It is instructive that Fritz calls the West-German investigations into the paramilitary units employing homicidal gas vans as "sham" although he knows next to nothing about these.Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:When holocaut hoaxers like Hans get into trouble, as in this "debate," they sometimes speak of a "convergence of evidence." All they really have is a "convergence of extremely shoddy evidence"--which falls apart as soon as one understands what was really going on, generally--at the same time.
During the German show trials in the 1960's from where Hans took much of his "evidence," did the existence of producer gas vehicles come up anywhere? I doubt it--in large part because few people even knew or remembered that special wartime technology. Did any defense attorney even think of mentioning it as a possible alternative explanation for what prosecutors were claiming? I doubt it. Those proceedings were a terrible sham. Judge Wilhelm Staeglich wrote a superb book--Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence--about just how the defendants were framed--but anyone familiar with criminal proceedings, even in the nearly perfect USA, knows full well how easily plea deals are made ALL THE TIME, every day, to get useful but false testimony from people--even against their will, even without any overt physical torture.
The claims of homicidal gas vans were made by numerous German witnesses themselves. The simple fact that none of the Germans has described something resembling the producer gas setup allows to safely rule out that they were confusing or forced into confusing producer gas vehicles for homicidal gas vans.
Stäglich's book on the Auschwitz trial cited by Fritz hailed did not show "how the defendants were framed" and offers only unfounded as well as false speculations on a different trial. Stäglich does neither refute nor reasonably explain the massive evidence on homicidal gassings in Auschwitz obtained at the Auschwitz trial:
For instance, Stäglich speculates on the defendant Hofmann that he admitted gassings in Auschwitz at the trial because his other case on murder in Dachau, where he was already convicted to life sentence, had been reopened. However, Hofmann admitted homicidal gassings already at his interrogation of 22 April 1959 and his participation in gassings in his interrogation of 3 March 1960. At this time, his Dachau case was not even finished (19 December 1961) let aside reopened (11 March 1964). Therefore, this motive Stäglich attributed to Hofmann is purely fictional. And he did not show that Hofmann gave a false testimony on homicidal gassings to begin with.
To make this long story short: Since Fritz failed to demonstrate that the Germans would not combust gasoline for their homicidal gas vans (see also my previous rebuttal here), he did not show that the perpetrators gave false testimony to West-German investigators and therefore has offered nothing specific to raise doubts on these testimonies.Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:Not that long ago, people were prosecuted for "conspiring with the Devil." Just imagine a case being made for flying from Boston to Salem on the coattails of the Devil himself--in just minutes based, of course, on "credible eyewitness testimony." The case might be convincing to a host of ordinary jurors--until one learns that a commuter airline was available to carry everyone w-i-t-h-o-u-t any supernatural help. That would in itself be NO PROOF that the Devil was not involved--but it would, I dare say, have blown the prosecution's case out the window. To insist as Holocaust hoaxers do that during WW2 the Germans burned precious gasoline--a strategic commodity of enormous importance, especially to resource-starved Germany--just to make carbon monoxide for mass murder--is one of those incredibly stupid ideas that fails when one learns that the same resource-starved Germans made vast quantities of carbon monoxide directly from woodchips--that were almost as cheap as dirt, and available almost anywhere and everywhere.