Are the Leuchter findings defeating to Revisionists ??

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:37 pm)

Gonzo tries out:
from Germar Rudolfs book , The Rudolf Report

RE:Leuchters Findings and what he reported at the trial

"All samples taken from the gas chambers supposedly used for mass human extermination exhibited either no or only negligible traces of cyanide, while the sample from the delousing chambers taken for use as control purposes exhibited enormously high cyanide concentrations."

since there WERE traces of cyanide found in some of the destroyed "genocidal gas chambers" does this not hurt the Revisonist position.?

If I were a judge, I would HAVE TO decide that the Leuchter report has reported their is some evidence of cyanide contamination. I would have to find Zundel's claims without justification.

what do you think?

===================================

If you were a judge, you would have to request other things along the way. Like forensic proof of any of the alleged mass grave / cremation sites. I would assume you may be talking about some judge in an American court or such as opposed to a Nuremberg judge? I mean, as the record shows, Nuremberg judges weren't concerned with such things.

One of the problems for any of the reports on cyanide traces including the Leuchter Report or the Krakow Report is no one tested for any background levels. Cyanide is to this day emitted into the atmosphere by numerous industrial processes and there was a lot more in those days. Coke producing plants would emit enormous amounts. First it would have to be established that any of the teeny weeny little traces found in any of the alleged chambers were not just background levels to see if it was unique to that installation. Then it would have to be shown any levels were the residuals of mass extermination. Then it would have to be shown why the levels wouldn't be higher as found in the fumigation chambers. Then the judge would have to hear why there are no traces of Prussian Blue.

Then, of course, if you tried to sell the (non-Nuremberg) judge on the idea of the traces coming from mass exterminations you would have to show how the stuff was introduced. If you say 'holes' in the roofs a real judge or defense attorney would require you to show that was the case.

The forensic information we have now shows there were only slight, teeny weeny little amounts found in association with the alleged gas chambers and lots of it at the fumigation facilities. So much so at the latter that you can actually see it on the walls as Prussian Blue.

Are you talking about a U.S. judge, in a U.S. court, under the court standards known for murder trials or are you talking about Nuremberg judges?

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:28 pm)

Scientifically proving of all these allegations is idioticaly simple.
1. Build a mock up of the alleged gas chambers, using the same materials.
2. Expose the building to the alleged HCN concentrations.
3. Measure results and compare.

I don't think this will be a drawn out experiment, a few days of it and the truth will shine.

But , may well be the truth on the revisionists' side, the money is unfortunately not.

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:19 am)

That is what I said in my post. The problem is the holocaust industry has so many stories that you would need to build a dozen chambers to test each one. You would also have problems duplicating the exhalations and chemical effects of humans crammed into the chamber. Never the less, the chance of only traces of cyanide residue appearing after this is preposterous...


There's a reason gas chamber promoters don't come into this forum and debate...

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:06 pm)

You would also have problems duplicating the exhalations and chemical effects of humans crammed into the chamber


No problem at all. This can be replicated with simple chemical 'contraptions'
However a scientist would have encountered some trouble with replicating 20
or more persons occupying the same square meter.

User avatar
gonzo
Member
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 12:03 am

Postby gonzo » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:58 pm)

TM
Are you talking about a U.S. judge, in a U.S. court, under the court standards known for murder trials or are you talking about Nuremberg judges?

U.S. Court ..........I think if it were revealed to me (as a judge) that there were traces of Cyanide. (despite heavy contamination in delousing chambers) i would likely rule against revisionists. It just wouldnt be enough. Given the fact that the ruins were exposed to 45 years of weather. its just a little bit to much of a grey area.

assuming we truly could put the holocaust on trial, ..... If i were a judge the thing that would convince me that the Treblinka Holocaust was a fraud, were those tests carried out by the Adelaide Institute. That would catch my attention. .............

When i talk with people in the public I like to use simple information thats easy to absorb. such as ; Telling people that soil tests have been done at the site of the mass grave at Treblinka proving the soil containing 850,000 people has never been disturbed.

The cyanide debate I have not done well at......I will tell People .."The genocidal Gas chambers contained only neglible traces and some chambers had NO Traces of Cyanide".....

They answer cleverly...""Oh...so there were traces of cyanide"...........

the wall goes up at that point

( a "weakness or strength" is that Revisionists dont use lies to make their argument)......

Ted
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:58 pm

Postby Ted » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:32 am)

Just wondering if Zyklon B was used in Auschwitz would traces of it not be well gone by the 1980s ?


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sannhet and 8 guests