national journal: "99 percent of Auschwitz Eyewitness Is Forensically Unsubstantiated"

"99 percent of Auschwitz Eyewitness Is Forensically Unsubstantiated"

Translated by J M Damon

The Jewish Auschwitz expert Robert Jan van Pelt wants to demolish the physical remains of Auschwitz Concentration Camp.

The pressure from the Islamic world to duplicate the Rudolf Expert Report and adopt its findings is growing from day to day, and van Pelt wants to hinder official state investigations at all costs.

In an interview with the Canadian newspaper The STAR on 27 December 2009, he urges that all the remains of ruined buildings at Auschwitz-Birkenau be completely demolished and removed. In his opinion, only the buildings of the Stammlager (original camp) should be preserved. (In his book AUSCHWITZ 1270 BIS HEUTE (Auschwitz 1270 Until Today) he admits that no gassings took place in the Stammlager.)

Van Pelt wants to put an end to forensic investigations of “Holocaust” at Auschwitz-Birkenau. He advocates clearing the site even though the ceilings and ruins of the crematories (alleged homicidal gas chambers) are still present and available for investigation.

If homicidal gassings had taken place there, these ruins would exhibit high residues of Prussian Blue (insoluble compounds of Ferro cyanide). These residues are traces of the deadly poison gas cyanic acid (marketed under the name “Cyclon B”), which was the principal insecticide before the discovery of DDT.

Such residues are simply not present in the alleged “homicidal gas chambers” morgue and crematoria, although they are bountiful in the walls and ceilings of the fumigation chambers where the Germans used Cyclon B to delouse blankets and clothing of inmates and staff.

The most sensational part of the STAR interview is van Pelt’s admission that none of the testimony of Auschwitz witnesses can be scientifically proven or forensically substantiated. Countless “Holocaust” researchers over many years have been thrown in prison for making this very statement.

In 2009, the inquisitorial German courts sentenced dissident Horst Mahler, 73, to 13 years’ imprisonment (lifetime at 73) for insisting that there is no empirical evidence to support “Holocaust Industry” claims of mass gassings or attempted genocide of the Jews.

Following are the most important passages from van Pelt’s interview in the STAR.

"Robert Jan Van Pelt, an architectural historian and a leading expert on Auschwitz, says: 'Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. ... I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. ... We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That's how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence'."

Jewish Auschwitz exspert Robert Jan van Pelt says: "99 percent of all eyewitness accounts are forensically unsubstantiated."

The Star, Canada, Dec 27, 2009

According to van Pelt, the “greatest mass murder in world history” should remain un-investigated! He thinks we should rely exclusively on testimony of mass gassings by former inmates!

Dear reader, everyone should familiarize himself with these “eyewitnesses.”

Jürgen Graf’s book "AUSCHWITZ: TÄTERGESTÄNDNISSE UND AUGENZEUGEN DES HOLOCAUST" (Auschwitz: Confessions and Eyewitness Accounts of Holocaust) gives us some really eye-opening facts concerning the veracity of this “testimony.”

The witnesses would have us believe that what every normal and ingenuous person would consider lurid and fantastic is nevertheless factual.

In the course of the infamous “Auschwitz Trial” (Record 50/Ks 2/63) in Frankfurt, which dragged on for years, neither exhumed bodies nor forensic investigations of the alleged homicidal gas chambers were presented as evidence, even though the so-called “Court” visited Auschwitz on several occasions to visually inspect the scene of the alleged crimes and interview witnesses.

Having dispensed with forensic evidence, the “Court” complained in its verdict about the lack of such evidence: "An additional difficulty lay in the fact that the eyewitnesses – understandably – were seldom able to give exact descriptions of the time and place of specific events... This Court was almost completely lacking in all the evidence and methods of gathering information that are available in normal murder trials to form an accurate picture of events at the time of the murders. The Court lacked completely any trace leading to the offenders. No trace of the murder weapon was available. A verification of the eyewitness accounts was in most cases impossible."

Try to imagine murder trials in which there are no bodies of victims, no autopsy reports, no expert opinions as to cause of death, no time of death, no verification of eye witness accounts etc.!

There was no forensic evidence pertaining to perpetrators or weapons employed in the monstrous alleged crimes, and the Defense was very seldom allowed to question the witnesses.
(See Auschwitz-Urteil 50/Ks 2/63, page 109)

Email: Recipient:	Email: Sender

Sender's remarks: