Carlos Porter on Nuremberg (PDF ONLY)
Ernst Zündel (extensive bio)
Copyright (c) 2000 - Ingrid A. Rimland
I am repeating the introduction in each of this 11-part ZGram series. Read it until you know it by heart!
A mainstream Jewish writer, giving his readers the standard Jewish slant on well-worn Holocaust orthodoxy in response to the then upcoming Irving/Lipstadt-Penguin Trial, made amazing and telling pre-emptive admissions in an article published in the February 2000 Atlantic Monthly. This 19 page article, significantly titled "The Holocaust on Trial" by D.D. Guttenplan, is so far the most comprehensive and extensive write-up on the subject of Revisionism and the Holocaust that has appeared in the global mainstream press.
The choice of the title itself speaks volumes. It is an open acknowledgement - long overdue! - that Revisionism, far from being a fringe movement run by a few crackpots and "Hitler lovers", is in fact a vibrant, legitimate historical discipline of far greater spiritual depth and political importance than has been admitted by those who would like us to listen to the B'nai Brith and Anti-Defamation League type smearmongering just a little bit longer.
Holocaust orthodoxy is not yet a sacred religious dogma of Judaism. It is, in fact, the central core of the Zionist political agenda. This agenda has had diabolical, monstrous results. It gave us World War II, the Morgenthau Plan, Operation Keelhaul, the Nuremberg Trials, an Israeli state, German reparations to maintain that state, more than half a century of Bolshevic occupation of the heartland of Europe, deliberately media-induced, all-permeating "Holocaust thinking" and, as a by-produce, permanent, bloody wars and upheaval in the Middle East. It is also the backbone of the New World Order.
Understanding this Zionist agenda is of crucial relevance to every person on this earth who prefers truth over lies, unfettered scientific and historical inquiry to back up that truth and demolish those lies, and freedom over slavery for future generations.
Leuchter's findings, Irving's adoption of these findings, and the subsequent Errol Morris documentary film about Leuchter played a central role in the lengthy Irving-Lipstadt/Penguin litigation, as the court transcripts reveal. This illustrates the crucially important role played by the much-maligned Fred Leuchter in the demolition of this edifice and relic of World War II propaganda lies.
Guttenplan's choice of the Title, "The Holocaust on Trial" - was borrowed from a Zundel publication - the 1988 'consumerized" version by Reporter Robert Lenski of the 1988 Zündel trial, reviewable on the Zundelsite. (Use the Zundelsite-specific search engine for topics of specific interest!) The title signifies acknowledgment by the back door of the importance of the two Zundel Trials and their seminal impact on Holocaust historiography.
It is only fitting that Ernst Zundel should review the Atlantic Monthly article. In this article, Guttenplan is continuing the traditional modus operandi of the "in-elite" by talking about us, around us, past us and against us. Who better than a German to respond to the continued blood libel against the Germans - and to assure more balance, sanity and honesty?
Who better than Ernst Zundel, battle-scarred veteran of this herculean struggle and originator/catalyst of the all-important Leuchter Report?
I yield my ZGrams to Ernst Zundel. The Internet allows this veteran of Holocaust Revisionism to have his say - his way!
(Paragraph pairs are numbered and separated by a line. )
62. Guttenplan: (Hitchens) second mistake - and here he had lots of company - was to assume that what Irving really wanted was a debate with his critics. Because if that were Irving's objective, all he would have had to do was bide his time. "Someone," Hitchens asserted confidently, "will no doubt pick up where St. Martin's left off."
ANSWER TO 62. How far removed from the reality of the publishing world people like Hitchens and Guttenplan really are! They are so far out of touch with the dismal state of freedom in this world that one can only shudder. Their naive belief portrays a shallowness which I can only call frightening.
63. Guttenplan: What Irving did instead was to sue Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, for libel in England (where Lipstadt's costs will amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds even if she wins). At which point it became rather more difficult to defend the proposition that what was at stake was Irving's freedom of speech.
ANSWER TO 63. That's a cork-screwy argument. Freedom of speech does not give the likes of Lipstadt or the people for whom she pimps the right to recklessly and with malice ruin the reputation and livelihood of a deliberately singled out individual. That's why all civilized countries have libel laws.
64. Guttenplan: It is one thing to argue that the cowardly reversal of St. Martin's did more harm - to the cause of free debate and to public understanding of the Holocaust - than if St. Martin's had simply published and let Irving be damned. It is another to maintain that any commercial publisher is under any obligation to publish Irving or anybody else.
ANSWER TO 64. St. Martin's Press had a contract with Irving - namely to publish and distribute that specific book. They had read the manuscript and had undertaken to publish it. Only after the massive Jewish pressure brought to bear on them did they cave in.
65. Guttenplan: The essential distinction - between the power of the state and the decisions of the market - can be pressed too far. And when Lipstadt argues, as she does in Denying the Holocaust, that "the main shortcoming of legal restraints is that they transform the deniers into martyrs," she seems to be setting aside the state's power to silence offending views on tactical grounds alone, rather than as a matter of principle. Faurisson's chief antagonist, the French classicist Pierre Vidal-Naquet, took a different view: "To live with Faurisson? Any other attitude would imply that we were imposing historical truth as legal truth, which is a dangerous attitude available to other fields of application."
ANSWER TO 65. When it comes to the Holocaust topic, there are official "truths" proclaimed by Israel, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Poland and, to a degree, even Canada - where to question the Holocaust is already a criminal offense, punishable by huge fines and/or jail. This is a well-known fact. To skirt around that issue, as Guttenplan does here, is to acknowledge it.
66. Guttenplan: A writer whose history of engagement extends from opposing his government's use of torture in Algeria to support for the rights of Palestinians, Vidal-Naquet was in many ways Chomsky's French counterpart. However, perhaps because both his parents had been deported by the Nazis (his mother died at Auschwitz), Vidal-Naquet felt it was just as important to expose Faurisson's distortions as it was to support his right to distort. His skepticism about the role of the state finds no echo in Lipstadt - unlike his argument against "debating" the Holocaust.
ANSWER TO 66. Lipstadt in her insular, blinkered Jewish world simply does not comprehend these sophisticated, typically French concepts.
67. Guttenplan: Vidal-Naquet wrote,
Confronting an actual Eichmann, one had to resort to armed struggle and, if need be, to ruse. Confronting a paper Eichmann, one should respond with paper .... In so doing, we are not placing ourselves on the same ground as our enemy. We do not "debate" him; we demonstrate the mechanisms of his lies and falsifications, which may be methodologically useful for the younger generations.
ANSWER TO 67. Let us paraphrase that old fogey, Vidal-Naguet, in this mouthful: ... confronting a paper Holocaust, one should respond with paper... we demonstrate the mechanisms of his lies and falsifications, which may be methodologically useful for the younger generations."
This is exactly what Revisionists have been doing - "responding on paper" - since George Orwell first asked in 1945: Were there really gas chambers? Every Revisionist since has gone on to "demonstrate the mechanisms of their lies and falsifications" - from Hilberg's false claim of a Führer Order to kill the Jews to Daniel Goldhagen's thinly veiled Old-Testament Jewish hatred of the entire German nation - as a "nation of willing Jew killers."
68. Guttenplan: We need only set this passage from Assassins of Memory, Vidal-Naquet's elegant, restrained, yet devastating response to Faurisson, beside a similar passage from Denying the Holocaust to see the extent of Lipstadt's indebtedness. Not ignoring the deniers does not mean engaging them in discussion or debate. In fact, it means not doing that. We cannot debate them for two reasons, one strategic and the other tactical. As we have repeatedly seen, the deniers long to be considered the "other" side. Engaging them in discussion makes them exactly that. Second, they are contemptuous of the very tools that shape any honest debate: truth and reason. Debating them would be like trying to nail a glob of jelly to the wall.
ANSWER TO 68. This is pretty rich, coming from Lipstadt - the "permanent fighter and life of the dinner party" - to accuse her enemies of being contemptuous of the very tools that shape an honest debate: Truth and reason.
Not Lipstadt, nor the Anti-Defamation League, nor the Jewish Board of Deputies, the American Jewish Committee or the World Jewish Congress, much less Israeli sources, have ever used anything else but contemptuousness for Revisionists - and certainly very little truth and reason. It has been raw terror, pressure, boycotts, character assassination, beatings, bombs, arson, criminal charges and economic ruination against their enemies; not reason or truth. The evidence is on the legal books, formulated in Criminal Code language: Truth is not a defense open to those charged under the Holocaust laws in Germany, Israel, Austria, Switzerland, France and lately Canada - as in my case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
69. Guttenplan: "Like trying to nail a glob of jelly ..." Though she relies on his arguments, Deborah Lipstadt is no Vidal-Naquet. She lacks his intellectual breadth, his clarity of thought and expression, and, most regrettably, his stature as a Jew who has never confined his political engagement to Jewish causes. Nevertheless, her book is an honest attempt to sound a warning about a phenomenon that Vidal-Naquet would be the first to agree deserves our attention.
ANSWER TO 69. "Like trying to nail a glob of jelly to the wall." If any one person or group is guilty of such behavior, it is people like Hilberg, Browning, Goldhagen et al, along with the organizations for whom they speak. Holocaust promoters are the ones who deserve our attention. Luckily, Jewish academics like Prof. Norman Finkelstein, Prof. Peter Novick and an increasing chorus of Jewish writers and columnists like Krauthammer and Tom Segev are zeroing in on the criminal misuse of the Holocaust for shaking down whole nations and industries for profit.
70. Guttenplan: Robert Faurisson, after all, was a nonentity, an obscure professor in a provincial university. David Irving is a celebrity - William Casey, the former director of the CIA, once wrote him a fan letter. Irving is also much, much cleverer than Faurisson.
ANSWER TO 70. What a cheap, cheap shot! For Mr. Guttenplan's information:
Dr. Faurisson was a highly acclaimed academic in his field of ancient texts and document analysis long before he ever wrote anything about the non-existence of gas chambers. Hardly a non-entity!
71. Guttenplan: "Not My Patch"
Irving describes himself as a "revisionist," a writer of "real history," not a Holocaust denier. Not long ago he read me an account, from one of his lectures, of the brutal massacre of Jewish men, women, and children by the Einsatzgruppen - the security-police units who followed the German army into Poland. "How can they claim I deny the Holocaust?" Anyway, he said, he's no expert on the Holocaust: "Not my patch." Besides, the subject bores him.
ANSWER TO 71. More "quicksilver"-like arguments from the non-expert on the Holocaust.
72. Guttenplan: It was as an expert on German documents and the Second World War that Irving flew to Toronto in 1988 to testify in the trial of Ernst Zündel. A German immigrant to Canada, Zündel supplemented his income as a commercial artist by distributing a selection of neo-Nazi and racist literature, including two works of his own: UFOs: Nazi Secret Weapons and The Hitler We Loved and Why. In 1983 Zündel had been charged with willfully publishing "false news" that was "likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest." Faurisson came from France to testify for the defense; Raul Hilberg testified for the prosecution. Though Zündel was convicted and sentenced to fifteen months in prison, the conviction was overturned on appeal, and in the 1988 retrial the defense team added two reinforcements.
ANSWER TO 72. Guttenplan and Lipstadt do exactly what they accuse Irving and other Revisionists of doing. Guttenplan and Lipstadt, either deliberately or maliciously, misquote even court transcripts - for neither of them has managed to quote substantial aspects of the Zündel Trials correctly, unless, of course, they simply repeat or quote the lies of others "without attribution of their sources." One instance: "The Hitler We Loved and Why" was not written by me, as the court record of the 1985 trial clearly reveals.
73. Guttenplan: One was David Irving. The other was Fred Leuchter, who was billed as an engineer specializing in the design and operation of execution apparatus. Engaged by Faurisson on Zündel's behalf, Leuchter had flown to Poland with a cameraman, a draftsman, and a translator. The group spent three days at Auschwitz and Birkenau and one at Majdanek, chipping off bits of brick and concrete from a number of buildings. These "forensic samples," as Leuchter described them, were taken to a lab outside of Boston, where the technician was told that the material was from a workmen's-compensation case.
ANSWER TO 73. What Guttenplan does not reveal is that his hero, Hilberg, refused to come again to testify in the 1988 Zündel Trial because he had just about perjured himself in the first trial with his fancy footwork about non-existent Führer Orders to kill the Jews. See Hilberg's 1985 testimony, and Christopher Browning's "revised Hilberg" exposé. <http://www.lebensraum.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd12browning.html>
Lipstadt got Irving's involvement in the Zündel trial of 1988 all wrong, claiming that he flew to Toronto in January 1988 and helped negotiate Fred Leuchter's appearance in Boston with Dr. Faurisson. Inaccuracy after inaccuracy - unless, of course, it is a deliberately false statement to damage Irving's reputation by being personally, directly and deeply involved in the Zündel Trial and Fred Leuchter discovery. At least Guttenplan got this part correct.
74. Guttenplan: Under questioning by the Crown Counsel it emerged that Leuchter's engineering training consisted of a few undergraduate science courses. His "report" purporting to demonstrate the nonexistence of gas chambers, on which the defense had spent nearly $50,000, was ruled inadmissible. Leuchter was allowed to give his opinion that it was "impossible" for the structures he had seen in Poland to have been used as gas chambers, that they "wouldn't have been efficient" and were "too dangerous," but the second jury was not convinced either. Zündel was again found guilty, though this conviction was overturned in 1992, when Canada's "false news" law was ruled unconstitutional.
ANSWER TO 74. Here Guttenplan deliberately plays down Leuchter's rule in the trial. He was, in effect, qualified by Judge Thomas as an expert witness and allowed to give wide-ranging evidence. His report was entered as a lettered exhibit for use by the Appeal Court, but denied to the jury. See <http://www.lebensraum.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd33leuchter.html>
75. Guttenplan: Leuchter did acquire at least one convert. For David Irving, who followed him to the witness stand, Leuchter's account of his Polish field trip apparently struck with the force of a revelation. "My mind has now changed," he told the court, "... because I understand that the whole of the Holocaust mythology is, after all, open to doubt." Back in London, Irving's Focal Point Publications issued the results of Leuchter's amateur chemistry experiment as a sixty-six-page booklet - with an introduction by David Irving. Irving also removed all mention of gas chambers - except for a single reference to "lurid rumors" - from the most recent edition of Hitler's War. "If something didn't happen," he said, "then you don't even dignify it with a footnote."
ANSWER TO 75. Guttenplan, like so many of his fellow travelers and Holocaust addicts, cannot suppress the usual ad hominim arguments, stating that Dr. Faurisson is a "non-entity" or now Fred Leuchter engaging in "amateur chemistry experiments" etc. Odd behavior for a champion of truth and reason.
Irving, unlike his blinkered Lipstadt, Hilberg and Guttenplan detractors, had kept an open mind - and, once confronted with new ideas and evidence, weighed and analyzed what he read in Leuchter's Report, found it logical, did background and fact checking, and changed his mind. Non-dogmatists do that. Revisionists do that. Believers in a religious dogma - i.e. Holocaust cultists - do not.
Irving is right. Lurid rumors and Jewish fantasies, regardless of how many times they have been uncritically repeated and regurgitated like some religious mantra, do not deserve a footnote in a serious history book. If something did not happen, why speculate why it might have happened, and how?
76. Guttenplan: Leuchter, a pathetic character who seems to be fascinated with the mechanics of killing people, is the star of Mr. Death, the new film by the investigative documentarian Errol Morris, the director of The Thin Blue Line. Morris's camera casts an unflinching eye on his star's many shortcomings. Morris also shows that some of Leuchter's "samples" may have come from structures rebuilt after the war, and he tracks down the lab technician who analyzed these samples. The technician explains that because he wasn't told what the material was for, he simply ground everything up - diluting many thousands of times any traces of cyanide that might have been on the surface. "I don't think the Leuchter results have any meaning," he told Morris.
ANSWER TO 76. The Errol Morris film, Mr Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr. started out promisingly enough in the initial Harvard and Sundance versions, but when financing became a problem, and distribution was in doubt, it was turned into a typical Jewish agenda movie, with Jewish "activists" shrieking "Anti-Semite!", van Pelt invoking Auschwitz as the "holiest of holies," and Roth's on-camera recantation. There are grossly false presentations in the film, the most glaring being the close-up on the alleged "peephole" in the gas chamber door in Auschwitz I. A sequence totally staged! The actual door shown today in Auschwitz is of wooden construction and is beige in color, the color of compressed saw dust. The close-up of the peep hole in the film is of a metal door, with rivets clearly showing. The film version allows a clear view through the peephole into the gas chamber. The reality is different. There is a shrapnel catching, stuccoed brick wall, four feet behind the door, blocking the view through the peephole. The "original" or, at least, "current" door has latches on it, which allow the door to be opened from the inside as well as the outside. So the "gassees" could simply have opened the door to let the gas and themselves out. Morris does not show this.
Morris also shows me, Ernst Zündel, as "guilty" - mentioning nowhere else that the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the verdict on August 27, 1992.
Morris shows Jan van Pelt, a Dutch historian of architecture, as he vents forth about "Vergasungskeller" and misinterprets the word as "gassing cellar" which, of course, turns into "gas chamber." "Vergaser" in German means "carburetor" like you find in every car or truck. This carburetor was located in a cellar. What this carburetor was used for is not explained. Van Pelt gives lots of cultish explanations, laced with theological, certainly not scientific terms, such as calling Auschwitz the "holiest of holies" in his narration.
Morris also produces James Roth, who testified in the 1988 trial in Toronto about the Leuchter samples as follows, here summarized in its entirety as the actual court version:
[Dr. James Roth was the twenty-second witness called by the defence. He testified on Thursday, April 21, 1988.]
Dr. James Roth, the laboratory manager of Alpha Analytical Laboratories, testified as to the results of tests done on the numbered samples removed from Auschwitz and Birkenau by Fred A. Leuchter. Roth had obtained his doctorate from Cornell University in analytical chemistry. Roth testified that he received samples from Fred Leuchter in his capacity as an Analytical Chemist at Alpha Analytical Laboratories. Roth directly supervised the tests performed on the samples and the preparation of the test report. The purpose of the tests was to determine total iron content and total cyanide content in the samples. The identification numbers assigned to the samples were those designated by Leuchter. (33-9274 to 9276) Total Iron Content
Iron tests were conducted on three of the samples, namely, samples 9, 29 and 32. Results of the tests for total iron content were essentially the same for all three samples. Sample 9 contained 7,580 mg/km; sample 29 contained 6,280 mg/km and sample 32 contained 6,170 mg/km. (33-9276, 9291, 9292)
Iron was normally present in brick and mortar and the quantities found in the brick samples tested were fully within the acceptable ranges for brick type. Red bricks were red because of the iron, although even white bricks had these levels of iron present. (33-9306) Total Cyanide Content
Cyanide was analyzed in a total of 32 samples of which 31 were brick material and one was a gasket material. The minimum trace level for cyanide was one milligram per kilogram of material. Tests results which did not detect cyanide were designated on the report as "ND," meaning "not detected."(33-9276 to 9278)
Roth testified that the test results indicated the following: sample 1 showed no detection; sample 2 showed no detection; sample 3 showed no detection; sample 4 showed no detection; sample 5 showed no detection; sample 5 duplicate test showed no detection; sample 6 showed no detection; sample 7 showed no detection; sample 7 spike recovery test indicated 119 percent; sample 8 showed no detection; sample 8 duplicate showed 1.9 milligrams per kilogram; sample 9 showed 6.7 milligrams per kilogram; sample 10 showed no detection; sample 11 showed no detection; sample 12 showed no detection; sample 13 showed no detection; sample 14 showed no detection; sample 15 showed 2.3 milligrams per kilogram; sample 16 showed 1.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 16 spike recovery test indicated 96 percent; sample 17 showed no detection; sample 18 showed no detection; sample 18 spike recovery test indicated 100 percent; sample 19 showed no detection; sample 19 spike recovery test indicated 120 percent; sample 20 showed no detection; sample 20 duplicate showed 1.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 21 showed 4.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 22 showed 1.7 milligrams per kilogram; sample 23 showed no detection; sample 24 showed no detection; sample 25 showed 3.8 milligrams per kilogram; sample 25 duplicate showed 1.9 milligrams per kilogram; sample 26 showed 1.3 milligrams per kilogram; sample 26 spike recovery test indicated 140 percent; sample 27 showed 1.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 28 showed 1.3 milligrams per kilogram; sample 29 showed 7.9 milligrams per kilogram; sample 30 showed 1.1 milligrams per kilogram; sample 30 duplicate showed no detection; sample 31 showed no detection; sample 32 showed 1,050 milligrams per kilogram. (33- 9278 to 9287) A bar graph of the sample results which Roth had examined and determined to accurately represent the test results was entered as Exhibit 154. (33-9288)
The tests were performed by taking a representative sample of the material that was received by the laboratory, placing it in a flask that could be sealed, adding a low concentration of acidic solution, specifically sulphuric acid, then warming the sample in that solution while in the process passing gas through it. Air passed through the solution and the acidic environment volatilized the cyanide and formed hydrogen cyanide gas. This gas was then passed through a solution of sodium hydroxide. Any hydrogen cyanide would react with the sodium hydroxide to form sodium cyanide. After a period of time required to assume complete removal of any cyanide in the sample, the solution was analysed colour metrically for the presence of cyanide. (33-9280)
This process was repeated with each of the samples, with duplicates on certain selected samples and with spot samples in which known amounts of cyanide were added to check recovery. Cyanide spike recovery tests performed on several of the samples all indicated that the analyses and the techniques and methods by which the samples were analyzed were valid. (33- 9281 to 9287)
Prussian Blue (ferro-ferri-cyanide)
Roth was shown Exhibit 144, a colour photograph of the blue staining on the wall of Delousing Facility No. 1 at Birkenau from which sample 32 had been removed. He indicated that the blue colour was what was commonly referred to as "Prussian blue." (33-9289) The chemical definition of Prussian blue was ferro-ferri-cyanide. (33-9297) Prussian blue was an iron cyanide produced by a reaction between iron and the hydrogen cyanide. It was a very stable compound which stayed around a long time. If hydrogen cyanide came into contact with bricks or mortar containing iron, it was fully conceivable that a reaction of the iron and hydrogen cyanide would take place, leaving behind the Prussian blue. (33-9290) In porous materials such as brick and mortar, the Prussian blue could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration. If all surface iron was converted to Prussian blue, the reaction would effectively stop for lack of exposed iron. (33 9291)
Roth testified that the iron/cyanide reaction capabilities of samples 9 and 29 were no different from that of sample 32. If samples 9 and 29 had been exposed continually everyday for two years to 300 parts per million of hydrogen cyanide, Roth testified that he would expect to see the formation of the iron cyanide compounds; the so called "Prussian blue" material, in detectable amounts. The reaction of the two substances was an accumulative reaction; the reaction continued with each exposure. One way for this reaction not to occur would be a lack of water. These reactions, in many cases, required water or vapour in order to occur. However, in rooms of normal temperatures and normal humidity, there would be plenty of moisture present for this type of reaction to take place. (33-9293, 9294) Prussian blue did not normally disappear unless it was physically removed. To be removed from a porous material like a brick it would have to be removed by sandblasting or grinding down the surface or by the application of a strong acid such as high levels of sulphuric, nitric or hydrochloric acid. It would be more difficult to remove from porous surfaces because of the fact that the formation would have taken on depth. (33-9297, 9298) This ended the examination-in-chief of Roth, and his cross-examination commenced. Roth testified that he did not take the samples or have any control over the sample taking. He agreed that cyanide radicals could exist in forms other than Prussian blue and that the absence of Prussian blue did not necessarily mean that cyanide radicals were absent. To Pearson's suggestion that a good control sample would have been one where Prussian blue was not present in order to determine if any cyanide radicals were present there, Roth pointed out that there were many samples where no cyanide was detected. (33-9301, 9302)
Roth testified that in order to have Prussian blue, iron must be present and accessible to the cyanide. (33-9301) He agreed that the presence of Prussian blue almost guaranteed that the ferri-cyanide complex was present. (33-9302) How deep Prussian blue would penetrate was totally dependent on many factors, such as the porosity of material and what moisture existed in the area. (33-9303) Asked if a building was blown up with dynamite and the surface blown off, the Prussian blue might thereby be removed, Roth replied that if just the surface was removed and the rest of the material was left, the answer would be yes. The Crown stated this was not what was suggested; the suggestion was that in an explosion the surface of the brick would come off. Roth replied that normally bricks would break up. "Now, if that's removal of the surface, yes." (33-9304)
Roth refused to answer a question dealing with the amount of hydrogen cyanide required to kill insects as opposed to human beings as he felt this was not his area of expertise. (33-9304) He agreed that he would not want to be around 300 parts per million of hydrogen cyanide. (33-9305)
In the movie version of the Errol Morris documentary, Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, he says this:
I went up to Toronto, on very short notice, not knowing any of the background, at all, of what was going on. They wanted somebody from the laboratory to say, yes, we analyzed these samples, yes, we produced this report on the analysis, and that's what I was there to do. I don't think the Leuchter results have any meaning. There's nothing in any of our data that says those surfaces were exposed or not. Even after I got off the stand, I didn't know where the samples came from. I didn't know which samples were which. And it was only at lunch that I found out, really, what the case involved. Hindsight being 20/20, the test was not the correct one to have been used for the analysis.
He presented us with rock samples anywhere from the size of your thumb up to half the size of your fist. We broke them up with a hammer so that we could get a sub-sample; we placed it in a flask, add concentrated sulfuric acid. It undergoes a reaction that produces a red-colored solution. It is the intensity of this red color that we can relate with cyanide concentration.
You have to look at what happens to cyanide when it reacts with a wall. Where does it go? How far does it go? Cyanide is a surface reaction. It's probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up, I have just diluted that sample 10,000; 100,000 times. If you're going to go look for it, you're going to look on the surface only. There's no reason to go deep, because it's not going to be there. Which was the exposed surface? I didn't even have any idea. That's like analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that's behind it. If they go in with blinders on, they will see what they want to see. What was he really trying to do? What was he trying to prove?
The Zündel team is now investigating if perjury charges can be brought against Roth. This investigation is still going on. ===========
Tomorrow: Part VII