Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé »

Fred Leuchter is the only revisionist to have received the honour of having his photograph appear in an exhibit at former concentration camp museum:

Image
Original photo: http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/e3881c7b4d5 ... e39e01.jpg



Leuchter, taking no prisoners in the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Mauthausen:

Image
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg »

By focusing attention on the alleged homicidal Nazi gas chambers, Fred Leuchter did something enormously valuable. How many others, even among revisionists, would have ever been so brazen and bold as to actually knock chunks of wall and stucco from supposed gas chambers in communist Poland? Leuchter also stimulated further serious work by many others such as myself, Germar Rudolf, Tom Kues, Carlo Mattogno and many others. But when Leuchter generalizes and insists that mass gassings are categorically impossible under any circumstances, anywhere, ever--he goes far beyond his own extremely specialized and limited grasp of technology and reality. He also undermines nearly everyone else. Why bother with any further research at all when Faurisson and Leuchter have already solved everything for us? Just repeat Faurisson's nine-word challenge as a kind of mantra. Did any of the courts in which Leuchter testified for Zuendel believe his claims? Of course, not!

Leuchter has become a Pied Piper to nowhere just as Robert Faurisson has on all technical issues. By insisting that mass gassings are IMPOSSIBLE, they both undermine the real research that is still needed into questions like where were railroad gas chambers actually located in addition to places I identified thirty years ago--before anyone heard of Leuchter. Warsaw, perhaps? Malkinia? Maidanek? Minsk? Brest-litovsk? Or, even the railyard at Birkenau itself? If not, why not? Those issues should be the focus of some funding and real research--and not the absurdities of "impossible gassings" that any sane person knows are not impossible at all. The claim of Leuchter that "Mass Gassings of people with anything are impossible!" is I-N-S-A-N-E ! There is no nice way to massage the issue. There is no happy, middle-of-the-road way to respond to such craziness. I wish there were some happy way to tell the necessary truth--but I am not smart enough to figure that one out. Sorry, folks!

Friedrich Paul Berg

Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

There were NO "limited gassings." There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

Please send some generous support to:http://www.Gaschamberhoax.com
http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé »

The Mauthausen museum has since patched-up much of the damage done to its gas chamber by Fred Leuchter.

Image
enlarged photo


Some of it not so well.

Image

Image
enlarged photo
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3415
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Post by blake121666 »

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:Why would I claim the Lake Nyos mass gassing is "impossible?" People certainly die even from an excess of nitrogen as well if whichever gas blocks the access of oxygen to the lungs. When water does the same thing, it is called "drowning."

CO2 is often classified as a "physical asphyxiant" whereas cyanide and carbon monoxide are classified as "chemical asphyxiants. The latter asphyxiants deprive the body of oxygen by chemically blocking the movement of oxygen to the actual cells of the body by their more rapid chemical affinity to hemoglobin in the blood.

Friedrich Paul Berg

Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
There were NO "limited gassings!" There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

Please visit and support: http://www.Gaschamberhoax.com
Here's an interesting development in nitrogen euthanasia:

http://www.worldpoultry.net/Broilers/Pr ... -1297207W/

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg »

Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:44 pm
It may well be that Faurisson is more restrained than Leuchter. That was a shock for me but it changes little.

Here is the actual email from Leuchter:
-----Original Message-----
From: fred1
Sent: Aug 30, 2014 2:49 PM
To: Friedrich Paul Berg
Subject: Re: Non-rasponse from Fred Leuchter and the really B-i-g gas chambers!

Fritz,
I have already told you. It will not work. No matter how many times you ask me It does not change. Mass Gassings of people with a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g are impossible! We can mass execute thousands of bugs, but not people. You cannot seem to understand that. It cannot be done. [emphasis added by FPB]

I remember, when I was at College, in Biology, we had the nicest little Jewish Girl in our lab group. No matter what the instructor said she asked why. He had gone as far as he could go. He told her that her questions were like "why does the sun come up every morning".
She did not want the astronomical answer she wanted the philosophical one. God made it happen. He was Jewish and he told her she needed to talk to her Rabbi. I think I must tell you the same. I am an Engineer and a Technician. I am not a Philosopher or a Clergyman. I am sorry. Study execution procedures and equipment. Then we will talk.

Fred
In my opinion, Leuchter is a "technician" but NOT an "engineer" at all. I doubt if he has any serious qualifications as an engineer either academically or on the basis of any state licensing examinations. Perhaps I am wrong about the latter--but I doubt it until I see serious evidence to the contrary. If he had simply called himself an "inventor," he would have been on solid ground. Many truly great men of the modern age have been inventors without having had to also call themselves "engineers"--Edison, Ford, the Wright brothers, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.

I suspect--and here I admit that I am speculating--that the real reason Leuchter let himself be elevated to "engineer" for his self-described "Engineering Report" at the time of the Zuendel trial in 1988 was because Faurisson wanted Leuchter as a counter-weight to my own writing and work on these subjects. I am a real engineer and some people thought that meant something. That, no doubt, had bothered Faurisson a lot ever since my speech to the IHR in 1983. Faurisson needed someone with "engineering" credibility to endorse his pet theories against mine. Had Leuchter ever written any other "engineering reports" over his entire career? I doubt it--but who really knows?

It so happens that in addition to dozens of essays on holocaust revisionism over the last thirty years, I also wrote four technical books for the Port Authority of NY and NJ on the "operation and maintenance" of engineering facilities within the Port Authority--two of them about the World Trade Center long before 9/11.

Friedrich Paul Berg

Learn everything at: http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

There were NO "limited gassings!" There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

Please visit and support generously:http://www.Gaschamberhoax.com
http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2441
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Post by Scott »

Amazing. What does "Professor" Leuchter think happens with the breathable air in a submarine or a space station when crowded with people?

Mr. Leuchter doesn't seem to understand the difference between theater and engineering--if he thinks that you cannot execute masses of people inside an enclosure of some kind, or design one for mass-gassings.

Executing sentences of death of course has a huge element of theater associated with it, but that is not necessary in this case, apart from any storytelling or mythological aspects of such claims.

Amazing. Oh, I said that already...

:roll:

“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and a part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.
That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself, obviously.
But I also have my med-kit.”

~ "Siege" Kyle Rittenhouse
(Kenosha, WI - 25 AUGUST 2020)

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg »

I am posting the following here because it is relevant to Leuchter and his claims--but more importantly because the moderator at CODOH is exerting extarordinary bias in his moderation of the "Sanity Test" thread there. More than likely, he will not even allow the following material to appear there.
In a private message to me, the Moderator [at CODOH] wrote: Breker gave you Rudolf info. which comprehensively supported his point.[what does that mean??] Everything is not a little quote. Well, Rudolf's essay is certainly interesting and informative and I have no serious disagreement with any of it--at all Since Breker can not bring himself to be specific about anything that he thinks I might have a problem with, I must speculate as follows.

The Rudolf essay in question is here: http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/7.html#7.3

The following sentence from Rudolf supports Breker at first glance: In North Carolina, this gas arises immediately beneath the victim, so that the victim must be exposed, immediately after the beginning of the execution process, to a concentration which PROBABLY [??] exceeds 10% by volume for a short period, but then falls steadily as a result of diffusion of the hydrogen cyanide throughout the chamber.[426] Note the use of the word "probably." Well, maybe it was 10% but maybe it was much less. But then we also notice that Rudolf qualifies the "10% by volume" by adding "for a short period. but then falls steadily as a result of diffusion of the hydrogen the chamber." Well, I have no disagreement with that statement. Why should I? It certainly does NOT refute anything I have ever claimed. When the concentration exceeds 5.6%, the gas mixture may even be ignited by a cigarette to make a "puff." But unless, the 5.6% fills most of the chamber, it will be a very modest explosion, or puff, if any at all. A puff is what you have over a gas stove when you just ignite the gas that has come out of the burner nozzles for a moment or two.

But then, lookee here. In Rudolf's very next sentence we have: "At a normal respiration volume of approximately 15 to 20 liter per minute and assuming an average concentration during the execution of only 0.75% by volume, approximately 1.35 to 1.8 grams of HCN will be ingested in 10 minutes (150-200 liters of inhaled air), which corresponds to ten to twenty times the fatal dose. In the following calculations, we will assume a ten-fold overdose only, in order to kill all the people in the chamber, with certainty, in ten minutes. Why does Breker suppose Rudolf a-s-s-u-m-e-s "an average concentration during the execution of only 0.75% by volume?" Well, that is certainly quite lethal but it is also well below the critical 5.6% (the lower limit of flammability) needed before any explosion would be possible.

Nowhere in Rudolf's lengthy discussion of HCN losses due to absorption or whatever in a mass gassing scenario does he suggest any greater HCN concentration would be needed for mass murder after absorption and/or adsorption losses. So, no danger of explosion there either. More HCN would be needed to achieve any given lethal concentration--but that is an entirely separate issue because of adsorption etc.

In another essay by Rudolf http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/7.html#7.3, we have under subheading 1.2 the following: "Due to unknown reasons, the mixture of air and HCN, which can be highly explosive under certain circumstances, ignited during the fumigation. The resulting explosion destroyed the entire dwelling.[16] " Note the words "under certain circumstances." Yes, indeed--which means that under o-t-h-e-r circumstances, the gas is NOT explosive at all. Those circumstances are explained by the limits of flammability which Germar Rudolf neglected to mention. No one is perfect.

If Breker or anyone thinks I missed something, spit it out-- but be specific. Leave the vague generalizations to Leuchter and Faurisson. In any event, Rudolf does NOT "comprehensively support" Breker's crazy theories at all.

Friedrich Paul Berg

Learn everything at: http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!!

There were NO "limited gassings!" There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

Please visit and support generously:http://www.Gaschamberhoax.com
Is Breker the Moderator at CODOH? Probably--but who knows for sure. Thank God there is RODOH. FPB
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:04 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2441
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Post by Scott »

The censorship over at CODOH on this is very disappointing but probably not surprising.

I was deliberately low-keying my comments "An Open Letter for Revisionists and Skeptics" (unsigned) and not posting it over here at RODOH in order not to be too provocative, and yet now the entire thread is deleted.

I admire Mr. Leuchter and many other Revisionists but they are really out of line if they insist that they are beyond any questioning. Since when do Revisionists kiss the Pope's ring? This is truly outrageous.

The so-called "Sanity Test" is more apropos than ever. It is not an unimportant academic point. And who gets to make that call anyway?

:roll:

Scott Smith LETTER FOLLOWS:
(POSTED to CODOH by Mr. Berg)


September 11, 2014

An Open Letter for Revisionists and Skeptics.

I don’t take issue with a call for Revisionists and their supporters to be nice to each other. Revisionists can and must have differing views and opinions—but that is really not the issue here at all.

Some concerns, such as those advanced by Mr. Berg may or may not be trivial matters. Who gets to decide? This needs to be publicly discussed and debated. With all due respect for Revisionist heroes, something is rotten in Denmark.

For one thing, Inquisition or not, having been persecuted does not make one a great scientist or thinker.

What are we supposed to do, ignore the science, ignore the importance of the Scientific Method itself, ignore the critical-review of our peers—and just send each other boxes of chocolates?

Great Men cannot be wrong, I suppose. Mr. Leuchter even thinks that he is without peer. Seriously?

How do we distinguish expertise from Junk Science if there can be no critical review?

Are we about fighting the you-know-whos or about doing real-science and real-history?

Because if the latter is what is important, then how do we inoculate ourselves against our own Groupthink if not by challenging each other?

How can we ever approach the Scientific Method if we do not quibble over the messy and the inconvenient details, especially if the easy road might be wrong?

It became possible to authoritatively make false claims and to generate atrocity mythology at the end of World War II by the common ignorance, especially in the West, of the state-of-the-art of German delousing and fumigation technology. Most Revisionists agree on this basic point, that the so-called homicidal Nazi gas-chambers are crucial to the modern sacrosanct mythology of unique German barbarism.

Now it seems to me that the mechanics of the German rail system are crucial to the holy dogma of the Holocaust as well. So why is it then that we are supposed to ignore a complete and thorough understanding of the state-of-the-art of German fumigation technology and the Clean Zone processes or whatever technical matters are involved? Without it nothing would have moved into or out of Eastern Europe without millions of deaths from epidemic disease—as is demonstrable in past conflicts and upheavals with less herculean hygienic systems in force. I’m not pushing the envelope here.

We find that the public doesn’t like the “better gas-chambers” idea and “it rubs them wrong.” Well, no offense, but that might be an argument for something like a Michael Moore film, maybe along the lines of “people don’t kill people, Nazis kill people,” but that is not a scientific argument as I see it.

This is not about “building a better gas-chamber.” Let’s leave the straw-manning to the Hoaxsters. We need to understand the state-of-the-art of German hygiene technology and practice—and any or all of the nuances. It seems to me that the devil really is in the details. Is the Devil’s own implement a pitchfork or was it a Magirus-Deutz delivery van?

Not to rub in the point, but it would be unthinkable to leave apes and certain fossils out of biology because the Theory of Evolution might empower the dreaded Atheists. Whatever it is, the Science has to speak for itself. The Scientific Method is always contingent; it is by definition, always revisionist (small r).

Talk radio is a relatively convenient format for talk. You can actually talk to each other and anyone interested can listen without all the trolling and noise and politically-correct filtering that is typical of most media. There have already been offers from hosts willing to moderate this. So why not?

Mr. Leuchter long ago investigated the problem of the gas-chambers and issued his famous report. The Leuchter Report was reviewed, and the experimentation replicated and revised by Germar Rudolf in the Rudolf Report. This doesn’t end there, nor should it. The intellectual adventure is ongoing because real-Science is not something that you can just drive a wooden stake into.

So why is Revisionism in a rut? Or is it? Mr. Berg seems to think so and he wants to discuss things, and even if this upsets people. Let me toss out something that bothers me…

Ground-penetrating radar analysis of the tiny Reinhardt Camps was a wonderful idea because the Big-H narrative has always avoided verifiable empirical observation that might not affirm the sacred secular mythology that Revisionists have taken skeptically. Here we have massive mass-graves alleged at the so-called “pure extermination camps” that were supposedly destroyed by the Nazis “without a trace” at the end of the war in order to hide the evidence for the Holocaust murder-mill thesis. The Nazi gas-chambers will continue to shift upon the sands since challenging the idea is a modern sacrilege. But GPR was an innovative way to test a specific murder-mill hypotheses noninvasively.

So after the smoke has cleared and the Revisionist drums thumped for over a dozen years, where did the vaunted GPR Report go? The peanut gallery where I am sitting is not pleased by the folks “down under.” What can’t be critically reviewed doesn’t exist. In Orwellian speak it never existed.

Mr. Berg has questions for the experts. I’ll bet there are many more like this.

To summarize, the Scientific Method is not about propaganda; it is not about fighting wicked political lobbies nor even suffering imprisonment. It is about doing solid work that can hold up to hostile scrutiny and to move forward, AND in spite of all those things. I didn't say it was easy nor that pioneering work doesn’t matter anymore.

A choice needs to be made here by people sympathetic to Revisionist or Skeptical ideas. Discuss it or rest on laurels. Either take offense or take the challenge. Nobody gets to be crowned “Revisionist Pope.”

Thanks

None of this is really anything new.

“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and a part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.
That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself, obviously.
But I also have my med-kit.”

~ "Siege" Kyle Rittenhouse
(Kenosha, WI - 25 AUGUST 2020)

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9608
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Did Fred Leuchter actually write this:--

Post by been-there »

Scott wrote:The censorship over at CODOH on this is very disappointing but probably not surprising.

I was deliberately low-keying my comments "An Open Letter for Revisionists and Skeptics" (unsigned) and not posting it over here at RODOH in order not to be too provocative, and yet now the entire thread is deleted.

I admire Mr. Leuchter and many others Revisionists but they are really out of line if they insist that they are beyond any questioning. Since when do Revisionists kiss the Pope's ring? This is truly outrageous.

The so-called "Sanity Test" is more apropos than ever. It is not an unimportant academic point. And who gets to make that call anyway?

:roll:

Scott Smith LETTER FOLLOWS:
(POSTED to CODOH by Mr. Berg)


September 11, 2014

An Open Letter for Revisionists and Skeptics.

I don’t take issue with a call for Revisionists and their supporters to be nice to each other. Revisionists can and must have differing views and opinions—but that is really not the issue here at all.

Some concerns, such as those advanced by Mr. Berg may or may not be trivial matters. Who gets to decide? This needs to be publicly discussed and debated. With all due respect for Revisionist heroes, something is rotten in Denmark.

For one thing, Inquisition or not, having been persecuted does not make one a great scientist or thinker.

What are we supposed to do, ignore the science, ignore the importance of the Scientific Method itself, ignore the critical-review of our peers—and just send each other boxes of chocolates?

Great Men cannot be wrong, I suppose. Mr. Leuchter even thinks that he is without peer. Seriously?

How do we distinguish expertise from Junk Science if there can be no critical review?

Are we about fighting the you-know-whos or about doing real-science and real-history?

Because if the latter is what is important, then how do we inoculate ourselves against our own Groupthink if not by challenging each other?

How can we ever approach the Scientific Method if we do not quibble over the messy and the inconvenient details, especially if the easy road might be wrong?

It became possible to authoritatively make false claims and to generate atrocity mythology at the end of World War II by the common ignorance, especially in the West, of the state-of-the-art of German delousing and fumigation technology. Most Revisionists agree on this basic point, that the so-called homicidal Nazi gas-chambers are crucial to the modern sacrosanct mythology of unique German barbarism.

Now it seems to me that the mechanics of the German rail system are crucial to the holy dogma of the Holocaust as well. So why is it then that we are supposed to ignore a complete and thorough understanding of the state-of-the-art of German fumigation technology and the Clean Zone processes or whatever technical matters are involved? Without it nothing would have moved into or out of Eastern Europe without millions of deaths from epidemic disease—as is demonstrable in past conflicts and upheavals with less herculean hygienic systems in force. I’m not pushing the envelope here.

We find that the public doesn’t like the “better gas-chambers” idea and “it rubs them wrong.” Well, no offense, but that might be an argument for something like a Michael Moore film, maybe along the lines of “people don’t kill people, Nazis kill people,” but that is not a scientific argument as I see it.

This is not about “building a better gas-chamber.” Let’s leave the straw-manning to the Hoaxsters. We need to understand the state-of-the-art of German hygiene technology and practice—and any or all of the nuances. It seems to me that the devil really is in the details. Is the Devil’s own implement a pitchfork or was it a Magirus-Deutz delivery van?

Not to rub in the point, but it would be unthinkable to leave apes and certain fossils out of biology because the Theory of Evolution might empower the dreaded Atheists. Whatever it is, the Science has to speak for itself. The Scientific Method is always contingent; it is by definition, always revisionist (small r).

Talk radio is a relatively convenient format for talk. You can actually talk to each other and anyone interested can listen without all the trolling and noise and politically-correct filtering that is typical of most media. There have already been offers from hosts willing to moderate this. So why not?

Mr. Leuchter long ago investigated the problem of the gas-chambers and issued his famous report. The Leuchter Report was reviewed, and the experimentation replicated and revised by Germar Rudolf in the Rudolf Report. This doesn’t end there, nor should it. The intellectual adventure is ongoing because real-Science is not something that you can just drive a wooden stake into.

So why is Revisionism in a rut? Or is it? Mr. Berg seems to think so and he wants to discuss things, and even if this upsets people. Let me toss out something that bothers me…

Ground-penetrating radar analysis of the tiny Reinhardt Camps was a wonderful idea because the Big-H narrative has always avoided verifiable empirical observation that might not affirm the sacred secular mythology that Revisionists have taken skeptically. Here we have massive mass-graves alleged at the so-called “pure extermination camps” that were supposedly destroyed by the Nazis “without a trace” at the end of the war in order to hide the evidence for the Holocaust murder-mill thesis. The Nazi gas-chambers will continue to shift upon the sands since challenging the idea is a modern sacrilege. But GPR was an innovative way to test a specific murder-mill hypotheses noninvasively.

So after the smoke has cleared and the Revisionist drums thumped for over a dozen years, where did the vaunted GPR Report go? The peanut gallery where I am sitting is not pleased by the folks “down under.” What can’t be critically reviewed doesn’t exist. In Orwellian speak it never existed.

Mr. Berg has questions for the experts. I’ll bet there are many more like this.

To summarize, the Scientific Method is not about propaganda; it is not about fighting wicked political lobbies nor even suffering imprisonment. It is about doing solid work that can hold up to hostile scrutiny and to move forward, AND in spite of all those things. I didn't say it was easy nor that pioneering work doesn’t matter anymore.

A choice needs to be made here by people sympathetic to Revisionist or Skeptical ideas. Discuss it or rest on laurels. Either take offense or take the challenge. Nobody gets to be crowned “Revisionist Pope.”

Thanks

None of this is really anything new.
Excellent!
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

"The End of Holocaust Revisionism as we knew it."

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg »

It is sad to see a rather common human failing appear among revisionists. Some of them have had some success with their message--and suddenly they are transformed into prima donnas with their noses aimed high in the air and insisting they are now far above ordinary mortals. I was NOT Leuchter's "peer" and therefore I could NOT even question his royal highness. WOW!

I hope my radio show on The Realist Report with Robert John Friend and the followup discussions about Leuchter and Faurisson is "The End of Holocaust Revisionism as we knew it." Good riddance to bad scholarship especially on everything the least bit technical and the bitter struggles with people like Willis Carto and Mark Weber and a host of others who were lured by chances of easy success from the "Spotlight" mailing list. With a few notable exceptions, that mailing list was a list of "creationists," segregationists, racists, anti-Semites and fringe wackos of every sort. Good people with clear heads are already among us but need to be encouraged. Some of them even know how to write. That is sorely needed. Perhaps now they have more of a chance to be heard and counted.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at: http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!!

There were NO "limited gassings!" There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

Please visit and support generously:http://www.Gaschamberhoax.com
http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests