Shofar FTP Archive File: orgs/american/oregon/banished.cpu/gannon.words
Archive/File: orgs/american/oregon/banished.cpu gannon.words
Last-modified: 1993/05/24
I try my best to be completely objective, which is so important
especially when controversy and disagreement is involved.
- Dan "Maynard" Gannon, 31 July 1992
The following is a collection of messages sent by users of Dan Gannon's
bulletin-board system, BCPU, from July to October of 1992. It's an
attempt to show that Mr. Gannon, despite what he says, has no interest
in open discussion about controversial topics. Rather, he is only
interested in spreading his views about the Holocaust as widely as
possible. He consistently ignores dissent, and is far from being the
champion of free speech that he claims to be.
I've tried to keep it in nearly-chronological order. Since many of these
message threads ran concurrently, it's a little difficult to do so.
Naturally, I used editorial license in choosing which messages to include
here, but each message appears in its entirety, without being edited in
any way. Also, I have not left off replies where it would be misleading
to do so; usually, message threads ended when Maynard ignored me or when
I decided to ignore him, and I've tried to indicate which it was.
Sometimes, the thread wandered off on another topic, or someone else
contributed something unimportant; I've stripped some of those messages.
I've put editorial comments in brackets before and after messages.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at "k044477@kzoo.edu", or if
that doesn't work, "j.mccarthy@applelink.apple.com".
Jamie McCarthy
22 May 1993
/**********************************************************************/
[This first message was regarding a GIF picture I had uploaded to Gannon's
BBS. It was just a map of the area around Germany and Poland, showing
which sites were extermination camps and which were only concentration
camps. Maynard gave it this file description:]
CAMPSMAP.GIF 12504 07-22-92 0 00:01:04
Reference map of Germany, Poland, etc., marked with locations of
concentration camps and alleged extermination camps. Severe back-off
from orthodox Holocaust story, but still claims extermination camps
existed.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2493 - General Discussions
Date: 07-24-92 05:58
From: Jamie
To: All
Subject: Re: Maynard and freedom of speech
Replies: #2427 <--> #2554
Oh, he made the map available all right. All he did was put the sentence
"Severe back-off from orthodox Holocaust story, but still claims
extermination camps existed" after _my_ description. (Maynard is, of
course, dead wrong about this; and he will, of course, not be able to
provide any kind of references to back himself up.)
No indication that that phrase was added by Maynard. Now he's not only
amending what I say, he's doing so silently. That's about what I
expected. Yeah, he supports Freedom of Speech...HIS speech.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2604 - General Discussions (Private)
Date: 07-26-92 16:09
From: Deuter Onomy
To: Jamie
Subject: HOW COME?
Hey Jamie,
I was just wondering if you were wondering why Miriam (Jew Hater)
Gaddis' donation was the only one Maynard would accept?
Well, keep up the good fight. 8-)
-Deuter
/**********************************************************************/
[Maynard started accepting donations for his BBS around this time.
I never saw any messages under that name, so I don't know who it is,
but Miriam Gaddis, the sole donor at the time, gave $20 or so.]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2639 - General Discussions
Date: 07-25-92 03:17
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: Re: Maynard and freedom of speech
* In a message to All, Jamie said:
Ja> Oh, he made the map available all right. All he did was put the
Ja> sentence "Severe back-off from orthodox Holocaust story, but still
Ja> claims extermination camps existed" after _my_ description. (Maynard
Ja> is, of course, dead wrong about this; and he will, of course, not be
Ja> able to provide any kind of references to back himself up.)
Ja> No indication that that phrase was added by Maynard. Now he's not
Ja> only amending what I say, he's doing so silently. That's about what I
Ja> expected. Yeah, he supports Freedom of Speech...HIS speech.
Oh shut up. I added that to the description because it is true. The
orthodox "Holocaust story" claims that such camps as Dachau, Buchenwald,
Bergen-Belsen, Dora, Mathausen and others were EXTERMINATION CAMPS, but the
map you uploaded has backed off from those claims. It still claims there
were a few "extermination camps" and "extermination sites" though, so it's
not the accepted Revisionist point of view, either. If you want to check
up on this, read the Nurenberg Trials' transcripts (especially the
conclusions), or watch one of the docudramas about the Nurenberg Trials. I
saw one such docudrama just a couple years ago, and its claims are still
fairly fresh in my mind.
Maynard
.... This tagline is SHAREWARE! To register, send me $10
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2648 - General Discussions
Date: 07-26-92 23:46
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: Re: Maynard and freedom of speech
Replies: #2639 <-
Shut up yourself. If those claims are still fresh in what's left of your
mind, please post them, with cites, in area 9, and explain why the one
docudrama you saw represent the "official Holocaust story."
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2516 - General Discussions
Date: 07-27-92 02:01
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: Backing off from Holocaust story and trying to cover your tracks
* In a message to Maynard, Jamie said:
Ja> Shut up yourself.
Oh yes sir! [sarcasm]
Ja> If those claims are still fresh in what's left of
Ja> your mind, please post them, with cites, in area 9, and explain why
Ja> the one docudrama you saw represent the "official Holocaust story."
They don't need to be fresh in my mind at all, and the claims of that
docudrama (which I think was called "Trial at Nurenberg" or something
similar) represent the official/orthodox "Holocaust" story because they
draw directly from the infamous Nurenberg trials themselves!! The
Nurenberg trial records and its conclusions are more than abundantly
documented and have been heard numerous times by virtually everyone on this
planet (no exaggeration!)
Maynard
.... "I'm not the one that misplaced the Deltivid asteroid belt!" - Q
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
[I thought about asking him if he meant _Judgement at Nuremberg_, because
I've seen part of that, but then decided it wasn't worth the effort...]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2628 - History
Date: 07-30-92 05:49
From: Jamie
To: All
Subject: A few comments
Just a few comments on Maynard's latest round of BS.
He says he'll dredge up Irving's credentials for me. Do let's not
forget that he promised us this.
Maynard first said he "thought" Irving changed his mind about the
Himmler speech. Then he typed in an incredibly long article about
Irving being fined in a Munich court, that had nothing to with
that speech. Now he's _sure_ Irving's changed his mind. This is
logic!?
Maynard now claims that Hoess' confession said that the guards
"walked in 'immediately'." The pamphlet that summarizes the IHR's
position, "66 Q&A on the Holocaust," doesn't even go that far:
it says ten minutes. Want to retract your statement, Nerd? Or do
you want to redefine "immediately" for us?
Maynard says he's "obtained proof that" the chambers weren't
ventilated, "and I'll type it in sometime." Don't let him renege
on that, either--although it's probably just a pointless assertion
to that effect by an IHR weasel. What about the captured plans
for the chambers that clearly show the ventilation ducts, Nerd?
I said that M. claimed that the HCN gas would form "pockets of
concentration 180 times denser than the surrounding mixture."
This was based on a highly accurate, precise scientific test,
in which I took the minimum explosion concentration (56,000 ppm)
and the deadly concentration (300 ppm), punched them into my
calculator, divided, and rounded down. Maynard, having never
done this simple exercise which reveals how ridiculous the IHR's
claim is, responds "I didn't claim any specific figures, let
alone '180 times denser,' and I know of nobody who has."
M. suggests that my work _is_ the Holocaust issue. Maynard, I
program the Macintosh computer for a living. What do _you_ do?
When I point out the specific cite given in "66 Q&A" for the
Wiesenthal quote, M. says it's "hardly!" a rarity. That cite is
the _only_one_ in all of "66 Q&A."
Arno Mayer wrote "'natural' causes." See, Maynard, when you're
quoting someone who uses quotes, you use single quotes. Your
pal and buddy Mr. Smith wrote: "natural causes." Wake up.
And, Sorbut, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head when
you suggest that M. is "intellectually dishonest." As I hope
is becoming clear, he is that and far worse.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2734 - History
Date: 07-31-92 05:37
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: A few comments
* In a message to All, Jamie said:
Ja> Just a few comments on Maynard's latest round of BS.
Ja> He says he'll dredge up Irving's credentials for me. Do let's not
Ja> forget that he promised us this.
Your first sentence is just a rhetorical stab. Nothing new. Your second
and third sentences are lies. I said I *could*, I didn't say I *would*.
But I might, just to irk you. Hehehehe...
Ja> Maynard first said he "thought" Irving changed his mind about the
Ja> Himmler speech. Then he typed in an incredibly long article about
Ja> Irving being fined in a Munich court, that had nothing to with
Ja> that speech. Now he's _sure_ Irving's changed his mind. This is
Ja> logic!?
That article (I didn't type it) mentions how he has changed his mind about
the "gas chambers" of Auschwitz, and how he now says they never existed,
and other things like that. Who cares about the Himmler speech; what does
that have to do with Irving or anything I've said about him? Maybe I'm
forgetting something?
Ja> When I point out the specific cite given in "66 Q&A" for the
Ja> Wiesenthal quote, M. says it's "hardly!" a rarity. That cite is
Ja> the _only_one_ in all of "66 Q&A."
That's because of the condensed format of that text. Have you not read
any others besides that one? Try Historian Mark Weber's "The Liberation of
the Camps..." text, or just about any other -- they render your statement
entirely (and most laughably) false. If you still don't think so, go read
some of the books they publish or have in stock.
Ja> And, Sorbut, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head when
Ja> you suggest that M. is "intellectually dishonest." As I hope
Ja> is becoming clear, he is that and far worse.
As you hope...? Oh my. Happy demonizing and back-patting. And have fun
spreading groundless (AND irrelevant) smears and thought-stopping cliches.
At least *something* good will come of it, I guess -- besides letting
people know just how much *real* Freedom of Speech there is here on this
BBS! Your bickerings and smears serve that purpose very well, I'll grant
them that at least.
Maynard
.... A day in the life of a Sysop...
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
[Re "could, not would": and Maynard says _I_ twist words around!]
[Maynard is, of course, "forgetting something." Lots of things, in fact,
from his assertion that the chambers were ventilated, to ten minutes
being "immediately," to the whole concentrated-pockets-of-gas thing, to
Brad Smith's being unable to quote people correctly. But I didn't feel
like reminding him and going through the whole thing again.
Incidentally, though I kept calling for almost another two months,
"Maynard" never posted his proof that the chambers were ventilated.
Neither did he demonstrate that Irving had a degree. (I hear the man
actually _does_ have a B.A., but that he earned it sometime in the
late eighties, well after he'd written his first few dozen books.
I'm not sure about that, don't quote me.)]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2652 - History
Date: 07-29-92 05:29
From: Jamie
To: All
Subject: Freedom of speech, Maynard-style
Hey everyone, check out "racism.zip," the new file here on B-CPU that boasts
little gems like these:
> If
> blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for
> their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial
> differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black
> failure is white racism.
> ...
> Or, since
> blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions
> of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to
> keep blacks in misery.
^^^ sarcasm
This pathetic trash earns the description "Acutely thought-stirring.
Read it." At least in Maynard's eyes.
Here are the descriptions which I entered, and the ones which Maynard,
"changing the descriptions only to be as objective as he can," put the
Official Holocaust-Denial Stamp of Approval on:
for burngpit.gif, mine:
1 A photograph of a man, standing amidst naked corpses, facing one of
2 the "burning pits" which the Nazis used--and which Maynard and
3 friends deny ever existed.
Maynard's:
A photograph of a man walking through naked corpses toward a
"burning pit." [Smoldering remains of a burned-down building? No pit
is visible.]
last-one.gif, mine:
1 The last man to be executed. He sits on the edge of a mass grave,
2 with a guard's pistol at his head. You have to wonder what kind of
3 mind would pose, then photograph, this scene.
Maynard's:
"The last man to be executed." He sits on the edge of a mass grave,
with a guard's pistol at his head.
shovels.gif, mine:
1 The naked men are about to be killed. They will be thrown into the
2 graves bug with the shovels which the men behind them are carrying.
3 On the right is a young boy.
Maynard's:
"The naked men are about to be killed. They will be thrown into the
graves dug with the shovels which the men behind them are carrying.
On the right is a young boy." [Picture very ambiguous]
torturng.gif, mine:
1 Another posed shot--this one of an SS guard proudly displaying the
2 prisoners he's torturing. One has already been cut down...
Maynard's:
An SS guard "proudly displaying" prisoners who are being tortured.
One is at his feet on the ground.
Big "Main Nerd" Brother has decreed for you that it's unimportant whether or
not two of the four photos were posed. To him, it doesn't matter that the
Third Reich's army took _pride_ in its mistreatment and indeed murder of Jews.
That's insignificant to him--and, therefore, you don't need to read about it.
Unfortunately for you, Maynard, the pictures _do_ speak for themselves.
"Jamie's descriptions of his own uploads--not recommended by Thought Police."
/**********************************************************************/
["Not recommended by Thought Police" is a phrase "Maynard" used to
describe his BBS, on Usenet.]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2624 - History (Received)
Date: 07-30-92 01:30
From: Sorbut
To: Jamie
Subject: Freedom of speech, Maynard-style
Replies: #2552 <-
Maynard you should be ashamed of yourself!
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2709 - History
Date: 07-31-92 03:11
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: Et Cetera
* In a message to All, Jamie said:
Ja> for burngpit.gif, mine:
Ja> 1 A photograph of a man, standing amidst naked corpses, facing one
Ja> of 2 the "burning pits" which the Nazis used--and which Maynard and
Ja> 3 friends deny ever existed.
Ja> Maynard's:
Ja> A photograph of a man walking through naked corpses toward a
Ja> "burning pit." [Smoldering remains of a burned-down building?
Ja> No pit is visible.]
It should be self-evident why I made those changes. But I'll say this
anyway. I (or anyone else that I'm aware of) didn't say anything about the
existence (or lack thereof) of "burning pits". I said that people couldn't
be burned to death in such "pits" or "ditches" as described in the
"Holocaust" stories, but that's it. Anyway, no pit is visible in the
picture you uploaded, as I noted. Why is that? What kind of "documentary
evidence" is this? I assume this represents the "cream of the crop" of
documentary evidence for the all-important don't-step-on-this "Holocaust"??
If not, where is it, and why did you choose to upload "this" instead?
I've seen these very pictures elsewhere, by the way -- in public schools I
was attending. It was mandatory, tax-funded indoctrination which also
happened to be lie-ridden, politically motivated, hypocritical bigotry.
Ja> Big "Main Nerd" Brother has decreed for you that it's unimportant
Ja> whether or not two of the four photos were posed. To him, it doesn't
Ja> matter that the Third Reich's army took _pride_ in its mistreatment
Ja> and indeed murder of Jews. That's insignificant to him--and,
Ja> therefore, you don't need to read about it.
No, it's just that if they are indeed posed, the only way to tell is by
looking at them, and I think people should be allowed to decide for
themselves what is really shown. By the way, file descriptions are
technically my domain, as I've tried to explain before. However, I try my
best to be completely objective, which is so important especially when
controversy and disagreement is involved. The contents of textfiles and
messages are not "my domain," however -- I voluntarily waive my "editorial
rights" when it comes to them (messages and textfiles.)
Ja> Unfortunately for you, Maynard, the pictures _do_ speak for
Ja> themselves.
Then what are you whining about? And why are you still silently weasling
out of answering my questions and responding to most of my points (or
counter-points)?
You are evidently quite frustrated, judging from your posting behavior, and
understandably so, as your "reality tunnel" is so threatened and you are
unable to respond to the vast majority of the "offending" points (mine)
without causing yourself further embarrassment and emotional discomfort.
May I suggest not taking it so emotionally. It can help.
Maynard
P.S., tell us MORE about it, oh censored one! I would like to thank you.
You've done far more than anyone else to demonstrate just how real my
commitment to Freedom of Speech is. Thank you!
.... "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing."
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
[You have to wonder about the sanity of someone who writes "I...didn't
say anything about the existence (or lack thereof) of 'burning pits'"
and then goes on to describe the pictures of the pits as "lie-ridden,
politically motivated, hypocritical bigotry."]
/**********************************************************************/
[Later, I uploaded a picture called BELSEN.GIF, with the description:
1 (448x394x15) A mass grave of inmates at Belsen-Bergen who died of
2 starvation. Contrast to the fat guards in "ss-women.gif", a photo
3 taken at the same time in the same camp.
...and here's how Maynard edited it:
Mass grave of inmates [and perhaps others] at Belsen-Bergen who died
of [probably mostly] starvation [and disease.] Contrast to the "fat
guards" in "ss-women.gif", a photo [supposedly] taken at the same
time.
Here's how Maynard edited my description of SS-WOMEN.GIF:
(291*188*16) "Well-fed, well-clothed SS women at Belsen." [Could
be.] "Holocaust deniers say that the starvation here of tens of
thousands of Jews was because there simply was no food." [Untrue.]
I replied with a message which I unfortunately have lost. Maynard's
reply, however, follows:]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2756 - History
Date: 08-06-92 20:22
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: Deaths at Belsen-Bergen
Replies: #2577 <-
* In a message to Maynard, Jamie said:
Ja> Maynard, you say it's "untrue" that the tens of thousands of Jews who
Ja> starved to death at Belsen-Bergen, starved because there was no food.
It's untrue because there was not "no food"; there were at least a few
scraps (until perhaps the last few weeks or months before the liberation,
after the Allies bombed out the supply routes), and also you say
"Holocaust-deniers" say such-and-such. I don't know of any
"Holocaust-deniers." Holocaust DOUBTERS, yes, Holocaust CRITICS, Holocaust
REVISIONISTS... But none of your simplistic, ever-so-evil, Hollywood-style
"Holocaust deniers." By the way, there is no date to the digitized picture
you uploaded; the date would be the important part in any point you are
trying to make. But such things escape you, as usual... Or do you really
think we're all that STUPID?
Maynard
.... "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing."
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2853 - History
Date: 08-08-92 12:31
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: Deaths at Belsen-Bergen
Replies: #2756 <-
> I don't know of any
> "Holocaust-deniers." Holocaust DOUBTERS, yes, Holocaust CRITICS,
> Holocaust REVISIONISTS...
The Holocaust was the intentional and systematic extermination of millions
of Jews, during the Second World War, carried out on the orders of high
officials of the Nazi party. If you say that the Nazis did not intentionally,
systematically murder millions of Jews during the Second World War, then you
deny the Holocaust ever occurred, and the title "Holocaust-denier" fits you
perfectly.
"Doubter" would be reserved for someone who is unsure one way or the other.
"Critic" would refer to someone who thinks the Holocaust was wrong and
says so, I suppose.
"Revisionist" would apply to someone who agrees that millions of Jews
were killed, but disagrees with "accepted" history on some minor points--
say, that there were really only 200,000 Jews killed between August and
November of 1942.
> But none of your simplistic, ever-so-evil, Hollywood-tyle
> "Holocaust deniers."
Funny, "simplistic" and "evil" are two words that come immediately to
mind when I think of the IHR and its followers.
> It's untrue because there was not "no food"; there were at least a few
> scraps (until perhaps the last few weeks or months before the liberation,
> after the Allies bombed out the supply routes)
OK, let me get this straight. Your claim is that the picture of the SS
women was taken during those happy times at Belsen-Bergen when there was
plenty of food for everyone, including the inmates; and that it was not
until after the Allies bombed supply lines that everyone, presumably
including the SS, went hungry. Is that right?
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2880 - History
Date: 08-08-92 23:51
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: Deaths at Belsen-Bergen
Replies: #2853 <-
JJ> The Holocaust was the intentional and systematic
JJ> extermination of millions
JJ> of Jews, during the Second World War, carried out on the
JJ> orders of high
JJ> officials of the Nazi party. If you say that the Nazis did
JJ> not intentionally,
JJ> systematically murder millions of Jews during the Second
JJ> World War, then you
JJ> deny the Holocaust ever occurred, and the title
JJ> "Holocaust-denier" fits you
JJ> perfectly.
Oh, so it's just "millions" now, not 6 million or 11 million? Good grief.
JJ> OK, let me get this straight. Your claim is that the
JJ> picture of the SS
JJ> women was taken during those happy times at Belsen-Bergen
JJ> when there was
JJ> plenty of food for everyone, including the inmates; and
JJ> that it was not
JJ> until after the Allies bombed supply lines that everyone,
JJ> presumably
JJ> including the SS, went hungry. Is that right?
