Why The Holocaust Must Be Questioned

[krastner]

I've noticed recently that there is a lot of credible info about the holocaust hoax on the internet. Is this the reason that some want it privatized so they can control what we can learn about...Man talk about a cover up. When it all comes apart i am sure that the wailing wall will be put to good use.

 

[Shamanskiss]

you asked, so you shall recieve.....

Ok a few notes addressing some of the bullshit posted by you guys....
Krastner, you will need help to read this, your lips will get tired from all that moving while you form the words.


#1...Irving versus Lipstadt...

The importance of this case was , and is, that it directly addressed the validity of Irving's fiindings in light of his research and interpretational methodologies.
The case hinged on his veracity as a researcher, indeed the case's foundation was his validity as a credible academic and historian. The judge stated at the outset that the holocaust was not the issue for his , or the court's, determination. He stated the issue clearly as being Irving's validity as an Historian, and the way in which Lipstadts comments had injured or impugned any level of credibility Irving had a valid claim on.


The Trial was far from a forgone conclusion, that is why IRVING took the action, that is why HE took the issue to court, not Lipstadt. In his arrogance he assumed his shoddy work would survive the open and fair test the court was obliged to have it put to.

In short Irving was demolished, utterly and absolutely exposed as a fake, a liar, a manipulator, and a crowd pleaser of the lowest denomination.

The fact Lipstadt 'was never subject to cross-examination demonstrates both the weakness of Irving's case, and the strength of Lipstadt's. Irving could have had her called. She would have had two choices,
a) appear.
b) lose, and even be found in contempt.Thus , she (and Penguin), rather than Irving would have been liable to the massive damages and costs.

Lipstadt was not called by Irving because he knew her presence as a witness would have ripped the shit out of Irving's already dubious credibilty, and whole case.

You state that the trial resolved nothing. The trial resolved a great deal. The judgement determined absolutely that Irving had no credibility whatsoever as an academic or as an Historian. The judgement identified his work and methodology as shabby, dishonest, manipulative and groundless as writings of any historical merit and validity whatsoever.

You say..."Under English common law (and thus American) the one making a factual allegation has the burden of going forward and proving the truth of the matter." It was Irving made the factual allegation. He asserted by his court action that Lipstadt and Penguin were wrong, and that his view was right. Ergo, it did fall to him to demonstrate that, and " prove HIS truth of the matter. His research and findings failed miserably when set against a valid Historian. If Irving did not recognise his was the obligation to prove his position, he could not , with any logic, claim any libel had been made.
Despite the judge's statement ,pre-trial, that the holocaust was not on trial, a side effect of the judgment actually offers clear determination on the Holocaust's validity. The whole judgement, and award of damages, pivotted on the relative validity and credence of the research producing the two opposing views. If Irving's version had any merit at all, the court would not have been able to dismiss the libel. Lipstadt's comments, that Irving tried desperately to surpress, not only attacked and destroyed his work, they laid out in plain-speak what a totally useless and dishonest historian he was.
By instigating the action Irving made the statement ' my work is a valid representation of the truth of the holocaust.'... Equally, by claiming Lipstadts criticisms of him and his work constituited libel he was asserting that his work proved the truth of the holocaust, and Lipstadt by challenging that 'truth' was using lies to undermine his(Irvings) accuracy and 'true version'. Only by his version being the 'true one', could Lipstadts critique be regarded as libel. Irving's own actions created an inevitable test of which view, Irving or Lipstadt's held most demonstratable validity.

It wasn't his.

Mr Justice Gray, in his devastating judgment, said the issue had been Irving's treatment of the available evidence. He concluded that Irving shared the political beliefs of the 'militant neo-Nazis', whose meetings he had graced. 'The content of his speeches and interviews often displays a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias.' He wasn't an honest historian, struggling with the inevitable difficulties understanding the past brings, but a deliberate falsifier of the record, 'motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence'.

Justice Gray stressed,

"Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with rightwing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."
Gray's judgment means that Irving can no longer call himself a historian; he must now be seen as what his critics have always called him - a propagandist, a polemicist, an apologist for Hitler, whom he has sought to defend from demonisation.
This judgement was incredible, as it represented a far greater totality of dismissal than English courts tend to issue. In this judgement Justice Gray exposed himself to be absolutely gutted by the court of appeal, and thus offered Irving a serious chance to dodge the verdict, as any significant,fault found by appeal judges ,here, would have overturned not only the court's ruling on damages but also the judgement that had been laid down on Irving's credentials and the lack of worth of his work.
The court of appeal found no major issues with the original verdict. They upheld Justice Gray's annihalation of Irving and his work.
Anthony Julius QC won because the professor of modern history at Cambridge had demolished Irving's scholarship. Richard J. Evans went through Irving's sources and produced an exhaustive 740-page analysis which detailed how Irving had twisted evidence in the Nazi interest. Irving had censored himself as well as the past by cutting references to death camps from his early work when it was reprinted.

Professor D.C. Watt (Editor, Survey of International Affairs, Royal Institute of International Affairs 1962-71; Professor then Stevenson Professor of International History, London School of Economics and Political Science 1972-93; Official Historian, Cabinet Office Historical Section 1977-93.) Said of Irving.
" Perhaps we might feel The Truth needs an Irving's challenges to keep it alive. So called 'experts', like Irving, will help to keep the flame of truth burning. We need such liars as Irving , it seems, to help to lead us to the truth."

