The Holocaust happened

To corroborate Tauber's claim of a homicidal gas chamber, Pro cites a novel written by Dr. Nyiszli, which purports to be an eye-witness account: “I, the undersigned, a doctor of medicine, Nyiszli Miklo, ex-inmate of the concentration camp... in this book, which has just been published, a work which contains, in itself, the darkest pages of human history, free from all passion, without the slightest exaggeration, write as direct spectator and actor of the activities of the crematoria and funeral pyres of Auschwitz..." With this affidavit, the lying doctor has, without a doubt, committed perjury. Let's check out a tiny sample of his numerous falsehoods. On page 23, Auschwitz is said to be in Germany. But it's actually in Poland. This fictitious invention definitely takes the cake as the most damning, since it casts into doubt the main premise of the entire story: that Nyiszli was ever a prisoner of Auschwtiz. The same page says the "nauseating odor" of "scorched hair" emanated from the crematoria chimneys, yet in chapter seven it is affirmed that bodies were shaved before cremation. This contradiction is made all the more ridiculous when Nyiszli alleges the hair was "precious" to the Nazis for its utility in bomb-making. Another falsehood is the claim that ovens had automatic doors. They did not. Even Pressac calls this myth a "pure invention."(3) Nyiszli claims cremation took 20 minutes, after which nothing but ashes remained. This directly contradicts Pro's cited testimony from Mueller, who claims to have been part of 25 man team whose job was disposing of leftover bones. This also contradicts Pro's proposed cremation time of 36 minutes. In fact, it contradicts Nyiszli's own numbers given at the end of chapter seven, where he alleges 20,000 corpses were cremated daily by sixty tri-muffle ovens. That would imply 13 minute cremations instead of 20. Pro will have to conjure up some potent mathemagic to explain these historically false, scientifically impossible and mutually contradictory numbers. The fairy-tale goes on to say four elevators transported corpses to the crematorium, but the fact is there was only one. Pro's own authority, Jean-Claude Pressac, calls this claim "WRONG AND DELIBERATELY MISLEADING," and asks, "Whom is Dr Miklos Nyiszli trying to mislead and why?"(3) So much for Nyizli's promise to recount his experience "without the slightest exaggeration." Can Nyiszli's credibility suffer any further? Indeed it can. Hear him describe the scene of a mass gassing: "A horrible picture: the corpses aren't scattered in the room, but piled high on top of one another. That's easily explained: the Cyclon, which is thrown in from outside, releases its deadly gases at floor level first. It reaches the upper layers of air only gradually. That's why the victims trample one another, one climbing on the other. The higher they are, the later the gas reaches them." The problem with this story is that the gas released by Zyklon B (which Nyiszli can't spell right) is lighter than air, so it would immediately rise and fill a room from top to bottom. Not bottom to top as Nyiszli alleges. How do we explain this damning falsehood? Simple. In chapter seven, Nyiszli claims Zyklon B produces Chlorine gas. Chlorine is heavier than air, so it sinks. But in the real world, Zyklon B releases cyanide gas, and cyanide gas floats. You see, that's the problem with lies. There may be nothing on the surface to provoke suspicion, but they collapse when subjected to honest scrutiny. Those who pay homage to the mainstream Holocaust narrative with blind faith will never arrive at the truth of the matter. One of the more blatant contradictions between the testimonies of Tauber and Nyiszli is where Tauber says an entire room was dedicated to storing Zyklon B,(1) while Nyiszli insists there was "never a stock." Given that Nyiszli has absolutely no credibility, why should it matter that he agrees with Tauber that Leichenkeller 1 was a homicidal gas chamber? I maintain it was a morgue, as does the blueprint. Even Pressac, upon whose authority Pro heavily relies, exposes the absurdity of claiming it was a gas chamber (although ironically he sticks with the gas chamber theory): "The ventilation system of Leichenkeller 1 had initially been designed for a morgue, with the fresh air entering near the ceiling and the cold unhealthy air being drawing out near the floor. Its use as a gas chamber really required the reverse situation, with fresh air coming in near the floor and warm air saturated with hydrocyanic gas being drawn out near the ceiling. But the SS and Prüfer chose to maintain the original “morgue” ventilation system in the gas chamber, hoping that it would be efficient enough."(2) There we go again with those incompetent Nazis. For the purpose of systematically slaughtering countless human beings, the best they can come up with is a poorly improvised gas chamber converted from a morgue? They couldn't be bothered to construct a legit genocide cellar, preferring instead to just wing it? Since Pro complained about my citation for Prufer's Nuremberg testimony; here's a better one: Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Germar Rudolf, p. 398 Pro says, "when I crunched the numbers, then the cremation power increased with muffle number, as I intimate above: ~1.75 per hour in the first case; ~2.25 per hours in the second; and ~4.17 in the third." How did you get these numbers? They contradict my very straightforward calculations, so I'd like to see the justification for yours. Pro says, "if TheTroof wants to allege a hoax or forgery, then he should be prepared to state who perpetrated this hoax and, more importantly, prove it." It matters not who created the forgery if it can be proven that it is indeed a forgery. And this has already been done. It's purported to be typed by Prufer, yet it wildly contradicts the statements of both himself and his coworker at the Nuremberg Trials, where he says cremation took an hour per corpse... not four, as the fake document would have us believe. It's very apparent the larger number was devised to add plausibility to the myth of mass gassings, and besides, Pro has already conceded the maximum cremation rate was three per hour (and even then, that's pushing it). Pro says, "Were it the case that we have this Vergasungskeller document and no other proof of HGCs, it would indeed be reasonable to assume that the room was a delousing chamber. However, two factors lead us away from that conclusion: first, the delousing chambers far more often used "entlausen" (delouse) rather than "vergasen"; second, there's a ton of evidence that this room was an HGC." First, "vergasungskeller" has never been used to refer to a homicidal gas chamber outside of the allegations of Holocaust believers, so this entire argument is silly and moot. Second, there's not a "ton" of evidence the room was a homicidal gas chamber. There is precisely zero evidence, unless you count those three contradictory, absurd, and falsified testimonies. Pro says, "see all that blue stuff? That's what happens when you allow hydrogen cyanide to contact brick for hours on end. If, however, you allow the gas to contact the brick for a half hour at most, then use a ventilation system to remove the gas (did I mention the ventilation system?), and then, after removing the bodies, wash down the room, then you're not going to get that blue staining. That's how we know it wasn't a delousing chamber." I only proposed it was a delousing chamber as an equally plausible (if not moreso) alternative to a homicidal chamber. Your argument about how much blue staining should be present is completely meaningless without knowing how much gas you believe was employed. So let's hear it. How much gas was used how many times to kill how many people, in this particular room? Pro says,"See how there are two rooms labeled "Leichenkeller"? One of them was the Vergasungskeller. We know that from the document." No, we know no such thing from the document, and it is not apparent to me how you arrived at that interpretation. Mind explaining your exegesis? Pro says, "You are aware that English and German are different languages, right?" I will respond to this rhetorical question in kind. Is Pro aware that historically false, internally inconsistent and perjured testimony does not constitute evidence of his thesis? (1) http://www.holocaust-history.org... (2) http://www.holocaust-history.org... (3) http://www.holocaust-history.org...