Dr. Death the movie

[tonythetiger]

just finished watching this film and was wondering has anyone else watched it,the part thats puzzling me is that when samples are taken from the 'gas-chambers' and extremely low concentrations of cyanide are found the film flicks to a person [whose credentials are not listed] remarking that zyklonB does not penertrate brick further than a few microns therefore Leuchter is wrong - if however this is the case [and this is the main part of the evidence against Leuchter in the film] how is it that there are numerous photos that show blue staining from delousing facilities that used far less concentrations of zyklonB ?

[Hebden]

Here's Mr. Rudolf's reply:

Prof. van Pelt has added a new howler to this old debate, which I want to address here, because the media payed a lot of attention to it. For his documentary movie Mr. Death about Fredrick A. Leuchter, Errol Morris made an interview with Prof. Dr. James Roth, the director of Alpha Analytic Laboratories in Toronto. In 1988, these laboratories analyzed the wall samples taken by Leuchter in Auschwitz from the so-called "gas chambers" and tested them for cyanide residues. Subsequently Prof. Dr. Roth testified as an expert witness during the trial against Ernst Zündel. In order not to be accused of being an accomplice of the "Holocaust-deniers" Ernst Zündel and Fred Leuchter, Prof. Roth did everything he could to dissociate himself from the analytic results of his company. Prof. van Pelt writes about Roth's statement in Morris' movie [p. 307]:

Roth explained that cyanide will react on the surface of brick or plaster, penetrating the material not more than 10 microns, or 0.01 mm, or one tenth the thickness of a human hair (one micron equals 1/1,000,000 of a meter, or 0.000039 inch). In other words, if one wants to analyze the cyanide concentration in a brick sample, one should take a representative sample of the surface, 10 microns thick, and no more.

This statement is so stupid that, for a long time, I refused to pick it up in the first place. But since more and more inquiries are being sent to me, I feel obliged to publicly accuse Prof. Dr. James Roth of lying and/or being incompetent, and I hope that once he will be sorry for this nonsense. I justify my accusation as follows:

Up to date I have not seen that Prof. Roth has supported his claim with scientific evidence. Fact is that the walls of the delousing chambers in Auschwitz, Birkenau, Stutthof and Majdanek are saturated with cyanide compounds not only at the surface, but in every depth, as Germar Rudolf has proved by taking samples from different depth, see especially the samples no. 11, 13, 17, 19b, 23, in the following table. They prove that the cyanide easily reaches deeper layers of plaster and mortar. Even the other samples show that Prof. Roth's claim is false. It is logically impossible that only the upper 10 microns (0,010 mm) bear all the Iron Blue, as that would mean that between 10 and 75% of the entire Iron in these samples (utmost right column) is concentrated in this thin layer that makes less than 1% of the samples.

[table omitted]

2. And fact is that the expert literature is very detailed in asserting that
a) Hydrogen cyanide is a highly mobile chemical compound physically closely related to water,[48]
b) which can easily diffuse into deep layers of porous material like walls.[49]
3. Furthermore, as it is generally known that cement and lime plasters are highly porous materials, comparable perhaps to sponges.[50] There is nothing like a defined layer of 0,01 mm in these materials beyond which a gas like HCN could not possibly move, as there is no reason for water not to penetrate a sponge deeper than a millimeter. Water steam for example, that physically behaves quite similar to HCN, can easily diffuse through plaster.
4. And finally, the patch blue discolorations of the outer walls of the delousing facilities in Birkenau, Majdanek, and Stutthof are an obvious and convincing proof for how easily HCN and its compounds can penetrate such walls.[51]
This must be known to Prof. Roth, and one can only wonder why he spreads such outrageous lies. And he is lying, I am dead sure about it! Prof. Roth might have felt the need to attack Leuchter in order to avoid being attacked himself by the very same lobby that destroyed Fred Leuchter's career. But that doesn't change the fact that he is a liar. You want a proof for that? Than look what Prof. Roth stated when under oath during the second Zündel trial (see http://www.zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd ... 4roth.html):

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.

So Prof. Roth is either a liar or a liar having committed perjury. Not a nice alternative, is it?

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html

[Germania]

here is what mr green wrote on the issue:

I. Penetration of Building Materials by Hydrogen Cyanide

The defense put forward an argument that one of the reasons that Leuchter's samples from the gas chambers did not show significant levels of cyanides was that HCN penetrated only the surface of the
building materials and that Leuchter's large samples therefore greatly diluted any cyanide present. Rudolf criticizes this claim by arguing that cyanide residues ought to penetrate deeply into the building materials exposed to HCN. I show that a) the principle behind the argument made by the defense valid b) Rudolf's comparison between Prussian blue staining in the delousing chambers with residues in the gas chamber
is invalid, c) there is evidence that much of the Prussian blue staining is in fact superficial, d) that even if Rudolf were completely correct about his criticism, his argument fails to show that the gas chambers were
not exposed to HCN. With respect to this last point, it should be noted that cyanides were in fact detected in the gas chambers by the Institute for Forensic Research (IFFR). Rudolf quotes the judgement of Mr. Justice Gray as follows:

7.115 The Defendants relied on the content of an interview of Dr. Roth, the scientist at the
Massachusetts laboratory which carried out the tests on Leuchter's samples. According to
Dr. Roth, cyanide produces a surface reaction which penetrates no further than one tenth
of breadth of a human hair. The samples with which he was provided by Leuchter ranged
in size between a human thumb and a fist, so they had to be broken down with a hammer
before analysis. Roth asserts that the resulting dilution of any cyanide traces effectively
invalidates the test results.
He also quotes Prof. van Pelt:
Roth explained that cyanide will react on the surface of brick or plaster, penetrating the
material not more than 10 microns, or 0.01 mm, or one tenth the thickness of a human hair
(one micron equals 1/1,000,000 of a metre, or 0.000039 inch). In other words, if one wants
to analyse the cyanide concentration in a brick sample, one should take a representative
sample of the surface, 10 microns thick, and no more.

Rudolf states "This statement is unsupportable...." Without seeing Prof. Roth's evidence I am unwilling to call it unsupportable; however, I am not yet persuaded by Prof. Roth's full argument. Part of his argument is undoubtedly valid, but Rudolf focuses on criticizing the more problematic aspect. Before discussing this issue let me quote Professor Roth's words from the interview Errol Morris's documentary, Mr. Death

:
25
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. 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, place it in a flask, add concentrated
sulfuric acid, and 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 [sic]. 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 ten thousand, a hundred thousand times. If you're going to go
looking for it, you're going to look at 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 the wall by analyzing the timber 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 only problematic sentence in the entire statement of Dr. Roth is, "It's probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns." He even qualified his statement with the word "probably." His argument without that sentence is unquestionably valid. If a wall is exposed to cyanide, there will be more cyanide on the surface exposed to the cyanide. Crushing a large volume of the sample, rather than carefully sampling the surface will dilute the sample. Dr. Roth's argument should bring up another
implication: the concentration of the contaminant is certainly not homogenous, and selection of different sample sizes that include inhomogeneous levels of contaminant within a given sample make comparison of concentrations between different samples suspect. Even ignoring the different chemical processes between the delousing chambers and the gas chambers, it would be necessary to measure equivalent samples to compare them. Because the concentrations are bound to be heterogeneous, even in a sample the size of one's thumb, one needs to use care in direct comparisons.
Dr. Roth's statement about the penetration of cyanide is somewhat problematic. I would like to see his reasoning before asserting that he is wrong; however, I understand the following to be the case at
Auschwitz. Many of the delousing chambers have visual evidence of blue staining, whereas the remnants of gas chambers do not. Much of this staining penetrates to depths greater than 10 microns. The origin of this staining is not entirely clear. It is not at all surprising, however, that areas that exhibit such staining should show much higher concentrations of cyanides than areas that do not exhibit such staining. To be explicit, I would expect delousing chambers to show higher concentrations of cyanides than the homicidal gas chambers based on the visual presence of Prussian blue staining alone; so that even if one did a fair comparison, there ought to be much more cyanide where there is obvious blue
staining.

Rudolf argues:

Up to date I have not seen that Prof. Roth has supported his claim with scientific evidence.
The fact is that the delousing chambers of Auschwitz, Birkenau, Stutthof and Majdanek are
saturated with cyanide compounds not only at the surface, but in every depth, as I have
proved by taking samples from different depths, see especially the samples no. 11, 13, 17,
19b, 23, in the following table. They prove that the cyanide easily reaches deeper layers of
plaster and mortar. Even the other samples show that Prof. Roth's claim is false. It is
logically impossible that only the upper 10 microns (0,010 mm) bear all the Iron Blue, as
that would mean that between 10 and 75% of the entire Iron in these (furthest right column)
is concentrated in this thin layer that makes less than 1% of the samples.

The comparison is illegitimate. To use a cliché, he is comparing apples and oranges. Exposure to HCN does not necessitate the formation of blue staining. Nothing that Rudolf says about the blue staining disproves the usage of the facilities as gas chambers. The chemical processes that took place in the delousing chamber were fundamentally different in some manner than those that took place in the gas chambers. The delousing chambers have obvious blue staining whereas the gas chambers do not. To argue on the basis of the delousing chambers what should have happened in the gas chambers is not as straightforward as it might seem. It is possible that a mechanism similar to Rudolf's proposed mechanism
is responsible for the formation of Prussian blue in the delousing chambers. Some of the staining is quite odd, however: it stains certain areas and not others nearby. Harry W. Mazal among others has noted
staining on outside walls. 26
Daniel Keren has a picture of such staining at: http://www.holocaust-
history.org/~dkeren/auschwitz/trip-2000/prussian-blue-1.jpg. The reasons for such staining have not been entirely explained. Rudolf has proposed a chemical mechanism for the formation of Prussian blue
in the gas chambers. 27 I have shown that even if Rudolf were entirely correct about the mechanism of Prussian blue formation in the delousing chambers, that one should not expect the same mechanism to apply under the conditions of homicidal gassing. 28 I retrace that argument in some detail below. An important point that should be made is that even if Rudolf is correct about the formation of Prussian blue, and even if Leuchter's samples were collected completely honestly and accurately, none of the evidence concerning Prussian blue is incompatible with homicidal gassing in the gas chambers. In fact, it should be noted that cyanide compounds have been detected by the Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow (IFFR) in gas chambers Kremas I-V and also in block 11 of Auschwitz. 29 I discuss these results in further detail below.
Rudolf writes:

d. Finally, the patch blue discoloration of the
outer
walls of the delousing facilities in
Birkenau, Majdanek, and Stuthof are an obvious and convincing proof for how easily HCN
and its compounds can penetrate such walls.

In addition to the fact that Rudolf is again illegitimately assuming that what holds true for the delousing chambers must hold true for the gas chambers, there is nothing obvious about his conclusion.
Rather the discoloration on the outside of walls, ought to make one consider what possible processes could have taken place outside of the delousing chambers. For example, is it possible that materials that
had been soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN were leaned against the outside of the buildings? Not enough is known, but it is premature to conclude that the staining on the outside of buildings owes its
origins to processes that took place within those buildings. Harry W. Mazal OBE has been studying the penetration of the brickwork by the stains. In a soon to be published essay he notes of photographs that
he has taken:
30

As may be observed in the eight photographs above, penetration of Prussian Blue into
either the wall material inside of the building, or the bricks on the exterior, is minimal,
corroborating previous reports. It is possible that very porous materials such as plaster
might permit a slightly greater penetration of the stain, but not to the degree claimed,
without proof, by Holocaust deniers.

Furthermore, he notes of staining on the outside of B1b:

There is an as-yet unsolved mystery of how Prussian Blue made its way through apparently
solid brick walls leaving it's tell-tale blue stains on the exterior of both bath and delousing
chambers in BIa and BIb in Birkenau. An answer might be found by looking carefully at
Illus. 20.
[photo]
This close-up picture shows strong Prussian Blue staining on both mortar and brickwork.
Two other facts are revealed: (1) The stain scarcely penetrates the mortar. The broken
section reveals pristine, unstained material proving that Prussian Blue does not penetrate
solids to any great degree; and (2) the stains on the bricks appear like a semi-transparent
wash, suggesting that the bricks are not subject (as was shown in the illustrations above) to
any great penetration by the pigment.

If there is staining on an outside brick that does not penetrate deeply at all, it is very difficult to argue that this staining originates from fumigation by gas phase HCN. It is possible that the outer wall was somehow exposed to an aqueous solution of cyanide; note, however, that the coloring does not penetrate deeply. Daniel Keren provides further confirmation with a photograph in which it can be seen that the staining does not penetrate deeply at http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkere ... blue-3.jpg.
Rudolf concludes this section by saying "On this question, Leuchter was right." What both Leuchter and Rudolf were wrong about is the assumption that the presence or absence of Prussian-blue staining is directly correlated to the presence or absence of exposure to HCN. This assumption is a fatal flaw in both of their arguments. Whereas the Prussian blue may indeed be a result of such exposure, it does not follow that exposure to HCN necessarily produces Prussian blue. HCN that did not form Prussian blue or similar compounds would have been washed away by water and weathering leaving far less of a trace than HCN that did form Prussian blue. Despite this fact the IFFR did indeed detect non-Prussian-blue cyanides in the remains of the gas chambers. Professor Roth was undoubtedly correct that crushing a sample in which one did not know which surface was exposed to HCN, would dilute the concentration that one would measure compared to carefully sampling the surface.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... affweb.pdf

who is right???

[Sailor]

who is right???

This could easily be determined: Send some independent international chemistry experts to the site and check it out. What are the Jews afraid of?

[Hannover]

All this ignores the fact that the openings on the roof of the alleged gas chambers (alleged at Kremas II-III) in which Zyklon-B was supposedly placed have not been shown to exist (embarassing altered photos aside).

- H.

[Sailor]

All this ignores the fact that the openings on the roof of the alleged gas chambers (alleged at Kremas II-III) in which Zyklon-B was supposedly placed have not been shown to exist (embarassing altered photos aside).

- H.

I am eagerly waiting for the new THHP "hole-report". Am I having the chuckle of the day!

[Hebden]

I am eagerly waiting for the new THHP "hole-report". Am I having the chuckle of the day!:D

The threat is evidently stronger than the execution. The general attitude amongst revisionists who have seen the report is dismissive.

[Hannover]

I see that True Believer, 'Mr. Green', was quoted as referring to the Krakow report of 1990. That's a mistake and here's a reason why:

"In accordance with agreed-upon procedure, the material samples, consisting primarily of pieces of wall plaster and brick, were taken in the presence of Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator of the Museum, from the rooms of Block 3, from crematory [building] 1 in Auschwitz [main camp], as well as from crematoires [buildings] 2, 3 and 5 in Birkenau. Wall plaster samples were also removed from Block 11 in Auschwitz [main camp] in the presence of Piotr Setkiewicz, M.S., an employee of the Museum."

"Of the samples taken from crematories 1, 2, 3, and 5, only sample number 15 showed almost indetectably small traces of cyanide compounds (6 mg per 100 g of wall plaster). This sample was taken from a column that stands in the middle of the gas chamber of crematory [building] 2 in Birkenau."

The above is taken from that Report from the:

INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC RESEARCH
In the name of Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn, Krakow
Division of Forensic Toxicology
11 Oct. 1990, to the State Museum in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

according to Germar Rudolf:

In order to kill all victims in a few minutes as told by the 'witnesses', we assume that the Zyklon B must have released enough HCN to reach an average concentration of 10g/m3 after 10 minutes....the minimum amount of Zyklon B used in the alleged chambers would have been TEN times the amount normally used for delousing

So called 'eyewitnesses' allege death in 5-10 minutes for hundreds of thousands of alleged victims which would mean massive amounts and massive residue in the alleged gas chambers...BUT....there's only microscopic residue (from infrequent delousing) at these sites, yet utterly massive amounts of residue in the acknowledged delousing facilities

- Hannover

[Hannover]

Blue staining or no blue staining, where is the cyanide residue in the alleged gas chambers which would indicate 'exterminations'?


answer: there is no residue to confirm the claims

- H.