Talk:Leuchter report
Conspiracy Theories/Crackpot umbrella classification?
Is there a wikip Crackpots project that this material and others can be linked under? Or would that just get too semantically confusing for wikip itself? I would lump WW2 Holocaust Denial in with the Moon Hoax, Intelligent Design and other such idiocies. The criteria would, in my opinion, be: "Massive denial of obvious and commonly available evidence." This distinguishes them from other crackpot'isms which work by "Clutching at straws", relying on massive mis-interpretation of facts or simply the complete synthesis of 'factoids' (In that category for instance could be lumped Nostradamus, The Rosecrucians, Illuminatus, etc and all that rubbish).
Just wondering if someone is bothering to take up the paperwork, purely an administrative matter. 220.245.239.93 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's already like that. This article is in the Pseudoscience category and the Holocaust denial category, which itself is in the Pseudohistory and Conspiracy theories categories. WilliamH (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
this article is absurd
the claim is that millions were gassed. but there is no trace of gas exposure and its supposed to be because it takes more to kill lice than humans? virtually NO residue is found in what is purported to be the homicidal gas chambers after killing hundreds of thousands and even millions? what a bunch of lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.102 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- That is not true - please read the article more carefully. Cyanide was found in all buildings where it was claimed it was used: "all five crematoria, the cellars of Block 11 and the delousing facilities", and only these buildings, as well as on ventilation equipment found in the ruins of Crematorium II gas chamber. No cyanides were detected in the living quarters. WilliamH (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- What you quote originates from the pseudo-scientific Cracow Report, right? The cyanide residues claimed to be found at the places in question are a) very small and they also not necessarily resulted from gassing these pleases, since cyanide compounds can be found in nature. As for the living quarters, it is not clear what material was investigated there. One wonders why the attempts to refute the Leuchter Report are so full of deceptions --196.207.33.197 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- The 'attempt to refute' seems pretty straightforward, though. Are you saying that this article is biased and omitting key information in order to promote that bias? On what basis might one say that? The basis would matter. Because the article is claiming that a) Prussian blue by itself renders further analysis redundant and moot, that its very existence points to an excess of cyanide contamination compared to surfaces or objects not so coated. And b) it's telling that the article does point out that for all the weathering over the years, that cyanide traces were still discovered where they were said to be expected, and were not found from ruins elsewhere in Auschwitz. Is the source in error? Is the article misquoting the source, or again omitting an convincing rebuttal? So again, a mere 'attempt' to refute? "deceptions"? on what basis can you say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have sources for that rumination? WilliamH (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- What you quote originates from the pseudo-scientific Cracow Report, right? The cyanide residues claimed to be found at the places in question are a) very small and they also not necessarily resulted from gassing these pleases, since cyanide compounds can be found in nature. As for the living quarters, it is not clear what material was investigated there. One wonders why the attempts to refute the Leuchter Report are so full of deceptions --196.207.33.197 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
If cyanide is found in nature then why were there no traces of it found in the living quarters? How do you explain that discrepancy, if you want to advance the opinion that the gas chambers were not in fact gas chambers? This point should obviously be made AFTER you have admitted that cyanide is water soluble, and after having had decades of opportunity to be dissolved and washed away there still remains traces of it in the walls of the chambers. Then, after you have chased your tail in diversionary tactics you can explain why the camp guards told such interesting stories about the gas chambers when they were caught. But then, I am sure, you would say that it is a large conspiracy. It certainly seems that someone is advancing a conspiracy theory based on an agenda, though perhaps when you finally bite your tail you will admit that it is you. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There are articles that support Leuchter's conclusions and attempt to refute the criticisms of his Report. Why are they not cited? Here is one: "The Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to J.-C. Pressac's Critique" by Paul Grubach. It should be linked at: http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html rdfuerle (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Because CODOH is an unreliable source. See WP:RS. WilliamH (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Relevant Links Being Deleted
I am having problems with neo-nazis deleting the links to specific external links to the articles that are directly related to this article. An example is the USER: Dougweller These are two examples External Links which are relevant to the article but he and others keep deleting.
The Offenders DOUGWELLER and WikiUSER: RCS are Purposefully destroying articles by removing valid information.