Last week a "Revisionist" from Finland, who calls himself
Moranen and is apparently also a white supremacist or "white nationalist" with an aversion to "non-White immigrants", posted some moronic nonsense on the blogs
Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (4,3) and
Why the "diesel issue" is irrelevant, which was duly slapped around his ears.
Moranen thereupon retreated to his own blog, where on 01.08.2009 he posted produced a lengthy article with instructively idiotic title "
Mr. Moranen vs. Mr. Muehlenkamp, the Mule (from Holocaust controversies blog) – On the Diesel issue and Belzec archeology, and the Holocaust in general (methods, evidence, etc.)". He did so without informing me, and I only learned of this article yesterday because a fellow poster on the
RODOH forum called my attention to it.
About half an hour ago I finished posting my comments to Moronen's article on the blog on which it was written. However, that blog is set up in such a way that comments must be accepted by the owner before they appear, and I'm told that Mr. Moranen usually takes weeks to do that (he has to think of his reply) or sometimes just ignores the replies and never publishes them.
For this reason my comments to Moranen’s article are transcribed below, as they were posted on his blog.
Let’s see what happens.
***
Response to Moranen (1) And as anyone can see, I beat the living hell out of believers, and caused them to lose their faith, even though they never admit this. So, Mr. Moranen, what have we got here?
You continue our discussion on your own blog without letting me know (I just found out because someone told me) and then claim you won?
What a lying asshole you are, Mr. Moranen.
And what a whimpering coward.
So let’s what we got here, shall we? Italics for what you wrote, plain text for my comments.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:17 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (2) “Mr. Moranen vs. Mr. Muehlenkamp, the Mule (from Holocaust controversies blog) – On the Diesel issue and Belzec archeology, and the Holocaust in general (methods, evidence, etc.)
1.8.2009
Recently I provoked some ‘conversation’ at Holocaust-controversies-blog (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/07/belzec-mass-graves-and-archaeology-my_23.html; http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-diesel-issue-is-irrelevant.html). I started deceptively spewing out comments and arguments (with humor) that are easily debunked, in order to lure some of the believers into more ‘serious conversation’.”Translation: Moranen ran away from the HC blog with his tail between his legs and now tries to cover up his blunder by claiming that he tried to lure his opponent into “more ‘serious conversation’”. Who does he think he is fooling?
Footnotes and source material is not included, because we both know and understand it to some degree.Here are the initial believer responses from Mr. Mule and me:
Moranen’s first attacksDoes the creep speak of himself in the third person?
Mr. Moranen: So it seems.
Belzec archeology
[…]
Your audience is Jews, Kikes, other believers and others ideological allies who benefit from propaganda lies of WW2. But dont you worry, we real Europeans will make sure that Jews are punished as a whole for this hoax (even the unborn babies) and for their destructive control of the mass media of the West (which they use to destroy Europeans and European Civilization through multiculturalism). Yes indeed "this stranglehold has got be broken or" our civilization is going down the drain. And we will succeed when some of the 'survivor-liars' are still alive so we can really twist the knife in their wound. Our audience is White Europeans and especially Germans, yes those people whom are being manipulated into their demise partly by these propaganda lies of WW2.
Thank God for Germany at least trying to get rid off the Jewish influence and Jews during WW2. Thank God Germans at least prevented Stalins invasion of Europe 1941 just in time. Thank the Jews for helping to bring USA to WW2 to destroy Europeans and insure that the anti-European ideologies won the war, so that we are now being destroyed through multiculturalism.The last two paragraphs were not included in
Moranen’s first message on the thread in question, but even without them the fellow managed to show that he’s got manure where other people have brains.
Diesel issue
[…]
By the way, concerning the producer gas generators, I thought that Zyklon B could be used to kill people even though it was explosive, but the producer gas generators cant because it doesnt fit the "eyewitnesses"?The last paragraph was not included in
Moranen’s first message on the thread in question, which shows that the fellow is a liar.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:20 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (3) RESPONSES
Diesel:
“Gassing with diesel engines, although claimed by some witnesses who must have mixed up the gassing engine with some other engine used for power generation or so, must be ruled out not because it would have been impossible to gas people with engine exhaust, but because those witnesses who either operated the gassing engines or were otherwise familiar with them, i.e. the ones one would expect to know what they were talking about, mentioned not diesel but gasoline engines as having been used for gassing. That's the point.”
Mr. Mule: The point was that the “eyewitness evidence” is very contradictory again.No, it’s not. All eyewitnesses in the know said the same thing – gasoline.
Some claim diesel, others gasoline, no matter who should have known what or not.Sorry, my dear moron, but outside your manure-filled brain it matters a lot whether of not a witness should have known what he was talking about. If someone who took a brief at the engine room when walking by thought that the gassing engine was a diesel engine, that’s one thing. If the guy who operated the type of engine didn’t get the type of engine right, that’s a wholly different situation. But wherever there are testimonies from gassing engine operators, they speak of gasoline and not of diesel engines.
And this diesel evidence was obviously convincing enough for the real “Holocaust scholars” who wrote it as “history”, so obviously the diesel witnesses had to enough in the know in order for the real “Holocaust scholars” to accept them. Faulty reasoning, as was to be expected. Holocaust scholars simply didn’t care about this detail and thus took witnesses who spoke of diesel at face value. Why should they have cared? As all known evidence clearly points to mass murder and there’s not a shred of evidence pointing to any alternative scenario (although there should be plenty if such alternative scenario had occurred), a mistaken description of the type of engine exhaust used would be just that and in no way affect the reasonable conclusion that roughly 1.5 million people were murdered at the
Aktion Reinhard(t) camps.
More importantly, based on these diesel witnesses whom the “Holocaust scholars” accepted, many people have been accused and sentenced in courts of “killing people”, especially Demjanjuk. “It’s irrelevant!”?The most you can claim is that an eyewitness who got the type of engine wrong may also have got other details wrong and therefore can be relied upon only to the extent that his testimony is independently corroborated. But in what concerns the facts of massive deportation and mass murder as well as the killing and body disposal process, any eyewitness who made an understandable mistake as concerns the type of gassing engine is abundantly corroborated by other eyewitnesses including former SS-man standing trial, by documents, by demographic data and by physical evidence.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:23 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (4) You have to know how idiotic and hypocritical mules you sound when you try to desperately evade the issue and lie more by claiming: “It’s all irrelevant that many people were convicted of diesel lies, because the 1-2 million Jews were killed somehow, based on non-existent proof.No, we know they were killed based on documentation showing that they were taken to certain places, the absence of any evidence whatsoever that they left these places alive, numerous testimonies with essentially coincident descriptions of the killing and body disposal process and the presence of huge mass graves or mass grave areas and large amounts of human remains, as described by criminal investigators or archaeologists, on the site of the former extermination camps.
If it wasn’t diesel, then it was gasoline! Not only that, we positively know that it was gasoline because all eyewitnesses who knew what they were talking about – as opposed to non-technical casual observers, who may have been mistaken – spoke of a gasoline engine.
Gasoline witnesses must be right because diesel witnesses lied [“were mistaken”],Exactly, they were mistaken. Why should they have lied? What difference would it make to an eyewitness whether the gassing engine was a diesel or a gasoline engine.
because we have no proof nor better evidence for gasoline [just the same ‘witness evidence’].No, not the same witness evidence, but evidence from gassing engine operators, from mechanics and from other people who for some reason – e.g. because they brought up the fuel, like Reder at Belzec – had to know what they were talking about.
They have to have been killed because we assume it without proof, so nothing else matters.”No, they have been killed because
all known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to their having been killed an
no evidence whatsoever points to another scenario (the latter being especially telling insofar as another scenario should have left behind plenty of evidence – a huge paper trail and thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses).
And let me guess, if the gasoline lie would be proven to be lie, you would just go back to steamings and electrocutions, “because obviously they were killed somehow!”? I would very logically and reasonably conclude that they were killed by a method the details of which are not known. But don’t worry, that’s not going to happen. Gasoline engines was what the eyewitnesses in the know said it was, so it can have been nothing else.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:24 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (5) And of course nobody claimed the effective producer gas generators. No, the effective producer gas generators carried the risk of the executioners gassing themselves or blowing themselves up, and it was also not economically sound to detach producer gas vehicles to extermination camps from the Eastern Front and replace them with gasoline vehicles there. Those gasoline vehicles would have spend a lot more fuel running on those lousy Russian roads than the gassing engines did at Belzec or Treblinka.
And of course no documentary evidence for the alleged ‘engine gas chambers’ as there definitely should be in this case in order to take these claims seriously.Why, because Moranen so yells, or for any reason worth considering? There is no documentary evidence about the gassing engines and other camp infrastructure because all such documentary evidence was destroyed, as we know from Globocnik’s letter to Himmler of 5 January 1944. Care to explain why Globocnik thought it necessary to destroy all that documentation, Mr. Moranen? What was he trying to hide?
And no murder weapons nor bodies (at least some of them would have to have been autopsied), and no documentary evidence; no crime. Again by Mr. Moranen’s irrelevant standards, I suppose. Criminal courts dealing with these matters, especially those of the German Federal Republic, obviously applied different standards. They considered it possible and legally sound to reconstruct the killing process on the basis of documentary evidence showing the deportation of hundreds of thousands to each of these camp and that they were final destinations and places were people were sent to be killed, and of depositions by eyewitnesses and accused perpetrators describing the killing and body disposal process. Physical traces of or documentation about the murder weapons were not considered necessary. And I don’t think Mr. Moranen can demonstrate that any of these courts violated the applicable rules of criminal procedure by basing its findings of fact on the evidence they were based on.
I might add that the exposed and sinking Auschwitz lie also automatically drags down all the rest gassing propaganda lies with it. What “sinking Auschwitz lie”, Mr. Moranen? Are you hallucinating? Or are you trying to convince yourself of something you don’t really believe in?
Are you next going to demand that historians should be allowed to act in courts as judges and prosecutors to judge the guilty based on contradictory “eyewitness evidence”, without bodies, murder weapons and documents?No, I’m waiting for the bigmouth to show me what’s supposed to be wrong with judges and prosecutors basing their findings of fact about the killing and body disposal process at the Nazi extermination camps on eyewitness testimonies alone. Any rules or standards of evidence of any country you can show us that would be violated thereby? I don’t think so, but please give it a try.
Ah, and I understand the “without documents” thing as referring to documentation about the gassing devices alone. As concerns deportations to the extermination camps and the nature of the same, documentation exists and is quite telling.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:26 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (6) “Well obviously this person is guilty because some people were indeed deported during war, and some people claimed they were gassed.”No, mass murder happened because lots of people were deported to places they are not known to have ever left alive, and because all eyewitnesses – including the defendants on trial before West German and other courts – described mass killing and body disposal, not a single one of them – including the defendants on trial before West German and other courts – claimed anything else. And the fact that mass murder happened only means that “this person is guilty” to the extent that specific individual actions committed by this person can be proven through eyewitness and/or other evidence.
Don’t you think you might ensure countless miscarriages of justice by this irresponsible nonsense? I don’t think the bigmouth can demonstrate a single miscarriage of justice by a court of the German Federal Republic at an NS-crimes trial. If anything, these courts can be accused of having been excessively careful in their assessment of evidence, too quick to apply the
in dubio pro reo principle and often too lenient in establishing sentences (though there were also a number of well-deserved lifetime sentences in Germany, in case the big-mouth would like to claim that defendants cut a deal).
If I remember correctly you claimed they would not have used producers because of the explosive danger. OK, then they should not have used Zyklon B either because it is in 6-41% vol explosive! You don’t need a 6-41 % to kill people, do you? On the other hand, producer gas vehicle drivers were warned about leaks because the gas was so toxic and explosive that even a small quantity leaking out of the generator could already be dangerous, IIRC. Nice try, but no banana.
Next you object, “no it’s not as explosive!” => it IS explosive nonetheless, so the explosive danger exists!The issue here would be the chance of the users being exposed to concentrations carrying the danger of intoxication or explosion, which was considerable with producer gas but not with Zyklon B. And even if that were not so, what would it matter? It would only mean that using gasoline instead of producer gas was not the best decision, a mistake. So what? People make mistakes all the time and have done so throughout history. Even your SS heroes were only error-prone human beings, my friend.
And if we now move to the area of what should or shouldn’t have been used, then they definitely SHOULD have used cremation ovens to incinerate the bodies in Aktion Reinhard camps!I don’t think that would have been a practical solution, actually. The 46 ovens of Birkenau could only burn about 3,000 bodies a day, and at Treblinka they had up to 15,000 bodies per day at peak times, according to Suchomel. Half a dozen huge grids made of railway rails over pits containing wood drenched with gasoline were a much better solution under such conditions. But let’s assume that the moron’s heroes actually did not apply what would have been the best solution under the circumstances: what would this mean? That people make mistakes. That people fuck up sometimes, as they have done throughout human history. Nothing more, and nothing less.
But no no... because these are all just propaganda lies.That would be a non-sequitur argument even if your heroes should have done what you think they should have, as explained above.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:27 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (7) And what’s the point in gassing people, when you could have simply deported them into big hidden fields with electrified barbed wire fences and put few companies to guard them and let them starve there days or few weeks, and then burn them in big industrial cremation ovens built nearby..
Well, it’s faster, requires less personnel and is more “humane”. Three factors in favor of gassing. And have you already thought how big an enclosure to be surrounded by electrified wire would have to be to kill hundreds of thousands of people therein over a period of just a few months, and how much electricity would be required, etc.?
Ah, and why didn’t them “Jewish Bolsheviks” apply your method instead of bumping off hundreds of thousands of people at places like Kuropaty and Bykivnia? Must be propaganda too, in your sparrow brain …
Belzec archeology:
I)
“You're obviously projecting your own fallacies, my friend. As to my motivation, it's a deep aversion to the offensive lies and nonsense disseminated by trash like you.”
Well well, we actually have sparked some ‘conversation’ here, thanks to my provocations.
Mr. Mule, the “lies and nonsense” ARE the WW2 gassing propaganda lies! My motivation too is to expose the propaganda lies of WW2 = The Jewish “Gas Chamber Genocide” lies. I too have a deep aversion to those offensive WW2 lies and nonsense disseminated by the Jewish-controlled mass media of the West (e.g. MacDonald 1998/2002, http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books-Preface.html#Media), which are used to brainwash and manipulate Europeans to “less anti-Semitic and less xenophobic” = to allow non-White mass immigration into European countries to destroy them by making poor Europeans minorities everywhere (in USA 2042, in Europe ~2100). And yes, it is the Jews / the organized Jewry and their influence as a whole, who are responsible for this propaganda campaign.Blah, blah, blah. So the moron has a problem with “non-Whites” and therefore feels in need to ramble against
«Jewish “Gas Chamber Genocide” lies». I could have guessed.
So should we forgive and forget them, and allow them to do this over and over again, just like they treat us, right? Or was it “never forget, never forgive, never again”, hmm... So the moron lives in a paranoid cloud-cuckoo-land where Jews do him wrong. I had figured that out already
Oh, another moron pathetically obsessed with Jews. The handle suggests li'l Tommy Moran, arguably one of the dumbest creatures on the planet. :-)
No. I’m actually Hitler. I am living still. I’ll be back again, and again and again... Well obviously there is some emotional connection to you for these propaganda lies. Jew-connection seemed plausible. Whatever. If the Jews own the mass media of the West, and use it to destroy the Western Civilization and Europeans with multiculturalism and guilt mongering (including the Holocaust lies), then yes I think a little obsession is good. Like this: http://reasonradionetwork.com/?cat=8So the moron has lots of loose screws among the manure inside his skull. That’s no surprise.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:28 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (8) “By the moron's standards of what is "convincing"? I can live with that.”
Proper evidence is convincing.Yep, like the evidence that convinced historians and courts of a constitutional state like the German Federal Republic.
You should already know what is convincing anyway. Murder weapons and some bodies:Any rules or standards of evidence you can show us (other than your irrelevant own) whereby “murder weapons and some bodies” are a must to sustain a conviction for mass murder, whereby such conviction cannot be based on documentary and eyewitness evidence alone? I’m waiting.
Auschwitz “homicidal gas chambers” have to have as much ferrocyanide residues as the disinfestation gas chambers,I don’t see why, but actually they do if have more or less the same concentration if you consider samples without Prussian Blue alone (which is the correct comparison).
clear 4 square holes in the roof of Krema 2 (Keren et al proved nothing and could have named 8 ‘holes’ just like Provan 1996),No, the holes they identified can only have been the Zyklon B introduction holes, however much you holler. But why the heck (according to what rules or standards other than your irrelevant own) would those holes have to be physically identified at all? Documentary and eyewitness evidence left no room for reasonable doubt about their existence even before Keren et al published the results of their investigation.
few autopsies concluding a gassing death with Zyklon B or carbon monoxide;I didn’t know there were any such autopsies actually. Well, maybe some by Soviet investigating commissions related to killings in gas vans. But again, why are any needed to sustain a reasonable conclusion about mass murder by gassing?
and thoroughly excavated mass graves at Aktion Reinhard camps.Those graves excavated or investigated by core drilling, thoroughly enough to establish the size of the mass graves or the mass graves area and that the mass graves contained large amounts of cremation remains and some even a considerable number of whole bodies. The size of the mass graves thus established is compatible with the scale of mass murder that can be estimated on the basis of documentary evidence. So what more is needed? What would be a thorough excavation for you? And why are you asking for one, except because you know or think that it hasn’t yet been done?
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:30 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (9) Documentary evidence: Documents about Execution Gas Chambers (with Zyklon or Carbon monoxide)Like these?
"Vergasungsapparate" - "Gassing Devices""...special vans...or other remedies...""...a 'Delousing Van'...": Euphemism for Murder "...ninety-seven thousand have been processed..." "Bathing Installations for Special Action" "Material for Special Treatment" Diary of Johann Paul Kremer80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz - New Document"Cremation with simultaneous Special Treatment""Vergasungskeller" "Four wire-mesh introduction devices,
four wooden covers" "14 Showerheads, 1 gas-tight door".
and documents about gassed victims;You mean documents about people dispatched to final destinations where – as sometimes becomes apparent from the documents themselves – they were supposed to die and where – as we know from other evidence – death was brought about by gassing?
If so, I suggest
Höfle’s report to Heim of 11 January 1943, the
Korherr Report and documents mentioned in
Prof. Browning’s expert report for the Irving-Lipstadt trial and/or in
section 5 (continuation) of my Mattogno riposte, among others.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:33 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (10) Clear plans about executing Jews with gas with figures (e.g. “we have now gassed 1,000,000 here in Auschwitz”, or “today we gassed 2,666 Jews”, etc.).Documents mentioning that so-and-so many Jews were killed or subject to “special treatment” I can show you plenty of, but they don’t necessarily mention the killing method. Why do you want to see documents expressly mention the killing method? I mean, other than because you expect them not to exist.
And if there would have to have been trials to prosecute the losers of WW2, then they would have to have been honest trials, in which the alleged crimes had to be proven with normal procedures (murder weapons and bodies), not the arbitrary post-war show trials (based on indisputable “self-evident facts”, hearsay and propaganda). I’m looking forward to your demonstration that a) proof of murder requires “murder weapons and bodies” under any procedural rules or rules of evidence you know of and b) the Nuremberg trials and the many NS murder trials before West German courts were what you call them. Here are two articles showing that you don’t know what you’re talking about:
Some misconceptions related to the Nuremberg trials … Jürgen Graf on Criminal Justice and Nazi Crimes More Fun With Ugly Voice Productions (Part 1) If you haven’t proven the “gassing crimes” with some of the dead bodies (autopsies) and some of the murder weapons (e.g. expert reports proving as much ferrocyanide residues in Auschwitz ‘homicidal gas chambers’ [blue or colorless] as in the disinfestation gas chambers and documents about execution gas chambers would be further proof too); then there is no proven crime. Reports like
A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps, by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz Institute of Forensic Research, Cracow? Not that I think they are necessary, you see. Neither are your “autopsies”. Historians and the criminal justice authorities of a constitutional state agree with me, and there’s nothing you can show to be unreasonable about their position.
Therefore you have no basis to discriminate between the various contradictory eyewitnesses.What “various contradictory witnesses” exactly and in what exactly do they “contradict” each other, first of all?
Second, what makes you think that prosecutors or judges need your autopsies and reports to establish an eyewitness’s credibility?
If you prefer the gasoline method – without proving the “gassing crime” with aforementioned evidence – then we real people can as well prefer the diesel method, and again refer to the real “holocaust scholars” who support this and wrote it as “history”. No, the converging independent testimonies of knowledgeable eyewitnesses are sufficient evidence to homicidal gassing with gasoline exhaust by reasonable standards of evidence (as opposed to the standards of illogical blabbermouths who idiotically claim to be the only “real people” around, as becomes hopeless lunatics).
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:35 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (11) Or we might even prefer the steamings and other nonsense, which real “holocaust scholars” do not support, because those too are based on the same “eyewitness evidence” (plus the convergence of saunas) => this varying unproven foundation allows multiple interpretations.Dead wrong, bigmouth. “Steamings and other nonsense” are based on the mistaken observations of outsiders or simply on rumors, not on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who can be expected to have known what they were talking about.
This strict evidence and the courts’ hierarchy of evidence has to be applied only to Jews’ alleged Holocaust genocide (not to others), because:What “courts’ hierarchy of evidence”, bigmouth?
Quote procedural rules that establish such “hierarchy”, please. Or cut the crap.
1) we are dealing with an alleged precise murder in the scale of peopleWhat that supposed to mean?
(therefore courts’ murder investigation method applies); They have been applied at (among others) hundreds of NS-crimes trials before Federal German courts, wise guy. Time for you to wake up.
2) Holocaust claims are full of lies, contradictions, exaggerations, rumors and nonsense;No more and no less so than claims about other mass crimes or catastrophic events, and the wheat has been sifted from the chaff in the meantime.
3) because eyewitness evidence is very unreliable; It must be used with caution but is still a mainstay of criminal investigation and historical research, be it in regard to the Nazi genocide of the Jews or in regard to any other event or phenomenon.
4) the Holocaust story got started from unreliable propaganda sources;Such as? Actually the “Holocaust story” got started from underground reports, eyewitness testimonies, interrogations of perpetrators, documents made by the perpetrators themselves and demographic data.
5) the figure of 6 million, and 5-6 million, was already claimed many times during and right after WW1, which implies the mythical nonsense nature of the 6 figure (seriously casting doubt on the 5-6 million WW2 Holocaust);Horseshit. Some Jewish papers wrote something about 6 million Jews threatened by starvation in Europe after World War I, that’s all. If the order of magnitude then claimed happens to more or less coincide with the sum of demographic losses established country-by-country after the Second World War, that’s a mere and irrelevant coincidence.
6) many of the Holocaust claims are admittedly false by Holocaust experts admissions (gassings in Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the “wrong” murder methods, etc.); Sifting the wheat from the chaff is part of historical research in what concerns the Holocaust as it is regarding any other event or set of events. Ever heard about all those Dresden myths mentioned in
section 5.2 of my Mattogno riposte, or about the thousands of phony American Vietnam veterans telling Rambo tales in bars on a Saturday night? Are either a reason to doubt the historical record of the Dresden bombing or the American war in Vietnam?
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:38 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (12) 7) and because of the propagandistic nature of the whole Holocaust subject, because it is being used as an ideological weapon for the benefit of the Jews, very much in the Jewish-controlled mass media, and because very little critical research is allowed (“denial”) with the threat of imprisonment in many European countries which implies already that the whole story is rotten.Whatever political or economic benefit some organizations may derive from the Holocaust doesn’t change the fact that it has been investigated more thoroughly, by both criminal investigators and historians, than any other case of large-scale mass murder in history (if you disagree, feel free to go fishing for examples of mass murders that have been historically reconstructed on the basis of more and/or “better” evidence). Critical research is what historians do, and nobody has anything against it. What creeps like you do, on the other hand, is not critical research. It is the highly uncritical attempt of ideologically motivated fanatics to vindicate their articles of faith. Not that I think you people should be imprisoned for that, but calling your mendacious imbecility “critical research” is just laughable. And no, prohibition of “Revisionism” in some countries doesn’t imply what you would like to believe it implies. It only means that some states are concerned with disturbances of the public order that may result from or be incremented by the effect of “Revisionist” propaganda on frustrated losers like yourself, or see “Revisionism” as the binding kit between otherwise disparaged right-wing extremist groups and fight it for this reason – with what I consider to be the wrong means.
And yes, only the alleged Jewish “Gas Chamber Genocide” has to be proven this strictly, because it is claimed to be so unique and precise mass murder;And why would standards of evidence for proving an event depend on what significance whosoever is supposed to attach to that event rather than on what is logically required to prove that event beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr. Moron?
Holocaust is claimed to be a specific mass murder which definitely should left behind the proper evidence required evidence, had it happened as claimed (murder weapons and some of the bodies plus the known locations of the huge mass graves).The locations of the mass graves are mostly known, and there’s no reason why the killers should have left the murder weapons behind where they had all the time in the world to destroy or dismantle them and remove them from the site, as in the case of the
Aktion Reinhard(t) camps. You’re making no sense, boy.
Other genocides were not attempts to kill ALL of certain peoples with specific weapons of mass destruction of which many are still known to be intact today to be found and analyzed. What makes genocide is an attempt to wholly or partially destroy a certain ethnic or religious group, the particular methods applied being a secondary issue. And where are we supposed to find intact gas chambers, gas vans or gassing engines these days? These were by no means the only killing methods, by the way; 2.4 out of 5.1 million Jews killed by the Nazis, according to Hilberg, succumbed to privation in ghettos and camps or to mass shooting rather than to dedicated extermination installations. I’d say the Rwanda genocide of 1994, which was almost wholly carried out with machetes, matches your requirements a lot better. And I’m sure that Rwanda is still full of machetes “intact today to be found and analyzed”. So what?
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:39 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (13) So this unique case definitely has to be proven strictly with murder weapons and some of the bodies, and the hierarchy of evidence applies. A non sequitur argument, and there’s no such thing as your “hierarchy of evidence” outside your imagination, my friend.
Otherwise there is no “gassing crime” and anyone can believe or theorize or disbelieve whatever they want.You don’t get to make the rules of evidence here, bigmouth. You have to apply those that are applied by the pertinent disciplines (criminal investigation and historical research), which don’t provide for the “hierarchy” you are babbling about.
(And no, we righteous revisionist darlings don’t have to prove anything this carefully, since we are not accusing anyone of murder; we can just prove our case with normal historian’s methods.) No, you’re just claiming the most improbable and gigantic hoax in history by the most gigantic and improbable conspiracy of all times, and you haven’t provide a shred of evidence that would even hint to the existence of either. And there are no different standards of proof for this and that in historiography. The same standards of evidence apply to all historical events and to all theses regarding such events. The thesis of “Revisionist” loonies being that, among other things, the
Aktion Reinhard(t) camps were transit camps en route to the “Russian East”, these buggers should be able to show at least
some of the abundant documentary and eyewitness evidence that
would exist if such “transit” had taken place. But they haven’t yet shown anything, the poor jerks. And as they are true believers irrationally clinging to a quasi-religious faith, that doesn’t even make them consider the possibility that their theses are a sack full of cattle manure.
This would be convincing. To you perhaps, and that only until the day the kind of evidence you baselessly proclaim to be necessary is rubbed under your nose. As soon as that happens, you will shift the goalposts and proclaim even higher standards. Who do you think you’re fooling?
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:40 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (14) “No they don't. No insider witnesses familiar with the killing process and related devices mentioned anything other than gassing with engine exhaust. And witnesses in the know are the ones that count for this purpose. The others may be further evidence to the fact of mass murder, but were obviously mistaken as concerns the methodology.”
No no. All witnesses are equal, at least all of the prisoners in the camps.Nonsense. There are witnesses who are better observers than others, and there are witnesses closer to and with better opportunities to observe the events or circumstances in question.
Of course they would have known what the murder methods were in so small camps, so they all were in the know, and therefore the real official “holocaust scholars” accepted the diesel method.More nonsense. All or most witnesses may have known that the killing was done with engine exhaust or at least that it involved the use of an engine, but only very few witnesses could get close enough to the engine room and the gassing engine to establish what type of engine was being used and how the exhaust gas was led into the chambers. Most inmates in other parts of each camp were never allowed access to the killing sector and thus depended for their knowledge on what they were told by the Ukrainian guards, who were also not necessarily familiar with all details of the gassing process.
Witnesses could not have be mistaken about the murder methods, had there been gassings.That applies only to those witnesses who either operated the murder methods or otherwise had first-hand knowledge of them, because they had helped to install the engines or maintained them or brought up the gasoline for them. Those witnesses were a minority in each camp, and
all of these insider witnesses mentioned a
gasoline engine.
I might add that the earlier reports and descriptions might be even more equal than the later ones, especially the steamings are more equal (more correct), due to the unreliability of human memories.No, the steaming account obviously came from a far-away observer who must have mistaken for steam the exhaust coming out of the opened gas chambers on a cold day, or steam brought about by the difference between the bodies’ temperature and a cold outside temperature. And it bore no resemblance to the actual killing method, whereas the witnesses who mentioned gassing with engine exhaust were at least correct in that exhaust from an engine was the killing agent.
And we have a real juicy convergence of evidence for steamings, because Germans had many Saunas in their camps (which probably got the whole steam myth started as the disinfestation gas chambers started the myth/lie about the ‘homicidal gas chambers’).There were no saunas at the
Aktion Reinhard(t) camps, bigmouth. Do something about your ignorance. And I strongly doubt that you can demonstrate a connection between the disinfestations gas chamber at Birkenau and the homicidal gas chambers, which were located in different buildings at different places of the camp.
And steam chamber story was even supported at the Nuremberg trial! Case closed. They were steamed..
Just because an exhibit mention steaming was introduced at the trial, this doesn’t mean that the tribunal concluded on steaming. And actually there’s nothing about steaming at Treblinka in the IMT’s judgment. They mention gassing there. See my article
Some misconceptions related to the Nuremberg trials … (Oh my God, I have a Sauna in my home, in the next room! I confess, it was really me all along who steamed those millions of poor Jews to death, I even use it nowdays to steam Jews regularly; damn, it’s very ineffective.) Don’t try to be funny, moron. You have no sense of humor and only succeed in further exposing your imbecility.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:44 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (15) The point: The camps were so small that all the “witnesses” were in the know so they could not have be mistaken about the murder methods.No, most witnesses never had a chance to take a closer look at the gas chambers and gassing engines, which were located in segregated parts of each camp. Do something about.
They would not have to have been using some engines to know that they were murder weapons, because they would haveWhat’s that supposed to mean?
Therefore, in Reinhard camps the Jews were steamed, electrocuted, ‘vacuumed’, shot and gassed.No, they were either shot or gassed with gasoline exhaust. Some far-away observers mistakenly assumed that the gassing victims were “steamed”. Others, who only saw people walking into a building and being removed as corpses, wrongly speculated that the people were being “electrocuted” therein. One witness who realized that an engine was involved in the process nevertheless misunderstood the mechanism and assumed that the engine was being used to drag air out of the chamber instead of leading exhaust inside. Still others correctly observed that exhaust was being led into the chambers, but wrongly assumed that it was from a diesel engine actually used for other, non-homicidal purpose. And then there were the operators and those who serviced the gassing engine, who knew not only that the killing agent was exhaust, but also that the exhaust came from a gasoline engine.
Denying any of these truths is denial claiming to be “revisionism”.No, concluding that gassing with gasoline exhaust was the method and descriptions of electrocution, steaming or diesel gassing are mistaken is revisionism in the proper sense of the term.
Witnesses cannot be wrong in some of their claims (about steamings, electrocutions, vacuumings), because therefore they could also be wrong about gasoline engines (and everything else too). First of all, the witnesses who spoke about “steamings, electrocutions, vacuumings” were not the witnesses who spoke about gasoline engines, of course. Any witnesses for steaming and electrocutions you can name, by the way?
Second, witnesses who made mistakes in their descriptions of the gassing process were not necessarily mistaken about everything else they described, and insofar as their descriptions are born out by those of other witnesses independent of them including SS defendants, it is actually rather unlikely that they were mistaken. The technical specifics of the gassing process were something that witnesses without a close connection to the process could easily be mistaken about, especially if they were non-technical people, without that meaning that these witnesses were necessarily unreliable.
You have to believe it ALL, or else it falls apart (just like religion).No, you can sift the wheat from the chaff, which is what historians and criminal investigators do in regard to these events as in regard to any other crimes or other historical events. The religion here is “Revisionist” BS. “Revisionist” true believers have to postulate that
all witnesses lied from A to Z or were out of their minds, and that
all other incriminating evidence is inconclusive or fake. If they were to admit that
one witness provided a truthful account of homicidal gassing, their whole cloud-cuckoo-land of propagandistic manure would come tumbling down.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:47 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (16) And again the “gassing crimes” haven’t been proven so there is no basis to discriminate between them. You’re desperately trying to convince yourself of something you badly want to believe but don’t really believe, aren’t you? At least that’s what you sound like.
To the unbelievers (evil deniers / “revisionists”) this clinging on to gasoline engine method is like trying to fish good fish from a polluted pond (= they are all the same propaganda lies). To reasonable people, on the other hand, it is revisionism in the proper sense of the term. And I’m always amused when fanatical true believers like yourself call themselves “unbelievers”. But then you loonies got it all upside down, right?
“I don't know what "etc." you are talking about, but "geysirs of blood" have also been observed at burial places of diseased slaughtered carcasses, IIRC. And the phenomenon of something looking like blood being projected to the surface by gasses forming inside the body during decomposition is a physically realistic possibility.”
“mass graves expelling geysers of blood;[359] […]
[359] A. Rückerl, op. cit. (note 144), p. 273f.; E. Wiesel, Paroles d’Etranger, Edition du Seuil, Paris 1982, p. 86; Wiesel, The Jews of Silence, New American Library, New York 1972, p. 48; A. Eichmann, in H. Arendt, op. cit. (note 182), p. 184; B. Naumann, op. cit. (note 145), p. 214.”
Yes, everyone can believe what they want.Yeah, you’re sure to believe all the bullshit you have been producing. Just don’t expect any reasonable person to look on you as anything other than a hopeless moron. As to the “geysers of blood”, read Sergey Romanov’s article
That's why it is denial, not revisionism. Part IV: Deniers and Babiy Yar massacre (2), from which I quote:
«Given that the ravine cut through aquifers, presumably it wouldn't be surprising that liquids from the corpses would appear elsewhere.
But would they spurt like geysers above the graves? Well, "geyser" is probably a wrong word to use here. But consider this report, "1,500 sheep to be dug up as body fluid leaks" (emphasis mine):
THE carcasses of 1,500 sheep slaughtered five weeks ago because they were infected with foot and mouth are to be dug up and burned by Maff after blood was found bubbling up from the ground.
[...]
It follows the discovery a week ago that 15,000 sheep buried on the Army firing ranges at Epynt, mid-Wales, were leaking body fluids into the water table and would have to be dug up and burned. Richard Tutton, who farms at Buttington Hall, said: "They were buried five weeks ago. The pit was very tidy, efficient and deep.
"We have had horrendous rain since then. Water has got in beneath and it was sort of bubbling up. It has not reached the river or anything. They are catching it before anything happens."
That's 1500 sheep. Now imagine what would happen with 34,000 corpses in the Indian summer of 1941.»
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:51 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (17) “And why dont you also believe in >the propaganda lies of WW1?”
→ “Because they were exposed as lies by subsequent research and the admissions of wartime propagandists, moron. Don't you ever think before writing?”
As if you didn’t get the point...I still have to see you making a point, bigmouth.
Assuming WW1 propaganda lies would not be admittedly propaganda lies:… there would still be historical research showing that they don’t fit into the overall historical context made up by lots of evidence contradicting them.
How well were WW1 propaganda lies proven to be propaganda lies? I’ve read Arthur Ponsonby’s book (1928). Ponsonby had no material nor physical evidence to prove his “revisionist bs”. Ponsonby did not prove nor even explain(!) what exactly happened to ALL of those Canadians, other soldiers, nurses and civilians, and to those 700,000 gassed and bayoneted civilians in 1916, (“poor, innocent, inoffensive, blameless, high-minded, talented, violin-playing civilians and soldiers... murdered by the wicked Germans”). Ponsonby did not even have any evidence to refute the awful corpse factories that manufactured soap and raw materials out of dead bodies. There would have been a good convergence of evidence for the corpse factories: There definitely were documents to prove the existence of factories, and because there is eyewitness evidence about some of the factories manufacturing war-time raw materials out of dead bodies, this of course means that the corpse factories were true. The eyewitnesses proved it so! The story about the gassing 700,000 also holds true: There was gas being used during WW1 and the eyewitnesses claimed that 700,000 were gassed, so of course they were!I don’t think there were many direct (and for some reason mistaken) eyewitnesses rather than many who heard, believed and passed on stories that spread like rumor always does, growing as it goes along (the Germans did commit atrocities against Belgian civilians, but the order of magnitude was in the thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands – that was what started the rumors). If there’s documentary evidence, I’m sure it can be explained as pertaining to something innocuous that could be and was misinterpreted as something sinister. And I don’t think there is such a thing as documentation or demographic data pointing to hundreds of thousands of victims of German atrocities in World War I, or any corroborating physical evidence, or any depositions in court by people accused of having participated in mass killing, or any eyewitness testimonies that stood up to hostile cross-examination in the courtroom. Regarding the crimes of your Nazi heroes, there’s plenty of all that. So you’re comparing apples with oranges here, my fiend.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:54 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (18) Surely the numerous witnesses about WW1 atrocities (propaganda lies) cannot all be wrong?No, not all accounts of World War I atrocities are propaganda lies. The Germans shot or hanged thousands of civilians in Belgian and northern France, and on the Eastern Front the civilian population was also not treated with kid gloves. But there were no gassings or corpse factories, and the order of magnitude of the killing was thousands and not hundreds of thousands.
What are you suggesting, that they actually could have lied?I’m suggesting that there were few if any direct witnesses to gassing or corpse factories, that those who claimed to have seen such things were understandably mistaken, that their accounts were blown up by the rumor mill and that propagandists took advantage of that rumor mill, where they are not known to have invented things right away.
I feel a deep aversion to the offensive lies and nonsense disseminated by trash like you, that WW1 atrocities would have been “lies”. Witnesses never lie.They sometimes do, but lies usually don’t have a long life.
Obviously the propagandists lied, those who claimed they made up the “stories”, which obviously were true!That’s not what is suggested by postwar admissions and historical research (as opposed to “Revisionist” propaganda), sorry.
On the other hand, we have plenty of material evidence and documentary evidence that contradicts the WW2 propaganda lies (many scientific forensic reports refuting the alleged murder weapons and plenty of scientific research about the capacity of ovens, and many documents about the real conditions of the camps),No, we haven’t. What we have is lots of puny attempts by charlatans like yourself to sell ideologically motivated pseudo-scientific nonsense dressed up as “scientific forensic reports” or “scientific research”. All of that shit is exposed as what it is as soon as someone takes a closer look at it.
not to mention the tremendous lack of evidence (no documents about execution gas chambers or gassed victims) and the WW2 lies are simply nonsensical and unconvincing.Your standards of what is “simply nonsensical and unconvincing” are as irrelevant as a pig’s fart, my friend.
As to documents about execution gas chambers or gassed victims, see what I wrote above.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:55 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (19) And I’ll tell you where we have a tremendous lack of evidence even though evidence should be plentiful. This is from
section 5.2 of my Mattogno riposte:
«Mattogno expressly mentions in his response:
If there were documents on "at least 434,000 Jews" being transported from Bełżec "to the east", the controversy which has caused me to write my study would not exist: Bełżec would unquestionably be considered nothing more than a transit camp. But since
no such documents can be found, the six pages devoted to this issue are a lot already.
No such documents can be found. This is quite a significant statement. For there is no reason whatsoever why there should not be a lot of documentation about transportation from Belzec "transit camp" to the East if such transportation had taken place, both in related railway records and other documentation pertaining to the organization and execution of the transports but also in the largely recovered files of the civilian and military administrations of the occupied eastern territories, who would have had to deal with these hundreds of thousands of resettled Jews. While it is understandable that the Nazis would destroy incriminating documents related to a mass murder operation, there is
no reason whatsoever why they should have destroyed documentation about resettlement via transit camps to the occupied Soviet territories. On the contrary: not only could such documentation have been paraded as a means to counter wartime reports that the Nazis were massacring the Jews (
"hey look here, we're not killing them but just deporting them to the Russian East"), but every official big and small who was involved in
Aktion Reinhard(t) would have had a vital interest in preserving these documents in order to invoke them in his defense in case of being accused of war crimes. After Stalingrad at the latest the hypothesis of Germany losing the war had to be taken into consideration, and as early as February 1943, following the Casablanca Conference announcement of "punishment and retribution in full" upon Nazi Germany's "guilty, barbaric leaders" [386], officials involved in measures against the Jews had to count on being held to account as war criminals. Later in the same year, the Moscow Conference's "Statement on Atrocities" made it clear beyond doubt what the Allies' policy regarding prosecution of and punishment for Nazi atrocities was, and that "all officers and men and members of the Nazi party" (not just the top leaders) would be held accountable for crimes they had been involved in[387]. Under these conditions, the organizers and executors of
Aktion Reinhard(t), from Himmler, Globocnik and Höfle down to the staff manning the supposed "transit camps", would have been suicidal masochists if they had destroyed documentation proving that they had been involved in mass deportation but not mass murder, documentation that was their life insurance. Yet no such documentation exists, as big "Revisionist" guru Mattogno (who, I am sure, has spent more time and effort than anyone else trying to find such documentation) has just confirmed. That alone should be enough to make Mattogno realize and admit how worthless all his theories and hypotheses are, if he had the common sense and intellectual honesty that should be expected from who calls himself a historian. He obviously has not.»
There’s your tremendous lack of evidence, Mr. Moranen.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:57 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (20) There is much much more evidence to disprove WW2 propaganda lies, than of WW1 lies..
No there isn’t, already because what you would like to be “propaganda lies” are indisputable facts proven by a wealth of eyewitness, documentary, demographic and physical evidence, assessed by historians and by criminal justice authorities over more than six decades.
“Whether or not people were ever actually packed into a gas chamber this tightly I don't know”
Ok.
II)
“If its mathematically possible, >then you must believe it, right?”
→ “No, because it is contradicted by a wealth of other evidence whereby the death toll of Nazi concentration and extermination camps was more like 3-4 million. You should really consider thinking a little before shooting the bull.”
And so are the 3-4 million figures contradicted by wealth of evidence and you still believe in them (not to mention the lack of evidence and the unreliable nature of the “eyewitness evidence”).What, have you found evidence whereby the deported who disappeared at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek went on from there to final destinations in the “Russian East”? Let’s see that evidence then, bigmouth. Why have you held it back all this time? Put it on the table, it will make you a “Revisionist” hero.
As to the «lack of evidence and the unreliable nature of the “eyewitness evidence”» bullshit, here’s a challenge for you: list ten mass killing programs in history that you accept as having claimed hundreds of thousands of victims, and explain why the evidence to those mass killings convinces you whereas the eyewitness, documentary, physical and demographic evidence to your Nazi heroes’ mass killings does not. I’m waiting.
“I mean, denying this incredible >truth and claiming to be a >"revisionist" must be very stupid >and evil lying.”
→ “I don't know what you're talking about, but you come across as very stupid indeed.”
No, you just pretend you don’t. If we real people deny the “Gas Chamber Genocide” in Poland, ‘proven’ by “eyewitnesses” and nothing else, then we are deniers.The “nothing else” thing is the first lie that shows you “real people” to be the lying loony trash you actually are. And as you have such an aversion to eyewitnesses, here are two questions I would like you to answer:
1. Do you accept it as a fact that Soviet troops killed tens of thousands of German civilians during the Red Army’s invasion of Germany in 1944/45?
2. If so, what evidence
other than eyewitness accounts is your acceptance of this fact based on?
When you have answered these questions, we’ll move on to other examples.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:59 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (21) So by the same logic, if you deny the other killing methods proven by eyewitnesses and if you deny the bigger death tolls (proven by “eyewitnesses” or propaganda) without proving exactly what happened to those 25 million people or to those steamed/electrocuted/vacuumed/gassed people. (If you just deny these truths, without proving and explaining everything precisely, then your other propaganda lies lose credibility.)Your logic sucks, my friend. The “other killing methods” and “bigger death tolls” are proven wrong by better evidence (even you should understand that insider witnesses are better evidence than casual observers, and that documents and demographic data are much better evidence than an eyewitness’s educated guess), so the plausible and evidence-backed alternative scenario that disproves them has been provided. On the other hand, the better evidence whereby the gassing at the AR camps was done with gasoline exhaust, the death toll of these camps was in the order of 1.5 million and the overall death toll of Europe’s Jewish population was in the order of 5.1 to 5.5 million, is not matched by any better evidence pointing to an alternative scenario. It is actually not matched by any such evidence at all.
My God, you ‘believers’ even deny the gassings in Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen! Why not in Poland too?Because all known evidence of various categories (eyewitnesses, documents, physical traces, demographic data) points to mass killing by gassing in extermination camps in Poland, whereas there is no evidence that Buchenwald and Belsen even had gassing installations and no conclusive evidence that the gas chamber at Dachau was ever used for homicidal gassing. And I continue amused by the self-projecting “believers” – BS.
Because there is no more evidence to them either?! Because they are so similar and as credible as the stories about Poland gassings?! No, there is a big difference in both the quantity and the quality of evidence.
You are already ‘denying’ so many of the gassing propaganda lies, so you might as well ‘deny’ the rest!We don’t deny, we follow the evidence where it leads.
But you don’t, which makes no sense at all. Your response: “There is more evidence!” => NO! “Buhuhuu! I want to believe!”You don’t have to tell me that you badly want to believe there’s no more evidence for mass gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau Treblinka than for mass gassings at Dachau and therefore switch off your tiny brain and bury your head in the sand. But please keep on displaying your hysteria and silliness, it’s fun to watch.
Again the point is that the “gassing crimes” haven’t been proven anywhere.Again repeating your main article of faith, moron? You seem to be having a hard time trying to convince yourself of it.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:00 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (22) Not even one body (autopsy).Instead of repeating that shit, you should be explaining why, i.e. by what accepted rules or standards of evidence, even one autopsy would be required to reasonably conclude on mass murder by gassing at Nazi extermination camps.
So therefore you have no basis on which to discriminate between eyewitnesses, since they are the only “evidence”.Instead of repeating that shit, you should be explaining why on earth prosecutors and trial judges should not be able to determine which eyewitness testimonies are credible and which are not even if eyewitness testimonies are the only evidence they have. There’s a good legal manual about how to assess eyewitness testimonies that I can recommend to you, if you are interested.
Again, imagine being in a court judging the accused based on tens of different contradictory eyewitnesses with no proof of the murder (and the witnesses would have alleged very contradictory nonsense, lies and unproven claims). Before we “imagine” anything, how about showing us a court judgment where that is supposed to have been the case? Eyewitness testimonies may have differed in details, and some may have contained exaggerations or other nonsense – human observation and memory are fallible, after all. But all eyewitness testimonies provided at trials like the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, by eyewitnesses who never knew what another eyewitness had said and including the accused defendants and other eyewitnesses from the ranks of the SS, coincided on the essential aspects of the selection, killing and body disposal process. There was no “very contradictory nonsense” anywhere outside your sick brain.
Oh by the way, the way I’m coming across is exactly the way you are coming across in your writings. Yes indeed, very very stupid.Poor jerk, trying to get even for my having pointed out his stupidity. Grow up, man.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:02 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (23) “I mean, if I gave you a real sexy >convergence of evidence, surely >you must believe me then? >(Documents written by me, >irrelevant and unrelated physical >evidence which proves nothing as >usual, and some old lunatics >testifying whom I bribed.)”
→ “No, because the falsity of such "evidence" would be easy to establish, whereas morons like you have never been able to demonstrate, however hard they have tried, that any document incriminating your nazi heroes was a forgery, that physical evidence of Nazi mass murder is "irrelevant or unrelated" or that any of the many eyewitnesses to Nazi mass murder was "bribed".”
Oh really?! Wow. But what if I bribed a 100-year old man to claim that he ordered, by the oral orders of Hitler, to kill all the Jews.He would be wildly at odds with the historical context and a wealth of eyewitness and documentary evidence contradicting him.
In addition I would bribe tens of old Nazis, SS men or German army officers to prove he did. How about this: “I heard Hitler telling me to kill the Jews and he told me to write the order”, then I would bribe him to write “the order”. I would at least have many eyewitnesses, who suddenly “remembered” and even a convergence of the “replicated oral order”. They would still be at odds with the historical context and a wealth of other evidence contradicting them, and these contradictions would become apparent upon closed examination. Are you trying to insinuate that thousands of eyewitnesses to Nazi mass murder including former SS-men on trial (some of them sentenced to lifetime imprisonment by West German courts) were “bribed” by someone, by the way? Or where is this infantile babbling supposed to get us?
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:04 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (24) And if the Jewish eyewitnesses are always automatically believed, why not bribe them too... Oh wait, of course I should start bribing the Jew witnesses first! I have a feeling that some of them might suddenly ‘remember’ everything, as soon as they would see enough money. I might even encourage them to write their own ‘replications’ of the Hitler orders that they suddenly remembered seeing in the hands of the wicked Nazis. What else, oh I should also bribe Jew witnesses to ‘remember’ the diesel gassings, steamings, vacuum chambers, electrocutions and definitely the delayed action gas chambers. “I saw the huge mega-underground-vacuum-electric-steam-chamber, which dropped the bodies into electrocution conveyor belt which lead the bodies into the giant lava pit! I was there!” Money makes wonders.Actually the Jewish eyewitnesses before West German courts were subject to hostile cross-examination like all others, and many of them were considered unreliable or not reliable enough to sustain the respective court’s findings of fact.
Just one example, emphases added:
«I knew why I wanted to talk to him. As a man who has dedicated his life to the remembrance of Sobibor and as a serious researcher of Sobibor, I felt there were still some unanswered questions and gaps. As a former senior staff member of a death camp, one of the few still living, he could give me some technical and other important information and facts about the camp and the revolt known only by the SS. I could get the German view of events and solve some puzzling aspects of the camp. But why did he want to talk to me? I asked him outright why he agreed to speak to me. He said he wanted to apologize to me in person. He couldn't do it in the courtroom. "I don't blame you or other witnesses," he said. "And I must honestly say I was sorry for you and all those witnesses... After all those years to have to think back on all those memories and be pressured... they were pressuring and squeezing you in the court...".
This was putting it mildly.
The method of the defense was primarily to discredit the testimony of the witnesses by asking them idiotic questions. In my case for example, "How tall was the tree near the barrack?" or " Was the club with which Frenzel beat your father round or not? How many centimeters?"
A stranger in the courtroom would immediately have thought I was the defendant and not the victim.»
Jewish witnesses were automatically believed, yeah. You should work hard on your ignorance besides your imbecility if you ever want to be someone in this discussion.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:05 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (25) I’m just wondering how unreliable and vague it is to you to ‘prove’ this “gassing crime”, since you don’t require the strict murder evidence for the crime
(even though it should be found, if events occurred as alleged).You keep repeating yourself. What “strict murder evidence” are you talking about? I require the evidence that was required by Federal German courts at numerous trials over the last decades. If you think you can demonstrate that their requirements violated procedural rules and the rights of the defendants, fire away. Otherwise cut the crap.
I’m also wondering how easy it would be to cheat you, because your demand for evidence and your ‘evidence’ for the crime is so flimsy, that it certainly would be possible, unlike in murder trials.In murder trials the evidence I consider sufficient has been subject to and stood up to careful examination including hostile cross examination, my friend. As I said before, your ignorance is your other big problem.
And obviously some of you Holocaust believers have already been cheated (or some of your ‘witnesses’ have cheated) and some of you have cheated, when the “obviously guilty Nazis” were convicted of admitted propaganda lies, in the post-war show trials.I’m looking forward to you demonstrating that any of your Nazi heroes was convicted of “admitted propaganda lies”, bigmouth. Who is that supposed to have been?
Or is this so, because the Nazis are obviously guilty, so therefore there is no need to prove anything?No, Nazis at the Nuremberg trials or at trials before West German courts were only convicted for such individual criminal actions of his that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
And again when you reply for the 100th time, that you “have proven everything” (hoping that if you write enough many times the same lie, it would become ‘truth’), NO YOU HAVEN’T!Are we into yelling mode, moron? You really seem to be having a hard time convincing yourself of your own articles of faith. Hence your screaming hysteria, I presume.
Or is the next response “no we don’t have to prove the murder this carefully, because other historical events don’t either... if we have to, you have to too!”? => To which I would reply: No. Again, because this is an alleged unique precise mass murder with specific murder weapons in known locations, with known [alleged] mass graves, then it has to be proved as a murder, because it is possible and definitely should leave the required proper evidence! In addition this is admittedly full of lies, inaccuracies, exaggerations, contradictions, myths, rumors and impossibilities and even admitted lies (the 7 points).Haven’t we been through all this before, my friend? You should avoid repeating yourself too much, you know. It makes your insanity even more obvious than it is already.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:07 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (26) Other historical events are not this controversial,I didn’t know that standards of evidence are determined by how “controversial” an event is rather than by what is reasonably required to prove them, or that the events in question are “controversial” anywhere outside your moronic belief system.
and not alleged to be this precise.What’s that supposed to mean? If you’re trying to tell me that other historical events have not been examined with the same thoroughness by historians and criminal investigators, I agree.
The revisionists are not accusing anyone of mass murder, so it is not required for them to prove anything this carefully.I commented that nonsense above, IIRC. You shouldn’t repeat yourself so much. It suggests your own lack of conviction besides showing your insanity.
“And denying this incredible truth >and claiming to be a >"revisionist" must be very stupid >and evil lying.”
→ “Ah, now I get you. Claiming that thousands of eyewitnesses, a wealth of incriminating documents and physical evidence, and the disappearance of millions of people from the European continent who never showed up anywhere else can be explained as the manipulations of some all-powerful and invisible conspiracy, which is what "Revisionists" do, is more than just stupid. It's imbecilic to the point of insanity.”
“Disappearance of millions”. In Israel there is now about 6 million Jews, almost 6 million more than before WW2.Most of them from the either born there and only 22.6 % of European or American origin, according to the
CIA World Factbook:
«Jewish 76.4% (of which Israel-born 67.1%, Europe/America-born 22.6%, Africa-born 5.9%, Asia-born 4.2%), non-Jewish 23.6% (mostly Arab) (2004)»
And
here you find information about when those who immigrated got there and where they came from. Not even a nice try, my friend.
In USA the same amount, 1 million more than before the war.What, one million more than there were 70 years ago? I’m shocked.
There are some millions in other countries and continents altogether. According to ALL estimations there were 12-18 million Jews before WW2 and 11-18 million after the war. That’s horseshit, and you need to go no further than
Wikipedia to find out:
Even if some millions of Jews are missing, it doesn’t prove they were killed (gassed).No, it just proves that they died between 1941 and 1945. As to how they died there is other evidence.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:10 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (27) Funny how nobody requires “Communist Holocaust Deniers” to explain what happened to 100 million victims of Communism? ‘Are they living in Siberia then if they didn’t all die?!Thanks for that one, moron. Now we will enjoy your explanation that the “100 million victims of Communism” you obviously accept as factual are proven by better evidence than the 5.1 to 5.5 million victims of the Nazis genocide of the Jews, won’t you?
1-2 million Jews died during WW2, due to Hitler’s and Stalin’s policies,No, Stalin is responsible for a few ten thousand Jewish Gulag victims at most. Your beloved Führer, on the other hand, bumped of at least 5 million Jews and many more non-Jews – probably including millions of Jew-haters like yourself in Poland and the Soviet Union.
tens of millions of Europeans died fighting the war.Most of those Europeans were Soviet citizens (subhuman scum in your book, I presume), thereof ca. 2.6 million Jews and 5 – 5.5 million non-Jews murdered by the Nazis. See the following articles for details;
As if it is any wonder that Germans deported the Jews and let them loose somewhere all over the East. If I recall, this is what Stalin did numerous times, and so did other victors of WW2, to Germans too. Which is why there’s plenty of evidence that they so did, whereas there’s not a shred of evidence that about 2.5 million Jews deported to Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau went anywhere beyond these places.
If the Germans had won the war, and gained the destiny of Europeans and Western European Civilization, then I really don’t see how Jews as a whole and their influence in media and politics would be destroying Europeans and our Civilization with multiculturalism, slowly but surely. My God, that would be terrible...Why do you have a problem with multiculturalism, moron? Look at the bright side of it – lots of pretty African, Indian, Arab or Asian women to look at, chat with, etc. Don’t you think the Finnish population could use some fresh blood and some color?
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:12 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (28) A real big conspiracy:One of almost supernatural proficiency and influence it would be. And completely invisible on top of that. Do you also believe in Santa Claus, moron?
In wars there is propagandaWhat propaganda about the Nazi genocide of the Jews was there during World War II? Hardly any at all, I dare say.
and victors write history;In what concerns the cause and background of events, that is true to a certain extent. But not in what concerns the events themselves.
Gassings have been proven as gassing lies with a wealth of evidence;Still trying to convince yourself of your main article of faith? Your repetitions don’t make it any less hollow, trust me.
WW2 was the most destructive war in history in which the losers were punished very severely, because OBVIOUSLY they had to be guilty to everything (paranoid accuser and revenge mentality); victors in their accuser and revenge mentality believed in or lied about Gassings (because they couldn’t find any other “atrocious crimes” [crimen atrox] to the guilty parties, “once the guilty is known, then the crime can always be found later” [paraphrasing]); there were many communist propagandists in the camps spreading gassing lies and other mass murder lies (Bruno Baum and the likes); camp inmates heard rumors and started believing in them and repeating them => so therefore gassing lies started to become as ‘facts’ into many inmates’ minds; most of the post-war trials were show trials in nature in which you could not question/dispute/deny the “self-evident facts” about gassings which were never proven at all. Medieval witch crime trials. If there were some bribed cases (some bribed Jew witnesses for example who lied), then they lie to their grave or pretending to believe their propaganda bullshit and never confess.I know that’s what you’d like to believe, so you don’t have to repeat it. The day you have anything to show for all these wild fantasies of yours, please let me know.
Did nobody ever tell you that homicidal gassing in extermination camps was a secondary issue at the Nuremberg Trial of the Major War Criminals, by the way? That trial was mostly about Nazi Germany having waged a war of aggression.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:14 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (29) “Are you an evil denier-liar who >claims to be a believer, >"Roberto"?”
→ “Unlike you, my dear moron, I am no believer in anything, for I don't need faith. I have evidence and a capacity for logical thinking, both of which you are obviously lacking. And if you have any doubts about my identity, I can show you my German passport. After you have confirmed my assumption as to who you are, of course.”
Mr. Mule: You do BELIEVE in the Jewish Holocaust of 5-6 million, of which ~3 million were gassed? Yes of course.No, I don’t believe anything. Only people who have no evidence need to believe. I reasonably conclude from a wealth of documentary, eyewitness, demographic and physical evidence that about 5.1 to 5.5 million Jews fell victim to Nazi persecution and extermination policies during World War II, including about 2.5 million who were killed in extermination camps.
You have no evidence with which you have proven the ~3 million “gassing crimes” nor even one “gassing crime”.On the contrary, I have documentary evidence showing that and how many people were deported to certain camps, that these camps were final destinations for the deportees and not a stop-over on the way to somewhere else, that they were places where people were sent to be killed and that the stench of corpses emanating from them was noticed many miles away. I have documentary evidence showing that there were thing like a
Vergasungskeller and “cremation with simultaneous special treatment” and other niceties in the crematoria of one of these camps. I have physical evidence corroborating what becomes apparent from the documentary evidence, e.g. huge mass graves or mass grave areas filled with or covered by human remains, as described by criminal investigators or archaeologists, at Chelmno and the
Aktion Reinhard(t) camps. And I have lots of eyewitness accounts to flesh out and explain what becomes apparent from the documentary and eyewitness evidence. No, I’m in no need of believing anything. I only need to follow evidence and reason.
Therefore you have no basis to pick some “correct eyewitnesses” out of the many “false witnesses”, nor do you even have an obligation to assume that they were gassed.However often you repeat that shit, West German criminal justice authorities have been able to sift the wheat from the chaff with less non-eyewitness evidence to support their conclusions than historians currently have at their disposal, and the conclusion that massive homicidal gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka and the other extermination camps are a fact is the only one that is supported by and explains all known evidence and requires no or the fewest additional assumptions, therefore the one that is scientifically sound and dictated by logic and reason.
You just choose to discriminate between witnesses based on your fate on some of the witnesses. For example you seem to believe in witnesses from Poland camps but not from German Reich (1937) camps (Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen). Isn’t this discrimination (or even racism)?I suggest you go see a shrink, moron. You seem to be badly in need of psychiatric assistance. And your ignorance cries to high heaven.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:15 hours GMT]
Response to Moranen (30) What I’m lacking is faith in WW2 propaganda lies about gassings.There is no such thing as “WW2 propaganda lies about gassings” outside your cloud-cuckoo-land, and if there’s anything you have in abundance (besides stupidity), it is blind, uncritical
faith.
Mr. Mule is just fine by me. Anonymity is bliss.I know you’re a coward, no need to reinforce the impression.
Well at least I’m not using it to blame an entire German people collectively of genocide without proof.And who’s supposed to be doing that, moron? Please tell us another of your fairy tales, it could be fun.
Once confronted of this, you, just like all Jews, deny it and lie even more, “No no, I’m just accusing the German-speaking German Nazis whom all Germans obeyed, Germans just like me”. In reality this is exactly what is happening to German people as a whole. And of course other White European peoples, are as well being manipulated by the Jew-promoted lies to destroy Europeans and European Civilization. Thank God these are only lies that we can destroy with truth. Go see that shrink, moron. I’m giving you a piece of well-meaning advice, believe me.
And as anyone can see, I beat the living hell out of believers, and caused them to lose their faith, even though they never admit this. Serious delusions of adequacy are another reason why you should seek psychiatric assistance, my dear White European asshole.
Now, as you parade a picture of your hero Alexander the Faggot at the battle of Issos on your
blog profile, I’d like to end our conversation (skipping your recently added “conclusion”, which is just another repetition of the nonsense I slapped around your ears in this commentary) by quoting what a German legal scholar wrote in 1994 regarding the introduction of an express legal provision against Holocaust denial in Germany (my translation):
«Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.»
This quote is included in my
Petition to the German Legislator, which you are kindly invited to sign. If you have balls to reveal your identity, that is.
[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:17 hours GMT]
