Path: news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Showerheads and such
Date: 21 Jul 1996 10:49:36 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <4stg20$57i@access5.digex.net>
References: <4sspct$pe0@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4sspct$pe0@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt  Giwer  wrote:
>
>But were not showerheads found without connection to water?
>
>     This is an old one but very a very obvious one.  If lack of
>connection to water is evidence of a gas chamber then every
>abondoned builing in the world is a gas chamber.  Copper plumbing
>it the first thing to be stolen from such buildings.

    Matt, please pay attention.

    The problem is not just the lack of physical plumbing. 

    The problem is that despite the fact that we have the Bauleitung file
of the architectural plans, throughout all the revisions, not one of them
shows any plumbing for showers.  Other plumbing - for water taps - is
shown.  Yet shower plumbing is not. 

    Do thieves steal the ink showing the plans for the copper pipes as
well?

    Yet there is an inventory sheet, also from those Bauleitung files,
listing showerheads in a room whose architectural plans show no shower
plumbing.

    Can you find any abandoned building that has this problem with its
architectural plans?

    I have explained this before.

    Try to stay awake this time.


>     But you must remember that in the early days gas was
>supposed to have been introduced through these showerheads.  That
>story was dropped when evil revisionists such as myself pointed
>out the obvious.  But of course, I am an evil revisionist and
>they claim there was never a claim that gas was introduced
>through showerheads.

    Actually, I think that no eyewitness ever did say such a thing.  If
you can produce an example, please do so.

    I think this was a case of the gossip game, where the story got
mutated in the telling.

    Suppose I were to write:

    "The people went into the room expecting a shower.  But no water ever
came out of the showerheads.  Instead, the room was filled with deadly
gas."

    Nowhere in that text does it explicitly say that the gas came directly
out of the showerheads.  But someone could easily misread it that way.

    I have been through this before.  Are we keeping you awake, Matt?  Do
you suppose you could pay attention this time?


>     And should we go back a few years it was only evil
>revisionists who were denying the truth of gas introduction
>through showerheads.
>     It is an old story, nothing new to it.  The orthodox will
>deny there has ever been any change in the light of clear
>evidence that the story has changed.  According to them, the
>story has never changed.  Anyone who has been paying attention
>knows the story has changed.
>     These days the fake showerheads are merely deceptive
>decoration.  In the good old days they were the source of the
>gas.  That was before Zyklon-B was settled on as the source of
>the exterminating gas.  This is such an old story that that it
>was enshrined in the movie, Schinlder's List.

    Actually, this is an outright lie.  The only reference in the movie is
to people going into real showers.  Where does anything in the movie say
that gas was supposed to come directly out of the showerheads?  Nowhere of
course.


>                    * * * * *
>     In other cases the stories were simply forged by the same
>people.  This appears to be what happened in many of the
>extermination related cases.
>     But first let me point out that the Nuremberg War Crimes
>Tribunals were not something that one would want to run on court
>TV.

    Gee, are you saying the hours of videotape I recorded off Court TV
during the observance of the anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials are
forgeries?

    Once again you have inserted your foot into your mouth up to your
armpits.  Court TV presented hours of coverage - film clips, sound
recordings, and quite balanced commentary by modern legal scholars and
participants, including one of the German defense attorneys who was still
quite critical of the proceedings.

    Your ignorance is quite amusing.


>You would have expected accusers to have testified in court
>against the people on trial.  In fact it was quite common for the
>most damning "testimony" to consist of unsigned statements
>obtained by investigators.  At times they would be in a language
>the person did not speak or read.  At other times there would be
>statement at the end saying it had been read to him, confirming
>he could read it.

    Perhaps you could someday stop pretending that the Nuremberg IMT was
the only or even the main place that the gassing was established.

    But I suppose I should not expect either honesty or even a superficial
grasp of the facts from you.


>     In this context certain investigators were surprisingly
>productive in finding people who would say they had obvserved
>what would become part of today's extermination stories.  Forgery
>or at least serious coaching explains would easily explain the
>similarities.

    How shall we explain Mr. Giwer's writing as if he has not been told
before about the foundation of the claim about missing plumbing?  Bad
newsfeed, dishonesty, or early-onset Alzheimer's?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor