Scrapbookpages Blog

October 4, 2015

Sixty Minutes will feature Holocaust victims on tonight’s show

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — furtherglory @ 1:22 pm

Sixty Minutes will be doing a story on the Holocaust tonight:

http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/2015/10/04/60-minutes-hidden-holocaust/73330360/

Update Oct. 8, 2015:

On the 60 Minutes show on Oct. 4, 2015, the narrator said that 1/2 of the Jews were executed in the forests and ravines in the Soviet Union.  A French Catholic priest, who spoke on the show, said that “it was a total annihilation of the Jews.  This priest did a mission to find the mass graves of the Jews.  He said that the Jews were buried like animals.

On the show, it was mentioned that in Moldava, the bodies are still there.

We were told, on the show, that the Jews were buried alive by the Einsatzgruppen in Lithuania.  The Einsatzgruppen killed Jews and Gypsies, shooting them so as to cause them to fall into a ditch, where the bodies were covered over with dirt.

Throughout the show, no reason for killing the Jews was given.  We were given to believe that the Jews were hated for no reason, and that the Einsatzgruppen were bad Germans who just liked to kill people for no reason whatsoever.

You can read the full story of the Einsatzgruppen on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen

Continue reading my original post.

This quote is from the website, cited in the link above:

They [the Jews] lie in unmarked mass graves throughout the former Soviet Union, forgotten victims of the Holocaust whose stories haven’t been told. Father Patrick Desbois is determined to find them for history and for humanity. The French Catholic priest takes Lara Logan to some of the sites his work has discovered for a 60 Minutes story to be broadcast Sunday, October 4 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Unlike the victims of the gas chambers, whose names were meticulously recorded, victims of these mass killings remain mostly unknown and hidden.

End quote

Where can I find the names of the Jews who were murdered in the gas chambers?  They were meticulously recorded, according to the news story cited above.

32 Comments »

  1. it has no effect whatsoever on either bacteria

    I am not a microbiologist, and so cannot really be sure, but…

    The main purpose of fumigation with HCN was to kill the primary typhus vector — lice. Typhus is spread by lice infected with the bacterium that causes typhus in people — the germ is transmitted when an infected louse bites a human.

    Question: Why can HCN kill organisms as diverse as people and lice? Answer: Because it interferes with the basic process of cellular ‘respiration’ — it disrupts the basic energy metabolism of cells (production of ATP).

    The toxicity is caused by the cyanide ion, which halts cellular respiration by acting as a non-competitive inhibitor for an enzyme in mitochondria called cytochrome c oxidase.

    In eukaryotic cells, cellular respiration takes place in organelles called mitochondria; in prokaryotic cells, eg bacteria, which lack a nucleus and other organelles with membranes (like mitochondria), cellular respiration takes place in the cytoplasm. But in both cases it seems the process is similar, and per above involves the key enzyme cytochrome c oxidase.

    Typhus is any of several similar diseases caused by Rickettsia bacteria. — and ATP production in Rickettsia is the same as that in mitochondria. In fact, of all the microbes known, the Rickettsia is probably the closest relative (in a phylogenetic sense) to the mitochondria.

    So in summary: I would not be at all surprised if HCN also killed Rickettsia — because it halts cellular respiration in the cytoplasm of the bacterium.

    Comment by eah — October 5, 2015 @ 4:09 am

  2. Thanks for letting me know about this, this will give me some thing to watch after football. I never watch 60 Minutes anymore so I didn’t know this was on.

    Comment by HCW — October 4, 2015 @ 3:20 pm

  3. Where can I find the names of the Jews who were murdered in the gas chambers?

    This is what happens when a story is based on falsehoods and outright lies — they cannot keep the narrative straight over time — there is only one truth, but many possible lies — once you start mangling the truth, you have to keep the story consistent — this is the problem with the conventional ‘Holocaust’ story.

    At least the hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews — and I guess many others who arrived and were immediately selected (by Mengele, when he was doing his job and not being careless and letting people like Arek Hersh change lines) for gassing — were supposedly sent immediately to the gas chambers — they were not registered and did not receive tattoos — in fact, this is absolutely essential to the narrative, ie to explain why they disappeared seemingly without a trace — I mean, there is no other possible explanation, right?

    Comment by eah — October 4, 2015 @ 1:40 pm

    • But, what if an esteemed revisionist made a mistake? Does that invalidate all revisionist theories?
      I’d like to point you to the video above. In it, the esteemed Mr. Rizoli made two crucial mistakes.
      First, he said that the Soviets blew up the Krema at Auschwitz. Now, this flies in the face of everything that both revisionists and real historians know about the destruction of the Krema. We all agree the Germans blew them up. Our reasoning may differ but we all agree that this is the accepted version of events. In other words he’s wrong.
      The second is that he said in his video that the Germans used Zyclon B to disinfect corpses. ZB is not a disinfectant, it has no effect whatsoever on either bacteria or viruses. The corpses at Auschwitz were burned, not buried. Again, we all agree that the Germans burned corpses, not disinfect them with ZB. Again, he’s wrong.
      So, what can we conclude from this? Well, Mr. Rizoli said these things but did not provide any proof of this. Now, since any mistake by journalists or real historians can’t possibly be a mistake because of some agenda or because of some conspiracy. They are lying. Because of this, I can’t cut Mr. Rizoli any slack on making mistakes because what is good for the geese is good for the gander. So, I have to conclude he is also lying. Because any lie by any group member is a collective lie I have to cinclude that all revisionists are lying.

      Comment by HCW — October 4, 2015 @ 3:47 pm

      • Sorry, typed goose and spell check changed it to geese. The correct saying is what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
        Now, you could claim I’m lying so:

        https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/what%27s_good_for_the_goose_is_good_for_the_gander

        Comment by HCW — October 4, 2015 @ 4:04 pm

      • There are theories that the Soviets blew up the Krema at Auschwitz. Mr Rizoli probably subscribes to one of them. The German “disinfekt” can be used for the term disinfest (and was used that way during the war). So Mr. Rizoli can be said to have been referring to the German word Disinfekt. I agree with you though, people should use the word delouse (or disinfest) when that is what they mean – even though the Germans used the word disinfekt.

        Comment by blake121666 — October 4, 2015 @ 10:05 pm

      • You wrote that “both revisionists and real historians know about the destruction of the Krema, We all agree the Germans blew them up.” Not ALL revisionists agree that the Germans blew up the gas chambers. That implies that there really were gas chambers, so how could there be any revisionists if the Germans admitted that there were gas chambers.

        I believe that the Soviets blew up the gas chamber buildings, so that they could claim that these buildings were gas chambers. The Krema I gas chamber had been converted into a bomb shelter by the time that the Soviets arrived, so they didn’t know that this building was a gas chamber.

        By the way, I am the person who climbed up on the roof and took the photo of the openings; this was in 1998.

        Comment by furtherglory — October 5, 2015 @ 1:51 pm

        • I use the word “Krema” in a neutral fashion, not gas chambers, morgue or crematorium, so that this encompasses both sides.
          If the Soviets were willing to use the intact camp at Majdanek for propaganda purposes, why would they not do this at Birkenau? Why not alter the Krema to fit their narrative? What’s better, blown up hulks or intact structures they could turn into their own version of a haunted house?
          Also, is there any proof that the Soviets blew up the Krema?
          Finally, I hope everything is good with your family. I’m sorry about your relative.

          Comment by HCW — October 5, 2015 @ 2:00 pm

        • furtherglory: “I believe that the Soviets blew up the gas chamber buildings, so that they could claim that these buildings were gas chambers.”

          Seems very unlikely, as the Soviets first located the fictional homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz at Monowitz (Auschwitz III) and even had SS Judge Konrad Morgen testify to that at Nuremberg.

          On the other hand, reading the September 1944 article “The Five Horror Furnaces at Lublin Annihilation Camp” by Soviet propagandist Konstantin Simonov, and looking at the very graphic Soviet atrocity propaganda of that time (full of pictures of ashes, charred corpses and crematory ovens), should be enough to understand the reason why the Germans were not very willing to leave crematory facilities behind them in those days.

          Comment by hermie — October 6, 2015 @ 6:23 am

          • I have put Konrad Morgen’s testimony about the gas chamber at Monowitz on this page of my website:
            http://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/History/Articles/MonowitzGasChamber.html

            I believe that the real story is that there were DISINFECTION chambers to kill the lice in the clothing of the prisoners at Monowitz. These chambers were called gas chambers, just as they were at Dachau.

            Konrad Morgen might have mistakenly thought that these were homicidal gas chambers, used to kill the workers at Monowitz, just as the American liberators of Dachau thought that the Jews were being killed in the disinfection chambers at Dachau, after they had hung up their clothing on a clothesline outside the chamber.

            Comment by furtherglory — October 6, 2015 @ 7:04 am

            • furtherglory: “I believe that the real story is that there were DISINFECTION chambers to kill the lice in the clothing of the prisoners at Monowitz. […] Konrad Morgen might have mistakenly thought that these were homicidal gas chambers, used to kill the workers at Monowitz”

              No mistake or confusion in Morgen’s words. He was just singing the victors’ narrative (see below) like an obedient trained canari trying to save his own neck. Every classic of the ‘Holocaust’ narrative (the homicidal gas chambers disguised as bathing facilities, the large crematoria to process the corpses, the deluded victims, the secrecy tricks, etc.) was in Morgen’s Nuremberg song. Only the location was wrong with respect to today’s orthodox narrative. And postulating that a man who had investigated many concentration camps was unable to recognize a delousing gas chambers, is quite ridiculous, isn’t it?

              [quote] THE PRESIDENT: Which is the witness talking about when he talks about extermination camps? Which are you talking about? Which do you call extermination camps?
              HERR PELCKMANN: Please answer the question, Witness.
              MORGEN: By extermination camps I mean those which were established exclusively for the extermination of human beings with the use of technical means, such as gas.
              THE PRESIDENT: Which were they?
              MORGEN: Yesterday I described the four camps of the Kriminalkommissar Wirth and referred to the Camp Auschwitz. By “Extermination Camp Auschwitz” I did not mean the concentration camp. It did not exist there. I meant a separate extermination camp near Auschwitz, called “Monowitz.”

              […]

              HERR PELCKMANN: Then you were in Auschwitz proper?
              MORGEN: Yes, I went to Auschwitz, and before I started with the investigation itself …
              THE PRESIDENT: When did you go there?
              MORGEN: I cannot give the date exactly, but it must have been the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944.
              HERR PELCKMANN: The method of extermination there was probably similar to the one you described yesterday?
              MORGEN: I thoroughly investigated the entire stretch of territory and studied the layout and installations. The prisoners arrived on a side track in closed transport cars and were unloaded there by Jewish prisoners. Then they were segregated into* able-bodied and disabled, and here already the methods of Hoess and Wirth differ. The separation of the disabled was done in a fairly simple way. Next to the place of the unloading there were several trucks and the doctor gave the arrivals the choice to use these trucks. He said that only sick, old persons and women with children, were allowed to use them. Thereupon these persons swarmed toward the transportation prepared for their use, and then he needed only to hold back the prisoners that he did not want to send to destruction. These trucks drove off, but they did not drive to the Concentration Camp Auschwitz, but in another direction to the Extermination Camp Monowitz, which was a few kilometers away. This extermination camp consisted of a number of crematories which were not recognizable as such from the outside. They could have been taken for large bathing establishments, and that is what they told the prisoners. These crematories were surrounded by a barbed wire fence and were guarded from the inside by the Jewish labor details which I have already mentioned. The new arrivals were led into a large dressing room and told to take their clothing off. When this was done …
              HERR PELCKMANN: Is that not what you described yesterday?
              MORGEN: Of course,
              HERR PELCKMANN: What precautions were taken to keep these things absolutely secret?
              MORGEN: The prisoners who marched off to the concentration camp had no inkling of where the other prisoners were taken. The Extermination Camp Monowitz lay far away from the concentration camp. It was situated on an extensive industrial site and was not recognizable as such and everywhere on the horizon there were smoking chimneys. The camp itself was guarded on the outside by special troops of men from the Baltic, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, and also Ukrainians. The entire technical arrangement was almost exclusively in the hands of the prisoners who were assigned for this job and they were only supervised each time by an Unterfuehrer. The actual killing was done by another Unterf-i1hrer who let the gas into this room. Thus the number of those who knew about these things was extremely limited. This circle had to take a special oath…
              [end quote]

              furtherglory: “just as the American liberators of Dachau thought that the Jews were being killed in the disinfection chambers at Dachau”

              No mistake either. In their movie, the U.S. propagandists didn’t mistakenly show the door of a delousing gas chamber and the interior of another room (the alleged homicidal gas chamber), implying that that impressive door was the door of the Dachau ‘gas chamber’. That was a deliberate deception. If they had really thought that some people had been gassed to death in the Dachau delousing chambers, the U.S. propagandists would of course have shown the interior of those chambers in their propaganda movie, what they conveniently ‘forgot’ to do. I know that many people hate the idea that they’ve been deceived by their own government. But this is no reason to reject the obvious conclusion of the American deception at Dachau.

