The Science of Revisionism

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
David
Member
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:59 pm

The Science of Revisionism

Postby David » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:39 pm)

For me the center of the Holocaust debate is whether there was lethal gassing going on at the concentration camps, specifically Auschwitz.

Now that said, the science of Revisionism has Germar Rudolf, Luechter Report, and the Lueftl Report to disprove (SCIENTIFICALLY) lethal gassings.

Fred Luechter and Walter Lueftl are not chemists but engineers. The Luechter Report had some serious flaws that Germar Rudolf admitted, but then tried to patch up.

As far as I know, Germar Rudolf is the only chemist who contests the gassing story. I don't care about Faurisson, Carlos W Porter or anyone else who disputes the gas chamber story; they aren't chemists.

So let's please keep this thread focused on Germar Rudolf's science and other chemists who have a science background.

My first question: Is there any PhD in chemistry who has confirmed Rudolf's work?

Thank you.

J William
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 2:21 pm

Postby J William » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:55 am)

OK. I agree that we not accept testimony from non-chemists on the subject of homicidal gassings. To be consistent we have to throw out all eye-witness testimonies on gassings that were offered by non chemists for the same reason.

Hyman
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 2:42 am

Re: The Science of Revisionism

Postby Hyman » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 05, 2004 8:39 am)

David wrote:My first question: Is there any PhD in chemistry who has confirmed Rudolf's work?

Thank you.


A better question might be why wealthy Jewish lobby groups don't hire world class chemists and engineers from such as MIT, Berkeley or Columbia to confirm their version of events, and thereby refute Germar Rudolf. After all, these lobby groups have the influence to get governments to pass laws to enforce a belief in THE Holocaust (as alleged), the influence to have proprietors shut down the meeting places of revisionists, and the influence to have establishment media outlets smear and lie about revisionism and revisionists. Perhaps Tom Moran, one of the revisionist posters here who looks at the scientific possibilities of certain Holocaust lore has hit the nail on the head:

"If the Holocaust 'facts' had any legitimacy at all the Holocaust community would have gone out and gotten verification and support from the scientific community but they haven't and never will. You just won't get professionals putting their reputations on the line for such nonsense."

User avatar
neocon
Member
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Germany

CSI::Treblinka

Postby neocon » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:42 am)

How about a spin-off for eastern poland
with germar rudolph on the crime scene
forensics team ?

If you watch those boys and girls how they put
state of the art 2004 forensic science to work
you begin to think about what methods were
available to scientists in 1945.

must have been better techniques than interviewing
pissed-off camp survivors or torturing camp personel.

even the nazis invited "neutral" red cross experts to
katyn. why didnt stalin do the same ?

Are there original documents from the auschwitz/treblinka..
crime scene investigations in sowiet archives ? must be.
They even put some human soup into evidence.

Forensically, the Holocaust is much like a murder without
a body. Millions of missing bodies. Maybe the solution to
this forensic mystery is that every israeli immigrant changed
his name. Ariel Sharons family name once was "Scheinermann".

The "Tenor of Auschwitz" came to Berlin 1945, claimed that
his hole familiy was gassed at Auschwitz and first thing
changed his name. Even if a distant relative had survived,
how would he find the tenor after his Namechange ?

http://www.nachama.com/enachama/enachama5.htm

Name change is like murdering ones family history.
Why do so many Israelis and jewish americans change their
name ?

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1677
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:59 pm)

David:
You listed a bunch of outside links, but failed to tell us what you find credible about their contents. We debate here, so we need your specific points; not just links which may or may not be relevant. I believe you've been told this before, and it's in the guidelines.

Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

Trojan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:53 am

Postby Trojan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:38 pm)

J William wrote:OK. I agree that we not accept testimony from non-chemists on the subject of homicidal gassings. To be consistent we have to throw out all eye-witness testimonies on gassings that were offered by non chemists for the same reason.


Ah ... no ... that would not be consistent. Eyewitness testimony is always considered ... always. Testimony by experts should be subjected to standards ... if they do not meet the standards then their testimony should not be included.

NO COURT of law would exclude eye witness testimony because the witnesses did not meet the qualifications required to be an expert.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:05 pm)

Sure, let's throw out debunked 'holocau$t historian" Raoul Hilberg, he has no degree in history.

Let's throw out discredited Robt. Van Pelt's architectural 'observations', he's not an architect.

Let's throw out Jean-Claude Pressac for his bizarre books on 'gas chambers', he's a pharmacist.

Let's throw out all the so called 'eyewitnesses' that were not critically cross examined in court; that would be all of them

Let's throw out all those put on trial in Germany where there are no full court transcripts for review; that would be all of them.

More where that came from.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:08 am)

You really don't have to be a expert to figure out that the German 'gas chambers' are a lie
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

J William
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 2:21 pm

Postby J William » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:07 am)

"Trojan Ah ... no ... that would not be consistent. Eyewitness testimony is always considered ... always. Testimony by experts should be subjected to standards ... if they do not meet the standards then their testimony should not be included.

NO COURT of law would exclude eye witness testimony because the witnesses did not meet the qualifications required to be an expert.



True, but let us apply some "standards" to this eye witness testimony such as common sense, the vocation of the witness, the feasibility of the witnessed event, the laws of nature, cross examination of the eye witness, the bias of the witness ( be sure to include the information that the witness is most likely receiving a tax free pension from Germany), on and on, ad infinitum.
The very idea that academic degrees are the only way to become an expert on any subject is ludicrous. The level of expertise depends on the individual involved and not his academic education. Surely a formal education gives a person a large headstart over a person without these degrees but if the drivel that comes from Academia sometimes belies the idea that academic degrees and training are the ultimate.

An example would be to disregard information from a pilot on the characteristics of a particular airplane because he didn't hold a MS in aeronautical engineering. Or not allowing that Leuchter was actually
an engineer. These same people would probably tell me that beavers are nature's engineers. We are back to the old wordsmith game.

Trojan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:53 am

Postby Trojan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 06, 2004 8:13 pm)

J Williams

Please show me anywhere in my post where I equated academia with expert. An expert does NOT have to be well educated in a field ... but he does have to be well versed and experienced.

To be technical, expert witnesses are usually held up to what is called the Daubert standard (most states follow this standard of review, as do the federal courts). Basically, the expert has to follow accepted practices for the field in which he is to opine and/or his practices and procedures must have been subjected to pier review.

Eyewitness testimony on the other hand is not subject to such critical testing. Sure, all the facets you mention apply for eyewitnesses, but you can not dismiss the testimony of hundreds of witnesses just because one aspect may seem inconsistent.

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:12 pm)

The so-called eyewitnesses are laughable and their stories contradict each other, and to top it off, they violate laws of nature
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:28 pm)

And what's revealing is the fact that Trojan refuses to start a thread on any of the absurd 'eyewitnesses' he finds convincing.

Come on Trojan, walk as you talk. Let's see exactly what they say and why you believe them. Let's get specific.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

J William
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 2:21 pm

Postby J William » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:05 am)

Trojan wrote:Please show me anywhere in my post where I equated academia with expert. An expert does NOT have to be well educated in a field ... but he does have to be well versed and experienced.


Trojan, my comments on academia didn't refer to you but to the subject of the orginal thread, namely, the lack of academic qualifications of Leuftl, Leuchter and other revisionist investigators. As stated by another poster, let us see an example of an eye witness account of homicidal gas chambers that has serious creditably when examined using "science". I would like to see the testimony of even just one eye witness that stands the test of exacting forensic standards. You mention hundreds of eye witnesses but I am unaware of these persons. Remember the subject is homicidal gas chambers and not the large historical period known as the holocaust. Again, show me the hundreds of eye witnesses to gas chambers and the parts of their testimony that is pertinent to gas chambers.

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Re: The Science of Revisionism

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:09 am)

David wrote:My first question: Is there any PhD in chemistry who has confirmed Rudolf's work?
Thank you.


Yes, my sister has a PhD in chemistry, read the Rudolf Report and told me personally that Rudolf's findings are correct from a "chemical point of view". Especially his gassing experiments with various materials were convincing. She would never say that publicly or even write it down because she is not interested in being punished, segregated or loosing her job (she lives in Germany).

What she told me also is that the issue of the alledged "gas chambers" is not only a chemical one. For the evaluation of the testified processes for mass murder you need a lot of different faculties, for example civil engineering, pharmacy/biology, chemical engineering. Myself, I am PhD soil scientist and worked on cleaning up of contaminated soils (a lot chemistry but also historical surveys). I should say that you also need historians for the thousands of documents.

It is a quite complex topic and you need team with a lot of faculties! What you do not need: judges and lawyers.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests