MovieChat Forums > Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (2000) Discussion > Just plain stupid

Just plain stupid

posted 17 years ago by zumwildenhirsch
19 replies | jump to latest

Please. Would you get so angry at a man who testified that the world was flat? Or that yesterday the sun didn't rise? Or that on 9/11/2001 two aircraft did not strike the twin towers? Or that the Bible is verbatim truth? No, you wouldn't: the evidence is palpable. For those of us who live in a society free from the shackles of restricted speech it is a blessing to have people like Leuchter desperately trying to disprove the evident. It reinforces the value of democracy. We are fortunate that we live in such a world. Besides, anyone who recognised, as Leuchter did, the disgrace that passed for the execution of convicts and sought to eliminate the suffering in such deserves respect and admiration. And I, personally, hate the death penalty - though I empathise with those who advocate its use. Hmm.... hate and empathy togther - is that un-American?

[–] ckn8 17 years ago

I know what you're saying but your analogies are somewhat unfair. People could care less about flat earth believers or sunrise deniers (if such a thing exists.) If you try to tell somebody who lost somebody they were close to and loved in 9/11 that planes didn't hit the building, I'm sure they would have a strong response though. That's the thing... flat earth belief isn't comparable to the Holocaust. Sure, I agree with you, free speech is a wonderful thing that shouldn't be taken for granted. However, you HAVE to expect that people will have very emotional and strong responses to it. We are not far enough removed yet in time from the Holocaust to view it as purely historical. People that lived through it are still alive and their children/grandchildren are also too closely connected to view it from the outside.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying as your points are somewhat mixed. I assume at the beginning you're talking of the Holocaust denail aspect of his life, before switching gears to the execution technology aspect. I agree with you about the death penalty and see your point.

[–] zumwildenhirsch 17 years ago

Yeah ckn8 - of course I can understand how upsetting it must be for relatives and friends of the victims of such abominable crimes to hear some clown question or deny what so evidently occurred. I can see that my analogies are somewhat bald, seem flip perhaps. My point is more general. As you might know, there are many people for whom Charles Darwin (and all who choose to believe him) is a dangerous heretic: they firmly believe that God created Adam whose rib made etc. and then after some few thousand years of vigorous begatting, some prophets and a messiah, here we all are. Any opinion to the contrary is deeply offensive, in fact upsetting. So, not so far from flat planets I think. Fine by me. If creationism is what people believe and they want to teach it to their kids that's their prerogative. I for one am not going to stand in their way so long as I am free not to participate and my basic rights are not violated: that's the healthy free society we live in. And to sustain such a society one cannot strictly say "this opinion is more offensive than that". Nor can the espousing of any view be held to be unlawful; hurtful though it may be. Criminalising holocaust denial (or for that matter holocaust questioning) and thus ring-fencing it from debate establishes dangerous precedents as unpleasant as the opinions it seeks to vilify. It condemns people as incapable of making up their own minds and suggests the possibility that one day that belief in the theory of evolution could be made illegal.
Or am I just being dense?

[–] ckn8 17 years ago

"Criminalising holocaust denial (or for that matter holocaust questioning) and thus ring-fencing it from debate establishes dangerous precedents as unpleasant as the opinions it seeks to vilify."

You're not dense at all and I especially agree with this point. First of all, it's frightening to me to have free speech limited in any sense. But on an even more simple level, to me, setting up laws specifically to stop Holocaust deniers from stating their point of view lends a certain credence and weight to their argument. It almost glorifies their position. Frankly, I think Holocaust denial is so completely ignorant (much like flat earth debate) that there is no reason to even take it seriously as an argument.

What's amazing is how many people ARE too dense to even pick up on that. I read an interview with Erroll Morris where he explained that the historian in the film who refutes Leuchter's "findings," was added later, after he showed the original cut to a college (film?) class. He was shocked that so many of the students agreed with and believed Leuchter. He was shocked that just watching Leuchter tell his own story wasn't damning enough, so he went back and added the historian and scientist. This is probably more a comment on what people will believe when information is presented to them in a film or on tv, but it's interesting nonetheless.

You're right, you were making a more general point and I got caught up in the specifics of the analogy. But again, this is part of the problem with talking objectively about historical events that are so recent and so fresh in peoples minds. We've had 400 years to get used to Darwin (and some people are still fighting against it, obviously), but 12 million people killed just 60 years ago is hard to look at for a great many peole without strong emotional attachement.

Another funny thing about this film. People often make the case that just because he held such views he shouldn't' have been forced out of his career and had his life ruined. On one level, this ignores the fact that the people who hire him ALSO have the right to choose what they want to do. It also ignores the fact that real problem was him bringing so much media attention upon himself, which led to a closer investigation of his life, which led to authorities uncovering that he really wasn't qualified to do what he was doing in the first place. He says as much early in the film.

[–] zumwildenhirsch 17 years ago

Frankly, I think Holocaust denial is so completely ignorant (much like flat earth debate) that there is no reason to even take it seriously as an argument

We do agree.

As for his credentials, he is certainly no less qualified than some of the original engineers of death chamber equipment, from which come the horror stories of botched gassings, injections and electrocutions. He also appears to want to minimise the indignity and suffering of being put to death. If the states have to carry out capital punishment, they should have proper contractors. I understand though that Leuchter's pride and joy, the refurbished Tennessee State electric chair, has never been put to use. Good.

[–] ckn8 17 years ago

It's pretty shocking that there doesn't seem to be much knowledge in the area of death chamber equipment. In the film, Leuchter himself is amazed that he's able to segue from electric chair work to gas and lethal injection. I do agree that he seemed to genuinely care about the well being of prisoners. (Of course, as these interviews were filmed far after his life fallen apart, one can't help but wonder if he was positioning himself in as sympathetic nature as he could.)

But my gut reaction is he's more of a tragic figure and not quite that self-award. He simply doesn't seem to realize how unqualified he was to collect the samples, or what he should have been looking for. Instead he's obsessed with finding something that's long gone. Beyond that, he doesn't seem to have any perspective about history. He seems to think the Nazis were as meticulous with their gassing as he is with his death chamber equipment in America sixty years later. He doesn't fully realize how horrific and rudimentary it was. He's also painfully aware that the Nazis tried the very methods he claims would have been easier i.e. shooting/explosions et al. He appears to have no interest in the Nazis own records of the trainloads of Jews/homosexuals/communists et al who were delivered to the various camps. I don't really get the feeling (personally) that he went into this as an anti-Semite, but instead stumbled into findings he thought were accurate that were instead painfully wrong. He obviously liked the ensuing limelight and latched onto it, bringing upon his downfall. His lack of self awareness is truly astounding.

[–] gkar2025 17 years ago

Just two points:

First, I am not aware of anyone of historical note arguing for the existence of a flat earth since Pythagoras calculated its circumference over 2000 years ago. Not even in Columbus' time (another myth).

Second, this is why it is criminal in Germany to deny the holocaust. You cannot claim to be participating in a debate when you have no evidence, just hatred of Jews. There are plenty of debates among reputable scholars about the holocaust, but holocaust deniers are not part of this. Furthermore, to just simply deny such a massive crime and then use the weakest of arguments to support your point is to all but participate in that crime. If you allow people to deny facts and perpetuate myths. I see this flat-earth canard coming up a lot in these discussions, WHEN IT NEVER HAPPENED? It is bad enough that few know the real reason no one backed Columbus (they knew his estimate of ~2000 miles for the circumference of the Earth was WAY off), and this is something with little consequence. Allow the holocaust to be questioned and then that questioning to be legitimated only opens the door to such things happening again (Cambodia) and again (Bosnia) and again (Rwanda) and again (Darfur) and again (????).