The following was cited as typical of Irving's approach to research , and salient to his credibility.(or rather lack of)
'In support of his contention that Hitler knew nothing of the Final Solution, Irving had dwelt on a diary note he had discovered written by Ribbentrop in his prison cell about Hitler. The note read: 'How things came to the destruction of the Jews I just don't know, but that he ordered it I refuse to believe, because such an act would be wholly incompatible with the picture I always had of him.' However, when Sereny dug through the obscure archive and found the original source, she discovered that Ribbentrop went on to write that: 'On the other hand, judging from Hitler's Last Will, one must suppose that he at least knew about it, if, in his fanaticism against the Jews, he didn't also order it.'

Views on his earlier works are equally damning.
"It has received almost no attention from historians or reviewers...It is easy to see why.... full of excesses, inconsistancies and omissions... seems completely unaware of recent work done on the subject... It is not merely that the arguments in this book are so perversely tendentious and irresponsibly sensationalist. It is also that it is written in a tone which is a best casually journalistic and at worst quite exceptionally offensive. The text is littered with errors from beginning to end."
(Professor David Cannadine, London University, on Irving's first volume of his biography of Sir Winston Churchill, as quoted by Richard Evans in Lying About Hitler)

Irving holds no academic qualification whatsoever in history, and has no training, or credible credentials as a researcher.
He failed to complete his under-grad degree, which was in, would you believe, in Physics.
Irving has Never held an academic post, or tenure anywhere,
I had to laugh, Infact, I am far better qualified as an historian than he is. I actually hadn't realised that.

One of the few Irving supporters who is academically credible ( and I could only find one),Dr Joel Hayward, has since recanted on his support, recanted the premise of his MA thesis supporting the holohoax stance, and attacked Irving for his misleading and misrepresentative use of statements and quotes attributed to said Dr J Hayward , as well as Irvings fraudulent use of unviable material. Hayward has also apologised profoundly to the Jewish community for the impact of his earlier misguided, and misrepresentative innacuracies.

You also overlook one glaring contradiction in your thread's first premise, ie the denial of Irving's free-speech.
The very crux of the Irving v Lipstadt court case was, and still is, that Irving tried to gag Lipstadt. Irving was the one who sought to deny an individual their right to Free-speech , simply by his efforts to shut Lipstadt up. Lipstadt was making no effort to prevent his work being aired, it was already published and known. Lipstadt was making the kind of bold attack on Irvings fundemental credentials and methodology that charlatans dread. Irving sought to prevent her that free speech.
There is no law against Holocaust denial in the UK; no one here was seeking to arraign him for his views, or stop him airing them. He tried to prevent another from airing hers.
It back fired on him, rather like your pathetic attempts at lionising the likes of Irving and the discredited experts of the 'holocaust-hoax lobby'.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mr. Leuchter (ref' Zundel) is supposed to be an expert in executions by toxic gas who has actually built gas chambers used for executions in the USA...
In fact only two penal establishments in the USA had ever heard of him. At one they had a vague recollection of him being a SALESMAN who tried to sell them a new heart monitor that was fitted to the chair in which the condemned would sit. The second could not even be sure in what context he had contacted them, but they were positive he had NO role WHATSOEVER in the design, construction or maintenance of their gassing room.Leuchter himself later admitted he had lied. He also admitted that not only had he never had any training as an engineer, had never worked as an engineeer, he had NO qualifications as an engineer , and no experience with any kind of gassing facility..
( maybe he turned a fire on in his front room once.)


Irving himself stated as part of his defense...that a valid view on the possibility/credibility of any camp's ability to gas in the numbers asserted,
"required extensive engineering, qualifications, knowledge and expertise." Sadly for Irving, and your cause, Leuchter was exposed as a liar who possessed none of the credentials Irving regarded as so salient to his case's validity.
Many have used Leuchter as the start point for their own tirades. Many of your ilk have built on and extended his faulted assertions. This, as anyone with the vaguest awareness of the demands of any legitimate research (and indeed legal process) presupposes their work is flawed as it stems from an inaccurate premise.( Incidentally, the Law also accepts a similar demand for provenance as an underpinning premise .)
Which demonstrates none of the 'follow-ons' can be very reliable if they offered support to the faulted ramblings of an unqualified, charlatan and liar like Leuchter.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ref' testimony at the Zundel trial ( and several references to this in posts on this thread.)
that not only was there no cyanide gas ever used in these buildings, but it had been proven to be absent in trace form.

Mr. Germar Rudolf ... Rudolph's work is built upon the already shaky foundation of the Leuchter Report. Competent chemists have refuted his work and the Max Planck Institute terminated him, citing his incompetent methodology, as well as his fraudulent use of their stationery in an attempt to garner some facade of credibility..

His socalled forensic findings, as with Leuchteurs, were totally debunked by JAN MARKIEWICZ, WOJCIECH GUBALA, JERZY LABEDZ
Institute of Forensic Research, Cracow . Their study was subject to full academic, scientific and forensic controls and scrutiny, unlike the work of Leuchter and Rudolf.
(Rudolf, incidentally had a bad habit as quoting sources that were infact quotes from work written by himself under pseudonyms. He also became a laughing stock due to the fact several of his false identities not only had fake qualifications appended to their false names, but he had made them better qualified than himself. Hey Krastner, want to give us a Freudian view of that one.)

the report was summed up in the following terms.
"The present study shows that in spite of the passage of a considerable period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B have been preserved. This is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers. The cyanide compounds occur in the building materials only locally, in the places where the conditions arose for their formation and persistence for such a long time."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
next....
'Masses of smoke would be produced by the cremations"..

most you should see is a few minutes of a dark smoke and flakey ash that represents the coffin burning away, along with any clothing left on the deceased. But when the body itself burns there's barely any smoke at all.

But wait a moment..... As there is no question coffins , or even clothes being burned, indeed even hair would likely be absent, there would be little smoke at all. The human body represents very little solid matter. It is the most part liquid. At the heats we are talking about the liquid would experience almost 'flash' evaporation, leaving very little solid matter to combust and generate the carbon based pollutants that form smoke.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
next

"Couldn't cremate that many bodies"

To say bone survives cremation is misleading. Bone survives low intensity and short exposure burning. Under proper cremation bone shatters, 'bursts' ,dessicates, and even burns itself. Bone is a minute matrix of capilliary-like airspaces. It is far from a solid. Super heated bone falls apart when these airspaces expand, shattering the integrity of the bone's structure. Moreover, bodies do not always form a mass to be disposed of. That is only the case in individual cremation in the form of 'funerary practise', where a single body experiencing one-burn cremation is the case.. The addition of multiple bodies, multiple burnings of the same bodies, creates a fuel source within the burning process. The body itself becomes a source as well as a object of combustion. Ashes left in the ovens whilst more and more bodies are added, in repeat combustions, also fuel and extend the burning process. What would be raked out at intervals would bear no resemblance to the remains, or the ash-mass, from a civil funerary cremation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
next...
" Open/pit cremation would not work efficiently without huge amounts of petrol Germany couldn't afford to use"
Bullshit... Talk to any valid Military historian. ( any credible one that is). From year-one the dead of battle have been reduced to next to nothing in just this way. Only more modern religious and familial sensibilities stopped the method.

There is a method to it, and it does not require masses of petrol at all. What it needs is the use of accelerants, often in very minor quantities. Ancients would use wood or straw fascines in small amounts to create a starting point. Oils/gums/animal fats might have been used in limited amounts, as in those days they didn't have shell or amoco just down the road ( greek fire and naptha etc were far too precious to use in that way, before you try that one). Once the fire is started it needs be fed lightly , if at all, as the generated heat serves in the same way as one might treat damp wood, drying it and enabling it to combust in a growing conflagration. ie, it converts the bodies themselves into fuel sources. Even residual body fat, (even in the smallest concentrations as one might find in many inmates) constitutes a viable accelerant that aids the process. Such body fats seep from the heating bodies ,soaking down through the layers, and settle in the pit's base, creating an intense base heat source , and well distributed feeder flames throughout the 'pyre'.

Any combustible biomass is sufficient to begin this process. Mass cremations have featured in wars and natural disasters, throughout history, even where wood and 'oils' have been in very short supply.

Accelerants did not need to be gasoline. Waste, used oils were fine, especially if deployed by spraying. Spraying lightly would aid the process as it would encourage an even and rapid rate of early dessication. The very existence of the camps would inevitably produce huge amounts of waste sump oils . These would have been perfect as accelerants. Toss something in as simple as 'mothballs', and you can greatly enhance its efficiency as an accelerant. Infact you are best part of the way to napalm.
Open mass cremation was a common and efficient disposal method upto and after the napoleonic wars. It was essential in that often it was the only way to avoid disease.

How do you think many of the German and Russian war dead were disposed of when numbers often exceded any ability to bury them. Open mass cremation, in conditions where petrol was in extremely short supply.
An SS officer tasked with clearing up the dead of the Dresden bombing reported to his superiors how he regretted that Germans had been dealt with in mass pyres, but was glad that disease had been averted by so easy a means, with such a small drain on resources. He reported that his unit had dealt with 9000+ corpses in a short time, before decay and putrescence could become a serious issue. That is less than 3 days.
So, one German admitted he could process 3000 German corpses a day, with an average unit who were not specialised at the task. That guy could have handled 1,095,000 a year, on his own.
Was he one of those super-dudes lovelynice was flapping her gums for.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
next....
"Diesel fumes aren't lethal"
NOTE>...
Published Feb. 24, 2005
The deadly effects of breathing diesel fumes came into sharp focus this week when the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) released a report[1] estimating that diesel fumes kill about 21,000 U.S. citizens each year.( and that's as accidents)
It should be remembered that what matters in CO2 poisoning is not the concentration of CO2, but the ratio of CO2 to oxygen in terms of
a) presence of these as increasing and diminishing amounts x ratio in any given habitat.
b) relative flow rates in absorption and exalation in the body. ie how much O2 gets in, how much Co2 gets out.
In a small sealed room or van, crammed full of people, oxygen levels drop quickly due to the fact the room full of people are processing that available air in their respiratory cycle, at a stress boosted rate, which will quickly lead to oxygen depletion and CO2 saturation in any restricted atmosphere, thus making death by CO2 poisoning faster.

One of the posts on this thread stressed the presence of uncombusted diesel in the exhaust fumes as proof of how inefficient diesels' are as gassers.. As noted, other toxic components such as just these uncombusted droplets in the fumes further accelerate mortality.

ie...Death by diesel fumes is also induced by the fact unignited diesel vapour causes the rapid deposit of thick beads of black oily sticky material in the smaller bronchi. This coats the lungs with an oxygen impermeable layer that obstructs the efficient operation of gaseous exchange in the respiratory function. Thus, levels of retained waste gasses increase, whilst the absorption of oxygen is increasingly impeded, if not halted, inevitably leading to rapid death.

This is exactly the same fate shared by many mariners when they either ingested, or inhaled oil spilled from their sinking vessels.
Many seamen did not infact drown. Many actually asphyxiated before the water got them.

The fact the Nazi's were aware of this is demonstrated by this extract from a letter regarding "gassing vans" sent to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Walter Rauff, 5 June 1942. (Nazism, document 913).
"2) The vans are normally loaded with 9-10 people per square meter. With the large Saurer special vans this is not possible because although they do not become overloaded their maneuverability is much impaired. A reduction in the load area appears desirable. It can be achieved by reducing the size of the van by c. 1 meter. The difficulty referred to cannot be overcome by reducing the size of the load. For a reduction in the numbers will necessitate longer period of operation because the free spaces will have to be filled with CO2. By contrast, a smaller load area which is completely full requires a much shorter period of operation since there are no free spaces."

cup of tea I think.

 

[krastner]

Ok a few notes addressing some of the bullshit posted by you guys....
Krastner, you will need help to read this, your lips will get tired from all that moving while you form the words.

Why should I read all that clap trap shit. I have heard it for years and years of zionist Jew brainwashing. All I need to know is that their figures don't add up, subtract or multiply either. When stats tell me that there were more Jews in the world after 1945 that there was before. The same with the number of European Jews. That itself makes a lie of the holocaust. Oh you are going to tell me that Jews had children, approximately 6million in Eurpope and that the number of Jews would be 6million more than the prewar figure...Oh give me a frigin break..

Like I just know that the Jews after being herded into ghettos and camps just had that old rythem to make more babies. I am sure that was the most iimportant thing on their minds at the tiem. Not surviving every kind of sickness, some German Brutality, the hatred of the entire German population after the way the Jews tried to destroy the Germans way before Hitler said lets get the bastards...Oh that makes real good for getting a hard on..

If the little bastards were able to have kids in all of this then we might as well give up...no one can ever defeat such prolific people...

So just take your ha ha ha "proof" and stuff it in your Jew ass. Thats where it belongs....with all the other shit..

 

[miles]

Why can't holocaust deniers spell?

 

[Beco]

Why can't holocaust deniers spell?

Where is Eurpope ?

 

[miles]

A few samples from their brilliant fucking minds:

victime
holocause
Japaneese
rythem
circumsize


Did any of you morons tackle the sixth grade?

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm an aethiest. So I'm pretty sure he's Eur-Pope not mine.

 

[Beco]

A few samples from their brilliant fucking minds:

victime
holocause
Japaneese
rythem
circumsize


Did any of you morons tackle the sixth grade?

its the Jews fault they cant spell....

 

[miles]

Where is Eurpope ?

North of Acrifa.

I doubt any of them know the difference between north, south, east, and west. Krastner gets his left and right mixed up.

 

[miles]

its the Jews fault they cant spell....

Those Zyinist Jooz hoo live in Isreal.

 

[krastner]

Those Zyinist Jooz hoo live in Isreal.

You know when I saw your name on the thread I thought about having to be nice ...well as nice as can be expected.....but after seeing your little droppings I realize that I don't have to be nice to you at all....

 

[miles]

You know when I saw your name on the thread I thought about having to be nice ...well as nice as can be expected.....but after seeing your little droppings I realize that I don't have to be nice to you at all....

Is that cum on the corner of your mouth?

 

[ImpWizard]

Did our holocaust hoaxers and holocaust propagandists run away?

 

[miles]

Did our holocaust hoaxers and holocaust propagandists run away?

No. we're still here laughing at you.

 

[krastner]

Did our holocaust hoaxers and holocaust propagandists run away?

Hey Imp please pay no attention to that man in the closet....

 

[miles]

Hey Imp please pay no attention to that man in the closet....

Good job, krastner. You didn't misspell a single word.

 

[ImpWizard]

Hey Imp please pay no attention to that man in the closet....

What man in the closet? You mean Miles the guy who can only write a single line at a time? Look at how long it takes him between posts. He must be really struggling just to type each letter. One of these days I'm going to time him and see how long it takes him to put a sentence together.

 

[unculbact]

You know, it's only polite to include links to whatever you quote, so we can check up on it, luckily, I recognized most, if not all of this, as being from Nizkor.

Long post, I'll have to deal with these in detail.

You made a big, BIG mistake quoting the Joel Hayward issue as Nizkor describes it, but I'll deal with that as the week goes on. For now:

"Diesel fumes aren't lethal"
NOTE>...
Published Feb. 24, 2005
The deadly effects of breathing diesel fumes came into sharp focus this week when the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) released a report[1] estimating that diesel fumes kill about 21,000 U.S. citizens each year.( and that's as accidents)

That's not what the report says.

Nizkor, or whatever other bullshit source you got this from, lied to you.

Here's the link to the original report.

http://www.catf.us/publications/view/83

"Fine particle pollution from diesels shortens the lives of nearly 21,000 people each year. This includes almost 3,000 early deaths from lung cancer."

This is really, really bad Shamanskiss. When you were in the military, did you just take intelligence reports at face value? Didn't evaluate the source, or cross-check with other reports?

The report doesn't even address "accidents" at all! It's an air pollution report, addressing health risks and premature deaths!

You didn't read the original report, did you? It's just a Google search away, but you didn't bother to read it, though it's only two pages long. As a result, you got lied to, and IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!

It should be remembered that what matters in CO2 poisoning is not the concentration of CO2, but the ratio of CO2 to oxygen in terms of
a) presence of these as increasing and diminishing amounts x ratio in any given habitat.
b) relative flow rates in absorption and exalation in the body. ie how much O2 gets in, how much Co2 gets out.
In a small sealed room or van, crammed full of people, oxygen levels drop quickly due to the fact the room full of people are processing that available air in their respiratory cycle, at a stress boosted rate, which will quickly lead to oxygen depletion and CO2 saturation in any restricted atmosphere, thus making death by CO2 poisoning faster.

That's from the Nizkor site again, and it's bullshit, no mining or ventilation engineer ever takes CO2/O2 ratios into consideration.

What matters is concentration of CO2. If CO2 reaches a concentration of 10 percent, you die of suffocation no matter how much oxygen is in the air. If oxygen levels drop below 9 percent, you die of hypoxia. Proportional ratios have nothing to do with it.

Neither a gas van or a gas chamber using diesel exhaust can be "sealed".

I can't think of a finer example of the godforsaken stupidity the Nizkor people demonstrate, than their assertion that diesel exhaust would be pumped into a sealed chamber.

The diesel would act as a compressor, and blow the doors off their hinges. In Graf and Mattagno's book on Treblinka, they publish a full study of how many tons of force would be on the doors and ceiling in just the first minute. Check their math, the door would blow off very, very quickly.

There has to be an outlet to prevent overpressures, and this will exhaust CO2 as well as other gases.

At full load, a diesel takes in 18 pounds of air for every pound of fuel it burns. As a result, there's an excess of oxygen compared to a spark-gap engine.

Check graph 6 here.

http://www.vho.org/D/gzz/BergCO2.gif

When a diesel finally pumps out lethal levels of CO2 (10 percent) at around 80% full power, it's also pumping out 7.5 percent oxygen. That's a 2.5 percent difference in air composition, which does mean that lethal concentrations will eventually occur.

But That Will Take Hours! If CO2 buildup were a factor, the animals in the British Industrial Medicine Study I've relinked below would have died much quicker. They displayed no symptoms of asphyxia at all. Their blood, when dissected, was scarlet. People who die from asphyxia have blue blood. A reminder that the animals in the British test were all rodents, which have a higher metabolism, and are much more sensitive to CO2 or O2 levels than people.

And - both the Bohr Effect and the Haldane Effect of CO2 in the blood will have an impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_Effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_effect

This IS a result of oxygen/CO2 ratios, and simply means that blood uses oxygen more efficiently as CO2 increases in proportion to the amount of oxygen in the blood. The effects are small, but would delay death.

One of the posts on this thread stressed the presence of uncombusted diesel in the exhaust fumes as proof of how inefficient diesels' are as gassers.. As noted, other toxic components such as just these uncombusted droplets in the fumes further accelerate mortality. ie...Death by diesel fumes is also induced by the fact unignited diesel vapour causes the rapid deposit of thick beads of black oily sticky material in the smaller bronchi. This coats the lungs with an oxygen impermeable layer that obstructs the efficient operation of gaseous exchange in the respiratory function. Thus, levels of retained waste gasses increase, whilst the absorption of oxygen is increasingly impeded, if not halted, inevitably leading to rapid death.

Rapid? This is indeed how the test animals died in the most destructive of the British Industrial Medicine Study experiments in 1957, which I've linked before, but will link again.

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/FPB/ToxDiesel.html

Death was not rapid. It was long, drawn out, and difficult. In the "D" phase of the experiment, which involved choking the engine to the point where unburned fuel spewed out of the exhaust:

"In conditions D, the mice died first, they died more quickly in D1 than D2. After one hour's exposure in D1 (0.22% CO), all but three of the mice were dead. All the rabbits and guinea pigs were alive. After 3 hours and 20 minutes, all the animals were dead. In experiment D2 (0.12% CO), on the other hand, one mouse only was dead at the end of one hour. After 3 hours and 20 minutes, 19 mice and one guinea pig were dead, but both rabbits were still alive. After 4 hours and 35 minutes, all the animals were dead."

In the most destructive test, 3 hours and 20 minutes to kill the last rabbit. In the end, they actually died of pulmonary edema, the build up of fluids in the lungs that are a defensive reaction to the diesel fuel coating and nitrogen based irritants, similar to death from pneumonia.

And even some of the mice - MICE! - survived longer than an hour. How much longer to kill a person? 6 hours? 12? This is the way to execute people en masse? You were in the military. Give us your operational effectiveness evaluation of a weapon that will take 3 HOURS AND 20 MINUTES to kill.

With all that aerated and atomized diesel fuel floating in the gas chambers, how did the Germans keep them from blowing up?

A diesel engine with its intake choked in such a manner as to spew out unburned fuel will ruin itself in a matter of hours. Screwing with air intake and exhaust is one of the fastest ways to ruin a diesel.


few things will damage or kill a diesel engine faster than excessive exhaust gas temperature (EGT)...

A restrictive exhaust system can also reduce the airflow through the engine, resulting in a rich condition.

http://www.bankspower.com/Tech_whyegt.cfm

With spare parts for a 12-cylinder T-34 tank engine not exactly available at the Treblinka 10,000 Auto Parts, how did they manage a complete engine overhaul two or three times per week?

This is exactly the same fate shared by many mariners when they either ingested, or inhaled oil spilled from their sinking vessels. Many seamen did not infact drown. Many actually asphyxiated before the water got them.

That's when they're up to their armpits in an oil slick, right? Are you suggesting the Germans dumped the equivalent of the contents of several 50 gallon oil drums into a gas chamber?

Here's something you left out - how long does that take? Half an hour? An hour? The lethality of any agent is a matter of quantifying it, right?

Ingested oil, bunker or diesel, will kill you - in hours, or even days, mainly due to damage to the intestines.

Inhaled fumes in an oil slick at sea displace oxygen and lead to different forms of complex hydrocarbon poisoning, as well as the lung edema we've already discussed, but death isn't quick. The size of the slick matters - when PT-109 was sunk, several men lost consciousness in the gasoline slick, but they all survived. Temperature is also a factor. In Arctic waters, diesel or bunker oil, already of low volatility, will congeal into tar and will give off no fumes (Check it out with the Exxon Valdez disaster).

The crucial question is this: Is immersion in an oil slick at sea UNIFORMLY fatal? There's never any survivors?

(You DO realize that this has NOTHING to do with conditions in a homicidal gas chamber)

The fact the Nazi's were aware of this is demonstrated by this extract from a letter regarding "gassing vans" sent to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Walter Rauff, 5 June 1942. (Nazism, document 913).
"2) The vans are normally loaded with 9-10 people per square meter. With the large Saurer special vans this is not possible because although they do not become overloaded their maneuverability is much impaired. A reduction in the load area appears desirable. It can be achieved by reducing the size of the van by c. 1 meter. The difficulty referred to cannot be overcome by reducing the size of the load. For a reduction in the numbers will necessitate longer period of operation because the free spaces will have to be filled with CO2. By contrast, a smaller load area which is completely full requires a much shorter period of operation since there are no free spaces.

So again, why didn't the test animals in the 1957 study I've linked die from CO2? And again, Saurer trucks, beginning in 1914, were exclusively diesel powered.

Here's an analysis of that letter to Rauff, also known as Nuremberg Document PS-501.

http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwagon.html

The provenance of the letter is unknown, and there are three different versions of it in existance. And, what the letter describes is technically impossible for a Saurer truck. One of the reasons the document was never used as evidence in any trial.

More as the week goes on.

 

[krastner]

What man in the closet? You mean Miles the guy who can only write a single line at a time? Look at how long it takes him between posts. He must be really struggling just to type each letter. One of these days I'm going to time him and see how long it takes him to put a sentence together.

TRhe reasoN I call him the man in the closet is that miles avatar has been , for several years now, the Clark kent,,no I know it Gable..well Gable has a history of being a real flamer. So I make a loose connection between Miles's avatar and how he is..I just do it to piss him off.

But you are right about him and one liners..another is gringo..I see that these two have a lot of post... It's very easy if you never make more that half a sentence...

 

[ImpWizard]

You know, it's only polite to include links to whatever you quote, so we can check up on it, luckily, I recognized most, if not all of this, as being from Nizkor.

Long post, I'll have to deal with these in detail.

You made a big, BIG mistake quoting the Joel Hayward issue as Nizkor describes it, but I'll deal with that as the week goes on. For now:




That's not what the report says.

Nizkor, or whatever other bullshit source you got this from, lied to you.

Here's the link to the original report.

http://www.catf.us/publications/view/83

"Fine particle pollution from diesels shortens the lives of nearly 21,000 people each year. This includes almost 3,000 early deaths from lung cancer."

This is really, really bad Shamanskiss. When you were in the military, did you just take intelligence reports at face value? Didn't evaluate the source, or cross-check with other reports?

The report doesn't even address "accidents" at all! It's an air pollution report, addressing health risks and premature deaths!

You didn't read the original report, did you? It's just a Google search away, but you didn't bother to read it, though it's only two pages long. As a result, you got lied to, and IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!



That's from the Nizkor site again, and it's bullshit, no mining or ventilation engineer ever takes CO2/O2 ratios into consideration.

What matters is concentration of CO2. If CO2 reaches a concentration of 10 percent, you die of suffocation no matter how much oxygen is in the air. If oxygen levels drop below 9 percent, you die of hypoxia. Proportional ratios have nothing to do with it.

Neither a gas van or a gas chamber using diesel exhaust can be "sealed".

I can't think of a finer example of the godforsaken stupidity the Nizkor people demonstrate, than their assertion that diesel exhaust would be pumped into a sealed chamber.

The diesel would act as a compressor, and blow the doors off their hinges. In Graf and Mattagno's book on Treblinka, they publish a full study of how many tons of force would be on the doors and ceiling in just the first minute. Check their math, the door would blow off very, very quickly.

There has to be an outlet to prevent overpressures, and this will exhaust CO2 as well as other gases.

At full load, a diesel takes in 18 pounds of air for every pound of fuel it burns. As a result, there's an excess of oxygen compared to a spark-gap engine.

Check graph 6 here.

http://www.vho.org/D/gzz/BergCO2.gif

When a diesel finally pumps out lethal levels of CO2 (10 percent) at around 80% full power, it's also pumping out 7.5 percent oxygen. That's a 2.5 percent difference in air composition, which does mean that lethal concentrations will eventually occur.

But That Will Take Hours! If CO2 buildup were a factor, the animals in the British Industrial Medicine Study I've relinked below would have died much quicker. They displayed no symptoms of asphyxia at all. Their blood, when dissected, was scarlet. People who die from asphyxia have blue blood. A reminder that the animals in the British test were all rodents, which have a higher metabolism, and are much more sensitive to CO2 or O2 levels than people.

And - both the Bohr Effect and the Haldane Effect of CO2 in the blood will have an impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_Effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_effect

This IS a result of oxygen/CO2 ratios, and simply means that blood uses oxygen more efficiently as CO2 increases in proportion to the amount of oxygen in the blood. The effects are small, but would delay death.



Rapid? This is indeed how the test animals died in the most destructive of the British Industrial Medicine Study experiments in 1957, which I've linked before, but will link again.

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/FPB/ToxDiesel.html

Death was not rapid. It was long, drawn out, and difficult. In the "D" phase of the experiment, which involved choking the engine to the point where unburned fuel spewed out of the exhaust:

"In conditions D, the mice died first, they died more quickly in D1 than D2. After one hour's exposure in D1 (0.22% CO), all but three of the mice were dead. All the rabbits and guinea pigs were alive. After 3 hours and 20 minutes, all the animals were dead. In experiment D2 (0.12% CO), on the other hand, one mouse only was dead at the end of one hour. After 3 hours and 20 minutes, 19 mice and one guinea pig were dead, but both rabbits were still alive. After 4 hours and 35 minutes, all the animals were dead."

In the most destructive test, 3 hours and 20 minutes to kill the last rabbit. In the end, they actually died of pulmonary edema, the build up of fluids in the lungs that are a defensive reaction to the diesel fuel coating and nitrogen based irritants, similar to death from pneumonia.

And even some of the mice - MICE! - survived longer than an hour. How much longer to kill a person? 6 hours? 12? This is the way to execute people en masse? You were in the military. Give us your operational effectiveness evaluation of a weapon that will take 3 HOURS AND 20 MINUTES to kill.

With all that aerated and atomized diesel fuel floating in the gas chambers, how did the Germans keep them from blowing up?

A diesel engine with its intake choked in such a manner as to spew out unburned fuel will ruin itself in a matter of hours. Screwing with air intake and exhaust is one of the fastest ways to ruin a diesel.


few things will damage or kill a diesel engine faster than excessive exhaust gas temperature (EGT)...

A restrictive exhaust system can also reduce the airflow through the engine, resulting in a rich condition.

http://www.bankspower.com/Tech_whyegt.cfm

With spare parts for a 12-cylinder T-34 tank engine not exactly available at the Treblinka 10,000 Auto Parts, how did they manage a complete engine overhaul two or three times per week?



That's when they're up to their armpits in an oil slick, right? Are you suggesting the Germans dumped the equivalent of the contents of several 50 gallon oil drums into a gas chamber?

Here's something you left out - how long does that take? Half an hour? An hour? The lethality of any agent is a matter of quantifying it, right?

Ingested oil, bunker or diesel, will kill you - in hours, or even days, mainly due to damage to the intestines.

Inhaled fumes in an oil slick at sea displace oxygen and lead to different forms of complex hydrocarbon poisoning, as well as the lung edema we've already discussed, but death isn't quick. The size of the slick matters - when PT-109 was sunk, several men lost consciousness in the gasoline slick, but they all survived.

The crucial question is this: Is immersion in an oil slick at sea UNIFORMLY fatal? There's never any survivors?

(You DO realize that this has NOTHING to do with conditions in a homicidal gas chamber)




So again, why didn't the test animals in the 1957 study I've linked die from CO2? And again, Saurer trucks, beginning in 1914, were exclusively diesel powered.

Here's an analysis of that letter to Rauff, also known as Nuremberg Document PS-501.

http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwagon.html

The provenance of the letter is unknown, and there are three different versions of it in existance. And, what the letter describes is technically impossible for a Saurer truck. One of the reasons the document was never used as evidence in any trial.

More as the week goes on.

I noticed when I was reading the 1957 study that 10% of the mice didn't die at all, not even after running the Diesel Engine for over 12 hours.

Don't forget the more recent DEFRA report either. It backs up the 1957 Pattel study.

 

[Shamanskiss]

Why should I read all that clap trap shit. I have heard it for years and years of zionist Jew brainwashing. All I need to know is that their figures don't add up, subtract or multiply either. When stats tell me that there were more Jews in the world after 1945 that there was before...

Stupid fuck...One of the base truths of stats is that anyone with half a brain can make them say anything. Shit, a first year psych under-grad would know that.
Probably explains why you don't.

Like I just know that the Jews after being herded into ghettos and camps just had that old rythem to make more babies. I am sure that was the most iimportant thing on their minds at the tiem. Not surviving every kind of sickness, some German Brutality, the hatred of the entire German population after the way the Jews tried to destroy the Germans ..

Something else the first year psych under-grad would know , is that one of the most common human responses to high stress, fear and other emotional peaks is to fuck like those mythic bunnies.
There is direct relativity to the fight or flee , adrenalin fed , response. That principle has commonly been extended by psych under-grads ( now why don't you know that) to a more ribald version , which goes fight, flee, feed or fuck...
I would have thought you and your hunting license in Psych would have known that...or should that in your case be lies-ense.
Talk to some people who do dangerous jobs, hey even soldiers. Plenty will tell you that even while people are shooting at them the can get a hard on. It's fuck all to with arousal, it's to do with so many chemicals whizzing round the body, and the brain being bombarded with impulses..
Dumbfuck.

way before Hitler said lets get the bastards...Oh that makes real good for getting a hard on....

I thought there was no plan for genocide. oooops Krastener, you just shot yourself in the friggin face. Now you admit he went after them.
Good little Nazi. but not a very talented or gifted on..
Shit, if you had been ordered top blow-up a van full of jews,
you'd have burned your lips on the fucking exhaust.

Dumberfuck.

If the little bastards were able to have kids in all of this then we might as well give up...no one can ever defeat such prolific people.....

Oh my, you're not prejudiced at all, are you Krastner. Fucking hell. By your argument no babies should have been born all over europe/world, during WW2. The human race breeds, you asshole, through disaster, plague, oppression,War, it always has always will at least try to...
fuck, you must have been shit at biology as well.
Dumbestfuck.


You scream your head off about people staying on thread, providing this 'n' that. When they do, what happens. You run round , goosestepping and frothing, running scared from actually dealing with it.

Dumberthandumbestdumbfuck.

[So just take your ha ha ha "proof" and stuff it in your Jew ass. Thats where it belongs....with all the other shit..

Well, ignoring your anal fixation for a moment, I suppose if I actually wanted you to read anything , I would have to shove it up something's ass, because in amongst all the other shit is where we would find you.
Sodumbyoumakedumbfuckslookleassdumb.
You are a total horsesfanny.

 

[Shamanskiss]

That's right Dorothy, I mean Wizard

Hey Imp please pay no attention to that man in the closet....

you listen to the krastner man in his dinky little studded totenkopf posing pouch and thigh high pvc high heel boots.

he loves you lots.

 

[Shamanskiss]

actually he did

Good job, krastner. You didn't misspell a single word.

he missed the first P off...
he meant to say P...imp

 

[Shamanskiss]

so what you're saying is

I noticed when I was reading the 1957 study that 10% of the mice didn't die at all, not even after running the Diesel Engine for over 12 hours.

Don't forget the more recent DEFRA report either. It backs up the 1957 Pattel study.

90% did die...

 

[ImpWizard]

Irving versus Lipstadt

The fact Lipstadt was never subject to cross-examination demonstrates .

In order to sustain their charges against Irving, Lipstadt's defence hired a half dozen tenured academic historians to go over every footnote in Irving's books, these experts received nice big fees for their work, upto $200,000 in the case of the Auschwitz expert, Robert Jan Van Pelt. Yet this free flow of money was not just about the resources which the defence had which David Irving didn't have. It also pointed to the time and effort that the defence was able to pay for in order to find fault with Irving's work, time and energy which Irving did not have available.

The sum total of their calculated expedition of academic assassination was only around a dozen or so points of "interpretation" in Irving's 30 books in which it does appear that Irving was wrong, or mistaken, or interpreted the material in an unconventional manner. These few errors, from a lifetime of work, could not reasonably sustain the claim that Irving was not a historian, and this was immediately pointed out by Donald Cameron Watt and Sir John Keegan, two British historians with even better credentials than Lipstadt's experts. In fact, in his judgment, Justice Gray was quick to reject the sweeping characterisation of the defence that Irving had no reputation as an historian to defend.

The defence's strategy was to destroy Irving's credibility and the integrity of his historical interpretations so that the judge would be bound by mainstream conventional bias to accept their version of events, not Irving's. Yet Irving had neither the time, the money, the resources, nor even the right through discovery to attempt to undercut the authority of the experts lined up against him.

Basically to a large extent, victory went to those with more money.

Irving holds no academic qualification whatsoever in history, and has no training, or credible credentials as a researcher.
He failed to complete his under-grad degree, which was in, would you believe, in Physics.
Irving has Never held an academic post, or tenure anywhere,
I had to laugh, Infact, I am far better qualified as an historian than he is. I actually hadn't realised that..

Except that David Irving has had at least 30 books published, and these books are still referred to by other historians. It doesn't necessarily require academic qualifications to be a historian. It requires expert knowledge which he's still famous for having (particularly on World War 2 and the 3rd Reich). You claim that Irving had no credible credentials as a researcher, but 30 published books that have long been referenced by other historians show otherwise.

David Irving admitted that he was not an expert on the holocaust, but then again Pelt (who went on and on about how great an expert on the Holocaust that he himself was) has been fairly criticised as not being entirely accurate as well.

There IS an argument as to whether Irving is a historian, but since some (including professional historians) are happy to call him a historian, and others (not always historians) wish to deny him this status it's not accurate to define him as not being a historian.

If you go through news reports of his conviction, over and over again you will find him described as a historian. Irving gives his readers more in-text citations than many historians noted for their "scholarship".

Now this is a very important question; DEFINE what YOU mean by "credible historian"?