“99% of Auschwitz Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Substantiated”

alex revision · January 20th, 2010

“99% of Auschwitz Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Substantiated”

10 January 2010

Translated by J M Damon

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Hom...stimony_10.htm

“99% of Auschwitz Testimony Is Forensically Unsubstantiated”

The Jewish Auschwitz expert Robert Jan van Pelt wants to demolish the physical remains of Auschwitz Concentration Camp.

The pressure from the Islamic world to duplicate the Rudolf Expert Report and adopt its findings is growing from day to day, and van Pelt wants to hinder official state investigations at all costs.

In an interview with the Canadian newspaper The STAR on 27 December 2009, he urges that all the remains of ruined buildings at Auschwitz-Birkenau be completely demolished and removed.

In his opinion, only the buildings of the Stammlager (original camp) should be preserved.

(In his book AUSCHWITZ 1270 BIS HEUTE (Auschwitz 1270 Until Today) he admits that no gassings took place in the Stammlager.)

Van Pelt wants to put an end to forensic investigations of “Holocaust” at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

He advocates clearing the site even though the ceilings and ruins of the crematories (alleged homicidal gas chambers) are still present and available for investigation.

If homicidal gassings had taken place there, these ruins would exhibit high residues of Prussian Blue (insoluble compounds of Ferro cyanide).

These residues are traces of the deadly poison gas cyanic acid (marketed under the name “Cyclon B”), which was the principal insecticide before the discovery of DDT.

Such residues are simply not present in the alleged “homicidal gas chambers” morgue and crematoria, although they are bountiful in the walls and ceilings of the fumigation chambers where the Germans used Cyclon B to delouse blankets and clothing of inmates and staff.

The most sensational part of the STAR interview is van Pelt’s admission that none of the testimony of Auschwitz witnesses can be scientifically proven or forensically substantiated.

Countless “Holocaust” researchers over many years have been thrown in prison for making this very statement.

In 2009, the inquisitorial German courts sentenced lifetime dissident Horst Mahler, 73, to 13 years’ imprisonment for insisting that there is no empirical evidence to support “Holocaust Industry” claims of mass gassings or attempted genocide of the Jews.

Following are the most important passages from van Pelt’s interview in the STAR.

In the words of the Jewish Auschwitz expert Robert Jan van Pelt, “We have no material or forensic evidence to support eyewitness reports of gassings...

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove [then how do ‘we know’ it!?]...

It has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense.

We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past

We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony...

We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner.

To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us [sic] somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.

It has become part of our inherited knowledge.

(The Canadian STAR 27 December 2009.)

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/...back-auschwitz

According to van Pelt, the “greatest mass murder in world history” should remain un-investigated!

He thinks we should rely exclusively on testimony of mass gassings by former inmates!

Dear reader, everyone should familiarize himself with these “eyewitnesses.”

Jürgen Graf’s book "AUSCHWITZ: TÄTERGESTÄNDNISSE UND AUGENZEUGEN DES HOLOCAUST" (Auschwitz: Confessions and Eyewitness Accounts of Holocaust) gives us some really eye-opening facts concerning the veracity of this “testimony.”

The witnesses would have us believe that what every normal and ingenuous person would consider lurid and fantastic is nevertheless factual.

In the course of the “Auschwitz Trials” (Record 50/Ks 2/63) in Frankfurt, which dragged on for years, neither exhumed bodies nor forensic investigations of the alleged homicidal gas chambers were presented as evidence, even though the so-called “Court” visited Auschwitz on several occasions to visually inspect the scene of the alleged crimes and interview witnesses.

Having dispensed with forensic evidence, the “Court” complained in its verdict about the lack of such evidence:

“An additional difficulty lay in the fact that the eyewitnesses – understandably – were seldom able to give exact descriptions of the time and place of specific events...”

This “Court” was almost completely lacking in all the evidence and methods of gathering information that are available in normal murder trials to form an accurate picture of events at the time of the alleged murders.

Try to imagine murder trials in which there are no bodies of victims, no autopsy reports, no expert opinions as to cause of death, no time of death, etc.!

There was no forensic evidence pertaining to perpetrators or weapons employed in the monstrous alleged crimes, and the Defense was very seldom allowed to question the witnesses.

(See Auschwitz-Urteil 50/Ks 2/63, page 109)

Think about it, dear reader.

Isn’t this incredible?

In its verdict the alleged Court admitted that van Pelt’s much-vaunted eyewitness testimony was inexact and could not be substantiated.

The following sentence is found on page 109 of the verdict:

“The witnesses, understandably, were seldom able to give exact information as to time and place of specific events...

Examination and validation of testimony was seldom possible.”

Thus the authenticity of the “Auschwitz Holocaust” was “proven” with generalized, imprecise witness testimony and a total lack of forensic evidence.

Anyone who points to the Diploma Chemist Rudolf’s EXPERT REPORT and demands free and open discussions goes to jail for many years, even for life.

And yet, the RUDOLF REPORT stands irrefuted, irrefutable.

In 1993, more than 300 professors of Inorganic Chemistry in the Federal Republic were unable to find a single mistake in Rudolf’s report.

The Swiss forensic expert Professor of Chemistry Dr. Henri Ramuz attested to Rudolf’s scientific competence, and the Director of the Jewish Anne-Frank Association, Hans Westra, admitted on the Belgian TV program PANORAMA on 27 April 1995: “The scientific analyses in the RUDOLF EXPERT REPORT are perfect.”

Rehmat · January 20th, 2010

An interesting read on Auschwitz here.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/free...chwitz-by.html

N.B. Forrest · January 21st, 2010

That filthy lying kike van Pelt would have the lemmings believe that serious forensic investigation of the Hollowco$t - which took place 65 years ago, and of which abundant physical remains of the "crime scenes" are readily accessible - is as pointlessly improbable as determining what Stonehenge was used for, or whether the Trojan Horse really existed.

January 20th, 2010	#1
alex revision Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 27,577	“99% of Auschwitz Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Substantiated” “99% of Auschwitz Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Substantiated” 10 January 2010 Translated by J M Damon http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Hom...stimony_10.htm “99% of Auschwitz Testimony Is Forensically Unsubstantiated” The Jewish Auschwitz expert Robert Jan van Pelt wants to demolish the physical remains of Auschwitz Concentration Camp. The pressure from the Islamic world to duplicate the Rudolf Expert Report and adopt its findings is growing from day to day, and van Pelt wants to hinder official state investigations at all costs. In an interview with the Canadian newspaper The STAR on 27 December 2009, he urges that all the remains of ruined buildings at Auschwitz-Birkenau be completely demolished and removed. In his opinion, only the buildings of the Stammlager (original camp) should be preserved. (In his book AUSCHWITZ 1270 BIS HEUTE (Auschwitz 1270 Until Today) he admits that no gassings took place in the Stammlager.) Van Pelt wants to put an end to forensic investigations of “Holocaust” at Auschwitz-Birkenau. He advocates clearing the site even though the ceilings and ruins of the crematories (alleged homicidal gas chambers) are still present and available for investigation. If homicidal gassings had taken place there, these ruins would exhibit high residues of Prussian Blue (insoluble compounds of Ferro cyanide). These residues are traces of the deadly poison gas cyanic acid (marketed under the name “Cyclon B”), which was the principal insecticide before the discovery of DDT. Such residues are simply not present in the alleged “homicidal gas chambers” morgue and crematoria, although they are bountiful in the walls and ceilings of the fumigation chambers where the Germans used Cyclon B to delouse blankets and clothing of inmates and staff. The most sensational part of the STAR interview is van Pelt’s admission that none of the testimony of Auschwitz witnesses can be scientifically proven or forensically substantiated. Countless “Holocaust” researchers over many years have been thrown in prison for making this very statement. In 2009, the inquisitorial German courts sentenced lifetime dissident Horst Mahler, 73, to 13 years’ imprisonment for insisting that there is no empirical evidence to support “Holocaust Industry” claims of mass gassings or attempted genocide of the Jews. Following are the most important passages from van Pelt’s interview in the STAR. In the words of the Jewish Auschwitz expert Robert Jan van Pelt, “We have no material or forensic evidence to support eyewitness reports of gassings... Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove [then how do ‘we know’ it!?]... It has become part of our inherited knowledge. I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony... We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us [sic] somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence. It has become part of our inherited knowledge. (The Canadian STAR 27 December 2009.) http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/...back-auschwitz According to van Pelt, the “greatest mass murder in world history” should remain un-investigated! He thinks we should rely exclusively on testimony of mass gassings by former inmates! Dear reader, everyone should familiarize himself with these “eyewitnesses.” Jürgen Graf’s book "AUSCHWITZ: TÄTERGESTÄNDNISSE UND AUGENZEUGEN DES HOLOCAUST" (Auschwitz: Confessions and Eyewitness Accounts of Holocaust) gives us some really eye-opening facts concerning the veracity of this “testimony.” The witnesses would have us believe that what every normal and ingenuous person would consider lurid and fantastic is nevertheless factual. In the course of the “Auschwitz Trials” (Record 50/Ks 2/63) in Frankfurt, which dragged on for years, neither exhumed bodies nor forensic investigations of the alleged homicidal gas chambers were presented as evidence, even though the so-called “Court” visited Auschwitz on several occasions to visually inspect the scene of the alleged crimes and interview witnesses. Having dispensed with forensic evidence, the “Court” complained in its verdict about the lack of such evidence: “An additional difficulty lay in the fact that the eyewitnesses – understandably – were seldom able to give exact descriptions of the time and place of specific events...” This “Court” was almost completely lacking in all the evidence and methods of gathering information that are available in normal murder trials to form an accurate picture of events at the time of the alleged murders. Try to imagine murder trials in which there are no bodies of victims, no autopsy reports, no expert opinions as to cause of death, no time of death, etc.! There was no forensic evidence pertaining to perpetrators or weapons employed in the monstrous alleged crimes, and the Defense was very seldom allowed to question the witnesses. (See Auschwitz-Urteil 50/Ks 2/63, page 109) Think about it, dear reader. Isn’t this incredible? In its verdict the alleged Court admitted that van Pelt’s much-vaunted eyewitness testimony was inexact and could not be substantiated. The following sentence is found on page 109 of the verdict: “The witnesses, understandably, were seldom able to give exact information as to time and place of specific events... Examination and validation of testimony was seldom possible.” Thus the authenticity of the “Auschwitz Holocaust” was “proven” with generalized, imprecise witness testimony and a total lack of forensic evidence. Anyone who points to the Diploma Chemist Rudolf’s EXPERT REPORT and demands free and open discussions goes to jail for many years, even for life. And yet, the RUDOLF REPORT stands irrefuted, irrefutable. In 1993, more than 300 professors of Inorganic Chemistry in the Federal Republic were unable to find a single mistake in Rudolf’s report. The Swiss forensic expert Professor of Chemistry Dr. Henri Ramuz attested to Rudolf’s scientific competence, and the Director of the Jewish Anne-Frank Association, Hans Westra, admitted on the Belgian TV program PANORAMA on 27 April 1995: “The scientific analyses in the RUDOLF EXPERT REPORT are perfect.” __________________ Professor Robert FAURISSON:(January 25, 1929 — october 21, 2018) Vincent REYNOUARD : Le Blogue Sans Concession

Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

January 20th, 2010	#2
Rehmat Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,661	An interesting read on Auschwitz here. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/free...chwitz-by.html

January 21st, 2010	#3
N.B. Forrest Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia, CSA Posts: 11,145	That filthy lying kike van Pelt would have the lemmings believe that serious forensic investigation of the Hollowco$t - which took place 65 years ago, and of which abundant physical remains of the "crime scenes" are readily accessible - is as pointlessly improbable as determining what Stonehenge was used for, or whether the Trojan Horse really existed.