If any of this were true, than Harvard, Brandeis, Swathmouth, Yale, University of Michigan, etc., would all have swarms of archeological teams digging in the camps. These creatures get away with this because most people say "Why would they lie about the Holocaust?"
The truth on these horrible creatures is fairly simple. Their initial blossoming began in 1880 where they wanted to control Russia. Next they wanted Europe, and all the Americas. They slaughter 50 million Russians, then 20 million Germans, and onto the Mid-East's oil fields. The holocaust legend is created because they are afraid that if they are discovered, there will be a real holocaust. Their 1929 scam, where Americans almost exploded, really put up their antennas.
Once Zionists invade Iran then they will implode the world economy, everything tanks, and the Arabs get the blame. In five years the Zionists reappear with the plan for a one world government, and a one world currency. They will be our saviors, and our rulers.
Hugo Haig-Thomas of Richmond, England, draws attention Sunday, May 18, 2008 to the German colonel punished by modern Germany for revealing what he witnessed as a prisoner of the Soviets in Sachsenhausen camp: the faking of a gas chamber !!!!! -podkr.moje -Jerzy
I was held by the Russians in Sachsen-hausen, and made to build a gas chamber there; this is what I saw
HAVE YOU heard of the case concerning Gerhart Schirmer, a retired Bundeswehr officer who was prosecuted a few years ago for contravening the law, this time in Germany, which makes any denial or diminution of the 'Holocaust' a criminal offence?
As a young officer, Schirmer was captured in 1945 by the Russians and held in Sachsenhausen which the Russians continued to use as a prison. Although the War and Nazism were over, Schirmer and a few fellow-prisoners were forced to construct a gas chamber and execution room, to show the world what the Nazis had done. He described his experiences in a booklet entitled 'Sachsenhausen - Workuta, Zehn Jahre in den Fängen der Sowjets' (Grabert Verlag, Tübingen, 1992).
When 'certain groups' drew the attention of the authorities to the booklet's contents, it was seized and banned in Germany. This is described by Schirmer below (my translation). I understand Schirmer was given the choice of a fine or prison and he chose the fine because, being over ninety, he did not relish spending his last few years behind bars, especially as he had already spent eleven years of his life in prison.
Hugo Haig-Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Col (retd) Gerhart Schirmer, Sachsenhausen - Workuta. Zehn Jahre in den Fängen der Sowjets (published by the right-wing and independent firm, Grabert Verlag, Tübingen, 1992).
Following a decision by the County Court in Tübingen of 21.8.2002-12.9.2002, this booklet was withdrawn and prohibited on the grounds of racial incitement (file reference 4 Gs 937/02).
Extracts from pages 10, 13 and 37.
There exists a notarized, sworn affidavit about the construction of a gas chamber and a shooting facility [at Sachsenhausen concentration camp] in October/November 1945 by eight prisoners, of whom I was one. Briefly described, this 'gas chamber' was a shower room with 25 showerheads in the ceiling. This was supposed to give the impression that the gassing was conducted in it. Adjoining this, we erected a separate chamber with an opening, in front of which the offender would sit facing the opposite side in order to receive a shot in the back of his neck. At least this was what the guide had to explain [to Soviet visitors]. This [guide] was our Fritz Dörbeck who, as a translator, had to act out this piece of theatre because - born in Russia - he spoke perfect Russian. [...]
Concerning the falsifications in Sachsenhausen (autumn 1945):
At the beginning of October 1945 Schirmer arrived at the former concentration camp, Sachsenhausen, which the Red Army had occupied since the end of April and which had been taken over by the NKVD [the much feared Soviet secret police that was responsible for political repression during the Stalinist era, akin to the Nazi Gestapo] who continued to run it as Special Camp No. 7. He describes some of his experiences from this time in his booklet 'Sachsenhausen-Vorkuta'. Of special interest is his statement concerning the alterations made to the former camp crematorium by German internees, including Schirmer, on the orders from the NKVD. Schirmer later made a statement under oath about it in which he said:
... in early October 1945 I was placed in Oranienburg [ie Sachsenhausen] concentration camp (barrack room 19) which continued to be used by the Soviets. After about fourteen days I was brought into the 'Steinbau' (stone buildings) and there, together with seven other prisoners, presented to the political officer of the camp, Lieutenant-Colonel Kolowantienkow. From him we received an order to carry out certain construction work in the so-called Front Zone (Vorzone) of the camp.
Among the seven other prisoners was Dipl.-Ing. Fritz Dörbeck. He was the son of a German geologist who in about 1905 had been tasked by the Tsarist administration to carry out some geological research in the region of Vladivostok. Dörbeck grew up there and spoke fluent Russian. In 1918 the Dörbeck family returned to Germany via China. After his release in 1956, Fritz Dörbeck became the sales director of AEG-Telefunken in Ulm and I remained a close friend of his till his death in 1982.
The seven prisoners also included one Emil Klein, a Sudeten German who also spoke fluent Czech and some Russian. He supervised our construction work and then disappeared from the camp after its completion. We suspected at the time that this Klein was the intermediary [Vertrauensmann] for the Soviets. The seven also included four construction workers and a plumber. I no longer remember their names.
In the middle of October 1945 we were taken to the construction site. There, in the so-called Front Zone of the Camp, was a large shower room with an ante-room. The shower room was about 8x10 square metres and contained about twenty-five shower heads. In the ante-room were about fifty coat hooks.
When we arrived, the material required for the construction work was already there. Under the directions of Klein, we now connected pipes from outside the building to the water supply pipes [Wassernetz]. Outside, on the outside of the wall, taps were attached. Only now was Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck the first to understand what this work was apparently about.
We built an additional concrete cell adjoining the bathroom measuring about 4x2 square metres with an opening into the ante-room of the shower room. The new opening from the ante-room to the newly built so-called 'execution room' [Erschießungsraum] was about 20 cms wide. It was made to look as if the offender who was to be shot would have stood at the entrance facing the concrete wall enabling the person with the gun to fire a shot into the back of his head.
The construction works went on for about 14 days. When Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck and I realised what was being built, we went to the political officer and told him that we refused to undertake any further work. The political officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Kolowantienkow, spoke - often heatedly - with Dörbeck for about fifteen minutes in Russian. Dörbeck later told me that the political officer had said that we would be summarily shot if we ceased to do any further work or let slip one word about it. The political officer said furthermore that we were receiving good rations (which was true) and that he - Dörbeck - would later be required to explain the installation to groups of Soviet visitors. The political officer also said that we would be well-treated in the future and receive good rations. As we were unable to prevent the construction of the installation, it seemed to make sense to us that we should continue the work and, in this way, learn what was being made there.
After completion, at about the end of October 1945, Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck was brought before the political officer alone and received precise instructions about the explanations he was to give to Soviet groups of visitors. He had to say the following: This installation, which was built by the Nazis, served to kill [Vernichtung] Jews and Soviet officer prisoners. Each day some 200 people were gassed and about twenty-five were shot. This went on from 1943 till 1945 (April).
From about December 1945 until the end of 1947 an average of two tours a week, each consisting of some thirty to forty Soviet men, mostly soldiers and people from the GPU, and women, were escorted by Dörbeck round the installation. There were often officers amongst them who quite openly expressed doubts about the age of the installation because they saw that the concrete was new, that there were no bullet holes from the executions in the concrete wall and that the blood stains (red paint) were very meagre and unconvincing.
Dörbeck reported to me after each tour. ... After Oranienburg concentration camp was closed down in January 1950, Dörbeck and I were sent first to Lichtenberg (Berlin) Prison and then in September 1950 to Vorkuta in the northern Urals.
Signed Gerhart Schirmer Rastatt, 16.12.86
Schirmer placed this declaration, in the same wording, with a notary in 1988.
Concerning the detention in Sachsenhausen and Vorkuta.
In the Soviet Special Camp No 7 (Sachsenhausen) Schirmer was first barrack room leader and then worked as an 'appointment assistant' for the Jewish prisoners' doctor, Dr Hirschfeld, whose surgery was situated in the pathology building. Schirmer 'enjoyed' the privilege of being permitted to sleep in Hirschfield's surgery. In this way it was possible for him to go into the mortuary at night and count the bodies of people who had died during the day. In this way secret body counts were carried out over the years, alternating or working with fellow prisoners. When Schirmer was sentenced to a whole year's solitary confinement in 1948, the secret counts were carried out in his absence by Artur Andres. In this way, the number of victims of the NKVD camp Sachsenhausen is known quite precisely. Schirmer reckons they amounted to about 24,600 ('give or take a hundred').
