Fred Leuchter

[Charles Bunch]

Mr. Bunch wrote:

tonyh wrote: How do you know that Ernst Zundel did not warn Leuchter of the people he was dealing with. Your making a lot of assumptions. Your insinuating that Leuchter was deliberately led astray, without any real evidence.

The people that Leuchter was dealing with were people ill disposed to permit gross lies about a proven historical event.

Were they “ill disposed”, “disposed” -- or both, anyhow?

Why do you ask such a silly question?

Granting that they were “disposed to permit gross lies about a proven historical event”

Who said that?

and that Leuchter was “deliberately led astray”,

Why are you asking a question based on different contingent statements from different people, one of which is erroneous?

how did they execute their confidence trick?

WHy do you assume it was?

Persuading him that they were out to prove the Holocaust in a “scientific way”?

Is that what they were out to do?

Leuchter's destruction was based on the lies and actions of distortion he committed in service of Zundel.

The laboratory chemist that analyzed the samples of brick that Leuchter sent him said that he would have arrived at other results if he had known the source of the samples.

Of course, since he would have known that the test performed at Leuchter's instruction was worthless for the purpose intended.

Are you blaming the laboratory chemist for Leuchter's destruction?

If Leuchter had been smart enough, he could have said the same thing – i.e., if he had known the result that the laboratory chemist would arrive at, he would have declined to participate in the “service of Zundel”.

But of course that is not the same thing.

Do you often end up swallowing the hairs you attempt to split?

Could he have “washed his hands”, like Pilate?

Did Leuchter crucify someone?

Aren't these conversations fun!

[Dan]

Zündel knew that Leuchter's association with him would likely destroy him, and he did not appear to have much regret for that fact.

Careful Qvist

[Erik]

Mr. Bunch wrote:

Aren't these conversations fun!

Well, as I said, I had a “comprehension problem” when reading this thread, although it is only a page long, hitherto.

Your gleeful comments do not contribute to any lessening of the problem, I’m afraid. But that can be my own fault, of course.

But if I can contribute to your entertainment, I will confound myself(?) further.

Erik wrote:

Quote:
Mr. Bunch wrote:

Quote:
tonyh wrote: How do you know that Ernst Zundel did not warn Leuchter of the people he was dealing with. Your making a lot of assumptions. Your insinuating that Leuchter was deliberately led astray, without any real evidence.

The people that Leuchter was dealing with were people ill disposed to permit gross lies about a proven historical event

.


Were they “ill disposed”, “disposed” -- or both, anyhow?

Why do you ask such a silly question?

Firstly, you were answering tonyh who replied to Qvist, and neither of you acknowledged “the people” alluded to. This left Erik confounded.

Secondly, I was having trouble with the expression “ill disposed to” ; “ill-disposed towards” is in my book (Oxford Concise) explained as “unfavourably disposed”; but “ill-disposed” solely means “disposed to evil, manevolent”, according to the same book.

But how is a foreigner to read “ ill disposed to”? Did they had such an “ill” disposition that they could “permit..” etc? I.e., “disposed to ill”? (Leuchter was “dealing with" Zundel & Co, wasn’t he?)

Did tonyh allude to the Jews with the expression : “the people he was dealing with”?; and not to the “entourage” of Zundel?

Quote:
Granting that they were “disposed to permit gross lies about a proven historical event”

Who said that?

Sorry, you must have meant that the Jews – those who Leuchter was “dealing with” at Auschwitz etc. – were “ill-disposed towards permitting gross lies about a proven historical event”, and not “malevolent to permit” etc.

OK, my “comprehension problem”, I apologize.

And tonyh didn’t mean “you” (i.e. Mr. Bunch) anyway!

Quote:
and that Leuchter was “deliberately led astray”,

Why are you asking a question based on different contingent statements from different people, one of which is erroneous?

You are right! You weren’t even answering the question of tonyh – if it was one!!!!

Quote:
how did they execute their confidence trick?

WHy do you assume it was?

You are right again! You and tonyh actually agree on this point, that Leuchter wasn’t “led astray”.

Quote:
Persuading him that they were out to prove the Holocaust in a “scientific way”?

Is that what they were out to do?

Maybe they had adopted the Popperian way to falsify their own “belief”? And persuaded Leuchter that he was on his way to a Copernican Turn and scientific fame?

Quote:

Quote:
Leuchter's destruction was based on the lies and actions of distortion he committed in service of Zundel.

The laboratory chemist that analyzed the samples of brick that Leuchter sent him said that he would have arrived at other results if he had known the source of the samples.

Of course, since he would have known that the test performed at Leuchter's instruction was worthless for the purpose intended.

If the purpose intended was to debunk Holocaust deniers, would he have known then, too, that the test was worthless? With the same result from the “test performed”?

The test was worthless for ANY purpose?

Or would he have arrived at other results from other tests, by changing Leuchter’s instructions?

(But of course that is not the same thing.)

Are you blaming the laboratory chemist for Leuchter's destruction?

Blame? If the laboratory chemist couldn’t have saved Leuchter for any purpose intended, he could not have destroyed him either, could he? Not even by a falsification ? (How would such “instructions” look like, if they cannot but be “lies and distortions”, considering the source?)

Quote:
If Leuchter had been smart enough, he could have said the same thing – i.e., if he had known the result that the laboratory chemist would arrive at, he would have declined to participate in the “service of Zundel”.

But of course that is not the same thing.

Do you often end up swallowing the hairs you attempt to split?

(Off-topic! : Is that why I’m balding?)

You are right, it is not the same thing.

I should have written “changed his instructions to the chemist” instead of “declined to participate in the ‘service of Zundel’”. The chemist didn’t say that he would have refused to accept the samples and perform the tests, did he?

He would have arrived at other results, instead.

But could Leuchter have saved himself with this “revised” version? Like the laboratory chemist?

Quote:
Could he have “washed his hands”, like Pilate?

Did Leuchter crucify someone?

Was he “led astray” by false accusations?

Aren't these conversations fun!

Next question, please!

Well, Leuchter belongs on the thread “Claims of forged, altered or missing evidence”, actually, just as much as Ziereis and Höss – and Irving! Such allegations are part and parcel of the Holocaust & Warcrimes history writing.

[Scott Smith]

Hello Scott

Well, as it now stands the film certainly does not give you the feeling that the holocaust never happened.

Ideally, in my opinion, a good historical film should either inspire or raise questions and stimulate debate and inquiry. So I think Morris let us down a little.

He didn't want people (Gentiles) to leave with the impression that Leuchter had any valid points, and insured that the audience would not be asking those questions. Of course, for Morris as a True Believer, those questions of the Faith would never be asked in the first place and he struggled to ponder how any sane man could have asked them. That is why he made the film and why he had to rework it after test screenings.

The scenes of Leuchter's excavations in Auschwitz is nicely juxtaposed with sequences of an historian going through the relevant files and drawings. We see Leuchter commenting on the absence of a ventilation system, then the other chap looking at a technical drawing of the ventilation system, reading out the order for it to the producer, signed by SS Major Bischoff and a later report to the effect that the system was now operating.

Good point, but there was no heating system or HCN recirculation apparatus (Kreislaufprinzip).

There are moments of revealing and sublime involuntary irony as Leuchter says stuff like "why didn't they just shoot them? That must have been much simpler" (evidently without any clue that that method had been widely practised and in the end discarded exactly on grounds of practicality).

I don't think Leuchter was that naïve. And I question that shooting was impractical and led to gassing myself. Why not just shoot them? I can fully believe Herr Höß when he says that it got very tiresome hearing constant executions by firing-squad at the small Auschwitz Stammlager, which might motivate them to try some new form of execution for condemned Soviet POWs--but that theory has limits, too. Lots of questions. Not many answers--at least believable ones, IMHO.

The film does paint Leuchter as something of a simpleton, or rather, he reveals his own curious limitations through his own monologues throughout the film.

That is the point, but art is compelling, and Leuchter himself said he liked it. Leuchter helped with this film because he, frankly, needed the money.

What really angered me was David Irving's words. He credits Leuchter with being the one who decisively convinced him in the matter. He then goes on to comment with obvious contempt on Leuchter's personal stature and qualities. He then states that Leuchter's life had been ruined by his participation in the Zundel trial and that he had no idea what he was going up against or the consequences. In this, I believe he is right. But Ernst Zundel and his crowd and David Irving knew very well, they also knew that Leuchter had no clue. They did not warn Leuchter or prepare him for that, and then they speak of him like he is a piece of garbage. What a bunch of assholes - highly skilled ideolgical warriors letting a useful simpleton walk the plank without a morsel of regret afterwards.

As far as leaving Leuchter twisting in the wind, perhaps Irving & Co. did that but on the other hand that was exactly the impression that Morris wished to portray.

I agree that Irving jumped the gun by saying that Leuchter's work convinced him of no gassings at Auschwitz. I think that there is no golden key that will unlock the door and reveal all the secrets; history is a complex thing and the answers will be long and tortured.

Also, I really don't think that Leuchter is a simpleton but he probably had no idea of the reprobation that he was getting himself into. I do feel that the Thoughtcrimes trial that Zündel was subjected to was a sorry state of affairs for Canada and the democratic principle of free-speech. Faurisson says that he thinks Zündel would have won if he had not voiced his admiration for Adolf Hitler, as if that has anything to do with whether Zündel published false news by questioning the gaschambers or not. The late Dr. William Lindsay (a chemist, i.e., with a Ph.D. in chemistry, not a UK pharmacist) also testified for Zündel on the properties of Zyklon-B. He was a little tougher to discredit so we don't hear much of him.

Basically, Leuchter should have been more cautious calling himself an engineer and drawing sweeping conclusions. Fame does not always work wonders for one's career.

[Charles Bunch]

Mr. Bunch wrote:

Aren't these conversations fun!

Well, as I said, I had a “comprehension problem” when reading this thread, although it is only a page long, hitherto.

And how good of you to admit it!

Your gleeful comments do not contribute to any lessening of the problem, I’m afraid. But that can be my own fault, of course.

Of course. And I'm sure you wouldn't want to be blaming others for your misfortune.

But if I can contribute to your entertainment, I will confound myself(?) further.

Does the phrase "To infinity and beyond" strike you as apt?

Erik wrote:

Quote:
Mr. Bunch wrote:
The people that Leuchter was dealing with were people ill disposed to permit gross lies about a proven historical event

.


Were they “ill disposed”, “disposed” -- or both, anyhow?

Why do you ask such a silly question?

Firstly, you were answering tonyh who replied to Qvist, and neither of you acknowledged “the people” alluded to. This left Erik confounded.

Well Erik the confounded, that might explain your confusion about who "the people" referred to, but not your silly question.

Secondly, I was having trouble with the expression “ill disposed to” ; “ill-disposed towards” is in my book (Oxford Concise) explained as “unfavourably disposed”; but “ill-disposed” solely means “disposed to evil, manevolent”, according to the same book.

Which might explain a query about changing the expression to "ill disposed toward", but not to the question you asked. This raises the distinct possibility that, having realized that your question was, in fact, silly, you changed the nature of your confusion. You wouldn't do that, would you?

But how is a foreigner to read “ ill disposed to”?

Well, certainly not by removing the "ill" and changing the total meaning of the sentence. Could we describe that as making your intentions rather obvious?

Did tonyh allude to the Jews with the expression : “the people he was dealing with”?; and not to the “entourage” of Zundel?

Why would it matter if he did?

Quote:
Granting that they were “disposed to permit gross lies about a proven historical event”

Who said that?

Sorry, you must have meant that the Jews – those who Leuchter was “dealing with” at Auschwitz etc. – were “ill-disposed towards permitting gross lies about a proven historical event”, and not “malevolent to permit” etc.

Why must I have meant that?

Is trial and error your usual method of reading comprehension?

OK, my “comprehension problem”, I apologize.

I'm glad to see you take responsibility.

And tonyh didn’t mean “you” (i.e. Mr. Bunch) anyway!

Try looking up "non sequitur" in your Oxford concise.

Quote:
and that Leuchter was “deliberately led astray”,

Why are you asking a question based on different contingent statements from different people, one of which is erroneous?

You are right! You weren’t even answering the question of tonyh – if it was one!!!!

How could I be answering something in a passage which is yours?

Getting caught up in our contingencies, I see!

Quote:
how did they execute their confidence trick?

WHy do you assume it was?

You are right again! You and tonyh actually agree on this point, that Leuchter wasn’t “led astray”.

But it is you, not Tony who called it a confidence trick. Why do you assume it was?

Oh, perhaps you have a fear of _answering_ questions! Is that your problem?

Quote:
Persuading him that they were out to prove the Holocaust in a “scientific way”?

Is that what they were out to do?

Maybe they had adopted the Popperian way to falsify their own “belief”?

And which of that trio of geniuses do you think suggested that?

Quote:

Quote:
Leuchter's destruction was based on the lies and actions of distortion he committed in service of Zundel.

The laboratory chemist that analyzed the samples of brick that Leuchter sent him said that he would have arrived at other results if he had known the source of the samples.

Of course, since he would have known that the test performed at Leuchter's instruction was worthless for the purpose intended.

If the purpose intended was to debunk Holocaust deniers, would he have known then, too, that the test was worthless? With the same result from the “test performed”?

Your question makes no sense. You do realize that you get caught up in your own game sometimes, do you not? The purpose of the test was to test for evidence that the walls of the rooms had been exposed to HCN.

The test was worthless for ANY purpose?

What purpose was it good for?

Or would he have arrived at other results from other tests, by changing Leuchter’s instructions?

He would have performed proper tests to find evidence of HCN exposure. We have no idea what the results of a proper test would have been, since it wasn't performed.

(But of course that is not the same thing.)

Are you blaming the laboratory chemist for Leuchter's destruction?

Blame? If the laboratory chemist couldn’t have saved Leuchter for any purpose intended, he could not have destroyed him either, could he?

Who said he couldn't have saved Leuchter?

Quote:
If Leuchter had been smart enough, he could have said the same thing – i.e., if he had known the result that the laboratory chemist would arrive at, he would have declined to participate in the “service of Zundel”.

But of course that is not the same thing.

Do you often end up swallowing the hairs you attempt to split?

(Off-topic! : Is that why I’m balding?)

I don't know, but perhaps choking?

You are right, it is not the same thing.

Of course.

I should have written “changed his instructions to the chemist” instead of “declined to participate in the ‘service of Zundel’”.

No, you should have said, "allowed the chemist to perform the proper test based on his objectives."

The chemist didn’t say that he would have refused to accept the samples and perform the tests, did he?

And what does this have to do with changing the instructions to the chemist?

He would have arrived at other results, instead.

Really, why is that?

But could Leuchter have saved himself with this “revised” version? Like the laboratory chemist?

A revised version of what? What does the word "version" have to do with our discussion?

Quote:
Could he have “washed his hands”, like Pilate?

Did Leuchter crucify someone?

Was he “led astray” by false accusations?

Was Christ falsely accused?

Aren't these conversations fun!

[Qvist]

Scott

He didn't want people (Gentiles) to leave with the impression that Leuchter had any valid points, and insured that the audience would not be asking those questions. Of course, for Morris as a True Believer, those questions of the Faith would never be asked in the first place and he struggled to ponder how any sane man could have asked them. That is why he made the film and why he had to rework it after test screenings

Another possible reason might of course be that Leuchter didn't actually have any good points.

Good point, but there was no heating system or HCN recirculation apparatus (Kreislaufprinzip).

Really. How do you know exactly, considering most of the buildings were demolished? And if there was no recirculation apparatus, how did they manage to use Z-B to delouse clothing? And why are the orders for both to the producers and documents discussing their functionality?


cheers

[Hans]

Scott

Good point, but there was no heating system or HCN recirculation apparatus (Kreislaufprinzip).

Really. How do you know exactly, considering most of the buildings were demolished?

Hi Qvist,

that's a simple one. He doesn't know. And there was actually a heating system for the most frequently used gas-chamber:

http://vho.org/D/rga2/Image24.jpg

Transcript:

Code: Select all

JA TOPF & SÖHNE ERFURT

                                                 13.4.1943

Empfänger: Zentralbauleitung der Waffen SS und Polizei, Auschwitz O.S.





               A u f s t e l l u n g .
               =======================

Betr.: Nr. 24678/43/Ro-Pru/Pa.
Be- und Entlüftungsanlage des Krema. II im K.G.L., Auschwitz

30,2 kg Cu, 0,7 kg Zn, 6,8 kg Alu, 1,4 kg Zn-Al

Betr.: Nr. 24676/43/Ro-Pru/Pa.

Saugzuganlage des Krematoriums II im K.G.L., Auschwitz

88,5 kg Cu, 4,8 kg Ms, 0,3 kg Sn-Bz, 0,3 kg Zn
3,0 kg Zn-Al, 6,0 kg, Cu-Leg, 5,0 kg Alu

Betr.: Nr. 24674/43/Ro-Pru/Pa.

2 Topf Enwesungsöfen für das Krema II im Kriegsgefangenen-
lager, Auschwitz.

25,-kg Al, 15,-kg Zn-Al, 8,-kg Ms,

Betr.: Nr. 24679/43/Ro-Pru/Pa.

Erweiterung der Be- und Entlüftungsanlage(Warmluftzuführung)
des Krema II im K.G.L., Auschwitz.


5,5 kg Cu, 0,1 kg Zn, 1,4 kg Al, 0,6 kg Zn-Al



Erfurt, den 13.4.1943



                                           ppa. JA Topf & SÖHNE
                                        [Unterschrift unleserlich]


16.APR. 1943

The last point reads:

"extension of the ventilation (warm air introduction) of the crematorium II in the POW-camp, Auschwitz"

But who cares? It didn't happen. Period!

