I denna text, som även innehåller ett par intervjuutdrag med Germar Rudolf och en beskrivning av den politiska förföljelse och sociala utstötning han drabbats av p.g.a. sin sanningslidelse, värderar han Pressacs båda böcker om Auschwitz och finner dem vara ovetenskapligt genomförda men ändå värda att läsa som materialsamlingar:
Citat:
"---Expert report on the question of the scientific validity of the books Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers [2] and Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz, la Machinerie du meurtre de masse [3] by Jean-Claude Pressac
1. Criteria for scientific validity
The theses which are the subject of a scientific work should be supported by critical presentation of evidence in the work or by reference to technical sources and they should be subjected to criticism of works with opposing theses. Whether the books by Pressac given in the title meet these requirements is discussed in what follows.
2. Method of proof and references to literature
With respect to the technical and natural scientific issues he addresses in his work (for example, cremation, gassing with Prussic acid, ventilation technology, formation of chemical residues), Pressac makes no reference to any source in the technical literature and also does not make his own calculations or experiments. [4] What he does is to cite current historical works. See the annex for examples of this.
3. Criticism of witnesses, documents and other matter
Auschwitz: Technique ... contains frequent and extensive criticism of witness statements, but these are nevertheless used without substantiation. [5] Les Crématoires ... silently corrects the (still unsubstantiated) witness statements, without applying any criticism to them. Neither work contains any criticism of documentation. Since most of the documentation comes from formerly Soviet archives (those of the KGB, and others), criticism is surely necessary here. [6] Nor is there any technical criticism of the locations and structures under investigation (crematories or their remains). See the annex for examples of this.
4. Treatment of counter-arguments
In Auschwitz: Technique ... Pressac briefly discusses the Leuchter Report (without source references) and a work by P. Rassinier. He does not mention more recent and more substantial works by other authors with opposing arguments (Faurisson, Butz, Mattogno and others). The second book contains only a suggestion that there are those who dispute his theses (p. 2), but no names, works or arguments are given. He also omits to introduce documents that might conflict with his theses (for example, air-reconnaisance photos). See the annex for examples of this.
5. Conclusions
Because of absence of criticism of documents and deliberate alterations of witness statements, Pressac's books can have only limited value for historical science. However, they have some informative value.
Because of lack of calculations, experiments and other substantiation, Pressac's books do not conform to the standards that apply to scientific works in this technical area.
Finally, Pressac does not apply the criticism of others to his conclusions, especially in Les Crématoires ... He does not even mention them.
6. Summary
The books Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers and Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz, la Machinerie du meurtre de masse by Jean-Claude Pressac demonstrate that the author has worked in an unscientific way. Nevertheless, because of his industrious documentary research these books contain many useful facts.
Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf, Jettingen, 18th January 1994
Annex
Examples from Les Crématoires ... for:
2. Method of proof and references to literature:
On page 6 he has the SS deduce that one needs to burn 5 kg. of coke per cremation for a corpse without a coffin, based on the amount of coke required to cremate a corpse in a coffin (35 kg. wood plus a few kg. coke). This deduction is based on Pressac's estimate only, he gives no source reference.
With respect to the amount of time it takes to cremate a corpse, Pressac quotes various figures from witness statements and documents (1 h., p. 7; 30-40 min., p. 13; 1 h. 12 min., p. 15; 15 min., p. 28; 1 h. 36 min., p. 34; 34-43 min., p. 49; 13 min., p. 72; 29 min., p. 74; 22 min., p. 80). There is no technical examination of these figures.
On page 41f. Pressac interprets the discovery by the camp administration of an article by G. Peters on a circular layout delousing facility to mean that the SS intended to equip the supposed killing gas chambers in Bunker 2 with a similar facility. He gives no supporting evidence.
For Pressac, the use of the word Sonder- (special-) is evidence of the mass-murder. He gives no evidence for this (pp. 46f., 52, 60f.). On the contrary: on page 82 he cites the term Sondermaßnahme (special measure) used in connection with delousing operations.
On page 70f. he interprets the fact that a wooden ventilator was built into a morgue-cellar as proof of the use of Prussic acid there, without giving any reason. He does not notice that he himself mentions in several places that iron was rationed during the war and was replaced by other materials where possible (pp. 23, 38, 51, 53, 70).
The data cited by Pressac as to the air delivery capacity of the ventilation system (pp. 30, 38, 74, 90) are not only dependent on motor performance, but also on the blower type and the layout of air ducts (pressure difference). Pressac does not provide a calculation that would apply to each of the various types of systems.
Examples from Les Crématoires ... for:
3. Criticism of witnesses, documents ...:
He restricts the gassings in crematoria I (main camp) to a few occurrences in a three month period — contrary to witness testimony (p. 34f.).
After the gassings in Bunkers I and II, he states that several hours elapsed before the corpses could be removed (p. 39f.). However, the witnesses report only a few minutes' delay, something Pressac does not mention. He makes the same statement about Crematories IV and V, in which repeat gassings would have been impossible without a ventilation system. He is silent about witness statements to the contrary (p. 89).
He describes the crematory capacity given in a supposedly original document as lie-propaganda and corrects it — without giving any reason (p. 80f.).
He presents a document ordering trace-gas detection apparatus (Anzeigegeräten für Blausäure-Reste) as the ultimate proof of the gas chambers. However, this document exhibits so many technical errors and errors of form that a documentary criticism needs to be applied to it. Here again Pressac omits this.
He made no study of the ruins of the site or of Allied air-reconnaissance photography.
Examples from Les Crématoires ... for:
4. Treatment of counter-arguments:
In his new book he ignores the criticisms of his first book, Auschwitz: Technique ... [7] On the contrary, he repeats the errors that were charged against him.
In both books he ignores the fact that there are no traces of the claimed Zyklon B insertion hatches in the roof of what was supposedly the main gas chamber (morgue-cellar I, crematory II), and the fact that without them this main gas chamber disappears as a murder weapon and as the main instrument of the industrial mass-murder in Auschwitz. [8]
He does not spend a single word on the chemical-physical arguments or discussions of building technology in the Rudolf Expert Report. [5]---"
, men min fasta övertygelse är att sanningen en dag kommer att segra. 
Jag är född optimist!
Det de berättar om gasugnarna MÅSTE vara sant, varför de misstror oss skakade och rörda Messianska Yudar, varför varför, du är fröken du måste veta varför inte de tror på dessa Ugnar och den Eviga Eld?! 
); det var ju inte Irving som som bad Leuchter åka till Auschwitz? 
, läs denna länk (förord till Leuchterrapporten av Faurissons; smittar ej, så frukta icke!): 
Och denna inkvisition kommer att breda ut sig i allt fler länder om den inte möter något motstånd. Politiskt motiverade censurivrare förtjänar endast det mest sarkastiska förakt: de är korrupta lögnare som av rädsla försöker dölja obekväma fakta och förnedra den ständigt kunskapshungriga människoanden.
Tror du fortfarande att det var Irving som bad Leuchter åka till Auschwitz? Nu ska jag göra det enklare för dig: