Alexis: Are there other scientific evidence and rigorous arguments against some of the claims that have been made by the Holocaust industry? If so, expand on that for us.
Rudolf: Well, if I wanted to tell you all the evidence and rigorous arguments that have been collected over the past decades or critical research, I’d be talking for hours, if not days. So let me focus on a general overview and give you only a few examples.
What we are talking about here is murder.
Sure enough, the term “Holocaust” encompasses much more than just murder, but most of the persecution inflicted upon Jews by the Third Reich is not contested.
What is being contested is the premeditated and systematic mass murder of millions of individuals, at least half of them in chemical slaughterhouses called gas chambers, while the rest is said to have been simply shot.
As in any murder case, the kind of scientific evidence and rigorous argument for or against it is primarily based on forensics. You investigate the claimed murder weapon, if it exists, and you investigate the bodies of the victims, if they are available.
What you don’t do is dwell on claims made by witnesses, be they perpetrators or bystanders. For a rigorous, scientific investigations, these statements are only information as to what to look for and where. In fact, witness statements themselves are an object of forensic analysis as to their veracity. What really counts is hard evidence provided by forensics, CSI-style, if you wish.
The chemical studies Fred Leuchter, I and a few others have performed at Auschwitz are along that line. We were looking for traces which the murder chemical with the trademark name Zyklon B has left inside the claimed murder weapon, the alleged homicidal gas chambers. But there is more that can be done.
Claims as to how the murder weapon is said to have functioned can be investigated regarding their technical feasibility. Leuchter and I have done some of that as well in our reports. Let me give a list of the main arguments that address the technical feasibility of various claimed murder weapons:
– Auschwitz, Bunker Block 11 (“First Gassing”): witness statements are wildly contradictory; the claimed murder location had no technical equipment whatsoever to allow the claimed murder; extant documents refute the claims.
–Auschwitz, Morgue Crematorium I (“gas chamber” shown today to tourist): witness statements are contradictory; the claimed murder location had no technical equipment to allow the claimed murder; extant documents refute the claims.
–Auschwitz-Birkenau, Bunkers and open air cremations: witness statements are contradictory; the claimed murder location had no technical equipment to allow the claimed murder; extant documents, in particular Allied air photos, refute the claims.
–Auschwitz-Birkenau, Crematoria II through V: witness statements are contradictory; the claimed murder location did not have the required technical equipment to allow the claimed murder; extant documents refute the claims.
–Belzec and Treblinka: witness statements are contradictory to the extreme; most of the various claimed murder methods have been abandoned by orthodox Holocaust scholars as invented and untrue; the only method claimed today – Diesel engine exhaust – is ludicrously unsuited for mass murder; the claimed method of burning hundreds of thousands of victims without leaving a trace is technically impossible; forensic excavations of suspected mass graves or mass incineration pits refute at least the extent of the claims.
–Chelmno and the “gas vans”: again, witness statements vary wildly; no mass grave or murder weapon that could be subjected to forensic scrutiny has been found so far.
–Dachau: the technical design of the claimed homicidal gas chamber is nonsensical, and post-war alterations of the room are apparent.
As I said, I could continue this to encompass more alleged mass murder sites, but I leave it at that. If you want to read a handy summary of the arguments against the most important claims that are being made by the Holocaust industry, take the 2014 book Inside the Gas Chambers by Italian Holocaust researcher Carlo Mattogno. It can be downloaded as a free PDF file, so no need to invest money.
Now, let me give you one example for what I mean with technical equipment needed to commit the crimes claimed. If you want to murder several hundred or even a few thousand people with poison gas in a large room, you have to have four things in place:
–First, you need to keep the people inside; this requires massive panic-proof doors and door frames able to withstand the pressure of a panicking crowd.
–Next, you need to be able to get the gas into the gas chamber; so you have to have a way of feeding the gas into the room,
–And you need to keep the gas inside the gas chamber, so you need to be able to seal the room during the procedure, so people in the vicinity, most of all the perpetrators, don’t kill themselves in the process.
–Finally, you need a means to get the gas out after it is all over.
Now, some of the rooms claimed to have been mass murder sites were equipped with simple wooden doors with latches made of band-iron. A panicking crowd would have broken through them within a few minutes or even seconds. Some of these doors could not even be locked; others could be opened from the inside.
Several of the rooms claimed to have been homicidal gas chambers had no means of feeding in the gas, or the way this is said to have happened can be shown to be inoperable or untrue, or in several cases it can be shown that contraptions for adding the gas were added only after the war.
Many of the rooms claimed to have been gas chambers could not be closed, let alone sealed to make them gas tight. Some had gaping openings in the walls, others simple windows that could have been smashed in by the victims; another room had a swinging door that could neither be secured against a panicking crowd nor against gas leakage.
Finally, many of the rooms claimed to have been gas chambers had no ventilation system at all. Or they had one clearly designed to serve a morgue rather than an execution place.
Again, I’m not going into any more details here, as that would unnecessarily inflate this interview. The books and DVD documentaries cited in the endnotes contain all the pertinent information in this regard, almost all of which can be downloaded free of charge. Some of the things I summarized here have even been admitted by mainstream historians, leading to a few gas chamber claims being silently dropped. This is true in particular for the Majdanek Camp.
With all that said, when you get to the point where a considerable part of the claims about mass gassings turns out to be technically impossible, the whole story becomes dubitable. Then you dig deeper into the matter by looking into documents and by critically analyzing witness statements. That’s not necessarily scientific evidence and rigorous arguments, but it fleshes out the framework created by forensics. Then all the pieces start falling into place, revealing a rather appalling picture of war-time rumors and atrocity propaganda that have gone out of control.
Alexis: List some of the things that the Holocaust establishment has to prove in order to convince you that their claims have some merit. That would obviously be right in line with the falsifiability theory in science.
Rudolf: Well, that is very easy: apply the rules and techniques which are always used when investigating any other murder case.
Of course, by now, more than 70 years after the crime, we are struggling to find and properly interpret any evidence, first of all because evidence simply deteriorates of time, but also because it has been tampered with, on the one hand by the victors of WWII when they occupied the camps, but on the other hand also by subsequent “museum authorities” who were and still are overly eager to prove a point to their visitors which the original evidence did not support.
I have described one such case of “spoliation of evidence” in the preface of the 2016 study Curated Lies, which I have summarized in a video presentation I created about that book.
The victorious powers should have secured and published all the forensic evidence right at war’s end. It’s a little late now. But a lot can still be done.
What is needed is a thorough forensic examination of the claimed murder sites, be they mass graves at claimed executions sites in the east – behind what used to be the German-Russian front during WWII – or the claimed mass graves and burning pits in the many camps where gas chambers and gas vans are said to have been used.
What we get instead, though, can be gleaned from Eric Hunt’s documentary on recent excavations conducted at the Treblinka Camp: As soon as something is found that looks like a criminal trace, the search is stopped.
Alleged Jewish sensibilities regarding the disturbance of the dead are cited as a reason for this, but that’s a mere fig leaf, because in many other cases of exhuming Jewish remains, such sensibilities played no role at all. I am therefore convinced that this is a mere feint to prevent a thorough investigation. They know that the truth isn’t on their side, or at least they don’t want to risk being exposed. And why should they, since they have everything under firm control.
The same tactics as shown in Treblinka were used again when a French priest set out to search mass graves in the Ukraine: As soon as something was found, the search was stopped, and the graves found were sealed – with bitumen in that case. It was neither determined how many victims there were, when and how they had died, nor even who the victims were and who the perpetrators could have been. That’s not trivial, because ever since the Communist revolution in Russia, the Ukraine has seen many mass murder and mass dying events. So objectively speaking, there is no way of telling what that French priest found, because he didn’t bother to investigate.
This is similar to what happened shortly after the war at the site of the former Treblinka camp, where initial forensic digs did not yield the desired results, hence a large area of that site was covered with concrete and adorned with large boulders.
The site of the former Belzec camp suffered the same fate some ten years ago. When forensic test drillings there didn’t produce the expected results either, instead of launching a major exhumation effort to see what really happened, the place was covered with a huge concrete “memorial” sealing off forever the area where the crime is said to have happened. That is yet another case of deliberate spoliation of evidence.
Let me be clear: Spoliating evidence is a crime, and ever since the war’s end, that crime has been perfected by the Holocaust industry, because they don’t only get away with it; as a matter of fact, they are encouraged to do so by the mainstream, not the least because any criticism of these crimes – which is called “Holocaust revisionism” – is, as we know, treated like a crime itself in many countries, and is considered a morally utterly reprehensible attitude in the eyes of the mainstream in almost the entire world.
That tells you something about the moral state of our world, where criticizing crimes has been criminalized.
Where the police are used by the authorities to cover up their own crimes, the criminals go rampant.
So, basically what we need is a fundamental change of the ruling elite in the world, or at least a fundamental change of their attitude allowing the application of normal rules and procedures to that claimed crime.
Alexis: You have obviously provided a lot of food for thought again. I have always believed that a statement or theory or hypothesis must be judged on rational, historical, or even scientific grounds. If a historian claims that a certain event happened in history, then he should not be upset if he is asked to provide evidence for the claim. If he cannot, or if the historical data fail to corroborate his claim, then people are justified in rejecting the claim.
This is plain and simple, and does not require any academic expertise. In fact, this has been one of the pillars of the western intellectual and historical tradition. From Plato to Kant and beyond, we constantly observe that reasonable people try their best to frame their ideas upon reason, not upon thought police or intimidation.
Another important point is that the Western mind was born out of the idea that the universe is rational and that order is all around us. From mathematics to philosophy and the natural sciences, the universe tells us that order is the deep force that shapes the universe.
When we see order, we assume reason, and when we see reason, we inexorably assume metaphysical Logos. Once a person or group rejects that deduction, then that group largely becomes irrational. For that group, truth is not the intended goal; ideology is. Plato rightly asks The Republic:
“And don’t you think that being deceived about the truth is a bad thing, while having a grasp of the truth is good? And don’t you think that having a grasp of the truth is having a belief that matches the way things are?”
For that group, having a belief that matches the way things really are is simply ridiculous. In the process, that group has to invent ridiculous laws to suppress the pursuit of truth. That’s where we are at this present moment in Europe. A thinking person cannot ask fundamental questions about the nature of Nazi Germany without being penalized. One wonders what Plato or Kant or Hegel or any serious metaphysician of the pat two thousand years would think about our modern age.
What we are seeing here is that that people in the Holocaust establishment look for comfortable lies so that they can perpetuate an incoherently dubious ideology and logically implausible system. People in the establishment want to feel good about themselves and disregard serious evidence which almost certainly would overthrow their accepted dogmas.
We are privileged to have brave and courageous people like Germar Rudolf to dispel those myths and fabrications. Dispelling lies and fabrications has cost him dearly, but as Solzhenitsyn has taught us, the world does not need coward men. The world needs people who will stand up for the truth, no matter what the cost. Intellectual historian Mark Lilla writes in The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics:
“Whoever takes it upon himself to write an honest intellectual history of twentieth-century Europe will need a strong stomach. But he will need something more. He will need to overcome his disgust long enough to ponder the roots of this strange and puzzling phenomenon.”
It can certainly be argued that one needs a strong stomach to digest the historical accounts of World War II, most specifically Nazi Germany. Rudolf does have a strong stomach and he has already endured persecution for having that stomach over the years. I take it that he is asking readers to man be enough to stand up for what is right, not for what is politically convenient.
 Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: Crematorium I and the Alleged Homicidal Gassings, The Barnes Review, Washington, D.C., 2010; Eric Hunt, “How the Auschwitz Museum Dupes Millions of Visitors,” in: Carlo Mattogno, Curated Lies: The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2016
 Carlo Mattogno, Debunking the Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda versus History, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2016; Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: Open Air Incinerations, The Barnes Review, Washington, D.C., 2010
 Arnulf Neumaier, “The Treblinka Holocaust”, in: Germar Rudolf (ed.): Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’, 2nd ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003; Friedrich P. Berg, “Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture – Absurd for Murder,” in: G. Rudolf, Dissecting the Holocaust, op. cit.; Carlo Mattogno, Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History, The Barnes Review, Washington, D.C., 2010; Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf: Treblinka, Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, D.C., 2010; Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues, The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt,” 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015; Eric Hunt, The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax, DVD, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015.
 Carlo Mattogno: Chelmno: A German Camp in History and Propaganda, The Barnes Review, Washington, D.C., Dec. 2011; Santiago Alvarez, Pierre Marais, The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation, The Barnes Review, Washington, D.C., 2011.
 G. Rudolf, “The Gas Chamber at Dachau Revisited,” in: Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition, 4th ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015.
 Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno: Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study, 3rd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, D.C., 2012; Eric Hunt, The Majdanek Gas Chamber Myth, DVD, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015.
 Patrick Desbois, The Holocaust by Bullets: A Priest’s Journey to Uncover the Truth Behind the Murder of 1.5 Million Jews, Palgrave MacMillan, New York 2008
 See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); John D. Barrow, Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); The World Within the World: A Journey to the Edge of Space and Time (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? (New York: Mariner Books, 2008).
 Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.
 Mark Lilla, The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics (New York: New York Review Books, 2001), 198.
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on July 21, 2016, With 7272 Reads Filed under History, Investigations, Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.