Monday, June 13, 2011

ISIS trips, stumbles, and falls

ISIS trips, stumbles, and falls

Jim Fetzer

As a student of the history and the philosophy of science, I have been dumbfounded to discover that ISIS, a prominent journal in the history of science, has published a review of a book on astronomers that was edited by T. Hockey, THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, by N. M. Swerdlow, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago (ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-8), in which he assails Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D., an historian of science and scholar whom I admire, on the alleged ground of anti-Semitism.

While Kollerstrom has conducted scientific research on the Holocaust related to the use of zyklon gas to exterminate inmates, it has nothing to do with his contributions to THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, where his entries on John Couch Adams, John Flamsteed and even Issac Newton are completely independent of research related to the Holocaust. The only reason for introducing it at all, therefore, has to have been to fashion an ad hominem attack on Kollerstrom, a gross abuse of Swerdlow’s role as a the author of a review, which ISIS should not have accepted for publication.

Even if he disagreed with Kollerstrom about the Holocaust, those views ought not have been cited or used to attack him. They had nothing to do with his research on the astronomers whose entries he authored, which included one on Newton, which reflected great confidence by Hockey in Nicholas. It is as if Swerdlow had intended to demonstrate to the world his ruthless dedication to the extermination of any vestiges of (what he considers to be) anti-Semitism. Astonishingly, he not only adopts the extreme measure of discouraging any library from purchasing the encyclopedia but outrageously suggests that the book itself should be pulped!

So Swerdlow not only commits the ad hominem fallacy by discounting Kollerstrom’s research on astronomers because of his interest in questions about the Holocaust, a point that should have been apparent to ISIS, but he practices an extreme form of guilt by association by condemning the entire contents of this volume on that basis, which means that he compounds one fallacy by committing another—and it is one that, from the perspective of intellectual history, actually appears to be even more egregious as a form of group punishment for the sins of one of its contributors.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Having spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of this kind and having an extensive background as the founding editor of MINDS AND MACHINES, of which I was the sole editor for ten years, and having spent another decade as an associate editor of SYNTHESE, which is devoted to methodology, epistemology and philosophy of science, I was shocked that a journal of the stature of ISIS should have permitted this offense to have occurred, which not only taints Kollerstrom but stains the journal itself.

The charge of “anti-Semitism”, alas, has often been used to impugn the character of anyone who conducts research on issues that may adversely affect the interests of Israel and its Zionist allies, which I, as the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, have repeatedly encountered as a consequence of discoveries that implicate the Mossad as having a role in 9/11. I have published about this myself, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” While Nick has made no such charge, the evidence supports it.

Significantly, Kollerstrom has conducted rather extensive research on 7/7, including publishing TERROR ON THE TUBE (revised and expanded, 2011), which exposes the role of government agents or of those acting on its behalf to arrange for the terrorist acts that were attributed to four young Muslim men, who appear to have been used as patsies, when the circumstances of the case—including missing a train that would have brought them to London—made it physically impossible for them to be present.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

This case has been brilliantly exposed by John Anthony Hill, who is also known as “Muad’Dib”, in his DVD, “7/7 Ripple Effect”, which I recommend to everyone who cares about 7/7. We live in a world, alas, where governments lie more than they speak the truth and spend much of the national treasury promoting initiatives, such as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are inimical to the interests of their citizens, squandering enormous resources both financial and personal for the benefit of corporations and their profits.

Because it is extremely difficult to expose government complicity in atrocities of this kind, I have greatly admired Muad’Dib and Nicholas Kollerstrom for their dedication to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about these events, which has included featuring them both as guests on “The Real Deal”, an internet radio program I host, where those interviews can be found in its archives, and as the authors of or the subjects of blogs at

Swerdlow’s actions are so unwarranted by any reasonable professional standard that I personally suspect that they were deliberately contrived to punish Nick for research not only on the Holocaust but on 7/7 as well. I therefore volunteered to compose a letter to ISIS, in which I explained why I believed Swerdlow’s assault was completely unjustifiable and deserved to be remedied. Nick and I discussed my letter in some detail, which the journal accepted and published in ISIS 102:1 (2011) as follows:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Re: ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-198

Dear Editor,

During a recent visit to the UK, I met the scholar, Nicholas Kollerstrom, whom I have previously interviewed on "The Real Deal", an internet radio program I host, about 7/7, his book, TERROR ON THE TUBE (2009), and aspects of 9/11 and other atrocities.

He has been a productive author with multiple books, including ASTROCHEMISTRY (1984), THE EUREKA EFFECT (1996), and NEWTON’S FORGOTTEN LUNAR THEORY (2000). For a fine collection of his articles, visit

Nick is one of the few academicians I know who has the courage, the mentality, and the integrity to assume the role of a public intellectual, not only relative to 7/7 and 9/11 but also by pursuing scientific questions concerning the history of the Holocaust.

Reading N. M. Swerdlow’s revisew of Thomas Hockey, ed., THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, I was taken aback to find a discussion in ISIS that commits fallacies I spent 35 years teaching freshmen and sophomores to avoid.

Nearly 30% of this review is devoted to a slashing "ad hominem" attack on Nick Kollerstrom! After cursory remarks about Nick's entries, Swerdlow makes a variety of allegations that are either false or completely irrelevant to the essays in question.

Nick, for example, is an historian of astrology, not an astrologer. With N. Campion, he has co-edited GALILEO’S ASTROLOGY (2003), perhaps the definitive work on the subject, which is relevant to his essays but Swerdlow does not deign to acknowledge.

He also has a (perfectly legitimate) intellectual interest in horoscopes, which he has pursued, as well as in the factual accuracy of the (widely embraced) history of the Holocaust, both of which Swerdlow either exaggerates or grossly distorts.

Neither these interests of his nor his conclusions that 9/11 and 7/7 were "false flag" ops in which elements of the US and UK governments were complicit, however, has any place in a review of his essays in a collection of biographical studies of astronomers!

Laws against expressing doubts about the Holocaust, in my view, are simply absurd. If you believe in the Holocaust, as I do, then it should be apparent that serious research will lead to its vindication and, if it does not, we are all entitled to know. Truth is paramount.

Something that stuns me, moreover, is that, unless Swerdlow has studied 9/11 and 7/7, he cannot possibly know that Nick is wrong! Having done quite extensive study of 9/11 and considerable on 7/7 and it is obvious to me that, on the contrary, about both, Nick is right.

The very idea that the reviewer should single out Kollerstrom because of his research on matters unrelated to the essays he authored and discourage other scholars and libraries from purchasing the book on that basis “crosses the line"! It smacks of burning books.

Nick and I discussed the matter and agreed that it would be preferable for me to speak on his behalf, since a letter from him might be interpreted as self-serving. As another scholar who has devoted himself to issues of this kind, I have been glad to address this matter.

Swerdlow has conducted an unprofessional and unwarranted vendetta for which he owes the profession an apology. We should be standing in support of those few among us who have the strength, integrity and courage to investigate the controversial issues of our time.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth

The editor of ISIS, Bernard Lightman, apparently felt that Swerdlow deserved another opportunity to wield his axe, which he pursued with relish. Swerdlow asserted that he saw no reason to modify his position, suggesting that Nicholas regarded Auschwitz, for example, as a very hospitable environment, where Zyclon-B was used as a disinfectant rather than as a method of extermination. While he has concluded that there were certain amenities at Auschwitz, which he has discussed, without having studied the evidence, how can Swerdlow be so certain that he is right and that Nick, who has actually been studying it, is wrong?

Strikingly, Swerdlow compounds his assault with a counterpart attack on me for research I have done on the death of President John F. Kennedy and for editing a collection of studies on 9/11, which he presents in as unsympathetic a fashion as possible. This attack is even more revealing than his assault on Kollerstrom, since I organized a research group in 1992 consisting of the most highly qualified experts and scholars to investigate the death of JFK, which, I am confident, he himself has never studied.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

These have included a world-authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology; a physician who was present when JFK was brought to Parkland Hospital and, two days later, was responsible for the care of his alleged assassin; a legendary photo and film analyst; and another Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving objects.

I have chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the subject, published three books by experts on different aspects of the case, and produced a 4.5 hour documentary about the assassination. I have made hundreds and hundreds of presentations and interviews, including lectures at Cambridge, Harvard and Yale. Indeed, my background with respect to 9/11 is comparable, where I edited the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized its first conference in Madison, Wisconsin, and produced its first DVD, “The Science and Politics of 9/11”.

In lieu of reasoned arguments, Swerdlow appeals to popular sentiments by taking for granted that widely-held beliefs must be true and that views at variance with them have to be mistaken. Thus, unless you have actually studied the evidence, it might be difficult to appreciate that there are more than fifteen indications that JFK was set up by the Secret Service, where he appears to have been taken out by the CIA/military/anti-Castro Cubans/local law enforcement, where the FBI covered it up and LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover were principals with financing from Texas oil men. For an overview, see my “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?” , which I presented at a national conference featuring Theodore Sorenson as the keynote speaker and was introduced by Judge John Tunheim, who had served as the head of the ARRB.

Those familiar with the history of the UK, however, might be less surprised than Americans, since Shakespeare would have had little to write about were it not for plots against the kings of England. But there were technical aspects to the cover up, where JFK’s X-rays were altered to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of his head, another brain was substituted for the original, and the home movies of the assassination were revised to conceal that the driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure that he was killed. See, for example, studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., John P. Costella, Ph.D., and me archived at

Others who would like some reassurance about the quality of our work should follow this link to reviews of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) -- -- and to access the Preface and the Prologue as well as endorsements by Michael Parenti, Ph.D., Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael L. Kurtz, Ph.D., and PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, among others. Of special importance is the review by George Costello, J.D., THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts. Its author would receive a commendation from the journal for his review, which is archived at

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Relying upon his correspondence with Bernard Lightman, the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, Nicholas had formed the rather strong impression that he would be given the chance to respond to Swerdlow’s reply to my letter. He therefore drafted a response that ran exactly the same number of words as Swerdlow’s second bite of the apple, which was 470. It was therefore a bitter disappointment when Lightman declined him the opportunity to set the record straight, a nice example of his adding insult to injury.

On the basis of an article by Nicholas relating to the controversy over the now-obligatory visits to Auschwitz by UK schoolchildren -- archived at -- Swerdlow claims that Kollerstrom asserts “that Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But while he does report that there were various amenities for the inmates, including a swimming pool and orchestras, he restricts himself to features he has been able to establish rather than the atmosphere. This suggests ISIS should have refereed his review more vigorously. As Nick has remarked to me, the accounts we have from Auschwitz tend to be fairly dire.

Suppose that Kollerstrom were wrong about his conclusions based upon his research. Does an historian of science deserve to be ostracized for advancing opinions that are at variance with prevailing views? Nick’s article also cites significant differences on the question of how many may have died there. Is that question also ruled out as a subject for historical research? Shouldn’t we discover if popular views are more than political myths? Surely Lightman ought to have published the following letter, which Nick submitted to him, as the final word in this nasty and unprofessional exchange:

Letters to the Editor, Isis WORD COUNT: 470

Dear Editor,

There is something deeply ironic about a journal devoted to the history of science publishing an attack upon me for conducting scientific research on one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th C. As Professor Fetzer observed in his letter, what do we have to fear from research on the Holocaust? If it was real, then its reality will be confirmed; and if it was not, then surely we all deserve to know.

N. M. Swerdlow falsely asserts, ‘[Kollerstrom] defends Nazis and condemns their victims and supports his claims by links to strident Jew-hating websites’. If true, that would be a hate crime. For the sake of the integrity of ISIS, if he cannot substantiate this allegation, ISIS should demand an apology and retraction. Outrageous distortions not only discredit him as a source but also tarnish your reputation for accuracy and truth as a professional publication.