[Qvist]

But who cares? It didn't happen. Period!

Well, that's scepticism for you - at least according to the definition of some

cheers

[billy beard]

its no good im going to have to ask - do revisionists consider themselves as 'neo-nazi or if you prefer national socialists'?

[Erik]

Why is Leuchter interesting?

Perhaps you agree with Roberto (Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2003 2:07 pm):

Yawn.

Or Mr. Bunch? (Posted Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:32 pm ) :

Aren't these conversations fun!

(But Mr. Bunch was ironic, of course!)


Entertainment apart, you must have had a reason to read the thread this far!

Fred Leuchter perhaps represents something to us.

Here is the Nizkor motto to its FAQ “project” on Leuchter:
http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/

The attempt to justify an evil deed has perhaps more pernicious consequences than the evil deed itself. The justification of a past crime is the planting and cultivation of future crimes. Indeed, the repetition of a crime is sometimes part of a device of justification; we do it again and again to convince ourselves and others that it is a common thing and not an enormity. (Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954.)

It must be the old and eternally harrowed fields of SIN and GUILT and CRIME and INNOCENCE that once again open up before us (Compare the +30 sides of the thread “Can Germany ever be forgiven?” – closed, alack! But perhaps reopened here?)

“Can Leuchter ever be forgiven?”

Is his sin as great or even greater than that of the evil deed he tried to belie and distort?

Malleus Maleficarum – the Witch-hammer- compares the sin of Satan with the crimes of witches:

“…his sin is in many respects small in comparison with the crimes of witches. First, as S. Anselm showed in one of his Sermons, he sinned in his pride while there was yet no punishment for sin. But witches continue to sin after great punishments have been often inflicted upon many other witches, and after the punishments which the Church teaches them have been inflicted by reason of the devil and his fall; and they make light of all these, and hasten to commit, not the least deadly of sins, as do other sinners who sin through infirmity or wickedness yet not from habitual malice, but rather the most horrible crimes from the deep malice of their hearts.”

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_I/mm01_17a.html

The “deep malice” of the poor heart of Fred Leuchter is questioned by some posters on this thread.

It is suggested that he was “led astray” by Zundel, Faurisson and others.(see résumé below).

Others disagree.

Roberto wrote ( Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2003 6:07 pm ) :

tonyh wrote:
It wasn't the revisionists who ruined Leuchter by branding him a "holocaust denier".

Two things wrong in the above sentence.

First, the last thing your "Revisionists" are is revisionists.

Second, the term "branding" suggests unjustified labeling, while Mr. Leuchter, if I remember correctly, expressly stated that the mass killing of Jews in gas chambers couldn't have happened. As he ignorantly placed all Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide in the gas chambers, that made him as complete a denier of this genocide as can be found.

Erik wrote:
A “complete denier” must arguably deny “knowingly”, right?

A consideration that leads us to an interesting question:

Are people like Freddy and the philosopher consciously lying ?

Or are they mentally unbalanced enough to believe their own BS ?

So you can see the “interest” of Erik in “people like Freddy”!

Are we (Fred and Erik, for example) “led astray” by our ignorance, yet still “as complete” deniers “of this genocide as can be found”?

“Revisionists” (as distinguished from revisionists – see Roberto above) have been compared to paedophiles and pederasts, peddling their BS on the Net.

Those sexual deviators can be traced and punished somehow – there was a famous rock hero getting caught recently, wasn’t there?

Soon perhaps the “revisionists” will be traced to their “hard discs”, too.

Erik’s postings can be attributed to “mental unbalance” or a “moronic dreamworld” (quotes, but Erik doesn’t dare to attribute them!), and so he can get away from the consequences, perhaps?

But how about Leuchter?

In December 1998, when U.N weapons inspector Dr. Richard Spertzel became exasperated by Iraqi evasions and misrepresentations, he confronted Dr. Rihab Taha, the woman the Iraqis identified as the head of their biological weapons program and asked her directly, “You know that we know you are lying. So why do you do it?” She straightened herself up and replied, “Dr. Spertzel, it’s not a lie when you are ordered to lie.” *
Dr. Taha’s brief reply is one symbol of a highly developed, well disciplined, and expertly organized program designed to win support for the Iraqi regime through outright deceit. This elaborate program is one of the regime’s most potent weapons for advancing its political, military, and diplomatic objectives. In their disinformation and propaganda campaigns, the Iraqis use elaborate ruses and obvious falsehoods, covert actions and false on-the-record statements, and sophisticated preparation and spontaneous exploitation of opportunities. Many of the techniques are not new, but this regime exploits them more aggressively and effectively – and to more harmful effect – than any other regime in power today.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/ (My emphasis).

Will Dr. Rihab Taha get away from the consequences of her lies and distortions( , after the war)?


Can Freddy?

Lipstadt on Leuchter:

But it was not only Leuchter's scientific expertise, or lack thereof, which was questioned by the court. The judge also expressed serious doubts about Leuchter's historical knowledge, which, as it emerged at the trial, was limited and often flawed. Leuchter was unaware of a host of documents pertaining to the installation and construction of the gas chambers and crematoria. He did not know of a report filed in June 1943 by the Waffen-SS commandant of construction at Auschwitz on the completion of the crematoria. The report indicated that the five crematoria had a total twenty-four-hour capacity of 4,756 bodies.<51> Leuchter had stated that the crematoria had a total capacity of 156 bodies in the same period of time. <52> Even if the SS's calculation was overly 'optimistic,' the difference between it and Leuchter's was staggering. He also had to admit that he did not know that there existed correspondence and documentation regarding powerful ventilators installed in the gas chambers to extract the gas that remained after the killings. After hearing these and other admissions by Leuchter, Judge Thomas expressed his dismay that Leuchter had reached his conclusions despite the fact that he had only a 'nodding acquaintance' with the history of the gas chambers. To suggest that he had any more than that, the judge declared, would be an insult.<53>" (Lipstadt, 164-167)
Even in history, the field in which Fred Leuchter gained his degree, it seems he lacks expertise. As an engineer, he is clearly unqualified to submit opinions to the court or anyone else. (My emphases).
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leu ... tness.html

A denier – or a hench-man of deniers – from ignorance and incompetence, according to Lipstadt.

Others

“…portrays him as an amiable doofus in a bad cause”

(Scott SmithTue Feb 04, 2003 11:33 am ).

But Ernst Zundel and his crowd and David Irving knew very well, they also knew that Leuchter had no clue. They did not warn Leuchter or prepare him for that, and then they speak of him like he is a piece of garbage. What a bunch of assholes - highly skilled ideolgical warriors letting a useful simpleton walk the plank without a morsel of regret afterwards.

(Qvist Tue Feb 04, 2003 12:26 pm)

Its not as if there was a cabal of people who conspired to get Leuchter in hot water with the holocaust faithful.

(tonyh 3:29 pm)

Zündel however must have known perfectly well what Leuchter probably did not - namely what sort of consequences the enlistment of this naive man would have for his reputation. He knew that for all practical purposes, he was enlisting Leuchter for his own ideological campaign, a campaign for which Leuchter did not appear to me to be at all equipped or prepared. Zündel knew that Leuchter's association with him would likely destroy him, and he did not appear to have much regret for that fact.

(Qvist 4:15 pm)

How do you know that Ernst Zundel did not warn Leuchter of the people he was dealing with. Your making a lot of assumptions. Your insinuating that Leuchter was deliberately led astray, without any real evidence.

(tonyh 5:43 pm)

Nothing indicated to me that either Zündel or anybody else tried to make it clear to the obviously naive Leuchter that he was becoming part of a political crusade and what that would entail for him. As far as I'm concerned, if they didn't, they took advantage of another person's naivete and left him stranded in the desert, metaphorically speaking. I don't much respect that. If you wanna have a different opinion, be my guest.

(Qvist 6:00 pm )

tonyh wrote:
How do you know that Ernst Zundel did not warn Leuchter of the people he was dealing with. Your making a lot of assumptions. Your insinuating that Leuchter was deliberately led astray, without any real evidence.

The people that Leuchter was dealing with were people ill disposed to permit gross lies about a proven historical event.

(Charles Bunch 6:41 pm )

Erik will refrain from trying to find out who were “the people that Leuchter was dealing with”, (according to tonyh and/or Mr. Bunch) and what they were being “ill disposed”, “ill-disposed”, or simply “disposed” to permit, since Leuchter probably was “as complete a denier of this genocide as can be found”, regardless whether he was “deliberately led astray” or just plain ignorant and incompetent.

John 19
10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

The power of Leuchter can not be compared to that of Pilate perhaps, although both were given or denied it “from above”; and those who”delivered” the gas chamber question to Leuchter had “the greater sin”.

But the “greater sin”-question has a certain historical “déjà vu”.

We’ve been here before.

[David Thompson]

How "unaware" is Leuchter in this consent agreement, in which he admits professionally misrepresenting himself? You can find a two page gif format copy of it at:

http://www.mazal.org/archive/Deniers/Leuchter01.htm

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, SS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

v. Consent
Agreement

Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.

The Board of Registration of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (the "Board") and Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., do hereby stipulate and agree to the following:

I, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., do hereby state:

1. that I am not and never have been registered as a professional engineer with "the Board" pursuant to M.G.L. C. 112, a. 81D-T;

2. that while in Massachusetts and while unregistered as a professional engineer, I have:

a. represented myself as an engineer able to consult in areas of engineering concerning execution technology; moreover, I formed a corporation which one of the purposes was to consult in all areas of engineering;

b. represented myself as Chief Engineer of Fred A. Leuchter Associates, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation, in letters to Massachusetts businesses and Federal and State departments and agencies, including Alpha Analytical Laboratories, Ace Surgical Inc., Massachusetts Division of Food and Drug, and the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency;

c. represented myself as Chief Engineer in letters and proposals I sent to correctional institutions in other states, including, but not limited to, New Jersey and Alabama;

d. represented myself as Chief Engineer and have rendered engineering opinions in letters and affidavits which I have submitted for filing in state and federal courts outside of Massachusetts; and

e. produced reports, specifically but not limited to, "An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek", containing my engineering opinions. which I have submitted to other individuals and which were subsequently published.

I, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., agree to immediately cease and desist from the following, while I am in Massachusetts and remain unregistered pursuant to G.L. c. 112, a. 81D-T:

1. using in any manner whatsoever the title "engineer",

2. Offering to practice engineering by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card, or in any other way represent myself to be an engineer, or in any other way offer to practice engineering as defined in G.L. c 112 while in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

3. Practicing engineering as defined in G. L. c. 112. s 81D-T while in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

4. Issuing or distributing any reports where I hold myself out as an engineer or alternatively, provide engineering specifically but not limited to "An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek."

I, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., further agree that in the event I wish to pursue any professional activity within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which comes within the purview of the Board, I will seek the Board's determination as to whether that activity is prohibited by G.L, c, 112, s. 81D-T or this consent decree.

The Board agrees:

1. that nothing in this agreement shall be used as a basis to preclude or deny any application by Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. to be registered as a professional engineer; and

2. shall use due diligence in considering [the*] such an application of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. Agreed and accepted this 11th day of June, 1991.


(Signed)
Fred A. Leuchter Jr.

(Signed)
J. Harry Parker, Chairman
For the Board

[*stricken in original]
[Italics=handwritten in original]

[Scott Smith]

He didn't want people (Gentiles) to leave with the impression that Leuchter had any valid points, and insured that the audience would not be asking those questions. Of course, for Morris as a True Believer, those questions of the Faith would never be asked in the first place and he struggled to ponder how any sane man could have asked them. That is why he made the film and why he had to rework it after test screenings.

Another possible reason might of course be that Leuchter didn't actually have any good points.

Well, like I said, Morris had to edit the film to get it right. I think I read this interview in Atlantic Monthly some time ago but I don’t remember exactly. Anyway, he didn’t expect those not of the Holo-Covenant to leave the theater questioning the Beliefs that everybody is supposed to have.

For example, if not the Leichenkellers in Kremas II or III, did the gassing occur instead at the fumigation cubicles at the Central Sauna, which are in fact stained a deep Prussian Blue?

NO, you are not supposed to wonder-whether; you are just supposed to Believe. And, see with your own eyes the ridicule of those who doubt, seduced by the Deniers of the Faith.

But did Leuchter have any good points?

Well, as someone having experience with execution hardware, he is better at telling why something wasn’t workable rather than what was done. Leuchter’s reports on Majdanek and Dachau are quite interesting.

At Birkenau, nonetheless, Revisionists have long wondered why the fumigation cubicles at the Sauna are stained a buoyant blue, while there is absolutely no staining in the ruins of the Leichenkeller. Why not--if three or four million were gassed there as the Auschwitz Museum said when Leuchter was doing his testing…

Leuchter’s tests confirmed the cyanide staining at the Sauna, but he found only trace amounts at the Leichenkeller, consistent with maybe an occasional fumigation (as we would expect from a morgue). Therefore, he concluded that there had been no gassing there--going somewhat beyond his evidence, IMHO.

Germar Rudolf took over from there but his results were inconclusive as well. A lot depends on how long the cyanide remained in contact with the walls and at what concentrations, and how long the bodies were stored there after the executions. The staining was a bit more complicated than expected and it is crucial to know the process-engineering involved. Mattogno has done quite a bit of work determining realistic crematoria disposal rates--questions of process-engineering first raised by Dr. Butz in 1976.

But very little in the way of process-engineering has been done by the Holocaustorians themselves, other than to buoy testimonial and attempt to refute Denier objections as they come. The Believers engage in a little cardstacking of their own by accepting the claims that best fit a standard story that cannot conclusively be scientifically disproved.

See, like Science in the Middle Ages, it is not necessary to ask HOW it is possible; it is possible because it happened. The Scriptures have said so.

The Scientific Method, however, asks what are the observable facts and then constructs a model that explains them.

Really. How do you know exactly, considering most of the buildings were demolished?

That could be said of any of the Believer claims and it is incumbent upon them to scientifically prove their claims (and accusations) if they want them believed scientifically and not merely culturally.

And if there was no recirculation apparatus, how did they manage to use Z-B to delouse clothing?

That’s probably why the Central Sauna fumigation cubicles are stained a deep blue and used such large quantities of fumigant.

The Germans might have occasionally fumigated the Leichenkeller or used hot-air from the Crematoria for delousing, or some other method, assuming they did so there. They probably would have deloused clothing from bodies nearby and by some method. But they certainly would have fumigated the morgue once in a while, though not often, as there is no blue staining, and only trace amounts of cyanide compared to the Sauna.

And why are the orders for both to the producers and documents discussing their functionality?

The functionality exists mostly in the minds of the Believers. You have to read code-words into the documents. And there is always the possibility of forgery at Nuremberg. Basically you take an existing document and make minor changes to show clues to nefarious intent.

[Xanthro]

The scenes of Leuchter's excavations in Auschwitz is nicely juxtaposed with sequences of an historian going through the relevant files and drawings. We see Leuchter commenting on the absence of a ventilation system, then the other chap looking at a technical drawing of the ventilation system, reading out the order for it to the producer, signed by SS Major Bischoff and a later report to the effect that the system was now operating.

Good point, but there was no heating system or HCN recirculation apparatus (Kreislaufprinzip).

And there were no refridgerators or televisions or phones or internet connections, or latte machines either. All of which are as equally needed as a heating system or a HCN recirculation system.

Xanthro

[Scott Smith]

The scenes of Leuchter's excavations in Auschwitz is nicely juxtaposed with sequences of an historian going through the relevant files and drawings. We see Leuchter commenting on the absence of a ventilation system, then the other chap looking at a technical drawing of the ventilation system, reading out the order for it to the producer, signed by SS Major Bischoff and a later report to the effect that the system was now operating.

Good point, but there was no heating system or HCN recirculation apparatus (Kreislaufprinzip).

And there were no refridgerators or televisions or phones or internet connections, or latte machines either. All of which are as equally needed as a heating system or a HCN recirculation system.

Do you have any process-engineering to support that conclusion? We are talking about a half a million gassed in a basement at fantastic rates--and nary a trace of HCN left over; whereas in the fumigation cubicles (the ones without heating and gas-recirculation, the blue-staining on the walls is obvious even on the OUTSIDE of the structures.

[Xanthro]

Do you have any process-engineering to support that conclusion? We are talking about a half a million gassed in a basement at fantastic rates--and nary a trace of HCN left over; whereas in the fumigation cubicles (the ones without heating and gas-recirculation, the blue-staining on the walls is obvious even on the OUTSIDE of the structures.

Must you constantly play the head in the sand game and go over the same material time and time again. What you hope there is someone knew who may fall for this idiocy of yours?

Simple fact is that HCN lethality is based on basal metabolic rate. The faster the BMR the faster the death.

Warm blooded animals die quite quickly at very low concentrations. HCN in a 300 PPM will kill a human with half and hour.

A louse could live in that for DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS, YEARS. It would NEVER die from that dose.

To kill lice takes a concentration of 10,000 ppm and for a much longer period of time.

Most fumigation rooms have heaters. This is as much to warm the cold blooded animals they are trying to kill, as to get better evaporation of the HCN compound.

Here is an experiement you may be able to conduct on your own, I'll make it simple for you.

Step one. Take an eye dropper, take one drop of water and throw it against a wall.

Step two. Take a bucket of water, fill it up. Now throw it against another wall.

Step three. See if you can figure out which wall is more wet.

See higher concentrations of substances means just that MORE OF IT.

Of course there is more Prussian blue staining in a fumigation area, the concentration was much higher and for longer periods of time, and the areas weren't washed down after use.

You should find Prussian blue there, and you shouldn't find it anywhere else.

Of course, you already know this, because you've already been informed, but you cling to your quasi religious belief and hope to fool others.

Xanthro