When the NKVD camp was closed in January 1950, Schirmer, like many others, was still not free but was sent via Berlin-Lichtenberg and Brest-Litovsk to Vorkuta. Only when the last 'war criminals' were released early in 1956 after Adenauer's negotiations in Moscow in 1955 was Schirmer able to return home. The fact that he survived four years of starvation in Sachsenhausen and the 6 years in Vorkuta borders on a miracle.
Schirmer then entered the Bundeswehr [Federal German Army] and retired as a Lieutenant-Colonel.
[b ]Gerhart Schirmer was rehabilitated by the Russian state. Without him the conversion work on the crematorium in the former concentration camp of Sachsenhausen might never have been known. [/b]
Friedrich Stelzel of Munich relates April 22, 2008 that he witnessed similar fakery as a Soviet prisoner in Auschwitz after the war
A Review of the Chemical Studies by Nicholas Kollerstrom, PhD
In his essay, Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom argues that the alleged massacre of Jewish people by gassing during World War II was scientifically impossible. The distinguished academic was dismissed on April 22, 2008 without any explanation and a Holocaust conference held on 16-18 May in Berlin refused his article and warned that he would be arrested if he attended the conference and presented his essay.
The West punishes people for their scientific research on Holocaust but the same western countries allow insults to prophets and religious beliefs…
I. The Leuchter Report, 1988
Holocaust, the mother of all hoaxes
If the arguments of the Holocaust revisionists were as false as claimed, there wouldn’t be a ne-cessity for systematically destroying and even imprisoning anyone who engages in 'denial'. And since when do the sensitivities of a tiny minority outweigh the freedom of expression of the rest? The motivation for the invention of the Holocaust, apart from humiliating a beaten enemy, was to destroy all resistance against the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and the genocidal treatment of the Palestinian people. What interest did the ruling elite have in the Jewish state? Apart from the fact that many - if not most - members of the ruling elite have a Jewish background, the Zionist project was always about controlling the Middle-Eastern oil reserves.
(Andrew Winkler) Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of Sydney based dissident blog ZioPedia.org
In February 1988, Fred Leuchter came to the Auschwitz crematoria ruins, with his wife and a team, and took 32 samples chiseled out of the wall. His Report published in April of 1998 contained five maps as appendices which indicated where the samples had been taken from, and in addition a film was made of his sampling'. The locations are important, because some of the 'gas chamber' locations are postwar-reconstructed, and the obtaining of original brickwork was essential for his purpose.
Leuchter in effect tested the hypothesis, as to whether or not certain large rooms, designated in the Auschwitz design-plans as either morgues or washrooms, had in fact been used for large-scale human cyanide gassing on a daily and lethal basis. As America's only professional cyanide-gas execution expert, Leuchter was primarily concerned with whether it would have been feasible to perform such executions using the designated rooms; this however will not concern us here, our concern being solely with the wall samples he took. These were analyzed in March 1988 by Alpha Analytical Laboratories Ltd, in ignorance of their source.
He managed to take one sample of a 'Disinfestation Chamber,' by breaking and entering a locked building: but prowling guards and snowy blizzards prevented further sampling from a second such chamber at camp Majdanek. His swiftly-published 'Report' in effect grouped his data into two, that of the sample 32 which he called perhaps unfortunately his 'control,' and all the others, as the graph shows. The latter came from five 'Crematoria' sites in the Auschwitz complex.
Duality of the 'Gas Chamber' concept in Leuchter's Report
The terms that will here be used, that are as far as possible non-judgmental, are AHGCs or alleged human gas chambers for what Leuchter called 'Crematoria' and DCs or disinfestation chambers for what in the German design-plans were called 'gas chambers' (gaskammers). The latter had been used in Germany since 1924, much as we would ?nowadays use DDT, for killing the flea that carried the typhus bacillus.
They were operated using 'Zyklon-B' granules, composed of liquid hydrogen cyanide (boiling-point 27° C) that would evaporate over a couple of hours from its clay substrate. In the German labor-camps, clothing and bedding were repeatedly fumigated in such chambers. Prior to Leuchter's work, pro - Holocaust books had not acknowledged such chambers, and had rather carried the message of the Nuremberg trials, whereby any use of Zyklon-B was merely presumed to have been for human extermination.
After Leuchter, Pressac's magnum opus reproducing design-plans of Auschwitz-Birkenau located and described the 'Gaskammer' or DCs . These were quite a lot smaller than the AHGCs, and designed by the industrial-chemistry firm 'Degesh.' Pressac also observed that their walls tended to be blue: they had gradually developed that hue after the War, owing to their saturation with iron-cyanide.
Fred Leuchter found one thousand -fold difference in residual cyanide levels between these two types of 'gas chamber' - that designated in German design-plans as gas chambers but whose existence was ignored at Nuremberg, and the much larger rooms alleged to have functioned as gas chambers. Together with Pressac's acknowledgement of the DCs, this meant that all future pro-Holocaust books had to work with a duality: that the very same cans of 'Zyklon-B' were used for two extremely different purposes on the same campsite: for taking lives via the extermination procedure, whereby millions died, in the extraordinary manner described at Nuremberg, and also for saving them by combating the typhus epidemic.
This did not make a great deal of sense and some noted that one could more readily have not bothered and just let the typhus epidemic do its work.
There was controversy over the extent to which all of Leuchter's samples had indeed been taken from walls of chambers allegedly exposed to the cyanide, given that much of the 'gas chambers' are now acknowledged to be postwar-reconstructed; as likewise there was disagreement over the extent to which exposed walls may have had any cyanide leeched out from them over six decades, a theme we return later on with the work of Mr Dan Desjardins.
The iron-cyanide bonding which takes place once the HCN has entered the brick and mortar of the walls, is permanent: the complex ferric ferrocyanide otherwise known as "Iron Berlinate" or "Prussian Blue" is, according to The Merck Index, "... practically insoluble in water." It is used as a pigment in printing inks and artists' colors, and remains stable in water, air, ultraviolet radiation and with the elevated temperatures of summer.
Following Leuchter's discovery, some suggested that the DCs had been more heavily used than the AHGCs, after all did not beetles or fleas take longer to kill than humans? And, were not the DCs heated in order to promote the release of the HCN, and would that not give a higher degree of wall-absorption? Others replied that, if half a million people had allegedly been gassed in 'Krema I' over a two-year or so period then that would have been a rather intensive use, and not easily reconcilable with Alpha Analytical Laboratory's finding that all seven wall-samples taken therefrom had total cyanide too low to be measurable. Should not all the moisture from the body sweat have rather promoted HCN absorption?
Others had a different criticism, that the cyanide gas would have only been adsorbed onto the wall surface, and that the concentrations found would to a large extent merely reflect the extent to which surface material of the wall had been scraped off, while deeper samples would hardly contain any. We leave these questions for now and review the two further chemical investigations, performed in the wake of Leuchter.
II. The Rudolf Report, 1993
…fortunately it is precisely the one 'gas chamber' in which the largest number of people was allegedly killed by poison gas during the Third Reich which has remained almost entirely intact: morgue 1 of crematorium II' -- Germar Rudolf
Germar Rudolf found that the Leuchter Report 'embedded the thorn of doubt in my heart' while he was a PhD chemist at the prestigious Max Plank Institute. In 1991 he visited Auschwitz and took 24 samples, analyzed by the Fresenius Institute using a comparable procedure. He was later criticized for having used the Max Plank Institute notepaper for having asked them to do this, without explaining where they had been taken from. Both Leuchter and Rudolf used their professional position to request the chemical analysis, and both had their professional existence terminated by that act.
Although Rudolf's sample-taking was photographed, he was criticized for not having had enough by way of witnesses checking his sample-taking and how the containers were labeled for his thirty-odd samples. Both, Leuchter and Rudolf, took their samples without having obtained permission - which assuredly would not have been given, had they asked. The samples were boiled for an hour with hydrochloric acid to drive out the cyanide gas, collected by absorption with caustic potash, then assayed photometrically.
The method gave cyanide levels down to 0.1 - 0.2 ppm in the mortar, obtaining measurable values for almost all of his samples, despite which Rudolf remained doubtful over the value and reproducibility of results below several parts per million.
