𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭
🦅
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬
Posts: 147
|
Post by 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭 on Apr 23, 2022 4:34:12 GMT
Just in ─ Jim Rizoli and his partner Diane King have split with "the crook" Fred Leuchter. They have just published a couple of videos about this.
My view on Mr. Leuchter is that I regard him as a great man for having gone to Auschwitz, then in Communist Poland, to examine the Nazi homicidal gas chamber (HGC) question. Leuchter was an expert on American execution methods and his expert report was commissioned by Prof. Robert Faurisson (1929-2018) for the intrepid defense of publisher Ernst Zündel (1939-2017) in his second heresy trial in Canada (1988), and this fact alone remains enormously important for historiography, even if the Report's relevance to the historical question itself can hardly be overstated. However, Fred A. Leuchter was never a qualified Engineer ─ and this annoys me as much as the Australian electrical engineer Richard Krege never actually publishing a credible scientific report on his ground-penetrating-radar (GPR) testing at Treblinka ─ particularly after all the hype given to it by Fredrick Töben (1944-2020) and other fellow-travelers, who often seemed more interested in "fighting the Joos" than soberly answering the burning historical questions. Mr. Leuchter (with Dr. Faurisson behind him) persisting in calling himself an Engineer has always been problematical in the extreme.Furthermore, although I believe that Mr. Leuchter did his investigations honestly, they were incontrovertibly influenced by the ideas of the late Prof. Robert Faurisson. And while Faurisson was an iconic Revisionist and had many insights into the Holocaust mythology, he was not in any way technically qualified. Some Revisionists have gone so far as to say that Robert Faurisson was almost the "ghost writer" of the original 1988 Leuchter Report. Mr. Rizoli directly questioned Mr. Rudolf and Mr. Leuchter on this matter, and it is a very interesting angle. In any case, I do recommend the Germar Rudolf "Critical Edition" of the Leuchter Report. Germar Rudolf is a long-time Revisionist who is a degreed chemist and former PhD candidate, who is enormously qualified on the matter, and I think he does a fair job of saving the Leuchter Report. His "Critical Edition" is the only version of the Leuchter Report that I will recommend. The Columbia-educated engineer Friedrich Paul Berg (1943-2019) long ago had some fundamental criticisms of some of the technical aspects of Faurisson and Leuchter's reasoning in the Leuchter Report ─ but Mr. Berg encountered a disturbing amount of one-track orthodoxy within the Revisionist "movement" itself, which was detrimental to the spirit of Revisionism and its scientific methodology of historical review by earnestly "bringing History into accord with facts." Fritz brooked little disagreement in his own right, but he honestly found this rigid and uninformed orthodoxy amongst his colleagues very frustrating, and he no doubt lost numerous Revisionist friends for his blunt candor. So, while I do admire the octogenarian Mr. Leuchter for the courage of what he did, neither he nor Dr. Faurisson deserve any kind of "papal" status ─ which itself would certainly be against the spirit of Revisionism itself, the scholarship meaning nothing if we can't even question the questioners. To its credit, RODOH has always been willing to do this. I've never had any hesitation challenging anyone, not even my late friend Fritz Berg, if I thought something was unreasonable or just wrong. Mr. Berg was an old school admirer of President Kennedy, for example, a man whom I more or less despise. The bottom line for me is that Mr. Berg's criticism of Mr. Leuchter's work was, as far as I'm concerned, fully justified.Jim Rizoli (from Communist Massachusetts) and Diane King (from Texas) have been one of the most stalwart supporters of Fred Leuchter until now ─ and now they've had enough. As far as they are concerned, Fred Leuchter is a crook and con man. I like Mr. Rizoli and Ms. King. They produce streaming video commentary nearly every day, and sometimes they interview some interesting people. Sometimes Jim and (twin brother) Joe Rizoli and Diane King veer off into conspiracy theory, natural health fads, and Libertarian nonsense, and excessively defend Christianity, etc., but they are never afraid to criticize Jews, and I think they are honest people ─ which apparently Fred Leuchter is not. All parties are invited to come here and defend their case if they so wish. Other comments invited.
|
|
𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭
🦅
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬
Posts: 147
|
Post by 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭 on Apr 24, 2022 3:53:29 GMT
Jim Rizoli and Diane King have published another stream on Bitchute today interviewing some people involved in the Fred Leuchter scam ─ Margaret Huffstickler and John DeNugent. I have not had a chance to listen to it yet but here is the link: Fritz Berg would have said, "I told you so!" Here is a link to John DeNugent's site: 
|
|
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 24, 2022 6:40:52 GMT
Other than fudging his qualifications, is his report in any way compromised? As I recall, the hoaxsters attacked him personally, his lack of credentials and the fudging of some of his claims rather than trying to debunk his study.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Traynor on Apr 24, 2022 14:47:35 GMT
This is very depressing news. When I first came to revisionism I considered Fred Leuchter to be a hero for his daring raid on Auschwitz which was then deep behind the Iron Curtain. I can remember in one video Fred described hiding the samples he had taken from Auschwitz amongst his dirty underwear to get them past the guards at the airport. The late 80s and early 90s really were the glory days of holocaust revisionism.
