Kingfisher wrote:Bumping this thread because I just watched the film myself and recommend it to anyone who has not yet seen it.
Some reflections on points made above:
- Did Roth provide any evidential support for his claim that cyanic acid would not penetrate the surface of the wall? I can see that once his lab saw what they were involved in they would be scared shitless: their business could be destroyed in the way Fred's was.
- Even if this is valid for a smooth non-porous wall how can it be true for brick, which is very porous? I understood that one of the reasons this product was used for delousing was that it was very penetrative. Then of course there is the penetration right through the walls of the disinfestation chambers. This is dealt with in detail in Astro3's sticky thread, so there is no need to duplicate it here.
Germar Rudolf dealt with him in AUSCHWITZ LIES, LEGENDS, LIES & PREJUDICESON THE HOLOCAUST, Rudolf/Mattogno, July 2011, p. 195-198 http://holocausthandbooks.com/18/
“Roth explained that cyanide will react on the surface of brick or plaster,penetrating the material not more than 10 microns, or 0.01 mm, or onetenth the thickness of a human hair […]. In other words, if one wants toanalyze the cyanide concentration in a brick sample, one should take a representative sample of the surface, 10 microns thick, and no more.”
Robert J. van Pelt, Pelt Report, introduced during above mentioned trial (David John Cawdell Irving vs. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstadt), p. 307http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/evidence/van.asp
But a years ago during the Zundel Trial he stated under oath
“In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [recte: hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration.”
Prof. James Roth, Barbara Kulaszka, Did Six Million Really Die? Report on the Evidence in the Canadian ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zündel – 1988, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1992, p. 363.
And Rudolf added on page 198
My suspicion of Prof. Roth’s dishonesty is supported by another statement Prof. Roth made during this interview:
if he had known where Leuchter’s samples originated from, his analytical results would have been different.(1)
Does that mean that Prof. Roth manipulates his result according to whether or not he likes the origin of certain samples? Such an attitude is exactly the reason why one should never tell an “independent” laboratory about the origin of the samples to be analyzed, simply because “independence” is a very flexible term when it comes to controversial topics. What Prof. Dr. Roth has demonstrated here is only his lack of professional honesty.
1. Statements by van Pelts in Errol Morris‘ documentary film Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of
Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
So he is liar or he comitted perjury and is dishonest, take your pick. The fact, that he is wrong is obvious even to amateur since the delousing buildings have prussic blue even on the outside, so it can penetrate throught mortar, walls and bricks. I don´t like liars, but I must say that I understand what he did, he wanted to save life, I mean professional life and personal life so no wonder. Of course, this is not an excuse, but...you know.
Kingfisher wrote:- Very interesting that the group of Harvard students found Leuchter convincing and that van Pelt's contribution was added later. Do we have evidence in support of this? Certainly without van Pelt's counterbalancing the film shows a very favourable picture of Fred, and is not unsympathetic to his position. I don't recall the "re-enactments" referred to, though they were mentioned in the credits. It's hard to believe that Morris was a Believer if he originally produced the film minus van Pelt. Maybe he was open-minded; he would hardly own up to being a Revisionist and if the film was perceived as too favourable to Revisionism he would have no choice but to introduce some refuting elements. What do we know about the motivation for producing this film? Was it produced for TV or cinema? Who backed it? How widely was it shown?
According to Germar Rudolf
Such is the title of a documentary movie directed by Errol Morris about Fred Leuchter, shownat the Sundance Film Festival in Park City (Utah, USA) on January 27, 1999.(...) The original versionfirst shown on Jan. 27, 1999, during the Sundance Film Festivals in Park City (Utah) has beenreworked after protests.
Rudolf Report, p. 13
He doesn´t specified what protests and why. Here is the homepage.http://www.errolmorris.com/film/mrdeath.html
Kingfisher wrote:- Van Pelt refers to 500,000 murdered in Krema 2 alone! He shows a few details from the archives that people here will be familiar with, including vergasungskeller and gasprufer. Hardly damning proof: the murder of a million people should have left rather more than that behind, though he was allowed to present it as incontrovertible, without any contradiction..
Here is "new" claim from Pelt but without source from Green
Robert Jan van Pelt estimates that 350,000 people were killed in morgue 1. At 2000 people
per gassing, that leads to 175 gassings, or approximately 117 hours of exposure (not all of which are at
the maximum exposure because of the decrease owing to ventilation).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, Report by Richard J. Green, p. 43http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-
(copy whole link I don´t know what is wrong)
Vergasungskeller or gasprufer, you propably know what´s going on.