Debunking Holocaust Denial – The Fred Leuchter Report – #1

The Leuchter Report is junk science! His methods were flawed and his conclusions are not supported by evidence. Normally I would say that people like him design experiments to get the results they wanted but I believe Leuchter was so incompetent that he unwittingly stacked the deck in his favour.

About Myles Power (763 Articles)
Hello Internet! My name is Myles Power and I am a chemist from the North East of England, who loves to make videos trying to counter pseudoscience and debunk quackery in all of its various forms! From the hype around GMOs through to Atrazine turning the freakin’ frogs gay, I’ll try to cut through the nonsense that’s out there!

11 Comments on Debunking Holocaust Denial – The Fred Leuchter Report – #1

  1. Jim Rizoli // April 11, 2021 at 7:40 pm // Reply

    It all comes down to the holes in the roof at Auschwitz 1 ….there weren’t any…case closed


  2. Jim Rizoli // April 12, 2021 at 3:29 pm // Reply

    Alison Chabloz was eventually sent to jail for singing about the Holocaust how nice is that?


  3. Jim Rizoli // April 12, 2021 at 4:30 pm // Reply


    Is asking questions a crime? If you develop doubts about theHolocaust, isn’t the only way to get rid of these doubts by asking questions?A lot of individuals and groups are enraged by those who ask critical questionsabout the Holocaust. These doubters, who call themselves Revisionists, are oftendefamed as “Holocaust deniers.”Every other historical issue is debated as a matter ofcourse, but influential pressure groups have made the Holocaust story anexception. Anyone should be encouraged to investigate critically the Holocauststory in the same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historicalevent. This is not a radical point of view. The culture of critique wasdeveloped millennia ago by Greek philosophers like Socrates, and was renewedcenturies ago during the Enlightenment.THE HISTORICAL ISSUERevisionists agree with establishment historians that theGerman National Socialist State singled out the Jewish people for special andcruel treatment. In addition to viewing Jews in the framework of traditionalanti-Semitism, the National Socialists also saw them as being an influentialforce behind international communism and behind the so-called international”finance capital,” which they held responsible for the worldwideeconomic crisis and for the impoverishment of German workers. During World War II, Jews were consideredto be enemies of the German State and a potential danger to its war efforts,much like the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were viewed in the U.S.Consequently, Jews were stripped of their rights, forced to live in ghettos,conscripted for labor, deprived of their property, deported, and otherwisemistreated. Many tragically perished.In contrast to establishment historians, Revisionists claimthat the German State had NO policy to exterminate the Jewish people (or anyoneelse) in homicidal gas chambers or by killing them through abuse or neglect.Revisionists also maintain that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is anirresponsible exaggeration, and that no execution gas chambers existed in anycamp in Europe which was under German control. Fumigation gas chambers, bothstationary and mobile, did exist to delouse clothing and equipment to preventdisease at POW, labor, and concentration camps and at the fighting front. It ishighly likely that it was from this lifesaving procedure that the myth ofextermination gas chambers emerged.Revisionists generally hold that the Allied governments,and in particular the Soviets, decided to carry their wartime “blackpropaganda” of German monstrosities over into the postwar period. This wasdone for essentially three reasons. 1. The Allies felt it necessary to continueto justify the great sacrifices that were made in fighting two world wars. 2.The Allies wanted to divert attention from, and to justify, their ownparticularly brutal crimes against humanity. Soviet atrocities alone causedthe death of uncounted millions of civilians in the Soviet Union and in allcountries of eastern and central Europe. American and British saturationbombings of German and Japanese cities causing over a million civilians to beburned or buried alive. 3. The Allies needed justification for postwararrangements involving the total dismantling of German industry, a policy ofstarvation causing the deaths of many millions of German civilians, the robbingof German patents worth trillions of dollars, and the annexation of large partsof Germany into Poland and the USSR. These territories were not disputedborderlands but consisted of 20% of the entire German territory. The twelvemillion Germans living in these regions were robbed of their property andbrutally expelled. More than two millions perished during this most heinousethnic cleansing of world history.During the war, and in the postwar era as well, Zionistorganizations became deeply involved in creating and spreading Holocauststories. Their purpose was to drum up world sympathy and support for Jewishcauses, especially for the creation of the State of Israel. Today, the Holocauststory, which is perceived as a crime of a right-wing regime, plays an importantrole for leftist-internationalist groups, for Zionist organizations, and forgroups within Jewish communities. It is the leaders of these political andpropaganda organizations who continue to work to sustain the orthodox Holocaustlegend and the myth of German monstrosity during World War II.Those who claim that these interpretations are anti-Jewishare reading into them something which simply is not there. Revisionists do notclaim that Jewish leaders or organizations did anything in the war and postwarera which the Allied Governments themselves did not do.For those who believe that the Nuremberg Trials revealedthe truth about German war crimes, it is a terrible shock to discover that thethen Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone, described theNuremberg court as “a high-grade lynching party” for Germans (AlpheusT. Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law,  New York: Viking,1956, p. 716).The PhotographsWe’ve all seen “The Photographs.” Endlessly.Newsreel photos taken by U.S. and British photographers at the liberation ofthe German camps, and especially the awful scenes at Dachau, Buchenwald, andBergen-Belsen. For instance, look at the one at the top of this leaflet. Thesephotos and films are usually presented in a way in which it is either stated orimplied that the scenes resulted from deliberate German policies. Thephotographs are real, but their interpretation is false.Even mainstream historians admit that there was no Germanpolicy at any of those camps to kill the internees. In the last months of thewar, while Soviet armies were invading Germany from the east, British and U.S.bombers were destroying every major city in Germany with saturation bombing.Transportation, the food distribution system, medical, and sanitation servicesall broke down. That was the purpose of these air raids, which was the mostbarbaric form of warfare in Europe since the Mongol invasion.Millions of refugees fleeing the Soviet armies were pouringinto central and western Germany. As a result of the ongoing war, of starvation,and epidemics, millions of civilians were dying all over Germany. The camps werenot exempted from this tragedy. Camps that were still under German control wereovercrowded with internees evacuated from the east. By early 1945, these inmatessuffered from malnutrition and epidemics like typhus and cholera, to whichmany succumbed. When the press entered the camps with British and U.S. soldiers,they found the results of that. They took “The Photographs.”Still, at camps such as Buchenwald, Dachau, and Bergen-Belsen tens of thousands of relatively healthy internees wereliberated. They were there in the camps when “The Photographs” weretaken. There are newsreels of these internees walking through the camp streetslaughing and talking. Others picture exuberant internees throwing their capsin the air and cheering their liberators. It is only natural to ask why youhaven’t seen those particular films and photos while you’ve seen the othershundreds of times.DocumentsIt is often claimed that there are “tons” ofcaptured German documents proving the Jewish genocide. When challenged on this,however, only a handful of documents are produced, the authenticity orinterpretation of which is highly questionable. If pressed for reliabledocumentation, it is then claim that the Germans destroyed all the relevantdocuments to hide their evil deeds, or the absurd claim is made that the Germansused code language, whispered verbal orders, or conveyed orders through ameeting of minds.As a matter of fact, all available documentation and materialtraces indicate that there was no order for a mass murder of Jews, no plan, nobudget, no weapon—that is, no gas chamber—and no victim—that is, not asingle autopsied body has been shown to have been gassed.Eyewitness TestimonyDuring medieval witch trials, many witnesses told similaraccounts about broom-riding witches and the devil. Since most statements weremade independently of each other and without pressure, this was taken asevidence that the stories must be true; material evidence was never produced.”Common knowledge,” a word invented in those days, and socialexpectations formed the basis of these accounts, not the truth.Today, we face the same “common knowledge” producedby 60 years of one-sided mass media propaganda and massive social and sometimeseven legal pressure to conform to certain views. To support their theories,anti-Revisionists depend almost exclusively on “eyewitness” testimonyproduced in this poisoned atmosphere.During the war crimes trials many “eyewitnesses”testified that Germans made soap out of human fat and lamp shades from humanskin. Allied prosecutors even produced evidence to support these charges. Fordecades, highly respected scholars at the most prestigious universities in theworld sanctioned these stories, leading us to believe that such stories were”irrefutable truths.” But within time, many such stories have becomeuntenable: In 1990, Yehuda Bauer, director of Holocaust studies at HebrewUniversity, Tel Aviv, admitted: “The Nazis never made soap from Jews…”(Jerusalem Post, Int. Ed., 5 May 1990, p. 6).Bruno Baum, a former communist inmate in Auschwitz, wasallowed to brag in summer 1945 in a Soviet newspaper: “The whole propagandawhich started about Auschwitz abroad was initiated by us [German communistinmates] with the help of our Polish comrades.” (Deutsche Volkszeitung,Soviet paper in occupied East Germany, 31 July 1945). Thus, it is not surprisingto learn that during several trials in Germany, it emerged that the testimony ofwitnesses from eastern Europe had been orchestrated by communist authorities.During a trial against an alleged former camp guard inJerusalem, even the Israeli court had to admit that all witness testimonywas not credible, which resulted in the defendant’s acquittal.The only two witnesses who were ever cross-examined had toadmit in 1985 that their accounts were not true: Arnold Friedman confessed ofnever having experienced what he had claimed, and Rudolf Vrba admitted of havingused poetic license to “embellish” his statements. Vrba is one of themost famous Auschwitz witnesses. However, once asked if all claims Vrba had madeabout Auschwitz in the famous movie Shoa were true, Vrba replied: “Ido not know. I was just an actor and I recited my text.” He told this witha sardonic smile to his Jewish friend Georg Klein (G. Klein, Pietà,Stockholm, p. 141).During and after the war there were “eyewitnesses”to mass gassings at Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, and other camps inGermany proper. Today, virtually all recognized scholars dismiss this testimonyas false.Establishment historians, however, still claim that massgassings happened at several camps in Poland. The evidence for this claim is, inreality, qualitatively no different to the false testimony and evidence for thealleged mass gassings at the camps in Germany proper.With regard to confessions by Germans at war crimes trials,it is now well documented that many were obtained through coercion,intimidation, and even physical torture, just like during the medieval witchtrials.AuschwitzIn 1990, the Auschwitz State Museum revised the old propagandaclaim of four million murdered humans down to one million—base not upon facts,but upon estimates! In 1994, a French scholar reduced this figure further downto less than 700,000, and in 2002, another mainstream Holocaust scholar reducedthe Auschwitz death toll to 500,000—again not based on facts, but on”estimates.”The Auschwitz Museum has put on display piles of hair, boots,and eyeglasses, etc., but there is neither evidence for the origin of theseitems nor for the fate of their former owners. While such displays are effectivepropaganda, they are worthless as historical artifacts.In a videotaped interview, the Auschwitz Museum authoritiesadmitted that the gas chamber shown to tourists is a “reconstruction,”again not based on facts, but only on unverified eyewitness claims. The Museum’stourist guides, however, tell visitors that all they see is genuine…Whereas some mainstream scholars claim that the Auschwitzcrematories, whose morgues supposedly served as gas chambers, were the”absolute center” in the “geography of atrocities,” othermainstream scholars claim that the mass murder did not take place in thosecrematories, but elsewhere. Revisionist, however, want certainty, notspeculations and estimates.Jewish Population Losses During World War IIOnly two monographs were written so far on the question ofhow many Jews lost their lives during World War II. The first is a revisionistbook concluding that some 300,000 perished. The second is authored by severalrecognized historians claiming that some six million died. Whereas theRevisionist book takes into consideration demographic changes of the Jewishpopulation in all countries, the mainstream book compiles its figures by simplysubtracting the number of Jews alive in Europe a few years after the war fromthose alive in Europe several years before the war. It ignores that the Jewishpopulation in America, Israel, and other countries outside of Europe hadincreased by almost six million in this period of time, as a result of a newExodus. Thus, those who had left Europe were simply declared to be Holocaustvictims.The Hidden GenocideThose who promote the Holocaust story complain that “thewhole world” was indifferent to the genocide which allegedly was occurringin German occupied Europe. They claim that this was due to some great moral flawin the nature of Western man, or that people did not realize the enormity ofwhat was happening. It is true that the world responded with indifference. Butperhaps it was because they did not believe it.It is certain that if there had been “killingfactories” in Poland murdering millions of civilians, then the Red Cross,the Pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied governments, neutral governments,and prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower, and manyothers would have known about it and would have often and unambiguouslymentioned it, and condemned it. They did not! The promoters admit that only atiny group of individuals believed the story at that time—many of whom wereconnected either with Jewish or with Communist propaganda agencies. The rise ofthe Holocaust story reads more like the success story of a PR campaign thananything else.Winston Churchill wrote his six volume work The SecondWorld War without mentioning a program of mass-murder and genocide. In hisbook Crusade in Europe, Dwight D. Eisenhower also failed to mention gaschambers. Was the weapon used to murder millions of Jews unworthy of a passingreference? Was our future president being insensitive to Jews?Examples of PropagandaDuring and after the First World War, that is between1916 and the late 1920s, mainly American Jewish organizations were claiming thatsix million Jews(!) would suffer terribly in poverty stricken EasternEurope. In this context, it was claimed that eastern European Jewry would face aHolocaust if they did not receive massive funding. With such propaganda,millions of dollars were raised in the United States, which at the end weremainly used to finance the Soviet revolution in Russia.On 22 March 1916, that is during the First World War,the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph published an article falselyclaiming that the Germans had murdered 700,000 Serbs in gas chambers. On 25 May1942, that is during the Second World War, the same newspaper reportedthat the Germans had murdered 700,000 Jews in Poland in gas chambers.How can we tell that the second story is true, if we knowthat the first is a lie? In 1944, the British Government asked the British mediaand churches to help spread anti-German propaganda, which it had been puttingout already for a while, in order to distract from the atrocities it expected tobe committed by the Soviets as soon as they invade Germany. In its circular, theBritish government expressed its regret that, after the exposure of WWIpropaganda lies, greater efforts would be necessary to succeed this time.POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND REVISIONISMMany people are bewildered when they first hear HolocaustRevisionist arguments. The arguments appear to make sense, but “How isit possible?” The whole world believes the Holocaust story. It’s just notplausible that so great a conspiracy to suppress the truth could have functionedmore than half a century.To understand how it could very well have happened, oneneeds only to reflect on the intellectual and political orthodoxies of medievalEurope, or those of National Socialist Germany or the Communist-bloc countries.In all of these societies the great majority of scholars were caught up in theexisting political culture. Committed to a prevailing ideology and itsinterpretation of reality, these scholars and intellectuals felt it was theirright, and even their duty, to protect every aspect of that ideology. They didso by oppressing the “evil” dissidents who expressed”offensive” or “dangerous” ideas. In everyone of thosesocieties, scholars became the “Thought Police.”In our own society, in the debate over the question ofpolitical correctness, there are those who deliberately attempt to trivializethe issues. They claim that there is no real problem with freedom of speech inour society, and that all that is involved with PC are a few rules which woulddefend minorities from those who would hurt their feelings. There is, of course,a deeper and more serious aspect to the problem. In American society today thereis a wide range of ideas and viewpoints which the mass media will not allow tobe discussed openly. Even obvious facts and realities, when they arepolitically unacceptable, are denied and suppressed. One can learn much aboutthe psychology and methods of the Thought Police by watching how they reactwhen just one of their taboos is broken and Holocaust Revisionism is given apublic forum.First they express outrage that such “offensive”and “dangerous” ideas were allowed to be expressed publicly. Theyavoid answering or debating these ideas, claiming that to do so would give theRevisionists a forum and legitimacy. Then they make vicious personal attacksagainst the Revisionist heretics, calling them political names such as”hater,” “denier,” “anti-Semite,””racist,” “terrorist,” or “neo-Nazi,” evensuggesting that they are potential mass murderers. They publicly accuse theRevisionists of lying, but they don’t allow the dissenters to hear thespecific charge against them or to face their accusers so that they can answerthis slander.Revisionists are frequently accused of being hate filledpeople who are promoting a doctrine of hatred. But Revisionism is a scholarlyprocess, not a doctrine or an ideology. If the Holocaust promoters really wantto expose hatred, they should take a second look at their own doctrines, and along look at themselves in the mirror.Anyone who invites a Revisionist to speak publicly is himselfattacked for being insensitive. When Revisionists do speak publicly, they areregularly shouted down and threatened. Libraries and bookstores faceintimidation when they consider handling Holocaust revisionist materials. Allthis goes on while the majority of library, media, college, and universityadministrators sit silently by, allowing political activists to determine whatcan be said in the media and read in libraries.Next, the Thought Police set out to destroy the transgressorprofessionally and financially by “getting” him at his job orconcocting a lawsuit against him. It is sometimes often deceptively claimed thatRevisionist scholarship has been proven false during a trial, though courts oflaw can never decide any scholarly debates; they can only impose dogmas.Finally, the Thought Police will inevitably “straightenout” that segment of academia or media that allowed the Revisionists aforum in the first place.Some administrators in academia hold that universityadministrations should take action to rid the campus of ideas which aredisruptive to universities. This is an open invitation to tyranny. It means thatany militant group with “troops at the ready” can rid the campus ofideas it opposes and then impose its own orthodoxy. Coward administrators mightfind it much easier and safer to rid the campus of controversial ideas than toface down a group of screaming militants. But it is the duty of universityadministrators to insure that our universities remain a free marketplace ofideas. When ideas cause disruptions, it is the disrupters who must be subdued,not the ideas.CONCLUSIONThe influence of Holocaust Revisionism is growing steadilyboth here and abroad. In the United States, Revisionism was launched inearnest in 1977 with the publication of the book The Hoax of the TwentiethCentury by Arthur R. Butz. Professor Butz teaches electrical engineeringand computer sciences at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.Those who take up the Revisionist cause represent a widespectrum of political and philosophical positions. They are certainly not thescoundrels, liars, and demons the anti-Revisionists try to make them out to be.The fact is, there are no demons in the real world. People are at their worstwhen they begin to see their opponents as an embodiment of evil, and then beginto demonize them. Such people are quite prepared to harm their opponents. Thelogic of their argument is that you can do anything you want to a demon. Weshould not allow such a logic to prevail.If you wish to learn more about Holocaust revisionism, werecommend our free brochure with answers to the mostfrequently asked questions and links to articles and entire books available onthis topic. Those wishing to verify the truthfulness of thestatementsmade above, can visit our vast Internet database at and downloadmany scholarly articles and books about this topic, including many references toprimary sources, forensic research, and much more.  


  4. Jim Rizoli // April 13, 2021 at 5:20 pm // Reply

    Myles where are all your supporters?


    • Alex Trevino // April 16, 2021 at 11:06 pm // Reply

      Thank you Mr Rizoli for your scrupulous and conscientious work to uncover the truth. When the lights come on, the rats scurry.


  5. Jim Rizoli // April 16, 2021 at 3:59 pm // Reply

    If we don’t hear back from you before Sunday Fred Leuchter and I are going to expose you big time….so in order to save face you might want to honor Freds wishes.I think we’ve given you enough time….now you will have to deal with it.

    Jim Rizoli


  6. Mr Myles does it not concern you that it is illegal in dozens of countries. To even question the mainstream narrative of the Holocaust? What happened to freedom of speech and expression? Why don’t you have an intellectual discussion with Jim Rizoli and Fred Leutcher together? Don’t just dismiss and insult a man’s work, without giving him a chance to debate you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: