reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I informed Mr. Zundel and his defense team that I would clearly state in my report and testify in court if I found facilities that could have supported gas executions. I brought the necessary equipment to survey the facilities in Poland, including a draftsman for measurements and a video photographer to document the forensic samples. Based on my visual inspection and subsequent testing in the US, I concluded that these facilities were incapable of supporting hydrogen cyanide gas executions. The design and construction of the buildings, lack of necessary features like gasketed doors and heating systems, and proximity to crematories all indicated that these facilities could not have been used as gas chambers. Eyewitness reports were found to be unreliable and lacked valid descriptions of gas chambers.

The speaker discusses why Youssef Mullins was attacked by the media, which is described as being owned by “the tiny hats.” They refer to a “secret holocaust by Youssef Mullins” and say Mullins explained something interesting. The claim is that at the beginning of World War II, the Poles were attacked, and the attackers were said to be the Germans, but the speaker asserts that it was the Tiny Hats who did the attacking. They allege that 10,000 Poles were shot and that the Germans were blamed, but the Tiny Hats were responsible. The speaker says diaries and notes were found showing this to be true, and that the trials revealed the Germans had to admit fault even though they didn’t do it. They also claim that the Soviets admitted that they did it in front of the US government. The speaker contends this context explains why Eustace Mullins (mentioned as Youssef Mullins) was attacked when considering all the work he did. They add that the gas chambers were “make believe,” and that Mullins presented all of this in front of Congress and won.

Zundel's defense team was informed that facilities in Poland could not support gas executions. Samples were taken and facilities were examined, concluding they were not suitable due to design flaws. Survivors' testimonies were questioned as lacking validity. No eyewitness reports were found to support gas chamber claims.

An investigator examined facilities expecting to find gas execution chambers, but determined they were incapable of using hydrogen cyanide gas for executions. A supervisor confirmed that ceiling holes were rebuilt after the war. Some people deny the Holocaust and perpetuate intolerance, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, xenophobia, and sexism. Holocaust denial is comparable to believing the federal government was involved in 9/11. Denying the Holocaust is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. The speaker believes that Jews were slaughtered in gas chambers, and these are facts, not opinions to be debated.

Mister Zundel's defense team examined facilities in Poland to determine if they could have supported gas executions. They found the facilities lacked necessary features for gas chambers, such as gasketed doors and proper ventilation. The design flaws made it impossible for the facilities to have been used for gas executions. Eyewitness reports of gassings were deemed unreliable, as there was no concrete evidence to support their claims.

Speaker 0 explains that before going he told “mister Zundle and his defense team” that if he found facilities that could have supported executions, he would testify whether or not they could have sustained gas executions. He says photographs were produced and “the video photographer” documented that “the forensic samples … were properly taken, packaged for submission to the laboratories.” He states he examined the facilities and “made a determination that they were incapable of supporting the use of hydrogen cyanide gas for purposes of execution or otherwise.” He adds that “the reasons that I determined that these facilities were not or never could have been gas execution facilities are stated in my report.” He argues that “None of these ever existed” and that if used, “they would have been blown to bits.” He concludes with “there are no eyewitnesses because there were no gassings.”

A team including an American gas chamber expert, Fred Leuchter, went behind the Iron Curtain to investigate alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz Birkenau and Majdanek. The team included translators, filmmakers, and draftsmen. They took soil, rock, and concrete samples, documenting everything to prevent claims of contamination or tampering. Each alleged gas chamber was measured, and detailed architectural drawings were made, noting the sample locations. The samples were sent to the Ashland laboratory in Massachusetts for testing. The lab was unaware of the samples' origins to ensure unbiased analysis. The lab director analyzed the samples, and the results proved to be a sensation in court.

The gas chambers, the buildings claimed to be the gas chambers, still exist at two of the camps in Poland. The Zyklon b gas that is said to have been used leaves blue stains and traces on the walls. These are the Delousing chambers at Birkenau, at the Auschwitz Birkenau Camp. There is no blue staining on the walls, no zyclon b traces in the walls. The latches can be opened from the inside or the outside, as I am showing right here. You cannot lock somebody into this room. When the war was over in 1945, it was claimed that there were 22 camps that had gas chambers in them. The six million figure is already dead.

