New article from Germar Rudolf revising what we know about shrunken heads and human skin lampshades

[Wetzelrad]

Buchenwald Shrunken Heads and Human-Skin Objects Revisited
https://codoh.com/library/document/buch ... revisited/

Rudolf makes some important concessions here. To summarize, he accepts that recent analyses have found some of these artifacts to have human body derived origins, whereas in the past revisionists have argued that these were all or mostly fakes or of animal derived origins, that on the basis of older analyses.

This will have some obvious impacts on the discourse going forward. Very curious to know anyone's thoughts on these developments.

[Fred Ziffel]

Here is prosecutor Dodd giving the oath at Nuremburg Trials

[Wetzelrad]

All the recent analyses are the work of forensic biologist Mark Benecke, and they involve visual inspection, microscopic examination, and DNA testing. I was going to quote Rudolf's summary here, but instead I will give my own summary with more detail. These are all the artifacts of concern, with links to timestamps from his presentation on Youtube and additional links to the Buchenwald Memorial website:

1. The segmented lampshade, which is seen on Koch's desk in a photo from his photo album, was made of "raw" and "flattened" human skin. 15:15. Memorial.
2. The Buchenwald Museum's shrunken head was actually made of goat skin and hair. 06:34.
3. The Buchenwald Museum's heart in a jar with a bullet wound is human, although no DNA was found. 12:56. Memorial.
4. The Buchenwald Museum's miniature lampshade, which in 1992 was determined not to be made of human skin, actually was made of human skin. 10:28. Memorial.
5. The New Orleans lampshade, previously identified as being made of Jewish skin, was made of calf hide. 09:11.
6. A fourth lampshade sent in by a journalist was made of human skin. 16:25.
7. A pocketknife case from a British museum which is said to have come from Germany in 1945 was made of human skin. 13:59. Memorial.
8. The two shrunken heads from the Buchenwald atrocity table, one of which was presented at the IMT, have not been tested.
9. The many skin samples and other artifacts from that table are not discussed in the video, but three samples are mentioned on the Buchenwald website here.

Separate from this, there is also the story of a donated photo album that the Auschwitz Museum believes was made of human skin at Buchenwald. They posted this article in 2020. The method there was spectrophotometry.

There is also this study of four additional shrunken heads that some believed had origins at Buchenwald. Using DNA evidence, the author concludes that one has Southeastern European ancestry and the other three are Amerindian.

I also want to point out that the lampshade Benecke tested and photographed, item 4 in the list above, appears visually different than the one in this older photo. The slope of the lampshade appears steeper, and the material more resembles leather. For that matter the shrunken head looks different too, in one photo, but maybe that's a recreation? I trust I am simply wrong about this, but the visual difference is too striking to let go unremarked upon.

Buchenwald's miniature lampshade.jpg (141.43 KiB) Viewed 265 times

[Callafangers]

As always, the exterminationist camp hopes the world will have total disregard for all questions of chain of custody, as it remains the case there is zero evidence these objects (if truly authentic and retrieved from Germany) were even derived from camp inmates -- let alone Jews. As Rudolf demonstrates, the propaganda history insofar as the presentation of these items coupled with the inconsistent forensic findings/data all point to the same pattern of fabrication and misrepresentation we see over and over again with all-things-'Holocaust'. Only by total blindness to the source(s) and custodial handoffs of these items -- and with absolute trust in those affirming things like 'gassing' and 'German barbarism' -- can one take these tokens of the narrative seriously.

[Archie]

It seems he hedges somewhat with "Assuming that Dr. Benecke’s findings are correct..." He also mentions provenance and other concerns.

I remain rather skeptical primarily because 1) the sensational nature of the original charges, 2) the fact that by the time of the Koch trial in 1948 the Americans themselves do not even seem to have believed it. At the same time though, I don't know that I see a major incentive for them to risk faking a bunch of tests at this late a date (better to leave it alone, I would think).

Prior thread
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=181

[Wetzelrad]

Here is prosecutor Dodd giving the oath at Nuremburg Trials

You jest, but besides posing for those dramatic photos, he also did present it as evidence, as videotaped here. Dodd parroted the story given by OSS agent Jack Donovan, who put it in his affidavit (3421-PS) that the shrunken heads belonged to "two young Poles who had been hanged for having had relations with German girls."

This treatment, with zero regard for evidentiary standards, betrays an intention to incline the judges and the public against the Germans.

As always, the exterminationist camp hopes the world will have total disregard for all questions of chain of custody, as it remains the case there is zero evidence these objects (if truly authentic and retrieved from Germany) were even derived from camp inmates -- let alone Jews. As Rudolf demonstrates, the propaganda history insofar as the presentation of these items coupled with the inconsistent forensic findings/data all point to the same pattern of fabrication and misrepresentation we see over and over again with all-things-'Holocaust'. Only by total blindness to the source(s) and custodial handoffs of these items -- and with absolute trust in those affirming things like 'gassing' and 'German barbarism' -- can one take these tokens of the narrative seriously.

Yes, it seems only the segmented lampshade is known to predate the Allied occupation, and only because there is a photograph of it. I'm willing to forgive some chain of custody issues on that one. Not on all the others.

It seems he hedges somewhat with "Assuming that Dr. Benecke’s findings are correct..." He also mentions provenance and other concerns.

Yes, that's wise. I don't think anyone on this forum is up to the task of contesting DNA evidence, but I will say a few words. Benecke says that the shrunken head he tested (item #2) was a 99.7% match to goat DNA. He says other items (#4, 7, and 1?) are a 99% match to Homo sapiens. These are the only numbers he gives. It could be argued that 99% is not actually a very close match, since humans and chimps are said to share as much as 99% of DNA, with other animals also in the 90 percentile. (The exact percentages are a matter of technical dispute.) I don't think these artifacts were made of chimpanzee skin, but there is at least some space to doubt the claim that they were made of human skin.

Benecke also says he used PCR and BLAST. Both are known to return false positives in cases where DNA material is thin, which it is said to be in this case. Benecke also jokes about contamination, something that could generate false positives.

I'm sure Benecke and the labs are well aware of all these limitations. One way they can avoid anyone disputing their results is to treat all samples equally. If Benecke had all of these artifacts equally tested for goat DNA (or some other animal DNA), with the same testing parameters and all, then his findings should be definitive.

I remain rather skeptical primarily because 1) the sensational nature of the original charges, 2) the fact that by the time of the Koch trial in 1948 the Americans themselves do not even seem to have believed it. At the same time though, I don't know that I see a major incentive for them to risk faking a bunch of tests at this late a date (better to leave it alone, I would think).

Agreed. I don't think they would intentionally try to fake test results. However, the social incentives are huge to publish positive results and non-existent or negative to publish negative results.