manner is it a diversion to point out what Britain did to start
that war?

Do you have an explanationn for England not declaring war on
Russia also if the concern was over Poland?

>> Shoa I missed. Stetl, I did not. A hatchet job on Poles.

>GIWER EVASION TECHNIQUE #4: When someone proves you wrong, drag in something
>else that the poster did not mention and then talk about it like they did.

Excuse me. Reference to TV shows is now proof?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:24 PDT 1996
Article: 40404 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 19:43:43 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:44:40 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer wrote:

>>[email protected] (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:
>>>: [email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>>
>>>: >Would Mr. Giwer consider CO2 dissolved in water an acid? Yes or no?
>>
>>>: That is not under discussion, deceitful one. The discussion is
>>>: CO2, a gas, as you can plainly see.
>>
>>>It doesn’t matter whether it’s in the gas phase or in solution:
>>>CO2 is an acid. Sorry Charlie.
>>
>> Interesting that both chemists here would make the point of CO2
>>being disolved in water to claim it is an acid and then, after
>>their bluffs being called, will claim that they can name the pH
>>of CO2 without being disolved in water.

>Mr. Giwer misses a subtlety that Mr. (Dr.?) Schultz and I have made
>different claims here. I have claimed that CO2 dissoved in water is
>acidic (which I believe was Dr. Bilik’s original point.).

You may believe anything you want. He did not say that. He did
not come back and correct his statement.

Richard
>Schultz made a claim that CO2 itself is an acid. Strictly speaking I
>agree with him, but it depends on which definition of acidity you use.

What is the pH of CO2?

>I assumed correctly that Mr. Giwer would only be familiar with the
>Bronsted-Lowry definition of acidity. Rather than confuse him, I’m
>willing to concede that CO2 itself is not a Brosted-Lowry acid. CO2
>solvated in water, however (most gases are soluble to some extent in
>water), in in fact a Bronsted-Lowry acid. The average tropospheric
>pressure of CO2 is about 330 ppm. As a result of the solvation of this
>CO2 in water, ambient water is not pH 7 but pH 5.6.

I am certain Bilik is able to speak for himself without you
attempting to speak for him.

>> There are two phases of CO2, gas and solid. In solution is a
>>chemical reaction, not a phase. You are lying and you are a
>>liar.

>At atmospheric pressure, Mr. Giwer is correct that there are two phases
>of CO2. At other pressures liquid CO2 can exist. Mr. Giwer is somewhat
>justified in calling the solvation of CO2 in water a reaction. He can
>demonstrate no justification for calling either Richard Schultz or me a
>liar, however.

Do you really prefer willfully deceitful?

>> At this point it is very interesting question as to the depths of
>>deception these two chemist will sink to in order to promote even
>>the most peripheral errors of a fellow holohuggers.

>Dr. Bilik made no error. He assumed that you would be familiar enough
>with what he was talking about when he referred to CO2 as an acid.

I have no idea of any degrees this person might have. He said
CO2 is an acid. CO2 is not an acid. Unless you are capable of
mind reading, you have no idea what he meant. And he can speak
for himself. He does not need you to speak for him.

As noted, one more example of holohuggers coming to the defense
of other holohuggers.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:25 PDT 1996
Article: 40405 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Part of an interesting document
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 19:43:50 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:44:46 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt
>Giwer) wrote:

>> Chuck Ferree wrote:
>>

>> >Now let’s see you defend some more Nazi War criminals!
>> >How can you speak well of these men who perpetrated the worst,
>> >cruelest, most inhumane acts in modern history?
>>
>> A secretary? Secretaries have authority?

>Secretary of Defense?
>Secretary of State?

>
>Yeah, you’re right, Giwer. Secretaries have no authority.

Did you play the part of the boy in “The Day the Earth stood
still”?

