|
The Leuchter report is a pseudoscientific〔 *"Leuchter and Rudolf have published pseudoscientific reports purporting to show that chemical residues present in the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau are incompatible with homicidal gassings." Green, Richard J. ''("Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues" )''. Retrieved on 2008-09-11. *"The Leuchter Report, a pseudo-scientific document which allegedly proves that Zyklon B was not used to exterminate human beings, was translated into Arabic and sold at the International Book Fair in Cairo in January 2001." Roth, Stephen. Stephen Roth Institute. ''Antisemitism Worldwide, 2000/1'', University of Nebraska Press, 2002, p. 228. *"The turning point came in 1989, when Irving launched Fred Leuchter's pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report, which made the spurious claim that the absence of cyanide residues in the walls of the gas chambers at Auschwitz and other camps proved that they could not have functioned as mass extermination centres." Brinks, Jan Herman. Timms, Edward. Rock, Stella. ''Nationalist Myths and Modern Media'', I.B. Tauris, 2006, p. 72. *"The Leuchter report, was, indeed, an amateurish report produced by a man with no expertise, either historical or forensic." Hirsh, David. ''Law Against Genocide''. Routledge Cavendish, 2003, p. 134. *"Another common tactic of the deniers is to engage in historical inquiries that on the surface appear legitimate but upon close examination prove to be based on pseudo-science. One prominent example was the investigation of the Auschwitz gas chambers by Fred Leuchter (). Detailed study of the "Leuchter Report" revealed that it was based on erroneous assumptions (cyanide does not penetrate deeply into concrete). It also emerged that Leuchter had falsified his credentials and overstated his expertise. Despite this, his report is still cited by deniers." Cull, Nicholas John. Culbert, David Holbrook. Welch, David. ''Propaganda and Mass Persuasion: A Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present'', ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 168. *"...the institute relied primary on the talents of a California-based publicist named Bradley Smith who packaged and promoted Leuchter's discredited material as if it were the very essence of "scientific research" or at least a tenable "point of view," intrinsically worthy of inclusion in the academic agenda..." Churchill, Ward. ''A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present''. City Lights Books, 1997, p. 24. *"After the trial, both Irving and Zündel published the results of Leuchter's trial research as ''The Leuchter Report: The End of a Myth,'' despite the fact that the court rejected both the report and Leuchter's testimony. () The discredited report is popular in the Holocaust denial movement, and one edition features a foreword by Irving." Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B. Grant, Diana R. ''Crimes of Hate: Selected Readings'', SAGE Publications, 2003, p. 201. *"Leuchter's report contained a considerable amount of scientific, or, as it turned out, pseudo-scientific analysis of chemical residues on the gas chamber walls, and similar matters. It was quickly discredited, not least on the basis of Leuchter's failure adequately to defend his findings on the witness stand." Evans, Richard J. ''David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition'', Section 3.3c, (The 1991 Edition of ''Hitler's War'' ), Paragraph 13. Retrieved on 2008-09-12.〕 document authored by American execution technician Fred A. Leuchter, who was commissioned by Ernst Zündel to defend him at his trial in Canada for distributing false news, namely Holocaust denial material. Leuchter compiled the report in 1988 with the intention of investigating the feasibility of mass homicidal gassings at Nazi extermination camps, specifically at Auschwitz. He travelled to the camp, collected multiple pieces of brick from the remains of the crematoria and gas chambers (without the camp's permission), brought them back to the United States, and submitted them for chemical analysis. At the trial, Leuchter was required to defend the report in his capacity as expert witness; however he was dismissed because during the proceedings it became apparent that he had neither the qualifications nor experience to act in such a position. Leuchter chiefly cited the absence of Prussian blue in the homicidal gas chambers in support of his view that they could not have functioned that way. However, residual iron-based cyanide compounds are not a categorical consequence of cyanide exposure. By not discriminating against that, Leuchter introduced an unreliable factor into his experiment, and the outcome was seriously flawed as a result. In contrast, scientifically respectable tests conducted by Polish forensic scientists (who discriminated against iron-based compounds) confirmed the presence of cyanide in the locations and manner in accordance with where and how it was used in the Holocaust. In addition, the report also showed that Leuchter overlooked critical evidence, such as documents in the SS architectural office which directly contradicted him, indicating the mechanical operation of the gas chambers, and verifying the rate at which the Nazis could burn the bodies of those gassed. ==Background== In 1985, Ernst Zündel, a German pamphleteer and publisher living in Canada, was put on trial for publishing Richard Verrall's Holocaust denial pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die?, which was deemed to violate Canadian laws against distributing false news. Zündel was found guilty, but the conviction was overturned in an appeal. This led to a second prosecution. Zündel and his lawyers were joined by Robert Faurisson, a French academic of literature and Holocaust denier, who came to Toronto to advise the defence,〔Lipstadt, Deborah. ''Denying the Holocaust—The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory''. Free Press, 1993, ISBN 0-02-919235-8〕 having previously testified as expert witness at the first.〔 He was also joined by David Irving, an English writer and also a Holocaust denier, who was to assist in preparing the defence and to testify on Zündel's behalf.〔 After having expressed interest in getting an American prison warden who had participated in executions by gas to testify, Irving and Faurisson (Faurisson, a staunch believer that it was technically and physically impossible for the gas chambers at Auschwitz to have functioned as extermination facilities based in comparison with American execution gas chambers) invited Bill Armontrout, warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary.〔 He agreed to testify and suggested they also contact Fred A. Leuchter, a Bostonian execution equipment designer. Faurisson reported that Leuchter initially accepted the mainstream account of the Holocaust, but after two days of discussion with him, he stated that Leuchter was convinced that homicidal gassings never occurred. After having met Zündel in Toronto and agreeing to serve as expert witness for his defence, Leuchter shortly travelled with them to spend a week in Poland.〔 He was accompanied by his draftsman, a cinematographer supplied by Zündel, a translator fluent in German and Polish, and his wife. While Zündel and Faurisson could not accompany them, Leuchter stated they were with them "every step of the way" in spirit.〔 Once in Poland, the group spent three days in Auschwitz and one in Majdanek. As the cement and bricks they collected were procured illegally,〔 Leuchter's wife and the translator acted as lookouts, while Leuchter was being filmed taking what he called "forensic samples".〔 Drawings of where the samples were taken from, the footage of their collection and Leuchter's notebook were surrendered as permanent evidence to the court,〔 and Leuchter concluded that his findings were based on his "expert knowledge" for gas chamber operation, his visual inspections of what remains of the structures at Auschwitz, and "original drawings and blueprints of some of the facilities".〔 Leuchter claimed that the blueprints had been given to him by Auschwitz museum officials.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Leuchter report」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|