Gewitter is the German word for Thunderstorm. I couldn’t resits using it here.
On April 10 (yesterday), Joe Rogan had a debate on his Experience show featuring Dave Smith & Douglas Murray. During that show, they bring up Holocaust Speticism, and in this context mention Jake Shields. Shields in turn got into that context, because he had me on one of his shows together with mainstream historian Dr. Michael Vann. Shields reacted to this post with a few tweets, among them one that mentions me specifically. When I looked at it, right beneath that post is a reply by a certain Richard Cooper. He posted a screenshot of what looks like the answer of some AI-driven know-it-all software to a question he had asked it:
“Did Germar Rudolf have hard evidence there were no nazi gas chambers? Give me a yes or no answer, then explain”
The software came up with the following response, as always in those cases backed up with NOTHING:
“No, Germar Rudolf did not have hard evidence that there were no Nazi gas chambers.
Explanation: Rudolf’s ‘Rudolf Report,’ written in the early 1990s, claimed that forensic analysis of Auschwitz-Birkenau’s crematoria showed no significant t races of cyanide compounds (like those from Zyklon B) in the gas chamber walls, suggesting they were not used for mass extermination. He argued that the levels of cyanide residue were too low to support the historical account of gassing millions and that the facilities were used for delousing rat her than murder. His conclusions relied heavily on chemical sampling he conducted or interpreted, asserting that the absence of substantial residue disproved the use of gas chambers.
However, his findings have been widely discredited by scientists, historians, and courts. Critics, including chemists like Richard Green and organizations like the Holocaust History Project, pointed out flaws in his methodology: he failed to account for the degradation of cyanide compounds over decades due to weather exposure, used inappropriate sampling techniques, and ignored the differing conditions between delousing chambers (which retain more residue due to prolonged exposure) and human execution chambers (where exposure was brief). Moreover, Rudolf disregarded extensive historical evidence-eyewitness testimonies from survivors and Nazi perpetrators, Nazi documentation, and physical remnants like gas- tight doors and ventilation systems-confirming the chambers’ use for extermination. The Auschwitz Museum and experts like Deborah Lipstadt have labeled his work pseudoscientific, designed to fit a preconceived denialist narrative rather than reflect rigorous evidence.
German courts, in convicting him, found his report lacked scientific credibility and served to propagate Holocaust denial, not to establish truth. No reputable scientific or historical body has validated his claims, and his conclusions are considered a distortion of evidence rather than hard proof.”
The problem with that response it that all its claims are either false or irrelevant, and here is way — with resources to back up my claims:
1. False Claim: G. Rudolf claim “that the facilities were used for delousing rather than murder.” Rudolf compared properties and analytical results of both delousing chambers and claimed homicidal gas chambers. He never stated that the claimed homicidal gas chambers were used as delousing chambers. He proved with authentic wartime documents that these rooms, labeled on blueprints as “morgues”, were indeed used as morgues. Look for yourself: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz/
2. False Claim: Rudolf’s “Critics, including chemists like Richard Green and organizations like the Holocaust History Project, pointed out flaws in his methodology: he failed to account for the degradation of cyanide compounds over decades due to weather exposure, used inappropriate sampling techniques, and ignored the differing conditions between delousing chambers (which retain more residue due to prolonged exposure) and human execution chambers (where exposure was brief).” The main reasons for Rudolf to research and write his report was exactly a) to account for degradation of cyanide compounds over decades due to weather exposure, b) to make sure appropriate sampling techniques are sued, c) to take into account the differing conditions between delousing chambers (long exposure) and claimed human execution chambers (brief exposure), d) to consider the different building materials and physical conditions in both types of locations. In other words, Rudolf did all the things these detractors claim he did not do. He also debunked the fallacious attempts of Richard Green and others to refute him. Check it out: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz/
3. False claim: Rudolf “disregarded extensive historical evidence — eyewitness testimonies from survivors and Nazi perpetrators, Nazi documentation, and physical remnants like gastight doors and ventilation systems — confirming the chambers’ use for extermination.” Rudolf discussed witness testimonies, gas-tight doors, ventilation systems and other evidence in detail and substantiated that witness testimonies are demonstrably false, documents incontrovertibly refute homicidal gassing claims, and a broad range of other physical evidence shores up that finding. Read it here: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz/
1. Irrelevant claim: “The Auschwitz Museum and experts like Deborah Lipstadt have labeled his work pseudoscientific, designed to fit a preconceived denialist narrative rather than reflect rigorous evidence.” a) The Auschwitz Museum is a Polish government institution that has to abide by Polish penal law. That law threatens historical dissidents with up to three years in prison. Threatening deviations from the prescribed version of history with imprisonment is the ultimate manifestation of an anti-scientific attitude. Therefore, any Polish government institution, the Auschwitz Museum included, can by definition NOT be scientific, but must by force be anti-scientific. Some of the Auschwitz’ Museum’s lies and treacheries have been in exposed in a book coauthored and published by Rudolf, sensibly titled “Curated Lies”; read it free of charge here: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/curated-lies/ b) Lipstadt has not written much of anything about Rudolf’s work. However, Rudolf has demonstrated in his book “Bungled: Denying the Holocaust” that Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust” — her claim to fame — is a prime example of a pseudo-scientific, if not to say an anti-scientific publication. Available here: https://armreg.co.uk/product/bungled-denying-the-holocaust/
4. False claim: “German courts, in convicting him, found his report lacked scientific credibility and served to propagate Holocaust denial, not to establish truth.” The Stuttgart court refused to address the question whether or not Rudolf’s report is scientific. Rudolf was sentenced because of a preface and an epilogue added without his knowledge to the first edition of his work.
2. Irrelevant claim: “No reputable scientific or historical body has validated his claims.” That is so because only those “scientific and historical bodies” are considered reputable by the mainstream which reject and defame anything out of hand that contest the orthodox Holocaust narrative – not because it merits rejection and defamation, but because those “reputable scientific and historical bodies” would instantly lose the status of being “reputable” if they followed the prime scientific principle of “audiatur altera pars” (the other must be heard). Where taboos reign, science cannot prosper. Any mainstream scientist or historian who rejects and defames dissenting views out of hand stops, by definition, to be a scientist or historian. Scholars ALWAYS consider and discuss opposing view, and NEVER defame dissidents. Ad-hominem arguments are the prime indicator of being anti-scientific.
Note that AI software — artificial dumbness software — is intentionally trained to LIE to you and to DECEIVE you to hold up the west only taboo left standing!
