"He who makes a claim bears the responsibility of supporting it." (Matt Giwer)
Mr. Giwer, during the course of discussions in February, 1996, in which you performed some truly amazing mental gymnastics in a futile attempt to confuse everyone, you made the following statement:
Perhaps he is in league with the revisionists at Yad Vashem who reduced the official number from 6 million to a bit over 3 million. (Giwer, The 4-Million)
In subsequent follow-up articles on the same general topic, that is, the number of Jewish victims to the Holocaust, you were repeatedly asked to support this claim with documentation.
You have not, and will not, do this, since the statement you made is an outright lie; however, for the record, Mr. Giwer, when will you produce documentation, from Yad Vashem, in support of your assertion?
Also, in February of 1996, you claimed that since the United Nations did not come into existence until 1945 that reference to the United Nations could not have occured in 1944:
In August 1944 (fourty FOUR) how could the United Nations have regarded him as anything when it would not even come into existence until 15 months later? (Giwer, Re: Jewish Census)
Are you now prepared to retract that question in light of the fact that you have been presented evidence that term "United Nations" was used as early as 1942?
On February 7, 1996 you made the following comment in reference to the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge:
I was paying attention at the time and not once did I notice any Jewish group protesting ouside of the Cambodian Embassy and I was living in the DC area at the time, Fairfax County, Virginia to be specific. (Giwer, Re: INTERNET FREE SPEECH WEB SITE ! (this one's not a troll))
Could you please specify the location of the Cambodian embassy to the United States at the time of the Khmer Rouge. After you discover that you are unable to do this, will you instead explain why you lied?
On February 22, 1996 you made some rather interesting comments on the production of "HCN" from burning atmospheric nitrogen:
It appears you are unaware the CN is a by product of incomplete combustion. You see, you take a carbon based fuel and air which contains more nitrogen than oxygen and also supports combustion but at a higher temperature and you get a fractional production of CN as well as CO and a mess of other things. With enough oxygen and good design you will get all CO2 as the result. And of course if you have ever paying any attention to the causes of smog you know one of them nitrogen compounds emitted as gases. Do you think there is some way to prevent carbon from being included among those compounds? Of course there is a resident chemist here to confirm or deny this so lets wait for his commentary.
Yes, Virginia, there is nitrogen in the atomsphere and yes , Virginia, it does burn. (Giwer, Re: Open Gallon of Paint - paint one door - throw the rest away)
Since you are a qualified chemist, perhaps you can explain how burning nitrogen results in reducing it rather than oxidizing it. Yes, we know that in fuel lean conditions that N2 is oxidized to NO and NO2 and that these species are an important component of photochemical smog. Yes, we agree that it is possible under fuel rich conditions that coal containing nitrogen could produce some uncombusted cyanides. The part that's really difficult to understand is how atmospheric N2 enters into the production of cyanides. Please be so kind as to explain.
You have asserted that eyewitnesses to gassings have noted that the victims took "tens of minutes" to die, and you claim that this assertion contradicts your other assertion that Zyklon B would have killed them more quickly.
Here is the relevant excerpt from what you wrote:
For a moment there I thought had a way to salvage those stories that talk about the screaming going on for tens of minutes.
After a few minutes there was silence. After some time had passed, it may have been ten to fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was opened.
Note the ten to fifteen minutes. (Giwer, Re: the mechanism of hydrogen cyanide inhalation poisoning)
Mr. Giwer, does the "ten to fifteen minutes" in the text you quoted (See URL ../../../../faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-06.html) refer to the time that the screaming went on -- i.e. before the silence -- or does it refer to something else?
If it refers to something else, do you still stand by your statement that:
...I am the only one who has read what people keep saying I should read. (Ibid.)
You have written, of late, the following comments regarding the number of Holocaust victims:
6,000,000 are a tragedy, the other 6,000,000 a footnote.
To the Holocaust museum folks the other 6 million are the footnote.
Daniel Mittleman responded to these comments with the following:
"Below ... is the Mission Statement of the Holocaust Museum. (http://www.ushmm.org/misc-bin/add_goback/mission.html) Please note in particular the second paragraph. The reader can determine for himself whether or not Mr. Giwer's charge that 'the other six million are a footnote' is accurate:
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is America's national institution for the documentation, study, and interpretation of Holocaust history, and serves as this country's memorial to the millions of people murdered during the Holocaust.
The Holocaust was the state-sponsored, systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945. Jews were the primary victims --- six million were murdered; Gypsies, the handicapped, and Poles were also targeted for destruction or decimation for racial, ethnic, or national reasons. Millions more, including homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and political dissidents also suffered grievous oppression and death under Nazi tyranny." (Mittleman, Both Sides)
Mr. Giwer, please explain why you lied about the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's purpose and viewpoint.
On June 15, 1996, you stated that:
"In the process of burning the two bones most likely to be left are the pelvis and the skull." (Giwer, Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones)
In response to subsequent questioning about the truth of this statement, you have made some claims about the human skeleton which, if true, would set the science of human skeletal biology on its ear, bones and all.
In reply to a poster who asked you how many bones there are in the human skull and pelvis, you wrote:
"The skull, two in an adult, counting the jaw, discounting the six small bones in the ear. The pelvis, one." (Giwer; Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones; June 16, 1996)
When questioned about the accuracy of your answer by a poster who pointed out that the skull consists of several bones, you replied:
"You are talking about the skull of a child before the skull is fused." (Giwer; Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones; June 18, 1996)
In response to this, another poster repeatedly asked you what degree of closure (or fusion, if you prefer) there is in the lambdoidal, sagittal and coronal sutures of the human cranium, on average, by age 35. She pointed out that these are the major sutures of the cranial vault (skull), and cited human skeletal anatomy texts in which the answer could be found.
Your final statement related to this matter was reiteration of your original claim:
"The fact remains that the pelvis and the skull are the bones most likely to survive any form of cremation and the skull is never mentioned by those so-called eyewitnesses." (Giwer; Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones; June 22, 1996)
As a qualified scientist perhaps you would answer the question about when and how completely the different bones of the skull fuse together. We know that in normal burial, the adult skull remains intact. But we also know that the skull consists of a number of bones, and that fusion of these different bones into a single mass remains incomplete well into adulthood. Please address the question related to closure and then explain why you think that after cremation, intact skulls should have been recovered and easily identified among the ashes removed from crematoria.
On July 10, 1996, you made the following assertion:
"McVay is a self aggrandizing fool who permits hired underlings to speak for him while he refuses to speak for himself."
Please either identify these "hired underlings" or admit that you have lied about this, apologize, and retract the statement.
On September 26, 1996, you offered a series of statements in sundry newsgroups, including:
"He is an American currently in the employ of 1B Systems of British Columbia (finger nizkor)." (Giwer, McVay, posting...)
Since no company by that name can be shown to exist, because no company by that name does exist, please explain why you have lied. Since you have claimed that this company exists, it should be trivial for you to show that it does. Go ahead - I'll wait.
"He runs this Nizkor project on the 1B Systems internet access line." (Giwer, McVay, posting...)
Since no such company, limited or proprietary, exists, and no such company can be shown to exist, please explain how a non-existent company can have an "internet access line." Go ahead - I'll wait.
"1B Systems' primary funding comes through the US DOD." (Giwer, McVay, posting...)
Please explain how a non-existent company can obtain funding through anyone, or any agency. Go ahead - I'll wait.
"CIA connections were traceable until milnet purged several entries including his whois." (Giwer, McVay, posting...)
Please provide documentation that establishes or established, any connection between Kenneth McVay, "1b Systems," and the CIA or any other American or Canadian government agency. Go ahead - I'll wait. (I have lots of time.)
For Work Cited, see ../../../../ftp.cgi/people/g/giwer.matt/giwer-10q-citations
The original plaintext version of this file is available via ftp.