| |||||||
| |||||||
![[]](../../online/std/dings/list.gif){kind=small}
Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate. |
Sara Salzman finds fault, September 22, 2005, in the Leuchter Report, since the forensic chemist involved has now reversed his findings
Photo: Sara Salzman, wwith a family photo
Sara
Salzman leaps into the fray
HEY [she writes], it's the Denver Jewess again. I read Mr. Archer's precise and concise description of your resounding defeat against Prof. Lipstadt. (Does he know you posted his email address? Do you have his permission to do so?)
In your pathetic response, you state:
"Mr Archer refers to Mr Fred Leuchter's findings, but it was not Mr Leuchter's findings that impressed me , it was (and still is) the findings of the forensic laboratory in New England which tested the samples he retrieved from Auschwitz. Nobody has challenged their competence or integrity."
In case you haven't heard, Dr. James Roth, the laboratory manager of Alpha Analytical Laboratories, has stated categorically that the samples given to him by Leuchter were completely worthless, as were the results.
What Roth clearly stated in Mr. Death, in which you yourself also appear, is that cyanide is a SURFACE contaminant, and only permeates about 10 microns. A human hair is 100 microns. By testing a big chunk of brick or cement, Roth stated that the sample was diluted thousands of times. Since Leuchter did not explain what he wanted to have tested, Roth's lab couldn't possibly have created valid results.
The man who performed the tests. He has challenged their integrity. He says the results were worthless.
You, of course, continue to hang your hat on this worthless data, and publicly brag about it. What a piece of work you are.
PS. You may reprint this, but of course, you won't have the nerve. You do NOT, however, have my permission to post my e-mail address.
Sara
Salzman writes: Should Respectable Historians Attend and
Speak at Conferences Hosted by David Irving?
"Let's get
the British bastard!" How emails from a badly leaking
laptop scuppered the violent plans of Sara Salzman in
Colorado
David
Irving replies:
AH YES, the malleable Dr James Roth. I have no idea what is his worth as a human being, or his religion either for that matter, but to have risen to head a forensic laboratory his pronunciations might be thought to have scientific weight, particularly his original ones, untroubled by concerns for political correctness.
As the Leuchter Report showed, his staff carried out tests on forty-eight (I think) samples of cement and mortar taken from inside the so-called homidical gas chamber at Auschwitz, and from inside and outside the fumigation chamber (where cyanide definitely was used as a pesticide to fumigate the slave-laborers' lice-infested clothing).
What embarrassed the Holocaust Industry, and why they decided effectively to kill off Fred Leuchter for enabling the tests, was that Roth's laboratory tests showed no significant trace of cyanide compounds in the "gas chamber" where allegedly millions were gassed with cyanide 1942-1944, but substantial quantities in the brickwork of the fumigation chamber (141 mg. of Ferric Ferro-Cyanide per Kg, if my memory serves, a particularly weather-durable and hardy cyanide compound, better known as the Prussian Blue dyestuff).
Alas, Roth belatedly learned that the anonymous samples he had tested came from Auschwitz. Suddenly this outraged executive hung a yoo-ey, i.e. he went through what precision scientists might call a 180-degree turn. In other words he pinned his reddened face on the back of his head, went into reverse, and he even declared (on film) that had he known the samples came from the gas chamber at Auschwitz he would have reached a totally different conclusion.
His alleged statement that cyanide compounds penetrate only 10 micron into brickwork, in the fabric of a building, or one-tenth the thickness of Sara Salzman's hair, is ludicrous.
The blue stain permeates right through the brickwork of the fumigation chamber at Auschwitz, and is visible even now sixty years later, on the outside of the building, and the stains have tested positive for cyanide. We have good photographs of this. Perhaps Dr Roth should abandon analytical chemistry and take up knitting in future. He makes a bad liar -- and a very bad witness for the Holocaust Industry.
For the record: The standard explanation of the Industry for the absence of significant cyanide traces inside the homical gas chamber is that it takes less cyanide to kill a human being than to kill a louse. One human being perhaps: but a million, and still no significant trace? Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, Sara.
WE do not need permission to include somebody's email
address. It is at our discretion. Yours is [email protected].
Mine is at the foot of every page on
this website, and it has been since we launched it seven
years ago.
-
Gisela M Schon of
Tarzana, California, says she is a young Jewess who lost
most of her family in Auschwitz (1941-1945); she is
beside herself with glee at the silencing of David
Irving, July 25, 2005. He replies
Sir John Keegan
wrote: "Two books in English stand out from the vast
literature of the Second World War. Chester Wilmot's
The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952,
and David Irving's Hitler's War."
Kelly Snowden thinks that
it is quite right that Mr Irving should be banned from
speaking anywhere
David Irving