Jim Rizoli has taken some stick for making those videos and bringing this matter into the public arena. In my opinion Rizoli did the right thing if all he has said is true, and the more I hear the worse it looks for Leuchter. If Leuchter is conning people out of money (in some cases considerable sums) he needs to be taken down fast.
As revisionists our behavior must be beyond reproach so that the usual suspects will have no way of ever conflating our personal misbehavior with the hard work and professional research being carried out by other revisionists. I dare say the residents at Klowns will be popping the champagne corks when they hear this shocking news.
|
|
𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭
🦅
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬
Posts: 147
|
Post by 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭 on Apr 24, 2022 23:58:57 GMT
Other than fudging his qualifications, is his report in any way compromised? As I recall, the hoaxsters attacked him personally, his lack of credentials and the fudging of some of his claims rather than trying to debunk his study. Leuchter's (or Faurisson's) DOUBTS and most of their conclusions about the Nazi Homicidal Gas Chambers (HGCs) were CORRECT but not always their methodologies or arguments. When Leuchter was called on it, he always doubled down. Leuchter may have had Faurisson behind this because that early material became canon. The solution was not to double-down on mistakes but to DEBATE and to REVISE. That is what Revisionism is all about anyway.As Fritz Berg put it, "Nazi Gassings Never Happened !"Germar Rudolf was highly-qualified and did his own on-site chemical testing at Auschwitz after Leuchter and issued his own Report. He also examined the various editions of the Leuchter Report and issued a "Critical Edition," of the LR which I do endorse. Rudolf paid his dues as a Revisionist and a technical expert. Leuchter, not so much. Fritz Berg for decades had pointed out that some of Leuchter's arguments were just wrong. From the original Leuchter Report, for example, Leuchter published a table showing the properties of HCN gas and the range of concentrations for explosivity. Leuchter erroneously ignored his own evidence in making some of his most dogmatic arguments. In fact, practical Zyklon-B fumigators never needed to worry about this "explosion danger" because of that very factual data which Leuchter/Faurisson did cite. But Leuchter insisted that he somehow proved that the Nazis "could not have gassed people, only bugs." He actually said this in an e-mail to Fritz and me. But this is just plain wrong and stupid. Not long ago the state of Arizona refurbished its execution gaschamber, which is about 30 miles or so from where I live. Leuchter went on and on in the Rizoli TV stream about how there was going to be a "botched execution" someday because he was not consulted. Well, no ─ they actually know what they are doing; they know this because they used qualified engineers as consultants. Leuchter never got either a degree in Engineering or a Professional Engineer endorsement, nor even a contractor's license as far as I know. I used to have the job title of Broadcasting Engineer and FCC Licensing, but that is not an Engineer in the professional sense. My Dad (retired) was an Aerospace and Nuclear Engineer and was an expert in statistical reliability. He graduated from Brigham Young University in 1960 and did his advanced work at Utah State University in 1964. Fritz Berg was educated in Mining Engineering at Columbia University and graduated in 1965. These are real Engineers. I studied Electronics Engineering Technology for two years and worked in the field before switching gears and getting a BA in History, but I would call myself a Technologist and not an Engineer in this context because I don't have a degree in that. I might call Mr. Leuchter a "Technologist," and I think he does have a degree in History as well, but he is not an Engineer or a PE. I will concede that Mr. Leuchter was acknowledged by the Zündel court in Toronto in 1988 as being an expert in American execution technology, for which his Report was compiled, but that is not the point.In any case, I do question Leuchter's expertise in this matter of executions. The old-fashioned "diving bell" sort of lethal gas chamber might have some complications to it because it generates HCN from a cyanide salt and battery acid, and the condemned prisoner can therefore smell pungent fumes as a result, so they sometimes "act out" during the execution ─ but that is not the same as "botching" it. And, as Fritz pointed out, it would not have been hard to mass-murder people with poison gas IF the Germans had actually been interested in doing so. The hard evidence and their own and contemporary technical literature on the subject of fumigations and Zyklon-B speaks otherwise about the Nazi HGC canard. Prof. Faurisson issued his famous challenge to "show me or draw [for] me a homicidal gas chamber" and Fritz did so with either Zyklon-B or carbon monoxide, thereby proving that the Germans did NOT do so.The most practical way to do this for state executions today would be inert nitrogen gas, and this is important because medical-grade chemicals and materials for capital punishment are increasingly boycotted or embargoed by powerful Leftists. A poorly-skilled phlebotomy technician can "botch" a lethal injection easily enough if he can't find a condemned prisoner's vein, for example. Using lethal gas is better in my opinion, but the current execution method is too complicated ─ though not worse than lethal injection as far as I'm concerned. The bottom line