He sampled extensively both from the inside and outside of the blue-stained DCs at Birkenau, where his grouped results were:
Table 1: Mean Cyanide DC Birkenau wall-sample values, Germar Rudolf data, 1991 De-lousing room, inside: 5830 ± 3700 ppm (n=l0) outside: 3010 ± 3600 ppm (n=5)
This indicates that the cyanide gas was able to penetrate right through the brick walls, and would not merely have been adsorbed onto the surface; and suggests that weathering over half a century has not greatly affected the cyanide concentrations. This data has a central importance, because Leuchter had only managed to take one single sample of de-lousing chamber wall.
The 'Control' samples of Germar Rudolf
Rudolf only took three samples from the AHGC walls (from what is called the Krema-II morgue), which was the weakness of his survey. Their wide divergences (7.2, 0.6 and 6.7 ppm) give little idea of this key parameter!" He took more samples from 'controls' - i.e., rooms where no-one had alleged that systematic cyanide gassing had taken place. His 'control' group is here subdivided into samples taken from the mortar between the bricks, and the rest.
Table 2: As before, sampling AHGC walls vs 'controls' AHGC walls 4.8 ± 3 ppm (n=3) His samples 1-3 of Table 19. Controls, plaster: 1.1± 1.3 ppm (n=6) His samples 4,5,7,8, 10,23. Controls, mortar: 0.2± 0.1 (n=3) Samples 6,21,24
This indicates a significant elevation of residual cyanide in the AHGCs.
The Ball Report 1993
It is hard to obtain copies of this Report, or to gain details of where the chemical analysis was performed'". J.C. Ball has a degree in geology, and worked as a mineral exploration geologist. Given the intensity of criticism to which anyone publishing in this area is exposed, one should perhaps refrain from criticism on this matter. Its six samples were:
Table 3: Mean values of the cyanide measurements found by John Ball, 1993 From a DC 3000 ppm (n=2)
11. The Rudolf Report, 8.3.3, Table 19; also Table 3 in 'Dissecting the Holocaust' Chapter by GR. 12. Dissecting the Holocaust 2003 http://vho.orglGB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html Table 3 ofRudolfCh. 13. For his difficulties here, see: www.ihr.orglleaflets/inside.shtml 14. Table 19, p254 of The Rudolf Report 2001. 15. John Clive Ball, The Ball Report, Ball Resource Services Ltd., Canada 1993; The Rudolf Report, p.268.
From AHGC sites 0.5 ± 0.6 (n=4) ppm
III. The Markiewicz et. al. Polish Study of 1994
The manager of Auschwitz Mr Piper approached Dr Jan Markiewicz of the Jan Sehn Institute of Forensic Research at Cracow as to whether they would check over the residual cyanide levels, in the wake of the Leuchter Report. On 20 Feb 1990. Dr. Wojciech Gubala arrived and removed 22 samples, including two control samples. The team then decided that they would like to follow this up with a further study before publishing any results.
This survey, published in 1994, differed from those of Leuchter and Rudolf in that it only looked at soluble cyanide in the brickwork. Critics objected that it was precisely the soluble component of cyanide which one would not expect to provide a memory of the past, because it would clearly be affected by weathering. Their reason for using such a method, was apparently that they did not want to get involved in debates over Prussian Blue formation: their approach 'excludes the possibility of the decomposition of the relatively permanent Prussian blue, whose origin is unclear in many parts of the structures under investigation,' and therefore 'The real level of total cyanide compounds could therefore be higher than shown by our analysis.' The samples were put in 10% sulphuric acid for 24 hours, thereby driving off the cyanide as before, except that cyanide bonded to iron was not liberated by the Polish method - the point of which has not been clear to a lot of people.
The soluble or non-bonded cyanide thereby measured was only present in low concentrations measured in parts per billion rather than parts per million. How were they able to attain this accuracy in measurement unattainable either by Alpha Analytical laboratories or the Fesenius Institute? The method they referenced for this analysis had been published in 1947, and could one expect this to attain these much higher levels of accuracy? From three 'gas chambers' they found:
These samples averaged 90 parts per billion. The Polish group claimed that their method could measure down to 2-3 parts per billion. For their 'control' they took eight samples from three different residential blocks, and thereby obtained (or at least published) consistently zero values - i.e., zero parts per billion! How impressive to have discovered this ultra-sensitive method. As 'holocaust' chemist Dr Richard Green explained, 'The IFFR used a much more sensitive method. Their sensitivity was 3-4/!g/kg, i.e., 300 times more sensitive.' If that method published in 1947 had such astounding accuracy, then why did subsequent chemists fail to use it?
This investigation gave DC wall-concentrations in its Table 4, finding a several-fold elevation in cyanide levels there. Eight values for 'concentrations of cyanide ions in samples collected in the facilities for the fumigation of prisoners clothes, (Birkenau BathHouse Camp BI-A)' gave a mean value of 273 ppb, thrice that of the 'Kremas.' Their conclusion omitted comment upon this highly significant elevation.
This paper has been much cited by pro-Holocaust sources, as refuting the Leuchter Report, by demonstrating that the AHGCs ('Kremas') had raised cyanide as compared to 'controls.' The paper was entitled, 'A study of the cyanide compound contents in the walls of the gas chambers in the former Auschwitz and Birkenau concentration camps'.
It thus used a Nuremberg-type terminology, where 'gas chamber' simply meant a place for human extermination. They could hardly have done otherwise, because doubt over 'the Holocaust' is a crime in Poland.The DCs were alluded to as 'Facilities For the Fumigation of Prisoners' Clothes.'
The Polish team went to a lot of trouble, with some sixty measurements mostly measured thrice, and was the only study which obtained permission to take the samples. It omitted two things in its conclusions: any allusion to the Birkenau DC ('facilities for the fumigation of prisoners' clothes') where it had found greatly-elevated cyanide levels over the AHGCs; and, the insoluble cyanide that was bound to iron. In regard to both of these it cited the Prussian blue ferric ferrocyanide complex, leaving open the possibility that it had some quite extraneous source and was therefore to be avoided.
The 1947 method used by Markiewicz et. al. was given by Joseph Epstein and published in a US chemistry journal." It was a procedure whose limit of accuracy was given as 0.2 micrograms per ml. To expel the cyanide from brickwork and then dissolve it into a solution suitable for measuring it, involves an order-of-magnitude dilution at least, so that one would not expect to obtain an accuracy less then one ppm in the brickwork, using this method. Any claim that this decades-old titration and colorimetric method using thiocyanate can find parts per billion has to be spurious.
IV. Desjardin analyses Leuchter
Dan Desjardins, after carefully retracing the steps of Leuchter on a 1996 visit to Auschwitz'", and watching the film that had been made of Leuchter's sampling'", divided the samples 1-31 into two groups: those which had been exposed and open to the elements over the decades (n=20), and those which were more protected in sheltered, unexposed locations: 'Leuchter's samples, numbered 25 through 31, extracted from Crematorium I... taken from a facility which was not destroyed and has remained intact since the end of the war, were not exposed to the elements. The same might be said for samples 4, 5 and 6 taken from Crematorium II. Leuchter removed these samples from a pillar, wall and ceiling which, though accessible, were nevertheless well protected against wind, rain and sun.'
Less than half (14 out of 35) of Leuchter's samples had measurable levels of cyanide in them, where measurable means above one part per million. We have here assigned an arbitrary value of 0.5 ppm for those too low to measure, i.e below 1 ppm. This gave:
Table 5: Desjardins grouping of the Leuchter data as 'sheltered' or 'exposed' (2007) Sheltered (n=l0) 1.88 ± 2.2 ppm. Exposed (n=20) 1.31 ± 1.56 ppm
The 'exposed' group scored 30% lower than the sheltered group, a result which lacks statistical significance (t=0.. This data could suggest that one-third of the cyanide had leeched out from the exposed walls, over sixty years; if indeed they had all at one historic period been exposed to hydrogen cyanide.
Mr Desjardins further subdivided the Leuchter samples into those taken from AHGC walls, and those which were 'controls' i.e taken from barracks, etc. The definition of the 'control' concept is critical here, and means brickwork where no one has been concerned to allege that is was part of a room where systematic cyanide gassing took place whether of humans or of mattresses.
