Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Nick noted quite correctly on rodoh that many denier arguments are based on the absence of evidence:

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



the main revisionist lines of attack of the past 18 years have generally been based on absence of evidence. Thusly:

1. 'No Holes, No Holocaust'
'no holes are visible in the ruins of Kremas II and III, therefore there never were any holes, therefore there were no gassings'.

So this is very much argumentum ad ignorantium. Pelt correctly pointed out in his Irving trial report that just because the holes could not - at that time, to him - been seen today, did that mean they never existed? The ruins were rubble. Soon after, of course, holes were identified which corresponded to the locations indicated by other sources.

2. Prussian Blue
supposedly the absence of PB stains in the ruins of crematoria is decisive. But this marker is unreliable, because of the entirely different situations prevailing inside a delousing chamber versus the gas chambers as described by the witnesses and as can be reconstructed from documents. Not only that, but advocates of PB staining as a marker never falsified their argument by advancing a large enough comparison base to prove that the repeated use of HCN for fumigation would necessarily lead to the formation of PB. In fact, there seem to be several other delousing chambers, including some at Auschwitz I main camp, where no PB formation took place.

So, 'no PB, no Holocaust' is also argumentum ad ignorantium.

3. Where are the Bodies?
This too is easily rebutted by stating that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

More to the point, there is plenty of circumstantial forensic evidence to support the conclusions now accepted by the sane part of the world. Circumstantial does not mean weak, it means indirect. Gallstones found in Haigh's acid bath would be circumstantial evidence.

All the investigations of sites where there once were mass graves but where the Germans are witnessed to have dug them up and incinerated the corpses, indicate the existence of mass graves of a size compatible with the other sources, and the presence of human remains.

All arguments such as 'where are the teeth' etc are all argumentam ad ignorantium.

As Pelt correctly observed in his book on the Irving trial, once upon a time deniers relied on trying to discredit Hoess et al. Then they brought in the supposed chemistry trump card. When that failed, they started arguing 'no Holes, no Holocaust'. Rudolf said as much in the course of trying to rebut Richard Green. When the no Holes malarkey was discredited, now they try and emphasise the absence of bodies.Revisionism has been using argumentum ad ignorantium since at the very latest 1988. Before then, other fallacies were involved.

The Jews were resettled......

Or so Butz and other deniers would have us believe. This "theory" has already been demolished many times, but I thought that the following quote from chapter one of John C. Zimmerman's book Holocaust Denial sums what all the anti-denialists have had to say about the resettlement theory up:

Quote:

---

One of the two deniers' sources for these deportees being sent to the Soviet Union is Arthur Butz, who argued that German statements about moving Jews eastward should be taken at face value. He favored the explanation as the Soviet Union being the ultimate destination. He wrote that "[w]hile we have a good idea of where these settlements were, we know little else about them other than that they existed." Butz, however, could not give any specifies as to exactly where these people were transported other than that they ended up in the Soviet Union. He did acknowledge that most of the Jews of pre-war Poland were moved out, but the lack of specifics was attributed to the "Allied occupation" which "destroyed the relevant German records"(LOL-sobe) on resettlement.82 He offered no proof for any of these assertions.

Butz and others who have offered this resettlement theory have never attempted to explain the mechanics of resettling such a large group of people. Where were they housed and fed? Did the Germans build towns in the Soviet Union specifically for resettlement of Jews? What were the transport routes? A resettlement of this magnitude would have required a tremendous amount of German resources. The only German resettlements known of during the war was the resettlement of ethnic Germans onto territories occupied by Germany.

Moreover, the resettlement of millions of people would not have gone unnoticed. Yet, there is not a single document relating to such a resettlement. Even if all of the documents were destroyed, as Butz contends, many people would have known the specifics of such a program. It would have taken hundreds, if not thousands, of Germans to have carried out the resettlement and at least as many people to have been involved in the building projects. Yet, no one has ever come forward to testify about such a resettlement. This is strange since it would have made an ideal defense at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials and subsequent trials. Certainly the high ranking Nazis would have known the specifics of such a policy. In fact, former high ranking transportation specialists in Germany during the war did not offer Soviet resettlement as a defense in post-war trials, though none of them seems to have admitted that they knew the real purpose for the train transports.83 As will be shown in Chapter 6, no war crimes defendant offered resettlement as a defense, even those who denied any knowledge of the Holocaust.

---

(All emphasis are mine-sobe)

As stressed repeatedly, the resettlement theory is strictly for the birds.

According to "revisionist" logic, an elephant can go unnoticed in a China shop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Usual "revisionist" liars lie.........

We have caught "revisionists" lying.....again:(link)

"A prominent German historian who denied that the so-called "holocaust" ever happened went on trial Tuesday, November 14, 2006, under a law forbidding free expression of political and historical views in Germany.

Mr Germar Rudolf called the "holocaust "a gigantic fraud," at the start of "proceedings" in the city of Mannheim.

[...]

'No court has the right to decide authoritatively on complex historical matters,' Rudolf told the court, which is also hearing a similar case against Ernst Zuendel, a prominent historian extradited from Canada to Germany to be persecuted for his historical views."

Rudolf is a historian? Zundel is a historian? That's strange, I have never heard any qualifications that Zundel or Rudolf might have that make them Historians.
So, I went to "revisionists".com(link)
Here's what I found:

"This brilliant, German-trained chemist re-examined Auschwitz, Birkenau and other installations and buildings, testing rocks, soil and other physical samples for traces of Zyklon B. Following the pioneering work of Fred Leuchter, he put the final nail into the coffin of the Auschwitz story. Even though he did scientific work and was utterly apolitical, Rudolf's home and office were raided, computers seized etc. He was charged and tried in Germany for not believing in the standard Auschwitz story. As a scientist, he found the "gassing" claims to be scientifically untenable and, therefore, absurd. A modern day Galileo, Rudolf was found guilty and convicted because he refused to renounce scientific facts and his own scientific tests and findings. He was facing jail when he went into exile with his young wife and two babies. He now edits and publishes devastating refutations of the Allied Propaganda claims in a German-language journal. The Holocaust Enforcers are dogging his steps, and he faces endless hassles and trials, should the "German" vassal authorities ever get a hold of him. Zündel expert witness in chemistry in the Munich trial in 1991 -- disallowed by the judge at the request of the prosecution."

Despite all the bullshit about Rudolf putting the "final nail into the coffin of the Auschwitz story", there is mention of him being a chemist, but no mention of Rudolf being a historian.


One can also go to Zundel's biography on revisionists.com, but again, there is no mention of him being a historian. One can do "control f" search to assure himself/herself.

So, again, we have caught "revisionists" telling us a big, fat lie.
But then again, this should be of no surprise coming from the "Kavkaz center", an obvious anti-Israel pro-Palestenian website. (link)


I wonder what it must feel like to be lying scum.

Comittee for "Open" Debate On the Holocaust

Comittee for "Open" Debate On the Holocaust

-Sobe104839-

In 1987, C.O.D.O.H, or the Comittee for Open Debate On the Holocaust was founded by Bradley Smith. [1] The CODOH "revisionist" forum is allegedly a forum for, as the name itself states, open debate about the Holocaust.
When you hear the name "open" debate on the Holocaust, you expect to be able to debate people regarding the Holocaust openly, meaning that your posts will not be censored unless you committ some sort of serious violation.
After the forum was opened, people with opposing views went there to debate the Holocaust.
After some time, people who went to debate with the Holocaust deniers had their posts censored for no good reason. Before we get into this issue, we must look at the CODOH posting rules: [2]

* Note * We don't allow 'Private Messages (PM)' to new
registrant's by
default.

-The Moderator retains the right to reject a username if he
considers it
offensive, obscene, or deliberately distracting.

-No
namecalling, threats, or personnal attacks; period.

-As The CODOH
Revisionist Forum forbids any threats or personnal attacks
against others,
we will not tolerate links to sites which do enage in such
behaviour. We're
about debate and only debate.

-On topic posts only. The topic of the
Forum is the subject generally
referred to as 'The Holocaust'. Debating it's
credibility, or lack of, is the
reason that The CODOH Revisionist Forum
exists. Associated subjects are bound to
come up, be sure there is a tie-in,
show the tie-in. Each thread represents a
separate point, a post to a thread
must be pertinent to that point.

-Posts by new or infrequent
participants will be spam checked by the
Moderator before they appear on the
Forum. They will not be censored for on
topic opinions they present.

-Keep your posts limited to one point.

-Voluminous, lengthy, and
redundant posts are not welcomed.


-Posts which lack focus or
specifics are not welcomed.

-No 'dodging'. When questioned or
challenged, you must respond or leave the
thread.

-You will address
the poster only by the name that he/she uses at the
Forum.

-Offenders will have their posts deleted, repeat offenders will be
removed.

-Reasons for deletions may or may not be stated. The Moderator
will endeavor to notify the offender and the Forum in general, but not in every case;
especially when it is obvious why the post was deleted.

-Registrants who do not post within 30 days from date of registration are
subject to deletion, they may re-register should they decide to post.

These rules are subject to revision as warranted.
Thank you, The
CODOH Revisionist Forum Moderator.

Don't these "rules" seem a little strange? Why are "voluminous and lengthy posts" unwelcome?
Is there any reason that to delete posts that are not limited to one point?
The second to last "rule" is the giveaway. If somebody debating the deniers' manages to follow all the rules, the moderator(s) can still delete his/her post without any reason.
The above "rules" are just another way of saying:

"Please don't come here if you have hard-to-tackle arguments, I just want to make-believe that my arguments are irrefutable so that I can brag to my friends about it, please don't ruin my party."

But, of course, the give-away rules are not enough evidence to prove that the moderators at CODOH censor posts. Roberto Muehlenkampf, who runs an anti-denial blog with three other anti-deniers, wrote the following in his well-written blog article: [3]

1. The crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau were not typical cremation ovens,
but heavy-duty industrial ovens designed to run continuously, using the heat
energy produced by the burning of previous bodies to keep the oven hot for the
next bodies. After they were fired with coke to their proper operating
temperature, they required little or no extra fuel to operate. A considerable
but well-documented technical achievement. The cremation unit that one muffle
was supposed to handle in a given time was a weight unit, which means that one
or several persons adding up to that weight unit could be put into each muffle
simultaneously without increasing the cremation time. Unlike in crematoria ovens
used for civilian purposes, there was no need to wait for one body to have
cremated completely. The practice actually was to put the next body or bodies in
the muffle before the cremation process of the previous was complete. 2. The
patent application was for multi-muffle ovens similar to those supplied for
Auschwitz-Birkenau and working according to the same principles, the outstanding
features of the patent being: i) the method of employing fat corpses to speed up
the rate at which corpses could be burned andii) the fact that no fuel was
required after the initial pre-heating period, because of the amount of heat
generated by the burning corpses. This was how the manufacturers described their
own product in a patent application. The use of the ovens, as described by
eyewitness Henryk Tauber, coincides with this description: "<…>The corpses
of ... wasted people with no fat burned rapidly in the side muffles and slowly
in the center one. Conversely the corpses of people gassed on arrival, not being
wasted, burned better in the center muffle. During the incineration of such
corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for
fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body
fat. <…>"Tauber also mentioned that when a “fat” body "was charged into a
hot furnace, fat immediately began to flow into the ash bin, where it caught
fire and started the combustion of the body." Similar descriptions of the
burning process were made by Filip Müller and camp commander Rudolf Höß. The
fire thus actually needed no tending of its own, in accordance with the
description in the patent application, external fuel supply (coke) being
required only to heat up the oven. 3. Several witnesses testified to the placing
of two or three bodies at a time in each muffle being not occasional attempts,
but standard procedure. Sonderkommando Filip Müller stated that three or four
could be incinerated at a time. Sonderkommando Szlama Dragon testified that
three bodies were incinerated at a time. Two prisoners who escaped in April
1944, whose report was based on information received from Sonderkommandos,
stated that three bodies would be burned at a time. Mieczyslaw Morawa, a worker
in the crematoria, testified that tests done on the Birkenau crematoria before
they became fully operational showed that three bodies could be simultaneously
burned in a period of 40 minutes in each of the 15 ovens in Krema II. He stated
that these tests were conducted with a stopwatch by the SS. The latter
testimonial suggests that, while multiple burnings may take longer than single
burnings (40 minutes vs. 25 minutes, taking the Gusen figures for single
burnings), the time taken by the former is by no means the time taken by the
latter multiplied by the number of bodies. Morawa’s testimonial also points to
the plausibility of the burning speed calculated on the basis of the already
mentioned Bauleitung document.4. As we have seen, the manufacturers’ patent
application and the testimonials of surviving crematoria operators mention
external heating by coke to have been necessary only at the beginning of the
cremation process, never thereafter. There is no evidence that additional
external heating was required at the end of the cremation process to complete it
– the fuel supplied by the bodies themselves seems to have been enough.
Additional external heating at the end of the cremation process may be a concern
in crematoria for conventional body disposal in civilian life. It is not a
concern with heavy-duty industrial furnaces burning large numbers of bodies on a
continuous basis. 5. The scientific data from the British Cremation Society
obviously refer to conventional crematoria, not to heavy-duty industrial
furnaces. However, they show that even with conventional furnaces, most of the
cremation is complete after 30 minutes (the body reduced to the size of a
football), which means that the next body or bodies can be introduced before the
first has been fully cremated. The instructions for the Topf double muffle
furnaces at Gusen envisaged that a body would be added into the oven during the
last twenty minutes that it took to fully cremate the corpse that had been
previously inserted, and there is evidence that this procedure was applied both
at the Gusen and AB crematoria. Add to that the above mentioned practice of
introducing several bodies at a time in certain combinations at the AB
crematoria, and the average of 15 minutes indicated in the Bauleitung document
appears far more compatible with the data from the British Cremation Society
than it seems at first glance.6. I know of no indication that the letter from
the Bauleitung dated June 28, 1943 is a forgery. Who is the forger supposed to
have been, when and how is the forgery supposed to have been made? The same
applies to the information on the fuel efficiency of the triple and eight muffle
ovens provided to the Bauleitung by Topf on March 17, 1943, where it is
estimated that, if used on a continuous basis, the three muffle ovens of Kremas
II and III would each use 2,800 kilograms of coke in a period of twelve hours,
whereas the eight muffle ovens of Kremas IV and V would use only 1,120 kilograms
of coke in the same period. 7. Adding the fuel consumption of the four
crematoria according to Topf’s above mentioned memo (2 x 2,800 + 2 x 1,120 =
7,840 kg) and dividing that figure by the number of people that could be
cremated in a twelve hour period according to the Bauleitung letter of June 28,
1943(4,416 ./. 2 = 2,208), which seems to be realistic according to the above,
we arrive at an average of 3.5507 kg of coke per body. The result of a
remarkable technical achievement by the manufacturers, acknowledged as such by
the AB Bauleitung.

This post, according to my records, was first sent on
27.06.2001 at 18:56 hours GMT. When it did not appear on the thread, I sent it
again on 28.06.2001 at 09:06 hours GMT. When it again did not appear, I knew
what had happened: obviously concerned that my arguments might give my opponent
too much trouble, the moderator (possible "Hannover" himself) had retained my
post. As our readers may appreciate, this cannot have been due to any personal
attacks or other violations of posting guidelines, for the post was soberly
worded and contained nothing other than arguments on the subject under
discussion.

As we can see, there were no insults, personal attacks, violations of any kind, so Roberto's post should have gone up on the CODOH forum. But it didn't. As stressed, whenever there are hard-to-tackle arguments and a moderator can foresee that deniers will have a hard time disproving this post, a moderator(s) censor it. Alas, this is only one example. There are many more.
"Hannover", a.k.a. Jonnie Hargis is one of the moderators at the CODOH forum. [4]
How do we know that "Hannover" is Hargis?
Doing a bit of sleuth work and then trolling him in e-mail, Philip Mathews and Andrew Mathis discovered that "Hannover" is, in fact, Jonnie Hargis. In a lapse that can only be called gigantic, Fritz Berg admits to Scott Smith that Hargis is, in fact, Hannover. [5]

A picture of Jonnie Hargis. [6] Jonnie Hargis is important to the whole CODOH censoring issue because, for all we know, he could be the one censoring the hard-to-tackle opposing posts, which wouldn't surprise me at all. When asked to come to RODOH (Real Open Debate On the Holocaust) or Roberto's blog ("Holocaust Controversies")to debate, Jonnie Hargis insulted Roberto from CODOH were he knew that Roberto was banned. [7]
In other words, Hargis is running away from debate and possibly censoring posts. One minute after that, of course, he turns around and wails about the "revisionists" that are currently jailed, and in effect, censored.
I don't think that the cowardice of Hargis can surpass anybody else's.

In conclusion, if the CODOH moderators want to be cowards by censoring posts and are so afraid of debate in a neutral place where posts aren't censored (RODOH), like Hargis, then they should at least change the name of the forum, because it's misleading. If you're going to be a coward by hiding behind your forum where hard-to-tackle opposition is censored, then at least have the guts to change the name of the forum so that it doesn't trick people into thinking people that the posters and moderators are actually looking for "open" debate.

This sentire essay can be summarized in three words:

"CODOH" my @$$!

Endnote:

[1]According to wikipedia

[2]CODOH posting "rules"

[3]"Hannover" Hargis, the coward, threatens when he is safe by Roberto Muehlankampf

[4]I Intend to be Obscene by Andrew E. Mathis

[5]I Intend to be Obscene by Andrew E. Mathis

[6]Who Owns Whom by Andrew E. Mathis

[7]"Hannover" Hargis, the coward, threatens when he is safe by Roberto Muehlankampf

Pathetic Objections to the "Vergasungkeller" Document

Pathetic Objections to the "Vergasungkeller" document

-Sobe104839-



Whenever Holocaust deniers come across an inconvenient document, they are very quick to either

a) Call the document a forgery without proof,

or

b) Try to make-believe that the document has been misinterpreted by "exterminationists" and that the document itself has a fairly innocent meaning.

One of these documents, a letter, shown to the left, sent from SS-Haupsturmfuhrer Karl Bischoff to SS-Oberfuhrer Hans Kammler on January 29, 1943, a "Vergasungkeller", or "gassing cellar" is mentioned in crematorium two.

Transcription:

Das Krematorium II wurde unter Einsatz aller verfügbaren Kräfte trotz unsagbarer Schwierigkeiten und Frostwetter bei Tag- und Nachbetrieb [sic] bis auf bauliche Kleinigkeiten fertiggestellt. Die Öfen wurden im Beisein des Herrn Oberingenieur Prüfer der ausführenden Firma, Firma Topf u. Söhne, Erfurt, angefeuert und funtionieren [sic] tadellos. Die Eisenbetondecke des Leichenkellers konnte infolge Frosteinwirkung noch nicht ausgeschalt werden. Die [sic] ist jedoch unbedeutend, da der Vergasungskeller hierfür benützt werden kann. Die Firma Topf u. Soehne konnte infolge Waggonsperre die Be- und Entlüftungsanlage nicht wie von der Zentralbauleitung gefordert rechtzeitig anliefern. Nach Eintreffen der Be- und Entlüftungsanlage wird jedoch mit dem Einbau sofort begonnen, sodass voraussichtlich am 20.2.43 die Anlage vollständig betriebsfertig ist.

Ein Bericht des Prüfingenieurs der Firma Topf u. Söhne wird beigelegt.

Translation:

Except for some minor construction work, Crematorium II was finished by working with all our available forces day and night, despite inexpressible difficulties and freezing weather. The ovens were fired in the presence of the senior engineer Prüfer of the executing firm, Topf and Sons, Erfurt, and they are working faultlessly. The reinforced concrete ceiling of the morgue could not yet be eliminated due to the freezing weather. However, this is not significant, as the gassing cellar can be used for this purpose. Due to the railway car prohibition, the company Topf and Sons could not deliver the aeration and deaeration equipment at the time demanded by the Zentralbauleitung. After the aeration and deaeration equipment arrive, however, installation will begin immediately, so that presumably by February 20, 1943, it will be completely ready for operation.

Enclosed find a report of the inspecting engineer of the firm of Topf and Sons."

Unsurprisingly, deniers come up with contradictory explanations for this damning document. I love it when they can't agree, it so clearly demonstrates that "revisionism" is not a theory but an attack on truth. Just as any stick will serve to beat a Jew, any lie will serve to contradict a historian. They don't really know what the "Vergasungskeller" was -- they just "know" what it wasn't. So, let's look at the explanations that deniers have to offer for this damning, incriminating document.

First, and foremost, Prof. Arthur Butz. In his 1976 book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Butz wrote that "Vergasungkeller" was a gas production room to make gas to keep the ovens running. The problem? The Auschwitz ovens did not run on gas, they ran on solid coke. Ooops! Somehow, Butz did not realize this. Then, comes Butz's second explanation: [3]

"I have never seen the word "Vergasungskeller" in a lexicon; indeed I have
seen it only in discussions of NO-4473! However I have seen two German-Russian
dictionaries, one a military dictionary, that say "Gaskeller" means "gas
shelter". However we should not consider ourselves bound to dictionaries on
this. If one asks the question: In a World War II military context, what might
"Vergasungskeller" and/or "Gaskeller" mean?, I think that "gas shelter" is the
answer that comes naturally to mind, and that other meanings are somewhat
strained. Of course other meanings come naturally to mind in non-military
contexts."

Butz fails to offer any evidence for such shelters in Auschwitz and in other camps, which would be, after all, the central point of his argument. The only support for his interpretation is that two dictionaries mention "Gaskeller" as translation for "gas shelter". Very strangely for an experienced author and academic, he goes on without much consideration and identifies two very different words as synonyms. "Vergasungskeller" is "Gaskeller", therefore "Vergasungskeller" is "gas shelter". Full stop. No evidence needed.

Did Butz even consult a German speaker? I doubt it. Not knowing German myself, I asked some German speakers what "Vergasungkeller" means. They said that “Vergasungkeller" literally translates into “gassing cellar”, whether Butz likes it or not. To quote one German speaker, “any other interpretation is bullshit”. Clearly, if Bischoff wanted to describe a gas shelter, he would have used the unambiguous "Gasschutzkeller" instead of "Vergasungkeller", which is also unambiguous and has a completely different meaning: gassing cellar. [3]

We have five customers left. Germar Rudolf and Wilhelm Staeglich both claimed that the "vergasungkeller" document referred to an air-raid shelter. [4]

Here's the problem with this explanation: It is obvious that the "alleged" gas chambers could never have served as air-raid shelters for an inmate population of 100,000 or more, even if it thought likely that the SS should have wanted to protect the inmates against air-raids. Therefore, if the leichenkellers were ever intended to be used as air-raid shelters, they must have been intended for the SS. In fact, crematoria II and III are about one and a half miles from the nearest SS barracks. The picture of SS personnel running from their barracks, round the perimeter wire, in full gear, one and a half miles to the crematoria, under a hail of bombs, is just plain daft. [5]

Carlo Mattogno. Sometimes said to be the leading revisionist wordwide. Mattogno's explanation for this document is that it refers to a gassing cellar, indeed-but not a homicidal one: [6]

"The term Vergasungskeller designates a
disinfestation basement. In the explanatory report on the construction of KGL
Birkenau dated 30 October 1941, the two Zyklon-B Entlausungsbaracken
(disinfestation installations) subsequently built, BW5a and 5b are equipped with
a Vergasungsraum. [77] "

Again, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory. Not even one piece of evidence. The inventory of crematorium two upon its completion reveals "four wire-mesh introduction devices" and "four wooden covers." These were the apparatus through which the Zyklon-B was poured into the gas chamber. While the inventory list matches independent eyewitness testimony regarding the way the Zyklon-B was placed in the chamber, it corroborates nothing about Mattogno's explanation. If Mattogno wants to make-believe that the "Vergasungkeller" refers to a disinfestation basement, he has to explain where these four wire-mesh introduction devices and four wooden covers would have gone. Something that would also be appreciated is how Mattogno would answer the following question: If many Auschwitz eyewitnesses lied, including those who told of the gas chamber in crematorium two, why does this document support independent eyewitness testimony which also states that four introduction devices where used?

Robert Faurisson is usually said to be the leading "revisionist" scholar in Europe. In 1989, Robert Faurisson offered the idea that the cellar was a storage area for fumigation supplies. [7]

One wonders why, if the cellar was used for storage, did Bischoff refer to the cellar as "Vergasungkeller". As with all the alternate explanations offered by "revisionists", there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. I, on the other hand, as well as whoever accepts the Holocaust as a fact, have/has a huge convergence of evidence to support my/their theory. The "revisionists" have none. Let them try to find evidence that the gas chambers where anything but gas chambers. They haven't and will not find any.

Just give me one proof, Mr. Faurisson. One proof that the gas chambers were something else.

So, the real question we have to ask Mr. Faurisson is:

"Show me or draw me an air raid carburetion shelter delousing morgue!"

Our last customer is Carlos W. Porter. He made up the funniest explanation- that the document itself is a forgery. [8] To declare something a forgery, you need to have something called p r o o f, which should support your theory. Now, what's Porter's proof that the document itself is a forgery?

1) that the document uses "vergasungkeller"- a term that "appears to be nonexistent in German", according to Porter. [9]

Keep in mind that Porter doesn't know German. He is just making false speculations. It is quite simple really. "Keller" means "cellar", or "basement". "Vergasung" means "gassing". So, when you put these two words together, what does it mean? Gassing cellar. Just to find extra support for my argument, I simply typed "German" on google. It is a simple matter of scrolling down after searching "German" in google, were one sees a website called "The New German/English Dictionary". One then types "Vergasung" and "keller" on the search bar of the website. It's so unbelievably simple, and thus amazing to think that some of the "revisionist" pioneers couldn't even google "German" like I did, or "German dictionary", even more obvious when interpreting that "vergasungkeller" document. [10]

2) that several signatures made by the same person(s) look differently: [11]

Are these two signatures by the same person? To me, the first looks like a
natural signature; the second one looks like a long, slow, crude tracing job
using a flat, round nib (used by artists to achieve a uniform line, or, in this
case, to disguise the direction and pressure of the strokes ). Compare, in
particular, the "tail" on the "k". The strokes do not appear to start and stop
in the same places, or with the same amount of pressure. Instead, the lines are
uniformly curved and rounded, like a neon sign.

This is hilarious, isn't it? So, because a few signatures by one person don't look exactly the same, the document itself is a forgery? To me, the signatures look diferent because people are not robots, and when somebody writes at different moments, their letters and writing might actually look different! (heavens alive!)

In conclusion, if you view this document by itself, it is possible to interpret "Vergasungkeller" as a gassing cellar - but for gassing clothes, not people. However, if one looks at ALL the evidence available, one will find out that the ONLY reasonable interpretation for "Vergasungkeller" is a homicidal gas chamber.

What did I do to interpret "Vergasungkeller"?

I looked at all the evidence available on the subject. I looked at eyewitness testimony, pictures, court statements, etc. All the available evidence converges on my interpretation that there was a homicidal gas chamber in crematorium II, and that this is what Bischoff was reffering to.

What do Holocaust deniers do to interpret "Vergasunkeller"?

They immediatley ignore another interpretation (mine) which has all types of evidence supporting it. Instead, they pick a conclusion with NO evidence to support it. Not one photo, not one testimony, not one document, etc - NOTHING.

When ANYBODY makes a reasonable assertion, they need to give something called p-r- o-o-f so that we know that their assertion is not an opinion, but a fact. For all we know, the deniers' interpretation can simply be an opinion, because they offer not one shred of proof for their interpretation.

The funniest thing is that some deniers actually think that their interpretation is more reasonable than mine. ;-)

I'll leave it up to the reader to decide for him/her self whom's interpretation is more reasonable:

mine (all types of evidence supporting it)

the deniers' (not one shred of evidence supporting it, rejects my interpretation which has all types of evidence supporting it for no reason)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes:
[1] THHP on the "Vergasungkeller" document

[2]Arthur Butz's "explanation" for the "Vergasungkeller" document

[3]A refutation of Butz's "Vergasungkeller" explanation

[4]Robert Jan Van Pelt's refutation of "The Rudolf Report" by Germar Rudolf

[5]Robert Jan Van Pelt's refutation of "The Rudolf Report" by Germar Rudolf

[6]Carlo Mattogno's "Vergasungkeller" document explanation

[7]A refutation of Butz's "Vergasungkeller" explanation

[8]Carlo Porter's "explanation" for the "Vergasungkeller" document

[9]Carlo Porter's "explanation" for the "Vergasungkeller" document

[10]The New German/English on-line Dictionary

[11]Carlo Porter's "explanation" for the "Vergasungkeller" document