In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> Phillips
>
> He was taken to task for many things, lack of formal credentials being just
> one of
> them.
>
That was the most important one. The man was presenting himself as an
expert witness, and a court of law _always_ examines the credentials
and background of a person appearing in this capacity. Not only did
Leuchter reveal himself to lack any formal training whatsoever in the
fields of chemistry and toxicology, he also haughtily dismissed the
need for such training in order to be able to do forensic reports which
would have some value as legal documents. Not surprisingly, the court
refused to accept him as an expert witness, and it rejected his report
as having no probative value as a legal document.
> > € his report claimed that it was the first forensic investigation of
> > Auschwitz, when the first forensic investigation of Auschwitz was
> > conducted immediately after the war;
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> An inocent enough mistake.
Are you mad? If a person is doing research in any field, it is his
responsibility to review the previous research done in that field. The
standard book on the Auschwitz gas chambers at that time was Pressac’s
well known book _ Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas
chambers_, and that gave a history of forensic reports done at
Auschwitz.
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> Tell us more about this first forensic
> investigation.
>
> –Who did it
> –What were the conclusions
> =======================================
Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/#iv (page does not exist)
<quote>
In 1945 the Cracow Forensic Institute did a forensic analysis of the
criminal traces left by the murderers. Pressac summarizes some of their
findings:
Toxicological analysis were carried out in 1945 by the Cracow Forensic
Institute (7 Copernicus street) on 4 complete plates and 2 damaged
ventilation orifices found in the ruins of Krematorium II. After
scraping the white substance that covered these objects back to the
metal, 7.2 grammes of scrapings were collected and subjected to two
qualitative analysis, which established the presence of cyanide
compounds. The report, signed by Dr. Jan Z. Robel, was written on 15th
December, 1945 and transmitted to the Examining Judge, Jan Sehn. 24
[24. Jean-Claude Pressac, Technique, op. cit., p. 233. ]
Strzelecki describes other early forensic examinations including the
following:
In 1945, an examination by the Institute of Judicial Expertise in
Krakow of a sample of hair found in Auschwitz revealed the presence of
compounds of prussic acid, the basic component of Zyklon B gas used in
the gas chambers of Auschwitz. Traces of the acid were also found in
metal objects found in the hair, such as pins, clasps, and gold-plated
spectacle holders. 25
[25. Andrzej Strzelecki, “The Plunder of the Victims and Their
Corpses”,in Anatomy, op. cit., p. 261. in Y. Gutman, and M. Berenbaum,
The Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Bloomington: Indiana
University Press and Washington DC]
</quote>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> –Why have we heard almost nothing about it
>
> ===================================
Because many of the people working within the revisionist camp, such as
Leuchter, are either totally incompetent historians, or they would
prefer to ignore something that can be located by spending an hour in
the library if it refutes their specious claims.
Leuchter was supposed to be a trained historian. A few hours spent in a
good reference library or the camp archives would have been enough to
demonstrate that Auschwitz was the object of several forensic
examinations, most of them devoted to determining the presence and
amount of cyanide in structures other evidence indicated were used as
gas chambers, immediately after the war.
Thus, his report, which was offered as the first forensic examination
of Auschwitz, was nothing of the sort and it clearly revealed his
incompetence as an historian, as well as his incompetence as a
toxicologist and chemist. The people evaluating both his professional
competence and the value of his report would certainly have known that
Leuchter’s claim to be the first to conduct a forensic examination of
the Auschwitz gas chambers was completely false.
>
> >
> > € his report assumed that Nazi gas chambers would have to have been
> > analogous to American gas chambers, even though they served functionally
> > different purposes;
>
> =====================================
> Phillips
>
> His report assumed that certain precautions would have to be taken to
> ssafeguard
> the health of the operating personnel as well as that of any visiting firemen
> whose
> duties brought them into the area. A perfectly reasonable assumption, I should
> think.
>
> ================================
A perfectly reasonable assumption, however in Leuchter’s case one that
was taken to an unjustified extreme. Zyklon-B was only used by trained
personnel, and its normal use was for disinfecting rooms and premises
which were not specifically constructed to contain lethal
concentrations of gas. There were obviously standard and reliable ways
of dealing with these problems, and they did not involve installing
double gasketing and ocean-proof glazing in a room, industrial hall,
railroad car, or ship that had to be disinfected using Zyklon-B, even
though in all these cases the concentration of HCN used for
disinfection was far higher than that needed to kill people.
>
> >
> > € his report stated that it was addressing the claim that 6,000,000
> > Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, a claim that no responsible historical
> > of the Holocaust has ever made;
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> A mistake, to be sure, but one that in no way lessens the impact of his
> findings.
The man was presenting himself as an expert witness. This is yet
another egregious mistake. It serves as further proof that Leuchter,
not the Jews, is responsible for having had himself and his report
rejected by the court. You can’t make so many fundamental errors and be
taken seriously, particularly when you admit that you have no training
to be compiling such reports.
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> You make it plain that Holocaustia has been scrounging for ANYTHING they can
> “get”
> on Leuchter.
>
> =================================================
No. Leuchter hanged himself.
>
> > € he demonstrated that he thought that it takes more cyanide to kill
> > people than it does to kill vermin, when the reverse is the case;
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Desperate to account for the 1000:1 discrepancy between fumigation wall
> concentrations and execution wall concentrations, he Holocaustniks repeatedly
> point
> out that while it needs a 15000 ppm to kill lice, it needs only a 300 ppm
> concentration to kill people. But those are MINIMUM figures.
No they aren’t. The minimum figure for people is 150 ppm, 100 times
less, and the timeframe using the minimum for people is 30 to 60
minutes, while for lice it can be as long as 20 hours.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Why should we
> suppose
> that IF they had carried out gassings they would have used minimum
> concentrations?
> Indeed does not common sense argue otherwise. It was a question fo killing
> large
> numbers of people in the shortest possible time.
No it wasn’t. Killing the people in the shortest possible time is a
consideration of American gas chambers, not of Nazi gas chambers. The
bottleneck in the process is body disposal, so there is nothing to be
gained by maximizing the killing speed. Using an average of 300 ppm
(actually the concentrations after 15 minutes were much higher) ensured
that everyone was dead within fifteen minutes. After that the room had
to be ventilated, a preliminary hosing down had to be done, and the
bodies had to be removed and sent to the crmeatorium division, a
process which took several hours overall.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> You own eyeball witnesses
> reported
> that death occurred in 8 minutes. Are you VERY certain that you can do that
> with
> only a minimum concentration?
>
> ============================================
A minimum concentration would be 150 ppm and take between 30 and 60
minutes, with an allowance given to the fact that no fresh air was
being pumped in. A concentration of 300 ppm ensures death within 3 to
ten minutes. In actual fact, the concentration was probably
considerably higher, since Zyklon-B is designed to generate a
sustainable concentration of HCN of 15,000 ppm over as long as 20
hours. People trapped in a an unventilated room with six kilograms of
Zyklon-B that is generating HCN are all going to be dead within five to
ten minutes.
Here is Pressac’s reconstruction of a typical gassing, based on what is
known about the dosages used and the sizes of the premises:
Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/#iv (page does not exist)
<quote>
Pressac reconstructs a gassing that took place March 13, 1943:
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:01 EDT 2001
Article: 941653 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman on who needs to convince whom
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:20:35 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 598
Message-ID: <120820011420357794%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <060820011731055437%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <080820011947338629%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <110820012234560662%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eng-0047.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997615256 1325 128.214.199.213 (12 Aug 2001 11:20:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Aug 2001 11:20:56 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:941653
That same night, 1,492 women, children, and old people, selected from a
convoy of 2,000 Jews from the Krakow ghetto, were killed in the new
crematorium. Six kilos of Zyklon B were poured into the stacks that
opened into the four grillework columns implanted between the pillars
that supported the ceiling. Within five minutes, all the victims had
succumbed. The aeration (8,000 cu m an hour) and deaeration system
(same strength) were then started up and, after 15 to 20 minutes, the
atmosphere, which had been practically renewed every three to four
minutes, was sufficiently pure so that members of the Sonderkommando
could enter the stiflingly hot gas chamber. During this first gassing
[in the new Krema II gas chamber], the Sonderkommandos wore gas masks
as a precaution. The bodies were untangled and dragged to the goods
elevator. Hair was clipped, gold teeth pulled out, wedding rings and
jewels removed. 23 [Jean-Claude Pressac with R.-J. Van Pelt, “The
Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz”, in Anatomy, op. cit. pp.
183-245]
</quote>
A more detailed study of lethal concentrations and possible amounts of
HCN used in a typicasl Auschwitz gassing states:
Source:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/(page does not exist)
<quote>
DuPont lists furthermore the following safety thresholds:
2-5 ppm Odor threshold
4-7 ppm OSHA exposure limit, 15 minute time weighted average
20-40 ppm Slight symptoms after several hours
45-54 ppm Tolerated for 1/2 to 1 hour without significant immediate
or delayed effects
100-200 ppm Fatal within 1/2 to 1 hour
300 ppm Rapidly fatal (if no treatment)
One does not provide treatment to someone that one intends to kill, so
for our purposes 300 ppmv is “rapidly fatal.” Rudolf’s implication is
incorrect. Additionally, we estimate conservatively below that the
victims were exposed to 450-1810 ppmv within 5 to 15 minutes. In all
probability the exposure was greater than that (see below).
<deletions>
We now examine the question of how fast a lethal concentration can be
built up. In the discussion above we cited sources that put the amount
of Zyklon used in the gas chambers at between 5 and 20 g/m3. These
values correspond to 4500 and 18,100 ppmv respectively. Inspection of
illustration 1 of the Irmscher paper shows that about 10% of the Zyklon
evaporates within a period of about 5 to 15 minutes even at the coldest
temperatures he studied. Irmscher did his studies at temperatures
ranging from -18°C and 15°C. The gas chambers are likely to have been
much warmer than the warmest temperature he studied. Human body
temperature, for example, is 37°C. Even at the cold temperatures
studied by Irmscher, lethal concentrations would have been reached in a
few minutes (450-1810 ppmv)! Besides showing that it is not
unreasonable to expect Zyklon B to kill quickly, these results also
demonstrate the assumptions made about concentration in the article
“Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues” were adequate.
</quote>
>
> >
> > € he demonstrated that he was a self-taught engineer, with no
> > professionall training, no association with a professional
> > engineering board, and thus no basis for claiming expert witness status.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> This is what is called Credentialitis. Though myself a holder of two
> engineering
> degrees, I set very little store by it, preferring to base my judgements on
> the man
> and not on his sheepskins. One engineer whom I held in the very highest
> esteem was
> the chief enginer of a company where I once worked. He had no degrees.
>
> ===================================================
There is a difference between being a self-taught engineer who has
expertise in some narrow specializtion, and appearing at a trial as an
engineer to give testimony as an expert witness. I do not think you
would regard as fair a trial in which your rights and property were at
stake, where the opposing side produced a person as obviously
incompetent as Fred Leuchter to provide testimony against you as an
expert witness. If your own defense lawyer were too incompetent to call
foul, the prosecutor or judge most certainly would.
Would the legal system in the state where you were working accept a
report written by this non-degreed engineer which was obviously full of
obvious and egregious factual errors (“It takes far higher
concentrations of cyanide to kill people than lice”, “This is the
first-ever forensic study of Auschwitz gas chambers”, “Six million Jews
are claimed to have been gassed at Auschwitz”, “Nazi gas chambers
should have been structurally and functionally analogous to American
gas chambers”, “It is strange that the Nazis did not contact the
American authorities for advice on how to construct gas chambers”, “The
alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz could not have handled the colossally
high concentrations of cyanide needed to kill people”, “Zyklon-B would
have been an inefficient agent for killing people”, “The cyanide gas
given off by Zyklon B would have caused an explosion”, “Ventilation of
the gas chambers would have killed everyone in the camp”) as expert
testimony?
> >
> > When a person presents himself to a court as an expert witness, he is
> > obliged to demonstrate to the court that he possesses the requisite
> > professional background to support this status. After all, the rights
> > of both the plaintiff and of the defendant are at stake. Leuchter
> > demonstrated quite clearly that he lacked the background which would
> > qualify him to testify in such a capacity. Making such errors as not
> > knowing that Auschwitz had been previously analyzed forensically,
> > stating that there are serious claims that six million Jews had been
> > gassed at Auschwitz, assuming that Nazi gas chambers had to resemble
> > American gas chambers, and exhibiting ignorance of the different impact
> > of cyanide gas on warm as opposed to cold-blooded organisms showed him
> > to be an ignorant incompetent who could not be accepted by a court of
> > law as an expert witness. This initial conclusion that he was an
> > incompetent was compounded by his admission to the court that he lacked
> > the training, qualifications, or relaitonship to a professional
> > supervisory body to be drawing up forensic reports.
>
> ======================================================
> Phillips
>
> (1) Pearson exhibited a technical grasp of these matters not normally shown by
> prosecutors. It is obvious that a lot of homework had to have been done. I
> wonder
> if certain people “helped” him with that homework, people who knew exctly
> those
> matters on which Leuchter might be vulnerable.
Nonsense. Pearson obviously had to do a little homework if he was to
evaluate the report of a man claiming to be presenting history’s first
ever forensic report of Auschwitz. A look at Pressac’s well known book
or other books on Auschwitz available at the time would have revealed
that this was not the case. Similarly, a prosecutor can be assumed to
understand, like most people with even a superficial knowledge of
chemistry, that cyanide gas is more lethal to warm-blooded than to
cold-blooded organisms. This is a fact that is part of general cultural
literacy, and it would certainly be known to a person evaluating a
forensic report dealing with the homicidal use of cyanide. Finally,
nobody with even a layman’s knowledge of WW II and the Holocaust would
accept a claim that six million Jews were allegedly gassed at
Auschwitz. These three claims made in the Leuchter Report are so
outrageously wrong that a prosecutor or defense lawyer finding them in
a document offered as expert testimony would be sure to have the whole
read through carefully by a team of experts. These and other clearly
erroneous claims made by Leuchter in his report constituted a clear
indication that the document had been drawn up by an incompetent.
=====================================================
> Phillips
>
> (2) Leuchter did not handle himself well under hostile cross-examination –as
> how
> many of us would have. Is this so surprising? Leuchter, who had had no
> previous
> experience of this sort, was pitted against a man who had had years of
> TRAINING in
> how to break own a witness’ composure, on how to throw shit on his face, and,
> for
> reasons not known to us, was grimly determined to do exactly that. To stand up
> successfully to this sort of thing requires an enormous self-assurance, an
> enormous
> amount of poise, an enromously quick presence of mind.
>
> If Leuchter had been allowed to reply in writing and thus mull over his
> answers, he
> would have come out looking a lt better; but that is not the way trials are
> conducted.
>
> ============================================
Leuchter was asked to explain what credentials he had that authorized
him to write forensic reports and he replied that he had none
whatsoever and, morever, that he did not see the need for such
credentials. This was not “hostile cross-examination”, but rather the
initial attempt by the court to assess his competence to draw up a
document with legal validity. If he had had the opportunity to submit
these answers in writing they would have made the same impression: the
man is unqualified to submit such reports. Subsequently, when asked
about the lethality of cyanide, he made his notorious “I’ve never
killed beatles” remark, showing that he really had no understanding of
the quite different effect of cyanide on warm-blooded as opposed to
cold-blooded organisms. Here, too, he was not nervous, just incredibly
stupid.
<deletions>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> If what he asked for (and got) was a qualitative rather than a quantitative
> analysis, then where did he get the HCN concentration values that formed the
> meat
> and potatoes of his report?
>
> =============================================================
If you have studied chemistry you know that one gets numbers when doing
qualitative analysis. These numbers might be indicative, but thay are
not scientificly valid, because the experimental procedure was designed
to find answers to “yes/no” questions, not “how much?” questions.
Quantitative analysis is much more complex and rigorous, and a
fundamental principle of chemical analysis is that you don’t draw
quantitative conclusions from the figures generated by qualitative
analysis.
Leuchter’s numbers are interesting, and they have some possible
heuristic value as general indicators of the presence of cyanide in the
structures studied, but they are _scientifically worthless_ as
analytical results just as, indeed, a woman can examine her breasts and
discover a lump, but her discovery has no scientific value as proof of
breast cancer; another analytical procedure has to be used to determine
what the lump is. Leuchter’s lack of a proper control as well as his
decision not to take the different post-1944 architectural histories of
the places he was studying into account in doing his analysis are
additional factors making his work inconclusive and scientifically
worthless for its intended purposes.
> > > >
> > > > Don’t trip on the way out, coward.
> > >
> > > ===================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > It has been declared to be Prussian blue staining by people who know it
> > > when
> > > they see
> > > it.
> > >
> > > ====================================
> >
> > From what I have read it is indeed Prussian blue staining, but it
> > results not from penetration through the wall, but rather from the fact
> > that mattresses and other large objects were often aired out by
> > propping them against the outside wall of the fumigation chamber, thus
> > providing a source of cyanide gas and the possibility for cyanide
> > compound formation as they were airing out.
>
> =======================================
> Phillips
>
> Are you trying to tell me that that bedding was fumigated OUT IN THE OPEN?
> Don’t
> you know that when fumigating
> any structure, the FIRST step is to seal it?
>
> =========================
We are talking about airing out mattresses and other bulky objects in
the ambient air _after_ a fumigation. The cyanide gas they had absorbed
during the fumigation was gradually expelled into the ambient air, and
some of it formed cyanide compounds, including Prussian Blue, with the
structural materials of the external walls against which they were
propped.
> >
> > With respect to (b) the Krakow Report, unlike the Leuchter Report, uses
> > a proper control. Thus, it shows that the unexposed places tested
> > indicated no detectable cyanide compounds, fumigation chambers show
> > high cyanide compounds, while the structures of former gas chambers
> > show something in between, as we would expect given the lower
> > concentrations to which they were exposed, the fact that the gas
> > chambers had to be hosed down after every gassing to get rid of the
> > body fluids and excrement expelled by the previous batch of victims,
> > the fact that they were not used as often or for such continued periods
> > of time as the fumigation chambers, and the subsequent radically
> > different architectural and meteorological post-late-1944 history of
> > the structures in question.
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> (1) Since you have made a convincing case that the report addressed (a) as
> well as
> (b), on that point I stand corrected.
Thank you. It’s nice to see that you are capable of being both a
gentleman and a scholar.
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> (2) However my technical training ccauses me to insist on the primacy of
> experimental results over any amount of theorizing – no matter how
> sophisticated
> that theorizing. I would further add that the theorising is doubly in
> question
> since it may have been based upon the 300 ppm concentration needed ti kill
> people.
> As I have pointed out, that in a MINIMUM figure. We have no possible way of
> knowing
> what concentrations WOULD have been used had gassings actually been carried
> out.
If you read the Krakow Report carefully, you noted that it contains
several experiments dealing with the solubility of cyanide compounds in
water, and the differing manners in which cyanide compounds form on
structural materials such as plaster, brick, iron, and mortar.
We know something about the way HCN is generated by Zyklon-B, and
nobody argues that a 300 ppm – not the minimum by the way – was
sustained over the eight to ten or so minutes needed to kill people.
The important point is that the structures of the gas chambers were
exposed to far lower concentrations of cyanide for far shorter periods
of time than the analogous structures in the fumigation chambers, this
being compounded by the fact that they were hosed down after each
gassing and exposed to the elements since late 1944, while the
fumigation chambers were neither hosed down nor exposed to the
elements. The conditions for cyanide compounds to form and be retained
were much more favorable in the fumigation chambers than in the gas
chambers.
> You can pick, peck, and carp at Leuchter’s numbers til it snows in Uganda;
> THEY
> STILL STAND, and they will continue to stand until they are shot down by another
> experiment that produces radically different results.The Krakow Report has not done
> that.
Nobody objects to Leuchter’s numbers as numbers. They are quite
consistent with what we would expect, even though he did not understand
this. What is wrong with Leuchter’s numbers is that they were obtained
using several incorrect methodologies, for which reason they _lack any
scientific value_. It is scientifically inadmissible to make
quantitative conclusions on the basis of the results of a qualitative
analysis, and you should know this.
>
> (3) One thing about the Krakow Report is that they denominated their results not in
> milligrammes/kg (as was done by Leuchter) but in microgrammes/kg. Would it bespeak
> a morbidly suspicious nature if I ventured to suggest that the object was to make
> their numbers appear a thousand times larger that they actually were?
It was a different type of analysis using a different type of
methodology. Your objections are irrelevant.
>
> (4) I have seen the numbers the Krakow Report produced and I did not notice any
> that differed radically from Leuchter’s. ERgo, Leuchter’s numbers still stand.
>
> ==============================================
The results of the Krakow Report do not, in principle, conflict with
those of the Leuchter Report. They are, however, based upon proper
scientific procedures and thus have both scientific and legal value,
both of which qualities are sadly lacking in the Leuchter Report.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:02 EDT 2001
Article: 942098 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.190.198.17!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news1.spb.su!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-7.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman on who needs to convince whom
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:46:02 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <3B70E3[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <080820011947338629%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <110820012234560662%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <120820011420357794%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-7.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997688782 10311 128.214.79.8 (13 Aug 2001 07:46:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2001 07:46:22 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:942098
In article <3B7742[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Orac wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > “Jeffrey G. Brown” <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3B768B[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Moreover he was not engaged it write an exhaustive compendium of all
> > > > research done on the subject. He was engaged for the specific purpose of
> > > > investigating the alleged execution chamber at Auschwitz.
> > >
> > > A great deal of research had already been done on the execution
> > > chamber at Auschwitz. If Leuchter was going to draw a conclusion
> > > regarding that chamber– which he did — he was responsible for
> > > finding out what had already been learned of its history and
> > > structure, and for acquainting himself with the chemical tests
> > > already conducted. He chose ignorance — just as you do today.
>
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> I do not feel he was “responsible” for doing that. Indeed, I will go
farther and
> say it was better that he didn’t. Why? Because the existing judgements were so
> marinated in partisan passions that it was as well that Leuchter took an
> absolutely fresh approach to the matter, did not clutter his mind with other
> peoples’ passions and prejudices.
> ==================================================
Leuchter presented his report as the first ever forensic study of the
Auschwitz gas chambers, but that is factually incorrect. No matter how he
felt about existing judgements, it was his responsibiity to acquaint
himself with previous reports and make some comments on any possible
shortcomings.
The fact that forensic studies were conducted immediately after the war
was widely known, since they were reviewed in Pressac’s book, which was
the standard resource on the Auschwitz gas chambers at the time, and no
responsible analyst would have overlooked it. Insofar as the prosecutor
and judge at the Canadian court did any homework at all, they would have
had a look at Pressac’s book and noted that Leuchter’s claim that he was
presenting the first ever forensic analysis of the Auschwitz gas chamber
was untrue.
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
>
> BTW did you know that before going there he was a believer?
>
> ==================================================
Leuchter’s knowledge of gas chambers, the chemical and physical properties
of cyanide, and the history of Auschwitz was and continues to be too
shallow for his “beliefs” one way or the other to be of any interest.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:02 EDT 2001
Article: 942158 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-8.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman on who needs to convince whom
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:30:54 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 557
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-8.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997705877 29430 128.214.79.9 (13 Aug 2001 12:31:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2001 12:31:17 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:942158
In article <3B768B[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > > > € his report claimed that it was the first forensic investigation of
> > > > Auschwitz, when the first forensic investigation of Auschwitz was
> > > > conducted immediately after the war;
> > >
> > > ======================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > An inocent enough mistake.
> >
> > Are you mad? If a person is doing research in any field, it is his
> > responsibility to review the previous research done in that field. The
> > standard book on the Auschwitz gas chambers at that time was Pressac’s
> > well known book _ Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas
> > chambers_, and that gave a history of forensic reports done at
> > Auschwitz.
>
> ==========================================
> Phillips
>
> Leuchter was engaged – not by a government with money to burn, nor was
he engaged by a
> well-heeled institution. He ws engaged by a private individual –Ernst
Zuendel– whose
> means were necessarily limited.
>
> Moreover he was not engaged it write an exhaustive compendium of all
research done on the
> subject. He was engaged for the specific purpose of investigating the
alleged execution
> chamber at Auschwitz.
>
> ===============================================================
Leuchter was presenting what he claimed was the first-ever forensic report
on Auschwitz to a court as an expert witness. His degree of expertise was
immediately called into question when he stated that he lacked any
training in toxicology or chemistry, and the situation was compounded when
it was pointed out that several forensic investigations of the Auschwitz
gas chambers were carried out immediately after the war.
A person trying to convince the court that he is qualified to be an expert
witness cannot make this many egregious errors.
>
> >
> > r
> > > ======================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Tell us more about this first forensic
> > > investigation.
> > >
> > > –Who did it
> > > –What were the conclusions
> > > =======================================
> >
> > Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/#iv (page does not exist)
> >
> > <quote>
> > In 1945 the Cracow Forensic Institute did a forensic analysis of the
> > criminal traces left by the murderers. Pressac summarizes some of their
> > findings:
> >
> > Toxicological analysis were carried out in 1945 by the Cracow Forensic
> > Institute (7 Copernicus street) on 4 complete plates and 2 damaged
> > ventilation orifices found in the ruins of Krematorium II. After
> > scraping the white substance that covered these objects back to the
> > metal, 7.2 grammes of scrapings were collected and subjected to two
> > qualitative analysis, which established the presence of cyanide
> > compounds. The report, signed by Dr. Jan Z. Robel, was written on 15th
> > December, 1945 and transmitted to the Examining Judge, Jan Sehn. 24
> > [24. Jean-Claude Pressac, Technique, op. cit., p. 233. ]
> >
> > Strzelecki describes other early forensic examinations including the
> > following:
> >
> > In 1945, an examination by the Institute of Judicial Expertise in
> > Krakow of a sample of hair found in Auschwitz revealed the presence of
> > compounds of prussic acid, the basic component of Zyklon B gas used in
> > the gas chambers of Auschwitz. Traces of the acid were also found in
> > metal objects found in the hair, such as pins, clasps, and gold-plated
> > spectacle holders. 25
> > [25. Andrzej Strzelecki, “The Plunder of the Victims and Their
> > Corpses”,in Anatomy, op. cit., p. 261. in Y. Gutman, and M. Berenbaum,
> > The Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Bloomington: Indiana
> > University Press and Washington DC]
> > </quote>
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> All governments are run by liars and Communist governments are in a
class by themselves.
> Poland was occupied by the Soviets at the time and therefore I cannot
and will not
> believe one single word that come out in those circumstances.
>
> ===============================================
That is about as sweeeping a generality as I have ever heard. Poland was
indeed occupied by the Soviets, but it did not yet have a purely communist
government in 1945 when it was in the first stage of recovery from the
war. If you refuse to believe or accept a single word produced by people
working in a country with a government with an admittedly strong communist
influence, you are under an obligation to justify your belief. And why
should the words of qualified forensic chemists working in a country with
a communist government be less credible than those of an incompetent fraud
such as Fred Leuchter? It wasn’t just Jews that were killed in the
Auschwitz gas chambers.
<deletions>
> >
> >
> > Leuchter was supposed to be a trained historian.
>
> ==========================================
> Phillips
>
> He never claimed to be any such thing. He is a designer of execution hardware.
>
> ======================================
He stated to the court that his only academic qualifications were a BA in
history from Boston University. Having a BA in history means that a person
has had some academic training as an historian.
>
> > A few hours spent in a
> > good reference library or the camp archives would have been enough to
> > demonstrate that Auschwitz was the object of several forensic
> > examinations, most of them devoted to determining the presence and
> > amount of cyanide in structures other evidence indicated were used as
> > gas chambers, immediately after the war.
>
> ==========================================
> Phillips
>
> The world is made up of doers and carpers. An academic, assured of his
paycheck this
> month and the next month and the month following, is largely sheltered
>from the real
> world and its harsh exigencies of time and money.
>
> You tell us Leuchter “should have” done this and “should have” done
that. And who was to
> pay him for doing this?
>
> ================================================
If Leuchter was presenting a report advertised as the results of the “first
forensic investigation” of the Auschwitz gas chambers, it behooved him to
find out if any forensic investigations of the said gas chambers had
indeed ever been made. As it happens, a simple glance to Pressac’s book
would have made it clear that not one but several forensic investigations
of the Auschwitz gas chambers were done immediately after the war.
Such a crude and obvious error made it immediately clear to the court that
something was terribly amiss with both the report and with Fred Leuchter’s
competence and credibility as an expert as well.
<deletions>
>
>
> > Zyklon-B was only used by trained
> > personnel, and its normal use was for disinfecting rooms and premises
> > which were not specifically constructed to contain lethal
> > concentrations of gas. There were obviously standard and reliable ways
> > of dealing with these problems, and they did not involve installing
> > double gasketing and ocean-proof glazing in a room, industrial hall,
> > railroad car, or ship that had to be disinfected using Zyklon-B, even
> > though in all these cases the concentration of HCN used for
> > disinfection was far higher than that needed to kill people.
>
> =====================================
> Phillips
>
> What is this supposed to prove?
>
> ===============
It demonstrates that the Leuchter’s claims that the structures he examined
were incapable of containing the cyanide generated by Zyklon-B were
absurd. Indeed, he himself attributed the presence of cyanide compounds on
the walls as the result of a fumigation, thus implying that the sructures
were even capable of containing the high concentrations of cyanide over
the long timeframes necessary to kill vermin. Leuchter’s reasoning on this
point demonstrates itself to be a logical aburdity:
A. The structures were incapable of containing the low concentrations of
cyanide over the short timeframe needed for killing people.
B. The presence of cyanide compounds on their walls, on the other hand, is
the result of their having been subjected to and contained the far higher
concentrations of cyanide over the long timeframe needed for killing lice.
Of course Leuchter did not understand that his reasoning was specious,
because he thought, erroneously, that it takes higher concentrations of
cyanide to kill people than it does to kill lice.
> > > >
> > > > € his report stated that it was addressing the claim that 6,000,000
> > > > Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, a claim that no responsible historical
> > > > of the Holocaust has ever made;
> > >
> > > ========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > A mistake, to be sure, but one that in no way lessens the impact of his
> > > findings.
Something more than “a mistake”. This is a sign of total historical illiteracy.
There was nothing unusual or controversial about his findings if we take
them at face value: they indicate that there are far higher concentrations
of cyanide compounds in former fumigation chambers than there are in
former gas chambers, just as would be expected.
<deletions>
> > No it wasn’t. Killing the people in the shortest possible time is a
> > consideration of American gas chambers, not of Nazi gas chambers. The
> > bottleneck in the process is body disposal, so there is nothing to be
> > gained by maximizing the killing speed.
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> You mean there was nothing to be gained by reducing the gassing time
>from –say– 1 hour
> to ten minutes. Everything adds in.
>
> =================================
Not really. If you think of it in terms of a complex industrial process,
the ane hour here or there when dealing with the removal and disposal of
1,600 or so bodies does not really count one way or the other.
> > Using an average of 300 ppm
> > (actually the concentrations after 15 minutes were much higher) ensured
> > that everyone was dead within fifteen minutes.
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> That is only conjecture. We have no way of knowing what would have been
necessary.
>
> =======================
Of course we do. We know what concentrations of HCN kill people, we know
the volume of the former gas chambers, and we know about the concentration
of HCN in a closed space with ambient air of a specific temperature and
humidity to which a given quantity of Zyklon-B has been introduced. All of
these figures are easily calculated, and learning how to do such
calculations was part of the training undergone by a person qualified to
handle Zyklon-B.
> > After that the room had
> > to be ventilated, a preliminary hosing down had to be done, and the
> > bodies had to be removed and sent to the crmeatorium division, a
> > process which took several hours overall.
> >
> > > ============================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > You own eyeball witnesses
> > > reported
> > > that death occurred in 8 minutes. Are you VERY certain that you can
do that
> > > with
> > > only a minimum concentration?
> > >
> > > ============================================
After 8 minutes the concentration was far higher than the minimum needed
to kill people.
> >
> > A minimum concentration would be 150 ppm and take between 30 and 60
> > minutes, with an allowance given to the fact that no fresh air was
> > being pumped in. A concentration of 300 ppm ensures death within 3 to
> > ten minutes.
>
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> I think you are talking abut the death of a single individual. What we
should be talking
> about is causing the deaths of several hundred people spread over a room
of perhaps 200
> sq m. We have no data about that.
>
> ====================================
Nonsense. Any and all humans in an enclosed space with a 300 ppm
concentration of HCN will be dead in a manner of minutes. In actual fact,
the concentration of HCN was, by definition, 0 ppm when the Zyklon-B was
first introduced, and it had risen to something in the 7,000 ppm range
fifteen minutes later, when the double ventilation system was turned on.
Most of the people had died within the first 3 to 5 minutes, when then
concentration was considerably lower than 7,000 ppm.
> >
> > Would the legal system in the state where you were working accept a
> > report written by this non-degreed engineer which was obviously full of
> > obvious and egregious factual errors (“It takes far higher
> > concentrations of cyanide to kill people than lice”, “This is the
> > first-ever forensic study of Auschwitz gas chambers”, “Six million Jews
> > are claimed to have been gassed at Auschwitz”, “Nazi gas chambers
> > should have been structurally and functionally analogous to American
> > gas chambers”, “It is strange that the Nazis did not contact the
> > American authorities for advice on how to construct gas chambers”, “The
> > alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz could not have handled the colossally
> > high concentrations of cyanide needed to kill people”, “Zyklon-B would
> > have been an inefficient agent for killing people”, “The cyanide gas
> > given off by Zyklon B would have caused an explosion”, “Ventilation of
> > the gas chambers would have killed everyone in the camp”) as expert
> > testimony?
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> He was wrong about several things and that has badly damaged his
credibility. If all you
> want are ways to shoot down the man, they will serve you very well. If
you are looking
> for ways to shot down his numbers, they don’t hack it. The numbers are
the only thing
> that matter to me and until you can come up with different numbers,
they stand.
>
> =============================================
Leuchter was so wrong about so many fundamental things for him to have
any residual credibility at all.
His numbers have value only as a heuristic: you cannot use the numbers
produced by a qualitative analysis to draw scientifically valid
quantitative conclusions.
<deletions>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> I’m pretty sure you have never been subjected to a hostile
cross-examination with the
> whole world looking on in a proceeding whose outcome could shatter your
professional
> reputation. If you ever are, you might just posibly make a few slips
yourself.
>
> ===================================================
Leuchter hanged himself when he introduced himself to the court and
presented the non-existent credentials qualifying him to give testimony as
an expert witness. His fumbling under cross examination was only icing on
an already flopped cake.
<deletions>
> > >
> > > =============================================================
> >
> > If you have studied chemistry you know that one gets numbers when doing
> > qualitative analysis. These numbers might be indicative, but thay are
> > not scientificly valid, because the experimental procedure was designed
> > to find answers to “yes/no” questions, not “how much?” questions.
> > Quantitative analysis is much more complex and rigorous, and a
> > fundamental principle of chemical analysis is that you don’t draw
> > quantitative conclusions from the figures generated by qualitative
> > analysis.
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> The lab did NOT supply yes/no answers, it supplied NUMBERS. Therefore it WAS a
> quantitative analysis.
>
> ================================================
You are wrong. Qualitative analyses also provide numbers, but their only
scientific value is to indicate presence or absence and, in some cases,
more or less. They do _not_ indicate how much, because the question of
“how much” requires a more complex and rigorous analysis. It is an
inexcusable analytical error to use the numbers deriving from a
qualitative analysis for quantitative purposes.
> > Leuchter’s numbers are interesting, and they have some possible
> > heuristic value as general indicators of the presence of cyanide in the
> > structures studied, but they are _scientifically worthless_ as
> > analytical results
>
> ==========================================
> Phillips
>
> WHY are they scientifically worthless?
>
> ===============================
For the reasons I just explained. They were obtained using the methods of
qualitative analysis due to the instructions Leuchter gave the lab: he
requested that they test for the _presence_ (a “yes/no” question) of
cyanide, not for the amount (a “how much” question). In conjunction with
answering the “yes/no” question, the lab also obtained figures that can be
interpreted as “more/less”, but because the rigorous procedures needed to
further quantitfy the “more/less” were not used, the actual numbers lack
scientific value. They are, at best, heuristic, at worst, totally
worthless. From a scientific standpoint they have no value as numbers, but
only as affirmative responses to “yes”no” questions.
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> He HAD a control – the fumigation chambers. I admit that ti would have
strengthened his
> results if he had also made measurements on a room never exposed. That
he did not do so
> raises certain questions but dose not ngate what he did.
>
> ==============================
Leuchter did not have a proper control. If you are testing for the
presence or absence of cyanide (a “yes/no” question), you don’t use a
place that is known to have been subjected to cyanide as your control,
because that makes it a “more/less” question. You use a place that was
never exposed
to cyanide. Leuchter’s Report produced results according to which both his
control and the place he tested had been exposed to cyanide, and he was
forced to explain the presence of cyanide in the former gas chamber by
appealing to two obvious and unjustified falsehoods:
1. It takes lower concentrations of cyanide to kill lice than it does to
kill people, even though this is not true.
2. The gas chamber was a morgue that had been fumigated during the 1942
typhus epidemic, even though the building was not constructed until 1943.
His claims are further weakened by the fact that he did not take into
account the facts that:
1. The gas chambers had to be hosed down and sometimes even whitewashed
after each gassing (to remove the excrement and other human waste products
released in conjunction with the previous gassing), while the fumigation
chambers were not, and interaction with water inhibits the formation of
cyanide compounds.
2. The ambient air in the gas chambers, but not in the fumigation chambers
had an increasing and significant CO2 content as the people trapped in it
were struggling to breathe, and CO2 also affects the dynamics of the
formation of cyanide compounds.
3. The structures of the gas chambers have been exposed to the elements,
including being submerged in water for weeks at a time, since late 1944,
when the buildings were demolished, while the structures of the fumigation
chambers have been protected from the elements. Some cyanide compounds are
water soluble and will thus have broken down after more than four decades
exposure to the elements.
4. If, as claimed by Leuchter, the gas chambers were not capable of
dealing with the relatively low concentrations of cyanide needed to kill
people, they would not have been able to deal with the much higher
concentrations of cyanide needed to kill vermin. Nevertheless, Leuchter
attributed the presence of cyanide in the structures of the former gas
chambers to a gassing for fumigation purposes, necessarily implying that
the structures were even capable of containing these high concentrations
over the sustained time period needed to kill vermin.
> > as well as his
> > decision not to take the different post-1944 architectural histories of
> > the places he was studying into account in doing his analysis are
> > additional factors making his work inconclusive and scientifically
> > worthless for its intended purposes.
>
> ==========================================
> Phillips
>
> I have already pointed out that Zuendel was not paying him to write an
exhaustive
> compendium. Academics can always theorize on what could have been done
in an ideal world,
> but that is not the world we live in.
>
> Do you think he had unlimited time and unlimited freedom to go wherever
he wished and
> chip off samples wherever he wished. Keep in mind that what he was doing
was illegal and
> could have gotten him in serious trouble had he been caught
>
> =========================================================
He was not being paid to write an exhaustive compendium, but he was under
the obligation to find out if there was any justification for his false
and easily refuted claim that it was the first forensic study of the
Auschwitz gas chambers.
Although I have little sympathy for Zündel and what he represents, it was
ultimately his rights that were violated by Leuchter and his absurd
report. Had I been Zündel, I would have sued Leuchter for
misrepresentation and gross incompetence. Zündel is obviously of a
different temperament than I am, since he has hired Leuchter to do several
more reports, each more absurd than the last.
<deletions>
> >
> > We are talking about airing out mattresses and other bulky objects in
> > the ambient air _after_ a fumigation. The cyanide gas they had absorbed
> > during the fumigation was gradually expelled into the ambient air, and
> > some of it formed cyanide compounds, including Prussian Blue, with the
> > structural materials of the external walls against which they were
> > propped.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> So, this very visible blue staining was caused NOT by direct contact
with HCN but with
> bedding that had been so exposed. Forgive me if I find that hard to believe.
>
> =================================================
It was caused by the HCN given off by bedding so exposed. The bedding is
first fumigated, during which process it absorbs HCN, then it has to be
aired so that the absorbed HCN can be expelled. As the absorbd HCN is
being expelled during the airing process, some of it interacts with the
walls of structures against which it is being aired, forming cyanide
compounds. Is that so difficult to understand?
> >
> > We know something about the way HCN is generated by Zyklon-B, and
> > nobody argues that a 300 ppm – not the minimum by the way – was
> > sustained over the eight to ten or so minutes needed to kill people.
> > The important point is that the structures of the gas chambers were
> > exposed to far lower concentrations of cyanide for far shorter periods
> > of time
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> That is a plausoble surmise but we don’t know it.
>
> =============================
Other evidence tells us this. No eyewitnesses say that people were locked
into the gas chambers for anything close to the 20 hours needed to kill
vermin. They are quite consistent in claiming that all sounds from the gas
chambers had ceased within five to ten minutes, that the ventilation
system was turned on after fifteen minutes, and that the doors were
reopened
after thirty minutes.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:02 EDT 2001
Article: 942308 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.88.64.227!sonofon.dk!newsrouter.euroconnect.net!newsfeed.song.fi!news.cs.hut.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-116-6.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Krakow Report
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:43:28 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-116-6.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997728229 22092 128.214.79.206 (13 Aug 2001 18:43:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2001 18:43:49 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:942308
In article <3B7770[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
<[email protected]> wrote:
> “Jeffrey G. Brown” wrote:
>
> > In article <3B7747[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > First page of the September 1990 report on the forensic investigation
> >
> > That’s not the report that Mr. Holman and I have been referring you to for
> > years, Phillips, as you would have known had you ever bothered to read it.
> >
> > Ain’t senility a bitch?
> >
> > JGB
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> Oh, you mean there were TWO Krakow Reports. Please give me their respective
> dates, the sources for them and passages in which you made reference to each.
>
> I knew you would never take this lying down. I only wanted to know in which
> position you WOULD take it.
>
> Time for damage control, not that it’s going to do you a solitary bit of good.
>
> ==============================
Actually, Richard, there are several Krakow Reports. The first ones were
drawn up in 1945 by the Cracow Forensic Institute and the Institute of
Judicial Expertise in Cracow. See Pressac, Jean-Claude,_ Auschwitz:
Technique and operation of the gas chambers_, The Beate Klarsfeld
Foundation, 1989, pg. 233 ff. for details.
Now, the Zündel trial took place in March, 1988, so it is reasonable to
assume that neither Leuchter nor the court had access to Pressac’s book
giving a convenient summary of the history of forensic investigations of
the Auschwitz gas chambers, which had not yet been published in English.
The Leuchter Report has, however, subsequent to the publication of
Pressac’s book been edited and republished (see
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Leuchter/ReportIntro.html), so my point
about the information being readily available still stands, even if it was
not pertinent to the trial.
On the other hand, the results of the first Krakow Report, carried out by
Dr. Dr. Jan Robel of the Cracow Forensic Institute in December 1945, were
used as part of the evidence submitted by the prosecution in the trial of
Rudolf Hoess in Cracow in 1946. This is something that Leuchter should
have investigated: Hoess was not found guilty on the basis of hearsay or
his own testimony alone.
In any case, after word of the Leuchter Report got out, largely due to a
press conference held by David Irving to launch his version of the report
in June, 1989 (http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/press/items/JC300689.html), the
staff of the Auschwitz Museum commissioned a preliminary report from the
Institute of Forensic Research, Cracow (= IFRC). This report, completed in
1990, but never published, was a preliminary study of the feasibility of
searching for traces of cyanide in structures that had been exposed to the
elements since late 1944. It indicated that places known never to have
been subjected to cyanide, or to have been subjected to a single gassing,
showed a zero reading for cyanide traces, while structures from the gas
chambers and fumigation chambers showed noticeably higher traces. On the
one hand, these preliminary findings seem to verify the Leuchter Report.
On the other hand, they used proper quantative analytical method as well
as a proper control, making their results scientifically valid, something
which Leuchter’s results are not.
The 1990 study served as the basis for designing a much more ambitious
report implemented by the same group. This is the 1994 Cracow Report by
Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, and Jerzy Labadz of the IFRC
(https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/)
which most people doing research in this field regard as authoritative. In
other words, when we rfer to the Cracow Report we mean the 1994 report
produced by the IFRC. The Cracow Report is a careful step-by-step
demolition of the Leuchter Report which shows why its results do not
constitute scientific proof of the question it addresses. Like the
Leuchter report and the 1990 preliminary Cracow
Report, however, it also produces the same scale for cyanide compounds:
Samples from places never gassed or gassed only once: 0 ug/kg
Samples from places in or near former gas chambers: 0 to 620 ug/kg
Samples from places in or near former fumigation chambers: 0 to 900 ug/kg
Further tables show the effect of experiments conducted by the IFRC
concerning repeated exposure to water on cyanide compounds, and the
markedly different ways in which cyanide interacts with wet and dry new
and old construction materials such as brick, mortar, and plaster to form
compounds.
The report also notes that Leuchter “explained” the presence of cyanide
compounds in and around the former gas chambers as the result of the 1942
typhus epidemic:
Source: ibid.
<quote>
In his reasoning Leuchter (2) claims that the vestigial
amounts of cyanide combinations detected by him in the
materials from the chamber ruins are residues left after
fumigations carried out in the Camp “once, long ago” (Item
14.004 of the Report). This is refuted by the negative
results of the examination of the control samples from
living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a
single gassing, and the fact that in the period of
fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic
in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau
Camp. The first crematorium (Crematorium II) was put to use
as late as 15 March 1943 and the others several months
later.
</quote>
The Cracow Report does not address the ludicrous claim made by both
Leuchter and David Irving that it takes far higher concentrations of
cyanide to kill people than it does to kill lice when the reverse is true.
It does, on the other hand, address the fallacious assumption on the part
of Leuchter that the conditions under which cyanide compounds would have
been formed and retained were identical in the gas chambers and the
fumigation chambers.
Given that:
€ it takes higher concentrations of cyanide maintained over a far longer
period to kill ice (15,000 ppm * 20 hours) than it does people (150 ppm *
1 hour or 300 ppm * 10 minutes);
€ the conditions for cyanide compound formation and retention were quite
different in the gas chambers than in the fumigation chambers due to the
facts that the gas chambers had to be hosed down and sometimes whitewashed
after every gassing, and that the CO2 expelled by the gassing victims also
influences the dynamics of cyanide compound formation;
€ the former gas chambers were demolished, with their structures exposed
to the elements since late 1944, while the fumigation chambers have been
preserved intact;
€ the fumigation chambers were in constant use, while the gas chambers
were used a few times a week until the action against Hungarian Jews
during the spring and summer of 1944, after which they were dismantled and
demolished.
There is thus nothing remarkable in the fact that the fumigation chambers
show considerably greater amounts of cyanide compounds than the ruins of
the gas chambers do. The fact that Leuchter, Irving, and many others have
thought differently serves as testimony to their ignorance of the
properties of cyanide, the dynamics of cyanide compound formation, and of
the types of conditions under which cyanide compounds are either retained
or disintegrate.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:03 EDT 2001
Article: 942675 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.54.122.107!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!uio.no!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-8.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman on who needs to convince whom
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:43:13 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 201
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-8.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997778615 9513 128.214.79.9 (14 Aug 2001 08:43:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Aug 2001 08:43:35 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:942675
In article <3B77E8[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
> > For the reasons I just explained. They were obtained using the methods of
> > qualitative analysis due to the instructions Leuchter gave the lab: he
> > requested that they test for the _presence_ (a “yes/no” question) of
> > cyanide, not for the amount (a “how much” question). In conjunction with
> > answering the “yes/no” question, the lab also obtained figures that can be
> > interpreted as “more/less”, but because the rigorous procedures needed to
> > further quantitfy the “more/less” were not used, the actual numbers lack
> > scientific value. They are, at best, heuristic, at worst, totally
> > worthless. From a scientific standpoint they have no value as numbers, but
> > only as affirmative responses to “yes”no” questions.
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> Leuchter asked for numbers and got numbers. Are you now claiming that
the lab was
> incompetent to do its job? So spare me any more of your esoteric
> qualitative/quantitative jazz. I don’t believe a word of it.
>
> ================================
_You_ are supposed to be the one here with the background in the natural
sciences. _You_ are supposed to know that there are two kinds of
analytical chemistry, qualitative and quantitative. There is nothing
“esoteric” about pointing out this most fundamental principle of
analytical chemistry: you can’t draw valid “how much?” conclusions from
analyses that were designed only to furnish answers to “yes/no” questions.
You cannot derive valid quantitative data from analytical procedures which
involve pollution of samples to unkown and arbitrary degrees. You cannot
make ascientifically valid comparison of the cyanide compounds found in
samples without taking possible differences in their initial composition,
their exposure to cyanide, the impact of water on cyanide formation and
retention, and the specifics of their post 1944 histories into account.
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> Doers and carpers.
>
> Send in your own team to do the thing right.
>
> ==========================
The IFRC did a pilot study in 1990, and a full study, which was published
in 1994. They did the thing right and came to conclusions that are
essentially the same as Leuchter’s, but much better supported and
justified:
€ There are higher concentrations of cyanide compounds in fumigation
chambers than there are in the ruins of the gas chambers.
€ The concentrations in both types of environments can be rather high,
with readings as high as 600 ug/kg in former gas chambers, and as high as
900 ug/kg in former fumigation chambers.
€ Places subjected to a single gassing with HCN or known never to have
been gassed, show no concentrations of HCN at all.
Leuchter’s primary error was that he attributed the lower concentration of
cyanide compounds in the ruins of the gas chambers to a single gassing
“once long ago”, during the mid-1942 typhus epidemic. This surmise was
based on pure speculation, he did not examine the camp archives to find
justification for his explanation.
In actual fact, construction of Krema II, the structure in question, did
not begin until 1943, and camp records indicate that it was first used
March 15, 1943. Thus Leuchter’s explanation for the presence of cyanide in
the ruins of Krema II contradicts historical facts about its architectural
history. Additioanlly, the places subjected to a single gassing during the
1942 typhus epidemic no longer show cyanide compounds. The clearly
detectable cyanide compounds in the ruins of the gas chamber must thus be
the consequence of repeated exposure to HCN, as one would expect if they
were used for mass exterminational gassings, as abundant other evidence
indicates that they were.
> > > ==========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > I have already pointed out that Zuendel was not paying him to write an
> > exhaustive
> > > compendium. Academics can always theorize on what could have been done
> > in an ideal world,
> > > but that is not the world we live in.
> > >
> > > Do you think he had unlimited time and unlimited freedom to go wherever
> > he wished and
> > > chip off samples wherever he wished. Keep in mind that what he was doing
> > was illegal and
> > > could have gotten him in serious trouble had he been caught
> > >
> > > =========================================================
> >
> > He was not being paid to write an exhaustive compendium, but he was under
> > the obligation to find out if there was any justification for his false
> > and easily refuted claim that it was the first forensic study of the
> > Auschwitz gas chambers.
>
> =====================================
> Phillips
>
> Thit is a side-issue – anotther of the many nits you people have found
to pick in a
> pioneering piece of work done under difficult circumstances with limited
funds.
It is not nit-picking at all. The first forensic analysis of the Auschwitz
gas chambers was used as evidence in the trial which resulted in camp
commandant Rudolf Hoess receiving a death sentence in 1946. This is a fact
far too important to be overlooked by or unknown to a person claiming that
he has produced the first-ever forensic report of the gas chambers. A
simple visit to the museum archives when he was there would have enabled
him to see that he was not the pioneer he advertised himself to be. The
results of the first forensic examination performed on the Auschwitz gas
chambers in 1945 were part of the pysical evidence presented in support of
the charges against Auschwitz kommandant Rudolf Hoess:
Source: http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/evidence/conclusion.asp
<quote>
(i)Has it been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Auschwitz was equipped
with homicidal gas chambers,and has it been proven beyond reasonable doubt
that these gas chambers were systematically used?
The answer is yes: the “intentional evidence” given by former inmates and
the most important perpetrators is corroborated by the “non-intentional
evidence” provided by the documents in the archive of the Auschwitz
Central Construction Office, the results of the forensic
investigations done in 1945 by Jan Sehn and Roman Dawidowski, and the
testing of samples of the walls of the gas chamber of crematorium 1 and
the ruins of the gas chambers of crematoria 2,3,4 and 5.
</quote>
It is not nit-picking to point out that a person claiming in 1988 to be
presenting the first forensic analysis of the Auschwitz gas chambers
overlooks the fact that the results of the first forensic analysis of the
Auschwitz gas chambers were presented as evidence in the 1946 trial of
Rudolf Hoess.
> =====================================
> Phillips
>
> Your nit-picking is nothing more than an expression of rage at
Leuchter’s having
> pulled your world out from under you.
>
> ======================================
Leuchter has most certainly not pulled any world from under _me_. The only
world that he destroyed with his ludicrous report was his own.
I am enraged by the Leuchter Report not because of its conclusions, but
rather because it is such a clear and dishonest misuse of science to sway
a gullible public, yourself included. Leuchter’s report is so preposterous
that anybody with basic training in the natural sciences and logic can see
that it has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. Why, for example, should
Leuchter, totally arbitrarily and anachronistically, assume that the Nazis
would have followed the American execution norms valid during the 1980s
and allow nine square feet per victim in his calculation of mass gas
chamber capacity? What enrages me is totally dishonest statements such as
the one David Irving made on June 23, 1989, at the press conference which
he called to announce his publication of the Leuchter Report: ‘There was
no equipment there for killing people en masse’ (and hydrogen cyanide is
wonderful for killing lice, but not so good for killing people, unless in
colossal concentrationsŠ)’
[https://nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-08-01.html].
This is an out-and-out lie, but many gullible people considered then (but
hardly now) that Irving had some credibility and accepted it at face
value.
> >
> > Although I have little sympathy for Zündel and what he represents, it was
> > ultimately his rights that were violated by Leuchter and his absurd
> > report. Had I been Zündel, I would have sued Leuchter for
> > misrepresentation and gross incompetence. Zündel is obviously of a
> > different temperament than I am, since he has hired Leuchter to do several
> > more reports, each more absurd than the last.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> Strangely, has never even bad-mouthed Leuchter, much less taken steps to
sue him.
> Indeed Zuendel regards the trials as a victory for himself. Leuchter
had to pay the
> price for the victories.
>
> ==========================================
Many people think that Germany and Japan won WW II. Others believe that
Elvis, Liberace, and JFK are still among the living… Zündel, with his
flying saucers emerging from the South Pole, is a rather flakey character.
He holds, let us say, controversial, views on many issues.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:03 EDT 2001
Article: 942686 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!uio.no!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-8.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Krakow Report
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:08:50 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-8.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997780152 9513 128.214.79.9 (14 Aug 2001 09:09:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Aug 2001 09:09:12 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:942686
In article <3B7892[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> You are right. The Krakow Institute did publish two separate reports
subsequently to
> the Leuchter Report of 1988: one in 1990; one in 1994.
This is not quite true. The Institute for Forensic Research Cracow
produced a pilot in-house study in 1990 which was never officially published,
although its main findings are summarized in the 1994 Cracow Report. It
comes to essentially the same conclusions that the Leuchter Report does,
but with some important differences:
1. It uses a proper control, thus showing that the gas chambers and
fumigation chamberss have more in common with respct to the presence of cyanide
traces than do the gas chambers and places never or only once exposed to
cyanide, as argued by Leuchter.
2. It uses the proper quantitative analytical techniques, for which reason
the figures produced have scientific value, unlike the figures given in
the Leuchter Report.
Expressed in the simplest of terms:
FC = Fumigation chambers
GC = Gas chambers
TE = Places gassed once during the mid-1942 typhus epidemic
The parenthesis indicate that the result is based on speculation rather
than actual analysis.
HIGH MEDIUM LOW NONE
Leuchter 1988: FC GC (TE)
Cracow 1990: FC GC TE
During 1990-1991 the communist government in Poland was collapsing, and
publishing and other scientific activities in Poland were severely
disrupted and delayed. The 1990 report served as a pilot study for the
1994 IFRC report, published in May of that year. This 1994 IFRC report is
what is, by default, understood as the Cracow Report.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Now since the IHR article which I posted pretty much demolishes the 1990
report,
> suppose you tell us all about the 1994 report.
The IHR article[http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/2/IHR207-216.html]
most certainly does _not_ demolish the 1990 report. It notes that the 1990
unpublished report (of which they obtained a copy), is essentially in
agreement with Leuchter’s conclusions, even if the IFRC researchers
interpret them differently. The IHR article is straightforward enough to
include correspondence from the IFRC indicating that the 1990 report was
intended as an in-house pilot study for a much more extensive future
report.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> –Why it needs to be taken seriously
It needs to be taken seriously because:
€ It was done by scientists with the requisite professional competence.
€ It used the appropriate type of scraping samples.
€ It used a proper control.
€ It took what is known about the architectural history of the camp into
consideration.
€ It used the appropriate quantitative analytical techniques.
€ It demonstrated that the conditions for forming and retaining cyanide
compounds in the fumigation chambers and gas chambers were radically
different.
€ It demonstrated that water plays a role in the formation and retention
of cyanide compounds.
€ It took the radically different post-1944 meteorological histories of
the fumigation chambers and gas chambers from the standpoint of the
retention of cyanide compounds into consideration.
The Leuchter Report, on the other hand, was marred by the facts that:
€ Leuchter lacked the professional competence to do design or perform such
a study.
€ He took core samples, when he should have taken scraping samples.
€ His control was a sample from a place with a high cyanide content, thus
he confused a “yes/no” question with a “more/less” question.
€ He did not familiarize himself with the architectural history of the
camp and thus used unjustified and easily refued speculation to explain
the presence of cyanide in the former gas chambers.
€ He tried to draw quantitative conclusions from a qualitative analysis.
€ He assumed that the conditions for forming and retaining cyanide
compounds in the fumigation chambers and gas chambers were identical.
€ He neglected the fact that water plays a role in the formation and
retention of cyanide compounds, even though the gas chambers, but not the
fumigation chambers, were hosed down in conjunction with the gassings, and
the structures of the gas chambers, but not of the fumigation chambers,
have been exposed to the elements since 1944, sometimes being submerged in
water for weeks at a time.
€ He did not consider the radically different post-1944 meteorological
histories of the fumigation chambers and gas chambers from the standpoint
of the retention of cyanide compounds into consideration.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> –What points it raises that require to be addressed.
>
> ==============================================
It contains:
1. An extensive study of the cyanide compounds found in
a. the ruins of gas chambers
b. the fumigation chambers
c. places known to have been gassed once during the 1942 typhus epidemic
d. places known never to have been gassed.
Samples from (a) and (b) show clear residual traces of cyanide compounds.
Samples from (c) and (d) do not. Leuchter had argued that (b) and (c)
would have been similar, and he never studied any samples from a (d)
source.
2. Detailed studies of the manner in which:
a. the formation of cyanide compounds is affected by the presence of C=2
in the ambient air.
b. the formation of cyanide compounds is affected by the age and nature of
the structural materials with which the cyanide gas interacts.
c. the retention of cyanide compounds is affected by interaction with
water in the shorter and longer term.
These are fundamental issues which a serious forensic report would have
had to address. Leuchter assumed with no justification that the conditions
for formation and retention of cyanide compounds would have been identical
in the two environments which he studied. That, his crude sampling
techniques, his improper control, his instructions to the laboratory to
perform a qualitative analysis, and his blatantly unscientific attempt to
draw quantitative conclusions from the qualitative analysis, all seriously
compromise his report. This was painfully obvious to the Canadian court
and prosecutor, and should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of
scientific literacy.
The Leuchter Report has no meat and potatoes; it is scientific junk food,
with the emphasis on the junk.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:03 EDT 2001
Article: 942829 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.stealth.net!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!telocity-west!TELOCITY!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman and Brown Jointly on the Gas Chambers
Supersedes: <140820011851003518%[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 21:31:42 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 242
Message-ID: <140820012131423470%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eng-0047.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997813924 15782 128.214.199.213 (14 Aug 2001 18:32:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Aug 2001 18:32:04 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:942829
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> It does not make the slightest impression on me to point
> what you imagine to be Leuchter’s “incompetence.” That is a
> partisan judgement.
Sorry, Richard. A “gas chamber expert” who does not know that it takes
far higher concentrations and far longer exposure to cyanide, the gas
used in American gas chambers since the 1920s, to kill lice than it
does to kill people is incompetent. A “gas chamber expert” who assumes
that the Nazis would have followed the nine-square feet/victim norms
that were in force with regards to American gas chambers in the 1980s
is a nincompoop. A “gas chamber expert” who says that a structure could
not contain the concentrations of gas needed to kill people, but
explains the presence of cyanide compounds on its walls as being the
consequence of a gassing to kill lice has no credibility whatsoever.
That is not a partisan judgement. That is a “three imbecilities and
you’re out” decision. And this does not even address the fourth and
perhaps most egregious imbecility: a “gas chamber expert” with some
academic training in history offering a report as the first-ever
forensic study of the Auschwitz gas chambers who does not know that
several forensic analyses of the Auschwitz gas chambers were performed
immediately after the war, including the one conducted by Dawidowski
and Sehn which was used as evidence at the trial of Rudolf Hoess in
1946.
> What he most certainly WAS lacking in
> was courtroom saavy. He should have anticipated being
> grilled on the question of HCN needed to kill lice vs HCN
> needed to kill humans.
There is no question of “anticipation”. Cyanide is the only gas that
has been used in American gas chambers since the 1920s, and Leuchter
represented himself as an expert on this particular kind of gas
chamber. An “expert” in American gas chambers who lacks knowledge of
even the most basic properties of cyanide as a lethal agent is like an
“expert” on American history who has never heard of George Washington,
the Civil War, or Pearl Harbor.
> For that omission he paid dearly in
> reputation. But that is not the issue here.
That is very much at issue here. The man was asked to justify to the
court why he should be allowed to testify as an expert witness. First
he demonstrated to the court that he had no academic credentials or
requisite training to function as an expert witness in a case requiring
expertise in chemistry and toxology, then he deprecated the need for
such acdemic specialization to be able to draw up the report submitted
by an expert witness, then he showed to the court that he lacked even
the most basic knowledge of the relative lethality of cyanide to warm
as opposed to cold-blooded organisms, or of the relative scientific
value of the numbers produced by qualitative as opposed to quantitative
analysis, facts one learns in Toxicology 101 and Chemistry 101,
respectively.
His exhibition of absolute and total incompetence before the court is
very much the issue here. It was compounded when his misrepresentation
of professional clients, tall-tales about ongoing work, and his
conflict-of-interest scam were eventually investigated. No court in any
country would be so irresponsible as to accept as an expert witness a
man as completely unqualified as Fred Leuchter, nor would a forensic
report drawn up by such a manifestly unqualified and, as it turned out,
disingenuous, person be accepted by any honest court or prosecutor.
> The real issue
> is NUMBERS and it is ONLY numbers that are going to make the
> slightest impression no me.
>
> I want answers to the following questions:
>
> (1) It is claimed that Leuchter took bulk samples rather
> than surface samples and that this flawed methodology
> profoundly distorted his results.
>
> Very well: let the following experiments be performed.
There is absolutely no reason to perform such a battery of experiments.
> 1a) Repeat what Leuchter did, collecting samples in exactly
> the same way from the same places, analyze and note the
> results.(There should be no large differences with
> Leuchter’s results)
>
> 1b) Repeat 1a) except this time take the samples the way it
> is claimed they should have been taken – strictly at the
> surface. Analyze, note the results and compare with 1a).
>
> The question here is: are the results from 1b larger than
> those from 1a. Moreover, they must not only be larger but
> larger to a degree that is experimentally significant; I am
> going to say at least 20% larger.
I can’t believe that I am having to explain basic chemistry to you.
Leuchter’s numbers have no value whatsoever as numbers. Their _only_
value is as indicators of the presence or absence of cyanide. Although
the results of the analysis were given in the form of numbers, they are
the results of _qualitative_, not _quantitative_ analysis, and thus
have only a plus or minus value. The dilution of the sample and
addition of various agents needed to enhance certain elements of the
spectrum and damp others in qualitative analysis pollutes the sample to
such a degree that the numbers have no value as answers to “how much”
type questions.
The numbers, no matter what they are, will not be interpretable without
considering the facts that the gas chambers and fumigations constituted
different types of environments for cyanide formation, as well as
different types of environments for the subsequent dissolution or
disintegration of cyanide compounds. Numbers are not enough, they have
to be placed within a wider context.
>
> (2) THe second question is this: Leuchter claims that the
> very low HCN residues found on the walls of the (alleged)
> execution chamber prove non-use as execution chambers. The
> other side claims, contrariwise, that they are actually
> about what we would expect.
>
> To settle this, take the results from 1a or 1b (whichever
> are higher) and match them against three different controls.
>
> 2a) Take a room of the same dimensions and wall material as
> your alleged execution chamber.
>
> –If you have one then give it a pre-check for residues and
> make certain ther are nil.
>
> –If you don’t have one, then build one.
>
> As nearly as we can, repeat what you believe went on in your
> execution chamber. Number and duration of gassings,
> concentratins used, etc. Compare with 1a or 1b, whichever is
> higher. If the results are much higher than what Leuchter
> got, then it favours Leuchter, If they are about the same,
> then it favours the Holocaustniks.
>
> I realize there is an experimental difficulty. When you have
> a gas chamber with real victims, much of the HCN will be
> absorbed into human bodies and this would tend to lower wall
> concentrations. I can’t think of any way around this, but it
> must be allowed for.
Your experiment does not address the fundamental problem:
a. The fumigation chambers were subjected to several years of constant
use during which they were continually exposed to concentrations of
15,000 ppm of cyanide maintained over 20 hours. They were then
ventilated, their contents were removed, and new objects to be
disinfected were put in them, and a new 15,000 ppm concentration of
cyanide maintained over 20 hours was produced. After January 1945,
these rooms were sealed, and they have remained sealed and completely
protected from the elements since then.
b. The gas chambers were used only a few times a week until the summer
of 1944 when the action against Hungarian Jews was started. They were
exposed to concentrations which might have reached as high as 8000 ppm
during the final few minutes of a gassing, which regularly lasted about
fifteen minutes before the ventilation was turned on. It is true that
soem of the HCN is absorbed by bodies during the first minutes of a
gassing when people are still breathing, but unconsciousness usually
follows after a few sniffs, and most people would be dead within three
to five minutes. The amount of cyanide aborbed through the skin of
fresh cadavers would not be as great as the amount being given off by
the Zyklon-B, which was designed to produce a concentration of 15,000
ppm within the premise in question.
Carbon dioxide in the breath of the people during the first few minutes
of the gassing, the necessary hosing down that would have to be done
immediately after the doors were opened, as well as once again after
all the bodies had been cleared out, would preset radically different
and less favorable conditions for cyanide compound formation than was
the case in the fumigation chambers. Add to this the fact that some
gassings were so messy that the chamber could not be used again until
its walls were whitewashed, a process which also disrupts the formation
of cyanide compounds. Add to this the fact that after November, 1944,
the gas chambers were dismantled and demolished, and what were once
interior walls have been fully exposed to the elements since then.
The two enviornments were so totally different, both when exposed to
cyanide and during the time since 1944, that your “experiment”, which
does not take these fundamental issues into account, cannot produce
scientifically accurate or even interesting figures.
>
> 2b) Take wall samples from a room not previously subjected
> to any systematic use (either as fumigation ro execution
> chamber) but which might display residues by virtue of
> having been in the area. If the results are about the same
> as Leuchter got, it favours Leuchter. If they are
> SIGNIFICANTLY less, it would favour the Holocaust side.
What does “significantly” less mean when you are comparing places with
such obviously different histories of exposure to both cyanide and the
elements? Much more important is the fact that both structures show
“significantly” more traces of cyanide compounds after their different
half-century histories than places known to have been exposed only once
or never at all.
> (I
> think one of the Krakow reports talked about this) But
> please remember. We are talking about differences
> denominated in mg/kg, not in ug/kg. Let’s use honest units.
um/kg is a perfectly honest unit. Using mg/kg you are going to have a
lot of decimal points and leading zeroes, e.g. 770 ug/kg = 0.770 mg/kg,
24 ug/kg = 0.024 mg/kg. Leuchter’s mg/kg are as dishonest as they are
meaningless, since he is presenting the results of qualitative analysis
as the results of quantitative analysis.
>
> 2c) Take wall samples from a room that was never in an area
> whece HCN was used. This will serve as an additional control
> over 2b)
>
> ——————————————————
> These are the experimental results we need. So, please, no
> more bad-mouthing and no more editorialising. All I want to
> see are numbers. Compromise: do it my way.
Your way is wrong and does not take either the different conditions or
the different histories of the structures concerned into account.
Leuchter, Krakow, and everybody else who has conducted forensic studies
of the Auschwitz gas chambers produced results showing that the
presence of cyanide compounds there after half a century cannot be
attributed to a single gassing, but rather is the result of the
structures in question repeatedly having been exposed to cyanide in the
past.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. These things were already
demonstrated with crystal clarity in the forensic report presented by
Dawidowski and Sehn which formed part of the physical evidence which
was used to convict Rudolf Hoess in the Auschwitz trial at Cracow in
1946. That is why there is no real debate about the existence of
Auschwitz gas chambers, nor is there a need to perform elaborate
experiments to explain the presence of cyanide compounds in the places
an abundance of other evidence, both physical and eyewitness testimony,
indicates were once mass-execution gas chambers.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:03 EDT 2001
Article: 943293 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman and Brown Jointly on the Gas Chambers
Supersedes: <150820011256197768%[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:21:20 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 271
Message-ID: <150820011521201081%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <140820012131423470%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997878101 20072 128.214.77.45 (15 Aug 2001 12:21:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2001 12:21:41 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:943293
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
>
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> I could read that as implying you’d very much rather they were NOT
> performed. I wonder why.
>
> ========================================
Because they would irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> >
> > Leuchter’s numbers have no value whatsoever as numbers. Their _only_
> > value is as indicators of the presence or absence of cyanide. Although
> > the results of the analysis were given in the form of numbers, they are
> > the results of _qualitative_, not _quantitative_ analysis
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> According to you a qualitative analysis gives a yes/no answer but a
> quantitative answer gives a how much answer. The lab’s analysis resulted in
> numbers yet you still insist it was a qualititave analysis and on that
> account worthless. What is all this but the expostulation of a barrage of
> hi-falutin verbiage to prove that black is white and white is black. I
> refuse to believe it as I refuse to believe any other snow job
>
> ===============================
Let me give an analogy which even you should be able to understand.
Somebody asks you to determine whether there are any black people in
Helsinki. You go off to Helsinki with your camera, and randomly take
ten pictures of crowds of people in various places. In three of the
photographs black people are clearly visible: 3 in photograph (a), 1 in
photograph (b), and 5 in photograph (c). You submit a report to your
client that states that there are black people in Helsinki based upon
your empirical observation that a total of nine black people showed up
in your ten photographs.
Can you not understand that the number ‘9’ here only has a qualitative
(yes) value, not a quantitative (how many) value? The only thing you
have demonstrated is that there are black people in Helsinki,
you have not done the work that permits you to give an estimate of the
number or percentage of black people in Helsinki, you have only
verified their presence. Now, you might go to Tallinn and take ten more
photographs and find a total of eleven black people. Such a test once
again confirms the presence of black people in Tallinn, but it cannot
be used to determine how many black people are there, or whether there
are more black people in Tallinn than there are in Helsinki. A totally
different type of test has to be done to determine the number and
compare the relative percentages of black people in the two cities.
This is what I mean when I say that you cannot draw valid quantitative
conclusions from the results of qualitative analysis.
> > , and thus
> > have only a plus or minus value. The dilution of the sample and
> > addition of various agents needed to enhance certain elements of the
> > spectrum and damp others in qualitative analysis pollutes the sample to
> > such a degree that the numbers have no value as answers to “how much”
> > type questions.
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> You claim Leuchter’s numbers are worthless because he diluted his samples.
Correct:
1. He diluted his samples when he took core samples rather than
scraping samples.
2. He allowed them to be diluted yet again when he told the laboratory
to test for the presence rather than the amount of cyanide in the
samples.
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> Furthermore you insist that we buy your theory.
> ===========================================
>
It’s not a theory:
1. Leuchter had himself videotaped as he collected his samples, and it
is obvious that he is taking core samples.
2. Dr. Roth of Alpha Labs told how the tests he ran involved grinding
up the entire sample, rather than carefully scraping off ten microns
off the outside surface of the samples.
>
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> But that is not the way
> science works; it performs experiments to PROVE (or disprove) the theory
> and that is all I am asking: that we perform experiments that will prove,
> conclusively, whether you are right or wrong.
>
> ===========================================
The IHRC performed experiments concerning:
– the affects of water and CO2 on cyanide compound formation
– the effects of water on cyanide compound retention in the shrot and
longer term
– the effects of different building materials on cyanide formation and
retention
All of these experiments were described in the report, as was the
relevance of such data to addressing the problem at hand. Leuchter did
not address these problems, for which reason his results are
meaningless.
Science is done by critically assessing previous work. Leuchter did not
bother to look at the forensic studies of Auscvhwitz which were
performed immediately after the war and used as evidence in, for
example, the 1946 Hoess trial. He made up his own experiments, and was
critically misled by his assumption that Nazi gas chambers would be
essentially the same in structure and operation as American gas
chambers. Moreover, he did not understand that it takes a higher
concentration of cyanide maintained over a much longer period to kill
lice than it does to kill poeople, or that water and CO2 play a role in
cyanide compounhd formation and retention. He thus produced worthless
figures, and his explanation for the presence of cyanide compounds in
the former gas chamber was based on speculation rather than on either
experimentation or an examination of the historical facts that were
readily available.
The Cracow team addressed all of the methodological shortcomings in
Leuchter’s analysis, and performed experiments showing, among other
things, that both structural materials and water play a significant
role on the dynamics of cyanide compound formation and retention. Thus,
the surfaces of the fumigation chambers and gas chambers are not
directly comparable. They constitute significantly different types of
environments for the formation and retention of cyanide compounds.
Science would advance by finding something to criticize in the Krakow
Report, but as far as I know it has stood the test of time. You have
objected to its use of micrograms as “dishinest units”, but they were
doing a finely callibrated quantitative analysis, not a yes/no
qualitative analysis, as was performed by the Alpha Labs, so your
objection is unjustified.
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> When you insist there is no “need” for such experiments, it can only be for
> one reason: that you fear they could blow your theory out of the water.
>
> ==================================================================
No. When I say there is no need for such experiments I mean that all
experiments and analyses done so far, even Leuchter’s flawed analysis,
indicate that cyanide compounds are present on the walls of the
structures other evidence indicates were mass execution gas chambers,
and that even after half a century they are present in such quantities
that their presence cannot be interpreted as the result of a single
gassing. Leuchter’s unfounded and provably false claim that the
structures could not have contained the concentrations of cyanide
needed to kill people are contradicted by his completely unfounded
claim that the traces of cyanide on the walls of a structure first used
in March, 1943, are the result of a single disinfection during the
mid-1942 typhus epidemic. A structure that could have contained the
high concentrations of cyanide over the twenty hours needed to kill
lice could necessarily have contained the much lower concentrations
over the mere five to ten minutes needed to kill people. Leuchter did
not understand this, and this mistake in logic cannot be rectified by
experiments.
> > The numbers, no matter what they are, will not be interpretable without
> > considering the facts that the gas chambers and fumigations constituted
> > different types of environments for cyanide formation, as well as
> > different types of environments for the subsequent dissolution or
> > disintegration of cyanide compounds. Numbers are not enough, they have
> > to be placed within a wider context.
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> THen let us by all means design experimets that duplicate, to the closest
> degree possible, what we believe took place. Thata is hardly beyond the
> ingenuity of mortal man.
>
> ==================================
It has already been done. The IFRC report. Live with it, or shoot it
down.
> > Your experiment does not address the fundamental problem:
> >
> > a. The fumigation chambers were subjected to several years of constant
> > use during which they were continually exposed to concentrations of
> > 15,000 ppm of cyanide maintained over 20 hours. They were then
> > ventilated, their contents were removed, and new objects to be
> > disinfected were put in them, and a new 15,000 ppm concentration of
> > cyanide maintained over 20 hours was produced. After January 1945,
> > these rooms were sealed, and they have remained sealed and completely
> > protected from the elements since then.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> All of which were reflected in the high HCN concentrations found on their
> walls. What else is new?
>
> ==============================================
>
> >
> >
> > b. The gas chambers were used only a few times a week until the summer
> > of 1944 when the action against Hungarian Jews was started. They were
> > exposed to concentrations which might have reached as high as 8000 ppm
> > during the final few minutes of a gassing, which regularly lasted about
> > fifteen minutes before the ventilation was turned on. It is true that
> > soem of the HCN is absorbed by bodies during the first minutes of a
> > gassing when people are still breathing, but unconsciousness usually
> > follows after a few sniffs, and most people would be dead within three
> > to five minutes. The amount of cyanide aborbed through the skin of
> > fresh cadavers would not be as great as the amount being given off by
> > the Zyklon-B, which was designed to produce a concentration of 15,000
> > ppm within the premise in question.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> (1) I see: and it was as a result of this “only a few times a week” usage
> (terminated in 1944, by the way) that they managed to rack up a total of 1M
> gassing deaths – correct?
Hoess says, and the deportation records bear him out on this, that up
until the action against the Hungarian Jews he was processing two or
three trainloads per week. Each trainload had 2,000 people, from among
whom about 400 were selected to enter the camp as slave laborers. The
rest were sent to the crematoriums.
Let us calculate roughly:
2.5 trainloads/week à 1600 selectees * 60 weeks = 240,000
(60 weeks the time from March 1943 until May 1944 when the Hungarians
start coming in).
Between May 1944 and November 1944, about 500,000 Hungarian Jews were
sent to Auschwitz, of whom 400,000 were gassed. According to Hoess, the
highest number of people gassed and cremated within 24 hours during
this period was “rather more than 9,000”.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> (2) Well, whatever you claim was done. let us repeat that as closely as we
> can and see what sort of concentrations result. If they turn out to be
> about the same as what Leuchter got, you people win. If they turn out to be
> much larger, then Leuchter’s results stil stand.
>
> You’ve certainly no objection to winning, have you?
>
> =======================================
This is not a contest. Leuchter’s results have no scientific validity.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:03 EDT 2001
Article: 943335 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!lon1-news.nildram.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.88.64.227!sonofon.dk!newsrouter.euroconnect.net!newsfeed.song.fi!news.cs.hut.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Allied arial recon shots show the lie
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:00:19 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 1556
Message-ID: <150820011700198302%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <m3[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997884041 26434 128.214.77.45 (15 Aug 2001 14:00:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2001 14:00:41 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:943335
In article <[email protected]>, Morghus
<[email protected]> wrote:
> “Jeffrey G. Brown” <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>…
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Morghus) wrote:
> >
> > > They made it all up and forced
> > > Hoess to repeat it under threats of more torture and physical harm to
> > > Hoess’s wife and children.
> >
> > Cite actual evidence of “threats of more torture and physical harm to
> > Hoess’s
> > wife and children” used to extract information from Hoess.
> >
>
> Why would a man like Hoess make such self-incriminating, yet
> nonsensical, physically impossible, and obviously false statements to
> people who were openly preparing to hang him. Hoess most likely did
> the same thing in those private interrogating rooms that he did in the
> court room when the statements were read to him by the Allied
> prosecutor–
Two points. First of all, Hoess was in the court room twice:
1. in Nuremberg, where he appeared as a defense witness in the trial
against Ernst Kaltenbrunner (see:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-15-46.htm#hoess);
2. In Cracow, where he appeared as the defendant before the Supreme
national Tribunal of Poland (see:
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/hoess.htm).
Only in the first instance could he have interacted with the Allied
Prosecutor. In any case, he was interrogated not by the Allied
Prosecutor, but rather by Dr. Kauffmann, Kaltenbrunner’s legal counsel.
You claim that:
> …he just kept saying “jawohl” to anything they said.
A simple glance at the historical record shows that your claim lacks
any credible factual basis whatsoever. In fact, it is an out-and-out
lie. Hoess does indeed begin with a series of laconic ‘yes’ (= jawohl)
answers to some general questions, but he quickly becomes much more
specific and loquacious.
You needn’t take my word for it. Here is the court transcript of what
Hoess said when testifying in Nuremberg on Monday, 15 April 1946 as a
witness in defence of Obergruppenführer Ernst Kaltenbrunner:
Source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-15-46.htm#hoess
<quote>
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 11
Previous Day Volume 11 Menu Next Day
Nuremberg Trials Page
ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTH DAY
Monday, 15 April 1946
Morning Session
<deletions>
Now, Dr. Kauffmann.
DR. KAUFFMANN: With the agreement of the Tribunal, I now call the
witness Hoess.
[The witness Hoess took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Stand up. Will you state your name?
RUDOLF FRANZ FERDINAND HOESS (Witness): Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the
Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will
withhold and add nothing.
[The witness repeated the oath in German.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you sit down?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness, your statements will have far-reaching
significance. You are perhaps the only one who can throw some light
upon certain hidden aspects, and who can tell which people gave the
orders for the destruction of European Jewry, and
396
15 April 46
can further state how this order was carried out and to what degree the
execution was kept a secret.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, will you kindly put questions to the
witness.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.
[Turning to the witness] From 1940 to 1943, you were the Commander of
the camp at Auschwitz. Is that true?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And during that time, hundreds of thousands of human
beings were sent to their death there. Is that correct?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it true that you, yourself, have made no exact notes
regarding the figures of the number of those victims because you were
forbidden to make them?
HOESS: Yes, that is correct.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it furthermore correct that exclusively one man by
the name of Eichmann had notes about this, the man who had the task of
organizing and assembling these people?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it furthermore true that Eichmann stated to you that
in Auschwitz a total sum of more than 2 million Jews had been
destroyed?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Men, women, and children?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: You were a participant in the World War?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then in 1922, you entered the Party?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Were you a member of the SS?
HOESS: Since 1934.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it true that you, in the year 1924, were sentenced to
a lengthy term of hard labor because you participated in a so-called
political murder?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then at the end of 1934, you went to the
concentration camp of Dachau?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: What task did you receive?
397
15 April 46
HOESS: At first, I was the leader of a block of prisoners and then I
became clerk and finally, the administrator of the property of
prisoners.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And how long did you stay there?
HOESS: Until 1938.
DR. KAUFFMANN: What job did you have from 1938 on and where were you
then?
HOESS: In 1938 I went to the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen where,
to begin with, I was adjutant to the commander and later on I became
the head of the protective custody camp.
DR. KAUFFMANN: When were you commander at Auschwitz?
HOESS: I was commander at Auschwitz from May 1940 until December 1943.
DR. KAUFFMANN: What was the highest number of human beings, prisoners,
ever held at one time at Auschwitz?
HOESS: The highest number of internees held at one time at Auschwitz,
was about 140,000 men and women.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it true that in 1941 you were ordered to Berlin to
see Himmler? Please state briefly what was discussed.
HOESS: Yes. In the summer of 1941 I was summoned to Berlin to
Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to receive personal orders. He told me
something to the effect-I do not remember the exact words-that the
Fuehrer had given the order for a final solution of the Jewish
question. We, the SS, must carry out that order. If it is not carried
out now then the Jews will later on destroy the German people. He had
chosen Auschwitz on account of its easy access by rail and also because
the extensive site offered space for measures ensuring isolation.
DR. KAUFFMANN: During that conference did Himmler tell you that this
planned action had to be treated as a secret Retch matter?
HOESS: Yes. He stressed that point. He told me that I was not even
allowed to say anything about it to my immediate superior
Gruppenfuehrer Glucks. This conference concerned the two of us only and
I was to observe the strictest secrecy.
DR. KAUFFMANN: What was the position held by Glucks whom you have just
mentioned?
HOESS: Gruppenfuehrer Glucks was, so to speak, the inspector of
concentration camps at that time and he was immediately subordinate to
the Reichsfuehrer.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Does the expression “secret Reich matter” mean that no
one was permitted to make even the slightest allusion to outsiders
without endangering his own life?
398
15 April 46
HOESS: Yes, “secret Reich matter” means that no one was allowed to
speak about these matters with any person and that everyone promised
upon his life to keep the utmost secrecy.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you happen to break that promise?
HOESS: No, not until the end of 1942.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Why do you mention that date? Did you talk to outsiders
after that date?
HOESS: At the end of 1942 my wife’s curiosity was aroused by remarks
made by the then Gauleiter of Upper Silesia, regarding happenings in my
camp. She asked me whether this was the truth and I admitted that it
was. That was my only breach of the promise I had given to the
Reichsfuehrer. Otherwise I have never talked about it to anyone else.
DR. KAUFFMANN: When did you meet Eichmann?
HOESS: I met Eichmann about 4 weeks after having received that order
>from the Reichsfuehrer. He came to Auschwitz to discuss the details
with me on the carrying out of the given order. As the Reichsfuehrer
had told me during our discussion, he had instructed Eichmann to
discuss the carrying out of the order with me and I was to receive all
further instructions from him.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Will you briefly tell whether it is correct that the
camp of Auschwitz was completely isolated, describing the measures
taken to insure as far as possible the secrecy of carrying out of the
task given to you.
HOESS: The Auschwitz camp as such was about 3 kilometers away from the
town. About 20,000 acres of the surrounding country had been cleared of
all former inhabitants, and the entire area could be entered only by SS
men or civilian employees who had special passes. The actual compound
called “Birkenau,” where later on the extermination camp was
constructed, was situated 2 kilometers from the Auschwitz camp. The
camp installations themselves, that is to say, the provisional
installations used at first were deep in the woods and could from
nowhere be detected by the eye. In addition to that, this area had been
declared a prohibited area and even members of the SS who did not have
a special pass could not enter it. Thus, as far as one could judge, it
was impossible for anyone except authorized persons to enter that area.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then the railway transports arrived. During what
period did these transports arrive and about how many people, roughly,
were in such a transport?
HOESS: During the whole period up until 1944 certain operations were
carried out at irregular intervals in the different countries, so that
one cannot speak of a continuous flow of incoming transports.
399
15 April 46
It was always a matter of 4 to 6 weeks. During those 4 to 6 weeks two
to three trains, containing about 2,000 persons each, arrived daily.
These trains were first of all shunted to a siding in the Birkenau
region and the locomotives then went back. The guards who had
accompanied the transport had to leave the area at once and the persons
who had been brought in were taken over by guards belonging to the
camp.
They were there examined by two SS medical officers as to their fitness
for work. The internees capable of work at once marched to Auschwitz or
to the camp at Birkenau and those incapable of work were at first taken
to the provisional installations, then later to the newly constructed
crematoria.
DR. KAUFFMANN: During an interrogation I had with you the other day you
told me that about 60 men were designated to receive these transports,
and that these 60 persons, too, had been bound to the same secrecy
described before. Do you still maintain that today?
HOESS: Yes, these 60 men were always on hand to take the internees not
capable of work to these provisional installations and later on to the
other ones. This group, consisting of about ten leaders and subleaders,
as well as doctors and medical personnel, had repeatedly been told,
both in writing and verbally, that they were bound to the strictest
secrecy as to all that went on in the camps.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Were there any signs that might show an outsider who saw
these transports arrive, that they would be destroyed or was that
possibility so small because there was in Auschwitz an unusually large
number of incoming transports, shipments of goods and so forth?
HOESS: Yes, an observer who did not make special notes for that purpose
could obtain no idea about that because to begin with not only
transports arrived which were destined to be destroyed but also other
transports arrived continuously, containing new internees who were
needed in the camp. Furthermore, transports likewise left the camp in
sufficiently large numbers with internees fit for work or exchanged
prisoners.
The trains themselves were closed, that is to say, the doors of the
freight cars were closed so that it was not possible, from the outside,
to get a glimpse of the people inside. In addition to that, up to 100
cars of materials, rations, et cetera, were daily rolled into the camp
or continuously left the workshops of the camp in which war material
was being made.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And after the arrival of the transports were the victims
stripped of everything they had? Did they have to undress completely;
did they have to surrender their valuables? Is that true?
400
16 April 46
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then they immediately went to their death?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I ask you, according to your knowledge, did these people
know what was in store for them?
HOESS: The majority of them did not, for steps were taken to keep them
in doubt about it and suspicion would not arise that they were to go to
their death. For instance, all doors and all walls bore inscriptions to
the effect that they were going to undergo a delousing operation or
take a shower. This was made known in several languages to the
internees by other internees who had come in with earlier transports
and who were being used as auxiliary crews during the whole action.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then, you told me the other day, that death by
gassing set in within a period of 3 to 15 minutes. Is that correct?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: You also told me that even before death finally set in,
the victims fell into a state of unconsciousness?
HOESS: Yes. From what I was able to find out myself or from what was
told me by medical officers, the time necessary for reaching
unconsciousness or death varied according to the temperature and the
number of people present in the chambers. Loss of consciousness took
place within a few seconds or a few minutes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you yourself ever feel pity with the victims,
thinking of your own family and children?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: How was it possible for you to carry out
these actions in spite of this?
HOESS: In view of all these doubts which I had, the only one and
decisive argument was the strict order and the reason given for it by
the Reichsfuehrer Himmler.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I ask you whether Himmler inspected the camp and
convinced himself, too, of the process of annihilation?
HOESS: Yes. Himmler visited the camp in 1942 and he watched in detail
one processing from beginning to end.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Does the same apply to Eichmann?
HOESS: Eichmann came repeatedly to Auschwitz and was intimately
acquainted with the proceedings.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did the Defendant Kaltenbrunner ever inspect the camp?
401
15 April 46
HOESS: No.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you ever talk with Kaltenbrunner with reference to
your task?
HOESS: No, never. I was with Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner on only
one single occasion.
DR. KAUFFMANN: When was that?
HOESS: That was one day after his birthday in the year 1944.
DR. KAUFFMANN: What position did you hold in the year 1944?
HOESS: In the year 1944 I was the head of Department E1 in the Main
Economic and Administrative Office in Berlin. My office was the former
Inspectorate of Concentration Camps at Oranienburg.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And what was the subject of that conference which you
have just mentioned?
HOESS: It concerned a report from the camp at Mauthausen on the
so-called nameless internees and their engagement in armament industry.
Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner was to make a decision on the matter.
For that reason I came to him with the report from the commander at
Mauthausen but he did not make a decision telling me he would do so
later.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Regarding the location of Mauthausen, will you please
state in which district Mauthausen is situated. Is that
Upper Silesia or is it the Government General?
HOESS: Mauthausen…
DR. KAUFFMANN: Auschwitz, I beg your pardon, I made a mistake. I mean
Auschwitz.
HOESS: Auschwitz is situated in the former state of Poland. Later,
after 1939, it was incorporated in the province of Upper Silesia.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it right for me to assume that administration and
feeding of concentration camps were exclusively under the control of
the Main Economic and Administrative Office?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: A department which is completely separated from the
RSHA?
HOESS: Quite correct.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then from 1943 until the end of the war, you were
one of the chiefs in the Inspectorate of the Main Economic and
Administrative Office?
HOESS: Yes, that is correctly stated.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you mean by that, that you are particularly well
informed on everything occurring in concentration camps regarding the
treatment and the methods applied?
402
15 April 46
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I ask you, therefore, first of all, whether you have any
knowledge regarding the treatment of internees, whether certain methods
became known to you according to which they were tortured and cruelly
treated? Please formulate your statement according to periods, up to
1939 and after 1939.
HOESS: Until the outbreak of war in 1939, the situation in the camps
regarding feeding, accommodations, and treatment of internees, was the
same as in any other prison or penitentiary in the Reich. The internees
were treated severely, but methodical beatings or illtreatments were
out of the question. The Reichsfuehrer gave frequent orders that every
SS man who laid violent hands on an internee would be punished; and
several times SS men who did illtreat internees were punished.
Feeding and billeting at that time were on the same basis as those of
other prisoners under legal administration.
The accommodations in the camps during those years were still normal
because the mass influxes at the outbreak of the war and during the war
had not yet taken place. When the war started and when mass deliveries
of political internees arrived, and, later on, when prisoners who were
members of the resistance movements arrived from the occupied
territories, the construction of buildings and the extensions of the
camps could no longer keep pace with the number of incoming internees.
During the first years of the war this problem could still be overcome
by improvising measures; but later, due to the exigencies of the war,
this was no longer possible since there were practically no building
materials any more at our disposal. And, furthermore, rations for the
internees were again and again severely curtailed by the provincial
economic administration offices.
This then led to a situation where internees in the camps no longer had
the staying power to resist the now gradually growing epidemics.
The main reason why the prisoners were in such bad condition towards
the end of the war, why so many thousands of them were found sick and
emaciated in the camps, was that every internee had to be employed in
the armament industry to the extreme limit of his forces. The
Reichsfuehrer constantly and on every occasion kept this goal before
our eyes, and also proclaimed it through the Chief of the Main Economic
and Administrative Office, Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, to the
concentration camp commanders and administrative leaders during the
so-called commanders’ meetings. Every commander was told to make every
effort to achieve this. The aim was not to have as many dead as
possible or to destroy
403
15 April 46
as many internees as possible; the Reichsfuehrer was constantly
concerned with being able to engage all forces available in the
armament industry.
DR. KAUFFMANN: There is no doubt that the longer the war lasted, the
larger became the number of the illtreated and tortured inmates.
Whenever you inspected the concentration camps did you not learn
something of this state of affairs through complaints, et cetera, or do
you consider that the conditions which have been described are more or
less due to excesses?
HOESS: These so-called illtreatments and this torturing in
concentration camps, stories of which were spread everywhere among the
people, and later by the prisoners that were liberated by the occupying
armies, were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses
committed by individual leaders, subleaders, and men who laid violent
hands on internees.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you mean you never took cognizance of these matters?
HOESS: If in any way such a case came to be known, then the perpetrator
was, of course, immediately relieved of his post or transferred
somewhere else. So that, even if he were not punished for lack of
evidence to prove his guilt, even then, he was taken away from the
internees and given another position.
DR. KAUFFMANN: To what do you attribute the particularly bad and
shameful conditions, which were ascertained by the entering Allied
troops, and which to a certain extent were photographed and filmed?
HOESS: The catastrophic situation at the end of the war was due to the
fact that, as a result of the destruction of the railway network and of
the continuous bombing of the industrial plants, care for these
masses-I am thinking of Auschwitz with its 140,000 internees-could no
longer be assured. Improvised measures, truck columns, and everything
else tried by the commanders to improve the situation were of little or
no avail; it was no longer possible. The number of the sick became
immense. There were next to no medical supplies; epidemics raged
everywhere. Internees who were capable of work were used over and over
again. By order of the Reichsfuehrer, even halfsick people had to be
used wherever possible in industry. As a result every bit of space in
the concentration camps which could possibly be used for lodging was
overcrowded with sick and dying prisoners.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I am now asking you to look at the map which is mounted
behind you. The red dots represent concentration camps. I will first
ask you how many concentration camps as such existed at the end of the
war?
404
15 April 46
HOESS: At the end of the war there were still concentration camps. All
the other points which are marked here on the map mean so-called labor
camps attached to the armament industry situated there. The
concentration camps, of which there are 13 as I have already said, were
the center and the central point of some district, such as the camp at
Dachau in Bavaria, or the camp of Mauthausen in Austria; and all the
labor camps in that district were under the control of the
concentration camp. That camp had then to supply these outside camps,
that is to say, they had to supply them with workers, exchange the sick
inmates and furnish clothing; the guards, too, were supplied by the
concentration camp.
>From 1944 on, the supplying of food was almost exclusively a matter of
the individual armament industries in order to give the prisoners the
benefit of the wartime supplementary rations.
DR. KAUFFMANN: What became known to you about so-called medical
experiments on living internees?
HOESS: Medical experiments were carried out in several camps. For
instance, in Auschwitz there were experiments on sterilization carried
out by Professor Klaubert and Dr. Schumann; also experiments on twins
by SS medical officer Dr. Mengele.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know the medical officer Dr. Rascher?
HOESS: In Dachau he was a medical officer of the Luftwaffe who carried
out experiments, on internees who had been sentenced to death, about
the resistance of the human body to cold and in high pressure chambers.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Can you tell whether such experiments carried out within
the camp were known to a large circle?
HOESS: Such experiments, just like all other matters, were, of course,
called “secret Reich matters.” However, it could not be avoided that
the experiments became known since they were carried out in a large
camp and must have been seen in some way by the inmates. I cannot say,
however, to what extent the outside world learned about these
experiments.
DR. KAUFFMANN: You explained to me that orders for executions were
received in the camp at Auschwitz, and you told me that until the
outbreak of war such orders were few, but that later on they became
more numerous. Is that correct?
HOESS: Yes. There were hardly any executions until the beginning of the
war-only in particularly serious cases. I remember one case in
Buchenwald where an SS man had been attacked and beaten to death by
internees, and the internees were later hanged.
DR. KAUFFMANN: But during the war-and that you will admit-the number of
executions increased, and not inconsiderably.
405
15 April 46
HOESS: That had already started with the beginning of the war.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Was the basis for these execution orders in many cases a
legal sentence of German courts?
HOESS: No. Orders for the executions carried out in the camps came from
the RSHA.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Who signed the orders for executions which you received?
Is it correct that occasionally you received orders for executions
which bore the signature “Kaltenbrunner,” and that these were not the
originals but were teleprints which therefore had the signature in
typewritten letters?
HOESS: It is correct. The originals of execution orders never came to
the camps. The original of these orders either arrived at the
Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps, from where they were
transmitted by teletype to the camps concerned, or, in urgent cases,
the RSHA sent the orders directly to the camps concerned, and the
Inspectorate was then only informed, so that the signatures in the
camps were always only in teletype.
DR. KAUFFMANN: So as to again determine the signatures, will you tell
the Tribunal whether the overwhelming majority of all execution orders
either bore the signature of Himmler or that of Muller in the years
before the war and until the end of the war.
HOESS: Only very few teletypes which I have ever seen came from the
Reichsfuehrer and still fewer from the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. Most of
them, I could say practically all, were signed “Signed Muller.”
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is that the Muller with whom you repeatedly talked about
such matters as you stated earlier?
HOESS: Gruppenfuehrer Muller was the Chief of Department IV in the
RSHA. He had to negotiate with the Inspectorate about all matters
connected with concentration camps.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Would you say that you went to see the Gestapo Chief
Muller because you, on the strength of your experience, were of the
opinion that this man because of his years of activities was acting
almost independently?
HOESS: That is quite right. I had to negotiate all matters regarding
concentration camps with Gruppenfuehrer Muller. He was informed on all
these matters, and in most cases he would make an immediate decision.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Well, so as to have a clear picture, did you ever
negotiate these matters with the defendant?
HOESS: No.
406
15 April 46
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you learn that towards the end of the war
concentration camps were evacuated? And, if so, who gave the orders?
HOESS: Let me explain. Originally there was an order from the
Reichsfuehrer, according to which camps, in the event of the approach
of the enemy or in case of air attacks, were to be surrendered to the
enemy. Later on, due to the case of Buchenwald, which had been reported
to the Fuehrer, there was-no, at the beginning of 1945, when various
camps came within the operational sphere of the enemy, this order was
withdrawn. The Reichsfuehrer ordered the Higher SS and Police Leaders,
who in an emergency case were responsible for the security and safety
of the camps, to decide themselves whether an evacuation or a surrender
was appropriate.
Auschwitz and GrossRosen were evacuated. Buchenwald was also to be
evacuated, but then the order from the Reichsfuehrer came through to
the effect that on principle no more camps were to be evacuated. Only
prominent inmates and inmates who were not to fall into Allied hands
under any circumstances were to be taken away to other camps. This also
happened in the case of Buchenwald. After Buchenwald had been occupied,
it was reported to the Fuehrer that internees had armed themselves and
were carrying out plunderings in the town of Weimar. This caused the
Fuehrer to give the strictest order to Himmler to the effect that in
the future no more camps were to fall into the hands of the enemy, and
that no internees capable of marching would be left behind in any camp.
This was shortly before the end of the war, and shortly before northern
and southern Germany were cut. I shall speak about the Sachsenhausen
camp. The Gestapo chief, Gruppenfuehrer Muller, called me in the
evening and told me that the Reichsfuehrer had ordered that the camp at
Sachsenhausen was to be evacuated at once. I pointed out to
Gruppenfuehrer Muller what that would mean. Sachsenhausen could no
longer fall back on any other camp except perhaps on a few labor camps
attached to the armament works that were almost filled up anyway. Most
of the internees would have to be sheltered in the woods somewhere.
This would mean countless thousands of deaths and, above all, it would
be impossible to feed these masses of people. He promised me that he
would again discuss these measures with the Reichsfuehrer. He called me
back and told me that the Reichsfuehrer had refused and was demanding
that the commanders carry out his orders immediately.
At the same time Ravensbruck was also to be evacuated in the same
manner but it could no longer be done. I do not know to
407
15 April 46
what extent camps in southern Germany were cleared, since we, the
Inspectorate, no longer had any connections with southern Germany.
DR. KAUFFMANN: It has been maintained here-and this is my last
question-that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner gave the order that Dachau
and two auxiliary camps were to be destroyed by bombing or with poison.
I ask you, did you hear anything about this; if not, would you consider
such an order possible?
HOESS: I have never heard anything about this, and I do not know
anything either about an order to evacuate any camps in southern
Germany, as I have already mentioned. Apart from that, I consider it
quite impossible that a camp could be destroyed by this method.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel want to ask any
questions?
DR. MERKEL: Witness, did the State Police, as an authority of the
Reich, have anything to do with the destruction of Jews in Auschwitz?
HOESS: Yes, insofar as I received all my orders as to the carrying out
of that action from the Obersturmfuehrer Eichmann.
DR. MERKEL: Was the administration of concentration camps under the
control of the Main Economic and Administrative Office?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. MERKEL: You said already that you had nothing to do with the RSHA.
HOESS: No.
DR. MERKEL: Please, will you emphasize, therefore, that the Gestapo as
such had nothing to do with the administration of the camps or the
accommodation, feeding, and treatment of the internees, but that this
was exclusively a matter for the Main Economic and Administrative
Office?
HOESS: Yes, that is quite correct.
DR. MERKEL: How do you explain it then that you, nevertheless,
discussed different questions concerning concentration camps with
Muller?
HOESS: The RSHA, or rather Amt IV, had the executive power for the
directing of all internees into camps, classification into the camp
grades 1, 2, 3, and furthermore, the punishments which were to be
carried out on the part of the RSHA. Executions, the accommodation of
special internees, and all question which might ensue therefrom were
also taken care of by the RSHA or Amt IV.
408
15 April 4G
DR. MERKEL: When was this Main Economic and Administrative Office
created?
HOESS: The Main Economic and Administrative Office existed since 1933
under various names. The Inspectorate of Concentration Camps was,
however, subordinated only to this Main Economic and Administrative
Office since the year 1941.
DR. MERKEL: Then these concentration camps were from the very beginning
under the control of this Main Economic and Administrative Office, that
is to say the SS and not the State Police.
HOESS: Yes.
DR. MERKEL: You mentioned the name of Dr. Rascher a while ago. Do you
know this doctor personally?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. MERKEL: Do you know that Dr. Rascher before beginning his work at
Dachau had become a member of the SS?
HOESS: No, I know nothing about that. I only know that later he-I still
saw him in the uniform of an Air Force medical officer. Later he was
supposed to have been taken over into the SS, but I did not see him
again.
DR. MERKEL: I have no further questions. Thank you very much.
HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for SS): Witness, at the beginning of your
examination you stated that when you were ordered to the Reichsfuehrer
SS Himmler, he told you that the carrying out of this order of the
Fuehrer was to be left to the SS and that the SS had been ordered to do
it. What is to be understood under this general title SS?
HOESS: According to the explanations of the Reichsfuehrer, this could
only mean the men guarding the concentration camps. According to the
nature of the order only concentration camp crews and not the Waffen-SS
could be concerned with the carrying out of this task.
HERR BABEL: How many members of the SS were assigned to concentration
camps, and which units did they belong to?
HOESS: Toward the end of the war there were approximately 35,000 SS men
and in my estimation approximately 10,000 men from the Army, Air Force,
and the Navy detailed to the labor camps for guard duties.
HERR BABEL: What were the tasks of these guards? As far as I know, the
duties varied. First, there was the actual guarding and then there was
a certain amount of administrative work within the camp.
HOESS: Yes, that is correct.
409
15 April 46
HERR BABEL: How many guards were there within the camps for, let us
say, 1,000 internees?
HOESS: You cannot estimate it in that way. According to my observations
about 10 percent of the total number of guarding personnel were used
for internal duties, that is to say, administration and supervision of
internees within the camp, including the medical personnel of the camp.
HERR BABEL: So that 90 percent were therefore used for the exterior
guarding, that is to say, for watching the camp from watch towers and
for escorting the internees on work assignments.
HOESS: Yes.
HERR BABEL: Did you make any observations as to whether there was any
illtreatment of prisoners to a greater or lesser degree on the part of
those guards, or whether the illtreatment was mainly to be traced back
to the so-called Kapos?
HOESS: If any illtreatment of prisoners by guards occurred- I myself
have never observed any-then this was possible only to a very small
degree since all offices in charge of the camps took care that as few
SS men as possible had direct contact with the inmates, because in the
course of the years the guard personnel had deteriorated to such an
extent that the standards formerly demanded could no longer be
maintained.
We had thousands of guards who could hardly speak German, who came from
all lands as volunteers and joined these units, or we had older men,
between 50 and 60, who lacked all interest in their work, so that a
camp commander had to watch constantly that these men fulfilled even
the lowest requirements of their duties. It is obvious that there were
elements among them who would illtreat internees, but this illtreatment
was never tolerated.
Besides, it was impossible to have these masses of people directed at
work or when in the camp by SS men only; therefore, inmates had to be
assigned everywhere to direct the other prisoners and set them to work.
The internal administration of the camp was almost completely in their
hands. Of course a great deal of illtreatment occurred which could not
be avoided because at night there were hardly any members of the SS in
the camps. Only in specific cases were SS men allowed to enter the
camp, so that the internees were more or less exposed to these Kapos.
HERR BABEL: You have already mentioned regulations which existed for
the guards, but there was also a standing order in each camp. In this
camp order certainly punishment was provided for internees who violated
the camp rules. What punishment was provided?
410
15 April 46
HOESS: First of all, transfer to a penal company (Strafkompanie), that
as to say, harder work and restricted accommodations; next, detention
in the cell block, detention in a dark cell; and in very serious cases,
chaining or strapping. Punishment by strapping was prohibited in the
year 1942 or 1943-I cannot say exactly when-by the Reichsfuehrer. Then
there was the punishment of standing at the camp gate over a rather
long period, and finally corporal punishment.
However, no commander could decree this corporal punishment on his own
authority. He could only apply for it. In the case of men, the decision
came from the Inspector of Concentration Camps, Gruppenfuehrer Schmidt,
and where women were concerned, the Reichsfuehrer reserved the decision
exclusively for himself.
HERR BABEL: It may also be known to you that for members of the SS,
too, there were two penal camps which sometimes were called
concentration camps, namely, Dachau and Danzig-Matzkau.
HOESS: That is right.
HERR BABEL: Were the existing camp regulations and the treatment of
members of the SS who were put in such camps different from the
regulations applying to the other concentration camps?
HOESS: Yes; these two detention camps were not under the Inspectorate
for Concentration Camps, but they were under an SS and Police court. I
myself have neither inspected nor seen these two camps.
HERR BABEL: So that you know nothing about the standing orders relating
to those camps?
HOESS: I know nothing about them.
HERR BABEL: I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. HAENSEL: I have a question that I would like to ask the High
Tribunal A second defense counsel has been requested for the SS. Is it
permitted that several questions be put for the second defense counsel?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal ruled a long time ago that only one counsel
could be heard.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes..
FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBUHLER (Counsel for Defendant Doenitz):
Witness, you just mentioned that members of the Navy were detailed to
guard concentration camps.
411
15 April 46
HOESS: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Were these concentration camps, or were
they labor camps?
HOESS: They were labor camps.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Are labor camps barracks camps of the
armament industries?
HOESS: Yes, if they were not accommodated in the actual factories
themselves.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: I have been informed that soldiers who were
to be assigned for guard duty at labor camps were given over to the SS.
HOESS: That is only partially correct. A part of these men- I do not
recall the figures-was taken over into the SS. A part was returned to
the original unit, or exchanged. Exchanges were continually taking
place.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Thank you.
COL. AMEN: If the Tribunal please, first I would like to submit, on
behalf of our British Allies, a series of exhibits pertaining to the
Waffen-SS, without reading them. It is merely statistical information
with respect to the number of Waffen-SS guards used at the
concentration camps.
I ask that the witness be shown Documents D745 (ab), D746 (ab), D747,
D748, D749 (b), and D750, one of them being a statement of this
witness.
[The documents were submitted to the witness]
Witness, you made the statement, D749 (b), which has been handed to
you?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And you are familiar with the content of the others?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And you testify that those figures are true and correct?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Very good. Those will become Exhibit Number USA-810.
Witness, from time to time did any high Nazi officials or functionaries
visit the camp at Mauthausen or Dachau while you were there?
HOESS: Yes.
412
15 April 46
COL. AMEN: Will you state the names of such persons to the Tribunal
please?
HOESS: I remember that in 1935 all the Gauleiter inspected Dachau
guided by Reichsfuehrer Himmler. I do not remember them individually.
COL. AMEN: Do you recall any of the ministers having visited either of
those camps while you were there?
HOESS: Do you mean by this the inspection tour of 1935?
COL. AMEN: At any time while you were at either of those concentration
camps.
HOESS: In 1938 Minister Frick was at Sachsenhausen with the
Regierungsprasident.
COL. AMEN: Do you recall any other ministers who were there at any
time?
HOESS: Not at Sachsenhausen, but at Auschwitz, the Minister of Justice.
COL. AMEN: Who was he?
HOESS: Thierack.
COL. AMEN: And who else? Do you recall any others?
HOESS: Yes, but I do not remember the name for the moment.
COL. AMEN: Well, who?
HOESS: I have already stated that in the record, but at the moment I
cannot recall the name.
COL. AMEN: All right. You have testified that many of the execution
orders were signed by Muller. Is that correct?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Is it not a fact that all of those execution orders to which
you testified were signed by…
DR. STEINBAUER: Pardon me, Mr. President, documents have been submitted
and the witness is being questioned about the contents. The Defense is
not in a position to follow the Prosecution because we do not know the
contents of these documents. I request. that we receive copies of them.
THE PRESIDENT: Haven’t copies of these documents been handed to the
defendants?
COL. AMEN: Yes, so I understood. We have copies here. However, five
German copies have been distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the matter can be looked into.
413
15 April 46
COL. AMEN: Witness, I was asking you about these execution orders which
you testify were signed by Muller. Do you understand?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Is it not a fact that all of these execution orders which
you testify were signed by Muller were also signed by order of, or as
representative of, the Chief of the RSHA, Kaltenbrunner?
HOESS: Yes. That was on the copies that I had in the originals.
Afterwards, when I was employed at Oranienburg, it said underneath, “I.
V. Muller”-“in Vertretung Muller” (as representative, Muller).
COL. AMEN: In other words Muller was merely signing as the
representative of the Chief of the RSHA, Kaltenbrunner? Is that not
correct?
HOESS: I must assume so.
COL. AMEN: And, of course, you know that Muller was a subordinate of
the Chief of the RSHA, Kaltenbrunner.
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Witness, you made an affidavit, did you not, at the request
of the Prosecution?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: I ask that the witness be shown Document 3868-PS, which will
become Exhibit USA-819.
[The document was submitted to the witness.]
COL. AMEN: You signed that affidavit voluntarily, Witness?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And the affidavit is true in all respects?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: This, if the Tribunal please, we have in four languages.
[Turning to the witness.] Some of the matters covered in this affidavit
you have already told us about in part, so I will omit some parts of
the affidavit. If you will follow along with me as I read, please. Do
you have a copy of the affidavit before you?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: I will omit the first paragraph and start with Paragraph 2:
“I have been constantly associated with the administration
of concentration camps since 1934, serving at Dachau until
1938; then as Adjutant in Sachsenhausen from 1938 to 1 May
414
15 April 46
1940, when I was appointed Commandant of Auschwitz. I commanded
Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000
victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning,
and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease
making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70
or 80 percent of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the
remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the
concentration camp industries; included among the executed and burned
were approximately 20,000 Russian prisoners of war (previously screened
out of prisoner-of-war cages by the Gestapo) who were delivered at
Auschwitz in Wehrmacht transports operated by regular Wehrmacht
officers and men. The remainder of the total number of victims included
about 100,000 German Jews, and great Numbers of citizens, mostly
Jewish, from Holland, France, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia,
Greece, or other countries. We executed about 400,000 Hungarian Jews
alone at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944.”
That is all true, Witness?
HOESS: Yes, it is.
COL. AMEN: Now I omit the first few lines of Paragraph 3 and start in
the middle of Paragraph 3:
“. . . prior to establishment of the RSHA, the Secret State Police
Office (Gestapo) and the Reich Office of Criminal Police were
responsible for arrests, commitments to concentration camps,
punishments and executions therein. After organization of the RSHA all
of these functions were carried on as before, but pursuant to orders
signed by Heydrich as Chief of the RSHA. While Kaltenbrunner was Chief
of RSHA orders for protective custody, commitments, punishment, and
individual executions were signed by Kaltenbrunner or by Muller, Chief
of the Gestapo, as Kaltenbrunner’s deputy.”
THE PRESIDENT: Just for the sake of accuracy, the last date in
Paragraph 2, is that 1943 or 1944?
COL. AMEN: 1944, I believe. Is that date correct, Witness, at the close
of Paragraph 2, namely, that the 400,000 Hungarian Jews alone at
Auschwitz in the summer of 1944 were executed? is that 1944 or 1943?
HOESS: 1944. Part of that figure also goes back to 1943; only a part. I
cannot give the exact figure; the end was 1944, autumn of 1944.
COL. AMEN: Right.
415
15 April 46
“4. Mass executions by gassing commenced during the summer of 1941 and
continued until fall 1944. I personally supervised executions at
Auschwitz until first of December 1943 and know by reason of my
continued duties in the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, WVHA, that
these mass executions continued as stated above. All mass executions by
gassing took place under the direct order, supervision, and
responsibility of RSHA. I received all orders for carrying out these
mass executions directly from RSHA.” Are those statements true and
correct, Witness?
HOESS: Yes, they are.
COL. AMEN: “5. On 1 December 1943 I became Chief of Amt I in Amt Group
D of the WVHA, and in that office was responsible for coordinating all
matters arising between RSHA and concentration camps under the
administration of WVHA. I held this position until the end of the war.
Pohl, as Chief of WVHA, and Kaltenbrunner, as Chief of RSHA, often
conferred personally and frequently communicated orally and in writing
concerning concentration camps….” You have already told us about the
lengthy report which you took to Kaltenbrunner in Berlin, so I will
omit the remainder of Paragraph 5.
“6. The ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question meant the complete
extermination of all Jews in Europe. I was ordered to establish
extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time, there
were already in the General Government three other extermination camps:
Belzek, Treblinka, and Wolzek. These camps were under the
Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and SD. I visited Treblinka to
find out how they carried out their exterminations. The camp commandant
at Treblinka told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of
onehalf year. He was principally concerned with liquidating all the
Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. He used monoxide gas, and I did not think
that his methods were very efficient. So when I set up the
extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Cyklon B. which was a
crystallized prussic acid which we dropped into the death chamber from
a small opening. It took from 3 to 15 minutes to kill the people in the
death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the
people were dead because their screaming stopped. We usually waited
about onehalf hour before we opened the doors and removed the bodies.
After the bodies were removed our special Kommandos took off the rings
and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses.”
416
15 April 46
Is that all true and correct, Witness?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Incidentally, what was done with the gold which was taken
>from the teeth of the corpses, do you know?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Will you tell the Tribunal?
HOESS: This gold was melted down and brought to the Chief Medical
Office of the SS at Berlin.
COL. AMEN:
“7. Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our
gas chamber to accomodate 2,000 people at one time whereas at Treblinka
their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. The way we
selected our victims was as follows: We had two SS doctors on duty at
Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The
prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot
decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into
the camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants.
Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason
of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we
made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always
knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored
to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a
delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true
intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that
fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under the
clothes, but of course when we found them we would send the children in
to be exterminated. We were required to carry out these exterminations
in secrecy but of course the foul and nauseating stench from the
continuous burning of bodies permeated
the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding
communities knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz.”
Is that all true and correct, Witness?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Now, I will omit Paragraphs 8 and 9, which have to do with
the medical experiments as to which you have already testified.
“10. Rudolf Mildner was the chief of the Gestapo at Katowice . . . from
approximately March 1941 until September 1943. As
417
15 April 46
such, he frequently sent prisoners to Auschwitz for incarceration or
execution. He visited Auschwitz on several occasions. The Gestapo
court, the SS Standgericht, which tried persons accused of various
crimes, such as escaping prisoners of war, et cetera, frequently met
within Auschwitz, and Mildner often attended the trial of such persons,
who usually were executed in Auschwitz following their sentence. I
showed Mildner through the extermination plant at Auschwitz and he was
directly interested in it since he had to send the Jews from his
territory for execution at Auschwitz.
“I understand English as it is written above. The above statements are
true; this declaration is made by me voluntarily and without
compulsion; after reading over the statement I have signed and executed
the same at Nuremberg, Germany, on the fifth day of April 1946.”
Now I ask you, Witness, is everything which I have read to you true to
your oven knowledge?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: That concludes my crossexamination, except for one exhibit
that our British allies would like to have in, which is a summary sheet
of the exhibits which I introduced at the commencement of the
crossexamination. That will be Exhibit Number USA-810. It is a summary
of the earlier exhibits that I put in with respect to the Waffen-SS at
the commencement of my cross examination.
Now, I understand, Your Lordship, that both the Soviet and the French
delegations have one or two questions which they consider peculiar to
their country which they would like to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, you will remember that the Tribunal was
assured by Counsel for the Prosecution that, so far as witnesses were
concerned, with the exception of one or two particular defendants, the
Prosecution would have only one crossexamination and now, since that
assurance was given, this is the second instance when the Prosecution
have desired to have more than one crossexamination.
GEN. RUDENKO: This is correct, Mr. President, that the Prosecution did
make that statement; however, the Prosecution reserved the right to do
otherwise on certain occasions when deemed necessary. Since, in this
case, the Prosecution represent four different states, occasions do
arise when each of the prosecutors feels that he has the right to ask
the defendant or witnesses individual questions particularly
interesting to his own country.
418
15 April 46
THE PRESIDENT: Will you indicate the nature of the questions which the
Soviet Prosecution desire to put? I mean the subjects upon which they
are. I don’t mean the exact questions but the subject.
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, I understand. Colonel Pokrovsky, who intends to ask
the questions, will report on the subject to the Tribunal.
COL. POKROVSKY: May I report to you, Mr. President, that the questions
of interest to the Soviet Prosecution are those dealing specifically
with the annihilation of millions of Soviet citizens and some details
connected with that annihilation. At the request of the French
Prosecution, and in order to clarify the contents I would also like to
ask two or three questions connected with the documents which in due
course were submitted as Document F709(a) to the Tribunal by the French
Prosecution. This is really all there is; however, these questions do
have great importance for us.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal, as has just been
stated, made the rule, with the assent of the Prosecutors, that in the
case of the witnesses there should be one crossexamination. There is
nothing in the Charter which expressly gives to the Prosecution the
right for each prosecutor to cross-examine and there is, on the other
hand, Article 18 which directs the Tribunal to take strict measures to
prevent any action which will cause unreasonable delay, and, in the
opinion of the Tribunal in the present case, the subject has been fully
covered and the Tribunal therefore think it right to adhere to the
rules which they have laid down in this case. They will therefore not
hear any further crossexamination.
Do you wish to reexamine, Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KAUFFMANN: I will be very brief.
Witness, in the affidavit which was just read, you said under Point 2
that “at least an additional half million died through starvation and
disease.” I ask you, when did this take place? Was it towards the end
of the war or was this fact observed by you already at an earlier
period?
HOESS: No, it all goes back to the last years of the war, that is
beginning with the end of 1942.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Under Point 3-do you still have the affidavit before
you?
HOESS: No.
DR. KAUFFMANN: May I ask that it be given to the witness again?
[The document was returned to the witness.]
419
15 April 46
Under Point 3, at the end you state that orders for protective custody,
commitments, punishments, and special executions were signed by
Kaltenbrunner or Muller, Chief of the Gestapo, as Kaltenbrunner’s
deputy. Thus, do you wish to contradict what you stated previously?
HOESS: No, this only completes what I said over and again. I read only
a few decrees signed by Kaltenbrunner; most of them were signed by
Muller. ~
DR. KAUFFMANN: Under Point 4, at the end, you state:
“All mass executions through gassing took place under the direct order,
supervision, and responsibility of RSHA. I received all orders for
carrying out these mass executions directly from RSHA.”
According to the statements which you previously made to the Tribunal,
this entire action came to you directly from Himmler through Eichmann,
who had been personally delegated. Do you maintain that now as before?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: With this last sentence under Point 4, do you wish to
contradict what you testified before?
HOESS: No. I always mean regarding mass executions,
Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann in connection with the RSHA.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Under Point 7, at the end, you state-I am not going to
read it-you were saying that even though exterminations took place
secretly, the population in the surrounding area noticed something of
the extermination of people. Did not, at an earlier period of time-that
is, before the beginning of this special extermination action-something
of this nature take place to remove people who had died in a normal
manner in Auschwitz?
HOESS: Yes, when the crematoria had not yet been built we burned in
large pits a large part of those who had died and who could not be
cremated in the provisional crematoria of the camp; a large number-I do
not recall the figure anymore-were placed in mass graves and later also
cremated in these graves. That was before the mass executions of Jews
began.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Would you agree with me if I were to say that from the
described facts alone, one could not conclusively prove that this was
concerned with the extermination of Jews?
HOESS: No, this could in no way be concluded from that. The population
. . .
THE PRESIDENT: What was your question about?
DR. KAUFFMANN: My question was whether one could assume from the
established facts-at the end of Paragraph 7-that this
420
15 April 46
concerned the so-called extermination of Jews. I tied this question to
the previous answer of the witness. It is my last question.
THE PRESIDENT: The last sentence of Paragraph 7 is with reference to
the foul and nauseating stench. What is your question about that?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Whether the population could gather from these things
that an extermination of Jews was taking place.
THE PRESIDENT: That really is too obvious a question, isn’t it? They
could not possibly know who it was being exterminated.
DR. KAUFFMANN: That is enough for me. I have no further questions.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I ask the Tribunal’s permission to ask a few
supplementary questions, for during crossexamination the witness stated
that the Defendant Frick had visited the concentration camps
Sachsenhausen and Oranienburg in 1938.
Witness, when an inspection of the concentration camp of Oranienburg
took place at that time, 193738, was there any evidence at all of
atrocities?
HOESS: No.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Why not?
HOESS: Because there was no question of atrocities at that time.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Is it correct that at that period of time the
concentration camp at Oranienburg was still a model of order and that
agricultural labor was the main occupation?
HOESS: Yes, that is right. However, work was mainly done in workshops,
in woodfinishing workshops.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Can you give me any details as to what was shown at
that time at such an official visit?
HOESS: Yes. The visiting party was shown through the prisoners’ camp
proper, inspected the quarters, the kitchen, the hospital, and then all
the administrative buildings; above all the workshops, where the
inmates were employed.
DR. PANNENBECKER: At that time were the quarters and the hospitals
already overcrowded?
HOESS: No, at that time they were normally filled.
DR. PANNENBECKER: How did these quarters look?
HOESS: At that period of time, living quarters looked the same as the
barracks of a training ground. The internees still had bed clothing and
all necessary hygienic facilities. Everything was yet in the best of
order.
421
15 April
DR. PANNENBECKER: That is all. I have no further questions.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States):
Witness, what was the greatest number of labor camps existing at any
one time?
HOESS: I cannot give the exact figure but in my estimation there were
approximately 900.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was the population of these 900?
HOESS: I am not able to say that either; the population varied. There
were camps with 100 internees and camps with 10,000 internees.
Therefore, I cannot give any figure of the total number of people who
were in these labor camps.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Under whose administration were the labor
camps-under what offices?
HOESS: These labor camps, as far as the guarding, direction, and
clothing were concerned, were under the control of the Economic and
Administration Main Office. All matters dealing with labor output and
the supplying of food were attended to by the armament industries which
employed these internees.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And at the end of the war were the
conditions in those labor camps similar to those existing in the
concentration camps as you described them before?
HOESS: Yes. Since there no longer was any possibility of bringing ill
internees to the main camps, there was much overcrowding in these labor
camps and the death rate very high.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
Dr. Kauffmann, does that close your case?
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:04 EDT 2001
Article: 943396 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman and Brown Jointly on the Gas Chambers
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:20:26 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 502
Message-ID: <150820012020266445%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <140820012131423470%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820011521201081%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997896048 8662 128.214.77.45 (15 Aug 2001 17:20:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2001 17:20:48 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:943396
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > Let me give an analogy which even you should be able to understand.
> > Somebody asks you to determine whether there are any black people in
> > Helsinki. You go off to Helsinki with your camera, and randomly take
> > ten pictures of crowds of people in various places. In three of the
> > photographs black people are clearly visible: 3 in photograph (a), 1 in
> > photograph (b), and 5 in photograph (c). You submit a report to your
> > client that states that there are black people in Helsinki based upon
> > your empirical observation that a total of nine black people showed up
> > in your ten photographs.
> >
> > Can you not understand that the number ‘9’ here only has a qualitative
> > (yes) value, not a quantitative (how many) value? The only thing you
> > have demonstrated is that there are black people in Helsinki,
> > you have not done the work that permits you to give an estimate of the
> > number or percentage of black people in Helsinki, you have only
> > verified their presence. Now, you might go to Tallinn and take ten more
> > photographs and find a total of eleven black people. Such a test once
> > again confirms the presence of black people in Tallinn, but it cannot
> > be used to determine how many black people are there, or whether there
> > are more black people in Tallinn than there are in Helsinki. A totally
> > different type of test has to be done to determine the number and
> > compare the relative percentages of black people in the two cities.
> > This is what I mean when I say that you cannot draw valid quantitative
> > conclusions from the results of qualitative analysis.
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> At least now you begin to make some sense. However your analogy fails. Whereas
> HCN mmolecules would tend to distribute themselves more or less uniformly over
> the surface of a wall (allowing that they might favour the top or the bottom)
> no
> such thing is true of black persons walking the streets of Helsinki at a given
> hour.
>
Wrong. There are some places, such as areas with large numbers of
foreign embassies, the main railway station, or the main shopping
streets where you will see many, and others, such as the cemetery where
Finnish soldiers killed in WW II or the block where the local synagogue
is situated where you are unlikely to say any.
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> What is ti Leuchter was trying to determine by his taking wall samples? What
> is
> it anyone would be trying to determine? What is the ONLY thing we can
> determine.
> That is to get some sense of tthe ACCUMULATED result of past exposures. There
> is
> no conceivable way in which to determine thisgs like duration of exposure and
> concentration used on March 22 1943 , duration of exposure and concentration
> used on March 25 1943, etc. All we can get is a single measure of the
> accumulated
> extent of past exposures.
However, water has a negative affect on the formation, as well as on
the short as well as the long-term stability of cyanide compounds.
Leuchter did not take this into account in any way.
>
> If we do this for two different rooms, A and B, and get much larger
> concentration
> values for A, then we are entitled to conclude that A was subjected to greater
> exposure – that and nothing else.
You are incorrect. Even if A and B were exposed to precisely the same
concentration of compound over precisely the same timeframe, there
would be a significant difference if A were just ventilated and
re-exposed, while B was ventilated, hosed down twice, and occasionally
whitewashed before the next exposure. If A were subsequently sealed and
forgotten for 45 years, while B was demolished and exposed to the
elements for the same time, during which it spenbt weeks at a time
under water every year, a simple comparison of A to B would not be
enough to draw conclusions. In actual fact, even during the exposure we
know that A was exposed to 15,000 ppm of HCN for 20 hours at a time,
allowing for a substantial buildup during each exposure, while B was
exposed to a concentration which increased from 0 to about 7,000 ppm
during 15 minutes before ventilation and the introduction of water
during the ninitial hosedown.
A simple comparison of A and B is _not_ enough.
>
> Did Leuchter “prove” that there were no gassings? No, he did nit. But he has
> cast
> grave doubts over that possibility.
>
> =================================
His findings do not cast _any_ doubts over that possibility, and they
actually _support_ other evidence that there were gassings:
€ despite his poor methodology, he found enough evidence of exposure to
cyanide to attribute it to the use of cyanide in the chamber for
fumigation purposes;
€ he thus contradicts his claim that the building could not have
contained lethal concentrations of cyanide;
€ subsequent studies by the IFRC showed that places subjected to a
single fumigation in 1942 show no traces of cyanide compounds at all.
Thus, the only way that the presence of cyanide can be explained in the
former gas chambers is that their walls and ventilation systems were
repeatedly exposed to lethal concentrations of cyanide. Concentrations
that are still detectable despite the regular hosings down, the
occasional whitewashings, and the 45 years of exposure to the elements.
> > > ===========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > You claim Leuchter’s numbers are worthless because he diluted his samples.
> >
> > Correct:
> > 1. He diluted his samples when he took core samples rather than
> > scraping samples.
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> That this would seriously have distorted his results is a theory and not a
> fact.
> THat is why I have asked for experiments to determine which. You say: there
> is no
> need, my theory is correct. THat is not the way science works.
> =============================
I do not say that my theory is correct, I say that the dilution of his
samples is an empircal fact. Leuchter filmed himself hacking out
fist-sized samples. However, cyanide compounds only form on surfaces,
and only surfaces should be tested if a quantitative analysis is
wanted. The manner on which Leuchter took his samples made it
impossible for the lab to determine which part of the sample was from
the surface. As Dr. Roth said in the interview, it’s like giving a
person a piece of a wall and asking that they determine what was on the
surface by studying the backside.
Leuchter was grossly incompetent, dishonest, or both, when he informed
the lab that they should analyze the samples for the presence – not the
amount – but the presence of cyanide compounds, but then began to use
the figures obtained as quantitative data.
> >
> > 2. He allowed them to be diluted yet again when he told the laboratory
> > to test for the presence rather than the amount of cyanide in the
> > samples.
>
> ====================================
> Phillips
>
> This is preposterous for two reasons.
>
> (1) Of what conceivable value would ti have been to Zuendel if all he had been
> able to report are: there were HCN traces in the fumigation chambers and there
> were HCN traces in the execution chambers. Had Leuchter done such a thing then
> Zuendel would almost CERTAINLY have sued him to get his money back. HE HAD TO
> REPORT BACK NUMBERS
You are neglecting how incompetent – or dishonest – Leuchter is. Either
he really did not understand how a forensic analysis for the amount as
opposed to the presence of cyanide compounds is done, or he thought
that he could hornswoggle Zündel by selling him the results of a
qualitative (yes/no) analysis as those of a qualitative (how much) one.
It is obvious from both his sampling technique and the instructions
that he gave the lab that the samples and question for which he wanted
an answer were geared, intentionally or unintentionally, towards
qualitative, not quantitative analysis.
>
> (2) For what conceivable reason should the lab have gone outside their brief
> and
> done something they were not paid to do.
>
> ========================================
Source:
http://www.njjewishnews.com/issues/1_27_00/cj/arts/text/story1.html
<quote>
More telling still is the interview with James Roth, the managing
chemist of the lab Leuchter used to analyze the Auschwitz samples. Roth
says that had they known the purpose of the analysis, the lab would
have used a totally different method. He says that because the gas
remains only on a very shallow surface of material– 10 microns (100
microns is the width of a hair) — the lab would not have ground the
material into powder, thereby obscuring whether the actual material
tested had been on the surface
</quote>
They were requested to analyze for the presence (yes/no) of cyhanide
compounds, noit for the amount (how much). The numbers they produced to
indicate presence were misused by Leuchter, who presented them as
quantitive data, the data produced by a rigorous quantitative
analytical technique. That is why the Judge Pearson, who certainly has
seen legitimate quantitative analyses before, dismissed Leuchter’s
report as “preposterous” at the Zündel trial.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Oh, what was he doing? Drilling to a depth of a foot and collecting his
> samples
> there.
>
> ========================
No. He was hacking off chunks a few inches deep. He should have been
carefully scraping the surface. The part of the chunk which had been
the exposed surface of the wall was neither marked nor always obvious,
and he instructed the lab to test for the presnece, not the amount of
cyanide compounds. The entire analysis was designed incorrectly.
>
> > 2. Dr. Roth of Alpha Labs told how the tests he ran involved grinding
> > up the entire sample, rather than carefully scraping off ten microns
> > off the outside surface of the samples.
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> Do you know of some tool that can scrape a wall to a depth of only 10
> microns. I
> don’t. You might, by possessing the greatest of skill and exercising the
> greatest
> of care confine yourself to a depth of around 0.01 inch. But that is already
> 25
> times what you claim is the depth of HCN penetration. That means that any
> samples
> scraped off the wall are NECESSARILY bulk samples.
>
> ====================================
There are obviously tools and methods for obtaining these types of
samples this because forensic scientists have been doing _quantitative_
analyses of surfaces for cyanide compounds for decades.
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> You would have been on safer ground if, instead of saying Leuchter’s results
> are
> meaningless, you had said they might need further looking into.
>
> Reports that purport to be scientific reports carefully avoid extravagant
> language of that sort.
> ===========================================
No. They are _meaningless_. It is a cardinal error of analytical
chemistry, or indeed of any analytical discipline, to offer the results
of a qualitative analysis as those of a quantitative one. We are
dealing here with a fundamental mistake in reasoning that should be
obvious to anyone with scientific training in any discipline that uses
numbers. The only value that Leuchter’s analysis has it that it
indicates that both the fumigation chambers and the gas chambers were
both exposed to enough cyanide to allow sufficient amounts to
accumulate, despite the particular unfavorable conditions in which the
ruins of the gas chambers have been in since late 1944, that they were
still clearly detactable almost half a century later.
> >
> > Science is done by critically assessing previous work. Leuchter did not
> > bother to look at the forensic studies of Auscvhwitz which were
> > performed immediately after the war and used as evidence in, for
> > example, the 1946 Hoess trial. He made up his own experiments, and was
> > critically misled by his assumption that Nazi gas chambers would be
> > essentially the same in structure and operation as American gas
> > chambers. Moreover, he did not understand that it takes a higher
> > concentration of cyanide maintained over a much longer period to kill
> > lice than it does to kill poeople, or that water and CO2 play a role in
> > cyanide compounhd formation and retention. He thus produced worthless
> > figures, and his explanation for the presence of cyanide compounds in
> > the former gas chamber was based on speculation rather than on either
> > experimentation or an examination of the historical facts that were
> > readily available.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Yeah. yeah. He “should have” known this and he “should have” done that. We’ve
> been all over this. It is ALWAYS possible to pick holes when a man says things
> that are hateful to you.
>
> ======================================
A man who claims to the world that he has produced the “first ever”
forensic analysis of the Auschwitz gas chambers has an obligation to
back up his claims. This is particularly true in this case, since one
of the first forensic analyses, performed in late 1945 when the
evidence was much fresher, served as a crucial part of the evidence in
the 1947 trial of Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz. Not
knowing that such an analysis had been conducted, or the historical
function which it served, is inexcusable.
Leuchter did not say anything that is hateful to me. His report is so
pathetic, particularly the remarks about the nine square feet per
victim, his insistance that a proper gas chamber must have windows of
ocean-proof glass and computerized heart monitors, and the naive
question about why the Germans had not contacted the Americans about
advice on gas chamber construction, that I had difficulty laughing my
way through it.
I regard Leuchter as too pathetic and stupid a person to be hateful. I
feel much the same abiout Ernst Zündel. The only person in the entire
sad affair that I feel a strong antipathy towards is David Irving, a
person I regard as far too intelligent to have accepted Leuchter’s
report as uncritically as he did publicly. On the other hand, having
followed the public behavior of David Irving over the past two years, I
may have been wrong about his level of intelligence and his ability to
reason after all.
> > The Cracow team addressed all of the methodological shortcomings in
> > Leuchter’s analysis, and performed experiments showing, among other
> > things, that both structural materials and water play a significant
> > role on the dynamics of cyanide compound formation and retention. Thus,
> > the surfaces of the fumigation chambers and gas chambers are not
> > directly comparable. They constitute significantly different types of
> > environments for the formation and retention of cyanide compounds.
>
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> But you people have been telling us that they were virtually identical
> structures. Just what are these vast differences the Krakoww Institute has
> discovered.
>
> =============================================
I have not been saying this at all. The fumigation chambers were, to
use Leuchter’s words, “scientifically” built. It was evident to
everybody that they were built to hold dangerous gasses. The design of
the gas chambers, on the other hand, was intended to decieve the
victims. Even the victims who suspected that they were going to gassed,
as was normal by mid 1944 when the Hungarian Jews were being destroyed,
did not know that they were inside a gas chamber until the door closed,
the Zyklon granules were introduced thorugh the wire mesh retainer, and
people dying before their eyes.
The differences in construction are not the issue. It’s the difference
in use and subsequent differences in their histories.
> >
> > Science would advance by finding something to criticize in the Krakow
> > Report, but as far as I know it has stood the test of time.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Ever heard of Germar Rudolph?
>
> =======================================
Yes, what about him?
>
> > You have
> > objected to its use of micrograms as “dishonest units”, but they were
> > doing a finely callibrated quantitative analysis, not a yes/no
> > qualitative analysis, as was performed by the Alpha Labs, so your
> > objection is unjustified.
>
> ===================================
> Phillips
>
> They were working with the same sort of things Leuchter worked with; indeed
> the
> very object of their work was to shoot Leuchter down. Such being the case,
> would
> not have been more meaningful for them to have dennominated their findings in
> the
> same units? It is my belief that they used ug instead of mg to mask the fact
> that
> their differences were too minute to merit serious attention.
>
> ===========================================================
Nonsense. Once you have decided on which units you are going to use,
you onloy have to be consistent. Leuchter’s figures were from a
qualitative analysis and they were thus not comparable with the Cracow
figures, which were from a far more delicately callibrated quantitative
analysis. As I said yesterday, using mg would result in needless
decimal points and leading zeros.
> > > ===========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > When you insist there is no “need” for such experiments, it can only be
> > > for
> > > one reason: that you fear they could blow your theory out of the water.
> > >
> > > ==================================================================
> >
> > No. When I say there is no need for such experiments I mean that all
> > experiments and analyses done so far, even Leuchter’s flawed analysis,
> > indicate that cyanide compounds are present on the walls of the
> > structures
>
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> Present, yes, but present in a measure that was barely at detection level.
>
> ======================================
Far above the detection level. For Krema II one of the readings was in
the 600 ug/kg range, not much lower than the highest reading in the 900
um/kg found for the fumigation chambers.
>
> > other evidence indicates were mass execution gas chambers,
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> All of which “other evidence” is badly tainted, is believed to be either
> highly
> flawed or obtained by questionable means.
Things such as last minute modifications of construction diagrams
provide access to a subterranean Leichenkeller by circular stairway
rather than by chute?
Or the detailed deportation records and corresponding timetables in
which Europe is combed country by country, region by region for the
more than 3,000,000 Jews sent to Auschwitz and other extermination
camps and never seen or heard from again?
Or the testimonies of people who were there, such as the Jews who
testified at the trial of Nazi Dr. Hans Münch in Poland that he had
done all that was humanly possible to save people from the gas
chambers?
Or the fluent, eloquent, and obviously spontaneous testimony of Rudolf
Hoess before the Nuremberg Tribunal when he appeared as a defense
witness for Ernst Kaltenbrunner (
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-15-46.htm#hoess )?
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> So your “proof” amounts to this. You
> take HCN traces barely at detection level, combine it with the “testimony” of
> screwball survivors, add to that the “testimony” of Jewish sonderkommandos
> who
> would say anything for additional rations,
We are talking about testimony given _after_ the war. The drawings made
by the artistically gifted Sonderkommando survivor David Olère made in
1945 are consistent with the testimony about gassing and the gas
chambers given by others.
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> throw in the “testimony” Nazis who
> in
> many cases were tortured or subjected to the threat fo having thein wives and
> children turned over to the Russkies.
>
> Eureka! We have proven the Hosocaust.
>
> Go back to the drawing board.
>
> ============================================
Add to that the fact that we have records of approximately three
million Jews sent to Nazi extermination centers and never seen or heard
>from again.
> =======================================
> Phillips
>
> Did they do all or most of the experimets I asked for. If they had and if they
> had gotten results that confirm what you are telling me, you would have most
> certainly thromn those result in my face.
> ============================================
Richard, you know my style by now. I’m not an in-the-face-thrower. Most
of the experiments you asked for have been done, as have many that you
did not ask for but are important. The bottom line is that all physical
evidence obtained in conjunction with the analysis of the structures at
Auschwitz which other evidence indicates were gas chambers is
consistent with the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence.
<deletions>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:04 EDT 2001
Article: 943398 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman and Brown Jointly on the Gas Chambers
Supersedes: <150820012040047343%[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:43:23 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 542
Message-ID: <150820012043239314%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <140820012131423470%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820011521201081%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997897425 9836 128.214.77.45 (15 Aug 2001 17:43:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2001 17:43:45 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:943398
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > Let me give an analogy which even you should be able to understand.
> > Somebody asks you to determine whether there are any black people in
> > Helsinki. You go off to Helsinki with your camera, and randomly take
> > ten pictures of crowds of people in various places. In three of the
> > photographs black people are clearly visible: 3 in photograph (a), 1 in
> > photograph (b), and 5 in photograph (c). You submit a report to your
> > client that states that there are black people in Helsinki based upon
> > your empirical observation that a total of nine black people showed up
> > in your ten photographs.
> >
> > Can you not understand that the number ‘9’ here only has a qualitative
> > (yes) value, not a quantitative (how many) value? The only thing you
> > have demonstrated is that there are black people in Helsinki,
> > you have not done the work that permits you to give an estimate of the
> > number or percentage of black people in Helsinki, you have only
> > verified their presence. Now, you might go to Tallinn and take ten more
> > photographs and find a total of eleven black people. Such a test once
> > again confirms the presence of black people in Tallinn, but it cannot
> > be used to determine how many black people are there, or whether there
> > are more black people in Tallinn than there are in Helsinki. A totally
> > different type of test has to be done to determine the number and
> > compare the relative percentages of black people in the two cities.
> > This is what I mean when I say that you cannot draw valid quantitative
> > conclusions from the results of qualitative analysis.
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> At least now you begin to make some sense. However your analogy fails. Whereas
> HCN mmolecules would tend to distribute themselves more or less uniformly over
> the surface of a wall (allowing that they might favour the top or the bottom)
> no
> such thing is true of black persons walking the streets of Helsinki at a given
> hour.
>
Wrong. There are some places, such as areas with large numbers of
foreign embassies, the main railway station, or the main shopping
streets where you will see many, and others, such as the cemetery where
Finnish soldiers killed in WW II are buried, or the block where the
local synagogue is situated where you are unlikely to see any. This is
analogous to your possibly favo[u]ring the top or bottom.
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> What is ti Leuchter was trying to determine by his taking wall samples? What
> is
> it anyone would be trying to determine? What is the ONLY thing we can
> determine.
> That is to get some sense of tthe ACCUMULATED result of past exposures. There
> is
> no conceivable way in which to determine thisgs like duration of exposure and
> concentration used on March 22 1943 , duration of exposure and concentration
> used on March 25 1943, etc. All we can get is a single measure of the
> accumulated
> extent of past exposures.
However, water has a negative affect on the formation, as well as on
the short as well as the long-term stability of cyanide compounds.
Leuchter did not take this into account in any way.
>
> If we do this for two different rooms, A and B, and get much larger
> concentration
> values for A, then we are entitled to conclude that A was subjected to greater
> exposure – that and nothing else.
You are incorrect. Even if A and B were exposed to precisely the same
concentration of compound over precisely the same timeframe, there
would be a significant difference if A were just ventilated and
re-exposed, while B was ventilated, hosed down twice, and occasionally
whitewashed before the next exposure. If A were subsequently sealed and
forgotten for 45 years, while B was demolished, with its ruins exposed
to the elements for the same time, during which it spent weeks at a
time
under water every year, a simple comparison of A to B would not be
enough to draw valid conclusions. In actual fact, even during the
exposure we know that A was exposed to 15,000 ppm of HCN for 20 hours
at a time, allowing for a substantial buildup during each exposure,
while B was exposed to a concentration which increased from 0 to about
7,000 ppm during 15 minutes before ventilation and the introduction of
water during the initial hosedown. This was eventually followed by a
cleanup hosedown and, occasionally, by a whitewash.
A simple comparison of A and B is _not_ enough.
>
> Did Leuchter “prove” that there were no gassings? No, he did nit. But he has
> cast
> grave doubts over that possibility.
>
> =================================
His findings do not cast _any_ doubts over that possibility, and they
actually _support_ other evidence that there _were_ gassings:
€ despite his poor methodology, he found enough evidence of enough
exposure to cyanide to attribute it to the use of cyanide in the
structure for fumigation purposes;
€ he thus contradicts his claim that the structure could not have
contained lethal concentrations of cyanide;
€ subsequent studies by the IFRC showed that places subjected to a
single fumigation with cyanide in 1942 show no traces of cyanide
compounds at all.
Thus, the only way that the presence of cyanide can be explained in the
former gas chambers is that their walls and ventilation systems were
repeatedly exposed to lethal concentrations of cyanide. Concentrations
that are still detectable despite the regular hosings down, the
occasional whitewashings, and the 45 years of exposure to the elements.
> > > ===========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > You claim Leuchter’s numbers are worthless because he diluted his samples.
> >
> > Correct:
> > 1. He diluted his samples when he took core samples rather than
> > scraping samples.
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> That this would seriously have distorted his results is a theory and not a
> fact.
> THat is why I have asked for experiments to determine which. You say: there
> is no
> need, my theory is correct. THat is not the way science works.
> =============================
I do not say that my theory is correct, I say that the dilution of his
samples is an empirical fact. Leuchter filmed himself hacking out
fist-sized samples. However, cyanide compounds only form on surfaces,
and only surfaces should be tested if a quantitative analysis is
wanted. The manner on which Leuchter took his samples made it
impossible for the lab to determine which part of the sample was from
the surface. As Dr. Roth said in the interview, it’s like giving a
person a piece of a wall and asking that they determine what was on the
surface by studying the backside.
Leuchter was grossly incompetent, dishonest, or both, when he informed
the lab that they should analyze the samples for the presence (yes/no)
– not the amount (how much) – of cyanide compounds, but then began to
use the figures obtained as quantitative data.
> >
> > 2. He allowed them to be diluted yet again when he told the laboratory
> > to test for the presence rather than the amount of cyanide in the
> > samples.
>
> ====================================
> Phillips
>
> This is preposterous for two reasons.
>
> (1) Of what conceivable value would ti have been to Zuendel if all he had been
> able to report are: there were HCN traces in the fumigation chambers and there
> were HCN traces in the execution chambers. Had Leuchter done such a thing then
> Zuendel would almost CERTAINLY have sued him to get his money back. HE HAD TO
> REPORT BACK NUMBERS
You are neglecting how incompetent – or dishonest – Leuchter is. Either
he really did not understand how a forensic analysis for the amount as
opposed to the presence of cyanide compounds is done, or he thought
that he could hornswoggle Zündel by selling him the results of a
qualitative (yes/no) analysis as those of a quantitative (how much) one.
It is obvious from both his sampling technique and the instructions
that he gave the lab that the samples and question for which he wanted
an answer were geared, intentionally or unintentionally, towards
qualitative, not quantitative analysis.
>
> (2) For what conceivable reason should the lab have gone outside their brief
> and
> done something they were not paid to do.
>
> ========================================
Source:
http://www.njjewishnews.com/issues/1_27_00/cj/arts/text/story1.html
<quote>
More telling still is the interview with James Roth, the managing
chemist of the lab Leuchter used to analyze the Auschwitz samples. Roth
says that had they known the purpose of the analysis, the lab would
have used a totally different method. He says that because the gas
remains only on a very shallow surface of material– 10 microns (100
microns is the width of a hair) — the lab would not have ground the
material into powder, thereby obscuring whether the actual material
tested had been on the surface
</quote>
They were requested to analyze for the presence (yes/no) of cyhanide
compounds, noit for the amount (how much). The numbers they produced to
indicate presence were misused by Leuchter, who presented them as
quantitive data, the data produced by a rigorous quantitative
analytical technique. That is why the Judge Pearson, who certainly has
seen legitimate quantitative analyses before, dismissed Leuchter’s
report as “preposterous” at the Zündel trial.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Oh, what was he doing? Drilling to a depth of a foot and collecting his
> samples
> there.
>
> ========================
No. He was hacking off chunks a few inches deep. He should have been
carefully scraping the surface. The part of the chunk which had been
the exposed surface of the wall was neither marked nor always obvious,
and he instructed the lab to test for the presnece, not the amount of
cyanide compounds. The entire analysis was designed incorrectly.
>
> > 2. Dr. Roth of Alpha Labs told how the tests he ran involved grinding
> > up the entire sample, rather than carefully scraping off ten microns
> > off the outside surface of the samples.
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> Do you know of some tool that can scrape a wall to a depth of only 10
> microns.
Yes. A microtome.
Source: http://dictionary.oed.com
(The Oxford English Dictionary)
microtome, noun
[f. Gr. mikro-s – small + tomo-s – that cuts, tom-/tem-, root of
temnein to cut.]
An instrument for cutting extremely thin sections for microscopic
work.
1856 CARPENTER Microsc. & Rev. 211 The Œmicrotome¹ of M.
Strauss-Durckheim.
1864 in WEBSTER. 1875 H. G. BIRD in Q. Jrnl. Microsc. Sci. XV. 24 If
placed dry in a rigid tube, as that of the microtome..the addition
of..water will..cause the pith-cells to expand.
Hence microtomic, microtomical adjs., relating to the use of the
microtome. microtomist, one expert in the use of the microtome.
microtomy, the scientific use of the microtome.
1885 LEE (title) The Microtomist’s Vade-Mecum.
1887 Amer. Naturalist XXI. 1130 The development of microtomical
technique has made it a comparatively easy matter.
****************************************************************
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> I
> don’t. You might, by possessing the greatest of skill and exercising the
> greatest
> of care confine yourself to a depth of around 0.01 inch. But that is already
> 25
> times what you claim is the depth of HCN penetration. That means that any
> samples
> scraped off the wall are NECESSARILY bulk samples.
>
> ====================================
There are obviously tools and methods for obtaining these types of
samples this because forensic scientists have been doing _quantitative_
analyses of surfaces for cyanide compounds for decades.
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> You would have been on safer ground if, instead of saying Leuchter’s results
> are
> meaningless, you had said they might need further looking into.
>
> Reports that purport to be scientific reports carefully avoid extravagant
> language of that sort.
> ===========================================
No. They are _meaningless_. It is a cardinal error of analytical
chemistry, or indeed of any analytical discipline, to offer the results
of a qualitative analysis as those of a quantitative one. We are
dealing here with a fundamental mistake in reasoning that should be
obvious to anyone with scientific training in any discipline that uses
numbers. The only value that Leuchter’s analysis has it that it
indicates that both the fumigation chambers and the gas chambers were
both exposed to enough cyanide to allow sufficient amounts to
accumulate, despite the particular unfavorable conditions in which the
ruins of the gas chambers have been in since late 1944, that they were
still clearly detactable almost half a century later.
> >
> > Science is done by critically assessing previous work. Leuchter did not
> > bother to look at the forensic studies of Auscvhwitz which were
> > performed immediately after the war and used as evidence in, for
> > example, the 1946 Hoess trial. He made up his own experiments, and was
> > critically misled by his assumption that Nazi gas chambers would be
> > essentially the same in structure and operation as American gas
> > chambers. Moreover, he did not understand that it takes a higher
> > concentration of cyanide maintained over a much longer period to kill
> > lice than it does to kill poeople, or that water and CO2 play a role in
> > cyanide compounhd formation and retention. He thus produced worthless
> > figures, and his explanation for the presence of cyanide compounds in
> > the former gas chamber was based on speculation rather than on either
> > experimentation or an examination of the historical facts that were
> > readily available.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Yeah. yeah. He “should have” known this and he “should have” done that. We’ve
> been all over this. It is ALWAYS possible to pick holes when a man says things
> that are hateful to you.
>
> ======================================
A man who claims to the world that he has produced the “first ever”
forensic analysis of the Auschwitz gas chambers has an obligation to
back up his claims. This is particularly true in this case, since one
of the first forensic analyses, performed in late 1945 when the
evidence was much fresher, served as a crucial part of the evidence in
the 1947 trial of Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz. Not
knowing that such an analysis had been conducted, or the historical
function which it served, is inexcusable.
Leuchter did not say anything that is hateful to me. His report is so
pathetic, particularly the remarks about the nine square feet per
victim, his insistance that a proper gas chamber must have windows of
ocean-proof glass and computerized heart monitors, and the naive
question about why the Germans had not contacted the Americans about
advice on gas chamber construction, that I had difficulty laughing my
way through it.
I regard Leuchter as too pathetic and stupid a person to be hateful. I
feel much the same abiout Ernst Zündel. The only person in the entire
sad affair that I feel a strong antipathy towards is David Irving, a
person I regard as far too intelligent to have accepted Leuchter’s
report as uncritically as he did publicly. On the other hand, having
followed the public behavior of David Irving over the past two years, I
may have been wrong about his level of intelligence and his ability to
reason after all.
> > The Cracow team addressed all of the methodological shortcomings in
> > Leuchter’s analysis, and performed experiments showing, among other
> > things, that both structural materials and water play a significant
> > role on the dynamics of cyanide compound formation and retention. Thus,
> > the surfaces of the fumigation chambers and gas chambers are not
> > directly comparable. They constitute significantly different types of
> > environments for the formation and retention of cyanide compounds.
>
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> But you people have been telling us that they were virtually identical
> structures. Just what are these vast differences the Krakoww Institute has
> discovered.
>
> =============================================
I have not been saying this at all. The fumigation chambers were, to
use Leuchter’s words, “scientifically” built. It was evident to
everybody that they were built to hold dangerous gasses. The design of
the gas chambers, on the other hand, was intended to decieve the
victims. Even the victims who suspected that they were going to gassed,
as was normal by mid 1944 when the Hungarian Jews were being destroyed,
did not know that they were inside a gas chamber until the door closed,
the Zyklon granules were introduced thorugh the wire mesh retainer, and
people dying before their eyes.
The differences in construction are not the issue. It’s the difference
in use and subsequent differences in their histories.
> >
> > Science would advance by finding something to criticize in the Krakow
> > Report, but as far as I know it has stood the test of time.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Ever heard of Germar Rudolph?
>
> =======================================
Yes, what about him?
>
> > You have
> > objected to its use of micrograms as “dishonest units”, but they were
> > doing a finely callibrated quantitative analysis, not a yes/no
> > qualitative analysis, as was performed by the Alpha Labs, so your
> > objection is unjustified.
>
> ===================================
> Phillips
>
> They were working with the same sort of things Leuchter worked with; indeed
> the
> very object of their work was to shoot Leuchter down. Such being the case,
> would
> not have been more meaningful for them to have dennominated their findings in
> the
> same units? It is my belief that they used ug instead of mg to mask the fact
> that
> their differences were too minute to merit serious attention.
>
> ===========================================================
Nonsense. Once you have decided on which units you are going to use,
you onloy have to be consistent. Leuchter’s figures were from a
qualitative analysis and they were thus not comparable with the Cracow
figures, which were from a far more delicately callibrated quantitative
analysis. As I said yesterday, using mg would result in needless
decimal points and leading zeros.
> > > ===========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > When you insist there is no “need” for such experiments, it can only be
> > > for
> > > one reason: that you fear they could blow your theory out of the water.
> > >
> > > ==================================================================
> >
> > No. When I say there is no need for such experiments I mean that all
> > experiments and analyses done so far, even Leuchter’s flawed analysis,
> > indicate that cyanide compounds are present on the walls of the
> > structures
>
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> Present, yes, but present in a measure that was barely at detection level.
>
> ======================================
Far above the detection level. For Krema II one of the readings was in
the 600 ug/kg range, not much lower than the highest reading in the 900
um/kg found for the fumigation chambers.
>
> > other evidence indicates were mass execution gas chambers,
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> All of which “other evidence” is badly tainted, is believed to be either
> highly
> flawed or obtained by questionable means.
Things such as last minute modifications of construction diagrams
provide access to a subterranean Leichenkeller by circular stairway
rather than by chute?
Or the detailed deportation records and corresponding timetables in
which Europe is combed country by country, region by region for the
more than 3,000,000 Jews sent to Auschwitz and other extermination
camps and never seen or heard from again?
Or the testimonies of people who were there, such as the Jews who
testified at the trial of Nazi Dr. Hans Münch in Poland that he had
done all that was humanly possible to save people from the gas
chambers?
Or the fluent, eloquent, and obviously spontaneous testimony of Rudolf
Hoess before the Nuremberg Tribunal when he appeared as a defense
witness for Ernst Kaltenbrunner (
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-15-46.htm#hoess )?
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> So your “proof” amounts to this. You
> take HCN traces barely at detection level, combine it with the “testimony” of
> screwball survivors, add to that the “testimony” of Jewish sonderkommandos
> who
> would say anything for additional rations,
We are talking about testimony given _after_ the war. The drawings made
by the artistically gifted Sonderkommando survivor David Olère made in
1945 are consistent with the testimony about gassing and the gas
chambers given by others.
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> throw in the “testimony” Nazis who
> in
> many cases were tortured or subjected to the threat fo having thein wives and
> children turned over to the Russkies.
>
> Eureka! We have proven the Hosocaust.
>
> Go back to the drawing board.
>
> ============================================
Add to that the fact that we have records of approximately three
million Jews sent to Nazi extermination centers and never seen or heard
>from again.
> =======================================
> Phillips
>
> Did they do all or most of the experimets I asked for. If they had and if they
> had gotten results that confirm what you are telling me, you would have most
> certainly thromn those result in my face.
> ============================================
Richard, you know my style by now. I’m not an in-the-face-thrower. Most
of the experiments you asked for have been done, as have many that you
did not ask for but are important. The bottom line is that all physical
evidence obtained in conjunction with the analysis of the structures at
Auschwitz which other evidence indicates were gas chambers is
consistent with the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence.
<deletions>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:04 EDT 2001
Article: 944003 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman and Brown Jointly on the Gas Chambers
Supersedes: <160820012057381680%[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:13:50 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 238
Message-ID: <160820012113500165%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <140820012131423470%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820011521201081%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820012043239314%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997985652 9130 128.214.77.45 (16 Aug 2001 18:14:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2001 18:14:12 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:944003
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> >
> > A simple comparison of A and B is _not_ enough.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> I can see you are grimly determined to fight every step of the way.
> =========================================
There’s no “grim determination” here. There is the simple empirical
fact that the history of fumigations with respect to both their
exposure to cyanide and their interaction with the environment after
late 1944 are _totally different_. No serious forensic analysis could
ignore this easily verifiable fact. That is one of the reasons that the
Leuchter Report fails to be a legitimate study.
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> In thhe case of the Leuchter Report, we have a case of two rooms, A and B. The
> concentrations os the walls of A were not merely greater than those found on
> the
> walls of B, THEY WERE A THOUSAND TIMES GREATER. Now this is not proof that the
> exposure was a thousand times greater; however is it or is it not highly
> suggestive
> of the likelihood that the exposure WAS greater?
>
> ==========================================
The thousand times greater number is _meaningless_. You cannot draw
quantitative conclusions from the results of qualitative analysis.
Even if the figure were legitimate, it would not constitute proof that
gassings did not take place:
€ in the gas chambers the concentrations of HCN were far lower and
lasted for a shorter time than the concentrations in the fumigation
chambers;
€ the fumigation chambers were in constant use, while the gas chambers
were used only a few times a week until the action against Hungarian
Jews was begun in the spring of 1944;
€ in the gas chambers the victims exhaled CO2, which inhibits the
formation of cyanide compounds;
€ the gas chambers were hosed down at least twice after every gassing,
thus inhibiting the formation of cyanide compounds;
€ the gas chambers were sometimes whitewashed after gassings, thus
introducing chemical substances which interacted with cyanide
compounds;
€ the gas chambers were demolished in late 1944, after which their
structures were exposed to the elements, including what amounts to a 30
meter column of water; this has a negative effect on the retention of
cyanide compounds, not all of which are stable in the long term.
The bottom line is that places exposed to cyanide only once almost 60
years ago, even if protected from the elements, no longer show traces
of cyanide compounds. Both the fumigation chambers and the gas
chambers, which were exposed to cyanide numerous times, still show
traces. You cannot weasel around this fact.
> > > =================================
> >
> > His findings do not cast _any_ doubts over that possibility,
>
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> Do not cast any doubt whatever – not even with that 1000:1 discrepancy.
The 1000:1 discrepancy is _meaningless_, because you cannot draw
quantitative conclusions from qualitative analysis.
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> Do
> not cast
> any doubt whatever.
> You will better support your position of you confine yourself to statements
> that are
> believable. That one is not.
>
> ===========================================
Anybody who is not a scientific illiterate knows that you cannot
present the numbers produced by a qualitative analysis as having
quantitative significance.
> > and they
> > actually _support_ other evidence that there _were_ gassings:
>
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> I see. Not only does the Leuchter Report utterly fail to cast the least doubt
> on the
> likelihood that there WERE gassings, it actually acts to CONFIRM them.
When its results are compared to the results of other analyses, which
indicate that only multiple exposures to HCN could have produced
compounds which, despite half a century of exposure to the elements,
are still detectable, it most certainly _does_ confirm them.
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> If that is the case, then would not organized Jewly have been singing his
> praises
> rather than denouncing him.
>
> ===============================================
This is not an issue for organized Jewry, this is an issue for forensic
science. Leuchter’s report is a methodological travesty, and nobody
concerned about the misuse of science to mislead a gullible public
wants to see it regarded as anything more than what it is: a brazen
example of the misuse of pseudo-science.
I am an educator, for which reason I am shocked and appalled that so
many people have uncritically accepted the nonsense paraded as truth
that we see in the Leuchter Report. Neither organized Jewry nor anyone
else concerned with handing a respect for truth down to the next
generation can accept without protest such garbage as the Leuchter
Report.
> > € despite his poor methodology, he found enough evidence of enough
> > exposure to cyanide to attribute it to the use of cyanide in the
> > structure for fumigation purposes;
> > € he thus contradicts his claim that the structure could not have
> > contained lethal concentrations of cyanide;
> > € subsequent studies by the IFRC showed that places subjected to a
> > single fumigation with cyanide in 1942 show no traces of cyanide
> > compounds at all.
> >
> > Thus, the only way that the presence of cyanide can be explained in the
> > former gas chambers is that their walls and ventilation systems were
> > repeatedly exposed to lethal concentrations of cyanide. Concentrations
> > that are still detectable despite the regular hosings down, the
> > occasional whitewashings, and the 45 years of exposure to the elements.
>
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> Leuchter claims that the low concentrations found on the walls of the
> execution
> chambers disprove gassings; you claim that they confirm them. Now the one
> thing we
> can be certain of is that one or the other of you is full of shit.
> =================================================
The Cracow team determined that places exposed to a single gassing with
cyanide gas almost 60 years ago no longer show traces of cyanide
compounds.
Leuchter found detectable traces of cyanide compounds in places alleged
to have been exposed _repeatedly_ to cyanide.
Other evidence indicates that these places with the detectable traces
were gas chambers. Are we to dismiss this evidence, or are we to
dismiss the qualitative results produced by Leuchter and the
qualitative results produced by the Cracow team?
I seriously doubt whether I, the Cracow team, Leuchter’s qualitative
evidence, and all other evidence are “full of shit”.
>
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> The problem is that we just do not know what residues would have resulted
> from the
> sort of exposures that your alleged execution chamber experienced. That is
> why I
> have proposed the one and only thing that will tell us: a long-term
> experiment in
> which we simulate what we believe went on.
>
> =======================================================
We do know. The exposure to cyanide in the gas chambers was not as
intensive concentration-wise or time-wise in the gas chambers as it was
in the fumigation chambers, and the subsequent histories of the two
environments were conducive to the disintegration of cyanide compounds
in the gas chambers but not in the fumigation facilities.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> If using bulk samples rathr than strictly surface samples seriously distorts
> results, then would we not expect that our Krakow Institute (who were careful
> to
> take only surface samples — certainly they practice what they preach) would
> have
> obtained and published results substantialy larger than those published by
> Leuchter.
> The problem for you is that they did not.
There is no problem. Leuchter was peddling qualitative results as
qunatitive data. The Cracow team worked consistently with quantitative
data. For this reason, the results cannot be compared.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
>
> So please let me hear no more carping about Leuchter’s incompetence in the
> manner of
> samples. You claim is a theory not only unsupported by experience but actually
> refuted by experience.
>
> ==============================================
I am not “carping”, I am making an empirically verifiable statement:
Leuchter took samples that are of no value whatsoever for determining
the quantitative presence of HCN.
> > > ========================================
> >
> > Source:
> > http://www.njjewishnews.com/issues/1_27_00/cj/arts/text/story1.html
>
> ===================================
> Phillips
>
> Aswer the question yourself. No websites, please.
>
> ===========================
I’ve already told you in my own words why his samples were worthless. I
thought you might like to see what Dr. Roth had to say about them.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:05 EDT 2001
Article: 944938 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!news1.spb.su!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hitler on destroying Germany
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:32:04 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <170820011432043449%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998047946 10957 128.214.77.45 (17 Aug 2001 11:32:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Aug 2001 11:32:26 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:944938
In article <[email protected]>, notnicegoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hitler would never destroy what he loved.
Ever heard of his lover and wife, Eva Hitler, née Braun, or of his dog,
Blondi?
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:05 EDT 2001
Article: 944939 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.88.64.227!sonofon.dk!newsrouter.euroconnect.net!newsfeed.song.fi!news.cs.hut.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman and Brown Jointly on the Gas Chambers
Supersedes: <170820011052351400%[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:29:30 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 426
Message-ID: <170820011429304196%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <140820012131423470%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820011521201081%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820012043239314%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <160820012113500165%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998047793 10957 128.214.77.45 (17 Aug 2001 11:29:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Aug 2001 11:29:53 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:944939
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > The thousand times greater number is _meaningless_. You cannot draw
> > quantitative conclusions from the results of qualitative analysis.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> I offer you two choices.
>
> 1) Either explain to me in plain United States of American English
> comprehensible
> to a lowly holder of two engineering degrees
>
> 1a) The difference between quant and qual analysis
Let’s start with qualitative analysis.
Qualitative analysis is testing for the presence or absence of a
particular substance. A sample is taken and subjected to various tests,
some of which can involve introducing foreign substances to the sample,
to determine whether the substance being sought for is present or not.
Qualitative analysis is solely concerned with presence (yes) or absence
(no); the analytical techniques used are not designed to measure
quantity (how much), even if some figures might be generated.
Quantitative analysis is testing for the amount of a particular
substance in a given sample. A sample is taken and subjected to
various tests to determine what proportion of the substance being
tested for is to be found in the sample. Quantitative analysis
requires a much more precise analytical technique than qualitative
analysis, and this precision begins with the taking of samples. If,
for example, we are going to test for a substance that will be found no
deeper than ten microns on a surface, we have to be careful to take
samples from the surface and nothing more. We cannot, as Leuchter did,
take samples of arbitrary size containing material from the surface,
sides, and back.
If we are going to make valid comparisons of the amount of cyanide
compounds found on the walls of two different structures, we have to
limit ourselves to a strict comparision of the results obtained by
examining scrapings from the surfaces of their walls and their walls
only. Taking fist-sized samples of different sizes containing material
>from the surfaces as well as the interiors would allow us to test for
the presence of cyanide compounds in each, but it would not allow us to
make a valid comparison of the amount due to the fact that the two
samples were diluted to different degrees by extraneous material.
Leuchter’s command of analytical chemistry was too elementary for him
to understand the fallacy in his reasoning and this carried over to the
method of his samplng and his instructions to the laboratory. This is
the primary reason that the court, which did not have to do special
homework to recognize his methodologically flawed excuse for a forensic
analysis for what it was, rejected his report out of hand as being
“preposterous”, worthless, and of no evidential value.
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> 1b) How it is possible that what you insist wal a qual analysis resulted in
> numbers
Because one uses such instruments as a chromatograph to determine the
presence or absence of substances, and they yield numbers along a
numerical scale. These numbers mean “presence” or “absence”, and
sometimes “a lot” or “a little”, but they have no other sciejntific
value. In order to determine “how much” or “what percentage”, different
types of samples have to be taken, and different types of tests have to
be run.
> 1c) Just exactly what bearing all this has on the validity of Leuchter’s
> results.
The only validity that Leuchter’s results has is that his samples from
the gas chambers and the fumigation chambers both tested positively for
the presence of cyanide. In this sense the qualitative aspect of his
results is consistent with all of the other forensic examinations of
the Auschwitz gas chambers conducted before and after his examination.
The sampling technique and the analytical procedures used by Leuchter
were inappropriate for drawing the more detailed quantitative
conclusions he tries to draw from them.
Leuchter’s report is further marred by the fact that he makes no
reference to the methodology used or the results obtained by earlier
forensic analyses of the same structures. A responsible scientist does
not reinvent the wheel, but rather assesses his work in the light of
what has been done previously. If previous forensic examinations of the
Auschwitz gas chambers have yielded results which the scientific,
historical, and legal communities have regarded as consistent with
other evidence that the structures in question were indeed used as gas
chambers, Leuchter had the scientific responsibility to justify his
dissenting conclusion. The depth of his incompetence and scientific
irresponsibility is revealed by the fact that he allowed his report to
be offered as the “first-ever forensic analysis of the Auschwitz gas
chambers”, even though several previous forensic reports, including the
historically important one by Dawidowski and Sehn used as evidence at
the 1947 trial of Rudolf Hoess, had been compiled in 1945 when the
evidence was fresher.
> 2) Or elso spare me any further snow jobs on the matter
>
> =====================
There is no snow job here. Anybody who has studied college chemistry or
worked in a laboratory will tell you that you cannot draw
valid quantitative conclusions from the results of a qualitative
analysis.
> >
> > Even if the figure were legitimate, it would not constitute proof that
> > gassings did not take place:
>
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> THe figures ARE legitimate and I have admitted several times that , no, they
> do not
> disprove gassings but I believe they cast much doubt on that possibility.
>
> The only way the matter will ever be resolved is by experiments.
>
> ==================================
The figures are _not_ legitimate for the reasons given above. That is
why the court dismissed them as having no evidential value. The only
value that Leuchter’s figures have is that they indicate the presence
of cyanide compounds in both environments, thus making them consistent
with all other available evidence indicating that the structures of the
gas chambers were exposed to enough cyanide for traces of the compounds
they formed with the structural materials to still be detectable half a
century later despite, in the case of the ruins of the gas chambers, a
subsequent history of exposure to the elements.
> > € in the gas chambers the concentrations of HCN were far lower and
> > lasted for a shorter time than the concentrations in the fumigation
> > chambers;
> > € the fumigation chambers were in constant use,
>
> ==================================
> Phillips
>
> How do you know this.
>
> ==============
The testimony and depositions of Hoess, Tauber, Broad, among others;
the manual for the use of Zyklon-B published by Degesch.
> > while the gas chambers
> > were used only a few times a week until the action against Hungarian
> > Jews was begun in the spring of 1944;
The testimony given by Hoess at Nuremberg as well as the more detailed
description of the systematic destruction of European Jewry given in
his memoirs and in various camp documents from 1944.
> > € in the gas chambers the victims exhaled CO2, which inhibits the
> > formation of cyanide compounds;
>
> ===============================
> Phillips
>
> How do you know this
>
> =======================
Everybody knows (or should know) that people exhale CO2, and that it
builds up in the ambient air if there is no ventilation. The IFRC team
did experiments published as part of their 1994 report showing that the
presence of CO2 in the ambient air has a negative impact on the
dynamics of the chemical process resulting in the formation of cyanide
compounds. There was CO2 in the ambient air of the gas chambers, but
not of the fumigation chambers, and any comparison of the amount of
cyanide compounds found on their respective walls has to take the
influence of the presence of CO2 into account.
> >
> > € the gas chambers were hosed down at least twice after every gassing,
> > thus inhibiting the formation of cyanide compounds;
>
> =====================================
> Phillips
>
> How do you know ti would have had that effect
>
> ===========================
The lengthy deposition on the use of the gas chambers given by
Sonderkommando member Henryk Tauber, for one. It is general knowledge
that when people die, their sphincters relax, allowing bodily fluids
to be released. Thus, the Sonderkommando had a messy situation to deal
with when the doors of the gas chambers were opened after each gassing:
the excrement, urine, menstrual fluid, sperm, vomit, and miscarriages
of more than a thousand people. Before they could begin to remove the
bodies, they had to do an initial hosing down. After the bodies had
been removed, they had to hose down the place again to get rid of all
traces of the previous gassing. Tauber says that sometimes there was
such a mess that the place had to be whitewashed before it could be
used again. The IHRC ran experiments which showed that the dynamics of
cyanide compound formation are adversely affected by the presence of
water which, of course, necessarily rinses away some of the reactants.
> >
> > € the gas chambers were sometimes whitewashed after gassings, thus
> > introducing chemical substances which interacted with cyanide
> > compounds;
> > € the gas chambers were demolished in late 1944,
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> A convvenient “explanation” of why they are no longer there.
>
> ===================
They were demolished on the specific order of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich
Himmler to destroy all evidence of criminal activity. It is interesting
that of all the thousands of buildings and structures at the huge
Auschwitz complex, it was precisely these four buildings that were
demolished by the Nazis.
> > after which their
> > structures were exposed to the elements, including what amounts to a 30
> > meter column of water; this has a negative effect on the retention of
> > cyanide compounds
>
> =============================
> Phillips
>
> The IHR doesn’t think so, Why should I believe you instead fo them.
>
> =======================
Because the IHR is a group devoted to Holocaust denial. They also
support the Leuchter Report, which is a piece of pseudo-science.
>
> > , not all of which are stable in the long term.
> >
> > The bottom line is that places exposed to cyanide only once almost 60
> > years ago, even if protected from the elements, no longer show traces
> > of cyanide compounds. Both the fumigation chambers and the gas
> > chambers, which were exposed to cyanide numerous times, still show
> > traces. You cannot weasel around this fact.
>
> ====================================
> Phillips
>
> To begin with I have only your statements that they ARE facts
>
> =================================
Every forensic analysis of the ruins of the Auschwitz gas chambers has
produced a positive result for the presence of cyanide compounds. The
experiments done by the IFRC showed that places subjected to single
exposure to cyanide during the first experimental gassing of Soviet
POWs using Zyklon-B in September, 1941 or the mid-1942 typhus epidemic
no longer exhibit traces of cyanide compounds. These are generally
accepted scientific and historical facts.
Fred Leuchter, faced with the problem of accounting for the factuality
of the presence of cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas
chamber ruins, attributed it to a single fumigation during the mid-1942
typhus epidemic. This conclusion is contrary to generally accepted
historical facts because construction of the four gas chamber cum
crematorium buildings at Auschwitz-Birkenau did not commence until
1943, in addition to which it is contrary to the results obtained by
others that places exposed to cyanide only once back in the early 1940s
no longer show traces of cyanide compounds at all. These mistakes,
which could easily have been avoided by investigating the architectural
history of the camp and testing places known to have been subjected to
cyanide only once during the first experimental gassing with Zyklon-B
in 1941 or the mid-1942 typhus epidemic, are further examplifications
of Leuchter’s incompetence as a forensic analyst or historian.
> > > =================================================
> >
> > The Cracow team determined that places exposed to a single gassing with
> > cyanide gas almost 60 years ago no longer show traces of cyanide
> > compounds.
> >
> > Leuchter found detectable traces of cyanide compounds in places alleged
> > to have been exposed _repeatedly_ to cyanide.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> Alleged. Are you now trying to tell us that the now-agreed-upon figure of 1M
> gassed
> was all done in a single gassing. Must have been a bit crowded in thete – yes?
>
> =============================================
I wrote and emphasized “_repeatedly_”.
> >
> > Other evidence indicates that these places with the detectable traces
> > were gas chambers. Are we to dismiss this evidence, or are we to
> > dismiss the quantitative results produced by Leuchter and the
> > qualitative results produced by the Cracow team?
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> Tell me exactly what the Krakow team that that allows to call their analysis
> quantative – a privilege you deny to Leuchter.
>
> ====================
Their analysis was designed and implemented as a quantitative one.
Leuchter’s analysis was designed and implemented as a qualitative one,
yet he marketed it as a quantitative one. This easily seen
misrepresentation of the nature of his figures was one of the reasons
his report was characterized as “preposterous” by the court.
> > > =======================================================
> >
> > We do know. The exposure to cyanide in the gas chambers was not as
> > intensive concentration-wise or time-wise in the gas chambers as it was
> > in the fumigation chambers, and the subsequent histories of the two
> > environments were conducive to the disintegration of cyanide compounds
> > in the gas chambers but not in the fumigation facilities.
>
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> That ssuggests nothing more than that the reessidues found would be lower
> than those
> in the fumigation chambers. It does NOT tell us how much they likely would
> have
> been.
>
> Only carefully planned expeliwents can do that.
>
> ===================
That is why the Cracow team did experiments on:
€ the impact of CO2 inj the ambient air on cyanide compound formation
€ the short and long term impact of water on cyanide compound formation
and retention
€ the manner in which different types of structural materials are
conducive to the formation and long-term retention of cyanide compound
formation
None of these issues were addressed by Leuchter, whose entire
methodology and analytical technique were oriented towards qualitative
rather than quantitative issues.
> > There is no problem. Leuchter was peddling qualitative results as
> > qunatitive data. The Cracow team worked consistently with quantitative
> > data. For this reason, the results cannot be compared.
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> THis gets really interesting. YOu start out by telling us that BEcause Krakow
> was
> careful to take only surface samples, thei results would necessarily have been
> larger. Then, to muddy the waters, you throw in your quantitative/qualitative
> bilge
> to plead that the results cannot be compared. The fuck, they can’t. The
> numbers that
> came out of the Krakow reports are –mirabile dictu– ROUGHLY THE SAME as
> Leuchter’s. So it would seem that the two effects somehow miraculously
> cancelled
> each other out
>
> =============================================================
They results of the Cracow report are not _roughly the same_ as the
rsults of the Leuchter Report. With respect to numbers, the
scientifically worthless numbers given in the Leuchter Report indicate
concentrations of cyanide for the gas chambers that are in the range of
three orders of magnitude smaller than those in the fumigation
chambers. The highest gas chamber reading for a gas chamber invironment
in the Cracow report is in the 600 ug/kg range, while the highest one
for a fumigation chamber is in the 900 ug/kg range. They represent the
same order of magnitude. The only way that the results of the Cracow
report can be compared with those of the Leuchter Report is on the
qualitative level: both reports test positive for cyanide compounds in
the fumigation chambers as well as the gas chambers. Leuchter has no
proper control, so nothing more can be made of this, but the Cracow
Report does have a proper control. It indicates that places never
exposed to cyanide or known to have been exposed to it only once test
negative for cyanide. Consequently, the admittedly lower but clearly
detectable and sometimes quite high concentration of cyanide compounds
found in the ruins of the gas chambers cannot be simply attributed to a
single gassing “once, long ago”, as argued by Leuchter with no
justification and in contradiction to all that is known about the
history of the camp.
> >
> > I’ve already told you in my own words why his samples were worthless. I
> > thought you might like to see what Dr. Roth had to say about them.
>
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> Not particularly interested. Roth changed his story after the trial and I don’t
> trust people who change their stories Furthermore, it’s obvious that once Roth saw
> what a hornet’s nest he was into, he did everything he could to distance himself
> from the whole business.
>
> ==================
That is not obvious at all. The fact that Dr. Roth allowed himself to be
interviewed for the film “Mr. Death” showed that he has an abiding
interest in the issue and has not “distanced himself from the whole
business” by any means.
He did not step into a hornet’s nest, because Leuchter’s report was
never accepted by the court or any other responsible body as having any
value as evidence. As a responsible and honest scientist, Dr. Roth
understood his obligation to the public to explain why it is
scientifically wrong to draw quantitative conclusions from the
qualitative analysis that Leuchter originally ordered, and why
Leuchter, either dishonestly or consequent to his incompetence as a
forensic analyst, made claims about the results of the analysis which
lack any scientific justification.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:05 EDT 2001
Article: 945083 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!feed.textport.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!news000.worldonline.se!news.algonet.se!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman – a fresh thread
Supersedes: <170820011932288277%[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:33:39 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <170820011933392525%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998066041 376 128.214.77.45 (17 Aug 2001 16:34:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Aug 2001 16:34:01 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:945083
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I like debates to reach conclusions – or at least to show some promise
> of doing so. Our existing thread
> –Phillips to Holman and Brown Jointly on the Gas Chambers– seems to
> have degenerated into an inconclusive wrangle covering several points at
> the same tome. I see a need for focus. Therefore I would like us to
> attempt to deal with just one question at a time.
>
> My first question to you is: What formal training in chemistry have you
> had?
I’ve had informal, formal, and background training in chemistry:
A. Informal
My father was a senior hospital pharmacist (Bellevue Hospital, NYC,
Veteran’s Administration, NYC), so we had numerous books and other
resources relevant to chemistry (pharmacists are sent amazing amounts
of material, much of it brimming with information about chemistry,
promoting new medications, treatments, and technology) around the house
ever since I was a small child. When I was in elementary school I also
had a chemistry set, which I was only allowed to use under close
parental supervision and guidance.
B. Formal
€ 1961-2: a rigorous one-year introductory course at a high school
specializing in natural sciences, (The Bronx High School of Science,
http://www.bxscience.edu );
€ 1960-62: two years of high school physics, in which physical
chemistry, the dynamics of compound formation and disintegration on the
molecular, atomic, and subatomic level, was also treated (same place).
€ 1961: one high school summer job using chromatography to perform BUN
(blood urea nitrogen) and other quantitative analytical tests on blood
and urine in a hospital laboratory (Queens General Hospital);
€ 1963-5: two years of college chemistry: advanced placement chemistry
plus qualitative and quantitative analysis (Cornell University);
C. Background
University level courses in the history and development of scientific
thought, the philosophy of science, and logic.
The bottom line is that I know enough about chemistry to recognize that
it is a serious and indefensible methodological error to misrepresent
the results of a qualitative analysis as the results of a quantitative
one, enough about cyanide to be wary of an historian who would stake
his entire career on a forensic report, falsely presented at the first
of its kind, arguing that it takes “colossally higher” concentrations
of cyanide to kill people than it does to kill lice”, and enough about
logic to know that if a structure could contain the cyanide gas needed
for a “single fumigation once, long ago”, it could also contain the
much lower concentrations of cyanide needed to kill people.
Please allow me to throw the ball into your court. What kind of a
background in chemistry do you have?
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:06 EDT 2001
Article: 945116 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!grolier!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!news1.spb.su!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman – a fresh thread
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:26:10 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <170820012026102082%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <170820011933392525%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998069193 3675 128.214.77.45 (17 Aug 2001 17:26:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Aug 2001 17:26:33 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:945116
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > Please allow me to throw the ball into your court. What kind of a
> > background in chemistry do you have?
> >
>
> ====================================
> Phillips
>
> Much much less than yours
>
> Now I would like you to explain the distinction between a qualitative and a
> quantative analysis. Please bear with me if you have already explained it but
> I would like to have everything set down here for the record.
>
> =================================================
I’ve done this three times during the past two days. Well, here goes…
A qualitative (from the word quality) analysis seeks only to answer the
question ‘present’ or ‘absent’. The analogy I gave you about
determining whether there are any black people in Helsinki makes it
about as clear as it can be. A few random photographs of our town will
show that there are, indeed, black people in Helsinki. On the other
hand you can photograph our town day and night, but you will never find
any elephants in Helsinki. Closer investigation will reveal that the
reason for the absence of elephants is animal rights laws which forbid
the introduction of elephants to Finland or any other Nordic country
for any purpose whatsoever. So, a qualitative analysis of the black
people situation in Helsinki will yield the answer ‘yes’, while one of
the elephant situation will yield the answer “no”, as well as a
plausible explanation. The fact that you counted 7 black people among
the 46 people in the ten photographs that you took to ascertain the
‘yes’ is a number, but its only value is confirmation (“yes”) of the
fact that there are black people in Helsinki. It cannot be used to make
even an educated guess as to the number of black people in Helsinki or
the percentage they make up of the overall population.
For that you need a _quantitative_ (from the word quantity) analysis.
Performing a quantitative analysis requires a totally different
analytical procedure. You would first have to obtain data on the total
number of people in Helsinki from the city administration. Since the
authorities do not keep statistics on the racial composition of the
population, you would have to obtain information pertaining to such
things as the number of people who are citizens of African and other
countries living in Helsinki who are presumably black. You also run
into the problem of definition: are the children and grandchildren of
Finnish-African or black unions “black”, or do they belong to some
other category? You would also have to account for the fact that some
of the black people in Helsinki are or were citizens of countries such
as Canada, the United States, France, and the UK that have black
minorities. After going through this analytical procedure you would
have data that would allow you to make a reasonable estimate of the
_number_ of black people in Helsinki and their _percentage_ of the
entire population. The data from the _qualitative_ (present vs.
absent), analysis, even if given as numbers, is insufficent and
inappropriate for making such estimates or drawing such conclusions.
Now, if someone asked you whether there were more black people in
Helsinki than in our neighbor city Tallinn, it would be inappropriate
analytical procedure to take ten photographs in Helsinki and ten in
Tallinn, count the number of black people visible in each set of
photographs, and say “7 out of the 36 people in my ten Helsinki photos
are black, while 4 out of the 31 people in my ten Tallinn photos are
black. 7/36 = 19%, while 4/31 = 13%. There are thus 6% more black
people in Helsinki than there are in Tallinn.” This is what a person is
doing who presents the results of qualitative analysis as those of
quantitative analysis.
If there is something that remains unclear in what I have written,
please tell me.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:06 EDT 2001
Article: 945127 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!feed.textport.net!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!news1.spb.su!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: So, did Irving pay up?
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:52:16 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <170820012052166276%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998070758 5052 128.214.77.45 (17 Aug 2001 17:52:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Aug 2001 17:52:38 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:945127
In article <[email protected]>, Albrecht Kolthoff
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Catherine C wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, John Ockerbloom
> ><[email protected]> writes
> >>
> >>I notice that Irving’s website still says he’s pursuing another lawsuit
> >>against Gitta Sereny and the Observer on what appear to be similar
> >>things to what Lipstadt said in her book.
> >>
> >>Given that Irving is already in default to Lipstadt and her publisher,
> >>and that his total assets are probably much less than what he owes,
> >>I don’t expect there’d be anything left for Sereny and her publisher
> >>to collect, if they too went through a full trial to win their case.
> >>Are the UK courts likely to allow his suit against Sereny to go forward,
> >>then? (In the US, a would-be plaintiff will sometimes have to post a bond
> >>if they’re raising a case similar to ones that they’ve already lost,
> >>so that the defendants can have some chance of recovering what they’d
> >>have to spend to bring the case to a foregone conclusion. I don’t
> >>know whether similar provisions exist in the UK, or whether they would
> >>apply to this case.)
> >
> >
> >There is something called “Security for Costs” – which might apply here.
> >
> >BTW does anyone know if Richard Evan’s book has found a UK publisher?
>
> Granta Books. Mr. Irving is really mad about them, and he wants to – guess
> what – SUE the publisher as well as Richard Evans. This is what he wrote to
> them in a letter on August 13:
>
> YOU have not responded to my letters about the above title
> which, as you announced to the press, you would be publishing. I
> have seen further reference to it by Evans in an article in The
> Jewish Chronicle last week. I wish to place on record therefore
> once again that if this book is published within the
> jurisdiction of the UK courts, in a form that even remotely
> resembles the US edition, bearing the same innuendoes and
> allegations, I shall at once and without further notice issue
> proceedings in defamation against yourselves and the author. You
> would be very mistaken to doubt my earnest in this matter.
> http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Evans/JChron100801.html
>
> So far he has announced to proceed with two lawsuits: the one against Gitta
> Sereny and The Observer and now this one against Richard Evans and Granta
> Books. Rumours say that the lawyers Irving had fired short before his appeal
> trial were now going to sue him for unpaid fees.
Portrait of a man drowning… Is there no way for a person to shield
himself from his own stupidity?
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:06 EDT 2001
Article: 945527 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman – a fresh thread
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:38:55 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 464
Message-ID: <180820010838553682%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <140820012131423470%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820011521201081%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820012043239314%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <160820012113500165%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <170820011429304196%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998113158 14628 128.214.77.45 (18 Aug 2001 05:39:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Aug 2001 05:39:18 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:945527
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> =============================
> Phillips
>
> Would it be too much trouble to repost these materials to the newly-created
> thread
No problem.
> =============================
> Phillips
>
> “Phillips to Holman – a fresh thread.”
>
> I’d like to use that thread ekclusively and have everything in one place.
>
> THanks
>
> ==================
My pleasure.
>
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
> > > > The thousand times greater number is _meaningless_. You cannot draw
> > > > quantitative conclusions from the results of qualitative analysis.
> > >
> > > =========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > I offer you two choices.
> > >
> > > 1) Either explain to me in plain United States of American English
> > > comprehensible
> > > to a lowly holder of two engineering degrees
> > >
> > > 1a) The difference between quant and qual analysis
> >
> > Let’s start with qualitative analysis.
> >
> > Qualitative analysis is testing for the presence or absence of a
> > particular substance. A sample is taken and subjected to various tests,
> > some of which can involve introducing foreign substances to the sample,
> > to determine whether the substance being sought for is present or not.
> > Qualitative analysis is solely concerned with presence (yes) or absence
> > (no); the analytical techniques used are not designed to measure
> > quantity (how much), even if some figures might be generated.
> >
> > Quantitative analysis is testing for the amount of a particular
> > substance in a given sample. A sample is taken and subjected to
> > various tests to determine what proportion of the substance being
> > tested for is to be found in the sample. Quantitative analysis
> > requires a much more precise analytical technique than qualitative
> > analysis, and this precision begins with the taking of samples. If,
> > for example, we are going to test for a substance that will be found no
> > deeper than ten microns on a surface, we have to be careful to take
> > samples from the surface and nothing more. We cannot, as Leuchter did,
> > take samples of arbitrary size containing material from the surface,
> > sides, and back.
> >
> > If we are going to make valid comparisons of the amount of cyanide
> > compounds found on the walls of two different structures, we have to
> > limit ourselves to a strict comparision of the results obtained by
> > examining scrapings from the surfaces of their walls and their walls
> > only. Taking fist-sized samples of different sizes containing material
> > from the surfaces as well as the interiors would allow us to test for
> > the presence of cyanide compounds in each, but it would not allow us to
> > make a valid comparison of the amount due to the fact that the two
> > samples were diluted to different degrees by extraneous material.
> >
> > Leuchter’s command of analytical chemistry was too elementary for him
> > to understand the fallacy in his reasoning and this carried over to the
> > method of his samplng and his instructions to the laboratory. This is
> > the primary reason that the court, which did not have to do special
> > homework to recognize his methodologically flawed excuse for a forensic
> > analysis for what it was, rejected his report out of hand as being
> > “preposterous”, worthless, and of no evidential value.
> >
> > > =========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > 1b) How it is possible that what you insist wal a qual analysis resulted
> > > in
> > > numbers
> >
> > Because one uses such instruments as a chromatograph to determine the
> > presence or absence of substances, and they yield numbers along a
> > numerical scale. These numbers mean “presence” or “absence”, and
> > sometimes “a lot” or “a little”, but they have no other sciejntific
> > value. In order to determine “how much” or “what percentage”, different
> > types of samples have to be taken, and different types of tests have to
> > be run.
> >
> > > 1c) Just exactly what bearing all this has on the validity of Leuchter’s
> > > results.
> >
> > The only validity that Leuchter’s results has is that his samples from
> > the gas chambers and the fumigation chambers both tested positively for
> > the presence of cyanide. In this sense the qualitative aspect of his
> > results is consistent with all of the other forensic examinations of
> > the Auschwitz gas chambers conducted before and after his examination.
> > The sampling technique and the analytical procedures used by Leuchter
> > were inappropriate for drawing the more detailed quantitative
> > conclusions he tries to draw from them.
> >
> > Leuchter’s report is further marred by the fact that he makes no
> > reference to the methodology used or the results obtained by earlier
> > forensic analyses of the same structures. A responsible scientist does
> > not reinvent the wheel, but rather assesses his work in the light of
> > what has been done previously. If previous forensic examinations of the
> > Auschwitz gas chambers have yielded results which the scientific,
> > historical, and legal communities have regarded as consistent with
> > other evidence that the structures in question were indeed used as gas
> > chambers, Leuchter had the scientific responsibility to justify his
> > dissenting conclusion. The depth of his incompetence and scientific
> > irresponsibility is revealed by the fact that he allowed his report to
> > be offered as the “first-ever forensic analysis of the Auschwitz gas
> > chambers”, even though several previous forensic reports, including the
> > historically important one by Dawidowski and Sehn used as evidence at
> > the 1947 trial of Rudolf Hoess, had been compiled in 1945 when the
> > evidence was fresher.
> >
> > > 2) Or elso spare me any further snow jobs on the matter
> > >
> > > =====================
> >
> > There is no snow job here. Anybody who has studied college chemistry or
> > worked in a laboratory will tell you that you cannot draw
> > valid quantitative conclusions from the results of a qualitative
> > analysis.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Even if the figure were legitimate, it would not constitute proof that
> > > > gassings did not take place:
> > >
> > > =============================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > THe figures ARE legitimate and I have admitted several times that , no,
> > > they
> > > do not
> > > disprove gassings but I believe they cast much doubt on that possibility.
> > >
> > > The only way the matter will ever be resolved is by experiments.
> > >
> > > ==================================
> >
> > The figures are _not_ legitimate for the reasons given above. That is
> > why the court dismissed them as having no evidential value. The only
> > value that Leuchter’s figures have is that they indicate the presence
> > of cyanide compounds in both environments, thus making them consistent
> > with all other available evidence indicating that the structures of the
> > gas chambers were exposed to enough cyanide for traces of the compounds
> > they formed with the structural materials to still be detectable half a
> > century later despite, in the case of the ruins of the gas chambers, a
> > subsequent history of exposure to the elements.
> >
> > > > € in the gas chambers the concentrations of HCN were far lower and
> > > > lasted for a shorter time than the concentrations in the fumigation
> > > > chambers;
> > > > € the fumigation chambers were in constant use,
> > >
> > > ==================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > How do you know this.
> > >
> > > ==============
> >
> > The testimony and depositions of Hoess, Tauber, Broad, among others;
> > the manual for the use of Zyklon-B published by Degesch.
> >
> > > > while the gas chambers
> > > > were used only a few times a week until the action against Hungarian
> > > > Jews was begun in the spring of 1944;
> >
> > The testimony given by Hoess at Nuremberg as well as the more detailed
> > description of the systematic destruction of European Jewry given in
> > his memoirs and in various camp documents from 1944.
> >
> > > > € in the gas chambers the victims exhaled CO2, which inhibits the
> > > > formation of cyanide compounds;
> > >
> > > ===============================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > How do you know this
> > >
> > > =======================
> >
> > Everybody knows (or should know) that people exhale CO2, and that it
> > builds up in the ambient air if there is no ventilation. The IFRC team
> > did experiments published as part of their 1994 report showing that the
> > presence of CO2 in the ambient air has a negative impact on the
> > dynamics of the chemical process resulting in the formation of cyanide
> > compounds. There was CO2 in the ambient air of the gas chambers, but
> > not of the fumigation chambers, and any comparison of the amount of
> > cyanide compounds found on their respective walls has to take the
> > influence of the presence of CO2 into account.
> >
> > > >
> > > > € the gas chambers were hosed down at least twice after every gassing,
> > > > thus inhibiting the formation of cyanide compounds;
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > How do you know ti would have had that effect
> > >
> > > ===========================
> >
> > The lengthy deposition on the use of the gas chambers given by
> > Sonderkommando member Henryk Tauber, for one. It is general knowledge
> > that when people die, their sphincters relax, allowing bodily fluids
> > to be released. Thus, the Sonderkommando had a messy situation to deal
> > with when the doors of the gas chambers were opened after each gassing:
> > the excrement, urine, menstrual fluid, sperm, vomit, and miscarriages
> > of more than a thousand people. Before they could begin to remove the
> > bodies, they had to do an initial hosing down. After the bodies had
> > been removed, they had to hose down the place again to get rid of all
> > traces of the previous gassing. Tauber says that sometimes there was
> > such a mess that the place had to be whitewashed before it could be
> > used again. The IHRC ran experiments which showed that the dynamics of
> > cyanide compound formation are adversely affected by the presence of
> > water which, of course, necessarily rinses away some of the reactants.
> >
> > > >
> > > > € the gas chambers were sometimes whitewashed after gassings, thus
> > > > introducing chemical substances which interacted with cyanide
> > > > compounds;
> > > > € the gas chambers were demolished in late 1944,
> > >
> > > ======================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > A convvenient “explanation” of why they are no longer there.
> > >
> > > ===================
> >
> > They were demolished on the specific order of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich
> > Himmler to destroy all evidence of criminal activity. It is interesting
> > that of all the thousands of buildings and structures at the huge
> > Auschwitz complex, it was precisely these four buildings that were
> > demolished by the Nazis.
> >
> > > > after which their
> > > > structures were exposed to the elements, including what amounts to a 30
> > > > meter column of water; this has a negative effect on the retention of
> > > > cyanide compounds
> > >
> > > =============================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > The IHR doesn’t think so, Why should I believe you instead fo them.
> > >
> > > =======================
> >
> > Because the IHR is a group devoted to Holocaust denial. They also
> > support the Leuchter Report, which is a piece of pseudo-science.
> >
> > >
> > > > , not all of which are stable in the long term.
> > > >
> > > > The bottom line is that places exposed to cyanide only once almost 60
> > > > years ago, even if protected from the elements, no longer show traces
> > > > of cyanide compounds. Both the fumigation chambers and the gas
> > > > chambers, which were exposed to cyanide numerous times, still show
> > > > traces. You cannot weasel around this fact.
> > >
> > > ====================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > To begin with I have only your statements that they ARE facts
> > >
> > > =================================
> >
> > Every forensic analysis of the ruins of the Auschwitz gas chambers has
> > produced a positive result for the presence of cyanide compounds. The
> > experiments done by the IFRC showed that places subjected to single
> > exposure to cyanide during the first experimental gassing of Soviet
> > POWs using Zyklon-B in September, 1941 or the mid-1942 typhus epidemic
> > no longer exhibit traces of cyanide compounds. These are generally
> > accepted scientific and historical facts.
> >
> > Fred Leuchter, faced with the problem of accounting for the factuality
> > of the presence of cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas
> > chamber ruins, attributed it to a single fumigation during the mid-1942
> > typhus epidemic. This conclusion is contrary to generally accepted
> > historical facts because construction of the four gas chamber cum
> > crematorium buildings at Auschwitz-Birkenau did not commence until
> > 1943, in addition to which it is contrary to the results obtained by
> > others that places exposed to cyanide only once back in the early 1940s
> > no longer show traces of cyanide compounds at all. These mistakes,
> > which could easily have been avoided by investigating the architectural
> > history of the camp and testing places known to have been subjected to
> > cyanide only once during the first experimental gassing with Zyklon-B
> > in 1941 or the mid-1942 typhus epidemic, are further examplifications
> > of Leuchter’s incompetence as a forensic analyst or historian.
> >
> > > > > =================================================
> > > >
> > > > The Cracow team determined that places exposed to a single gassing with
> > > > cyanide gas almost 60 years ago no longer show traces of cyanide
> > > > compounds.
> > > >
> > > > Leuchter found detectable traces of cyanide compounds in places alleged
> > > > to have been exposed _repeatedly_ to cyanide.
> > >
> > > =========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Alleged. Are you now trying to tell us that the now-agreed-upon figure of
> > > 1M
> > > gassed
> > > was all done in a single gassing. Must have been a bit crowded in thete –
> > > yes?
> > >
> > > =============================================
> >
> > I wrote and emphasized “_repeatedly_”.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Other evidence indicates that these places with the detectable traces
> > > > were gas chambers. Are we to dismiss this evidence, or are we to
> > > > dismiss the quantitative results produced by Leuchter and the
> > > > qualitative results produced by the Cracow team?
> > >
> > > =========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Tell me exactly what the Krakow team that that allows to call their
> > > analysis
> > > quantative – a privilege you deny to Leuchter.
> > >
> > > ====================
> >
> > Their analysis was designed and implemented as a quantitative one.
> > Leuchter’s analysis was designed and implemented as a qualitative one,
> > yet he marketed it as a quantitative one. This easily seen
> > misrepresentation of the nature of his figures was one of the reasons
> > his report was characterized as “preposterous” by the court.
> >
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > >
> > > > We do know. The exposure to cyanide in the gas chambers was not as
> > > > intensive concentration-wise or time-wise in the gas chambers as it was
> > > > in the fumigation chambers, and the subsequent histories of the two
> > > > environments were conducive to the disintegration of cyanide compounds
> > > > in the gas chambers but not in the fumigation facilities.
> > >
> > > =============================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > That ssuggests nothing more than that the reessidues found would be lower
> > > than those
> > > in the fumigation chambers. It does NOT tell us how much they likely
> > > would
> > > have
> > > been.
> > >
> > > Only carefully planned expeliwents can do that.
> > >
> > > ===================
> >
> > That is why the Cracow team did experiments on:
> >
> > € the impact of CO2 inj the ambient air on cyanide compound formation
> > € the short and long term impact of water on cyanide compound formation
> > and retention
> > € the manner in which different types of structural materials are
> > conducive to the formation and long-term retention of cyanide compound
> > formation
> >
> > None of these issues were addressed by Leuchter, whose entire
> > methodology and analytical technique were oriented towards qualitative
> > rather than quantitative issues.
> >
> > > > There is no problem. Leuchter was peddling qualitative results as
> > > > qunatitive data. The Cracow team worked consistently with quantitative
> > > > data. For this reason, the results cannot be compared.
> > >
> > > ==============================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > THis gets really interesting. YOu start out by telling us that BEcause
> > > Krakow
> > > was
> > > careful to take only surface samples, thei results would necessarily have
> > > been
> > > larger. Then, to muddy the waters, you throw in your
> > > quantitative/qualitative
> > > bilge
> > > to plead that the results cannot be compared. The fuck, they can’t. The
> > > numbers that
> > > came out of the Krakow reports are –mirabile dictu– ROUGHLY THE SAME as
> > > Leuchter’s. So it would seem that the two effects somehow miraculously
> > > cancelled
> > > each other out
> > >
> > > =============================================================
> >
> > They results of the Cracow report are not _roughly the same_ as the
> > rsults of the Leuchter Report. With respect to numbers, the
> > scientifically worthless numbers given in the Leuchter Report indicate
> > concentrations of cyanide for the gas chambers that are in the range of
> > three orders of magnitude smaller than those in the fumigation
> > chambers. The highest gas chamber reading for a gas chamber invironment
> > in the Cracow report is in the 600 ug/kg range, while the highest one
> > for a fumigation chamber is in the 900 ug/kg range. They represent the
> > same order of magnitude. The only way that the results of the Cracow
> > report can be compared with those of the Leuchter Report is on the
> > qualitative level: both reports test positive for cyanide compounds in
> > the fumigation chambers as well as the gas chambers. Leuchter has no
> > proper control, so nothing more can be made of this, but the Cracow
> > Report does have a proper control. It indicates that places never
> > exposed to cyanide or known to have been exposed to it only once test
> > negative for cyanide. Consequently, the admittedly lower but clearly
> > detectable and sometimes quite high concentration of cyanide compounds
> > found in the ruins of the gas chambers cannot be simply attributed to a
> > single gassing “once, long ago”, as argued by Leuchter with no
> > justification and in contradiction to all that is known about the
> > history of the camp.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I’ve already told you in my own words why his samples were worthless. I
> > > > thought you might like to see what Dr. Roth had to say about them.
> > >
> > > =============================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Not particularly interested. Roth changed his story after the trial and I
> > > don’t
> > > trust people who change their stories Furthermore, it’s obvious that once
> > > Roth saw
> > > what a hornet’s nest he was into, he did everything he could to distance
> > > himself
> > > from the whole business.
> > >
> > > ==================
> >
> > That is not obvious at all. The fact that Dr. Roth allowed himself to be
> > interviewed for the film “Mr. Death” showed that he has an abiding
> > interest in the issue and has not “distanced himself from the whole
> > business” by any means.
> >
> > He did not step into a hornet’s nest, because Leuchter’s report was
> > never accepted by the court or any other responsible body as having any
> > value as evidence. As a responsible and honest scientist, Dr. Roth
> > understood his obligation to the public to explain why it is
> > scientifically wrong to draw quantitative conclusions from the
> > qualitative analysis that Leuchter originally ordered, and why
> > Leuchter, either dishonestly or consequent to his incompetence as a
> > forensic analyst, made claims about the results of the analysis which
> > lack any scientific justification.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:07 EDT 2001
Article: 945593 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!lon1-news.nildram.net!195.8.68.195.MISMATCH!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!news1.spb.su!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman – a fresh thread
Supersedes: <180820011054554505%[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:29:10 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <180820011329101180%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <140820012131423470%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820011521201081%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <150820012043239314%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <160820012113500165%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <170820011429304196%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <180820010838553682%h[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998130573 2931 128.214.77.45 (18 Aug 2001 10:29:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Aug 2001 10:29:33 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:945593
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =====================================
> Phillips
>
> Which kind of analysis was performed on Leuchter’s samples?
>
> =========================================
Qualitative. He asked Alpha Labs to test for the presence of cyanide
compounds in the samples.
The videos show that Leuchter took fisk-sized chunks of the wall. What
was surface, what was sides, and what was back was unclear. Since the
lab was not given more specific instructions, it ground up the samples
and did qualitative analysis for the presence of cyanide compounds.
The samples taken from both the fumigation chambers and the gas
chambers tested positive for the presence of cyanide. These results
were consistent with the results of the forensic examinations conducted
on the gas chambers in 1945, as well as with those conducted by the
IFRC in 1990 and 1994.
As Dr. Roth explained, Leuchter’s sampling technique was not rigorous
enough for a quantitative analysis. Such an analysis would have
required the use of precision tools to scrape off only the thinnest
possible layer from the walls as well as precautions to ensure that
only material scraped from the inner surface of the walls and nothing
else was taken as samples:
Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf
Dr. James Roth interviewed in Errol Morris’s film _Mr. Death: the Rise
and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Universal Studios, 1999.
Transcription by Richard Green.
<quote>
I don’t think the Leuchter results have any meaning. There’s nothing in
any of our data that says those surfaces were exposed or not. Even
after I got off the stand I didn’t know where the samples came from. I
didn’t know which samples were which. It was only at lunch that I found
out really what the case involved. Hindsight being 20/20, the test was
not the correct one to have been used for the analysis. He presented us
with rock samples anywhere from the size of your thumb to half the size
of your fist. We broke them up with a hammer so that we could get a
sub-sample, add concentrated sulfuric acid, and it undergoes a reaction
that produces a red colored solution. It is the intensity of this red
color that we can relate with cyanide concentration.
You have to look at what happens to cyanide when it reacts with a wall.
Where does it go? Cyanide is a surface reaction. It’s robably not going
to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in
diameter. Crush this sample up. I have just diluted thast sample ten
thousand, a hundred thousand times. If you’re going to go looking for
it, you’re goping to look at the surface only. There’s no reason to go
deep because it’s not going to be there. Which was the exposed surface?
I don’t even have any idea. That’s like analyzing the paint on the wall
by analyzing the timber behind it. If they go in with blinders on, they
will see what they want to see. What was he really trying to do? What
was he trying to prove?
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:07 EDT 2001
Article: 945912 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: ** New Poll on Jeffrey G. Brown **
Supersedes: <180820012031048273%[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:43:05 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <180820012043051633%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <jg_brown-74C788.1019471[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998156606 28833 128.214.77.45 (18 Aug 2001 17:43:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Aug 2001 17:43:26 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:945912 alt.politics.nationalism.white:526672 alt.politics.white-power:536634
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> Let me give everyone some background on this matter which took place nearly
> four
> years ago.
>
> I had been trying, trying, trying to get someone –ANYONE– to supply me with
> credible physical proof of the existence and operation of mass execution gas
> chambers.
You still don’t understand how deluded you are. Every forensic
examination of the structures alleged to have been gas chambers at
Auschwitz, pre-Leuchter, Leuchter, and post-Leuchter, has indicated
that they have indeed been exposed to concentrations of cyanide high
(and lethal) enough to leave tell-tale concentrations of cyanide
compounds on the walls. This constitutes proof that the structures were
used in the manner other evidence indicates that they were – as mass
extermination gas chambers. No forensic analysis has ever produced a
dissenting result.
> First they tried to palm me off with some sick joke of a Nizkor
> Site.
> They urged, they implored, they entreated, they taunted: “Phillips, get the
> hell
> off you fat ass (unfortunately, I DO have one) and visit the Nizkor site.
> It’s all
> there.”
>
> Well, I had a pretty good idea of what I was going to find there so I held
> off, but
> the pleading, the urging, and the taunting only intensified. Finally I
> realized
> that the only way to shut their silly faces up was to spend some time there
> and
> report honestly what I saw.
>
> And what DID I see: the detailed construction drawings I had asked for
> including
> piping layouts and electrical wiring diagrams. Oh, bless you, no. What I
> found were
> exactly what I expected to find: floor plans of a quality so poor I could
> not ever
> read the captions or the dimensions — (not that it would have mattered much
> if I
> could have. What I would probably have seen are “proofs” along the line of:
> “See,
> it’s a gas chamber, stupid.”) In sum, there was nothing –repeat, NOTHING–
> there
> to lend the slightest credence to the claim that these places were execution
> gas
> chambers. I will add that my examination was not superficial: I spent two
> hours
> there.
Two things have been explained to you over and over again, but you do
not seem capable of grasping them:
1. The Nazis, understandably, went to considerable lengths to obfuscate
what they were doing. The plans were _not_ going to say
“Exterminational gas chamber”, “Lethal agent poured in here”, etc.
Proof of criminal intent requires a somewhat more sophisticated study
of the construction diagrams, such as noting the last minute
replacement of a corpse chute with a circular access staircase to the
Leichenkeller of Krema II.
2. Any structure that can contain a lethal concentration of cyanide for
the timeframe that it takes to kill the people trapped in it is, by
definition, a gas chamber. The ocean-proof glazing, special sealing,
hi-tech electronics, heart monitors, and other bells and whistles that
American gas chambers have are not necessary if the only purpose of the
gas chamber is to kill the people trapped inside it. Leuchter’s report
did not produce anything inconsistent with the evidence from other
sources indicating that the structures at Auschwitz alleged to have
been gas chambers were subjected to, and were able to contain, the
concentrations of HCN sufficient to kill any people trapped inside
them.
>
> I next posted an account of what I had seen and got the sort of replies I
> expected
> to get: Wise-assed remarks from wise-assed Jews (who love to think they’re. SO
> clever) And what did they say? Did they admit the self-evident factual
> poverty of
> their site? Oh, bless you, no. You see the REAL problem was the poor quality
> of my
> monitor or that I needed a new eyeglass prescription.
For a long time you refused to acknowledge that a gas chamber does not
have to be a high-tech apparatus. Although you are now reverting to
denier mode, you have admitted in this forum that a gas chamber could
be any structure in which people are trapped and the content of the
ambient air in which can be defined by the people who shut them inside
of it. Dumping a few tins of the powerful disinfectant Zyklon-B into a
closed room full of people is all that needed to convert a closed room
into a homicidal, mass execution gas chamber.
>
> It did not enhance my view of the intellectual integrity of my race.
>
> It goes on from there.
>
> Wishing to keep the dialog alive I presented a somewhat relaxed set of
> requirements
> to see if anybody could come up with anything. They were relaxed demands
> although
> Jeffrey attempts to make out a case that they were in fact more strict. This
> brings
> up the question: For what possible purpose would I intensify my requirements
> for
> evidence when the other side had never even addressed the first. THey may
> appear
> more strict only because I nailed down certain matters that were implicit in
> my
> original requirements but never stated. I had come to realize that I was
> dealing
> with extremely slippery people.
>
> This handed Jeffrey a convenient cop-out. He shifts the issue form their
> failure to
> produce credible physical evidence to the fact that I changed my demands.
> Well,
> what if I did. The other side never succeeded in addressing either set.
>
> ====================================================
The requirements you gave were absurd. For example, you insisted that
the gas chambers would have an instruction manual, because of your
prejudices concerning how Germans do things. You failed to consider the
possibility that if Germans are so proficient at doing things, they
might have gone to special efforts _not_ have made a manual for a
device that was so obviously criminal by any standard. The Nazis had
the people who ould work with Zyklon-B specially trained in its use by
Degesch, the manufacturer, and they had gone to considerable efforts to
make the gas chambers look innocent and melt into their surroundings.
Your prejudices as to how Germans do things was thus contradicted by
the
fact that the Germans did not do things in the manner you thought they
did when they had to cover their asses, so to speak.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:07 EDT 2001
Article: 946462 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!acadiau.ca!acadiau.ca!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.213.69.151!news.algonet.se!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,soc.culture.jewish,alt.flame.niggers
Subject: Re: In the Trenches: Combat Tactics for White Revolution
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:19:55 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <190820011419559476%[email protected]>
References: <9308791.0108171619.5c2f8f[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998220019 29372 128.214.77.45 (19 Aug 2001 11:20:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Aug 2001 11:20:19 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:946462 alt.politics.nationalism.white:526825 alt.politics.white-power:536702 soc.culture.jewish:565565 alt.flame.niggers:486552
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> It seems to me that, for your goal of building a formidable revolutionary
> force,
> you will either have to have the means for econnomically sustaining a
> large number
> of people or else the thing will have to be completely secret. Anybody who
> has a job
> and depends on that job can be easily “got at.”
>
> ============================================================
You understand, of course, that being the non-Aryan offspring of
Ukrainian Jews, you will be one of the first targeted by these freaks
if they ever get their act together.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:07 EDT 2001
Article: 946913 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!feed.textport.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman – on quantitative and qualitative analysis
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:11:37 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <200820011011370836%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998291522 6913 128.214.77.45 (20 Aug 2001 07:12:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 2001 07:12:02 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:946913
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I have always supposed that whereas quantitative analysis (hereafter
> just quant) tells us how much, qualitative analysis (hereafter just
> qual) only tells us whether. Now, it seems, you have slightly broadened
> the latter definition to allow for the possibility that (at least to a
> limited degree) qual may also give us a “how much” answer.
As is usual when working with abstractions, there is some overlap in
reality. You can’t make assessments about the quantity of X until you
have ascertained its presence. Similarly, ascertaining the presence of
X sometimes spins off information which can function as quantitative
clues. Nevertheless, ascertaining presence is simpler than ascertaining
amounts, and quite different types of experiments, including sampling
technique, have to be devised to find answers to these fundamentally
different questions.
Let us return to my example about determining the number of black
people in Helsinki. If I take ten photographs in which there are 46
people, of whom 7 are definitely black, I am in a position to claim
that there are black people in Helsinki, and their number is greater
than one or two. I would have to study the photographs very carefully
to determine if the same person(s) had been photographed twice and, if
it were summer, I would have to do what I could to determine if,
despite the fact that these people were in Helsinki, they were tourists
rather than residents. So, I have definitely established the presence
(qualitative dimension) of blacks in Helsinki, and I have some
indication that there are more than one, but not nearly as many as
there are white people. I do not know if the ones I photographed are
inhabitants of the city (part of its makeup) or visitors (random
contaminants). Thus, I have a final question as to the yes/no question,
and some basis for investigating the how many/much question. It should
be obvious that more than 1 and at least 7, although given in numerical
form, is totally unacceptable as an answer to the how much/many
question. A different type of experiment, with more rigorous
definitions, will have to be designed to yield a scientifically valid
answer to the quantitative question.
>
> THis is certainly news to me, although (as I readily admit) my chemistry
> background is nothing like as strong as your own.
In doing qualitative analysis we sometimes use instruments such as a
chromatograph which have a graded scale. Reactants mixed with the
sample cause it to become opaque if certain ions are present, with the
degree of opacity roughly correlating with the amount of the ion being
investigated in the sample. There might be a temptation to draw
quantitative conclusions from this data, but that is a mistake. If the
samples have been taken with only qualitative analysis in mind, the
analytical procedure might have involved adding reactants which produce
or obscure the presence of certain ions. This, some of the procedures
of qualitative and quantitative analytical chemistry overlap, but
sampling technique as well as the subsequent treatment of the sample
determine whether valid qualitative or qualitative and quantitative
conclusions can be drawn from it.
How did we get into this? Leuchter provided core samples varying in
size and volume from the size of a human thumb to half the size of a
fist. His instruxtions to the lab were “Test for the presence of
cyanide”. This was done by grinding up the samples and adding
concentrated sulphuric acid. Most of the samples showed some traces of
cyanide compounds (qualitative “yes”), but since cyanide compounds only
form on surfaces, the process of grinding the samples made it
impossible to make any more specific judgements than “a lot”, “a
little”. These qualifications did not correlate with the amount of
cyanide on the surface of the sample which had been the wall, but
rathyer with the size and volume of the sample which had been ground
up. Thus, a thumb-sized sample which happened to be deep and have a
small amount of wall surface would, all other things being equal, give
a “not much” reading, while a sample half the size of a fist which was
shallow and contained a good portion of the former wall would give the
reading “a lot”. These readings would _not_ be scientifically accurate
as indices of the amount of cyanide compounds on the walls, but rather
they would correlate with the size and depth of the samples and the
percentage of them that was former wall surface.
Leuchter did not take the type of samples necessary for quantitative
analysis, and he failed to tell the lab what he was trying to do. Thus,
the only scientifically valid conclusion in his report is that the
samples taken from the former fumigation chambers and from the ruins of
the former gas chambers test positive for cyanide compounds, but this
is something that was known back in 1945 whenj the first forensic
analyses of the places were made.
>
> However, since today is not my day to take anybody’s word for anything,
> I would like to see this claim supported by a recognized scientific
> dictionary.
Source: http://antoine.fsu.umd.edu/chem/senese/101/glossary/q.shtml
<quote>
qualitative analysis. Compare with quantitative analysis.
A chemical analysis that detects the presence of a substance in a
sample.
quantitative analysis. Compare with qualitative analysis.
A chemical analysis that determines the concentration of a substance in
a sample.
</quote>
See the qualitative analysis worksheet at
http://www.it21.com.sg/campus/secondary/chemistry/wqa1.html to see what
kinds of questions and procedures are used.
The outline of a course in elementary quantitative analysis at
http://members.aol.com/jhaldstadt/223_syl.pdf will enable you to
acquaint yourself with the kinds of questions and procedures used in
that subdiscipline.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:08 EDT 2001
Article: 948141 of alt.revisionism
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman and Brown Jointly on the Gas Chambers
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:56:19 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 262
Message-ID: <150820011256197768%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <140820012131423470%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 997869402 9428 128.214.77.45 (15 Aug 2001 09:56:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2001 09:56:42 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Path: hub.org!hub.org!feed-out.newsfeeds.com!news-out.newsfeeds.com!propagator-maxim!feed.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!cpmsnbbsb04!uunet!sea.uu.net!chi.uu.net!xmission!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:948141
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
>
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> I could read that as implying you’d very much rather they were NOT
> performed. I wonder why.
>
> ========================================
Because they would irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> >
> > Leuchter’s numbers have no value whatsoever as numbers. Their _only_
> > value is as indicators of the presence or absence of cyanide. Although
> > the results of the analysis were given in the form of numbers, they are
> > the results of _qualitative_, not _quantitative_ analysis
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> According to you a qualitative analysis gives a yes/no answer but a
> quantitative answer gives a how much answer. The lab’s analysis resulted in
> numbers yet you still insist it was a qualititave analysis and on that
> account worthless. What is all this but the expostulation of a barrage of
> hi-falutin verbiage to prove that black is white and white is black. I
> refuse to believe it as I refuse to believe any other snow job
>
> ===============================
Let me give an analogy which even you should be able to understand.
Somebody asks you to determine whether there are any black people in
Helsinki. You go off to Helsinki with your camera, and randomly take
ten pictures of crowds of people in various places. In three of the
photographs black people are clearly visible: 3 in photograph (a), 1 in
photograph (b), and 5 in photograph (c). You submit a report to your
client that states that there are 9 black people in Helsinki.
Can you not understand that the number ‘9’ is meaningless? The only
thing you have demonstrated is that there are black people in Helsinki,
you have not done the work that permits you to give an estimate of the
number or percentage of black people in Helsinki, you have only
verified their presence. A totally different type of test has to be
done to determine the number and percentage of black people in
Helsinki.
> > , and thus
> > have only a plus or minus value. The dilution of the sample and
> > addition of various agents needed to enhance certain elements of the
> > spectrum and damp others in qualitative analysis pollutes the sample to
> > such a degree that the numbers have no value as answers to “how much”
> > type questions.
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> You claim Leuchter’s numbers are worthless because he diluted his samples.
Correct:
1. He diluted his samples when he took core samples rather than
scraping samples.
2. He allowed them to be diluted yet again when he told the laboratory
to test for the presence rather than the amount of cyanide in the
samples.
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> Furthermore you insist that we buy your theory.
> ===========================================
>
It’s not a theory:
1. Leuchter had himself videotaped as he collected his samples, and it
is obvious that he is taking core samples.
2. Dr. Roth of Alpha Labs told how the tests he ran involved grinding
up the entire sample, rather than carefully scraping off ten microns
off the outside surface of the samples.
>
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> But that is not the way
> science works; it performs experiments to PROVE (or disprove) the theory
> and that is all I am asking: that we perform experiments that will prove,
> conclusively, whether you are right or wrong.
>
> ===========================================
The IHRC performed experiments concerning:
– the affects of water and CO2 on cyanide compound formation
– the effects of water on cyanide compound retention in the shrot and
longer term
– the effects of different building materials on cyanide formation and
retention
All of these experiments were described in the report, as was the
relevance of such data to addressing the problem at hand. Leuchter did
not address these problems, for which reason his results are
meaningless.
Science is done by critically assessing previous work. Leuchter did not
bother to look at the forensic studies of Auscvhwitz which were
performed immediately after the war and used as evidence in, for
example, the 1946 Hoess trial. He made up his own experiments, and was
critically misled by his assumption that Nazi gas chambers would be
essentially the same in structure and operation as American gas
chambers. Moreover, he did not understand that it takes a higher
concentration of cyanide maintained over a much longer period to kill
lice than it does to kill poeople, or that water and CO2 play a role in
cyanide compounhd formation and retention. He thus produced worthless
figures, and his explanation for the presence of cyanide compounds in
the former gas chamber was based on speculation rather than on either
experimentation or an examination of the historical facts that were
readily available.
The Cracow team addressed all of the methodological shortcomings in
Leuchter’s analysis, and performed experiments showing, among other
things, that both structural materials and water play a significant
role on the dynamics of cyanide compound formation and retention. Thus,
the surfaces of the fumigation chambers and gas chambers are not
directly comparable. They constitute significantly different types of
environments for the formation and retention of cyanide compounds.
Science would advance by finding something to criticize in the Krakow
Report, but as far as I know it has stood the test of time. You have
objected to its use of micrograms as “dishinest units”, but they were
doing a finely callibrated quantitative analysis, not a yes/no
qualitative analysis, as was performed by the Alpha Labs, so your
objection is unjustified.
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> When you insist there is no “need” for such experiments, it can only be for
> one reason: that you fear they could blow your theory out of the water.
>
> ==================================================================
No. When I say there is no need for such experiments I mean that all
experiments and analyses done so far, even Leuchter’s flawed analysis,
indicate that cyanide compounds are present on the walls of the
structures other evidence indicates were mass execution gas chambers,
and that even after half a century they are present in such quantities
that their presence cannot be interpreted as the result of a single
gassing. Leuchter’s unfounded and provably false claim that the
structures could not have contained the concentrations of cyanide
needed to kill people are contradicted by his completely unfounded
claim that the traces of cyanide on the walls of a structure first used
in March, 1943, are the result of a single disinfection during the
mid-1942 typhus epidemic. A structure that could have contained the
high concentrations of cyanide over the twenty hours needed to kill
lice could necessarily have contained the much lower concentrations
over the mere five to ten minutes needed to kill people. Leuchter did
not understand this, and this mistake in logic cannot be rectified by
experiments.
> > The numbers, no matter what they are, will not be interpretable without
> > considering the facts that the gas chambers and fumigations constituted
> > different types of environments for cyanide formation, as well as
> > different types of environments for the subsequent dissolution or
> > disintegration of cyanide compounds. Numbers are not enough, they have
> > to be placed within a wider context.
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> THen let us by all means design experimets that duplicate, to the closest
> degree possible, what we believe took place. Thata is hardly beyond the
> ingenuity of mortal man.
>
> ==================================
It has already been done. The IFRC report. Live with it, or shoot it
down.
> > Your experiment does not address the fundamental problem:
> >
> > a. The fumigation chambers were subjected to several years of constant
> > use during which they were continually exposed to concentrations of
> > 15,000 ppm of cyanide maintained over 20 hours. They were then
> > ventilated, their contents were removed, and new objects to be
> > disinfected were put in them, and a new 15,000 ppm concentration of
> > cyanide maintained over 20 hours was produced. After January 1945,
> > these rooms were sealed, and they have remained sealed and completely
> > protected from the elements since then.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> All of which were reflected in the high HCN concentrations found on their
> walls. What else is new?
>
> ==============================================
>
> >
> >
> > b. The gas chambers were used only a few times a week until the summer
> > of 1944 when the action against Hungarian Jews was started. They were
> > exposed to concentrations which might have reached as high as 8000 ppm
> > during the final few minutes of a gassing, which regularly lasted about
> > fifteen minutes before the ventilation was turned on. It is true that
> > soem of the HCN is absorbed by bodies during the first minutes of a
> > gassing when people are still breathing, but unconsciousness usually
> > follows after a few sniffs, and most people would be dead within three
> > to five minutes. The amount of cyanide aborbed through the skin of
> > fresh cadavers would not be as great as the amount being given off by
> > the Zyklon-B, which was designed to produce a concentration of 15,000
> > ppm within the premise in question.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> (1) I see: and it was as a result of this “only a few times a week” usage
> (terminated in 1944, by the way) that they managed to rack up a total of 1M
> gassing deaths – correct?
Hoess says, and the deportation records bear him out on this, that up
until the action against the Hungarian Jews he was processing two or
three trainloads per week. Each trainload had 2,000 people, from among
whom about 400 were selected to enter the camp as slave laborers. The
rest were sent to the crematoriums.
Let us calculate roughly:
2.5 trainloads/week à 1600 selectees * 60 weeks = 240,000
(60 weeks the time from March 1943 until May 1944 when the Hungarians
start coming in).
Between May 1944 and November 1944, about 500,000 Hungarian Jews were
sent to Auschwitz, of whom 400,000 were gassed. According to Hoess, the
highest number of people gassed and cremated within 24 hours during
this period was “rather more than 9,000”.
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> (2) Well, whatever you claim was done. let us repeat that as closely as we
> can and see what sort of concentrations result. If they turn out to be
> about the same as what Leuchter got, you people win. If they turn out to be
> much larger, then Leuchter’s results stil stand.
>
> You’ve certainly no objection to winning, have you?
>
> =======================================
This is not a contest. Leuchter’s results have no scientific validity.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Tue Aug 21 03:34:08 EDT 2001
Article: 948351 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!lon1-news.nildram.net!195.8.68.195.MISMATCH!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newspeer.highwayone.net!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman – on quantitative and qualitative analysis
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:52:27 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <210820010952271475%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <200820011011370836%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998376772 7096 128.214.77.45 (21 Aug 2001 06:52:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Aug 2001 06:52:52 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:948351
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =====================================================
> Phillips
>
> (1) I quote:
>
> “How did we get into this? Leuchter provided core samples varying in
> size and volume from the size of a human thumb to half the size of a
> fist. His instruxtions to the lab were “Test for the presence of
> cyanide”.
>
> And that’s ALL he ordered the lab to do – yes? How do you know this?
>
> =========================================
1. Leuchter videotaped himself taking the samples. It is obvious from
viewing his sampling technique, in which chunks of various thicknesses
and sizes are taken, with no indiciation of which side was the wall
surface, that the only kind of valid analysis for cyanide that could be
performed on samples taken in this manner is qualitative. His samples
quite obviosuly included thousands or even tens of thousands of layers
that could never have reacted with cyanide.
2. According to Dr. Roth of Alpha Laboratories, Leuchter’s
instructions, to test for the presence cyanide in order to decide a
workman’s compensation case, were such that they required a qualitative
analysis. Consequently, the samples or parts thereof were pulverized,
and analyzed for the presence or absence of cyanide, with some of the
information being given in the form of units, which meant “a lot” or “a
little”. Since some of the samples were quite large, subsamples of them
had to be taken, but since the only instruction was to test for
presence, there was no way that the laboratory could know whether the
subsample they were testing was from the wall surface or not. Thus, the
analytical technique destroyed the integrity of the samples, thus
rendering any comparison based on the numbers generated meaningless.
3. Leuchter also worked on the mistake assumption that the conditions
for the formation and short and longer term retention of cyanide
compounds in two quite different environments would have been
identical, and that a raw comparison of any numerical data derived from
analysis of the two samples would be meaningful. In actual fact the
conditions within the gas chambers, with their short exposures (about
30 mins.) to relatively low concentrations of cyanide, presence of CO2
in exhaled breath, warmth, periodic hosedowns, whitewashes, and 45
years exposure to the elements, were radically different than the
conditions in the dry and cold fumigation chambers, with their long
exposures (from 20 to as long as 72 hours uninterrupted), to far higher
concentrations of HCN, their dry, CO2-free environment, and their
post-1944 protection from the elements, but Leuchter did not include a
discussion of any of these differenting parameters and the influence
they might have had on the formation and retention of cyanide compounds
on the different structural materials involved in his report.
4. The conclusions of Leuchter’s report are further compromised by his
mistaken assumption that it takes more cyanide to kill people than it
does to kill vermin, when the reverse is true.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
2.
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:34 EDT 2001
Article: 948361 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman – on quantitative and qualitative analysis
Supersedes: <210820010952271475%[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:03:54 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <210820011103543281%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <200820011011370836%ho[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998381060 11772 128.214.77.45 (21 Aug 2001 08:04:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Aug 2001 08:04:20 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:948361
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =====================================================
> Phillips
>
> (1) I quote:
>
> “How did we get into this? Leuchter provided core samples varying in
> size and volume from the size of a human thumb to half the size of a
> fist. His instruxtions to the lab were “Test for the presence of
> cyanide”.
>
> And that’s ALL he ordered the lab to do – yes? How do you know this?
>
> =========================================
1. Leuchter videotaped himself taking the samples. It is obvious from
viewing his sampling technique, in which chunks of various thicknesses
and sizes are taken, with no indiciation of which side was the wall
surface, that the only kind of valid analysis for cyanide that could be
performed on samples taken in this manner is qualitative. His samples
quite obviosuly included thousands or even tens of thousands of layers
that could never have reacted with cyanide.
2. According to Dr. Roth of Alpha Laboratories, Leuchter’s
instructions, to test for the presence cyanide in order to decide a
workman’s compensation case, were such that they required a qualitative
analysis. Consequently, the samples or parts thereof were pulverized,
and analyzed for the presence or absence of cyanide, with some of the
information being given in the form of units, which meant “a lot” or “a
little”. Since some of the samples were quite large, subsamples of them
had to be taken, but since the only instruction was to test for
presence, there was no way that the laboratory could know whether the
subsample they were testing was from the wall surface or not. Thus, the
analytical technique destroyed the integrity of the samples, thus
rendering any comparison based on the numbers generated meaningless.
3. Leuchter also worked on the mistake assumption that the conditions
for the formation and short and longer term retention of cyanide
compounds in two quite different environments would have been
identical, and that a raw comparison of any numerical data derived from
analysis of the two samples would be meaningful. In actual fact the
conditions within the gas chambers, with their short exposures (about
30 mins.) to relatively low concentrations of cyanide, presence of CO2
in exhaled breath, warmth, periodic hosedowns, whitewashes, and 45
years exposure to the elements, were radically different than the
conditions in the dry and cold fumigation chambers, with their long
exposures (from 20 to as long as 72 hours uninterrupted), to far higher
concentrations of HCN, their dry, CO2-free environment, and their
post-1944 protection from the elements, but Leuchter did not include a
discussion of any of these differenting parameters and the influence
they might have had on the formation and retention of cyanide compounds
on the different structural materials involved in his report.
4. The conclusions of Leuchter’s report are further compromised by his
mistaken assumption that it takes far higher concentrations of cyanide
to kill people than it does to kill vermin, when the reverse is true.
5. Leuchter stated when cross examined that he attached little
significance to his samples or the cyanide traces found in them, and
that his conclusion that the structures in question could not have
served as mass execution gas chambers was based primarilly upon his
comparison of them with American execution gas chambers.
6. This meant that Leuchter had to account for the presence of cyanide
in the gas chamber samples from Krema II as being the consequence of a
hypothetical and undocumented fumigation during the mid-1942 typhus
epidemic, implying therewith that the gas chambers were indeed, despite
his claims to the contrary, structurally capable of containing
concentrations of cyanide lethal to humans. Leuchter did not understand
the two-level absurdity of his claims: he continued to work on the
assumption that it takes far higher concentrations of cyanide to kill
people than it does to kill vermin, and he did not bother to find out
that construction of Krema II, first used on March 15, 1943, was not
begun until early 1943.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
2.
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:34 EDT 2001
Article: 949360 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!feed.textport.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman on Leuchter’s instructions
Supersedes: <220820011234045071%[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:56:11 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 345
Message-ID: <220820011456117972%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998481396 16587 128.214.77.45 (22 Aug 2001 11:56:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Aug 2001 11:56:36 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:949360
In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I want to know EXACTLY what instructions Leuchter gave to the lab and
> exactly how you know what they were.
Here is the court record, as presented at Zündel’s website:
Source:
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2000/zg0003/000320.html
<quote>
[Dr. James Roth was the twenty-second witness called by the defence. He
testified on Thursday, April 21, 1988.]
Dr. James Roth, the laboratory manager of Alpha Analytical
Laboratories, testified as to the results of tests done on the numbered
samples removed from Auschwitz and Birkenau by Fred A. Leuchter. Roth
had obtained his doctorate from Cornell University in analytical
chemistry. Roth testified that he received samples from Fred Leuchter
in his capacity as an Analytical Chemist at Alpha Analytical
Laboratories. Roth directly supervised the tests performed on the
samples and the preparation of the test report. The purpose of the
tests was to determine total iron content and total cyanide content in
the samples. The identification numbers assigned to the samples were
those designated by Leuchter. (33-9274 to 9276)
Total Iron Content
Iron tests were conducted on three of the samples, namely, samples 9,
29 and 32. Results of the tests for total iron content were essentially
the same for all three samples. Sample 9 contained 7,580 mg/km; sample
29 contained 6,280 mg/km and sample 32 contained 6,170 mg/km. (33-9276,
9291, 9292)
Iron was normally present in brick and mortar and the quantities found
in the brick samples tested were fully within the acceptable ranges for
brick type. Red bricks were red because of the iron, although even
white bricks had these levels of iron present. (33-9306)
Total Cyanide Content
Cyanide was analyzed in a total of 32 samples of which 31 were brick
material and one was a gasket material. The minimum trace level for
cyanide was one milligram per kilogram of material. Tests results which
did not detect cyanide were designated on the report as “ND,” meaning
“not detected.”(33-9276 to 9278)
Roth testified that the test results indicated the following: sample 1
showed no detection; sample 2 showed no detection; sample 3 showed no
detection; sample 4 showed no detection; sample 5 showed no detection;
sample 5 duplicate test showed no detection; sample 6 showed no
detection; sample 7 showed no detection; sample 7 spike recovery test
indicated 119 percent; sample 8 showed no detection; sample 8 duplicate
showed 1.9 milligrams per kilogram; sample 9 showed 6.7 milligrams per
kilogram; sample 10 showed no detection; sample 11 showed no detection;
sample 12 showed no detection; sample 13 showed no detection; sample 14
showed no detection; sample 15 showed 2.3 milligrams per kilogram;
sample 16 showed 1.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 16 spike recovery
test indicated 96 percent; sample 17 showed no detection; sample 18
showed no detection; sample 18 spike recovery test indicated 100
percent; sample 19 showed no detection; sample 19 spike recovery test
indicated 120 percent; sample 20 showed no detection; sample 20
duplicate showed 1.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 21 showed 4.4
milligrams per kilogram; sample 22 showed 1.7 milligrams per kilogram;
sample 23 showed no detection; sample 24 showed no detection; sample 25
showed 3.8 milligrams per kilogram; sample 25 duplicate showed 1.9
milligrams per kilogram; sample 26 showed 1.3 milligrams per kilogram;
sample 26 spike recovery test indicated 140 percent; sample 27 showed
1.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 28 showed 1.3 milligrams per
kilogram; sample 29 showed 7.9 milligrams per kilogram; sample 30
showed 1.1 milligrams per kilogram; sample 30 duplicate showed no
detection; sample 31 showed no detection; sample 32 showed 1,050
milligrams per kilogram. (33- 9278 to 9287) A bar graph of the sample
results which Roth had examined and determined to accurately represent
the test results was entered as Exhibit 154. (33-9288)
The tests were performed by taking a representative sample of the
material that was received by the laboratory, placing it in a flask
that could be sealed, adding a low concentration of acidic solution,
specifically sulphuric acid, then warming the sample in that solution
while in the process passing gas through it. Air passed through the
solution and the acidic environment volatilized the cyanide and formed
hydrogen cyanide gas. This gas was then passed through a solution of
sodium hydroxide. Any hydrogen cyanide would react with the sodium
hydroxide to form sodium cyanide. After a period of time required to
assume complete removal of any cyanide in the sample, the solution was
analysed colour metrically for the presence of cyanide. (33-9280)
This process was repeated with each of the samples, with duplicates on
certain selected samples and with spot samples in which known amounts
of cyanide were added to check recovery. Cyanide spike recovery tests
performed on several of the samples all indicated that the analyses and
the techniques and methods by which the samples were analyzed were
valid. (33- 9281 to 9287)
Prussian Blue (ferro-ferri-cyanide)
Roth was shown Exhibit 144, a colour photograph of the blue staining on
the wall of Delousing Facility No. 1 at Birkenau from which sample 32
had been removed. He indicated that the blue colour was what was
commonly referred to as “Prussian blue.” (33-9289) The chemical
definition of Prussian blue was ferro-ferri-cyanide. (33-9297) Prussian
blue was an iron cyanide produced by a reaction between iron and the
hydrogen cyanide. It was a very stable compound which stayed around a
long time. If hydrogen cyanide came into contact with bricks or mortar
containing iron, it was fully conceivable that a reaction of the iron
and hydrogen cyanide would take place, leaving behind the Prussian
blue. (33-9290) In porous materials such as brick and mortar, the
Prussian blue 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. If all surface iron was
converted to Prussian blue, the reaction would effectively stop for
lack of exposed iron. (33 9291)
Roth testified that the iron/cyanide reaction capabilities of samples 9
and 29 were no different from that of sample 32. If samples 9 and 29
had been exposed continually everyday for two years to 300 parts per
million of hydrogen cyanide, Roth testified that he would expect to see
the formation of the iron cyanide compounds; the so called “Prussian
blue” material, in detectable amounts. The reaction of the two
substances was an accumulative reaction; the reaction continued with
each exposure. One way for this reaction not to occur would be a lack
of water. These reactions, in many cases, required water or vapour in
order to occur. However, in rooms of normal temperatures and normal
humidity, there would be plenty of moisture present for this type of
reaction to take place. (33-9293, 9294) Prussian blue did not normally
disappear unless it was physically removed. To be removed from a porous
material like a brick it would have to be removed by sandblasting or
grinding down the surface or by the application of a strong acid such
as high levels of sulphuric, nitric or hydrochloric acid. It would be
more difficult to remove from porous surfaces because of the fact that
the formation would have taken on depth. (33-9297, 9298) This ended the
examination-in-chief of Roth, and his cross-examination commenced. Roth
testified that he did not take the samples or have any control over the
sample taking. He agreed that cyanide radicals could exist in forms
other than Prussian blue and that the absence of Prussian blue did not
necessarily mean that cyanide radicals were absent. To Pearson’s
suggestion that a good control sample would have been one where
Prussian blue was not present in order to determine if any cyanide
radicals were present there, Roth pointed out that there were many
samples where no cyanide was detected. (33-9301, 9302)
Roth testified that in order to have Prussian blue, iron must be
present and accessible to the cyanide. (33-9301) He agreed that the
presence of Prussian blue almost guaranteed that the ferri-cyanide
complex was present. (33-9302) How deep Prussian blue would penetrate
was totally dependent on many factors, such as the porosity of material
and what moisture existed in the area. (33-9303) Asked if a building
was blown up with dynamite and the surface blown off, the Prussian blue
might thereby be removed, Roth replied that if just the surface was
removed and the rest of the material was left, the answer would be yes.
The Crown stated this was not what was suggested; the suggestion was
that in an explosion the surface of the brick would come off. Roth
replied that normally bricks would break up. “Now, if that’s removal of
the surface, yes.” (33-9304)
Roth refused to answer a question dealing with the amount of hydrogen
cyanide required to kill insects as opposed to human beings as he felt
this was not his area of expertise. (33-9304) He agreed that he would
not want to be around 300 parts per million of hydrogen cyanide.
(33-9305)
In the movie version of the Errol Morris documentary, Mr. Death: The
Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, he says this:
I went up to Toronto, on very short notice, not knowing any of the
background, at all, of what was going on. They wanted somebody from the
laboratory to say, yes, we analyzed these samples, yes, we produced
this report on the analysis, and that’s what I was there to do. I don’t
think the Leuchter results have any meaning. There’s nothing in any of
our data that says those surfaces were exposed or not. Even after I got
off the stand, I didn’t know where the samples came from. I didn’t know
which samples were which. And it was only at lunch that I found out,
really, what the case involved. Hindsight being 20/20, the test was not
the correct one to have been used for the analysis.
He presented us with rock samples anywhere from the size of your thumb
up to half the size of your fist. We broke them up with a hammer so
that we could get a sub-sample; we placed it in a flask, add
concentrated sulfuric acid. It undergoes a reaction that produces a
red-colored solution. It is the intensity of this red color that we can
relate with cyanide concentration.
You have to look at what happens to cyanide when it reacts with a wall.
Where does it go? How far does it go? Cyanide is a surface reaction.
It’s probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair
is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up, I have just diluted
that sample 10,000; 100,000 times. If you’re going to go look for it,
you’re going to look on the surface only. There’s no reason to go deep,
because it’s not going to be there. Which was the exposed surface? I
didn’t even have any idea. That’s like analyzing paint on a wall by
analyzing the timber that’s behind it. If they go in with blinders on,
they will see what they want to see. What was he really trying to do?
What was he trying to prove?
</quote>
Briefly, as I understand it:
1. Leuchter collected samples by knocking off pieces of various sizes
>from the structures of the gas chamber ruins and fumigation chambers.
2. Due to his lack of expertise in forensic chemistry he did not
understand:
a. that cyanide compounds would only be found on exposed wall surfaces;
b. that a meaningful comparative analysis would require somehow
indicating which of the surfaces of the samples were from the exposed
interior wall;
c. that the conditions for cyanide compound formation and retention
were radically different in the fumigation chambers, which were
typically dry, cold, and exposed to high concentrations cyanide for
several hours at a time, and then protected from the elements after
1944, than they were in the gas chambers, which were typically moist,
warm, and exposed to lower concentrations of cyanide for periods
lasting less than an hour, after which they were hosed down,
occasionally whitewashed, and, after 1944 when the buildings were
demolished, subjected to the elements.
3. He instructed the laboratory to “to determine total iron content and
total cyanide content in the samples”. He further told the laboratory
that the samples were relevant to a worker’s compensation case, without
giving more specific details.
4. The laboratory evidently palnned their analytical procedure on the
assumption that they were dealing with samples taken in a place which
had been accidently exposed to cyanide, a scenario one would expect in
a worker’s compensation case. This would probably mean that all of its
surfaces were exposed. They thus, arbitrarily took subsamples, not
understanding that only one surface of the sample could have been the
exposed interior wall.
5. The subsamples were then pulverized for analytical purposes, thus
further diluting any material from the possible wall surface with
material from beneath the wall.
6. The pulverized subsamples were subjected to qualitative and
quantititative analysis, and various concentrations of cyanide ions
were detected in some, but not all of the samples.
7. The oversall pattern was that high concentrations of cyanide ions
were found in the samples taken from the fumigation chambers, while
lower or nil concentrations were found in the samples taken from the
ruins of the gas chambers.
8. There was no control taken from a place known to have been exposed
only once or never to cyanide, so the fact that low concentrations of
cyanide ions were found in the samples taken from the ruins of the gas
chambers could nopt be given a scientifically valid explanation.
9. Leuchter hypothesized, with no supporting justification, that they
were from a single gassing during the mid-1942 typhus outbreak. Study
of the architectural history of the camp indicates that construction of
Krema II did not begin until 1943, with the first use being March 15,
1943.
10. Subsequent and more carefully planned research has shown that the
concentration of cyanide ions detectable on the walls of the ruins of
the former gas chamber of Krema II is significantly higher than the
meager or zero traces found in places subjected to a single gassing or
never gassed at all.
Due to Lechter’s unsuitable method of sample taking compounded by his
unclear instructions, the laboratory used analytical procedures which
destroyed the integrity of Leuchter’s original samples and which
sometimes used as samples of the samples (subsamples) material from
surfaces which were not from the original interior wall. The
pulverization technique further polluted the samples by a facter
which Dr. Roth said could have been as much as four orders of
magnitude, thus invalidating any quantitative aspects of the analysis.
The only scientifically valid conclusion of the report is a qualittaive
one: the samples indicate that, despite the radically different
conditions characterizing both their exposure to cyanide and their
post-1944 architectural history, both the gas chambers and the
fumigation chambers were repeatedly exposed to cyanide in
concentrations high enough for the compounds they formed to be
detectable half a century later. Leuchter did not go to the trouble of
checking previous forensic analyses of the same places, indeed, he
presented his report as the first forensic analysis ever conducted of
the Auschwitz gas chambers even though this claim is incorrect. Had he
done so, he would have seen that his results are perfectly consistent
with those yielded by previous analyses which found detectable cyanide
compounds on the surfaces of walls and ventilation systems.
Most important, I think, is that Leuchter implied what another denier,
Germar Rudolf, stated outright: that the presence or absence of cyanide
compounds on the walls of the structures alleged to have been gas
chambers is not an appropriate means for determing whether the
structures in question were actually used as gas chambers. Other types
of evidence, including architectural and informed eyewitness evidence,
would weigh more. Leuchter claims that about 60% of his conclusion is
based upon a comparison of what is left the ruins of the gas chamber at
Krema II with a typical American execution gas chamber. He claims that
what can be deduced from the ruins indicates that it does not come up
to the standards of an American gas chambers for which reason they were
not gas chambers for which reason Nazi gas chambers did not exist. On
the other hand, Leuchter does not explain how the inefficieny and
hazardousness he attributes to these structures would have allowed them
to contain the hypothetical fumigation “once, long ago” which he uses
to explain the undeniable still detectable presence of cyanide
compounds on their structures.
You have said that Lechter was under no moral obligation to be
straighforward in telling Dr. Roth where the samples were from. Here I
agree with you, given that this was evidence to be used in a legal
confrontation. He was, however, under a scientific obligation to find
out more about the chemical properties of cyanide and how to test for
its compounds. Both the report and his performance in court were
consistent with his lack of the requisite training and expertise to
plan and carry out the experiment that he did. The analytical results
can thus be no better than the data on which they are based. Leuchter
took the wrong type of samples, failed to use a proper control, and
gave inexplicit instructions as to what he was looking for. This
resulted in the laboratory polluting and mishandling the samples as
part of their analytic procedures, thus making it impossible to draw
anything but qualittaive conclusions from the results they produced.
>
> Also I would prefer that we carry this on through our private mailboxes.
> (Mine is [email protected]) Two reasons:
>
> 1) Posting via the NG messages can be easily swamped or lost
>
> 2) I prefer to keep the thing private. Don’t want any unauthorised
> interjections from the peanut gallery.
I would rather not do it this way, although I welcome and will respect
the privacy of any personal correspondence you want to send me. This is
a public discussion, and even though I evidently have studied more
chemistry than you have, it was more than 35 years ago and is not my
specialty. I would be being extremely presumptuous if I did not subject
my understanding of Leuchter’s methodological blunders to public
scrutiny.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:34 EDT 2001
Article: 949411 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!feed.textport.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: How About TRUTHFUL Answers?: 66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust
Supersedes: <220820011647327250%[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:22:16 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 383
Message-ID: <220820011722162605%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998490162 23400 128.214.77.45 (22 Aug 2001 14:22:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Aug 2001 14:22:42 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:949411 alt.politics.nationalism.white:527637 alt.politics.white-power:537029
In article <[email protected]>, J.S.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Aidan Kelly wrote:
> 66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust
>
> > A Revisionist Perspective
> >
> > 1. What proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews?
> >
> > None.
> >
> —
> >> Except for the evidence the Nazis themselves documented.
> >> Boy, how stupid can you get????
>
>
> Just exactly what evidence are you referring to?
All kinds of cool stuff such as deportation records, transportation
records, records of the requisitioning, assessment, evaluation, and
auctioning off or hauling off to Germany of property seized from
murdered Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, the protocol of the Wannsee
Conference which states quite clearly that any Jews that survive the
brutal regime they are to be subjected to after deportation to Eastern
Europe will have to be “dealt with accordingly”, lest they serve as the
nucleus for a new generation of Jews who will avenge what had been done
to their parents and grandparents, orders for gas-proof doors with
peepholes for gas chambers, evidence of criminal intent in close
examination of construction documents with last-minute replacements of
chutes with circular stairways for access to subterranean gas chambers,
gas-chamber inventory forms referring to false shower heads, photographs
and films of people being gassed made in conjunction with the
Tiergarten-4 and 13 T 14 euthanasia programs, photographs and films of
people being murdered by the Einsatzkommandos, depositions by camp
physicians, depositions by camp commandants, depositions by camp
escapees, depositions by Sonderkommand members, depositions by
witnesses to public shootings of Jews done by Nazis, mass graves of
shot Jews in Eastern Europe (e.e. Serniki, Ustanovka, Riga, Shiauliai),
military reports of the mass murders of Eastern European Jews,
including women and children, committed by the Einsatzkommandos, mass
graves at sites of former extermination camps, orders from Himmler to
terminate gassing and demolish the Auschwitz gas chambers, forensic
studies of Auschwitz gas chambers, lists of Jews arrested and murdered
for being Jewish in Nazi occupied countries, dossiers in police
archives in various countries following the cases of individual Jews
>from identification and arrest to execution and seizure of property,
the heroic activities and eventual martyrdom of Swedish diplomat Raoul
Wallenberg, records of the execution of concentration camp personnal
for having inadvertantly divulged information about the concrete
dimensions of the Final Solution, the rescue of tens of thousands of
emaciated Jews from concentration camps in northern Germany by the
Swedish Red Cross in 1945 (the Bernadotte Rescue), correspondence in
diplomatic archives of German pressure on the governments of Nazi
allies and cobelligerents such as Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, and Italy
to hand over their Jews, the sudden shift of local policy towards Jews
>from tolerance to rapid and massive deportation in countries such as
Hungary and Italy when the countries in question broke their alliance
with Germany and tried to extricate themselves from the war,
photographs, depositions, and military reports concerning death marches
in 1945, the fact that the main perpetrators of the Holocaust, Hitler,
Himmler, Eichmann, and Hoess all committed suicide or went underground
after the war, the defense of the Holocaust criminals such as Hoess,
Kaltenbrunner, Pohl, and Eichmann who were eventually put in trial that
it all happened, but that they were only cogs in the machine following
orders passed down from above, the sleezy attempts of people such as
David Irving and his haplessly incompetent and unqualified guru to
“scientifically prove” that the Holocaust did not occur by falsely
arguing to a gullible public that it takes “colossally higher”
concentrations of cyanide to kill people than it does to kill vermin,
and that if there are lesser concentrations on improperly analyzed
samples taken from the ruins of an alleged gas chamber that has been
exposed to the elements since 1944 than there are on the intact
interior walls of a fumigation chamber, then this proves that the
alleged gas chamber was not a gas chamber, that if it was not a gas
chamber then this proves that there were never any gas Nazi gas
chambers anywhere anytime, and that the presence of the cyanide is the
result of a single fumigation during the mid 1942-typhus epidemic, even
though the construction of the building did not start until early
1943….
I could go on, but you get the picture.
> I can assure you
> that there is not a single verifiable German document in the
> possession of conventional historians which testifies to the
> ‘gassings’. Please site the Nuremberg court references of the
> documents you claim the Nazis produced…
I can assure you that there is physical evidence of gassings at
Auschwitz, specifically the forensic report drawn up by Dawidowski and
Sehn, that was presented as evidence at the 1947 trial of Rudolf Hoess
at Cracow. This same Hoess testified at Nuremberg in April 1946 as an
expert witness for Obergruppenführer-SS Ernst Kaltenbrunner’s defense.
Now, Hoess and Kaltenbrunner were Nazis, and Hoess produced this
document at Kaltenbrunners request to argue his case that they had only
been following orders and thus bore no responsibility for anything that
happened to inmates at the concentration and labor camps. What did
Hoess say in this Nazi-produced document, presented at the Nuremberg
trials, in _defense_ of his superior, Obergruppenführer-SS Ernst
Kaltenbrunner?:
Source:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/hoesstest.htm
l
<quote>
Testimony of Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz
[Testimony on Monday, April 15, 1946]
<deletions>
HOESS: The Auschwitz camp as such was about 3 kilometers away from the
town. About 20,000 acres of the surrounding country had been cleared of
all former inhabitants, and the entire area could be entered only by SS
men or civilian employees who had special passes. The actual compound
called “Birkenau,” where later on the extermination camp was
constructed, was situated 2 kilometers from the Auschwitz camp. The
camp installations themselves, that is to say, the provisional
installations used at first were deep in the woods and could from
nowhere be detected by the eye. In addition to that, this area had been
declared a prohibited area and even members of the SS who did not have
a special pass could not enter it. Thus, as far as one could judge, it
was impossible for anyone except authorized persons to enter that area.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then the railway transports arrived. During what
period did these transports arrive and about how many people, roughly,
were in such a transport?
HOESS: During the whole period up until 1944 certain operations were
carried out at irregular intervals in the different countries, so that
one cannot speak of a continuous flow of incoming transports. It was
always a matter of 4 to 6 weeks. During those 4 to 6 weeks two to three
trains, containing about 2,000 persons each, arrived daily. These
trains were first of all shunted to a siding in the Birkenau region and
the locomotives then went back. The guards who had accompanied the
transport had to leave the area at once and the persons who had been
brought in were taken over by guards belonging to the camp.
They were there examined by two SS medical officers as to their fitness
for work. The internees capable of work at once marched to Auschwitz or
to the camp at Birkenau and those incapable of work were at first taken
to the provisional installations, then later to the newly constructed
crematoria.
DR. KAUFFMANN: During an interrogation I had with you the other day you
told me that about 60 men were designated to receive these transports,
and that these 60 persons, too, had been bound to the same secrecy
described before. Do you still maintain that today?
HOESS: Yes, these 60 men were always on hand to take the internees not
capable of work to these provisional installations and later on to the
other ones. This group, consisting of about ten leaders and subleaders,
as well as doctors and medical personnel, had repeatedly been told,
both in writing and verbally, that they were bound to the strictest
secrecy as to all that went on in the camps.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Were there any signs that might show an outsider who saw
these transports arrive, that they would be destroyed or was that
possibility so small because there was in Auschwitz an unusually large
number of incoming transports, shipments of goods and so forth?
HOESS: Yes, an observer who did not make special notes for that purpose
could obtain no idea about that because to begin with not only
transports arrived which were destined to be destroyed but also other
transports. arrived continuously, containing new internees who were
needed in the camp. Furthermore, transports likewise left the camp in
sufficiently large numbers with internees fit for work or exchanged
prisoners.
The trains themselves were closed, that is to say, the doors of the
freight cars were closed so that it was not possible, from the outside,
to get a glimpse of the people inside. In addition to that, up to 100
cars of materials, rations, et cetera, were daily rolled into the camp
or continuously left the workshops of the camp in which war material
was being made.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And after the arrival of the transports were the victims
stripped of everything they had? Did they have to undress completely;
did they have to surrender their valuables? Is that true?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then they immediately went to their death?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I ask you, according to your knowledge, did these people
know what was in store for them?
HOESS: The majority of them did not, for steps were taken to keep them
in doubt about it and suspicion would not arise that they were to go to
their death. For instance, all doors and all walls bore inscriptions to
the effect that they were going to undergo a delousing operation or
take a shower. This was made known in several languages to the
internees by other internees who had come in with earlier transports
and who were being used as auxiliary crews during the whole action.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then, you told me the other day, that death by
gassing set in within a period of 3 to 15 minutes. Is that correct?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: You also told me that even before death finally set in,
the victims fell into a state of unconsciousness?
HOESS: Yes. From what I was able to find out myself or from what was
told me by medical officers, the time necessary for reaching
unconsciousness or death varied according to the temperature and the
number of people present in the chambers. Loss of consciousness took
place within a few seconds or a few minutes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you yourself ever feel pity with the victims,
thinking of your own family and children?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: How was it possible for you to carry out these actions
in spite of this?
HOESS: In view of all these doubts which I had, the only one and
decisive argument was the strict order and the reason given for it by
the Reichsführer Himmler.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I ask you whether Himmler inspected the camp and
convinced himself, too, of the process of annihilation?
HOESS: Yes. Himmler visited the camp in 1942 and he watched in detail
one processing from beginning to end.
DR. KAUFMANN: Does the same apply to Eichmann?
HOESS: Eichmann came repeatedly to Auschwitz and was intimately
acquainted with the proceedings.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did the Defendant Kaltenbrunner ever inspect the camp?
HOESS: No.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you ever talk with Kaltenbrunner with reference to
your task?
HOESS: No, never. I was with Obergruppenführer Kaltenbrunner on only
one single occasion.
DR. KAUFFMANN: When was that?
HOESS: That was one day after his birthday in the year 1944.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And what was the subject of that conference which you
have just mentioned?
HOESS: It concerned a report from the camp at Mauthausen on the
so-called nameless internees and their engagement in armament industry.
Obergruppenführer Kaltenbrunner was to make a decision on the matter.
For that reason I came to him with the report from the commander at
Mauthausen but he did not make a decision telling me he would do so
later.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Regarding the location of Mauthausen, will you please
state in which district Mauthausen is situated. Is that Upper Silesia
or is it the Government General?
HOESS: Mauthausen . . .
DR. KAUFFMANN: Auschwitz, I beg your pardon, I made a mistake. I mean
Auschwitz.
HOESS: Auschwitz is situated in the former state of Poland. Later,
after 1939, it was incorporated in the province of Upper Silesia.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it right for me to assume that administration and
feeding of concentration camps were exclusively under the control of
the Main Economic and Administrative Office?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: A department which is completely separated from the
RSHA?
HOESS: Quite correct.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then from 1943 until the end of the war, you were
one of the chiefs in the Inspectorate of the Main Economic and
Administrative Office?
HOESS: Yes, that is correctly stated.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you mean by that, that you are particularly well
informed on everything occurring in concentration camps regarding the
treatment and the methods applied?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I ask you, therefore, first of all, whether you have any
knowledge regarding the treatment of internees, whether certain methods
became known to you according to which they were tortured and cruelly
treated? Please formulate your statement according to periods, up to
1939 and after 1939.
HOESS: Until the outbreak of war in 1939, the situation in the camps
regarding feeding, accommodations, and treatment of internees, was the
same as in any other prison or penitentiary in the Reich. The internees
were treated severely, but methodical beatings or ill-treatments were
out of the question. The Reichsführer gave frequent orders that every
SS man who laid violent hands on an internee would be punished; and
several times SS men who did ill-treat internees were punished.
Feeding and billeting at that time were on the same basis as those of
other prisoners under legal administration.
The accommodations in the camps during those years were still normal
because the mass influxes at the outbreak of the war and during the war
had not yet taken place. When the war started and when mass deliveries
of political internees arrived, and, later on, when prisoners who were
members of the resistance movements arrived from the occupied
territories, the construction of buildings and the extensions of the
camps could no longer keep pace with the number of incoming internees.
During the first years of the war this problem could still be overcome
by improvising measures; but later, due to the exigencies of the war,
this was no longer possible ‘ since there were practically no building
materials any more at our disposal. And, furthermore, rations for the
internees were again and again severely curtailed by the provincial
economic administration offices.
This then led to a situation where internees in the camps no longer had
the staying power to resist the now gradually growing epidemics.
The main reason why the prisoners were in such bad condition towards
the end of the war, why so many thousands of them were found sick and
emaciated in the camps, was that every, internee had to be employed in
the armament industry to the extreme limit of his forces. The
Reichsführer constantly and on every occasion kept this goal before our
eyes, and also proclaimed it through the Chief of the Main Economic and
Administrative Office, Obergruppenführer Pohl, to the concentration
camp, commanders and administrative leaders during the so-called
commanders’ meetings.
Every commander was told to make every effort to achieve this. The aim
was not to have as many dead as possible or to destroy as many
internees as possible; the Reichsfáhrer was constantly concerned with
being able to engage all forces available in the armament industry.
<deletions>
DR. KAUFFMANN: Under Point 7, at the end, you state–I am not going to
read it–you were saying that even though exterminations took place
secretly, the population in the surrounding area noticed something of
the extermination of people. Did not, at an earlier period of
time–that is, before the beginning of this special extermination
action–something of this nature take place to remove people who had
died in a normal manner in Auschwitz?
HOESS: Yes, when the crematoria had not yet been built we burned in
large pits a large part of those who had died and who could not be
cremated in the provisional crematoria of the camp; a large number–I
do not recall the figure anymore–were placed in mass graves and later
also cremated in these graves. That was before the mass executions of
Jews began.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Would you agree with me if I were to say that from the
described facts alone, one could not conclusively ‘prove that this was
concerned with the extermination of Jews?
HOESS: No, this could in no way be concluded from that. The population
. . .
THE PRESIDENT: What was your question about?
DR. KAUFFMANN: My question was whether one could assume from the
established facts?at the end of Paragraph 7?that this concerned the
so-called extermination of Jews. I tied this question to the previous
answer of the witness. It is my last question.
THE PRESIDENT: The last sentence of Paragraph 7 is with reference to
the foul and nauseating stench. What is your question about that?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Whether the population could gather from these things
that an extermination of Jews was taking place.
THE PRESIDENT: That really is too obvious a question, isn’t it? They
could not possibly know who it was being exterminated.
DR. KAUFFMANN: That is enough for me. I have no further questions.
<deletions>
</quote>
>
> I shall look forward to seeing the evidence which has evaded the
> world’s scholars for the last 56 years.
>
Hoess’s detailed and lucid deposition as an expert witness, of which
the above is only an excerpt, was part of the evidence presented to the
court in Intrnational Military Tribune at Nuremberg. This evidence was
not used against Hoess, but rather as testimony to defend
Kaltenbrunner. It counts as a document produced by Nazis (Hoess at the
behest of Kaltenbrunner) and presented to the Nuremberg court
testifying to gassings.
Hoess was nailed on the basis of other evidence, including the results
of the forensic analysis of the Auschwitz gas chambers conducted by
Dawidowski and Sehn that was presented by the state as evidence against
him at his trial in Cracow in 1947.
> I can assure you
> that there is not a single verifiable German document in the
> possession of conventional historians which testifies to the
> ‘gassings’.
Besides being wrong, as demonstrated by the above, your statement is
also irrelevant. The Nazis murdered approximately 6,000,000 Jews
between 1939 and 1945, and about half of these, 3,000,000 were by
gassings which took place at dedicated extermination centers such as
Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor, and Treblinka, labor camps with dedicated
extermination divisions, such as Ausdchwitz and Majdanek, as well as at
a handful of camps in various paets of the Reich which had gas chambers
which were used for occasional or systematic gassings, such as
Hartheim, Mauthausen, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Ravensbrück,
Sachsenhausen, Stutthof and, evidently, Dachau. Euthanasia centers such
as Brandenburg, Hademar, and Sonnenstein also had mass execution gas
chambers used primarily to gas mental patients and invalids, but also
Jews if gassing them freed needed hospital space and resources.
Even if not a single gassing had taken place the Nazis would still have
the dubious distinction of having liquidated some 3,000,000 Jews and
sevberal million more Poles, Soviet POWs, Gypsies, communists,
clergyment, political dissidents, labor activists, members of the
opposition, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others deemed potentially
dangerous or unworthy of life by Nazi ideology. The overwhelming
majority of these victims were citizens of coluntries that Nazi Germany
invaded rather than its own nationals. The means included mass
shootings, hanging, poisoning, reprisal arbitrary arrests and shootings
for acts of sabotage or resistance to Nazi occupation at ratios as high
as 100 to 1, pseudomedical experiments such as freezing alive,
subjection to powerful X-rays, and vivisection, overwork, exhaustion,
brutality, mental stress, sadism, starvation, exposure to disease and
unsanitary conditions, as well as death marches through winter terrain
without food, shelter, or appropriate clothing.
Gassing is only one chapter of the Holocaust, and it is by no means the
cruelest one.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:35 EDT 2001
Article: 950268 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!telocity-west!TELOCITY!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-112-4.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: the nuremberg trial
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:09:10 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 144
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-112-4.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998564978 13156 128.214.79.1 (23 Aug 2001 11:09:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Aug 2001 11:09:38 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:950268
In article <3b85dc4[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> where can i find a full transcript of this without any added bias?
>
You will find the offiical English version of the complete trials
transcripts as well as other important background material at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm:
<quote>
Contents of The Nuremberg Trials Collection
* Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal.
* Motions
* Orders of the Tribunal
* Presentation of Cases
* Testimony of Witnesses
* Final Report on the Evidence of Witnesses for the Defense of
Organizations Alleged to be Criminal, Heard Before a Commission Appointed
by the Tribunal Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Order of the 13th of March,
1946
* Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
* Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression
* Key Documents Related to the Proceedings
* Documents of the Post War Military Government
* Rules of Procedure
* Subsequent Cases Tried Under Control Council Law No. 10
* Documents Cited in the Official Records of the Tribunal
* Supporting Documents
* Other Web Resources on the Holocaust and the Nuremberg Trials
————————————————————————
Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military
Tribunal : Proceedings Volumes
(The Blue Set)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
With thanks to the William S. Hein & Co. Inc. for its generosity in
donating the page images of the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before
the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 – 1
October 1946.
Thanks also to Daniel Rosati of the Hein Co. for all his efforts.
Reprints of the Trial of the Major War Criminals are available from the
Hein Co. at 1-800-828-7571.
The editing and markup of Volumes 2,12-14 was completed with the generous
assistance of two SCOPA Grants from the Yale University’s Sterling
Memorial Library.
The editing and markup of Volumes 19-22 was completed with the generous
assistance of FINDLAW.
USMARC Cataloging Record
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression : The Red Set
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
USMARC Cataloging Record
Subsequent Cases Tried Under Control Council Law No. 10
* The Pohl Case – United States of America v. Oswald Polh et. al.
Key Documents Related to the Proceedings
* Charter of the International Military Tribunal
* Indictment against Hermann Goering et. al.
* Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German
Major War Criminals
* Justice Jackson’s Report to the President on Atrocities and War Crimes;
June 7, 1945
* London Agreement of August 8th 1945
* Nuremberg Code
* Protocol Rectifying Discrepancy in the Charter
* Royal Warrant : Regulations for the Trial of War Criminals; June 18, 1945
* St. James Agreement; June 12, 1941
* Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945
* The Stroop Report : The Warsaw Ghetto is No More
* Wannsee Protocol, January 20, 1942
Documents of the Post War Military Government
* Control Council Law No. 10; December 20, 1945
* Executive Order 9547; May 2, 1945
* Executive Order 9679; January 16, 1946
* General Memorandum No. 15; March 20, 1946
* General Orders Number 301; October 24, 1946
* Joint Chiefs of Staff : Directive on the Identification and
Apprehension of Persons Suspected of War Crimes or Other Offenses and
Trial of Certain Offenders; July 8, 1945
* Ordinance No. 7; October 18, 1946
* Ordinance No. 11; February 17, 1947
Rules of Procedure
* Rules of Procedure for the Trial of the German Major War Criminals :
October 29, 1945
* Rules of Procedure Adopted by Military Tribunal I in the Trial of the
Medical Case (Case 1)
* Development of Uniform Rules of Procedure Action by Individual
Tribunals, Executive Sessions of Several Tribunals, and the Committee of
Presiding Judges
* Uniform Rules of Procedure, Military Tribunals, Nuernberg, Revised to 8
January 1948
Documents Cited in the Official Records of the Tribunal
* The British War Blue Book
* The Bullet Decree (Kugel Erlass); March 4, 1944
* Directive No. 1 for the Conduct of the War
* The Hague Conventions
* Hossbach Memorandum; November 10, 1937
* Kellogg-Briand Pact and Associated Documents
* Moscow Conference; October 1943
* Munich Pact and Associated Documents
* Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact
* Night and Fog Decree (Nacht und Nebel Erlass); December 7, 1941
* Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP)
* The Stroop Report : The Warsaw Ghetto is No More; April – May 1943
* The Treaty of Versailles; June 28, 1919
* Tripartite Pact
Supporting Documents
* SS Ranks
Other Web Resources
* Cybrary of the Holocaust
* Simon Wiesenthal Center
* Thomas J. Dodd Papers Guide – Nuremberg Trial Series
* United States Holocaust Museum
* Yad Vashem
</quote>
Happy reading,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:35 EDT 2001
Article: 950914 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!feeder.via.net!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.flame.niggers,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.fan.adolf-hitler
Subject: Re: Origin of the Term ‘Racism’ (WAS: Re: Statement Of Professor Kevin MacDonald)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:45:34 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <240820011345344415%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998649963 14825 128.214.77.45 (24 Aug 2001 10:46:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Aug 2001 10:46:03 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:950914 alt.flame.niggers:488187 alt.politics.nationalism.white:528191 alt.politics.white-power:537345 alt.fan.adolf-hitler:9852
In article <[email protected]>, Aidan
Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (Steven Mock) wrote in article
> <[email protected]> :
> >[email protected] (Aidan Kelly) wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>…
> >> [email protected] (Steven Mock) wrote in message
> >> news:<[email protected]>…
>
> >On just what grounds, and based on what evidence, do either you OR
> >this Mohammed Khan claim that Trotsky invented the term “racism”?
>
> I chose Mr Khan as a source because I *knew* that you would react
> by displaying your anti-Arab racism.
>
> >
> >It is certainly one of the silliest claims I have seen one of you
> >racists pull out of your ass in my time on this newsgroup (and as you
> >can imagine, that puts it up against some pretty stiff competition).
>
> Michael Newland, BA writes in “What’s Wrong With the Right” that
> “Communism was nothing less than skillful in developing the new
> science
> and art of propaganda earlier in this century. One of the best
> examples
> is the use of the word ‘racism’. The term was invented by Trotsky . .
> .”
>
> What is highly amusing is your claim that the term “racism” dates
> back to the 19th century. In fact, it was coined in 1936. The
> Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary confirms this:
>
> ***
>
> Main Entry: rac.ism
> Pronunciation: ‘rA-“si-z&m also -“shi-
> Function: noun
> Date: 1936
> 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
> capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority
> of a particular race
> 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
> – rac.ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
>
> ***
The Oxford English Dictionary implies that it was borrowed into
English, since it appeared in the Robert French Dictionary for 1935:
Source: http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00195909
[f. RACE n.2 + -ISM; cf. F. racisme (Robert 1935).]
a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities
are determined by race. b. = RACIALISM.
1936 L. DENNIS Coming Amer. Fascism 109 If..it be assumed that one of
our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races from
citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the
annihilation, deportation, or sterilization of the excluded races. 1938
E. & C. PAUL tr. Hirschfeld’s Racism xx. 260 The apostles and
energumens of racism can in all good faith give free rein to impulses
of which they would be ashamed did they realise their true nature. 1940
R. BENEDICT Race: Science & Politics i. 7 Racism is an ism to which
everyone in the world today is exposed. 1952 M. BERGER Equality by
Statute 236 Racism, tension in industrial, urban areas. 1952 Theology
LV. 283 The idolatry of our timeits setting up of nationalism, racism,
vulgar materialism. 1960 New Left Rev. Jan./Feb. 21/2 George Rogers saw
fit to kow-tow to the incipient racism of his electorate by including a
line about getting rid of Œundesirable elements¹. 1964 GOULD & KOLB
Dict. Social Sci. 571/2 Racism is a newer term for the word
racialism… There is virtual agreement that it refers to a doctrine of
racial supremacy. 1971 Ceylon Daily News (Colombo) 18 Sept. 8/5 Mr.
Seneviratne is welcome to his ideal of inter-racial marriages as
panacea for Racism. 1972 J. L. DILLARD Black English iii. 90 In the
British sailors’ reactions to the slaves.., the very early existence of
racism is as well documented as the difference in language. 1974 M.
FIDO R. Kipling 50/2 In The Story of Muhammad Din he wrote one of the
most economical and bitter attacks on British racism ever penned. 1976
Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio) 4 Mar. A2/4 The Vatican radio
said,..ŒRacism might have different faces but it will always be
reprehensible.¹ 1977 M. WALKER National Front vi. 155 A strike of the
Asian workers against racism in the factory.
””””””””””””””””
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:35 EDT 2001
Article: 950983 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!feed.textport.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: There was Never 6 million JEWS in Europe at the time of The war
Supersedes: <240820011447116740%[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:15:53 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <240820011615536847%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998658981 21916 128.214.77.45 (24 Aug 2001 13:16:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Aug 2001 13:16:21 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:950983
In article <[email protected]>, Sick Of Jewish Lies
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ——=_NextPart_000_006D_01C12BC2.7EFC5380
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=”iso-8859-1″
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> BEFORE YOU READ THIS, I JUST WANT TO SAY I AM NOT AN ANTI SEMI, ALTHOUGH =
> I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE LIES THAT JEWS TRY TO FORCE ON TO OTHER =
> PEOPLE. IF YOU WANT TO SEND ME HATE MAIL PLEASE JUSTIFY IT WITH FACTS.I =
> AM ALWAYS OPENED TO SUGGSESTIONS AND NEW FACTS WHICH WILL OVERTURN THOSE =
> WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN OF BELOW. BUT REMEBER THIS WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE HAD =
> BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE JEWISH HISTORIANS AND GOVERNMENT SO DONT SAY THIS =
> IS ALL BULLSJIT.
>
Your figures are way off and based on a logical fallacy.
I’ll concentrate on only two points: definitions, and the Nazis own
statistics.
1. The Nazis defined as Jews people who had Jewish heritage but did not
consider themselves to be Jews. Former American Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, whose grandparents were Jews but whose parents
converted to Christianity, raising her as a Roman Catholic in the
Czechoslovakia of the 1930s, is a typical example. From the standpoint
of the Czechoslovak statistics she was registered as a Catholic; from
the standpoint of the Nuremberg Laws which were imposed on
Czechoslovakia when the Nazis partitioned and occupied the country she
was a Jew. Hundreds of thousands of practicing Christians as well as
people with no religious preference were defined by the Nazis as Jews,
particularly in countries such as Hungary and Romania where conversion
to Christianity and assimilation were common among people whose
parents or grandparents had been Jews. Thus, in many countries under
Nazi control the set of people considered by the Nazis to be Jews was
substantially larger than the set of people population statistics had
registered as Jews. This is the “racial principles” referred to in the
Wanssee Protocol below.
2. The Nazis themselves had a much higher estimate of the number of
Jews as they defined them than you do. The Wannsee Protocol of January
20, 1942, convened to assess what had been done and what remained to be
done with regard to “resolving” the Jewish problem in Europe, listed the
number of Jews that were to be affected by the “Final Solution”,
country by country, as being more than 11,000,000. And this is after
seven months of uninhibited mass murders of Jews in Eastern Europe by
the Einsatzgruppen, who had killed 33,000 Jews at Kiev in September,
1941, 25,000 at Riga between November 30 and December 6, 1941, another
3,000 at Daugavpils a week later, etc., as well as more than a month
after the opening of, and the beginning of systematic deportations of
Jews to, the first extermination center, Chelmno, on December 7, 1941:
Source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/wannsee.htm
(The Wannsee Protocol, January 20, 1942)
<quote>
<deletions>
Approximately 11 million Jews will be involved in the final solution of
the European Jewish question, distributed as follows among the
individual countries:
Country Number
A.
Germany proper 131,800
Austria 43,700
Eastern territories 420,000
General Government 2,284,000
Bialystok 400,000
Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia 74,200
Estonia – free of Jews –
Latvia 3,500
Lithuania 34,000
Belgium 43,000
Denmark 5,600
France / occupied territory 165,000
France / unoccupied territory 700,000
Greece 69,600
Netherlands 160,800
Norway 1,300
B.
Bulgaria 48,000
England 330,000
Finland 2,300
Ireland 4,000
Italy including Sardinia 58,000
Albania 200
Croatia 40,000
Portugal 3,000
Rumania including Bessarabia 342,000
Sweden 8,000
Switzerland 18,000
Serbia 10,000
Slovakia 88,000
Spain 6,000
Turkey (European portion) 55,500
Hungary 742,800
USSR 5,000,000
Ukraine 2,994,684
White Russia excluding Bialystok 446,484
Total over 11,000,000
The number of Jews given here for foreign countries includes, however,
only those Jews who still adhere to the Jewish faith, since some
countries still do not have a definition of the term “Jew” according to
racial principles.
<deletions>
Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are
to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews,
separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to
these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless
a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of
the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it
is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a
the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)
In the course of the practical execution of the final solution, Europe
will be combed through from west to east. Germany proper, including the
Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, will have to be handled first due
to the housing problem and additional social and political necessities.
<deletions>
</quote>
***************************************************
I suggest you do some serious reassessment of your figures. For Poland,
for example, the above lists
Eastern territories 420,000
General Government 2,284,000
Bialystok 400,000
a total of 3,104,000
This figure is far higher than your estimated figure of 1,100,000.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:35 EDT 2001
Article: 951141 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another obvious lie from “Waldo”
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:44:47 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998923517 9496 128.214.79.7 (27 Aug 2001 14:45:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Aug 2001 14:45:17 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:951141
In article <3B8A4F[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
<[email protected]> wrote:
> “Jeffrey G. Brown” wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, “Waldo”
<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, the Holocaustics emphasize the importance the Nazis placed on
> > > *deceiving* the Jews into believing that they were “only going for a
> > > shower”, this explains why the Nazi’s posted a sign on the door reading
> > > “DANGER ! POISON GAS!
> >
> > Waldo, of course, is lying. No such signs were posted on the doors of the
> > execution gas chambers.
> >
> > JGB
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> Since we have not established that there WERE such things as execution gas
> chambers, we’re hardly in a position to talk about what signs were or were not
> posted on their doors.
>
> However, if there WERE execution chambers, then I would find it very
strange that
> warning signs would be posted on the doors of fumigation chambers but
not on the
> doors of execution chambers.
>
> ======================================================
The words of people who were there and who are testifying under oath as
expert witnesses carry more weight than your “if there were…I would find
it very strange”. The function of fumigation chambers was to disinfect
clothing and bedding: the warning signs were to keep unauthorized people
away from them. The purpose of the gas chambers was to look like an
innocent processing facility which people, already nervous as to what was
going to happen to them, would feel comfortable about entering after they
had just removed their clothes. A “Danger! Poison gas!” sign would have
been maximally dysfunctional under such conditions:
1.
Source:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/hoesstest.html
(Former Auschwitz commamndant, Rudolf Hoess, testifying on April 15, 1946,
as an expert witness in defense of his former superior,
Obergruppenführer-SS Ernst Kaltnebrunner, at the Nuremberg Trials.)
<quote>
<deletions>
DR. KAUFFMANN: And after the arrival of the transports were the victims
stripped of everything they had? Did they have to undress completely; did
they have to surrender their valuables? Is that true?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then they immediately went to their death?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I ask you, according to your knowledge, did these people
know what was in store for them?
——-> NB!
HOESS: The majority of them did not, for steps were taken to keep them in
doubt about it and suspicion would not arise that they were to go to their
death. For instance, all doors and all walls bore inscriptions to the
effect that they were going to undergo a delousing operation or take a
shower. This was made known in several languages to the internees by other
internees who had come in with earlier transports and who were being used
as auxiliary crews during the whole action.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then, you told me the other day, that death by gassing
set in within a period of 3 to 15 minutes. Is that correct?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: You also told me that even before death finally set in, the
victims fell into a state of unconsciousness?
HOESS: Yes. From what I was able to find out myself or from what was told
me by medical officers, the time necessary for reaching unconsciousness or
death varied according to the temperature and the number of people present
in the chambers. Loss of consciousness took place within a few seconds or
a few minutes.
<deletions>
</unquote>
2.
Source: http://www.mazal.org/archive/documents/Tauber/Tauber04.htm
(Deposition made by HENRYK TAUBER in the Polish Courts May 24, 1945)
<quote>
<deletions>
. On 4th March 1943, we were taken under SS guard to Krematorium II. The
construction of this crematorium was explained to us by Capo [Julius]
August [Bruck], who had just arrived from Buchenwald where he had also
been working in the crematorium. Krematorium II had a basement where there
was an undressing room and a bunker, or in other words a gas chamber. To
go from one cellar to the other, there was a corridor in which there came
>from the exterior a stairway and a slide for throwing the bodies that were
brought to the camp to be incinerated in the crematorium. People went
through the door of the undressing room into the corridor, then from there
through a door on the right into the gas chamber. A second stairway
running from the grounds of the crematorium gave access to the corridor.
To the left of this stairway, in the corner, there was a little room where
hair, spectacles and other effects were stored. On the right there was
another small room used as a store for cans of Zyclon-B. In the right
corner of the corridor, on the wall facing the door from the undressing
room, there was a lift to transport the corpses. People went from the
crematorium yard to the undressing room via a stairway, surrounded by iron
rails.
——-> NB!
Over the door there was a sign with the inscription “Zum Baden und
Desinfektion” (to bath and disinfection), written in several languages. I
remember the word “banya” [Russian for steam bath] was there too.
>From the corridor they went through the door on the right into the gas
chamber. It was a wooden door, made of two layers of short pieces of wood
arranged
like parquet. Between these layers there was a single sheet of material
sealing the edges of the door and the rabbets of the frame were also
fitted with sealing strips of felt. At about head height for an average
man this door had a round glass peephole. On the other side of the door,
i.e. on the gas chamber side, this opening was protected by a
hemispherical grid. This grid was fitted because the people in the gas
chamber, feeling they were going to die, used to break the glass of the
peep-hole. But the grid still did not provide sufficient protection and
similar incidents recurred. The opening was blocked with a piece of metal
or wood. The people going to be gassed and those in the gas chamber
damaged the electrical installations, tearing the cables out and damaging
the ventilation equipment. The door was closed hermetically from the
corridor side by means of iron bars which were screwed tight. The roof of
the gas chamber was supported by concrete pillars running down the middle
of its length. On either side of these pillars there were four others, two
on each side. The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof,
were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid, there was another of finer mesh
and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage
there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the
pellets from which the gas had evaporated.
Besides that, in the gas chamber there were electric wires running along
the two sides of the main beam supported by the central concrete pillars.
The ventilation was installed in the walls of the gas chamber.
Communication between the room and the ventilation installation proper was
through small holes along the top and bottom of the side walls. The lower
openings were protected by a kind of muzzle, the upper ones by whitewashed
perforated metal plates.
The ventilation system of the gas chamber was coupled to the ventilation
ducts installed in the undressing room. This ventilation system, which
also served the dissection room, was driven by electric motors in the roof
space of the crematorium.
The gas chamber had no water supply of its own. [A Bauleitung inventory
drawing indicates that three taps were in fact installed in the gas
chamber. But they were destroyed in the first gassings and it was decided
not to replace them.]
The water tap was in the corridor and a rubber hose was run from it to
wash the floor of the gas chamber. At the end of 1943, the gas chamber was
divided in two by a brick wall to make it possible to gas smaller
transports. In the dividing wall there was a door identical to that
between the corridor and the original gas chamber. Small transports were
gassed in the chamber furthest from the entrance from the corridor.
<quote>
<deletions>
3. The artistic expression of the events that transpired during the time
David Olère spent as a member of the Sonderkommando:
http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/Holocaust/gallery2/D86.htm
http://www.bxscience.edu/organizations/holocaust/olere/, particularly
http://www.bxscience.edu/organizations/holocaust/olere/8.html
http://www.bxscience.edu/organizations/holocaust/olere/9.html
http://www.bxscience.edu/organizations/holocaust/olere/10.html
Such detailed, corroborating evidence, not only of the existence of gas
chambers, but also of the existence of deceptive signs indicating that
they were something other than gas chambers, from different and
independent sources at opposite ends of the chain of command cannot just
be casually dismissed or ignored.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:35 EDT 2001
Article: 951196 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!telocity-west!TELOCITY!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman on Leuchter’s instructions
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:13:34 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 577
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998925243 11446 128.214.79.7 (27 Aug 2001 15:14:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Aug 2001 15:14:03 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:951196
In article <3B8867[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Richard G. Phillips
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I want to know EXACTLY what instructions Leuchter gave to the lab and
> > > exactly how you know what they were.
> >
> > Here is the court record, as presented at Zündel’s website:
> >
> > Source:
> > http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2000/zg0003/000320.html
> >
> > <quote>
> > [Dr. James Roth was the twenty-second witness called by the defence. He
> > testified on Thursday, April 21, 1988.]
> >
> > Dr. James Roth, the laboratory manager of Alpha Analytical
> > Laboratories, testified as to the results of tests done on the numbered
> > samples removed from Auschwitz and Birkenau by Fred A. Leuchter. Roth
> > had obtained his doctorate from Cornell University in analytical
> > chemistry. Roth testified that he received samples from Fred Leuchter
> > in his capacity as an Analytical Chemist at Alpha Analytical
> > Laboratories. Roth directly supervised the tests performed on the
> > samples and the preparation of the test report. The purpose of the
> > tests was to determine total iron content and total cyanide content in
> > the samples. The identification numbers assigned to the samples were
> > those designated by Leuchter. (33-9274 to 9276)
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> TOTAL iron content and TOTAL cyanide content, correct. Hardly the sort of
> things for which we would employ QUALITATIVE analysis – which is what you are
> trying to tell me was done.
>
> =====================================================
Yes and no. Leuchter’s instructions were imprecise, and the lab evidently
thought that they were given samples, all of the surfaces of which had
been exposed to cyanide. Working on this assumption, they took subsamples
and started to perform a quantitative analysis. In actual fact, only one
of the many surfaces had been exposed, and they did not know which. Thus,
their smapling technique, which involved taking subsamples from any of the
many surfaces and diluting them by pulverization, effectually invalidated any
quantitative dimension the analysis might have had.
> >
> > Total Iron Content
> >
> > Iron tests were conducted on three of the samples, namely, samples 9,
> > 29 and 32. Results of the tests for total iron content were essentially
> > the same for all three samples. Sample 9 contained 7,580 mg/km; sample
> > 29 contained 6,280 mg/km and sample 32 contained 6,170 mg/km. (33-9276,
> > 9291, 9292)
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> I strongly think that your mg/kg should be ug/kg — yes?
>
> Leuchter never got any fgures that high.
>
> =================================
This was copied by cut and pasting from the source website with no
modification whatsoever. I agree with you that the figures seem far too
high. My suspicion is that Zundel’s webmaster is inadvertently using the
commas in the European manner as decimal points.
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> Remarkable consistency would you not agree? If, as you would have us believe,
> qualitative analysis produces worthless results, it at least seems to produce
> consistent results.
>
> ===================================
I didn’t say that the results of the qualitative analysis are worthless. I
said that they are worthless if offered as the results of a quantitative
analysis, no matter how “consistent” they seem to be.
>From a qualitative standpoint Leuchter’s results indicate that the walls
of both the fumigation chambers and the former gas chambers were exposed
to enough cyanide for compounds to have been produced which are still
detectable half a century later. Thus, far from providing evidence
_against_ the possibility of gassing, the results support it.
Unfortunately, Leuchter had no neutral control, so no scientifically valid
conclusions can be drawn from his results other than a provisional “more”
vs. “less”. He certainly provides no justification whatdoever for his
conclusion that “less” is reducible to “once”.
The Cracow report used as controls places known never to have been exposed
to cyanide, as well as a place known to have been the exposed to cyanide
once during an early experimental gassing of Soviet POWs and another known
to have been exposed to cyanide once during the 1942 typhus epidemic. The
place that was never exposed and the place exposed during the 1942 typhus
epidemic gave a zero reading, while the samples taken from the place
exposed once during the experimental gassing of Soviet POWs showed either
zero or barely detectable readings. The samples from the gas chambers
regularly indicated concentrations of cyanide below those taken from the
fumigation chambers, but both yielded reading much higher than the ones
taken from places never exposed or exposed only once to cyanide.
> >
> > Roth was shown Exhibit 144, a colour photograph of the blue staining on
> > the wall of Delousing Facility No. 1 at Birkenau from which sample 32
> > had been removed. He indicated that the blue colour was what was
> > commonly referred to as “Prussian blue.” (33-9289) The chemical
> > definition of Prussian blue was ferro-ferri-cyanide. (33-9297) Prussian
> > blue was an iron cyanide produced by a reaction between iron and the
> > hydrogen cyanide. It was a very stable compound which stayed around a
> > long time.
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> Stable – yes? Not affected by years of wind and rain – yes?
>
> =================================
Stable – yes. Affected by years of wind and rain – also yes. Prussian blue
was not the only cyanide compound formed. Indeed, the Cracow group noted
that even in the fumigation chambers Prussian blue shows up as splotches
rather than as a compound uniformly covering the walls. Thus, the use of
even high concentrations of cyanide does not always produce Prussian blue,
nor is it distributed evenly on surfaces exposed to the same concentration
of cyanide over the same timeframe. On the other hand, use of cyanide
produces compounds other than Prussian blue containing cyanide ions, and
some of these are quite stable and water resistent, others are not.
Neither Leuchter nor Cracow team were testing for Prussian blue, they were
testing for cyanide ions, some of which would have been in compounds less
stable over the long term than Prussian blue.
>
> > If hydrogen cyanide came into contact with bricks or mortar
> > containing iron, it was fully conceivable that a reaction of the iron
> > and hydrogen cyanide would take place, leaving behind the Prussian
> > blue. (33-9290) In porous materials such as brick and mortar, the
> > Prussian blue 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. If all surface iron was
> > converted to Prussian blue, the reaction would effectively stop for
> > lack of exposed iron. (33 9291)
>
> ================================
> Phillips
>
> Oh? Whatever happened to your 10 microns maximum penetration depth – yes?
>
> =============================
Penetration depth is one thing, Prussian blue formation is something
else. As it says above, if Prussian blue is formed, then the material is
sealed, stopping penetration. The standard quantitative procedures for
detecting the amount as opposed to the presence of cyanide ions require
that scraping samples be taken. In any case, the Polish study was not
addressed specifically to the detection of Prussian blue, since even in
the fumigation chambers it appeared unevenly on some surfaces but not on
others, indicating that even repeated exposure to lethal quantities of
cyanide does not necessarily result in the formation of Prussian blue.
> >
> > Roth testified that the iron/cyanide reaction capabilities of samples 9
> > and 29 were no different from that of sample 32. If samples 9 and 29
> > had been exposed continually everyday for two years to 300 parts per
> > million of hydrogen cyanide, Roth testified that he would expect to see
> > the formation of the iron cyanide compounds; the so called “Prussian
> > blue” material, in detectable amounts.
>
> =====================================
> Phillips
>
> IF.
>
> My dear fellow, if the Queen had balls, she’d be King.
>
> Bugger Roth and Bugger his speculations. Experimental data is what counts and
> it is ALL that counts..
>
> =====================================================
Roth’s “speculations” are obviosuly based upon an understanding of the
dynamics of cyanide compound formation which, of course, would be based on
a knowledge of experimatal data.
> >
> > You have to look at what happens to cyanide when it reacts with a wall.
> > Where does it go? How far does it go? Cyanide is a surface reaction.
> > It’s probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns.
>
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> I quote your own paragraph from above:
>
> “If hydrogen cyanide came into contact with bricks or mortar
> containing iron, it was fully conceivable that a reaction of the iron
> and hydrogen cyanide would take place, leaving behind the Prussian
> blue. (33-9290) In porous materials such as brick and mortar, the
> Prussian blue 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. If all surface iron was
> converted to Prussian blue, the reaction would effectively stop for
> lack of exposed iron. (33 9291)”
>
> So much for your 10 microns penetration.
>
> ==========================
You don’t understand.
Cyanide can penetrate more deeply than 10 microns, but it does not
necessarily form compounds.
If the conditions for compound formation are favorable, it will form
compounds such as Prussian blue. Prussian blue functions as a sealant:
once it forms, it makes once porous material non-porous, thus stopping
further reaction.
> > </quote>
> >
> > Briefly, as I understand it:
> > 1. Leuchter collected samples by knocking off pieces of various sizes
> > from the structures of the gas chamber ruins and fumigation chambers.
> >
> > 2. Due to his lack of expertise in forensic chemistry he did not
> > understand:
> > a. that cyanide compounds would only be found on exposed wall surfaces;
>
> ======================================================
> Phillips
>
> 1) The testimony quoted above denies this.
> 2) Not only do we have no experimental data that supports this theory but, on
> the contrary, al available data denies it.
No it doesn’t. It should be quite obvious that if you have a room in which
cyanide is used, the surface of wall is going to be exposed to the gas and
the surface of the wall is going to be the place where compounds are
formed. If you chop out a hunk of wall as wide as it is deep, and do not
indicate which surface of the hunk was the exposed surface of the wall,
you are going to get noticeably different results if your subsample is
taken from the exposed surface, a side surface, or a back surface. Not
informing the lab which surface was the exposed one effectively
invalidated any possible quantitative conclusions which could have been
drawn from the analysis.
> ======================================================
> Phillips
>
> if it were true then we would have expected that the Krakow people
> (pressumably confining themselves to the surface) would have been able to show
> much higher concentration vvalues for similar chambers. They didn’t.
They did. Of course Krema II is the most important, since Krema I had
undergone substantial modification after having been used as a gas
chamber, while Kremas III to V had been totally destroyed, with only their
foundations left. Krema II is the only site remaining with gas chamber
structures – walls, ceiling, ventilaiton systems – still extant.
Source:
https://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report
<quote>
TABLE III. CONCENTRATIONS OF CYANIDE IONS IN SAMPLES TAKEN
FROM THE CREMATORIUM CHAMBERS (OR THEIR RUINS)
IN WHICH THE VICTIMS WERE GASSED.
A – Sample No;
B – Concentration of CN~ (ug/kg).
Crematorium I
————————————————————
A 17 17 18 19 20 21 22
————————————————————
B 28 76 0 0 288 0 80
28 80 0 0 292 0 80
26 80 0 0 288 0 80
————————————————————
Crematorium II
————————————————————
A 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
————————————————————
B 640 28 0 8 20 168 296
592 28 0 8 16 156 288
620 28 0 8 16 168 292
————————————————————
Crematorium III
————————————————————
A 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
————————————————————
B 68 12 12 16 12 16 56
68 8 12 12 8 16 52
68 8 8 16 8 16 56
————————————————————
Crematorium IV
————————————————————
A 39 40 41 42 43 – –
————————————————————
B 40 36 500 trace 16
44 32 496 0 12
44 36 496 0 12
————————————————————
Crematorium V
————————————————————
A 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
————————————————————
B 244 36 92 12 116 56 0
248 28 96 12 120 60 0
232 32 96 12 116 60 0
————————————————————
————————————————————
Notes:
Crematorium I at Auschwitz – building preserved but
reconstructed several times
Crematorium II-V[*] at Birkenau – ruins. ONly the ceiling of the
chamber of Crematorium[*] II is in part fairly well preserved.
<deletions>
TABLE IV. CONCENTRATIONS OF CYANIDE IONS IN SAMPLES COLLECTED
IN THE FACILITIES FOR THE FUMIGATION OF PRISONERS’
CLOTHES
————————————————————
Site Place Sample No Concentration of
CN~ in ug/kg
————————————————————
Auschwitz Block No.1 (1)
1 4,4,4
2 0
3, iron hook 0
4, piece of 0
wood from a door
Block No.3 (2)
5 0
6 900,840,880
7 0
8 16,12,16
Two series of
determinations I. 70,30,74,142,422
were made in II. 118,52,80,60,214
block No 3 in 1990
————————————————————
Birkenau Bath-house
Camp B1-A
53 (3) 24, 20, 24
53a (3) 224, 248, 228
54 (3) 36, 28, 32
55 (3) 736, 740 ,640
56 (4) 4, 0, 0
57 (5) 840, 792, 840
58 (5) 348, 324, 348
59 (6) 28, 28, 28
————————————————————
Notes:
(1) Dwelling quarters next to cobbler workshop and
disinfection chambers.
(2) Disinfection facilities
(3) Materials taken from the outer side of the building
wall
(4) Mortar taken from the outer side of the building wall
(5) Plaster taken from dark-blue stains on the inner side
of the building wall
(6) Plaster from white walls inside the building
>
> So please stop talking about your 10 microns penetration depth until you have
> experimental data to support it.
>
> ===============================
</quote>
> >
> > b. that a meaningful comparative analysis would require somehow
> > indicating which of the surfaces of the samples were from the exposed
> > interior wall;
> > c. that the conditions for cyanide compound formation and retention
> > were radically different in the fumigation chambers, which were
> > typically dry, cold, and exposed to high concentrations cyanide for
> > several hours at a time, and then protected from the elements after
> > 1944, than they were in the gas chambers, which were typically moist,
> > warm, and exposed to lower concentrations of cyanide for periods
> > lasting less than an hour, after which they were hosed down,
> > occasionally whitewashed, and, after 1944 when the buildings were
> > demolished, subjected to the elements.
>
> ==================================
> Phillips
>
> I quote:
>
> “Roth was shown Exhibit 144, a colour photograph of the blue staining on
> the wall of Delousing Facility No. 1 at Birkenau from which sample 32
> had been removed. He indicated that the blue colour was what was
> commonly referred to as “Prussian blue.” (33-9289) The chemical
> definition of Prussian blue was ferro-ferri-cyanide. (33-9297) Prussian
> blue was an iron cyanide produced by a reaction between iron and the
> hydrogen cyanide. IT WAS A VERY STABLE COMPOUND THAT
> STAYED AROUND A LONG TIME.”
>
> ========================================
True. However:
a. Although very stable, cyanide compounds are not impervious to the
effects of 45 years of exposure to the elements:
Source. ibid
<quote>
TABLE VII. RESULTS OF EXAMINATION CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF
WATER UPON THE CONCENTRATION OF CYANIDE IONS IN PLASTER
—————————————————————-
Sample Initial concentration Concentration after
flushing with water
(CN~ in ug/kg) (CN~ in ug/kg) Loss, in %
—————————————————————-
I 160 28 82.5
II 1200 112 90.7
—————————————————————-
Consequently, water elutes cyanide compounds in considerable
measure. The fact that they have survived so long in the
chamber ruins is probably due to the possible formation of
cyanide combinations in the walls of those chambers at the
time of their utilization from about mid-1943 to the last
weeks of 1944 (except for Crematorium IV, which was blown up
earlier). The significance of rainfall in the process of
elution of these combinations out of the ruin walls is
exemplified by Crematorium II in the Birkenau camp, where we
have found the highest (mean) eoncentrations of cyanide
compounds, because many fragments of the gas chamber were to
a great degree protected from precipitation.
</quote>
b. Even within the fumigation chambers the formation of visible cyanide
compounds on the various sructures was not uniform. Some areas of the
walls are stained deep blue, some show little no traces of blue staining.
Prussian blue forms only when the proper conditions are present, and even
on a surface as seemingly uniform as a wall the condiitions for its
formation evidently differed significantly.
> >
> > 3. He instructed the laboratory to “to determine total iron content and
> > total cyanide content in the samples”. He further told the laboratory
> > that the samples were relevant to a worker’s compensation case, without
> > giving more specific details.
> >
> > 4. The laboratory evidently palnned their analytical procedure on the
> > assumption that they were dealing with samples taken in a place which
> > had been accidently exposed to cyanide, a scenario one would expect in
> > a worker’s compensation case. This would probably mean that all of its
> > surfaces were exposed. They thus, arbitrarily took subsamples, not
> > understanding that only one surface of the sample could have been the
> > exposed interior wall.
>
> =======================================
> Phillips
>
> Excuses, excuses, excuses.
>
> Speculations count for nothing. Only results do. Spare me any more what-ifs
>
> =========================
These are not excuses, but legitimate analytical issues. You can’t ask me
to analyze the properties of wall(x) by giving me a block chpped out of
the wall with no indication of which surface of the block was wall(x).
> ====================
>
> >
> >
> > 5. The subsamples were then pulverized for analytical purposes, thus
> > further diluting any material from the possible wall surface with
> > material from beneath the wall.
> >
> > 6. The pulverized subsamples were subjected to qualitative and
> > quantititative analysis, and various concentrations of cyanide ions
> > were detected in some, but not all of the samples.
>
> ==================================
> Phillips
>
> Aha. Qualitative AND quantitave. NOT purely qualitative (and consequently
> worthless) as you have been insisting.
>
> ========================================
Yes. Qualitative AND quantitave analytical procedures were used. Because
of a misunderstanding as to the nature of samples, the analytical
procedure used to obtain subsamples effectively INVALIDATED the
quantitative dimension. Thus, the qualitative analysis was valid – cyanide
ions were present. The information concerning the total amount or
_quantity_ of cyanide was invalidated by the analytical procedure and thus
scientifically worthless.
> >
> > 8. There was no control taken from a place known to have been exposed
> > only once or never to cyanide, so the fact that low concentrations of
> > cyanide ions were found in the samples taken from the ruins of the gas
> > chambers could nopt be given a scientifically valid explanation.
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> Yeah, yeah ,yeah. Leuchter should have done this and Leuchter should have done
> that. I’ve told you a dozen times. If you can’t stomach his results send you
> own team there and get your own
>
> ==================================
And as I have said a dozen times:
1. From the _qualitative_ standpoint his results, however crude, are
consistent with all other forensic analyses performed at Auschwitz.
2. From the _quantitative_ standpoint his results were rendered
scientifically worthless as a consequence of both his sampling technique
and the analytical procedure used. Here it’s not a matter of “not being
able to stomach them”, it’s a matter of their not being the result of a
competently performed quantitative analysis, something obvious to any
chemically literate person who reads the report. The fact that the
quantittaive analysis was performed incompetently is a direct consequence
of the manner in which the samples were collected and the instructions
given to the lab with regard to what they were to test for.
3. The Cracow Report
(https://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report)
as well as the discussion of it in artcles such as “The Chemistry of
Auchwitz” (http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry),
“Leuchter, Rudolf, and the iron Blues
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/), and
“Chemistry is not the Science. Rudolf, Rhetoric, and Reduction”
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/)
fill in the gaps and provide the wider framework needed to interpret the
evidence.
> > I would rather not do it this way, although I welcome and will respect
> > the privacy of any personal correspondence you want to send me. This is
> > a public discussion, and even though I evidently have studied more
> > chemistry than you have, it was more than 35 years ago and is not my
> > specialty. I would be being extremely presumptuous if I did not subject
> > my understanding of Leuchter’s methodological blunders to public
> > scrutiny.
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> OK
>
> =====================
Fine.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:36 EDT 2001
Article: 951942 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Prosecute them!
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:59:02 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 381
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998909970 28077 128.214.79.7 (27 Aug 2001 10:59:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Aug 2001 10:59:30 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:951942
In article <[email protected]>, “Waldo”
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You’re right, Dep. Most of the “murdered” Lithuanian Jews probably wound up
> moving to Mother Russia, and maybe later to Israel.
Argumentation based solely on unfounded speculation (“probably…maybe”)
is worthless.
A primary Holocaust document gives a rather different account of the fate
pof Lithuanian Jewry.
Source: http://www.jewishgen.org/litvak/krakes/jagerrep.htm
<quote>
The Jager Report
<deletions>
————————————————————————–
The Commander of the security police and the SD Einsatzkommando 3
Kauen [Kaunas], 1 December 1941
————————–
|Secret Reich Business! | 5 copies
————————– 4th copy
Complete list of executions carried out in the EK 3 area
up to 1 December 1941
Security police duties in Lithuania taken over by Einsatzkommando 3 on
2 July 1941.
(The Vilna [Vilnius] area was taken over by EK 3 on 9 Aug. 1941, the
Schaulen area on 2 Oct. 1941. Up until these dates EK 9 operated in
Vilna and EK 2 in Schaulen.)
On my instructions and orders the following executions were conducted by
Lithuanian partisans:
4.7.41 Kauen-Fort VII 416 Jews, 47 Jewesses 463
6.7.41 Kauen-Fort VII Jews 2,514
Following the formation of a raiding squad under the command of
SS-Obersturmfuhrer Hamman and 8-10 reliable men from the
Einsatzkommando the following actions were conducted in cooperation
with Lithuanian partisans:
7.7.41 Mariampole Jews 32
8.7.41 Mariampole 14 Jews, 5 Comm. officials 19
8.7.41 Girkalinei Comm. officials 6
9.7.41 Wendziogala 32 Jews, 2 Jewesses, 1 Lithuanian
(f.), 2 Lithuanian Comm., 1
Russian Comm. 38
9.7.41 Kauen-Fort VII 21 Jews, 3 Jewesses 24
14.7.41 Mariampole 21 Jews, 1 Russ., 9 Lith. Comm. 31
17.7.41 Babtei 8 Comm. officials (inc. 6 Jews) 8
18.7.41 Mariampole 39 Jews, 14 Jewesses 53
19.7.41 Kauen-Fort VII 17 Jews, 2 Jewesses, 4 Lith.
Comm., 2 Comm. Lithuanians (f.),
1 German Comm. 26
21.7.41 Panevezys 59 Jews, 11 Jewesses, 1
Lithuanian (f.), 1 Pole, 22 Lith.
Comm., 9 Russ. Comm. 103
22.7.41 Panevezys 1 Jew 1
23.7.41 Kedainiai 83 Jews, 12 Jewesses, 14 Russ.
Comm., 15 Lith. Comm., 1 Russ.
O-Politruk 125
25.7.41 Mariampole 90 Jews, 13 Jewesses 103
28.7.41 Panevezys 234 Jews, 15 Jewesses, 19 Russ.
Comm., 20 Lith. Comm. 288
Total carried forward 3,384
————————————————————————
Sheet 2
Total carried over 3,384
29.7.41 Rasainiai 254 Jews, 3 Lith. Comm. 257
30.7.41 Agriogala 27 Jews, 11 Lith. Comm. 38
31.7.41 Utena 235 Jews, 16 Jewesses, 4 Lith.
Comm., 1 robber/murderer 256
31.7.41 Wendziogala 13 Jews, 2 murderers 15
1.8.41 Ukmerge 254 Jews, 42 Jewesses, 1 Pol.
Comm., 2 Lith. NKVD agents, 1
mayor of Jonava who gave order
to set fire to Jonava 300
2.8.41 Kauen-Fort IV 170 Jews, 1 US Jewess, 33 Jewesses,
4 Lith. Comm. 209
4.8.41 Panevezys 362 Jews, 41 Jewesses, 5 Russ. Comm.,
14 Lith. Comm. 422
5.8.41 Rasainiai 213 Jews, 66 Jewesses 279
7.8.41 Uteba 483 Jews, 87 Jewesses, 1 Lithuanian
(robber of corpses of German soldiers)571
8.8.41 Ukmerge 620 Jews, 82 Jewesses 702
9.8.41 Kauen-Fort IV 484 Jews, 50 Jewesses 534
11.8.41 Panevezys 450 Jews, 48 Jewesses, 1 Lith. 1 Russ.500
13.8.41 Alytus 617 Jews, 100 Jewesses, 1 criminal 719
14.8.41 Jonava 497 Jews, 55 Jewesses 552
15-16.8.41 Rokiskis 3,200 Jews, Jewesses, and J. Children,
5 Lith. Comm., 1 Pole, 1 partisan 3207
9-16.8.41 Rassainiai 294 Jewesses, 4 Jewish children 298
27.6-14.8.41 Rokiskis 493 Jews, 432 Russians, 56 Lithuanians
(all active communists) 981
18.8.41 Kauen-Fort IV 689 Jews, 402 Jewesses, 1 Pole (f.),
711 Jewish intellectuals from Ghetto
in reprisal for sabotage action 1,812
19.8.41 Ukmerge 298 Jews, 255 Jewesses, 1 Politruk,
88 Jewish children, 1 Russ. Comm. 645
22.8.41 Dunaburg 3 Russ. Comm., 5 Latvian, incl. 1
murderer, 1 Russ. Guardsman, 3 Poles,
3 gypsies (m.), 1 gypsy (f.), 1 gypsy
child, 1 Jew, 1 Jewess, 1 Armenian
(m.), 2 Politruks (prison inspection
in Dunanburg 21
Total carried forward 16,152
—————————————————————————
Sheet 3
Total carried forward 16,152
22.8.41 Aglona Mentally sick: 269 men, 227 women,
48 children 544
23.8.41 Panevezys 1,312 Jews, 4,602 Jewesses, 1,609
Jewish children 7,523
18-22.8.41 Kreis Rasainiai 466 Jews, 440 Jewesses, 1,020
Jewish children 1,926
25.8.41 Obeliai 112 Jews, 627 Jewesses, 421
Jewish children 1,160
25-26.8.41 Seduva 230 Jews, 275 Jewesses, 159
Jewish children 664
26.8.41 Zarasai 767 Jews, 1,113 Jewesses, 1 Lith.
Comm., 687 Jewish children, 1 Russ.
Comm. (f.) 2,569
28.8.41 Pasvalys 402 Jews, 738 Jewesses, 209
Jewish children 1,349
26.8.41 Kaisiadorys All Jews, Jewesses, and Jewish
children 1,911
27.8.41 Prienai All Jews, Jewesses, and Jewish
Children 1,078
27.8.41 Dagda and 212 Jews, 4 Russ. POW’s 216
Kraslawa
27.8.41 Joniskia 47 Jews, 165 Jewesses, 143
Jewish children 355
28.8.41 Wilkia 76 Jews, 192 Jewesses, 134
Jewish children 402
28.8.41 Kedainiai 710 Jews, 767 Jewesses, 599
Jewish children 2,076
29.8.41 Rumsiskis and 20 Jews, 567 Jewesses, 197
Ziezmariai Jewish children 784
29.8.41 Utena and 582 Jews, 1,731 Jewesses, 1,469
Moletai Jewish children 3,782
13-31.8.41 Alytus and
environs 233 Jews 233
1.9.41 Mariampole 1,763 Jews, 1,812 Jewesses, 1,404
Jewish children, 109 mentally sick,
1 German subject (f.), married to a
Jew, 1 Russian (f.) 5090
Total carried over 47,814
—————————————————————————
Sheet 4
Total carried over 47,814
28.8-2.9.41 Darsuniskis 10 Jews, 69 Jewesses, 20
Jewish children 99
Carliava 73 Jews, 113 Jewesses, 61
Jewish children 247
Jonava 112 Jews, 1,200 Jewesses, 244
Jewish children 1,556
Petrasiunai 30 Jews, 72 Jewesses, 23
Jewish children 125
Jesuas 26 Jews, 72 Jewesses, 46
Jewish children 144
Ariogala 207 Jews, 260 Jewesses, 195
Jewish children 662
Jasvainai 86 Jews, 110 Jewesses, 86
Jewish children 282
Babtei 20 Jews, 41 Jewesses, 22
Jewish children 83
Wenziogala 42 Jews, 113 Jewesses, 97
Jewish children 252
Krakes 448 Jews, 476 Jewesses, 97
Jewish children 1,125
4.9.41 Pravenischkis 247 Jews, 6 Jewesses 253
Cekiske 22 Jews, 64 Jewesses, 60
Jewish children 146
Seredsius 6 Jews, 61 Jewesses, 126
Jewish children 193
Velinona 2 Jews, 71 Jewesses, 86
Jewish children 159
Zapiskis 47 Jews, 118 Jewesses, 13
Jewish children 178
5.9.41 Ukmerge 1,123 Jews, 1,849 Jewesses, 1,737
Jewish children 4,709
25.8-6.9.41 Mopping up in: 16 Jews, 412 Jewesses, 415
Rasainiai Jewish children 843
Georgenburg all Jews, all Jewesses, all
Jewish children 412
9.9.41 Alytus 287 Jews, 640 Jewesses, 352
Jewish children 1,279
9.9.41 Butrimonys 67 Jews, 370 Jewesses, 303
Jewish children 740
10.9.41 Merkine 223 Jews, 640 Jewesses, 276
Jewish children 854
10.9.41 Varena 541 Jews, 141 Jewesses, 149
Jewish children 831
11.9.41 Leipalingis 60 Jews, 70 Jewesses, 25
Jewish children 155
11.9.41 Seirijai 229 Jews, 384 Jewesses, 340
Jewish children 953
12.9.41 Simnas 68 Jews, 197 Jewesses, 149
Jewish children 414
11-12.9.41 Uzusalis Reprisal against inhabitants who
fed Russ. partisans; some in
possession of weapons 43
26.9.41 Kauen-F.IV 412 Jews, 615 Jewesses, 581
Jewish children (sick and
suspected epidemic cases) 1,608
Total carries over 66,159
————————————————————————
Sheet 5
Total carried over 66,159
2.10.41 Zagare 633 Jews, 1,107 Jewesses, 496
Jewish children (as these Jews were
being led away a mutiny rose, which
was however immediately put down;
150 Jews were shot immediately; 7
partisans wounded) 2,236
4.10.41 Kauen-F.IX 315 Jews, 712 Jewesses, 818
Jewish children (reprisal after
German police officer shot in ghetto) 1,845
29.10.41 Kauen-F.IX 2,007 Jews, 2,920 Jewesses, 4,273
Jewish children (mopping up ghetto
of superfluous Jews) 9,200
3.11.41 Lazdijai 485 Jews, 511 Jewesses, 539
Jewish children 1,535
15.11.41 Wilkowiski 36 Jews, 48 Jewesses, 31
Jewish children 115
25.11.41 Kauen-F.IX 1,159 Jews, 1,600 Jewesses, 175
Jewish children (resettlers from
Berlin, Munich and Frankfurt am main) 2,934
29.11.41 Kauen-F.IX 693 Jews, 1,155 Jewesses, 152
Jewish children (resettlers from
from Vienna and Breslau) 2,000
29.11.41 Kauen-F.IX 17 Jews, 1 Jewess, for contravention
of ghetto law, 1 Reichs German who
converted to the Jewish faith and
attended rabbinical school, then 15
terrorists from the Kalinin group 34
EK 3 detachment in Dunanberg
in the period 13.7-21.8.41: 9,012 Jews, Jewesses and Jewish
children, 573 active Comm. 9,585
EK 3 detachment in Vilna:
12.8-1.9.41 City of Vilna 425 Jews, 19 Jewesses, 8 Comm. (m.),
9 Comm. (f.) 461
2.9.41 City of Vilna 864 Jews, 2,019 Jewesses, 817
Jewish children (sonderaktion because
German soldiers shot at by Jews) 3,700
Total carried forward 99,084
————————————————————————-
sheet 6
Total carried forward 99,804
12.9.41 City of Vilna 993 Jews, 1,670 Jewesses, 771
Jewish children 3,334
17.9.41 City of Vilna 337 Jews, 687 Jewesses, 247
Jewish children and 4 Lith. Comm. 1,271
20.9.41 Nemencing 128 Jews, 176 Jewesses, 99
Jewish children 403
22.9.41 Novo-Wilejka 468 Jews, 495 Jewesses, 196
Jewish children 1,159
24.9.41 Riesa 512 Jews, 744 Jewesses, 511
Jewish children 1,767
25.9.41 Jahiunai 215 Jews, 229 Jewesses, 131
Jewish children 575
27.9.41 Eysisky 989 Jews, 1,636 Jewesses, 821
Jewish children 3,446
30.9.41 Trakai 366 Jews, 483 Jewesses, 597
Jewish children 1,446
4.10.41 City of Vilna 432 Jews, 1,115 Jewesses, 436
Jewish children 1,983
6.10.41 Semiliski 213 Jews, 359 Jewesses, 390
Jewish children 962
9.10.41 Svenciany 1,169 Jews, 1,840 Jewesses, 717
Jewish children 3,726
16.10.41 City of Vilna 382 Jews, 507 Jewesses, 257
Jewish children 1,146
21.10.41 City of Vilna 718 Jews, 1,063 Jewesses, 586
Jewish children 2,367
25.10.41 City of Vilna 1,776 Jewesses, 812 Jewish children 2,578
27.10.41 City of Vilna 946 Jews, 184 Jewesses, 73
Jewish children 1,203
30.10.41 City of Vilna 382 Jews, 789 Jewesses, 362
Jewish children 1,553
6.11.41 City of Vilna 340 Jews, 749 Jewesses, 252
Jewish children 1,341
19.11.41 City of Vilna 76 Jews, 77 Jewesses, 18
Jewish children 171
19.11.41 City of Vilna 6 POW’s, 8 Poles 14
20.11.41 City of Vilna 3 POW’s 3
25.11.41 City of Vilna 9 Jews, 46 Jewesses, 8 Jewish
children, 1 Pole for possession of arms
and other military equipment 64
EK 3 detachment in Minsk from
28.9-17.10.41:
Pleschnitza 620 Jews, 1,285 Jewesses,
Bischolin 1,126 Jewish children and 19
Scak Comm.
Bober
Uzda 3,050
——–
133,346
Prior to EK 3 taking over security police duties, Jews liquidated
by pogroms and executions (including partisans) 4,000
———–
Total 137,346
————————————————————————–
Today I can confirm that our objective, to solve the Jewish problem for
Lithuania, has been achieved by EK 3. In Lithuania there are no more
Jews, apart from Jewish workers and their families.
…..
The distance between from the assembly point to the graves was on average
4 to 5 Km.
…..
I consider the Jewish action more or less terminated as far as
Einsatzkommando 3 is concerned. Those working Jews and Jewesses still
available are needed urgently and I can envisage that after the winter
this work force will be required even more urgently. I am of the view
that the sterilization program of the male worker Jews should be
started immediately so that reproduction is prevented. If despite
sterilization a Jewess becomes pregnant she will be liquidated.
(signed) Jager
SS-Standartenfuhrer
————————————————————————
1 Excerpted from Klee, Ernst, Dessen, Willi, and Volker Riess, eds. The
Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders. (Forward by Hugh
Trevor-Roper) The Free Press, A division of Macmillan, Inc. 1988. ISBN
0-02-917425-2 pp. 46-58
© Virtual Jerusalem, Ltd., 1995-1996. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Send questions
and comments to [email protected]
————————————————————————
<quote>
On the fate of Lithuania’s Jews see also:
a. “The Holocaust in Lithuania”
http://www.angelfire.com/ut/Luthuanian/indexn1c.html
b. “The German occuptaion of Lithuania 1941-44”
http://www.heritagefilms.com/LITHUANIA.html#German%20Occupation,%201941-44
c. The maps giving more detailed information on the massacres of
Lithuanian Jews by the Einsatzgruppen in 1941 at
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/albums/malbum/m04/a0215m2.html.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:36 EDT 2001
Article: 951961 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!news.cc.tut.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman – Leuchter vindicated
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:12:11 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 351
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998917960 5265 128.214.79.7 (27 Aug 2001 13:12:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Aug 2001 13:12:40 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:951961
In article <3B886F[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
<[email protected]> posted an article, “The Leuchter Report Vindicated:
A Response to J.-C. Pressac’s Critique “,by Paul Grubach
(http://codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html), which came to the following
conclusion:
<quote>
<massive deletions>
Conclusion
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. As already
noted, 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.
chambers.
<deletions>
</quote>
1. Pressac’s attack on Leuchter, although exuberant, certainly calls
justified attention to its methodological weaknesses and untenable
assumptions. These should be obvious to anyone who has studied analytical
chemistry or has given any thought to what is necessary and sufficient to
gas people in an enclosed structure.
2. The methodological weaknesses begin with the faulty sampling technique
and continue on to the imprecise instructions given to the laboratory. The
false assumptions include the inexcusable error of thinking that it takes
far more cyanide to kill people than it does to kill vermin, that the
conditions for cyanide compound formation and subsequent retention in the
fumigation chambers and gas chambers would have been identical and thus
directly comparable, that the Nazi gas chambers would have been
functionally and structurally similar to American hi-tech gas chambers,
and, most incredibly, that the Nazis would have executed concentration
camp inmates according to the norms in force for executions by gassing in
the United
States during the mid 1980s.
3. The study by Poland’s leading forensic institute has given weak
corroboration to Leuchter’s findings, as well as searing criticism of the
inappropriateness of his methodology:
a. Leuchter’s findings
Source:
https://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report
<quote>
Leuchter tried to confirm his conclusions with the help of
chemical analysis. For this purpose he took samples of
material fragments from the chamber ruins to subject them to
an analysis for hydrogen cyanide, the essential component of
Zyklon B, used – acc. to the testimony of witnesses – to gas
the victims. He took 30 samples altogether from all the five
structures used formerly as gas chambers. At laboratory
analyses performed in the USA the presence of cyanide ions
at concentrations of 1.1 to 7.9 mg/kg of material examined
was found in 14 samples. He also took one sample from the
delousing building at Birkenau, which he treated as a
“control sample”, and in which cyanides were found to be
present at a concentration of 1060 mg kg of material. The
positive results of the analyses of samples from the former
gas chambers are explained by Leuchter by the fact that all
the camp facilities were subjected to a fumigation with
hydrogen cyanide in connection with a typhoid epidemic which
really broke out in the camp in 1942.
</quote>
<quote>
In his reasoning Leuchter (2) claims that the vestigial
amounts of cyanide combinations detected by him in the
materials from the chamber ruins are residues left after
fumigations carried out in the Camp “once, long ago”(Item
14.004 of the Report). This is refuted by the negative
results of the examination of the control samples from
living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a
single gassing, and the fact that in the period of
fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic
in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau
Camp. The first crematorium (Crematorium II) was put to use
as late as 15 March 1943 and the others several months
later.
</quote>
The above is a _damaging_ critique of his findings: Leuchter attributes
the presence of significant amounts of cyanide to a non-existent gassing
that would have taken place a year before the structure in question was put
into use. His unwarranted conjecture is not supported by analysis of a
sample from a place known to have been exposed to cyanide only once, in
addition to which it demonstrates an aversion to using available
historical sources, even in passing, to construct an explanatory model.
b. Leuchter’s methods
This lengthy excerpt from the Krakow Report makes it clear to anyone
familiar with the Leuchter Report that a much more sophisticated
methodology was used by the Krakow team. This methodoogy included:
– using information on the architectural history of the camp to determine
where samples should be taken;
– taking samples by only by scraping the surfaces of the walls;
– allowing for the fact that the conditions for cyanide compound formation
in the gas chambers were fundamentally different from those in the
fumigation chambers, and doing experiments to assess the degree to which
these different conditions have to be taken into consideration when
comparing the two different environments;
– investigating the affects of CO2 (in the exhaled breath of the gassing
victims) and of H2O (used to wash down the gas chambers after every
gassing and, after the demolition of the gas chambers in late 1944, part
of the environemnt with which the gas chamber ruins interacted) on cyanide
compound formation and retention, and doing experiments to the assess
degree to which these different conditions have to be taken into
consideration when comparing the two different environments.
Source: ibid
<quote>
In consequence, we decided to start considerably more
extensive and conscientiously planned reaserches. To carry
them out, the Management of the Auschwitz Museum appointed
their competent workers, Dr F. Piper (custodian) and Mr W.
Smrek (engineer) to join the commission, in which they co-
worked with the authors of the present paper, representing
the Institute of Forensic Research. Under this collaboration
the Museum workers were providing us on the spot with
exhaustive information concerning the facilities to be
examined and – as regards the ruins – a detailed topography
of the gas chambers we were concerned with. And so they made
it possible for us to take proper samples for analysis. We
tried to take samples – if at all possible – from the places
best sheltered and least exposed to rainfall, includingalso
as far as possible – fragments of the upper parts of the
chambers (hydrogen cyanide is lighter than air) and also of
the concrete floors, with which the gas from the spilled
Zyklon B came into contract at rather high concentrations.
Samples, about 1-2 g in weight, were taken by chipping
pieces from bricks and concrete or scrapping off,
particularly in the case of plaster and also mortar. The
materials taken were secured in plastic containers marked
with serial numbers. All these activities were recorded and
documented with photographs. Work connected with them took
the commission two days. The laboratory analysis of the
material collected was conducted – to ensure full
objectivity – by another group of Institute workers. They
started with preliminary work: samples were comminuted by
grinding them by hand in an agate mortar, their pH was
determined at 6 to 7 in nearly all samples. Next the samples
were subjected to preliminary spectrophotometric analysis in
infrared region, using a Digilab FTS-16 spectrophotometer.
It was found that the bands of cyanide groups occurred in
the region of 2000-2200 cm-1 in the spectra of a dozen
samples or so. However, the method did not prove to be
sensitive enough and was given up in quantitative
determinations. It was determined, using the
spectrographical method, that the main elements which made
up the samples were: calcium, silicon, magnesium, aluminium
and iron. Moreover, titanium was found present in many
samples. From among other metals in some samples there were
also barium, zinc, sodium, manganese and from non-metals
boron.
The undertaking of chemical analysis had to be preceded by
careful consideration. The revisionists focussed their
attention almost exclusively on Prussian blue, which is of
intense dark-blue colour and characterized by exceptional
fastness. This dye occurs, especially in the form of stains,
on the outer bricks of the walls of the former bathdelousing
house in the area of the Birkenau camp. It is hard to
imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes
that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in
that place. Brick, unlike other building materials, very
feebly absorbs hydrogen cyanide, it sometimes does not even
absorb it at all. Besides, iron occurring in it is at the
third oxidation state, whereas bivalent iron ions are
indispensable for the formation of the [Fe(Cn)6]-4 ion,
which is the precursor of Prussian blue. This ion is,
besides, sensitive to the sunlight.
J. Bailer (1) writes in the collective work “Amoklauf gegen
die Wirklichkeit” that the formation of Prussian blue in
bricks is simply improbable; however, he takes into
consideration the possibility that the walls of the
delousing room were coated with this dye as a paint. It
should be added that this blue coloration does not appear on
the walls of all the delousing rooms.
We decided therefore to determine the cyanide ions using a
method that does not induce the breakdown of the composed
ferrum cyanide complex (this is the blue under discussion)
and which fact we had tested before on an appropriate
standard sample. To isolate cyanide compounds from the
materials examined in the form of hydrogen cyanide we used
the techniques of microdiffusion in special Conway-type
chambers. The sample under examination was placed in the
internal part of the chamber and next acidified with 10%
sulfuric acid solution and allowed to remain at room
temperature (about 20oC) for 24 hrs. The separated hydrogen
cyanide underwent a quantitative absorption by the lye
solution present in the outer part of the chamber. When the
diffusion was brought to an end, a sample of lye solution
was taken and-the pyridine-pyrazolone reaction carried out
by Epstein’s method (3). The intensity of the polymethene
dye obtained was measured spectrophotometrically at a
wavelength equal to 630 nm. The calibration curve was
constructed previously and standards with a known CN-
content were introduced into each series of determinations
to check the curve and the course of determination. Each
sample of materials examined was analysed three times. If
the result obtained was positive, it was verified by
repeating the analysis. Having applied this method for many
years, we have opportunities to find its high sensitivity,
specificity and precision. Under present circumstances we
established the lower limit of determinability of cyanide
ions at a level of 3-4 ,ug CN- in 1 kg of the sample.
The results of analyses are presented in Tables I-IV. They
unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all
the facilities that, according to the source data, were in
contact with them. On the other hand, they do not occur in
dwelling accomodations, which was shown by means of control
samples. The concentrations of cyanide compounds in the
samples collected from one and the same room or building
show great differences. This indicates that the conditions
that favour the formation of stable compounds as a result of
the reaction of hydrogen cyanide with the components of the
walls, occur locally. In this connection it takes quite a
large number of samples from a given facility to give us a
chance to come upon this sort of local accumulation of
cyanide compounds.
To complete this research on the cyanide compound content in
various camp facilities, we decided to carry out several
pilotage experiments. The renovation of the Institute
building, just in progress, provided us with materials for
this investigation. We divided particular constituents of
these materials (bricks, cement, mortar and plaster) into
several 3-4 gram pieces and placed them to glass chambers,
in which we generated hydrogen cyanide by reacting potassium
cyanide and sulphuric acid. We used high concentrations of
this gas (about 2%) and wetted some of the samples with
water. Fumigation took 48 hours at a temperature of about
20oC (Table V). Another series of samples were treated with
hydrogen cyanide as well, but now in the presence of carbon
dioxide. According to calculations, in the chambers in which
people had been gassed the carbon dioxide content produced
in the breathing process of the victims was rather high and
in relation to hydrogen cyanide may have been even as high
as 10:1. In our experiment we applied these two gases (CO2
and HCN) in the 5:1 ratio. Having been subjected to gassing,
the samples were aired in the open air at a temperature of
about 10-15oC. The first analysis was conducted 48 hours
after the beginning of airing.
</quote>
The only scientific value of the Leuchter Report is that it comes to the
same conclusion all other forensic reports of the Auschwitz gas chambers
have come to: the structures of the former gas chmabers were repeatedly
exposed to lethal concentrations of cyanide between the time they were
taken into use and the time they were demolished for enough cyanide
compounds to have been formed to be detectable decades after their last
use. This is not a vindication of Leuchter’s results or of the flawed
methods he used to obtain them. Rather, it is a demonstration of the
undeniable factuality of the repeated use of lethal concentrations of
cyanide in the structures studied, despite Leuchter’s faulty sampling
technique and the botched quantitative analysis to which the sampels were
subjected. This is something that Leuchter himself admits without
realizing it, since he attributes the presence of cyanide in structures
which he claims could not have contained lethal concentrations of cyanide
to a fumigation using lethal concentrations of cyanide during the mid-1942
typhus epidemic.
Source: “The Leuchter Report vindicated: A response to J.-C.
Pressac’s critique” by Paul Grubach (http://codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html)
<quote>
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
</quote>
The Leuchter report found concentrations of cyanide compounds in the ruins
of the gas chambers at Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau which varied from
approx. 1/100th to 1/1000th of the concentrations found in the ruins of
the fumigation chambers:
Source:
https://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report
<quote>
At laboratory analyses performed in the USA the presence of cyanide ions
at concentrations of 1.1 to 7.9 mg/kg of material examined was found in
14 samples. He also took one sample from the delousing building at
Birkenau, which he treated as a “control sample”, and in which
cyanides were found to be present at a concentration of 1060 mg kg of
material.
</quote>
The sampling technique and the analytical procedure were both flawed in
that they involved dilution of the material to be investigated by large
and indeterminate amounts, thus invalidating any quantitative results.
Leuchter also worked on the untenable assumption that the conditions for
cyanide compound formation and retention were identical in the two
environments, thus ignoring such crucial factors as the different
concentrations of cyanide used, the different lengths of time to which the
walls were exposed to cyanide, role of water, of carbon dioxide, and of
more than four decades of exposure to the elements. A raw comparison of
the two environments does not thus prove anything, even if Leuchter’s
sampling and analytical procedures would have been above reproach.
Even though the difference between the readings obtained by Leuchter
differ by a factor ranging from two to three orders of magnitude, the much
lower figures for the gas chamber ruins require an explanation of more
weight than Leuchter’s speculation, which is easily shown to be false
using both historical and analytical evidence, that they derive from a
single fumigation during the mid-1942 typhus epidemic. More importantly,
Leuchter’s analysis is focused primarily on what is left of one former gas
chamber, Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkenau. There is absolutely no grounds
for concluding, as the Denier community does, that the presence of cyanide
compounds in concentrations of only 1.1 to 7.9 mg/kg of material examined
>from structures other evidence indactes once served as gas chambers would
somehow serve to invalidate all of the other evidence, forensic,
architectural, documentary, and testimonial, that Krema II, other
structures used at Auschwitz-Birkenau and Auschwitz-Stammlager, as well as
reports and other data on gas chambers at the following concentration
camps, extermination centers, and euthanasia centers: Belzec, Brandenburg,
Chelmno, Dachau, Hadamar, Majdanerk, Mauthausen, Neuengamme, Ravensbrück,
Sachsenhausen, Sobibor, Sonnenstein, Struthof-Natzweiler, Stutthof, and
Treblinka.
Even Leuchter himself does not take the cyanide readings seriously. He
claims that 60% of his opinion that the structures at Auschwitz-Birkenau
could not have served as gas chambers is based upon his knowledge of the
structure and funcitoning of American execution gas chambers. On the other
hand, he has no difficulty with the idea that the structures whose ruins
he examined could have contained the high concentrations of cyanide over
the long period of time necessary for a fumigation, even though their
ability to be fumigted necessarily implies their ability to contain the
lower concentrations of poison gas over the
the much shorter timespans needed to kill people.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:36 EDT 2001
Article: 952060 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!lon1-news.nildram.net!195.8.68.195.MISMATCH!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newspeer.highwayone.net!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Well, *did* Irving pay up?
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:41:58 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <270820012241582018%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <9mc3c0$1b21o[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 998941348 24153 128.214.77.45 (27 Aug 2001 19:42:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Aug 2001 19:42:28 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:952060
In article <[email protected]>, Ken McVay <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Joel Rosenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> […]
>
> >But for David Irving to lie is, as the trial demonstrated, not exactly rare,
> >eh?
>
> “on checking [Irving’s] references … I eventually managed to
> establish that … not a single reference could be found in either of
> the books to back up Irving’s claim that Jews dominated the crime
> scene in the 1920s.” (Richard Evans, “Lying About Hitler,” New York:
> Basic Books, 2001. p. 50)
>
> “The official German Criminal Statistics for the year 1932 recorded a
> total of 74 persons, Jewish and non-Jewish, convicted of insurance
> fraud … in the whole of Germany — a far cry from Irving’s claim
> that the 31,000 fraud cases mostly involving insurance swindles had
> been committed by Jews.” (Ibid., 52)
>
> “So far, therefore, I had discovered that Irving’s treatment of the
> documents was highly misleading, to say the least. I had also
> uncovered evidence that he falsified statistics in his version of
> Daluege’s crime figures.” (Ibid.)
>
> Duh….
Yes. Irving, who never had the staying power to complete a university
degree, does not seem to understand that academic hiastorians, unlike
mosty of the general public, are pedantic enough to actually check out
footnotes and references.
I am currently reading Richard Evans’s, _Lying About Hitler_. It should
be required reading for anyone who still maintains that David Irving
has any credibility as an historian or honest scholar.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:37 EDT 2001
Article: 953157 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Phillips to Holman on Leuchter’s instructions
Supersedes: <280820011343004130%[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:29:14 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 276
Message-ID: <280820012029147327%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eng-0047.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 999019784 8961 128.214.199.213 (28 Aug 2001 17:29:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Aug 2001 17:29:44 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:953157
In article <[email protected]>, Richard Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > Yes and no. Leuchter’s instructions were imprecise, and the lab evidently
> > thought that they were given samples
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> The lab was not being paid to “think.” If there was in their minds any
> uncertainty about what had
> been handed them or what they were supposed to do with it, it was their job
> to find out. Leuchter
> never DIRECTED them to crush the samples.
>
> ===============================================
Of course ithe lab was paid to “think”, and it crushed the thumb-sized
to nearly fist-sized samples to obtain more manageable subsamples
because that is standard analytical procedure when you are dealing with
homogeneous samples, which is what Leuchter, intentionally or
inadvertently, had had them assume he had provided them with.
It all boils down to a communications problem.
Leuchter, chemically illiterate, gave them samples, which he said were
related to a workman’s compensation case, and asked, not in so many
words, for a quantitative analysis.
The laboratory, evidently thinking that Leuchter was more competent in
chemistry than he was, worked on the assumption that the samples were
homogeneous, as they should be when doing a quantitative analysis. A
possible scenario for a workman’s compensation case might have been
structures made from cement that had been contaminated with minute
amounts of cyanide, in which case the samples could be regarded as
sufficiently homogenous to justify taking random subsamples.
This assumption that Leuchter’s samples were homogeneous was the basis
for the destructive analytical procedure followed by the lab. Taking
deep samples from random surfaces of the sample and crushing them,
rather than concentrating only on scraping samples off of the outermost
surface of the side of the sample that had been the exposed wall,
destroyed the prerequisites for a valid quantitative analysis. Even if
the proper procedures for quantitative analysis were followed by the
laboratory, the only validity the results have is their qualitative
dimension. The lab had no way of knowing which surface of the sample
was the exposed wall, nor did it have any control over the degree to
which material from the possible exposed surface was polluted by
material from deeper inside the wall or from other surfaces.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> Quantitative, not qualitative — correct? I’d say that disposes forever your
> earlier claim that
> Leuchter’s results were oobtained by QUALITATIVE analysin and, on that
> account, worthless.
>
> =================================================
They indeed _performed_ a quantitative analysis, but on samples that
were so diluted that only the _qualitative dimension_ of their results
has any scientific validity. A quantitative analysis always has a
qualitative dimension: you can’t test for the amount of something
without ascertaining its presence. Thus my claim stands:
Leuchter presented the results of a botched quantitative analysis, only
the qualitative dimension of which had any scientific validity, as
those of a legitimate quantitative analysis, which it was not.
> > I didn’t say that the results of the qualitative analysis are worthless. I
> > said that they are worthless if offered as the results of a quantitative
> > analysis, no matter how “consistent” they seem to be.
> >
> > From a qualitative standpoint Leuchter’s results indicate that the walls
> > of both the fumigation chambers and the former gas chambers were exposed
> > to enough cyanide for compounds to have been produced which are still
> > detectable half a century later. Thus, far from providing evidence
> > _against_ the possibility of gassing, the results support it.
>
> ==========================================
> PPhillips
>
> Wrong. Leuchter’s whole point is that if the allleged gas chamber had in
> fact been what it is
> claimed to have been, the detected concentratios would have been far higher.
> In this he is sactually
> supported by Roth:
>
> “If samples 9 and 29 had been exposed continually
> everyday for two years to 300 parts per million of
> hydrogen cyanide, Roth testified that he would expect to
> see the formation of the iron cyanide compounds; the so
> called “Prussian blue” material, in detectable amounts.”
>
> =================================
This is a canard.
Nobody has ever claimed that the Auschwitz gas chambers were exposed
continually every day for two years to 300 ppm of hydrogen cyanide.
Hoess testified at Nuremberg and wrote in his memoirs that the
destruction of European Jews proceeded on a country-by-country basis,
with each “action” bringing in a few trainloads of Jews a week. Not
until the spring of 1944, when the action against Hungarian Jewry was
begun, were the gas chambers used at anything near full capacity, and
this lasted until early November, 1944, a total of not more than eight
months.
Roth’s speculations do not take some additional considerations into
account:
1. The gas chambers were hosed down at least twice in conjunction with
each gassing (cf. Tauber’s testimony).
2. The gas chambers were occasionally whitewashed after they had been
hosed down (cf. Tauber’s testimony).
3. The formation of cyanide compound in the gas chamber, but not in the
fumigation chambers, was inhibited by the presence of high
concentrations of CO2 (cf. Cracow Report).
4. Not even in the fumigation chambers is Prussian blue evenly
distributed on the walls. In some places there is deep staining, in
others, none at all (cf. Cracow Report).
5. Four and a half decades exposure to the elements would have a
negative affect on the retention of some cyanide compounds (cf. Cracow
Report).
Thus:
1. The presence and concentration of Prussian blue does not directly
correlate with exposure to cyanide. The conditions under which it is
formed or does not form are not fully understood.
2. The gas chamber and fumigation chamber environemnts were not
analogous with respect to the formation of Prussian blue.
3. The different post-1944 architectural histories of the gas chambers
as opposed to the fumigation chambers further qualify the degree to
which the concentrations of cyanide compounds found in the two
structures can be directly compared.
>
> =======================================
> Phillips
>
> On the basis of Leuchter’s numbers alone, we do not have a conclusive proof
> that they were not
> execution chambers, although the implication si very strong. It is when he
> COMBINES his numbers with
> the facts that there were none of the sealing and venting that a gas chamber
> would HAVE to have that
> hisd cae becoesd very very strong.
>
> ==========================================
No. Leuchter’s case becomes so weak that demonstrates itself to be a
scientific travesty and a logical absurdity.
1. Leuchter did not examine gas chambers, but ruins or foundations of
gas chambers. Many of his conclusions about sealing and venting are the
products of speculation, not of empirical study of the ruins, the
archtectural plans, or other documents shedding light on the history of
the camp that are readily available.
2. Leuchter was working on the unfounded and unjustified assumption
that Nazi gas chambers would be analogous to American hi-tech execution
gas chambers. Thus his negative conclusions are partially based on the
totally irrelevant considerations that he does not find traces of such
overkill-oriented bells-and-whistles as ocean-proof glass, or evidence
that contemporary American criminological norms specifying nine square
feet per gas chamber victim could have been met in the Nazi-built
structures.
3. Leuchter attributes the presence of detectable cyanide compounds in
the gas chamber ruins of Krema II to a single fumigation against typhus
“once, long ago”. This can easly be proven incorrect by reference to
the history of the camp: the typus epidemic was in mid-1942, while the
construction of Krema II was not begun until early 1943, with the first
gassing having occurred on March 15, 1943. More importantly, if, as
Leuchter contends, the structure could contain the high concentrations
of cyanide over the long timeframes necessary for disinfection, then it
was necessarily capable of containing the far lower concentrations of
cyanide over the shorter timeframes needed for killing people. This is
the one logical problem in the Leuchter report that you cannot get
around: if a structure could handle a fumigation, it could handle a
gassing.
4. Even if it could be demonstrated, against all testimonial,
architectural, and forensic evidence (including Leuchter’s) that the
structure in Krema II was _not_ a gas chamber, that does not justify
the leap in logic that there were no Nazi gas chambers at all. One
still has to deal with the evidence that there were functioning
mass-execution gas chambers at Auschwitz-Stammlager, Belzec,
Brandenburg, Chelmno, Dachau, Hadamar, Hartheim Castle, Majdanek,
Mauthausen, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen,
Sobibor, Stutthoff, and Treblinka.
Leuchter’s Report is the scientific equivalent of a Swiss cheese: it’s
full of holes.
> > The Cracow report used as controls places known never to have been exposed
> > to cyanide, as well as a place known to have been the exposed to cyanide
> > once during an early experimental gassing of Soviet POWs and another known
> > to have been exposed to cyanide once during the 1942 typhus epidemic. The
> > place that was never exposed and the place exposed during the 1942 typhus
> > epidemic gave a zero reading, while the samples taken from the place
> > exposed once during the experimental gassing of Soviet POWs showed either
> > zero or barely detectable readings. The samples from the gas chambers
> > regularly indicated concentrations of cyanide below those taken from the
> > fumigation chambers, but both yielded reading much higher than the ones
> > taken from places never exposed or exposed only once to cyanide.
>
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> MUCH higher – by a difference so small it had to be denominated in
> MICROgrammes/kg rather than
> milligrammes. I give you this much and no more. It raises a question thath
> wil need more
> experiments to resolve.
>
> ======================================
Much higher by _two degrees of magnitude_. The highest reading for a
gas chamber sample was between 592 and 640 ug/kg (sample 25 from Krema
II), while the highest reading for a fumigation chamber sample was
between 840 and 900 ug/kg (sample 5 from block 3). Figures like these
do not raise any questions at all: the samples show traces of cyanide
compounds far above those found in places exposed to cyanide only once.
> > They did. Of course Krema II is the most important, since Krema I had
> > undergone substantial modification after having been used as a gas
> > chamber, while Kremas III to V had been totally destroyed, with only their
> > foundations left. Krema II is the only site remaining with gas chamber
> > structures – walls, ceiling, ventilaiton systems – still extant.
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> Tell me those instances where th Krakow people took samples from the same
> walls as Leuchter did and
> got higher concentration values.
>
> ===========================
Leuchter’s values were obtained using a different methodology and are
scientifically invalid. Samples 25 and 31 from Crema II are obviosuly
the most interesting. Such readings do not result from a single
exposure.
> Source:
>
> https://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/po
> st-leuchter.report
>
> <quote>
> TABLE III. CONCENTRATIONS OF CYANIDE IONS IN SAMPLES TAKEN
> FROM THE CREMATORIUM CHAMBERS (OR THEIR RUINS)
> IN WHICH THE VICTIMS WERE GASSED.
> A – Sample No;
> B – Concentration of CN~ (ug/kg).
>
> ————————————————————
> Crematorium II
> ————————————————————
> A 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
> ————————————————————
> B 640 28 0 8 20 168 296
> 592 28 0 8 16 156 288
> 620 28 0 8 16 168 292
> ————————————————————
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:37 EDT 2001
Article: 953438 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.54.122.107!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Prosecute them!
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:11:03 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 999065493 22424 128.214.79.7 (29 Aug 2001 06:11:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Aug 2001 06:11:33 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:953438
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Prosecute them!
> >From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
> >Date: 8/27/01 3:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >In article <[email protected]>, “Waldo”
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You’re right, Dep. Most of the “murdered” Lithuanian Jews probably wound up
> >> moving to Mother Russia, and maybe later to Israel.
> >
> >Argumentation based solely on unfounded speculation (“probably…maybe”)
> >is worthless.
> >
> > A primary Holocaust document gives a rather different account of the fate
> >pof Lithuanian Jewry.
> >
> >Source: http://www.jewishgen.org/litvak/krakes/jagerrep.htm
> ><quote>
> >The Jager Report
> >
> ><deletions>
>
> snip
>
> There are numerous problems with this report.
We’re still waiting anxiously for your analysis, or at least a listing, of
the “many” problems with the Jager Report.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:37 EDT 2001
Article: 953445 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.54.122.107!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi!user
From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another obvious lie from “Waldo”
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:33:25 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 999066835 22424 128.214.79.7 (29 Aug 2001 06:33:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Aug 2001 06:33:55 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:953445
In article <[email protected]>, Richard Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <3B8A4F[email protected]>, “Richard G. Phillips”
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > “Jeffrey G. Brown” wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, “Waldo”
> > <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, the Holocaustics emphasize the importance the Nazis placed on
> > > > > *deceiving* the Jews into believing that they were “only going for a
> > > > > shower”, this explains why the Nazi’s posted a sign on the door
reading
> > > > > “DANGER ! POISON GAS!
> > > >
> > > > Waldo, of course, is lying. No such signs were posted on the doors
of the
> > > > execution gas chambers.
> > > >
> > > > JGB
> > >
> > > ===========================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Since we have not established that there WERE such things as execution gas
> > > chambers, we’re hardly in a position to talk about what signs were
or were not
> > > posted on their doors.
> > >
> > > However, if there WERE execution chambers, then I would find it very
> > strange that
> > > warning signs would be posted on the doors of fumigation chambers but
> > not on the
> > > doors of execution chambers.
> > >
> > > ======================================================
> >
> > The words of people who were there and who are testifying under oath as
> > expert witnesses have to carry some weight:
>
> ================================
> Phillips
>
> Of course. The only question is whether we are to measure that “weight” in
> milligrammes or in microgrammes.
>
> =====================================
>
That is a totally inadquate response. One detailed account was given by
the man at the top of the chain of command. The others were given by men
at the bottom. The drawings, particularly the one that earily matches
extent architectural plans and photographs, fills in and corroberates some
of the details in Hoess’s and Tauber’s testimony. It’s unlikely that the
three men ever met.
Hoess was testifying at Nuremberg as an expert witness for the defense of
Ernst Kaltenbrunner. Whatever he said there had no bearing on his own
fate, since he was not himself on trial. Rather the purpose of his
testimony was to emphasize to the court that he and his immediate superior
Kaltenbrunner were nodes in a chain of command that extended up to Adolf
Eichmann and Henrich Himmler and were thus simply “cogs in the machine” of
Nazi genocide, obediently implementing orders issued from above.
You cannot simply dismiss Hoess’s and Tauber’s testimony, and Olère’s
detailed functional drawing without some justification.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:38 EDT 2001
Article: 953467 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Prosecute them!
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:31:23 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <290820011131235278%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 999073913 4791 128.214.77.45 (29 Aug 2001 08:31:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Aug 2001 08:31:53 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:953467
In article <[email protected]>, Debunks
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Prosecute them!
> >From: [email protected] (Eugene Holman)
> >> snip
> >>
> >> There are numerous problems with this report.
> >
> >We’re still waiting anxiously for your analysis, or at least a listing, of
> >the “many” problems with the Jager Report.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Eugene Holman
> >
>
> You are? I haven’t heard a peep from you in years, Mr. Holman. Would it be of
> interest to you if I did respond?
Hmmm. I posted the Jäger Report a few days ago and you, or someone else
who also posts under the sobriquet of “Debunker”, responded, claiming
that there are several problems with the report. A few days ago hardly
qualifies as years.
In any case, I would be interested in your objections to what
mainstream historians regard as an important military report
documenting the activities of the security police and the SD
Einsatzkommando 3 in Lithuania. Mass graves, photographs, and other
historical evidence corroberates much of the information given in the
report.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
From [email protected] Thu Aug 30 18:48:38 EDT 2001
Article: 953486 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.213.69.151!news.algonet.se!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!holman
From: Eugene Holman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: aus.general,aus.politics,soc.culture.australian,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A proper perspective in relation to Boat People
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:28:55 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <290820011428555964%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eh-ibook.eng.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 999084566 16631 128.214.77.45 (29 Aug 2001 11:29:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Aug 2001 11:29:26 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1
Xref: hub.org aus.general:94120 aus.politics:533978 soc.culture.australian:149182 alt.politics.white-power:537737 alt.revisionism:953486
In article <[email protected]>, Thurston
Phoremost <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If the Afghans are too weak to stand up to the lunatics who are
> causing them to live in such appalling conditions, then they deserve
> all they get.
>
> Afghanistan citizens need the right to keep and bear arms.
>
> It’s no coincidence that all of the very worst tyrannical regimes do
> not allow their citizens to be armed.
>
>
The Taliban assumed power from the previous, Soviet-backed and,
reltively speaking, progressive regime with American money and
background support. People have little power to change their regime
when outside money calls the tune.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