Leuchter surmised that the 'control' sample had been exposed at some stage to a single fumigation by cyanide gas, by way of cleaning out any lice from cracks etc.
Table 6: Desjardins groups Leuchter's data by AHGC versus 'controls' AHGCs (n=19) 1.63 ± 2.1 ppm Controls (n=9) 1.45 ± 1.2 ppm
This result too lacks statistical significance, i.e. Leuchter's sample provides no evidence for human 'gas chambers' having raised residual cyanide levels above those of 'controls.' The data suggests that the AHGCs did not ever function as lethal gas chambers.
These two sets of data (using Desjardins' divisions) covary somewhat, in that if we increase the 'exposed' samples by say 25%, to allow for leeching out of their cyanide over the decades, then the difference between the AHGC and 'control' groups disappears altogether. (As Mr Desjardins put it, five times as many of these [AHGC] samples came from locations protected from 40-years' exposure to wind and rain.') Mr Desjardins concluded, 'Fred Leuchter's broad sample gathering, despite flaws, establishes a reasonable basis for inferring that the presence of cyanide residue is due to benign rather than homicidal purposes.
1. One might expect that the accuracy of cyanide-ion assay would have increased substantially over the last couple of decades, but this is not the case: any reanalysis of the brickwork would face the same frustrating situation, where differences between AHGCs and controls hover right next to the lowest detectable levels.
2. The essential questions here reviewed may be best evaluated without arguments over whether or not Prussian blue coloration has formed. The latter involves a slow and complex sequence of reactions. We have here been primarily concerned with total cyanide in the brickwork.
3. Plaster on the wall-surface may tend to have a higher cyanide level than brick or mortar underneath it, and the ferric-ferrocyanide does decrease as a function of depth. Samples should therefore aim to have a comparable breadth-to-depth ratio.
4. The notion of a 'control' sample has developed from Rudolf's sampling and also from Mr. Desjardins evaluation of the Leuchter sample locations. This permitted an evaluation of whether measurements of authentic AHGC wall were significantly elevated over such. While there was a hint of this from Rudolf's sampling, and while further investigation might confirm this, overall no statistically significant elevation was evident.
5. The careful and extensive Polish data was analyzed using a 1947 US titration procedure, which gave no indication of reaching the parts per billion accuracy claimed by that study. If Marciewicz et. al chose to use a method which only analyzed 1 % or less of the cyanide, viz. the soluble component, for whatever reason, they should first have shown that their method was capable of detecting it.
6. Both the Leuchter and Rudolf surveys obtained a three order-of-magnitude differential between the walls of DC and AHGC buildings; the simplest explanation of which is that the former was used on a regular basis for cyanide fumigation while the latter was not.
7. The Leuchter data showed that there was no great diminution of cyanide levels due to weathering over half a century, and this accords with what is known about the insolubility and permanence of the ferric-ferrocyanide complex. The residual cyanide within those walls may therefore offer the most reliable memory which the human race now has, concerning what happened historically in German 'gas chambers.'
The Jewish Holocaust and the New World Order Written by Andrew Winkler, The Rebel Media Group
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Jews are so vain. They think the Holocaust is all about them. Let me assure you it’s not. One thing they should have realised by now is that in history and politics nothing is what it seems.
The 'Battle for the Holocaust’ - how the British Channel 4 documentary was fittingly titled - it is not about honouring the memory of the Jews perished during World War II. It’s not about repeating the Jewish mantra of ‘Never Again’. And it’s certainly not about reminding us of how evil governments can get if they are out of control.
Lies, lies and more lies An increasing number of people have become aware of the fact that our governments have been systematically lying. We know that the U.S. government was behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11. We know that the British government was behind the 7/7 attacks on the London Tube. We know that the Israeli Mossad and privately owned Israeli firms were prominently involved. We know that during the 6-Day War Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and killed dozens of sailors. We know that there is no legal base for collecting income tax in the U.S. We know that the CIA, the Bush and the Clinton family are prominently involved in the illegal drug trade in the U.S. and abroad. We know that weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with the Iraq invasion. We know that catching Osama Bin Laden wasn’t the real reason for conquering Afghanistan, but restoring opium production. We know that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor wasn’t an unprovoked aggression but a set-up designed to drag the U.S. into the war. We know that large parts of the ruling elite in the the U.K., Europe and the U.S. financed and worked closely with the Nazis. We know that Zionist organisations worked hand in hand with the Nazis on their common goal of ridding Europe of its Jews. In fact we know that almost everything we were taught about WWII, or any other part of history for that matter - is not true. But for some strange reason, when it comes to the Holocaust, so many of us choose to blindly believe the official story.
Who benefits? Whenever we are dealing with a complex social and political issue, the first question to ask is who benefits. We must ignore words and proclaimed intentions and look at the bare facts: Who benefits financially and politically?
The obvious benefactor of the official Holocaust narrative was the Zionist movement. The horrendous pictures of skeleton thin prisoners and piles of naked dead bodies didn’t leave anyone untouched. Together with the hear-say testimonies and coerced confessions of industrial scale gassing of millions of Jews, they removed any resistance against the Zionist demands for a Jewish state in the Holy Land.
The second most obvious benefactor were the Allies. The magnitude of the accusations distracted world attention from Allied war crimes. The burning of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the refugee crowded city of Dresden. The murder of one million German civilians in the Allied ‘strategic bombing’. The deliberate starvation to death of one million German P.O.W. by Eisenhower. The murder of 1.5 million German civilians by Russian troops. The rape of hundreds of thousands of German women. The ethnic cleansing of millions of Germans in Czechoslovakia and Eastern Europe. The destruction of 90% of German civilian infrastructure. The memory of all these crimes was actively suppressed by focusing on the narrative of the systematic murder of 6 million Jews and the industrial scale use of gas chambers.
The third most obvious benefactor was communism. Our ruling elite is dominated by two schools of thoughts, fascism and communism. They both compete for the same political and financial goal: one world dictatorship. Accusing fascism of the Jewish Holocaust was a severe public relations set back, giving the communist camp lead by David Rockefeller the upper hand.
The least obvious benefactor is the ruling elite as a whole. Jews have always been their preferred tool in the pursuit of their evil plans, the reason being their not uncommon lack of conscience towards ‘Goyim’. The Holocaust narrative provided their Jewish shills with a protective shield. Not only were they less likely to be held responsible for their crimes. They could also rely on a network of fellow Jews more than happy to help them escape to Israel, where they wouldn’t be extradited.This explains the disproportionate incidence of Jews in organised crime, especially drugs and human trafficking.It also explains the high incidence of Jews in all positions of power in those countries that have progressed the most on the path to the New World Order, such as the United States and Canada.
Secular religion The Jewish Holocaust in its modern form is not just a political weapon but a secular religion. Over years it has replaced Talmudism as the uniting force of all Jews. It has high priests, for example Elie Wiesel, holy books, for example the ‘Diary of Anna Frank’, temples, in the shape of museums. and an equivalent of the Catholic Holy Inquisition, the ADL and its countless sister organisations. It raises taxes from foreign firms and governments in form of compensations. It has religious holidays such as Auschwitz day. And last, but not least, it has dogmas, the unquestionable belief in a plan to kill all European Jews, the use of gas chambers and 6 million Jewish victims.
Uttering the slightest doubts in any of the Holocaust dogmas is a sacrilege punishable with the severest consequences. Loss of job and career, financial ruin, social isolation, even imprisonment are standard reprisals. What makes the Holocaust such a useful tool of oppression for our ruling elite, is that it trains us to accept that there are limits to freedom of expression and that there are ‘truths’ that must not be questioned.
Admittedly, there is much at stake for our ruling elite. If public opinion swang in favour of the Holocaust revisionists, if a large enough portion of the population believed that their ruling elite has been lying to them on such an epic scale, this would destroy whatever trust and legitimacy remains. It would also remove the fear of being labelled an anti-Semite when criticising Jewish crime or the undue influence of Zionist Jews on Western societies, often pushing their countries to actions that are obviously not in their best interest.
Fighting the New World Order Debunking the official narrative of the Holocaust robs the Jewish shills of the New World Order of their protective shield. Fighting for freedom of expression for Holocaust revisionists and establishing what really happened in the Nazi era is one of the most promising strategies for disempowering the ruling elite and derailing the New World Order.
Related Articles: Which German debt?