Phillips on the Holocaust
Richard G. Phillips
advantage. That advantage is not superior intelligence, superior knowledge,
or superior debating skills, for I claim none of these things. It is,
rather, in the different ways each of us would react to total defeat - IN
THE EVENT that this thing ever reached an agreed-upon conclusion.
In the event that new information came to light that left the world no
alternative but to conclude that, yes, around 1M Jews WERE zapped in the gas
chambers. It would be a surprise to me but not terribly upsetting; indeed,
hardly upsetting at all. I would absorb it and then go on about the
important things of my life; this debate is NOT one of those important
things.
Now let us, on the other hand, suppose that the reverse happened, that facts
came to life that proved --CONCLUSIVELY-- that the Jews had NOT been gassed,
that there were, admittedly, some 50,000 to 100,000 deaths in the camps due
to disease and malnutrition but that was it. The moral and emotional effect
on Mock and on other Holocaust-believing Jews and on Jewry collectively,
would be beyond imagining. For those people it is just something that does
not event bear THINKING about.
Consider: They would be recognized as conniving and manipulating liars whose
word about anything is not to be believed. They would be recognized as
people utterly without scruple who will say anything and do anything to
advance their agenda. There will be a considerable digging up of old corpses
buried, of all the debris left behind in the wake of the Jewish rise to
power: the hundreds of careers destroyed, the reputations blackened, the
congress people unseated - all because they stood in the way of the Jews.
Nor will there be any hesitancy in talking about all of the violence - the
fire-bombings, the assaults, the acid-blindings. This sort of thing does not
sit well with the American people. For we believe these questions should be
resolved by civilized discourse, NOT by the gangsterism bred in East
European ghettos.
Oh, yes, our society will become a very different place. Anti-Semitic jokes
will become common. For a while they will be apologized for - but only for a
while. When an official is accused of being "anti-Semitic", his likely reply
will be a terse: "of course." When a Jew goes to a social gathering and
announces himself as Feinstein or Goldbaum, faces will suddenly lengthen.
Oh, everybody will be polite to him, of course, but it will be the surface
politeness at which Anglo-Saxons excel. For a candidate running for office,
a mere suggestion that he is backed by Jewish money would be fatal.
For the first time in our history serious questions will be raised about the
lovely laxness of our citizenship laws. That a newcomer, by a not very
difficult process, becomes a CITIZEN with all the rights and privileges
appertaining thereto, free to join this league or that league and lobby
congress for whatever is dear to his as yet not-entirely-American heart.
This is a glimpse of a possible future American society. The Jews understand
it perfectly well, and that is why they go to the extraordinary lengths they
do to forestall it. And that is why nothing they say to us can be taken for
granted.
Just who ARE these people who regale us perpetually with Jewish tales of woe
and permit no contrary version of the events?
They are the same people
--who were the followers of the sociologist Franz Boas who told us that the
races were all equal in every respect. Those followers now run the sociology
departments of leading universities. The consequences of their handiwork can
now be seen in the jungles that once-liveable American cities have been
turned into.
--who were the adherents of the Frankfurt (Germany) School of Social
Research, wisely thrown out of Germany by Hitler, but who continued their
poisonous work in America, teaching us that anyone with a strong attachment
to his nation must obviously have something wrong with his character.
--who, successfully, moved heaven and earth to manipulate us into a European
war in which we had no great interest, at the same time damning to hell all
who dared expose their machinations. They were very generous with American
lives.
--who, following almost a century of agitating, propagandizing, and
influence seeking, succeeded in opening wide our immigration doors, thus
letting a flood of black, brown, and yellow denizens of the human species.
This is a demographic catastrophe from which we will probably never recover.
The perpetrators, far from apologizing for what they have done, actually
PRAISE themselves with inanities like "Diversity is our strength."
-- who, having now re-baptised themselves as "neo-conservatives" (though I'm
damned if I know what it is they are trying to "conserve"), are busily
overseeing the departure of American industry and business to foreign parts.
It is quite useless to point out to them that this is destroying the
American middle class and working class. You poor fellow, that is exactly
what they want.
In the light of all this experience, is it now permissible to ask whether
these people have any soil of America on their shoes?
For me the question of mass gassings was settled forever by the fact, first
discovered by Leuchter and confirmed by Rudolf, that there were negligible
residues of Prussian blue on the walls of the alleged fumigation chamber.
The Holocaustniks desperately scrounge for a reply --any reply-- to that,
but they cannot because there isn't one.
So what do they do? They scrounge the websites for any two-bit quibble that
can possibly help to keep their show on the road. I dismiss them with the
contempt they deserve.
Steven Mock
better essay demonstrating the intrinsic connection between Holocaust
denial and both racism and anti-Semitism. Yet here you provide the
proof: concise, articulate and indisputible. Definitely one for the
archives.
Steven Mock
"Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in
news:Aa6dnYtL9Mf...@mbay.net:
Steven Mock
> For me the question of mass gassings was settled forever by the fact,
> first discovered by Leuchter and confirmed by Rudolf, that there were
> negligible residues of Prussian blue on the walls of the alleged
> fumigation chamber. The Holocaustniks desperately scrounge for a reply
> --any reply-- to that, but they cannot because there isn't one.
> So what do they do? They scrounge the websites for any two-bit quibble
> that can possibly help to keep their show on the road. I dismiss them
> with the contempt they deserve.
Okay then, Mr. Phillips. Rather than declaring blind faith in Leuchter and
Rudolf, and announcing that you will hold your ears and hum in the face of
any and all counter-arguments, why don't you answer this question:
Why is the relative lack of "Prussian blue", per se, relevent in light of
the significant concentration of OTHER cynaide compounds that WERE found on
these walls by REAL scientists?
Steven Mock
Joebruno
<deletia>
>
> For me the question of mass gassings was settled forever by the fact, first
> discovered by Leuchter and confirmed by Rudolf, that there were negligible
> residues of Prussian blue on the walls of the alleged fumigation chamber.
> The Holocaustniks desperately scrounge for a reply --any reply-- to that,
> but they cannot because there isn't one.
> So what do they do? They scrounge the websites for any two-bit quibble that
> can possibly help to keep their show on the road. I dismiss them with the
> contempt they deserve.
You don't base your conclusions on "fact", Dickie. Your preconceived
agenda governs everything you say and we all know it. Don't waste your
time trying to con us. It is amazing to me that someone your age has
absolutely no understanding of the concept of credibility. Do you
really think anyone believes your bullshit anymore? ROTFL!!!!
Here's what the commandant of Auschwitz said on the subject:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/hoesstest.html
If you tell me he was "tortured" into saying that, make sure you have
evidence to support that claim. Otherwise, we'll all know you are
lying again.
Joebruno
<deleted nonsense>
I'll print this out and put it on my bookcase between "Alice In Wonderland" and
Dr Seuss's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas".
Eugene Holman
<rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
<nonsense deleted to conserve bandwidth>
> For me the question of mass gassings was settled forever by the fact, first
> discovered by Leuchter and confirmed by Rudolf, that there were negligible
> residues of Prussian blue on the walls of the alleged fumigation chamber.
You've mentioned your lack of "superior intelligence, superior knowledge,
or superior debating skills", but here you actually demonstrate them.
Lechter's claim was that there were massive amounts (1060 mg/kg) of
Prussian blue in his single sample taken from a fumigation chamber, but
negligible amounts (1.1 to 7.9 mg/kg) of the compound in the 14 of the 30
samples that he took from alleged gas chambers that tested positive. So,
not only do you accept Leuchter's claims uncritically, you state them
incorrectly as well, thus revealing clearly that you do not really
undertand them.
You uncritically ignore the following crucial issues with respect to
evaluating the Leuchter report:
a) Leuchter's sloppy sampling technique, which contaminated his bulk
samples when taken, and then his faulty instructions to the laboratory,
which permitted the lab to take subsamples from any surface of a specific
sample rather than samples only from the wall surface that was supposed to
have been exposed to cyanide;
b) Leuchter's choice of a single sample from a fumigation chamber as a
"control";
c) Leuchter's decision to test for only a single cyanate, Prussian Blue,
rather than for residual cyanide ions, present in all cyanide compounds;
d) Leuchter's having used the arbitrarily high threshold of detection of 1
mg/kg;
e) Leuchter's choice to ignore the fact that the atmospheric conditions
obtaining within the gas chambers, packed with people, and the fumigation
chambers, packed with clothing, would have been radically different during
the exposure to cyanide, thus having an influence on the formation of
cyanide compounds;
f) Leuchter's choice to ignore the fact that the conditions obtaining
immediately after the gassings, when the gas chambers would have to be
hosed down to remove expelled body fluids and regularly painted to remove
tell-tale odors and stains, with the fumigation chamber merely having to
be emptied, were different, thus playing a demonstrable role in the
short-term stability and retention of cyanide compounds;
g) Leuchter's choice to ignore the fact that the gas chambers were
partially or totally demolished and exposed to the elements for more than
40 years before he examined them, while the fumigation chambers were
protected from the elements over that timeframe, these radically different
conditions playing a demonstrable role in the long-term stablity and
retention of cyanide compounds;
h) Leuchter's choice to ignore the fact that several forensic examinations
had been conducted immediately after the war when the evidence was still
fresh verifying the existence of cyanide compounds in walls, ventilation
systems, and shorn hair from gassing victims;
i) the fact that Leuchter, ignorant of the fact that it takes far more
cyanide to kill lice than it does to kill people, explained the positive
readings he obtained for 14 of his 30 gas chamber samples as a consequence
of the fact that the structures had been fumigated with cyanide;
j) the fact that Leuchter did not understand the logical contadiction
between claiming that a place that could be fumigated using cyanide, this
being his explanation for the presence of detectable Prussian Blue in 14
of his 30 gas chamber samples, could not also be used as a place for
killing people using cyanide;
k) the completely unjustified cultural baggage that Leuchter lugged with
him that caused him to assume that a Nazi mass-execution gas chamber would
have to be similar in function, design, and construction to an American
penal gas chamber and follow American execution procedures when killing
people;
l) Leuchter's claims that the lack of sealing and venting that he found in
gas chamber *ruins* would have prevented the structures that they were
once part of from having been used as an enclosure to kill people, even
though Zyklon-B was specifically designed to allow normally built rooms
lacking such sealing and venting as structural attributes to be fumigated
with Zyklon-B by a competent exterminator;
m) Leuchter's basic and erroneous assumption that killing people with
cyanide is an extremely difficult and complex procedure;
n) the fact that no court, engineering supervisory body, or penal system
on earth has every recognized or accredited Leuchter to be an expert in
the field for which he claims expertise, and no court or reputable
scientist has ever excepted his report as having evidentiary or scientific
value.
Thus, by cavalierly supporting the conclusions reached in the Leuchter
report without addressing the substantive issues for which it and its
author have been criticized, you show that you are arguing from a position
of inferior intelligence with respect to the scientific facts, and of
deficient knowledge with respect to what would constitute a legitimate
study of the issue at hand. The Leuchter Report merely documents what is
visible to the naked eye: there is far more Prussian Blue in his one
sample from a fumigation chamber some 40 years after it was last used than
there is on the walls of the gas chamber museumification at
Auschwitz-Stammlager or of the ruins and foundations that he examined at
Auschwitz-Birkenau more than 40 years after they were last modified,
demolished, or removed. Its conclusions, although based on methodology too
sloppy to be regarded as having scientitific validity, support claims that
both fumigation chambers and almost half, 14 out of 30, of the places from
which he took samples, were indeed exposed to lethal concentrations of
cyanide some time in the past, concentrations high and maintained long
enough for Prussian Blue to form and be detectable using a threshold of 1
mg/kg (which means almost half a century later.
> The Holocaustniks desperately scrounge for a reply --any reply-- to that,
> but they cannot because there isn't one.
Nonsense. No court of law has ever accepted Leuchter's report as having
any evidentiary value, or Leuchter as being qualified to serve as an
expert witness on this issue. Even the once so effusively convnced David
Irving has distanced himself from the Leuchter report, which, he has
admitted, he only glanced through and certainly did not have the
scientific training to understand before declaring himself a staunch
supporter of it at the notorious 1988 press conference at which it was
introduced to the public. One charlatan supporting another, as it turned
out.
> So what do they do? They scrounge the websites for any two-bit quibble that
> can possibly help to keep their show on the road. I dismiss them with the
> contempt they deserve.
As is your right.
In contrast to that I maintain that your inability to even correctly state
the basic case being argued by the Leuchter report, your uncritical
acceptance of a work done so unrigorously, as well as your dismissal of
the obvious logical, procedural, and methodological flaws that are the
basis for the report never having been recognized as having any
evidentiary or scientific value as "two-bit quibbles", all reveal the
shallowness of the foundation and the depth of the ignorance on which your
"contemptuous dismissal" is based.
Going through some of our earlier encounters, I came across an exchange
from Dec, 26, 2002, when you demonstrated how thin your understanding of
the issues involved really was and remains:
Source: Message-ID: <261220020922073046%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi>
<quote>
<deletions>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Dec 2002 07:22:05 GMT
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8
In article <3E08EA09...@mbay.net>, Richard Phillips
<rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
> ===========================================================
> Phillips
>
> There seem to me to be some assumptions here that are not
> even stated - much less proven.
>
> (1) The first question is: of the two substances, Prussian
> blue and -CN, which is the more reliable indicator of
> previous exposure?
Here there is no issue. It is ~CN. Prussian Blue is formed *only* in
certain, not fully understood, conditions, thus, for example, the
irregular blue splotching and unstained areas in the fumigation
facilities. ~CN, on the other hand, is, by definition, a necessary
component of any cyanide compound and thus always left behind
consequent to exposure to cyanide.
> ===========================================================
> Phillips
>
> That question might be answered by
> comparing the weights of the two. Was this ever done? If the
> weight of the Prussian is --say-- ten times that of the -CN
> ions...
Hunh? Weight has nothing to do with the problem, it's a matter of
physical chemistry, valency, the presence of reduced iron, and the
dynamics of cyanide compound formation. Why expose your ignorance with
such nonsensical statements as "If the weight of the Prussian is
--say-- ten times that of the -CN ions" when it has long been known
that the molecular weight of Prussian Blue, ferric hexacyanoferrate,
Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3)), is 859.3, while that of a cyanide ion, ~CN, is 27.0.
The difference is not one of "say" ten times, but rather of precisely
31.8 times.
Prussian Blue, Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3)), is only formed under certain conditions
upon exposure to cyanide, and one of these conditions is the presence
of reduced iron - that's why its official name is ferric
hexacyanoferrate, as in ferrum "iron". Cyanide ions, ~CN, in turn, are
the defining feature of any cyanide compound, e.g. HCN 'hydrogen
cyanide', NaCN 'sodium cyanide', KCN 'potassium cyanide', and will
always be left behind upon exposure to cyanide.
> ===========================================================
> Phillips
>
> ...then I would have to say that Prussian Blue is the
> better indicator of exposure.
On the basis of what? Cyanide ions are *always* left behind consequent
to exposure, whereas Prussian Blue is formed *only* in certain, not
fully understod, circumstances. The presence of cyanide ions is an
absolute indicator of exposure, but Prussian Blue is not. In other
words, exposure to cyanide will *always* leave behind some residual
cyanide ions, but it will not necessarily result in the formation of
Prussian Blue.
> (2) Another unstated assumption is that --as between mass
> and the number of ions-- number of ions is the more reliable
> indicator of exposure. Why should we believe this?
Think of a parking lot. Which is the more reliable generator of income
at $1 an hour per vehicle: the number or the weight of the vehicles.
> ===========================================================
> Phillips
>
> (3) The third thing you neglected to point out is this: if
> we choose to base our conclusions on -CN ions rather than on
> Prussian Blue, then by whatever amount we diminish the count
> for the fumigation chamber, by that same amount must we
> diminish the count for the alleged execution chambers. In
> other words, there may not be any profound effect on the
> RATIO of the two.
>
> ======================================================
Nobody questions the fact that Prussian Blue was found by Leuchter in
his one fumigation facility "control" sample, as well as in fourteen of
his thirty gas chamber samples. The issue is not one of diminishing
counts, but rather of whether testing for Prussian Blue is a valid test
for exposure to cyanide. If we can detect Prussian Blue, we can
conclude that a place was exposed to cyanide, but if we cannot detect
Prussian Blue, that does not preclude the place ever having been
exposed to cyanide, as Leuchter does. The formation of Prussian Blue is
*not* a necessary consequence of exposure to cyanide, something that
can be determined visually by simply inspecting the irregularly
blue-splotched walls of Auschwitz fumigation facilities or the Majdanek
gas chamber. Failure to understand this is the logical flaw underlying
Leuchter's work.
--
Regards,
Eugene Holman
**********************************************************
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Gassen Burnham
ROTFLMFAO.... You have, by attempting to throw the topic over to
Prussian blue, aptly demonstrated what Richard has stated in the
initial post.
The spectre of what could happen if conclusive evidence against the
holohoax was to appear, terrifies you to the extent that you are
unable to even discuss the idea.
Instead you shoot from the lip, then after giving yourself time to
think, you post again, attempting to throw up a dust cloud.
You are a barrel of laughs, Frock.
Gassen Burnham
> "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in message news:<Aa6dnYtL9Mf...@mbay.net>...
> >
>
> <deleted nonsense>
>
>
> I'll print this out and put it on my bookcase between "Alice In Wonderland" and
>
> Dr Seuss's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas".
>
The contents of your bookcase tally with your ability to debate complex issues, Art.
Joebruno
At least I can discuss subjects not related to homosexuality, which is
more than you can do.
helge
> h) Leuchter's choice to ignore the fact that several forensic examinations
> had been conducted immediately after the war when the evidence was still
> fresh verifying the existence of cyanide compounds in walls, ventilation
> systems, and shorn hair from gassing victims;
at least 3 forensic examinations [reports] where samples of mortar were
taken from alleged "gas chambers" and other structures in Auschwitz I
and Auschwitz II.
2. "ventilation systems" - only few days ago someone claimed [I think it
was you] that the "ventilation systems" was removed by SS - and that
"you testimonies of eyewitnesses and M.Kola", now you claim that the
"ventilation systems" was forensicly examined after the WWII - perhaps
you could explain ?
3. "and shorn hair from gassing victims" - because someone came with
hair and said "this has been shorn of gassed victim" ?
well no - there is NO hair from "a gassed victim".
until these days - despite the claims that 2 000 000 - 3 500 000 were
gassed in "gass chambers" THERE IS NOT AT LEAST ONE BODY/HUMAN REMAINS
a forensic medic would identify as "a victim of the Nazis gass chamber".
> i) the fact that Leuchter, ignorant of the fact that it takes far more
> cyanide to kill lice than it does to kill people, explained the positive
> readings he obtained for 14 of his 30 gas chamber samples as a consequence
> of the fact that the structures had been fumigated with cyanide;
> j) the fact that Leuchter did not understand the logical contadiction
> between claiming that a place that could be fumigated using cyanide, this
> being his explanation for the presence of detectable Prussian Blue in 14
> of his 30 gas chamber samples, could not also be used as a place for
> killing people using cyanide;
> k) the completely unjustified cultural baggage that Leuchter lugged with
> him that caused him to assume that a Nazi mass-execution gas chamber would
> have to be similar in function, design, and construction to an American
> penal gas chamber and follow American execution procedures when killing
> people;
nonsense - he was pointing out the fact that there IS A DIFFERENCE
between a facility built for homicidal gassings and the facilities
holohuck$ters show in their holocau$t circus as "the death factories".
and he is right - the once horrific "death factories" were 4 000 000,
then 2 000 000, then later 800 000 were "gassed" - were according to the
recent holohu$ter stories "only converted to gass chambers", and the
focus is shifting to [small] cottages in the forest outside Birkenau...
> l) Leuchter's claims that the lack of sealing and venting that he found in
> gas chamber *ruins* would have prevented the structures that they were
> once part of from having been used as an enclosure to kill people, even
> though Zyklon-B was specifically designed to allow normally built rooms
> lacking such sealing and venting as structural attributes to be fumigated
> with Zyklon-B by a competent exterminator;
the method how to use Zyklon-B for fumigation, IS DIFFERENT from
the method described by "eyewitnesses" and holohuck$ters.
> m) Leuchter's basic and erroneous assumption that killing people with
> cyanide is an extremely difficult and complex procedure;
sure that's a problem - you need to "justify" and "explain"
millions of jewish victims - that excludes any "extremely difficult and
complex procedure" :)
> n) the fact that no court, engineering supervisory body, or penal system
> on earth
sophisticated :) Earth is a name of a planet, right ?
>has every recognized or accredited Leuchter to be an expert in
> the field for which he claims expertise, and no court or reputable
> scientist has ever excepted his report as having evidentiary or scientific
> value.
>
Leuchter HAVE DONE more research on the site than propagandists and
liars like Lipstadt or Hilberg.
> Thus, by cavalierly supporting the conclusions reached in the Leuchter
> report without addressing the substantive issues for which it and its
> author have been criticized, you show that you are arguing from a position
> of inferior intelligence with respect to the scientific facts, and of
> deficient knowledge with respect to what would constitute a legitimate
> study of the issue at hand. The Leuchter Report merely documents what is
> visible to the naked eye: there is far more Prussian Blue in his one
> sample from a fumigation chamber some 40 years after it was last used than
> there is on the walls of the gas chamber museumification at
"the gas chamber museumification" ?
:) so it is not a real "gass chamber" ?
[snip]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
helge
> f) Leuchter's choice to ignore the fact that the conditions obtaining
> immediately after the gassings, when the gas chambers would have to be
> hosed down to remove expelled body fluids and regularly painted to remove
> tell-tale odors and stains, with the fumigation chamber merely having to
> be emptied, were different, thus playing a demonstrable role in the
> short-term stability and retention of cyanide compounds;
Please name at least one forensic examination/report made before
"Leuchter's report" [there were "several", right ? :)] where based on
the evaluation of taken samples of mortar from alleged "gass chambers"
the forensic expert pointed out
the fact that the traces of gassing were affected by:
"hosing down to remove expelled body fluids" or "regular painting to
remove tell-tale odors and stains"
otherwise - I must point out the fact that you are only speculating
and attempting "to explain" and "cover" the holo-hole$ in your holocau$t
story.
Richard G. Phillips
"Joebruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:bf3896a1.03122...@posting.google.com...
================================================================
Phillips
Hoess WAS tortured, for three days by members of the British military field
police. OK, we'll say just bounced off the wall if you like that better. In
the course of this "conversation" he "confessed" to having murdered twice
the number you people are presently claiming. Afterward, he had some
sardonic things to say about the business, things along the line of: 'there
are ways.'
The leader of the unit was a Sgt Bernard Clarke, today a quite respected
British businessman. Go over there and look him up. He'll talk quite freely
since, far from being ashamed of what he did, he is quite proud of it.
The story is spelled out in the book Legions of Death by Rupert Brook. (I
think I have that right)
============================================================================
Richard G. Phillips
Phillips
IF you people are thoroughly convinced that both Leuchter (and Rudolf whose
work was more thorough) made a botch of the thing, there is nothing
preventing you from sending in your own team to do the thing the way you
think it should be done.
15 years have gone by and you have not so much as made a single step in that
direction.
As I said before, the world is made up of doers and carpers.
====================================
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-3012...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
Richard G. Phillips
=======================================================
Phillips
THere are three questions here. We'll take them in order.
(1) RELATIVE lack of Prussian blue!! I find that an odd choice of term. Just
what took place? Well, we had the fumigation chamber; we'll call that A.
Then we had those several places, about four, that you claim were execution
chambers; we'll call them, collectively, B.
From A , Leuchter got a concentration of 1000mg/kg. From B, which you claim
was subjected to an exposure sufficient to have resulted in 1M deaths, from
B made of the same material, located in the same place, subjected to
exposure by the same gas at the same time, we got a concentration of around
1 mg/kg - one-onethousandth of that for A, about the same level you will
find in any industrial or residential building. And you stand there telling
me that 1M persons were executed in B and I'm just not going to believe you
and I cannot see how any rational person would.
(2) When you spoke of other cyanide compounds, you were no doubt refurring
to the work done by the Krakow Institute. THis brings up several questions:
a) What were the other compounds they tested for?
b) Why are these other compounds more reliable indicators of exposure to HCN
than is Prussian blue?
c) How does the amount for these other compounds found on the walls of the
fumigation chamber (A) compare with the amount of Prussian blue found there?
d) Compare the amounts of these other compounds found at A with the amounts
found at B.
(3) REAL scientists.
Taking them collectively, do you find something UNREAL about Rudolph,
Lindsey, Luftl, Butz, Felderer, Mattogno. Everyone of them has lend his
weight solidly AGAINST the claim of gassings.
====================================================================
>
Richard G. Phillips
> Thank you for this, Mr. Phillips. I could not possibly have produced a
> better essay demonstrating the intrinsic connection between Holocaust
> denial and both racism and anti-Semitism. Yet here you provide the
> proof: concise, articulate and indisputible. Definitely one for the
> archives.
=========================================
Phillips
Oh, do you have a problem either with racism or with anti-Semitism? If so,
do please let us know what your problems are.
=========================================================================
>
>
Jason James
"Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in message
news:Aa6dnYtL9Mf...@mbay.net...
>
> For me the question of mass gassings was settled forever by the fact,
first
> discovered by Leuchter and confirmed by Rudolf, that there were negligible
> residues of Prussian blue on the walls of the alleged fumigation chamber.
Ayayayay! Then again, time is marching on, and you are not getting any wiser
Mr P.
Jason
Eugene Holman
<rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
> =========================================================
> Phillips
>
> IF you people are thoroughly convinced that both Leuchter (and Rudolf whose
> work was more thorough) made a botch of the thing, there is nothing
> preventing you from sending in your own team to do the thing the way you
> think it should be done.
>
> 15 years have gone by and you have not so much as made a single step in that
> direction.
Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of the issue. The Cracow
team's research was specifically designed to address the shortcomings and
open issues in the Leuchter report:
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/
<quote>
<deletions>
Historical revisionism is now put forward by members of various
nations, who already have their own scientific circles, own
publications and also use the mass media for their purposes. Up to
1988 the ,"revisionists" <1> most frequently manipulated historical
sources or simply denied the facts. Then, after the appearance of
the so-called Leuchter Report (2) , their tactics changed distinctly.
The above-mentioned Report, worked out on the basis of a study of the
ruins and remains of the crematoria and gas chambers at
Auschwitz-Birkenau, has been considered by them to be specific
evidence in support of their allegations and evidence of judicial
validity at that, since it was commissioned by the court of law in
Toronto (Canada). F. Leuchter , living in Boston, worked on the
design and construction of gas chambers still in use to execute the
death penalty in some States of the USA. This is considered to give him
authority to take the role of expert as regards gas chamber issues. In
this connection Leuchter came to Poland on 25 February 1988 and
stayed here for 5 days, visiting the camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau and at
Majdanek . In his report based on this inspection he states that "he found
no evidence that any of the facilities that are usually alleged to
have been gas chambers were actually used as such". Moreover, he claims
that these facilities "could not be used as gas chambers for killing
people" (Item 4000 of the Report).
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.
A later investigation, carried out by a G. Rudolf (4) , confirmed
the high concentrations of cyanogen compounds in the facilities for
clothes disinsectization. This may be so since, being undamaged, these
facilities were not exposed to the action of weather conditions,
especially rainfall. Moreover, it is known that the duration of
disinsectization was relatively long, about 24 hours for each batch
of clothes (probably even longer), whereas the execution with Zyklon B
in the gas chambers took, according to the statement of the
Auschwitz Camp Commander Rudolf Hoess (7) and the data presented by
Sehn (6) , only about 20 minutes. It should also be emphasized that
the ruins of these chambers have been constantly exposed to the
action of precipitation and it can be estimated, on the basis of the
climatological records, that in these last 45 years or so they have
been rinsed rather thoroughly by a column of water at least 35 m in height
(!).
In our correspondence with the Management of the Auschwitz Museum in
1989, not knowing the Leuchter Report then, we expressed our anxiety as
to the chances of detection of cyanogen compounds in the chamber
ruins; nevertheless, we offered to carry out an appropriate study. At
the beginning of 1990 two workers of the Institute of Forensic Research
arrived on the premises of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Camp and took samples
for screening analysis: 10 samples of plaster from the delousing
chamber (Block No 3 at Auschwitz), 10 samples from gas chamber ruins
and, in addition, 2 control samples from the buildings which, as living
quarters, had not been in contact with hydrogen cyanide. Out of the
10 samples from the delousing chamber, seven contained cyanogen compounds
at concentrations from 9 to 147 µg in conversion to potassium cyanide
(which was used to construct the calibration curve) and 100 g of
material. As far as the ruins are concerned, the presence of
cyanide was demonstrated only in the sample from the ruins of
Crematorium Chamber No II at Birkenau. Neither of the control
samples contained cyanides.
When the dispute on the Leuchter Report arose, we undertook a closer
study of the problem, availing ourselves, among other publications, of
J. C. Pressac's comprehensive work (5) . 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, including also 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.
<deletions>
Final Remarks
The present study shows that in spite of the passage of a considerable
period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which
once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the
combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B have been preserved. This
is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers. The cyanide
compounds occur in the building materials only locally, in the places
where the conditions arose for their formation and persistence for such a
long time.
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.
<deletions>
</quote>
> =========================================================
> Phillips
>
> As I said before, the world is made up of doers and carpers.
>
> ====================================
Indeed, but you concentrate on the carpers and do not recognize that the
doers have been as busy as beavers. Your claim that "not a single step has
been taken" to resolve the issue during the past fifteen years is
demonstrated to be totally erroneous by the above excerpts from the Cracow
Report. The primary justification for the Cracow Report was to point out
the shortcomings and methodological errors in the Leuchter report. Note
that during the nine years since it appeared, Leuchter has not taken a
single step to address the issue the Cracow team raised.
The ball is in your court.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Morghus
Going over the Hoess's testimony from that URL, I found these
interesting passages. To quote Bruno, "here's what the commandant of
Auschwitz said on the subject":
"If any ill-treatment 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 ill-treat internees, but this
ill-treatment was never tolerated."
WOW!! "Ill-treatment was never tolerated" at Auschwitz--that's
what the commandant said at Nuremberg. What about the deplorable
conditions found by the liberating Allied soldiers? Commandant Hoess
explained"
"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 Reichsfáhrer, even half-sick 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."
And notice how concerned the commandant and his superior were
about the welfare of the inmates even though the war was nearing an
end and the Allies were moving closer. Hoess and Maeller both worried
about shelter and safety of the internees if they were evacuated, and
the both tried to avoid unnecessary deaths to their charges. Here's
what the commandant at Auschwitz testified to at Nuremberg:
"After Buchenwald had been occupied, it was reported to the
Fáhrer that internees had armed themselves and were carrying out
plunderings in the town of Weimar. This caused the Fáhrer 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, Gruppenfáhrer Máller, called me in the evening and
told me that the Reichsfáhrer had ordered that the camp at
Sachsenhausen was to be evacuated at once. I pointed out to
Gruppenfáhrer Máller 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 Reichsfáhrer."
From that testimony it should be obvious that Hoess was not the
evil mass murderer the German-haters make him out to be; and the
administrators of Auschwitz and other camps were not the cold ruthless
killers of Holocaust lore. The horrible conditions at the camps so
often displayed as evidence of the Holocaust were in fact brought
about by the relentless attacks by the Allies as they bombed and
overran the country, leaving the Germans without food or supplies.
There was no Holocaust.
Morghus
>
> > n) the fact that no court, engineering supervisory body, or penal system
> > on earth
>
> sophisticated :) Earth is a name of a planet, right ?
>
> >has every recognized or accredited Leuchter to be an expert in
> > the field for which he claims expertise, and no court or reputable
> > scientist has ever excepted his report as having evidentiary or scientific
> > value.
> >
> Leuchter HAVE DONE more research on the site than propagandists and
> liars like Lipstadt or Hilberg.
>
In fact, Leuchter is the only person with any experience at all
with homicidal gas chambers who ever examined the rooms at the camps.
All of those "expert" touted by the Holocaust promoters never saw a
real gas chamber or attended an execution by cyanide gas.
But the "no cyanide" conclusion was not wholly Leuchter's. All
Leuchter did was go to Poland and chip out random samples from the
walls of rooms the holohucksters insist were gas chambers. Then he
took more samples from rooms known to be used for delousing clothing
and bedding. He took those samples to an independent laboratory and
asked them to look for cyanide residue. It was the technicians at the
laboratory who told Leuchter there was no cyanide in those samples
taken from the rooms alleged to be human gas chambers. By contrast,
there was lots and lots of cyanide in the samples taken from the rooms
used for delousing. The obvious conclusion: there were no human gas
chambers at Auschwitz.
