The Leuchter Report Vindicated

[Mark Alinsky]

The essay is too long to copy. Here's the link:

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html

[HaEn]

Oh boy, are you going to get FLAK on this. HN

[Scott Smith]

Oh boy, are you going to get FLAK on this. HN

The big guns must be on holiday.

[Mark Alinsky]

Oh boy, are you going to get FLAK on this...

This post has been up for more than two days, and I've yet to receive "flak", probably because the lazy ones haven't made the effort to read the entire essay, and the ones who have read it (Roberto?) are not scientifically literate enough to try to refute it.

[Scott Smith]

Roberto does most of his windmill-chasing on weekdays while he is at work. That's not meant as an insult. Why not enjoy your weekend!


Rest assured, the Flak is coming!

[Dan]

It's partially another North American vs. European misunderstanding. To a European, that degree, certificate, license, whatever is important. To North Americans, what a person can do is important. Witness this week's shootings in Germany. When the kid was expelled, he said "It's all over anyway". On this side of the pond, an employer wants to know what you can do, and seldom even asks for your transcripts.

With Leuchter, he was popular among prison wardens because he was the best, none of them cared about a license from a silly little State like Mass.

To European though, his lack of a license which means very little here meant a lack of qualification, and perhaps even character.

[Scott Smith]

To European though, his lack of a license which means very little here meant a lack of qualification, and perhaps even character.

Yeah, and the word Engineer has different meanings here, too. It could mean a "sanitation engineer" (garbage man) or "rocket engineer" Dr. Wernher von Braun.

I could truthfully claim to be an "engineer" after having worked as a Radio-TV Broadcast Engineer. That is certainly worth more than my liberal arts degree in History. But History is way-cooler than working for the Ministry of Truth anyway!
8)

Chemist has different meanings, too. In the UK a chemist might not be an engineer but a pharmacist or apothecary.

Empty titles can certainly be a big deal in labor negotiations.

[Hans]

Chemist has different meanings, too. In the UK a chemist might not be an engineer but a pharmacist or apothecary.

Trained jobs have also a different meaning in "revisionist" circles, Scott. The leading "revisionist" on demographics is a chemist. The leading "revisionist" on the technical operation of crematoria has studied literature. Their expert on eyewitnesses-critiques is a former school teacher. Okay, and their specialist who believes that he has demolished the Diesel claim has degree in history.

To European though, his lack of a license which means very little here meant a lack of qualification, and perhaps even character.

Dan, I think that to Europeans, what is important is the fact that Leuchter's report is from a technical and historical point of víew BS. And I guess it is for Americans too. This seems to be an understanding among nations. As said elsewhere, to me it doesn't matter how qualified Mr Leuchter was, his report is full of demonstrable false claims and nonsense anyway.

Hans

[Ovidius]

To European though, his lack of a license which means very little here meant a lack of qualification, and perhaps even character.

Right. Even when self-taught men like Ferdinand Porsche(Professor and Engineer) and Friedrich Nietzsche(Ph. D. at 24, without doctoral thesis, just for his books) had those titles, it still means they had been acknowledged as such by an academic board, thus they had the necessary qualification.

Yeah, and the word Engineer has different meanings here, too. It could mean a "sanitation engineer" (garbage man) or "rocket engineer" Dr. Wernher von Braun.

I could truthfully claim to be an "engineer" after having worked as a Radio-TV Broadcast Engineer. That is certainly worth more than my liberal arts degree in History. But History is way-cooler than working for the Ministry of Truth anyway!

It seems pretty like the way it was in the Soviet Union in early 1920s, or in the occupied Eastern Europe in the early 1950s, when most guys who were "faithful to the Party" got degrees without even taking the exam and then claimed to be specialists good enough to teach others. Another similarity between the Soviet Union and it's "Capitalist enemy"

Empty titles can certainly be a big deal in labor negotiations

I would pretty much doubt the "emptiness" of an academic title.

~Regards,

Ovidius

[Scott Smith]

Hans,

That's true. All "Moral Certainties" aside, the proof is in the pudding. In addition, the expert on Auschwitz facilities is Jan van Pelt, a Professor of Architectural History at Waterloo--and, like "Mr. Death" Leuchter, not a "real" Engineer.

[Roberto]

Oh boy, are you going to get FLAK on this...

This post has been up for more than two days, and I've yet to receive "flak", probably because the lazy ones haven't made the effort to read the entire essay, and the ones who have read it (Roberto?) are not scientifically literate enough to try to refute it.

Dead wrong, my friend. The reasons are that i) I have better things to do on weekends than to discuss with True Believers, ii) I was waiting to see what reactions (if any) there would be (the interest in whatever Leuchter or his peers had to say seems to be scarce), and iii) I can think of more interesting stuff to read than the pseudo-scientific nonsense of Leuchter and whoever is "vindicating" him.

Now, if my friend wants to make a point, I would commend him to briefly explain to our audience what message the article in question is supposed to contain. Otherwise the suspicion may arise that our True Believer is promoting Articles of Faith that he has not fully understood himself.

[Roberto]

That's true. All "Moral Certainties" aside, the proof is in the pudding.

As the Reverend has never been able or willing to explain what "moral certainties" are supposed to be, I'll make an educated guess: "Moral certainties" are the a priori certainties that, whatever the evidence to the contrary, something that doesn't fit into a given ideological bubble never happened. One of the hallmarks of the "Revisionist" stance, in other words.

In addition, the expert on Auschwitz facilities is Jan van Pelt, a Professor of Architectural History at Waterloo--and, like "Mr. Death" Leuchter, not a "real" Engineer.

No, van Pelt is an architect, and Pressac is a pharmacist. Both are also competent and objective researchers who have patiently and thoroughly followed the evidence where it leads and reached conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. Everything that cannot be said of Leuchter, in other words. He just did what Faurisson told him to do in order to arrive at the conclusions that Faurisson wanted him to arrive at - conclusions that have notably been "vindicated" by none other than Leuchter's and Faurisson's fellow "Revisionist" True Believers.

A detailed commentary on Leuchter's fathomless nonsense, for those of our readers not yet familiar with the fellow, can be found under the following link:

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/

[Scott Smith]

That's true. All "Moral Certainties" aside, the proof is in the pudding.

As the Reverend has never been able or willing to explain what "moral certainties" are supposed to be, I'll make an educated guess: "Moral certainties" are the a priori certainties that, whatever the evidence to the contrary, something that doesn't fit into a given ideological bubble never happened. One of the hallmarks of the "Revisionist" stance, in other words.

Van Pelt is the one who coined the phrase "Moral Certainties" at the Irving trial in order to justify his anti-intellectual Lipstadtian stance.

In addition, the expert on Auschwitz facilities is Jan van Pelt, a Professor of Architectural History at Waterloo--and, like "Mr. Death" Leuchter, not a "real" Engineer.

No, van Pelt is an architect, and Pressac is a pharmacist.

I never said they were incompetent but neither have degrees in engineering, the character assassination used against Leuchter. Btw, Friedrich Berg, the diesel Hoaxbuster, DOES have a degree in Engineering from Columbia University.

A detailed commentary on Leuchter's fathomless nonsense...

Yes, an opinion on Leuchter from Nizkor.

Actually, I have never endorsed Leuchter's Report. I feel that he made sweeping conclusions for the Zündel censorship trial that went beyond the evidence, and Irving probably put too much stock in it as well. However, Leuchter bravely showed that the Holocaust IS subject to empirical evidence and the scientific method, something that Lipstadt denies but Irving grasped immediately--and the anti-Revisionists have had to play catch-up with physical evidence ever since.

Damage Control! Man the Pumps!

[Roberto]

medorjurgen wrote:
Quote:
That's true. All "Moral Certainties" aside, the proof is in the pudding.

As the Reverend has never been able or willing to explain what "moral certainties" are supposed to be, I'll make an educated guess: "Moral certainties" are the a priori certainties that, whatever the evidence to the contrary, something that doesn't fit into a given ideological bubble never happened. One of the hallmarks of the "Revisionist" stance, in other words.

Van Pelt is the one who coined the phrase "Moral Certainties" at the Irving trial in order to justify his anti-intellectual Lipstadtian stance.

Blah, blah, blah. What did he mean by it? A comprehensive quote would be appreciated.

Medo wrote:
Quote:
In addition, the expert on Auschwitz facilities is Jan van Pelt, a Professor of Architectural History at Waterloo--and, like "Mr. Death" Leuchter, not a "real" Engineer.

No, van Pelt is an architect, and Pressac is a pharmacist.

I never said they were incompetent but neither have degrees in engineering, the character assassination used against Leuchter.

The problem with Leuchter, apart from the nonsense that he wrote, was not his lacking a degree in engineering. The problem was his having falsely pretended to have one. Details may be found here:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/leucht ... agreement/

Btw, Friedrich Berg, the diesel Hoaxbuster, DOES have a degree in Engineering from Columbia University.

Which makes him a qualified quack, whose nonsense has been thoroughly taken apart by both fellow engineers and laymen with a healthy capacity for critical thinking.

Medo wrote:
A detailed commentary on Leuchter's fathomless nonsense...

Yes, an opinion on Leuchter from Nizkor.

Do you consider any of their observations to be wrong, Reverend? If so, let's hear.

Actually, I have never endorsed Leuchter's Report. I feel that he made sweeping conclusions for the Zündel censorship trial that went beyond the evidence, and Irving probably put too much stock in it as well. However, Leuchter bravely showed that the Holocaust IS subject to empirical evidence and the scientific method, something that Lipstadt denies but Irving grasped immediately--and the anti-Revisionists have had to play catch-up with physical evidence ever since.

Leuchter did nothing other than what Faurisson told him to do – try to find “evidence” supporting a desired result. As to the “scientific method”, that was applied by criminal justice and historiography to the extent necessary in order to establish the essential facts long before Leuchter, and it has been applied by critics of “Revisionism” like Pressac, van Pelt and Green ever since to make the uninformed aware of the utter imbecility of what “Revisionists” are trying to sell to an expectedly gullible public.

Damage Control! Man the Pumps!

Why, Reverend, are you afraid that your ship may sink? Relax, my friend. Bullshit floats – even such that is disguised as “science”.

One thing "scientific" Holocaust deniers like Berg and Fred Leuchter count on is the fact that many non-scientists can't follow scientific debates, and assume that if it is dressed up in scientific terms, it must be right. But there are many other scientific debates we see today - pollution, cancer, global warming, etc. - which enter into the political arena. Some of these arguments are made to support a hidden ideological agenda, and the science is dishonest. We hope that following the full argument will help people realize that just because something comes dressed up as "science" doesn't mean you should stop thinking critically about what you're being told.

Michael P. Stein, Friedrich Berg & the Diesel Issue

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniqu ... el-01.html

Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.”

“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10

[Dan]

Van Pelt isn't an architect. It came out in the trail that if he were to have practiced architecture in Holland or Canada he would have been arrested.