http://boards.historychannel.com/forum.jspa?forumID=101
Here is a post I just put up, and hopefully has a longer life for Mathews to see it. Mathews statements are inside the quotation marks, with my response following them.
> A news report is not evidence.
The multiple media reports show that Leuchter's expertise was well spoken of.
> The evidence shows he is a charlatan who knows
> nothing about chemistry, science, the construction
> and use of gas chambers, or the basic facts about HCN
> and the Auschwitz gas chambers.
Your "evidence" shows no such thing. As he was recognized by the Canadian Court during the Ernst Zundel trial, Leuchter was an expert in the workings and construction of capital punishment tachnology, including gas chambers.
What other reasoning is there for Jefferson City, Missouri Penitentiary Warden Bill Armontrout's letter to Zundel's lawyers stating:
"I suggest you contact Mr. Fred A. Luechter, 108 Bunker Hill Street, Boston, MA 02192, home telephone number 617-322-0104. Mr. Leuchter is an engineer specializing in gas chambers and executions. He is well versed in all areas and is the only consultant in the United States that I know of."
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuch ... ppend7.jpg
Why else would Mr. Leuchter be commonly referred to as "Mr. Death", reasoning behind the Errol Morris' documentary title?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1151939378
Indeed, some of your evidence contradicts your assertion that he was a know-nothing, for they verify that he was well-involved in the capital punishment business. Carnes statement "if a state didn't purchase Leuchter's services, he would testify at the last minute for the condemned man that the state's death chamber might malfunction", despite the fact that many states capital punishment systems are truly not adequate in ensuring quick and tortureless death.
> Your reliance on non evidence in lieu of actual
> evidence is typical of Holocaust denial.
Your ignorance of real and contrary evidence to your faith-based pillars is typical blockhead.
> > And again, Leuchter's expertise was also
> recognized
> > by author Stephen Trombley, who researched the
> > Capital Punishment process in the US.
>
> No, his alleged expertise was parroted by an author
> who did not do his due diligence. That is not
> evidence.
Trombley indepthly studies a state process of capital punishment. His research included interviewing Leuchter and having Leuchter presenting him with equipment and photographs and evidence for his work.
> > And you accuse others of "denial."
>
> No, I accuse you of denial because you are a denier
> who spouts nothing but denier claims and cites
> nothing but denier sources.
Is it possible to throw in a few more "denier"s into your sentence.
> A slam dunk case.
Slam dunk? Where have I heard that from before? Oh yeah, regarding the "no doubt fact" that Iraq had WMDs. We all know how that turned out. We've learned just how rotten to the core "slam dunk" can be.
> > Strike two Philip Mathews. The Canadian Court
> > recognized that Leuchter was an expert in the
> limited
> > field of design, construction, maintenance and the
> > operations of execution gas chambers.
>
> That is a distortion on your part.
It would be a distortion if the statement misrepresented the facts. It does not.
The judge refused to admit Leuchter's
> report as evidence.
I believe there is a flaw that the Canadian legal system requires both parties to agree to introduce an engineer report. The prosecution did not agree to the introduction of it.
He ruled that Leuchter was not a
> chemist or toxicologist.
So he couldn't comment on the results of his sample-taking. Prof. Roth was called in to fill this gap.
He held that Leuchter's
> opinion that no gassings occurred at Auschwitz was
> something he was not capable of judging.
Rather Leuchter was able to give his judgment as to the suitability of the Auschwitz "gas chambers" in operation.
> That the Judge took Leucher at his word about being
> an expert was the Judge's fault. The fact is Leuchter
> lied about his expertise.
Leuchter never claimed to be something that he was not.
> > For Leuchter to have testified in the Canadian
> > courtroom in a criminal trial, he must have been
> > accepted as an expert witness.
>
> In a very narrow sense, and in no way that could
> support the claims of Holocaust denial, as I've
> enumerated.
Right. What would a gas chamber expert know about the usage, operation and maintenance of gas chambers.
> Why is that deniers have no standards of evidence for
> their outrageous statements, while ignoring mountains
> of real evidence for the Holocaust?
We remain waiting for this "mountains of real evidence".
> > And if expertise is such a high credential for
> you,
>
> He's the one who claimed to be the expert dear boy,
> and it is deniers who make false claims about his
> expertise. So it would seem that you have a high
> regard for experts, even when they aren't, so long as
> they claim to support your beliefs.
Leuchter's knowledge of gas chambers and capital punishment devices still stands. The prosecution never challenged it, especially after it was bolstered by Armontrout's testimony.
> > Yes, and its widely recognized the faults of the
> > report,
>
> No, it's widely recognized that it is utter crap.
Far from utter crap, parts of it have still stood up under scrutiny by hoaxers. And Leuchter was the original wonderer of the iron-blue question.
http://www.revisionists.com/leuchter/re ... indic.html
> >yet Irving's main focus on the report were
> > the results of the samples taken by Leuchter,
> showing
> > very minimal amounts of cyanide traces on the gas
> > chamber walls.
>
> A focus based on complete ignorance and a worthlessly
> designed and carried out analysis. Irving publically
> accepted what he knew to be crap because Irving is a
> convicted liar.
Irving regarded the report as flawed in areas, yet considered other parts truthful, such as the suffocation in the gas chamber, and the amount of people alleged to packed into the death rooms.
Irving mostly defended the results of Leuchter's chemical tests for HCN residue on the gas chamber walls. The results speak for themselves.
The only test done by a reputable
> scientific organization were the ones done in 1945
> and in the early 1990's. The results were just as I
> clamed above.
So the only reputable organizations to look into the gas chambers were communist state-run groups?
Even so, the Polish researchers came to the same result as Leuchter, and were vindicated by Rudolf: Minimal traces of HCN in the gas chamber walls.
> > > That is beside the point. The presence of HCN
> > > residues on the walls of these rooms
> corroborates
> > the
> > > other extensive evidence for gassing in them.
> >
> > Presence of HCN residues corroborate nothing.
>
> An silly comment. It corroborates exposure to HCN,
> and it corroborates all the evidence about how the
> HCN got into the gas chambers.
It corrobrates exposure to HCN, which in and of itself proves nothing. Many buildings are exposed to HCN.
It certainly doesn't show evidence for the introduction of the HCN. HCN residue does not verify the supposed Zyklon-B introduction columns said to be put into place for murder, and then all remaining traces mysteriously by the SS. Such a coverup of evidence was not physically possible.
> >HCN
> > residue was also found inside the inmate barracks
> on
> > a similar level to those found inside the
> "homicidal
> > gas chamber",
>
> There are no HCN residues in the barracks, despite
> the fact they were deloused on one or two occasions.
This is also false. The same Rudolf chart conatins samples 5-8, from the inmate barracks 20 and 13, which all showed some trace of cyanide.
Table 19: Cyanide concentrations in masonry of 'gas chambers' / delousing chambers
Concentration values in mg per kg; %Fe: Portion of total iron content converted to Iron Blue, assuming that all detected cyanide was present as Iron Blue.
According to G. Rudolf/Institut Fresenius, Taunusstein, Hessen, Germany
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.3.3.
(charts displayed)
The cyanide compounds that permeated THROUGH the
> > delousing chamber walls
>
> There is no evidence that cyanide permeated through
> the walls and such an event is so unlikely as to be
> impossible. HCN forms compounds on the surface and
> for very small depths beyond that.
Sorry to burst your bubble Philip Mathews but cyanide can easily penetrate the outer layer of plaster and mortar, and spread deep into the masonry's depth. Chemist Germar Rudolf took samples in depth from the Auschwitz delousing chambers, and found large amounts of cyanide deep into the walls.
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.3.3.
(charts displayed)
How else would you care to explain the cyanide staining on the outside layer of the disinfestation chambers? Not only in Birkenau but also in Stutthof, and I believe Majdanek too.
> >and are quiet visible on the
> > outside of the building,
>
> Which is not evidence that anything penetrated
> anything, and has nothing to do with the insides of
> the delousing chambers being exposed to the elements.
> They weren't.
Rudolf's tests have shown that the material permeating through the delousing walls is Prussian blue, a substance based on a reaction involving hydrogen cyanide (HCN).
> Furthermore, you are not talking about HCN residues,
> but a special compound which rarely forms and is more
> resistant to weathering. Nothing to do with the
> homocidal gas chambers.
The compound occurs more often than you'd like to admit, Herr Philip. And the circumstances in the gas chamber would be ripe for creation of Prussian Blue.
As I stated in a now censored post:
The cool-moist and highly alkaline walls in the alleged gas chambers actually favored the creation of such blue staining, if actually exposed to significant amounts of cyanide (as the numerous amounts to kill hundreds of thousands of people would be), and would almost certainly have left such staining upon the walls, as it has countless other rooms and buildings.
> > Actually that is false. Few of the buildings of
> > the
> > > camp were touched. They dismantled and dynamited
> > the
> > > crematoria and attempted to burn the Canada
> > > warehouses containing hundreds of thousands of
> > items
> > > stolen from the gassed Jews. Only incriminating
> > sites
> > > were destroyed.
> >
> > False. Inmate barracks had also been planted with
> > explosives.
>
> Nope, afraid not old boy!
>
> You should read some history, not the counterfeit
> nonsense on denier websites.
My facts come not from "counterfeit" websites as you imply, but from hoaxer sources on hoaxer sites!!
Its from believer Mark Van Alstine quoting the Auschwitz Chronicles.
January 15 [1945] ... 210 prisoners work in the squads demolishing the barracks in the former women's camp** in B-I and B-III ('Mexico'). The squad is designated 105-B Barracks Demolition Squad B-I and B-III."
[...]
The demolition of some of the barracks in Women's Camp B-Ia-b can be seen on the aerial potographs made on January 14, 1945
[...]
"January 23 [1945] ...An SS division arrives in the prisoner's infirmary camp in B-IIf in the afternoon...they set 30 storeroom barracks in the personal effects camp on fire.... These barracks burn for several days. After the liberation, 1,185,345 pieces of women's and men's outerwear, 43,255 pairs of shoes, 13,694 carpets, and a large number of toothbrushes, shaving brushes, and other items such as protheses, glasses, etc., among other things are found in the six remaining partially burned barracks."
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/auschw ... on-01.html
You fall down again Herr Philip.
> > > > did I mention the chemist who did the
> > > analysis
> > > > on Leuchter's findings was told it was for a
> > > > Workman's comp claim? So much for scientific
> > > > methodology!
> > > >
> > > > Leuchter told Prof. Roth what he was searching
> > > for,
> > > > allowing Roth to perform the tests that were
> > > needed
> > > > to test for cyanide residue.
> > >
> > > This is also false. Had he told Roth what he was
> > > doing the samples would never have been crushed,
> > > completely invalidating the results, even if
> > Leuchter
> > > had properly collected the samples, which he
> > didn't.
> >
> > Roth was told what he was looking for inside the
> > described samples.
>
> Which was based on Leuchter's ignorance of the
> chemistry and which was wrong, invalidating the
> test.
Leuchter's chemisty could not be too bad considering the Polish researchers who acted as firefighters to the Leuchter firestorm got the same results for non-Prussian blues cyanides, as did Rudolf.
> > Still, the results were validated and duplicated
> by
> > Germar Rudolf's.
>
> No, the errors and falsehoods were duplicated by
> Rudolf, whose study has been dismissed as has
> Leuchter's as the work of deniers.
Rudolf's report has only been dismissed by those who refuse to acknowledge what is and what isn't scientifically possible.
Any comments? Thoughts?