              Comment by hermie — October 6, 2015 @ 8:46 am

              • Unfortunately you didn’t mention the fact that Morgen’s captors beat him (twice) when he refused to confirm the “human skin lampshades.” He also testified under oath (like Hoess) that the horrendous conditions of the camp were due to allied bombing, not to the inherent cruelty of the camp SS. Doesn’t sound like a canary to me. Seems to me he would have said anything if he was a canary.

                Comment by HCW — October 8, 2015 @ 5:46 pm

                • HCW: “He also testified under oath (like Hoess) that the horrendous conditions of the camp were due to allied bombing, not to the inherent cruelty of the camp SS. Doesn’t sound like a canary to me.”

                  Sounds like a canary singing the song of talented & experienced liars trying to credit their story with real stuff. The best lies are always a clever combination of real things, plain lies and distortions, all highly intermingled so that it’s very hard to distinguish facts from fiction. A narrative 100% dark would have been too unbelievable. Experienced liars knew that…

                  Comment by hermie — October 9, 2015 @ 9:26 am

                • Sounds like guesswork, Hermie.
                  Morgen was a brave man. He investigated the most powerful institution in the Reich, the SS, successfully prosecuting camp commanders. He endured beatings by his captors. Where in this man’s makeup that indicates anyone could make him lie about anything?

                  Comment by HCW — October 9, 2015 @ 10:53 am

                • Just basic propaganda. On March 28, 1933, when Zionist atrocity propaganda on Nazi Germany was already running fast, British ambassador in Berlin Sir H. Rumbold wrote in a report about “recent persecution in Germany of Jews and other persons”:

                  “As in the case of the “war atrocities” in Flanders [during WW1], falsehood and truth have already become so intermixed that it is impossible to disentangle them”

                  What is the source of Morgen’s alleged refusal to confess the human skin lampshades under torture? Sounds like subsequent damage control of his “Monowitz extermination camp” testimony.

                  Comment by hermie — October 9, 2015 @ 8:49 pm

                • Well, as far as Morgenstern being tortured I have this:
                  http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Morgen/MorgenToland.html
                  http://content.wow.com/wiki/Georg_Konrad_Morgen

                  Comment by HCW — October 10, 2015 @ 3:10 pm

                • So the source is Morgen’s words (as I had assumed) in 1971, i.e. 7 years after testifying at the Frankfurt Auschwitz ‘trial’ that the Auschwitz gas chambers were at Birkenau not Monowitz and 25 years after testifying at the Nuremberg ‘trial’ that the Auschwitz gas chambers were at Monowitz not Birkenau. As I said earlier, this sounds like damage control of his “Monowitz extermination camp” testimony at Nuremberg, a kind of “History books must record my words at Frankfurt not my words at Nuremberg”. Fishy…

                  Comment by hermie — October 10, 2015 @ 8:52 pm

              • I’m surprised by your attitude. I would think you would jump all over the fact that Morgen was tortured.

                Comment by HCW — October 11, 2015 @ 1:38 am

                • I didn’t deny that Morgen and other ‘Nazis’ were very probably tortured, threatened and pressured by various means. I just don’t give any probative value to testimonies in one direction or another. I don’t regard the testimonies convenient for my point as probative and the ones inconvenient for it as non-probative. For me, any testimony is a mere series of words without any intrinsic probative value. My evidential standards are invariable.

                  Comment by hermie — October 11, 2015 @ 5:40 am

                • I wrote about Konrad Morgen in several blog posts. I included the tag “Konrad Morgen” so that you can read all my blog posts about him at https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/dr-konrad-morgen/

                  Comment by furtherglory — October 11, 2015 @ 10:19 am

      • HCW: “both revisionists and real historians”

        Quite funny wording to call “real historians” some guys whose job is mainly to compile extravagant horror stories and gossips, by deleting the most embarrassing parts, in books, and to get awards for that.

        Calling them “academic historians” or “orthodox historians” even sounds like a very generous name for such clowns…

        Comment by hermie — October 6, 2015 @ 6:38 am

        • Kudos to you. You are the only one to pick up that I said that. I was wondering if/when someone would say anything, I did it deliberately.

          Comment by HCW — October 7, 2015 @ 4:47 am

          • Glad I didn’t disappoint you and your expectations…

            Comment by hermie — October 7, 2015 @ 6:44 am

            • You never disappoint, Hermie.

              Comment by HCW — October 7, 2015 @ 9:05 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: