[oizirbaf]

Messaggio originale inviato da JSM

Non capisco poi questo fissazione sul Rapporto Leuchter, quando, come ho già detto, molti revisionisti giudicano che questa perizia, sia stata ampiamente superata dal Rapporto German Rudolf.
E su questo che si dovrebbero concentrare le critiche.

Ti rispondo proprio sul Rapporto German Rudolf con le parole di Richard J. Green (se qualcuno può tradurle in italiano, lo ringrazio sin da ora).

da: http://www.holocaust-history.org/aus.../green-199812/

RESPONSE to GERMAR RUDOLF - December 1998


• 1988: Holocaust denier Fred Leuchter publishes the Leuchter Report.
• 1990: The Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow conducts a preliminary investigation that finds traces of cyanide in Krema II. They were not aware of the Leuchter Report at this time.
• 1993: Rudolf publishes "The Rudolf Report"
• 1994: The Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow publish their work which finds unequivocal traces of cyanide in bunker 11, Krema I, Krema II, Krema III, Krema IV, and Krema V. They also test dwelling accommodations and find no traces of cyanide.
• 1997: Rudolf republishes "The Rudolf Report" as well as many other works on his website.

Rudolf's response is intriguing because he more or less admits that his earlier work is without foundation and that critics should now track down every modification he makes to them.
Rudolf claims that I am many years behind in understanding the introduction vents. Regarding these vents I cited two sources. Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic Magazine, in his book Why People Believe Weird Things (1997), published a photo analysis done by Dr. Nevin Bryant (Caltech/NASA/JPL) of air photos of Birkenau using methods not previously applied. Did Rudolf refute these findings many years ago? That seems unlikely considering it is now only 1998. I also cited John Morris, "The Ball Challenge. Where is John Ball?," published on Nizkor in 1997. Did Rudolf demonstrate years ago that John Ball has the courage of his convictions regarding the induction vents and will follow through on his fraudulent $100,000 offer? Perhaps Rudolf will put his money where Ball's mouth is, or perhaps Rudolf means to say that he has known for years that John Ball's claims are erroneous. That claim at least would be plausible.
Regarding the formation of Prussian blue, I agree that if the conditions are right that HCN can act as a reducing agent if Fe(CN)63- is already present. I do not agree that Rudolf has established that such conditions were present in the gas chambers. Of particular importance is the fact that the walls were washed with water. In my work Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues I explain the significance of this fact. Rudolf should be aware of this significance as he himself cites M.A. Alich, D.T. Howarth, M.F. Johnson, J. Inorg. Nucl.Chem. 1967, 29, pp. 1637-1642. The pH is also an interesting question especially given the fact that carbon dioxide exhaled by the victims is an acid anhydride as is also explored in my work above. In fact, the Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow measured the pH of the gas chambers and measured values between 6 and 7.
To get his alkaline pH Rudolf relies on plaster that cannot be found. Although an alkaline environment is not sufficient to prove Rudolf's point, it would indeed increase the probability of Prussian blue formation. Rudolf claims that the pH is basic because of plaster walls in the gas chambers. There is presently, however, no sign of such plaster in the gas chamber ruins. Rudolf must first demonstrate that there was plaster present in the gas chambers. If he were able to do so, he would beg another question. What happened to this plaster? If Rudolf would like to claim that the plaster was removed, he undermines his own thesis as most of the cyanide traces would have been removed with the plaster.
(The claims about the church were published by "Ernst Gauss." Gauss is a pseudonym of Germar Rudolf - see Sarah Rembiszewski, The Final Lie: Holocaust Denial in Germany, A Second-Generation Denier as a Test Case, Tel Aviv University Printshop, Tel Aviv, 1996. Do honest people cite their own pseudonymous works without explicity acknowledging their authorship? I note, however, that Rudolf does implicitly acknowledge authorship in calling it his work.)
Rudolf's church displays interesting chemistry that may be worth a more in depth treatment, but the key element is pointed out by "Gauss" himself:
The specialists which the relevant companies called in to assist could not account for this effect, as nothing similar was described in the literature.
The staining in the church is an event that occurred, but it does not represent a phenomenon that always occurs. As "Gauss" notes, the specialists were surprised. HCN had been used routinely for fumigation without such effects taking place. As for the plastered walls in the gas chambers, perhaps Mr. Rudolf would like to inform the world of the present location of this plaster.
Richard J. Green?December 1998

Messaggio originale inviato da JSM
C'è poi da dire che se dovesse venire ritrovato su di un campione di un muro delle traccie di cianuri, non significa assolutamente che quel muro sia entrato in contatto con l'acido cianidrico.
In una fattoria della Baviera sono stati trovati tracce di ferrocianuro più elevati di quelle presenti nelle camere a gas, poichè in determinate condizioni è un fenomeno chimico naturale.

... beh, se la mettiamo così il negazionismo-revisionismo avrà ragione in ogni caso.
Allora c'è anche una "teologia del revisionismo" oltre quella dell'olocausto! Che ne dici JSM, ma soprattutto che ne dice Carlo Mattongo?



p.s. per rodi

... copio-incollo la parte finale dell'email all'ucei: "Dato che questo forum è molto seguito mi piacerebbe molto che qualcuno di voi intervenga direttamente o mi fornisca utili link o libri sul Rapporto German Rudolf."

Nessuna risposta, per ora. Spero rispondano al sollecito.