While I have authored TERROR ON THE TUBE about the July 7 London bombings, currently in its 3d edition, anyone who reads it will know that I make no such claim as that the event was “the work of ‘international Zionism’”. Swerdlow is advancing criticisms he cannot sustain, which should never have appeared here--defaming both my book and its publisher.

Swerdlow declares that, “a line has been crossed that should never be crossed”. But how can that apply to scientific research about an historical controversy without begging the question? I have an interest in the several investigations of residual iron-cyanide in the walls of Auschwitz labour-camp buildings, which carry residues of how and where zyklon (granular cyanide) was used sixty years ago. But this is a scientific question that can only be addressed by conducting scientific research.

In his second attack, Swerdlow also asserts I have “nothing original” to say. But I have actually established the ‘control’ values for the normal background levels of ferro-cyanide found in kitchens, dormitories and such, of the German labour-camps by synthesising the two sets of Leuchter and Rudolf cyanide values on the basis of objective measurements of insoluble iron cyanide.

Nothing could be less original than using the phrase, “Holocaust denier”, to bash the reputation and standing of those of us who believe controversial events are those we most need to address. He alleges I contend “Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But who in the world could believe so insane an idea? Only someone willing to distort research could try to pin this on me.

Like Fetzer, I am an historical revisionist, who cares about the truth and getting it right, especially concerning monumental events, such as the death of JFK and reality of the Holocaust. But that is precisely what the study of history is all about, where efforts like ours to insure the record is factual rather than fictional deserve praise, not condemnation.

Nicholas Kollerstrom

Perhaps most importantly in relation to this decision, Nicholas had written to Bernie Lightman on May 27, 2011, “to request that you ask Swerdlow [quite specifically] which are the 'strident Jew-hating websites' which he reckons I link to: I believe this is hate-crime which your Journal has accused me of, as defined by 2010 European Union legislation.” And the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, replied to his request as follows:

“I did not tell you that you would be able to reply to Swerdlow's
reply to Professor Fetzer. I told you that the journal's policy was
that there could be one reply to a review (you chose to have Fetzer
reply for you) and then that the reviewer was given the opportunity to
respond. The matter then comes to a close. That is the policy and I
will not deviate from it. Regards, Bernie Lightman”

Since ISIS has facilitated the publication of what appears to qualify as a hate-crime under European Union legislation, surely ISIS had an obligation that justified going beyond its normal policies. In my opinion, this decision by Bernard Lightman was an astounding affront to every member of the profession, whose ability to respond to allegations that should never have been allowed into print were thus circumvented. Given the new venom injected by Swerdlow in his reply to my letter, even if under ordinary conditions one reply would have been enough, a second was justified here.

For the sake of comparison, the Editors-in-Chief of SYNTHESE committed a blunder by adding a preface to a special issue of the journal, “Evolution and Its Rivals”, as a consequence of pressure imposed upon them by proponents of Intelligent Design, in which they expressed concerns for “the tone” of one of the contributions. Their act created an academic scandal that was discussed intensely across a broad spectrum of forums, where nearly 500 scholars endorsed a boycott of the journal or called for a formal apology and retraction of their preface, many calling for their resignations.

Those who may stand in disbelief that a matter so relatively trivial compared to the repeated abuse of an historian of science by a prominent journal that is devoted to the history of science should visit some of the blogs and other venues in which it has been discussed, which range from Brian Leiter’s influential philosophy blog to The New York Times. Since the offense that ISIS facilitated in the first instance was compounded by the second, I am at a loss as to how a professional society could accept these actions without a formal protest. Under these circumstances, I believe that Bernard Lightman ought to resign.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, of course, is a collaborative academic publication from Springer, one of the world's leading publishers of technical and scientific journals and books, which has an enormous number of contributions from a very large number of contributors, where its Table of Contents is simply staggering,+observations+and+techniques/book/978-0-387-31022-0 Swerdlow faults the volume for having a few entries of which he does not approve. But that appears to be highly selective on his part and a very cheap shot.

These are not issues about which the authors are remotely likely to be unqualified. Swerdlow’s review—even apart from his attack on Nick—appears to be suspect on its face. And how could anyone in their right mind allow Swerdlow’s suggestions that libraries not purchase the volume and that it ought to be pulped to stand without vigorous protest, even if one of the contributors has an interest in research on subjects that some—perhaps even most!—may disapprove? What kind of standard is that? How is that being fair to the contributors, the editors, or the publisher? That is a disgrace.

There are some 1,550 entries in the encyclopdia, which were authored by 430 scholars, of whom Nick Kollerstrom is only one, under the supervision of an Editor-in-Chief and a team of six associate editors. I would be willing to conjecture that a significant proportion of them may well have vices of their own, such as addictions to alcohol, pornography, adultery, S&M, or who-knows-what other practices of which public disapproval may be widespread. Should those authors be ferreted out and have their entries abolished, too? No, let’s just pulp the whole book!

I am reminded here of the occasion on which I first became involved in serious research on the assassination of JFK. It was in mid-1993 and I was lying in bed, drinking a cup of coffee and reading the paper, when my wife came in and said, “You won’t believe this!”, while turning on the TV. The image appeared of a distinguished man in standing behind a lecture with the logo of the American Medical Association, who was denigrating every serious student of the assassination from Mark Lane and Robert Groden to David Lifton and Charles Crenshaw.

He was especially caustic in attacking Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, which offers the most comprehensive, accurate, and complete depiction of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 ever presented to the American people through the mass media. The person turned out to be George Lundberg, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the AMA. I was stunned that someone of his stature would appear to be abusing the journal for political purposes and citing interviews with the autopsy pathologists as though they were science. That convinced me that perhaps some of us with special backgrounds and abilities should become involved.

Swerdlow’s abuse of his position has similarly convinced me that, once again, if those in positions of authority are abusing them for political purposes, some of us who might not otherwise have become involved in questions of this kind also have an obligation to pursue them. The issues involved are as important as they could be for the defense of academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, especially about controversial historical events. If the Holocaust is a reality, as I believe, then responsible research should confirm it; and if it is not, we are all entitled to know.

Perhaps the ultimate irony concerns the ethics of Swerdlow’s review. The essence of morality is treating other persons with respect. But by recommending that the other contributors, the editors, and the press should be punished for the perceived sins of one of the contributors, he is promoting the practice of collective punishment, contrary to the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. It was even condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes. In his zeal to condemn Kollerstrom for pursuing research on the Holocaust, therefore, Swerdlow has gone off of the deep end and committed an intellectual offense that is completely grotesque, which thereby exposes the immoral core of his own position.

The Egyptian goddess, Isis, after whom the journal is named, was long worshiped as the matron of nature and of magic. She has been described as the friend of slaves and sinners, by some accounts, which makes her name all the more appropriate here. In my opinion, Nicholas Kollerstrom was savaged by N. M. Swerdlow, not for offenses against the history of science, but for transgressing boundaries that are intended to protect sacred myths from refutation. In Swerdlow’s view, Kollerstrom deserved to be pilloried, not for his entries in an encyclopedia about astronomers, but for doing something that is forbidden--conducting scientific research on the Holocaust. And not even the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS has been willing to grant him a fair shake.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth


  1. Par for the course, I'm afraid. Nick Kollerstrom's reply differs from the normal response to these absurd charges, though, by not apologising for merely trying to establish the facts, and by not grovelling to Jewish sensibilities and abusing German ones. Good for him.

    From the OP: Having spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of this kind...

    Meanwhile, over in every other class, fallacies about the holo were being crammed into every part of the syllabus, just part of the regime's desire to privilege Jews over all others and move European-Americans to the back of the bus.

    Did you suggest to your students they should oppose Affirmative Action?

  2. P.S. Prof. Fetzer, any easy way to download mp3s of your radio show? Used to get 'em at the radiofetzer blog, but now can't. Cheers.

  3. As a fellow contributor to the Encyclopaedia I too deplore Swerdlow’s attack on Kollerstrom, in what is billed as a ‘review‘. Swerdlow adheres to the academic consensus regarding the Holocaust but he may in fact undermine wider public confidence in this consensus. When defenders of such a consensus resort to personal attack the consensus may appear more as one enforced through fear and less as one arising through the free exchange of ideas. As a consequence it may appear less as one to be relied on.

    Kollerstrom’s conclusions are based on his analysis of data relating to cyanide residues at Auschwitz/Birkenau. If Swerdlow or anyone else takes issue with Kollerstrom’s conclusions the proper thing to do is to show how he has committed errors in arriving at them. I do think Kollerstrom may have made some wrong assumptions. He appears not to consider the possibility that the buildings in the ‘control’ may have been built before four of the five structures which he terms ‘alleged human gas chambers‘. He appears to have assumed that the distribution of the lethal gas would have been uniform throughout such chambers, which is unlikely given testimonies of how the gas was introduced. He does not consider the possibility that the walls of such chambers might have been cleaned or otherwise treated between killings. Criticism should focus on such questions and not on Kollerstrom’s alleged motivations.

  4. I contributed several essays to a ‘Biographical Encyclopeaedia of Astronomers’ edited by Tom Hockey. My various published articles on Newton had been aimed at finding the real human being behind the superman-demigod myth, so you could say I was demythologising him. I’m interested in the creative process and what kind of person achieves it. So I gave a lot more credit to Robert Hooke for discovering the inverse-square law of gravity, which Newton somewhat took over by imagining he had made the discovery earlier than he had. Newton was the ultimate successful scientist. Likewise I tend to see Leibniz as discovering the differential calculus and using it long before Newton really did (we’re just coming up to the 300th anniversary of this big row!). My PhD was on Newton’s lunar theory, I was able to decode how it worked: I thought it was interesting, but it has generally proved to be the ultimate conversation-stopper.
    Then I moved on to the Neptune-discovery story, where all of the Royal Greenwich Observatory’s Neptune-discovery documents had gone missing for decades and mysteriously turned up again. My re-telling of this epic saga gave most of the credit to France and rather little to England (England put in a bid for having co-predicted the unknown sphere). People felt I had got the definitive story. I have to say, this is one story which astronomers do like to hear.
    I majored in History & Philosophy of Science because I hoped it could be a culturally important topic in this scientific-technological era, but I was a bit disappointed: it seems merely to serve establishment interests by praising the development of science.

  5. Let’s notice, that not Isis nor any other history of science journal has run an article about hygiene delousing technology before DDT: the Zyklon delousing chambers were the normal method of combating typhus & other epidemics for about forty years – but strangely, this is a forbidden topic. I believe we all know the answer as to why – and it concerns the view of history laid down by the British and American military intelligence at Nuremberg in 1946. That defined the way Zyklon (granular cyanide pellets) had been used in WW2. It is nowadays ethically compulsory to believe that US/UK post-WW2 story.
    Science begins where data is replicated, and I was surprised to find that two sets of iron-cyanide wall measurements (Leuchter and Rudolf) are concordant – sampled from walls of Auschwitz. Science historians should take an interest in the subject.
    The debate, which the authorities do not want to take place, concerns two types of technology, using Zyklon: delousing chambers were installed in all German labour WW2 camps from 1942 onwards; and these really existed. They gassed clothing and bedding with cyanide, to kill bugs. Whereas, the 'extraordinary' mass human gas chambers, which we may all agree have never existed before or since WW2, were claimed to be the primary German use of Zyklon at Nuremberg – is there any hope that science historians will come to allow themselves to discuss this topic?
    To quote from my cyanide-chemistry thread, 'Iron-bonded cyanide in the walls appears as being the best memory which the human race now has concerning where cyanide gas was or was not once used at Auschwitz, whether lethally or not. It may be the essential guide to the achieving of a collective agreement upon the Big Question. The response of just putting the chemist in jail cannot be adequate.' (Germar Rudolf had just been put in jail, that’s why I wrote it.)

  6. the view of history laid down by the British and American military intelligence at Nuremberg in 1946 ... compulsory to believe that US/UK post-WW2 story

    We cannot forget the Soviet leg of the tripod.

    It's especially necessary that we recognise their contribution because revisionist scholarship (establishment and rebel alike) has established that ALL of the camps alleged at Nuremberg to be 'death camps' that lay on the Western side of the Iron Curtain were not so. Only the camps that subsequently fell to Soviet control -- and thus could not be scientifically examined -- are alleged today to have been death camps.

    Quite a coincidence. Especially when we consider the words of Raul Hilberg who wrote the standard history of the 'machinery' of the holo:

    “What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

    One revisionist scholar of rather more realistic an outlook has commented that even if it were plausible that so extensive and complex a project could succeed by so unlikely a process, " how on earth could the Nazis have known in advance to only kill Jews in only those camps that would later be captured by the Soviets, rather than the Americans or the British?"

    "Perhaps the Nazis really did have the Spear of Destiny and could use it to tell the future? But even accepting this - as we now must - do we go on to suppose that the Ahnererbe was sharing occult information with officers in charge of the camps, even morale crushing information about their eventual loss of the war?"

  7. I visited Auschwitz in 2005 (after having attended a conference on the History of Astronomy in Poland with Nick). I saw a pile of empty canisters of Zyklon B and supposed that these had been used for the gassing of individuals. It is only when, some years later, that Nick became the subject of controversy that I learned, from him, that Zyklon B was in routine use there as an insecticide, and that the canisters could not in themselves be evidence that humans were exterminated through gas. Surely anyone with a serious interest in the Holocaust should be glad that he is highlighting this relatively little known aspect of the subject.

    Sadly I have come to regard Auschwitz - at least as it was in 2005 - as a place designed to induce a particular emotional reaction in visitors rather than to encourage a critical understanding of historical evidence.

  8. Kollerstrom's work has been proven to be absurd, though. It is fine for him to speak his mind, but do not mistake it for truth.

    He ignores the cyanide that has been found in the walls of the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers in EVERY study conducted of them, illegally by deniers or otherwise. Instead, he focuses on one specific type of cyanide-bond that occurs in extremely rare circumstances. Indeed, denier Germar Rudolf (Kollerstrom's hero) recognized that chemistry could not "rigorously" refute the Holocaust.

    A proper chemist's looks at the gas chamber "question":

    Outside of the extremely narrow scientific approach, proper historians (even historians of science) should take into account the dozens of witness testimonies by perpetrators and inmates alike, documents from German personnel in the camp (such as Dr. Kremer's diary), aerial photos of Birkenau (which show Zyklon B introduction columns for the gas chambers) ground level photos of the gas chambers (which also show such columns), the presence of 46 muffles in Birkenau capable of cremating thousands of bodies, etc etc etc...

    None of these factors are taken into account by Kollerstrom.

  9. Calm down, Ray – we need a clear head to get this chemical argument right. You say I ignore ‘the cyanide that has been found in the walls of the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers in EVERY study conducted of them.’ No I state that on average several parts per million has indeed been found in such walls: and I here assume you are alluding to the remains of what are alleged to have been the human gas chambers; whereas,far higher levels are found in the walls of what were - I hope we can all agree - the Zyklon delousing chambers. If I may quote here from my essay ‘Three Interesting numbers,’ alluding to the Leuchter and Rudolf reports:
    “Putting together the combined measurable data of these two chemical surveys (42 samples) I got the following three groups:
    * Delousing chambers 5000 parts per million (15 samples)
    * Washrooms, Kitchens etc (‘Controls’) 2 ppm (11 samples)
    * Alleged human gas chambers 3 ppm (16 samples)

    The ‘official’ explanation given for these figures is that ‘bugs are harder to kill than humans.’ No wonder the cyanide levels in the delousing chambers are higher, they had to kill all those little bugs... well, have a look at those figures. There is no significant difference between the control, background levels of cyanide (2 ppm) and those for the alleged human gas chambers (3ppm).”

    You say that I focus “...on one specific type of cyanide-bond that occurs in extremely rare circumstances” – no Ray, these surveys measured total iron cyanide in the samples, both soluble and insoluble, as extracted by nitric acid, OK?

    You give three links to the Richard Green essays – kindly consult page 2 of my essay ‘Cyanide chemistry at Auschwitz,’ scroll down to section ‘The Strange logic of Richard Green’; with more on page 3, ‘Dr Green’s fallacy.’

    Readers wishing to checkout more of my ‘proven ... absurd’ analysis of the three main published chemical investigations on this topic might wish to consult my essay, ‘The Walls of Auschwitz’

    Will a time come when American students are allowed to evaluate our different viewpoints?

  10. Ray said: chemistry could not "rigorously" refute the Holocaust

    Of course what's actually required is forensic evidence that proves the holo. If the conventional narrative were true this would not be a problem.

  11. It's telling that I cannot check out Nick Kollerstrom's links fom the public library in England where I'm sitting. and are banned sites. This in a library -- a place designed for study and reflection.

    I am currently in a Calderdale library but if I were in a Leeds library the situation would be even worse -- along with the sites that more obviously challenge Jewish interests, Leeds City Council bans!). And when I queried this an assistant did in fact suspect it was Israel-related, there having been a lot of outside pressure and internal debate apparently.

  12. Nick asked me to repeat the links that relate to his response to Ray:

    Why should any subject be "out of bounds" for serious research?

  13. Dr. Kollerstrom, although you cite and link to several of your articles, your claims still lack the necessary evidence to support their veracity. For instance in your "Three Interesting Numbers," you say that the homicidal gas chambers were tested by Rudolf and Leuchter in a total of 16 samples. This is simply not true! Leuchter took 32 samples, 29 of which were located in the relevant morgue/gas chamber rooms. Rudolf took four other samples from Crema II's morgue/gas chamber room. Thus you have halved the number of samples! Perhaps due to your avoidance of those tests, your averages are incorrect. Three of Rudolf's four samples exceeded 0.5, the max thresholf of uncertainty. These results also exceeded samples from brick Rudolf purposefully exposed to cyanide for 16 hours, and the cyanide residue was half a century old!

    I have read your thread and linked articles but I still fail to see you seriously grappling with Dr. Green's points. Rudolf also failed, so perhaps they are simple unresolvable for those wishing to deny the reality of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau?

  14. Regarding your freedom of speech, as I said before you should be free to spout whatever opinions you wish, truthful or not. Yet the forum you seem most safe in, the CODOH forum, has recently banned me for challenging denier orthodoxies (including in your cyanide chemistry thread). Why not protest that violation of free speech? Shouldn't open debate be allowed at cODoh?

    Also, once again you have avoided the inconvenient but historical facts relevant to your argument.

    Look forward to your response.

  15. Ray.

    I'd make a clear distinction between CODOH the site and its forum. Smith is indeed open-minded, but the forum is aggressively moderated and this is not helped by the fact that the moderator is known to be identical to a rather pugnacious poster. I can see no justification for your ban.

    Your (CODOH forum) identity is clear from what you have posted here. You and I were in PM contact there. My most recent message to you has not been picked up. Will you be back or is your ban permanent? Can we reestablish contact?

    This is OT but I'd be grateful if you'd allow it to stand at least until Ray can answer. Pardon the anonymity, but in the Holocaust context the reasons for it are obvious.

  16. Hello KF.

    Hannover banned me permanently when I tried to correct his false statements on Auschwitz. He was distorting the real history of the camp. I tried to correct him but he deleted my posts and then banned me, saying I didn't know what the history was (I do). It took place in Dr Kollerstrom's thread. As it remains CODOH's forum, ultimate responsibility I think has to rest with CODOH.

    I am open to more contact with you, surely. I did not receive any additional messages, so it almost certainly must have been sent after my ban (no login allowed anymore). I can set up a new email account if you want to try that. As we discussed, other forum options are lacking. I will search for some other sites, though.

  17. I have just come across an review by Robert van der Pelt at
    between 18.50 and 20.00 mins he states, referring to unspecified expert sources, that blue staining would not have taken place in human gas chambers because of the much higher concentration of carbon dioxide, as compared to delousing chambers. I am amazed that I have not come across this objection previously. It is one that surely has to be faced.

  18. Well spotted, Peter N.

    Pelt implies that the Lipstadt Defence used this presence of carbon dioxide as a “complex chemical explanation” for the virtual absence of ferro-ferric cyanide in the walls of the homicidal gas chamber. But that was not the complex chemical explanation offered at the trial. The complex chemical explanation, accepted by the judge, was the Expert Opinion of James Roth, namely that a “surface reaction” would have prevented the penetration of any iron-cyanide residue beyond an infinitesimally thin inner surface. At the Zuendel trial of 1988, Roth had merely proposed that such a thing was “possible.” Irving asked why such a surface reaction would not have formed in the fumigation chamber. A very reasonable question, it seems to me, but the judge chose to ignore it. Yet this “surface reaction” ,so important for the trial, seems to have been now forgotten. As far as I know the expert Green has not attempted to defend it; and now Pelt has abandoned it.

  19. Ray
    You can contact me on kfkf*54321(at) Remove the asterisk and change (at), obviously.

    It's a specially-created account. To identify yourself refer to the topic we were discussing.

  20. Anon, the interview seems to be extremely recent, not more than a couple of months old, so I don't see that Pelt has abandoned the argument. I emailed him about four days ago at an email address I found on David Irving's website asking for a reference but have heard nothing as yet. (I haven't seen the trial trnacsipts or Pelt's book on the trial.)

  21. Peter, I linked above to several articles where that argument is made by Dr. Green. He also made an expert report for Irving's 2001 appeal against Lipstadt:

    The link for the report follows Dr. Green's introduction. The point about CO2 was actually made during the 1990s by the IFFR. No serious attempt since that time has been made by deniers to refute it.

    The trial transcripts and expert reports can be found here (including Pelt):

  22. The Lipstadt Judgment went:

    "In regard to the chemical analysis, Irving was unable to controvert the evidence of Dr Roth (summarised at paragraph 7.106 above) that, because the cyanide would have penetrated the brickwork and plaster to a depth of no more than one tenth of the breadth of a human hair, any cyanide present in the relatively large samples taken by Leuchter (which had to be pulverised before analysis) would have been so diluted that the results on which Leuchter relied had effectively no validity."

    James Roth gave expert testimony not in the flesh but as a celluloid presence in a film by Errol Morris. That filmmaker also omitted to question how large quantities of iron blue had somehow disobeyed the chemical law of sealant reaction in one place but not another. The “surface reaction” that is peculiar to the homicide usage seems to be Roth’s very own hypothesis, one for which as far as I can find he has published no theoretical underpinning. Before I saw this Pelt interview, my reasons for suspecting that the hypothesis had been “abandoned” were two. First, Green makes no use of it. Second, it would in principle be incredibly easy to verify. All one need do is take some homicidal samples and refrain from pulverising them. And now we have Van Pelt, who made the Morris film the chemical centrepiece of his Expert Report, omitting all mention of it. Abandoned or not, the Roth hypothesis does stand in need of a friend.

    Perhaps carbon dioxide is what makes this sealant reaction work?

  23. Ray – I’m disturbed that you say you’ve been banned from CODOH, a chap like you seems just the kind of contributor it would want. To my knowledge CODOH only bans people for being abusive or appearing as out-and-out Nazis! I asked Bradley smith who runs it and he did not know of your case, he said ‘what’s the story?’
    As you say, Leuchter took 30 samples, or 32 independently measured iron-cyanide values, but only 15 had measurable values, the rest were too low. Rightly or wrongly I only included these. Of those, I claimed that six were taken from the alleged human gas chambers (AHGCs, 2.9 ppm mean value) and 8 came from ‘control’ samples (2.6 ppm). Leuchter was not altogether clear about this distinction, and I’ve recommended careful reconstruction by Dan Desjardins to evaluate this. The large sample Leuchter took from a delousing chamber came out at 1050 ppm. (Note, Peter N., total cyanide in the brickwork was here measured, irrespective of whether or not it formed the complex blue ferrocyanide - which does not necessarily happen)

  24. If you don’t mind me pointing out to you, the postwar-constructed tourist ‘gas chamber’ at Auschwitz, built by Stalin in 1946, which thirty million have supposedly passed through, has got original brickwork in it (IMO, of a washroom) but also other non-AHGC brickwork. I like the conclusion by Desjardins, ‘Fred Leuchter’s broad sample gathering, despite flaws, establishes a reasonable basis for inferring that the presence of cyanide residue is due to benign rather than homicidal purposes.' The simple fact is, that nobody to-date can point to ‘remains’ of a human gas chamber which has any significant elevation of wall-cyanide.
    Concerning the improbable claims made in the last para of your first post, I'd recommend the excellent new ‘Holo’ -video by Anthony Lawson:

  25. Hello Dr. Kollerstrom. I was banned, and never abused anyone. Others can attest to this. Hannover, who moderates the forum, simply did not want to debate me, so he banned me. He did this once before as well. Does Mr. Smith not know what happens on his forum? Is Hannover given freedom to ban whomever he wishes, and delete as any posts as well? Please know that revisionists have also criticized Hannover's moderating tactics.

    Dr. Fetzer, while not yet subject to aggressive moderation, already seems to recognize the type of person Hannover is. BTW, thanks for allowing our discussion here ;)

  26. Dr. Kollerstrom, you say that the washroom in Krematorium I shows benign cyanide residue. How can we infer this? The washroom was next to the morgue, where the gassings would have taken place. No mechanical ventilation existed in that gas chamber, so poison gas could easily ventilate naturally to the other rooms following the gassing. Also, numerous other samples from Krema I show significant cyanide residue as well.

    Also I have watched Mr Lawson's video once and considered it generally incorrect. Can you refer to specific points made that you consider relevant to the non-chemical evidence supporting/proving the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz Birkenau?

    Can we move our discussion to another forum, where open discussion is allowed?

  27. Nick, Can you explain what other cyanide residues/compounds may form in brickwork, other than that which produces blue staining. Thanks

  28. I may mark that I was also closed with CODOH. I suppose, because my proofs too held water and irrefutable!

    There are two possibilities to handle with the Holocaust. Up to now one has lost himself massively in details and has even possibly examined copied gas chambers. One has tried to disprove nearly every single detail of the assertions and the debates turn in the circle.

    This was very bad!

    By far more successfully and much easier it is, the assertions of the witnesses (there is only this proof!) to check in his totality and to present the results.

    The result with which the Holocauster must live now is the gas chamber temperature. She lay according to homicide time in the area of from 1000°C to 10000°C. This is determineable very easily from the witness's statements.
    Unfortunately, only on in German:

  29. We know the very well testified wire net columns of Mr. Michal Kula which are also described with Pressac.
    From the Polish-Soviet investigations of 1944 the physical properties are known by cyclone B very well. And we know the witness's statements at the homicide times which reach of 0 minutes till maximum 20 minutes. The camp doctor Dr. Horst Fischer was called by Prof. Jagschitz as the most competent witness because he led the gasifications. This camp doctor said 2-3-minute homicide time and also camp leaders Rudolf Höss started with 3-minute homicide times.

    It is clear that one cannot kill dead Jews. This means, a poison gas emission made sense only in the lifetime of the Jews. With it The vaporisation end of the cyclone B is also probably defined. The cyclone B had to have been evaporated at the homicide time already completely. Maybe also earlier, however, not later!

    To evaporate cyclone B in the containers of Mr. Kula, energy is necessary! This energy had to have been delivered up to the homicide time by the gas chamber temperature. With it the gas chamber temperature can be calculated.

    She lay always more than 1000°C. These Tempereatur was already necessary with 20-minute homicide time. With Horst's Fischer statement from 6000°C to 9000°C gas chamber temperature are already necessary!

    These statements are valid for Auschwitz Birkenau and both big crematories 2 + 3 in which the mass murder haupttsächlich has taken place.

    One has driven in the Jews to more than 1000°C hot gas chambers and has poisoned them there with cyclone B! It is quite clear that the ordinarily fire-resistant Jews were not fire-resistant after her death any more and evaporated, hence, within seconds with from 6000°C to 9000°C and left by four throw-in openings of the gas chamber cover the gas chamber with supersonic speed.

    The gas chamber could be used immediately for the next 2000 Jews again, because the poison gas was diluted before already by 100,000 kg of Jew's gas on 60 ppm.

    It is natural that one could drag High Tech procedures no corpses from the gas chamber with this. Finally, the bones had also evaporated completely.

    With this technology no cremation stoves were more necessary. On top in the stove space could be baked zwischenzeitleich of wide bread rolls.

    The daily performance of a gas chamber amounted to about 100000 Jews. With it the questions are also unnecessary after the capacity.

    Questions after the materials which stand such temperatures are pointless. The Holocaust has shown that the Nazi materials owned which could easily endure 10000°C.

    But the Holocaust would be a fairy story.

    Chemistry plays no role in case of this consideration and it is quite natural that with 10000°C no more Cyanidspuren are to be expected in the walls. Or?

  30. Ray Barren claims censorship at the CODOH Revisionist Forum,
    Yet a quick check reveals that Ray has posted there THIRTY-THREE times. THIRTY-THREE !! Most of his posts appear in the thread which Mr. Kollerstrom refers:
    Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz
    But yet Ray claims that he has been prevented from posting on Auschwitz.

    Like other Believers in the Impossible, Ray has a problem with debates that don't go so well. Ray Barren has resorted to spamming, namecalling, subject changing, and dodging when challenged on statements that he makes, but cannot defend. All of this in spite of the fact that he agreed upon the CODOH Revisionist Forum's very basic and simple guidelines when he registered, guidelines are here:

    Go ahead, see for yourself, and read what Ray actually says. We believe you will see that the utterly absurd 'holocaust' storyline, in which so many profess cult-like loyalty to, falls flat when debate is allowed. Ray has had his chance, got spanked, and now cries foul. His behavior is typical of the desperate who usually resort to personal attacks and dirty tricks.

    In fact, those tactics of last resort are standard operating procedures for the profit motivated "Holocaust Industry".

    We invite all comers, so if you think you have something to contribute, then please register and participate. As for Holocaust Industry spokespersons, we strongly advise, "tell the truth, it's easier to remember"

    Thanks to James Fetzer and Nick Kollerstrom for their courageous efforts.

    The CODOH Revisionist Forum, Moderator1

  31. Hannover/Hargis give it up! Everyone knows your tactics. I showed you where you were wrong, based on revisionist sources, and you banned me. Funny that you are trying to suck up to Dr. Fetzer, after calling him a "coward" (no name calling you say?).

    Too easy.

  32. For more evidence of CODOH censorship see Wilfred Heink's description of the CODOH forum. He told anti-revisionist Roberto Muehlenkamp:
    "I agree, Herr Muehlankamp, those guys over there are not entirely honest. Banning you and others and then performing victory dances is beyond even chutzpah. Hopefully this new poster, if he is new, will soon realize that dissenting views, if you will, are verboten.

    As far as pointing him to RODOH, the name can not be mentioned, it is deleted. One of my posts was totally distorted, I dared mention RODOH, should have copied it, which almost made me quit that forum. Anyway, who knows, perhaps this lost sheep will find its way."
    Note that Hannover/Hargis often quotes pages worth of Heink's articles.

  33. CODOH Moderator1 says:

    You are a very funny man, Ray Barren. You claim The CODOH Revisionist Forum doesn't allow the mention of 'Rodoh', yet a simple site search yields 285 posts where 'Rodoh' is in fact discussed, that's TWO-HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE, Ray.

    As expected, you did forget to mention that 'Rodoh' has posted a hit list of names, addresses, phone numbers, work place names, work place phone numbers, and photos of those they believe to be Revisionists who post at CODOH. Ray, that's very sleazy and indicative of the utter desperation, absurdity, and impossibility of the 'Holocau$t' Industry's storyline. Those with truth on their side do not resort to such tactics.

    Concerning Mr. Heink, sure, if all he knows is what your ilk tell him, then his reaction is understandable. BTW, he alone has shredded much of the absurd storyline which you cannot honestly defend. Thanks for bringing him up.
    Everyone see:

    And BTW, the posts concerning Mr. Fetzer were properly deleted very soon after they were posted, they violated our guidelines. Those guidelines are posted for everyone to see.

    You and Roberto Muehlenkamp got beat and went childish, get over it. We're not about to let civil, real open debate, become disrupted by those like you. Anyone can see by looking at the Forum how strong the Revisionist position is. You cannot lie this verifiable fact away.

    Ray, your numerous posts are there for everyone to read. Let the readers decide.

    To everyone, take a look and see how strong the Revisionist position is. And please remember, Revisionists were once Believers too.

    Regards, CODOH Revisionist Forum Moderator1

  34. Hannover/Hargis displays a poor reading ability in his latest response. First of all I never mentioned the censorship of 'RODOH' at your forum, that was the denier you like to spam quote. Funny that you try to deny the obvious. You yourself said that 'rodoh' converts to shills due to your purposeful programming of the forum software. Are you going to run away from your own words now?

    Regarding how 'strong' the Revisionist position is, it is only strong when debate is controlled to prevent open and honest criticism of the revisionist position. That is why you are forced to delete and censor anti-revisionsits on your forum. In serious professional forums, such as in peer reviewed publications, court rooms and th elike, denial has ALWAYS been found to be flat out wrong. The former IHR director Mark Weber even had to admit as much. Your thousands of posts on your own forum, showing poor study of the Holocaust literature and not engaging with others, are demonstrative of that fact.

    I am sorry Hannover/Hargis, but the gig is up.

  35. Ray Barren is lying through his teeth, so be it, let's cut to the chase.

    Read what Ray Barren has to say about Auschwitz. His best shots occur in the thread:
    'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'

    Debunking the 'holocaust' is really a simple matter. Science, rational thought, and logic are all that's required. Read what Ray Barren posts. Nothing else really matters here.

    I also recommend The Rudolf Report:

    and other book available:

    Did you know that there are many countries which imprison those who dare to scrutinize the 'holocaust' tales? To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: 'Truth does not need laws to protect it, lies do'.

    The 'holocaust' storyline is a classic example of hate mongering manufactured for profit, political power, and preferential treatment at the expense of others. The 'holocau$t' Industry loathes those who scrutinize their impossible storyline. It just doesn't stand up to examination, much like the absurd 9/11 conspiracy yarns that the US govt. pushes upon the public. I'll leave that to James Fetzer.

    Read The CODOH Revisionist Forum and decide for yourself.

    Who cares what 'Ray Barren' says here, read his posts and you'll see for yourself who has truth on it's side.

    Thank you.

  36. Regarding how the Holocaust was "manufactured for profit, political power, and preferential treatment," Hargis has not spent any effort describing how such a hoax was created in the early 1940s before Israel came to existence. How was the 'story' concocted? Who manufactured the hundreds of documents related to murder, liquidations, exterminations, 'special treatment', cremation, and even gassing?

    How does one explain the thousands of witnesses across the continent, Germans & non-Germans, Jew & non-Jew, who confirmed and described the extermination program?

    Such a fallacious statement appeals to the converted nicely, but it does not convince anyone open-minded about the issue.

    Indeed, Hargis' rather rude and obnoxious tone confirms Dr. Fetzer's statement (in a post that you banned at your forum) that he is "a rather self-centered, narrow-minded and manipulative person, who does not play well with other children."

  37. I'm very pleased to see that many people are waking-up to the truth regarding the alleged gas chambers, 911 attack fraud, moon landing hoax, etc., etc., etc. Anyone with a bit of curiosity, some common-sense and much courage will quickly figure out how these issues and many others have been purposely advanced into the public domain merely to condition the masses for what the powers-to-be strive hegemony. My hat's off to all of you who have the courage to speak the truth no matter the formidable and very real repercussions. Bravo!