Thursday, November 11, 2010

Robert J. van Pelt -- Foolish is as Foolish does?

NOTE: Following is a letter addressed to persons assoicated with the HETI International Conference on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial to take place in Dublin on 18 and 19 November.
=============================


CONTACT: Bradley R Smith

Desk: 209 682 5327
Email: bradley1930@yahoo.com

09 November 2010


Prof. Robert J. van Pelt -- Foolish is as Foolish does?

by Bradley R. Smith

In 1999 Prof. van Pelt wrote an expert report on behalf of Deborah Lipstadt’s defense during the libel trial which British historian David Irving initiated. Van Pelt subsequently testified during that trial as an expert witness, and some two years later he published a revised and expanded version of his expert report as a book: The Case for Auschwitz. All his major arguments follow perfunctorily the earlier publications by French researcher Jean-Claude Pressac – including all of Pressac’s errors, but without once referencing Pressac.

By education and profession, Prof. van Pelt is neither a technician nor an engineer. How he was allowed to pose as an expert in cremation technology and other engineering questions during the above-mentioned London trial is a mystery, or should be. Even though blissfully ignorant of these matters himself, he criticized Fred Leuchter for that limitation (p. 383).

Although cremation technology is one of the core issues of the Auschwitz problem, van Pelt quotes only one source about that issue (on his page 544)—but not to prove anything about the capacity of the Auschwitz, crematories! He uses that one source to distort the relevant issue. In short, to demonstrate that multiple corpses could be cremated in the Auschwitz ovens in 1943, van Pelt refers to a news report about multiple cremations in the 1990s! Who would try to claim that a two-liter diesel engine of 1943 could have 100 HP because such an engine could be found in 1994?

How foolish van Pelt really is becomes clear when reading the following passage of the London court transcript. Urged to explain why crematories usually need about 35 kg of coke per corpse, but in Auschwitz they are said to have needed only 3.5 kg, the following exchange ensued (9th day, Jan. 25, 2000, pp. 150f.):

Van Pelt: […] In Auschwitz, actually, the ovens – the difference between the ovens is that one element which is used in normal ovens is with a heat kind of regenerator in Auschwitz was replaced by compressed air which was blown into the oven. Now…

Irving: Would this account for the drop of normal coke usage from 35 kilograms in the crematorium Gusen concentration camp per body to 3.5 in Auschwitz, in your opinion?

Van Pelt: Yes […].”

To begin with, the “regenerator” van Pelt refers to is actually known as a recuperator. Its purpose is to recuperate the heat contained in the cremation exhaust gases. Dropping the recuperator, as was indeed done for the cheap Auschwitz ovens, inevitably must have led to an increase—not a decrease--in fuel consumption, since the heat losses were much bigger. The “compressed air” was a blower which was standard for the ovens at that time, although it was actually omitted in two of the four Auschwitz crematories. This blower fanned cold air into the oven, but had no effect on the coke consumption per cremated corpse.

It is a riddle how van Pelt came up with this technical nonsense. It is clear, however, why he came up with it. He had to explain the technically absurd claims by the witnesses he relies on.

Van Pelt does not criticize witness testimonies in the light of technical possibilities.

Van Pelt ignores the massive amount of technical literature available on the topic.

Van Pelt also ignores facts and opinions refuting his claims. He does not quote a single paper written by the foremost expert on the Auschwitz crematories, Carlo Mattogno.

Van Pelt invents things without any factual basis.

Finally, van Pelt distorts facts in order to support the claims of his witnesses.

In spite of all this, van Pelt is to speak at the HETI International Conference on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial. Why?

FOR BACKGROUND SEE:

Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity. A Historical and Technical Study of Jean-Claude Pressac’s “Criminal Traces” and Robert Jan van Pelt’s “Convergence of Evidence,”

See especially chapter 12.: “Van Pelt and the Crematorium Ovens of Auschwitz “, vol. 2, starting at p. 441. And see in particular sub-chapter 12.6., “Multiple Cremations,” pp. 459-468.

FOR YOUR REFERENCE, this book is available as a FREE PDF download at http://holocausthandbooks.com/22 Your comments are invited.

Bradley R. Smith
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro CA 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327
Email: bradley1930@yahoo.com
Blog: http://bradleysmithsblog.blogspot.com/
Web: www.codoh.com

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Mr Smith,

Would you purchase an item at eBay for $100 that would take two weeks to deliver (if ever delivered), when you could buy that same item for $1 at your local shop store?

Why would Germans, or anybody else, build expensive, awkward, inefficient gas chambers while waging a war on two fronts, hoard stinky jews in concentration camps, feed them for weeks or even months, shower them before they shove them into these ovens when all it takes to get rid of a human parasite is one minute and one bullet in the back of his head. And, by the way, that is exactly what Germans were doing to the Jewish commissars in the occupied territories. Could you blame them?

Do you know how many human bodies per day you would have to burn to account for 6 million people? Over 4000 every day for 4 years! That's a population of a small town, Bradley. This Holocaust narrative makes absolutely no sense, no matter how you look at it.

You don't need a degree in chemistry to solve this problem, all you need is elementary common sense.

Fighting the "professorial class" over the Holocaust hoax - that's what's foolish, but, hey, it makes a good pastime in old age. I bet your wife already told you that.