is that Fritz Berg could be dogmatic in his own right, but he pegged Fred Leuchter early as a dishonest con man. Jim Rizoli has been one of Fred's most stalwart defenders, and for him and Diane King to break with him now is very significant for the Revisionist community ─ but REVISIONIST SCHOLARSHIP WILL ULTIMATELY BENEFIT. I do admire what Fred did in Communist Poland and for withstanding the calumny he has received from helping the Revisionist cause and helping the Zündel legal defense ─ but Fred Leuchter is not the Pope of Revisionism any more than late venerable Prof. Robert Faurisson was.I'm a hard historiography kind of guy. Unlike the older Revisionists, who tended to think that once a few hard facts were known, the Holocaust "Hoax" would collapse like a house of cards, I take the view that the Big-H is not just ancient war propaganda but a modern secular establishment faith. It is not even just about the Joos. The Establishment has ingrained and endowed the Holocaust mythology with billions of dollars of propaganda which has only increased the farther removed we are from the war. Name any town of any substance in Europe or America that does not have a Holocaust memorial or one being funded by Jewish and political or business elites. We are talking about scores of billions of dollars if not more. To the day he died, Mr. Berg was incredulous that what he called "the Hoax" was still canonically believed. But it is fully understandable if one considers the high level of "maintenance" the political and mass-media Establishment commits to it. And the kicker is that they are NOT interested in Truth. To prove this, one only needs to look at the establishment opprobrium ─ sometimes Criminal sanctions ─ just for skeptically QUESTIONING this matter.I am not a Liberal in any more than the classical sense, but Liberalism has limits. I am not a Libertarian nor an Anarchist. The Hoaxsters are the real bigots here; they are hoisted by their own "liberal" petard. That is why transparency and open-debate are so important ─ especially if some (or most) only support dialog and debate when they, themselves like it. If limits are placed on debate it is a slippery slope to tyranny. That is why it is perfectly "Kosher" to criticize Jews, and in fact ANYONE. When Fritz Berg was wrong, I called him on it. He made a couple of doozies, to be honest. He thought, for example, that the Hot-Bulb engines that powered the common wartime German Lanz Bulldog farm tractors were DIESEL engines, but they are NOT. In fact, with or without a Wood-gas (mainly carbon monoxide) converter on them, these "waste oil engines" are not true diesel or "compression ignition" engines, and they therefore do generate plenty of deadly carbon monoxide in their exhaust. Fortunately, no Hoaxsters were qualified Engineers or were technically knowledgeable enough on the subject to implicate the common German farm tractors used in Poland during the war as murder weapons for the gassing legend. Otherwise, it would have been harder to disprove some of their claims (lies). The point is that Fritz understood that I was not the enemy. We would always have a friendly back-and-forth. And nobody else is the Revisionist Pontiff, not even Prof. Faurisson, a great man who defacto authored the original 1988 Leuchter Report, apparently. By my way of thinking, the way to WIN this thing is to keep producing and publishing solid historiography.Germar Rudolf, who after the death of Bradley R. Smith (1930-2016) now runs CODOH (not the discussion forum) has personally worked hard to publish scores of solid Revisionist reference books. Holocaust Revisionism, therefore, is on the cusp of mainstream scholarship ─ even with abject hostility from the Establishment, and certainly from Academia, which is controlled by Leftists. I have even been able to get University Libraries to accept some Revisionist works, and that is ordinarily VERY difficult even for anodyne books unless they are requested by a Communist professor. So Revisionism is a slow historical and scholarly PROCESS, and it is EARNED one piece at a time. Nobody rests on their Laurels. Science was not invented with a great epiphany when Newton had the proverbial apple drop on his head, or when Galileo supposedly dropped some weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, or asked the Inquisition to actually look through his heretical telescope for themselves. What cannot be tolerated is what Fritz Berg called "an orthodoxy of our own." Do read the latest edition of the Rudolf Report and Rudolf's Leuchter Reports (Critical Edition). They are classics. Another sober Revisionist is Prof. Arthur R. Butz, the nearly-nonagenarian Northwestern University Electrical Engineer (a real EE) whose Hoax of the 20th Century jump-started modern Revisionist scholarship in 1976. We have learned a great deal more about the subject since then.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Apr 25, 2022 9:25:45 GMT