[–] offbway-1 17 years ago

The weakest of arguments? I think you have it backwards. You haven't presented one ounce of evidence to this forum. You present orthodoxy, myth and hearsay as fact. And each time inaccuracies in your story are shot down you scream - antisemite. As though you can kill human curiostiy.

History is constantly revised and updated. Otherwise, what would be the reason for scholarly history departments? Why should the study of the holocaust be any exception? What do you outlaw next - curiostiy itself?

The truth eventually comes out. Passing laws preventing debate gets you nowhere. Over time it will only build resentment.

You can scream til you're blue anti-semite, Nazi, blah blah blah. Just makes you look like a fool.

Truth is, I don't hate anyone but liars. And you're a liar. Fortunately, you're deceptions and attempts to maintain orthodoxy are wearing thin.

But that's the way it usually works with fanaticism. Skeptics are charge with heresy and punished. Takes an awful lot of effort on your part, doesn't it? Well, keep trying.

Ironically, this is the history of jews themselves, with the vast majority of hard working regular people persecuted (or abandoned, see below) by their own orthodoxy. Read a little from Professor Israel Shahak

http://www.abbc.net/historia/shahak/english.htm

Or look up the name Rodolf Kastner, and tell everyone here his story of selling out 500,000 Hungarian jews for 1600 of his family and friends. You can read about it in a book called Perfidy, by Ben Hecht (yeah, that Ben Hecht). Seems nazis and orthodox jews understood one another very well.

By the way, the World Court has just ruled that Serbia is NOT guilty of genocide in Bosnia. Your thoughts? What then are we to make of the treatment of the Serbs by NATO (bombing them back to 1950) in 1999? Should we believe such historical revisionism?

Oh, wait. We bombed Serbia because of the "atrocities" in Kosovos. So for extra credit: tell me how many mass graves they found in Kosovo after the 1999 bombing. Hint - it's a trick question.

[–] gkar2025 17 years ago

tsk tsk tsk
Coming back for another beating already? Happy to oblige.

1. The Holocaust is established as fact, and you choose to ignore all evidence proving it. Convenient. You dismiss Lipstadt's evidence as weak without giving any examples. She, on the other hand, extensively documents all her sources. I offered up both Hilberg's _magnum opus_ 3 volume work, _The Destruction of the European Jews_ and Robert Lifton's _The Nazi Doctors_, both with mounds of evidence cited. A briefer account is Christopher Browning's _Ordinary Men_. Need more? Please consult the following:

Bundesarchiv Koblenz - The German state archives. Please, feel free to discuss your theories with the archivist, and s/he will be more than happy to direct you to the appropriate documents to your heart's content. Ask specifically for the two series RD 18 and RD 19. I won't be more specific than that, lest you accuse me of cherry-picking evidence. These will detail the orders, training and activities of the Reserve Police Battalions and the SS, so you may want to use one of their catalogues to narrow your search.

Staatsarchiv Bayern, Munich -- Plenty of documents there as well, though not nearly as much as in Koblenz. The archivist will be more than happy to help you find all of the documents you need.

and of course, Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. Of of the main repository of documents relating to the holocaust. If you want to find it, it will be there, or the archivist can help you locate it.

That is enough evidence to keep you out of trouble for a little while.

2. You wrote:
"History is constantly revised and updated. Otherwise, what would be the reason for scholarly history departments?"

True, but revision and updating do not include rewriting and creating from nothing.

"Why should the study of the holocaust be any exception? What do you outlaw next - curiostiy itself?" [btw, I realize we are both vigorous in our positions, so I understand typos and mispellings here and there. Let's at least agree not to hold that against one another]
First, the study of the holocaust is not an exception -- just see Raul Hilberg, who has written the most extensive study yet, and comes to a figure of 5.1 million -- not including the mass murder of non-Jews and other "undersirables." As for curiousity, an argument ad absurdium, but I shall reply anyway. What is outlawed is denying a crime of mass murder, not historical inquiry. Irving's crime was not to revise holocaust study, but attempting to deny it all together, as was well-evidenced in his lawsuit against Lipstadt. He lost that libel suit, by the way, even though Britain has very lenient libel laws.

3. you wrote: "The truth eventually comes out. Passing laws preventing debate gets you nowhere. Over time it will only build resentment."

Yes, the truth of the holocaust came out. There is no law banning holocaust denial in the United States, the the government of the United States does not prosecute anyone for holocaust denial. Germany, acknowledging its past, has passed different laws.

4. You state: "You can scream til you're blue anti-semite, Nazi, blah blah blah. Just makes you look like a fool.
Truth is, I don't hate anyone but liars. And you're a liar. Fortunately, you're deceptions and attempts to maintain orthodoxy are wearing thin.
But that's the way it usually works with fanaticism. Skeptics are charge with heresy and punished. Takes an awful lot of effort on your part, doesn't it? Well, keep trying."
Sorry you hate me; that's life, I guess. I do not hate you, just find you to be hateful and ill-informed. As for the fool, I leave that to the rest of the board (who frankly, may have gotten bored with both of us) to decide. Skeptics? If you were actually a true skeptic, as opposed to a crank, you would disavow both the holocaust revisionist movement and the so-called 9/11 truth movement. Interested in real skeptics? See www.psicop.org. BTW, just a hunch, do you believe a) the moon landing was a hoax and b) there is a face on Mars? My money is on yes and yes. But, feel free to surprise me.

I am not screaming, just typing, and not even in capitals. You are just touchy.
As for anti-semite, you wrote:
"Ironically, this is the history of jews themselves, with the vast majority of hard working regular people persecuted (or abandoned, see below) by their own orthodoxy. Read a little from Professor Israel Shahak
http://www.abbc.net/historia/shahak/english.htm
Or look up the name Rodolf Kastner, and tell everyone here his story of selling out 500,000 Hungarian jews for 1600 of his family and friends. You can read about it in a book called Perfidy, by Ben Hecht (yeah, that Ben Hecht). Seems nazis and orthodox jews understood one another very well."

Radio Islam? Are you sure you want to go with that? Stating boldly on their website "They Are All Jews ! Palestinians won't get their independence
until Americans get theirs!"
Much of Shahak's work (thank you for pointing it out) repeats a number of stereotypes and falsehoods about Talmudic and Jewish religion (I am surprised he did not include the Blood Libel stories, but I did skim), and his opening claim seems dubious, though this neither proves nor disproves him. Even then, he make little distinction between Zionism and Judaism, and this is deeply problematic. I disdain anti-semitism, but I am equally suspicious of all nationalisms, including Zionism (which the UN declared a form of racism, and given the views of most of its most ardent supporters, I am inclined to agree). But let's be straight about this, Zionism is mainly linked as a philosophy to the Likhud party. There are plenty of Israelis who are not Zionist. Jews are not all Zionists, yet you seem to paint with a broad brush. I will, again, leave it to others to determine you anti-semitism, as I feel I have revealed it quite clearly.

Nazis and Orthodox Jews understood each other? You base this all on one creep (Kastner)? That logical fallacy is called a hasty generalization.

finally,

5. I did not mention Kosovo, but you seem to now want to stick up for all of Serbia. Why, I do not know. But I did expect that, as you have posted this gibberish before. How big does a mass grave have to be before it is considered mass? There were graves with at least a dozen or so men found in Kosovo, and yes, Kosovars were drug running and likely executing Serbian policemen. And no, I did not approve of NATO's bombing, and was getting as much news at the time as I could find on the net from the one free radio station in Sarajevo (I think it was radio Zagreb, but stand to be corrected).

As for the Bosnian genocide. A whole nation cannot be brought into court, and indeed, there were many who opposed Milosovic's fascism. A nation is a concept, and cannot be found innocent or guilty. Milosovic died after dragging out his trial far to long, making it a circus, just because the judges were fearful of people like you who would accuse them of injustice if he were not found innocent. Many of his officials and his puppets in Bosnia have been found guilty, and some not guilty of crimes against humanity.

But why cherry pick? You do not want to stand up for Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, Bagasora, Sindikubwabo, al-Bashir and the Janjaweed? Hmm, what do these groups have in common? What do Hitler's regime and Milosovic's regime have in common? Just thinkin' out loud...

[–] welshhibby 17 years ago

I like cheese

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zumwildenhirsch 16 years ago

In my last post on this subject I said

"I understand though that Leuchter's pride and joy, the refurbished Tennessee State electric chair, has never been put to use. Good."

I am now wrong. It appears the good state of Tennessee strapped in one Daryll Holton last year and gave Leuchter's machine its first customer.

I think Leuchter, weirdo that he is, ought to derive some satisfaction from the fact that probably the last ever electrocution in the US took place in his chair.

[–] BravisJ 7 years ago

Frankly, I think Holocaust denial is so completely ignorant (much like flat earth debate) that there is no reason to even take it seriously as an argument.

Frankly, it isn't denial. Denial, in this case, would suggest that the person knows that the situation actually happened but decides to falsify that fact by claiming that it did not. When I watch documentaries made by Holocaust "revisionists" I never hear them saying that they deny it happened, but point out that there's no evidence for it happening.

Try the following documentaries to see what evidence there actually is regarding the Holocaust...

David Cole - The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIBPdd9rvAQ

Questioning the Holocaust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RddqP0ABzwM&t=4634s

The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax Exposed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b77igZ1InQ

Hitler's War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0E_Ewe8g2Y&t=2s

Germar Rudolf on the Holocaust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnfyerQ1mo

Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...

[–] kannary 17 years ago

Free speech it is.

No goverment ever stopped Mr. Leutcher from saying what he pleased, or testifying in court, or visiting Poland, or Germany.

The filmmakers never stoppd Mr. Leutcher from saying what he thought. As a matter of fact, during the film he had a chance to explain his side of the story cleraly and without interruptions.

And free speech is also the right of those who disagree with him to voice their disagreement, and if the subject at hand carries within itself a controversial human tragedy, then he has to be willing to accept the response to his free speech, which in this case was outrage and disgust.

Is modern culture basically a milder but larger version of a lynch mob? Sure. This documentary shows what happens socially when you go decide to go at it like Mr. Leutcher did.

So I fail to see this has anything to do with freedom of speech, unless - opf course, you agree with Mr. Leutcher on his theories. And if that is the case, then we will have our own little experiment in social outcasting right here...

[–] TheEmulator23 17 years ago

Free Speech, but be prepared to be ridiculed if what you say is "Just Plain Stupid!" The Holocaust didn't exist, well look at all the evidence and proof. People that deny that, I want nothing to do with. Just ask the families devastated and persecuted by the Nazis! I love free speech but for people that say and believe stupid things I for one want no part of their ignorance. As far as this guy goes well...It was interesting but the world would have not been any different with or w/out him. Someone else would have taken his place sooner or later. As far a documentaries are concerned, I have seen better, and I have seen worse.

[–] jbooth19 17 years ago

The problem is, those people who claim these things don't give any proof to support their claim. Fred A. Leuchter was a major threat to the Holocaust movement in today's society. Unlike previous Holocaust deniers who were usually just angry Germans or wannabe Nazis, this man actually had proof and experience. The media could not tolerate this, just like they couldn't tolerate David Irving uncovering the false photographs taken at "execution camps". Leuchter was silenced, his life was destroyed by the media. No other would have recieved this, you could deny that black people were enslaved and recieve no punishment, but the one conspiracy theory that you can't claim has truth to it is that of "Holocaust denial". Those who believe everything they are told will ignore this fact, but they can't accept that maybe the media has been lying to them.

Plus, Israel and the Jewish people have FAR too much to gain from the Holocaust movement. You can deny it all you want, but it's fact that the Jews do indeed control most media outlets, so they will tell you what you will believe. I can see this simple truth, but most can't.

[–] robb-hodge 17 years ago

Having just watched this movie last night I must chime in w/ a few observations as a physics/poli sci major.

1. Leuchter was asked to verify the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz as part of a greater effort of a different man who was attempting to prove that the Holocaust was a myth. What did this mean to Leuchter? Well, he was asked to provided the best defense he could. He even admitted that before arriving at Auschwitz, he believed what he was taught as a child and in school regarding the Jews in WWII. But as a "scientist/engineer", he was looking for evidence of the existence of gas chambers and found none. As a scientist, it is difficult to maintain any claim w/o empirical evidence to support that claim. BUT LEUCHTER WAS NOT TRYING TO DISPROVE THE HOLOCAUST. He even states in the movie (and in his report) that it would be more logical that the Nazis would use firing squads, gallows and even electrocution to kill Jews because they were cheaper and more effective. He was asked to determine if, in his "expert" opinion, gas chambers were in operation at Auschwitz. And as a "scientist", Leuchters beliefs in the accounts of the Holocaust that he was taught started to falter after his search for evidence.

2. The Jewish women who call him an anti-Semite who promotes hate deserve to have all of their freedoms revoked for a week. THEY WORK FOR AN ORGANIZATION THAT CLAIMS TO PROMOTE TOLERANCE AND UNDERSTANDING AND YET THEY CAN'T BE TOLERANT AND UNDERSTANDING OF AN IDEA THAT DIFFERS FROM THEIRS. Those little bits of commentary from those women was almost as disgusting as some of the claims made by the Revisionists. Straight slander. And the fact that they got the Mass. A.G. to file a lawsuit against him for practicing as an engineer when not registered. WOW. I can tell you in California, a significant portion of engineers, mechanics, plumbers, electricians etc. who claim to be certified this and that, aren't.

3. Anyone else think this movie tried to present waaaaaaay to much? This movie should have either been a capital punishment movie, or a holocaust movie. Can't really do both in 90 min. How can you present several sides of each story (there's never two sides, always more)? Simply put, you can't, and Morris really fumbled in this respect.

4. I have to give respect to Leuchter for following his beliefs and trying to be scientific in his approach (regardless of how flawed it was). And even though his testimony ruined his career, he continued to stand by his claims which he believed to be based on scientific evidence and research. Thats saying a lot more than several of the revisionist, aryan nation folks who have presented arguments against the holocaust. And again I must reiterate that in his mind Leuchter was asked to prove the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, and could not. BUT HE NEVER DIRECTLY MADE THE CLAIM THAT THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED. ONLY THAT THERE COULD BE VERY REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED AS TRUTH SO FAR.

Enjoy. Digest. And think before responding. Mahalo.

[–] MollyConnelly 17 years ago

This movie angered me greatly, almost to tears, but I'm not really going to go into that. I do want to remind people that Jews weren't the only ones targeted during the Holocaust, some seem to have forgotten that. Also, maybe I'm just thick, but it never really crossed my mind that he was an Anti-Semite like some think. I just think he's a loon, and not one that should be locked up, but one to be feared. Not that I fear him, I'm just trying to differentiate the two. What I really came on here to say though, is that it makes me laugh at the fact that Leuchter was saying that it didn't make sense to him that the Nazis used gas chambers instead of guns and such. What about the Holocaust DID make sense?

[–] Krattan87 16 years ago

The poster talked about people who thinks the earth is flat. Well actually there are a few of them.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//
This site is a source of much amusement to the normal person. I have heard of a few old men from around here who are members but I think they just get together to drink beer and make fun of the whole idea. This just goes to show that there's alot of crazy people out there, but none are more repulsive than the holocaust-deniers.

[–] author-21 16 years ago

I agree with you. I never heard him say anything antisemitic or disingenuous or anything like that. He's a completely guileless, child-like man who had only his own expertise (which was painfully misapplied) to fall back on. He was played for a sap by people who really are evil, and as a result he got cast as evil too.