|
Dear friends, This time it is Prof. Michael Shermer, editor of "Skeptic Magazine", exposing his ignorance. Have fun with it!
Germar S Rudolf
Dear Michael, re. your questions: "1. Since the gas chamber at Auschwitz 1 is a reconstruction, what would make him (or you) think that the particular section from which he chipped concrete was part of the original?" Please read my reply to Prof. van Pelt Search for "Interpretation of low level cyanide residues" (chapter C.3.) to see why samples taken from locations not related to any gassing sites - or with unknown history - is useful nevertheless. "2. The bricks at Kremas 2,3,4,5 at Birkenau have been moved about the camp over the decades, some used by the locals to rebuild their homes. How can you be sure that the bricks you tested are from the actual gas chambers?" Because of the problem of authenticity, the only location I took samples from that is described as 'homicidal gas chamber' is morgue #1 of Krema II in Birkenau. There, no construction/alteration has been reported. Additionally, most parts of the walls there are still covered by the roof and protected from environmental influences. "3. Even if the bricks and concrete at Kremas 2,3,4,5 at Birkenau were original, they have been exposed to half a century of brutal weathering. How did you adjust your findings accordingly?" After all that I have shown, how can one be so ignorant and still claim that Iron Blue can be destroyed quicker than the walls it is part of, by being exposed to weather? See at chapter "3.3.2. Stability" about details. For readers of German language, see and the following four chapters for even more details. "4. Leuchter chipped off huge chunks of concrete and brick and ground up the entire chunks into powder when they were analyzed (or, more to the point, the chemist whom he gave the samples to did because Leuchter didn't tell him what they were), thereby diluting the Zyklon-B traces by hundreds of thousands of times. As you must know, Zyklon-B gas only penetrates about 10 microns into concrete (a human hair, by comparison, is 100 microns thick). What was your procedure for controlling for this problem?" Please read my reply to Prof. van Pelt, Search for "Roth" to see my response to his *utmost reputation-wrecking nonsense.* This stuff is out there for a long time. Even the reply to van Pelt is nothing but a rearrangement of the stuff posted on www.vho.org/D/rga and other material posted on the internet for more than two years. The same material was published in printed form in 1993 and 1994, and some of it even much earlier. I am not willing to repeat myself endlessly. Should you and your folks continue to ignore the facts and opinions of others, then this proves your pseudo-scientific behaviour. Period. Germar Rudolf
|