Other than fudging his qualifications, is his report in any way compromised? As I recall, the hoaxsters attacked him personally, his lack of credentials and the fudging of some of his claims rather than trying to debunk his study. Leuchter's (or Faurisson's) DOUBTS and most of their conclusions about the Nazi Homicidal Gas Chambers (HGCs) were CORRECT but not always their methodologies or arguments. When Leuchter was called on it, he always doubled down. Leuchter may have had Faurisson behind this because that early material became canon. The solution was not to double-down on mistakes but to DEBATE and to REVISE. That is what Revisionism is all about anyway.As Fritz Berg put it, "Nazi Gassings Never Happened !"...Fritz Berg for decades had pointed out that some of Leuchter's arguments were just wrong. ...Leuchter insisted that he somehow proved that the Nazis "could not have gassed people, only bugs." He actually said this in an e-mail to Fritz and me. But this is just plain wrong and stupid. ...and, as Fritz pointed out, it would not have been hard to mass-murder people with poison gas IF the Germans had actually been interested in doing so. The hard evidence and their own and contemporary technical literature on the subject of fumigations and Zyklon-B speaks otherwise about the Nazi HGC canard. Prof. Faurisson issued his famous challenge to "show me or draw [for] me a homicidal gas chamber" and Fritz did so with either Zyklon-B or carbon monoxide, thereby proving that the Germans did NOT do so....The bottom line is that Fritz Berg could be dogmatic in his own right... I'm a hard historiography kind of guy. Unlike the older Revisionists, who tended to think that once a few hard facts were known, the Holocaust "Hoax" would collapse like a house of cards, I take the view that the Big-H is not just ancient war propaganda but a modern secular establishment faith. It is not even just about the Joos. The Establishment has ingrained and endowed the Holocaust mythology with billions of dollars of propaganda which has only increased the farther removed we are from the war. Name any town of any substance in Europe or America that does not have a Holocaust memorial or one being funded by Jewish and political or business elites. We are talking about scores of billions of dollars if not more. To the day he died, Mr. Berg was incredulous that what he called "the Hoax" was still canonically believed. But it is fully understandable if one considers the high level of "maintenance" the political and mass-media Establishment commits to it. And the kicker is that they are NOT interested in Truth. To prove this, one only needs to look at the establishment opprobrium ─ sometimes Criminal sanctions ─ just for skeptically QUESTIONING this matter....The Hoaxsters are the real bigots here... That is why transparency and open-debate are so important ─ especially if some (or most) only support dialog and debate when they, themselves like it. If limits are placed on debate it is a slippery slope to tyranny. That is why it is perfectly "Kosher" to criticize Jews, and in fact ANYONE. When Fritz Berg was wrong, I called him on it. He made a couple of doozies, to be honest. He thought, for example, that the Hot-Bulb engines that powered the common wartime German Lanz Bulldog farm tractors were DIESEL engines, but they are NOT. In fact, with or without a Wood-gas (mainly carbon monoxide) converter on them, these "waste oil engines" are not true diesel or "compression ignition" engines, and therefore do generate plenty of deadly carbon monoxide in their exhaust. Fortunately, no Hoaxsters were qualified Engineers or were technically knowledgeable enough on the subject to implicate the common German farm tractors used in Poland during the war as murder weapons for the gassing legend. Otherwise, it would have been harder to disprove some of their claims (lies). The point is that Fritz understood that I was not the enemy. We would always have a friendly back-and-forth. And nobody else is the Revisionist Pontiff, not even Prof. Faurisson, a great man who defacto authored the original 1988 Leuchter Report, apparently. By my way of thinking, the way to WIN this thing is to keep producing and publishing solid historiography.Germar Rudolf, who after the death of Bradley R. Smith (1930-2016) now runs CODOH (not the discussion forum) has personally worked hard to publish scores of solid Revisionist reference books. Holocaust Revisionism, therefore, is on the cusp of mainstream scholarship ─ even with abject hostility from the Establishment, and certainly from Academia... I have even been able to get University Libraries to accept some Revisionist works, and that is ordinarily VERY difficult even for anodyne works unless they are requested by a Communist professor. So Revisionism is a slow historical and scholarly PROCESS, and it is EARNED one piece at a time. Nobody rests on their Laurels. Science was not invented with a great epiphany when Newton had the proverbial apple drop on his head, or when Galileo supposedly dropped some weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, or asked the Inquisition to actually look through his heretical telescope for themselves. What cannot be tolerated is what Fritz Berg called "an orthodoxy of our own." Do read the latest edition of the Rudolf Report and Rudolf's Leuchter Reports (Critical Edition). They are classics. Another sober Revisionist is Prof. Arthur R. Butz, the nearly-nonagenarian Northwestern University Electrical Engineer (a real EE) whose Hoax of the 20th Century jump-started modern Revisionist scholarship in 1976. We have learned a great deal more about the subject since then. In my opinion Fritz Berg — like Fred Leuchter — himself did a great deal of sterling, ground-breaking work BUT he also did some harm to the cause of encouraging a more open, honest, informed, scientific, objective re-evaluation of this protected narrative. E.g. his absolutist, dogmatic, and imprecise statement that you quoted, stating: " Nazi Gassings Never Happened !" Er, really? Ermmm... so... No Nazi gassing of clothes, then? 🤔😉 Revisionists have to choose their wording extremely carefully. My preferred statement is to suggest that MASS-gassings couldn’t have occurred the way they were described (at the particular sites claimed, in the numbers claimed, by the methods claimed).