To paraphrase, “Those other people are called secretaries but my
mom is a real secretary.” You apparently haven’t learned the
difference in the intervening 40 years.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:25 PDT 1996
Article: 40406 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Picture this
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 19:43:57 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:44:52 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (tom moran) wrote:

> By Holocaust accounts it is said during the first gassings at
>”block 11″ the Germans were experimenting with various doses of Zyklon
>B to see how much they would need. They found that some of the people
>were still alive after two days.
> Now how did all this take place? Did they just let the bodies
>lay around for two days in the block, and then someone noticed there
>were still some alive? Or did they gas them for two days and then
>after they let the air out they entered and found that some were still
>alive? Or did they empty the block of the dead bodies and stack them
>someplace and then someone noticed that some were still alive? Or did
>they gas the victims for a number of minutes or hours and then took
>the bodies out and noticed some were still alive and then gave them
>medical attention? Or did they take the bodies out and let those still
>alive die a slow death? Or did they ….

I find it interesting that the dosage was so high that the
screaming stopped in 10-15 minutes (lets ignore seeing clouds of
it for the moment) and yet there were some alive the next day.
It must have something to do with selective genetic immunity.
Now if it had taken twelve hours for the “screaming to stop” I
could see it.

But then each time it is retold some new and even more gruesome
detail needs be added.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:26 PDT 1996
Article: 40407 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Picture File: SS-Women in Belsen Camp
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 19:43:53 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:44:50 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de wrote:

>[email protected] (Nele Abels) wrote:
>>[I wrote:]
>>This, Mr. Giwer, is the moment where your completely false conception of history becomes
>>obvious. Anybody who undertakes the painstaking task of reading extensive parts of your
>>webside (I have done so) can see that you regard history as a chain of more or less
>>independent points in time. You think that organizations and events were monolithical,
>>unchangeable throughout their existence and – most important of all – not contradictory.
>>This is wrong.

>[And so on…]

>Hello…have we gone away? Are we perhaps insulted? Or is it possible that we don’t have
>any answer Mr. “master-historian” Giwer?

It is also someone who has never read anything on my website.
Beyond that, it isn’t a bad post.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:27 PDT 1996
Article: 40411 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 20:09:51 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 3:10:48 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Keith Morrison wrote:

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> >> I would have thought they were Canadian or Quebeceques or however
>> >>they spell it. Or do you too believe there is a French race?
>>
>> >No. But many people speak the French language, therefore they are called
>> >French. My mother tongue happens to be English (unlike whatever odd
>> >language you use) thus people frequently refer to me as English.
>>
>> >The correct terms would be, of course, Anglophone and Francophone, but no
>> >one in Canada gets particularily confused if you call them English instead
>> >of Anglophone. In fact, if a speaker is referring to someone who is
>> >strictly English or French (from England or France) there is usually a
>> >qualification to indicate the person’s nationality.
>>
>> >I know it is hard for someone with an IQ of 163 to understand something like
>> >that, but hey, I suppose I can’t blame someone who has demonstrated
>> >ignorance of just about anything he has spoken on to do any better vis a vis
>> >anything to do with Canada.
>>
>> That is one more thing that separates the US and Canada. Our
>> French speakers are called creole. We do not suggest they are a
>> different nationality or race because of their choice of
>> language. As I said, I can see why Montreal would consider
>> secession.

>Actually, Montreal has a movement to secede from Quebec to rejoin Canada,
>but I digress.

>You will note that the Giwer-Troll totally ignored my explanation of how
>the terms “English” and “French” are used in normal conversation by
>people who have a decent grasp on the language even if they do not have
>the imaginary 163 IQ the Giwer claims is his.

I did not ignore it. I accepted it as another thing that
separates the US from Canada. A very strange thing of course.

>Furthermore he proves once more his ignorance of things Canadian by
>assuming that Quebecois would be insulted to be called French, despite
>the fact that they frequently use that term themselves and that there
>is nothing prejorative about it.

I still find it strange that Canadians divide themselves as
French and British.

>> >> Is it any wonder there is so much sentiment to secede from Canada
>> >>with attitudes like yours?
>>
>> >You have demonstrated ignorance of your own damned Constitution so how
>> >exactly are you qualified to make statements about the politics of other
>> >countries? Oh sorry, I forgot. The I AM Giwer So! I! Say! So! Rule. How
>> >silly of me.
>>
>> Actually, the canucks here mutually declared victory despite
>> being wrong.

>Actually, should anyone really believe anything the Giwer says anymore,
>most of the people who said that you were wrong were in fact American,
>at least one being a lawyer. I believe he said something about being
>embarressed that a Canadian knew your constitution better than a fellow
>American.

That lawyer is the one who has said that the oath of witnesses in
court in Pennsylvania is that “The evidence I am about to give
shall be the truth etc.” Is that the kind of person you believe?

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:28 PDT 1996
Article: 40422 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!agate!ossi.com!netserv.com!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!bofh.dot!nntp.primenet.com!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Every Day, Yellow School Buses
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 07:13:52 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:14:44 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Harry Katz) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer ([email protected]) whines:

> No rational person is going to accept that if the gassing story
> goes away Nazis will come to political power.

>Putting aside the question of how Mr. Giwer could possibly know what
>a “rational person” will accept or not accept, no rational person
>will deny that general knowledge of the details of the Holocaust is
>one of the reasons that Nazis have so much difficulty today in their
>bid for political power. No rational person will deny that the
>political goals of the Nazis will be easier to achieve if the truth
>of the Holocaust is ultimately denied and suppressed.

It is only your lack of knowledge of present day conditions and
political systems that that lets you believe anyone espousing any
variation of the NSDAP form of Marxism could arise today.

Your statements are so devoid of aculturation that I find it
difficult to believe anyone could write them without reciting an
article of indoctrination.

The closest any political party can get to marxism in a western
European democracy is a welfare state and that inspires strong
opposition.

Just who convinced you that the NSDAP party platform would
attract voters regardless of the holocaust? If Jews had never
existed, why would the party attract votes?

What you are suggesting is on the order superstition, as in
breaking a mirror means seven years bad luck.

> No rational person is going to accept what if the Judeocentrism
> of the work camps goes away that Nazis will come to political
> power.

>No rational person will deny that if the truth of the Holocaust is
>denied and suppressed that that act in itself would indicate a
>softening of opposition to Nazism and a willingness to reconsider the
>Nazi ideology.

There in no more Nazism nor any Nazi ideology. But you would
have people suddenly seeking out phrenologists to assess the
purity of their Aryan background. You are a very superstitious
person.

You appear to have simply discarded ALL of the circumstances
under which the Nazis came to power including the Treaty of
Versaille, a parliamentary form of government and a weak
constitution.

Someone has brainwashed you into believing the holocaust is the
only thing that WW II was about.

> More specifically, no rational person thinks Jews are that
> important, period.

>That is indeed true, but the Nazis who seek political power are not
>rational, and they do indeed think that “Jews are that important!”
>And the history of Nazi Germany proves that rational people can
>become the victims of irrational, but organized, mobs.

But just who in the hell is going to listen to them? Who is
going to vote for them? Who is suffering under the Treaty of
Versailles today? Who is in the midst of a worldwide depression?
Agreed some parlimentary forms of government are vulnerable.

You are out of touch with reality. The closest any country ever
came to electing a marxist government in “very” post war Europe
was Italy. (That is to exclude Greece in 1946.)

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:28 PDT 1996
Article: 40437 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 17:55:01 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 12:55:56 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Su Majewski) wrote:

>>If you are thinking of saddling up to this repellent little netscab, I
>>suggest you first get a taste of him leading his gang of rats in their
>>game of lies, libel, intolerance, threats and censorship *in their own
>>words* at:
>>http://www.c2.org/~ccrj/soapbox.htm

>If you call somebody a “repellent little netscab” or “snotnose
>wienie”, isn’t that libel or is that slander?

>No fight. Just a simple question.

Actually it is merely gradeschool stuff. But he revels in it.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:29 PDT 1996
Article: 40440 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:38:15 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <4o2v <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 3:39:08 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Harry Katz) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer ([email protected]) whines:

> Actually it was you who attempted in mid stream to change the
> criteria for bodies self combusting and failed to continue the
> discussion. It was also you who got me called a liar for
> claiming that bones burn.

> I have dropped no such claim as you are well aware. All you
> were doing was using the formal meaning of the term burning to
> make it appear I was lying and those you deceived claimed I was
> lying for saying that HCN was a “burn” byproduct.

>That is not the way that most readers will remember this controversy.

>Mr. Giwer continually claims to be the only person qualified to
>discuss matters of chemistry, going so far as to blast anyone else
>who contributes to the discussion as totally unfit (usually after they
>prove him to be dead wrong).

After the usual example of a religious fanatic who has accepted
the holocaust as an article of faith has shown himself to be a
liar for Yahweh AND admits it, no person with integrity woud side
with such a person.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:30 PDT 1996
Article: 40445 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Crematorium Rates
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 08:53:31 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl7-13.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Jun 01 3:54:31 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Danny) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Holohuggers have posted the source, Pressac if I remember
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>correctly.
>>
>>>>>I’m outa here.
>>
>>>> If you can’ take the heat, get out of the oven.
>>
>>>Nope. You offer very little in the way of heat, Mr. Giwer. You provide
>>>insults 98% of the time. This makes your replies useless.
>>
>> I do not insult, I describe correctly. If the correct
>>description offends you folks, stop reading.

> Anyone reading this thread (as quoted *in context* above) can see:

> 1. You described one camp in this discussion as “holohuggers”
> (correct or not);

You describe anyone who does not believe the current version (and
in the past all prior versions) as an antisemite and a neonazi,
right? Yes, AFTER and only after I was called the above, did I
create the perjorative holohugger[s].

It was after because I have been in these discussions before and
the name calling has always been started by the “others” so I
carefully avoided any name calling here.

> 2. Mike stopped reading (he clearly stopped at that point in the post);

He is clearly an idiot.

> 3. You insulted through innuendo (suggesting he couldn’t handle the
> heat of the debate, clearly an incorrect analysis given the other
> heated debates Mike engages in);

He could not handle it and everyone who has adopted the mantra is
not engaged in innuendo but explicitely in what you are stating.

> Ergo, you don’t look to good in this exchange.

Ergo, your purported perception is bullshit.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:30 PDT 1996
Article: 40446 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!arclight.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Diesel exhaust that looks like steam
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 08:56:41 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl7-13.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Jun 01 3:57:41 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

># The backfire extends the length of the pipe where the density of
># what ignited once continues, i.e., the entire length. It is not
># a spark. It is a miniature fuel air bomb.

>Oh, here we go again with Giwer’s fuel-air bombs. The guy
>has seen too many war movies or something.

There is no more need to waste bandwidth on this one.

The “eyewitness” was close enough to know the composition of
doormats and that was a lie and therefore the steaming was a lie.

Get over it or get on to making up a story about the
electrocution lie or the vacuum chamber lie.

You have nothing in favor of your fantasy.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

From [email protected] Sat Jun 1 05:54:31 PDT 1996
Article: 40449 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dees loses this battle
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 09:08:03 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-22.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri May 31 2:08:56 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

># What I find interesting is that I do take a watch at most of the
># PBS and other holocaust documentaries. I can not remember ever
># seeing anyone on camera, even from old filmclips, talking about
># actually seeing people being gassed.

>Try the BBC’s “World At War” and “Shoa”.

BBC? From the country that gave us the Zimmerman note? Britain
was the country that chose to start war with Germany by invoking
a treaty with Poland and then selectively declaring war on
Germany but not Russia which also invaded Poland.

Shoa I missed. Stetl, I did not. A hatchet job on Poles.

>Unless “seeing people being gassed” means being in the chamber
>while the gassing took place, or a closed-circuit camera, or
>whatever Giwer’s 163-IQ super-brain may come up with.

I means anyone giving credible details they saw anything at all.

—-
Eyewitness testimony to the physically impossible is only
evidence that he was not an eyewitness.