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

I tried sending this a few hours ago, and it hasn't shown up yet. Rather
than risk letting this guy actually think he's cowed me, I'm reposting it.
I apologize if this shows up twice.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:33:00 +0000, Matt Giwer wrote:

> 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.
> 

How is it "circumstantial"? Because it disagrees with your prejudices?

>> 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?
> 

Since several gas chambers still exist (i.e. were not destroyed as the
Allies approached), and there are mounds of documentary evidence that have
survived the years, it seems that actual physical evidence, while it would
be nice, is not absolutely necessary. Regardless of whether or not it
actually exists (I have not yet done the research to know for certain how
deep your lies go), there is a clear convergence of evidence that points
very clearly to an intentional Holocaust of the Jewish people. 

>> 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. (
> 

I don't know this reference. Not that it matters. Plenty of documents from
both German and Allied sources, from during and after the war, establish
clearly that the Holocaust happened. You are the one attempting to mislead.

>       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?
> 

Since such chambers _still exist_ in some places it seems that you are out
of the loop. You rely on your ability to mislead your audience.

>> 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.
> 

Thank you for proving my point. Physical evidence can be removed, for
whatever reason, and still we can maintain the existence of absolute
historical facts like the Holocaust. 

>> 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.

I believe based on convergence of evidence. It has nothing to do with
believing what those I love believe.

Tell you what. Why don't you stand on your soapbox for a moment and give
us all the positive, clear and convergent physical evidence you can muster
that will describe your own position. Assume that you have been proven
correct and that the physical gas chambers never existed; why is it that
we have so many independently verifiable pieces of evidence that point
directly to the fact that it did?

-- 
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.

Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_

--Daniel Harper

(Change terra to earth for email)