Toro! Toro! Toro!

Published: 2003-01-01

No, this is not a what-if scenario exploring the outcome of Mexico or Spain attacking Pearl Harbor. Rather, it is an example of what is produced when the illogical grow frustrated and take a penultimate defensive stand, which is to fall back on ridicule. (The ultimate is plain old ugly invective.)

An early tactic, if I may so dignify the procedure, used by revisionist opponents was to compare revisionist findings to those of flat-earthers or UFO believers. The inference sought, of course, is that The Holocaust is as well documented as the curvature of the earth and the thus far nonexistence of extraterrestrials. When those simple insults grew stale, about as soon as they hit the atmosphere, they jacked things up a notch or two and set about making more involved historical parodies using what they characterize as "revisionist logic" or "revisionist scholarship." Which is to say, an extremely ignorant and dogmatic denial of the occurrence or existence of non-controversial major historical events or physical entities (such as the moon), in a manner that is illogical to the point of mental instability.

Most revisionists ignore these clumsy attempts to bait and ridicule, but now and again you see someone with a sense of humor and more than a little intelligence enter the arena with the papier-maché bull and shred the klutzy beast. Here's a sterling example of one such exchange.

Our toreador is A.S. Marques, erstwhile competitor of Dr. Leon for the "allegiance" of Sapphire, and for whom English is a second (or fourth or fifth) language.

The bull (purveyor) is one Richard J. Green, a graduate student (perhaps graduated by now) in chemistry at Stanford University who's been a regular on alt.revisionism for quite some time. He shows a bit more decorum than his contemporaries there, many of whom make it appear as if the bull is bellowing out of the wrong end.

For those not familiar with Usenet posts, an explanation:

It is difficult to conduct a discussion in a newsgroup in the same way that one might exchange letters to debate an issue. This is because there can be dozens of letters from many different people posted on a single topic, the chronological arrangement of which is called a "thread." Because of the difficulty of remembering the myriad comments in such a pile of prose, not to mention the really odd memory tricks in combative exchanges that put words into other posters' mouths with startling regularity, it is not just good form to quote the passages you refer to, it is almost mandatory in order to make any sense. Try to work without these quotes and you're likely to be the target of much verbal abuse by the now confused others. Look on the quoting as "ill-will insurance." You do it as much for your own protection as you do to make it clear to others who are hell-bent on misinterpreting it, and will anyway. But quoting staves that off a little.

The post that follows is what might be called "four deep." That is, there are quotes from three previous posts contained in this, the fourth post in the series. This depth, and thus the identity of the person being quoted, is shown by the number of little brevets (I have never known what to call the things) at the beginning of each line. Here's how to interpret them:

None: ASMarques, the current poster of a four deep message.

> Richard J. Green, previous post to this one, one level back.
>> ASMarques, post prior to Green's above, two levels back.
>>>Richard J. Green, post prior to ASMarques' above, three levels back.

An easy way to remember it is that the current poster's lines will have either no brevets (or whatever they are) or an even number. The person he's replying to will always be breveted and with an odd number of them.

ASMarques is even. Richard J. Green is odd. Formatically speaking. Although the reader can decide if the description should be extended to other areas after this bizarre exchange is digested.

The premise here is that by using what Mr. Green would term "revisionist scholarship" the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima by the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1945 cannot be proven. Therefore, the Hiroshima bombing must be a hoax. He's being rather restrained in his choice, a more common one is to say that WWII did not happen.

OK, the picador is finished. On to the main event! (Somebody blows a loud horn, one of those plastic jobs that'll get you kicked out of the ball game.) The bull paws the ground, losing a chunk of one fake hoof in the process. The toreador removes his red underwear and invites the bull to kiss his..... Well, read for yourself.

ASMarques wrote:
I may be wrong but one of the ways of getting rid of idiotic
bores is to hit back and bore them to death too, whenever possible\. *** posted to alt.conspiracy and other ngs ***
Richard J Green wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> ASMarques   wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Reparations do not bear on the topic.
>> Of course they don't. The Japanese aren't getting any ! But the Jews
>> are. I was just pointing that out as an interesting side matter.
> Liar, I am a Jew and I receive no reparations\. Do I detect a complaint ? I hope not. After one sees Mr. Rabbi Marvin
Hier on TV claiming the Jews were thrown by the Swiss in terrible camps
with big dogs that *ate them* (sic), one never knows what will come
next..\. >>> An atom is an indivisible
>>> particle.
>> "Particle" means a little piece. What is the little piece a piece of,
>> Mr. Chemist ?
>>> Therefore atoms cannot be split.
>> No. Therefore "atom" is an imaginary conceptual way of speaking about
>> "matter". There are no atoms other than the atoms in the ontological
>> experimental context in which they are fabricated. You should be
>> speaking about atomic *events* in the global event we call the
>> experiment, etc.
> Reread Lucretius, hoaxer!  He claims that atoms are the smallest
> possible particles\. You cannot have a part of an atom\. You hoaxers
> keep changing the definition\. The fact that you are also ignorant of
> the modern understanding shows nothing\. Hmmm.. You're talking about the smallest possible pieces of *something*,
without telling us what's the nature of the something you're breaking in
pieces. Rephrase your query and you may get an answer\. 
> I point out also, that you cannot make a fission bomb with U238 and that
> plutonium is not a naturally occurring element\. That rules out Uranium
> and Plutonium for you so-called fission bomb\. 
No problem since the material for the Hiroshima bomb was U235, and you
don't doubt Nagasaki\. > It's physically impossible\. 
What seems nearly impossible is the degree of silliness you reach in
your attempt to show that once the "Holocaust" is questioned, all truth
becomes equally indifferent to you and you opt for intellectual
retirement from the cruel World. This is religious angst, not reason at
work\. > Next thing you'll be claiming that nuclear reactions do not
> conserve mass when we all know that conservation of mass is a LAW\. Same\. 
>> Profound philosophical/scientific concepts, however, are not needed to
>> disbelieve the gas chambers. They are on the "square triangle" level,
>> rather than on the "mysterious link between consciousness, causality and
>> quantum results". Unless, of course, you'll next claim all the gas
>> chambers existed but in different alternative universes...
> You are speaking gibberish\. What is the mysterious link between
> consciousness and causality and quantum results, ignorant one (this
> ought to be interesting...:-)
So it seems\.     :)
It goes more or less like this: if you want mutually contradictory
holocausts to coexist in a mysterious profitable limbo you must not
look\. Once you do, you'll be stuck with one of them and will have to
abandon all the others. It's called the collapse of the confusion wave\. 
>>> You people keep changing what you mean by atoms.
>> Here we go: "since human knowledge is not complete, the gas chambers
>> exist". Okay, but why not "since human knowledge is not complete, the
>> moon is inhabited by penguins" ?
> You just put words in my mouth and responded; that's called a straw man,
> nazi-boy\. I know. I believe you're one and I find this exchange amusing\. >> I mean you don't prove your points by successive "negatives". Please
>> state why the "Holocaust gas chambers" seem true to you, if you have
>> stopped believing in the concept of "truth" itself ?
> We have testimony, missing Jews, physical evidence and in general a
> convergence of all the evidence\. 
Not at all. The "evidence" is not only flimsy and divergent, but you can
even understand how it got to be so, i.e. you can understand the reasons
for its being flimsy and divergent, exactly as you understand the
evidence for witchcraft or intercourse with the devil being similarly
invalid, in spite of testimony, missing children, claimed physical
evidence, confessions, etc\. That sort of incoherent "evidence" is the usual result of
"investigation" through rigged trials under conditions of religious or
political mass hysteria\. > The same as for the moon, atomic
> weapons, the Hiroshima bombing etc\. No. The same as for intellectual bankruptcy and a childish retreat into
blanket denial of everything but one's own religious navel\. > See for more detail:
>>> You cannot post physical evidence.
>>> [of the bombing of Hiroshima]
>> Let's see if I can explain this to you. You cannot post evidence in the
>> *material* sense you wish. You can only post words. However you can post
>> words that lead you to the evidence and you can post words that lead you
>> to the holo-Wonderland.
> In other words, Mr. Marques admits that he can post no physical evidence
> that Hiroshima was bombed\. Mr. Green, were you expecting radioactive Japanese meat would start
oozing from your monitor? You should resort to Mr. Spielberg at Holowood
for that sort of special effect\. >> My words are: "Look for the evidence by asking the prefecture and city
>> of Hiroshima for it.
> Prove they aren't lying\. I don't think they will claim miraculous events, and the story they'll
tell you and the evidence they -- and everybody else around -- will show
you, will have a very strong consistency indeed. Of course you and only
you, will be the judge of your own beliefs. Should you prefer to believe
in mass abductions by Spielberg's ETs, you'll find a lot of witnesses,
but their testimony will be more on the "Holocaust" level\. I guarantee you the Hiroshima consistency will be on an altogether
different level from the gas/steam/diesel/electrocuting chambers that
change their location every couple of years, the human saponification,
the general holocaustic head-shrinking and human skin lady hand-bagging
etc, on account of which people were hanged and *some* people (I mean
the active organised few, not the passive many that no longer know any
better than going along) are now -- in 1998 ! -- claiming the right to
blackmail the entire World for a few years more..\.  
>> You'll find tons and tons of documents
>> (photographic among others) about the destruction and reconstruction of
>> the city at all levels (the Japanese are very good at this).
> Prove they are not forgeries\. No proof from me will ever excuse you from looking into it, if you have
doubts. You should not expect others to do your work for you. By all
means start investigating and I don't think anyone will ever attempt to
hide anything from you or outlaw your views. If you find out you cannot
believe in the Hiroshima bombing, it will be fine with me, and you'll be
looked upon as simply another inoffensive  eccentric. No problem at all;
the Hiroshima survivors will laugh you away, instead of hysterically
claiming you are a menace to them\. You see, the Japanese don't hold up other nations for money and power,
nor do they attempt to blackmail all the rest of mankind for ever
through the Hiroshima bombing. They buried their dead and went on
living. This is what the powerful Jewish organisations will not
tolerate, and they won't change this attitude while there is little
visible Jewish resentment over their conduct (I'm glad to say I've met
some vestiges of this, though). You should try to learn something, every
now and then, for your own benefit. I think the end result if this goes
on, will be disaster for everybody\. >> Then do the
>> same in the US Department of Defense and you'll find more tons of
>> evidence (so are the American Armed Forces)".
> If there are "tons" of evidence, i am sure that you can present at least
> a dozen or so citations of such evidence held by DoD\. Please do so.
> Of course you will come up with something about the Enola Gay, a plane
> that never existed\. Hmmm. Let's see if I manage to at least teach you something about
vanishing evidence\. I have no reason to doubt the existence of the Enola Gay (this will be
the line kept by Nizkor when they affix your smart-ass challenges
without my replies, as they are doing in the world famous "Richard Green
files" over there)\. Indeed I've seen the Enola Gay in photos that agree quite well with all
the other consistent evidence around the bombing of Hiroshima.The whole
thing starting with Szilard, Einstein, and the letter to Roosevelt,
through the Manhattan Project and Alamogordo. Even though it was a
top-secret project, they weren't communicating by nudging and
eye-winking and silent nods, and they did leave all the official
paperwork trails one would expect. Also a clear chain of causality to
individual actions will be there: you'll find that the testimonial
diaries,  the memoirs, and the profuse official records agree with the
overall picture to a high degree of accuracy and consistency\. Then you have the discussion of the final decision, and this seems to be
highly consistent too. Truman, and most of the remaining people involved
in the top-level reunions, voluntarily contributed their versions
without going through  interrogation by Japanese kempetai agents and
subsequent rigged show-trials in Japan, and, in spite of that, their
versions are consistent too\. Then comes the operational part of the wondrous deed. U.S. Navy and Army
historical archives will furnish you -- if you want to go to all the
trouble, which I obviously won't, unless perhaps you give me some real
indication that will set me suspecting a Hiroshima hoax was on -- with
consistent material about the trip of the Indianapolis carrying the
bomb, the technical and historical detailed data of the Enola Gay
mission (both from the higher level military command and the base unit
at Guam),  the consistent biography of  Col. Tibbets who didn't commit
suicide in prison after confessing to having bombed Nagoya with
radioactive cans of Potassium 832, and so on. You will also find  his
post-war voluntary impressions of how he felt about the episode, given
to newspapers under no apparent pressure and for no apparent gain, etc\. 
Then you will have the main body of evidence -- once more entirely
consistent with what preceded. You will have *both* the Japanese and the
American official materials about the destruction and the reconstruction
of the city: it was *never* supposed possible to keep it a secret, and
no measures were taken to "erase the episode from history" since this
was impossible. Apparently only the Nazis could think of exterminating a
vast population -- worse than that, an entire race -- while keeping the
whole thing a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" secret, in the hope nobody
would notice and everybody would forget the previous historical
existence of the Jews\. Of course, I have not gone through the exhaustive Hiroshima
documentation that I mentioned and believe exists on all levels. Why
didn't I ? Because I didn't see any reason to do it, no obvious
inconsistency, no visible distortion of facts or scientific law, no
attempt at opinion control through rigged show-trials and the extension
of war propaganda into peacetime, no cynical attempt to transform the
agony of the victims into a device for money-making and political
profit, susceptible of creating entrenched interests in hiding truth
away from view\. Why, will you ask, do I then believe in the Hiroshima bombing and not in
the gas chambers of the "Holocaust"? And here is the answer to your
question in a concise form, in case you haven't been following me:
******* ANSWER TO MR: GREEN *******
1) The evidence for the Hiroshima bomb is *EXTREMELY* consistent on the
surface, and I have no reason to think it is not convincing in depth if
one delves into it\. 
2) The evidence for the "Holocaust" is *EXTREMELY* contradictory on the
surface, and indeed little more than a mishmash of absurdities at all
levels once you lift the thin veil hiding this\. 3) To understand 2) it will not be enough for you to browse through
Lipstadt's ignorant ramblings about the foreign revisionist devils or
Nizkor's effort to press back into service every shrunken head with
shoulder length hair (this was apparently the fashion among the hippies
strolling about in the concentration camps...). You will have to go to
the trouble of actually reading a vast -- but practically 
clandestine -- existing body of hard to find serious revisionist
historical investigation\. **************************************
What motivates belief or disbelief in a rational person is simply the
degree of consistency of the evidence. If you would care to present to
the World your analysis of the Hiroshima episode as, say,  just a public
relations stunt directed at intimidating the USSR, *and* your evidence
for this was any good, I would be glad  to look into it. You might turn
out to be the Faurisson of the Hiroshima Cold War hoax!
Unfortunately for you, this is not what happens. For you make it quite
clear that you do not doubt any Hiroshima bombing. Indeed you use it as
an exemplary iron paradigm of reality, established beyond any reasonable
doubt. What you are saying is "convince me that this obviously real
event is real". Then you take a childish pleasure in showing no one will
possibly prove he has convinced you of anything, as long as you are able
to say "Nah, I don't believe in that"\. You do not ask for reason or common sense. You ask for the suspension of
both, in order to spare your dear "Holocaust" from going into the
dust-bin of history where it belongs\.  
>> Your words are: "Here is some gas chambers marked "morgues" in all the
>> German documentation, but the markings were wrong, here is some Jewish
>> human soap,
> Liar, those are not my words\. Please present evidence that I have ever
> claimed that soap made of Jews exists\. The best that you can do is to
> lie about my words\. I'm afraid your effort at avoiding reality at all costs is having some
unexpected side-effects on your memory. If you'll care to look some
paragraphs below, you'll see you yourself gave me one of those Nizkor
URLs where it is claimed that the Germans were "experimenting" with
human soap-making. And you keep a similar sort of "experimental"
nonsense in your own personal site as an attempt to resurrect the Dachau
gas chamber. You see, it's always the same method. Once some idiotic
holo-claim is proved wrong, it will enter the "just some experiments"
Ilse Koch's lampshades? Oh, they were false (goatskin according to Gen.
Lucius Clay), but -- lo! -- an entire set of tanned human skin with
tattoos (some of them bloated away probably to avoid their
identification in time) and a couple of South American shrunken heads
"were found" at Buchenwald (never mind their shoulder-length hair: these
particular Jivaros were Polish hippies !) And -- by golly! -- another
shrunken head at *Dachau*, just to prove they all kept their little
playthings around in all the camps! 
Dachau gas chamber ? Well, it used to be the big thing. Many Americans
will remember seeing the false showerheads and the heavy door to the gas
chamber trumpeted along in the movies. Then it was gone and forgotten,
but -- lo!--  there really was a gas chamber that was never used (!)
unless it was really used but just for the duration of a few
"experimental" tiny gassings. What a gas, Mr. Green ! The Germans have
this gas chamber ready for service -- false showers and all -- and yet
they prefer to jam the wartime railroad traffic to take their western
victims to the Polish gas chambers ! Then they surrender Dachau and
forget to dismantle the false showerheads, even though they are supposed
to have completely erased all traces of the Eastern gas chambers at
Belzec, Sobibor etc and even rooted out the buildings themselves. If
they didn't forget to dismantle the false showerheads of the gas chamber
at Dachau that didn't function, then someone else put them in place,
since they can still be seen there\. And the same with your own idiotic "experimental" human soap. It used to
be the big thing in World War One. Then, for World War Two, the human
saponification myth grew into Wiesenthal's industrial RIF soap made from
Pure Jewish Fat, as he puts it. Then the soap started melting. But --
lo! -- there really was some "experimenting". And just to make sure, the
"experimenting" was double, like the Jivaro shrunken heads of Dachau and
Buchenwald! At Nuremberg it's Prof. Spannen human soap laboratory, and
then at the deposition of Konrad Morgen it's Oskar Dirlewanger himself
that cuts the Jews into tiny little bits and tries to make soap in a
caldron for the German War effort while he camps on the ruins of Warsaw
with his tired troops. Then comes Mr. Green, the professional chemist,
and he gives me the URL to his own favorite "experimental" human soap..\. 
You should be ashamed of yourself, human soap peddler\. >> here is some golden teeth because all the bodies were
>> vaporized by being burned in deep ground pits full of water, and here is
>> some speeches in which people talked about ausrotten".
> You've got it backwards, old son\. Those examples are brought up by
> Nazis like you and refuted by people like me\. I thought that by now you
> would be embarrassed to discuss Ausrotten, btw, after you were shown up
> for such a fool in alt.revisionism\. The main discussion was not at alt.revisionism, dummy. Alt.revisionism
is where I fish out the holohuggers when I need them. If you want to see
the real discussion go to alt.conspiracy or soc.culture.german, for
instance. And if you want to participate in a real discussion without
the constant name-calling, and marginal character assassinations most of
you attempt whenever they have the opportunity, go to the CODOH message
>> Are we playing rotten games, Mr. Chemist ? Do you sell snake elixir too?
>> I've seen your site, and I think you do. Only interesting thing in
>> there is the blonde in the hot tube.
> I cannot make sense of what you are trying to say here\. I'm saying your gas chambers are not worth the visit, in case you didn't
get the message. One might as well go to the Auschwitz or Dachau
museums. They are on the whole more honest than a knowledgeable chemist
trying to erase the catastrophic *first* Cracow Report on the Auschwitz
gas chambers that confirmed Leuchter & Faurisson, with the expeditious
second  report devised as a transparent attempt to repair the damage by
"factoring out" the cyanide compounds of the blue stains in the
disinfection chambers from the search for cyanide compounds !
>>>> But okay then. Listen to this: the material evidence is *the ruins of
>>>> Hiroshima*: they didn't vanish.
>>> So you say, prove it.
>> Try Altavista: "Hiroshima City Hall" and e-mail them for proofs. I'm
>> sure you'll be satisfied.
> Nope, just forgeries.
>> I won't care to because I don't see any
>> particular reason to doubt the bombing. Hoess's confession of *3*
>> million dead at Auschwitz, however, is -- together with about one
>> thousand similar items -- a strong telltale someone has been telling
>> lies in shoa-business...
> Where is your evidence of this vast conspiracy to lie\. Who forged all
> the documents; show us some criminal traces\. I would suggest to you the usual investigative roads: who might be
interested, who was there with the power to commit the forgeries and so
on. The best collective candidates to the existence of a well organised
conspiracy are the Jewish organisations and the Allied powers. But --
even though I might give you an opinion on the subject -- I will wait
for the evidence, if you don't mind\. 
As for the lesser conspiracy, the one simply involving uncritical
acceptance, rather than actual hands-on documentary forgery, all you
have to do is look in the mirror. Then go to your own site and re-read
the rubbish you put in there. You don't need a criminal mastermind to
have a conspiracy of silence and make-believe going on. In fact, you
don't even need a mind\. >>>> How do you beat that ? Will you show me
>>>> a couple of human soap bars like they do in museums and cemeteries ?
>> Thank you. I stand corrected. Now will you show me some human toothpaste?
>> And give me two bottles of snake oil, please.
> In other words, when I prove that you have your head up your ass, the
> best you can do is to post an irrelevant point about claims that I have
> never made\. Okay then. I stand corrected. Now will you show me some "experimental"
human toothpaste ? And give me two bottles of "experimental" snake oil,
please\. >> (This is getting amusing; you completely fail to understand that even
>> most gas chamber believers have stopped believing in the extension of
>> the soap "canard" from WWI to WWII...)
> Apparently, you did not read the URL above, idiot\. I have never claimed
> the RIF story is true it is not\. The Nazis did not mass produce soap
> out of Jews and I never claimed that they have\. Learn how to read,
> idiot\. So back to our little "experiments" right out of War World One
propaganda, is it ? Is it Dirlewanger in Warsaw cooking up some soap
bars out of the Jews just because there was a shortage of it, or Prof.
Spanner grinning over his large bubbling caldron out of some comic
As I said, you should be ashamed of yourself -- *at least* for your
human soap peddling\. >>>> Maybe some lampshades and a bathtubload of human legs like they do at
>>>> Nizkor...
>> Hey ! So you won't show us the lampshades and the bathtubload of legs
>> they have got in there, uh ? I knew you didn't have Keren's guts...
> Learn how to read\. Please quote where I have made any claim as to the
> existence of human lampshades\. The best that you can do is to lies bout
> what I have said and hope that no one notices\. You are despicable\. Okay, stop crying and tell me whether you work for Nizkor. That's what
you seem to be implying when you resent what I am saying concerning the
Nizkor galleries of unidentified atrocities and assorted shrunken heads\. >>>> Surely you'll be able to grasp a slight difference of weight in your and
>>>> my evidence.
>>> Yes, you've just engaged in a typical denier tactic that's been exposed
>>> for all to see\. You simply ignore the process of history, what real
>>> historians say, and hope that no one will notice.
>> I like your "real historians". If there is a specialized historical
>> field under its own self-segregated crew of incestuous amateurish
>> "scholars", instead of the usual "real historians", it's the "Holocaust
>> Study" field. When real historians write the truth, my dear fellow, the
>> pages are torn away by the editors, like Springer Verlag did to Nolte.
> In other words, you dismiss the evidence presented by historians
Not at all. I'm saying the "Holocaust Studies" field is *not* in the
hands of historians who know honesty in the matter is not a career
booster\. > and the
> legitimate process of revision 
Please explain what that is. "Experimental" tiny bars of soap instead of
the Industrial RIF Works Conglomerate, is that it ? How about calling
lies by their name ?
> because you don't want to believe it, but
> you have nothing to say except to repeat the soap rumors that we all
> agree are untrue\. Not at all. You at least didn't, a while ago when you recommended the
"soap experiments" URL. That sort of thing is a true litmus test to see
where you stand: whether you keep "experimenting" with human soap or
instead will even remotely ever think of *apologising*\. > You are a typical "revisionist scholar."
Not at all. I just was curious enough to read them, starting with
Faurisson\. >>>> Please note that even though you believe vaporising corpses by burning
>>>> them by the thousands in oxygenless pits full of water in Birkenau makes
>>>> them completely vanish, a *nuclear* explosion over a populated city in
>>>> Japan does not completely vaporize all the ruins and remains...
>>> Please post physical evidence of these ruins\. Where are the bodies?
>>> How come you cannot tell us where the bodies are?
>> Where are the bodies after a city is atomized into rubble, ashes and
>> ruins ? Maybe their destruction is a little more advanced than the ones
>> they took intact from the mythic gas chambers and had to cremate by
>> digging pits and burning them below water, don't you think so ?...
> I see; you can produce no bodies\. Yet, you claim that people were
> killed\. You can present no feasible murder weapon either\. Again idiocy in high gear to avoid the everyday business of having to
deal with truth and falsehood. Read again starting with "Where are..."
And I'm sure you'll agree that an atom bomb is a special instance of
feasible mass murdering weapon that indeed vanishes with the use. If it
was still there, no atomisation would have taken place. How dumb can you
>>>> If only the Americans had thought of this they would have secretly
>>>> dumped the whole city of Hiroshima in one of the Birkenau pits and no
>>>> one would have known. All the Hiroshima victims could well have been
>>>> vanishing into mud pit number 3 behind the big oak near crematory number
>>>> 4, since 100.000 Japanese are no fatter than 100.000 Jews.
>>> OK, so where are the bodies since the Americans did not do this?
>> They didn't really care about collecting all the separate atoms (yup,
>> the "little pieces") of the ones near ground zero, you know, and
>> nevertheless they have burial grounds for the ashes of those that were
>> extricated from the rubble.
> You have no evidence\. So how do you know the Americans didn't do as I said ? (see pit number 3
behind the oak). What's your evidence ? 
>> But how did you know the Americans didn't use the Birkenau pit # 3 ?
>> Don't you believe in the magic mud pit where the vaporization by fire
>> went on ? How about the tooth-fairy ?
>>           ;-)
>> Seriously now. Sometimes you sound like a half-rational being. Why do
>> you insist in this  sort of idiotic diversion ? I find it amusing, but
>> am curious about your motives. Can't you see every reader will think
>> "God, it's true ! The gas chambers are no more than a hoax. And this guy
>> is idiotically splitting scholastic hairs, because HE KNOWS IT TOO !"
>> (And feels no shame ?)
> I have more faith in the rationality of the average reader\. They are
> not all crackpots like you\. The trouble with you is you don't look like most holo-crackpots in
alt.revisionism to me. You have a hypocritical tone and you don't seem
to foam at the corners of the mouth, though you do like to make it sound
as if you did\. I think you know exactly what you are doing: you believe in your gas
chambers rubbish as I believe in flying elephants\. ASMarques

Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): A.S. Marques
Title: Toro! Toro! Toro!
Published: 2003-01-01
First posted on CODOH: Dec. 30, 2002, 6 p.m.
Last revision:
Appears In: