What gives Holocaust denial such an appeal?

[What The Hey]

Right now in Germany, if a scientist verifies the Leuchter findings, that scientist loses his job and goes to prison.

------

Would it seem too imposing of me to ask for some sort of reference for this statement?

In many European countries, scholars, researchers, experts and historians can now be sentenced to hard time in prison for ". . . questioning the Holocaust." In Germany, the penalty can be five years. How is this done? By legislators passing laws called "Hate Laws." These "Hate Laws" are designed to snap around good people's hearts and minds like hand cuffs - for merely asking politically incorrect questions. It is costly and dangerous asking questions pertaining to topics like the "Holocaust". What is now becoming clear many, even to those who enacted the so-called ‘Hate Law,’ is that we enacted not so much an instrument against hate as an instrument against truth.

Germany's parliament passed legislation in 1985, making it a crime to deny the extermination of the Jews. In 1994, the law was tightened. Now, anyone who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the Jews faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail and no less than the imposition of a fine.

See: No Room for Holocaust Denial in Germany

Edited October 4, 2007 by What The Hey

[Ham]

Hmm. Like the man who claims the moon is made of green cheese..

"how DARE you question my credentials.."

The troubling thing is.. the masses of uneducated people who follow him.. who INSIST you bring home enough moon rocks to satisfy everyone's doubts..

it's a conspiracy ya know.. a kazillion metric tons of cheese up there, and "they" have some kind of conspiracy so "we" can't have it..

I have words for this.. but they are not polite..

:)

[What The Hey]

I really don't have a whole heck of a lot of respect for someone who wants the title.. vainly tries to substitute a curriculum of what they can do vs. what they can't..

*mr* leuchter said he didn't have the opportunity to to acquire a degree in SOME kind of engineering at the school he attended..

and it was a bald faced lie..

they offered three different engineering programs..

sure.. the most prestigious university you can think of is gonna skip the requirements for a guy who has a vested interest in death..

doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Not surprisingly, indignant defenders of the orthodox Holocaust extermination story have tried frantically to discredit Leuchter and refute his findings. Undoubtedly the most ambitious effort to impeach The Leuchter Report on scientific and technical grounds consists of two articles by French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac in a book sponsored by "Nazi-hunter" Beate Klarsfeld, and grandiloquently titled Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report.

Throughout both his essays, Pressac strongly implies that Leuchter consciously falsified his findings in order to disprove the existence of the gas chambers. As a case in point -- concerning sample 2 from Crematorium II -- Pressac insinuates that Leuchter planted a brick with no cyanide residue in the "gas chamber" area in order to "prove" his case. (p.65)

At the 1989 conference of the Institute of Historical Review, Leuchter publicly challenged the international scientific community to investigate his findings -- hardly the behavior of a man who is guilty of falsifying his results. (From a videotape of Leuchter's lecture in the videotape recording, "Highlights of the 9th IHR conference" (Feb. 1989)) A team of scientists could easily expose deliberate deceptions, as well as methodological errors, by Leuchter. All they would have to do is retrace his path, take more samples from the same facilities, and subject them to chemical analysis.

Based on spurious knowledge, inducing specious logic which leads to false conclusions, Pressac's attacks on The Leuchter Report stem from faulty scientific and technical understanding, and thus utterly fail to demolish it. Since the publication of Truth Prevails, a study by Poland's leading forensic institute has given strong corroboration to Leuchter's findings, and thus to his methodology.

Pressac's ad hominem attacks on Leuchter and Faurisson, who by daring to subject the gas chamber myth to scientific and technical investigation, have risked their livelihoods, their personal freedom, and even their lives, will, one hopes, strike future generations of readers as no less obscurantist than the attacks directed at Galileo, at Darwin, or at the geneticists who dared to defy Lysenko during the Stalin years. May The Leuchter Report help to free, not only the Western world, but the entire literate world from the chains of an oppressive illusion: The lie of the Hitler gas chambers.

Edited October 4, 2007 by What The Hey

[Ham]

Maybe you don't get what I really said..

OK. I'm a rogue expert of sorts. By my "greatness", I've come to the "obvious" conclusion that the moon is made of green cheese.

I've written plenty of "journals" about it.. I've even exhibited data that compares the absorption spectra of green cheese vs. that of the moon.

OK.. you scientists. You'd better get "with it".. let's see YOUR laboratory analysis of some artifacts from the moon.. SURELY you must come to the same, "logical" conclusion.

No objections? Well, the moon MUST be constructed from green cheese..

I have words for this.. but then again, they are not exactly polite..

see.. I was one of those "uneducated" masses. I read the guys works at one time, under vic's reign.. but the more I learned about chemistry, physics, the more ridiculous the claims became..

The real nice thing about GENUINE education.. you may not know it all, but you know enough to follow the discussion.. and determine what's ......

Even if it looks scientific enough.. uses the right jargon..

but he STILL found cyanide in the bricks..

despite his damndest best efforts..

[Ham]

Here is my explanation why someone would adamantly deny that the Holocaust ocurred..

I wish someone asked, but I'll offer it unsolicited..

a person would have to step outside of traditional beliefs.. enter if you dare..

The person lived through it once, either as a victim, or as a perpetrator.. and the experience was so excruciating, so harrowing, so troubling.. that they can't consciously consider what happened.. even a life or two later..

Laugh if you want.. but it's the best I have, for me, at the moment.. and it is subject to change..

:)

[What The Hey]

Here is my explanation why someone would adamantly deny that the Holocaust ocurred..

I wish someone asked, but I'll offer it unsolicited..

a person would have to step outside of traditional beliefs.. enter if you dare..

The person lived through it once, either as a victim, or as a perpetrator.. and the experience was so excruciating, so harrowing, so troubling.. that they can't consciously consider what happened.. even a life or two later..

Laugh if you want.. but it's the best I have, for me, at the moment.. and it is subject to change..

:)

At least I give you credit for coming to the conclusion the Holocaust is a traditional belief - but that is all. However, an accusation does not make a fact. A headline does not make a fact, nor a tortured prisoner [such as: Rudolf Hoess] making a "confession" cannot make his words a fact either. Yet these are "the facts" that have lead many people to believe in the Holocaust myth.

You - like many people - are merely stumbling over a label, that is, the label: "Holocaust denier." It is a label the Holocaust Promotion Lobby places on all Holocaust revisionists. However a Holocaust revisionist is not a Holocaust denier, technically and logically speaking for a Holocaust revisionist does not deny that "the Holocaust happened." Those who say it [the Holocaust] "never occured" only want to muddy the issue.

Therefore the real question is not: "Did the Holocaust happen or did it not?" (Holocaust revisionists know that it did - but not according to: "traditional beliefs".) The question that the Holocaust revisionists are asking is: If there were no gas chambers, then what was the Holocaust?

Yet whenever a revionist challenges such gas chamber vaporings they are going to be slandered as an anti-Semite by the "true believers" representing the Holocaust Lobby. These quasi-religious Holocaust zealots claim that because of the purity of their own feelings about the Jewish experience during World War II, the revisionists view must be soiled whenever they express doubt in what they [the exterminists] preach as "truth."

Not even Winston Churchill in his six-volume history of World War II, or Dwight D. Eisenhower in his memoirs, made reference to homicidal gassing chambers. So then ... just how does the Holocaust Lobby and its Museum explain that? Intellectuals who do not believe that intellectual freedom is worth the while on this historical issue should ask themselves why they believe it's worth the while on any historical issue. Then they should explain their answers to the rest of us.

I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong about the gas chambers.

Authentic physical remains or wartime-generated documents would do the trick.

I say the US Holocaust Museum displays neither.

Call the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and find out for yourself!

The telephone number is: (202) 488-0400.

Ask which (specific) Museum exhibits display prove gas chambers really existed.

Have this (or any) newspaper publish the result.

Then we'll all see what's what.

Special pleaders imply that to investigate the gas chamber stories in the light of day will be harmful to the Jews. I challenge this bigoted insinuation! Free inquiry will only benefit the Jews - for exactly the reasons it benefits us all. In any case, why should it not?

Edited October 4, 2007 by What The Hey

[Ham]

Maybe you didn't quite understand me.

What I was saying, was..

MAYBE you were actually in the camp in a previous life, and the experience was so bad, you can't consciously bring to yourself to realize how bad it really was..

:)

maybe not anybody else, but it makes sense to me..

[What The Hey]

Maybe you didn't quite understand me.

What I was saying, was..

MAYBE you were actually in the camp in a previous life, and the experience was so bad, you can't consciously bring to yourself to realize how bad it really was..

:)

maybe not anybody else, but it makes sense to me..

Wrong, I do understand you. I also understand people are at their worst when they begin to see their opponents as the: "embodiment of evil". They make "insinuations" about them and go so far as demonizing them. Of course, you can do anything you want to a demon. The fact is, there are no demons in the real world.

But this leaves some people in a very difficult position does it not, without having someone to intimidate and demonize? Censoring people's thoughts does not make them go away, they just resurface later, much stronger and often more violently than before. Frankly, what is there to do or say if the truth is not relevant - or even ***forbidden*** to raise it in one's defense? Truth in history is thus outlawed?"

History will answer, in the not-too-distant future, that divisions were the words that marched across its printed pages. The proof of that prophecy lies in the renaissance of enthusiasm, solidarity and determination that has arisen among the rapidly swelling ranks of revisionists world-wide, who are coming out of seclusion to form an unbeatable coalition of activist truth-seekers, eager to confront nothing less than the mind-polluters and enslavers of humanity.

Their prowess shall unravel a universe of lies.

[GarthP2000]

The fact is, there are no demons in the real world.

There are, however, evil people in the real world, and one doesn't have to have a 'need' to artificially construct an enemy, a demon, for this to be true.

And Adolf Hitler was one of said evil people. Stalin was another. There are yet still others.

Ironically, something tells me that you yourself see the Jewish individuals you talk about as a set of demons. Your own writing here makes this quite obvious. ... So invariably you contradict yourself. <_<

[Ham]

I also understand people are at their worst when they begin to see their opponents as the: "embodiment of evil". They make "insinuations" about them and go so far as demonizing them

I sttill don't think you quite understood what I said..

oh well..

People tend to do a pretty good job demonizing themselves.. make wild claims without proper qualifications..

then wonder what hit them..

I have made some unsubstantiated or unqualified claims before, and been asked for some verification..

it can be rather embarassing..

but I never stood before a judge and claimed I was some kind of expert and been called on it by a court..

that would be a little more than embarrasing.

[What The Hey]

I sttill don't think you quite understood what I said..

oh well..

People tend to do a pretty good job demonizing themselves.. make wild claims without proper qualifications..

then wonder what hit them..

I have made some unsubstantiated or unqualified claims before, and been asked for some verification..

Of course you have. I don't doubt you have made unsubstantiated and unqualified claims before. However Leuchter's claims have been qualified and substantiated by engineers with impeccable degress, engineers such as: Walter Luftle. (Review points made in: post# 243 and 236) In 1987, he formed Fred A. Leuchter Associates, a consulting engineering firm specializing in general consulting and the design and construction of prototype hardware. He has been a forensic engineer consultant, and has testified as an expert in courts in the United States and Canada.

More to the point, Leuchter's expertise in precisely the field of execution hardware is a matter of public record, and has been authoritatively and publicly confirmed. Leuchter's expertise has also been recognized by prominent periodicals, including The Atlantic in a four-page article in its February 1990 issue. An article in the weekly national news magazine Insight of July 2, 1990, called Leuchter, "the nation's leading expert in the mechanics of execution." Finally, Leuchter's expertise was acknowledged on the ABC television news program "Prime Time Live," broadcast on May 10th, 1990, and by The New York Times in a prominently featured article in its issue of October 13, 1990, which was accompanied by a front-page photo of Leuchter.

In this regard, it is highly significant that Leuchter's findings have recently been authoritatively corroborated and confirmed: The Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow, Poland, corroborated Leuchter's findings in a confidential September 1990 forensic report. Although it was not meant to be made public, Revisionists were able to obtain a copy. An English-language translation of the complete text was published in the Summer 1991 issue of the IHR Journal.

it can be rather embarassing..

but I never stood before a judge and claimed I was some kind of expert and been called on it by a court..

Of course, that judge would be Judge Ron Thomas. What Mr. Hammeroni is failing to recognize is it was Judge Ron Thomas who decided Leuchter was qualified as an expert in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of gas chambers. Leuchter was allowed to give his opinions on the operation and suitability of the various facilities to function as execution gas chambers.

that would be a little more than embarrasing.

Apparently what Mr. Hammeroni is having a problem with and is still stumbling over are the reports by the media. In October 1990, the state of Massachusetts brought criminal charges against Leuchter for representing himself as an engineer without a license. Leuchter says he was a victim of selective prosecution, since only 10% of engineers are actually licensed.

What were the repercussions? Leuchter was blacklisted in the U.S. and hounded by the Holocaust lobby and the world's lapdog media. He was arrested and jailed in Germany while visiting there to appear on a television show. The situation only worsened for Leuchter. In his speech given to the eleventh IHR conference in October of 1992 he told of his imprisonment by the German government. But still, with lack of funds, lack of work, a slandered name, Leuchter would not renounce his study. As Leuchter stated himself at the IHR conference:

I repeat for the record: I was condemned for maintaining that there were no execution gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Dachau, Mauthausen, or Hartheim Castle. There's no proof for the charge, only innuendo, lies, and half-truths. Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel and others said this first. They, too, live as victims of botched executions, but nevertheless free to speak the truth in a strong and growing voice that repeats: No gas chambers, no gas chambers, no damn gas chambers! ...

Because I was somewhat naive at the time, I was not aware that by so testifying I was offending the organized world Jewish community. By providing final, definitive proof that there were no execution gas chamber utilized for genocidal purposes by the Germans at these wartime camps, I established the simple fact that the Holocaust story is not true. What I did not know was that anyone expressing such beliefs is guilty of a capital crime: that of thinking and telling the unspeakable truth about the greatest lie of the age.

I would have to pay for this crime. While I innocently told the truth in Toronto, plans were made, and subsequently implemented, for a major effort to destroy me. If I could be destroyed and discredited -- so the reasoning went -- no one would accept my professional findings, no matter how truthful.

Hmmmm.... Why do I recognize a particular historical pattern here that was established and confirmed a very long time ago, which is: You tell the truth - you don't have a degree (recongizable qualifications) - but then you end up being crucifed for telling the truth. Do you recognize this particular pattern? That particular pattern was established centuries ago by Jesus Christ.

[doojable]

WTH - I'm going to allow myself a "willing suspension of disbelief" in your theory for just a few minutes.

Even without the "damn gas chambers" there was a LOT of room for mass murder and extermination.

Okay - back to normal now...

[Ham]

Because I was somewhat naive at the time, I was not aware that by so testifying I was offending the organized world Jewish community.

he's got to be joking.. where was he all these years, under a rock? Going to engineering school? Naw.. I think he knew perfectly well what he was doing.

By providing final, definitive proof that there were no execution gas chamber utilized for genocidal purposes by the Germans at these wartime camps

He disputed the findings of the company he gave the sample to in his "report"

I established the simple fact that the Holocaust story is not true. What I did not know was that anyone expressing such beliefs is guilty of a capital crime: that of thinking and telling the unspeakable truth about the greatest lie of the age.

I would have to pay for this crime.

Here it comes.. he's a "martyr"?

While I innocently told the truth in Toronto, plans were made, and subsequently implemented, for a major effort to destroy me. If I could be destroyed and discredited -- so the reasoning went -- no one would accept my professional findings, no matter how truthful.

again.. who destroyed who? You go into a hostile situation, such as a court of law.. and the court puts the questions to you "what are your qualifications", and you pull out the fact that you have a bachellor's degree, don't say what it is in.. and ASSURE the court that your degree entitles you to testify as an AUTHORITY in toxicology? I'm not sure what Canadian law says, but in the US he'd be lucky to not having to spend time cooling off in a jail cell on contempt and perjury charges.

Oh.. may be off subject.. but my unsubstantiatable claim was during a debate with somebody about the trinity. The guy was arguing out of Colossians that Jesus could create. I pulled out my handy dandy bible that had a note in it from a meeting with one of der upper ups in der ministry that said "by his son".."it's not in the Aramaic".

Dumb me, so trusting.. not the last time the wretched organization left me holding the bag.

[What The Hey]

OK Mr. Hammeroni. So all you have proven so far is you have a beef with the testimony given by Mr. Fred Leuchter. Fine. If what he stated and what he found at Auschwitz bothers you, why don't you get your own engineering team together and go to Auschwitz and conduct your own study to your own satisfaction? I wonder just how far you will get? We all know the outcome of trying to do that, and that you already know (just as well as I know) that you won't get very far - for reason's that I've already previously outlined.

But I also made an earlier challenge and I don't think you picked up on the offer, (which I think is much easier than getting an engineering team together and going to Auschwitz to conduct your own study). Simply call the US Holocaust Museum. Let me say it again, (but I won't shout this time).

I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong about the gas chambers.

Authentic physical remains or wartime-generated documents would do the trick.

I say the US Holocaust Museum displays neither.

Call the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and find out for yourself!

The telephone number is: (202) 488-0400.

Ask which (specific) Museum exhibits display prove gas chambers really existed.

Have this (or any) newspaper publish the result.

Then we'll all see what's what.

But I got a "certain feeling" you won't get very far doing this either, because the phone conversation might go something like this:

Mr Hammeroni: (dialing the US Holocaust Museum - 1 ringy-dingy, 2-ringy dingy, 3 ringy-dingy) Phone answers.

US Holocaust Museum Rep: "U.S. Holocaust Museum. How may we help you?"

Mr. Hammeroni: "Hi. I would like to know if you have evidence at the US Holocaust Museum or the other Holocaust Museums throughout major cities of the United States (i.e. Simon Wiesenthal Center, etc.) that proves and substantiates 6 million Jews were exterminated at Auschwitz in gas chambers by the Nazi's during WWII. I am not interested in viewing photographic displays of Holocaust victims, etc., but I would like to see authentic physical remains and/or war-time generated documents."

US Holocaust Museum Rep: "F*** off! You, YOU NEO-NAZI, WHITE-SUPREMIST, ANTI-SEMITE!" Click. (dial tone resumes.)

Edited October 6, 2007 by What The Hey

[WordWolf]

OK Mr. Hammeroni. So all you have proven so far is you have a beef with the testimony given by Mr. Fred Leuchter.

What YOU'VE proven, again, is that basic reading comprehension is eluding you.

Fred Leuchter is a crackpot. He claims he's an expert in areas he's a hobbyist in,

and most REASONABLE people can tell the difference.

I have a LAYMAN's interest in science, but nobody's going to put me in charge of a

science department at a university because I'm not a degreed scientist- an "expert".

Furthermore, when he went into court, he tried to pretend he HAD the credentials that

qualified him as an expert, and since he had none, his testimony was shot.

Hamm doesn't have to "have a beef" with someone to acknowledge they are a FRAUD-

meaning they claim to HAVE training in an area in which they LACK training.

Fine. If what he stated and what he found at Auschwitz bothers you, why don't you get your own engineering team together and go to Auschwitz and conduct your own study to your own satisfaction?

Hamm's not an expert either.

But degreed, licensed experts HAVE made their own reports- and since the results

are not to your liking, your verdict is "false report!"

I wonder just how far you will get? We all know the outcome of trying to do that, and that you already know (just as well as I know) that you won't get very far - for reason's that I've already previously outlined.

Or, more likely,

being a layman, he won't get any further than the LAST layman did.

Plus, it costs money to fly over there to accomplish nothing.

But I also made an earlier challenge and I don't think you picked up on the offer, (which I think is much easier than getting an engineering team together and going to Auschwitz to conduct your own study). Simply call the US Holocaust Museum. Let me say it again, (but I won't shout this time).

I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong about the gas chambers.

Authentic physical remains or wartime-generated documents would do the trick.

I say the US Holocaust Museum displays neither.

Call the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and find out for yourself!

The telephone number is: (202) 488-0400.

Ask which (specific) Museum exhibits display prove gas chambers really existed.

Have this (or any) newspaper publish the result.

Then we'll all see what's what.

But I got a "certain feeling" you won't get very far doing this either, because the phone conversation might go something like this:

We're supposed to take WTH's imaginary scenario seriously?

It's based on WHAT- rhetoric from tinfoil-hat sources?

US Holocaust Museum Rep: "F*** off! You, YOU NEO-NAZI, WHITE-SUPREMIST, ANTI-SEMITE!"[/b] Click. (dial tone resumes.)

I've never had a phone conversation like that.

When I visited that museum, I didn't get the impression that the people who

work there are that excitable. I bet I have more experience with them than

WTH does, and I wouldn't pretend to know what they'd say on the phone one

way or the other.

[WordWolf]

Then again,

this being the dawn of the Information Age,

one need not phone the Museum.

Their website has some interesting information on this subject already up....

[What The Hey]

....

Fred Leuchter is a crackpot. He claims he's an expert in areas he's a hobbyist in, and most REASONABLE people can tell the difference.

Apparently you have never read: The Fourth Leuchter Report. Your claim of Leucther being a crackpot apparently stems from a book written by Jean-Claude-Pressac, [author of: "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers"] a pharmacist, who ... (as stated in the Leuchter report)

although a first-rate researcher, is blinded by a belief, so strong, that he sets aside the fundamental laws of physics in which he, as a technician (pharmacist), definitely has been trained, and draws conclusions which certainly cannot logically result from the data he has massed. ... The conclusions reached are fallacious, the translations are at times questionable and often taken out of context, and the opinions stated are clearly erroneous. Mr. Pressac shows at times that he is capable of clear, logical thought but, with a true 'doublethink' mentality, manages to destroy all his fine work while he 'undistributes his middle.'

Except for the clearly erroneous final conclusions and propaganda, the book is an excellent piece of work. Jean-Claude Pressac demonstrates himself as a fine researcher and archivist. Unfortunately, he fails in the technical department. I [Fred Leuchter] would have expected his background and training as a pharmacist to have acquitted him well in this area but, unfortunately, it does not. He demonstrates a complete lack of competence as a technician. His logic tends to be good until he reaches his final conclusion. His greatest error, where he lacks the technical competence, is his failure to consult with someone more competent than himself. Although this might be a problem in the area of Execution technology, it certainly is not in the area of heating, air handling, plumbing and construction. His failure to get help in these areas in inexcusable.

This review will begin with the specific items which Mr. Pressac puts forth to support his thesis and the reasons why they do not stand the test of logic. A subsequent consideration will be made of each chapter, in turn, discussing the documentation, its import and meaning.

I could continue on to print the entire fourth Leucter report inside of this post just to bring you up to speed, but you can read it for yourself. But if you really wanted to bring yourself up to speed, I'm sure you would read all the Leuchter reports. Here is a link to the fourth one. The Fourth Leuchter Report

As Mr. Leucter states in his report, "The problem still remains that none of these facilities had hardware which could support gas executions. This review will begin with the specific items which Mr. Pressac puts forth to support his thesis and the reasons why they do not stand the test of logic. A subsequent consideration will be made of each chapter, in turn, discussing the documentation, its import and meaning.

Pressac's photos are included for clarification in the original report, but due to copyright infringement problems, they could not reproduce Pressac's maps, technical drawings and photos for use on-line. In the report Mr Luecter states: Please note the direction of flow on the gate valve as designated by the arrow. The flow is backwards, the valve would leak and the operator [the Nazi Holocaust exterminator himself] would die.

Here's a news flash for you - and one doesn't have to have become an engineer or have an engineering degree to be able to understand this. Gas chambers used for execution are constructed and made of steel. Logic would dictate that if the Nazi's really wanted to kill the Jews using gas chambers then they would have used steel gas chambers. The gas chambers they used had wooden doors. Wooden doors leak. Again, the Nazi's would have killed themselves in the process while they were exterminating the Jews by gas. Fred Leucther goes on to say in the report ...

Hydrogen Cyanide [Zyklon B] will always leave blue stains if it is effectively used, unless the walls are painted steel or of some other inert, non-porous material and washed down with ammonia or bleach after every usage. Pressac claims that because of the short exposure time and low temperature the HCN [Hydrogen Cyanide or Zyklon B] would only have had time to leave traces on metal hardware and not the brick and mortar. This is incorrect. We know from experience that brick and mortar will pick up cyanide quicker than metal. Mr. Pressac seems to have his facts backward, again. I [Fred Leuchter] would suggest that he study the American Execution System to see what really occurs. The concept that delousing gassings leave blue stains and people gassings do not, is ludicrous.

I don't have to ask anyone just who the real "crackpot" is here - Mr. Fred Leuchter or Mr. Pressac. One will have to read the Leuchter report and simply decide for themselves, won't they?

I have a LAYMAN's interest in science, but nobody's going to put me in charge of a science department at a university because I'm not a degreed scientist- an "expert".

Furthermore, when he went into court, he tried to pretend he HAD the credentials that qualified him as an expert, and since he had none, his testimony was shot.

Wrong. Mr. Leucther's testimony is not shot - moreover, his testimony has made history and is continuing to make history. In fact, it was Mr. Leuchter's testimony in court that conviced Mr. David Irving (Mr. David Irving is a noted British historian) to change his pre-conceived conclusions regarding the Holocaust. (As a noted and admired historian, David Irving previously supported the "othodox version" of the Holocaust.) But again, you're parroting the same old media propaganda regarding Mr. Leuchter's "degree". (I thought we covered this issue a few posts ago.) Fred Leuchter also responded to that accusation by the media. It was the media who came up with that accusation BTW, [not the court] and Mr. Leuchter's response to that accusation is on-line (I found it on the web a few days ago) but I don't have the time to look it up and post a link to it right now.

Hamm doesn't have to "have a beef" with someone to acknowledge they are a FRAUD-

meaning they claim to HAVE training in an area in which they LACK training.

I hardly think that Media propaganda qualifies as proof of someone being or not being a FRAUD.

Hamm's not an expert either.

But degreed, licensed experts HAVE made their own reports- and since the results

are not to your liking, your verdict is "false report!"

Apparently you also missed the post where Mr. Fred Leuchter's finding's at Auschwitz have been qualified and verified by engineers with impecaable degrees, i.e. Walter Luftle for example. (Boy are some people slow!) I'm not a certified electrician and I don't claim to be one either, but I have installed electrical switches, outlets and also run electrical wiring and conduit in my home and I know they are all "up to code." I also don't mind if a certified electrician comes by my house and inspects the wiring, etc., because I know they are all up to code as any certified electrician can confirm that they are.

Read The Fourth Leuchter Report and decide for yourself who the crackpot is - Mr. Leuchter or Mr. Pressac. Do yourself a bigger favor and read them all and become educated and logical.

....

I won't take the time to respond to all the rest of your dribble. Later, much later - when monkeey's fly out of your ... oh never mind.

[WordWolf]

I've noticed you've gone into that mode where you're having a conversation that barely interesects

the thread again.

I don't need to read books with opinions about the guy to form my own opinion.

(I do this thing I like to call "thinking for myself". It beats cutting-and-pasting from others

exclusively.)

Guy announces to his wife their honeymoon's going to be visiting a concentration camp site,

I already seriously question his grip.

Guy goes to a site, and takes an inadequate sample, and jumps to conclusions based on

tests never meant to address the conclusions he was planning on making.

Even in high school, I knew to address sampling error and other problems that interfere

with an experiment. He either knew about them and chose to ignore them,

or was insufficiently-educated to be aware of them.

I don't need a PhD to know that if anyone endorses such a slipshod process, I don't respect

them as a scientist-since I was better than that when graduating HIGH SCHOOL.

Since you keep calling this guy a respected researcher or whatever-

and in a court of law, he was exposed as a layman with delusions of competency-

you'll forgive me if I remain unconvinced when you say someone ELSE is a respected

scientist.

He also wasn't afraid to LIE IN A COURT OF LAW, which carries the thread of

being thrown in jail for perjury or contempt of court, depending on how he did that.

Lying to the public, especially when it's a lie his public WANTS to hear? Piece of cake.

The judge exposed him as a self-labelled "expert" who was no such thing.

That meant his testimony is shot.

As for it still meaning something to someone, that's hardly noteworthy.

Some people are firmly convinced the Moon landings were faked,

and tv wrestling is real.

David Koresh was able to convince his congregation that he was married to all

the women, including the underage ones.

"Do" of "Heaven's Gate" convinced a bunch of people to commit suicide.

So, somewhere, there's a bunch of people embracing this guy's thoughts.

[Ham]

As Dr. Jim Roth (Cornell) points out in the movie "Dr. Death,"

this meant that accurate data could not possibly be obtained,

since "...cyanide gas would only penetrate to a few microns'

depth in stone or plaster surfaces ... Leuchter took big chunks

out of walls and floors, without telling the lab man that he wanted

the outside surface analyzed, resulted in analysis of samples which,

when pulverized, diluted upward of 10,000 times any cyanide that

might have been found on the surface of the walls -- even assuming

Mr. Leuchter had the right surfaces in the first place." ("Errol

Morris and the Tricky Art of Refuting Holocaust Denial," by Ron

Rosenbaum. The New York Observer, Sept. 13, 1999, p. 27) See

http://www.observer.com/cgi-win/homepage.exe?nyo1/F4091399.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/holocaust/usa/leuchter/part01/

Assuming *mr* leuchter is an "expert" in toxicology.. would not he have known this?

"these are samples that may have been CONTAMINATED in an industrial accident"

the whole methodology of testing would be different. Mainly, they wouldn't crush the sample, they'd inspect only the first few microns of the surface..

I don't have a very kind description for the guy.. even somebody with a single class in high school chemistry would know better, or at least could understand or at least follow the description of basic testing procedures, unless he slept during class.

[Ham]

David Irving relied on leuchter in his failed trial against Lipstadt claiming slander. Irving.. one of leuchter's own kind.. ended up calling leuchter a "simpleton", in a nice english accent.

The american equivalent of this description?

Bozo, dullard (rarely used now), oaf (sometimes used today), imbecile..

you get the idea..

I didn't say it, Irving did..

[doojable]

I'd say Leuchter pulled a "w*irwille" <_<

Skewed the data to make it fit what he wanted to say.

Edited October 6, 2007 by doojable

[Ham]

Hmm. With only one difference perhaps. He didn't go and get an engineering degree from pike's peak seminary and technical institute. He simply just didn't get the engineering degree to begin with..

[GarthP2000]

Face it folks. WTF--err H is like Smikeol meets the American Nazi Party. He's like Smikeol in that there is no convincing him in any way, size, shape, or form. And like the American Nazi Party because ... Well, you all see here.

Yes Virginia, there are people like that in this world, and it just goes to show that not all who need to be in a mental institution are actually in said institution.

Hhmmmm, ... ya know, this might make for a good Twilight Zone script.

:ph34r: ((dooo DOOO doooo doooo ... dooo DOOO dooo dooo ..... ))

[doojable]

All I know is that he keeps ignoring me...

[WordWolf]

Hmmmm.... Why do I recognize a particular historical pattern here that was established and confirmed a very long time ago, which is: You tell the truth - you don't have a degree (recongizable qualifications) - but then you end up being crucifed for telling the truth. Do you recognize this particular pattern? That particular pattern was established centuries ago by Jesus Christ.

I just wanted to point out that WTH did a compare-and-contrast between

Leuchter- who claimed expertise in an area he was a layman in and got caught

pretending he had credentials-

and Jesus Christ, The Son of God, King of Kings, who WAS qualified as a Rabbi

in addition to his being The Son of God.

"you tell the truth"-

true of Jesus, but not true of Leuchter, who decided what he believed and then

ignored any evidence to the contrary, and used poor science to invent "evidence"

to support his position

"you don't have a degree (recognizable qualifications)"

true of Leuchter-who had no education in the fields he claimed to be qualified in,

but not true of Jesus-who put in the time and was recognized as a Rabbi.

"then you end up being crucified for telling the truth"

arguably true of Jesus-who told the truth and was crucified for it, although the reasons

were more political than anything else, since he told a politically-inconvenient truth

and his death was plotted for it on the human level

(the devil, of course, wanted him dead long before Jesus taught ANYONE,

but WTH's skipping that)

but NOT true of Leuchter, who is currently ALIVE, and has never been hung on a

cross, nor, for that matter, executed by any other device, ancient nor modern

(no guillotine, no electric chair, no gas chamber, no lethal injection,

no hangman's noose.) Thus, Leuchter most obviously was not "crucified",

nor executed by any substitutional method.

He WAS, however, subjected to criticism.

Few people, when actually comparing directly to 6 hours of agony on a

cross after torture and physical duress,

would have the gall to compare criticism and harsh words to it.

WTH, however, has taken it upon himself to do just that.

And he expects us to respect his positions and take him seriously when he

addresses serious subjects.

I, for one, reserve the right to disagree with him, and to even criticize

his positions, his rationales, his documentation, and his conclusions.

Judging from the post I'm quoting, he'd be internally-consistent to

claim that people like me are crucifying him, and that it's like what

happened to Jesus.

========

I thought this comment by WTH was too interesting to skip over,

and wanted to make sure that those following this thread for fun

would not miss it.