Our greatest taboo should be permitted for investigation and debate

My opponent begins yet another rebuttal with an indiscriminate attack on the character of anyone who disputes the mainstream storyline of the Holocaust: "...I unfairly paint his authors as Holocaust deniers and horrible people. That's because they are." How much longer will this argument be used as the forefront to the anti-revisionist movement? Con cites the example of Dr. Faurisson's acceptance of a national award from the country of Iran, a country that has been at the forefront of Zionist criticism over the years, also containing it's own aspects of religious extremism. Faurisson accepted this award in recognition of his own outstanding contributions to a more truthful society. He has never advocated any form of antisemitic speech nor action, even after being savagely beaten for his views by several Jewish thugs as a 60-year-old man [1]. "Photos/Video Footage" will be covered at the end of this rebuttal. More on "credibility of eyewitnesses" will be included in my next response. 1. "Nuremberg" My opponent makes the claim that Hoess was tortured only by Jewish sergeants in the British military, although Hoess also endured several days of forced sleep deprivation according to Ken Jones, a private of the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery, stationed with Hoess [2]: "He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks... We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance." Hoess was admittedly beaten for his first confession (which he says he had signed without reading), his wife and children had received death threats and, in all probability, there was no other option of personal interest but to avoid further torture and prevent any harm to his family. His memoirs were written in the months prior to his sentencing but did not dissuade the court decision for his impending death. Regarding Hoess' original testimony, there are several outstanding inconsistencies; see references [4]. There are many other Nazi testimonies that are demonstrably false, in addition to the "confessional" claims about diesel exhaust gassings that will be addressed subsequently, including that of SS Kaltenbrunner who "confessed" that gas chambers were used to exterminate people at the Mauthausen [5]. 2. "Gas trucks" First and foremost, it is technically incorrect to refer to these devices as "gas vans" or "trucks", as they are alleged to have used Diesel, not gasoline, engines. Therein, of course, lies the fundamental problem with such a construction. As has been detailed in my previously cited work of Freidrich Paul Berg, a mechanical engineer graduate from Columbia University, diesel engines are an absolutely horrible choice for a carbon-monoxide introduction method and less than half as efficient as gasoline engines-- a mistake that the Germans, the world's best engineers at the time, would not have made [6]. 3. "Zyklon B kills in 3 to 15 minutes" and "the guards would have died" My opponent implies that I've made the claim that the "guards would have died", which I have not. The issue at hand is how these Zyklon-B pellets were disarmed, considering that the alleged storyline claims gassings were finished in a matter of minutes, while cyanide will release 10 times the concentration required for this purpose over the next several hours [7]. What was done with the fatally-toxic outgassing pellets? My opponent cites the times of death pertaining to modern-day US gas chambers with no regard to the fact that, in the case of these alleged 'death camps', cyanide was released from pellets that distribute gas unevenly (not highly engineered introduction systems) and are dependent on a variety of environmental factors [7]. Furthermore, in Krema II in Auschwitz, for example, the Holocaust storyline dictates that gassings were done on a massive, sequential basis and depended substantially on the premise that the batch of approximately 2,000 Jews waiting in line to be 'gassed' next thought they were going for showers, otherwise non-cooperation would not have been manageable by the team of only 3-4 SS coordinating the death-sentenced mob of 2,000. How could this have been possible if 80-90% of the remaining cyanide that was required to kill 2,000 Jews is being released into the open air surrounding the building for several hours, with the next batch of Jews within line-of-sight and already lined up to go inside [8]? 4. The Jaeger Report My opponent states: "It is false that both sides agree this is a forgery." I would agree-- my original quote: "half a dozen pieces of proclaimed 'documentary evidence', several of which are now regarded by both sides of the Holocaust debate to be forgeries, and two entirely untraceable documents ... without any physical evidence" My opponent's citation contains some examples of the former, including the Lohse order. The "two entirely untraceable documents...without physical evidence" are in reference to the alleged 'reports' of Himmler and Jaeger which have no physical evidence to back even a fraction of their claims. 3. Photos/Video Footage None of the atrocious photographs, video, or otherwise can effectively corroborate any aspect of the alleged 'extermination plan'. Con's video reference to the liberation of Dachau is a prime example of how Allied propaganda has been able to manipulate evidence to support a fraudulent storyline. My opponent implies that the victims in this video were killed by systematic mass murder. Let's consider the evidence. Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic pathologists, performed autopsies at Dachau and more than twenty other German camps in 1945, some days examining more than 100 corpses [8]. In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax". Being the only forensic pathologist for Allied military operations in Europe, Larson confirmed there "never was a case of poison gas uncovered" [9]. The reason for these documented deaths is far less complicated than the 'extermination' theory would have us believe. Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School of Public Health, was with US forces in Germany in 1945. He reported in 1948 that the "outbreaks in concentration camps and prisons made up the great bulk of typhus infection encountered in Germany" [10]. Dr. Gordon summarized the causes: "Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an astounding sight, a mixture of humanity travelling this way and that, homeless, often hungry and carrying typhus with them ... Germany was in chaos. The destruction of whole cities and the path left by advancing armies produced a disruption of living conditions contributing to the spread of the disease." Corroborating Dr. Gordon's findings is Dr. Russell Barton, who entered the Bergen-Belsen camp with British forces in 1945. Barton testified under sworn oath that "Thousands of prisoners who died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II weren't deliberately starved to death but died from a rash of diseases."[11] I challenge my opponent to show physical evidence to support any of his claims. REFERENCES: 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. Ken Jones, Wrexham Leader. October 17, 1986 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. Lectures on the Holocaust, Ch. 4.5.4, http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://www.codoh.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. Jane Floerchinger, "Concentration Camp Conditions Killed Most Inmates, Doctor Says," The Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980, p. 4C. 10. John E. Gordon, "Louse-Borne Typhus Fever in the European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army, 1945," Rickettsial Diseases of Man, pp. 16-27. 11. "Disease killed Nazis' prisoners, MD says," Toronto Star, Feb. 8, 1985, p. A2