Seems likely to me, and that is what I think most probably was the case, based
on the information I have come across about it, but I could be convinced
otherwise with rational evidence, if such evidence exists and it is more
convincing than the evidence to the contrary.
Maynard
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3019 - History
Date: 08-11-92 05:03
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: Deaths at Belsen-Bergen
Replies: #2880 <-
> Oh, so it's just "millions" now, not 6 million or 11 million? Good grief.
5.7 million Jews and about 11 million total. Pick a number, any number--
let's say that if you think less than 4.425 million Jews were systematically
murdered, you're a Holocaust-denier. Specific enough for you? Good grief
yourself.
I wrote:
> Your claim is that the picture of the SS
> women was taken during those happy times at Belsen-Bergen when there was
> plenty of food for everyone, including the inmates; and that it was not
> until after the Allies bombed supply lines that everyone, presumably
> including the SS, went hungry. Is that right?
Maynard said:
> Seems likely to me, and that is what I think most probably was the case,
> based on the information I have come across about it...
First of all, what information have you seen about that picture? (I'll
answer, for our audience's sake--he hasn't seen any.)
Now--that picture was taken by the _Allies_, _after_ the liberation of the
camp. Yes, you guessed it, I was baiting you. You might have figured it
out for yourself, because the women aren't posing for the camera like in
seemingly all Nazi photos--oh but I forgot, it isn't important to you that
the Nazis posed scenes of horror, that's why you removed those comments from
my file descriptions.
Anyway, Maynard continues:
> ...I could be convinced
> otherwise with rational evidence, if such evidence exists and it is more
> convincing than the evidence to the contrary.
How about this for rational evidence. Compare the photo of the SS women,
taken _after_ the liberation of the camp, to the GIF I just uploaded of
a mass grave of the inmates at Belsen-Bergen. Then please repeat your claim,
for the benefit of those watching, that the inmates died because there was no
food.
/**********************************************************************/
[No reply from "Maynard" on this topic.]
[Jump back to the ventilation shafts for a moment. Just for reference,
here's the post where "Maynard" claims he has proof that the extermination
gas chambers were not ventilated, and that he'll "type it in sometime."]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2519 - History
Date: 07-27-92 02:22
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: Jamie, straws in hands, takes Ballet
* In a message to Maynard, Jamie said:
> HCN gas, being of a
> different density than the surrounding atmosphere, forms dense pockets
Ja> This is the same guy who told me to "look it up in the Merck index."
Ja> You need to do some looking up yourself, Maynard, instead of _making_
Ja> things up.
I'm not a chemist or a physicist, but I do know that HCN is of a different
density than air, as you conceded. Therefore it would begin to form
concentrated, isolated pockets given any amount of time, particularly since
the difference in density is quite significant, as far as atmospheric
gasses and their commingling goes. You say the phrase "concentrated
pockets" is a lie. It is not. We cannot know precisely how concentrated
they would have been because of such factors as air turbulance, but it
would be relatively concentrated and definitely not dispersed uniformly.
You consistently evade most of my points, such as that they (the alleged
executioners) couldn't have walked in there like that without dying
themselves, if they walked in "immediately" and WITHOUT GAS MASKS, and if
"gassings" of people had just been performed. You're not a very adept
dancer, but I give you an 8 for effort. Maybe you'd do better if truth
were on your side.
Ja> I remind the reader that all this still is irrelevant, because the
Ja> chambers were ventilated, Maynard's evidenceless assertion
Ja> notwithstanding.
I have obtained proof that they weren't, and I'll type it in sometime. You
made the claim, though, so why don't you try to substantiate it?? Always
blowing smoke and making smears...
Ja> But this is a good example of how utterly stupid the
Ja> deniers' claims are: that a gas 4% lighter than air will
Ja> spontaneously form pockets of concentration 180 times denser than the
Ja> surrounding mixture...this is how reason and logic work over at the
Ja> IHR.
I didn't claim any specific figures, let alone "180 times denser", and I
know of nobody who has. You're shooting at straw men. But even if you
were 100% correct about this, it has absolutely no relevance. The
"executioners" would have died from the toxicity before they'd die in an
explosion from the cigarette smoking amidst the gas. According to your
beloved "eyewitness testimony", including the often-cited, false, and
obtained-by-torture testimony of Rudolf Hoess, they came in immediately and
WITHOUT gas masks!
Maynard
.... "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing."
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3377 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 08-23-92 21:08
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: I'm puzzled
Maynard, your only comment, after more than a week of silence from you,
during which I sent many messages and files, is that "Faust"'s post
"really makes you think"!? Did you read _anything_ I put on your board?
Did you "really think" about any of it, and if so, what did you think?
For all the thinking you do, you don't seem to have any rational basis
for the conclusions at which you arrive regarding my uploads.
I am at loss regarding your modification of my file descriptions. There
seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. Some of them, I can understand,
like when you modify my description of Door.gif from:
Two pictures, front and back, of a gas-chamber door. Holocaust
deniers claim they are flimsy--see for yourself.
to:
Two pictures, front and back, of [what was allegedly "intended" to
be] a gas-chamber door.
Since the picture is solid evidence that the doors were, well, solid, you
naturally don't want me pointing out that Holocaust-deniers claim they
were too flimsy to hold back the weight of masses of people being
suffocated with cyanic gas.
Allow me to point out that the _actual_ extermination gas chamber doors are
not available to be photographed, since SS guards blew up the extermination
chambers (and _only_ the extermination chambers) when they retreated from
the camps. If those rooms were not extermination chambers, Maynard, do you
have an explanation for why they would have done this?
But some of these other modifications of yours I just don't understand.
For Inventry.gif, you quoted my description and added a comment, making:
"An original Nazi document. Inventory taken of a Krematorium
[Krematorium??], showing 14 showerheads and one gas-tight door."
What's wrong with the word "Krematorium"?
Then there's the description for PlanChm1.gif. You changed:
An original Nazi document. Plans to an extermination gas chamber,
with the ventilation shafts clearly labelled. (Holocaust-deniers
claim these shafts never existed.)
into:
"An original Nazi document. Plans to an extermination gas chamber,
with the ventilation shafts clearly labelled. (Holocaust-deniers
[SIC] [do not] claim these shafts never existed.)"
What is the "sic"? Why is it in all caps? Perhaps you object to my use
of the term "Holocaust denier" to describe people who have written "The
Hitler 'gas chambers' never existed. The 'genocide' (or 'attempted
genocide') of the Jews never took place." Do you think the term is
inaccurate? Do _you_ not deny that the Holocaust took place?
Putting "do not" in square brackets is a new low, even for you. But again,
I'm puzzled as to why you did this. On July 27, in response to my saying
"the chambers were ventilated," you wrote "I have obtained proof that they
weren't." Have you now reversed yourself?
I'm still waiting to see that proof, by the way; you told us you would
type it in sometime.
/**********************************************************************/
[In the four months I called, "Maynard" did not provide the "proof" he'd
promised that the extermination gas chambers were not ventilated.
Neither did he change the file description, which claims that Holocaust-
deniers _don't_ claim that the ventilation shafts don't exist.
Figure _that_ one out.]
[We now enter the "ignoring" phase of these four months.]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3049 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 08-24-92 04:04
From: Maynard
To: Martin Kosina
Subject: Re: Excuse me?
Don't listen to Jamie, he averages several lies per message, especially when
they are directed towards me or are talking about me, this BBS, "Holocaust
Deniers", etc. I'm ignoring him now.
Maynard
.... Answers: $1, Short: $5, Correct: $25, dumb looks are still free.
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3051 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 08-24-92 05:38
From: Jamie
To: All
Subject: Three Krema-II GIFs
I've uploaded three new GIFs, KremaII1.gif, KremaII2.gif, and Undrsng2.gif.
They are all modern-day pictures of Krematorium II, showing its collapsed
state.
The Leuchter Report claims to show that the extermination gas chambers were
never used to kill people because levels of cyanic compounds in the walls
aren't as high as those in the walls of the delousing chambers. There are
three main reasons why this is bogus (and lots of little reasons). The
first is Leuchter's dishonesty in collecting samples (see the Leucter1.txt
to Leucter4.txt files).
The second is that the delousing process takes a lot longer than it takes
to kill people. Clothes with lice were placed in the delousing chambers for
long periods of time--up to a day. (Lice and lice eggs are hard to kill.)
The cyanic gas was about the same concentration in these rooms as in the
extermination gas chambers--but the _extermination_ chambers were only exposed
for as long as it took to kill a roomful of people, about five minutes. Thus,
you'd _expect_ the delousing chambers' walls to show more traces of exposure
to the gas. This is the main reason the 'Report proves nothing--their results
are only what you'd expect!
But the third reason is that the buildings in question were _blown_up_ by the
Nazis at the end of the war, to try to destroy incriminating evidence. (And
Holocaust-deniers have never answered why they might have done this--to hide
"crimes against lice"?!) The buildings have stood exposed to wind and rain
for more than 45 years. Given the tiny fraction of cyanic compounds that's
in question, the accuracy of tests today is questionable to say the least!
The IHR claims that the Krematoriums really aren't so badly damaged, and that
Krema-II has been protected by its "fallen roof." Well, in these three
photos, you can see exactly how protected it's been.
Don't trust the file descriptions, Maynard will indubitably edit them. I've
captioned the GIFs themselves.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3301 - General Discussions
Date: 08-26-92 05:07
From: Jamie
To: All
Subject: An update
It's time for another update. Here's how Little Mr. Tom Paine has been
protecting your rights to hear and be heard over the last few days.
I uploaded three pictures of Krematorium II at Auschwitz. See, Holocaust-
deniers love to point out that Fred Leuchter found few traces of cyanide
compounds on the walls of the extermination gas chamber at Krema-II. One
of the many things that they _don't_ like to emphasize, is that the Nazis
dynamited that room in 1945, taking out a little more than half of the
roof, so it's been exposed to rain etc. for the last forty-five years.
When you press them on this issue, they claim that the roof has protected
the chamber. Well, at this point, arguing back and forth gets you nowhere,
you just have to look for yourself. For example, you could look at these
pictures, whose descriptions Maynard has liberally edited:
KREMAII1.GIF 74625 08-24-92* 0 00:05:34
"A photo of [part of?] Krema-II as it stands today. The IHR
[Leuchter] claims it [the SUBTERRANEAN 'gas chamber'] is protected
from the elements by its fallen roof, because otherwise [part of]
the infamous [..]
KREMAII2.GIF 209288 08-24-92* 0 00:15:20
"[...] infamous Leuchter Report is [allegedly] invalid. See for
yourself." [The subterranean 'gas chamber' is not shown/identified
in either picture; the pictures do not show what they are supposed
to show.]
UNDRSNG2.GIF 54336 08-24-92* 0 00:04:06
"A photo of the stairs leading down into the Undressing Room [?!] of
Krema-II, showing that the complex is often half-full of rain. This
is but one reason that the Leuchter Report is invalid."
Now let's look at what the Main Nerd is saying. First, he wants you all to
know that the IHR does _not_ claim that the chamber is protected--it's only
Fred Leuchter that is claiming this. Interesting! Had he read the caption
on the pictures, he would have seen the direct quote from the Journal of
Historical Review, which tells us that the "extermination gas chamber of
crematory facility (Krema) II in Birkenau is protected by the collapsed
concrete ceiling, and is otherwise in its original condition." The article
was not written by Fred Leuchter (unless Fred's in the habit of referring
to himself in the third person--the author's not named).
Next, he wants you to know that the chamber is SUBTERRANEAN, in all caps.
Had he looked at the plans, which I uploaded quite some time ago, he would
know that it is only _partially_ underground, and that the room is only
around seven feet tall anyway. "Subterranean" is not a good word to
describe what is now essentially a five-foot-deep pit.
Continuing, he asserts that the chamber being exposed to wind and water for
almost fifty years would only _allegedly_ invalidate the Leuchter Report.
That report measures cyanide compounds in micrograms, remember. But what
I find most interesting is how he describes "revisionist" text files:
Polish report supports Leuchter: the Auschwitz "gas chambers" are
fraudulent!
Thugs Attack Revisionist Speaker at UCLA Meeting -- JDL Hoodlums
Break Up Debate
"SIMON WIESENTHAL: Bogus "Nazi Hunter"", by Mark Weber
"Irving Fined $6,000 in German "Gas Chamber" Trial -- Historian
Defies Judge in Dramatic Case," from the July/August 1992 _IHR
Newsletter_. Very eye-opening indeed!
IHR Scores Stunning Victory in Mermelstein Trial! (October 1991, IHR
Newsletter)
Not an "alleged" in sight, is there? Maybe Maynard is being a little bit
biased in his "attempts to be objective"?
Next, he asserts that the gas chamber is "not shown/identified in either
picture; the pictures do not show what they are supposed to show." This
is objective!? How about tacking on a comment to the Leuchter Report,
something like "This report has been found to be invalid by every
competent historian and scientist who's ever investigated it, with the
exception of those from biased groups such as the IHR; it is a fraudulent
joke; it does not prove what it is supposed to prove."
But, OK, I'm expecting too much when I ask Maynard to apply his
"objectivity" to both sides of the issue. That aside, this comment is
dead wrong. KremaII2.gif is a direct overview of the extermination gas
chamber. It shows _exactly_ what it is supposed to show. Is it hard to
recognize? That's because it was blown up by the Nazis almost half a
century ago. Mr. Freedom of Speech has proven my point with the very
comments which he has deemed worthy enough to supplant mine!
Finally, he puts an editorial "[?!]" after my identification of the
Undressing Room. This is amazingly similar to his putting
"[Krematorium?!]" after my use of that word in the description of
another file. It would appear that Maynard--who claims to have read two
dozen books and over thirty megabytes of text about the Holocaust--is not
familiar with either of these terms.
Alas, I won't be able to explain to him that the Undressing Room is where
the inmates undressed just prior to their execution in the gassing room
disguised as a shower, and that the term "Krematorium" does _not_ refer
only to the cremation ovens but to the complex which houses the ovens,
undressing room, extermination room, and so on. I won't be able to
explain these things, because Maynard--who claims that he posts the IHR's
anti-Semitic lies because "controversial and censored ideas are good
candidates for finding truths"--has decided to ignore everything I say.
Welcome to B-CPU, where Freedom of (Maynard's) Speech reigns supreme and
the Thought Police (formerly the Zionist Thought Police) are unwelcome.
/**********************************************************************/
[Maynard sponsored a brain teaser. You'll see why it's important
shortly.]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3308 - General Discussions
Date: 08-31-92 04:15
From: Maynard
To: All
Subject: "Maynard's Brain Teaser" results so far!
So far, the following people have correctly answered my brain teaser:
Tom Almy
James Marsh
Congratulations!!
For those who missed it, I'm reposting the brain teaser below:
~~~~~
Feel free to print this out and let your friends try it, too!! They can
submit their answers also, if you tell me A) their answer and B) what name
they should be referred to by (an alias is fine, and so would be "Maynard's
Mom", for example.) Also, if you want to be "fair", don't spend more than 10
minutes coming up with your answer (after you have read the instructions to
your satisfaction.)
Here it is:
___________________________________________________________________________
Assume there is a set of cards (two-sided.) Each card has a number (a
positive integer) on one side and a letter (of the English alphabet) on the
other side. Four such cards are on the table before you. You are to find
out if the four cards before you follow this rule:
"If the number on a card is an odd number (1,3,5,7...), then the
letter on that card is a vowel (A,E,I,O,U)."
You must determine which card(s) MUST BE TURNED OVER in order to
discern whether all four of the cards follow that rule. On the table, the
cards look like this (I've numbered them to perhaps make answering easier):
1: 2: 3: 4:
___ ___ ___ ___
| | | | | | | |
| E | | B | | 7 | | 4 |
|___| |___| |___| |___|
___________________________________________________________________________
If you want to give this a try, please reply privately, so as to not
influence anybody else's answers.
I won't tell who gets it wrong, but I will post who gets it *right*!
~~~~~
Maynard
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3418 - The=Private=Mail=Tunnel (Private)
Date: 09-02-92 05:04
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: Stuff
The answer to your brainteaser is: #2 and #3.
Will you do me the courtesy of correcting your file descriptions which contain
errors of fact, not opinion? I'm thinking specifically of the description
of KremaII2.gif, which says that the extermination chamber is nowhere in
sight, though the picture directly overlooks it.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3224 - General Discussions
Date: 09-12-92 16:30
From: Maynard
To: All
Subject: Maynard's Brain Teaser Challenge Results
Just three people gave the correct answer to my brain teaser challenge:
Tom Almy
James Marsh
Jamie
For those who missed it, this was the brain teaser:
Assume there is a set of cards (two-sided.) Each card has a number (a
positive integer) on one side and a letter (of the English alphabet) on the
other side. Four such cards are on the table before you. You are to find
out if the four cards before you follow this rule:
"If the number on a card is an odd number (1,3,5,7...), then the
letter on that card is a vowel (A,E,I,O,U)."
You must determine which card(s) MUST BE TURNED OVER in order to
discern whether all four of the cards follow that rule. On the table, the
cards look like this (I've numbered them to perhaps make answering easier):
1: 2: 3: 4:
___ ___ ___ ___
| | | | | | | |
| E | | B | | 7 | | 4 |
|___| |___| |___| |___|
Maynard
/**********************************************************************/
[I received no direct answer, publicly or otherwise, and the file
descriptions remained unchanged.]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3184 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc. (Received)
Date: 08-29-92 19:21
From: Jeff Rubard
To: Maynard
Subject: Why?
Replies: -> #3243
Why do you think that the Holocaust didn't happen? Why does your conscience
benefit from denying something that millions of people died from? As for
"open debate," you could start by removing your comments from the files in
the "Holocaust Anti-Revisionism" section. Do they get to write "Untrue!"
on your files? If you want to be taken seriously, you have to make the
playing field level.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3243 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 08-30-92 07:13
From: Deuter Onomy
To: Jeff Rubard
Subject: Why?
Replies: #3184 <-
* In a message to Maynard, Jeff Rubard said:
JR> Why do you think that the Holocaust didn't happen? Why does
JR> your conscience
JR> benefit from denying something that millions of people died
JR> from? As for
JR> "open debate," you could start by removing your comments
JR> from the files in
JR> the "Holocaust Anti-Revisionism" section. Do they get to
JR> write "Untrue!"
JR> on your files? If you want to be taken seriously, you have
JR> to make the
JR> playing field level.
RIGHT ON!
-Deuter
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3272 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 08-30-92 17:44
From: Maynard
To: Jeff Rubard
Subject: Why?
* In a message to Maynard, Jeff Rubard said:
JR> Why do you think that the Holocaust didn't happen?
I don't. I am more objective than to think such an over-simplified thing.
I don't say "the Holocaust never happened." I am just convinced that alot
of the "Holocaust story" is false and is just typical war/hate propaganda
which has been extremely exploited and is an "official, unquestionable
truth" and has become a kind of sick cult for some people.
Maynard
.... SENILE.COM found . . . Out Of Memory . . .
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3207 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 08-30-92 13:52
From: Bruce Baugh
To: Jeff Rubard
Subject: Re: Why?
Replies: #3156 <--> #3264
Meanwhile, at the Chinese laundromat...
JR> Why do you think that the Holocaust didn't happen? Why does your
JR> conscience benefit from denying something that millions of people died
Let me interject here. Maynard doesn't believe in the Holocaust because
of his investigation of the facts of the case. The fact that others have
come to different conclusions on the basis of the same evidence is in
itself not disproof of his position.
And why do you assume personal motive on his part? _Must_ he hold his
views for ulterior motives? And if he does, why should Holocaust
defenders be exempt from the same charge? Why should _anyone_ _ever_ be
exempt from the charge? Sometimes people do hold views because they
stand to profit, true; but most of the time people hold beliefs that
they feel to be most in accord with the evidence they have.
If millions of people did _not_ die in the Holocaust, then of course he
gains nothing from denying that they did. You've phrased your question
in a way that presumes the very point under debate.
JR> from? As for "open debate," you could start by removing your comments
JR> from the files in the "Holocaust Anti-Revisionism" section. Do they
JR> get to write "Untrue!" on your files? If you want to be taken
JR> seriously, you have to make the playing field level.
Why? Since when is a level playing field a prerequisite for serious
debate? Most scholarly work takes place in an environment in which one
or a few worldviews are (and are known to be) held by those in
authority, and in which it's difficult to challenge the existing
"consensus". Good scholarship gets done nonetheless. Th same can be true
here.
I haven't heard any charges of Maynard altering the _content_ of the
fils uploaded here. And the descriptions I've seen remain clear. I might
_wish_ that he didn't editorialize in file descriptions, but his doing
so in no way impairs the free exchange of information and opinion.
(Note that none of this is intended as support for the actual content of
Maynard's views, or as an attack upon them. I'm considering the points
of principle involved.)
.... The REAL Jeff Rubard: on the next Geraldo!
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3264 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 08-31-92 18:31
From: Maynard
To: Bruce Baugh
Subject: Re: Why?
Replies: #3207 <--> #3297
Thoughtful message. Refreshing. Thanks.
Maynard
.... "U.S.S. Baugh, lower your shields and prepare to be boarded!"
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3297 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 08-31-92 22:41
From: James Marsh
To: Bruce Baugh
Subject: Re: Why?
Replies: #3264 <-
BB> I haven't heard any charges of Maynard altering the _content_ of the
BB> fils uploaded here. And the descriptions I've seen remain clear. I
BB> might _wish_ that he didn't editorialize in file descriptions, but his
BB> doing so in no way impairs the free exchange of information and
BB> opinion.
It confused me, didn't make any sense Maynard's editorializing.
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3412 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 09-02-92 04:49
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: Re: Why?
Replies: #3297 <-
Be precise, Maynard. You dance around this issue all the time. You appear
to be a big fan of the people who say the Holocaust never happened. In
fact, you say that they do not deserve the title "Holocaust deniers" (when,
by any dictionary's definition of those two words, they obviously do).
You've stood up for the claims of Fred Leuchter. If you believe Leuchter,
you believe that extermination gassing never occurred at any Nazi camps.
Do you believe this?
You've stood up for David Irving. If you believe Irving circa 1990--and
correct me if I'm wrong, the revised _Hitler's War_ isn't at our library
yet--you believe that there was never a systematic plan to kill millions
of Jews. Do you believe this?
If you believe either of these things, you are a Holocaust denier. Look
up "Holocaust" and "deny" in any dictionary.
If you _don't_ believe these things, why do you argue against me when I
say the Holocaust did happen? Why do you demonstrate such a pro-denial
bias in your "objective" file descriptions? Why, in all the discussions
over specific issues that we've had, have you taken the IHR's position,
going so far as to say "I don't know the answer, but I'm sure the IHR
does"?
And if you don't know _what_ you believe, and this is all some kind of
sick "let's see how much Official Truth (tm) I can knock down" game, I
sincerely wish you'd go find some other Truth to play with. Because in
that case, you're wasting my time and yours, and you're only contributing
to the cause of Jew-haters such as those who head the IHR.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3415 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 09-02-92 04:54
From: Jamie
To: Bruce Baugh
Subject: Re: Why?
Replies: #3412 <-
Bruce Baugh writes:
> I haven't heard any charges of Maynard altering the _content_ of the
> fils uploaded here. And the descriptions I've seen remain clear.
Do they? How about the description of KremaII2.gif, where he asserts
that the extermination gas chamber of Krema-II is nowhere in sight, when
in fact the picture directly overlooks it?
I'd call that a baldfaced lie, how about you?
Maynard comments on Bruce's message:
> Thoughtful message. Refreshing. Thanks.
"It really makes you think!"
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3438 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 09-07-92 01:02
From: Maynard
To: Bruce Baugh
Subject: Re: Why?
Replies: #3166 <-
Ma> Thoughtful message. Refreshing. Thanks.
BB> My pleasure. Arguing about irrelevancies is No Fun.
You're right.
BB> I like to keep
BB> things focused.
So do I. Thanks again.
Maynard
.... Renegade Tagline!! We're tired of Being Kidnapped!!! REBEL!!!!!
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
[No further comment from Maynard on this message thread. I was still,
apparently, being ignored.]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3515 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 09-08-92 07:47
From: Jamie
To: All
Subject: If they were morgues...
These are a few questions for any "Holocaust revisionist" who feels capable
of answering them.
The IHR writes: "Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was extensively
modified after the war and a mortuary was reconstructed to look like a
large 'gas chamber.'" (66 Q&A, "answer" #5.) The implication is clearly
that no actual extermination gas chambers existed. I'll cite the whole
thing if requested.
There were five Kremas at Auschwitz, one extermination gas chamber in each.
Presumably they're talking about the chamber in Krema I, since the other
four chambers were fairly completely destroyed. What were the gas chambers
in the other four Kremas? Were they also morgues? If not, what were they?
Why would the Nazis dynamite their morgues? What could they have been
trying to hide?
Why would Auschwitz have needed 25,000 square feet of morgues? (See the
"Auschwitz in Numbers" message for details on this figure.)
Why did Leuchter find traces of cyanic compounds in the walls of the room
in question? (Cyanide gas has no effect on anaerobic organisms such as
bacteria. It could not be used to disinfect a morgue.)
Why did SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Gricksch write his detailed description of the
gassing process if it never happened? (See OrigDocs.txt.)
/**********************************************************************/
[No answer. Still being ignored, I guess. Either that or that message
didn't "really make him think!"]
[A few weeks later, after several such messages of mine, Maynard suddenly
stopped ignoring me. Here's my reply to a book transcript Maynard typed
in:]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #4259 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 10-02-92 05:10
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: _Not Guilty at Nuremberg: The German Defense Case_
I'm no historian. I don't claim to understand what Porter refers to
with document numbers. All the Roman numerals are lost on me.
But there are some things I do understand.
First of all, realize that this Porter chap is the same one who wrote
_Made in Russia: the Holocaust_, the book which George Martin quoted
and which Chana-Braun thoroughly discredited. Those messages are
posted in this area as "The Exposure of George Martin," or you can
download MartnExp.txt and read them all at once. Carlos Porter is
clearly not worthy of trust.
Now, here is just a sampling of things from those over-100K posts.
These are just the lies that I found, remember.
Porter:
> "Sonderbehandlung" (special treatment) is an example of the ugly
> jargon used in all bureaucracies, and is probably best translated as
> "treatment on a case by case basis". Kaltenbrunner was able to show
> that it meant, in the context of one document, the right to drink
> champagne and take French lessons.
Truth (OrigDocs.txt):
> Memorandum of Gestapo Headquarters, 15 June 1944
> [ToWC, Vol. IV, p. 1166]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In amending my directive of June 20 1944, I request that those people
> subject to special treatment be sent to a crematorium to be cremated
> if possible.
Porter:
> Speer was the kind of man who is successful under any system. He
> always claimed he knew nothing about "exterminations", but said he
> would have heard about it if prisoners had been cremated using atomic
> bombs (a Robert Jackson hallucination, XVI 529-530).
Truth:
The hallucination is Porter's. See part three of "The Exposure of
George Martin"; Porter's attempted deception is too complex to repeat
here. To give you an idea of Porter's trustworthiness, Chana-Braun
comments on his earlier work:
> From Porter's book, other than the lack of the period after "trace,"
> it is impossible to ascertain what Jackson's full question could have
> been. You see, Porter then skips in the book from IMT XVI p. 529 to
> IMT X p 199!
Porter:
> [Hoss] forgot to mention that killing insects with Zyklon took two
> days, a fact he mentioned elsewhere (Document NO-036, p. 3, German
> text, answer to Question 25, and _Kommandant in Auschwitz_, p. 155).
> With such a slow-acting poison, the people would suffocate first.
Truth:
Let's think about this for a second. Obviously, it depends on how
much HCN you use. (HCN is the gas that comes from Zyklon-B--why can
Holocaust-deniers never seem to keep them straight?) I'll bet a pure
HCN atmosphere will kill an insect almost instantly.
Next, refer to Porter where he says that Hitler would not have killed
"millions of people with...insecticides which take 24 hours to kill
moths (Document NI-9912)". Which is it, one day or two days?
Next, realize that cyanide gas affects only oxygen-breathing animals.
It has no effect on anaerobic organisms, like bacteria (but Holocaust-
deniers say HCN was used to disinfect morgues). It has some effect
on aerobic animals which respirate slowly, like insects; but its
quickest effect is on animals which breathe, like people. In fact,
this is why Leuchter found more HCN compounds in the delousing
chambers than in the extermination chambers--because it can take up
to a day to kill lice, but only a few minutes to kill people, the
delousing chambers were exposed to HCN for much longer.
Finally, do a reality check. HCN gas is used in gas chambers today!
In America! In 1992! To execute people! Is Porter asserting that
criminals in our gas chambers die of suffocation? Hello?
Is anyone home!?
Porter:
> Zyklon presents a similar problem, in that the liquid must evaporate,
> and does so slowly unless heated. German technical wizardry and
> industrial advancement in general renders ridiculous any notion of a
> "Holocaust" using insecticide or Diesel exhaust.
Truth:
Typical mischaracterization of the situation. This particular
insecticide does the job nicely, and Diesel exhaust is quite deadly
as well. As I have in the past, I will expound upon this subject for
anyone who will listen. Maynard of course will disagree, and will of
course have no proof of his position.
HCN's evaporation point is about 80 Fahrenheit. The chemical
reaction which releases HCN from the Zyklon is exothermic, that is, it
gives off heat as well. I expect that it raises the temperature well
beyond this point.
Porter (or Maynard?):
> For the Nuremberg Prosecution Case, see MADE IN RUSSIA - THE
> HOLOCAUST, edited by Carlos W Porter.
And given the veracity of both that work, as quoted by "George Martin,"
and the snippets I've shown above...can you give me any reason why I
should believe a word Porter says?
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3118 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 10-03-92 03:10
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: _Not Guilty at Nuremberg: The German Defense Case_
Replies: #3023 <-
* In a message to Maynard, Jamie said:
Ja> Finally, do a reality check. HCN gas is used in gas chambers today!
Ja> In America! In 1992! To execute people! Is Porter asserting that
Ja> criminals in our gas chambers die of suffocation? Hello?
Ja> Is anyone home!?
"Reality check?"
As usual, you mean a "deceptive trick". American gas chambers chemically
*generate* HCN, whereas the Zyklon-B insecticide (which the Nazis used, and
which is still used as an insecticed all over the world today) just has HCN
absorbed in wood pellets (so it is slowly released, though heating and
correct ventillation can speed the process somewhat.)
Maynard
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
[Keep in mind that, on July 15, Maynard wrote that I had "...failed to
refute the statement that more suitable (or 'efficient') gases were
available...". Now he is accepting that as fact. Apparently I did
refute it, somewhere along the way. I don't know where.]
[In conclusion, let's look at what Maynard thinks "Freedom of Speech"
to be. Another user complained about the software having what
amounts to a kill-file. Maynard replies, saying at one point that
there is no censorship "as long as people truly have reasonable
*access* to a point of view." Curious how Usenet managed to censor
him over and over, then, when all anyone had to do was call his BBS.]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3870 - General Discussions (Received)
Date: 09-26-92 03:13
From: Maynard
To: John Bryant
Subject: Censorship
Replies: #3778 <--> #3910
JB> [...] I'm suggesting to the sysop, that the blue-wave
JB> filtering device be deactivated, so that know one else will follow the
JB> path of hypocisy as that of James Marsh, who loudly shouts 'free
JB> speech' but in truth esteems censureship in his heart.
Interesting points here. I am of the opinion that both you and James Marsh
are exercising Freedom of Speech here, and I don't see any threat to it.
James can say what he wants about filtering your messages out, and I don't
censor him. You protest, and I don't censor you. I don't think anybody
is 'filtering you out' except for James. As far as I know, he's the only
one using that feature at all (but I could easily be wrong.)
As long as people truly have reasonable *access* to a point of view, that
point of view is "non-censored." They can choose to tune it out if they
want, and that's their personal freedom and choice. It's just the way it
is; people make their own choices. The Blue Wave 'filter' just makes it a
little easier to do so, and saves the time and disk space that would
normally be "wasted," if a person is being 'ignored' by another person
(their messages would otherwise be downloaded along with all of the ones
which aren't targeted by that person to be ignored...if that makes sense.)
Ignoring is easy. If a person sees the name of someone they are "ignoring"
in the title, they can hit "N" to skip it, or whatever. I don't have a cow
about it; it's pointless. A person can't read EVERYTHING out there anyway.
They have to be selective. Whether their selectivity is WISE or not is
really their business only (as long as nobody else is being hurt) and their
responsibility. While other people can wish that he/she would choose
differently, fretting about it does no good. Making your points as
rationally and convincingly as you can MIGHT do some good, however. It's
just not a big deal if one person is "ignoring" you, or even if a hundred
or a thousand (etc.) are. There's a lot worse things that could be done,
such as harming you or censoring you (so others COULDN'T hear/read what you
are saying.)
Anyway, "Freedom to Tune Out" (on an individual basis) might well be just as
important as Freedom of Speech! My two cents...
Maynard
P.S., I can't disable that option anyway. It's available through the BWAVE
reader software and can't be 'turned off' on this end, which is ok with me,
like I said above. I do appreciate your thoughts on this matter though.
.... The Dog Star is a very Sirius matter.
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.