>Conclusion: Contrary to the assertions of
>both Leuchter and Rudolf, the
>presence of blue staining on
>the walls of the delousing
>chambers and its absence on
>the ruins of the homicidal
>gas chambers does not speak
>against the latter having been
>exposed to significant quantities of
>HCN.
1. On what grounds can it be stated that the Cracow group found "significant quantities" of HCN in the alleged gas chambers. From what I could tell, no judgement was made as to the amount of cyanide that should have been there considering the gassings purported. The conclusion reached was that both chambers had traces of the unstable HCN in similar amounts -- not that the amount discovered would cover the purported events. Absent the Prussian Blue element, the remaining unstable HCN elements in the delousing and alleged homicidal gas chambers measured close to the same, but still minuscule. What evidence exists that the amounts found would correspond with the purported use? Having found minuscule cyanide traces in both delousing and "homicidal" chambers, while reporting their control samples had none, the Cracow group then jumps to the conclusion that this finding represents a validation of the orthodox history. The Cracow group ignored the Prussian Blue element because the descrepancies revealed by it do not conform with the standard history.
2. The poster's speculation that "most of the HCN" would be absorbed "by the lungs of the fast-breathing victims" is, IMO, unfounded -- the gas is said to kill almost instantaneously and only a very few breaths could be taken before a human would succumb. Also, not to forget, it would take some time for the pellets to vaporize throughout the chamber, a phenomenon which certain "eyewitnesses" apparently failed to factor into their accounts, which have the alleged victims all deceased within 5-7 minutes.
3. It can be noted that the obscure Cracow Institute was hired by the self-interested Auschwitz Museum to do tests which it hoped would refute Leuchter and Rudolf. However, the museum was not confident of the results and did not want to publicize a result in contradiction to the orthodox story, therefore the study was not announced ahead of time. Combine this with the fact that the Cracow group found it necessary to make political pronouncements in a scientific study, and one can understand why Germar Rudolf is suspicious that the Cracow group adopted a questionable measurement technique in order to arrive at a bogus conclusion.
Below is an excerpt of correspondence between Germar Rudolf and the Cracow Institute in which Rudolf calls for independent testing of the Cracow group's samples and also takes them to task for involving politics with science. Crakow replies that the cyanide issue has not been completely determined, and that their work would continue -- but that is apparently the last we have heard from them:
From a letter from Germar Rudolf to Cracow Institue 25.1.95
....
Unfortunately the three Polish authors do not mention which expressions in my article displeased them. Probably this relates to the suspicion of scientific deception. If the three Polish authors should be ready to subject their old samples or newly-taken samples to analysis for total cyanide content by
the DIN procedure and to present the results I will gladly retract this suspicion. The explanations they have offered for their analytic method so far are not satisfactory.
If we are to discuss disagreeable expressions I would like to raise a point that I was ready to let pass, but due to the reproaches of the Polish researchers should now be addressed:
In their article the three Polish authors impute to the Revisionists the desire to white-wash the Hitler system. I have the following comments:
- Scientists should interest themselves with the scientific arguments of other scientists and not their possible intentions. That applies even between established science and Revisionism.
- Regardless of whatever intentions whatever Revisionist may have: The suggestion of presumed intentions does not weaken one single technical argument of Revisionists and therefore has
Unfortunately the three Polish authors do not mention which expressions in my article displeased them. Probably this relates to the suspicion of scientific deception. If the three Polish authors should be ready to subject their old samples or newly-taken samples to analysis for total cyanide content by
the DIN procedure and to present the results I will gladly retract this suspicion. The explanations they have offered for their analytic method so far are not satisfactory.
If we are to discuss disagreeable expressions I would like to raise a point that I was ready to let pass, but due to the reproaches of the Polish researchers should now be addressed:
In their article the three Polish authors impute to the Revisionists the desire to white-wash the Hitler system. I have the following comments:
- Scientists should interest themselves with the scientific arguments of other scientists and not their
possible intentions. That applies even between established science and Revisionism.
- Regardless of whatever intentions whatever Revisionist may have: The suggestion of presumed intentions does not weaken one single technical argument of Revisionists and therefore has no place in a technical publication.
- Whatever the outcome of the controversy over Revisionism may be, the scientist should interest himself only with the truth and not with the effect that Adolf Hitler or anybody else may have on the political-moral purity of the West.
- Whoever imputes a political intention in the research of his scientific counterpart, which he does not bother to prove, suggests to the reader that this scientific counterpart wants merely to produce wished-for results and should not be taken seriously as a scientist. In this way we leave the area of
scientific argumentation and enter the area of political agitation.
- The assertion that all Revisionists want to white-wash the Hitler regime fails. Neither the founder of Revisionism, Paul Rassinier, a former member of the French resistance who was held by the
National Socialists in several concentration camps, nor Dr. Robert Faurisson, who was once involved in the political left, nor Serge Thion nor the american Jew David Cole, to mention only a
few, want to white-wash the Hitler regime. The same applies to me.
- He who stays in a glass house should not throw stones.
Jan Sehn Institute Cracow
Fax to G. Rudolf, 28.3.95, 12:45 hours
Honored Sir!
In consideration of the foregoing correspondence, we would like to state that we have been and are completely aware that in our researches on the structures of the former Konzentrationslager
Auschwitz-Birkenau the cyanide content was not completely determined. Especially we have excluded the disputed Prussian blue (chemical formulas are more complicated). However the
presence of other cyanide compounds than Prussian blue which we have found in structures in which - it is claimed - Zyklon B was used shows clearly that these structures had been in contact with these compounds. That is the point of our work.
The work we have begun will be continued.
We found the expressions on the Revisionists in publications that we cited (Amoklauf ... J. C. Pressac). They were necessary for the Polish reader because this topic is completely unknown
among us. Without this information the purpose of our research would not be understood.
With friendly greetings
To Messrs. Markiewicz, Gubala and Labedz
G. Rudolf, 7.4.1995
First, many thanks for your brief answer of 28.3 to my last letter. Let me comment on the points discussed:
You write that the expressions that you have taken from Exterminationist publications on the Revisionists were necessary to enable the Polish reader to understand the purpose of your work. According to this, the purpose of your research is to combat the presumed tendency of Revisionists to white-wash the Hitler system. You also want to prevent that the onus on the Hitler system might be mitigated by certain research results. This is not a scientific intention, but solely a political one. I
would like to remind you that you as a researcher have an interest in finding the best-possible approach to the truth and not in blaming or lifting the blame from some long-ago disappeared
system. In our time it has become a ritual to declaim the nastiness and evil of the Hitler regime over and over and to damn up one side and down the other anything that would make it less so. That does not alter the fact that this is a seriously unscientific mode of operation. If science determines that
the Hitler regime is not culpable in a particular point, one should have to accept it even though one might disapprove on political grounds.
I am particularly amazed that you would pretend that the blanket political suspicions and vilifications to which the Exterminationists expose Revisionists are "information" necessary for the Polish reader. When you write a scientific article on a theme you should be capable of distinguishing between scientific arguments and political demagogy. The latter does not belong in a scientific piece.
If you should wish to enlighten the uninformed Polish reader on this topic it would have been better, for example, to discuss the following points for him, so that he could understand the problem of
detection of cyanide in masonry:
1. From the '20's of this century Zyklon B was the most often used insecticide against all kinds of pests (lice, bedbugs, corn beetles, wood-borers).
2. In the 2nd World War Germany and her allies consumed many thousands of tons of Zyklon B in order to combat these pests in military as well as civilian facilities (pest control in barracks, food storage areas, ships, trains, prisoner-of-war camps, work camps and concentration camps).
3. In KZ Auschwitz devastating typhus plagues occurred often. This disease is carried by the louse. To combat the louse the prisoners' barracks and all other habitable places in Auschwitz as well as all prisoner's belongings including their clothing were repeatedly deloused with Zyklon B.
4. The Auschwitz Lager, the only one in which it is claimed that there was mass killing with Zyklon B, did not receive markedly more Zyklon B relative to its size than other camps. The established research takes that to mean that even here 95% to 98% of all Zyklon B deliveries were used for
harmless delousing purposes.
5. In Auschwitz the SS spent many million Reichsmarks (many millions of DM by today's values) to erect up-to-date facilities for pest-control and prevention of epidemics - unfortunately first in 1943, so that the previously devastating typhus plagues claimed tens of thousands of victims.
This basic knowledge is absolutely necessary for the reader in order that he can correctly evaluate the significance of Zyklon B. Today all we hear about this agent is that in Auschwitz it was
exclusively or principally used for killing people. Naturally, viewed from this distorted angle the detection of small traces of cyanide in the morgue-cellar 1st of crematorium 2nd in
Auschwitz-Birkenau, the supposed gas-chamber - which I have found not to be reproducible -, is taken as evidence that people were killed there.
It is a fact that even with the Exterminationist premise of a 98% use of Zyklon B for pest control there is a probability of just 98% that the traces of cyanide that we find today come from simple pest control operations - apart from any quantitative considerations that I will not review here. The use of
Zyklon B in Auschwitz does not in itself signify killing of people, although you have portrayed it that way in your article....
Link to Germar Rudolf on Cracow methodology:
http://vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
CODOH BBS2 (Protected)
