The Holocaust-Denial Debate

Peter Myers, February 9, 2009; update April 30, 2009.

My comments within quoted text are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/holocaust-debate12.html.

Please report broken links. Write to me at contact.html.

Back to the previous bulletin in the debate: holocaust-debate11.html.

{start of bulletin 12}

Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson, etc - 27 responses

(1) Mengele - "The doctors found guilty at Nuremberg were actually treating Auschwitz Jews as their physicians" (2) Collective Guilt (3) & (4) Leuchter, Luftl, Rudolf (5) - (26) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge (27) Deportation of Hungarian Jews

(1) Mengele - "The doctors found guilty at Nuremberg were actually treating Auschwitz Jews as their physicians"

From: Jude10901@aol.com Date: 16.02.2009 07:41 PM

> Here is what Asuchwitz really was: http://judicial-inc.biz/Auschwitz.htm

That site has been found guilty of photo shopping on several occasions.

(2) Collective Guilt

From: bill Date: 16.02.2009 12:28 AM

You are like so many people. You want problems solved without anyone getting hurt. It is nonsense. The examples you cite are less than convincing. The Inquisition did not solve the Jewish problem; it merely drove the problem underground. Zionism did not, as you correctly note, solve the Jewish problem; it merely transplanted the Jewish problem to Arab Palestine. The Jewsih problem can only be solved by "getting rough". That means, as Carlos Whitlock Porter so atutely puts it in one of his essays, using Joseph Stalin as our role model.

As to Palestine Remembered, I will pay the host the compliment of saying that it is one of the best websites around on the history of Zionism in Palestine. But when it comes to Holocaust Revisionism the man simply does not know what he is talking about. Leuchter's test reults and conclusions have been confirmed by several subsequent investigations, including those of Walter Luftl, Germar Rudolf and the Polish State authorities themselves. This innovative nonsense that the walls of the "gas chamber" are not in their original condition is like the nonsense of the chemist, James Roth, who only starts making up crap about how Prussian Blue only forms in certain circumstances after the holy hoax of his unholy people is exposed for what it is. It is absurd to maintain that Fred Leuchter performed his report to gain fame and fortune when he lost both as a consequence of his efforts. Besides, Leuchter was clear in his trial testimony that only about 10% of his opinion was based on the absence of Prussian Blue staining. 90% of his opinion was based on the fact that the "gas chamber" buildings showed none of the characteristics of real gas chamber design. To wit: the buildings were too small to hold the alleged number of victims, had anything like the claimed number of victims actually been forced into the buildings they would have died of suffocation, there was no means of heating the air in the buildings to circulate the Zyklon B, there was no exhaust or ventilation system, etc., etc. Besides, the camps were buit in plain sight of Polish farms and villages, Polish free labor worked in the camps, underground intelligence groups operating out of the camps never reported any mass exterminations of which they surely would have been aware and the written records of the camps are consistent with what the forensic investigations show. In short, poor Palestine Remembered should stick with what he understands, not delve into that which he doesn't.

As to Peter Myers claim that the Germans destroyed the crematory ovens to cover up an extermination program, that makes no sense at all. More probably they destroyed them to hinder the Soviets in the continued operation of the camp after they took it over. Remember, the crematory ovens were originally built to sanitarily dispose of diseased bodies. By depriving the disease ridden Red Army of a sanitary means of burning bodies, the Germans were probably trying to inflict an epidemic on their adversaries. If the Germans really wanted to cover up evidence of an extermination program, they would have also destroyed the camp records, the death books, all construction records and, of course, those Einzatsgruppen records in Berlin into which the victorious Russians and Jews inserted inflated caualty figures.

Finally, more on the bogus nonsense that Adolf Hitler created an "economic miracle" in Germany, a fable which the devoutly socialist Peter Myers so desperately wishes to believe. Adolf Hitler create a temporary economic boom by spending on public works like crazy, creating makeshift labor to dummy the unemployment statistics and short changing consumer goods by tying up production in a welter of oppressive bureaucratic regulations. But he did not create a new economic system nor did he do anything substantially different from what Franklin Roosevelt's failed "New Deal" did in America. On that one, the "Heil Hitler" worshippers are flatly wrong, too. National Socialism did come to America in the form of the "New Deal" and to a very large degree it is still with us, seventy years later. For those who object that FDR was pro-Jewish and Adolf Hitler was anti-Jewish, I point out that National Socialism as a system has nothing to do with either pro or anti-Jewish sentiments. The essential components of both systems were the same, even though they later warred with each other.

This is a very interesting debate and I hope it continues. There is a lot to elucidate.

(3) Leuchter, Luftl, Rudolf

From: Charles Krafft <whodareswings@yahoo.com> Date: 16.02.2009 01:02 AM

There are actually three versions of The Leuchter Report, a Walter Luftl Report http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html and two versions of The Germar Rudolph Report. So, there are really three revisionist chemistry reports you should examine. Walter Luftl is/was an Austrian chemical engineer who was the head of a chemical engineering guild before he touched the Holocaust third rail and was, of course, demoted and defamed.

Another name you need to know about is Dr. Joel Hayward. But maybe you are already aware of what happened to him.

This is a very interesting debate and I hope it continues. There is a lot to elucidate.

(4) Leuchter, Luftl, Rudolf

From: Charles Krafft <whodareswings@yahoo.com> Date: 16.02.2009 02:04 AM

Yes, sorry! here is the very interesting old Joel hayward website: http://www.joelhayward.com/

BTW You are being silly worrying about violence from "Deniers." Violence in this issue usually proceeds from the Believers - the IHR firebombing, Faurisson's repeated beatings, The carbombing death of that French revisionist whose wife was left with no legs, David Irving's beating and the break-ins at his Mayfair house. The antifas usually always start the violence at the parades and rallies in Europe where the skinheads are congregating and marching. Same for the violence here in the USA when racists assemble. They are always outnumbered and attacked first.

That's how it was in Weimar Germany and with Mosleys BUF in England. The Left strikes first.

(5) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Peter Wakefield Sault <info@odeion.org> Date: 18.02.2009 06:21 PM

Re: Pressac's "fundamental proof"

{quote} Proposition A: A gas-tight door can be intended only for a gas chamber {unquote}

So now my fridge is a gas chamber is it? (Not forgetting that a morgue must also be kept cool.)

This one's a real doozy:- {quote} In the absence of any "direct", i.e. palpable, indisputable and evident proof (lacking so far as we know at present) such as a photograph of people killed by a toxic gas in an enclosed space that can be perfectly located and identified, or of a label on a Krematorium drawing of a "Gaskammer um Juden zu vergiften / gas chamber for poisoning Jews" an "indirect" proof may suffice and be valid. {unquote}

There is no such thing as "indirect proof". It is more properly called "circumstantial evidence" and, in a proper justice system, no one can be convicted on that basis - because it is NOT proof. Describing circumstantial evidence, and fairly flimsy circumstantial evidence at that, as "proof" reveals a lawyerish trickster at work and when lawyers resort to such tricks we can fairly assume that they do not have any real case to present and are trying to put one over on judge and jury.

I also did not miss the irony in your statement regarding fixed positions:- {quote} Now I realize that most people who actively participate have fixed positions. {unquote}

Well now, you are far more active in this regard than me. Moreover, you started out - and continue - by labelling anyone who disagrees with your fixed position as a "denier". Clearly you are not going to change your position because that would mean describing yourself as a "denier" and I'm pretty sure you're not going to do that since, as we all know, it is a term of disparagement and is used only by propagandists as a slur to smear their opponents' reputations and thereby their credibility. No, undoubtedly you will continue to clutch at the flimsiest of straws to ingratiate yourself with the selfsame psychopathic gangsters who are presently destroying our world to satisfy their pathological greed. Good luck dealing with your conscience.

Reply (Peter M.):

Pressac is posing the question, how can gas-tight doors and shower-heads go together? They were both part of the inventory of equipment installed in Krematorium III .

He concludes, "This inventory is absolute and irrefutable proof of the existence of a gas chamber fitted with dummy showers in Krematorium III".

You have completely bypassed his proof, which is just a few lines down from the sentence you quoted.

(6) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: bill Date: 18.02.2009 07:37 PM

I read Pressac's arguments years ago when his book first came out. (It was only printed in a limited edition of one thousand copies.) All these so-called "criminal traces" prove nothing. The responses were provided in the old Journal of Historical Review years ago by Faurrison, Enrique Aynat and Carlo Mattogno. Pressac is now repudiated even by the Jews themselves. He is the type who would argue that a table knife and fork are "criminal traces" of a homicide. Why do you drag out this discredited nonsense?

Weber does not know what he believes on any subject. What is the point of engaging in a dialogue with a tribe of habitual liars? The Jews have to keep on lying about their hoax because, if the truth ever comes out, they are dead (literally). The fake extermination shall be replaced with a real extermination. Expecting a people in this position to face the truth is asking for the impossible. The only aspect of the hoax requiring further examination is the real number of Jews killed in Russia. That is open to legitimate debate because of still missing evidence. The rest is res adjudicata.

(7) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: N <majxxn@tiscali.it> Date: 18.02.2009 07:03 PM Subject: Re: Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

Pressac was abandoned by his benefactors, their associates and their fans, none of whom ever utter his name any more, let alone cite his work. When he died, there was not a single mention in the press. All this just several years after the enthusiastic media reception of his books, said at the time to have laid things to rest gas chamber-wise.

Is a Pressac come-back now under way in the English speaking Holo- world? That would be extraordinary, the fruit of a remarkably successful cover-up both of his come-uppance and his surrender ("the official dossier on the camps is bound for the rubbish bins of history"). Those in the know in his own country have long since understood it was all a big flop, but of course don't mention the matter, taboo being what it is.

What wonders a little language barrier can still work these days, despite of cyberspace and all that!

Guillaume Fabien Trieste

Reply (Peter M.):

> Pressac was abandoned by his benefactors, their associates and their > fans, none of whom ever utter his name any more, let alone cite his > work

If you consulted the documents of the Irving/Lipstadt trial, you would find that Pressac is referred to frequently.

For example, the Van Pelt Report says,

"When the dispute on the Leuchter Report arose, we undertook a closer study of the problem, availing ourselves, among other publications, of J.C. Pressac's comprehensive work. In consequence, we decided to start considerably more extensive and conscientiously planned researches. ..."

and Van Pelt uses Pressac as a reference in footnotes 768, 774, 776, 786, 799, 801 and 806.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/trial/defense/van/ix

Presumably you don't read such material.

(8) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: G Date: 18.02.2009 06:19 PM

The impossible synthesis

your concept of a possible synthesis between "believers" and "deniers" looks quite inadequate to me. There's hardly any middle ground here, mostly because of the orthodox historians' refusal to accept the revisionists' challenge openly. You're describing Mark Weber as a revisionist "believers" would be willing to talk to. I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Michael Shermer once came to the IHR to debate Weber (and looked rather foolish, you can watch the clip on Youtube), but that he did as a professional "skeptic", not as an historian. Nothing short of a full recantation would earn Weber an invitation to a "respectable" forum.

Hilberg was critical of the Shoa business, true, yet he didn't engage in an open discussion with his adversaries. He was presented as a witness for the prosecution in Toronto in 1985, but a courthouse is not an academic forum. If you haven't already, you should read the transcript, it's very illuminating: http://www.aaargh.com.mx/engl/ancestors/RH85toronto1.html http://www.aaargh.com.mx/engl/ancestors/RH85toronto2.html

Over the years, there have been several anti-revisionist academic conferences -- in Paris, in Stuttgart, most recently in Sachsenhausen -- where no revisionist researchers were invited. No distinctions are being made between mere propagandists such as Töben and actual researchers such as Carlo Mattogno.

I've read the whole Pressac interview -- the accompanying Faurisson interview, by the way, had to be dropped by Ms Igounet before publication -- and believe Faurisson's interpretation to be correct. One does indeed get the impression that Pressac had come to realise he had failed in his endeavour* to reconstruct the history of the crematoria and gas chambers based only on the Zentralbauverwaltung documents.

Reply (Peter M.):

> I've read the whole Pressac interview -- the accompanying Faurisson interview, by the way, had to be dropped by Ms Igounet before publication -- and believe Faurisson's interpretation to be correct. One does indeed get the impression that Pressac had come to realise he had failed in his endeavour* to reconstruct the history of the crematoria and gas chambers based only on the Zentralbauverwaltung documents.

Please supply your evidence. I do have a document called Faurisson's response to Pressac, but it may not be the same as what you're using, and anyway I'd like you to just quote the lines that prove your point.

(9) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: N <majxxn@tiscali.it> Date: 18.02.2009 08:21 AM

I know the situation in the forum of the late Pressac's activity, France, where the "source" material (Pressac) was welcomed, acclaimed, then read, then understood, then abandoned and forgotten.

If the process passed foreigners by, and if they either honestly or dishonestly upheld the discredited stuff (dropped by its very backers, the Klarsfelds), you'll agree, I'm sure, that that's hardly my fault.

For a look at Pressac's magnum opus from beginning to end of, please see

{this is Faurisson writing on - i.e. against - Pressac}

1 - http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF9103xx1.html

2 - http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF9103xx2.html

Reply (Peter M.):

Pressac poses the question, how can gas-tight doors and shower-heads go together? They were both part of the inventory of equipment installed in Krematorium III .

He concludes, "This inventory is absolute and irrefutable proof of the existence of a gas chamber fitted with dummy showers in Krematorium III".

I can't see any place in the links you sent where Faurisson supplies an explanation.

Can you please do so, not by sending me big chunks of text, but by sending JUST THOSE SENTENCES where Faurisson gives a convincing explanation?

(10) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Peter Marshall <p_marshall@tsn.cc> Date: 18.02.2009 10:12 AM

peter.myers@mailstar.net wrote:

>Pressac poses the question, how can gas-tight doors and shower-heads go together? They were both part of the inventory of equipment installed in Krematorium III .

Can it be substantiated that both of these items were used together in the same room if they were on an inventory? Does an inventory actually exist with such items on it? Or are you assuming that they were? Does a set of architectural drawings exist for Krematorium III that shows the precise application of these items or are you assuming that it does? If they do are they genuine? Are Pressac and van Pelt to be assumed as a more reliable persons/sources than other researchers?

It does not do well to assume anything! Especially when dealing with a species proverbial for it's perfidity!

>If you consulted the documents of the Irving/Lipstadt trial, you would find that Pressac is referred to frequently. > >For example, the Van Pelt Report says ... >and Van Pelt uses Pressac as a reference in footnotes 768, 774, 776, 786, 799, 801 and 806. >http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/trial/defense/van/ix

The fact that van Pelt uses Pressac is not proof of anything except that perhaps he was profitable for van Pelt to use in the circumstances. And to use the Lipstadt/Irving trial as a truth and justice forum is utterly laughable!

Reply (Peter M.):

The Inventory is a historical document. You yourself have not offered any explanation.

I was replying to N's statement "Pressac was abandoned by his benefactors, their associates and their fans, none of whom ever utter his name any more, let alone cite his work."

(11) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: G Date: 18.02.2009 10:56 AM

I've already sent you the link to the full text of Pressac's interview in French: http://www.aaargh.com.mx/fran/tiroirs/tiroirJCP/jcpvi0003xx.html

The paragraphs quoted by Faurisson are the very last, i.e. the interview ends with Pressac's very somber conclusion that the history of the concentration camp system (not just Auschwitz) is all "rotten" (pourri) -- and that neither he nor anybody else is or will be able to remedy the situation.

Earlier in the interview he stresses once again the unreliability of witness testimonies: "Sur six interrogés, tous répondirent que les cheminées fumaient. Trois que les fumées étaient blanches, trois qu'elles étaient noires." Questioned in court, however, he had to admit that in dealing with the gas chambers he had relied on such testimonies just like anybody else. That's in Faurisson's Ecrit révisionnistes IV, p. 199 of the first AAARGH internet edition. Probably a somewhat slanted account of that day in court, but the point is certainly valid. http://www.aaargh.com.mx/fran/livres/ECRITS4.pdf

Reply (Peter M.):

Pressac's main statements are in his book on Auschwitz. He is very clear there, and never repudiated that book. However, he did repudiate the "Holocaust Industry", as Finkelstein later termed it.

In his book on Auschwitz, he even says, "The distinction between these two fiercely opposed schools, the "exterminationists" and the "revisionists", becomes meaningless once a certain threshold of knowledge about the former Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp has been reached. I have passed this point of no return." (Postface, p. 537).

That's a statement of a Synthesis position. You're misinterpreting it as a repudiation of the very book he wrote those words in.

People have been sending me links to make their point. I don't mind the link being a reference, but I still ask that the sentences which prove a point be provided.

The pdf file you sent is 1.5 mb in size.

I suspect that the English equivalents are here: 1 - http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF9103xx1.html

2 - http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF9103xx2.html

Someone sent me those links as a refutation of Pressac's Proof.

But I can't see any place in them where Faurisson supplies an explanation of how gas-tight doors and shower-heads go together in Krematorium III.

If you think otherwise, please send me the specific sentences - not big chunks of text, but JUST THOSE SENTENCES where Faurisson gives a convincing explanation.

(12) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Peter Wakefield Sault <info@odeion.org> Date: 18.02.2009 11:29 AM

I bypassed nothing. You continue to assume that Pressac has proved something and work from that assumption, apparently disallowing any opinion that Pressac has proved nothing.

The airtight door was, as I understand it, NOT for the crematorium but for an adjacent MORGUE. I gave you one reason for such a door on a morgue and here is another - to prevent the escape of vermin, infectious diseases, unpleasant odours...

Of course, the presence of a MORGUE next to a CREMATORIUM does not sit well with Holocaust fabricators because it's just too damn NORMAL.

The translation of the German word 'brausen' is obviously incorrect as the English word 'shower' refers to the falling water, not to its means of delivery. If it is translated as 'showerhead' that does not imply that the showerheads must have been attached to fixed stations. One might expect to have showerheads on hoses in a MORGUE for the purpose of washing corpses. As is well known (or so I thought) the "gas chamber" containing the dummy fixed showerheads was built by the Russians in 1946 and as such is evidence only of a gigantic fraud.

The reference to seven posts without showerheads in another building as evidence that the 14 showerheads were also to be fixed to absent posts in the MORGUE is a non-sequitur predicated upon an assumption for which there is no evidence, as is admitted. Frankly I'm amazed that you are so easily fooled by such waffle. The more sanguine explanation must also be allowed until and unless you can actually provide real evidence instead of repeated, loud cries of "Proved!". But of course, as Pressac admits, you cannot, as well you must know. End of story.

Reply (Peter M.):

There were two main underground rooms, at right-angles to one another. Room 2 was the undressing room. Room 1 was supposedly a morgue, but Pressac says it was actually a gas-chamber. The dispute is over Room 1.

See the diagram at http://www.vho.org/D/gzz/RudolfKII.gif

a is Mortuary 1/Gas Chamber, 30x7x2.41m (Room 1) b is Mortuary 2/Undressing Room, 49.5x7.9x2.3m (Room 2)

So there was no "adjacent morgue".

Morgues do not have gas-tight doors.

If Room 1 were a delousing chamber, it would have gas-tight doors, but not showers.

It's because the inventory listed both gas-tight doors and shower-heads for the SAME ROOM (Room 1), that it's a proof.

(13) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Raymond Goodwin <goodwinr@suddenlink.net> Date: 18.02.2009 12:35 AM

As I mentioned before - that inventory proves only one thing - if it actually exists - and that one thing has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "genocide" or mass murder. It is as if there is a trial, and the prosecution shows the jury a PICTURE of a gun, and tells the jury, "this is the murder weapon the defendant used in committing the crime." Oh yeah? How acceptable would THAT be in a legitimate court? It would NOT. It is not the actual weapon that could be examined forensically. It is only a photograph, the attending commentary under it notwithstanding - it is worthless as far as convicting anyone of a crime. At best, it is circumstantial. RG, Texas

(14) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Raymond Goodwin <goodwinr@suddenlink.net> Date: 18.02.2009 12:28 AM

Proof? Your standard for "proof" is quite low, Mr. Meyers. It is on the same level of those tattooed numbers the Jews show as "proof" there was a holohoax. Those tattoos prove only one thing - that they have a tattoo. If there were any gas-tight doors ordered, could they not have been for the delousing chamber? And the shower heads - what evil purpose did THEY serve in this story? Maybe they were just what they were - shower heads, for showers at the cam!

(15) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: N <majxxn@tiscali.it> Date: 18.02.2009 04:06 AM

Nothing to it: wherever the passage is (either in regard to the first or the second book), it points out that proof it isn't. Airtight doors were installed at many places, for the good reason of protection against aerial bombardment.

Why do we hear especially about this shower installation? Any guesses? Answer: because of the silly story of shower room gassings in various other camps (and the "never used" one at Dachau), and its seeping into the collective consciousness. This one was Pressac- standard "evidence" thanks to the doors. Was. Still is for certain authors, apparently, but no longer in France.

A shower room with such doors becomes suspect in the mind of an accuser hungry for evidence: "he who would drown his dog readily says it has rabies".

(16) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: N <majxxn@tiscali.it> Date: 18.02.2009 03:50 AM

Do remember Prof. Faurisson's exact challenge: "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!"

In his big fat book Pressac included many images and drawings indeed, but none (0) of a Nazi gas chamber. Worth remembering.

Pressac became all befuddled in court in May 1995 when questioned on such things by Prof. Faurisson's barrister. I was there, witness to his confusion. Not the image of a man in possession of proof.

(17) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: G Date: 18.02.2009 07:08 AM

here are a number of misunderstandings.

> Pressac's main statements are in his book on Auschwitz.

There are two books, both on Auschwitz. The Igounet interview, published three years before his death, contains his last statements on the matter, and I believe they are quite significant.

By the way, he never wrote a refutation of Faurisson's "Response". (At least he didn't publish it.)

> He is very clear there, and never repudiated that book.

I haven't claimed he did. Rather, his book has been set aside by the orthodox community and Pressac's place has been taken over by Van Pelt. Remember Justice Gray's question: "Every time Pressac is mentioned I mean to ask who he is?" http://holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/transcripts/day11/pages164-170

> That's a statement of a Synthesis position. You're misinterpreting it as > a repudiation of the very book he wrote those words in.

Actually, I haven't interpreted that statement at all.

> The pdf file you sent is 1.5 mb in size.

Yes, but I gave you the page number (199).

> I suspect that the English equivalents are here:
> 1 - http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF9103xx1.html
> 2 - http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF9103xx2.html

No, that's some version of Faurisson's "Response", preceding their clash in court by four years.

> But I can't see any place in them where Faurisson supplies an explanation > of how gas-tight doors and shower-heads go together in Krematorium III.

I'll have a look. However, these are the technical questions I haven't been addressing at all.

Reply (Peter M.):

> his book has been set aside by the orthodox community > and Pressac's place has been taken over by Van Pelt

Pressac is dead now. But Van Pelt uses him as a reference in the Van Pelt Report (link is below). He writes there,

"When the dispute on the Leuchter Report arose, we undertook a closer study of the problem, availing ourselves, among other publications, of J.C. Pressac's comprehensive work. In consequence, we decided to start considerably more extensive and conscientiously planned researches. ..."

and Van Pelt uses Pressac as a reference in footnotes 768, 774, 776, 786, 799, 801 and 806.

That's hardly "setting him aside".

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/trial/defense/van/ix

> these are the technical questions I haven't been addressing at all.

Pressac's proof involves those questions. Neither you nor Faurisson can refute Pressac without dealing with them.

I had a look at p. 199 of the pdf. It's many years since I studied French, but I could not see any answer there to what Pressac says is his proof, and which you describe as "technical questions".

(18) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.com> Date: 19.02.2009 06:32 PM

[QUOTE] > Morgues do not have gas-tight doors, or showers. > > If Room 1 were a delousing chamber, it would have gas-tight doors, > but not showers. > > It's because the inventory listed both gas-tight doors and shower- > heads for the SAME ROOM (Room 1), that it's a proof. [END QUOTE]

Suppose an English-speaking alien from Mars were handed the evidence presented by Peter Myers and, though him, by Pressac. How would such an alien judge the evidence?

It seems to me that such an alien would answer as follows:

"1. To begin with, (human) morgues DO have gas-tight doors, essentially to prevent disease organisms escaping therefrom. See for example < http://tinyurl.com/6zfpuv>.

The gas-tight (more accurately, air-tight) doors are either for the individual compartments in which bodies are stored, or, if such compartments are not there - that is if the morgue were essentially a "cold room", as Peter Wakefield Sault suggests could have been the case - for the entire room.

"2. Additionally, (human) morgues DO have tables with wash-tubs and drains attached to them, and, of course, (moveable) shower heads over the tubs, to enable the body to be washed. See for example < http:// tinyurl.com/dke3ag>

"3. Why would a delousing chamber NOT have shower heads, for rinsing the now-dead lice off them? (Bearing in mind especially that the German word "brausen", when used as a verb, means "to rinse off": see the German-English Collins Dictionary.)

"4. And how exactly does the fact that a room has both shower-heads and showers render it a HOMICIDAL gas chamber?

"In this regard, Pressac's original argument, as quoted by Peter Myers, is as follows:

[QUOTE] > Proposition A: A gas-tight door can be intended only for a gas > chamber.
>
> Question A: Why does a gas chamber have showers in it?
>
> Reply A: Incomprehensible. Proposition A must be formulated
> differently for a logical reply.
>
> Proposition B: A room fitted with showers is a place where people
> wash themselves.
>
> Question B: Why does the only entrance to the shower room have a
> gas-tight door?
>
> Reply B: Incomprehensible, Proposition B must be formulated
> differently for a logical reply. [END QUOTE]

"As shown above already, Pressac's 'Reply A' is NOT 'incomprehensible'.

"As for Pressac's 'Proposition B', it is false: A room fitted with showers [or more correctly, SHOWER HEADS] is NOT ONLY a place where people wash themselves. As shown above, morgues ARE fitted with shower heads.

"Thus Pressac's reasoning is clearly false, and does not constitute any proof whatsoever."

Reply (Peter M.):

You say,

> To begin with, (human) morgues DO have gas-tight doors,
> essentially to prevent disease organisms escaping therefrom. See for > example < http://tinyurl.com/6zfpuv

The link you supplied is dead.

I just rang a local Funeral Director, Bayside Gardens, at Hervey Bay. They advertise "Funerals & Cremations". I asked if morgues have Gas-tight doors.

They said, No. Their morgue has a pull-out door and a sliding door.

The phone number is +61741247511 if you'd like to check.

(19) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: X Date: 19.02.2009 12:56 PM

> 1 - http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF9103xx1.html
> 2 - http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF9103xx2.html

This is an English translation of Faurisson's review of Pressac's first book. The "Response" I was referring to deals with Pressac's second, less important book. Its English translation is included in http://www.aaargh.com.mx/fran/livres4/Verb.pdf (pp. 47-84)

> Someone sent me those links as a refutation of Pressac's Proof.
>
> But I can't see any place in them where Faurisson supplies an explanation > of how gas-tight doors and shower-heads go together in Krematorium III.

You don't? Faurisson writes: "A gas-tight door can be found, as I've already stated, at any place in a structure in which, as is the case in a crematorium, ovens operate at high temperatures, with the risk of fire, explosion, and gas leakage. They may also be in air-raid shelters, in disinfection gas chambers, in morgues, etc. Finally, Krematorium III could have had, in all or in part of its Leichenkeller 1, a shower or wash room (every crematorium has a room for washing corpses). Furthermore, in another passage, Pressac writes that Bischoff, head of the construction office, requested, on May 15, 1943, the firm of Topf & Sons, specialists in the construction of crematoria, "to draw up the plans for 100 showers using water treated by the waste incinerator of Krematorium III" (p. 234); we know that there was a shower room on the ground floor because the plan is detailed enough to show it; on the other hand, the plan of the basement is not detailed and indicates only the general layout of Leichenkeller 1 and 2." etc.

He's basically reiterating what he wrote in 1986 already, p. 119 of ER II: http://www.aaargh.com.mx/fran/livres/ECRITS2.pdf

You may or may not be satisfied with Faurisson's explanation. But you certainly shouldn't imply that he didn't address Pressac's most crucial "proof". Please read his texts first, carefully, before you judge them.

(20) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: leo schmit <leoschmit@yahoo.com> Date: 19.02.2009 12:01 PM

Your postings are very much appreciated and most relevant on both sides. But they are huge and so detailed that making comments or taking sides, or finding synthesis requires thorough assessment of these writings.

I did see one comment that stated that your dialectic approach to find synthesis would not work in this particular debate and I tend to agree with that. But before deciding where I would be leaning I need much more time to go through all the arguments having never studied the subject myself (neither technical nor evaluation of witness sources).

But two thoughts came to my mind over the last week.

One concerns the writings of Primo Levi, notably 'If this is a man' (1956 or '58) which describes his release from Auschwitz (after 10 months in '44/'45) and his escape from the final deathmarch because he was ill and put into the hospital/lazaret. This is part of the official biography and the Wiki one. Commenters on his writings also mention his curious hospitalization in an officially declared 'extermination factory'. I read that book 30 years ago, was deeply moved, but now I note that his writing is based on many intervieuws with survivors and may only partially be a personal experience. He seems to have worked as a chemist relatively comfortable in the synthesis rubber factory in Auschwitz.

Another possible reference could be Dutch Jewish author Presser, who published 'De Ondergang', which has long stood out as the official history of the Dutch holocaust. As you may know, compared to the 75 000 French jews referred to in the sources of Faurisson and others, the Dutch figure of Holocaust victims routinely quoted amounts to 200 000. I purchased Presser some month ago on a flee market. I think it was a '48, or a '52 edition. The scant photographs are flimsy, black and white images. I was struck by the fact that there is only one picture of a relatively small shack-type building with a chimmey on it in the entire book. I don't have the book where I am now, but will check it again next week when I get home, and I may check the writing too. The title would in German be 'Der Untergang' (also a film which my children have been obliged to watch at school), but actually the term could also be translated as 'The Fall', which would suggest a (disastrous) turn of luck. It certainly cannot be translated as ' the extermination'. It should be noted that the book also delves extensively into the work of the Jewish Council which was instrumental in the selection of 'deportable' Jews of lesser social standing. As for the Pressac-Faurisson debate, as I said, this requires detailed reading. However, as a general first impression, I would say that Pressac strikes me as less credible with all his side-remarks aimed at elevating his personality and creativity as an author and possibly depreciating other's personalities, while Faurisson strikes me as factual and pointed, listing his arguments systemetically.

But I say this without having the time to look in detail at the earlier debate you send out and the material presented below, so consider it a subjective judgement.

In terms of the political consequences I support Finkelstein and MacDonald in view of their analysis of the perpetuate self-victimisation and sense of uniqueness of Jews which places them beyond normal beings and allow them to exploit non-Jews and I support Faurisson's statement on using the same victimization in order to commit atrocious crimes in the Middle East and, possibly in a covert manner, in many other places through US based neo-con politics, war on terror, and building or supporting the build up of empire both in military and financial sense.

(21) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Ray Goodwin <goodwinr@suddenlink.net> Date: 18.02.2009 10:43 PM

If it was "supposed to be a morgue, but Pressac says it was a gas chamber" - why do you automatically accept that declaration of Pressac that it was not really a morgue? Seems like you WANT to believe his claims, rather than realistically putting those claims to the test.

(22) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Ray Goodwin <goodwinr@suddenlink.net> Date: 18.02.2009 10:56 PM

That's a pretty good analogy, Pete! Tales of fairies and holohoax stories (fairy tales) so together..:):):)

What Peter needs to do is to answer THE definitive question posed by Robert Faurisson in deciding the validity of gassing claims: HOW WERE THE BODIES REMOVED AFTER THE GASSINGS? Come on, lets see those "eyewitness" claims and "survivor" stories of how those evil Germans went right in and dragged out the bodies, usually by the hair of the head - and according to many of the stories, those Germans were still eating, and SMOKING, while doing this "chore." All that is supposed to convey an inhuman callousness, of course - but what it does is blow their impossible claims right out of the water. There are NO claims by those supposedly incapable of lying that the Germans used ANY personal protective gear at all while removing those bodies. No rubber gloves; no self-contained breathing apparatus. The Germans would have DIED from the gas poisoning themselves - or blown the whole place to pieces, if the statements of these phony extortionists were true. I have worked in and around hydrogen cyanide and know its properties, as well as the precautions necessary for safety. Those fairy tales of the gassings are just that - fairy tales, impossibilities! It was only later, when faced with the absurdities of their claims, that those "survivors" then started claiming, "Oh, yes, I FORGOT, there was a HUGE fan or fans that cleared the gas out for some time before the bodies were removed. For anybody to believe these "jellyfish" tales that are constantly changing shape in reaction to revisionist proofs, is a prime example of a preconceived belief that one refuses to let go.

(23) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: N <majxxn@tiscali.it> Date: 18.02.2009 09:23 PM

Where, one wonders, are all the daily mass gassings (thousands of killed and cremated) in one place, of which the H-story mainly consists? Have they, rather like gas, just gone off into thin air?

If so, the H-story ought to do as well, leaving a heavy bill for some. A billion or so Madoffs' worth, I reckon, not to mention necessary payments in kind as compensation.

(24) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Peter Wakefield Sault <info@odeion.org> Date: 18.02.2009 09:11 PM

So now we've arrived at the stage where Pressac is exposed as a 'morgue-denier'. There was no morgue only if we choose to believe Pressac's pontificational pronouncement of it as a "gas chamber". I have already dealt with Pressac's flimsy circumstantial evidence for this .

Apparently this morgue had an airtight door. Perhaps that is unusual for a city morgue with refridgerated corpse-drawers but this was more likely a rough and ready 'cool room' morgue - a meat locker, in other words - and I have already provided perfectly reasonable explanations as to why it might have both an airtight door and showerheads. The only thing that has been proved is that there is an "historical" document which refers to an airtight door and showerheads for a morgue. The existence of such a document does NOT prove that the items physically existed (we do not actually possess any of these items), let alone that the room in which they were supposedly installed was a "gas chamber". For all we know, the showerheads were ordered for a morgue and shown on the morgue inventory of equipment but were actually installed in the officers' quarters.

As with everything else connected with 'Holocaust' fabrication, the pros are couched in propagandist terms. The inventory becomes an "historical document". But when is any document not historical? Does calling a document "historical" make it true? And even if the inventory is true, so what?

How many times are we going to dance around this loop? You appear to have adopted a religious belief in the pronouncements of the holy prophet Pressac. Clearly my standards of evidence are more rigorous than yours and Pressac's.

Let us take a hypothetical position. Assume that there had never been any prior claim of "gas chambers" or genocide. In the absence of any such suggestions, who would or could make the imaginative leap from morgue with airtight door and showerheads to instrument of mass-murder?

(25) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: Peter Wakefield Sault <info@odeion.org> Date: 18.02.2009 08:23 PM

There's a description of very interesting "historical document" here:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/sense_of_place/unexplained/cottingley_fairies.shtml

(26) Pressac's Proof in reply to Faurisson's challenge

From: G. Date: 18.02.2009 08:23 PM

Pressac wasn't dead in 2000, yet he wasn't invited to testify against Irving, while Van Pelt, Browning, Longerich et al. were. Just because he was French?

> Pressac's proof involves those questions. Neither you nor Faurisson can > refute Pressac without dealing with them.

I'm sorry, but I haven't actually tried to refute him at all.

> I could not see any answer there to what Pressac says is his proof, > and which you describe as "technical questions".

Of course not, but that's not what I said was to be found there.

Pressac had set out to rewrite the history of the Auschwitz crematoria and gas chambers based on the documentary evidence alone, discarding the conflicting witness accounts. Furthermore, he wanted to present proofs and came up with "criminal traces". You may find them convincing enough. However, there was a deep sense of failure in the Igounet interview and that's the "final turn" I wanted to draw your attention to.

Regarding the middle ground, don't expect any orthodox historian to be willing to talk to you. In their view, your texts on the Protocols alone disqualify you.

Reply (Peter M.):

> Pressac wasn't dead in 2000, yet he wasn't invited to testify against Irving

That inviting was done by Lipstadt. She may have thought that he was too much "in the middle", ie in a Synthesis position, in view of quotes I have provided from his English book.

If you search the three long Pressac files I sent (excluding those parts by other people), you will find that Pressac does not use the word "holocaust". He affirms Gas Chambers, but opposes the religious language that has been applied to this event. That would be sufficient reason for Lipstadt to exclude him.

(27) Deportation of Hungarian Jews

From: william j. thistlethwaite <jamiethistle@webtv.net> Date: 18.02.2009 09:13 PM

> I realized that mass deportation of Jews in mid-1944 could not be about "resettlement in the east". That was just a cover.

Why must the late deportation of the Hungarian Jews be a cover story that falsifies the whole deportation program? Since Hitler considered the Jews to be enemy aliens, they were like a fifth column or potential partisan resistance movement ready to betray whatever country they were in. This was obviously similar to US thinking about Japanese-American citizens. Should he have left the Hungarian Jews in situ when he could put them in custody?

Also there's the Kastner/Brand bargain of Jews for trucks that Himmler/Eichmann offered at this time. If the deported Hungarian Jews were meant for extermination, why let up to one million (according to Bauer) off the hook? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Brand#cite_note-Hilberg1219-1

Jamie T Hoboken, NJ

{end of bulletin 12}

On to the next bulletin in the debate: holocaust-debate13.html.

Back to the Holocaust Denial Debate menu: holocaust-debate.html.

Write to me at contact.html.

HOME