But listen to how the clever Caustians tried to get around that.
They hired a group of chemists who devised a test that couldn't "see"
any cyanide that had combined with the iron in the brick and mortar.
It was the cyanide combined with iron that created the blue color on
the walls of the delousing chambers, sometimes penetrating all the way
through the porous brick to the outside surface. The walls of the
delousing chambers were mottled with a heavy blue color because of all
the cyanide compounds. But the Caustian-chemistry test missed it all.
Instead, the tests could only detect "free ions" of cyanide, a very
rare occurrence since cyanide readily combines with other elements.
Since there were very few free ions of cyanide in the delousing
chambers, and very few free ions in the alleged human gas chambers,
the caustians claim the human-gas chamber room must have the same
amount of cyanide residue as the delousing chambers and therefore must
have been used to kill humans.
Isn't that ingenius? We have to give credit where credit is due:
Caustians are incredibly good liars. But then, they have
half-a-century of practice.
Orac
"Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
> In this verbal duel with Mr. Mock and others I enjoy a considerable
> advantage. That advantage is not superior intelligence, superior knowledge,
> or superior debating skills, for I claim none of these things.
And it is good that you do not, for you demonstrate nearly every day
that you do not possess any of these things.
>It is,
> rather, in the different ways each of us would react to total defeat - IN
> THE EVENT that this thing ever reached an agreed-upon conclusion.
> In the event that new information came to light that left the world no
> alternative but to conclude that, yes, around 1M Jews WERE zapped in the gas
> chambers. It would be a surprise to me but not terribly upsetting; indeed,
> hardly upsetting at all. I would absorb it and then go on about the
> important things of my life; this debate is NOT one of those important
> things.
You sure seem to expend a lot of time and effort on denying the
Holocaust. If, as you say, it doesn't really matter that much to you
whether it is true that approximately 6 million Jews were killed by the
Nazi regime by various means, including shooting, hanging, gas chambers,
intentional starvation, and overwork, you certainly make it appear to
anyone who has lurked in this newsgroup for even a relatively short
period of time that convincing people that the Holocaust didn't occur or
was much, much smaller in scope than what historians commonly believe
today is critically important to you. Indeed, you spend a great deal of
time and effort at denying the voluminous evidence people like Eugene
Holman put in front of you. When you are cornered and unable to deny the
evidence effectively, sometimes you become very angry, and launch into
nasty tirades against "the Jews," which to me implies a very strong
emotional need to believe that the Jews were not the victims of one of
the largest pogroms in history.
> Now let us, on the other hand, suppose that the reverse happened, that facts
> came to life that proved --CONCLUSIVELY-- that the Jews had NOT been gassed,
> that there were, admittedly, some 50,000 to 100,000 deaths in the camps due
> to disease and malnutrition but that was it. The moral and emotional effect
> on Mock and on other Holocaust-believing Jews and on Jewry collectively,
> would be beyond imagining. For those people it is just something that does
> not event bear THINKING about.
The reason it does not bear thinking about is because there is no chance
that will happen. It is pointless to spend much time thinking about a
possibility that is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. The evidence
FOR the Holocaust as commonly described by historians is just too great,
your attempts to cast doubt notwithstanding. The evidence that the Nazis
did indeed kill approximately six million Jews during an intentional
campaign of mass murder designed to eliminate European Jewry is simply
overwhelming.
> Consider: They would be recognized as conniving and manipulating liars whose
> word about anything is not to be believed.
You mean like Holocaust deniers?
>They would be recognized as
> people utterly without scruple who will say anything and do anything to
> advance their agenda.
Again, you mean like Holocaust deniers like yourself?
>There will be a considerable digging up of old corpses
> buried, of all the debris left behind in the wake of the Jewish rise to
> power: the hundreds of careers destroyed, the reputations blackened, the
> congress people unseated - all because they stood in the way of the Jews.
> Nor will there be any hesitancy in talking about all of the violence - the
> fire-bombings, the assaults, the acid-blindings. This sort of thing does not
> sit well with the American people. For we believe these questions should be
> resolved by civilized discourse, NOT by the gangsterism bred in East
> European ghettos.
>
> Oh, yes, our society will become a very different place. Anti-Semitic jokes
> will become common. For a while they will be apologized for - but only for a
> while. When an official is accused of being "anti-Semitic", his likely reply
> will be a terse: "of course." When a Jew goes to a social gathering and
> announces himself as Feinstein or Goldbaum, faces will suddenly lengthen.
> Oh, everybody will be polite to him, of course, but it will be the surface
> politeness at which Anglo-Saxons excel. For a candidate running for office,
> a mere suggestion that he is backed by Jewish money would be fatal.
Sorry, Phillips, but these words don't sound like those of a man to whom
the Holocaust is of little consequence, who wouldn't much care if it
were finally proven even to his ever-changing and ever-escalating
standards that the Holocaust did indeed happen. They sound like the
fantasies of an old man who desperately wishes for a world that never
truly existed.
> For the first time in our history serious questions will be raised about the
> lovely laxness of our citizenship laws. That a newcomer, by a not very
> difficult process, becomes a CITIZEN with all the rights and privileges
> appertaining thereto, free to join this league or that league and lobby
> congress for whatever is dear to his as yet not-entirely-American heart.
Not a very difficult process? Geez, Phillips, do you really know how
long it takes to become a citizen, what all the hoops an applicant has
to jump through are?
> This is a glimpse of a possible future American society. The Jews understand
> it perfectly well, and that is why they go to the extraordinary lengths they
> do to forestall it. And that is why nothing they say to us can be taken for
> granted.
>
> Just who ARE these people who regale us perpetually with Jewish tales of woe
> and permit no contrary version of the events?
> They are the same people
>
> --who were the followers of the sociologist Franz Boas who told us that the
> races were all equal in every respect. Those followers now run the sociology
> departments of leading universities. The consequences of their handiwork can
> now be seen in the jungles that once-liveable American cities have been
> turned into.
Really? How?
> --who were the adherents of the Frankfurt (Germany) School of Social
> Research, wisely thrown out of Germany by Hitler, but who continued their
> poisonous work in America, teaching us that anyone with a strong attachment
> to his nation must obviously have something wrong with his character.
>
> --who, successfully, moved heaven and earth to manipulate us into a European
> war in which we had no great interest, at the same time damning to hell all
> who dared expose their machinations. They were very generous with American
> lives.
Really? Which Jews, specifically, "manipulated" us into a European War?
I want names AND evidence. And don't forget to show that it was just
Jews or primarily Jews who did this.
> --who, following almost a century of agitating, propagandizing, and
> influence seeking, succeeded in opening wide our immigration doors, thus
> letting a flood of black, brown, and yellow denizens of the human species.
> This is a demographic catastrophe from which we will probably never recover.
> The perpetrators, far from apologizing for what they have done, actually
> PRAISE themselves with inanities like "Diversity is our strength."
Really? Which Jews, specifically, opened wide our immigration doors? I
want names AND evidence. And don't forget to show that it was just Jews
or primarily Jews who did this.
> -- who, having now re-baptised themselves as "neo-conservatives" (though I'm
> damned if I know what it is they are trying to "conserve"), are busily
> overseeing the departure of American industry and business to foreign parts.
> It is quite useless to point out to them that this is destroying the
> American middle class and working class. You poor fellow, that is exactly
> what they want.
Really? Which Jews, specifically, are busily overseeing the departure of
American industry and jobs to foreign parts? I want names AND evidence.
And don't forget to show that it is just Jews or primarily Jews who are
doing this. A few Jewish names won't be enough.
> In the light of all this experience, is it now permissible to ask whether
> these people have any soil of America on their shoes?
Actually, in light of your racism, anti-Semitism, and lack of
understanding what it means to be a free man, I would ask exactly the
same question of YOU: Do YOU have any soil of America on your shoes? I
don't think that you do.
> For me the question of mass gassings was settled forever by the fact, first
> discovered by Leuchter and confirmed by Rudolf, that there were negligible
> residues of Prussian blue on the walls of the alleged fumigation chamber.
Eugene and others have shown you on multiple occasions why Leuchter's
work was fatally flawed, and you have chosen to ignore it.
> The Holocaustniks desperately scrounge for a reply --any reply-- to that,
> but they cannot because there isn't one.
Yes there is. That you choose to ignore it or deny it is YOUR choice.
> So what do they do? They scrounge the websites for any two-bit quibble that
> can possibly help to keep their show on the road. I dismiss them with the
> contempt they deserve.
No, you dismiss them because you cannot win an argument, mainly because
(1) the facts and evidence are NOT on your side and (2) you are too
irrational.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Orac
"Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
> Hoess WAS tortured, for three days by members of the British military field
> police.
Evidence for this assertion, please?
[Snip]
Orac
Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote:
> Thank you for this, Mr. Phillips. I could not possibly have produced a
> better essay demonstrating the intrinsic connection between Holocaust
> denial and both racism and anti-Semitism. Yet here you provide the
> proof: concise, articulate and indisputible. Definitely one for the
> archives.
Indeed. It is also particularly notable how Phillips feigns lack of
concern over whether the Holocaust actually happened or not, comparing
it to the supposed fanaticism of the "Holocaustniks," but then
demonstrates with his own words that his need to deny the Holocaust is
very strong and emotional.
Chris C. Larson
> advantage. That advantage is not superior intelligence, superior knowledge,
> or superior debating skills, for I claim none of these things. It is,
> rather, in the different ways each of us would react to total defeat - IN
> THE EVENT that this thing ever reached an agreed-upon conclusion.
> In the event that new information came to light that left the world no
> alternative but to conclude that, yes, around 1M Jews WERE zapped in the gas
> chambers. It would be a surprise to me but not terribly upsetting; indeed,
> hardly upsetting at all. I would absorb it and then go on about the
> important things of my life; this debate is NOT one of those important
> things.
>
> Now let us, on the other hand, suppose that the reverse happened, that facts
> came to life that proved --CONCLUSIVELY-- that the Jews had NOT been gassed,
> that there were, admittedly, some 50,000 to 100,000 deaths in the camps due
> to disease and malnutrition but that was it. The moral and emotional effect
> on Mock and on other Holocaust-believing Jews and on Jewry collectively,
> would be beyond imagining. For those people it is just something that does
> not event bear THINKING about.
Rich:
Virtually all of us Christians (real ones, not the made up racist
sect) that believe the Holocaust happened. It's just the wacko fringe
who believes otherwise. And when are you going to go form your "Happy
White Europe" or whatever that clubhouse on the prairie is supposed to
be? Is that before or after you form the "white power" media
conglomerate? We're waiting. Can you pack your bags quicker? We'll
be happy to help.
Waldo
> "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in message news:<Aa6dnYtL9Mf...@mbay.net>...
> > In this verbal duel with Mr. Mock and others I enjoy a considerable
> > advantage. That advantage is not superior intelligence, superior knowledge,
> > or superior debating skills, for I claim none of these things. It is,
> > rather, in the different ways each of us would react to total defeat - IN
> > THE EVENT that this thing ever reached an agreed-upon conclusion.
> > In the event that new information came to light that left the world no
> > alternative but to conclude that, yes, around 1M Jews WERE zapped in the gas
> > chambers. It would be a surprise to me but not terribly upsetting; indeed,
> > hardly upsetting at all. I would absorb it and then go on about the
> > important things of my life; this debate is NOT one of those important
> > things.
> >
> > Now let us, on the other hand, suppose that the reverse happened, that facts
> > came to life that proved --CONCLUSIVELY-- that the Jews had NOT been gassed,
> > that there were, admittedly, some 50,000 to 100,000 deaths in the camps due
> > to disease and malnutrition but that was it. The moral and emotional effect
> > on Mock and on other Holocaust-believing Jews and on Jewry collectively,
> > would be beyond imagining. For those people it is just something that does
> > not event bear THINKING about.
>
> Rich:
> Virtually all of us Christians (real ones, not the made up racist
> sect) that believe the Holocaust happened.
Thanks for the confirmation that Holocaustism is a faith-based
ideology, Chris.
I'm sure you also believe that the Jews are "God's Chosen People",
that Israel is their "Promised Land" and that supporting Zionism is
"doing God's work", don't you?
You poor duped fool.
Do you have a clue as to what "REAL JEWS" think about you "Real
Christians"?
Let me know if you want to be let in on the joke, won't you?
**
Waldo
Observer at Large
Joebruno
I've got a pickup truck. I'll drive them to the airport or the train
station on one condition:
That they only have a one-way ticket and promise not to come back. I
want all these terms put into a written contract so that I can sue
them if they breach it and come back. The contract must have a
liquidated damages clause which specifies that, if they breach the
agreement, they owe me half a million dollars.
Beaver Cleaver
larsonc...@hotmail.com (Chris C. Larson) wrote:
>Virtually all of us Christians (real ones, not the made up racist
>sect)
You aren't a real Christian if you ally yourself with the enemies of Christ or
the anti-Christs who to this day deny Jesus as the Messiah came in the flesh!
TRUE CHRISTIANS were the 1st Century ones who would have nothing to do with
Judaism and those who espoused it! Today there are only a few who adhere to the
standards the 1st Century Christians established YET the majority of Christendom
does obeisance to the anti-Christs!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=vd01cvsh9ta3ep7b3crfru9ce2rb0snnls%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Children of the Devil and Anti-Christ[s] Positively Identified Using
Scripture-- Check The Proofs For Yourselves! V2.0
Message-ID: <vd01cvsh9ta3ep7b3...@4ax.com>
Date: 13 May 2003 05:29:00 GMT
>that believe the Holocaust happened.
Do you believe these Holocausts happened?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=5rhktv483m9oofgqt8goir93o4pm08ht49%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: UPDATED: 3 Major Jewish Organizations Engage in Holocaust Denial in
Addition to Their anti-Christic Christ Denial anti-Christism
Message-ID: <5rhktv483m9oofgqt...@4ax.com>
Date: 12 Dec 2003 22:57:48 GMT
>It's just the wacko fringe who believes otherwise.
Such as you and the anti-Christ kike filth you embrace!
Tavish
--Jewish Tradition will NEVER teach Non-Jews as being equals--
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=kllghv4i1i04qsl4hc4uva984ad499imdg%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Non-Jews: What is Taught About Them & How They are Viewed by 21st
Century Pharisees V2.1 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:23:59 -0500
Message-ID: <kllghv4i1i04qsl4h...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=b6beevshh8dcr43hk33rafn23fvo2p8c9c%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: All Men Are Created Equal is NOT a Jewish Concept
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:27:38 -0500
Message-ID: <b6beevshh8dcr43hk...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=iajpkv0j8trac76ia...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Jews Want Legal and Financial Superiority Over the Non-Jew; Who is NOT
a "Brother" in Their Eyes! V2.0 R_0827
Message-ID: <iajpkv0j8trac76ia...@4ax.com>
Date: 27 Aug 2003 15:36:36 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ejoodv8ba5n1ja6k5f13i0bfp46nhfb257%404ax.com&rnum=3
Subject: Bigoted Reasoning of Jews on Relations with Non-Jews From Chabad
Lubavitch Cyberspace Website
Message-ID: <ejoodv8ba5n1ja6k5...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3eaade4a.64590087%40tavish-central.net&rnum=5
Subject: Exclusion Entirely of Non-Jews in the Jewish Scheme of Things! R_0426
Message-ID: <3eaade4a...@tavish-central.net>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3eca1e34.54088216%40tavish-central.net&rnum=6
Subject: Lessons in Tanya- Hasidism - Only Jews Have Souls & Heavenly
Pre-Earthly Existence? R_0520
Message-ID: <3eca1e34...@tavish-central.net>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=r6qodvco6ecqdnokego4e73qjtqptk2iis%404ax.com&rnum=13
Subject: About Kashrus and Supervision - What Jews Teach Concerning non-Jews (In
Their Own Words Series) R_0603
Message-ID: <r6qodvco6ecqdnoke...@4ax.com>
Date: 10 Jul 2003 13:03:01 GMT
Steven Mock
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9460F30A944A...@140.99.99.130...
>> Thank you for this, Mr. Phillips. I could not possibly have produced
>> a better essay demonstrating the intrinsic connection between
>> Holocaust denial and both racism and anti-Semitism. Yet here you
>> provide the proof: concise, articulate and indisputible. Definitely
>> one for the archives.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> Oh, do you have a problem either with racism or with anti-Semitism? If
> so, do please let us know what your problems are.
That is its unjust and arbitrary to judge a person's character based on
ascriptive traits beyond their control, and that the libels often levelled
against Jews are false and can lead to violence against innocent people.
Pretty serious concerns, wouldn't you say?
Steven Mock
Steven Mock
First of all, Leuchter's results are meaningless because the samples were
diluted to an unknown degree when he failed to tell the lab that it was
only the surface that needed testing.
Secondly, you are accepting Leuchter's conclusions on blind faith. What
concentration would one expect to find on the walls of a room in which
300,000 - 500,000 people were gassed (1M is a straw-man, BTW, no single gas
chamber killed that many)? You don't know? So why do say no rational
person would believe gassings took place when you you have no rational
argument as to why they couldn't have.
> (2) When you spoke of other cyanide compounds, you were no doubt
> refurring to the work done by the Krakow Institute. THis brings up
> several questions:
>
> a) What were the other compounds they tested for?
> b) Why are these other compounds more reliable indicators of exposure
> to HCN than is Prussian blue?
I'm not saying that they are *more* reliable indicators. I am saying that
they prove exposure of the walls to HCN just as well as does Prussian Blue.
Someone testing for some compounds but not for others will inevitably get
false negatives. That's a no-brainer, Phillips.
> c) How does the amount for these other compounds found on the walls of
> the fumigation chamber (A) compare with the amount of Prussian blue
> found there? d) Compare the amounts of these other compounds found at
> A with the amounts found at B.
Why don't you ask this question, Mr. Phillips: Why is a *fumigation
chamber* taken as the standard? The room was 1/40th the size of the gas
chamber was was subjected to HCN far more frequently and consistently than
the homicidal gas chamber that was used once, maybe twice, in a day. That
there should be LESS cyanide compounds on the walls of the homicidal gas
chamber is fully consistent with the normative case. It does not explain
away the fact that there was cyanide residue found on those walls
considerably in excess of what you claim would be normal in "any industrial
or residential building".
To paraphrase you, revisionists scrounge for any two-bit quibble that can
possibly distract from this fact. I dismiss them with the contempt they
deserve.
> (3) REAL scientists.
>
> Taking them collectively, do you find something UNREAL about Rudolph,
> Lindsey, Luftl, Butz, Felderer, Mattogno. Everyone of them has lend
> his weight solidly AGAINST the claim of gassings.
So does Tom Moran. Big deal.
Steven Mock
Steven Mock
@posting.google.com:
> Do you have a clue as to what "REAL JEWS" think about you "Real
> Christians"?
>
> Let me know if you want to be let in on the joke, won't you?
Yeah, Waldo's really good at telling other people what they think. He's
also the one who has the divine right to decide what a REAL JEW is.
Without those two talents, his whole belief system would come crashing down
at his knees.
Steven Mock
Richard G. Phillips
==========================================================
Phillips
Samples were diluted??? Just what do you mean by diluted?
Failed to tell the lab that it ws only the surface that needed testing. Why
should he have told them something that was not true?
================================================
>
> Secondly, you are accepting Leuchter's conclusions on blind faith.
=======================================================
Phillips
I'm not accepting his conclusions; I'm accepting his test results and
drawing my own conclusions.
========================================================
What
> concentration would one expect to find on the walls of a room in which
> 300,000 - 500,000 people were gassed
===================================================
Phillips
I have already answered that. Your so-called execution chambers (which we
speak of collectively as B) had walls of the same material, were subjected
to exposures over a two year period, exposures sufficient to have killed a
very large number of people, were subjected to those exposures at the same
time and in the same geographical location and the best you can come up with
is one one-thousandth of the concentrations found on the walls of A. THis is
a figure barely detectable and about what you would find in any residential
or industrial structure. And you actually stand there and tell me that a
huge number of persons were gassed and I tell you that you're lying.
==========================================
(1M is a straw-man, BTW, no single gas
> chamber killed that many)?
==============================================
Phillips
I never said any SINGLE gas chamber killed that many. You will recall that,
by the designation B, I was referring COLLECTIVELY to all of the execution
chambers.
In any event, the number of deaths dances about so unpredictably that it's a
problem keeping up to date. It began at 9M and has been coming down ever
since.
==============================================================
You don't know?
================================================
Phillips
No, I don't know what the concentration ought to have been but I DO know it
would have been something better than the miserable 1mg/kg that was found.
===========================================
So why do say no rational
> person would believe gassings took place when you you have no rational
> argument as to why they couldn't have.
============================================
Phillips
I HAVE a rational argument and ti has already been given to you.
========================================================
>
> > (2) When you spoke of other cyanide compounds, you were no doubt
> > refurring to the work done by the Krakow Institute. THis brings up
> > several questions:
> >
> > a) What were the other compounds they tested for?
> > b) Why are these other compounds more reliable indicators of exposure
> > to HCN than is Prussian blue?
>
> I'm not saying that they are *more* reliable indicators. I am saying that
> they prove exposure of the walls to HCN just as well as does Prussian
Blue.
===============================================
Phillips
HOW do they prove this? In the first place, can the Krokow results even be
compared with Leuchter's? If they can, is it possible to say that they got
concentrations subtantially larger than those Leuchter found?
THen, how do those concentrations compare with their control which, as I
recall, was a room never before exposed. I mean, if you got 1 mg/kg in your
alleged execution chamber and 0.999 mg/kg in your control, it will leave me
monumentally unimpressed.
=====================================================
> Someone testing for some compounds but not for others will inevitably get
> false negatives. That's a no-brainer, Phillips.
===============================================================
Phillips
Inevitably?
==================================================
>
> > c) How does the amount for these other compounds found on the walls of
> > the fumigation chamber (A) compare with the amount of Prussian blue
> > found there? d) Compare the amounts of these other compounds found at
> > A with the amounts found at B.
>
> Why don't you ask this question, Mr. Phillips: Why is a *fumigation
> chamber* taken as the standard?
=========================================
Phillips
Because it was the one place KNOWN to have been subjected to a very large
exposure. What would you have chosen?
=================================================
The room was 1/40th the size of the gas
> chamber was was subjected to HCN far more frequently and consistently than
> the homicidal gas chamber that was used once, maybe twice, in a day.
=================================================
Phillips
How do you know these things?
=======================================
That
> there should be LESS cyanide compounds on the walls of the homicidal gas
> chamber is fully consistent with the normative case.
=================================================
Phillips
Less. How MUCH less? One one-thousandth as much? Save such tales for the
fools who wirr believe them.
================================================
It does not explain
> away the fact that there was cyanide residue found on those walls
> considerably in excess of what you claim would be normal in "any
industrial
> or residential building".
============================================
Phillips
Considerably in excess? Not according to Leuchter (whom you despise) but
also according to Rudolf (whom you can't). I have to accord vastly more
weight to Rudolf than I do to you.
=======================================================
barry
You are 100% correct in your assessment of today's popular cult of
Judeo-churchianity & it's cult of politically correct snake worship. The
Hollow-hoax is a part of their depraved religion along with their
TalMUD-vision and the IRS 501c3 tax code they are controlled by.
True Christians are today part of a small REMNANT which does not buy into
the PC Cult the judaisers have turned the Church into.
Anybody who thinks that belief in the false hollow-hoax is a part of
Christianity is a certifiable nut case. Jesus said to try the spirits; & I
know the spiirit of anti-Christ when I see it!
"Beaver Cleaver" <beaver_cleaver@mayfield01net> wrote in message
news:p326vv4pqfg5af9fd...@4ax.com...
Steven Mock
HCN residue does not penetrate into the plaster, Phillips. It accumulates
on the surface. If you take chunks of different depths, ground them up,
and test what you're left with, your results will have more to do with the
size and depth of the samples than with the actual accumulation of HCN on
the surface in question.
>> Secondly, you are accepting Leuchter's conclusions on blind faith.
> =======================================================
> Phillips
>
> I'm not accepting his conclusions; I'm accepting his test results and
> drawing my own conclusions.
And, as I have shown, your conclusions are based on fraudulant data and
false assumptions you have naively bought into. Crap in, crap out.
>> What
>> concentration would one expect to find on the walls of a room in
>> which 300,000 - 500,000 people were gassed
>
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> I have already answered that. Your so-called execution chambers
> (which we speak of collectively as B) had walls of the same material,
> were subjected to exposures over a two year period, exposures
> sufficient to have killed a very large number of people, were
> subjected to those exposures at the same time and in the same
> geographical location and the best you can come up with is one
> one-thousandth of the concentrations found on the walls of A.
No, that is not the best I can come up with. That is the best Leuchter
could come up with because he is incompetent, for reasons outlined above.
You seem to be sticking your heard in the sand with regards to the results
that were aquired by real scientists using a testable methodology, whose
study I have cited for you already so many times I frankly can't be
bothered to retype the URL anymore.
> THis is
> a figure barely detectable and about what you would find in any
> residential or industrial structure.
Except that this is a lie. The figure derived through a competent
methodology was considerably higher than any control sample, even after 50
years of exposure to the elements.
> And you actually stand there and
> tell me that a huge number of persons were gassed and I tell you that
> you're lying.
Then why are you the only one between us who bases his arguments on data
aquired by liars?
>> (1M is a straw-man, BTW, no single gas
>> chamber killed that many)?
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> I never said any SINGLE gas chamber killed that many. You will recall
> that, by the designation B, I was referring COLLECTIVELY to all of the
> execution chambers.
Then you're an idiot, given that the different gas chambers were used to
different degrees, and therefore could be expected to have different
concentrations.
> In any event, the number of deaths dances about so unpredictably that
> it's a problem keeping up to date. It began at 9M and has been coming
> down ever since.
Not really, but feel free to keep lying while calling everyone else around
you liars.
> > You don't know?
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> No, I don't know what the concentration ought to have been but I DO
> know it would have been something better than the miserable 1mg/kg
> that was found.
Assuming that this figure is indeed accurate... why? On what, exactly, do
you base your assessment as to what should have been found? What does
Leuchter base HIS assessment on? Or Rudolf?
This is kind of what I mean about the pitfalls of having blind faith in
incompetent liars.
>> > (2) When you spoke of other cyanide compounds, you were no doubt
>> > refurring to the work done by the Krakow Institute. THis brings up
>> > several questions:
>> >
>> > a) What were the other compounds they tested for?
>> > b) Why are these other compounds more reliable indicators of
>> > exposure to HCN than is Prussian blue?
>>
>> I'm not saying that they are *more* reliable indicators. I am saying
>> that they prove exposure of the walls to HCN just as well as does
>> Prussian Blue.
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> HOW do they prove this?
The same way that Prussian Blue proves this.
> In the first place, can the Krokow results
> even be compared with Leuchter's? If they can, is it possible to say
> that they got concentrations subtantially larger than those Leuchter
> found?
>
> THen, how do those concentrations compare with their control which, as
> I recall, was a room never before exposed. I mean, if you got 1 mg/kg
> in your alleged execution chamber and 0.999 mg/kg in your control, it
> will leave me monumentally unimpressed.
Gee, Philips. Here you are mouthing off with apparent authority using
definitive figures as to what concentrations were present where, and it
turns out you don't even know. And its not like finding out would require
wading through pages of incomprehensible data either. The evidence is, in
fact, as plain as day:
The figures for the control sample (dwelling accomodations which, according
to Leuchter, were fumigated only one), are here:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
research/table-one.html
The results for samples taken from the gas chamber at Krema II are here:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
research/table-three.html
The results for the fumigation chambers are here:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
research/table-four.html
>> Someone testing for some compounds but not for others will inevitably
>> get false negatives. That's a no-brainer, Phillips.
>
> ===============================================================
> Phillips
>
> Inevitably?
Let's say I wanted to test five drinks for the presence of alchohol. Gin
has alchohol in it, so I begin testing whether the drinks contain gin. I
find that only one of the five drinks has gin in it, and conclude,
therefore, that only one in five drinks contain alchohol. Never mind that
the other four were made with vodka, scotch, rum and tequila.
If I was ONLY testing for gin, yet declared that my results proved
something about the presence of alchohol, you'd consider me either
dishonest or an idiot, would you not?
>> > c) How does the amount for these other compounds found on the walls
>> > of the fumigation chamber (A) compare with the amount of Prussian
>> > blue found there? d) Compare the amounts of these other compounds
>> > found at A with the amounts found at B.
>>
>> Why don't you ask this question, Mr. Phillips: Why is a *fumigation
>> chamber* taken as the standard?
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> Because it was the one place KNOWN to have been subjected to a very
> large exposure. What would you have chosen?
Since the Auschwitz gas chambers were unique - which is to say, there is no
other facility that we already know for certain was used as a homicidal gas
chamber in a similar sort of way, over a similar period of time, and
subjected to similar conditions thereafter - there is no standard to test
it against. Which is the reason why chemistry is not the science you can
use to definitively prove that these were gas chambers. The best you can
do is compare the concentrations of cyanide on the walls to the
concentration present in "any industrial or residential building". If the
concentrations are considerably higher (as they are), then that is a result
that is consistent with the normative case, or, at the very least, that
requires explaining.
Comparing the gas chamber to a fumigation chamber is comparing apples and
oranges - something that would be done only by a dishonest scientist who
was trying to generate a meaningless result that he could thereafter use to
try and dupe people who don't know any better.
>> The room was 1/40th the size of the gas
>> chamber was was subjected to HCN far more frequently and consistently
>> than the homicidal gas chamber that was used once, maybe twice, in a
>> day.
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> How do you know these things?
Um... I looked it up. Try it some time.
>> That
>> there should be LESS cyanide compounds on the walls of the homicidal
>> gas chamber is fully consistent with the normative case.
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> Less. How MUCH less? One one-thousandth as much? Save such tales for
> the fools who wirr believe them.
We're going in circles. No, it was not one-thousandth as much. That was
Leuchter's result, which could not be replicated, and was worthless for
reasons I have already outlined.
Secondly, what concentration WOULD you believe, and why? And if you can't
offer any explanation for your answer, how is your opinion worth anything
on the matter.
Given that the fumigation chambers were largely sheltered, whereas large
parts of the gas chamber walls were exposed to the elements for 50 years,
its rather amazing that such high concentrations are still present to be
tested. But, unlike Leuchter and your buddies, the Krakow institute
examined the effect of the elements on cyanide residue as well.
> It does not explain
>> away the fact that there was cyanide residue found on those walls
>> considerably in excess of what you claim would be normal in "any
>> industrial or residential building".
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Considerably in excess? Not according to Leuchter (whom you despise)
> but also according to Rudolf (whom you can't). I have to accord vastly
> more weight to Rudolf than I do to you.
Really? What concentrations did Rudolf find, and what methodology did he
employ?
I'm not asking you to give any weight to what I say. You have yet to
criticize either the methods, arguments or conclusions of the Krakow
institute which show your buddies up for the hacks they are.
Steven Mock
Eugene Holman
<rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
<deletions>
> ==========================================================
> Phillips
>
> Samples were diluted??? Just what do you mean by diluted?
How many times have you asked this question and had it explained to you?
> ==========================================================
> Phillips
>
> Failed to tell the lab that it ws only the surface that needed testing. Why
> should he have told them something that was not true?
>
> ================================================
Dunh! If you are trying to determine whether cyanide was used in an
enclosure, samples from its wall sufaces would be a far better source of
empirical evidence than samples from 5 cm. inside the walls, no?
> > Secondly, you are accepting Leuchter's conclusions on blind faith.
> =======================================================
> Phillips
>
> I'm not accepting his conclusions; I'm accepting his test results and
> drawing my own conclusions.
>
> ========================================================
That means that you are acting on blind faith rather than on rationality.
Rationality would require that you do some intellectual work to understand
the tests thatproduced the results.
> What
> > concentration would one expect to find on the walls of a room in which
> > 300,000 - 500,000 people were gassed
>
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> I have already answered that. Your so-called execution chambers (which we
> speak of collectively as B) had walls of the same material,
Å but were of different sizes and had a totally different histories of use
and post-use interaction with their very different environments.
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> were subjected
> to exposures over a two year period, exposures sufficient to have killed a
> very large number of people, were subjected to those exposures at the same
> time and in the same geographical location and the best you can come up with
> is one one-thousandth of the concentrations found on the walls of A.
Wrongo! Even if we do not account for such details as the necessity of
scrubbing down gas chamber but not fumigation chamber walls, not to
mention the dilution of samples and the radically different post-1945
history of the two environments, Leuchter's numbers are not one to a
thousand. The highest reading for a gas chamber ruin was 7.9 mg/kg, while
his single reading for a fumigation chamber was 1060 mg/kg. The ratio is
thus 1/134, not 1/1000.
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> THis is
> a figure barely detectableÅ
ROTFL! The Cracow team used a threshold of 1 µg/kg, while Leuchter's was
an arbitrary 1,000 times higher, 1 mg/kg. Eugene Holman will not be caught
sleeping!
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> and about what you would find in any residential
> or industrial structure.
BULL! The only residential or industrial structures in which you would
find such high readings are such which have been exposed to lethal
concentrations of cyanide.
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> And you actually stand there and tell me that a
> huge number of persons were gassed and I tell you that you're lying.
>
> ==========================================
You have no scientific basis for your "telling".
>
> (1M is a straw-man, BTW, no single gas
> > chamber killed that many)?
>
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> I never said any SINGLE gas chamber killed that many. You will recall that,
> by the designation B, I was referring COLLECTIVELY to all of the execution
> chambers.
>
> In any event, the number of deaths dances about so unpredictably that it's a
> problem keeping up to date. It began at 9M and has been coming down ever
> since.
>
> ==============================================================
>
> You don't know?
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> No, I don't know what the concentration ought to have been but I DO know it
> would have been something better than the miserable 1mg/kg that was found.
>
> ===========================================
Why? How do or can you know that?
Herewith you have just admitted that you are not arguing on the basis of
science, but rather from your own gut intuitions and convictions.
There is no reason to continue this discussion. You have just admitted
that you lack the scientific competence to discuss this issue rationally,
that your criterion for determining truth is patting your belly. You have
revealed for the entire internet community to see that you lack any and
all credibility to take a reasoned stand on the issues under discussion.
Plunk! <FLUSH!>
Case closed.
<deletions>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
thousand. Leuchter's highest reading for a gas chamber ruin was 7.9 mg/kg,
the lowest one being 1.1 mg/kg, while his single reading for a fumigation
chamber was 1060 mg/kg. The ratio thus varied between a maximum of 1/134
and a minimum of 1/935, it was never the blanket 1/1000 that you are
claiming.
Chris C. Larson
> Thanks for the confirmation that Holocaustism is a faith-based
> ideology, Chris.
The ones who deny it, that .0001% or whatever it is, are generally
either athiest or believe the "Christianity" that is available for
ordination through the internet for $100.
> Do you have a clue as to what "REAL JEWS" think about you "Real
> Christians"?
Well unlike yourself, I grew up with Jews, work with some Jews and
live in a neighboorhood with Jews. I've actually been in 3 different
synagogues (2 bar mitzvahs, 1 wedding). And where did you get your
vast knowledge of Judiasm, Rabbi Waldostein?
Chris C. Larson
> larsonc...@hotmail.com (Chris C. Larson) wrote:
>
> >Virtually all of us Christians (real ones, not the made up racist
> >sect)
>
> You aren't a real Christian if you ally yourself with the enemies of Christ or
> the anti-Christs who to this day deny Jesus as the Messiah came in the flesh!
> TRUE CHRISTIANS were the 1st Century ones who would have nothing to do with
> Judaism and those who espoused it! Today there are only a few who adhere to the
blah, blah, blah, SNIP
Why go through 8 years of theological education? For $100, you can
get yourself ordained to this whacko Christian sect, too!
Joebruno
> and post-use interaction with their very different environments.
>
> > ===================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > were subjected
> > to exposures over a two year period, exposures sufficient to have killed a
> > very large number of people, were subjected to those exposures at the same
> > time and in the same geographical location and the best you can come up with
> > is one one-thousandth of the concentrations found on the walls of A.
>
> Wrongo! Even if we do not account for such details as the necessity of
> scrubbing down gas chamber but not fumigation chamber walls, not to
> mention the dilution of samples and the radically different post-1945
> history of the two environments, Leuchter's numbers are not one to a
> thousand. Leuchter's highest reading for a gas chamber ruin was 7.9 mg/kg,
> the lowest one being 1.1 mg/kg, while his single reading for a fumigation
> chamber was 1060 mg/kg. The ratio thus varied between a maximum of 1/134
> and a minimum of 1/935, it was never the blanket 1/1000 that you are
> claiming.
>
> > ===================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > THis is
>
> ROTFL! The Cracow team used a threshold of 1 ç—¢/kg, while Leuchter's was
It amazes me that Phillips is naive enough to take what Leuchter says
seriously.The clown was holding himself out to be an "engineer", while
the truth was that his only degree was in some sort of Liberal Arts.
The State of Massachusetts discovered the fraud and forced him to stop
pretending to be something he wasn't. He's a fraud.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
in message <Aa6dnYtL9Mf...@mbay.net>:
<snip to>
>--who, following almost a century of agitating, propagandizing, and
>influence seeking, succeeded in opening wide our immigration doors, thus
>letting a flood of black, brown, and yellow denizens of the human species.
>This is a demographic catastrophe from which we will probably never recover.
>The perpetrators, far from apologizing for what they have done, actually
>PRAISE themselves with inanities like "Diversity is our strength."
Are you *finally* going to produce the demographic evidence for this
which you lied about macdonald having published in his book -- and the
posting of which you have been running from for literally *years*
while trying any lame excuse to cover for and distract from your
abject failure to be able to?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
>Hoess WAS tortured, for three days by members of the British military field
>police. OK, we'll say just bounced off the wall if you like that better.
But phillips has no idea why there might have be manhandling (of which
I disapprove, for the record,) and so lies about it below.
>In
>the course of this "conversation" he "confessed" to having murdered twice
>the number you people are presently claiming.
And your proof of this is ... ?
>Afterward, he had some
>sardonic things to say about the business, things along the line of: 'there
>are ways.'
Not that phillips will even try to produce a verifiable quote with a
reliable citation -- we're just supposed to take zir word that (even
tho zie has demonstrated again and again an almost complete ignorance
of the historical period in question) this is so.
>The leader of the unit was a Sgt Bernard Clarke, today a quite respected
>British businessman. Go over there and look him up. He'll talk quite freely
>since, far from being ashamed of what he did, he is quite proud of it.
Of course, I did -- and zie has said that the quotes attributed to him
in the historical fiction phillips mentions below were constructed of
whole cloth...
>The story is spelled out in the book Legions of Death by Rupert Brook. (I
>think I have that right)
But of course, it was completely impossible to actually *check* this
fact before phillips posted an article referencing a work of
historical fiction as an authoritative source (no doubt by Rupert
Butler, the *actual* author.)
Richard G. Phillips
===================================================
Phillips
Racism is nothing more and nothing less than the universally observed
preference for one's own kind. A black person or an Hispanic person may well
be one of perfoctly sound character but that does not change the fact that
when I go to a public gathering I do not want to be surrounded by a swarm of
them. THere is a natural ('and very wise) intrinsic human fear of the
stranger. That fear is nocessarily heightened when the stranger is of a
different race.
Apart from that, these people tend to make themselves irritating. In time
they begin demanding "rights" and begin demanding places in our institutions
for no better reason than the fact that they are here.
Jews in time get themselves detested NOT because they are Jews but because
of what they do. THat is why, in the course of their unhappy history, they
have been expelled f rom just about every place where they have ever lived.
I think that any people with a history like that should take a good look at
themselves and the effect they have an the peoples amongst whom they live.
It is the Jews' tragedy that they are incapable of doing this, that every
time some tragedy happens to them their invariable reaction is to write
another learned tome on the root causes of anti-Semitism.
========================================================================
Richard G. Phillips
Phillips
In the first place this is not true. And in the second place, supposing it
were true, to whatever extent it would have affected samples taken from B,
by the same extent would it have affected samples taken from A. And it is
the RATIO between the concentrations that is the most devastating critique
of your Holocaust fable.
If it were true how can we possibly account for the fact of the very visible
Prussian blue staning seen on the OUTSIDES of the wals of the fumigation
chamber?
Germar Rudolf says that it is not true and has samples of his own to prove
it. If it's a case of his word against yours, I'll have to take his.
======================================================================
If you take chunks of different depths, ground them up,
> and test what you're left with, your results will have more to do with the
> size and depth of the samples than with the actual accumulation of HCN on
> the surface in question.
>
> >> Secondly, you are accepting Leuchter's conclusions on blind faith.
> > =======================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > I'm not accepting his conclusions; I'm accepting his test results and
> > drawing my own conclusions.
>
> And, as I have shown, your conclusions are based on fraudulant data and
> false assumptions you have naively bought into. Crap in, crap out.
==================================================
Phillips
No. You have not shown either of those things.
=============================================
>
> >> What
> >> concentration would one expect to find on the walls of a room in
> >> which 300,000 - 500,000 people were gassed
> >
> > ===================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > I have already answered that. Your so-called execution chambers
> > (which we speak of collectively as B) had walls of the same material,
> > were subjected to exposures over a two year period, exposures
> > sufficient to have killed a very large number of people, were
> > subjected to those exposures at the same time and in the same
> > geographical location and the best you can come up with is one
> > one-thousandth of the concentrations found on the walls of A.
>
> No, that is not the best I can come up with. That is the best Leuchter
> could come up with because he is incompetent, for reasons outlined above.
======================================================
Phillips
WHich "reasons" have been demolished.
===================================
>
> You seem to be sticking your heard in the sand
========================================
Phillips
Standard rhetoric used against someone who refuses to see things your way.
=====================================================
with regards to the results
> that were aquired by real scientists
=============================================
Phillips
Real scientists.
A short time ago I asked you if, taking them collectively, you find
something UNreal about Rudolf, Luftl, Lindsey, Butz, and Mattogno. You
dodged the question as I was certain you would.
==================================================
using a testable methodology, whose
> study I have cited for you already so many times I frankly can't be
> bothered to retype the URL anymore.
=======================================
Phillips
THen don't be bothered.
====================================================
>
> > THis is
> > a figure barely detectable and about what you would find in any
> > residential or industrial structure.
>
> Except that this is a lie. The figure derived through a competent
> methodology was considerably higher than any control sample, even after 50
> years of exposure to the elements.
============================================
Phillips
Some time ago, it was pointed out to me that that the results of the tow
experiments (Leuchter's and Krakow's) CANNOT be compared because they were
looking for different things. Do you now tell me they CAN be compared?
================================================
>
> > And you actually stand there and
> > tell me that a huge number of persons were gassed and I tell you that
> > you're lying.
>
> Then why are you the only one between us who bases his arguments on data
> aquired by liars?
=================================================
Phillips
Who ARE those "liars" and upon precisely what do you base your accusation?
================================================
>
> >> (1M is a straw-man, BTW, no single gas
> >> chamber killed that many)?
> >
> > ==============================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > I never said any SINGLE gas chamber killed that many. You will recall
> > that, by the designation B, I was referring COLLECTIVELY to all of the
> > execution chambers.
>
> Then you're an idiot, given that the different gas chambers were used to
> different degrees, and therefore could be expected to have different
> concentrations.
=================================================
Phillips
I will accept your accusation of my being an idiot providing you will accept
mine of your having a reading comprehension problem.
The designation B refers to ALL of the gas chambers collectively. It
follows, does it not, that the grand total killed would be the sum of the
deaths in the individual chambers - nicht war?
As regards concentrations, if you have read Leuchter's Report, you will know
that he took samples from all (or nearly all) of the different alleged
execution chambers. The figure of 1 mg/kg repersents about the best he could
find anywhere.
==============================================
If you have ever read Leuchter's Report you will know that he took samples
from several different chambers and that
>
> > In any event, the number of deaths dances about so unpredictably that
> > it's a problem keeping up to date. It began at 9M and has been coming
> > down ever since.
>
> Not really, but feel free to keep lying while calling everyone else around
> you liars.
======================================================
Phillips
Well I could produce the numbers if you'd like to see them.
=======================================================
>
> > > You don't know?
> > ================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > No, I don't know what the concentration ought to have been but I DO
> > know it would have been something better than the miserable 1mg/kg
> > that was found.
>
> Assuming that this figure is indeed accurate... why? On what, exactly, do
> you base your assessment as to what should have been found? What does
> Leuchter base HIS assessment on? Or Rudolf?
========================================================
Phillips
If Leuchter had had to report back that the execution chamber concentrations
found (we call these B) were one-half of those found at the fumigation
chamber (we call those A) THAT would have been very bad news for
Zuendel. If he had reported that they were one-fourth, that also would have
been bad news. If he had reported that they were one-tenth, even that would
have been bad news.And if he had reported that they were one-hundredth, that
would have been not very good news. But he didn't report any of those
things. He reported back that they were one thousandth. Does this PROVE
that the walls of B were not subjected to very substantial exposures? No, it
does not. What it DOES do is to establish that such exposure as claimed was
extremely improbable. For myself, plain everyday horse sense combined with
engineering training tells me this.
My engineering training further tells me that, to establish certainty, we
would want to conduct additional experiments, subjecting initially "clean"
buildings to varying amounts of exposure and noting the results.
You people have all the means at your disposal to have conducted such
experiments. 15 years have gone by and you have conducted none. Why. Could
it be that you didn't like what you figured you were going to find.
For me this closes the case.
===============================================================
>
> This is kind of what I mean about the pitfalls of having blind faith in
> incompetent liars.
========================================================
Phillips
Are you calling Rudolf both an incompetent and a liar. I'd say that wants
some justifying.
=========================================================
======================================================
Phillips
A final and incontestable conclusion of this issue can ONLY be with numbers.
I was attempting to let you know in advance what would and what would not
impress me.
=======================================================
>
> The figures for the control sample (dwelling accomodations which,
according
> to Leuchter, were fumigated only one), are here:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
> research/table-one.html
>
> The results for samples taken from the gas chamber at Krema II are here:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
> research/table-three.html
>
> The results for the fumigation chambers are here:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
> research/table-four.html
>
> >> Someone testing for some compounds but not for others will inevitably
> >> get false negatives. That's a no-brainer, Phillips.
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Inevitably?
>
> Let's say I wanted to test five drinks for the presence of alchohol. Gin
> has alchohol in it, so I begin testing whether the drinks contain gin. I
> find that only one of the five drinks has gin in it, and conclude,
> therefore, that only one in five drinks contain alchohol.
==================================================
Phillips
You conclude this BEFORE testing for rum, scotch, etc.?? My my.
=================================================================
Never mind that
> the other four were made with vodka, scotch, rum and tequila.
==================================================
Phillips
I mind very much.
=========================
>
> If I was ONLY testing for gin, yet declared that my results proved
> something about the presence of alchohol, you'd consider me either
> dishonest or an idiot, would you not?
============================================================
Phillips
By now it's plain what you game is: to challenge the suitably of Prusian
blue as, by itself, a suitable indicator of exposure.
Tell you what you do. Give me ONE instance of a structure with walls of the
same material as our A and B that was subjected to very large exposure over
a period of years and that, at the end, did NOT exhibit very large and
visible traces of Prussian blue.
============================================================================
>
> >> > c) How does the amount for these other compounds found on the walls
> >> > of the fumigation chamber (A) compare with the amount of Prussian
> >> > blue found there? d) Compare the amounts of these other compounds
> >> > found at A with the amounts found at B.
> >>
> >> Why don't you ask this question, Mr. Phillips: Why is a *fumigation
> >> chamber* taken as the standard?
> > =========================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Because it was the one place KNOWN to have been subjected to a very
> > large exposure. What would you have chosen?
>
> Since the Auschwitz gas chambers were unique - which is to say, there is
no
> other facility that we already know for certain was used as a homicidal
gas
> chamber
=================================================
Phillips
Well, obviously, apart from the gas chambers, there was no other facility
that was used AS a gas chamber. I think that statement is what is called a
tautology - a statement that cannot possibly be anything BUT true.
============================================================
in a similar sort of way, over a similar period of time, and
> subjected to similar conditions thereafter - there is no standard to test
> it against.
==========================================
Phillips
Not so. There was the fumigation chamber - a rather obvious one to my way of
thinking.
===============================================
Which is the reason why chemistry is not the science you can
> use to definitively prove that these were gas chambers. The best you can
> do is compare the concentrations of cyanide on the walls to the
> concentration present in "any industrial or residential building". If the
> concentrations are considerably higher (as they are), then that is a
result
> that is consistent with the normative case, or, at the very least, that
> requires explaining.
======================================================
Phillips
The joker here is the adjective "considerably." JUst how "considerably" does
the difference have to be to prove exposures in an amount sufficient to have
killed 1M people.
==============================================
>
> Comparing the gas chamber to a fumigation chamber is comparing apples and
> oranges
============================================
Phillips
Why?
==============================================
- something that would be done only by a dishonest scientist who
> was trying to generate a meaningless result that he could thereafter use
to
> try and dupe people who don't know any better.
====================================================
Phillips
Get off your soapbox and talk facts.
===========================================
>
> >> The room was 1/40th the size of the gas
> >> chamber
==============================================
Phillips
In volume or in wall surface?
And just how would this have affected the results. Keep in mind we are
talking about the result of exposures repeated many times over a period of
years. Do we have any experimental data to argue one way or the other.
===========================================================
was was subjected to HCN far more frequently and consistently
> >> than the homicidal gas chamber that was used once, maybe twice, in a
> >> day.
> > =================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > How do you know these things?
>
> Um... I looked it up. Try it some time.
=============================================
Phillips
You did? THen tell me: how do the authors of your source know it? Were they
there?
==================================================
>
> >> That
> >> there should be LESS cyanide compounds on the walls of the homicidal
> >> gas chamber is fully consistent with the normative case.
> > =================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Less. How MUCH less? One one-thousandth as much? Save such tales for
> > the fools who wirr believe them.
>
> We're going in circles. No, it was not one-thousandth as much. That was
> Leuchter's result, which could not be replicated, and was worthless for
> reasons I have already outlined.
===========================================================
Phillips
In the first place I do not accept your reasons and, in the second place,
if you people want to prove that Leuchter's resolts are worthless, there has
never ben anything preventing you f rom sending in your own team
andimproving on them. Rhetoric makes very little impresion on me; only
numbers do that.
========================================================================
Richard G. Phillips
"Joebruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:bf3896a1.04010...@posting.google.com...
WHich proves what?
================================
> >
> > > ===================================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > and about what you would find in any residential
> > > or industrial structure.
> >
> > BULL! The only residential or industrial structures in which you would
> > find such high readings are such which have been exposed to lethal
> > concentrations of cyanide.
====================================
Phillips
Not according to Rudolf. Which one of you am I supposed to believe?
==================================
> >
> >
> > > ===================================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > And you actually stand there and tell me that a
> > > huge number of persons were gassed and I tell you that you're lying.
> > >
> > > ==========================================
> >
> > You have no scientific basis for your "telling".
===============================================
Phillips
I have --or like to think I have-- a certain amount of common sense. You
maintain that a concentration of 1 mg/kg "proves" that people were gassed
there. You do thisNOT because there is the slightest scientific basis for it
but because it is so terribly vital to you that people DO believe it.
============================
=====================================
Phillips
Agreed
=============================
You have just admitted
> > that you lack the scientific competence to discuss this issue
rationally,
> > that your criterion for determining truth is patting your belly. You
have
> > revealed for the entire internet community to see that you lack any and
> > all credibility to take a reasoned stand on the issues under discussion.
======================================================
Phillips
Get off your soapbox. I am not impressed by rhetoric, especially that
issuing from desperate people who see their 50-year old fraud crumbling. I
do not say that Leuchter's results PROVE that gassings did not happen. I do
say that they make it extremely improbably and that to prove the thing one
war or another additional experiments are needed.
But what do you do. You take a concentration of 1 mg/kg and shout in
triumph: "Ah. obviously JEws were gassed there." So kindly don't yap about
MY "scientific competance."
============================================================================
> >
> > Plunk! <FLUSH!>
> >
> > Case closed.
> > <deletions>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eugene Holman
>
>
> It amazes me that Phillips is naive enough to take what Leuchter says
> seriously.The clown was holding himself out to be an "engineer", while
> the truth was that his only degree was in some sort of Liberal Arts.
==========================================
Phillips
In most European countries, "engineer" is a title awarded by a government.
THat is not the case here. A man is an engineer who either is employed in
that capacity or who works independently in it.
=========================================================
> The State of Massachusetts discovered the fraud and forced him to stop
> pretending to be something he wasn't. He's a fraud.
============================================
Phillips
Are you sure the State of Mass "discovered" it. Rather, doesn't it stand to
reason that they already knew it? Leuchter applies for a contract with
another state. That state is obviously going to check with Mass for his
bonafides.
No, the State of Mass did not "discover" it; some fink slapped it down on
the table at the right time. I wonder who put him up to it. Jews ARE good at
that sort of thing.
===========================================================
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
>IF you people are thoroughly convinced that both Leuchter (and Rudolf whose
>work was more thorough) made a botch of the thing, there is nothing
>preventing you from sending in your own team to do the thing the way you
>think it should be done.
Of course, it *has* been done, and phillips knows this since it has
been pointed out ever time he trots out this "doers and carpers"
dodge.
>15 years have gone by and you have not so much as made a single step in that
>direction.
WHy do you think bald faced lies actually *advance* your cause,
phillips?
>As I said before, the world is made up of doers and carpers.
And hate filled liars such as phillips.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
>"Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
>news:Xns9460F3C1C57F...@140.99.99.130...
>> "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in
>> news:Aa6dnYtL9Mf...@mbay.net:
>> > For me the question of mass gassings was settled forever by the fact,
>> > first discovered by Leuchter and confirmed by Rudolf, that there were
>> > negligible residues of Prussian blue on the walls of the alleged
>> > fumigation chamber. The Holocaustniks desperately scrounge for a reply
>> > --any reply-- to that, but they cannot because there isn't one.
>> > So what do they do? They scrounge the websites for any two-bit quibble
>> > that can possibly help to keep their show on the road. I dismiss them
>> > with the contempt they deserve.
>> Okay then, Mr. Phillips. Rather than declaring blind faith in Leuchter
>> and
>> Rudolf, and announcing that you will hold your ears and hum in the face of
>> any and all counter-arguments, why don't you answer this question:
>>
>> Why is the relative lack of "Prussian blue", per se, relevent in light of
>> the significant concentration of OTHER cynaide compounds that WERE found
>> on these walls by REAL scientists?
>THere are three questions here. We'll take them in order.
And thereby duck actually having to respond to the question put to
him...
>(1) RELATIVE lack of Prussian blue!! I find that an odd choice of term. Just
>what took place? Well, we had the fumigation chamber; we'll call that A.
>Then we had those several places, about four, that you claim were execution
>chambers; we'll call them, collectively, B.
>
>From A , Leuchter got a concentration of 1000mg/kg. From B, which you claim
>was subjected to an exposure sufficient to have resulted in 1M deaths, from
>B made of the same material, located in the same place, subjected to
>exposure by the same gas at the same time,
and washed down after each time (after a significantly lower
concentration had been maintained for a fraction of the time,) then
dynamited and exposed to the elements for decades...
>we got a concentration of around
>1 mg/kg - one-onethousandth of that for A, about the same level you will
>find in any industrial or residential building.
You keep telling this "about the same level" lie, phillips -- can you
even attempt to show where leuchter did *any* testing of a random
industrial or residential business, the results of which would support
this delusion?
>And you stand there telling
>me that 1M persons were executed in B and I'm just not going to believe you
>and I cannot see how any rational person would.
... being completely irrational yourself.
>(2) When you spoke of other cyanide compounds, you were no doubt refurring
>to the work done by the Krakow Institute. THis brings up several questions:
>
>a) What were the other compounds they tested for?
>b) Why are these other compounds more reliable indicators of exposure to HCN
>than is Prussian blue?
>c) How does the amount for these other compounds found on the walls of the
>fumigation chamber (A) compare with the amount of Prussian blue found there?
>d) Compare the amounts of these other compounds found at A with the amounts
>found at B.
All of which have been posted here for you to ignore many times in the
past. Pretending that these questions have *not* been addressed is
the only way phillips has of responding to the fact that these
*reproducible* results demonstrate conclusively the incompetence of
zir hero, leuchter.
>(3) REAL scientists.
>
>Taking them collectively, do you find something UNREAL about Rudolph,
>Lindsey, Luftl, Butz, Felderer, Mattogno. Everyone of them has lend his
>weight solidly AGAINST the claim of gassings.
Yes -- and the reasons have been discussed her in the past as well.
But *do* go on lying about it -- it enhances the credibility of the
denial side ***so*** much when you demonstrate so transparently the
intellectual bankruptcy at its core
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
>> HCN residue does not penetrate into the plaster, Phillips. It accumulates
>> on the surface.
>In the first place this is not true.
Zie says from the depths of zir ignorance on the process by which
Prussian Blue is formed...
>And in the second place, supposing it
>were true, to whatever extent it would have affected samples taken from B,
>by the same extent would it have affected samples taken from A.
No, because of the random nature of the samples taken.
>nd it is
>the RATIO between the concentrations that is the most devastating critique
>of your Holocaust fable.
Keep chanting that mantra, phillips.
>If it were true how can we possibly account for the fact of the very visible
>Prussian blue staning seen on the OUTSIDES of the wals of the fumigation
>chamber?
If Prussian Blue was a reliable indicator of exposure, how do you
possibly account for the fact that this staining is not consistent,
forming in blotches in places and completely avoiding others?
>Germar Rudolf says that it is not true and has samples of his own to prove
>it. If it's a case of his word against yours, I'll have to take his.
... because it reinforces your irrational hatred.
Perhaps you'd care to actually *cite* rudolf on this question, and
show that he does, indeed, say what you claim he has said?
>> If you take chunks of different depths, ground them up,
>> and test what you're left with, your results will have more to do with the
>> size and depth of the samples than with the actual accumulation of HCN on
>> the surface in question.
Which means that unless the penetration is uniform all the way through
the sample, there is a necessary dilution of Prussian Blue.
Are you going to assert that this penetration is uniform, and if so on
what basis and to what depth?
>> >> Secondly, you are accepting Leuchter's conclusions on blind faith.
>> > I'm not accepting his conclusions; I'm accepting his test results and
>> > drawing my own conclusions.
>> And, as I have shown, your conclusions are based on fraudulant data and
>> false assumptions you have naively bought into. Crap in, crap out.
>No. You have not shown either of those things.
You assume that P.B. is a reliable indicator of exposure to HCN, and
that the penetration of P.B. is uniform. You further assume a certain
level of P.B. build up in an un- or little-exposed surface.
None of these assumptions are based on anything except your need to
deny.
>> >> What
>> >> concentration would one expect to find on the walls of a room in
>> >> which 300,000 - 500,000 people were gassed
>> > I have already answered that. Your so-called execution chambers
>> > (which we speak of collectively as B) had walls of the same material,
>> > were subjected to exposures over a two year period, exposures
>> > sufficient to have killed a very large number of people, were
>> > subjected to those exposures at the same time and in the same
>> > geographical location and the best you can come up with is one
>> > one-thousandth of the concentrations found on the walls of A.
>> No, that is not the best I can come up with. That is the best Leuchter
>> could come up with because he is incompetent, for reasons outlined above.
>WHich "reasons" have been demolished.
Nope.
>> You seem to be sticking your heard in the sand
>Standard rhetoric used against someone who refuses to see things your way.
No, against someone who demonstrably is stick zir head in the sand.
>> with regards to the results that were aquired by real scientists
>Real scientists.
>
>A short time ago I asked you if, taking them collectively, you find
>something UNreal about Rudolf, Luftl, Lindsey, Butz, and Mattogno. You
>dodged the question as I was certain you would.
Of course, when it has actually been addressed, phillips is the one
dodging -- but zie'd rather forget about that part...
>> using a testable methodology, whose
>> study I have cited for you already so many times I frankly can't be
>> bothered to retype the URL anymore.
>THen don't be bothered.
...because phillips will ignore it and continue to lie about its
non-existence anyway.
>> > THis is
>> > a figure barely detectable and about what you would find in any
>> > residential or industrial structure.
>> Except that this is a lie. The figure derived through a competent
>> methodology was considerably higher than any control sample, even after 50
>> years of exposure to the elements.
>Some time ago, it was pointed out to me that that the results of the tow
>experiments (Leuchter's and Krakow's) CANNOT be compared because they were
>looking for different things. Do you now tell me they CAN be compared?
For certain values of the word "compare," yes.
leuchter's work is demonstrably incompetent, and needs no other study
for the fatal flaws in it to be pointed out.
>> > And you actually stand there and
>> > tell me that a huge number of persons were gassed and I tell you that
>> > you're lying.
>> Then why are you the only one between us who bases his arguments on data
>> aquired by liars?
>Who ARE those "liars" and upon precisely what do you base your accusation?
You, as detailed above. leuchter, as detailed by those with whom he
had business dealings.
>> >> (1M is a straw-man, BTW, no single gas
>> >> chamber killed that many)?
>> > I never said any SINGLE gas chamber killed that many. You will recall
>> > that, by the designation B, I was referring COLLECTIVELY to all of the
>> > execution chambers.
>> Then you're an idiot, given that the different gas chambers were used to
>> different degrees, and therefore could be expected to have different
>> concentrations.
>I will accept your accusation of my being an idiot providing you will accept
>mine of your having a reading comprehension problem.
>The designation B refers to ALL of the gas chambers collectively. It
>follows, does it not, that the grand total killed would be the sum of the
>deaths in the individual chambers - nicht war?
>
>As regards concentrations, if you have read Leuchter's Report, you will know
>that he took samples from all (or nearly all) of the different alleged
>execution chambers. The figure of 1 mg/kg repersents about the best he could
>find anywhere.
... using a flaw sampling technique and analysis which diluted the
samples by a random factor, making any quantitative conclusions
scientifically unsupportable.
>If you have ever read Leuchter's Report you will know that he took samples
>from several different chambers and that
... he had no useful control, that he did not properly document his
sampling, and then drew conclusions for which he had no experimental
data.
>> > In any event, the number of deaths dances about so unpredictably that
>> > it's a problem keeping up to date. It began at 9M and has been coming
>> > down ever since.
>> Not really, but feel free to keep lying while calling everyone else around
>> you liars.
>Well I could produce the numbers if you'd like to see them.
And yet you were just challenged to and refrained.
Funny, that.
>> > > You don't know?
>> > No, I don't know what the concentration ought to have been but I DO
>> > know it would have been something better than the miserable 1mg/kg
>> > that was found.
>> Assuming that this figure is indeed accurate... why? On what, exactly, do
>> you base your assessment as to what should have been found? What does
>> Leuchter base HIS assessment on? Or Rudolf?
>If Leuchter had had to report back that the execution chamber concentrations
>found (we call these B) were one-half of those found at the fumigation
>chamber (we call those A) THAT would have been very bad news for
>Zuendel. If he had reported that they were one-fourth, that also would have
>been bad news. If he had reported that they were one-tenth, even that would
>have been bad news.And if he had reported that they were one-hundredth, that
>would have been not very good news.
Which is about what they were...
>But he didn't report any of those
>things. He reported back that they were one thousandth.
Nope. Stop lying.
>Does this PROVE
>that the walls of B were not subjected to very substantial exposures? No, it
>does not. What it DOES do is to establish that such exposure as claimed was
>extremely improbable. For myself, plain everyday horse sense combined with
>engineering training tells me this.
IOW, you *have* no rational basis on which to claim that the
concentrations are in consistent with the normative view.
>My engineering training further tells me that, to establish certainty, we
>would want to conduct additional experiments, subjecting initially "clean"
>buildings to varying amounts of exposure and noting the results.
Or simply using such a "clean" building as a control sample to begin
with. Why do you supposed leuchter did not do so?
>You people have all the means at your disposal to have conducted such
>experiments. 15 years have gone by and you have conducted none.
Stop lying.
>Why.
Because lying as you are doing does nothing to prove the case you
attempt to champion.
>Could it be that you didn't like what you figured you were going to find.
No, that would be why you are compelled to lie about the situation.
>For me this closes the case.
If you are content to have your case be demonstrably based on a
fundamental dishonesty, what does that say about the case itself?
>> This is kind of what I mean about the pitfalls of having blind faith in
>> incompetent liars.
>Are you calling Rudolf both an incompetent and a liar. I'd say that wants
>some justifying.
And it's been done.
>> >> > (2) When you spoke of other cyanide compounds, you were no doubt
>> >> > refurring to the work done by the Krakow Institute. THis brings up
>> >> > several questions:
>> >> >
>> >> > a) What were the other compounds they tested for?
>> >> > b) Why are these other compounds more reliable indicators of
>> >> > exposure to HCN than is Prussian blue?
>> >> I'm not saying that they are *more* reliable indicators. I am saying
>> >> that they prove exposure of the walls to HCN just as well as does
>> >> Prussian Blue.
>> > HOW do they prove this?
>> The same way that Prussian Blue proves this.
>> > In the first place, can the Krokow results
>> > even be compared with Leuchter's? If they can, is it possible to say
>> > that they got concentrations subtantially larger than those Leuchter
>> > found?
>> >
>> > THen, how do those concentrations compare with their control which, as
>> > I recall, was a room never before exposed. I mean, if you got 1 mg/kg
>> > in your alleged execution chamber and 0.999 mg/kg in your control, it
>> > will leave me monumentally unimpressed.
>> Gee, Philips. Here you are mouthing off with apparent authority using
>> definitive figures as to what concentrations were present where, and it
>> turns out you don't even know. And its not like finding out would require
>> wading through pages of incomprehensible data either. The evidence is, in
>> fact, as plain as day:
>A final and incontestable conclusion of this issue can ONLY be with numbers.
>I was attempting to let you know in advance what would and what would not
>impress me.
We know what impresses you -- lies which reinforce your irrational
hatred.
>> The figures for the control sample (dwelling accomodations which,
>> according to Leuchter, were fumigated only one), are here:
>>
>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
>> research/table-one.html
>>
>> The results for samples taken from the gas chamber at Krema II are here:
>>
>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
>> research/table-three.html
>>
>> The results for the fumigation chambers are here:
>>
>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
>> research/table-four.html
No comments on the very numbers you demanded, phillips?
>> >> Someone testing for some compounds but not for others will inevitably
>> >> get false negatives. That's a no-brainer, Phillips.
>> > Inevitably?
>> Let's say I wanted to test five drinks for the presence of alchohol. Gin
>> has alchohol in it, so I begin testing whether the drinks contain gin. I
>> find that only one of the five drinks has gin in it, and conclude,
>> therefore, that only one in five drinks contain alchohol.
>You conclude this BEFORE testing for rum, scotch, etc.?? My my.
This is what leuchter did, fool.
>> Never mind that
>> the other four were made with vodka, scotch, rum and tequila.
>I mind very much.
>> If I was ONLY testing for gin, yet declared that my results proved
>> something about the presence of alchohol, you'd consider me either
>> dishonest or an idiot, would you not?
>By now it's plain what you game is: to challenge the suitably of Prusian
>blue as, by itself, a suitable indicator of exposure.
>Tell you what you do. Give me ONE instance of a structure with walls of the
>same material as our A and B that was subjected to very large exposure over
>a period of years and that, at the end, did NOT exhibit very large and
>visible traces of Prussian blue.
The fumigation chambers -- the staining is blotchy, not uniform,
indicating that P.B. formation is not uniform.
See? That was *easy*.
>> >> > c) How does the amount for these other compounds found on the walls
>> >> > of the fumigation chamber (A) compare with the amount of Prussian
>> >> > blue found there? d) Compare the amounts of these other compounds
>> >> > found at A with the amounts found at B.
>> >> Why don't you ask this question, Mr. Phillips: Why is a *fumigation
>> >> chamber* taken as the standard?
>> > Because it was the one place KNOWN to have been subjected to a very
>> > large exposure. What would you have chosen?
>> Since the Auschwitz gas chambers were unique - which is to say, there is
>> no
>> other facility that we already know for certain was used as a homicidal
>> gas
>> chamber
>Well, obviously, apart from the gas chambers, there was no other facility
>that was used AS a gas chamber. I think that statement is what is called a
>tautology - a statement that cannot possibly be anything BUT true.
>> in a similar sort of way, over a similar period of time, and
>> subjected to similar conditions thereafter - there is no standard to test
>> it against.
>Not so. There was the fumigation chamber - a rather obvious one to my way of
>thinking.
Ignoring that the fumigation chamber was *not* used in a similar
(because of the differences in concentrations,) nor over a similar
period in time (given the different time spans required to kill lice
vs. humans,) nor subjected to the similar conditions after (not having
been whitewashed regularly, nor dynamited and left exposed to the
elements,) you're right: they are identical.
>> Which is the reason why chemistry is not the science you can
>> use to definitively prove that these were gas chambers. The best you can
>> do is compare the concentrations of cyanide on the walls to the
>> concentration present in "any industrial or residential building". If the
>> concentrations are considerably higher (as they are), then that is a
>> result
>> that is consistent with the normative case, or, at the very least, that
>> requires explaining.
>The joker here is the adjective "considerably." JUst how "considerably" does
>the difference have to be to prove exposures in an amount sufficient to have
>killed 1M people.
Well, if you can do so without lying about the concentrations to be
expected in "any industrial or residential building," why don't you
tell us what the difference would have to be -- and the methodology
you used to come up with the figure.
>> Comparing the gas chamber to a fumigation chamber is comparing apples and
>> oranges
>Why?
Explained above.
>> - something that would be done only by a dishonest scientist who
>> was trying to generate a meaningless result that he could thereafter use
>> to try and dupe people who don't know any better.
>Get off your soapbox and talk facts.
We have been -- as contrasted with your "gut feelings" and lies.
>> >> The room was 1/40th the size of the gas chamber
>In volume or in wall surface?
Yes.
>And just how would this have affected the results. Keep in mind we are
>talking about the result of exposures repeated many times over a period of
>years. Do we have any experimental data to argue one way or the other.
Yes, there is. And you would know this if you weren't ideologically
motivated to ignore any evidence which does not directly feed your
hatred.
>> >> was was subjected to HCN far more frequently and consistently
>> >> than the homicidal gas chamber that was used once, maybe twice, in a
>> >> day.
>> > How do you know these things?
>> Um... I looked it up. Try it some time.
>You did? THen tell me: how do the authors of your source know it? Were they
>there?
Yes. Try looking it up.
>> >> That
>> >> there should be LESS cyanide compounds on the walls of the homicidal
>> >> gas chamber is fully consistent with the normative case.
>> > Less. How MUCH less? One one-thousandth as much? Save such tales for
>> > the fools who wirr believe them.
>> We're going in circles. No, it was not one-thousandth as much. That was
>> Leuchter's result, which could not be replicated, and was worthless for
>> reasons I have already outlined.
>In the first place I do not accept your reasons and, in the second place,
>if you people want to prove that Leuchter's resolts are worthless, there has
>never ben anything preventing you f rom sending in your own team
>andimproving on them. Rhetoric makes very little impresion on me; only
>numbers do that.
Only numbers which you can twist into supporting your irrational
hatred, you mean. Otherwise how do you explain your continued
pretense that the Krakow Institute didn't demolish your boy leuchter?
>> Secondly, what concentration WOULD you believe, and why? And if you can't
>> offer any explanation for your answer, how is your opinion worth anything
>> on the matter.
Well?
>> Given that the fumigation chambers were largely sheltered, whereas large
>> parts of the gas chamber walls were exposed to the elements for 50 years,
>> its rather amazing that such high concentrations are still present to be
>> tested. But, unlike Leuchter and your buddies, the Krakow institute
>> examined the effect of the elements on cyanide residue as well.
>> >> It does not explain
>> >> away the fact that there was cyanide residue found on those walls
>> >> considerably in excess of what you claim would be normal in "any
>> >> industrial or residential building".
>> > Considerably in excess? Not according to Leuchter (whom you despise)
>> > but also according to Rudolf (whom you can't). I have to accord vastly
>> > more weight to Rudolf than I do to you.
>> Really? What concentrations did Rudolf find, and what methodology did he
>> employ?
>>
>> I'm not asking you to give any weight to what I say. You have yet to
>> criticize either the methods, arguments or conclusions of the Krakow
>> institute which show your buddies up for the hacks they are.
phillips "gut feeling" tells zie all zie needs to know...
Steven Mock
Really? Then you tell me - how deeply does does HCN penetrate the
walls?
> And in the second place,
> supposing it were true, to whatever extent it would have affected
> samples taken from B, by the same extent would it have affected
> samples taken from A.
Only if all of the samples were the exact same size and depth. We have
no way of knowing that, and it is highly doubtful.
> And it is the RATIO between the concentrations
> that is the most devastating critique of your Holocaust fable.
>
> If it were true how can we possibly account for the fact of the very
> visible Prussian blue staning seen on the OUTSIDES of the wals of the
> fumigation chamber?
I don't know. What precise conditions cause the formation of Prussian
Blue?
In any case, as you have already been told, the walls of the fumigation
chamber were subjected to much higher concentrations, were not washed
after each use, and have been protected from the elements for the past
50 years.
> Germar Rudolf says that it is not true and has samples of his own to
> prove it. If it's a case of his word against yours, I'll have to take
> his.
Yet you can't explain why, and you still think that your conclusion is
based on anything other than blind faith.
In any case, it is not his word against mine. It is his word against
that of the Krakow institute. And, unlike him, they used a methodology
that was testable and could be replicated.
I can *explain* why their results are probative. You can't seem to do
the same for either Leuchter or Rudolf.
<snip>
>> > ===================================================
>> > Phillips
>> >
>> > I have already answered that. Your so-called execution chambers
>> > (which we speak of collectively as B) had walls of the same
>> > material, were subjected to exposures over a two year period,
>> > exposures sufficient to have killed a very large number of people,
>> > were subjected to those exposures at the same time and in the same
>> > geographical location and the best you can come up with is one
>> > one-thousandth of the concentrations found on the walls of A.
>>
>> No, that is not the best I can come up with. That is the best
>> Leuchter could come up with because he is incompetent, for reasons
>> outlined above.
> ======================================================
> Phillips
>
> WHich "reasons" have been demolished.
How, exactly? Leuchter did indeed use a flawed methodology, thereby
drawing meaningless conclusions.
>> You seem to be sticking your heard in the sand
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> Standard rhetoric used against someone who refuses to see things your
> way.
>
> =====================================================
>
>> with regards to the results
>> that were aquired by real scientists
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> Real scientists.
>
> A short time ago I asked you if, taking them collectively, you find
> something UNreal about Rudolf, Luftl, Lindsey, Butz, and Mattogno. You
> dodged the question as I was certain you would.
Why don't you tell me what qualifications any of these people actually
have to perform whatever experiments they did. I am familiar with only
a few of the names. Butz is an electrical engineering professor who
wrote a book in the late 70's which included the argument that
exaggerated numbers in the Talmud prove Jews to be predisposed to
exaggerating atrocities. Mattogno, to my knowledge, has no scientific
credibility and has repeatedly lied about the documentary record of
evidence relating to the construction of the gas chambers, as I showed
you previously. As for the rest of them, I have only your bald
assertions as to what they have contributed and the quality of their
work, and, to take up your idiom, I'm more likely to trust the word of
the Krakow institute for Forensic research than that of Richard
Phillips.
>> > THis is
>> > a figure barely detectable and about what you would find in any
>> > residential or industrial structure.
>>
>> Except that this is a lie. The figure derived through a competent
>> methodology was considerably higher than any control sample, even
>> after 50 years of exposure to the elements.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Some time ago, it was pointed out to me that that the results of the
> tow experiments (Leuchter's and Krakow's) CANNOT be compared because
> they were looking for different things. Do you now tell me they CAN be
> compared?
Well, they can be compared as a valid study compares to an invalid one.
Both were comparing various buildings at Auschwitz for relative presence
of HCN. The difference is that Krakow institute actually performed the
right test on comperable samples and employed a proper control.
Parroting Leuchter's results won't alter the fact that those results
could not be replicated once proper controls were used.
>> > And you actually stand there and
>> > tell me that a huge number of persons were gassed and I tell you
>> > that you're lying.
>>
>> Then why are you the only one between us who bases his arguments on
>> data aquired by liars?
>
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> Who ARE those "liars" and upon precisely what do you base your
> accusation?
You want to get me started on Leuchter and Rudolf? On the various ways
that they misrepresented both themselves and the data?
<snip: some peripheral stuff>
>> > > You don't know?
>> > ================================================
>> > Phillips
>> >
>> > No, I don't know what the concentration ought to have been but I DO
>> > know it would have been something better than the miserable 1mg/kg
>> > that was found.
>>
>> Assuming that this figure is indeed accurate... why? On what,
>> exactly, do you base your assessment as to what should have been
>> found? What does Leuchter base HIS assessment on? Or Rudolf?
>
> ========================================================
> Phillips
>
> If Leuchter had had to report back that the execution chamber
> concentrations found (we call these B) were one-half of those found at
> the fumigation chamber (we call those A) THAT would have been very
> bad news for Zuendel. If he had reported that they were one-fourth,
> that also would have been bad news. If he had reported that they were
> one-tenth, even that would have been bad news.And if he had reported
> that they were one-hundredth, that would have been not very good news.
> But he didn't report any of those things. He reported back that they
> were one thousandth. Does this PROVE that the walls of B were not
> subjected to very substantial exposures? No, it does not. What it DOES
> do is to establish that such exposure as claimed was extremely
> improbable. For myself, plain everyday horse sense combined with
> engineering training tells me this.
I will ignore, for now, that whatever result Leuchter got was based on a
meaningless experiment. Regardless, why can't you seem to explain to us
on what basis you derive these figures? What makes you say that half,
or a quarter, or a tenth, or a hundredth (closer, in fact, to Leuchter's
*actual* figure, regardless of what the liar chose to "report") is valid
but 1/1000 is not? Divine revelation? Make an argument.
> My engineering training further tells me that, to establish certainty,
> we would want to conduct additional experiments, subjecting initially
> "clean" buildings to varying amounts of exposure and noting the
> results.
Makes a certain amount of sense. Don't forget to hose down the walls
after each exposure, then wait until they were exposed to 50 cycles of
seasons.
> You people have all the means at your disposal to have conducted such
> experiments. 15 years have gone by and you have conducted none. Why.
> Could it be that you didn't like what you figured you were going to
> find.
>
> For me this closes the case.
What, a stupid conspiracy theory whereby absense of evidence is
considered evidence of absense? Earlier you said that it was Leuchter's
findings that "closed the case" for you. Now that you are forced, once
again, to confront the obvious fact that Leuchter's a fraud, you're back
to this revisionist double-talk bullshit.
There was no reason to conduct such an elaborate experiment, as very
little would have been learned from doing so that we do not already
know. Regardless, tests done both in 1945 and in 1995 both show that
the gas chambers were subjected to considerably higher concentrations of
HCN than would be expected from a building of that sort. All this does
is corroborate what we already know from other sources of evidence.
Yet I see you have no comment on what the numbers show, which is very
different from Leuchter's specious "1/1000" conclusion.
>> The figures for the control sample (dwelling accomodations which,
>> according to Leuchter, were fumigated only one), are here:
>>
>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
>> research/table-one.html
>>
>> The results for samples taken from the gas chamber at Krema II are
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
>> research/table-three.html
>>
>> The results for the fumigation chambers are here:
>>
>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-
>> research/table-four.html
>>
>> >> Someone testing for some compounds but not for others will
>> >> inevitably get false negatives. That's a no-brainer, Phillips.
>> >
>> > ===============================================================
>> > Phillips
>> >
>> > Inevitably?
>>
>> Let's say I wanted to test five drinks for the presence of alchohol.
>> Gin has alchohol in it, so I begin testing whether the drinks contain
>> gin. I find that only one of the five drinks has gin in it, and
>> conclude, therefore, that only one in five drinks contain alchohol.
>
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> You conclude this BEFORE testing for rum, scotch, etc.?? My my.
My point exactly.
>> Never mind that
>> the other four were made with vodka, scotch, rum and tequila.
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> I mind very much.
>
> =========================
>>
>> If I was ONLY testing for gin, yet declared that my results proved
>> something about the presence of alchohol, you'd consider me either
>> dishonest or an idiot, would you not?
>
> ============================================================
> Phillips
>
> By now it's plain what you game is: to challenge the suitably of
> Prusian blue as, by itself, a suitable indicator of exposure.
> Tell you what you do. Give me ONE instance of a structure with walls
> of the same material as our A and B that was subjected to very large
> exposure over a period of years and that, at the end, did NOT exhibit
> very large and visible traces of Prussian blue.
Oh, fer crying out loud...
>> >> > c) How does the amount for these other compounds found on the
>> >> > walls of the fumigation chamber (A) compare with the amount of
>> >> > Prussian blue found there? d) Compare the amounts of these other
>> >> > compounds found at A with the amounts found at B.
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you ask this question, Mr. Phillips: Why is a
>> >> *fumigation chamber* taken as the standard?
>> > =========================================
>> > Phillips
>> >
>> > Because it was the one place KNOWN to have been subjected to a very
>> > large exposure. What would you have chosen?
>>
>> Since the Auschwitz gas chambers were unique - which is to say, there
>> is no
>> other facility that we already know for certain was used as a
>> homicidal gas chamber
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> Well, obviously, apart from the gas chambers, there was no other
> facility that was used AS a gas chamber. I think that statement is
> what is called a tautology - a statement that cannot possibly be
> anything BUT true.
All I am saying is that without anything similar to compare it against,
it was dishonest to draw conclusions from comparisons made to something
entirely dissimilar.
>> in a similar sort of way, over a similar period of time, and
>> subjected to similar conditions thereafter - there is no standard to
>> test it against.
> ==========================================
> Phillips
>
> Not so. There was the fumigation chamber - a rather obvious one to my
> way of thinking.
Its that way of thinking that causes revisionism to be a laughing stock
among serious historians and scientists. You would seriously compare it
to a room 1/40th the size, that was subjected to entirely different
concentrations and wholly different conditions for the subsequent 50
years?
>> Which is the reason why chemistry is not the science you can
>> use to definitively prove that these were gas chambers. The best you
>> can do is compare the concentrations of cyanide on the walls to the
>> concentration present in "any industrial or residential building".
>> If the concentrations are considerably higher (as they are), then
>> that is a result
>> that is consistent with the normative case, or, at the very least,
>> that requires explaining.
>
> ======================================================
> Phillips
>
> The joker here is the adjective "considerably." JUst how
> "considerably" does the difference have to be to prove exposures in an
> amount sufficient to have killed 1M people.
What, you mean you don't know? Then were do you get off declaring that
the results of chemical testing prove this impossible?
>> Comparing the gas chamber to a fumigation chamber is comparing apples
>> and oranges
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Why?
I've explained already, and I explain again directly below...
> - something that would be done only by a dishonest scientist who
>> was trying to generate a meaningless result that he could thereafter
>> use to try and dupe people who don't know any better.
>
> ====================================================
> Phillips
>
> Get off your soapbox and talk facts.
I have presented the facts. The above is the rather obvious conclusion
I draw from them.
>> >> The room was 1/40th the size of the gas
>> >> chamber
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> In volume or in wall surface?
Volume.
> And just how would this have affected the results.
A greater concentration of gas would have been present in a smaller
room.
> Keep in mind we are
> talking about the result of exposures repeated many times over a
> period of years.
Repeated far more times in the fumigation chamber than in the homicidal
gas chamber.
> Do we have any experimental data to argue one way or
> the other.
Not that I know of, but at this stage we are simply talking common
sense. Given what we know about how both the fumigation chambers and
the homicidal gas chambers were operated and the conditions they were
subjected to afterwards, one would naturally expect a significantly
higher concentration in the former than in the latter.
>> >> was was subjected to HCN far more frequently and consistently
>> >> than the homicidal gas chamber that was used once, maybe twice, in
>> >> a day.
>> > =================================================
>> > Phillips
>> >
>> > How do you know these things?
>>
>> Um... I looked it up. Try it some time.
>
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> You did? THen tell me: how do the authors of your source know it? Were
> they there?
Pressac discusses the documentary evidence relating to the fumigation
chambers quite extensively. We have a pretty good idea of the frequency
of gassings from witness reports, which can be corroborated by frequency
of transports and the number of people estimated to have been gassed
from each one.
>> >> That
>> >> there should be LESS cyanide compounds on the walls of the
>> >> homicidal gas chamber is fully consistent with the normative case.
>> > =================================================
>> > Phillips
>> >
>> > Less. How MUCH less? One one-thousandth as much? Save such tales
>> > for the fools who wirr believe them.
>>
>> We're going in circles. No, it was not one-thousandth as much. That
>> was Leuchter's result, which could not be replicated, and was
>> worthless for reasons I have already outlined.
>
> ===========================================================
> Phillips
>
> In the first place I do not accept your reasons
Of course. They get in the way of your bull-headed desire to justify
denying the Holocaust.
> and, in the second
> place, if you people want to prove that Leuchter's resolts are
> worthless, there has never ben anything preventing you f rom sending
> in your own team andimproving on them.
Which was done. How many times do you need to be shown it?
> Rhetoric makes very little
> impresion on me; only numbers do that.
Fer crying out loud, Phillips, I posted links DIRECTLY to the numbers in
my last message. Did you even look at them?
Your bull-headed refusal to look at evidence even when someone grabs you
by the scruff of the neck and shoves your nose in it does not qualify as
an argument in support of your case.
Steven Mock
Steven Mock
news:Z82dnXtu9YO...@mbay.net:
>> > You have no scientific basis for your "telling".
>
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> I have --or like to think I have-- a certain amount of common sense.
> You maintain that a concentration of 1 mg/kg "proves" that people were
> gassed there. You do thisNOT because there is the slightest scientific
> basis for it but because it is so terribly vital to you that people DO
> believe it.
Just one problem, Phillips. YOU'RE the one who started this discussion
with your claim that these results prove to you that the Holocaust DIDN'T
happen. We didn't start it by claiming that they prove it did.
So taking aside from the fact that you have been shown, from numerous
directions that this 1mg/kg figure is meaningless and fruadulant, and yet
you are still parroting it. Regardless, let's turn your little conclusion
here around...
You have -- or would like to think you have-- a certain amount of common
sense. You maintain that a concentration of 1 mg/kg "proves" that people
were *not* gassed there. You do this NOT because there is the slightest
scientific basis for said conclusion, but because it is so terribly vital
to you that YOU believe it.
Do you have any answer to this observation... like, say, a scientific basis
for your conclusion?
Steven Mock
Richard G. Phillips
> "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in
> news:Z82dnXtu9YO...@mbay.net:
>
> >> > You have no scientific basis for your "telling".
> >
> > ===============================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > I have --or like to think I have-- a certain amount of common sense.
> > You maintain that a concentration of 1 mg/kg "proves" that people were
> > gassed there. You do thisNOT because there is the slightest scientific
> > basis for it but because it is so terribly vital to you that people DO
> > believe it.
>
> Just one problem, Phillips. YOU'RE the one who started this discussion
> with your claim that these results prove to you that the Holocaust DIDN'T
> happen. We didn't start it by claiming that they prove it did.
Phillips
Wrong. You people began it all by accusing the Germans of gassing all those
Jews.
Leuchter's results do not prove that the gassings did NOT happen. If I ever
said that I retract it. What they do is establish that the claimed gassings
were very very very improbable. To establish conclusively what did or did
not happen would need further experiments.
=================================================
>
> So taking aside from the fact that you have been shown, from numerous
> directions that this 1mg/kg figure is meaningless and fruadulant
===================================================
Phillips
The 1mg/kg figure was a physical observation; nothing more, nothing less.
How can a physical observation be meaningless and fradulent unless you are
accusing Leuchter of lying through his teeth.
========================================================================
, and yet
> you are still parroting it. Regardless, let's turn your little conclusion
> here around...
>
> You have -- or would like to think you have-- a certain amount of common
> sense. You maintain that a concentration of 1 mg/kg "proves" that people
> were *not* gassed there.
=========================================
Phillips
No, I do not. See above.
========================================
You do this NOT because there is the slightest
> scientific basis for said conclusion, but because it is so terribly vital
> to you that YOU believe it.
============================================
Phillips
Terribly vital? Not really. If I'm proven wrong, it would hardly be the
first time and probably won't be the last. It is hardly going to shitcan my
very self-definition - as the reverse outcome might very well do for you.
ALso please note that I have never promulgated my beliefs by
--Hurling a fire-bomb or by acid-blinding an opponent.
==========================================
Orac
"Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
> "Joebruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
> news:bf3896a1.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote in message
> news:<holman-0101...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi>...
> > > In article <9tKdnZlQYbU...@mbay.net>, "Richard G. Phillips"
> > > <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
> > > > And you actually stand there and tell me that a
> > > > huge number of persons were gassed and I tell you that you're lying.
> > > >
> > > > ==========================================
> > >
> > > You have no scientific basis for your "telling".
>
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> I have --or like to think I have-- a certain amount of common sense. You
> maintain that a concentration of 1 mg/kg "proves" that people were gassed
> there. You do thisNOT because there is the slightest scientific basis for it
> but because it is so terribly vital to you that people DO believe it.
Phillips, I would point out that YOU started this thread. YOU are the
one who is arguing so passionately that Leuchter's results indicate to
you that there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz. YOU are the one to
whom it seems terribly vital to hang on to any shred of doubt about the
scope and homicidal nature of the Holocaust, so much so that you ignore
any evidence that indicates that the Nazis did indeed ruthlessly
slaughter millions of Jewish noncombatants intentionally and as a matter
of policy. YOU are the one who, when faced with evidence he cannot
refute, invariably retreats into either a tirade against the Jews or a
simple refusal to acknowledge the evidence.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Orac
"Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9463ADC6E89...@140.99.99.130...
> > "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in
> > news:Z82dnXtu9YO...@mbay.net:
> > > I have --or like to think I have-- a certain amount of common sense.
> > > You maintain that a concentration of 1 mg/kg "proves" that people were
> > > gassed there. You do thisNOT because there is the slightest scientific
> > > basis for it but because it is so terribly vital to you that people DO
> > > believe it.
> >
> > Just one problem, Phillips. YOU'RE the one who started this discussion
> > with your claim that these results prove to you that the Holocaust DIDN'T
> > happen. We didn't start it by claiming that they prove it did.
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> Wrong. You people began it all by accusing the Germans of gassing all those
> Jews.
And who, I wonder, are the "you people" to whom you refer, Phillips?
> Leuchter's results do not prove that the gassings did NOT happen. If I ever
> said that I retract it. What they do is establish that the claimed gassings
> were very very very improbable. To establish conclusively what did or did
> not happen would need further experiments.
Leuchter's measurements were so fatally flawed that they showed nothing
of the sort. Eugene has explained to you in far more depth and with far
more patience than I have exactly WHY Leuchter's measurements do not
suggest what you think they do.
[Snip]
> You do this NOT because there is the slightest
> > scientific basis for said conclusion, but because it is so terribly vital
> > to you that YOU believe it.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Terribly vital? Not really. If I'm proven wrong, it would hardly be the
> first time and probably won't be the last. It is hardly going to shitcan my
> very self-definition - as the reverse outcome might very well do for you.
> ALso please note that I have never promulgated my beliefs by
> --Hurling a fire-bomb or by acid-blinding an opponent.
Nonsequitir. Neither has Steve.
Steven Mock
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9463ADC6E89...@140.99.99.130...
>> "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in
>> news:Z82dnXtu9YO...@mbay.net:
>>
>> >> > You have no scientific basis for your "telling".
>> >
>> > ===============================================
>> > Phillips
>> >
>> > I have --or like to think I have-- a certain amount of common
>> > sense. You maintain that a concentration of 1 mg/kg "proves" that
>> > people were gassed there. You do thisNOT because there is the
>> > slightest scientific basis for it but because it is so terribly
>> > vital to you that people DO believe it.
>>
>> Just one problem, Phillips. YOU'RE the one who started this
>> discussion with your claim that these results prove to you that the
>> Holocaust DIDN'T happen. We didn't start it by claiming that they
>> prove it did.
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> Wrong. You people began it all by accusing the Germans of gassing all
> those Jews.
Who are "you people"?
This is what you said which started the discussion:
"For me the question of mass gassings was settled forever by the fact,
first discovered by Leuchter and confirmed by Rudolf, that there were
negligible residues of Prussian blue on the walls of the alleged
fumigation chamber."
> Leuchter's results do not prove that the gassings did NOT happen.
No, you just said that for you it settled the question for ever. I
suppose I was presumptuous in assuming that you weren't saying that it
was settled in our favour.
> If I ever said that I retract it.
Apology accepted.
> What they do is establish that the
> claimed gassings were very very very improbable. To establish
> conclusively what did or did not happen would need further
> experiments.
Which have been done.
>> So taking aside from the fact that you have been shown, from numerous
>> directions that this 1mg/kg figure is meaningless and fruadulant
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> The 1mg/kg figure was a physical observation; nothing more, nothing
> less. How can a physical observation be meaningless and fradulent
> unless you are accusing Leuchter of lying through his teeth.
Now you're getting it. At the very least, I accuse him of taking his
samples in an irresponsible and incompetent manner, conducting the wrong
tests, and misrepresenting the significance of the result.
>> You do this NOT because there is the slightest
>> scientific basis for said conclusion, but because it is so terribly
>> vital to you that YOU believe it.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Terribly vital? Not really. If I'm proven wrong, it would hardly be
> the first time and probably won't be the last. It is hardly going to
> shitcan my very self-definition - as the reverse outcome might very
> well do for you. ALso please note that I have never promulgated my
> beliefs by --Hurling a fire-bomb or by acid-blinding an opponent.
Neither have I. What's your point?
Steven Mock
Richard G. Phillips
================================================
Phillips
True, you have never committed acts of this sort but other
Holocaust-believing Jews have and I have yet to hear any Holocaust-believing
Jews express outrage over them. But, then, Jews do exhibit an exceptional
cohesiveness when it comes to things of this sort.
And, now that I have your undivided, I need to ask a question. Is your
object to prove that Jews WERE gassed as claimed or is ti to shoot down the
denial of that claim?
=================================================================
Denying your claim that winning this argument is so "teribly Vital" to me.
>
> Steven Mock
Steven Mock
Wow, what an argument. Want me to get into the matter of what certain
"non-Holocaust-believing" non-Jews have done, then?
> and I have yet to hear any
> Holocaust-believing Jews express outrage over them.
You're inability to pay attention is not an argument in support of your
case.
> But, then, Jews do
> exhibit an exceptional cohesiveness when it comes to things of this
> sort.
Ah yes, argument by stereotype. Where would revisionism be without it.
> And, now that I have your undivided, I need to ask a question. Is your
> object to prove that Jews WERE gassed as claimed or is ti to shoot
> down the denial of that claim?
I don't feel there is any need for me to prove what has already been
proven to the satisfaction of the entire historical community and the
overwhelming majority of the world about a hundred times over. I'm here
because of my interest in "revisionism" as an ideology. I don't see
what's so wrong with that.
Steven Mock
Joebruno
WRONG. I posted the agreement made between Leuchter and the State of
Massachusetts. Leuchter admits in it that he represented himself to be
something he wasn't. You cannot call yourself a physician if you've
never been to medical school. What you say is nothing but a lie.
>
> =========================================================
>
>
> > The State of Massachusetts discovered the fraud and forced him to stop
> > pretending to be something he wasn't. He's a fraud.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Are you sure the State of Mass "discovered" it. Rather, doesn't it stand to
> reason that they already knew it?
Reason has nothing to do with it. This is a place for facts, not your
customary armchair theorizing.
Leuchter applies for a contract with
> another state. That state is obviously going to check with Mass for his
> bonafides.
How do you know this happened?Do you ever check the facts of a case
before you start slinging the bull?
>
No, the State of Mass did not "discover" it; some fink slapped it down
on
> the table at the right time.
Fink? What Leuchter did is legally a crime called fraud. Leuchter is
lucky he didn't end up in jail. Fraud consists of misrepresenting
facts for financial gain, which is what Leuchter did.
I wonder who put him up to it. Jews ARE good at
> that sort of thing.
ROTFL! So you claim that only Jews ever report a crime to the
authorities?
You really have lost all your marbles, Dickie. You purport to be
concerned about the welfare of the ordinary man, yet you don't mind if
Mr ordinary man is hoodwinked by a dishonest scoundrel. At this point
in time, I find it impossible to take anything you say seriously. I
wonder if I'm the only one who feels that way.
Eugene Holman
<rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
<deletions>
> ====================================================
> Phillips
>
> In the first place this is not true. And in the second place, supposing it
> were true, to whatever extent it would have affected samples taken from B,
> by the same extent would it have affected samples taken from A. And it is
> the RATIO between the concentrations that is the most devastating critique
> of your Holocaust fable.
>
> If it were true how can we possibly account for the fact of the very visible
> Prussian blue staning seen on the OUTSIDES of the wals of the fumigation
> chamber?
>
> Germar Rudolf says that it is not true and has samples of his own to prove
> it. If it's a case of his word against yours, I'll have to take his.
>
> ======================================================================
Why do you *have* to take Germar Rudolf's word? Aren't you capable of any
independent thought on your own?
Use your head, Richard. Cyanide is a lethal gas. Who the hell would use
cyanide in a place with walls so porous that the gas could penetrate them
and leak all the way through? You are the one who is always carping about
the need for sealing, and Leuchter himself emphasizes that the walls of a
gas chamber must be impervious:
Source: http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/execution.html
<quote>
<deletions>
The chamber may be of welded steel construction or of plastic PVC. The
doors and windows should be of standard marine watertight construction.
The door is gasketed with a single handle pressure seal.
<deletions>
</quote>
The Prussian Blue staining on the outside walls could easily be the
consequence of the residual cyanide given off when airing out large bulky
items such as mattresses against exterior walls subsequent to fumigation.
<deletions>
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> I will accept your accusation of my being an idiot providing you will accept
> mine of your having a reading comprehension problem.
> The designation B refers to ALL of the gas chambers collectively. It
> follows, does it not, that the grand total killed would be the sum of the
> deaths in the individual chambers - nicht war?
You mean "nicht wahr?" (Ordinarily, I wouldn't point this out, but "wahr"
= 'true', "war" = 'was'.)
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> As regards concentrations, if you have read Leuchter's Report, you will know
> that he took samples from all (or nearly all) of the different alleged
> execution chambers. The figure of 1 mg/kg repersents about the best he could
> find anywhere.
>
> ==============================================
Talking about lies, Richard, the above is a whopper!
1. Leuchter took samples from:
a. the partially museumified resoration of a gas chamber, Krema I, at
Auschwitz-Stammlager;
b. the ruins of the demolished Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkenau;
c. the foundations of Kremas III, IV, and V at Auschwitz-Birkenau
See the maps contained in Appendix 5 of the Leuchter report at
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/index.html for
details.
2. You state that. "[t]he figure of 1 mg/kg repersents about the best he
could find anywhere". This is a brazen misrepresenation of Leuchter's
results. Leuchter took 30 samples from various gas-chamber sites. Using a
relatively high detection threshold of 1 mg/kg, 14 of his 30 samples
tested positive, that is to say, the positive samples showed readings
ranging from a minimum of 1.1 mg/kg (sample 30) to 7.9 mg/kg (sample 29).
See
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/graphics/append1.jpg
for the raw data, ratios of 1/963 to 1/134 to his 1060 for a single sample
from a fumigation chamber.
It is interesting that Leuchter did not submit the samples he had taken
from the deeply blue-stained gas chamber at Majdanek for analysis. He
justifies this omission on design criteria: the premises at Majdanek were
obviously exposed to enough cyanide to leave large patches of blue
splotching on the walls (which are also covered with clearly evident
scratches from fingernails), but he rejects the possibility that the place
could have been used as a gas *or* fumigation chamber for the following
reasons:
Source: http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/majdanek.html
<quote>
<deletions>
The walls in chamber #1 have the characteristic blue ferric-ferro-cyanide
staining. The building is unheated and damp.
Although at first glance these facilities appear properly designed, they
fail to meet all the required criteria for an execution gas chamber or a
delousing facility. First, there is no sealant on any of the inside or
outside surfaces. Second, the depressed walkway is a potential gas trap
for HCN, making the building extremely dangerous. Chamber #2 is incomplete
and probably was never used. The piping is incomplete and the vent has
never been opened in the roof. Although chamber #1 is operational for
carbon monoxide, it is poorly vented and not operational for HCN. The
heater/circulator is improperly installed. There is no vent or stack.
<deletions>
</quote>
In other words, there is clear evidence that the room was exposed to
concentrations of HCN high enough and long enough for visible Prussian
Blue to have formed and been retained since 1944. Nevertheless, he argues
that it could not have been used for fumigation or execution, because it
is a potential gas trap for HCN and would thus be "extremely dangerous",
presumably lethal, for anyone caught there. He leaves the question of how
and why it was exposed to enough HCN for the Prussian Blue to have formed
in concentrations which must be in the range of what he found for the
Auschwitz fumigation chambers unanswered.
This, Richard, is the man you that you trust with the faith of a
six-year-old in the tooth fairy.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Joebruno
> news:bf3896a1.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote in message
> news:<holman-0101...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi>...
> > > In article <9tKdnZlQYbU...@mbay.net>, "Richard G. Phillips"
> > > <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > It amazes me that Phillips is naive enough to take what Leuchter says
> > seriously.The clown was holding himself out to be an "engineer", while
> > the truth was that his only degree was in some sort of Liberal Arts.
> ==========================================
> Phillips
>
> In most European countries, "engineer" is a title awarded by a government.
> THat is not the case here. A man is an engineer who either is employed in
> that capacity or who works independently in it.
>
> =========================================================
>
>
> > The State of Massachusetts discovered the fraud and forced him to stop
> > pretending to be something he wasn't. He's a fraud.
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> Are you sure the State of Mass "discovered" it. Rather, doesn't it stand to
> reason that they already knew it? Leuchter applies for a contract with
> another state. That state is obviously going to check with Mass for his
> bonafides.
>
> No, the State of Mass did not "discover" it; some fink slapped it down on
> the table at the right time. I wonder who put him up to it. Jews ARE good at
> that sort of thing.
>
> ===========================================================
Here ya go, Dickie. This is from Law.com
fraud
n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to
deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A
party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a
lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the
damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example
due to the malicious nature of the fraud. Quite often there are
several persons involved in a scheme to commit fraud and each and all
may be liable for the total damages. Inherent in fraud is an unjust
advantage over another which injures that person or entity. It
includes failing to point out a known mistake in a contract or other
writing (such as a deed), or not revealing a fact which he/she has a
duty to communicate, such as a survey which shows there are only 10
acres of land being purchased and not 20 as originally understood.
Constructive fraud can be proved by a showing of breach of legal duty
(like using the trust funds held for another in an investment in one's
own business) without direct proof of fraud or fraudulent intent.
Extrinsic fraud occurs when deceit is employed to keep someone from
exercising a right, such as a fair trial, by hiding evidence or
misleading the opposing party in a lawsuit.
Since fraud is intended to employ dishonesty to deprive another of
money, property or a right, it can also be a crime for which the
fraudulent person(s) can be charged, tried and convicted. Borderline
overreaching or taking advantage of another's naiveté involving
smaller amounts is often overlooked by law enforcement, which suggests
the victim seek a "civil remedy" (i.e., sue). However, increasingly
fraud, which has victimized a large segment of the public (even in
individually small amounts), has become the target of consumer fraud
divisions in the offices of district attorneys and attorneys general.
This was done by the guy whose report you place so much faith
in.ROTFL.
Richard G. Phillips
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-0201...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> In article <Z82dnXhu9YO...@mbay.net>, "Richard G. Phillips"
> <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
> > ====================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > In the first place this is not true. And in the second place, supposing
it
> > were true, to whatever extent it would have affected samples taken from
B,
> > by the same extent would it have affected samples taken from A. And it
is
> > the RATIO between the concentrations that is the most devastating
critique
> > of your Holocaust fable.
> >
> > If it were true how can we possibly account for the fact of the very
visible
> > Prussian blue staning seen on the OUTSIDES of the wals of the fumigation
> > chamber?
> >
> > Germar Rudolf says that it is not true and has samples of his own to
prove
> > it. If it's a case of his word against yours, I'll have to take his.
> >
> > ======================================================================
>
> Why do you *have* to take Germar Rudolf's word? Aren't you capable of any
> independent thought on your own?
===================================================
Phillips
I am, and the result of my independent thought is that Rudolf is a better
authority on the matter than you are.
===============================================
>
> Use your head, Richard. Cyanide is a lethal gas. Who the hell would use
> cyanide in a place with walls so porous that the gas could penetrate them
> and leak all the way through? You are the one who is always carping about
> the need for sealing, and Leuchter himself emphasizes that the walls of a
> gas chamber must be impervious:
================================================
Phillips
Your rational brain says there couldn't have been any such stains on the
outsides of the walls of the fumigation chamber, but, youl rational brain
notwithstanding, there were.
=======================================
>
> Source: http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/execution.html
> <quote>
> <deletions>
> The chamber may be of welded steel construction or of plastic PVC. The
> doors and windows should be of standard marine watertight construction.
> The door is gasketed with a single handle pressure seal.
> <deletions>
> </quote>
>
> The Prussian Blue staining on the outside walls could easily be the
> consequence of the residual cyanide given off when airing out large bulky
> items such as mattresses against exterior walls subsequent to fumigation.
> <deletions>
=============================================
Phillips
I am not the slightest bit interested in what it COULD have been; only in
what it was.
===============================================
>
>
> > =================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > I will accept your accusation of my being an idiot providing you will
accept
> > mine of your having a reading comprehension problem.
> > The designation B refers to ALL of the gas chambers collectively. It
> > follows, does it not, that the grand total killed would be the sum of
the
> > deaths in the individual chambers - nicht war?
>
> You mean "nicht wahr?" (Ordinarily, I wouldn't point this out, but "wahr"
> = 'true', "war" = 'was'.)
>
> > =================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > As regards concentrations, if you have read Leuchter's Report, you will
know
> > that he took samples from all (or nearly all) of the different alleged
> > execution chambers. The figure of 1 mg/kg repersents about the best he
could
> > find anywhere.
> >
> > ==============================================
>
> Talking about lies, Richard, the above is a whopper!
===============================================
Phillips
Excuse me. I should not have said the best because there were larger
figures. But I think we can say it was the most representative.
===========================================
================================================================
Phillips
I've said it probably half a dozen times. If you feel Leuchter's results are
cuckoo, there is nothing stopping you from sending in a team of your own
and, perhaps, getting results more to your liking. Quite possibly Leuchter
was guilty of flaws in his technique. However he was a doer and people are
only carpers.
You will say, no, we are not just carpers and point out the work of the
Krakow Institute. Fine. Now tell me how that work proves that Jews were
gassed.
================================================
==========================================
Richard G. Phillips
"Joebruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:bf3896a1.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in message
news:<Z82dnXtu9YO...@mbay.net>...
> > "Joebruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
> > news:bf3896a1.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote in message
> > news:<holman-0101...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi>...
> > > > In article <9tKdnZlQYbU...@mbay.net>, "Richard G. Phillips"
> > > > <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <deletions>
> > > > > ==========================================================
> > > > > Phillips
> > > > >
> > > > > Samples were diluted??? Just what do you mean by diluted?
> > > >
> > > > How many times have you asked this question and had it explained to
you?
==========================================================
Phillips
What do you mean by saying the samples were "diluted?"
=============================================
> > > >
> > > > > ==========================================================
> > > > > Phillips
> > > > >
> > > > > Failed to tell the lab that it ws only the surface that needed
> > testing. Why
> > > > > should he have told them something that was not true?
> > > > >
> > > > > ================================================
> > > >
> > > > Dunh! If you are trying to determine whether cyanide was used in an
> > > > enclosure, samples from its wall sufaces would be a far better
source of
> > > > empirical evidence than samples from 5 cm. inside the walls, no?
> > > >
> > > > > > Secondly, you are accepting Leuchter's conclusions on blind
faith.
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > Phillips
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not accepting his conclusions; I'm accepting his test results
and
> > > > > drawing my own conclusions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ========================================================
> > > >
> > > > That means that you are acting on blind faith rather than on
> > rationality.
=================================================
Phillips
Excuse me but you are much too free with your shits and fucks to be taken
seriously as an exponent of rationality.
=================================================================
> > > > Rationality would require that you do some intellectual work to
> > understand
> > > > the tests thatproduced the results.
===============================================
Phillips
Go on. ... that the tests that produced the results ...???
==================================================
> > > >
> > > > > What
> > > > > > concentration would one expect to find on the walls of a room in
> > which
> > > > > > 300,000 - 500,000 people were gassed
> > > > >
> > > > > ===================================================
> > > > > Phillips
> > > > >
> > > > > I have already answered that. Your so-called execution chambers
> > (which we
> > > > > speak of collectively as B) had walls of the same material,
> > > >
> > > > ?but were of different sizes
=====================================
Phillips
So?
======================================
and had a totally different histories of
> > use
=====================================
Phillips
Tell us about those different histories of use and how they must have
affected the results.
===================================================
> > > > and post-use interaction with their very different environments.
=========================================
Phillips
Tell us about those different post-use interactions.
======================================================
==================================================
Phillips
For the edification of those with excessive wax in their ears I will repeat
what I said: In America an engineer is a man who either is employed as an
engineer or who practices independly as such. It does not ruequire a
certification from federal or state government.
For work involving public safety, most states require that engineers
employed thereon be certified in that state. Leuchter did call himself an
engineer which he was perfectly entitled and qualified to do. He newer
claimed to have been certified by the state of Mass.
> >
> > =========================================================
> >
> >
> > > The State of Massachusetts discovered the fraud and forced him to stop
> > > pretending to be something he wasn't. He's a fraud.
> >
> > ============================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Are you sure the State of Mass "discovered" it. Rather, doesn't it stand
to
> > reason that they already knew it?
>
> Reason has nothing to do with it. This is a place for facts, not your
> customary armchair theorizing.
>
>
> Leuchter applies for a contract with
> > another state. That state is obviously going to check with Mass for his
> > bonafides.
>
> How do you know this happened?Do you ever check the facts of a case
> before you start slinging the bull?
====================================================
Phillips
Beucause that is the way things are done.
==============================
> >
>
> No, the State of Mass did not "discover" it; some fink slapped it down
> on
> > the table at the right time.
>
>
> Fink? What Leuchter did is legally a crime called fraud. Leuchter is
> lucky he didn't end up in jail. Fraud consists of misrepresenting
> facts for financial gain, which is what Leuchter did.
==============================================
Phillips
Leuchter never claimed to have been an engineer CERTIFIED by the state of
Mass.
==========================================
Morghus
<snip>
Here's another definition from law.com that seems to fit Leuchter's
position perfectly:
expert witness
n. a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may
present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any
occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. It is an
exception to the rule against giving an opinion in trial, provided
that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise,
training and special knowledge.
See? No requirement for a board certificate, a degree, or a state
license. Leuchter is an "expert" on chambers used to kill people
because of his special knowledge and expertise--and the judge accepted
Leuchter as an expert at the trial. The judge refused to allow
Leuchter to testify about the speed and capacity of the crematoria
because that was outside of his expertise, but Leuchter was allowed to
give his opinion about the feasibility and the existence of those
mythical gas chambers at Auschwitz.
The expert, the honorable Mr. Fred Leuchter, gave his as yet
unrefuted opinion that the rooms at Auschwitz could not have been used
to kill people using cyanide gas. No other expert in gas chambers has
come forward to dispute Leuchter's opinion.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <73fedc95.04010...@posting.google.com>:
>br...@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote in message news:<bf3896a1.04010...@posting.google.com>...
>> "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in message news:<Z82dnXtu9YO...@mbay.net>...
<deletia>
>> Here ya go, Dickie. This is from Law.com
>>
>> fraud
>> n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to
>> deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A
>> party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a
>> lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the
>> damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example
>> due to the malicious nature of the fraud.
><snip>
>Here's another definition from law.com that seems to fit Leuchter's
>position perfectly:
>
>expert witness
Nope. The court specifically found that leuchter lacked the expertise
required to be certified as an expert witness.
>n. a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may
>present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any
>occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. It is an
>exception to the rule against giving an opinion in trial, provided
>that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise,
>training and special knowledge.
>
> See? No requirement for a board certificate, a degree, or a state
>license. Leuchter is an "expert" on chambers used to kill people
>because of his special knowledge and expertise--and the judge accepted
>Leuchter as an expert at the trial.
Nope.
>The judge refused to allow
>Leuchter to testify about the speed and capacity of the crematoria
>because that was outside of his expertise, but Leuchter was allowed to
>give his opinion about the feasibility and the existence of those
>mythical gas chambers at Auschwitz.
>
> The expert, the honorable Mr. Fred Leuchter, gave his as yet
>unrefuted opinion that the rooms at Auschwitz could not have been used
>to kill people using cyanide gas. No other expert in gas chambers has
>come forward to dispute Leuchter's opinion.
Do you really think that lies *enhance* your case?
Patrick Keenan
news:73fedc95.04010...@posting.google.com...
Actually it does not.
>
> expert witness
> n. a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may
> present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any
> occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. It is an
> exception to the rule against giving an opinion in trial, provided
> that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise,
> training and special knowledge.
All of which Mr. Leuchter lacks, given his lack of expertise, training, and
knowledge, and the fact that he hasn't built any gas chamber equipment.
What Mr. Leucther was engaged in was not gas-chamber design but rather
shakedown scams. That was his "special knowledge".
> See? No requirement for a board certificate, a degree, or a state
> license. Leuchter is an "expert" on chambers used to kill people
> because of his special knowledge and expertise--and the judge accepted
> Leuchter as an expert at the trial.
Exactly which judge and which trial would that be?
<> The judge refused to allow
> Leuchter to testify about the speed and capacity of the crematoria
> because that was outside of his expertise, but Leuchter was allowed to
> give his opinion
In Toronto, he was not accepted as an "expert" or as an engineer.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leuchter-fred/qualifications-as-witness.html
> about the feasibility and the existence of those
> mythical gas chambers at Auschwitz.
No, he was specifically ruled not to be an expert on that subject:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leuchter-fred/qualifications-as-witness.html
"The judge ruled that Leuchter could not serve as an expert witness on the
construction and functioning of the gas chambers. The judge's findings as to
Leuchter's suitability to comment on questions of engineering was
unequivocal:
THE COURT: I'm not going to have him get into the question of what's in a
brick, what's in iron, what is in - he has no expertise in this area. He is
an engineer because he has made himself an engineer in a very limited
area.<39> "
> The expert, the honorable Mr. Fred Leuchter, gave his as yet
> unrefuted opinion
Sorry, it has been quite throughly refuted. Mr. Leuchter's uninformed
opinion is limited to the context of the 20th century American penal
execution chamber, not to the context of a death camp.
Mr. Leuchter didn't even know the commercial properties of the substance he
pretending to be expert in.
> that the rooms at Auschwitz could not have been used
> to kill people using cyanide gas. No other expert in gas chambers
What do you mean, "other"? Mr. Leuchter is not an expert, either at gas
chambers or at con artistry. Really ,if he were, he would have known that
he should not make completely wrong claims in a court where even the lawyers
know more than him about science.
> has
> come forward to dispute Leuchter's opinion.
But experts in chemistry and medicine have.
HTH
-pk
Richard G. Phillips
=====================================
Phillips
By whomand with what results. Tell me what experiments the Krakow people (or
ANYBODY) have obtained that prove that gassings took place.
===========================================================
> >>
> >> >> So taking aside from the fact that you have been shown, from
> >> >> numerous directions that this 1mg/kg figure is meaningless and
> >> >> fruadulant
> >> > ===================================================
> >> > Phillips
> >> >
> >> > The 1mg/kg figure was a physical observation; nothing more, nothing
> >> > less. How can a physical observation be meaningless and fradulent
> >> > unless you are accusing Leuchter of lying through his teeth.
> >>
> >> Now you're getting it. At the very least, I accuse him of taking his
> >> samples in an irresponsible
=======================================
Phillips
Please justify your contention that his sample-taking was irresponsible.
===========================
and incompetent manner
======================================
Phillips
Please justify your contention that his sample taking was incompetent.
==============================================
, conducting the
> >> wrong tests,
=======================================
Phillips
Why were his tests the wrong tests?
================================
and misrepresenting the significance of the result.
=====================================
Phillips
In what way did he misrepresent?
====================================================
> >>
> >> >> You do this NOT because there is the slightest
> >> >> scientific basis for said conclusion, but because it is so
> >> >> terribly vital to you that YOU believe it.
> >> >
> >> > ============================================
> >> > Phillips
> >> >
> >> > Terribly vital? Not really. If I'm proven wrong, it would hardly be
> >> > the first time and probably won't be the last. It is hardly going
> >> > to shitcan my very self-definition - as the reverse outcome might
> >> > very well do for you. ALso please note that I have never
> >> > promulgated my beliefs by --Hurling a fire-bomb or by acid-blinding
> >> > an opponent.
> >>
> >> Neither have I. What's your point?
> >
> > ================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > True, you have never committed acts of this sort but other
> > Holocaust-believing Jews have
>
> Wow, what an argument. Want me to get into the matter of what certain
> "non-Holocaust-believing" non-Jews have done, then?
===========================================
Phillips
In time. We will first talk about the things that Holocaust-believing Jews
have done and your reaction to these occurrences.
==============================================
>
> > and I have yet to hear any
> > Holocaust-believing Jews express outrage over them.
>
> You're inability to pay attention is not an argument in support of your
> case.
=========================================
Phillips
Are you telling me that Holocaust-believing Jews HAVE expressed outrage but
that it has gone past me. Please fill me in.
=============================================
>
> > But, then, Jews do
> > exhibit an exceptional cohesiveness when it comes to things of this
> > sort.
>
> Ah yes, argument by stereotype. Where would revisionism be without it.
==================================================
Phillips
What is not generally realized about stereotypeo is that they are frequently
true. That particular one about Jews is based not upon years, not upon
centuries, but upon millenia of experience with them.
===================================================================
>
> > And, now that I have your undivided, I need to ask a question. Is your
> > object to prove that Jews WERE gassed as claimed or is ti to shoot
> > down the denial of that claim?
>
> I don't feel there is any need for me to prove what has already been
> proven to the satisfaction of the entire historical community and the
> overwhelming majority of the world about a hundred times over. I'm here
> because of my interest in "revisionism" as an ideology. I don't see
> what's so wrong with that.
==================================================
Phillips
I did not ask you to prove anything. I asked you whether your object is to
prove that Jews were gassed or to shoot down the claim that they were not.
If the question makes you uncomfortable, you are under no obligation to
answer it.
========================================================================
>
> Steven Mock
>
>
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> >> > What they do is establish that the
>> >> > claimed gassings were very very very improbable. To establish
>> >> > conclusively what did or did not happen would need further
>> >> > experiments.
>> >> Which have been done.
>By whomand with what results. Tell me what experiments the Krakow people (or
>ANYBODY) have obtained that prove that gassings took place.
All by themselves? Tell me what experiment *could* prove this all by
itself?
>> >> >> So taking aside from the fact that you have been shown, from
>> >> >> numerous directions that this 1mg/kg figure is meaningless and
>> >> >> fruadulant
>> >> > The 1mg/kg figure was a physical observation; nothing more, nothing
>> >> > less. How can a physical observation be meaningless and fradulent
>> >> > unless you are accusing Leuchter of lying through his teeth.
>> >> Now you're getting it. At the very least, I accuse him of taking his
>> >> samples in an irresponsible
>Please justify your contention that his sample-taking was irresponsible.
You don't think that vandalization of the site without even contacting
the powers that be was irresponsible?
>> >> and incompetent manner
>Please justify your contention that his sample taking was incompetent.
He did not document them properly, if nothing else -- making his
experiment irreproducible *by design*.
>> >>, conducting the
>> >> wrong tests,
>Why were his tests the wrong tests?
Because Prussian Blue is not a reliable indicator of exposure to HCN.
>> >> and misrepresenting the significance of the result.
>In what way did he misrepresent?
Well, given that he did not test a random building to determine a
baseline exposure, his (and your) comments regarding the levels that
can be reasonably expected have no basis at all.
>> >> >> You do this NOT because there is the slightest
>> >> >> scientific basis for said conclusion, but because it is so
>> >> >> terribly vital to you that YOU believe it.
>> >> > Terribly vital? Not really. If I'm proven wrong, it would hardly be
>> >> > the first time and probably won't be the last. It is hardly going
>> >> > to shitcan my very self-definition - as the reverse outcome might
>> >> > very well do for you. ALso please note that I have never
>> >> > promulgated my beliefs by --Hurling a fire-bomb or by acid-blinding
>> >> > an opponent.
>> >> Neither have I. What's your point?
>> > True, you have never committed acts of this sort but other
>> > Holocaust-believing Jews have
>> Wow, what an argument. Want me to get into the matter of what certain
>> "non-Holocaust-believing" non-Jews have done, then?
>In time. We will first talk about the things that Holocaust-believing Jews
>have done and your reaction to these occurrences.
Why?
>> > and I have yet to hear any
>> > Holocaust-believing Jews express outrage over them.
Have you heard anyone that accepts the historical facts of the matter
express any *approval* of these actions?
>> You're inability to pay attention is not an argument in support of your
>> case.
>Are you telling me that Holocaust-believing Jews HAVE expressed outrage but
>that it has gone past me. Please fill me in.
So that you can ignore the facts you are given again?
Why should anyone waste their time?
>> > But, then, Jews do
>> > exhibit an exceptional cohesiveness when it comes to things of this
>> > sort.
>> Ah yes, argument by stereotype. Where would revisionism be without it.
>What is not generally realized about stereotypeo is that they are frequently
>true. That particular one about Jews is based not upon years, not upon
>centuries, but upon millenia of experience with them.
No, it is based on millennia of irrational hatred of them.
>> > And, now that I have your undivided, I need to ask a question. Is your
>> > object to prove that Jews WERE gassed as claimed or is ti to shoot
>> > down the denial of that claim?
>> I don't feel there is any need for me to prove what has already been
>> proven to the satisfaction of the entire historical community and the
>> overwhelming majority of the world about a hundred times over. I'm here
>> because of my interest in "revisionism" as an ideology. I don't see
>> what's so wrong with that.
>I did not ask you to prove anything. I asked you whether your object is to
>prove that Jews were gassed or to shoot down the claim that they were not.
>If the question makes you uncomfortable, you are under no obligation to
>answer it.
He did answer it. That he did not answer it in the way you wanted it
to be answered doesn't change that fact...
Richard G. Phillips
"Roger" <roger@ . > wrote in message
news:dbd05541f7b90479...@news.teranews.com...
> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
> in message <aIKdnShNLeM...@mbay.net>:
>
> >> >> > What they do is establish that the
> >> >> > claimed gassings were very very very improbable. To establish
> >> >> > conclusively what did or did not happen would need further
> >> >> > experiments.
>
> >> >> Which have been done.
>
> >By whomand with what results. Tell me what experiments the Krakow people
(or
> >ANYBODY) have obtained that prove that gassings took place.
>
> All by themselves? Tell me what experiment *could* prove this all by
> itself?
=============================================
Phillips
In other words, nothing that you people have done and, furthermore, nothing
that yuo possiby could do could prove that Jews were gassed.
============================
>
> >> >> >> So taking aside from the fact that you have been shown, from
> >> >> >> numerous directions that this 1mg/kg figure is meaningless and
> >> >> >> fruadulant
>
> >> >> > The 1mg/kg figure was a physical observation; nothing more,
nothing
> >> >> > less. How can a physical observation be meaningless and fradulent
> >> >> > unless you are accusing Leuchter of lying through his teeth.
>
> >> >> Now you're getting it. At the very least, I accuse him of taking
his
> >> >> samples in an irresponsible
>
> >Please justify your contention that his sample-taking was irresponsible.
>
> You don't think that vandalization of the site without even contacting
> the powers that be was irresponsible?
============================================
Phillips
No
==================================
>
> >> >> and incompetent manner
>
> >Please justify your contention that his sample taking was incompetent.
>
> He did not document them properly, if nothing else -- making his
> experiment irreproducible *by design*.
===============================================
Phillips
How SHOULD he have documented hi- experiments?
=============================================
>
> >> >>, conducting the
> >> >> wrong tests,
>
> >Why were his tests the wrong tests?
>
> Because Prussian Blue is not a reliable indicator of exposure to HCN.
===========================================================
Phillips
Please tell me of one known and documented instance where a bbuilding having
the same wall material as the Auschwitz chambers was subjected to comparable
exposure and did NOT end up exhibiting traces of Prussian blue.
========================================
>
> >> >> and misrepresenting the significance of the result.
>
> >In what way did he misrepresent?
>
> Well, given that he did not test a random building to determine a
> baseline exposure, his (and your) comments regarding the levels that
> can be reasonably expected have no basis at all.
==========================================
Phillips
Why?
================================================
>
> >> >> >> You do this NOT because there is the slightest
> >> >> >> scientific basis for said conclusion, but because it is so
> >> >> >> terribly vital to you that YOU believe it.
>
> >> >> > Terribly vital? Not really. If I'm proven wrong, it would hardly
be
> >> >> > the first time and probably won't be the last. It is hardly going
> >> >> > to shitcan my very self-definition - as the reverse outcome might
> >> >> > very well do for you. ALso please note that I have never
> >> >> > promulgated my beliefs by --Hurling a fire-bomb or by
acid-blinding
> >> >> > an opponent.
>
> >> >> Neither have I. What's your point?
>
> >> > True, you have never committed acts of this sort but other
> >> > Holocaust-believing Jews have
>
> >> Wow, what an argument. Want me to get into the matter of what certain
> >> "non-Holocaust-believing" non-Jews have done, then?
>
> >In time. We will first talk about the things that Holocaust-believing
Jews
> >have done and your reaction to these occurrences.
>
> Why?
==============================================
Phillips
Because occurrences like fire-bombings and acid-blindings are NOT the acts
of honest people who are sure of themselves. And that is why you would much
rather not talk about them.
====================================================
>
> >> > and I have yet to hear any
> >> > Holocaust-believing Jews express outrage over them.
>
> Have you heard anyone that accepts the historical facts of the matter
> express any *approval* of these actions?
>
> >> You're inability to pay attention is not an argument in support of your
> >> case.
>
> >Are you telling me that Holocaust-believing Jews HAVE expressed outrage
but
> >that it has gone past me. Please fill me in.
>
> So that you can ignore the facts you are given again?
=====================================
Phillips
Stop evading. if you can cite instances of where Hologaust-believing Jews
have publicly expressed outrage over these occurences, please let me know of
them.
========================================
>
> Why should anyone waste their time?
>
> >> > But, then, Jews do
> >> > exhibit an exceptional cohesiveness when it comes to things of this
> >> > sort.
>
> >> Ah yes, argument by stereotype. Where would revisionism be without it.
>
> >What is not generally realized about stereotypeo is that they are
frequently
> >true. That particular one about Jews is based not upon years, not upon
> >centuries, but upon millenia of experience with them.
>
> No, it is based on millennia of irrational hatred of them.
======================================================
Phillips
What caused the hatred and why is it irrational?
=====================================================
>
> >> > And, now that I have your undivided, I need to ask a question. Is
your
> >> > object to prove that Jews WERE gassed as claimed or is ti to shoot
> >> > down the denial of that claim?
>
> >> I don't feel there is any need for me to prove what has already been
> >> proven to the satisfaction of the entire historical community and the
> >> overwhelming majority of the world about a hundred times over. I'm
here
> >> because of my interest in "revisionism" as an ideology. I don't see
> >> what's so wrong with that.
>
> >I did not ask you to prove anything. I asked you whether your object is
to
> >prove that Jews were gassed or to shoot down the claim that they were
not.
> >If the question makes you uncomfortable, you are under no obligation to
> >answer it.
>
> He did answer it. That he did not answer it in the way you wanted it
> to be answered doesn't change that fact...
=============================================
Phillips
He did NOT answer it. I will repeat: Is your object is to
> >prove that Jews were gassed or to shoot down the claim that they were
not?
===========================================
Steven Mock
> Subject: Re: Phillips on the Holocaust
> From: "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>
> "Roger" <roger@ . > wrote in message
> news:dbd05541f7b90479...@news.teranews.com...
>> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
>> in message <aIKdnShNLeM...@mbay.net>:
>>
>> >> >> > What they do is establish that the
>> >> >> > claimed gassings were very very very improbable. To establish
>> >> >> > conclusively what did or did not happen would need further
>> >> >> > experiments.
>>
>> >> >> Which have been done.
>>
>> >By whomand with what results. Tell me what experiments the Krakow
>> >people (or ANYBODY) have obtained that prove that gassings took
>> >place.
>>
>> All by themselves? Tell me what experiment *could* prove this all by
>> itself?
>
> =============================================
> Phillips
>
> In other words, nothing that you people have done and, furthermore,
> nothing that yuo possiby could do could prove that Jews were gassed.
With a chemistry experiement, no. But, once again, Phillips, keep in
mind that this discussion did not start with our saying that the
chemistry proved, in itself, that Jews were gassed (all it does, as I
see it, is support the witness testimony and other evidence), but with
your claim that Leuchter experiments - how did you put it? - settled the
matter for you for all time.
Since you've conceded that it doesn't, I don't suppose there's anything
more for us to discuss.
<diversions snipped>
Steven Mock
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
>"Roger" <roger@ . > wrote in message
>news:dbd05541f7b90479...@news.teranews.com...
>> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
>> in message <aIKdnShNLeM...@mbay.net>:
>> >> >> > What they do is establish that the
>> >> >> > claimed gassings were very very very improbable. To establish
>> >> >> > conclusively what did or did not happen would need further
>> >> >> > experiments.
>> >> >> Which have been done.
>> >By whomand with what results. Tell me what experiments the Krakow people
>> >(or ANYBODY) have obtained that prove that gassings took place.
>> All by themselves? Tell me what experiment *could* prove this all by
>> itself?
>In other words, nothing that you people have done and, furthermore, nothing
>that yuo possiby could do could prove that Jews were gassed.
Not on the basis of a single piece of evidence, no.
Were you under the impression that each piece of evidence must, all by
itself, prove the entirety of the Holocaust?
>> >> >> >> So taking aside from the fact that you have been shown, from
>> >> >> >> numerous directions that this 1mg/kg figure is meaningless and
>> >> >> >> fruadulant
>> >> >> > The 1mg/kg figure was a physical observation; nothing more,
>> >> >> > nothing
>> >> >> > less. How can a physical observation be meaningless and fradulent
>> >> >> > unless you are accusing Leuchter of lying through his teeth.
>> >> >> Now you're getting it. At the very least, I accuse him of taking
>> >> >> his samples in an irresponsible
>> >Please justify your contention that his sample-taking was irresponsible.
>> You don't think that vandalization of the site without even contacting
>> the powers that be was irresponsible?
>No
So, then, you would have no problem with someone doing the same to
your house, your car, or your computer?
>> >> >> and incompetent manner
>> >Please justify your contention that his sample taking was incompetent.
>> He did not document them properly, if nothing else -- making his
>> experiment irreproducible *by design*.
>How SHOULD he have documented hi- experiments?
You claim to be familiar with the scientific method and you can ask
this question with a straight face?
The locations, sizes, shapes, and depths of the samples would have
been recorded by a competent scientist so that someone could do the
exact same thing again as a back check against bias distorting the
results or random factors having an impact.
>> >> >>, conducting the
>> >> >> wrong tests,
>> >Why were his tests the wrong tests?
>> Because Prussian Blue is not a reliable indicator of exposure to HCN.
>Please tell me of one known and documented instance where a bbuilding having
>the same wall material as the Auschwitz chambers was subjected to comparable
>exposure and did NOT end up exhibiting traces of Prussian blue.
Once again: the fumigations chambers. The walls were not uniformly
blue, indicating that PB does not consistently form on exposure to
HCN.
>> >> >> and misrepresenting the significance of the result.
>> >In what way did he misrepresent?
>> Well, given that he did not test a random building to determine a
>> baseline exposure, his (and your) comments regarding the levels that
>> can be reasonably expected have no basis at all.
>Why?
Which of those words didn't you understand?
>> >> >> >> You do this NOT because there is the slightest
>> >> >> >> scientific basis for said conclusion, but because it is so
>> >> >> >> terribly vital to you that YOU believe it.
>> >> >> > Terribly vital? Not really. If I'm proven wrong, it would hardly
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > the first time and probably won't be the last. It is hardly going
>> >> >> > to shitcan my very self-definition - as the reverse outcome might
>> >> >> > very well do for you. ALso please note that I have never
>> >> >> > promulgated my beliefs by --Hurling a fire-bomb or by
>> >> >> > acid-blinding an opponent.
>> >> >> Neither have I. What's your point?
>> >> > True, you have never committed acts of this sort but other
>> >> > Holocaust-believing Jews have
>> >> Wow, what an argument. Want me to get into the matter of what certain
>> >> "non-Holocaust-believing" non-Jews have done, then?
>> >In time. We will first talk about the things that Holocaust-believing
>> >Jews have done and your reaction to these occurrences.
>> Why?
>Because occurrences like fire-bombings and acid-blindings are NOT the acts
>of honest people who are sure of themselves. And that is why you would much
>rather not talk about them.
I'm perfectly willing to talk about them. Let's start with your proof
that these things were done by Jews.
>> >> > and I have yet to hear any
>> >> > Holocaust-believing Jews express outrage over them.
>> Have you heard anyone that accepts the historical facts of the matter
>> express any *approval* of these actions?
Well?
>> >> You're inability to pay attention is not an argument in support of your
>> >> case.
>> >Are you telling me that Holocaust-believing Jews HAVE expressed outrage
>> >but that it has gone past me. Please fill me in.
>> So that you can ignore the facts you are given again?
>Stop evading. if you can cite instances of where Hologaust-believing Jews
>have publicly expressed outrage over these occurences, please let me know of
>them.
Just as soon as you prove that these things were done by Jews, and
that anyone at all has publicly expressed approval of them.
>> Why should anyone waste their time?
>> >> > But, then, Jews do
>> >> > exhibit an exceptional cohesiveness when it comes to things of this
>> >> > sort.
>> >> Ah yes, argument by stereotype. Where would revisionism be without it.
>> >What is not generally realized about stereotypeo is that they are
>> >frequently
>> >true. That particular one about Jews is based not upon years, not upon
>> >centuries, but upon millenia of experience with them.
>> No, it is based on millennia of irrational hatred of them.
>What caused the hatred and why is it irrational?
Given that it *is* irrational, looking for a rational cause is moot.
And it *is* demonstrably irrational, given that you yourself, despite
several attempts, have never been able to offer anything *objective*
as justification of your hatred.
>> >> > And, now that I have your undivided, I need to ask a question. Is
>> >> > your
>> >> > object to prove that Jews WERE gassed as claimed or is ti to shoot
>> >> > down the denial of that claim?
>> >> I don't feel there is any need for me to prove what has already been
>> >> proven to the satisfaction of the entire historical community and the
>> >> overwhelming majority of the world about a hundred times over. I'm
>> >> here
>> >> because of my interest in "revisionism" as an ideology. I don't see
>> >> what's so wrong with that.
>> >I did not ask you to prove anything. I asked you whether your object is
>> >to
>> >prove that Jews were gassed or to shoot down the claim that they were
>> >not.
>> >If the question makes you uncomfortable, you are under no obligation to
>> >answer it.
>> He did answer it. That he did not answer it in the way you wanted it
>> to be answered doesn't change that fact...
>> >He did NOT answer it. I will repeat: Is your object is to
>> >prove that Jews were gassed or to shoot down the claim that they were
>> >not?
And so *I* will repeat: I don't feel there is any need for me to
Richard G. Phillips
"Roger" <roger@ . > wrote in message
> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
> in message <LcWdnYrbwM8...@mbay.net>:
>
> >"Roger" <roger@ . > wrote in message
> >news:dbd05541f7b90479...@news.teranews.com...
>
> >> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> >> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> >> someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
> >> in message <aIKdnShNLeM...@mbay.net>:
>
> >> >> >> > What they do is establish that the
> >> >> >> > claimed gassings were very very very improbable. To establish
> >> >> >> > conclusively what did or did not happen would need further
> >> >> >> > experiments.
>
> >> >> >> Which have been done.
>
> >> >By whomand with what results. Tell me what experiments the Krakow
people
> >> >(or ANYBODY) have obtained that prove that gassings took place.
>
> >> All by themselves? Tell me what experiment *could* prove this all by
> >> itself?
>
> >In other words, nothing that you people have done and, furthermore,
nothing
> >that yuo possiby could do could prove that Jews were gassed.
>
> Not on the basis of a single piece of evidence, no.
==================================================
Phillips
I never restricted you to a single experiment.
======================================================
>
> Were you under the impression that each piece of evidence must, all by
> itself, prove the entirety of the Holocaust?
============================================
Phillips
Never said that. Do as many as you need tto do.
========================
>
> >> >> >> >> So taking aside from the fact that you have been shown, from
> >> >> >> >> numerous directions that this 1mg/kg figure is meaningless and
> >> >> >> >> fruadulant
>
> >> >> >> > The 1mg/kg figure was a physical observation; nothing more,
> >> >> >> > nothing
> >> >> >> > less. How can a physical observation be meaningless and
fradulent
> >> >> >> > unless you are accusing Leuchter of lying through his teeth.
>
> >> >> >> Now you're getting it. At the very least, I accuse him of taking
> >> >> >> his samples in an irresponsible
>
> >> >Please justify your contention that his sample-taking was
irresponsible.
>
> >> You don't think that vandalization of the site without even contacting
> >> the powers that be was irresponsible?
>
> >No
>
> So, then, you would have no problem with someone doing the same to
> your house, your car, or your computer?
==============================================
Phillips
No, you Mother's mistake, it is just that I do not concede the right of any
Polish government to deny access to researchers on a matter of vital
interest to the entire world.
==============================================
>
> >> >> >> and incompetent manner
>
> >> >Please justify your contention that his sample taking was incompetent.
>
> >> He did not document them properly, if nothing else -- making his
> >> experiment irreproducible *by design*.
>
> >How SHOULD he have documented hi- experiments?
>
> You claim to be familiar with the scientific method and you can ask
> this question with a straight face?
>
> The locations, sizes, shapes, and depths of the samples would have
> been recorded by a competent scientist so that someone could do the
> exact same thing again as a back check against bias distorting the
> results or random factors having an impact.
==========================================================
Phillips
Yeah ,yeah, yeah, Leuchter should have done this and Leuchter should have
done that. The world is made up of doers and carpers. I happen to be more
favourably impressed by the doers. Carpers are a dime a dozen.
============================================================
>
> >> >> >>, conducting the
> >> >> >> wrong tests,
>
> >> >Why were his tests the wrong tests?
>
> >> Because Prussian Blue is not a reliable indicator of exposure to HCN.
>
> >Please tell me of one known and documented instance where a bbuilding
having
> >the same wall material as the Auschwitz chambers was subjected to
comparable
> >exposure and did NOT end up exhibiting traces of Prussian blue.
>
> Once again: the fumigations chambers. The walls were not uniformly
> blue, indicating that PB does not consistently form on exposure to
> HCN.
============================================
Phillips
Would you kindly reply to the questions that are put to you and not make up
your own. I asked you to name a structure subject to exposure that did NOT
show traces of Prussian blue. The fumigation chamber? Christ, they found big
splotches all over the place. Sorry that they weren't uniform all over the
wall. Life's just pure hell that way.
==================================================================
>
> >> >> >> and misrepresenting the significance of the result.
>
> >> >In what way did he misrepresent?
>
> >> Well, given that he did not test a random building to determine a
> >> baseline exposure, his (and your) comments regarding the levels that
> >> can be reasonably expected have no basis at all.
>
> >Why?
>
> Which of those words didn't you understand?
================================================
Phillips
Taking them individually, I understood ALL of the words. It's the way you
combine them that has me flummoxed.
=================================================================
===================================================
Phillips
They were done by SOMEBODY. Whom do you suspect? The Rosicrucians or the
Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barbershop Quartet Singing
in America?
The acts of violence in France have been attributed to the Jewish youth
group Betar.
===============================================================
>
> >> >> > and I have yet to hear any
> >> >> > Holocaust-believing Jews express outrage over them.
>
> >> Have you heard anyone that accepts the historical facts of the matter
> >> express any *approval* of these actions?
>
> Well?
>
> >> >> You're inability to pay attention is not an argument in support of
your
> >> >> case.
>
> >> >Are you telling me that Holocaust-believing Jews HAVE expressed
outrage
> >> >but that it has gone past me. Please fill me in.
>
> >> So that you can ignore the facts you are given again?
>
> >Stop evading. if you can cite instances of where Hologaust-believing Jews
> >have publicly expressed outrage over these occurences, please let me know
of
> >them.
>
> Just as soon as you prove that these things were done by Jews, and
> that anyone at all has publicly expressed approval of them.
==================================================
Phillips
Your Jew-lawyer slipperiness is not impressing anybody. No one BUT the Jews
would have had the slightest incentive to commit such acts.
==================================================
>
> >> Why should anyone waste their time?
>
> >> >> > But, then, Jews do
> >> >> > exhibit an exceptional cohesiveness when it comes to things of
this
> >> >> > sort.
>
> >> >> Ah yes, argument by stereotype. Where would revisionism be without
it.
>
> >> >What is not generally realized about stereotypeo is that they are
> >> >frequently
> >> >true. That particular one about Jews is based not upon years, not upon
> >> >centuries, but upon millenia of experience with them.
>
> >> No, it is based on millennia of irrational hatred of them.
>
> >What caused the hatred and why is it irrational?
>
> Given that it *is* irrational,
=====================================
Phillips
Given? Who "gave" it to us? While you lack the balls to admit you're Jewish
you exhibit the most disgusting trait of that unhappy race: the incapacity
to perceive the effect they have on the peoples among whom they dwell. THAT
is why they have been expelled from virtually every place where they have
lived.
========================================================
Joebruno
See the agreement I posted between Leuchter and the State of
Massachusetts. In it Leuchter ADMITS he presented himself as an
engineer and promised to stop doing it. The agreement also says he
consulted on areas of engineering unrelated to gas chambers, which he
has NO expertise in.
Leuchter's fraud involves more than just his remarks about gas
chambers. The agreement states he called himself "chief engineer" and
he consulted on all areas of engineering.
I happen to be a CPA by profession, but only the State of Illinois has
certified me. Each state has it's own requirements for CPAs. I have
lived in California for more than 20 years and have NEVER presented
myself as certified in California. If I did that, The American
Institute of CPAS could discipline me for presenting myself as
something I am not. In addition, I would be subject to criminal
prosecution for fraud if I was paid fees by someone I had told I was
certified in California.
Fraud involves profiting financially from misrepresentations. Leuchter
presented himself as an engineer, which he is not. There is a
differerence between a technician who has only on the job training and
an engineer who has formal education in a certain discipline.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
>> >> >> >> > What they do is establish that the
>> >> >> >> > claimed gassings were very very very improbable. To establish
>> >> >> >> > conclusively what did or did not happen would need further
>> >> >> >> > experiments.
>> >> >> >> Which have been done.
>> >> >By whomand with what results. Tell me what experiments the Krakow
>> >> >people
>> >> >(or ANYBODY) have obtained that prove that gassings took place.
>> >> All by themselves? Tell me what experiment *could* prove this all by
>> >> itself?
>> >In other words, nothing that you people have done and, furthermore,
>> >nothing that yuo possiby could do could prove that Jews were gassed.
>> Not on the basis of a single piece of evidence, no.
>I never restricted you to a single experiment.
No experiments all by themselves, without supporting documentary and
testimonial evidence will *ever* be able to prove *any* historical
scenario even a fraction as complex as the Holocaust.
>> Were you under the impression that each piece of evidence must, all by
>> itself, prove the entirety of the Holocaust?
>Never said that. Do as many as you need tto do.
Been done.
>> >> >> >> >> So taking aside from the fact that you have been shown, from
>> >> >> >> >> numerous directions that this 1mg/kg figure is meaningless and
>> >> >> >> >> fruadulant
>> >> >> >> > The 1mg/kg figure was a physical observation; nothing more,
>> >> >> >> > nothing
>> >> >> >> > less. How can a physical observation be meaningless and
>> >> >> >> > fradulent
>> >> >> >> > unless you are accusing Leuchter of lying through his teeth.
>> >> >> >> Now you're getting it. At the very least, I accuse him of taking
>> >> >> >> his samples in an irresponsible
>> >> >Please justify your contention that his sample-taking was
>> >> >irresponsible.
>> >> You don't think that vandalization of the site without even contacting
>> >> the powers that be was irresponsible?
>> >No
>> So, then, you would have no problem with someone doing the same to
>> your house, your car, or your computer?
>No, you Mother's mistake, it is just that I do not concede the right of any
>Polish government to deny access to researchers on a matter of vital
>interest to the entire world.
Of course, access was not denied -- leuchter never even tried to get
it.
But this won't stop phillips from lying about the matter...
>> >> >> >> and incompetent manner
>> >> >Please justify your contention that his sample taking was incompetent.
>> >> He did not document them properly, if nothing else -- making his
>> >> experiment irreproducible *by design*.
>> >How SHOULD he have documented hi- experiments?
>> You claim to be familiar with the scientific method and you can ask
>> this question with a straight face?
>>
>> The locations, sizes, shapes, and depths of the samples would have
>> been recorded by a competent scientist so that someone could do the
>> exact same thing again as a back check against bias distorting the
>> results or random factors having an impact.
>Yeah ,yeah, yeah, Leuchter should have done this and Leuchter should have
>done that. The world is made up of doers and carpers. I happen to be more
>favourably impressed by the doers. Carpers are a dime a dozen.
IOW, you cannot refute my assertion that leuchter was incompetent.
Thanks for the admission.
>> >> >> >>, conducting the
>> >> >> >> wrong tests,
>> >> >Why were his tests the wrong tests?
>> >> Because Prussian Blue is not a reliable indicator of exposure to HCN.
>> >Please tell me of one known and documented instance where a bbuilding
>> >having
>> >the same wall material as the Auschwitz chambers was subjected to
>> >comparable
>> >exposure and did NOT end up exhibiting traces of Prussian blue.
>> Once again: the fumigations chambers. The walls were not uniformly
>> blue, indicating that PB does not consistently form on exposure to
>> HCN.
>Would you kindly reply to the questions that are put to you and not make up
>your own. I asked you to name a structure subject to exposure that did NOT
>show traces of Prussian blue. The fumigation chamber? Christ, they found big
>splotches all over the place. Sorry that they weren't uniform all over the
>wall. Life's just pure hell that way.
And you are too ignorant to realize that the fact that there were only
splotches supports my assertion that PB is not a reliable indicator of
HCN exposure.
>> >> >> >> and misrepresenting the significance of the result.
>> >> >In what way did he misrepresent?
>> >> Well, given that he did not test a random building to determine a
>> >> baseline exposure, his (and your) comments regarding the levels that
>> >> can be reasonably expected have no basis at all.
>> >Why?
>> Which of those words didn't you understand?
>Taking them individually, I understood ALL of the words. It's the way you
>combine them that has me flummoxed.
Because of your pathological need to ignore any evidence that does not
feed your hatred.
You say that the traces found in the gas chambers are about what one
would expect in any random building.
Given that no testing was done by leuchter to give us any data on what
those random concentrations would be, on what basis do you make this
assertion?
>> >> Why?
>They were done by SOMEBODY. Whom do you suspect? The Rosicrucians or the
>Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barbershop Quartet Singing
>in America?
So, when are you going to support your assertion that these were acts
carried out by Jews?
>The acts of violence in France have been attributed to the Jewish youth
>group Betar.
By whom?
>> >> >> > and I have yet to hear any
>> >> >> > Holocaust-believing Jews express outrage over them.
>> >> Have you heard anyone that accepts the historical facts of the matter
>> >> express any *approval* of these actions?
>> Well?
phillips, realizing that he can offer no answer to this that does not
trash his "righteous indignation," flees.
>> >> >> You're inability to pay attention is not an argument in support of
>> >> >> your case.
>> >> >Are you telling me that Holocaust-believing Jews HAVE expressed
>> >> >outrage but that it has gone past me. Please fill me in.
>> >> So that you can ignore the facts you are given again?
>> >Stop evading. if you can cite instances of where Hologaust-believing Jews
>> >have publicly expressed outrage over these occurences, please let me know
>> >of them.
>> Just as soon as you prove that these things were done by Jews, and
>> that anyone at all has publicly expressed approval of them.
>Your Jew-lawyer slipperiness is not impressing anybody. No one BUT the Jews
>would have had the slightest incentive to commit such acts.
Thanks for the admission that you have no proof of your accusations.
>> >> Why should anyone waste their time?
>> >> >> > But, then, Jews do
>> >> >> > exhibit an exceptional cohesiveness when it comes to things of
>> >> >> > this sort.
>> >> >> Ah yes, argument by stereotype. Where would revisionism be without
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >What is not generally realized about stereotypeo is that they are
>> >> >frequently
>> >> >true. That particular one about Jews is based not upon years, not upon
>> >> >centuries, but upon millenia of experience with them.
>> >> No, it is based on millennia of irrational hatred of them.
>> >What caused the hatred and why is it irrational?
>> Given that it *is* irrational,
>Given? Who "gave" it to us? While you lack the balls to admit you're Jewish
>you exhibit the most disgusting trait of that unhappy race: the incapacity
>to perceive the effect they have on the peoples among whom they dwell. THAT
>is why they have been expelled from virtually every place where they have
>lived.
I cannot "admit" what is not so.
>> looking for a rational cause is moot.
>> And it *is* demonstrably irrational, given that you yourself, despite
>> several attempts, have never been able to offer anything *objective*
>> as justification of your hatred.
And here is where I support my assertions. Your turn.
Orac
Already been done numerous times ad nauseum by Eugene, Steve, and others
in response to your ignoring their replies and asking the same stupid
question again and again.
In light of that, why don't YOU justify your apparent belief that his
sample taking WASN'T incompetent?
Orac
Roger <roger@ . > wrote:
Yes, that is EXACTLY the line of "reasoning" Phillips seems to use and
has used in the six years or so I've been active in a.r. If a single
piece of evidence for the historicity of the Holocaust is not
sufficiently convincing to him, he tries to use that to claim that the
Holocaust never happened. And, conveniently enough (and not
surprisingly, given Phillips' long history of anti-Semitism, racism, and
Holocaust denial on this newsgroup), no piece of evidence for the
Holocaust is ever suffiently convincing to Phillips.
Phillips' MO is to proclaim any evidence presented to him as "not
convincing." Oh, he will nibble around the edges occasionally and try to
articulate actual reasons he thinks the evidence is not convincing, but
when his "arguments" (such as they are) are demolished, he nearly always
retreats into a childish "I-can't-hear-you" kind of denial, in which he
proclaims himself "not convinced." Then he will usually disappear for a
few days, only to resurface again with the very same "questions" that
were answered for him numerous times before.
Morghus
> mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote in message news:<73fedc95.04010...@posting.google.com>...
> >
So Fred Leuchter is not a "professional Engineer." So what?
Engineering has been a profession only since the late 1930's and early
1940s. Some states require board certification, some do not. Having a
degree or certificate in engineering bestows no special knowledge
about all technical subjects. Engineering specialties are still
emerging, for example in the computer industry and laser technology.
Civil engineers know little or nothing about electronics, and many
electrical engineers couldn't build a bridge across their backyard
fountain. Engineering students usually concentrate on one area of
expertise and take courses designed to prepare them for that one area
of work.
No "professional engineer" in the United States knows more about
gas chambers than Fred Leuchter. No school in the United States,
perhaps the world, offers courses on gas chamber design and operation.
Few people have studied or have any experience in human killing
apparatuses. If credentials are important for expert opinion, then
Fred Leuchter is the most qualified individual in the United States,
perhaps the world, to give an opinion.
What's more, Leuchter supported his opinion with concrete facts. As
Leuchter explained to the court, the Auschwitz rooms had inadequate
ventilation, no facilities for heating or dispersing the gas, the
doors swung the wrong way, and finally, the walls showed no signs of
having been repeatedly exposed to cyanide gas. Leuchter's expert
opinion was supported by samples, photographs, and technical data.
Since Leuchter was accepted as an expert on homicidal gas chambers
by the court, his testimony is a matter of public record. The
photographs, technical data, and samples are still available. If
anyone wants to refute Leuchter's findings, the evidence is still
there. Any expert can visit Auschwitz, take pictures, inspect the
bogus gas chambers, and take measurements. No other expert on human
gas chambers has yet tried to do so.
Instead, the Holocaust hawkers collaterally attack Leuchter
personally. For example, in this thread, we are told that Leuchter
used misleading titles on his letterhead. What has that to do with
the evidence supporting Leuchter's opinion? We are told that the
state of Massachussetts forced Leuchter to stop using his letterhead.
So? Does that disprove the facts that the rooms at Auschwitz claimed
to be gas chambers lacked the necessary appurtenances to be used as
gas chambers and had no evidence of being exposed to poisonous gas?
They attack Leuchter personally because they cannot attack his
facts, his evidence, or his opinion. They attack Leuchter personally
because he has exposed the great fraud of World War II by knocking out
the underpinnings of the key column holding up the Holocaust edifice,
the fabled gas chambers. They attack Leuchter personally because
Leuchter's unrefuted opinion is a major obstacle to the continuation
of the monstrous myth that is "The Holocaust."
Steven Mock
news:73fedc95.04010...@posting.google.com:
> br...@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote in message
> news:<bf3896a1.0401...@posting.google.com>...
>> mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote in message
>> news:<73fedc95.04010...@posting.google.com>...
>> >
>> > The expert, the honorable Mr. Fred Leuchter, gave his as yet
>> > unrefuted opinion that the rooms at Auschwitz could not have been
>> > used to kill people using cyanide gas. No other expert in gas
>> > chambers has come forward to dispute Leuchter's opinion.
>>
>> See the agreement I posted between Leuchter and the State of
>> Massachusetts. In it Leuchter ADMITS he presented himself as an
>> engineer and promised to stop doing it. The agreement also says he
>> consulted on areas of engineering unrelated to gas chambers, which he
>> has NO expertise in.
>
> So Fred Leuchter is not a "professional Engineer." So what?
So he falsely represented himself as one. "The honorable Mr. Fred
Leuchter" lied. These are the sort of people revisionists trust to
provide evidence.
> Engineering has been a profession only since the late 1930's and early
> 1940s. Some states require board certification, some do not. Having a
> degree or certificate in engineering bestows no special knowledge
> about all technical subjects. Engineering specialties are still
> emerging, for example in the computer industry and laser technology.
> Civil engineers know little or nothing about electronics, and many
> electrical engineers couldn't build a bridge across their backyard
> fountain. Engineering students usually concentrate on one area of
> expertise and take courses designed to prepare them for that one area
> of work.
>
> No "professional engineer" in the United States knows more about
> gas chambers than Fred Leuchter.
On what grounds do you base your claim that Fred Leuchter has ANY
special knowledge about gas chambers? The fact that he says so?
> No school in the United States,
> perhaps the world, offers courses on gas chamber design and operation.
> Few people have studied or have any experience in human killing
> apparatuses. If credentials are important for expert opinion, then
> Fred Leuchter is the most qualified individual in the United States,
> perhaps the world, to give an opinion.
Really? What actual credentials does he have, other than his say so?
> What's more, Leuchter supported his opinion with concrete facts.
Or so he claimed. Most of those facts proved to be wrong on closer
examination.
> As
> Leuchter explained to the court, the Auschwitz rooms had inadequate
> ventilation,
And what ventillation would have been adequate? Most of the
ventillation equipment was gone by the time Leuchter inspected the
facilities, but documentary evidence shows that the smaller
Leichenkellar 1 (the alleged gas chamber) had twice the deration
capacity as the larger Leichenkeller 2 and was the only room in the
basement that was aerated as well. All of the air in the room could be
exchanged in 4 minutes. How much more ventillation was necessary?
Leuchter drew his conclusions by comparing the ventillation capacity of
the gas chamber to that of the fumigation chamber 1/40th the size,
thereby demonstrating just how incompetent he, in fact, is.
> no facilities for heating or dispersing the gas,
Again, not that was present to be seen in the 1980's. Documentary
evidence shows that the room in question had facilities for both at the
time.
> the
> doors swung the wrong way, and finally, the walls showed no signs of
> having been repeatedly exposed to cyanide gas.
Actually, Morg, you're lying through your teeth here. Leuchter's
results showed that the walls were indeed exposed to cyanide gas.
Simply that, in his inexpert opinion, it was not *enough* cyanide gas.
More comprehensive and reproducable tests have been conducted
subsequently proving significant traces of cynaide reside on the walls
in question, incompatible with any "revisionist" *post-hoc*
rationalization.
> Leuchter's expert
> opinion was supported by samples, photographs, and technical data.
So you keep saying.
> Since Leuchter was accepted as an expert on homicidal gas chambers
> by the court, his testimony is a matter of public record.
Leuchter was accepted as an expert to a very limited degree. And only
then because he lied on the stand about past experience working on
homicidal gas chambers, and the prosecution did not have the information
immediately available to them to counter his claims. Later research
showed that of the two people he claimed to have worked for in that
capacity, one had never heard of him and had no record of any such
association, and the other knew of him only as someone who had once
offered his services and was rejected.
These are the sort of people revisionists trust for their evidence.
> The
> photographs, technical data, and samples are still available. If
> anyone wants to refute Leuchter's findings, the evidence is still
> there. Any expert can visit Auschwitz, take pictures, inspect the
> bogus gas chambers, and take measurements. No other expert on human
> gas chambers has yet tried to do so.
>
> Instead, the Holocaust hawkers collaterally attack Leuchter
> personally. For example, in this thread, we are told that Leuchter
> used misleading titles on his letterhead. What has that to do with
> the evidence supporting Leuchter's opinion? We are told that the
> state of Massachussetts forced Leuchter to stop using his letterhead.
> So? Does that disprove the facts that the rooms at Auschwitz claimed
> to be gas chambers lacked the necessary appurtenances to be used as
> gas chambers and had no evidence of being exposed to poisonous gas?
>
> They attack Leuchter personally because they cannot attack his
> facts, his evidence, or his opinion.
His opinion has proven to be worthless. As for his facts and evidence,
they have indeed been refuted quite soundly by more qualified and
professional researchers (cf. Van Pelt) and more competent and
reproducable forensic studies (cf. the Krakow institute for forensic
research). Indeed, these are the most convincing ways that the Leuchter
report has been proven conclusively to be nothing more than another item
in the line of fruad and subterfuge that is Holocaust denial. The fact
that Leuchter is himself a fraud and an incompetent is really just icing
on the cake.
> They attack Leuchter personally
> because he has exposed the great fraud of World War II by knocking out
> the underpinnings of the key column holding up the Holocaust edifice,
> the fabled gas chambers. They attack Leuchter personally because
> Leuchter's unrefuted opinion is a major obstacle to the continuation
> of the monstrous myth that is "The Holocaust."
Really? If Leuchter's "opinion" is the major obstacle to the Holocaust,
I guess the Holocaust doesn't really have much to worry about, then.
Steven Mock
Ron Jacobson
Richard G. Phillips, a person who wrote "thank God for
those murders" when asylum seekers were burned alive by
German neo-Nazis, wrote:
(snip some)
>Now let us, on the other hand, suppose that the reverse happened, that facts
>came to life that proved --CONCLUSIVELY-- that the Jews had NOT been gassed,
>that there were, admittedly, some 50,000 to 100,000 deaths in the camps due
>to disease and malnutrition but that was it.
Suppose, too, that someone will discover that there was no slavery --
that the Blacks have invented it all, in order to gain sympathy. And we
can go on, and suppose that all kinds of crazy things will be discovered.
But I guess that most of us have better things to do with their time.
(snip some additional rubbish)
>For me the question of mass gassings was settled forever by the fact, first
>discovered by Leuchter and confirmed by Rudolf, that there were negligible
>residues of Prussian blue on the walls of the alleged fumigation chamber.
For Prussian blue to form, very long exposure to cyanide gas in high
concentration is required to have taken place. Such exposures didn't
take place in the homicidal gas chambers, since humans die very quickly from
cyanide gas poisoning. There are other types of cyanide compounds in
the gas chamber walls, proving conclusively that the gas was applied in
them.
Analogy: extensive exposure to the sun may result in skin cancer.
However, if someone doesn't have skin cancer, it does NOT prove that he
wasn't exposed to the sun. Clear enough?
Cheers, RJ.
Morghus
> mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote in
> > They attack Leuchter personally because they cannot attack his
> > facts, his evidence, or his opinion.
>
> His opinion has proven to be worthless. As for his facts and evidence,
> they have indeed been refuted quite soundly by more qualified and
> professional researchers (cf. Van Pelt)
Van Pelt? Van Pelt is a professor of architecture--not an
architect, mind you, just a professor of architecture. Van Pelt has
no experience whatever with cyanide or gas chambers. What makes
professor Van Pelt qualified for anything but lecturing about building
styles?
and more competent and
> reproducable forensic studies (cf. the Krakow institute for forensic
> research).
Those guys were chemist--nothing else. They had no experience
with gas chambers. Besides, their first test came up with the same
results as Leuchter. They had been hired specifically to refute
Leuchter's findings and found that Leuchter was right. The walls of
the delousing chambers had retained large amounts of cyanide compounds
left over from the delousing procedures over forty years before. The
walls of the alleged human gas chambers, on the other hand, had none,
or at least so little it was barely above detection level.
How can that be? The stories of Auschwitz tell us that those
human gas chambers were used several times a day for months. Whole
cans of Zyklon B were just dumped over the heads of the hapless
prisoners and the gas allowed to spread freely around the room and
along the walls. The walls of the human gas chambers were not sealed
like the ones in the delousing chambers, and the cyanide should have
dissolved in the moisture and seeped into the walls. Once in the
walls, the cyanide should have combined with the iron in the brick and
mortar (all bricks have iron in them) to form the very stable prussian
blue that should have been there, just like in the delousing chambers.
