That still doesn't explain the teeth.. or the shoes.. or any of the other artifacts.
But let's stick with the teeth.
1. They are actually THERE..
2. How were they removed?
3. what happened to the owners of the teeth?
Actually, the 384 pounds found tucked away was a mere fraction of the total..
The basic problem you're still having is that you're subscribing to the gas chamber myth - that mystical invention used to kill the prisoners and then were searched and robbed of their valuables such as: gold teeth, rings, gold filings, etc. Again, (as previously stated) it is an urban legend born out of Allied propaganda with no real truth behind it. Also part of the propaganda used by the allies was a widely circulated photo from a film by Billy Wilder that showed a table covered with preserved human remains, including teeth, shrunken heads and what appeared to be tattoed skin and a table lamp. Of course, you never know what will turn up, but without scientific tests don't assume that just because a photo of a lampshade or soap or any other "item" is claimed to be of human origin, that it is.
Perhaps you got that "384 pounds of teeth" from Nizkor? Who knows. One wonders just how much of Nizkor's material is really based in truth.
Check out the "Answer Man's" response to the "gold" here: The Gold
Follow it up with the shoes question you raised earlier. It discusses those "personal effects" at Auschwitz you're still struggling with:
Only "problem" I have is trying to deal with circular reasoning.
"there were no gas chambers.. the ARTIFACTS aren't valid.."
"The ARTIFACTS don't count, because there were no gas chambers."
In YOUR OWN words..
1. Where did they come from..
2. what happened to the original owners..
3. how and why were they removed..
is that too hard?
Where did all Santa's elves come from? And those reindeer? How could Santa Claus be a fake when I've seen pictures of his elves and reindeer. How else can one explain all those toys getting under all those trees in one night. Santa Claus had to have help because one person could not cover the entire world in one single night - therefore Santa Claus must be REAL!
Is it just me or has anyone else ever noticed that photos of Hitler don't exactly exemplify features of the so-called master race he touted?
But, who's to say?
Maybe those old black and white photos just don't do justice to the blond hair and blue eyes that would have defined him as the ultimate role model he would logically have been.
You continue to hold to the Holocaust myth out of ignorance, just as one would hold to Santa Claus simply because they saw a picture of Santa's elves and his reindeer. The teeth and the shoes to the Holocaust legend are side points to the stow-ry, much like the elves and reindeer are to the stow-ry of Santa.
BUT ...
IT IS YOU who must prove the Nazi's murdered [exterminated] 6 million Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz, because it is you who are making that claim. But you can' never do it because it's a scientific and physical impossibility for the Nazi's to have done so. (So you apparently come up with these teeth and shoe stories in an attempt to back up what is already known to be a scientific and physical impossibility)?
Here are some truths about Zyklon B - "the gas" that the exterminists claim the Nazi's used to kill 6 million Jews - but they really prefer you would remain ignorant about these truths about Zyklon B.
It is claimed by the exterminists that the Nazi's threw pellets of Zyklon B down the vents of the gas chambers (which we now know was impossible for them to do because there were no vents in those "gas chambers" during the war. Those vents were additions put into the bomb shelters after the war - yet the exterminists still refer to those bomb shelters as "gas-chambers").
Those who know how to properly handle Zyklon B also know that the granules of Zyklon from which the hydrocyanic gas is released are not thrown at random, they are not scattered by chance - which of course, would occur if the Nazi's had truly thrown them down "the vents." If pellets of Zyklon B were thrown at random it would be too dangerous for anyone to handle them later on. It is also necessary to assure a calculated distribution. That is why granules of Zyklon are set down on display napkins - it is not thrown down vents or piped down shower heads, or whatever other stow-ry the extermints tell you.
The preparations necessary for the gassing of a place, for example a dwelling place, are long and meticulous, especially in order to obtain a good air-tightness. (Notice there is nothing "air-tight" about those Nazi "gas chambers" because they are bomb shelters - not "gas chambers").
Zyklon can be used in pressurized fumigation chambers. It is also used in the United States for the execution of a person condemned to death in the gas chamber. One must see one of these chambers and be acquainted with the process of their use in order to realize the extent to which it is difficult and dangerous to use hydrocyanic gas in order to kill even a single man.
Yet - the exterminist claim this gas was vented after the Jews were exterminated in the "gas chamber". The truth about Zyklon B, (HCN or hydrocyanic acid) is this gas is not evacuated toward a chimney in the direction of the air outside; this would be too dangerous. In fact, it is driven back in the direction of a mixer where it is neutralized by a chemical base (ammonia). The acid thus gives way to a salt which will be washed away with a great deal of water. The gas could not have been vented out the ceiling of the "gas chamber" as the exterminists (and as Nizkor) claim as the Nazi's would have only killed themselves in the process by doing so.
Nevertheless, the place still remains dangerous for a long time, as does the corpse. For the doctor and his aides who will have to enter the place and drag out the body, some precautions remain necessary. They will wait until a warning product (phenolphthaline) signals them that the deadly gas has been neutralized, at least for the most part. They will wear masks with special filtering cartridges. They will be wearing gloves and rubber aprons. They will wash the corpse very carefully with a jet, particularly in the mouth and in all of the folds of the body.
Beforehand, the simple preparation of the gas chamber for an execution will have required two days of work for two specialized men. The machinery is relatively important. In fact, to use hydrocyanic gas to kill only one man is thus much more complicated and dangerous than one would generally imagine.
The exterminist's story is the Nazi's were able to kill thousands - rather, millions of Jews with this particular gas, and they apparently did it without any complications at all and with a whole great deal of ease.
This gas is flammable and explosive; there must not be any naked flame in the vicinity and, most definitely, it is necessary not to smoke. Holocaust survivors often claim they saw the Nazi's not only eat but often smoked during and after they executed the Jews with this gas. Again, if this were true, the Nazi's would have exterminated themselves in the process.
When one knows all this, one is quite surprised at reading the testimonies or confessions about the use that the Germans are supposed to have made of Zyklon B to execute not just one man at a time - but hundreds or thousands of human beings at a time. The most complete of those testimonies or confessions is that of the first of three successive commandants of Auschwitz: Rudolf Höss (whose name must not be confused with that of Rudolf Hess, the prisoner of Spandau). Rudolf Höss is supposed to have drawn up for his jailers and for his communist judges a confession whose text is supposed to have been reproduced in 1958, or eleven years later, in its original language by Dr. Martin Broszat, a member of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. That confession is known to the general public under the title Commandant of Auschwitz. First on page 166 , then on page 126 of the German edition of the book one learns this:
A half hour after having released the gas (i.e. Zyklon B), they would open the door (of the gas chamber where there are several thousands of victims) and would start the apparatus for airing it out. They would begin immediately to take out the bodies.
He goes on to say that this tremendous job of taking out thousands of bodies, from which they removed the gold teeth or cut the hair, was carried out by resigned and indifferent people who during all that time did not cease to smoke and to eat. (Maybe this is where Mr. Ham is getting that teeth stow-ry?) Of course that description is surprising. If those people smoked and ate, then they certainly were not even wearing any gas masks.
So let me ask you these pertinent questions Mr. Ham. Let's see if you still have any logical explanations for them:
1. How could they smoke in a place with vapors from a flammable and explosive gas?
2. How could all of that be done near the doors of the crematory ovens in which they were burning thousands of bodies?
3. How could they enter into a gas chamber still full of gas to handle those bodies that were also full of gas, and that immediately after the opening of the door and not kill themselves in the process?
4. How could the Nazi's devote themselves to such a gigantic job for some hours - when specialists, equipped with masks, can only remain in such an atmosphere for several minutes and on condition that they only devote themselves to efforts that do not go beyond the effort required to open windows that are easy to open?
5. How could they, Mr. Ham, with bare hands, extract teeth and cut hair when one knows that, in an American gas chamber, the first concern of the doctor who enters into the cockpit with mask involves tousling the hair of the corpse with his rubber-gloved hands in order to expel from it the molecules of hydrocyanic gas which have remained in the hair of that corpse in spite of all of the precautions taken?
6. Who are these beings endowed with supernatural powers?
7. From what world do these tremendous creatures come?
8. Do they belong to our world which is ruled by inflexible, known laws of the physicist, the doctor, the chemist, the toxicologist?
9. Or do they indeed belong to the world of the imagination where all those laws, even the law of gravity, are overcome by magic or disappear by enchantment?
Apparently you are still trying to convince me (and others) that I (and they) should believe in the Holocaust legend and the Nazi gas chamber? If you are, I reallly think one would better off believing in Santa Claus and his elves. Let me make it REAL easy for you. Here is some video footage of one of those model Nazi "gas chambers at Treblinka:" The Gassing Building
The Holocaust (from the Greek holókauston from holos "completely" and kaustos "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers Party in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.[2]
It seems that WTH's problem isn't with the killing of millions. He seems fixated on the "ovens."
So.... If that's his sticking point, remove the point. IMHO, the killing of millions of people - real people with lives, jobs, families were killed. These were men, women, children. They were parents, grandparents, toddlers, teens.
WTH - You don't like the term"Holocaust" - "completely burnt"? You say that without the ovens there is not Holocaust. Well, so what? The ovens aren't the focal point. You want some more accurate terms? What about "genocide"? What about "mass murder"? How about this:
A program of deliberate extermination
I think you're being too literal in the dislike of the term. There is a scorched earth military tactic. The term doesn't always refer to burning crops. I don't believe your "proofs". BUT the discussion is stuck because you are stuck. You're nitpicking a term that has come to represent the murder of millions and being hyper-literal with it's use. "Completely burnt" could just as easily be "totally dead."
Tell you what... I don't care if the ovens were used to set off cyanide gas, or bake pumpernickel bread. The point still remains that millions of people (humans - remember what they are? They kinda sorta look like you, but without the potato head and the funny helmet,) MILLIONS OF PEOPLE were murdered.
You can say that Hitler was a German Betty Crocker and fed these folks strudel all day long (which he baked in those fine ovens <_< ) The fact still remains that he incarcerated them and they died! He took them from their homes and put them in concentration camps. He put them on trains and sent them to live in squalor, behind barbed wire fences with soldiers brandishing rifles and bayonets. A mass slave force perhaps? You might want to argue that - but how is it better?
Then of course you have another sticky point to deal with....
If Hitler was such a great guy, then why was there a war at all?
WTH - You don't like the term"Holocaust" - "completely burnt"? You say that without the ovens there is not Holocaust. Well, so what? The ovens aren't the focal point. You want some more accurate terms? What about "genocide"? What about "mass murder"? How about this:
A program of deliberate extermination
....
Oh, so now we're defining the meaning of the Holocaust? Here's a question for you. Why didn't you locate a more reliable and credible source other than Wikipedia to help you in your troubled definition of the Holocaust? Wikipedia hardly qualifies as such a source. Even college professors won't allow students to quote or use Wikipedia as a credible or reliable reference source today whenever they are writing research and/or thesis papers for reports.
Allow me to present a far more specific and reliable source which clarifies the definition that you were apparently trying to make and only ended up parrotting:
Go ahead. Keep on patronizing me. You're only discrediting the exterminists cause by continuing to do so. Truthfully, many people have already been so horribly annoyed by it that in 20 years nearly everyone will be saying, The Holocaust Never Happened! Well of course the Holocaust happened - but in a general sense that is. Because of the work of the revisionists, the questions that everyone are now asking about the Holocaust are -> how much of it happened? People are not quesioning that the Holocaust never happen - they are questioning the way the exterminits are ramming it down people's throats - all the time insisting it happened a particular way but could not have happened the way they claim.
Only an idiot would say, "the Holocaust never happened" at all. But people will eventually end up saying that, but NOT because the event never happened but because the revisionists redefined this historical event. The problem the extrerminst's keep on making is they try to pretend revisionism is "Holocaust denial" but in doing so they end up discrediting themselves. That is why many people around the world today are starting to say, "Why am I surrounded by morons?" whenever they are presented with nothing but the exterminists viewpoint. Why? Because that viewpoint contradicts the laws of physics so even someone who is NOT even a revisionist scholar can even see through the hypocrasy of the exterminists using nothing more than their own reasoning and their own common sense!!!
No, the Holocaust does not need to be defined. What needs to be defined is Revisionism. The word “Revisionism” is derived from the Latin word “revidere,” which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs. The Holocaust rightfully is history, but it will end up being history re-defined. Why? Because science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. That is the reason why the Holocaust legend (that is, the 6 million gassed to death and exterminated Jews by Nazi Germany Holocaust legend) is rapidly dying.
When ongoing research finds new evidence, or when critical researchers discover mistakes in old explanations, it often happens old theories have to be changed or even abandoned. [One of those "old" theories is the Nazi "gas chamber".] By “Revisionism” we mean critically examining established theories and hypotheses in order to test their validity. Scientists need to know when new evidence modifies or contradicts old theories; indeed, one of their main obligations is to test timehonored conceptions and attempt to refute them. Only in an open society in which individuals are free to challenge prevailing theories can we ascertain the validity of these theories and be confident that we are approaching the truth. That is why in 20 years people will be saying: THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED!
Yes, we WILL be saying it - NOT because the Holocaust never occurred at all, but because that historical event will have been redefined.
Oh, so now we're defining the meaning of the Holocaust?
[Apparently it's needed,
since you seem to be redefining it and leaving out all the deaths...]
Here's a question for you. Why didn't you locate a more reliable and credible source other than Wikipedia to help you in your troubled definition of the Holocaust? Wikipedia hardly qualifies as such a source.
[Funny you should say that. I was just reviewing some of the comparisons
between sources like Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Brittanica a few hours ago,
and wondered why it was so important I review it so completely all of a sudden. :)
One advantage of Wikipedia is that it's generally written in plainer language,
for the non-expert. Another is that most articles of consequence have links for
further study or source-study, and book references on the same subject,
generally by reputable publishers.]
Even college professors won't allow students to quote or use Wikipedia as a credible or reliable reference source today whenever they are writing research and/or thesis papers for reports.
[That's not due to credibility. Primarily, it's due to the tendency for someone to
use one resource and, instead of researching it, just plagiarizing it.
Wikipedia is fine to get an overview, and to use as a resource to find further
information. However, if a professor is trying to EDUCATE, he's trying to teach
the students to DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH in addition to just consulting one website.
Anyplace that allows the online Encyclopedia Brittanica could fairly consider
Wikipedia as comparable-as independent studies confirmed.
(I was surprised as well.)]
Allow me to present a far more specific and reliable source which clarifies the definition that you were apparently trying to make and only ended up parrotting:
[Apparently, WTH's new word is "parroting", which he is assigned to insert
into every post, whether or not he understands it.
If you understood what it meant, you probably wouldn't be accusing every
other poster of it just because they agree with someone you disagree with...]
That's not a bad page to link to. I'm pleasantly surprised.
However, dooj was giving a working definition for discussion,
not a scholarly dissertation. Her post and that page are in agreement,
especially as concerns a lot of people being killed in Germany
as part of an organized program by the Nazi Regime.
I don't think it helped you for us to see that link...]
Go ahead. Keep on patronizing me.
[We're trying to deal with you as an equal, but you're insistent on not performing
up to par, which means we have to communicate with you at your level.
This would be fine, if you were paying attention, and not a problem if you weren't
determined to take offense.]
You're only discrediting the exterminists cause by continuing to do so.
[Posters here are part of a "cause"? I never got the memo!]
Truthfully, many people have already been so horribly annoyed by it
[Many people have been annoyed by dooj's post????]
that in 20 years nearly everyone will be saying, The Holocaust Never Happened! Well of course the Holocaust happened - but in a general sense that is.
[Generally, the Nazis killed a lot of people in execution camps, and imprisoned a lot of people
in concentration camps.]
Because of the work of the revisionists, the questions that everyone are now asking about the Holocaust are -> how much of it happened? People are not quesioning that the Holocaust never happen - they are questioning the way the exterminits are ramming it down people's throats - all the time insisting it happened a particular way but could not have happened the way they claim.
]Anyone else seeing the discussion this refers to?
It obviously isn't addressing dooj's post.
It's coming from another source, obviously.
Anyone know where it's coming from?]
Only an idiot would say, "the Holocaust never happened" at all.
[We know that. Ginosko.]
But people will eventually end up saying that, but NOT because the event never happened but because the revisionists redefined this historical event. The problem the extrerminst's keep on making is they try to pretend revisionism is "Holocaust denial" but in doing so they end up discrediting themselves. That is why many people around the world today are starting to say, "Why am I surrounded by morons?" whenever they are presented with nothing but the exterminists viewpoint. Why?
[There aren't "many" people who say that outside of Holocaust denial movements
and anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist movements in the US and the Middle East.
In fact, outside the groups dedicated to the deaths of Jews, I'd be surprised to
find more than a few who would say that.]
Because that viewpoint contradicts the laws of physics so even someone who is NOT even a revisionist scholar can even see through the hypocrasy of the exterminists using nothing more than their own reasoning and their own common sense!!!
Go ahead. Keep on patronizing me. You're only discrediting the exterminists cause by continuing to do so. Truthfully, many people have already been so horribly annoyed by it that in 20 years nearly everyone will be saying, The Holocaust Never Happened! Well of course the Holocaust happened - but in a general sense that is. Because of the work of the revisionists, the questions that everyone are now asking about the Holocaust are -> how much of it happened? People are not quesioning that the Holocaust never happen - they are questioning the way the exterminits are ramming it down people's throats - all the time insisting it happened a particular way but could not have happened the way they claim.
Only an idiot would say, "the Holocaust never happened" at all. But people will eventually end up saying that, but NOT because the event never happened but because the revisionists redefined this historical event. The problem the extrerminst's keep on making is they try to pretend revisionism is "Holocaust denial" but in doing so they end up discrediting themselves. That is why many people around the world today are starting to say, "Why am I surrounded by morons?" whenever they are presented with nothing but the exterminists viewpoint. Why? Because that viewpoint contradicts the laws of physics so even someone who is NOT even a revisionist scholar can even see through the hypocrasy of the exterminists using nothing more than their own reasoning and their own common sense!!!
No, the Holocaust does not need to be defined. What needs to be defined is Revisionism.
[Here we go again...]
The word “Revisionism” is derived from the Latin word “revidere,” which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs. The Holocaust rightfully is history, but it will end up being history re-defined. Why? Because science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. That is the reason why the Holocaust legend (that is, the 6 million gassed to death and exterminated Jews by Nazi Germany Holocaust legend) is rapidly dying.
[Compare that statement of WTH's to this statement from ]
"The word "Revisionism" is derived from the Latin word "revidere," which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs.Science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence."
[When I have more time,
I'll see about what else I can find he's plagiarized in this post...
Oh, so now we're defining the meaning of the Holocaust? Here's a question for you. Why didn't you locate a more reliable and credible source other than Wikipedia to help you in your troubled definition of the Holocaust? Wikipedia hardly qualifies as such a source. Even college professors won't allow students to quote or use Wikipedia as a credible or reliable reference source today whenever they are writing research and/or thesis papers for reports.
Allow me to present a far more specific and reliable source which clarifies the definition that you were apparently trying to make and only ended up parrotting:
Go ahead. Keep on patronizing me. You're only discrediting the exterminists cause by continuing to do so. Truthfully, many people have already been so horribly annoyed by it that in 20 years nearly everyone will be saying, The Holocaust Never Happened! Well of course the Holocaust happened - but in a general sense that is. Because of the work of the revisionists, the questions that everyone are now asking about the Holocaust are -> how much of it happened? People are not quesioning that the Holocaust never happen - they are questioning the way the exterminits are ramming it down people's throats - all the time insisting it happened a particular way but could not have happened the way they claim.
Only an idiot would say, "the Holocaust never happened" at all. But people will eventually end up saying that, but NOT because the event never happened but because the revisionists redefined this historical event. The problem the extrerminst's keep on making is they try to pretend revisionism is "Holocaust denial" but in doing so they end up discrediting themselves. That is why many people around the world today are starting to say, "Why am I surrounded by morons?" whenever they are presented with nothing but the exterminists viewpoint. Why? Because that viewpoint contradicts the laws of physics so even someone who is NOT even a revisionist scholar can even see through the hypocrasy of the exterminists using nothing more than their own reasoning and their own common sense!!!
No, the Holocaust does not need to be defined. What needs to be defined is Revisionism. The word “Revisionism” is derived from the Latin word “revidere,” which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs. The Holocaust rightfully is history, but it will end up being history re-defined. Why? Because science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. That is the reason why the Holocaust legend (that is, the 6 million gassed to death and exterminated Jews by Nazi Germany Holocaust legend) is rapidly dying.
When ongoing research finds new evidence, or when critical researchers discover mistakes in old explanations, it often happens old theories have to be changed or even abandoned. [One of those "old" theories is the Nazi "gas chamber".] By “Revisionism” we mean critically examining established theories and hypotheses in order to test their validity. Scientists need to know when new evidence modifies or contradicts old theories; indeed, one of their main obligations is to test timehonored conceptions and attempt to refute them. Only in an open society in which individuals are free to challenge prevailing theories can we ascertain the validity of these theories and be confident that we are approaching the truth. That is why in 20 years people will be saying: THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED!
Yes, we WILL be saying it - NOT because the Holocaust never occurred at all, but because that historical event will have been redefined.
Quoted so I have a reference copy for later-in case the original post's plagiarized sections
suffer a sudden edit and mysteriously disappear....
Oh, so now we're defining the meaning of the Holocaust? Here's a question for you. Why didn't you locate a more reliable and credible source other than Wikipedia to help you in your troubled definition of the Holocaust? Wikipedia hardly qualifies as such a source. Even college professors won't allow students to quote or use Wikipedia as a credible or reliable reference source today whenever they are writing research and/or thesis papers for reports.
Allow me to present a far more specific and reliable source which clarifies the definition that you were apparently trying to make and only ended up parrotting:
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives a historical usage of "complete destruction, especially of a large number of persons; a great slaughter or massacre" (caust -- burn, holo -- whole). By this definition, then, the Nazis attempted a holocaust since [sic] they did not succeed in completely exterminating European Jewry. But Holocaust historians mean something much more specific.
Later:
The Holocaust, according to the Director of the Research Institute of U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Michael Berenbaum, is "the systematic state-sponsored murder of six million Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II; as night descended, millions of others were killed in its wake." Please note the clause following the semicolon. Holocaust revisionists complain that Holocaust histories, as well as the museum, concentrate too much on Jews and ignore the millions of others who were persecuted and killed. Obviously they do not, nor does the museum. Capital "H" Holocaust, then, specifically refers to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.
And finally:
In this analysis I mean by the Holocaust: The intentional or functional near-destruction of a people based primarily on race.
I used the Wikipedia site because all I wanted was a straight meaning of the word. Notice that I didn't put a link to the site. I wanted the basic meaning of the word "Holocaust" so that I could determine why it was used at all. There were the Greek root words - etymolgy isn't biased.
Most of the other sites I found were from Holocaust Museums - surely they would have not been to your liking. Your site is only more accurate for you, because it supports your claims. (Although they spelled kaustos wrong and used caust instead.) I wasn't looking to support any claims. I was just looking for the etymology of the word.
Oh and you still seem to have a problem with the term "parrot." To parrot is to mimic, meaning that you must have knowlege of the original. I didn't parrot anything.
I recall seeing a television program on revisionism a few years ago which closed with Deborah Lipstadt making some statement to the effect that: the real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again. I normally don't agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, 'Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!'" -- "On Revisionism" by Harold Covington (writing under the pseudonym Winston Smith), NSNet Bulletin #5, July 24, 1996
I wonder if it is worth it.. sacrificing one's reputation.. however little it is, for this kind of cause..
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
28
116
58
24
Popular Days
Jun 23
24
Sep 26
22
Sep 25
20
Sep 21
18
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 28 posts
Ham 116 posts
What The Hey 58 posts
doojable 24 posts
Popular Days
Jun 23 2005
24 posts
Sep 26 2007
22 posts
Sep 25 2007
20 posts
Sep 21 2007
18 posts
Popular Posts
Catcup
Absolutely.
Catcup
This was exactly my experience. I sat in the same meetings and heard Martindale make the same exclamation: That the Jews of today are no more Jews than the Apache Indians. And yes, the Holocaust wa
Catcup
A slippery slope indeed, Tref.
Posted Images
Ham
so much stalling, and subterfuge..
ya know.. teeth and shoes don't exactly have some kind of political agenda..
no, the the teeth didn't exactly volunteer as participants for some kind of hoax..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
unlike snow on the gas pumps.. we really have something tangible here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Geeze, What The Hey
Did the teeth exist or didn't they?
It just doesn't seem like such a tough question to answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
The basic problem you're still having is that you're subscribing to the gas chamber myth - that mystical invention used to kill the prisoners and then were searched and robbed of their valuables such as: gold teeth, rings, gold filings, etc. Again, (as previously stated) it is an urban legend born out of Allied propaganda with no real truth behind it. Also part of the propaganda used by the allies was a widely circulated photo from a film by Billy Wilder that showed a table covered with preserved human remains, including teeth, shrunken heads and what appeared to be tattoed skin and a table lamp. Of course, you never know what will turn up, but without scientific tests don't assume that just because a photo of a lampshade or soap or any other "item" is claimed to be of human origin, that it is.
Perhaps you got that "384 pounds of teeth" from Nizkor? Who knows. One wonders just how much of Nizkor's material is really based in truth.
Check out the "Answer Man's" response to the "gold" here: The Gold
Follow it up with the shoes question you raised earlier. It discusses those "personal effects" at Auschwitz you're still struggling with:
How did the piles of personal effects at Auschwitz get there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Still no adequate answer..
No "basic problem" with me.
Only "problem" I have is trying to deal with circular reasoning.
"there were no gas chambers.. the ARTIFACTS aren't valid.."
"The ARTIFACTS don't count, because there were no gas chambers."
In YOUR OWN words..
1. Where did they come from..
2. what happened to the original owners..
3. how and why were they removed..
is that too hard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
THAT seems to be the problem, Mr. H.
Apparently it IS too hard for WTF.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
You know.. this is the same mentality that Lipstadt and others have had to deal with..
"uh, uh.. if I could just present MY case to the unknowing public.."
and they throw this kind of hogwash up for the poor public to deal with..
"didn't I tell you? Read so and so's book..he says the sites are forgeries, because, the artifacts can't be considered."
"Hey.. so and so PROVED the artifacts were fakes, because the historic sites connected to them lack validity.."
Either one of two reasons I can think of espousing this kind of belief..
1. Either the person is lacking a significant percentage of brain cells..
2. They have some kind of agenda..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Where did all Santa's elves come from? And those reindeer? How could Santa Claus be a fake when I've seen pictures of his elves and reindeer. How else can one explain all those toys getting under all those trees in one night. Santa Claus had to have help because one person could not cover the entire world in one single night - therefore Santa Claus must be REAL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Don't tell me you don't believe in Santa..
I have a picture.
Here he is.. standing with his "elves"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Guy in the background looks like gramlic#
ALWAYS KNEW HE WAS A NAZI
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Sheesh.. I think you're right..
Maybe it was a previous life or something..
being he's in the background.. probably just a boot licker..
why is it though.. in that pic.. none of them exactly look "happy"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
You'd better not pout
I'm a tellin you why
it won't do no good
you'll be sayin good bye
adolf claus is comin.. to town..
he'll gas you when your're sleepin..
he'll wait till you're awake..
no difference you've been bad or good
it's only cause your race..
*Mr* Darth Potato, I hope you can document five generations of racial purity..
you might be getting more than a lump of coal in your stocking..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I dunno
Is it just me or has anyone else ever noticed that photos of Hitler don't exactly exemplify features of the so-called master race he touted?
But, who's to say?
Maybe those old black and white photos just don't do justice to the blond hair and blue eyes that would have defined him as the ultimate role model he would logically have been.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I'm sure a cosmotologist, and *dr* Mengela could have fixed the hair and eye "problem"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
You continue to hold to the Holocaust myth out of ignorance, just as one would hold to Santa Claus simply because they saw a picture of Santa's elves and his reindeer. The teeth and the shoes to the Holocaust legend are side points to the stow-ry, much like the elves and reindeer are to the stow-ry of Santa.
BUT ...
IT IS YOU who must prove the Nazi's murdered [exterminated] 6 million Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz, because it is you who are making that claim. But you can' never do it because it's a scientific and physical impossibility for the Nazi's to have done so. (So you apparently come up with these teeth and shoe stories in an attempt to back up what is already known to be a scientific and physical impossibility)?
Here are some truths about Zyklon B - "the gas" that the exterminists claim the Nazi's used to kill 6 million Jews - but they really prefer you would remain ignorant about these truths about Zyklon B.
It is claimed by the exterminists that the Nazi's threw pellets of Zyklon B down the vents of the gas chambers (which we now know was impossible for them to do because there were no vents in those "gas chambers" during the war. Those vents were additions put into the bomb shelters after the war - yet the exterminists still refer to those bomb shelters as "gas-chambers").
Those who know how to properly handle Zyklon B also know that the granules of Zyklon from which the hydrocyanic gas is released are not thrown at random, they are not scattered by chance - which of course, would occur if the Nazi's had truly thrown them down "the vents." If pellets of Zyklon B were thrown at random it would be too dangerous for anyone to handle them later on. It is also necessary to assure a calculated distribution. That is why granules of Zyklon are set down on display napkins - it is not thrown down vents or piped down shower heads, or whatever other stow-ry the extermints tell you.
The preparations necessary for the gassing of a place, for example a dwelling place, are long and meticulous, especially in order to obtain a good air-tightness. (Notice there is nothing "air-tight" about those Nazi "gas chambers" because they are bomb shelters - not "gas chambers").
Zyklon can be used in pressurized fumigation chambers. It is also used in the United States for the execution of a person condemned to death in the gas chamber. One must see one of these chambers and be acquainted with the process of their use in order to realize the extent to which it is difficult and dangerous to use hydrocyanic gas in order to kill even a single man.
Yet - the exterminist claim this gas was vented after the Jews were exterminated in the "gas chamber". The truth about Zyklon B, (HCN or hydrocyanic acid) is this gas is not evacuated toward a chimney in the direction of the air outside; this would be too dangerous. In fact, it is driven back in the direction of a mixer where it is neutralized by a chemical base (ammonia). The acid thus gives way to a salt which will be washed away with a great deal of water. The gas could not have been vented out the ceiling of the "gas chamber" as the exterminists (and as Nizkor) claim as the Nazi's would have only killed themselves in the process by doing so.
Nevertheless, the place still remains dangerous for a long time, as does the corpse. For the doctor and his aides who will have to enter the place and drag out the body, some precautions remain necessary. They will wait until a warning product (phenolphthaline) signals them that the deadly gas has been neutralized, at least for the most part. They will wear masks with special filtering cartridges. They will be wearing gloves and rubber aprons. They will wash the corpse very carefully with a jet, particularly in the mouth and in all of the folds of the body.
Beforehand, the simple preparation of the gas chamber for an execution will have required two days of work for two specialized men. The machinery is relatively important. In fact, to use hydrocyanic gas to kill only one man is thus much more complicated and dangerous than one would generally imagine.
The exterminist's story is the Nazi's were able to kill thousands - rather, millions of Jews with this particular gas, and they apparently did it without any complications at all and with a whole great deal of ease.
This gas is flammable and explosive; there must not be any naked flame in the vicinity and, most definitely, it is necessary not to smoke. Holocaust survivors often claim they saw the Nazi's not only eat but often smoked during and after they executed the Jews with this gas. Again, if this were true, the Nazi's would have exterminated themselves in the process.
When one knows all this, one is quite surprised at reading the testimonies or confessions about the use that the Germans are supposed to have made of Zyklon B to execute not just one man at a time - but hundreds or thousands of human beings at a time. The most complete of those testimonies or confessions is that of the first of three successive commandants of Auschwitz: Rudolf Höss (whose name must not be confused with that of Rudolf Hess, the prisoner of Spandau). Rudolf Höss is supposed to have drawn up for his jailers and for his communist judges a confession whose text is supposed to have been reproduced in 1958, or eleven years later, in its original language by Dr. Martin Broszat, a member of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. That confession is known to the general public under the title Commandant of Auschwitz. First on page 166 , then on page 126 of the German edition of the book one learns this:
A half hour after having released the gas (i.e. Zyklon B), they would open the door (of the gas chamber where there are several thousands of victims) and would start the apparatus for airing it out. They would begin immediately to take out the bodies.
He goes on to say that this tremendous job of taking out thousands of bodies, from which they removed the gold teeth or cut the hair, was carried out by resigned and indifferent people who during all that time did not cease to smoke and to eat. (Maybe this is where Mr. Ham is getting that teeth stow-ry?) Of course that description is surprising. If those people smoked and ate, then they certainly were not even wearing any gas masks.
So let me ask you these pertinent questions Mr. Ham. Let's see if you still have any logical explanations for them:
1. How could they smoke in a place with vapors from a flammable and explosive gas?
2. How could all of that be done near the doors of the crematory ovens in which they were burning thousands of bodies?
3. How could they enter into a gas chamber still full of gas to handle those bodies that were also full of gas, and that immediately after the opening of the door and not kill themselves in the process?
4. How could the Nazi's devote themselves to such a gigantic job for some hours - when specialists, equipped with masks, can only remain in such an atmosphere for several minutes and on condition that they only devote themselves to efforts that do not go beyond the effort required to open windows that are easy to open?
5. How could they, Mr. Ham, with bare hands, extract teeth and cut hair when one knows that, in an American gas chamber, the first concern of the doctor who enters into the cockpit with mask involves tousling the hair of the corpse with his rubber-gloved hands in order to expel from it the molecules of hydrocyanic gas which have remained in the hair of that corpse in spite of all of the precautions taken?
6. Who are these beings endowed with supernatural powers?
7. From what world do these tremendous creatures come?
8. Do they belong to our world which is ruled by inflexible, known laws of the physicist, the doctor, the chemist, the toxicologist?
9. Or do they indeed belong to the world of the imagination where all those laws, even the law of gravity, are overcome by magic or disappear by enchantment?
Apparently you are still trying to convince me (and others) that I (and they) should believe in the Holocaust legend and the Nazi gas chamber? If you are, I reallly think one would better off believing in Santa Claus and his elves. Let me make it REAL easy for you. Here is some video footage of one of those model Nazi "gas chambers at Treblinka:" The Gassing Building
Is this the door to the gas chamber?
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Perhaps they were beings which originated from the hollow earth.
It's been years since I last read "Morning of the Magicians".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
From Wikipedia:
It seems that WTH's problem isn't with the killing of millions. He seems fixated on the "ovens."
So.... If that's his sticking point, remove the point. IMHO, the killing of millions of people - real people with lives, jobs, families were killed. These were men, women, children. They were parents, grandparents, toddlers, teens.
WTH - You don't like the term"Holocaust" - "completely burnt"? You say that without the ovens there is not Holocaust. Well, so what? The ovens aren't the focal point. You want some more accurate terms? What about "genocide"? What about "mass murder"? How about this:
A program of deliberate extermination
I think you're being too literal in the dislike of the term. There is a scorched earth military tactic. The term doesn't always refer to burning crops. I don't believe your "proofs". BUT the discussion is stuck because you are stuck. You're nitpicking a term that has come to represent the murder of millions and being hyper-literal with it's use. "Completely burnt" could just as easily be "totally dead."
Tell you what... I don't care if the ovens were used to set off cyanide gas, or bake pumpernickel bread. The point still remains that millions of people (humans - remember what they are? They kinda sorta look like you, but without the potato head and the funny helmet,) MILLIONS OF PEOPLE were murdered.
You can say that Hitler was a German Betty Crocker and fed these folks strudel all day long (which he baked in those fine ovens <_< ) The fact still remains that he incarcerated them and they died! He took them from their homes and put them in concentration camps. He put them on trains and sent them to live in squalor, behind barbed wire fences with soldiers brandishing rifles and bayonets. A mass slave force perhaps? You might want to argue that - but how is it better?
Then of course you have another sticky point to deal with....
If Hitler was such a great guy, then why was there a war at all?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Oh, so now we're defining the meaning of the Holocaust? Here's a question for you. Why didn't you locate a more reliable and credible source other than Wikipedia to help you in your troubled definition of the Holocaust? Wikipedia hardly qualifies as such a source. Even college professors won't allow students to quote or use Wikipedia as a credible or reliable reference source today whenever they are writing research and/or thesis papers for reports.
Allow me to present a far more specific and reliable source which clarifies the definition that you were apparently trying to make and only ended up parrotting:
Defining Holocaust - A proposal. (From: The Holocaust Historiography Project)
Go ahead. Keep on patronizing me. You're only discrediting the exterminists cause by continuing to do so. Truthfully, many people have already been so horribly annoyed by it that in 20 years nearly everyone will be saying, The Holocaust Never Happened! Well of course the Holocaust happened - but in a general sense that is. Because of the work of the revisionists, the questions that everyone are now asking about the Holocaust are -> how much of it happened? People are not quesioning that the Holocaust never happen - they are questioning the way the exterminits are ramming it down people's throats - all the time insisting it happened a particular way but could not have happened the way they claim.
Only an idiot would say, "the Holocaust never happened" at all. But people will eventually end up saying that, but NOT because the event never happened but because the revisionists redefined this historical event. The problem the extrerminst's keep on making is they try to pretend revisionism is "Holocaust denial" but in doing so they end up discrediting themselves. That is why many people around the world today are starting to say, "Why am I surrounded by morons?" whenever they are presented with nothing but the exterminists viewpoint. Why? Because that viewpoint contradicts the laws of physics so even someone who is NOT even a revisionist scholar can even see through the hypocrasy of the exterminists using nothing more than their own reasoning and their own common sense!!!
No, the Holocaust does not need to be defined. What needs to be defined is Revisionism. The word “Revisionism” is derived from the Latin word “revidere,” which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs. The Holocaust rightfully is history, but it will end up being history re-defined. Why? Because science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. That is the reason why the Holocaust legend (that is, the 6 million gassed to death and exterminated Jews by Nazi Germany Holocaust legend) is rapidly dying.
When ongoing research finds new evidence, or when critical researchers discover mistakes in old explanations, it often happens old theories have to be changed or even abandoned. [One of those "old" theories is the Nazi "gas chamber".] By “Revisionism” we mean critically examining established theories and hypotheses in order to test their validity. Scientists need to know when new evidence modifies or contradicts old theories; indeed, one of their main obligations is to test timehonored conceptions and attempt to refute them. Only in an open society in which individuals are free to challenge prevailing theories can we ascertain the validity of these theories and be confident that we are approaching the truth. That is why in 20 years people will be saying: THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED!
Yes, we WILL be saying it - NOT because the Holocaust never occurred at all, but because that historical event will have been redefined.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf replies in boldface.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Here we go again...]
[Compare that statement of WTH's to this statement from ]
http://www.vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html
"The word "Revisionism" is derived from the Latin word "revidere," which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs.Science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence."
[When I have more time,
I'll see about what else I can find he's plagiarized in this post...
Quoted so I have a reference copy for later-in case the original post's plagiarized sections
suffer a sudden edit and mysteriously disappear....
Have a nice morning, everyone!
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
This is from YOUR site:
I used the Wikipedia site because all I wanted was a straight meaning of the word. Notice that I didn't put a link to the site. I wanted the basic meaning of the word "Holocaust" so that I could determine why it was used at all. There were the Greek root words - etymolgy isn't biased.
Most of the other sites I found were from Holocaust Museums - surely they would have not been to your liking. Your site is only more accurate for you, because it supports your claims. (Although they spelled kaustos wrong and used caust instead.) I wasn't looking to support any claims. I was just looking for the etymology of the word.
Oh and you still seem to have a problem with the term "parrot." To parrot is to mimic, meaning that you must have knowlege of the original. I didn't parrot anything.
BTW - I don't patronize you. I pity you.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
hmm.. maybe if we just close our eyes, wish hard enough.. it'll all just go away..
Holocaust never happened..
Pol Pot never existed.. Cambodia didn't get decimated..
Stalin never did a purge..
Milosevic was just a nice politician..
Hussein loved the Kurds..
and some people in the world really don't want the fourth Reich to come..
The "boys from Brazil" seem to be pretty busy, recruiting certain half-educated numbnuts in the world to become martyrs for their "noble" cause..
leuchter was a stooge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Covington
I wonder if it is worth it.. sacrificing one's reputation.. however little it is, for this kind of cause..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I wonder if they "love bombed" him, like other cults do..
bought him a honeymoon, all the way to Auschwitz..
"just bring back a few souvineers.."
what a stooge..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Sheesh.. now "they" hold him out to the public like he's some kinda saint.. suffering "outrageous" censure..
yep.. they bought a martyr for the cause..
maybe they couldn't afford any better..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.