University College London Sacks Honorary Fellow for Not Believing in the Holocaust
JT
latest scientist to discover the limits of academic freedom in the
Western world.
Until recently Dr Kollerstrom was an honorary fellow of University
College London. His views as a science historian were sought by
scientific journals and media organisations, such as the BBC in its
report on new research concerning the planet Neptune.
Yet on 22nd April University College abruptly terminated his
fellowship, without any consultation or right of appeal. Dr
Kollerstrom's offence was to have published sceptical views about
scientific aspects of the Holocaust on the CODOH website, based in
America. At no time had he promoted these views within University
College, or done anything to bring the college into disrepute.
The London based Jewish Chronicle duly boasted about Dr Kollerstrom's
dismissal on the front page of its 25th April edition.
On 7th May Dr Kollerstrom first became acquainted with Lady Renouf to
seek advice on whether he could expect to travel safely to Germany
where he hoped to present his paper The Walls of Auschwitz - a review
of the chemical studies to the Berlin Conference on 15th-18th May.
This conference (Extermination in Gas Chambers in National Socialist
Concentration and Extermination Camps) was designed to refute the
revisionists' case on the alleged mass murder weapon - the gas
chamber.
Lady Renouf advised in her observation that:
a)
it was unlikely that the organisers would include a revisionist paper
in their unchallengeable conference (as opposed to the entirely open
to allcomers Tehran Conference in 2006 on The Holocaust - A Global
Review). And to prove the case she asked the Berlin Conference
organisers whether she could be included as press, but received no
response;
b)
if Dr Kollerstrom were to open his scientific mouth in Germany, or in
any of the ten countries where it is illegal to bring forensic science
in to question the Holocaust legend "in full or in part", he would
risk certain prosecution and a long term of imprisonment.
About to appear herself on a Press TV live panel discussion Lady
Renouf suggested to the channel, which at last offers UK viewers a
democratic choice of information sources, that they interview Dr
Kollerstrom, who had been persecuted by the mainstream media, thus to
provide him with some redress for the vilification and libel he has
recently suffered following his scientific article published on a U.S.
website.
On 14th May the channel duly filmed an interview with the science
historian Dr Kollerstrom and a second interview with Lady Renouf, who
provided the background regarding the stark contrast between the open
democratic approach she had experienced at the Tehran conference, as
compared to the tyrannical and closed programme of this year's
government sponsored Berlin conference, where no revisionist was
invited - though the conference was supposed to be all about
revisionists and their (source) criticism.
Kollestrom and Renouf at Press TV
Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom and Lady Michèle Renouf on set at Press TV
after recording each of their interviews. Lady Renouf is holding a
copy of The Rudolf Report
The substance of Dr Kollerstrom's interview is his hope that a
scientific journal will sponsor his own on site chemical analysis of
the walls of Auschwitz, in the tradition of the Leuchter Report and
the Rudolf Report. These authors, like Dr Kollerstrom himself, came to
this work out of scientific curiosity and with no political interest.
After recording his interview Dr Kollerstrom appeared live on Press
TV's Between the Headlines 14th May edition - click here for the
relevant excerpt from the programme featuring presenter Jan Fossgard
and fellow guest Kate Bevan.
Despite Ms Bevan's earlier hypocritical stance in favour of scepticism
(during a discussion of Le Monde's recent admission that it had
misidentified photos supposedly of Hiroshima after the 1945 atomic
bombing) in her subsequent unthinking mandatory denunciation of
revisionism one recognises at once the archetypical parroting response
of the mainstream journalist, confronted by a taboo source-critical
attitude towards what Jewish historians term the "holy of holies".