Leuchter Report, Chemistry of Auschwitz, Zionist Spinning/Incomplete Answers

The Leuchter Report showed little to no traces of cyanide in the rooms claimed by Zionists to have been "homicidal gas chambers." That Report has been challenge by the Zionists. You can find a prime example of that, here on the Wikipedia article on the Leuchter Report.

What is the source material for that section? It is primarily "The Chemistry of Auschwitz," by Richard J. Green, which states the following early on:

It is a fact that an early Soviet estimate placed the victims of Auschwitz-Birkenau at 4 million and that the communist regime in Poland adhered to this number long after it was known to be untrue. It is a favorite tactic of deniers to claim that the untruth of this number should somehow affect estimates of the total number of Jews killed in the Final Solution. This claim is invalid. 6 With a few notable exceptions 7, historians did not take the 4 million number seriously. Additionally, estimates for the number of dead were generally made by the overall European demographics and therefore would not depend on an error in a single camp even if it were made. Both of these points are demonstrated by the conservative estimates of Raul Hilberg who estimates that 1 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz-Birkenau and that 5.1 million Jews were killed in all. Hilberg first made his estimate in 1961 and reaffirmed it in 1985 with the "revised and definitive" edition of his seminal work, The Destruction of the European Jews. 8

"Footnote 6" there points to "The Auschwitz Gambit: The Four Million Variant."

Here's the supposedly operative statement: "...estimates for the number of dead were generally made by the overall European demographics...."

You will note though that Raul Hilberg claimed to have estimated 5.1 million Jews were killed in all. That's 900,000 fewer (almost 1 million; it matters) than the 6 million constantly repeated. More importantly though is that the 3-4 million killed at Auschwitz stood from 1945 until 1991. Why? If they knew it was false, why did they allow it all that time? It was convenient to leave the false propaganda there for decades. We also now know that the soap from Jewish fat was a fake. The lampshade from Jewish tattooed skin was fake. The shrunken heads of Jews were not of Jews at all. Why were we told those lies, and why should we trust the liars now? They clearly lied to gain sympathy so they could take other people's lands (Palestine). Those are only the tip of the iceberg of lies and only a tip of the iceberg of the crimes built upon sympathy undeserved/exaggerated.

Also, Raul Hilberg's "seminal work" has been systematically reviewed and found greatly wanting. He used as sources (via secondary sources, unsubstantiated) people who have been shown to have told huge lies. There was one fellow who claimed that open train cars would pull up under the "homicidal gas chambers" and the floors of the chambers would open to drop all of the dead bodies into the rail cars. The persons testimony was allowed in court against Nazi "war criminals," (which they were but not always for the reason for which they were placed on trial). However, he was cut off in giving testimony before he could tell his whopper about the trains under the "gas chambers." Hilberg leaned on him? Yes. He did that while knowing the whoppers. That fellow is far from the only such example. Some of the "testimonies" upon which Hilberg relied were much more central to the question of the number of people said to have been gassed, etc. Hilberg was far from "conservative" in his estimate.

This sort of information is not easy to locate and then relocate on the Internet because it is heavily censored, removed, banned, and even illegal in Europe.

You decide. I know the Nazis were brutal and ruthless, but I know Benjamin Netanyahu lies (he has shown zero proof to back his wild claims that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program) and is only tempered by international political constraints forced upon his Likud Party by the segment of the American people who don't let Zionists run their hearts and minds but rather seek the truth wherever it leads.

Furthermore, the " European demographics" is greatly in question, from what I've seen anyway. The "census" information or estimates before and after the war don't indicate a 5-6 million person reduction in the global Jewish population. I haven't seen anything from the Zionists explain that. Surely Jews worldwide did not have 5-6 million babies during the war "extermination" years and that survived to replace the supposed 5-6 million exterminated by the Nazis.

Also, "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" article calls Fred A. Leuchter  "a self-styled 'engineer.'" Let me make perfectly clear that an engineer is not limited to someone with an advanced engineering degree. An engineer is someone who engineers. Leuchter did engineer quite a number of things and reportedly holds a number of patents (I'm not making any statement here as to the quality/validity of his inventions/innovations). He was a professional who made his living by supplying capital-punishment institutions in the US. The Zionists try to use Leuchter's "embellishments" as an illogical psychological ploy to get others to dismiss wholesale Leuchter's Report.

I personally worked in a classified setting were we had engineers who were not degreed or licensed but nevertheless acknowledged by the US government as engineers. When I asked about that, I was informed that it was perfectly legal to represent oneself as an engineer in that setting/industry/sector: hi-tech machining. I would assume that Leuchter considered himself, and was considered by others, in this same way concerning the equipment he worked with.

Let's be clear and fair here. It wouldn't have mattered if a bunch of 9-year-olds had obtained the samples. The only issue is whether there were/are sufficient traces of the deadly gas for those buildings to have served as "homicidal gas chambers" at the rate claimed by the Zionists. How many concentrated gassings had to have occurred in each building to have killed that many people, and how much of a trace should be expected now? They did not wash the entire rooms: ceilings and high walls.

Should Leuchter have labeled the exposed sides of the samples he took from Auschwitz? Yes. Should he have told the testing lab that the tests should be made for traces on those exposed sides? Yes. Does the fact that the lab crushed the inert matter in whole render the testing inconclusive? That's a hypothesis that would have to be tested. I rather doubt it even though it's a claim later made by testing personnel for the facility. They were told to test for the right chemical traces. They were told it concerned an "industrial accident." They were to test for any traces of the chemical on any of the samples. Why would they imagine that the gas would have permeated to even the centers of the samples? I should think an intelligent chemist would have only the exposed surfaces in mind and would therefore have tested scrapings from each surface of the samples in order to later be able to testify intelligently about the concentrations (if any) the result of the "accident."

The article further states that "it is doubtful that his samples were chosen carefully in regard to being sheltered from the elements." However, we have the video of Leuchter taking samples from indoors. So, that's a distortion.

The IFRC researchers found significant levels of cyanide in bunker 11, all five Kremas, as well as a facility used to fumigate prisoners' clothing.

It must also be remembered that the Leuchter Report does not rise or fall on Leuchter's statements about his opinions concerning whether or to what degree the "chambers" could have served the purpose claimed by the Zionists. Some of his opinions were weak. However, we have it on record that partition walls were removed after the war in rooms claimed to have been gas chambers. We have it on record that holes in ceiling/roofs were also added after the war. The Jewish Zionist head of Auschwitz admitted things on video. A metal door was supposedly replaced with a wooden door with a single-pane of annealed glass and that the metal door was still at Auschwitz, but that metal door was never forthcoming. People being gassed to death would have broken a large, thin pane of glass in an interior wooden office door to try to escape the gassing, don't you think?

As for the ventilation issue, it appears to me that the Zionists may be playing too fast and loose. If the gas were concentrated enough to kill rather quickly, then ventilating it by forced air through vents near ground level would certainly be dangerous for those near the vents. Are they claiming that no precautions were built into the designs for that? If they were not wearing gas masks, would the gas venting out that was enough to kill indoors be diluted enough once it hit the outdoors not to kill anyone outside? Maybe they didn't care. Maybe no one would have been at the vents long enough to die.

This is the strongest statement from the Zionist:

Overall concentrations for the fumigation chambers ranged from 0-900 ug/kg. In the Kremas they ranged from 0-640 ug/kg.

However, even if it is correct (and there is no guarantee that all the info supplied to Richard J. Green was on the up and up), it still doesn't answer all of the other questions. It can't erase the things we know were flat-out lies: soap from Jewish fat....

I would like to know more about how many fumigation chambers registered 0. I would like to see all of the data across all of the fumigation chambers versus all of the "homicidal gas chambers."

The best statement from the article though is that "Accurate information, not censorship, is the best...." Making holocaust research and speculation illegal anywhere is a sin.

The whole truth, please

Where are the cremains of some 1 million Jews at Auschwitz? Can't our hi-tech underground imaging show us those cremain locations — land disturbances at least?

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Holocaust. Bookmark the permalink.