Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter explicitly states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!

Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz

Postby astro3 » Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:07 pm

Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz

The 1988 ‘Leuchter Report’ published a list of cyanide measurements taken from several Auschwitz labour-camp walls [1]. Its text did not comment upon them however and they were merely summarised in a graph. Cyanide was measurable in 14 out of 35 of these samples (by Alpha laboratories), the rest being below the threshold of detection, one part per million (i.e., 1 mg cyanide per kilogram of wall). Then, in 1997, a Mr Desjardins retraced Leuchter’s steps, and he ascertained, or claimed, that ten of these samples had come from sheltered, unexposed locations [2]. Of these, seven had measurable levels of cyanide. Comparing the two mean values of Leuchter’s data, grouped according to Desjardin’s information, including only those of measurable value, gives us:

Indoor, sheltered walls: 2.7 ppm (n=7) Leuchter’s Data
Exposed, unsheltered walls 2.8 ppm (n=7)


showing no significant difference. This throws light on the question as to whether decades of weathering have removed cyanide from the walls, as was alleged in certain quarters. Clearly, it hasn’t. This is totally crucial.

When Germar Rudolf published the data, he specified the location of Leuchter’s samples. [3] This indicated that 15 of them in total had come from the alleged homicidal gas chambers, AHGCs, of Kremas I and II. (The ‘allegation’ here, is that, as Pressac decribed [4], what were the morgues of these crematoria came to be utilised as human gas chambers). Six of these were measurable and had come from Krema II. Taking only those samples whose cyanide levels were measurable, we obtain these mean values:

AHGC walls: 2.9 ± 2.4 ppm (n=6) Leuchter’s Data
Others: 2.6 ± 1.8 ppm (n=8)


Again, little difference is evident, suggesting that the AHGCs never functioned as gas chambers. Mr Desjardins, however, concluded from his inspection that only two of the Leuchter samples ‘were actually removed from locations currently designated as ‘gas chambers,’’ namely Leuchter’s samples 20 and 24. All the others, Desjardins viewed as taken from other, ordinary rooms. One is puzzled as to how his and Rudolf’s judgements could so diverge, concerning the sources of Leuchter’s data.

Germar Rudolf in 1991 took some comparable samples, analysed by the Fresenius Institute using a comparable procedure. [5] The samples were boiled with hydrochloric acid to drive out the cyanide gas, forming ferric chloride. The method measured cyanide down to 0.1 – 0.2 ppm in the mortar and obtained measurable values for all of his samples, a great improvement [6]. He found significantly higher levels in the AHGCs:

AHGC walls 4.8 ± 3 ppm (n=3) Rudolf’s Data
Others: 0.7± 0.9 ppm (n=6)


It is a testimony to Rudolf’s integrity (if perchance anyone were disposed to doubt it) that he has here reported a result which he might have preferred not to have found, whereby the alleged gas-chamber wall has higher cyanide than his controls.

The beauty of Rudolf’s investigation lay in his de-lousing chamber measurements, which can be divided into those from the outside wall and those from inside:

De-lousing room, inside: 5670 ± 3900 ppm (n=9) Rudolf’s Data
outside: 3750 ± 3600 ppm (n=4) [7]


This indicates that weathering has not greatly removed the large quantities of iron cyanide, bonded firmly within the wall – right through the wall! This data is so important, because Leuchter had only managed to take one single sample of de-lousing chamber wall [8] If Rudolf’s measuring both inside and outside walls of the de-lousing chamber is the strong point of his investigation, its weakness lay in his having taken only three samples from the AHGC: these are so different (7.2, 0.6 and 6.7 ppm) that they give little idea of this key parameter [9].

The Polish survey (Markiewicz et. al.) obtained much lower cyanide measurements because it used a different method. The samples were put in 10% sulphuric acid for 24 hours, thereby driving off the cyanide as before. But cyanide bonded to iron was not liberated by the Polish method: it ‘excludes the possibility of the decomposition of the relatively permanent Prussian blue, whose origin is unclear in many parts of the structures under investigation,’ and therefore ‘The real level of total cyanide compounds could therefore be higher than shown by our analysis’ [10] – the point of this has not been clear to a lot of people. Comparing three of their results:

AHGC walls, Krema I: 0.07 ± 0.1 ppm (n=7) Markiewicz et al data
Krema II: 0.16 ± 0.2 ppm (n=7) [11]
Krema III: 0.03 ± 0.02 ppm (n=7)


(A different colour is here used because this data is not measuring the same cyanide as the earlier investigations: it is not comparable to them). Krema II is said to be more intact than the other two [12] and thereby more protected from the elements, so its higher value here could suggest that the non iron-bonded cyanide has tended to be washed out by acid rain over the decades. That may be, I suggest, the only conclusion that can be drawn from their data. The Polish group claimed that their method could measure down to 2-3 parts per billion [13]. For their ‘control’ they took eight samples from three different residential blocks, and thereby obtained (or at least published) consistently zero values. This strains credulity, and prevents any real conclusions from being drawn from their work [14].

The large standard deviations here, comparable to the means, indicate the wide scatter in these results, which is why at least six or seven samples were required per site. It suggests that the cyanide remains are quite localised, depending perhaps on iron in the brickwork? It seems to be mainly the mortar rather then the brick where it is stored. In Rudolf’s data from the delousing chamber we likewise see a comparably large scatter.

None of these samplings are at a standard publishable in a science journal [15]. For scientists to believe a chemical result, it does need to be published in a science journal, which means that it will have been peer-reviewed. A strong if not fairly conclusive argument might well exist from these cyanide-in-wall measurements, so it should be worth making the effort. Measurements made to one part per million are here inadequate, this being too near the ‘control’ values. There are roughly three different kinds of data which need to be compared, and each requires its own ‘control,’ i.e. sample of nearby brickwork. (1) A building where HCN fumigation has been performed to kill bugs, some decades ago, eg a church or farmhouse; [16] (2) walls of de-lousing chambers at Auschwitz (those at Kremas I and II are generally alluded to as BW 5a and 5b); (3) the AHGCs, preferably near to where Rudolf and Leuchter have sampled. This last group could subdivide into the two ‘Krema’ buildings I and II where, respectively, Leuchter and Rudolf sampled, as they found slightly differing results. [17]

Iron-bonded cyanide in the walls appears as being the best memory which the human race now has concerning where cyanide gas was or was not once used at Auschwitz, whether lethally or not. It may be the essential guide to the achieving of a collective agreement upon the Big Question. The response of just putting the chemist in jail cannot be adequate. One needs a re-analysis that measures both CN- bonded to iron (Leuchter, Rudolf and Ball [18]) and that not so bonded (Marciewicz et al), as well as, preferably, both ferrous and ferric iron and the Ph level (acid-alkali) of the samples. Whether or not the Prussian blue colouration appears in walls may not have a very central significance. The Polish survey only took one or two gram samples: let’s be clear that modern microanalytical techniques are not invasive and are hardly going to damage any property. A replication should focus upon the two morgues (i.e., alleged gas chambers) and the disinfestations chambers of Kremas I and II to compare with the earlier data.

For a summary by David Cole of cyanide, and the blue colouration of iron cyanide in the various walls, see: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=599

References
1. Leuchter’s Table: www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/rep ... ppend1.jpg
2. Desjardins: www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nddd/ndddstern.html
3. The Rudolf Report, 2003, 8.3.1 Table 17: www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.3.1
4. J.Pressac, Auschwitz, Technique and operation of the Gas Chambers 1989: Krema I, p.151.
5. G. Rudolf, Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell, Press London 1993 (I haven’t seen this). The analytic method is cited as ‘DIN 38 405, section D13,’ I don’t know what this is.
6. The Rudolf Report, 8.3.3, Table 19.
7. Dissecting the Holocaust 2003 http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html Table 3 of Rudolf Ch.
8. For his difficulties here, see: www.ihr.org/leaflets/inside.shtml
9. These came from Krema II morgue: Leuchter’s measured samples were all from Krema I.
10. Ref. 9: ‘Correspondence with the Jan Sehn Institute.’
11. Paul Grubach summarised: Krema II ruins measured 0.06 milligrams of cyanide per kilogram of material, i.e. 0.06 ppm www.codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html, a lower figure than here given.
12. “…fortunately it is precisely the one ‘gas chamber’ in which the largest number of people was allegedly killed by poison gas during the Third Reich which has remained almost entirely intact: morgue 1 of crematorium II.” The Rudolf Report 5.5, p146.
13. Challenged by Rudolf over whether their method could really measure down to 3-4 μg/kg (ie, parts per billion) of cyanide, Markiewicz et. al. insisted that it could: as ‘developed by J.Epstein,’ it was ‘at once a very sensitive and a very specific method:’ www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html
14. www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/che ... port.shtml
15. The Polish report was published in Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych but I don’t know what this is.
16. The Rudolf Report, Ch. 1: www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/1.html#1.3
17. All 7 of Leuchter’s samples from the Krema II morgue were below 1 ppm, whereas Rudolf’s samples taken from there were considerably higher.
18. J. Ball, The Ball Report Canada 1993. I haven’t seen a copy. The Rudolf Report, 8.3.4.
User avatar
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby Gertrud » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:57 pm

astro3 wrote:The Polish report was published in Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych but I don’t know what this is.

It's a periodical called "Problems of forensic sciences" published by the Instytut Ekspertyz Sadowych Im. Prof. dra Jana Sehna in Cracow. ISSN 1230-7483
User avatar
Gertrud
Member
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:32 pm
Location: Hamburg

Postby Hannover » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:53 am

Not only does the cyanide issue debunk the preposterous story, but there are a multitude of other specifics which utterly crush the claims made within the 'holocaust' Big Lie.

The Table of Content of The Rudolf Report provides a nice breakdown of specifics, see it following these conclusions by Rudolf.
9. Conclusions

* Even according to the statements of pharmacist J.-C. Pressac, who, in the late 80s and early 90s, was promoted as the technical Holocaust expert, eyewitness testimonies relating to the engineering of the installations and their capacity are, almost without exception, untenable. But even the corrections to the testimonies considered by Pressac to be necessary do not go far enough to make them credible. In particular, the testimonies relating to the duration of executions in the 'gas chambers' (morgue 1) of crematoria II and III, as well as the ventilation times after the executions go completely awry. This is because of the over-estimation of the evaporation rate of hydrogen cyanide from the carrier of Zyklon B, as well as the incorrect concept of the effectiveness of the ventilation of the rooms. If the eyewitness testimonies relating to the quantities of Zyklon B used, and at least approximately relating to the rapidity of the execution procedure are to be accepted, then they are incompatible with testimonies, sometimes of the same witnesses, that the victims' corpses were removed from the 'gas chambers' immediately after the executions and without gas masks and protective garments. This is particularly true for those alleged 'gas chambers' without ventilation installations (crematoria IV and V and farmhouses I and II), since working in poorly ventilated 'gas chambers' with high concentrations of poison gas is impossible without gas masks. The extreme danger to the sweating workers of the Sonderkommando, who are supposed to have worked without protective garments, makes the witnesses untrustworthy. The eyewitness accounts are therefore completely contradictory, illogical, contrary to the laws of nature, and therefore incredible. The witnesses engage in particular contortions when it comes to the cremations (amount and kind of fuel used, speed of cremation, development of flames and smoke), which furthermore fail to accord with the analyses of aerial photography.

* The alleged installations for the mass murder of human beings are, in Pressac's judgment, impractical for their purpose, but were, on the contrary, illogically constructed in parts, so that they would not have been suitable as instruments of mass extermination. Once one considers the actual technical requirements, the impression remains of the total inadequacy of the installations in question-which were deficient to the point of uselessness-in gross contradiction to the technically advanced disinfestation chambers in the immediate vicinity. The facts set forth here with relation to Zyklon B introduction pillars in the ceilings of the 'gas chambers' (morgue 1) of crematoria I to III strengthen the suspicion of a subsequent manipulation almost to a certainty. These installations would have been even less suitable than crematoria IV and V. It would have been impossible to introduce the gas into them.

* Due to the proven, enormous environmental resistance of Iron Blue pigment, the slight cyanide traces in alleged homicidal 'gas chambers', which are demonstrable in places, but are not reproducible, cannot be explained on the basis of remaining residues of a disintegration process, since even on the weathered exterior side of the disinfestation wing large quantities of cyanide can be found even today. Towards the end of the operating period of the installations, therefore, the cyanide content must have been present in the same order of magnitude as it is today, as well as in the areas which were never exposed to weathering. But the cyanide values of protected areas in the alleged homicidal 'gas chambers' are just as low as in places exposed to weathering. Weathering has, therefore, not actually diminished these slight traces. The low cyanide values cannot be explained by fumigation of the premises for vermin, as postulated by Leuchter, since such fumigation would probably have left greater quantities of cyanide in the moist cellars of crematoria II and III. The cyanide values of the alleged homicidal 'gas chambers' lie in the same order of magnitude as the results, among others, of the samples taken by myself from parts of other buildings (hot air disinfestation Building 5a, inmates barracks, the washroom of crematorium I). These values, however, lie so near the detectable threshold that no clear significance can be attributed to them, most importantly due to their lack of reproducibility. From the above, one can safely conclude that no cyanide residues capable of interpretation can be found in the walls of the alleged homicidal 'gas chambers'.
It was further possible to show that, under the conditions of the mass gassings as reported by eyewitnesses in the alleged 'gas chambers' of crematorium II to V, cyanide residues would have been found in similar quantities, coloring the walls blue, as they can be found in the disinfestation wings of building 5a/b. Since no significant quantities of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal 'gas chamber', one must conclude that these installations were exposed to similar conditions as the above mentioned other installations (hot air disinfestation, inmate barracks, washroom of crematorium I), i.e., that they most likely were never exposed to any hydrogen cyanide.

Final Conclusions

A. On chemistry

A: The investigation of the formation and stability of cyanide traces in masonry of the indicated structures as well as interpretation of the analytic results of samples of building material from these structures in Auschwitz show:

1. Cyanide reacting in masonry to produce Iron Blue is stable over periods of many centuries. It disintegrates on the same time scale as the masonry itself. Therefore, traces of cyanide should be detectable today in almost undiminished concentrations, regardless of the effects of weather. The outer walls of the delousing chambers BW 5a/b in Birkenau, which are deep blue and contain high concentrations of cyanide, are evidence of this.
2. Under the physically possible conditions of the mass-gassing of humans with hydrogen cyanide, traces of cyanide must be found in the same range of concentration in the rooms in question as they are found in the disinfestation structures, and the resulting blue discoloration of the walls should likewise be present.
3. In the walls of the supposed 'gas chambers' the concentrations of cyanide remnants are no higher than in any other building taken at random.

Conclusion to A:

On physical-chemical grounds, the mass gassings with hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) in the supposed 'gas chambers' of Auschwitz claimed by witnesses did not take place.

B: On building technology

The investigation of the events of alleged mass gassings in the indicated rooms claimed by witnesses, from a technical and practical standpoint, including physical-chemical analysis, showed:

1. The extensive documentation on the Auschwitz camp does not contain a single reference to execution 'gas chambers'; rather it refutes such suspicions.
2. The supposed main gas chambers of Auschwitz, the morgue hall of the crematorium in the main camp and the morgue cellars I ('gas chambers') of crematories II and III, did not have any means for the introduction of poison gas mixtures. Holes in the roofs visible today were made after the war, and all other cracks are the result of the building's destruction at the end of the war.
3. The release of lethal quantities of hydrogen cyanide from the Zyklon B carrier requires many multiples of the time asserted; the actual duration runs to several hours.
4. To provide the necessary ventilation for the supposed 'gas chambers' of crematories II and III would have taken many hours, contrary to all witness testimony.
5. It would have been impossible to provide an effective ventilation of the supposed 'gas chambers' of crematories IV or V or of farmhouses I and II. The corpses could not have been removed from the rooms and carried away by the Sonderkommando without protective garments and the use of gas masks with special filters.

Conclusion to B:

The procedures of mass-gassing as attested to by witnesses during their interrogation before various courts of law, as cited in judicial rulings, and as described in scientific and literary publications, in any building of Auschwitz whatever, are inconsistent with documentary evidence, technical necessities, and natural scientific law.
Image
Germar Rudolf, Certified Chemist, in exile, on September 13, 2002.

http://germarrudolf.com/work/trr/

Table of Content
1. Prelude, p. 11
1.1. Slow Death in U.S. Gas Chambers, p. 11
1.2. Hydrogen Cyanide—a Dangerous Poison, p. 15
1.3. The Acid that Causes Blue Stains, p. 20
2. The Coup, p. 23
2.1. Fred Leuchter on Auschwitz and Majdanek, p. 23
2.2. Damage Control, p. 26
3. The Origins, p. 29
3.1. On the Problem, p. 32
3.2. On Politics, p. 36
4. A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz, p. 39
4.1. Introduction, p. 39
4.2. The Moral Obligation of Forensic Examination, p. 39
4.3. A Definition of Forensic Science, p. 41
4.4. Forensic Science and Auschwitz, p. 42
4.4.1. Forensics in the Courts, p. 42
4.4.1.1. The 1946 Cracow Auschwitz Trial, p. 42
4.4.1.2. The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, S. 44
4.4.1.3. The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz Trial, p. 45
4.4.2. Forensics Outside the Courts, p. 46
4.4.2.1. In Search of Mass Graves, p. 46
4.4.2.2. Faurisson and the Consequences, p. 46
5. Auschwitz, p. 49
5.1. Introduction, p. 49
5.1.1. "Opera During the Holocaust, p. 49
5.1.2. On the History of the Camp, p. 51
5.2. Epidemics and the Defense Against them, p. 59
5.2.1. Danger of Epidemics, p. 59
5.2.2. Epidemic Control with Zyklon B, p. 60
5.2.3. Epidemic Control in Auschwitz, p. 65
5.2.3.1. Terminology Used and Responsibilities, p. 65
5.2.3.2. Procedures Used, p. 67
5.2.3.3. Results, p. 68
5.2.3.4. Basic Policy Decisions, p. 69
5.2.3.5. The Army Medical Officer, p. 70
5.2.3.6. Short-Wave Delousing Facility, p. 73
5.2.4. Disinfestation Installations BW 5a und 5b, p. 73
5.3. ‘Gas Chamber’ in the Auschwitz I Main Camp, p. 78
5.4. ‘Gas Chambers’ in Birkenau Camp, p. 88
5.4.1. Crematoria II and III, p. 88
5.4.1.1. Starting Situation, p. 88
5.4.1.2. The Obsessive Search for "Criminal Traces", p. 94
5.4.1.2.1. New Cellars Stairways, p. 95
5.4.1.2.2. Gassing Cellar, Undressing Room, and Showers, p. 96
5.4.1.2.3. "Gas-tight Doors" for Crematorium II, p. 103
5.4.1.2.4. Ventilation Installations, p. 107
5.4.1.2.5. Pre-heated Morgues, p. 108
5.4.1.2.6. "Cremation with Simultaneous Sonderbehandlung", p. 109
5.4.1.2.7. "Gas Testers" and "Indicator Devices for HCN Residues", p. 111
5.4.1.2.8. Zyklon B Introduction Holes, p. 113
5.4.1.2.9. Conclusions, p. 133
5.4.2. Crematoria IV and V, p. 135
5.4.3. Farmhouses 1 and 2, p. 139
5.4.4. The Drainage System in Birkenau, p. 141
5.4.4.1. Background: Eyewitness Accounts, p. 141
5.4.4.2. The Ground Water Table in Birkenau, p. 141
5.4.4.3. Open-Air Incineration in Pits, p. 143
5.5. Construction Conclusions, p. 145
6. Formation and Stability of Iron Blue, p. 151
6.1. Introduction, p. 151
6.2. Instances of Damages to Buildings, p. 152
6.3. Properties of Hydrogen Cyanide, HCN, p. 155
6.4. Composition of Iron Blue, p. 158
6.4.1. Overview, p. 158
6.4.2. Excursus, p. 158
6.5. Formation of Iron Blue, p. 159
6.5.1. Overview, p. 159
6.5.2. Water Content, p. 161
6.5.2.1. Overview, p. 161
6.5.2.2. Excursus, p. 161
6.5.3. Reactivity of Trivalent Iron, p. 163
6.5.3.1. Overview, p. 163
6.5.3.2. Excursus, p. 163
6.5.4. Temperature, p. 164
6.5.4.1. Overview, p. 164
6.5.4.2. Excursus, p. 167
6.5.5. pH Value, p. 168
6.6. Stability of Iron Blue, p. 170
6.6.1. pH Sensitivity, p. 170
6.6.2. Solubility, p. 171
6.6.2.1. Overview, p. 171
6.6.2.2. Excursus, p. 172
6.6.3. Excursus: Competing Ligands, p. 175
6.6.4. Effects of Light, p. 176
6.6.4.1. Overview, p. 176
6.6.4.2. Excursus, p. 176
6.6.5. Long-Term Test, p. 177
6.7. Influence of Various Building Materials, p. 180
6.7.1. Brick, p. 180
6.7.1.1. Overview, p. 180
6.7.1.2. Excursus, p. 181
6.7.2. Cement Mortar and Concrete, p. 181
6.7.2.1. Overview, p. 181
6.7.2.2. Excursus, p. 182
6.7.3. Lime Mortar, p. 185
6.7.4. Effects upon the Formation of Iron Blue, p. 185
7. Zyklon B for the Killing of Human Beings, p. 191
7.1. Toxicological Effect of HCN, p. 191
7.2. Evaporation Characteristics of Zyklon B, p. 194
7.3. The Gassing of Human Beings, p. 196
7.3.1. Eyewitness Testimonies, p. 196
7.3.1.1. Boundary Conditions, p. 196
7.3.1.2. Eyewitness Fantasies, p. 199
7.3.1.3. Quantities of Poison Gas, p. 208
7.3.1.3.1. Overview, p. 208
7.3.1.3.2. Excursus 1: Poisoning or Suffocation?, p. 211
7.3.1.3.3. Excursus 2: HCN Loss due to Adsorption, p. 216
7.3.2. Critique of the Eyewitness Descriptions, p. 218
7.3.2.1. Theatre of the Absurd, p. 218
7.3.2.1.1. Necessity of Co-Operation, p. 218
7.3.2.1.2. Failure to Separate the Sexes, p. 219
7.3.2.1.3. Towel and Soap, p. 220
7.3.2.2. Speed of Ventilation of the ‘Gas Chambers’, S. 220
7.3.2.2.1. Introduction, p. 220
7.3.2.2.2. Excursus, p. 220
7.3.2.2.3. Ventilation of the Morgues of Crematorium II and III, S. 223
7.3.2.3. Simulation Calculations, p. 227
7.3.2.4. Excursus: Capacity of Protective Filters, p. 230
7.3.3. Evaluation of Eyewitnesses, p. 233
7.3.4. An Expert on Cyanide Speaks Out, p. 238
7.3.5. Why Precisely Zyklon B?, p. 241
8. Evaluation of Chemical Analyses, p. 245
8.1. Test Sample Taking and Description, p. 245
8.2. Analytical Methods, p. 246
8.3. Evaluation of Analytical Results, p. 247
8.3.1. F.A. Leuchter/Alpha Analytic Laboratories, p. 247
8.3.2. Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow, p. 250
8.3.3. G. Rudolf/Fresenius Institute, p. 252
8.3.3.1. Samples 1-4: Crematorium II, Morgue 1, p. 253
8.3.3.2. Samples 5 to 8 and 23, 24: Inmate Barracks, p. 258
8.3.3.3. Samples 9 to 22: Disinfestation Building, S. 258
8.3.3.4. Samples 25-30: Tests, p. 265
8.3.4. John C. Ball, p. 268
8.4. Discussion of the Analysis Results, p. 269
8.4.1. Blue Wall Paint?, p. 269
8.4.2. False Method of Analysis, p. 270
8.4.3. The Memory Hole, p. 273
8.4.4. The Moon is Made of Pizza, p. 276
8.4.5. Anticipated Values, p. 279
8.4.6. Limits of the Chemical Method, p. 283
9. Conclusions, p. 287
10. Acknowledgements, p. 293
11. Hunting Germar Rudolf, p. 297
11.1. What Makes Revisionists?, p. 297
11.2. The Naiveté of a Young Revisionist, p. 316
11.3. Flaws of a State Under the Rule of Law, p. 330
11.4. Rudolf’s Thought ‘Crimes’, p. 345
11.5. The Media and the Case of Germar Rudolf, p. 383
11.6. Outlawed in the Federal Republic of Germany, p. 404
11.7. Biographical Notes on the Author, p. 421
12. Bibliography, p. 423
12.1. Monographs, p. 423
12.2. Periodical Articles, p. 428
12.3. Archival Documents, p. 434
12.4. Internet Documents, p. 434
12.5. Courts Files, Governmental Documents, p. 436
12.6. Video, Audio, and Unpublished Documents, p. 437
13. Lists
13.1. List of Tables, S. 439
13.2. List of Illustrations, p. 440
13.3. List of Graphs, p. 444
13.4. List of Abbreviations, p. 445
14. Index, p. 447

Voices of Scholars

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Bergmann » Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:56 pm

astro3 wrote: One needs a re-analysis that measures both CN- bonded to iron (Leuchter, Rudolf and Ball [18]) and that not so bonded (Marciewicz et al), as well as, preferably, both ferrous and ferric iron and the Ph level (acid-alkali) of the samples.

The question is, who will do it, who will risk his professional career or even imprisonment?

Rember the view of the true Holocaust believer:
"Everything of the Holocaust is 'offenkundig' (self-evident) and proven with tons of documents and no tests are necessary. Questioning it is against the law."

I find your posting about the Cyanide Chemistry at Auchwitz excellent. It must have been a lot of work.

Thanks.
User avatar
Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby astro3 » Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:14 am

At this moment, when Germar Rudolf is being brought in chains into Mannheim court, it is our business to make clear that his chemical researches are of a high standard, and that they have scientific integrity. Quoting the CODOH newsletter on this trial, 'It is still not made clear that Rudolf was a Ph.D candidate in chemistry at the Max Plank Institute and that his doubts about execution gas chambers are scientifically based.'

While Germany imprisons its distinguished intellectuals, I suggest we should here try to evaluate, how his work can be carried forward. One aim, as I see it, is to get this material into a form where it can be submitted to a chemistry journal. There are a lot of people around, who would enjoy hearing about the debate, who would not however want to pronounce upon the Big Question. That is the advantage of a chemical approach: it is hard to accuse someone of a 'hate-crime' who is merely trying to clarify the iron-cyanide issue. Artists, for example, enjoy using the iron-blue colour. Zyklon-B was used to save lives, not take them - that is Rudolf's message. I want to try submitting a review of 'the Rudolf Report' to the journal 'Chemistry in Britain,' but whether they publish it is another matter.

I tried to contact DD Desjardins, who checked out where the samples were taken in the Kremas. Also I tried to contact John Clive Ball in Canada who did his own chemical investigation of the cyanide in the walls: no London library seems to have a copy of his paper and Rudolf in his Report (p.246) says Ball didn't give enough details. If anyone knows how to contact these persons that would help.

Our central winning argument concerns 'Pressac's Dilemma:' the duality between the rooms designated as 'gas chambers' in the design plans - viz the delousing chambers - and the rooms which have been imagined or hallucinated to be 'gas chambers,' viz the morgues adjacent to the cremation-rooms (We here focus on Kremas I and II where the chemical sampling was done). The three orders of magnitude difference in cyanide levels between the walls of these two types of room, is a totally winning trump-card. Any journalist can understand it! The cyanide results point out the difference between what is real and what is imaginary, in relation to the 'gas-chamber' concept.

This argument has to take place in countries where Doubt is not a crime. Science cannot exist at all where Doubt is prohibited! Let's be clear about that. Also, repeatability is the life-blood of science, the result has to be replicable. That's why I've here compared the four different investigations so far reported. Murmur quietly, that Germany was the country which more or less invented chemical procedure. I'd be quite happy to try and find a UK laboratory able to do the cyanide-in-mortar measurement. But, there would have to be someone in Poland clued up on where to take the samples, if indeed that remains feasible.

This is the Chemical Key, to What Really Happened.
Last edited by astro3 on Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby Hannover » Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am

astro3 said:
... it is hard to accuse someone of a 'hate-crime' who is merely trying to clarify the iron-cyanide issue.

But that is exactly what has happened. In fact, people are arrested for simply calling for an investigation of any kind, without even giving an opinion one way or the other.
Remember, Rudolf and Zundel were residing in the US, where there are no 'anti-denial' laws, it didn't help. In fact Zundel, never engaged in any Revisionist activity until he had left Germany. It didn't matter.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby astro3 » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:01 pm

The Polish chemical study of cyanide in the walls of Auschwitz was alluded to by the University of Nevada professor John Zimmerman (‘How Reliable are the Hoss memoirs?’ http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... s-memoirs/). He writes,
in 1994, Cracow's Institute for Forensic Research did a comprehensive study of the structures at Auschwitz identified as homicidal gas chambers. The Institute found traces of hydrocyanic acid, the poison gas used for mass murder, in the cellar of Block 11, the place identified by Höss as the site of the first gassing. Moreover, the Institute also found that there were low levels of such acid when compared to the other gassing sites, thus substantiating Höss's statement that Block 11 was abandoned early on as a gassing site because of unsuitability. The Institute also found hydrocyanic acid in Crematorium I, where Höss states that the gassing operations for Soviet POWs were moved to.


Turning to the Polish study, the ‘traces of hydrocyanic acid’ in the ‘cellar of Block 11’ averaged 14 parts per billion. This is, as he points out, several times lower than that which they found for Krema–I, which averaged around 70 parts per billion. Zimmerman neglects to inform his readers, that other investigations, but not the Polish study, have found 0.1-0.5 per cent cyanide in the de-lousing chamber walls. These are the rooms which are called ‘gaskammers’ in the German design-plans, i.e. gas-chambers.

That means that the levels he is claiming as ‘criminal traces,’ to use Pressac’s phrase, are around one million times lower concentration than that now present in the blue walls of the gaskammer rooms. I suggest that Professor Zimmerman’s students would fall about laughing if this argument were put to them.
User avatar
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby Reinhard » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:14 pm

astro3 wrote:Also I tried to contact John Clive Ball in Canada who did his own chemical investigation of the cyanide in the walls: no London library seems to have a copy of his paper and Rudolf in his Report (p.246) says Ball didn't give enough details. If anyone knows how to contact these persons that would help.


I have a copy of his book Air Photo Evidence. Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor, Bergen Belsen, Belzec, Babi Yar, Katyn Forest. World War II photos of alleged mass murder camps [Ball Resource Services Ltd., Delta, B.C., Canada 1992]. In this book following address is given:

Ball Resource Services Limited
Suite 160 - 7231 120th Street
Delta, B.C., Canada
V4C 6P5

His website is:
http://www.air-photo.com/
User avatar
Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby astro3 » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:56 am

The philosopher of science Karl Popper argued that a hypothesis could be scientific if it was in principle falsifiable. In other words, it must be testable in such a way that it is exposed to the hazard of refutation. If it doesn’t do that, it isn’t science! ‘Germar continued speaking on the subject of science and free scientific inquiry, stressing the philosophy of Karl Popper’ - we learned, at Mannheim District Court, on December 6th. Prisoner Germar Rudolf was bound hand and foot in chains, having been brought up thus that morning, from a windowless catacomb. There was no transcript kept and only one reporter, so we are, alas, unable to obtain further details (1).

Let’s have a couple of quotes from Popper’s classic work, The Open Society and its Enemies, appropriate for the day, March 5th, on which Rudolf’s ‘Thoughtcrime’ sentence was handed down:

We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than that only freedom can make security secure.

Reason like science, grows by way of mutual criticism; the only possible way of planning its growth is to develop those institutions that safeguard…. the freedom of thought (2).


Now, let's formulate what we might call the Basic Hypothesis, in its simplest form:
The buildings in Auschwitz which are pointed out to tourists as homicidal gas chambers, in which millions of Jews were allegedly killed, never came into contact with Zyklon B. (3)


Can so startling a conclusion really be drawn from mere chemical measurement? The above is a quote from the retired General Ernst Remar, back in 1992. On trial for you-know-what, Remar had called Rudolf as a witness but he was not permitted to appear (‘The court denied me the possibility of defense by means of sec. 186 of the German Penal code’). Instead, he published Rudolf’s ‘Report.’ To be sure, the chemist might have preferred more cautious language.

For such a case to be established, three different hypotheses have to be refuted.
(1) That larger quantities of cyanide had to be used in the DCs because lice are harder to kill, thereby accounting for the higher concentrations.
(2) That the ‘Iron blue’ occurs in both types of wall, for some quite extraneous reason, and is not a result of wall impregnation with cyanide.
(3) That decades of rain have leeched out any cyanide from the broken-open AHGCs, the rain being acidic in nature, whereas the DCs have remained intact and so have not been thus exposed.
(DC- Delousing Chamber, AHGC – Alleged Human Gas Chamber)

The first of these positions was advocated at the Zundel trial, as to why Leuchter’s data should not lead to any such startling conclusion. It has been advocated since by Jacques Pressac. The second is advocated by Richard Green in his various web-articles. The third was propounded by the Polish report, commissioned by the Auschwitz museum.

Clearly, the enemies of the 'Open Society,' to use Karl Popper's language, will wish to stifle further debate on this matter.


Refs
1. http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2 ... t-his.html
2. www.poeticexpressions.co.uk/Freedom%20Quotations.htm
3. The Rudolf Report, 2003, 11.4.1, p.354. NB it's up twice on the web:
a) www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr
b) http://germarrudolf.com/work/trr/
User avatar
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby Hannover » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:00 am

astro3 wrote:For such a case to be established, three different hypotheses have to be refuted.
(1) That larger quantities of cyanide had to be used in the DCs because lice are harder to kill, thereby accounting for the higher concentrations.
(2) That the ‘Iron blue’ occurs in both types of wall, for some quite extraneous reason, and is not a result of wall impregnation with cyanide.
(3) That decades of rain have leeched out any cyanide from the broken-open AHGCs, the rain being acidic in nature, whereas the DCs have remained intact and so have not been thus exposed.
(DC- Delousing Chamber, AHGC – Alleged Human Gas Chamber)

The first of these positions was advocated at the Zundel trial, as to why Leuchter’s data should not lead to any such startling conclusion. It has been advocated since by Jacques Pressac. The second is advocated by Richard Green in his various web-articles. The third was propounded by the Polish report, commissioned by the Auschwitz museum.

Clearly, the enemies of the 'Open Society,' to use Karl Popper's language, will wish to stifle further debate on this matter.


Those have all been addressed here:

'the lack of cyanide residue in the alleged 'gas chambers'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=392

That thread is an excellent example of those who support the impossible storyline vs. informed Revisionists. Popper would be proud.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby astro3 » Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:11 pm

The Blue Walls of Birkenau

The artist Friedrich Berg spent a few days strolling round the remains of the Birkenau camp at Auschwitz in 1988. He was taken by how
there simply was nothing there to cause me to believe it was not superbly designed and built and run to keep people alive and healthy under extremely difficult conditions.
The intense blue of the delousing chamber walls was, he came to realise, identical with the Prussian Blue in his paint-tube! Admire his photos in www.nazigassings.com/index2.html. Here is his comment:
‘The blue staining of the stucco and bricks in these photos is merely a subdued approximation of the extremely intense blue staining which is actually there. In reality, the blue staining matches the intense colour of Prussian blue pigment which is a well-known, synthetic dye made by reacting hydrocyanic acid with iron oxide. The same chemical process has obviously taken place here between the cyanide gas used in delousing and the iron oxide in red clay bricks. The staining of the stucco on the interior walls follows the outlines of the underlying bricks behind the stucco. Because of the erratic quality of the bricks, some bricks yield far more prussian blue pigment than others–hence the disparity in the intensities of the staining from brick to brick. What is especially surprising is the fact that the exterior walls show the same staining even after more than forty years of weathering. And, what is even more surprising and important is the fact that just a hundred yards away at Kremas 2 and 3, the exact same brick shows absolutely NO trace of blue staining anywhere--even in the cellar room remains where supposedly cyanide was used on a vast scale for mass murder. There is absolutely NO blue staining there anywhere.


So that’s what (Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3) looks like! Chemically, this ferric ferrocyanide is a compound that combines both the ferric and ferrous (3- and 2- valent iron), just as ordinary rust, Fe3O4, is composed of both ferric and ferrous ions. Let's note Mr Berg’s comment about the way in which the contours of the blue-stain indoors matched that on the outside wall, showing how it had soaked through.

Just for a laugh, let’s quote the Polish Crakow Institute of Forensic Research's report on this topic:
It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that space.

Is it? The next paragraph explained that the formation of this Prussian blue ‘is simply improbable,’ with a surmise that it had resulted from a coat of blue paint being applied! Improbable or not, brickwork (whose mortar will tend to have around 1% of iron in it) exposed to cyanide is likely to develop the Iron blue, depending upon moisture, iron content and alkalinity. Old buildings fumigated with cyanide to de-bug them do sometimes develop the blue colouration. To avoid getting into trouble (ie finding some results), the Polish team refrained from doing two things: it didn’t measure iron-bonded cyanide, ie the blue hue, nor did it sample the disinfection-chamber walls. ‘But that’s absurd!’ you will reply. Maybe, but theirs was the only report published in any science journal on this topic (‘Problems of Forensic Sciences’ published in Cracow, as Gertrud, above, tells us). We may here reflect, that Science is not possible at all in a country where Doubt is prohibited.

To make this issue crystal-clear and remove any shadow of doubt, here is David Cole reporting on the same subject (http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=599) – an insightful, Jewish young man familiar with Auschwitz:
there is heavy blue staining on the walls both inside the delousing chambers, INSIDE the hallways between the delousing chambers, and OUTSIDE the building, on the EXTERIOR WALLS of the delousing facilities. However, the interiors of the Krema 1 gas chamber (Auschwitz Main Camp) and the Krema 2 and 3 gas chambers (Auschwitz-Birkenau), where hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are said to have been gassed, show only minute traces of Zyclon B and no blue staining. Also, the Auschwitz camp barracks and offices, which were fumigated with the Zyklon B from time to time, show similarly minute traces of the gas, and no blue staining.
What explanation can there be for the low levels of traces, and absence of blue staining, in the ‘homicidal gas chambers’? If one suggests that the Zyklon traces in the homicidal gas chambers have been "weathered away", how can one explain the traces and staining on the OUTSIDE of the delousing complexes...traces which have NOT been weathered away after fifty years?


Where Leuchter sampled
I asked Mr Berg if he knew anything about the sites where Leuchter had taken his samples, and he replied:
On many of the walls at the Leichenkeller and at the delousing stations, one could clearly see scratches in the walls which I suspected were from Leuchter's sampling of the walls--but, I could not be sure of that. Those scratches are visible in some of my photos of the delousing station walls--in some of the most intensely blue areas which suggests some bias on the part of the scratchers.
The latter point is used in certain sceptical arguments, which we may come onto.


Here is a further comment from Mr Berg about this blue hue (personal communication):
One of the most famous and special pigments is Prussian Blue which has an extraordinarily intense, unique quality. No other blue pigment can match it. You can go to any art supply store and purchase some Prussian Blue for yourself and you will quickly see why--and then compare it also with any other blue paint or pigment. When I actually saw the blue staining of the delousing station walls, exterior as well as interior, I knew this could only have been from the cyanide molecule that is Prussian blue.
User avatar
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby astro3 » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:44 am

The Early Texts

Reading The Leuchter Report in 1989 ‘embedded the thorn of doubt in my heart’ Germar Rudolf tells us [1]. He began his investigations in early 1990, then in January 1992, the first, 72-page version of his Report appeared in Germany. It was updated and enhanced, then published in July 1993 as a 120-page paperback [2]. This historic 1993 German publication –

Das Rudolf Gutachten: Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den "Gaskammern" von Auschwitz


was printed by the now-defunct Cromwell Press, London. No British library seems to have a copy of it, nor have the UK Castle Hill publishers got any copies left. Its not available on Amazon, nor is its name given in The Rudolf Report or Dissecting the Holocaust, both 2003. But, it is up on the web, here: http://vho.org/D/rga1/rga.html Its publisher seems to have been destroyed by a flood in 2000 [3]. Is Fate against us?

One wishes some library had a copy of either the 1993 or 1992 publication, or of the 1992 English translation published by Zundel. This is a historic document and one doesn’t want it to fade into oblivion. Let us note that his originally-published table of results, the 29 values of cyanide levels as obtained by the Fresenius Institute from his samples, is identical with the Table he later published in The Rudolf Report, ‘cyanide concentrations in masonry of ‘gas chambers’ / delousing chambers.’[4] (Later adjusted to Table 3 in his Grundlagen chapter) [5]

This early publication terminated his PhD studies in theoretical crystallography, lost him his position in the Max Plank Institute, and brought him into the glare of national publicity. It was the seed from which the mighty Grundlagen blossomed -with astonishing rapidity, in 1994. His earliest publication was a letter in the Junge Freiheit in 1990 (‘a small right-wing monthly newspaper’) criticising ‘sloppy errors’ in The Leuchter Report. An English translation of this letter would be of value here … Leuchter wasn’t too bothered about chemistry, but one would appreciate hearing Rudolf’s early comments! Around this time (1990), Rudolf tells us ‘my entire outlook on life became unstable’ and ‘The eternal conflict of good and evil was revived in me.’[6] No comment! He experienced the epiphany of his life on 16th August 1991, standing on the remaining roof of Morgue I of Krema II at Birkenau (The Iron Curtain had just dissolved which made the visit feasible). It there dawned on him that no ‘holes’ in that roof had ever existed. At 26 years of age he had to understand: ‘I had been lied to by all the politicians of the world who to date had failed to assemble even the most minuscule investigation commission.’ Yep!

Never has Chemistry altered History more, than in these three reports:
Fred Leuchter, ‘An Engineering Report …’ 1988 Toronto, Samisdat Publishers Ltd [7,8].
(36 wall samples analysed by Alpha Analytic Laboratories, in MA)
Germar Rudolf, ‘Das Rudolf Gutachten …’ 1993 UK, Cromwell Press
(29 wall samples analysed by The Fresenius Institute, in Hessen)
John Clive Ball, ‘The Ball Report’ [9] 1993 BC, Canada Ball Resource Services Ltd
(6 samples analysed by an unknown laboratory) [10]

No London library has any of these [11] and their publishers are all gone: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., (Leuchter) Cromwell Press (Rudolf) and Ball Resource Services Ltd [12], Delta B.C.). But, John Ball and Fred Leuchter are, one is glad to say, alive and well. The latter drives a school bus in Malden, Massachusetts – he couldn’t be ‘Mr Death’ any more! The Zundel trial terminated all that, as too it seems to have done for the career of chemist Mr Roth of Alpha Analytic Lab, who was obliged to leave that company after there testifying.

Rudolf’s 1993 Gutachten concluded with ruminations as to how Holocaust-guilt accusations were eerily similar to the European witch-trials. No doubt this was deeply important and meaningful, but could it not have been kept out of a chemical report? One would have preferred to see a more brief and focussed report. Leuchter’s Report was brief and focussed all right – but not on chemistry! With its staggering conclusions about the physical function and design of the ‘gas chambers,’ the sites and nature of his wall samples were not described. If I have rightly understood, it is the accompanying film, made of him in Poland, from which persons have inferred his 32 sample locations.

Refs
1. The Rudolf Report, 2003, 310.
2. www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p-3_Rudolf.html#62337
3. www.vho.org/VffG/2000/3/Rudolf243.html)
4. www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.3.3.1.
5. www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html
6. The Rudolf Report 2003, 312.
7. Before going to jail, Germar Rudolf produced a Critical Edition of The Leuchter Report, at http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tlr.pdf - 25 megabytes, it takes a while to download.
8. His 1998-9 Report enjoyed several different titles: An Engineering Report on the alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz …; Auschwitz, End of the Line… and The Leuchter Report: The First Forensic Examination of Auschwitz …,
9. J.C. Ball has a degree in geology, and worked as a mineral exploration geologist.
10. A chemical study done in Crakow was published under the confusing title: ‘A study of the cyanide compound contents in the walls of the gas chambers in the former Auschwitz and Birkenau concentration camps’ It was not anything of the kind: the term ‘gas chamber’ here can only allude to the ‘gaskammer’ rooms in the design-plans i.e the delousing chambers, and no study of these was there published.
11. The British Library once had a copy of the Leuchter Report, now ‘Lost.’ But, there is a copy in the Bodlean at Oxford.
12. These are not in the telephone directory nor did they reply to a letter.
User avatar
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Postby Sailor » Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:59 pm

astro3 wrote:His earliest publication was a letter in the Junge Freiheit in 1990 (‘a small right-wing monthly newspaper’) criticising ‘sloppy errors’ in The Leuchter Report. An English translation of this letter would be of value here

If you have a copy of that letter I could do the translation.

You could zip it and e-mail as an attachment to Hannover, who could e-mail it to me.

If you have access to the forum messages you could also post it there to my handle "Sailor".

I would gladly do the translation for the forum.

fge
User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:26 am

I was delighted to see so many of my thoughts included in some of the posts here.

A few small corrections are in order. I am a mechanical engineer by profession with a B.Sc. in mining engineering from Columbia University, Class of 1965.

I am a painter or artist only as a hobby. For much of my life, I hoped to make painting more than just a hobby--but I have never had any success in that regard. But the connection to oil paints and pigments allowed me to recognise the blue staining of the delousing station walls, exterior and interior, as powerful evidence that the holocaust story is a dirty jewish hoax.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
The "holocaust" really is a dirty jewish hoax. It is voodoo-history and pseudo-science--and, it is so dumb. It is also anti-German racism dressed up as history. Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.
User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Postby astro3 » Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:13 am

Science as Public Knowledge

Asked its opinion of Das Rudolf Gutachten (The Rudolf Report), the Max Plank Institute at Stuttgart replied in March 1994, ‘according to their spokesman, the Max Plank Corporation has no proof that the samples are really from Auschwitz.’ Likewise an Anne Frank Institute spokesperson expressed a similar view: ‘These scientific analyses are perfect. What one cannot determine is how this Rudolf got them, how he obtained the samples’[1].

Science is not a solitary activity and scientists are trained to assume that a report may have come from cheating unless it can be shown otherwise. The point of scientific procedure, is that it should be able to compel someone on the other side of the world to accept a result against their will, merely be reading a report. The scientific method involves peer-review and is an activity where several persons are involved. They have to agree on what is done, and then on what is found. For example, I wouldn’t trust myself to go to Auschwitz, take the wall-samples, label them correctly, and then send them ‘blind’ to a chemistry lab; still less, would I expect others to believe any results obtained, without independent witnesses. That private activity should be a mere pilot study, not as such publishable. A chemist would have searching questions concerning, eg the depth of the sample below the wall surface, the degree of any blue colouration, and how could one be sure that it was definitely the old, pre-1945 wall? Leuchter had several persons with whom he could discuss these key issues on his visit. One needs more than one person to be recording such things, for a couple of dozen samples. These sceptical comments from the Max Plank Institute and Anne Frank Foundation express normal scientific protocol. There are indeed photographs of Germar Rudolf taking the samples, but one would have preferred some testimony or corroboration from the photographer.

A Witness for Leuchter
Fred Leuchter went with a team - his wife Carolyn, his draftsman Howard Miller, cinematographer Jurgen Neumann, and Polish language interpreter, Tijudar Rudolph. The historian David Irving commented:
I myself would, admittedly, have preferred to see more rigorous methods used in identifying and certifying the samples taken for analysis, but I accept without reservation the difficulties that the examining team faced on location in what is now Poland: chiselling out the samples from the hallowed site under the very noses of the new camp guards. The video tapes made simultaneously by the team -- which I have studied -- provide compelling visual evidence of the scrupulous methods that they used.[2]

and Daniel Desjardins concurred: ‘one can readily ascertain what manner of samples Fred Leuchter extracted from which archaeologic locations by reviewing the on-site, real-time video of the collection process.’[3]


1. The Rudolf Report 2003 pp. 385, 297.
2. Foreword to the London Focal Point edition, 1989, of The Leuchter Report, p. 6 www.codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html.
3. www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nddd/ndddstern.html "Leuchter in Poland," available through Samisdat Press, Ltd., 206 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
User avatar
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Next

Return to 'Holocaust' Debate / Comments / News
Bear
 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests

About us

The CODOH Revisionist Forum is the world’s largest and liveliest revisionist-moderated on-line discussion of the Holocaust.

cron