The speaker questions the claim that six million Jews perished in German concentration camps during World War II. They cite gas chamber doors that allegedly didn't lock, some made of wood with glass windows, arguing they weren't airtight and would have harmed the guards. They mention Fred Lukter's analysis of Auschwitz gas chamber walls, which supposedly found no cyanide residue. The speaker highlights the existence of soccer teams, a theater, sewing rooms, and swimming pools in the camps, questioning why these would exist if extermination was the goal. A 1944 International Red Cross report allegedly found no evidence of extermination installations at Auschwitz. The speaker claims Jewish population records before and after the war show no significant change. They state that autopsies on 270,000 bodies found the cause of death was typhus and starvation, not poison gas. They allege some cremation smokestacks had no soot and one chimney wasn't connected to the building. The speaker concludes that evidence was manipulated for propaganda and that questioning the Holocaust is taboo because the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.

The speaker challenges the historical narrative around Nazi extermination methods by asserting several counterclaims about the evidence and the revisions of the story over time. They claim that the carbon monoxide used at Treblinka allegedly came from a diesel engine, but argue that diesel engines do not produce enough carbon monoxide to kill people, implying that the story had to be changed. They note that Yad Vashem discussed this in 2019, but contend that the debunking of the diesel-engine theory occurred in the 1980s, and that the Nitzkor project responded by stating it was “just a 500 BHP engine from a captured Soviet tank,” accusing others of moving the goalposts whenever caught. The speaker then shifts to Zyklon B, asserting that it “was not meant to kill people, it was meant to kill bugs and keep the prisoners healthy and alive because they needed them,” portraying the chemical as primarily a pest-control agent rather than a genocide tool. Turning to Auschwitz, the speaker references a sympathetic photograph, then discusses propaganda about the number of victims. They state, “originally, the propaganda about Auschwitz was that five point five million were killed at Auschwitz,” and clarify that when they refer to Auschwitz, they are not talking about Birkenau but the initial Auschwitz gas chamber. Overall, the speaker presents a pattern of alleged revision and reinterpretation of Nazi-era facts, arguing that the narrative shifts whenever it is challenged, and contrasting widely cited figures and purposes with claimed alternative explanations. The emphasis throughout is on questioning the established account of how mass murder was carried out at Treblinka and Auschwitz and on attributing changes in the historical narrative to deliberate adjustments rather than new evidence.

Speaker 0 argues that it’s logistically absurd to claim the Holocaust involved gassing millions and hauling bodies from so-called gas chambers, noting the inefficiency of that method. He points out the irony that the person most famous for gassing people refused to use gas that could have won the war, because he would not be the first to use gas, despite having 20,000 kilograms of tabun and sarin. He asserts there were no counters to that chemical weapon, yet the decision not to use gas led to the downfall of his country. Speaker 1 adds that Hitler was gassed himself at the end of World War I, which blinded him. During the fall of the Kaiser’s empire, the Reich’s collapse and the emergence of Bolshevik and Weimar structures occurred as some German states did not join the Weimar Republic and became sub-states or Soviet-like entities. Speaker 0 emphasizes that anyone uncertain about Hitler’s legacy should read Mein Kampf and hear from Hitler’s own words to understand why he held his beliefs. He claims Hitler did not begin as an anti-Semite intent on killing Jews, and describes Hitler as someone who admired and observed the universe, was a truth-seeker from day one, engaged in political discussions, and was fascinated by philosophy, German history, the British Empire, and America. He notes Hitler was well-read and well-spoken, but deprived economically, working as a day laborer with little work available to feed himself. He claims Hitler went days without food to afford a book, showing a love of knowledge, and that he wasn’t a failed artist; he was a talented artist whose path could have been architecture rather than drawing. Speaker 0 contends that smear campaigns against Hitler fail and are “nonsense.” He dismisses more extreme claims as false, such as insults about Hitler’s sexuality or anatomy, and mentions that such accusations are common against many figures. Speaker 1 comments that a lot of the negative rumors about Hitler (e.g., perverse claims) are typical allegations made against many people, implying they are not unique to Hitler.

Dr. Raul Hilberg, a renowned Holocaust expert, testified in the trial of Ernst Zendel and admitted that there is no scientific report proving the existence of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. He also stated that he couldn't confirm if any reports corresponded to the use of gas chambers. During cross-examination, Zendel's lawyer, Douglas Christie, questioned Hilberg about the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the difficulty of assessing them after 40 years. The trial attracted a large audience, with people lining up outside the district court building to attend.

I planned to send an expert to investigate gas chambers in Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek with a team. They took samples and had them tested at a lab without revealing their origin. The lab director personally conducted the tests, which were crucial in my court case.

Proofs of the Holocaust are few: 'Literally, all there is are the eyewitness testimonies and postwar confessions. There's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews.' After intercepting transmissions from Auschwitz, the speaker argues that the evidence has normal explanations: hair, shoes, and clothing reflect lice control and issued uniforms; Zyklon B was used to disinfect clothes and buildings; the typhus epidemic demanded strict lice control. Allied aerial photos of Auschwitz 'do not show people being gassed or bodies being burned.' He describes a building with four holes in the ceiling; revisionists say they were added later. 1988 Fred Lucher tests showed gas-chamber samples with 'almost no appreciable traces,' Krakow 1990 tests 'got back the same results.' The conclusion: 'there are no eyewitnesses because there were no gassings.'

The speaker states that prior to inspecting facilities, they agreed to clearly report whether the facilities could have sustained gas executions. They brought standard equipment for prison surveys, including a draftsman for measurements. A photographer documented forensic samples taken from Birkenau and alleged gas execution rooms. Samples were tested to confirm visual inspections indicating the facilities never contained hydrogen cyanide. The speaker determined the facilities were not and could not have been gas execution facilities due to their design and fabrication. Requirements for facilities containing explosive and poisonous gas, such as gasketed doors, no windows, gas input/output, temperature control, and explosion-proof equipment, were absent. The buildings were brick and mortar, lacked heat and gasketed doors, and had crematories nearby. The speaker believes that operating such a facility would have resulted in the operators' deaths via gassing or explosion. The speaker read literature and eyewitness reports to understand execution protocols. They concluded there were no valid eyewitness accounts of gassings, stating, "there are no eyewitnesses because there were no gasps."

The speaker, a consulting engineer, discusses their work designing and constructing execution hardware for states in the United States with capital punishment. They explain the design and operation of a gas chamber, emphasizing safety measures such as gasketed doors, a plumbing system, and explosion-proof lighting. The speaker also mentions the process of cleaning the chamber and the body after an execution. They clarify that the gas chamber is not suitable for mass killings and that the facilities they inspected in Auschwitz were not used for extermination. The speaker concludes by discussing an experimental gas chamber used for delousing purposes.

An American chemist, Dr. Lindsay, testified about the dangers of Zyklon B gas allegedly used in Auschwitz. He disputed claims of mass gassings and bodies being handled after gassing. Dr. Lindsay stated it was impossible for people to be killed with Zyklon B as described. He also refuted testimony about flames shooting out of crematoria chimneys, saying it would cause them to collapse.

I informed Mr. Zundel and his defense team that I would clearly state in my report if I found facilities capable of supporting gas executions. I brought the necessary equipment to document and measure the facilities in Poland. I took photographs and collected forensic samples, which were properly packaged for testing in the US. Based on my visual inspection, I concluded that these facilities were not suitable for hydrogen cyanide gas executions. The samples were corroborative evidence. The design and construction of the facilities did not meet the requirements for gas chambers, lacking features like gasketed doors, windows, and explosion-proof switches. Holocaust survivor accounts were not credible eyewitness reports as they did not provide accurate descriptions of gas chambers.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss Nazi chemical capabilities and the use of Zyklon B. Speaker 0 states that Nazis had developed sarin gas and tabun, "nasty deadly nerve gases," and argues that the idea they would actually use Zyklon B, which was essential for maintaining health in the camps, is ridiculous. Speaker 1 agrees, saying it seems ridiculous and that “the whole story” appears ridiculous once examined. Speaker 1 adds that years ago they investigated because it was illegal, noting changes over time, and that they felt compelled to keep quiet. Speaker 0 then shifts to logistics, noting that there are documents on trains that came in, the amounts of coke used in the crematoria, and that everything is well documented, including the number of people who actually made it to Auschwitz. He mentions Red Cross–related deaths as part of the documentation but the sentence trails off: “The deaths by the Red Cross I think were put.”

I expected to find functional gas execution chambers but determined that the facilities could not support the use of hydrogen cyanide gas for executions. I consulted the supervisor about the original holes in the ceiling, and she confirmed that they are not original and have been rebuilt after the war.

Speaker 0 discusses Mydonic and presents a debunking claim in one photograph, specifically referencing "the windows" and the claim that Zyklon Bee was thrown in through the windows from outside to gas people. The speaker asserts this is a false narrative and characterizes it as a supposed wartime propaganda story that has grown into history over time. The speaker says: "the story with Mydonic is that they act... opened the windows and they threw the Zyklon Bee in the windows from outside" to gas people, and comments that the idea is absurd and that no one would knock the window out while being gassed. The speaker notes that this is the supposed explanation and that, in context, it becomes obvious it was wartime propaganda that has over time grown into history. The speaker then shifts to the broader implications, noting that people all over Europe can go to jail just for having this conversation today, potentially facing years in prison. They anticipate backlash against doing the show. The speaker asserts that history needs to be rewritten, stating that the people who perpetuate this story are "enemies of humanity." They argue that when you lie about history, you "steal people's essence from them," and claim that "there should be there's no punishment too great for that." In sum, the speaker contends that the Mydonic anecdote about Zyklon B being thrown through windows is a wartime propaganda narrative, not credible history, and emphasizes the consequences and penalties of challenging or discussing such histories in Europe. They express a conviction that history should be rewritten to correct what they view as deceptive or harmful representations, while acknowledging potential social or legal repercussions for discussing these topics publicly.

The transcript presents an extensive compilation of claims from a group of speakers arguing that the established Holocaust narrative is false or exaggerated and that many historical incidents have been misrepresented or fabricated by Allied propaganda, Soviet influence, and Jewish-led organizations. The speakers frame Holocaust revisionism as a legitimate scholarly effort rather than denial, asserting that revisionists do not dispute that Jews and others suffered and died in the war, but dispute the scale, methods, and specifics of extermination. Key asserted points and claims - Holocaust definition and revisionism - The Holocaust is described as a belief that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered primarily by gassing in “shower rooms,” a narrative the speakers say is amplified by Hollywood, media, and schools. A growing movement of scientists, historians, engineers, journalists, and free-speech activists is portrayed as revisionist, though often branded as “Holocaust deniers” to discourage discourse. Revisionists are said not to deny persecution, deprivation of civil rights, deportation, internment, forced labor, or deaths in camps and ghettos, including deaths from disease; they also say that many victims died in ways other than genocide and that many victims’ dignity is not denied. - Internment and civilian camps in the United States - After Pearl Harbor, over 100,000 people of Japanese descent on the Pacific Coast were interned by Executive Order 9066; the text claims this restricted freedoms, required identity cards, and denied compensation or war reparations. The narrative includes accounts of interned individuals describing camp life, guard presence, and harsh conditions. - General wartime devastation and context - The war is described as a conflict that would not have occurred if “international jury” had not declared war on Germany in 1933, with emphasis on typhus, subversion, and crowded camps as drivers of disease and death. The speakers stress that millions died across battlefields, ships, and cities, and that propaganda surrounding German crimes obscures Allied or Soviet misdeeds. - Claims about typhus, gas chambers, and cremation - Typhus epidemics are said to explain many deaths in camps; Cyclone B (hydrogen cyanide) is claimed to have been used for delousing and pest control rather than execution, with several speakers arguing that gas chambers as homicidal devices did not exist or were technically infeasible. They assert there is no scientific proof of gassing, no German documents proving extermination plans, and that cremation and delousing procedures served health purposes rather than execution purposes. - Expert testimonies and forensics are cited (e.g., Leuchter, Rudolf, Lift, Lindsay) to support the claim that the gas chambers could not have functioned as execution facilities, noting technical impossibilities such as lack of explosion-proof features, gasketed doors, or proper gas delivery systems. - Specific camp narratives and testimonies - The camps are described as having been centers of labor, medical care, and even cultural activity, with accounts of weddings, births, nurseries, orchestras, libraries, theater performances, and recreational activities. Some testimonies describe attempts to maintain humanity and morale under harsh conditions, including a piano in Block 1, children’s art, and soccer games. - Several testimonies challenge the image of mass exterminations, claiming instead that most deaths resulted from disease, starvation, and Allied bombing, and that Red Cross and Vatican inquiries found no evidence of homicidal gas chambers. - A number of survivor testimonials are presented as quotations or paraphrases challenging the notion of mass murder in gas chambers, with some individuals denying personal knowledge of gas chambers or mass killings. - Documentary, legal, and scholarly disputes - The Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and other revisionist scholars are described as measuring and challenging the established narrative, sometimes facing legal or financial pressure. The transcript cites various researchers and forensics teams (e.g., Leuchter, Krakov, Farison, Groff, Farison, Larsson) as having concluded that homicidal gassings were not technically feasible in the cited facilities. - It is claimed that many postwar figures and witnesses provided testimonies or stories later recognized as unreliable or fabricated, including famous Holocaust survivors whose accounts are presented as inconsistent or false. Names and cases (e.g., Herman Rosenblatt, Anne Frank, Elie Wiesel) are invoked to illustrate alleged fraud or manipulation, though these claims contradict well-established historical records. - Propaganda, media, and the so-called “Holocaust industry” - The text asserts that the Holocaust narrative is used as a tool to enforce globalist policy, promote multiculturalism, and suppress nationalist sentiments among white Europeans. It claims that ongoing denazification efforts, legal penalties for questioning the Holocaust, and control over media and online platforms are designed to suppress dissent and promote a one-sided portrayal. - There is a claim that “atrocity propaganda” and black propaganda have been used to shape public perception, with references to Sefton Delmer and Allied psychological warfare, and accusations that postwar trials and media representations were heavily biased or manipulated. - Population counts, mortality figures, and documentary evidence - Several sections contest the veracity of the commonly cited death tolls, the reliability of Red Cross and other international communications, and the authenticity of diaries and eyewitness testimonies. The transcript asserts that the Nuremberg trials did not use physical or technical evidence to establish gas chamber existence and that some documents used as proof were mistranslated or contextualized wrongly. - The piece repeatedly emphasizes that millions of Jews did not die in the camps, that the “6,000,000” figure is a symbolic or religious number, and that high-profile Holocaust narratives are part of a constructed orthodoxy. - Final framing - The speakers position Holocaust revisionism as a defense of free speech and historical inquiry, arguing that questioning the official narrative is essential to truth. They claim laws against denial suppress inquiry and that truth should stand on its own merits without legal protection. They also suggest that conflicting accounts, forged documents, and political agendas have shaped the popular memory of World War II. Note on structure and tone - The transcript interweaves personal testimonials, expert opinions, documentary references, and polemical assertions. It repeatedly contrasts “revisionists” with conventional accounts, often asserting that mainstream portrayals are driven by propaganda, financial interests, or political goals. The overall thrust is to challenge the conventional understanding of the Holocaust, question the evidentiary basis for extermination claims, and highlight alleged inconsistencies in survivor narratives and official records.

Did six million j really perished in World War two German concentration camps? Or is that number just a little bit exaggerated? The latches can be opened from the inside or the outside, as I am showing right here. You cannot lock somebody into this room. They couldn't lock them in, and some gas chamber doors were made with wooden doors. Wooden doors to gas chambers? Come on. It's not airtight. He found no cyanide residue at all. The Auschwitz exhibit is a fake, pure and simple. Why would they have soccer and swimming pools to people they're about to exterminate? Not a single person died of poison gas.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the history of reported murder methods at Holocaust sites, emphasizing that much of what was claimed during the war and immediately after is now considered false or unsubstantiated. They note that Treblinka is a focal point for what they describe as witness testimony chaos and ideas that “anything goes” in early claims, not just for Treblinka but as a pattern across camps. Speaker 1 lists a variety of methods that were claimed at the time: death by steam; death by a vacuum (pumping air out of a chamber to suffocate); chlorine; engine exhaust gas claims; electrocution; killing with a delayed-action poison gas that would numb people who could still walk to mass graves and fall over them; mass gas chambers on a track where victims would roll over mass graves and be deposed through opening floors; a death bridge where people climbed onto a scaffold and were shot to death. He also mentions Belzec, where there were claims that people were murdered by defecation pits, with other Jews made to defecate on them until suffocation. Speaker 0 comments that these descriptions do not seem practical as methods of killing. He reiterates Treblinka as a major example of “testimoniel anarchism” and “whatever you can come up with” in the wartime and immediate postwar period. He observes that the narrative that exists today is completely different from that chaotic testimony. Speaker 1 notes further varieties, including chlorinated lime in trains that would kill people, and asserts that there are many such ideas that were invented when discussing homicidal gas chambers in encyclopedias. He mentions a chart showing “what was claimed once and what is still there?” as a reference to dropped death claims. He asks how the narrative moved from the chaotic, testimonial stage to the streamlined version presented today, in which Treblinka’s victims are said to have been killed with diesel engine exhaust. He adds that diesel exhaust is “technically impossible” because mainstream historians now acknowledge that diesel does not contain enough carbon monoxide to kill in the way claimed, implying that the diesel claim could not have been the mechanism. Overall, the speakers describe a shift from a wide array of war-and-postwar claims about murder methods at camps to a different, more uniform narrative, and they question how that transition occurred, especially regarding Treblinka and the claim of diesel exhaust.

The speaker discusses Adolf Hitler and poison gases, noting that Hitler possessed two nerve gases, Tabun and Sarin, against which none of the Allies had any defense. Despite this, Hitler ordered that these poison gases not be used because Germany had signed the Geneva Convention. The speaker asserts there are contradictions here that historians should have investigated, claiming to have spent thirty years in archives and even offering rewards for any evidence, yet suggesting that if such evidence exists, others would have found it. The argument pivots to the expectation of traceable chain-of-command documentation. The speaker points out the many people involved in the process—from the individual writing the teletype message on one end to the recipient at the other end, with twenty copies at each end—and argues that even if official files were destroyed, someone would have written home or kept a diary. The speaker asserts that such evidence should be in the records because Hitler’s other crimes are documented in various forms. Specific documented crimes and orders attributed to Hitler are listed: - Euthanasia: an actual order with Hitler’s signature, issued sometime in 1940 but backdated to the first day of the war, with Hitler’s euthanasia order in the files with the Signicharlotter. - The order to kill the Russian commissars after the campaign in Russia began, with those commissars described as political officers attached to the Russian armed forces; the order is documented in the military files of the day. - The order to kill British commandos, noted as a particularly sore point for Canadians, with Hitler’s order from October 1942 in the files, described as a criminal order and adequately documented. - The order to kill the male population of Stalingrad after capturing the city, recorded in the private diary of General Helder (Haldbr). - The order to Linzalla Airmen in May 1944, also attributed to Hitler, and documented. The speaker then raises an interesting question about Hitler’s character: how could he unhesitatingly issue orders that are crimes under international law, such as the order to kill prisoners, while at the same time ordering that poison gas not be used to avoid violating the Geneva Convention? The speaker notes that poison gas could have potentially changed the course of the war—specifically, around the Normandy Beachhead in July 1944, when it was established and near breakout—arguing that use of nerve gases against which Allied troops had no gas masks could have wiped out the entire Normandy Beachhead. The speaker contends that Hitler could have won the war by pulling out the Panzer divisions and redeploying them to the Eastern Front, potentially mopping up the Eastern Front in two to three months, but He did not.