New video of Van Pelt interview

[david2923]

Here is a recently posted interview on Them tube with Van Pelt and no push back.
If you can stomach it, here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgHEOOnUySs

[borjastick]

david2923 how about your opinion and a summary for those who might not want to stomach it?

[david2923]

just letting everyone know it is there

[Moderator]

david2923:

From our guidelines:

If you post a quote, a link from or to a book, a news article, magazine story, a photo / image, film / movie, another website, etc., you must also comment on the quote or the link content. Tell the forum what you find wrong, compelling, unique, or important about the reference content. Flippant, overly brief comments are not acceptable. We want commentary and discussion.

Thanks, M1

[Merlin300]

Hello David 2923-
While I understand the copyright and other reasons for the commentary requirement on cites to the works of others, I found the VanPelt "lecture"
interesting on many levels.
A cheery Professor VanPelt starts his lecture displaying a black market gold watch bought in Munich in 1946. It is a deal which has entered VanPelt family history for being as a legendary deal, five pfennig for a $500 watch. We then hear how the Professor's Polish father-in-law went on a death march but was saved by some farmers ...from certain death (?) ...after 5 years of German occupation and detention...including Auschwitz.

A map showing the origin of transportees to Auschwitz is shown with people from across Europe being transported across Europe.
That in itself raises the question of why send people from western France across France, Germany and Poland at huge expense, just to kill them?
But, miraculously, Van Pelt's Polish father-in-law survived and went on to score the deal of the decade, 12 months after being on a death march.

There are some good displays of aerial photographs at 13 minutes, which show the huge housing complex of Birkenau as well as the construction of additional housing. Also shown are the soccer fields, swimming pool (s), surround busy fields.
In short, Professor Van Pelt raises numerous evidentiary questions about the Ugly Myth in the first few minutes of his presentation.

[Hektor]

It indeed gets more and more bizarre. But this one made me wonder:

Architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt is an expert on the history of Auschwitz. In his online lecture on March 9, 2021 he talked about his architectural forensic investigation that provided evidence in a trial against a Holocaust denier.

Now who would that "Holocaust Denier" be.
I recall him admitting that the evidence (for homicidal gassings) is rather slim. Now if he himself realises this, why still assist in the persecution of "deniers"? I'm not asking him to agree with them, but (also) in the light of what he himself knows, he should be ready to concede that dispute is an option.

[Merlin300]

It indeed gets more and more bizarre. But this one made me wonder:

Architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt is an expert on the history of Auschwitz. In his online lecture on March 9, 2021 he talked about his architectural forensic investigation that provided evidence in a trial against a Holocaust denier.

Now who would that "Holocaust Denier" be.
I recall him admitting that the evidence (for homicidal gassings) is rather slim. Now if he himself realises this, why still assist in the persecution of "deniers"? I'm not asking him to agree with them, but (also) in the light of what he himself knows, he should be ready to concede that dispute is an option.

David Irving, the non-Denier but still the nefarious villain of the based Denial, the movie based on Deborah Lipstadt’s book History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.

https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... part-i/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... art-ii/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... s-part/en/

Part III specifically deals with some of the gaffs of Van Pelt.
As Judge Gray wrote: “Although Irving spent hardly any time in his cross-examination of van Pelt on the evidence that gassing took place elsewhere at Auschwitz, it is the Defendants’ case that gassing took place in other gas chambers, notably at crematorium 3.

[Merlin300]

It indeed gets more and more bizarre. But this one made me wonder:

Architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt is an expert on the history of Auschwitz. In his online lecture on March 9, 2021 he talked about his architectural forensic investigation that provided evidence in a trial against a Holocaust denier.

Now who would that "Holocaust Denier" be.
I recall him admitting that the evidence (for homicidal gassings) is rather slim. Now if he himself realises this, why still assist in the persecution of "deniers"? I'm not asking him to agree with them, but (also) in the light of what he himself knows, he should be ready to concede that dispute is an option.

David Irving, the non-Denier but still the nefarious villain of the Denial, the movie based on Deborah Lipstadt’s book History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.

https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... part-i/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... art-ii/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... s-part/en/

Part III specifically deals with some of the gaffs of Van Pelt.
As Judge Gray wrote: “Although Irving spent hardly any time in his cross-examination of van Pelt on the evidence that gassing took place elsewhere at Auschwitz, it is the Defendants’ case that gassing took place in other gas chambers, notably at crematorium 3.

[Hektor]

It indeed gets more and...March 9, 2021 he talked about his architectural forensic investigation that provided evidence in a trial against a Holocaust denier.

Now who would that "Holocaust Denier" be.
I recall him admitting that the evidence (for homicidal gassings) is rather slim. Now if he himself realises this, why still assist in the persecution of "deniers"? I'm not asking him to agree with them, but (also) in the light of what he himself knows, he should be ready to concede that dispute is an option.

David Irving, the non-Denier but still the nefarious villain of the based Denial, the movie based on Deborah Lipstadt’s book History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.

https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... part-i/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... art-ii/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... s-part/en/

Part III specifically deals with some of the gaffs of Van Pelt.
As Judge Gray wrote: “Although Irving spent hardly any time in his cross-examination of van Pelt on the evidence that gassing took place elsewhere at Auschwitz, it is the Defendants’ case that gassing took place in other gas chambers, notably at crematorium 3.

So it's the claim and concede carousel van Pelt put people on there?
"We can't prove that homicidal gassings happened as we always alleged at one place, but you see, we can claim they happened elsewhere!"

Funny how the whole COVID soap opera develops into a similar sham. When pressed for proof of "the virus", they find all kind of reasons, why they don't have to provide that proof, that all experts agree and that only the lunatic fringe "denies the virus". If that isn't enough they point to some statistics or footage from ICU as to shock the audience with "evidence".... Hello, this isn't how one would prove a virus, if one takes science seriously.

[Pia Kahn]

....

So it's the claim and concede carousel van Pelt put people on there?
"We can't prove that homicidal gassings happened as we always alleged at one place, but you see, we can claim they happened elsewhere!"

Funny how the whole COVID soap opera develops into a similar sham. When pressed for proof of "the virus", they find all kind of reasons, why they don't have to provide that proof, that all experts agree and that only the lunatic fringe "denies the virus". If that isn't enough they point to some statistics or footage from ICU as to shock the audience with "evidence".... Hello, this isn't how one would prove a virus, if one takes science seriously.

True, anyone who can isolate the molecule of the alleged virus and prove that this molecule is pathogenic will be rewarded 1,5 Million Euros. So far noone has received the money:

https://www.samueleckert.net/isolate-truth-fund/

Presently, the existence of the SARS-COV-2 virus is a scientific hypothesis. A scientific proof doesn't exist.

The same holds true for the homicidal gas chambers of the Nazis.

[Pia Kahn]

Dear Professor van Pelt, dear documentation centre,

I would like to address the evidence room (TER). Let me quote from your post:

"TER questions our relation to truth and certainty, to time and to history. As material witnesses, these objects on display and the room as a whole grant the possibility to feel what we think and yet could never quite fathom."

TER comprises a cyanide introduction column, a gas tight door and a gas hatch. None of these object represent material evidence because they were reconstructed by your team after the fact. If you call it an evidence room shouldn't you show the authentic door, the authentic column and the authentic hatch in the evidence room TER?

Are you not providing grist to the mill of the holocaust deniers, who claim that you do not have the physical evidence for proving the existence of the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz? Isn't Irving going to say: There you go, Mr. van Pelt is travelling around the world with "the evidence room" TER, which does not contain any evidence? Isn't that ironic, he is proving my point of view?

This is a public relation disaster.

[Hektor]

....True, anyone who can isolate the molecule of the alleged virus and prove that this molecule is pathogenic will be rewarded 1,5 Million Euros. So far noone has received the money:
https://www.samueleckert.net/isolate-truth-fund/
Presently, the existence of the SARS-COV-2 virus is a scientific hypothesis. A scientific proof doesn't exist.
The same holds true for the homicidal gas chambers of the Nazis.

I think you already giving it too much credit to call it a hypothesis. It was a proposal and then quickly turned into a "fact" that is shielded from being challenged. The particles called virus in presentations are an artefact of starving and poisoning the cell culture. So indeed some parallels there.

IMO they are leaning themselves to far out of the Window now. The problems that will emerge, will discredit them completely and that may actually break the power of their lies. So there is some hope that the Holocaust will also fall over it.

[Pia Kahn]

"I think you already giving it too much credit to call it a hypothesis."

Oh well, it is a matter of courtesy.

I do find Mr. van Pelt's presentation to be dishonest. It is truly revealing that he has chosen to call his reconstructed artefacts material witnesses and evidence. That's fantasy land.

[Pia Kahn]

Dear Professor van Pelt,

I would like to ask questions about the artefacts you reconstructed.

Why did the Nazis introduce pellets soaked with cyanide into the gas chamber instead of directly introducing cyanide gas into the gas chamber?

There would have been no need to remove the pellets from the gas chamber, right? They could have introduced the gas through the strong ventilation system of the gas chamber, right? No need to drill holes into the roof and construct strange cage like devices, right?

The whole procedure appears to be completely non-sensical from a technical point of view.