|
|
|
Post by Mark Caine on Apr 25, 2022 14:47:48 GMT
When I began listening to Jim Rizoli’s first video it became clear to me Leuchter was waiting for Margaret Huffstickler to die in order to not pay back the money he owed her before Rizoli who knows Fred in real life even mentioned it. This whole situation is shocking in the extreme. Do Americans normally place loaded assault rifles upright on top of cabinets and lean them against the wall? Was John DeNugent sending a message to Fred Leuchter by doing just that in this video? Very sadly it appears Margaret Huffstickler’s cancer is returning and Fred may see his wish she dies sooner rather than later come true. Unfortunately for Fred he seems to have not included John DeNugent in his calculations. John DeNugent @ Timestamp 1:07:45 “If he thinks he’s going to wait it out, er, I’m Margi’s heir and he’ll owe me the money. And Fred you better pay me, you’re talking to a U.S. Marine here, and I’m a little bit angry.”

|
|
𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭
🦅
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬
Posts: 147
|
Post by 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭 on Apr 26, 2022 3:16:40 GMT
When I began listening to Jim Rizoli’s first video it became clear to me Leuchter was waiting for Margaret Huffstickler to die in order to not pay back the money he owed her before Rizoli who knows Fred in real life even mentioned it. This whole situation is shocking in the extreme. Do Americans normally place loaded assault rifles upright on top of cabinets and lean them against the wall? Was John DeNugent sending a message to Fred Leuchter by doing just that in this video? Very sadly it appears Margaret Huffstickler’s cancer is returning and Fred may see his wish she dies sooner rather than later come true. Unfortunately for Fred he seems to have not included John DeNugent in his calculations. John DeNugent @ Timestamp 1:07:45 “If he thinks he’s going to wait it out, er, I’m Margi’s heir and he’ll owe me the money. And Fred you better pay me, you’re talking to a U.S. Marine here, and I’m a little bit angry.”
It harkens back to a time when men settled their disputes like men, LOL. If displaying your guns on the Internet triggers Liberals, then I'm all for it. I would love to have a Zoom meeting at home for work with an MG42 and few belts of ammo in the background. However, I would think Mr. DeNugent would have it in a gun rack. Also, there needs to be a way to secure it when you leave the house. I learned this the hard way when a tweaker girl that my roommate knew organized a burglary while we were at work. He let her stay there one day to ride the bus a shorter distance to a doctor's appointment ─ and our guess is that she copied the apartment key. I was incredulous: You let her have our house key?Anyway, I lost my entire gun collection and he lost a bunch of numismatics. The police were only able to recover a couple of guns, my K98 Mauser and my 1917 S&W .45 ACP. Recounting the rest of what was lost just makes me sad. It includes my first gun, a Ruger .22 target pistol that my late Grandmother bought for me when I turned 18. (I was too young to buy it myself as you have to be 21.) My Grandfather was a government trapper during WWII in Colorado; she often went with him, and her job was to dispatch the bears caught in traps with a single shot to the head from a .22 pistol. If you were a good shot and hit them in the sweet spot, they went down like a sack of potatoes. I lost two excellent condition Russian SKSs with the flat bayonets and nice wood stocks, and a whole bunch of other cool stuff from when I had a gun license. The two people involved in the theft went to prison, and we made sure of that. You have probably heard the story before but one of the SKSs turned up about ten years later in the hands of a Tranny who had been a man in the U.S. Navy at one time and committed "suicide by cop" with my unrecovered stolen gun. I would have liked to have the gun back, but didn't really want to have any further interaction with the cops ─ especially nowadays when the political environment would make it all out to be MY fault somehow. The thing here is that by threatening Fred with violence, at the very least Mr. DeNugent is clearly doing some "Fed-Posting" here ─ and that is ill-advised, especially if one is in anyway a Maverick or nonconformist. He is ─ although I really dislike the word ─ in modern parlance: a Dissident.To recover the 20 thousand dollars, I don't think they will have any problem suing Fred. How much money will go to lawyer fees, I don't know. More likely they will find that Fred really doesn't have any money. Whatever he got in loans and donations he probably burned through in bills as he said. And he probably feels "entitled" to it as far as the pro-Revisionist community goes. The bottom line is that they should NOT have loaned him the money, and Fred should NOT have taken it on that basis. It appears that Fred Leuchter has a very new blog, although it seems that Jim Rizoli (before their split) is the only one who has ever posted anything there. Oy Vey.
|
|
𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭
🦅
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬
Posts: 147
|
Post by 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭 on Apr 26, 2022 6:31:43 GMT
In my opinion Fritz Berg — like Fred Leuchter — himself did a great deal of sterling, ground-breaking work BUT he also did some harm to the cause of encouraging a more open, honest, informed, scientific, objective re-evaluation of this protected narrative. E.g. his absolutist, dogmatic, and imprecise statement that you quoted, stating: " Nazi Gassings Never Happened !" Er, really? Ermmm... so... No Nazi gassing of clothes, then? 🤔😉 Revisionists have to choose their wording extremely carefully. My preferred statement is to suggest that MASS-gassings couldn’t have occurred the way they were described (at the particular sites claimed, in the numbers claimed, by the methods claimed). I dunno. It just states a conclusion the way one-liners do. Fritz doesn't mean don't investigate further ─ just the opposite, and he leaves a large, and at one time original, body of work on this subject. Mr. Berg tended to think that the secret sauce that was missing was an ((( Edward Bernays ))) kind of Madison Avenue marketing approach to Revisionism, as the necessary and important facts were already out; it was just a matter of convincing the dumb herd. But if that is true, then it must be realized that the enemy for his part has an open bank account to fund as much Holo-propaganda as they want, so gimmick-marketing is not the answer either. Anyway, I fail to see any problem with his slogan: It says: "Nazi Gassings Never Happened."And then in German: "Nobody Was Gassed!"I am not sure what is ambiguous about that. He probably should have kept both parts in English, but I don't see how anybody can conclude that we are talking about gassing clothing here. In fact, one might wish that this were the case. It probably comes as a big surprise to many Normies, those who have been trained to believe in the Holocaust story since they were kids, that the Germans actually legitimately had Zyklon-B in the camps for sanitary fumigation of buildings and clothing. Indeed, they actually couldn't get enough of it. The facts are that immigration control points such as Manly Quarantine Station at Sydney Harbour, Lytton at Brisbane, and ports of entry such as Ellis Island at New York, and the Santa Fe Bridge at El Paso, Texas ─ were places where things like steam autoclaves and Zyklon-B were used for disinfecting and fumigating immigrant clothing, and even gassing railroad rolling stock. During both World Wars the Germans ─ and between the wars, the Allies ─ practiced the Cordon Sanitaire in Eastern Europe because tens of millions were dying there of Typhus. Maybe they did the job too well because these necessary measures are virtually unknown today in Western Europe and America. Sometimes history requires putting facts into their proper context. "Lite" Revisionists like David Irving, Mark Weber, and David Cole try to have it both ways by saying that there were "some" gassings ─ maybe not as "massive" for some reason as we were led to believe by propagandists after the war ─ but surely the gist of the homicidal gassing story must be true. Sometimes they indulge in denigrating "Deniers" for their foolishness in doubting Jewish claims, but they don't really grace us with any new evidence, either. David Cole, in particular, is always full of strawman arguments about how bonfires somehow burn teeth into nothingness. Well, I have seen "cremains," and the ashes are more like coarse sand than ash. Depending on how finely the cremains are pulverized, you can easily see recognizable pieces of teeth in there that aren't going into oblivion so easily. But massive hauls of broken teeth are exactly what we don't find in alleged mass graves at certain "Extermination Sites." In any case, a falsehood is still a Lie, and it simply has not been proved that the Germans homicidally gassed anyone thus far. I think Fritz's slogan is much more useful than Prof. Faurisson's "No Holes ─ No Holocaust" which acts not as a summation but as a Rorschach test. It is a largely a matter of belief whether the Germans made holes in the roofs of basement morgues in the crematoria buildings in order to pour in the Zyklon-B fumigant to kill prisoners ─ or whether the Soviets after the war just crudely chiseled some holes in the destroyed building remains (and in the process cutting or bending the inconvenient rebar out of the way). So the always-edgy David Cole and others now just want to move the goalposts somewhere else. 
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Apr 26, 2022 8:20:09 GMT
In my opinion Fritz Berg — like Fred Leuchter — himself did a great deal of sterling, ground-breaking work BUT he also did some harm to the cause of encouraging a more open, honest, informed, scientific, objective re-evaluation of this protected narrative. E.g. his absolutist, dogmatic, and imprecise statement that you quoted, stating: " Nazi Gassings Never Happened !" Er, really? Ermmm... so... No Nazi gassing of clothes, then? 🤔😉 Revisionists have to choose their wording extremely carefully. My preferred statement is to suggest that MASS-gassings couldn’t have occurred the way they were described (at the particular sites claimed, in the numbers claimed, by the methods claimed). I dunno. It just states a conclusion the way one-liners do. Fritz doesn't mean don't investigate further ─ just the opposite, and he leaves a large and at one time original body of work on this subject. Mr. Berg tended to think that the secret sauce that was missing was an Edward Bernays kind of Madison Avenue marketing approach to Revisionism as the necessary and important facts were already out; it was just a matter of convincing the dumb herd. But if that is true, then it much be realized that the enemy for his part has an open bank account to fund as much Holo-propaganda as they want, so gimmick marketing is not the answer either. Anyway, I fail to see any problem with his slogan... I see the “problem” as threefold: that it is imprecise, it isn’t factually correct, and it puts people off. For the vast majority of people I assume it has the same attraction as a slogan claiming: ”the world isn’t round”. But I agree a succint and memorable slogan to convince the gullible herd would be a good thing. 🙂 Which is why I think his slogan doesn’t work. Normies will dismiss it by thinking: ”no Nazi gassings? Puh! what nonsense! I’ve seen the tins of ZyklonB.”Then I am a ”lite’ revisionist, as I also suspect some homicidal gassings probably DID occur. But not on the scale claimed. I happened to know of — and so posted evidence on the Skeptics forum once — of a cremated tooth found at Stonehenge after five thousand years burial. Initially many responded abusively and crowing with delight when the link I had quickly found and posted referencing it, didn’t bear out that particular tooth find. When I later provided them with verifiable, authoritative, detailed, archeological, academic proof of that fairly recently discovered cremated tooth, they ALL went into denial. Nessie, unsuprisingly being amongst them. My point was that if a cremated tooth was still whole and found in the ground after over 4,400 years, why has no trace been found of any of the parts of the 28 million teeth which should still be there at Treblinka 2. Why only one shark tooth? They had no answer. But how could that be definitively proven now, so long after? Interesting! 🤔 That is not an accurate representation of the ”no holes” argument as I understand it. My understanding — if you are talking about Birkenau krema — is that there definitely are no holes matching the description and the alleged placement of them by ‘lie-witnesses’. And as I remember it, Irving got the Lipstadt ‘expert’ to admit that at his libel trial. So without those holes, zyklon b couldn’t have been poured in, so all the eye-witnesses lied, including the ’confessing’ perpetrators, proving the Auschwitz narrative is a deeply flawed fabrication.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Traynor on Apr 26, 2022 16:27:08 GMT
As I listened to the last video posted above with Margaret Huffstickler and John DeNugent, Jim Rizoli said something which set alarm bells ringing for me. He said he had helped Fred out when the Department of Health had become involved in Fred’s life because of huge amounts of trash in his backyard. Fred Leuchter is now 79 years old and I am wondering if he is still playing with a full deck of cards? Without knowing Fred’s cognitive state and hearing his side of the story I feel it it would be unfair to judge him at this time. If Fred really is blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on gambling, cocaine and $500 hookers he is currently having more fun than me. As always Scott gives wise counsel: To recover the 20 thousand dollars, I don't think they will have any problem suing Fred. How much money will go to lawyer fees, I don't know. More likely they will find that Fred really doesn't have any money. Whatever he got in loans and donations he probably burned through in bills as he said. And he probably feels "entitled" to it as far as the pro-Revisionist community goes. The bottom line is that they should NOT have loaned him the money, and Fred should NOT have taken it on that basis. The moral of the story in this case is: "Neither a Borrower Nor a Lender Be"
|
|
𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭
🦅
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬
Posts: 147
|
Post by 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭 on Apr 27, 2022 4:50:19 GMT
[...] I think Fritz's slogan is much more useful than Prof. Faurisson's "No Holes ─ No Holocaust" which acts not as a summation but as a Rorschach test. It is a largely a matter of belief whether the Germans made holes in the roofs of basement morgues in the crematoria buildings in order to pour in the Zyklon-B fumigant to kill prisoners ─ or whether the Soviets after the war just crudely chiseled some holes in the destroyed building remains (and in the process cutting or bending the inconvenient rebar out of the way). Interesting! 🤔 That is not an accurate representation of the ”no holes” argument as I understand it. My understanding — if you are talking about Birkenau krema — is that there definitely are no holes matching the description and the alleged placement of them by ‘lie-witnesses’. And as I remember it, Irving got the Lipstadt ‘expert’ to admit that at his libel trial. So without those holes, zyklon b couldn’t have been poured in, so all the eye-witnesses lied, including the ’confessing’ perpetrators, proving the Auschwitz narrative is a deeply flawed fabrication. I probably should have put this topic in the Holocaust section but I'll try to be brief. I am not saying that Faurisson was wrong, quite the opposite. I just don't think his argument is very convincing. Were there really holes in the ceilings of the morgues in the Krema ruins before the end of the war? Well, Leuchter and Rudolf and others familiar with construction investigated, and they say NO.And I think they are absolutely right. However, those who fight "Holocaust Denial" say the Holes were there during the war ─ and one of the authors of the "Holes Report" said to me in an e-mail (I have forgotten which one now but it might have been Danny Keren, who helped Roberto Muehlenkamp debate me about the diesel gaschambers at the old Axis History Forum) that while their forensic examination of the morgue ruins at Auschwitz-Birkenau supposedly confirms this (the intentional presence of the ceiling "Zyklon-B introduction" holes), it is still not going to convince Deniers. That is why I call the existence of the Holes somewhat of a "Rorschach Test." Each side thinks the other one uses faith-based reasoning and evidence. And this being the case, it weakens No-Holes/No-Holocaust as an argument, even though I think Prof. Faurisson was right. The "Holes Report" was authored in 2004 by three people: Dr. Daniel Keren, a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at Haifa University in Israel; Mr. Jamie McCarthy, a computer programer from Michigan and a webmaster for the 1990s Nizkor Project; and the late Harry W. Mazal, OBE (1934-2011), who was the director of The Holocaust History Project, which did a very good deed by putting the hard-to-find 1989 tome of Jean-Claude Pressac (1944-2003) Online (and I thanked them for it in a comment at their site's Guest Book in the day). Although I did not find it in any way convincing, I put the "Holes Report" up at RODOH Reference when it came out; however, Dr. Andrew Mathis asked me nicely to take it down (which I did) because it was behind a paywall at the Oxford academic journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies. The PDF of the article now sells for 51 USD for 24 hours of access. Since it has been almost twenty years, I may buy a copy some time and then put a free copy Online again at RODOH if anybody is interested. I think you can also register for a free account at Project Muse and get access that way. Here is the complete citation for the so-called "Holes Report" ─ Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy, Harry W. Mazal ; "The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau,"
Holocaust and Genocide Studies Vol. 18 : Iss. 1 (Spring 2004), Pages 68–103. ISSN: 8756-6583doi.org/10.1093/hgs/dch040ABSTRACT :Combining engineering, computer, and photographic techniques with historical sources, this research note discusses the gas chambers attached to crematoriums at Auschwitz I and the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. Among other things, the authors identify the locations of several of the holes in the roofs through which Zyklon B was introduced: five in Crematorium I and three of the four in the badly damaged Crematorium II. The authors began their project before David Irving's libel suit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, proceeding simultaneously with, but independently of, the trial. The defense presented the first version of the authors' report during Irving's subsequent application to appeal. Irving's application was rejected by the court. [Emphasis mine.] I would agree that Fritz often experimented with shocking or off-putting memes ─ the nude backside autopsy photo of the elderly woman with cherry-red skin who had died from carbon monoxide poisoning comes to mind ─ but I don't really think that the slogan itself "Nazi Gassings Never Happened: Nobody Was Gassed" fits that category. 
|
|
|
Post by freya on May 8, 2022 22:57:20 GMT
Hi All.
I haven't been around for some time.
So I just decided to check in and am disappointed to hear about Fred Leuchter.
If his claims were largely valid and accurate about the concentration camps, might it have been more prudent for Jim and Diane to deal with this privately?
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on May 9, 2022 2:37:47 GMT
If his claims were largely valid and accurate about the concentration camps, might it have been more prudent for Jim and Diane to deal with this privately? I agree, this reminds me of a facebook spat which is no one elses business. We do not know all of the facts; it is not out business if we do to be frank. This detracts from his good work.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Traynor on May 12, 2022 14:58:13 GMT
Cover-ups of unethical actions and suppression of truth are activities engaged in by the Joos who run the holocaust industry. As revisionists we should not fear the light of day shining on our behavior. I believe Jim went public with this story in order to warn others about sending money to Fred Leuchter, something he was duty bound to do if he genuinely believed Fred was running a scam.
The findings of the Leuchter Report are scientifically valid and have withstood the test of time. I suspect any reputational damage done will be minimal and this matter will soon be forgotten by the hoi polloi.
|
|