But no prussian blue could be found. Inevitable conclusion: the
alleged human gas chambers were never exposed to cyanide and therefore
could not have been used as human gas chambers.
All similar tests have come with the same results. The walls of
the alleged human gas chambers have no traces of prussian blue. The
conclusion must be the same for all such tests. If the walls were
exposed to significant amounts of cyanide, prussian blue would have
formed. No prussian blued formed on the walls of the alleged human
gas chambers. Therefore, the walls were not exposed to cyanide.
Therefore, the rooms could not have been used to gas people.
Therefore, there never were human gas chambers at Auschwitz.
Steven Mock
news:73fedc95.04010...@posting.google.com:
> Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9465B135D949...@140.99.99.130>...
>> mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote in
>
>> > They attack Leuchter personally because they cannot attack his
>> > facts, his evidence, or his opinion.
>>
>> His opinion has proven to be worthless. As for his facts and
>> evidence, they have indeed been refuted quite soundly by more
>> qualified and professional researchers (cf. Van Pelt)
>
> Van Pelt? Van Pelt is a professor of architecture--not an
> architect, mind you, just a professor of architecture. Van Pelt has
> no experience whatever with cyanide or gas chambers.
Neither did Leuchter, as it turned out. The only difference is that Van
Pelt didn't lie about his credentials and expertise.
> What makes
> professor Van Pelt qualified for anything but lecturing about building
> styles?
Architecture is more than style, Morg. Van Pelt had the expertise to
assess many of the elements of the structure that Leuchter made
completely uninformed declarations about. The other benefit Van Pelt
has over Leuchter is that he actually examined the construction
documents in relation to the physical remains.
> and more competent and
>> reproducable forensic studies (cf. the Krakow institute for forensic
>> research).
>
> Those guys were chemist--nothing else. They had no experience
> with gas chambers.
As I said, neither did Leuchter.
And what's with this cult of expertise anyway, Morg? Someone declares
himself an "expert on gas chambers" and suddenly, without any evidence
supporting his claim, everything his says about anything is divine writ?
His conclusions about both the physical structure and the chemical
analysis were proven wrong by genuine experts in both architecture and
forensic chemistry. And all you seem able to do in response to this
fact is invoke the Holy Book of Fred and his Gas Chamber Expertise.
> Besides, their first test came up with the same
> results as Leuchter. They had been hired specifically to refute
> Leuchter's findings and found that Leuchter was right.
Only insofar as Leuchter, despite his denials, did indeed find
significant concentrations of HCN on the walls in question. He drew the
wrong conclusions about the results partly because his samples were
randomly diluted and partly because he used an entirely inappropriate
control against which to compare them.
The Krakow institute did roughly the same experiment, albeit with better
controls and a methodology that could be replicated, and found that even
after 50 years of exposure to the elements, it could be proven that
those walls had been exposed to unusual concentrations of HCN.
> The walls of
> the delousing chambers had retained large amounts of cyanide compounds
> left over from the delousing procedures over forty years before. The
> walls of the alleged human gas chambers, on the other hand, had none,
> or at least so little it was barely above detection level.
Why are you lying Morg? Both Leuchter and the Institute for Forensic
Research found significant concentrations of HCN on the walls of the
"alleged human gas chambers".
I mean, really Morg. Leuchter's report and that of the Krakow institute
are both available on the web. Why do you think it serves your case to
so brazenly lie about things that are easily verifiable?
<snip: some incoherent conclusions based on a false premise>
Steven Mock
Steven Mock
Oh, and Morg... why didn't you want to address any of the points in the
rest of the post?
<repost>
mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote in
news:73fedc95.04010...@posting.google.com:
> br...@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote in message
So you keep saying.
</repost>
But go on. Keep calling Leuchter an expert on gas chambers. After all,
like the man says, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it...
Steven Mock
Joebruno
He told people he was one. He lied. That's why the State of
Massachusetts made him stop. To take money under false pretenses while
representing yourself to be something you are not is a crime called
fraud.
> Engineering has been a profession only since the late 1930's and early
> 1940s. Some states require board certification, some do not. Having a
> degree or certificate in engineering bestows no special knowledge
> about all technical subjects. Engineering specialties are still
> emerging, for example in the computer industry and laser technology.
> Civil engineers know little or nothing about electronics, and many
> electrical engineers couldn't build a bridge across their backyard
> fountain. Engineering students usually concentrate on one area of
> expertise and take courses designed to prepare them for that one area
> of work.
That's all irrelevant. The fact is that Leuchter lied to people. He
told them he was something he was not. That indicates his reports
cannot be trusted. Do you trust someone you know is a liar?
>
> No "professional engineer" in the United States knows more about
> gas chambers than Fred Leuchter. No school in the United States,
> perhaps the world, offers courses on gas chamber design and operation.
> Few people have studied or have any experience in human killing
> apparatuses. If credentials are important for expert opinion, then
> Fred Leuchter is the most qualified individual in the United States,
> perhaps the world, to give an opinion.
That's all irrelevant. The fact remains he lied to people about his
qualifications. That indicates his report on the gas chambers cannot
be trusted.
>
> What's more, Leuchter supported his opinion with concrete facts. As
> Leuchter explained to the court, the Auschwitz rooms had inadequate
> ventilation, no facilities for heating or dispersing the gas, the
> doors swung the wrong way, and finally, the walls showed no signs of
> having been repeatedly exposed to cyanide gas. Leuchter's expert
> opinion was supported by samples, photographs, and technical data.
The fact remains you have never seen any of that stuff.All you have is
the report of a man who has a record of lying.
>
> Since Leuchter was accepted as an expert on homicidal gas chambers
> by the court, his testimony is a matter of public record. The
> photographs, technical data, and samples are still available. If
> anyone wants to refute Leuchter's findings, the evidence is still
> there. Any expert can visit Auschwitz, take pictures, inspect the
> bogus gas chambers, and take measurements.
No other expert on human
> gas chambers has yet tried to do so.
Many chemists and scientists have read Leuchter's material and
dismissed it as unreliable.
>
> Instead, the Holocaust hawkers collaterally attack Leuchter
> personally. For example, in this thread, we are told that Leuchter
> used misleading titles on his letterhead. What has that to do with
> the evidence supporting Leuchter's opinion?
You have never seen any of that evidence. All you have is the report
of a man who has a record of lying about his qualifications. A person
with a record of dishonesty might easily fake the evidence he says he
found, especially one who has already said he does not believe the
gassings ever happened. He cannot be considered an objective source
under those conditions.
We are told that the
> state of Massachussetts forced Leuchter to stop using his letterhead.
> So? Does that disprove the facts that the rooms at Auschwitz claimed
> to be gas chambers lacked the necessary appurtenances to be used as
> gas chambers and had no evidence of being exposed to poisonous gas?
>
> They attack Leuchter personally because they cannot attack his
> facts, his evidence, or his opinion.
Do you know what the word "credibility" means? When someone is caught
lying, the value of his statements diminishes. I am not attacking him
personally, only questioning his credibility because he has been
caught lying. Have you ever heard the word "cross-examination"? It is
the way attorneys expose a witness who is lying about something. If
the attorney can prove the witness has lied about something before, it
means his testimony is not trustworthy.
They attack Leuchter personally
> because he has exposed the great fraud of World War II by knocking out
> the underpinnings of the key column holding up the Holocaust edifice,
> the fabled gas chambers.
That's a lie. The gassings took place half a century ago. There was
plenty of opportunity for the evidence to be changed or altered by
Mother Nature's weather. Do you know what weather is. Have you ever
heard the term erosion?
Leuchter went in there 50 years after the camp was abandoned. Many
things could have been changed in all that time by anyone. How do you
know the SS did not make changes in the gas chambers to erase the
evidence of what they had done?
Therefore, the physical evidence must be supported by testimony, and
we have that. We have statements by survivors and statements by
members of the SS like Eichmann and Hoess.
They attack Leuchter personally because
> Leuchter's unrefuted opinion
LIAR. His opinion has been refuted. His credibility has been called
into question and his conclusions disputed by scientists. Eugene
Holman has already given you that info.
is a major obstacle to the continuation
> of the monstrous myth that is "The Holocaust."
'Tis a tale told by an idiot
Full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing
MacBeth by William Shakespeare
Richard G. Phillips
================================================
Phillips
Leuchter IS an engineer and has a perfect right to describe himself as one.
He is NOT certified as such by the state of Massachusetts but, then, neither
are most of the engineers working in that state.
Do you know of just one solitary instance where Leuchter represented himself
NOT as just an engineer but as an engineer certified as such by the state of
Massachusetts. If you do then let us by all means have the complete details.
If you do not, then I would suggest that you revert to your favourite
subject: Joe Bruno and his years of honourable service in the US Navy where
for four years (I think it was) you served unfailingly through thick and
through thin, through fair weather and through foul, through hi-tech and
through low-tech, through inflation and through deflation.
=========================================
Sara Salzman
"Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
Please document ANY training Leuchter has as an engineer.
There's a reason why people become certified, Mr. Phillllllips.
>
> Do you know of just one solitary instance where Leuchter represented himself
> NOT as just an engineer but as an engineer certified as such by the state of
> Massachusetts. If you do then let us by all means have the complete details.
> If you do not, then I would suggest that you revert to your favourite
> subject: Joe Bruno and his years of honourable service in the US Navy where
> for four years (I think it was) you served unfailingly through thick and
> through thin, through fair weather and through foul, through hi-tech and
> through low-tech, through inflation and through deflation.
>
> =========================================
>
>
>
--
-My name is not "Fatbury Scumbag" you stupid lying Jew bastard. Name call
is all a pathetic loser like you has! You have yet to prove me wrong
you dirty filthy lying Jew bastard!
-I don't rely on personal attacks as my means of posting and
the bulk of my posts prove so! You can't discern the difference.
BTW my name is not Fatboy you stupid kike.
--Scott Bradbury, who completely misses the irony of the above
Eugene Holman
<rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> Leuchter IS an engineer and has a perfect right to describe himself as one.
> He is NOT certified as such by the state of Massachusetts but, then, neither
> are most of the engineers working in that state.
If Leuchter IS an engineer, why did the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
insist that he cease and desist from using that professional designation
and offering engineering services? If Leuchter IS an engineer, why did he
meekly COMPLY with the demands imposed upon him by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts rather than contesting them or simply telling the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to shove them where the sun doesn't shine?
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Joebruno
Proof?
>
> Do you know of just one solitary instance where Leuchter represented himself
> NOT as just an engineer but as an engineer certified as such by the state of
> Massachusetts. If you do then let us by all means have the complete details.
Read his agreement with Massachusetts. The facts and terms are all
there. Trying to put words in my mouth will never succeed. I don't
authorize you to speak for me. The state has the power to regulate
certain professions. I have a degree in Accounting and 30 years
experience in the field. I can call myself a CPA in Illinois because I
have met their requirements. I know as much as any California CPA but,
because I have not been certified by that state, I cannot call myself
a California CPA. I cannot sign as preparer on tax returns here or
issue audit opinions over my signature here.
You don't see me crying "unfair" or accusing California of
discrimination or politics. I accept their authority to regulate the
Accounting profession in this state. That's life. You have to play by
the rules and you don't always get what you want.
> If you do not, then I would suggest that you revert to your favourite
> subject: Joe Bruno and his years of honourable service in the US Navy where
> for four years (I think it was) you served unfailingly through thick and
> through thin, through fair weather and through foul, through hi-tech and
> through low-tech, through inflation and through deflation.
Suggestion refused. I'll discuss whatever I want to and you have no
say in the matter.
>
> =========================================
Joebruno
Right. If Leuchter thought he was right, he could have sued the state.
It's been done before.
I know as much about Accounting as any California CPA. I have an
Accounting degree and more than 25 years experience in the field, but,
since I have not undergone the certification process in California, I
cannot sign tax returns here or issue audit opinions over my
signature. I can only do that in Illinois.
I'm not crying "unfair" or claiming discrimination. The state has the
right to regulate certain professions. Physicians and attorneys have
to meet their requirements, too.
Philip Mathews
> > > > See the agreement I posted between Leuchter and the State of
> > > > Massachusetts. In it Leuchter ADMITS he presented himself as an
> > > > engineer and promised to stop doing it. The agreement also says he
> > > > consulted on areas of engineering unrelated to gas chambers, which he
> > > > has NO expertise in.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So Fred Leuchter is not a "professional Engineer." So what?
> > He told people he was one. He lied. That's why the State of
> > Massachusetts made him stop. To take money under false pretenses while
> > representing yourself to be something you are not is a crime called
> > fraud.
> Leuchter IS an engineer and has a perfect right to describe himself as one.
> He is NOT certified as such by the state of Massachusetts but, then, neither
> are most of the engineers working in that state.
No, Leuchter is not an engineer.
And any others practicing engineering without a license in
Massachusetts must be working under a supervisor who is an engineer.
Thus their work product is ultimately the responsibility of someone
who is a licensed engineer.
No unlicensed individual can legally perform work as an engineer on
their own.
So what Leuchter did is not what thousands of others in Massachusetts
do, even though most of whom at least have learned some engineering.
--
Philip Mathews
Gord McFee
[...]
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> Leuchter IS an engineer and has a perfect right to describe himself as one.
> He is NOT certified as such by the state of Massachusetts but, then, neither
> are most of the engineers working in that state.
Rubbish. Using that logic, I am the King of Siam because I say I am.
He has no training an an engineer, and could not answer the most simple
questions on the subject put to him in court. He did not know that it
takes more poison gas to kill vermin than it does humans. His claims to
have done extensive work on gas chambers of prisons were denied by the very
prisons he claimed to have worked for. Like all of you deniers, he was a
fraud.
[...]
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Richard G. Phillips
"Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-03EB97...@news-60.giganews.com...
Phillips
As I've already said, in America an engineer is a man who is either employed
in that capacity or who practicesn independently in that capacity. How he
BECOME an engineer is his business. Some of the best ones I have ever known
did not have degrees.
=====================================================================
>
> There's a reason why people become certified, Mr. Phillllllips.
============================================
Phillips
Commonly, states require this of a man who intends to work on projects
involving public safety.
==========================================================
Richard G. Phillips
"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1a448jacjb0dg.a...@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:35:25 -0800, Richard G. Phillips wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > ================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Leuchter IS an engineer and has a perfect right to describe himself as
one.
> > He is NOT certified as such by the state of Massachusetts but, then,
neither
> > are most of the engineers working in that state.
>
> Rubbish. Using that logic, I am the King of Siam because I say I am.
>
> He has no training an an engineer
Phillips
In America, an engineer is a man who is either employed in that capacity or
who practices indpendently in that capacity. How he BECOME one does not
enter the picture. Some of the best I have ever known were self-taught.
==================================================
, and could not answer the most simple
> questions on the subject put to him in court. He did not know that it
> takes more poison gas to kill vermin than it does humans.
==============================================
Phillips
This is not surprising since he never had a professional assignment that
REQUIRED him to know that.
========================================================================
His claims to
> have done extensive work on gas chambers of prisons were denied by the
very
> prisons he claimed to have worked for. Like all of you deniers, he was a
> fraud.
==================================================
Phillips
Some readers of this group might find this article...interesting.
Source:
http://www.revisionists.com/leuchter/reports/misc/leuchter_report_review
_by_.html
<quote>
A review of The "LEUCHTER REPORT"
In 1988 at a trial in Canada, a scientific report was made a matter of
public record. This report should literally have changed the world.
Instead, it is virtually unknown. What is in this report that is of
such importance? Irrefutable scientific evidence that the execution gas
chambers in Nazi Germany did not exists.
Fred A. Leuchter was put on the road to his momentous discovery when he
was asked to act as an expert witness on gas chambers at the trial of
Ernst Zundel in Canada. Zundel was on trial for the "hate crime" of
publishing books that prove the "Holocaust" is nothing but a myth at
best, or a 'hate crime' of another stripe at worst.
Here are the facts that are being suppressed:
Fred A. Leuchter, a 47 year old engineer, is America's leading expert
in the design and fabrication of execution gas chambers. He earned his
B.A. degree at Boston University in 1964, and did postgraduate work at
Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. For the past 9 years he has worked with most of the
states having capital punishment as a consultant, designer and
manufacturer of electrocution systems, lethal injection equipment,
gallows and gas chamber hardware. He learned the standard history of
World War II and the Holocaust in elementary school and college. He
never saw any reason to question the basic truth of the history he had
been taught.
Specifically, he was asked to perform a forensic analysis of the gas
chambers located in Poland, which were said to have been used by the
Nazis to kill millions of civilians. His job would be to testify about
his findings in court-no matter what those findings were.
Forensics is the scientific analysis of physical evidence, and is
practiced by every modern police force in the world. This science is
being used more and more by modern historians, particularly in efforts
to uncover hoaxes. One recent example is the analysis that proved the
Shroud of Turan was not as old as had been claimed.
Mr. Leuchter's expertise in engineering and gas chamber operation and
construction made him uniquely qualified for this assignment. The
methodology he employed is his subsequent analysis was up to any
professional standards and exceeded that of many police crime labs. He
was recognized by the Canadian court as an expert witness.
In order to gather evidence, Mr. Leuchter had to travel to Poland. His
visit was not officially sanctioned and would have been severely
frowned upon had the government (ours and theirs) known his true
purpose. In the event that he and his team were discovered they carried
maps and made plans for a clandestine escape from behind the Iron
Curtain. He had tools in the lining of his valise and brought along
gifts to bribe museum officials in order to obtain documents from the
official Archives.
His job in Poland was: on-site inspection of the alleged gas chamber
and crematory facilities; collect physical samples for chemical
analysis; and comparing the existing structures and original
construction plans with what is known about the actual design and
manufacture of gas chambers. He also had to determine the purpose and
use of Zyklon B, the alleged execution gas, and its usefulness as such.
According to Mr. Leuchter's findings, supported by documentary
evidence, Zyklon B was a commonly used fumigant during the period in
question. It was used for pest and vermin control in order to limit the
spread of plague and typhus carried by rats, fleas, and lice. It is an
undisputed fact that the clothing of all incoming camp inmates was
disinfected with Zyklon B. There were specially built chambers for this
purpose.
It is important to note that these chambers were manufactured in
Germany, before the war, and they followed modern (at that time) design
and operation standards. It is also important to note that it has never
been alleged that these chambers were ever used for anything other than
their stated purpose: fumigating clothing.
Zyklon B is a very dangerous chemical and it is deadly. It is prepared
in pellets which, when exposed to heated air, release hydrocyanic acid
(HCN) in gas form. HCN is also used in execution gas chambers; the only
difference being in the way it is released. Zyklon B is about the least
efficient and effective method that could be devised.
Mere fumigation of an area, such as a building, with Zyklon B for pest
control requires much less of the chemical than would be needed to kill
large numbers of people. In order to safely handle even the amount used
for fumigation, elaborate precautions must be observed.
In the gassing stories it is alleged that within minutes after the
inmates died the doors to the chamber would be thrown open. Either
guards or inmates would immediately begin removing bodies. In some of
the stories the guards were smoking cigarettes while clearing out the
chambers.
According to minimal standards for safety, when using only enough
Zyklon B for pest control, the building must be ventilated for 10 hours
before humans could be allowed inside. If it was absolutely necessary
that someone enter earlier than that, they had to wear a complete
chemical suit that left no exposed skin, and a gas mask. Gas masks are
not considered safe and may never be used for more than 10 minutes at a
time.
In execution gas chambers the body of the executee must be washed with
ammonia before it can be handled to avoid poisoning. HCN gas is highly
explosive. Thus, the picture of unprotected inmates and guards rushing
in before the gas has even really begun to disperse, some even lighting
cigarettes, and hauling off naked bodies covered with poison is totally
ridiculous.
Some of the buildings in question were alleged to have been built
specifically for use as gas chambers; others were said to have been
converted to that purpose. Gas chamber construction has been of
basically the same design since the first one was built in Arizona in
1920. Only some of the technical details have been improved.
The dangers involved in gas chamber execution were well known before WW
II, as were the necessary precautions. For safe operation gas chambers
must be air tight, with gasketed doors and windows. Brick or mortar
walls must be sealed with pitch, tar, or an epoxy paint to prevent the
porous material from absorbing the poison.
The electrical system, including lights, must be of explosion- proof
construction. The chamber must have a special air intake and exhaust
system, including a 40 foot vent stack to safely release the gas.
Without such a height stack, the lethal concentration of gas would
present a danger to everyone in the surrounding area before the air
could dilute it.
For the safety of the operators in the event of a leak the special
emergency system should include gas detectors, warning lights, horns,
and bells, emergency breathing apparatus, and special HCN first aid
kits. Due to the very complicated design problems (those listed only
scratch the surface), a mistake in any area can, and very likely will,
cause death or injury to anyone nearby.
Part Two - May/June Issue 1990 of the JUBILEE
Last JUBILEE we introduced Fred A. Leuchter, a 47-year-old engineer,
and America's leading expert in the design and fabrication of execution
gas chambers. He was asked to perform a forensic analysis of the gas
chambers located in Poland, which were said to have been used by the
Nazis to kill millions of civilians. He served as an expert witness on
gas chambers in the 1988 trial of Ernst Zundel in Canada. Zundel was on
trial for the "hate crime" of TEACHING that the "Holocaust" is nothing
but a myth at best...
Leuchter's on-site inspection of Poland's "gas chambers" revealed the
following faults in design, fabrication, and operation at Auschwitz and
Birkenau which made it impossible for them to be gas chambers:
* No provision for gasketed windows, doors, or vents.
*Walls not sealed to prevent absorption or leakage of gas. Exposed
mortar and brick construction would have accumulated HCN and thus been
a danger to human life for several years. Almost everyone is familiar
with photos of U.S. Congressmen who were inspecting the inside of the
alleged gas chambers within days of the camps being liberated.
* Adjacent crematories present high potential for explosion.
* "Gas chamber" at Crematory #1 has floor drains that connect to the
main sewer line of the camp, which would allow gas into every building
in the facility.
* No exhaust system. Thus it would take longer than the prescribed 10
hours to ventilate, even when fumigated for pest control.
* No system for introducing or heating Zyklon B.
* Chambers are too small to physically hold the numbers alleged to have
been gassed in each session.
* Doors all open inward. According to "Holocaust historians" people
were packed into the chambers until there was barely room to breath. In
some stories when the gas was released there would be a mad crush at
the doors as desperate people tried to escape. How did they get the
doors open despite the weight of all those dead bodies?
* With the room packed with people, the Zyklon B would not evaporate
since there would be no possibility of any circulation. If it did
somehow evaporate the HCN gas could not have circulated throughout the
room in the short time alleged for the gassing to take place.
* None of the buildings were designed even remotely in accordance with
standards for delousing facilities which were in safe and effective use
for years in Germany, and which were designed and manufactured by
German films. Nor were they in accordance with well known American
execution gas chamber design. Though the Nazis were highly efficient
and technologically advanced in all other areas of their war efforts,
in this case- the supposed "main event" - they seem to have left those
traits behind.
And at Majdanek:
* "Experimental gas chamber" was "rebuilt" after the war. The only
parts of the building that existed prior to the rebuilding were the
cremation ovens, according to forensic evidence.
* The building was allegedly reconstructed from original plans, but
those plans do not exist today. Other plans for camp buildings are
available.
* Chamber is too small to accommodate the alleged number of victims.
* The design of the chamber could not have contained the gas, which
would have escaped and reached the ovens, and, after killing the
operators, caused an explosion.
* The type of construction materials, poured concrete, is radically
different from the other buildings at the facility.
* The building does not follow even minimal gas chamber design.
Bear in mind that these facts are based on scientific evidence
ascertained by an impartial professional.
Samples were taken from the walls of the alleged gas chambers and
brought back to the U.S. for chemical analysis. There were blue stains
on the walls which Mr. Leuchter determined indicated that Zyklon B had
probably been used in the rooms for some purpose. The question to be
answered was whether or not the amount of gas used was consistent with
the gas chamber allegations.
In order to make such a determination after all these years it was
necessary to have something to compare the samples with. A "control
sample." Such a sample was taken from one of the fumigation facilities
which was used to disinfect clothing during the same period. The
important point here is that the volume of gas used for executions
would have been much greater than for fumigations. Thus, analysis
should show a much higher level of cyanide residue from the alleged gas
chambers than from the fumigation facility.
In fact, just the opposite occurred. When tested at an independent
laboratory, most of the samples were negative, that is, there was not
enough cyanide residue to even be detected. Those samples that tested
positive were just at the detection level, which proves there was some
gas exposure, but comparatively little. In the case of the control
sample from the fumigation chamber an enormous amount of residue was
detected. To illustrate the difference a graph was included in the
report. On the graph, the sample with the highest positive result was
depicted with a bar about 1/16th of an inch tall. In contrast, the
control sample was depicted with a bar OVER 9 1/2 INCHES HIGH. It is
therefore proved beyond question that nothing near the amount of gas
alleged could have actually been used in the so-called "gas chambers."
Another area investigated by Mr. Leuchter was the allegation that many
bodies were disposed of by burning them in pits. This allegation is
necessary in the Holocaust story because there is no way the number of
bodies claimed could have been disposed of in the allotted time. The
pit locations were ascertained by using official museum maps upon which
they were clearly marked. According to "witnesses" and official
historians these pits were almost 20 ft deep. What was obvious almost
from the moment of the investigative team's arrival was that Birkenau,
where the pits were supposed to have been used, was built on a swamp.
What was quickly discovered is that the water table is within 2 (two)
feet of the ground surface in ALL of the pit locations. It is not
possible to burn corpses under water - no matter how much fuel is
poured on them.
Considering the size of the alleged gas chambers, and the technical
capabilities and limitations of the gas, the maximum usage rate of the
chambers (a very generous estimate) would be 1639 persons per week. If
these actually were execution gas chambers it would have taken 68 years
to kill the alleged number of victims.
If the crematories were operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, never
stopping for cleaning or repairs, based on the size and number of
crematories, it would take 35 years to burn all those victims.
Because the gassing didn't start until 1942, the horrors of the Nazi
extermination program, this most terrible deed in history, will end in
the year 2010. If we hurry we may stop them yet, and rescue European
Jewry.
What you have read here just briefly touches on the evidence contained
in the Leuchter Report. The actual report contains areas of
investigation not mentioned here, along with as much technical
information and documentation as anyone could ask for. How compelling
is the evidence? David Irving is a world renowned historian and
biographer. His one failing in this regard is that, like most modern
historians, he uncritically accepted the "Holocaust" without examining
the evidence closely. Author of the best-selling and highly acclaimed
"Churchill's War" along with numerous other works on W.W.II, he is the
one who exposed the infamous "Hitler Diaries" as fakes in 1983. After
the critical examination of the evidence contained in the Leuchter
Report, Mr. Irving came to the only possible conclusion: the stories of
the mass gassing of humans at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek are
lies.
=============================
Richard G. Phillips
"Philip Mathews" <phil...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c6bd4de7.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in message
news:<LO2dnQgC145...@mbay.net>...
>
> > > > > See the agreement I posted between Leuchter and the State of
> > > > > Massachusetts. In it Leuchter ADMITS he presented himself as an
> > > > > engineer and promised to stop doing it. The agreement also says he
> > > > > consulted on areas of engineering unrelated to gas chambers, which
he
> > > > > has NO expertise in.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So Fred Leuchter is not a "professional Engineer." So what?
>
> > > He told people he was one. He lied. That's why the State of
> > > Massachusetts made him stop. To take money under false pretenses while
> > > representing yourself to be something you are not is a crime called
> > > fraud.
>
>
> > Leuchter IS an engineer and has a perfect right to describe himself as
one.
> > He is NOT certified as such by the state of Massachusetts but, then,
neither
> > are most of the engineers working in that state.
>
> No, Leuchter is not an engineer.
>
> And any others practicing engineering without a license in
> Massachusetts must be working under a supervisor who is an engineer.
> Thus their work product is ultimately the responsibility of someone
> who is a licensed engineer.
=================================================
Phillips
I worked as an engineer in Massachesitts for more than ten years and in that
time
--I was NOT certified by the state of Mass
--At no pre-employment interview was the question of certification so much
as raised
--At no employment was the subject ever discussed
========================================================
Richard G. Phillips
=============================================
Phillips
I repeat:
Do you know of just one solitary instance where Leuchter represented himself
> > NOT as just an engineer but as an engineer certified as such by the
state of
> > Massachusetts. If you do then let us by all means have the complete
details.
===========================================
>
> You don't see me crying "unfair" or accusing California of
> discrimination or politics. I accept their authority to regulate the
> Accounting profession in this state. That's life. You have to play by
> the rules and you don't always get what you want.
=======================================
Phillips
True, I don't see you crying "unfair" but the thing I find incemprehensible
is the total absence of "shits" and "fucks" with which you customarily
season your expostulations.
===============================================================
>
>
>
> > If you do not, then I would suggest that you revert to your favourite
> > subject: Joe Bruno and his years of honourable service in the US Navy
where
> > for four years (I think it was) you served unfailingly through thick and
> > through thin, through fair weather and through foul, through hi-tech and
> > through low-tech, through inflation and through deflation.
>
> Suggestion refused. I'll discuss whatever I want to and you have no
> say in the matter.
============================================
Phtillips
Aha, So you'd rather NOT talk about your naval service. Hmmmm, maybe
something a bit off-colour there - yes? What was it? Too many shits and
fucks aimed at the CO, or maybe you ate up all the strawberries like they
did on the Caine.
===========================================================================
=======================================
>
> >
> > =========================================
Patrick Keenan
It's very basic information about the substances he was to use in his
"professional assignment".
> ========================================================================
>
> His claims to
> > have done extensive work on gas chambers of prisons were denied by the
> very
> > prisons he claimed to have worked for. Like all of you deniers, he was
a
> > fraud.
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> Some readers of this group might find this article...interesting.
>
> Source:
> http://www.revisionists.com/leuchter/reports/misc/leuchter_report_review
> _by_.html
<snip>
Actually, I personally find it composed of the kind of crap that has been
explained to you ad nauseam. You've been shown how it's wrong. And by
the way, can you name the Canadian trial at which it says that Leuchter was
accepted as an expert witness?
-pk
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Richard G. Phillips wrote
>"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:1a448jacjb0dg.a...@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:35:25 -0800, Richard G. Phillips wrote:
>> > Leuchter IS an engineer and has a perfect right to describe himself as
>> > one.
>> > He is NOT certified as such by the state of Massachusetts but, then,
>> > neither
>> > are most of the engineers working in that state.
>> Rubbish. Using that logic, I am the King of Siam because I say I am.
>>
>> He has no training an an engineer
>In America, an engineer is a man who is either employed in that capacity or
>who practices indpendently in that capacity. How he BECOME one does not
>enter the picture. Some of the best I have ever known were self-taught.
It enters the picture in Massachusetts, which is why he was required
to stop using the title.
>>, and could not answer the most simple
>> questions on the subject put to him in court. He did not know that it
>> takes more poison gas to kill vermin than it does humans.
>This is not surprising since he never had a professional assignment that
>REQUIRED him to know that.
You mean such as comparing fumigation chambers to gas chambers?
>> His claims to
>> have done extensive work on gas chambers of prisons were denied by the
>> very
>> prisons he claimed to have worked for. Like all of you deniers, he was a
>> fraud.
>Some readers of this group might find this article...interesting.
>
>Source:
>http://www.revisionists.com/leuchter/reports/misc/leuchter_report_review
>_by_.html
>
><quote>
>A review of The "LEUCHTER REPORT"
>
>In 1988 at a trial in Canada, a scientific report was made a matter of
>public record. This report should literally have changed the world.
>Instead, it is virtually unknown. What is in this report that is of
>such importance? Irrefutable scientific evidence that the execution gas
>chambers in Nazi Germany did not exists.
Well -- they almost made it through a paragraph without a bald faced
lie -- I'm impressed.
>Fred A. Leuchter was put on the road to his momentous discovery when he
>was asked to act as an expert witness on gas chambers at the trial of
>Ernst Zundel in Canada. Zundel was on trial for the "hate crime" of
>publishing books that prove the "Holocaust" is nothing but a myth at
>best, or a 'hate crime' of another stripe at worst.
Which were found to be not only untrue, but lies by two different
juries of his peers.
>Here are the facts that are being suppressed:
If the report is public, in what way is any part of being suppressed?
>Fred A. Leuchter, a 47 year old engineer, is America's leading expert
>in the design and fabrication of execution gas chambers.
Lie. No gas chamber that leuchter ever designed was ever built, let
alone built by him or under his supervision.
>He earned his
>B.A. degree at Boston University in 1964, and did postgraduate work at
>Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge,
>Massachusetts.
And neither his degree nor any of his training was in engineering --
wonder why they are suppressing that fact?
>For the past 9 years he has worked with most of the
>states having capital punishment as a consultant, designer and
>manufacturer of electrocution systems, lethal injection equipment,
>gallows and gas chamber hardware.
If by "work with," one means he has attempted to involve them in a
shakedown scam.
>He learned the standard history of
>World War II and the Holocaust in elementary school and college. He
>never saw any reason to question the basic truth of the history he had
>been taught.
>
>Specifically, he was asked to perform a forensic analysis of the gas
>chambers located in Poland, which were said to have been used by the
>Nazis to kill millions of civilians. His job would be to testify about
>his findings in court-no matter what those findings were.
Forensics -- yet another filed of endeavour in which leuchter had no
expertise. This being the case, one has to wonder why he was chosen
for this little job.
>Forensics is the scientific analysis of physical evidence, and is
>practiced by every modern police force in the world. This science is
>being used more and more by modern historians, particularly in efforts
>to uncover hoaxes. One recent example is the analysis that proved the
>Shroud of Turan was not as old as had been claimed.
>
>Mr. Leuchter's expertise in engineering and gas chamber operation and
>construction made him uniquely qualified for this assignment.
He had none.
>The
>methodology he employed is his subsequent analysis was up to any
>professional standards and exceeded that of many police crime labs.
Absolute lie.
>He was recognized by the Canadian court as an expert witness.
No, he wasn't.
>In order to gather evidence, Mr. Leuchter had to travel to Poland. His
>visit was not officially sanctioned and would have been severely
>frowned upon had the government (ours and theirs) known his true
>purpose.
Because he never bothered to even attempt to find out how he might go
about obtaining that sanction.
>In the event that he and his team were discovered they carried
>maps and made plans for a clandestine escape from behind the Iron
>Curtain. He had tools in the lining of his valise and brought along
>gifts to bribe museum officials in order to obtain documents from the
>official Archives.
Of course, that no bribes would actually have been necessary is yet
another fact that is being suppressed.
>His job in Poland was: on-site inspection of the alleged gas chamber
>and crematory facilities; collect physical samples for chemical
>analysis; and comparing the existing structures and original
>construction plans with what is known about the actual design and
>manufacture of gas chambers.
Of course, he did not actually get around to comparing original
construction plans, but let's just suppress that, shall we?
>He also had to determine the purpose and
>use of Zyklon B, the alleged execution gas, and its usefulness as such.
Which he also never quite got around to doing.
Seems like he didn't even do the job this article claims he was hired
for...
>According to Mr. Leuchter's findings, supported by documentary
>evidence, Zyklon B was a commonly used fumigant during the period in
>question.
And exactly how did leuchter make the finding that this article gives
him credit for? I mean, it's not like the various uses of Zyklon B
were unknown...
>It was used for pest and vermin control in order to limit the
>spread of plague and typhus carried by rats, fleas, and lice. It is an
>undisputed fact that the clothing of all incoming camp inmates was
>disinfected with Zyklon B. There were specially built chambers for this
>purpose.
>
>It is important to note that these chambers were manufactured in
>Germany, before the war, and they followed modern (at that time) design
>and operation standards.
And it is even more important to note that they featured absolutely
none of the technological bells and whistles leuchter claimed would be
required of a gas chamber, even tho they handled significantly higher
concentrations of poison gas for longer periods of time than the gas
chambers -- without significant risk to personnel.
>It is also important to note that it has never
>been alleged that these chambers were ever used for anything other than
>their stated purpose: fumigating clothing.
>
>Zyklon B is a very dangerous chemical and it is deadly. It is prepared
>in pellets which, when exposed to heated air, release hydrocyanic acid
>(HCN) in gas form. HCN is also used in execution gas chambers; the only
>difference being in the way it is released. Zyklon B is about the least
>efficient and effective method that could be devised.
>
>Mere fumigation of an area, such as a building, with Zyklon B for pest
>control requires much less of the chemical than would be needed to kill
>large numbers of people.
Bzzzzt. Wrong again.
>In order to safely handle even the amount used
>for fumigation, elaborate precautions must be observed.
And yet none of these were used for the fumigation chambers.
>In the gassing stories it is alleged that within minutes after the
>inmates died the doors to the chamber would be thrown open. Either
>guards or inmates would immediately begin removing bodies. In some of
>the stories the guards were smoking cigarettes while clearing out the
>chambers.
>
>According to minimal standards for safety, when using only enough
>Zyklon B for pest control, the building must be ventilated for 10 hours
>before humans could be allowed inside. If it was absolutely necessary
>that someone enter earlier than that, they had to wear a complete
>chemical suit that left no exposed skin, and a gas mask. Gas masks are
>not considered safe and may never be used for more than 10 minutes at a
>time.
>
>In execution gas chambers the body of the executee must be washed with
>ammonia before it can be handled to avoid poisoning.
Wrong.
>HCN gas is highly
>explosive. Thus, the picture of unprotected inmates and guards rushing
>in before the gas has even really begun to disperse, some even lighting
>cigarettes, and hauling off naked bodies covered with poison is totally
>ridiculous.
At what concentration is the gas explosive, and what concentration was
used in the gas chambers?
>Some of the buildings in question were alleged to have been built
>specifically for use as gas chambers; others were said to have been
>converted to that purpose. Gas chamber construction has been of
>basically the same design since the first one was built in Arizona in
>1920. Only some of the technical details have been improved.
And that *basic* design is simply an enclosed space into which both
the victim and the gas can be introduced.
>The dangers involved in gas chamber execution were well known before WW
>II, as were the necessary precautions. For safe operation gas chambers
>must be air tight, with gasketed doors and windows. Brick or mortar
>walls must be sealed with pitch, tar, or an epoxy paint to prevent the
>porous material from absorbing the poison.
Of course, leuchter's entire faulty experimental design was predicated
on there *being* such absorbtion...
>The electrical system, including lights, must be of explosion- proof
>construction. The chamber must have a special air intake and exhaust
>system, including a 40 foot vent stack to safely release the gas.
>Without such a height stack, the lethal concentration of gas would
>present a danger to everyone in the surrounding area before the air
>could dilute it.
Funny, then, that the fumigation chambers, handling much more
dangerous amounts of the gas, did not have such features...
I think we've demonstrated already that this article is as
authoritative as leuchter himself.
Will phillips address any of these points with more than hand waving?
I'm giving odds against...
Philip Mathews
> I worked as an engineer in Massachesitts for more than ten years and in
that
> time
Not in a field requiring an engineer's license or the necessity that you
work for someone else.
So your point is moot.
Leuchter was required to obtain licensure to promote himself an engineer, as
are all engineers in those areas of engineering covered by Massachusetts
law.
> > No unlicensed individual can legally perform work as an engineer on
> > their own.
> >
> > So what Leuchter did is not what thousands of others in Massachusetts
> > do, even though most of whom at least have learned some engineering.
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."
Samuel Johnson
Eugene Holman
<rgp...@mbay.net> wrote:
<deletions>
> ====================================
> Phillips
>
> In America, an engineer is a man who is either employed in that capacity or
> who practices indpendently in that capacity. How he BECOME one does not
> enter the picture. Some of the best I have ever known were self-taught.
>
> ==================================================
>
> , and could not answer the most simple
> > questions on the subject put to him in court. He did not know that it
> > takes more poison gas to kill vermin than it does humans.
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> This is not surprising since he never had a professional assignment that
> REQUIRED him to know that.
>
> ========================================================================
How can you lie so blatantly? Leuchter accepted a professional assignment
that required him to design an experiment to determine whether certain
structures at Auschwitz and Majdanek had been exposed to lethal
concentrations of cyanide. At Auchwitz he decided that the way to do this
would be to compare the concentrations he found in samples taken at
alleged gas chamber sites with the concentration that he found from a
sample used at a fumigation chamber site. Successful completion of this
professional assignment obviously required that he know and understant the
different impact of cyanide gas on vermin as opposed to people.
His claims to
> > have done extensive work on gas chambers of prisons were denied by the
> very
> > prisons he claimed to have worked for. Like all of you deniers, he was a
> > fraud.
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> Some readers of this group might find this article...interesting.
>
> Source:
> http://www.revisionists.com/leuchter/reports/misc/leuchter_report_review
> _by_.html
>
> <quote>
> A review of The "LEUCHTER REPORT"
>
> In 1988 at a trial in Canada, a scientific report was made a matter of
> public record.
It wasn't scientitific, since it had methodological flaws which made it
impossible to replicate.
> This report should literally have changed the world.
> Instead, it is virtually unknown.
No. It is widely known - we are talking about it here, sixteen years after
it was presented. It was brought up and discussed extensively at the
recent David Irving vs. Deborah Lipstadt/Penguin Books trial. The opinion
of the expert witness recognized by the court was that it is "scientific
garbage":
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-07-01.html
<quote>
<deletions>
7.117 Basing himself on the arguments which I have rehearsed in
abbreviated form, van Pelt, not mincing his words, dismissed the Leuchter
report as "scientific garbage".
<deletions>
</quote>
> What is in this report that is of
> such importance? Irrefutable scientific evidence that the execution gas
> chambers in Nazi Germany did not exists.
The exisence or non-existence of the execution gas chambers at Auschwitz
cannot be proved on the basis of a single piece of evidence. Moreover, the
results of the Leuchter report, where 14 of 30 samples taken tested
*positive* for exposure to cyanide using an arbitrarily high detection
level of 1.0 mg/kg, are quite consistent with other evidence that the
execution gas chambers *did* exist.
> Fred A. Leuchter was put on the road to his momentous discovery when he
> was asked to act as an expert witness on gas chambers at the trial of
> Ernst Zundel in Canada.
The court allowed him to testify, but not in the capacity of an expert
witness, since he was found to lack all qualifications to testify in such
capacity.
> Zundel was on trial for the "hate crime" of
> publishing books that prove the "Holocaust" is nothing but a myth at
> best, or a 'hate crime' of another stripe at worst.
And rightly so. the Holocaust is the best documented genocide in human
history. Trying to prove that it is a myth is like trying to prove that
the recent 3-D pictures of the surface of Mars broadcast by Spirit were
taken in a Nevada desert.
> Here are the facts that are being suppressed:
Suppressed? Anybody can read and evaluate the Leuchter report at
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/index.html .
>
> Fred A. Leuchter, a 47 year old engineer, is America's leading expert
> in the design and fabrication of execution gas chambers.
No he isn't. No gas chamber that Leuchter ever designed has ever been
built. No penal system using a gas chamber has ever relied on Leuchter for
professional services or consultation.
> He earned his
> B.A. degree at Boston University in 1964,
A B.A. degree in historyÅ Funny that that little detail was omitted.
> and did postgraduate work at
> Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge,
> Massachusetts.
Never taking a postgraduate degreeÅ
> For the past 9 years he has worked with most of the
> states having capital punishment as a consultant, designer and
> manufacturer of electrocution systems, lethal injection equipment,
> gallows and gas chamber hardware.
Leuchter's work has been that of a shakedown artist, offering execution
device upgrading services to prison systems, and testimony to condemned
prisoners that non-opgraded execution devices might malfunction:
Source: http://www.adl.org/issue_holocaust/leuchter-1993.asp
<quote>
<deletions>
Newsweek additionally reported, "Leuchter was running a death row
shakedown scheme: if a state didn't purchase Leuchter's services, he would
testify at the last minute for the condemned man that the state's death
chamber might malfunction."
<deletions>
</quote>
> He learned the standard history of
> World War II and the Holocaust in elementary school and college. He
> never saw any reason to question the basic truth of the history he had
> been taught.
>
> Specifically, he was asked to perform a forensic analysis of the gas
> chambers located in Poland, which were said to have been used by the
> Nazis to kill millions of civilians. His job would be to testify about
> his findings in court-no matter what those findings were.
Unfortunately, Leuchter lacked the scientific training and competence to
perform such an analysis. Neither his claim to be an expert witness nor
his forensic analysis have been accepted by any court.
>
> Forensics is the scientific analysis of physical evidence, and is
> practiced by every modern police force in the world. This science is
> being used more and more by modern historians, particularly in efforts
> to uncover hoaxes. One recent example is the analysis that proved the
> Shroud of Turan was not as old as had been claimed.
Fine if used by people with the requisite scientific training, something
that Leuchter conspicuously lacked.
> Mr. Leuchter's expertise in engineering and gas chamber operation and
> construction made him uniquely qualified for this assignment.
That's why the court's opinion was:
Source:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/leuchter.fred/qualifications-as-witness
<quote>
<deletions>
Lipstadt discusses the demolition of Fred Leuchter's qualifications as
an "expert" at the trial of Zu"ndel:
"With the jury out of the room, the court began to determine
Leuchter's qualifications as an expert witness. When the Crown
Counsel questioned him about his training in math, chemistry,
physics, and toxicology, he acknowledged that his only training in
chemistry was "basic ...on the college level." The only physics he
had studied likewise consisted of two courses taken when he was
s[tu]dying for a bachelor of arts (not sciences) degree at Boston
University. Admitting that he was not a toxicologist and had no
degree in engineering, he rather cavalierly dismissed the need for
it.<36> To this the judge responded sharply:
THE COURT: How do you function as an engineer if you don't have
an engineering degree?
THE WITNESS: Well, I would question, Your Honour, what an
engineering degree is. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree and I
have the required background training both on the college level
and in the field to perform my function as an engineer.
THE COURT: Who determines that? You?<37>
Throughout the trial [the judge] made it clear that he was appalled
by Leuchter's lack of training as an engineer as well as his
depreciation of the need for such training. The judge was
particularly taken aback by Leuchter's repeated assertions that
anyone who went to college had "the necessary math and science" to
be an electrical engineer and to conduct the tests that he
conducted at Auschwitz.<38> The judge ruled that Leuchter could not
serve as an expert witness on the construction and functioning of
the gas chambers. The judge's findings as to Leuchter's suitability
to comment on questions of engineering was unequivocal:
THE COURT: I'm not going to have him get into the question of
what's in a brick, what's in iron, what is in - he has no
expertise in this area. He is an engineer because he has made
himself an engineer in a very limited area.<39>
Unknown to the court, Leuchter, who admitted under oath that he had
only a bachelor of arts degree, was not being entirely candid
regarding his education. Implying that an engineering degree had
been unavailable to him, he told the court that when he was a
student at Boston University, the school did not offer a degree in
engineering. In fact it did, three different kinds.<40> Later in
the trial, when the jury returned to the room, Zundel's lawyer and
Leuchter obfuscated the paucity of his training:
Q. And you are, I understand, a graduate of Boston University,
with a B.A. in a field that entitles you to function as an
engineer. Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.<41>
That field was history.
<deletions>
</quote>
> The
> methodology he employed is his subsequent analysis was up to any
> professional standards and exceeded that of many police crime labs. He
> was recognized by the Canadian court as an expert witness.
Source: ibid
<quote>
The judge ruled that Leuchter could not
serve as an expert witness on the construction and functioning of
the gas chambers.
</quote>
Somebody is lying.
> In order to gather evidence, Mr. Leuchter had to travel to Poland. His
> visit was not officially sanctioned and would have been severely
> frowned upon had the government (ours and theirs) known his true
> purpose.
Why?
> In the event that he and his team were discovered they carried
> maps and made plans for a clandestine escape from behind the Iron
> Curtain. He had tools in the lining of his valise and brought along
> gifts to bribe museum officials in order to obtain documents from the
> official Archives.
Why? Even when Poland was under the communist regime the archives at the
Auschwitz museum would have been open to a bona fide scholar.
>
> His job in Poland was: on-site inspection of the alleged gas chamber
> and crematory facilities;
Å most of which were in ruins and had been exposed to the elements since
early 1945 when they were demolished.
> collect physical samples for chemical
> analysis; and comparing the existing structures and original
> construction plans with what is known about the actual design and
> manufacture of gas chambers.
Leuchter collected bulk samples of varying size and shape, nor did he
indicate which surface of his samples were from the walls of the former
gas chamber. This makes his methodology unscientific, since his
sample-taking cannot be replicated. Leuchter also lacked any theoretical
understanding of gas chambers and thus took American penal gas chambers as
his reference point. This resulted in his injecting irrelevant cultural
baggage into his analysis.
> He also had to determine the purpose and
> use of Zyklon B, the alleged execution gas, and its usefulness as such.
>
> According to Mr. Leuchter's findings, supported by documentary
> evidence, Zyklon B was a commonly used fumigant during the period in
> question. It was used for pest and vermin control in order to limit the
> spread of plague and typhus carried by rats, fleas, and lice. It is an
> undisputed fact that the clothing of all incoming camp inmates was
> disinfected with Zyklon B. There were specially built chambers for this
> purpose.
Indeed. these chambers were radically different from the facilities used
to kill people with respect to their design, exposure to cyanide during
use, and post-1945 history. Leuchter did not take these radical
differences into account in his comparison of the two.
>
> It is important to note that these chambers were manufactured in
> Germany, before the war, and they followed modern (at that time) design
> and operation standards. It is also important to note that it has never
> been alleged that these chambers were ever used for anything other than
> their stated purpose: fumigating clothing.
>
> Zyklon B is a very dangerous chemical and it is deadly. It is prepared
> in pellets which, when exposed to heated air, release hydrocyanic acid
> (HCN) in gas form. HCN is also used in execution gas chambers; the only
> difference being in the way it is released. Zyklon B is about the least
> efficient and effective method that could be devised.
Nonsense. Zyklon B releases enough cyanide to kill any human beings
trapped in the same room with it within a few minutes.
>
> Mere fumigation of an area, such as a building, with Zyklon B for pest
> control requires much less of the chemical than would be needed to kill
> large numbers of people. In order to safely handle even the amount used
> for fumigation, elaborate precautions must be observed.
Contradicition. If "much less" Zyklon B is needed for pest control than is
needed to kill people, why are elaborated precautions needed even for
fumiagtion?
In actual fact, far more Zyklon B is needed for pest control than is
needed to kill people:
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.002
<quote>
<deletions>
Delousing chambers are a different matter. It takes a very long
time and a very high concentration to kill insects such as lice with
cyanide. Insects often need cyanide concentrations as high as 4600
ppm to kill, while humans need barely 300 ppm {17}. Also, the usage
manual from Zyklon's manufacturer, Degesch discusses fumigation
times of 16 hours or more, and a minimum of six hours if it is very
warm {18}. Given the higher concentrations of cyanide plus much
longer (32 times!) gassing times compared to homicidal gassings,
significant amounts of [Fe(CN)6]-4 would have time to form, thus
leading to the production of large deposits prussian blue in the
delousing chambers.
**************************************
17) Hansen, James D., Hara, Arnold H., Chan, Harvey T., and Tenbrik,
Victoria L. "Efficacy of Hydrogen Cyanide Fumigation as a
Treatment for Pests of Hawaiian Cut Flowers and Foliage After
Harvest" _Journal of Economic Entomology_, vol 84, no 2, p 534.
18) Nuremburg Document NI-9912, the Degesch Manual on how to use
Zyklon properly. Both German and English versions were obtained
from:
Mendelsohn, John and Detwiler, Donald S. _The Holocaust:
Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes._ "Volume 12: The 'Final
Solution' in the Extermination Camps and the Aftermath" (New
York: Garland Publishing) c. 1982, p 137.
<deletions>
</quote>
>
> In the gassing stories it is alleged that within minutes after
> the inmates died the doors to the chamber would be thrown open. Either
> guards or inmates would immediately begin removing bodies. In some of
> the stories the guards were smoking cigarettes while clearing out the
> chambers.
>
> According to minimal standards for safety, when using only enough
> Zyklon B for pest control, the building must be ventilated for 10 hours
> before humans could be allowed inside.
But far less Zyklon B is needed to kill people than is needed for pest
control, and the gas chambers were thoroughly ventilated before any bodies
were removed.
> If it was absolutely necessary
> that someone enter earlier than that, they had to wear a complete
> chemical suit that left no exposed skin, and a gas mask. Gas masks are
> not considered safe and may never be used for more than 10 minutes at a
> time.
>
> In execution gas chambers the body of the executee must be washed with
> ammonia before it can be handled to avoid poisoning. HCN gas is highly
> explosive. Thus, the picture of unprotected inmates and guards rushing
> in before the gas has even really begun to disperse, some even lighting
> cigarettes, and hauling off naked bodies covered with poison is totally
> ridiculous.
HCN gas is only explosive at a 60,000 ppm concentration, far higher than
anything needed to kill people or vermin:
Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/#iii
<quote>
<deletions>
HCN is explosive at 6% (60,000 ppm.); 18 it is not necessary to reach such
concentrations in order to murder.
************
18. DuPont op. cit. [= DuPont, Read from a plot in DuPont's "Hydrogen
Cyanide: Uses, Storage, and Handling" ppm by volume was calculated ]
<deletions>
</quote>
>
> Some of the buildings in question were alleged to have been built
> specifically for use as gas chambers; others were said to have been
> converted to that purpose. Gas chamber construction has been of
> basically the same design since the first one was built in Arizona in
> 1920. Only some of the technical details have been improved.
Overt penal gas chamber construction is different from covert genocidal
gas chamber construction.
> The dangers involved in gas chamber execution were well known before WW
> II, as were the necessary precautions. For safe operation gas chambers
> must be air tight, with gasketed doors and windows. Brick or mortar
> walls must be sealed with pitch, tar, or an epoxy paint to prevent the
> porous material from absorbing the poison.
That is an ideal for an overt penal gas chamber. The Moscow theater
tragedy last fall, on the other hand, demonstrated that people can be
gassed in a room of ordinary construction lacking any of the features
enumerated.
>
> The electrical system, including lights, must be of explosion- proof
> construction. The chamber must have a special air intake and exhaust
> system, including a 40 foot vent stack to safely release the gas.
> Without such a height stack, the lethal concentration of gas would
> present a danger to everyone in the surrounding area before the air
> could dilute it.
Nonsense. If this specious claim were true, fatal gassing accidents could
never happen. Any room in which people can be trapped long enough for a
lethal agent, including the cyanide generated by Zyklon-B, introduced to
the ambient air to kill them is a functional gas chamber. Ventilating the
room is a trivial procedure that every fire department on earth knows how
to do.
>
> For the safety of the operators in the event of a leak the special
> emergency system should include gas detectors, warning lights, horns,
> and bells, emergency breathing apparatus, and special HCN first aid
> kits. Due to the very complicated design problems (those listed only
> scratch the surface), a mistake in any area can, and very likely will,
> cause death or injury to anyone nearby.
Nonsense. Every fatal gassing accident involves a space that has become a
functional gas chamber. The above considerations are not prerequisites for
dealing with the situation after the accident has occurred. A genocidal
gas chamber should be as simple and technically minimalist as possible,
lest it arouse suspicion among the people being herded into it.
<deletions>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
<deletions>
> ====================================
> Phillips
>
> In America, an engineer is a man who is either employed in that capacity or
> who practices indpendently in that capacity. How he BECOME one does not
> enter the picture. Some of the best I have ever known were self-taught.
>
> ==================================================
>
> , and could not answer the most simple
> > questions on the subject put to him in court. He did not know that it
> > takes more poison gas to kill vermin than it does humans.
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> This is not surprising since he never had a professional assignment that
> REQUIRED him to know that.
>
> ========================================================================
How can you lie so blatantly? Leuchter accepted a professional assignment
that required him to design an experiment to determine whether certain
structures at Auschwitz and Majdanek had been exposed to lethal
concentrations of cyanide. At Auschwitz he decided that the way to do this
would be to compare the concentrations he found in samples taken at
alleged gas chamber sites with the concentration that he found from a
sample used at a fumigation chamber site. Successful completion of this
professional assignment obviously required that he know and understand the
different impact of cyanide gas on vermin as opposed to people.
His claims to
> > have done extensive work on gas chambers of prisons were denied by the
> very
> > prisons he claimed to have worked for. Like all of you deniers, he was a
> > fraud.
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> Some readers of this group might find this article...interesting.
>
> Source:
> http://www.revisionists.com/leuchter/reports/misc/leuchter_report_review
> _by_.html
>
> <quote>
> A review of The "LEUCHTER REPORT"
>
> In 1988 at a trial in Canada, a scientific report was made a matter of
> public record.
It wasn't scientitific, since it had methodological flaws which made it
irreplicable.
> This report should literally have changed the world.
> Instead, it is virtually unknown.
No. It is widely known - we are talking about it here, sixteen years after
it was presented. It was brought up and discussed extensively at the
recent David Irving vs. Deborah Lipstadt/Penguin Books trial. The opinion
of the expert witness recognized by the court was that it is "scientific
garbage":
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-07-01.html
<quote>
<deletions>
7.117 Basing himself on the arguments which I have rehearsed in
abbreviated form, van Pelt, not mincing his words, dismissed the Leuchter
report as "scientific garbage".
<deletions>
</quote>
> What is in this report that is of
> such importance? Irrefutable scientific evidence that the execution gas
> chambers in Nazi Germany did not exists.
The existence or non-existence of the execution gas chambers at Auschwitz
Never earning a postgraduate degreeÅ
> For the past 9 years he has worked with most of the
> states having capital punishment as a consultant, designer and
> manufacturer of electrocution systems, lethal injection equipment,
> gallows and gas chamber hardware.
Leuchter's work has been that of a shakedown artist, offering execution
device upgrading services to prison systems, and testimony to condemned
prisoners that unupgraded execution devices might malfunction:
Source: http://www.adl.org/issue_holocaust/leuchter-1993.asp
<quote>
<deletions>
Newsweek additionally reported, "Leuchter was running a death row
shakedown scheme: if a state didn't purchase Leuchter's services, he would
testify at the last minute for the condemned man that the state's death
chamber might malfunction."
<deletions>
</quote>
> He learned the standard history of
> World War II and the Holocaust in elementary school and college. He
> never saw any reason to question the basic truth of the history he had
> been taught.
>
> Specifically, he was asked to perform a forensic analysis of the gas
> chambers located in Poland, which were said to have been used by the
> Nazis to kill millions of civilians. His job would be to testify about
> his findings in court-no matter what those findings were.
Leuchter lacked the scientific training and competence to perform such an
analysis. Neither his claim to be an expert witness nor his forensic
analysis has been accepted by any court.
>
> Forensics is the scientific analysis of physical evidence, and is
> practiced by every modern police force in the world. This science is
> being used more and more by modern historians, particularly in efforts
> to uncover hoaxes. One recent example is the analysis that proved the
> Shroud of Turan was not as old as had been claimed.
Fine if used by people with the requisite scientific training and
competence, both of which Leuchter conspicuously lacked.
Source:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/leuchter.fred/qualifications-as-witness
A. Yes, sir.<41>
Source: ibid
Somebody is lying.
Why? Why should the Polish or American government frown upon a person
going to Auschwitz and Majdanek to conduct a legitimate scientific
investigation?
> In the event that he and his team were discovered they carried
> maps and made plans for a clandestine escape from behind the Iron
> Curtain. He had tools in the lining of his valise and brought along
> gifts to bribe museum officials in order to obtain documents from the
> official Archives.
Why? Even when Poland was under the communist regime the archives at the
Auschwitz museum would have been open to a bona fide scholar or scientist.
>
> His job in Poland was: on-site inspection of the alleged gas chamber
> and crematory facilities;
Å most of which were in ruins and had been exposed to the elements since
early 1945 when they were demolished.
> collect physical samples for chemical
> analysis; and comparing the existing structures and original
> construction plans with what is known about the actual design and
> manufacture of gas chambers.
Leuchter collected bulk samples of varying size and shape, nor did he
indicate which surface of his samples was from the wall exposed to cyanide
needed to kill large numbers of people, why are elaborated precautions
needed even for fumigation?
In actual fact, far more Zyklon B - higher concentrations maintained over
a longer time frame - is needed for pest control than is needed to kill
people:
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.002
Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/#iii
************
lethally gassed quite easily, with the gas subsequently being expelled
into the surrounding atmosphere, in a room of ordinary construction
lacking any of the features enumerated.
>
> The electrical system, including lights, must be of explosion- proof
> construction. The chamber must have a special air intake and exhaust
> system, including a 40 foot vent stack to safely release the gas.
> Without such a height stack, the lethal concentration of gas would
> present a danger to everyone in the surrounding area before the air
> could dilute it.
Nonsense. If this specious claim were true, fatal gassing accidents could
never happen. Any room in which people can be trapped long enough for a
lethal agent, including the cyanide generated by Zyklon-B, introduced to
the ambient air to kill them is a functional gas chamber. Ventilating the
room is a trivial procedure that every fire department on earth knows how
to do.
>
> For the safety of the operators in the event of a leak the special
> emergency system should include gas detectors, warning lights, horns,
> and bells, emergency breathing apparatus, and special HCN first aid
> kits. Due to the very complicated design problems (those listed only
> scratch the surface), a mistake in any area can, and very likely will,
> cause death or injury to anyone nearby.
Nonsense. Every fatal gassing accident involves a space that has become a
functional gas chamber. The above considerations are not prerequisites for
dealing with the situation after the accident has occurred. A genocidal
gas chamber should be as simple and technically minimalist as possible,
lest it arouse suspicion among the people being herded into it. This is
something the Nazis obviously understood but Fred Leuchter did not.
<deletions>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
steve wolk
"Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-03EB97...@news-60.giganews.com...
Patently false, little Richard. He does not have an engineering degree and,
thus, has no right to call himself an engineer. Unless, of course, he is
the driver of Thomas the Tank Engine or one of Thomas' big brothers. He is
not, and cannot be, certified by Massachusetts or any other state since a
certified professional engineer MUST have a degree from an accredited
college of engineering AND a demonstrated minimum time of experience in the
field to even be eligible to take the exam which must be passed prior to
one's being certified. You exhibit the same degree of knowledge about
engineering certification as you do about all the other subjects upon which
you loudly and ignorantly pontificate in this forum. That is to say - zero,
zip, zilch, nada. Small wonder that you were a failure as an engineer. I
strongly suspect that you never got a degree from Case. Unless you paid off
the Dean. But your style is NOT to pay for services rendered, isn't it?
--
Who's your publisher, Joebbels?
steve wolk
"Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@mbay.net> wrote in message
news:X6udndfMq_F...@mbay.net...
Are you just as sanguine about "doctors" who practice "medicine" without
ever having been through medical school, ignorant fool? I have known one -
that's ONE - man who did engineering work without a degree. Everything he
did had to be reviewed and signed off on by a degreed engineer.
Leuchter represented himself as an engineer for only one reason. He knew
that, otherwise, he wouldn't even get a foot in the door.
steve wolk
Because you never took the certification exam.
-At no pre-employment interview was the question of certification so much
> as raised
Because they were not hiring you as a certified professional engineer. If
they had been, the question would most certainly have been raised. Did they
ask to see evidence of a degree in engineering from an accredited school?
Or were you ineterviewing with Amtrak?
steve wolk
>
> [...]
>
> > ================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Leuchter IS an engineer and has a perfect right to describe himself as
one.
> > He is NOT certified as such by the state of Massachusetts but, then,
neither
> > are most of the engineers working in that state.
>
> Rubbish. Using that logic, I am the King of Siam because I say I am.
>
> He has no training an an engineer, and could not answer the most simple
> questions on the subject put to him in court. He did not know that it
> takes more poison gas to kill vermin than it does humans. His claims to
> have done extensive work on gas chambers of prisons were denied by the
very
> prisons he claimed to have worked for. Like all of you deniers, he was a
> fraud.
Quite right, Your Majesty. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
steve wolk
>
> "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:1a448jacjb0dg.a...@40tude.net...
> > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:35:25 -0800, Richard G. Phillips wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > ================================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Leuchter IS an engineer and has a perfect right to describe himself as
> one.
> > > He is NOT certified as such by the state of Massachusetts but, then,
> neither
> > > are most of the engineers working in that state.
> >
> > Rubbish. Using that logic, I am the King of Siam because I say I am.
> >
> > He has no training an an engineer
> ====================================
> Phillips
>
> In America, an engineer is a man who is either employed in that capacity
or
> who practices indpendently in that capacity. How he BECOME one does not
> enter the picture. Some of the best I have ever known were self-taught.
Repeating a lie does not make it the truth.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <3ffa10b4$0$6766$61fe...@news.rcn.com>:
>Are you just as sanguine about "doctors" who practice "medicine" without
>ever having been through medical school, ignorant fool?
Of course he is -- he'd rather have someone leech out the bad humours
causing illness than deal with modern science.