Documents

Green Richard 1998-1

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

<quote>

The results of analyses are presented in Tables I-IV. They
unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the
facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with
them. On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accomodations,
which was shown by means of control samples.

</quote>

The IFRC researchers used a calibrated method that they checked against
samples of known concentration as they went along. They discriminated against
Prussian blue whose origin is not clear. Leuchter and Rudolf did not do so,
and their attempt to disprove the possibility of homicidal gassings
fails.

From [email protected] Sat Apr 4 17:16:25 EST 1998
Article: 170328 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!
feed.nntp.acc.ca!news.idt.net!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!
news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!
news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!
199.45.255.100!coop.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Leuchter Report
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <01bd5ff9$43b25ce0$1a8b4ad1@default>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 21:51:12 GMT
Lines: 35
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:170328

—————————————————————————–
Richard J. Green The Holocaust History Project
[email protected] http://www.holocaust-history.org
http://world.std.com/~rjg [email protected]

From [email protected] Wed Apr 8 21:22:57 EDT 1998
Article: 170562 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.45.255.100!
coop.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: The Chemistry of Auschwitz
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <3527d2b6.8648765[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 00:33:57 GMT
Lines: 29
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:170562

In article <[email protected]>,
Richard Schultz <correct address in .sigfile> wrote:
>tom moran ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>: [Richard Green] presents stuff to the general public he wouldn’t dare
>: show his peers in the field of chemistry so Moran just let it stand.
>: What’s Mr.Green’s complaint? Moran did him a favor.
>
>I can think of at least one person with a Ph. D. in chemistry who is
>quite impressed with the level of understanding of chemistry shown in
>Dr. Green’s essays on the subject.

Thank you, Dr. Schultz. Your praise is much appreciated.

>BTW, has anyone ever figured out what Moran always refers to himself
>in the third person?

Now you are asking an impossible question. Green doesn’t know the
answer.

Best,

Rich Green

—
—————————————————————————–
Richard J. Green The Holocaust History Project
[email protected] http://www.holocaust-history.org
http://world.std.com/~rjg [email protected]

From [email protected] Wed Apr 8 21:22:57 EDT 1998
Article: 170568 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!Supernews73!
supernews.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Michael Newton VS Natalia
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <6fi8bj$giq$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 01:12:22 GMT
Lines: 272
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:170568

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

>> On the contrary, Natalia has just refuted the value of the Leuchter and
>> Rudolf Reports. If I test for cyanides in one building and then I take
>> samples form another pigment that obviously contains Prussian blue, the
>> second sample is a biased control.
>>
>
>I have not refuted the value of the Leuchter and Rudolf reports at all. In
>the first place, Leuchter used only the delousing chamber as the control
>sample; Rudolf took samples from the barracks as well. Taking the delousing
>chamber as your control sample is not a biased approach, but to only measure
>certain cyanides and ignore others does display bias.

The point, Natalia, is that there is no added information from their
measurements. Discriminating against PB is not a biased approach;
rather it yields new information. The new information is that there is
plenty of cyanide in the gas chambers.

>
>> Here is the important point. The studies of Rudolf and Leuchter add
>> absolutely no information to what was already known. Some of the delousing
>> chambers have blue staining; the homicidal chambers do not. Is that
>> proof that gassing could not have taken place in the homicidal chambers?
>>
>
>The likelyhood of the “gas chambers” having no Prussian Blue after repeated
>applications of hydrogen cyanide in high concentration is very remote,
>although theoretically possible.

So says Natalia without any support.

>The absence of Prussian Blue can be
>explained very simply by the suggestion that no gassings took place. Mr.
>Green doesn’t explain it this way, but he provides no working explanation
>himself, other than to say that the formation of Prussian Blue is very
>complex. A very shaky position for someone to have when he is accusing people
>of having murdered millions.

I do not believe that anyone has been convicted on account of my claims.
Chemistry is not sufficient to prove an historic event and I have never
claimed that it was. What I have claimed is that the claims of Leuchter
and Rudolf to have disproved mass murder are invalid. Get it now?

>
>>
>> Perhaps, Natalia will quote where I have claimed that the Prussian blue
>> is not from exposure to cyanide. I notice that she never corrected her
>> lie that I agreed with Bailer’s thesis.
>>
>> To be blunt: I believe that I have explained where the Prussian blue
>> comes from. If Natalia understand enough oxidation/reduction chemistry
>> to refute my explanation, let her try. Misrepresenting my argument can
>> hardly be called a refutation.
>
>So you agree then, that the Prussian Blue found in the delousing chambers was
>due to repeated HCN applications? This is also our position and therefore we
>do not need to get into the details of oxidation/reduction chemistry. If you,
>however, feel it is necessary to provide these details, by all means do so.

Read my explanation again Natalia. Redox chemistry is extremely central
to understanding Prussian blue formation. Yes, I agree that the CN-
probably came from HCN. The question is where did the Fe(II) come from.
I believe I have answered that question, but the kinetics remain
undemonstrated. Without demonstrating the kinetics of such reduction
it is not possible to argue that PB must have formed.

>>
>>
>> >Revisionists have since made the point that the absence of Prussian Blue in
>> >the “gas chambers” shows that cyanide was not used there for homicidal
>> >purposes.
>>
>> They were proved wrong.
>>
>Absolutely not true. The levels at the gas chambers were so insignificant,
>that according to Rudolf, such low levels could be measured in any random
>building. Rudolf measured very similar levels in the barracks.

Rudolf did not discriminate against PB. The IFRC did. They found an
unambiguous difference between barracks and gas chambers. Their
sensitivity was better and they were able to take better samples that
were sheltered from the elements.

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

<quote>

</quote>

>> When you can explain the mechanism of production of Prussian blue
>> (something that I _have_ done) and then extrapolate that mechanism to
>> predict a rate of formation for Prussian blue greater under the
>> conditions of the homicidal chambers, you will have a starting point.
>>
>Where have YOU explained this mechanism of Prussian Blue

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue

>and shown us that
>this mechanism was such that the Prussian Blue could not have formed in the
>walls of the “gas chambers”?

I have not made that claim. Learn to read better.
>
>
>> I remind you that Rudolf reports a failed attempt to produce Prussian
>> blue. That in itself is sufficient to demonstrate that there is no
>> necessity for Prussian blue formation.
>>
>
>Mr. Green I wish you would be more specific and tell us under which conditions
>Rudolf was unable to produce Prussian Blue. Production of Prussian Blue is no
>big mystery; it is being produced industrially all the time.

No Kidding, but it is necessary to produce Iron(II). Do you know how
Prussian blue is made industrially? I explain that at:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue
>
>> More importantly, cyanides are present in the homicidal gas chambers at
>> levels above other buildings? Why is that the case in every single
>> chamber that according to the historical record was in contact with
>> cyanide and not the case in buildings that were fumigated at most once.

http://www.vho.org/D/rga/prob25_30.html

Die Analysenergebnisse bez|glich der Ziegelsteinproben
(Tabelle 16, Probennr. 25 und 26)
|berraschen ob ihrer paradox erscheinenden Werte:
Die begaste Probe weist im Gegensatz zur
unbegasten Probe keine Cyanidspuren auf.
Hier konnte der Wert der nicht begasten Probe exakt
reproduziert werden (Tabelle 17), erkldrbar durch die
Abwesenheit hoher Stvrionenkonzentrationen (Carbonat)
im Ziegelstein. Weitere Analysen des begasten Ziegelsteins
ergaben ebenfalls keine nachweisbaren Cyanidwerte.
Dieses Ergebnis belegt, da_ Cyanidwerte bis
10 mg pro kg tatsdchlich nur sehr beschrdnkten Aussagewert
haben, da diese auf ubiquitdre Spuren zur|ckf|hrbar sein kvnnen.

>The Polish scientists, Markiewicz et al., measured very minute quantities in
>the Crematoria and the delousing chambers because they deliberately excluded
>cyanides which did not support their preconceived notions of what was supposed
>to have happened there. I do not only refer to the blue colored cyanides,
>because, according to Rudolf, this “discriminatory” method would also lead to
>the exclusions of other cyanides, ex. any compound with the formula
>Mx(FeII(CN)6)y, ex. K4(FeII(CN)6). Therefore, the Poles arrived at completely
>contrived results. Incidentally Rudolf, unlike the Poles, DID find cyanides
>in samples taken from the living quarters. Rudolf challenged the Poles to
>submit their results for independent testing, but as far as I know, they have
>chosen not to do so.

Who did you plagiarize that information from Natalia? A source would be
nice?

The IFRC samples were measured by a separate team that did not know
which samples were which. Read their paper for the first time.

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/
>
>> That is an interesting paper; I will take a look. I note, however, that
>> a single instance of producing Prussian blue (if it in fact happened) is
>> not sufficient to prove Rudolf correct, whereas his failure to produce
>> Prussian blue, even one time, is sufficient to prove him wrong.
>>
>
>This is not correct, as Rudolf does not say in his paper that is is necessary
>for Prussian Blue to be produced under all conditions.

He cannot make such a claim as he knows that it doesn’t, but the fact
that it doesn’t is sufficient to make his claims about Birkenau
worthless.

In the examples of Prussian blue formation that he cites, there are
other sources of reduced iron available (iron pipes, direct application
of Fe(II) etc.).
>
>> He is also most likely wrong about the reducing agent. My suggestion is
>> more reasonable.
>
>Are you suggesting you have found a reducing agent which would make it more
>likely that Prussian Blue was formed in the “gas chambers”? If so, well done.

I have found a reducing agent that is more likely to have formed
Prussian Blue in the delousing chambers than Rudolf’s suggestion. If
you had bothered to read my paper you would know that and also know what
the reducing agent is. To determine whether PB must have formed in the
homicidal chambers requires a bit more work than merely identifying a
possible reducing agent.
>
>> Natalia, you seem to change your story every week. Last week you
>> acknowledged that it is possible to kill with diesel exhaust.
>
>
>I also explained WHY the Germans wouldn’t have used diesel exhaust to kill
>anyone, just as they wouldn’t have armed their soldiers with kitchen knives
>either.

So why did you also claim that diesel exhaust cannot kill? You cannot
have it both ways. Do you agree that those who say diesel exhaust
cannot kill are lying?

>Anyway, I see you’ve failed to understand the point of this particular
>article. I suggest you go back to the beginning, starting at “Considering the
>checkered past of revision..” Maybe you’ll get it the second time through.

My point, was that you wanted to have it both ways.

>>
>> The post that you claim to be your original is a blatant lie. I do not
>> claim on my website that Prussian blue was painted on.
>>
>
>Not so, Mr. Green, just read your own. In your article “Leuchter, Rudolf and
>the Iron Blues v.4.1″ you write:
>”In fact Bailer speculates that the presence of iron blues may be due to paint
>rather than exposure to HCN vapor. This speculation must be viewed as merely
>speculation until further support is available (ex. evidence that such paints
>were actually used)”
>
>Does this not justify my statement that according to you there is a
>POSSIBILITY that it was painted on? Therefore, I am not guilty of a lie, let
>alone a blatant lie.

You lied by omission Natalia. I also mention the possibility that the
gas chambers were not used for mass murder. I do not endorse either
possibility. You misrepresented my position and that was a blatant
lie.

[Irrelevant material snipped: all documents were forged, all confessions
were forced, eyewitness testimony is unreliable, physical evidence
doesn’t prove gassing. Yes, Natalia I know how the game is played.]

Best,

Rich Green

PS Did you get tired of being “Robert” a.k.a. “Orion?”

From [email protected] Wed Apr 8 21:22:57 EDT 1998
Article: 170585 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime,alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news-xfer.mccc.edu!news-xfer.netaxs.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!18.24.4.11!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Michael Newton VS Natalia
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 01:18:05 GMT
Lines: 23
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.true-crime:86057 alt.revisionism:170585

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

>
>http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/index.html
>

I continue to find it amusing that Natalia keeps posting this URL. I
suppose that she has not bothered to read it recently. It has nothing
to do with the Holocaust. It’s about how one Nazi,Willis Carto, ripped-off
a bunch of other Nazis, Greg Raven and friends. It gives a nice glimpse of
what nice people these Nazis are :-).

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Wed Apr 8 21:22:58 EDT 1998
Article: 170678 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!Supernews73!
supernews.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!
news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.45.255.100!coop.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Michael Newton VS Natalia
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <EqM3[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:46:49 GMT
Lines: 62
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:170678

In article <6gbl7i$f03$[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:
>Richard Green wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, if she is Ingrid Weckert, she plagiarized Ernst Gauss
>> a.k.a. Germar Rudolf.
>>
>> Wood Preservation Through Fumigation With Hydrogen Cyanide:
>> Blue Discoloration of Lime- and Cement-Based Interior Plaster
>> newylo
>> ERNST GAUSS
>> http://www.codoh.com/found/fndwood.html
>>
>> Ernst Gauss is the pseudonym Rudolf uses when trying to give his work
>> the academic credentials he lacks. He can pretend that the fictitious
>> Ernst Gauss has a doctorate.
>>
>> More importantly, Natalia misrepresented this source. She neglected to
>> mention that Iron(II) was provided to develop the Prussian blue
>> staining. Since it is the formation of Iron(II) that is the whole
>> problem, her example is not just one case; it is not even one case.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rich Green
>>
>> —
>You really are a sneaky fellow, Green. Either that, or you can’t read. Go
>back to that article he quotes folks here and take a second look. The
>article, which summarizes the events that happened in the church, was written
>by Ernst Gauss, but the actual paper Gauss quoted throughout is none other
>than that which Natalia cites in her posting.

Natalia admitted that her source was the codoh website. Do you think
that she actually went to the library and found the relevant paper?
She admitted to plagiarism; live with it.

>Gauss didn’t write that report, Green. He only summarizes it. The actual
>account of the church was published in 1981, when Gauss (if he is Rudolf)
>was only 17 years old.

Natalia posted information from Rudolf without citing it.

>Bottom line: never trust the word of Richard Green. Obviously he has
>something at stake here and is willing to pull all the stops.

Bottom line: Natalia is an admitted plagiarist.

>Also, Green, explain to us exactly WHERE the Iron II was “provided to develop
>the Prussian Blue staining”. From what I read, formation of Prussian Blue in
>that church was entirely accidental.

Read again. Perhaps, you do not know what Prussian blue is…

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu Apr 9 17:05:46 EDT 1998
Article: 170897 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime,alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Michael Newton VS Natalia
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:31:47 GMT
Lines: 29
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.true-crime:86472 alt.revisionism:170897

In article <[email protected]>,
EVLART <[email protected]> wrote:
>Glas wrote:
>
>>> You spoke too soon I’d say. Here’s a little gem of a revelation from
>>> Mr. John Morris… Seems I was dead on correct, Evl. What sort of
>>> excuses are you going to make now?
>>>
>>> Are you gNatalia too?
>>>
>
>Well, that IS interesting. Obviously I’m not Natalia. You can check me out
>the same way you did her if you like.
>
>PS, She’s a fucking genius!

No, “she” is using the typical tactics of the dishonest denier without
the courage to post under “her” own name, but of course, you thought she
was a 22 year old, remember?

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Apr 10 04:12:29 EDT 1998
Article: 170974 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime,alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!vncnews!HSNX.wco.com!
nntp.csuchico.edu!newshub.csu.net!pln-w!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!news.oru.edu!
newspeer.monmouth.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!
world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: …and Natalia on Racism…
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <1998040923233300.TAA06[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 02:38:02 GMT
Lines: 50
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.true-crime:86568 alt.revisionism:170974

Greetings Inpetto!

I am crossposting this to a.r. for the netertainment value.
These “revisionisst scholars” crack me up sometimes.

Best,

Rich Green
In article <[email protected]>,
inpetto <[email protected]> wrote:
>DOG3 wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
inpetto <[email protected]>
>> writes:
>>
>> >Eric,
>> >
>> > Stroll on over to alt.politics.white-power for more laughs.
>> >[email protected] wrote this to invite a response from ‘Natalia the
>> >Brilliant’. Check djn, only one post for this identity. What
>> >are the odds someone other than Natalia decided to make a once in a
>> >lifetime post just for Natalia? Considering she’s brought three of her
>> >identities into at-c to support her peculiar arguments, I was hoping
>> >she’d revive old Max for us so we could get the posting host.
>> >
>> >Inpetto
>> >
>>
>> I found this out ages ago when she and I were involved in a little flame fuse.
>> If I recall there were 2 people posting like viewpoints here and other ngs.
>> One was so stupid his home page, giving everything you need to know about him,
>> could easily be found on Yahoo.
>>
>> Michael
>
>As far as trolls go, this one is definitely kindergarten level.
>Remailers posted through djn, gimme a break. Do you remember what
>address she used in your interaction with her? I ask because she created
>[email protected] just for me. She made her first post as ‘orion’
>during an argument with me concerning the Unibomber. She took the
>’pro-unibomber’ side of the debate. No surprise.
>
>Inpetto

From [email protected] Mon Apr 13 17:08:53 EDT 1998
Article: 171277 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.true-crime
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!diablo.cs.uofs.edu!
news.missouri.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!
news.vt.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsfeed.usit.net!feeder.qis.net!
news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub1.home.com!
news.home.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!coop.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Michael Newton VS Natalia
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 02:23:19 GMT
Lines: 204
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:171277 alt.true-crime:86893

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

[snip]

>It is entirely up to you what you wish to believe. It still has nothing to
>do with the argument.

Your proven dishonesty has everything to do with the argument “Natalia”
>
>>
>> >Technically speaking, “she” could be me (that would cast a WHOLE new light
>on
>> >her posts now, wouldn’t it? Get it?).
>>
>> You mean your identities may be commutative rather than, er,
>> commutative.
>
>That is up to you to decide. If you think I’m Ariel, you think I’m Ariel.
>So what?

So your dishonesty has been demonstrated for all to see.

[snip]

>> Nor is the tactic very novel. The National Alliance spam attacks on
>> alt.revisionism and talk.politics.libertarian were the work of two or
>> three individuals each posting under several pseudonyms. Persons
>> associated with the so-called Committee for Open Debate on the
>> Holocaust also used to post under several nyms.
>
>So? If I am really Ariel, then you’ve just been treated to an obvious joke.

You misspelled “lie.”

>Read her posts again and see what you think.

I think you misspelled “lie.”

>>
>> >I am still not Natalia, however much you’d like me to be “her”. (Not that
>it
>> >would make any difference either way)

Whatever you say “Natalia.” Yes, I’m sure that’s not your real name
either.

>> Ah but, you see, it does make a difference. Switching nyms allows you
>> to avoid answering questions asked of a previous nym. Multiple nyms
>> give the impression that you have allies in the “debate” and the sense
>> that there is a groundswell of support for you position.
>>
>
>Good of you to speculate. Natalia has existed on this thread without me for
>quite some time, Johnny. She doesn’t need me anymore than your “arguments”
>need this silly tangent.

Well, exposing “her” as a liar sure doesn’t help her case.

>
>
>> It is difficult to see how using multiple nyms demonstrates honesty or
>> a commitment to open debate.
>
>Read Ariel’s posts again, Johnny. Perhaps you’ll get my point.

You’re a fraud; that’s the point. BTW- I’m still waiting for an apology
for your misquote.
>
>>
>> >I guess you figure somehow molting
>> >us into one person will make her go away and leave you alone.
>>
>> “Natalia” is not bothering me, with or without her feathers.
>
>Yet you would really love to expose her as some kind of fraud.(First comes
>plagiarism…) Sound familiar? Look at Leuchter and Rudolf. Same old
>story. Your sudden appearance on this thread involved nothing but. Smear
>campaign manager, Johnny?

She committed plagiarism and admitted to it; I mean you did, Natalia.

>>
>> >Unfortunately, your speculation regarding our identities adds nothing to
>the
>> >argument itself and won’t win it for you.
>>
>> And where, pray, did I suggest that it would?
>>
>> >Your personal attacks cannot
>> >destroy the facts, which clearly stand in our favor.
>>
>> Now here is an example of what I was saying above. There is no “our.”
>> When you say “our opinions,” it should be taken as read that you mean
>> “my opinions.”
>>
>
>I mean Natalia and I. Two seperate people.

As much as Les and Sylvie were, I suppose.

>
>> >So, Morris, what do you have to say about those Polish scientists?
>>
>> That their experimental model is likelier to produce reliable results
>> by discriminating against cyanides whose origin has not been
>> determined.
>
>But they leave out vast amounts of cyanide from the samples taken in one
>location, rendering that sample useless for comparison with another
>originally lacking Prussian Blue.

You’ve already demonstrated your ignorance on this topic.

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

<quote>

The results of analyses are presented in Tables I-IV. They
unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the
facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with
them. On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accommodations,
which was shown by means of control samples.

</quote>

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue
https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/forensic.html
https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/
>
>>
>> Rudolph was unable to produce Prussian Blue under laboratory
>> conditions according to the process he conjectured; in the absence of
>> any other explanation, the origin of the Prussian Blue is therefore
>> not known.
>
>Ahem. Since Richard Green still hasn’t translated, this “inability” on
>Rudolf’s part hasn’t been clarified.

Maybe you should try doing some original research. I gave you the URL;
get it translated yourself. If I provide the translation that I have,
you’ll claim I’m lying anyway. Get to it. If you have a point, prove
it.

First, you ought to apologize for lying about what I said concerning the
gas chambers..

>
>
>>
>> When developing an experimental model you cut out unknown factors
>> since they render your results uninterpretable.
>>
>> What part of this do you not understand?
>
>What don’t you understand about the necessity to include ALL cyanides,
>regardless of their “mechanism of formation” in order to speculate on the
>amount originally used?

What don’t you understand about the fact that PB is a more stable form
of cyanide and more resistant to weathering? What don’t you understand
about the fact that significant levels of cyanides were found in the gas
chambers.

>
>>
>> >How about
>> >the reduced iron Green STILL hasn’t explained the origin of (in the
>church)
>> >and absence of (in the gas chambers)?
>>
>> Iron pipes. The church had plumbing; the gas chamber did not.
>>
>And yet there was a toilet in one of the gas chambers. Was it an outhouse,
>Johnny? And where was this reduced iron when Prussian Blue formed in the
>delousing chambers? Did they have plumbing too?

Read my paper for the first time where I explain what the reducing agent
was. You do know that there are different ways to form Prussian Blue
don’t you? You do know what reduced iron is, don’t you?

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Apr 14 15:11:07 EDT 1998
Article: 171358 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime,alt.revisionism
Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news-xfer.mccc.edu!
news-xfer.netaxs.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!
cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!coop.net!
world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: EVLART vs the Jews from alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 01:38:51 GMT
Lines: 26
Xref: news.trends.ca alt.true-crime:86985 alt.revisionism:171358

In article <[email protected]>,
EVLART <[email protected]> wrote:

> On the Holocaust issue, I noticed on alt.revisionism that an AP story about
>the Rabbi of Berlin was re- printed. It’s worth looking at. I didn’t realize
>that there were 7500 Jews in Berlin in 1945 and that the official Rabbi was
>allowed to practice. Things like this make people question the extent of the
>killings. The fact that killings did take place is evident. I never denied
>that or questioned it, just the numbers. Whether it is 600,000 or six million,
> it is regretable that people were killed.

By comparing a ludicrous 600,000 figure with the approximately accurate
6 million figure you are engaging in _exactly_ the kind of tactics that
Holocaust deniers do. In short, protestations notwithstanding, you are a
holocaust denier “Evl.” (Or should I call you Vlad?).

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Apr 17 05:08:04 EDT 1998
Article: 172375 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca !hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.wli.net!
news.he.net!
katana!uunet!in1.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: EVLART vs the Jews from alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:13:42 GMT
Lines: 33
Xref: trends.ca alt.true-crime:88199 alt.revisionism:172382

In article <[email protected]>,
Anmonon <[email protected]> wrote:
>Richard Green wrote:
>
>>By comparing a ludicrous 600,000 figure with the approximately accurate
>>6 million figure you are engaging in _exactly_ the kind of tactics that
>>Holocaust deniers do. In short, protestations notwithstanding, you are a
>>holocaust denier “Evl.” (Or should I call you Vlad?).
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Rich Green
>>
>>
>>–
> Dear Mr. Green:
>
>
>Would the deaths be any less tragic and pointless if it were 600,000? That
>still is a lot of people murdered.
>
>Evlart/Anmonon

Changing the topic does not make you less of a denier, Vlad.

Best,

Rich Green
—
—————————————————————————–
Richard J. Green The Holocaust History Project
[email protected] http://www.holocaust-history.org
http://world.std.com/~rjg [email protected]

From [email protected] Sat Apr 18 15:43:58 EDT 1998
Article: 172815 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.true-crime
Path: trends.ca !hub.org!news3.buffnet.net!
buffnet2.buffnet.net!news.missouri.edu!
zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!news.vt.edu!
solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsfeed.usit.net!feeder.qis.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub1.home.com!
news.home.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!coop.net!
world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Michael Newton VS Natalia
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 02:23:19 GMT
Lines: 204
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:172815 alt.true-crime:88910

In article <6givid$hpb$[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>It is entirely up to you what you wish to believe. It still has nothing to
>do with the argument.

So your dishonesty has been demonstrated for all to see.

[snip]

You misspelled “lie.”

>Read her posts again and see what you think.

I think you misspelled “lie.”

>>
>> >I am still not Natalia, however much you’d like me to be “her”. (Not that
>it
>> >would make any difference either way)

Whatever you say “Natalia.” Yes, I’m sure that’s not your real name
either.

Well, exposing “her” as a liar sure doesn’t help her case.

>
>
>> It is difficult to see how using multiple nyms demonstrates honesty or
>> a commitment to open debate.
>
>Read Ariel’s posts again, Johnny. Perhaps you’ll get my point.

She committed plagiarism and admitted to it; I mean you did, Natalia.

As much as Les and Sylvie were, I suppose.

You’ve already demonstrated your ignorance on this topic.

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

<quote>

The results of analyses are presented in Tables I-IV. They
unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the
facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with
them. On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accommodations,
which was shown by means of control samples.

</quote>

First, you ought to apologize for lying about what I said concerning the
gas chambers..

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Sat Apr 25 20:17:36 EDT 1998
Article: 171590 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!WCG!news.voicenet.com!netnews.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!199.125.85.9!news.mv.net!
world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Refutation of the Legend
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <Erqs[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 23:13:36 GMT
Lines: 278
Xref: trends.ca alt.true-crime:87455 alt.revisionism:171590

Greetings all,

The cowardly Natalia once again removes alt.revisionism; I have added it
back.

>> >You are beginning to sound like a broken record. The answer is simple: It
>has
>> >two components, iron and cyanide.
>>
>> Wrong! It has two forms of iron, iron (II) and iron (III).
>>
>
>I do not believe I am wrong in saying that Prussian Blue has two components –
>iron and cyanide. However, its FORMATION requires both iron II and iron III,
>which incidentally, are both iron.

Actually, the iron blues are a class of compounds and can include
substances other than iron and cyanide. You are right that both iron II
and iron III are iron, but your argument that the presence of both
cyanide and iron is necessarily sufficient to form Prussian blue is
unsupported speculation.
>
>
>> > When referring to the delousing chambers
>> >the iron comes from the iron oxides in the wall material and the cyanide
>comes
>> >from the hydrogen cyanide which was applied in the fumigation.
>>
>> Where does the iron (II) come from Natalia? I’ve been trying to tell
>> you, but you appear to be chemically illiterate and only capable of
>> parroting other people’s claims.
>>
>
>The iron II comes from the reduction process which takes place when iron III
>is reduced by cyanide.

Good job parotting Rudolf’s claims. Now can you point to an example in
the scientific literature (not the denier literature) in which HCN has
reduced iron III to iron II. Do you even know what oxidation and
reduction are?

I agree that Rudolf’s suggestion for a reducing agent is not entirely
absurd, but given that there is a much more likely one available, i
doubt he is right. You, on the otherhand, don’t seem to have a clue
what reduction means.

>The walls of the Auschwitz facilities had plenty of
>iron III and of course the cyanide was supplied by the hydrogen cyanide. Mr.
>Green, in one of your earlier postings you have also listed water as a
>possible reducing agent. Water would be much more available in the damp, cold
>and unheated environment of the “gas chambers” of Krema II and Krema III than
>in the dry and heated conditions of the delousing facilities.

You just claimed that HCN was the reducing agent. Make up your mind.
The possibility of Prussian blue forming, something that I have always
agreed to does not demonstrate the necessity of it forming. You and
Rudolf must demonstrate that necessity to have a case.

>Rudolf, in his article “Chemische Wissenschaft zur Gaskammerfrage”. points out
>that for both the disassociation of cyanide from hydrogen cyanide as well as
>the reduction process required for the formation of Prussian Blue, humidity or
>the availability of water is by far the single most important factor.

You didn’t have to be Fellini to figure that one out.

>Bailer’s objection that Prussian Blue would not have formed because the walls
>are too alkaline has also been refuted by Rudolf, where he in fact shows by
>quoting the relevant technical literature that the opposite is the case.
>1) J.C. Bailor., Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, Vol 3., Perganon Press,
>Oxford, 1973.
>2) J.J. Christiansen., Inorganic Chemistry. 1970, p.2019ff.
>
>I would not use the term “parroting” when quoting from Rudolf, and therefore I
>will not use the term when you quote the asinine Polish report.

Bailer’s arguments may or may not be valid,

You are quoting material that you do not understand. Finally,
you are beginning to provide references for the garbage you repost from
CODOH.

>The Polish report is flawed because:
>1) It uses measurement methodology which is not internationally accepted, (ie.
>ug/kg). These measurements are meaningless for two reasons.

Wrong. There is nothing wrong with presenting the units as a mass ratio.
You do know what ug/kg means don’t you?

> a) They cannot be reproduced, ie. the same sample will not come up with
> a consistent measurement if tested two or more times.

On the contrary, they tested each positive measurement 3 times and found
consistent results. Read the paper for goodness sakes.

> b) The amounts are so negligible they can be measured in any similar
> substance taken at random.

Wrong again, after treating the materials appropriately to discriminate
against Prussian Blue, they found cyanides where they should be and none
in their controls. Read their paper for the first time. They
calibrated their method against known standards as they went along and
they measure 0 +/- 1 ug/kg levels in the barracks, consistently.

>2) The Poles claim they do not know the origin of Prussian Blue. In the above
>I have described the origin of Prussian Blue in a non technical, simplified
>way.

You have done no such thing. In fact, no such description is possible
because it is the kinetics of PB formation that count and as I’m sure
you know the kinetics can get very complicated very fast. The truth is
that nobody knows why PB formed in some places and not others.

The truth is also that without being able to come up with such an
explantion that measuring a disparity in cyanide levels between
delousing chambers and homicidal chambers provides no more information
than the observation that there are blue stains on the delousing
chambers. Natalia, you have not come up with a new argument in weeks.
My age-old refutation of your nonsense stands. Here it is:

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

<quote>

</quote>

>Rudolf does so in his report in a thoroughly technical way inclusive of
>all the chemical formulae. Therefore, if the Poles do not know its origin,
>they should turn to some other occupation rather than chemistry.

Writing chemical formulae is not the equivalent of proving the case. We
have seen that Rudolf himself exposed a brick to cyanide and measured no
traces of cyanides. That in itself is sufficient evidence that
sometimes PB does not form. Rudolf, most likely, is wrong in his choice
of reducing agent, but even if he got it right, knowing the reducing
agent and writing a balanced equation is not sufficient. I can prove
that diamond spontaneously turns to graphite that way. It does, but you
have to wait a very, very long time. Rudolf, needs to demonstarte rates
under the conditions present in the homicidal chambers. He cannot do
so.
>3) The micro diffusion technique used by the Poles to determine the amount of
>cyanide is actually unsuited for determining cyanides because the sample is
>immersed in a solution of sulfuric acid, which is destructive to the cyanides.

They calibrated against known standards! The cyanides in the known
standards did fine. Sulphuric acid is destructive of nitriles, but much
less so of cyanide ions.

>4) The whole report also lacks credibility because the chemical analysis of
>the probe was undertaken by the same institute. The proper method would
>obviously have been to send the probes to another qualified laboratory,
>without revealing the origin of the samples as both Rudolf and Leuchter have
>done.

The chemical analyis was done by a separate team who did not know which
sample was which. In other words, they did exactly what you say they
should have.

If you want to play the “how can we trust them to be honest with their
measurements and sample collection game” that is sufficient in itself
to invalidate the claims of Rudolf and Leuchter.

>> You are making absurd claims about something you do not understand.
>> Natalia, you don’t even know what reduced iron is!
>>
>
>Mr. Green – tell me which claim is absurd and for what reason. I believe I
>have demonstrated that I know what reduced iron is.

No you have not. You have parroted Rudolf in saying that Fe(III) can be
reduced to Fe(II) yet you have not shown that you know what that means.

I showed your claims absurd below:

>
>
>> You are dead wrong. The possibility, indeed likelihood that the PB in
>> the delousing chambers is a chemical process involving exposure to HCN
>> is irrelevant to the IFRC Report. Their results are valid no matter
>> what. For Rudolf’s results to be valid, he would have to demonstrate
>> the necessity of PB formation in the gas chambers.
>
>Tell me, Mr. Green, has anyone, including the Poles, demonstrated the
>necessity of formation for all the other cyanides? If not, why not?

Conservation of mass was demonstrated a long time ago. Acid base
reactions forming salts are quite easy to demonstrate. Add HCN and KOH
to water and you’ll get KCN, I promise.

>Undoubtedly, you are aware of the fact that one of the “gas chambers”
>(actually a delousing chamber) at Majdanek has Prussian Blue? Do you have an
>explanation for this?

I guess you never bothered to read my essay that you pretend to be
responding to.

Deniers like to use that fact that Majdanek has Prussian blue as
evidence that it was a delousing chamber and not a homicidal gassing
chamber. By making such a claim they invalidate their claims regarding
Auschwitz, i.e., they admit that it is possible that a homicidal chamber
would not form PB. As I am sure you know Pressac claims that the
presence of PB itself is evidence for delousing. I am not convinced by
his argument either as he has not shown satisfactorily why PB should
form in one case and not the other. Sometimes it forms, sometimes it
does not; local conditions vary; the use of Zyklon may have varied in
temperature, humidity, presence of CO2 etc. It certainly varied in the
presence of CO2 which may be part of the explantion. So far, it remains
a mystery. The fact that the homicidal chambers have measurebale levels
of cyanide is not a mystery. It is simply true. Such measurements are
consistent with their use.

>Some time ago, you made the assertion that Rudolf failed to produce Prussian
>Blue. You were asked to be specific about this failure. Your “friend” Mr.
>Morris tried to assist by quoting and mistranslating an entirely irrelevant
>passage out of the Rudolf Report. I pointed this out to him and politely
>asked for another attempt; he has since not been heard from. It seems you are
>still stuck with the burden of showing us where and under which circumstances
>Rudolf failed to produce Prussian Blue.

You missed my rswponse I take it. I agreed with you that what he
translated Prussian Blue should have been translated cyanides. The
point remains that it is sufficient to prove the point that PB does not
always form when brick is exposed to hydrogen cyanide. If that is true,
and it is, then rudolf’s claims are worthless.

I noticed that you ran away from responding to Mr. Morris’s subsequent
post as well as that of Mr. Van Alstine.

I also noticed that your “friend” “Robert” conveniently disappeared when
I proved that “he” lied about what I said.

Your-er- I mean his dishonesty is telling.

>Now – on a positive note. I must commend you on your stand with respect to
>the hate posting by the JDL against David Cole.
>At least here we are in full agreement.

Actually not. I oppose the JDL because I believe in civil liberties.
You oppose themn because you are a Nazi-apologist. If your Nazi friends
ever gained power in this country we would lose those liberties.

Do you remember the White Rose? Do you condemn what happened to the
leaders?

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Mon Apr 27 12:37:00 EDT 1998
Article: 171905 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!diablo.cs.uofs.edu!news.missouri.edu!
uky.edu!gatech!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
news.bbnplanet.com!uunet!
in1.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: EVLART vs the Jews from alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 02:31:08 GMT
Lines: 343
Xref: trends.ca alt.true-crime:87990 alt.revisionism:171809

Hey “Natalia,”

How come you don’t have the courage to cross-post this garbage to
alt.revisionism?

Also when is your “friend” “Robert” going to apologize for dishonestly
misquoting me?

Have you learned what iron(II) is yet, Vlad?

Best,

Rich Green

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Greetings Readers!
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> The base membership of the Einsatzgruppen makes no difference, since
>> mobile killing units had a policy of “cooperating” with local
>> antisemitic militias and other forces in the Ukraine and elsewhere.
>
>
>You have been dishonest with us. In your first post you attributed all these
>deaths to the Einsatzgruppen; in now in this post you have been forced to
>admit the involvement of others. Make up your mind Mikey, and while you are
>at it please specify a few things for us. Eg. what nationality were these
>”antisemetic militias”? How many of these “deaths” do you attribute to the
>Einsatzgruppen? To these local militias? Be specific.
>
> As
>> for the “exaggerated” figures, it apparently suits “natalia’s” purposes
>> to call her beloved Nazis liars whenever they ‘fess up to murder. In
>> fact, official reports from the mobile murder squads include the
>> following statistics reported to headquarters:
>
>>snip the lengthy quote of numbers<
>
>> The total of these reports is, I believe, 925,325 murders…and it
>> should not be supposed that the killing stopped in 1942. This total is,
>> in fact, approximately two-thirds of the total Jewish body count for the
>> Einsatzgruppen in “The East.”
>>
>
>Yes, Mikey, we are all aware of these figures; you have stated them before.
>What you have failed to address (and conveniently snipped from the post) is
>the issue of Reginald Paget, respected historian and member of the British
>House of Commons, who researched these very numbers and found many of them to
>be exaggerated by a ratio of 10 to 1. Let me guess – he’s a Nazi, right?
>First Nazi in history to serve in the British House of Commons – what a
>concept!
>
>
>
>> As far as “natalia’s” ridiculous lie that the Einsatzgruppen were
>> assigned only to battle partisans (meaning armed members of an organized
>> resistance movement), we need only review Heydrich’s order of 7/2/41
>> concerning Einsatzgruppen operations, which reads in part:
>>
>> “4. EXECUTIONS. The following will be executed:
>> All officials of the Comintern….
>> The People’s Commissars;
>> Jews in the service of the Party or the State;
>> Other extremist elements (saboteurs, propagandists, snipers, assassins,
>> agitators, etc)…
>
>I see you don’t agree with your own definition of a partisan. Saboteurs,
>propagandists, snipers, assassins, agitators?? I suppose if you had been
>Heydrich, you would have let these “innocents” live so they could be free to
>attack and kill your men. Nifty.
>
>
>No steps will be taken to interfere with any purges
>> that may be initiated by anti-Communist or anti-Jewish elements in the
>> newly occupied territory. On the contrary, these are to be secretly
>> encouraged….Special care should be taken in regard to the shooting of
>> doctors and others engaged in medical practice….”
>>
>
>Shooting of doctors? For what reason? Were they criminals? Partisans? Where
>is the rest of the paragraph?
>You seem to have taken several disjointed segments of a larger document and
>arranged them to suit your means. Next time, please quote the entire section
>so we are able to obtain a clear understanding of the actual context in which
>they were used.
>
>
>> In fact, of course, we know that murders of Jews were not limited to
>> those “in service of the Party or the State,” by any means.
>>
>
>We do? And exactly where have you demonstrated that you are justified in
>making such a claim? You haven’t – you have consistently failed to prove
>anything. Please provide clear examples to support your statement.
>
>
>> > > We know from the Wansee Conference (1942) that Himmler and
>> > > company planned on “special treatment” of 11 million Jews in Europe,
>> >
>> > Special treatment does not mean extermination. Here it means simple
>> > deportation and relocation.
>>
>> With all due respect, “natalia”: Bullshit. I’ve answered this one
>> before, but you were probably out-of-body in one of your other personas,
>> so here we go again, for the mentally challenged. (It amuses me to note
>> that your short attention span would probably have gotten you
>> euthanized, under “brilliant” Adolf. Maybe next time?)
>
>We are referring to the same Wansee Conference, are we not? The section in
>the Wansee Conference you are referring to in the German original uses the
>word “Evakuierung”, which in English is evacuation, not special treatment.
>This same document makes no reference to genocide, planned or otherwise.
>
>>
>> Use of the words “resettlement” and “deportation” entered use as
>> euphemisms for mass murder following the Nazi invasion of the USSR.
>
>Prove it.
>
> A
>> report to District Command 810, dated 12/7/41, includes the comment that
>> “The execution of Jews, about 2,500 in number, was accomplished on 1, 1,
>> and 3 December. Subsequent executions are expected, as part of the
>> Jewish population has fled. It is in hiding and must first be captured.”
>> In both cases, “execution” is crossed out, and “resettlement” written in
>> by hand.
>
>Perhaps you don’t understand. If someone crosses out the word “execution” and
>writes in “resettlement”, chances are good that it was a correction made to
>suit the actual circumstances. If you plan to cover up your actions, you do
>not simply cross out a word and replace it – you destroy the document itself.
>
>In case you still do not understand (a good chance), I will provide you with
>another example that clearly outlines the intention of the Nazi government in
>regards to the “Final Solution”:
>
>
>
>Deportations to the East
>
>The following letter written by Franz Rademacher in February of 1942 is
>important for its clarity regarding
>the Nazi “final solution” of the Jewish question. Allied propaganda has
>enforced a sinister definition of the
>term “final solution” for over fifty years. In this document a number of
>points are made perfectly clear:
>
> 1) The “final solution” was to be a plan for deportation to the island of
>Madagascar
>
> 2) Gruppenführer Heydrich was ordered by Hitler to carry out the “final
>solution.”
>
> 3) Due to the war with the Soviet Union, the “final solution” was
>redefined from deportations to
> Madagascar to deportations to the east.
>
>
>– RAW
>
>
>Letter by Franz Rademacher, Head of AA Referat D III (Jewish Affairs), to
>Harold Bielfeld,
>Head of AA Pol. X (Africa and Colonial Affairs), February 10, 1942.
>
>In August 1940 I gave you for your files the plan for the final solution of
>the Jewish Problem, drafted by my office, for
>which purpose the Madagascar Island was to be demanded from France in the
>Peace Treaty, while the Reich Security
>Main Office was to be charged with the actual execution of the task. In
>accordance with the plan, Gruppenführer
>Heydrich has been ordered by the Führer to carry out the solution of the
>Jewish Problem in Europe.
>
>In the meantime the war against the Soviet Union has offered the possibility
>of putting other territories at our disposal for
>the final solution. The Führer accordingly has decided that the Jews shall not
>be deported to Madagascar but to the East.
>Therefore it is no longer necessary that Madagascar be taken into
>consideration for the final solution.
>
>
>
>Source: Akten zur Deutschen Auswärtigen Politik 1918-1945, Series E, vol. I,
>p. 403.
>
>Herbert A. Strauss, General Editor, “Jewish Immigrants of the Nazi Period in
>the USA” Vol. 4 – Jewish
>Emigration from Germany 1933-1942: A Documentary History, K.G. Saur, New York
>1992, p. 647.
>
>
>From URL http://www.kaiwan.com/codoh/incon/inconmad.html
>
>>
>> The same change appears in reports dated 21/14/41 and 21/21/41. Yet
>> another report makes the nature of “resttlement” crystal-clear. Dated
>> 2/5/43 from Byelorussia, it states:
>>
>> “On 8 and 9 February 1943 the local commando will undertake the
>> resettlement of the Jews in the town of Sluzk. Those taking part in this
>> operation will be the members of the commando named below and 11o
>> members of the Latvian volunteer company….
>
>Resettlement? Yes. And? The rest of the paragraph, perhaps?
>
>> “On the resettlement site there are two pits. A group of ten leaders
>> and men will work at each pit, relieving each other every two hours….
>
>Yes. More resettlement. And pits. So what? What were they for? The rest of
>the sentence, please!
>
>> “The following persons are responsible for giving out the bullets at
>> the transportation site….”
>>
>
>Yes. Bullets. What were they for? Who were they given to? The Jews? The
>soldiers? A hunting party? The rest of the paragraph, please!
>
>
>> Are we clear, “natalia”? Nah, I didn’t think so. Go back to sleep.
>>
>
>Clear as mud. Nice sentence fragments there Mikey. Perhaps next time you’ll
>have the sense to post the entire section relevant to your quotes, so that we
>can see the actual context in which they were used. You must learn to stop
>with this creative reorganization and start relying on actual facts.
>
>> > and as late as 1945, Himmler was “very
>> > > upset” with his body-counters, whose estimates of 6 million dead Jews
>> > > struck him as too low. There are no “zealots” fabricating these numbers;
>> > > they come from Nazi archives and memoranda.
>> > >
>> >
>> > How completely absurd. Where is the mention of this incident in a
>
>historical
>> > document? No where – because it simply isn’t true.
>>
>> And you’re lying yet again, Nat, as we’ve come to expect. I’ve cited
>> this document previously, as well, but in your addled mental state, I
>> don’t expect you to remember. William Hoettl, a member of Foreign
>> Intelligence in the RSHA:
>>
>> “At the end of August 1944, I had a conversation with SS
>> Obersturmbannfuhrer Adolf Eichmann, whom I had known since 1938….He
>> had recently prepared a report for Himmler, since he [Himmler] had
>> wanted to know the exact number of Jews who had been killed. On the
>> basis of the information at his disposal, he [Eichmann] arrived at the
>> following result:
>> “Around four million Jews had been killed in the various extermination
>> camps, while two million had died by other means, of whom the majority
>> had been shot by the Einsatzkommandos of the Security Police during the
>> campaign against Russia.
>> “Himmler was not satisfied with the report, since in his view the
>> number of Jews who had been killed must be larger than six million.
>> Himmler declared that he would send a man from his statistical office to
>> Eichmann so that he could produce a new report on the basis of
>> Eichmann’s material in which the exact number could be worked out.”
>>
>
>I believe we’ve dealt with Hoettl in the past, but as usual, you have learned
>nothing from your mistakes.
>Let me outline the character of Wilhelm Hoettl for both you and the reader.
>
>Before and During the War:
>
>Born in 1915, Hoettl entered the SD in 1938 and quickly acquired a reputation
>for mixing official business with personal business deals. His teaming up
>with a Polish countess friend in a Polish land deal led, in 1942, to an SS
>investigation of his activities. The resulting report characterized him as
>”dishonest, scheming, fawning,…a real hoaxter”, and concluded that he was
>not even suitable for membership in the SS, let alone a sensitive agency such
>as the SD. Following this investigation, he was busted down to the ranks. He
>managed to rise to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel after his acquaintance,
>Kaltenbrunner, rose to the head of the RSHA.
>
>After the War:
>
>Until 1949, he worked for the US Army Counter-Intelligence Corps. Afterwards
>he immersed himself in cold war politics, maintaining links with neo-Nazis,
>Soviet agents and nearly everyone else. He had a particularly close
>relationship with one Soviet agent Kurt Ponger, a US citizen whom he had met
>when Ponger was employed as a translator at the IMT (in addition, a Kurt
>Ponger, probably the same person, was a prosecution lawyer in Case 4). Hoettl
>consequently became suspect in the Verber-Ponger espionage case of 1953, was
>arrested by US authorities, then subsequently released.
>
>Despite Hoettl’s background in the murkier and more murderous reaches of the
>SS operations in the Balkans, he was released from prison at Nuremberg without
>penalty.
>On September 26, 1945, Hoettl had written a letter to Colonel Andrus reminding
>him of “his (Hoettl’s) services for the OSS in Switzerland and Italy, of the
>hundreds of pages of Intelligence he had turned over to General Patton, and
>of the evidence he had rendered against Obergruppenfuhrer Kaltenbrunner.”
>On October 18, the day before the indictments were served on the twenty-one
>defendants at Nuremberg, Andrus signed a laissez-passer and officially
>released Hoettl, who went on to live to a ripe old age.
>
>
>Hoettl was an opportunist with shifting loyalties, eager to protect himself
>and his interests. He obviously made a deal with his interrogators, who in
>turn, for his affidavit, would grant him immunity from prosecution.
>
>In order to accept the Hoettl statement as truth, you would have to be either
>simple minded or mendacious.
>
>References:
>
>Time (12 July 54), 98.100
>New Republic (20 December 54), 22
>N.Y. Times (7 April 53), 20; (12 April 53)
>Eichmann, session 85, A1-L1; IMT, vol. 11, 228.
>Butz, Arthur. (The Hoax of the Twentieth Century). 1976, IHR. p.81
>Irving, David. (Nuremberg: The Last Battle). 1996, Focal Point. pp.237-238.
>
>
>> That’s twice, Nat. Don’t ask again.
>>
>
>Mikey, you were told once that the Hoettl testimony was not reliable. This is
>the second time – don’t let it happen again.
>
>Natalia.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>—–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—–
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

From [email protected] Thu Apr 30 12:41:33 EDT 1998
Article: 172353 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!news-xfer.mccc.edu!news-xfer.netaxs.com!nntp.giganews.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: EVLART vs the Jews from alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <#1/1> <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:41:18 GMT
Lines: 78
Xref: trends.ca alt.true-crime:89239 alt.revisionism:172353

Greetings,

Once again, our cowardly Natalia disincludes alt.revisionism.

I suppose it’s pointless to notice that “she” still has not demonstrated
knowledge of what oxidation and reduction mean and that her missing
“friend” has yet to apologize for dishonestly misquoting me.

Best,

Rich Green
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Greetings Readers!
>
>In article <[email protected]>#1/1,
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip Nazi nonsense>
>>
>
>> Sorry, “natalia” – or whoever you are when you read this – but I really
>> can’t waste any more time on you until you answer the two simple
>> questions you’ve been ducking and dodging for months. They are:
>>
>> 1) Assuming for the sake of argument that Nazis and their racist allies
>> did not kill the several million Jews who vanished from Europe and
>> Russia during World War II … where did they go?
>>
>
>Give us your source for the number of Jews missing; also, be more specific.
>Several millions could mean 2 million, and such a suggestion on your part
>would send you to the rank of “Holocaust Denier”.
>
>> 2) Assuming that the “mythical” gas chambers of Auschwitz and other Nazi
>> camps did not exist, as revisionists claim … why is it that not a
>> single Nazi facing trial for war crimes, from 1946 to the present day,
>> has ever raised that “fact” as part of his defense?
>>
>
>The reason Nazis did not use the denial of the extermination as a defense is
>simple. It was not a viable option. In many cases the defendants were
>tortured, (eg. Hoss, Pohl, Ohlendorf) in order to extract incriminating
>evidence from them. The defense lawyers quickly realized that their clients
>would be best served by going along with the holocaust story, but try to
>minimize their own role in it.
>The case against Josef Kramer, the Kommandant of Belsen, illustrates this. In
>his first statement, Kramer denies all existence of the “gas chambers”, in
>fact he maintained that he, as Kommandant, was not even permitted to
>administer corporal punishment without first obtaining permission from Berlin.
>In his second, much shorter statement, Kramer reversed his story, now
>admitting the existence of “gas chambers”. (Fyfe ed. The Belsen Trial) Kramer
>had also been tortured.
>At the Frankfurt trials of 1963-1965, Richard Bear, sucessor of Hoss in
>Auschwitz, denied the existence of the “gas chambers”. He was never sentenced
>because he died in jail at the age of 51. His wife deos not believe the
>official story concerning his death (natural causes).
>Even today it is a criminal offense to deny the holocaust story in certain
>countries (eg. Germany). Given these circumstances, even the most dimwitted
>simpleton would realize that holocaust denial is not going to benefit his case
>or acquire him an acquittal.
>
>Natalia.
>
>
>
>
>—–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—–
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

From [email protected] Fri May 1 12:28:19 EDT 1998
Article: 172650 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,news.admin.net-abuse.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!
newspeer.monmouth.com!ais.net!uunet!
in4.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Forgeries of Chris Lewis Re: Jewish Science and Aryan Science
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <MPG.fadd6a08dd2[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 03:43:55 GMT
Lines: 59
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:172650 news.admin.net-abuse.misc:196222

Greetings,

I don’t know Chris Lewis personally, but I am aware of his commendable
actions in fighting spam. This post and others like it appear to be
forgeries by spammers who are losing the spam war.

Please don’t flame Mr. Lewis.

Best,

Rich Green

In article <6i9kto$gpn[email protected]>, Chris Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>You people are really immature. Nazis, Jews, you’re all alike – a bunch of
>lying human sack of shit hypocrites. Fuck you.
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says…
>>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says…
>>>On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 13:59:22 -0400, Richard G. Philllips
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>As a card-carrying anti-Semite, I wish to express the view that they are
>>>>without meaning.
>>>
>>>You made a slight typographical error here, Dick. You meant to say,
>>>”As a card-carrying imbecile with excrement for brains…”
>>
>>He also slipped up when he meant to type “I wish to express views that
>>are without meaning.”
>>
>>ROTFLMAO!
>>
>>allan
>>–
>>======================================
>> [email protected]
>>======================================
>>”If you bring forth what is within you,
>>what you have will save you.”
>>======================================
>> http://www2.shore.net/~matthews/
>>======================================
>
>–
>–
>Chris Lewis [email protected]
>”Spitto, Spittere, Ach Tui, Splattus” T.I.N.C.L./B.O.O.F.H.
> Fight spam with sodomy: http://www.sodomy.org/
>

The Aktion Reinhard Death Camps

Auschwitz Birkenau

Bergen-Belsen

Buchenwald

Chelmno

Dachau

Maidanek (Majdanek)

Mauthausen

Nordhausen

Belzec

Treblinka

Mittelbau Dora

Gusen

Westerbork

Matthias Giwer

John Hron

Ken McVay

Steve Thomas

Fairview Technologies

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood: Islamic Extremists and the…

The Heritage Front

The Anti-Defamation League

Green Richard 1998-1

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials