The letter below is self-explanatory:
This is being sent as a letter to Irving's site and blind-mailed to others as well. If anyone else wants to use it, please do. I think it's important to keep insisting on the "show me the holes" line.
************************
Letter to David Irving's site:
Tom Segev's article on David Irving in Ha'aretz (February 4) is a very clear instance of cunning distortion. It deserves to be quoted as the quintessential example of the worst kind of dishonest journalism, the kind of inaccurate reporting that carefully suggests the unqualified lie and leaves it floating between the lines.
Those who go to the trouble of carefully reading this sort of trash, may have noticed that Segev attempts to look superficially moderate and objective. He even suggests that Irving assumed that "we were there in order to get him to say terrible things" implying, of course, that they were there simply for accurate reporting.
Well, the careless reader that puts his confidence in Segev's promises and doesn't go directly to the trial transcripts available on the Internet will have been duly informed that Irving practically rests his "Holocaust" case on the assumption that there are no roof holes marked in the plans of the main morgue -- supposedly also functioning as a Zyklon B mass slaughterhouse -- designed by the Germans for crematory II in Birkenau. Here is Segev on the subject, according to the English text given on Irving's site:
"But what interested him more than anything else were the holes that were supposed to be in the ceiling of the chambers, which were ostensibly used for introducing the poison gas. No holes were marked on the plans displayed by the defense witness. Perhaps these were not suffocation chambers, but rather shelters to protect from aerial bombing, suggested Irving, and dramatically promised to withdraw his libel suit if he could only be shown the holes. Where are the holes, he asked again and again. "We had so much fun that day," he said later, because it turned out that there were no holes. But the media, of course, did not report that, Irving complained, and informed Internet surfers that Rudolf Hess' son was also infuriated about the gap between the protocols he reads and the media reports."
Well, now that the media has reported the absence of holes in the plans of the crematory morgue, where no one in the courtroom was able to find them -- according to Tom Segev who happily was there simply to provide us with the truth -- can Irving honestly complain?
My suggestion to anyone wishing to know, is a very simple one: don't trouble yourself reading the lying newspapers. Go directly to the trial transcripts and search for the word "holes." No doubt, you'll be shocked to learn that what Irving insisted on, over and over and in an unambiguous way, was not the absence of the holes in the plans, but in the real roof that pancaked down and is still there in its original Birkenau location, as indeed everybody agrees. Segev doesn't inform his readers that this absence of real holes in the material roof, and not the absence of conceptual holes in the plans, was what Irving was resting his case on. This is perfectly clear to anyone following the trial, even if he is daily sleepwalking is way into court. It's an extremely important part of Irving's "educated doubts" case.
Neither does Segev care to inform his readers that Robert van Pelt, reputed to be the most pro-eminent expert on the gas chamber "Holocaust" and apparently also an architecture professor, actually claimed, as a tentative explanation for the mystery of the disappearing holes, that the Germans might well have filled the holes in the reinforced concrete slab that constituted the roof, before dynamiting it and making it pancake down on the floor. An expertise of the existing roof would in all probability reveal this absurd last-ditch trick of the perfidious Germans conceivably designed to fool the future generations, but it's Irving, not van Pelt who keeps asking for such an expertise! Van Pelt is too occupied with things like the "epistemological status" (sic) of the "Holocaust" to actually admit that it might be a good idea to go there and look for any evidence that the holes were tampered with before the dynamiting of the roof.
So, what the good professor van Pelt apparently has to tell us about the famous roof holes central to the "Holocaust" story, is this:
1) The ones that can be seen today in the Auschwitz main camp crematory -- and indeed are shown to all the tourists that go there as the real stuff in pristine condition -- are a post-war reconstruction of the holes that were originally opened on the roof, subsequentelly filled up by the Germans and finally re-opened for the tourist's benefit by the communist authorities of the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. Therefore, a clever secret reconstruction, not a fraud.
2) The ones that cannot be seen in the roof that still exists in the ruins of Birkenau crematory II -- and whose absence is indeed hidden from the tourists that go there -- may or may not have been filled up by the Germans prior to dynamiting the whole thing, but anyway the matter is not relevant to the "epistemological status" of the gas chamber itself and doesn't deserve an expert investigation. Therefore, a clever philosophical problem, not a fraud.
It appears, therefore, that the existing holes that can be found are false and the non-existing holes that cannot be found are true. Fascinatingly complex stuff, impossible to find in any known historical event other than the "Holocaust" or in any known forensic investigation of any other mass-murder site.
Also very interesting in context, when one thinks that the Germans had the devilish idea of intentionally murdering scores of people with the same Zyklon B product used to stamp out the typhus epidemics that kept killing them, and went so far as doing both things at once and building murdering crematories that van Pelt and his associates agree were built (and used) to avoid higher epidemics casualties, as well as murdering people wholesale. This is no real news. As soon as revisionists started spreading the rumour that the supposed gas chamber cellars were labelled as morgues in the original plans, it became official that the crematories of Auschwitz-Birkenau had in fact been the simultaneous instruments of mass murder and mass life-preservation, contrary to the exclusive role that had been assumed before.
But is it possible that Segev actually managed to misunderstood both Irving and van Pelt? Could it be that he thought they were talking about the Germans digging and filling holes in the paper sheets of the original plans and then blowing the paper sheets up with dynamite?
No, the absence of holes in the plans is not physical evidence of anything, but the absence of holes in the reinforced concrete of the roof is indeed physical evidence of the first magnitude, with proof value even, and Segev knows this all too well. Hence the unavoidable need to lie and distort, as he clearly does without the slightest visible regret.
Segev is perfectly aware of the importance of the "no holes" claim. It has been aptly sub-summed by prof. Robert Faurisson in the "no holes, no Holocaust" slogan, meaning, naturally, the industrial gas chamber slaughterhouse "Holocaust" that requires the holes. The short slogan was devised to catch people's attention over and above the lying and distorting media and to fight the extraordinary legislation that outlaws truth in historiography in Faurisson's native France and many other European countries. It has been well-known to revisionists for quite a while. It's not a simplification; it's the hard truth that everybody will have to face sooner or later. It's the litmus test of the fantasy "Holocaust" that has poisoned the whole World for the past half-century.
Segev knows this so well that he even goes so far as to title his long article "Where are all their holes?" Then he falsifies what went on in the courtroom and gives us the innocuous "conceptual holes in the plans" tale instead. This cannot possibly be a simple lapse; it's straightforward, intentional, meaningful distortion. He should be ashamed of the rubbish he is feeding his readers.
A.S.Marques
Lisbon, Portugal
Thought for the Day:
Victory does not depend upon an English judge even if in favor of Irving."
(Letter to the Zundelsite)