Re: Giwer: Re: seen evidence of Holocaust in museums?

Daniel Harper wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:44:15 +0000, Matt Giwer wrote:

>>Ron Jacobson wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glenn
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>"Matt Giwer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] snip
>>
>>>>>Produce physical evidence of gas chambers. That has never been done.
>>
>>>   Of course it has:  the structures themselves,  and the compounds
>>>   which
>>>the cyanide gas forms in the walls.
>>
>>      What does a chemical reaction of unidentified cause have to do with the
>>      equipment needed
>>to handle large quantities of cyanide?
>>
>>>>Ok, let's assume there is no physical evidence of gas chambers. So now
>>>>what?
>>
>>>   I believe that's an interesting question.  But even if the Nazis had
>>>managed to completely destroy the Auschwitz gas chambers,  we would
>>>still know what happened there.  As if the murder of more than a million
>>>people in one small place,  could have been (hypothetically) denied, 
>>>just by destroying the murder machinery!
>>
>>      How can you claim to know anything without physical evidence? Are you
>>      psychic?

> Convergence of evidence.

        That is also circumstantial evidence. And this is a capital murder charge.

> Another poster already gave you what should have
> been utterly convincing evidence that the buildings used in the death
> camps were gas chambers, and you waved it away without beginning to deal
> with it. You are dishonest to the point of being psychopathic.

        I have always asked for the physical evidence in support of the assertion. 
Certainly 
there was at least the handling equipment for such large quantities of cyanide. The US 
has 
used cyanide for excutions for decades. It not like the equipment is unknown or 
esoteric 
knowledge. I expect comparable essential equipment, don't you?

> The point is not whether or not walls with a particular concentration of
> Zyklon-B gas concurrent with out understanding of how much would be
> required to kill X human beings still exist after decades of water damage,
> but rather whether or not a reasonable observer, given the totality of
> evidence that is in existence with regards to eyewitness testimony, the
> words of the survivors, the films taken in the camps and the many photos,
> would support the hypothesis of the holocaust as explaining best all
> available evidence.

        If there were sworn statements with penalty of perjury regarding gas chambers 
that would 
be one thing. But there are none. So calling it testimony is grossly and deliberately 
misleading. Why are you trying to mislead? All we have are stories like the gypsey who 
told of Mengele's success with bone marrow transplants. (

        As to the photos and films, no one questions the existance of concentration 
camps. But 
there are no photos or films of gas chambers so again you mislead. Why?

> We don't have a great deal of physical evidence for the War of 1812
> either. But the War of 1812 doesn't have implications for a race war,
> either. 

        You can do better than that red herring. The evidence of the WTC buildings has 
been removed.

> My religion demands that I love my neighbor as I love myself. Perhaps you
> should learn something about both the religion and the principle.

        Perhaps you should learn that love does not require believing what the person 
you love 
believes no matter how convinced they are.

-- 
The fabled Jewish love of learning is studying the Talmud.
That is like giving credit for memorizing the works of
Carlos Casteneda.
        -- The Iron Webmaster, 2932