Where do you get the info from that "anemia and malnourishment etc." inhibits redness of corpses.
From the Holocaust Controversies critique of Mattogno, Graff and Kues . There is a chapter on corpse colour. If you can't be bothered to read it then i'll let you know the sources - Bernard Knight, Forensic Pathology (New York, Oxford University 1991) and Myron Winick - Hunger Disease, Studies by the Jewish physicians in the Warsaw ghetto (New York, Wiley 1979).
Redness occurs prior to death and so would obviously also be visible from then on to immediately after death and presumably for days after.
So how are you going to see a body with red colouring if its buried in a grave with a covering of sand or chlorine? How do we know the deaths were from carbon monoxide anyway? According to your mate Pfannenstiel he saw blue tinges to the facial area and testified it was due to suffocation. And who were the eye witnesses who survived who actually saw the bodies between death and thrown in a grave, cos they would be the best witnesses to rely on, and if I remember correctly there's hardly any.
You are forgetting Pfannensteil
who met and corresponded with Rassinier. He denied Gerstein's report AND involvement in mass gassings in a policy of genocide of ALL Jews in Europe. Pfannensteil also is evidence for why accused perpetrators didn't "continue to tell all who were willing to listen, especially [revisionists]".
He had gone through years of imprisonment, interrogations, release, re-arrest and re-imprisonment, trials and harrassment. He had a family of five children. He didn't want more trouble for either himself or his family.
Really, so how long did Pfannenstiel spend at the AR camps ? And how would he know about any 'policy' ? What did he say about the role of Belzec as a transit camp then? Considering he knew about policy . He would have been the ideal person to tell Rassinier where the Jews were transited to.
Pfannensteil was charged in two cases but after giving testimony that didn't contradict the holocaust narrative created by the victors, he curiously was never convicted for his supposed involvement in it. That appears to me to be an indication of plea bargaining. In the court-room statements, which are available to us, he never directly disputed Gerstein's account, but in a private letter to Rassinier he described the Gerstein testimony as "highly dubious rubbish in which 'fantasy' far outweighs fact." He also wrote that due to the persecution and slander to which he was exposed, he did not wish to comment further on the matter publicly.
Its already been ascertained that Gerstein told independent witnesses about the gassings. in 1942 I believe. That's enough evidence thankyou very much.
Look what happened to Stäglich.
Look what happened to Thies Christophersen. And Christophersen related how many SS personnel confirmed to him privately that there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz but after torture and years of imprisonment they weren't prepared to risk their liberty and lives by stating so publically. Christophersen did do that, and he was treated abominably for it. Are you really in denial of all this coercion and pressure upon them to keep quiet about what really happened?
What were the names of the SS who told Christophersen there were no gassings? What torture was being done in Germany during the course of the trials in Germany? Christophersen was a bullshitter and an unreliable witness, it appears unlikely if he even went to Birkenau!!
So what has stopped the perpetrators meeting with Staglich so he could pass on his info to deniers in Britain and USA ??? What stopped the perpetrators writing down a confession with instructions to only open on death and for his family to innocently pass this confession on to a denier in the USA or Britain?
If you was a Nazi wrongly accused of genocide, would you confide in anybone what the truth was? I mean family and friends? Cos I fuckin would, and I'd make sure everyone knew about it after my death (if I was worried about 'hassle') . Id write it all down and made sure the IHR received it. The family can easily act innocent, not as though the Germans would do anything to them anyway
And as for the credibility of the "mysterious guest" to Rassinier, who confirmed a one-off gassing, his account did not convince Rassinier who repeatedly pointed out it defied scientific possibility. And even then it was of a one-off "wild" occurrence, not a co-ordinated, planned policy of genocide.
Plus we have this about him:
In l986, I asked the historian's widow Madame Rassinier herself about this "mysterious guest". Basically, our conversation went as follows:
H.R.: Do you remember a visit to Asnières by a German in 1963? He confirmed to your husband a gassing at Belzec camp, where he was with Gerstein in 1942.
Mrs. Rassinier: I remember it very well. When this unknown entered, I felt as though evil vibrations spread throughout the apartment. Paul was troubled. He talked to me several times about this visit.
I cant remember Rassinier 'not been convinced' , the only sticking point with him was the diesel engine, and the guest could have been mistaken like a lot of the other witnesses. So, 'Paul was troubled' - yeah probably cos he had just encountered someone who admitted gassings were being carried out. Whether he was right to say they were 'one-offs' cannot be confirmed if his details have been withheld, how do we know how long he was in Belzec for? what was his role? Too many questions I'm afraid.