My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Discussions
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:39 am

Bob wrote:What is the most ridiculous about this comment and another accusation? Is in fact proof that Nessie is the one who is dodging all the time and produced the same response as previously because as visible, he dodged everything in my comment and he simply repeated what he said in his previous reactions, so logically, now I should have to repeat my response from my previous comment as well, then will Nessie repeat his nonsense again and whole cycle will start again and so on and so on, just neverending story like in the case of RM no chance to obtain some response or reaction on my points.
Stop lying, Bob. Everyone of your "points" is duly addressed, while I'm not sure if I can say the same of you regarding my points. You may not like my arguments because they don't fit your bubble, but that doesn't mean I didn't respond or react to your "points".
Bob wrote:As demonstrated again, the introduction holes issue is the only thing needed to demolish this gassing nonsense during WW2, the only thing needed is to ask "where are introduction holes in krema II and krema I?" Yes dear readers, it is quite simple.
Your logic sucks, my friend.

If the introduction holes in Krema II and Krema I could not be positively identified, this wouldn't mean they didn't exist. Evidence to the contrary would make such conclusion rather nonsensical.

If you could prove that there were never any introduction holes in Krema II and Krema I, this would mean a major inaccuracy in testimonies describing introduction of Zyklon B through such holes. The evidence to homicidal gassing in those facilities (if not by introducing the Zyklon B through introduction holes in the roof) would still be conclusive.

Now, let's go further and assume that you can disprove all evidence that there were homicidal gassings in these two buildings. You would still have the gas chambers of Kremas III/IV and IV/V and the "Bunkers" to contend with.

Let's further assume that you can disprove all evidence to homicidal gassing at these other facilities. You will stil have to explain what, other than murder, is supposed to have happened to hundreds of thousands of people known to have been transported to Auschwitz-Birkenau but not known to have been taken anywhere else from there. Bar an evidence-backed alternative explanation (e.g. that they all died of typhus or the plague without your heroes being at fault), the unavoidable conclusion would be that they were murdered in some way. Maybe not by gassing, but what the heck, murder is murder.

And of course you wouldn't have dealt with any of the evidence to mass murder by gassing with engine exhaust at Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka.

And that's only the mass gassing aspect of your heroes' crimes during World War II, which accounted for at most half of their Jewish victims and about a quarter of the total number of people (Jews and non-Jews) that they murdered.
Bob wrote: But don´t expect excuses similar to Nessie´s, because orthodox sources of course could not say such a demolishing claim that holes were tampered, oh no, this can be said by revisionists who proved that at least two holes were tampered to make them looks square, larger or without protruding reinforcing bars.
That reasoning is also hard to understand. Let's assume you can prove that holes were tampered with at some time after demolition of the crematoria, as you claim. So what? Would this mean there were never any introduction holes, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary? I don't think so.
Bob wrote:RM produced good stuff again, but is bad he didn´t catch update of my comment.
I hope for you that you didn't update any of your comments after I had responded to it, for that would be highly dishonest. If you should have done so, please identify the update.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:54 am

Show me the statements in which what you claim is "clearly visible" is supposed to be "clearly visible". With links to the respective posts, please. If you can’t show me such statements but persist in your accusations, then those accusations are made against better knowledge, and thus appropriately called lies.

Ignoring an argument is one thing (also called dodging), refuting an argument with a counterargument is another. Please show me where I failed to address any of your arguments, instead of refuting it with a counter-argument.
Here RM wants from me to search whole thread and then he will write again the same refuted claims or "you have shown nothing". RM should read comments again, where is problem.

I am talking about proving your chemical claims because at this time are refuted by chemical research shown here and not with some absurd and wrong assumptions, but real with data from chemists and with sources.
I have no problem with accepting that an assumption or conclusion of mine is wrong when it is shown to be wrong.
Propably the most false statement so far.
Actually the "ridiculous excuse" is a perfectly sound explanation. When the 2004 debate ended with the non-“Revisionist” team's last reply, interest in the issues discussed therein waned – at least among people who are not as obsessed with the mechanics of killing at Auschwitz-Birkenau as the likes of Bob seem to be.


RM still didn´t explain why he never contacted chemists to support his fantasies before or during or right after the "2004 debate."
Of course not, as it’s for my esteemed opponent to demonstrate that he did show something – in this case that and why my considerations about out-gassing times in a room at least as hot as human body temperature, derived from Peters’ information about out-gassing times at a temperature that in all probability was 20º C and from Irmscher’s information about out-gassing times at colder temperatures, is supposed to be wrong.
Again request to demonstrate something what had been demonstrated several times and everytime ignored, he just enjoy how his opponent is all the time forced to repeat self. Again - no temperature stated by Peters, no information about exactly how much o HCN evaporated. RM didn´t show how he arrived to his "human body temperature" his Tauber will be adressed below.

But what is the most ridiculous? His (Peters) manual is from 1933, but we are of course speaking about Zyklon B during WW2 and as already pointed out to RM, the evaporation rate from 20´s - 40´s are really different, 10m vs. 120m. Wolfagang Lambrecht provided in mentioned article that evaporation rate was 30m for year 1933 using literature as sources, so some four times lower than in 40´s. But for RM? No problem to use this fatal flaw in his claims.

I expect usual dodging and ignoring of these information.
Readers may want to count how often I quoted this text from the 2004 debate:
No need, I will count for them how many times you repeated your flawed text no matter how many times has been refuted, see below.
This text includes a direct eyewitness’s testimony whereby "It was very hot in the gas chamber and so suffocating as to be unbearable." Assuming that the temperature in the chamber corresponded to human body temperature may even be conservative, considering this description.
In the other words, RM defined what means when somebody says "it was very hot" and this is finally his "proof" that temperature was 37C or even more. How can I take this guy seriously? For me is very hot some 22C-23C when I forgot to take care about my heater, but for what reason should be RM´s invented temperature more relevant than mine? Tauber never said temperature and thus we do not know what "it was very hot" meant for Tauber and we even don´t have anybody else with temperature statement, but RM have no problem to invent own and use it for his calculation, simply absurd unscientific approach.

Tauber said

"After the people had been pushed into the gas chamber and were shut in there and before the ‘Cyklon’ was poured in, the air from the chamber was removed; in fact, the ventilation of the chamber could be used for that purpose.”

Leaving aside that ventilation worked using aeration/de- aeration principle and Tauber, the main star, even didn´t know how ventilation worked after all these months in gas chamber, here Tauber excluded that previously warmed air could be used for gassings and RM simply ignores it too in his already flawed calculations, what is worse, I already provided this quote earlier so he knows it.
Actually there are no data about evaporation speed at a temperature of 30 degrees centigrade. Irmscher’s tables show temperatures ranging from -18 bis -19° C to +15° C. What Bob’s chemists did was to estimate the evaporation speed at higher temperatures on the basis of these data. But they estimated wrong. They didn’t duly take into consideration what Peters wrote on page 64 of his manual, as translated by Ulrich Rösler:
Here again, self-styled "chemist" RM who simply decided that chemists are wrong and he is correct, but he has no evidence, chemists have as shown. Here is RM again proven to be liar, I already provided him with article from Wolfgang Lambrecht, so he must knew that Lambrecht used Peters information and publication from 1933 to inform us that Zyklon B in 1933 was faster thanks to different carrier and technology. So despite better knowledge, RM lied as usual or he simply didn´t bother to read provided source, take your pick.

Is the last statement from RM correct? Of course not, in Rudolf Report, I counted 8 footnotes to Gerhard Peters´s works (manual including) and several other publications/articles from him and Wolfgang Lambrecht cooperated with him as well, they of course know what he wrote as proven. RM still insist on his invented data falsely attributed to Peters, he simply ignores that nobody can ever define what he meant and nobody has right to scream "my assumption is correct", the only way how to determine what he meant is to compare his research and research of the others and available data, this had been done, and this simply refute RM´s false assumptions or Rossler´s claim adopted by RM, because RM´s assumptions are in contradiction with later articles and publications from chemists Irmscher, Rudolf, Lambrecht and Green who accepted Irmscher´s research and data later used by chemists Lambrecht and Rudolf for 30C temperature.

If RM dont agree, where the hell is problem to contact some chemist to show me correct evaporation for 30C using Irmscher´s data instead of claiming that real chemists are wrong without any piece of evidence.
Rösler is correct in understanding that "the greatest part" is not just 51 %, it rather following from both the expression der grösste Teil and from its context, as a German would understand it, that the overwhelming majority of the HCN would have evaporated after half an hour. Rösler’s assumption that Peters’ expression Zimmertemperatur (room temperature) refers to a temperature of about 20º centigrade is also realistic, as I demonstrated in an earlier post on hand of the German Wikipedia article about Raumtemperatur. 20 degrees centigrade is still somewhat below the boiling point of HCN, which is 25.6 degrees Celsius. What Rudolf is trying to tell his readers is that only 60 % of the HCN would evaporate within half an hour at a temperature well above the boiling point. Considering Peters’ above-quoted remark, this would be a preposterous claim even if Peters had meant just over 50 % when writing that der grösste Teil of the HCN would evaporate within half an hour at a temperature 10 degrees lower and below the boiling point of HCN. As Peters certainly didn’t mean just over 50 %, Rudolf’s claim is just plain ridiculous.

Actually Peters spoke of Zimmertemperatur (room temperature), as Bob well knows. The German Wikipedia article about Raumtemperatur tells us that guideline values for room temperature in German-speaking areas are about 17º C for habitation buildings, office buildings and schools, 22 º C for hospitals, nurseries and public baths, 18º C for workshops or sports installations, 16º C for stores, that room temperature shouldn’t exceed 25º-26º C at high outside temperatures and that for calculating necessary heating performance for habitation rooms a room temperature of 20-21º C is often used. So it’s reasonable to assume that when Peters wrote Zimmertemperatur, he meant a temperature around 20º C.

Actually Peters’ said that der grösste Teil, the greatest part, of the HCN would have developed after half and hour. It is not an invention but quite a reasonable understanding that der grösste Teil doesn’t mean just over 50 % but much more than that. But even if it were just over 50 %, Bob’s "other chemists" would be BS when they claim that a mere 60 % of the HCN would have evaporated at 30º centigrade (well above the boiling point) after half an hour.

However loudly my hysterical friend hollers what a bad fellow I am, the fact remains that the evaporation times at body temperature heat that I consider take into account Peters’ information more properly than the idiotic claims of Messrs. Lambrecht and/or Rudolf whereby only 60 % of the HCN evaporates at a temperature of 30 º Celsius. As I pointed out, this would be idiotic even if Peters’ expression der grösste Teil had only meant just over 50 % evaporating at about 20 º Celsius. What is one to think of chemists who produce such nonsense?

This rubbish is of course based on the assumption that Rudolf’s is correct when claiming that only 60 % of the HCN evaporate within half an hour at a temperature of 30 º Celsius. As I have pointed out several times, Peters’ information on page 64 of his 1933 paper shows Rudolf’s extrapolation to be a load of BS and would do so even if Peters’ had meant to say that just over 50 % of the HCN evaporated within half an hour at a temperature of about 20º centigrade. A big leap in evaporation speed probably occurred when boiling point was reached, at 25.6º Celsius.

Irmscher showed how fast HCN evaporates at 15 º Celsius. Peters’ statement, as reasonably understood and however much Bob kicks and screams, suggests that HCN evaporates much faster at a temperature of 20 º Celsius, closer to but still below the boiling point of HCN. I assumed that, as suggested by comparing Irmscher’s and Peters’ data, a temperature increase from 15º C to 20 º C increased evaporation speed and gas concentration by about 70 %, in a simplified model in which "the greatest part", correctly interpreted as meaning "nearly all", was considered to be "all". The inaccuracy in this model is evened out (if not more than evened out), however, by assuming a no more than equal increase in evaporation speed (even though the actual increase would be much higher) when the temperature goes up from 20º C (5.6 º below the boiling point of HCN) to 36-37º Celsius (well above the boiling point of HCN).

Another lie, for in the case in question I have explained several times why Bob's chemists cannot be right about evaporation times at 30 º centigrade, even under the unlikely assumption that what Peters’ meant by "the greatest part" was just over 50 %.
This is simply the same repertoir as in previous parts and comments, I connected his repetitive false claims to one long quote and if I counted correctly, he repeated the same nonsense five times + one piece exclusivelly about temperature. I already adressed all of these and I will provide even more below.

RM of course still ignore that not only Rudolf would be wrong, but Irmscher, Lambrecht and Green too if his claims about Peters alleged data (20C and 80%+) would be correct, this is simply nonsense, I already adressed it, here again:

"this would be in contradiction with Irmscher who stated that only some 45% evaporated after half an hour using 15C temperature and this is in accordance with Rudolf and Lambrecht who was even generous and said "approximately 50%" and this is propably accepted even by Green becuase he used Irmscher´s research. So one can only wonder how is possible that around 80% stated by RM (and falsely attributed to Peters) or "nearly all of the HCN" (as stated by translator Rossler) could evaporate after half an hour using 20C (i.e. only 5C more) as he claims. Is obvious that not that all of these chemists are wrong or contradicting or Peters some stupid amateur, oh no, only RM is off as usual with his fantasies and inventions attributed to Peters who never said this. I already said that he is wrong, RM ignored it."

This is of course not about Rudolf as RM is trying to say, but in this case, everybody is wrong, only self-styled "chemist" RM and translator Rossler are correct when they falsely attributed non-existing data to quote from Gerhard Peters which is even dated 1933.
Here’s what I wrote in connection with Irmscher’s study:

How fast this concentration would develop depended on the ambient temperature. In another part of their present submission, our opponents refer to a table featured under http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/Image19.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on Rudolf’s website, which corresponds to the right part of “Illustration 1” of R. Irmscher’s 1942 article Nochmals: “Die Einsatzfähigkeit der Blausäure bei tiefen Temperaturen”, digitalized on the THHP website under http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... f/p036.gif and translated on the same site under http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 036.htm.en

This curve, which shows the evaporation of Zyklon B from Erco carrier material at temperatures of – 18º C, - 6º C, 0º C and 15º C, makes clear that, even at the lowest of the temperatures considered, about 10% of the Zyklon evaporates within a period of about 5 to 15 minutes, the lower of these periods being roughly where the curve reaches the 10 % mark regarding the highest temperature, i.e. 15º C. This would mean that, at a temperature of 15º C, the concentration of Zyklon B in the gas chamber would after 5 minutes have reached 1.19 g/m³ or 1.395 g/m³, depending on whether it is referred to the gas chamber’s total volume or to the “free volume” calculated by Rudolf – 3.6 to 4.2 times the lethal concentration.


What’s supposed to be wrong in what I wrote?

Here’s how I used Irmscher’s research, once again:

Where’s the "ridiculous" part supposed to be?

What’s supposed to be false about this?
Well, this is called "jumping", RM simply ignores that we are dealing with his essential claim about evaporation characteristic and not about concentrations, so why he jumped to different subject, where RM used Irmscher paper for his evaporation fantasy in this provided quote, because i don´t see even single word about his alleged evaporation times 28%-100% during 5-15/20m period.

If I counted correctly, RM repeated this piece exactly 3 times in his comment, and 8 times in total on four page of this thread, 92 more to go.
Actually one wonders why a temperature increase of 5 degrees, to a temperature not so far below the boiling point of HCN, shouldn’t have greatly increased evaporation speed. And it’s interesting to know that almost half the Zyklon B evaporated after half an hour at a temperature of only 15º C. As I said before, Bob’s chemists would already be full of {!#%@} if Peters had meant just over 50 % when he wrote der grösste Teil. The evaporation speed at a temperature 5 degrees lower further supports the argument that he must have meant a lot more than just over 50 %.

However furiously my hysterical friend stomps his feat, the fact remains that my reading of Peters’ statement is realistic and that if anyone failed to duly take Peters’ finds into consideration, it is the charlatan chemists that Bob makes so much of. Claiming that only 60 % of the HCN would have evaporated at a temperature of 30 º C, well above the boiling point of HCN, would be ridiculous even if by der grösste Teil Peters had meant just over 50 %.
Again "chemist" RM who is trying to convice not educated readers that only 5C difference between 15C-20C temperature can magically evaporate more than 30-35% of HCN or "nearly all HCN" with ignoring research from several chemists presented here which refute this nonsense when the difference between 0C-15C using Irmscher´s graph is only 8% and difference between -18C and +15C is 27%. RM is really ridiculous with his attempt, but despite his effort, between 15C-20C no miracle, no magic. This miracle is possible only using previous faster Zyklon B product not used during WW2 for alleged gassings, Peters wrote this in 1933, but RM simply don´t care, he wants to violate laws of nature and chemistry.

There are only a few possibilities:

1. In 1933 Peters speaks about different Zyklon B as accepted by chemists and proven by original patent even mentioned by Rossler - own source of RM, and as confirmed by later research of later Zyklon B product from Irmscher, Rudolf, Lambrecht and Green. Everything shown here.

2. in 1933 he speaks about the same Zyklon B as allegedly used for gassings during WW2, but in this case the data attributed to him from translator Rossler and RM are false, because later research prove that such an evaporation is wrong and in contradiction with later research, so they must be of course much different, i. e. lower. For this possibility is of course needed to somehow cosntruct a time machine to obtain Zyklon B from 40´s.

As usual, RM is of course wrong.
I didn’t ignore that information, actually. Reckoning that Peters’ time might not apply in case of a thicker layering, I asked Bob for data about just how much evaporation would be slowed down.

Depending on the amount of Zyklon B used and the length and width of the columns, there might have been considerable spreading in a vertical direction, actually. The pellets would be surrounded by air on all sides except at the columns’ bottom. And while it is quite possible that the arrangement of the pellets made evaporation slower than in Peters’ scenario, such considerations are meaningless without quantification. IIRC I asked Bob to quantify the reduction in evaporation speed that he claims. I don’t remember having received an answer.
Here is really ridiculous how RM wants data but he himself has no problem to invent them or refuse to present own data when i request them, this rule is of course applied only to his opponents. I only wonder for what reason would Irmscher or Peters or the others would do such a ridiculous and dangerous experiment with such a dangerous agent like HCN only to see what will happen if the pellets are accumulated in heaps when they already knew that Zyklon B can be efficiently used only in spreaded form as they expressed it. Well, evaporation would be slowed down so much that Peters and the others consdired as important to inform about this important fact their readers, RM ignores it. Pellets in movable coulmn were accumulated in 15cm x 15cm alleged column, so accumulated and not spreaded on the floor in 1/2 or 1cm layer, but at least some 50% or propably more would be simply dumped inside heap of pellets, RM still ignores it, he is blind.
Actually I’m aware that the column structure might have somewhat hindered the spreading of the gas, but again, such considerations are worthless without quantification. And before we get to what influence the mesh might have had on evaporation speed, we need to establish a baseline of evaporation speed under the conditions in Peters’ scenario at the high temperatures reported to have been present in the gas chambers.
RM wants some quantification, hm, ok, I will do my best to provide as much correct and simple calculation as possible.

Kula again.

"The third part of the column was movable. It was an empty column made of a thin zinc lamina with a square section of about 150 mm. At the top it terminated in a cone and below in a flat square base. Angle irons of sheet metal were welded onto a thin bar of sheet metal at a distance of about 25 mm from the edge of this column. On these angle irons a thin net was stretched with square mesh of about 1 mm. This net ended at the base of the cone and from there toward the upper extension of the net ran a framework of sheet metal along the full height to the vertex of the cone."

Mesh/hole - 1mm
Wire - 1,5 mm (fair 50% reduction because according to Kula, wire is thin, so not 3 mm as previously)
Side - 150 mm
Height - 700mm (I am using Pressac´s sketch)
Area of one side - 150 x 700 = 105,000 mm²
Total area of all four sides - 4 x 105 000 = 420,000 mm²
Total area of column - 420, 000 + (150 x 150 x 2) = 465,000 mm²
Area occupied by horizontal wires - 1,5 x 150 = 225 x 280 = 63,000 mm²
Area occupied by vertical wires - 1,5 x 1 = 1,5 x 280 = 420 x 60 = 25,200 mm²
Total area occupied by wires - 63,000 + 25,200 = 88,200 mm²
Area occupied by holes - 60 x 280 = 16,800 mm²
Area occupied by (wires + holes) - 88,200 + 16,800 = 105,000 mm²
Total area of all four sides (wires + holes) - 105,000 x 4 = 420,000 mm²
Total area of column (wires + holes + floor + top) - 420,000 + (150 x 150 x 2) = 465,000 mm²

Total covered area of column - (88,200 x 4) + (150 x 150) = 375,300 mm²
Total free area of column - (16,800 x 4) + (150 x 150) = 89,700 mm²
Total area (covered + free) - 375,300 + 89,700 = 465,000 mm²

Total Area of four sides
Covered - 88,200 / 1050 = 84%
Free - 16,800 / 1050 = 16%

Total area of column
Covered - 375,300 / 4650 = 80,7%
Free - 89,700 / 4650 =19,3%

What this caclculation means? That this technical nonsense described by its manufacturer Kula prevent mobility of gas thanks to very dense mesh which occupies some 84% of entire area of all four sides and only 16% free for gas escape, and whole column is covered in 80% and only 20% of entire area is left for evaporated gas. In my calculation, I did not take into consideration area occupied by irons and etc. need for construction of this column, so covered area should be higher. I also did not take into consideration that column has been alegedly placed in top part so the top part could be used for evaporation too and not only sides of the column, I also did not take into consideration that if the column was longer, there must be supporting horizontal irons as described by Kula, and this again reduce free area significantly. Plainly speaking - I was generous as much as possible in my calculation, but as can be seen, even with this approach, the result is devastating. That´s not all, since the pellets are accumulated in this technical nonsense, I guess that only maybe some 50% (and I am very generous again) of all pellets are exposed to air and can evaporate in "normal" way, the rest is simply dumped inside and covered by other pellets, then also the humidity is problem as mentioned by chemists of course and I even didn´t pointed out that the bodies of victims are also obstacles preventing mobility of gas throuh the room especially if the alleged victims were immediately dead in the vicinity of the column as RM claims and thus blocked column and reduced even more free area.

But that´s not all folks. There were allegedly also two other nets with wire mesh which surrounded this movable column with pellets inside. Kula again:

“Among other things made in the locksmith’s workshop were the fake showers intended for the gas chambers, as well as the columns of wire netting for introducing the contents of cans of Zyklon into the gas chambers. This column had a height of 3 meters with a square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm. Such a column was constituted of three nets, one inside the other. The outside net was made of 3 mm iron wire stretched over angle irons measuring 50 mm x 10 mm. These angle irons were found all over the net and the upper and lower parts were linked by an angle iron of the same type. The mesh of the nets was square, measuring 45 mm. The second net was constructed in the same way and was inserted into the interior of the first at a distance of about 150 mm. The mesh of this net was square and measured about 25 mm. Both nets on angle irons were connected by an iron bar."

Mesh/hole - 25mm
Wire - 3mm
Side - 400 mm (As RM admitted)
Height - 3000 mm
Angle irons - as I understood it, 50mm is one side (100mm total, accepted by Pressac, 1989, p. 487) and 10mm is thickness. I will not take into consideration "there were all over the net" to be again very generous, and I will use only the four of them which were placed in every corner.

I will not waste time with the same calculation, everybody can check it self, I counted it quickly with some margin of error, and the wires/irons reduce total area of all four sides of this column with some next 18%, in the other words, the gas which was able to escape third column was again blocked in second net by next 18% covered area, the first net is also reduction, but only some 6% I guess.

This can be summarized in short, leaving aside all problems mentioned above and how I was generous, the gas can escape from third column using some 16% free area, then it can escape second net using some 82% area, then in first net using some 94% area and then finally can reach poor victims.

But RM? He claims that he is aware, really? I doubt it because where are these data in his flawed calculations, I guess he simpy lied and never realized it. What is worse, his own main star, Henryk Tauber or also Josef Erber spoke about not mesh column, but about can operated by some wire or what, so this is even worse that nonsense from Kula, in this case only top part is used for evaporation and thus only the upper layer of pellets is exposed to air and for "efficient" evaporation, and gas can escape only through top open part, the rest is simply dumped inside and covered.

I expect another falsification and alteration of this alleged device to somehow "solve" this big problem, enlarging of mesh, thinner wire and similar things, which will eradicate the last original pieces left from Kula´s testimony, and we can name it deposition of RM, deposition of Hans, testimony of Robert Jan Van Pelt and etc. I would like to note, that till this time, nobody claimed that deposition about third column is wrong, mistaken, different and etc. If I remembered it correctly, the only objection was about possible height.
Same for humidity, etc. Humidity, if I understand Irmscher correctly, slows evaporation when it settles on the pellets. There wouldn’t have been much time for this to happen in the steaming-hot gas chambers if the baseline evaporation time was the one I assumed, or even if it was a little longer than that (say, half an hour).
Here RM again ignores humidity problem mentioned by chemists and what is worse, he based this quote on his wrong previous assumptions above.
If I remember correctly, I only referred to the patent quote in connection with the information about ambient temperature contained therein (20º C, IIRC) and never claimed that "nearly all gas" could evaporate within ten minutes at a temperature of 20º C. So what dishonest Bob is doing here is called setting up a straw man, pinning onto me an argument I never made in order to ridicule it. The information that Zyklon B used during WW2 had a slower evaporation rate, if accurate, only has some relevance if evaporation slowed in relation to the time mentioned by Peters on page 64 of his 1933 paper. Does this Lambrecht fellow (who I hope is not another of Rudolf’s alter egos) provide any evidence that the evaporation time of Zyklon B used in World War II was considerably lower than the evaporation time of Zyklon B used at the time of Peters’ article? If so, let’s see that evidence.
Here RM is claiming that he used it only because of temperature and he simply ignores that Rossler didn´t provide any source for patent or for temperature, no problem for me, because I already know that Zyklon B in earlier days was different, I only wanted to point out how RM ignores non-existing sources in his Rossler quote, but he wants to see them from his opponent.

Is good to notice again how RM used "if accurate" to make an impression that different characteristics of earlier Zyklon B products/carriers are maybe false and he of course at this case ignores even his flawed source, translator Rossler who mentioned original patent, because then one can only wonder how Rossler arrived to his "more than 90%/nearly all evaporation during 10min and 20C in original patent" if he didn´t base it on earlier Zyklon B product patent with faster evaporation. Because as we already know from Irmscher and the others, more than 90% during 10m/20C in 40´s is utter nonsense and using 15C temperature only some 19% evaporate in 10m, so according to RM again some magic and only 5C difference produced another 70+% percent? Hardly, this must becuase of different Zyklon B product. But RM? He doesn´t care, he without problem used "if accurate". He really needs my comment to expose such a fallacies or this is only trolling? Why he used "if accurate" when his own source Rossler mentioned (without source) that earlier Zyklon B is really much faster and in accordance with Lambrecht who provided also 10m for year 1925 in his article about history of Zyklon B? RM again ignored date of Peters´s manual and research of the other chemists.

Again accusation of Rudolf, simple ad hominem.

RM wants evidence for different Zyklon B products, of course only from his opponents, he or his sources have no duty to do it as he demonstrated, instead of these questions, why he didn´t read sources from Lambrecht used for his article about history of Zyklon B product till year 1990+ if he don´t believe information from Lambrecht? Here I expect usual "I don´t have time to read Lambrecht´s {!#%@}"

Chemist Lambrecht also spoke about Peters in his article of course and used several works from him, manual including, he pointed out what i already said about his 1933 manual quote and different Zyklon B product:

Größere Abdampfzeiten als die 1933 von Peters genannten wurden offensichtlich in den Jahren danach erreicht, wahrscheinlich durch beständige Erhöhung des Gipsanteiles am Trägermaterial zur Erhöhung der Lagerstabilität (und – nebenbei bemerkt – auch zur Preissenkung des Trägermaterials), da das Hydratwasser des Gipses die Blausäure fester bindet als das Diagrieß-Produkt. Für das Erco-Produkt des Jahres 1942 gibt R. Irmscher für 15°C und niedrige Luftfeuchtigkeit eine Verdampfungsgraphik an, die in Grafik 1 wiedergegeben ist. Bei hohen Luftfeuchtigkeiten kann sich diese Verdunstung erheblich verzögern, da die verdunstende Blausäure der Umgebungsluft erhebliche Mengen Wärme entzieht und somit Luftfeuchtigkeit am Träger auskondensiert, die wiederum die Blausäure bindet.[12]

[12]R. Irmscher, »Nochmals: "Die Einsatzfähigkeit der Blausäure bei tiefen Temperaturen"«, Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung, 1942, 34. Jg., S. 36.


Part about patent and fast 10m evaporation, about different carrier materials and of course about Peters and his 1933 manual with delayed evaporation but still much faster than in 40´s and about not know carrier material from Peters:

Die Verdunstung des Giftgases HCN (Blausäure) vom Träger erfolgt je nach Trägermaterial recht unterschiedlich. Mitte der zwanziger Jahre bestand das Trägermaterial von Zyklon B fast komplett aus Kieselgur, das der Patentanmeldung zur Folge die Blausäure innerhalb von zehn Minuten fast ganz abgab.[10] G. Peters gab Anfang der dreißiger Jahre für eine Freisetzung des größten Teils der adsorbierten Blausäure eine halbe Stunde an, bei einer Verteilung des Präparates von 0,5 bis 1 cm Schichtdicke, [17] wobei nicht klar ist, aus welchem Material genau der Träger besteht.

[10]Patentschrift Nr. 438818 (D 41941 IV/451, 27.12.1926), dankenswerterweise von C. Mattogno zur Verfügung gestellt. Danach gab damals das Präparat innerhalb von 10 Minuten praktisch alle Blausäure ab.

[17]G. Peters, Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung, aaO. (Anm. 8), S. 64f. Dies wurde von G. Rudolf in R. Kammerer, A. Solms, Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell, London 1993, (erhältlich bei VHO, Postbus 46, B-2600 Berchem 1, Belgien) S. 59, irrtümlich falsch zitiert.


As also pointed out by Rudolf, Zyklon B product also depends on stabilizer required by German law. Of course, whole bibliography used for article is much larger than one Peters´s quote used by RM. But I expect RM´s usual nonsensecial rhetoric or nonsenses about how the sources are invented or fakes, Lambrecht liar and so on, because otherwise I really wonder how he wants to dig up himself from this absurd critical situation when I again proved his major fatal flaws ruining his chemical fantasies which are based exclusively on one quote from Peters proven to be completely "mistaken" by RM.

Finally, RM proved that he didn´t read article as I already said, otherwise he would knows all of these facts.
"slower" Zyklon B was the standard issue in 1942/43 (I wonder what for) and did the job, there was no point in ordering custom-made (and thus much more expensive) "faster" Zyklon B.
In the other words, the Germans allegedly ignored that they can use Zyklon B with 12 times faster "outgassing" time for "complete" evaporation and they for some reason propably wanted to have homicidal gassings as long as possible and of course also complicated as possible. It is like to dig up hole with spoon instead of shovel, will the spoon do the job? Of course, but only idiot would use spoon and not shovel. Of course, no problem for RM as usual.

Here RM also wonder about for what purpose is Zyklon B slower in 40´s, this again prove that he didn´t read article about history of Zyklon B from Lambrecht even when I provided it otherwise he would knows that this is because of safety for those who spreaded pellets, for lower price of carrier material or because of storage purposes.

RM also argue with expensive material, in the other words, Germans wasted some 500 millions dollars for building Auschwitz complex, but had no money for faster Zyklon B to achieve extermination purpose of one of the biggest and most expensive part, Birkenau - alleged extermination camp. They propably ran out of money when they purchased and installed expensive modern short-wave delousing device (world’s first technological predecessor to the microwave ovens) for saving lives or they maybe ran out of money when they pruchased books to local library. In fact 1kg can of Zyklon B costed 5RM so one can only wonder for what price the faster Zyklon B would have to be to make some troubles to Germans who used it for alleged extermination. Only little comparison, for hot-air delousing unit used to save lives, they wasted 4,960.40 RM. According to Jakob Lewinski prisoners received up to 150RM scrip per week for their labor, so apparently no money left for faster Zyklon B, oh yes, good nonsense, and some argument about expensive Zyklon B is false as usual.

Why RM still make claims which can be so easily refuted?
Unlike my hollering friend I have no beliefs and neither need any, but I also saw no reason to question the accuracy of Rössler’s citation. However, I’ll be glad to change my mind about Rössler’s accuracy if Bob should provide me a link to the source mentioned by Rössler and I shouldn’t find therein the statement that Rössler attributes to Rudolf.
Here RM again proved that he accepts everything what suits him, so he has no problem with non existing quote from Rudolf and he apparently do not need to see some original or source for it, criteria for accepting has been met - it must suit my belief. RM also proved that he really didn´t bother to verify it and inform me if he found it or not, on the other hand - I did and searched, provided source Tübingen 1994 is known revisionist publication Dissecting the Holocaust but I had no luck to find anything about how "evaporation characteristic in patent for Zyklon B is exaggerated like in every patent" as Rossler claimed about Rudolf who apparently didn´t say this, so at this time, Rossler is also liar, good source for RM anyway.
Actually it is based on looking at what Irmscher and Peters wrote plus some common sense, which is good enough.
Actually this is wrong since Irmscher don´t support this evaporation at all as shown here. Peters also adressed above. Common sense is good, but irrelevant when your common sense is refuted by science and research. I really doubt you sometime used common sense in this debate.
That was for reasons unrelated to my confidence in the accuracy of my calculations, as I have explained. And for all his bigmouthed hollering, Bob has come no closer to demonstrating that my calculations are unrealistic. In order to prove my calculations wrong, he would have to demonstrate not only that my understanding of Peters’ statement is mistaken, but that Peters himself was wrong when stating that at room temperature the greatest part of the HCN would evaporate within half an hour.
As shown, you are completely off with Peters and it will be fun to see how you are going to solve your critical position.
Bob obviously doesn’t know what "circular reasoning" means. He should look up the term.
In an effort to produce at least "something" he claims that i do not know what this means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... +reasoning" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/ ... cular.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RM simply considered his premise about how is developed 28% evaporation in 5 min. as valid and thus his "argument" conclusion about 100% evaporation in 15-20m is essentialy the same nonsense as his premise.
All this furious rant just to attack my having assumed a linear progression of HCN out-gassing from Zyklon B pellets at ambient temperatures corresponding to human body temperature? I must have really rattled poor Bobby’s cage.

To be sure, linear progression is a simplified model, but I’d say it’s as good as assuming that the out-gassing would proceed in exactly the same stages at 37º Celsius or more (well above the boiling point of HCN) as it did at 15º Celsius (well below the boiling point of HCN). The data about evaporation at 15º Celsius are interesting, however, in that they show that almost half the gas evaporates within half an hour, almost 80 % evaporates within an hour and a relatively small residue of 23 % takes another 1 ½ hours to evaporate (with half an hour for the last 3-4 % to go). The amount evaporated is 2.6 times higher after 15 minutes than after 5 minutes, 4.5 times higher after 30 minutes, 7.7 times higher after an hour. Applying this model to our body temperature scenario, we would have 28 % evaporated after 5 minutes, (2.6 x 28 =) 72.8 % evaporated after 15 minutes and 126 % evaporated within half an hour, meaning that the difference between 72.8 % and 100 % would be gone some time within the second quarter of an hour. I can live with that.
This guy is simple unbelieveable, here RM again ignores that evaporation from carrier simply don´t work like he wants as shown in previous comments using research of chemists, this is utter nonsense proved by Irmscher and accepted by chemists Green, Rudolf, Lambrecht, evaporation simply don´t work using his silly "model" - doubled time = doubled evaporation. RM still ignores it and act as if nothing has happened.

Another demonstration, using -18C temeprature and using RM´s "methodology" of doubled time/doubled evaporation, the pellets should be outgassed in less then 2 hours, but what Irmscher said about this?:

" 5 " (hours) 84.0% - the rest in next two hours (also thanks to snow and dampness) and RM simply ignores his fatal nonsense he used for evaporation rate calculation

RM still uses not proven assumptions to support the latter, just ridiculous.
I have no problem at all with being an amateur in matters of chemistry, but that doesn’t keep me from using my common sense, which I have found to be often good enough to refute the "scientific" rubbish of erudite charlatans who hope that people will not dare cross them or take them at first value because of the superior technical knowledge they dishonestly use to further their ideological aims. As to Rudolf, it’s as true that he is a PhD chemist as it is true that he’s a charlatan, both propositions not being mutually exclusive. Shall we look at some examples of Rudolf’s demonstrated charlatanism, Bob?
Just speechless, these chemists with all these sources, studies, diplomas, research, tests and years of experiences are charlatans, only RM is plane . His ego is just eight wonder of the world.
Nowhere, and he didn’t claim otherwise. He reasonably assumed that der grösste Teil was what the context suggests and the average German reader would understand it as being – not just over 50 %, but almost all of it. And he reasonably assumed that Zimmertemperatur means about 20º C

BS. It becomes clear from Rössler’s text what is translation of Peters’ text and what is a) his reasonable understanding of what der grösste Teil means (Bob kindly provided further corroboration by pointing out that at 15º Celsius almost half the HCN is gone after half an hour, which allows for concluding that well over half must have gone after half an hour at 20º C) and b) his reasonable assumption that Zimmertemperatur means 20º C.
Nowhere, good.

The rest already adressed many times and above in this comment.
What has been pointed out above several times is that Bob’s chemists would be full of it with their claim that only 60 % of the HCN are gone at 30º Celsius even if Peters’ der grösste Teil had meant just over 50 % and not the overwhelming majority or almost all of the HCN.
Well, I am sorry to tell you, but at this time you are the one who is "full of it" :lol:

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:56 am

There is no "time paradox". It just happens that Pressac’s mention of a 8,000 m³/h device with a 3.5 hp motor was made in connection with a map dated March 1942. The documents showing that the installed device indeed had a 3.5 hp motor (and thus a capacity of 8,000 m³/h, because for a device with a capacity of 4,800 m³/h a 2 hp motor would have been enough) are contemporary to the invoices that Mattogno and his admirers make so much of.
Here RM ignores own quote which I adressed, not Pressac´s, so again "time paradox" quote:

"The 4,800 m³/h device mentioned in the invoices (Feb and May 1943) had a 2 hp motor. However, according to a plan submitted by Topf in mid-march 1942, the power of the motor had been increased to 3.5 hp."

Can he finally explain how they increased capacity of devices listed in invoices dated 1943 already in plan from 1942? Because this is nonsense.

Pressac was not so ridiculous as RM to say this nonsense, in fact, on page 36 of German edition of Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, he listed devices with "old" capacity, source for this Document from 4 November 1941 and on the page 46, he listed devices with his "new" capacity and with source Plan dated 10 March 1942. So no time paradox. But RM used invoices from 1943 and then plan from 1942. As proven, this is not about Pressac.
My argument is that there are three documents showing that the extraction/ventilation device installed in the gas chambers was not the 4,800 m³/h device with a 2 hp motor mentioned in the invoices, but the 8,000 m³/h with a 3.5 hp motor corresponding to the earlier Topf plan. These documents are the following:

1. A Bauleitung drawing on a scale 1:200, no. 2197 of 19 March 1943 prepared for the transfer of Crematorium II on 31 March 1943 (Moscow Central Archives,dossier 502-2-54), shown on pages 138/139 of my Portuguese translation of Pressac's Crematoria. The inscriptions near the symbols of the ventilation motors for the airing and extraction of Corpse Cellar 1 read "2.6 kW" - the equivalent of 3.5 hp.

2. A page of the inventory attached to the transfer deed of Crematorium III and containing the mention of two 2.6 kW = 3.5 hp motors.

3. Bischoff’s letter to Topf & Söhne dated 11 March, the pertinent parts of which translate as follows (emphases added):

So there can be no doubt that the ventilator installed in Corpse Cellar I of both crematoria had a 3.5 hp motor.

This, in turn, means that it was a device with a capacity of 8,000 m³/h and not one with a capacity of 4,800 m³/h, for there was never such a thing as a 4,800 m³/h device with a 3.5 hp motor. A 4,800 m³/h device needed no more than a 2 hp motor. Even for 6,000 m³/h a 2 hp motor would still have been more than sufficient, so the increase must have been somewhat beyond that to require a 75 % increase of motor power output, from 2 to 3.5 hp.

So invoices as "the most relevant and up to date" documents when it comes to determining what type of equipment was installed in the LK1 1, according to Bob. Never mind that there is a drawing prepared for the transfer of Crematorium II on 31 March 1943, which shows that the ventilators had 3.5 hp motors and not 2 hp motors as stated in the invoices. Never mind that an inventory attached to the transfer deed of Crematorium III also mentions 3.5 hp motors, and not 2 hp motors like the invoices. Never mind that Bischoff on 11 March 1943 raised hell because "one ventilator no. 450 with 3.5 hp motor is again missing, of all things the ventilator for the Corpse Cellar 1, which is the one needed the most urgently". Invoices always describe the delivered equipment correctly when this serves "Revisionist" arguments, even when there are many good reasons why equipment descriptions in invoices should be mistaken. But the dumb designers who made the transfer deed drawings couldn’t tell a 2 hp motor from a 3.5 hp motor, and bumbling Bischoff raised hell about a device with a 3.5 hp motor even though the device only had a 2 hp motor. In "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, what matters is not what evidence is most conclusive, but what evidence best serves "Revisionist" articles of faith.

Another lie, unless Bob is so benighted as to genuinely believe that invoices are stronger evidence of what type of equipment was installed in a building than transfer deed plans or inventories and angry letters to contractors demanding a specific type of equipment.
1. RM ignores Pressac´s quote from his 1989 book in which he reproduced this plan.

"Drawing 2197 provides a very fair inventory of Krematorium II, except for certain modifications made later. It lacks precision regarding the different ventilation systems of the building and their associated motors. Lastly, there is no mention of equipment specifically associated with gassing (gas-tight doors, dummy showers, and Zyklon-B introduction columns and chimneys). However, the inventory sheets are more eloquent on this subject, or more “indiscreet”, depending on the point of view, and specifically mention this equipment necessary for large-scale gassings. Despite their lack of “criminal traces” the three versions of this drawing, and in particular 2197(r), form the essential complement to the inventories. "


So it lacks precision about ventilation systems and motors. It lacks gas tight doors, dummy showers, columns, chimneys, but no problem for RM or Pressac, they simply ignores this fact when they wants to use plan as proof for their current problem. Despite Pressac´s quote about inventory list - no alleged dummy showers in inventory list of Krema II. No devices in inventory list of Krema III, he lied. Also, there is no mention of motor for L2 in this plan, but as Pressac wrote in his book, ventilation system for L2 in KII was installed from 14-28 March, for L2 of KIII was installed between 11-22 April. Does it means that the Nazis wasted money for nonsensical installation of ventilation system to both LK2 of Krematoria even when they knew for months that they do not need it and they didn´t bother to install motors as Pressac claims (repeated in Gutman/Berenbaum (ed) 1994. p. 233) because of missing motors in plan? Of course not, this only means that this plan does not reflect real and actual state of Krematoria as demonstrated several times with other plans and is really absurd to rely on this document when we actually have invoices for installed devices as proven by invoices for this fact.

2. Is interesting how he uses page of inventory from Krema III to prove something in Krema II, when I tried this previously, Hans, one of the RM´s companion complained about it, of course this is allowed only for "chosen" users, RM and Hans can, but I can´t. Is also good to note how RM simply ignores that there are no wire devices mentioned in this attached page, but will he allow me to say that this prove something? Of course not, because at this case he would say some absurd excuse as usual, but as visible, we have two inventory pages attached to transfer deed of Krema III, but not even one of them contain alleged wire devices, allegedly important device for alleged homicidal gassings.

Is RM able to provide date of these entries to this attached page to show that reflect actual state?

3. Document from Bischoff, here is RM especially ridiculous because this Document is dated 11 February 1943 and not 11 March as he falsely claims propably to make an impression that this document is newer than invoice from 22 February, but invoices are dated 22 February 1943 and 27 May 1943, so RM again used older document to prove the latter with ignoring up to date invoices as I already pointed out and he even lied about the date. He simply ignored it and again repeated it, he is either ignorant or he don´t know calendar. What is worse, he already quoted this date correctly before and knew dates of invoices, so what we have here is simple lie, because he claimed false information despite better knowledge. Or I am to strict and he did only mistake? Who knows.

In fact, we can end whole holocaust debate using RM´s aproach with simply saying "no holocaust happened, because of documents from 1933" problem solved, end of discussion, right? I guess no, becuase this desperate and absurd unscientific approach is allowed only to RM.
Witness dodging Bobby making a big fuss about what are minor issues at best and indulging in some fish-wife bitching while ignoring my key argument, which is that

a) at least three documents made around the time of the Kremas’ completion and handover show that the LK1 rooms of Krema II and Krema III had extraction/ventilation devices powered by 3.5 hp motors, and
b) extraction/ventilation devices powered by 3.5 hp motors can only have been devices with an extraction/ventilation capacity of 8,000 m³/h, never devices with a capacity of merely 4,800 m³/h.

Instead of boring our audience with more of your phony embittered ranting, please show me what "Revisionists" are supposed to have refused these arguments, exact quote or link and page number. I’m curious.
RM ignored exposed nonsense from him about how invoices maybe don´t belongs to Kremas but to some mysterious buildings, he refused to adress it. The rest adressed above and I again connected the same claims to one quote.

RM is curious? Let see what he wrote last time when he was "curious" about source:

"I have better things to read than Mattogno's {sh*t}"
"I’ll have a look at the latter in due time, see if Charlie’s arguments against forced ventilation in Krema I are convincing. "

He is not curious at all, he simply don´t care to read it, because this is too low for him and in fact he is not interested as he demonstrated several times, and he wants from me to waste time with collection sources and quotes?
I can’t tell what Pressac does as I don’t have the German edition of his book, but my approach is based on the three 1943 documents mentioned above, which show that the ventilation devices installed in the LK1 had 3.5 hp motors, which in turn means that they were not 4,800 m3/hour devices but 8,000 m3/hour devices.
Here, RM even didn´t bother to request some quote or note from book, he is propably feared that I am correct about Pressac, so here it is for readers:

"Nachdem die Bauleitung von Auschwitz vom SS-RSHA grünes Licht für den Bau des Krematoriums III bekommen hatte, bestellte sie am 25. September bei der Topf offiziell fünf Dreimuffelöfen und drei Saugzüge (von denen jeder einen Rauchausstoß von 40 000 hatte) zu einem Preis von 53 702 RM, sowie die entsprechenden Lüftungen (gleiches Modell und gleiche Leistungsstärke wie beim Krematorium II) zu einem Preis von 7795 RM. [184]"

Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, p. 74

[184]ZAM, 502-1-327, Rechnungen der Topf vom 27. Mai 1943, Nr. 728 uber die funf Ofen des Kr. III und Nr. 729 über die Lüftungen.


What this means? That Pressac knew invoice, knew date, knew content, he even listed the same devices on the page 36 using different source, knew models, knew performance, used it as source for ventilation installation, but still claimed wrong capacity. At least to my knowledge, invoice for Krema II was unknown to him.

Capacity based on invoices is admitted even by Green, one of the source for Pelt or RM, albeit reluctantly:

"John Zimmerman has recently researched, 502-1-327, a Topf bill dated May 27, 1943, which may refer to crematorium II (however, the first page in his copy is missing so he cannot yet be sure); it may indicate that the 4800 cu m/hour figure is correct."

This is of course dishonest and false as i already pointed out earlier, Pressac and mainly Mattogno provided both of these documents some six years before Zimmerman allegedly "recently researched" one of them , he simply avoided to admit that "denier" demolished him about such a basic issue. This of course did not prevent Pelt from using 8000 capacity anyway when he used Green as srouce, propably his older article "Chemistry is not the science" which contains this flaw.

Only RM here still claims this nonsense about wrong capacity using outdated documents or planned capacity despite what his own source admitted some 11 years ago in connection with the invoices, such a silly approach can be done only on some internet forums by unknown peoples which are not historians or "authorities", so they are not responsible or critically examined publicly at all, and they can spread nonsenses to not educated peoples.
You forgot the context of your Pressac quote, my friend:

Did Pressac say anywhere that the capacity increase planned in March 1942 was meant to "compensate wrong disposition of ventilation system not originally anticipated for gas chamber"?

Again, did Pressac claim that the changes projected in March 1942 were meant "to compensate wrong deposition of ventilation ducts in L1"?
Here again RM dodged my comment and answered with question as usual.
Whereas Bob conveniently ignores the documentary evidence whereby the LK1 received a 8,000 m3/hour device with a 3.5 hp motor, I don’t ignore the invoices. On the contrary, I provided a number of possible explanations for why their contents differ from what, according to more conclusive evidence, was actually installed in the LK1:
Oh yes, I see his explanations, for example his another invention about "invoices listing the better motors" but of course, such an invoices don´t exist, simply another absurdity to use as explanation something what don´t exist and nobody ever saw it, RM ´s method, but propably parroted from Pelt who uses this too as I already shown.

To crown it, he even accused me from ignoring documents.
Bob accused me of being "silent about wrong deposition of ventilation system". The "wrong disposition" was due to LK1 having originally meant to be a morgue, which I not only didn’t call in question but expressly stated in this discussion, meaning that the "silent about" thing is crap.
How many years I need to wait to finally see that RM is not silent about it and somehow solved this issue? Where he used this in his calculations or previous comments to prove no silency about this issue?
On that page, Pressac discusses a hypothetical scenario based on an exaggerated assumption about gas chamber occupation (3,000 people) and explains how Bob’s heroes would have solved this hypothetical problem. So what was Bob’s point supposed to be?
Firstly, Pressac even cannot count, 3000 peoples in 210 square meters are not 13,3 per square meter but 14,28, RM didn´t bother to verify it. Secondly, RM ignores witnesses and even his favorite one, Henryk Tauber, this is one of the many information selectively omitted by him, because Tauber spoke even about 4000 gassed peoples in 210 square room, and range of witnesses is from some 1000 to 4000, with average 2000 peoples (adopted by Pressac - Gutman/Berenbaum (ed), 1994, p. 224), some 9,5 peoples on one quare meter, so this scenario is of course not hypotetical but real and RM is simply lying and he rely on naivity of readers. Dead bodies would block openings along the floor and one can only wonder how they extracted air from this magic chamber. Here I expect usual nonsense like "they died in way that dead bodies did not blocked openings" as he already did previously in different topic, this would be of course laughable. Did I pointed out that these openings were the way how to breath air so in fact the victims could use them for breathing? RM is of course able to solve all these issues in his usual way and also tells me what is correct number of gassed victims per batch because he for sure knows it better than his witnesses or Pressac, I am really curious about his number which would pose no problems and no opening would be blocked to avoid ventilation calculations from being completely flawed again.

I expected if RM will be silent about another contradiction from Pressac when he tried to explain how they allegedly unblocked some openings to allow ventilation, and as i expected it, he is silent, because he didn´t want discredit own source. Pressac nad his opening quote:

"1. Open wide the doors giving basement access through the north yard and those of the undressing room, whose ventilation system working at full power would prevent the basement being contaminated:"

But as we already know, in his 1993 book, he informed us about not installed motors ("nicht installiert") of alleged undressing room of both Kremas, what is worse, he provided us with plan with missing motors already in his 1989 book as already pointed out, so did he knew it already in 1989? Anyway, what we have here is contradiction of his explanation mentioned above, and alleged "ventilation working at full power" could hardly work without motors as he claimed explicitly in 1993 and as he maybe knew from the same plan already in 1989. He contradicted himself, simple.

Oh yes, these peoples are the ones who informed us about "the most proven fact", just ridiculous, no wonder that this "fact" needs laws for protection.
Actually what Pressac wrote was not that the SS didn’t know what room would be used as a gas chamber. His assumption is that they originally intended to use both rooms as gas chambers, until they realized that this would produce too many corpses for the crematoria to handle within the required time.
Here RM simply ignored my comment, as usual.

Here is more information about this nonsense, Pressac in Gutman/Berenbaum 1994, p. 225:

"It was decided to transform morgue 1 of crematorium II into a gas chamber.[...]For crematoria II and III, the choice of Leichenkeller 1 (ventilated) as a gas chamber was obvious. The SS also planned to use the two remaining morgues as gas chambers, wrongly imaging that the high yield anticipated for the five triple-muffle furnaces would allow a staggered operation."

Is obvious that this is propably almost the same article included in this book from 1994 as Pressac wrote in 1993, but he enhanced his story ad absurdum with adding one more moruge as future gas chamber.

So the SS wanted to use all three morgues as a gas chambers no matter that L3 was intended and planned not only as classic morgue, but as reception for dead bodies where the bodies would be recorded and not stored as Pressac informed us in 1989 and of course with corresponding air extraction matching this function. But the SS somehow planned to use it as a gas chamber too! That´s not all, total area of these "future" gas chambers was some 670 m² as Pressac informed us (before alteration of L3), using accepted figure of 10 people per m² from Pressac, we can arrive to 6700 peoples gassed at once in three gas chambers, which means that the Nazis thought that some 446 peoples can be gassed and then processed in every of the 15 muffles every day, some 18 peoples eradicated every hour and 3,3 peoples every minute and 1 human eradicated every 18 seconds using 24h continuous operation of every muffle and they allegedly even thought that this could be achieved continuously! This is still not all, for these victims, they had one simple ridiculous elevator even proven (thanks to documentary evidence) to worked poorly, used to accomplish this herculean task to transport some 402,000 Kg or 402 tons of human bodies (60Kg per body as assumed by Pelt, Case for Auschwitz, p. 472), according to Pelt (who failed to produce any evidence and no document exist about later actually increased performance of 300Kg elevator), elevator was later allegedly enhanced and could handle 25 bodies whose transportation would take let say. some ten minutes. So 1,6 body for every muffle, and these 25 bodies would burn only some 7,5 minutes - plainly speaking, the Germans allegedly assumed that human bodies will simply burn faster than they were able to supply to ovens leaving aside alleged teeth/hair and etc. removal procedure before cremation!

This is debunking of alleged intention of Germans to use two or even three morgues as a gas chambers with using no sources or evidence from RM or Pressac, do really someone believes that this nonsense from Pressac or RM is true and the German engineers and especially the engineers from Topf und Sohne would ever think about such an utter nonsense? Even without L3, whole area is still some 600 m² and whole story still absurd nonsense.

What we have here is simply another invented nonsense violating laws of nature, thermodynamic, common sense, logic and basic intelligence. The engineers of course knew what is possible to achieve with ovens/muffles especially when they used them previously. No wonder that Pressac didn´t provide even single piece of source for this nonsense story in his both books and RM as well. I Hope that RM is not going to claim some nonsense like that that they transported bodies using stairs, chimneys or through every possible hole using some commando of supermans. Or is RM going to say that they assumed that this mass of bodies would lay in basement for weeks when they wanted allegedly use two/three chambers? I hope not, just no more rubbish please.
I guess this is supposed to mean that Pressac changed a certain argument of his after realizing that there was evidence contradicting that argument, which is what one would expect an honest researcher to do. On what page of what book can I find this claim of Pressac’s that conversion of the LK1 to a gas chamber started in June 1942, by the way?
Here RM and his another invention, Pressac of course never stated that his earlier claim about criminal change is wrong, really ridiculous, of ocurse if RM don´t have some secret Pressac´s statement where he corrected himself and abandoned this criminal trace.

Known "criminal trace" from 18 June 1942 as shown in 1989 p. 286. Another listed alleged "criminal trace" no 11. is from 14 May 1942, reducing of L3 and later eliminated, but it looks like he consider only elimination as criminal trace and is dated to December.

By the way, can RM firstly read basic publications before joining debate? Thanks.
Lousy logic. Improving a room’s ventilation capacity doesn’t necessarily imply an intended homicidal use of that room, but an intended homicidal use of a room may be an explanation of why that room’s ventilation capacity was increased if the room was otherwise suited for the purpose, as was the case with the LK.
In the other words, increased capacity does not imply homicidal use (what a statement!), but homicidal use may be explanation for increased capacity. I agree, just lousy logic and even contradicting. RM again ignored Pressac who said that gas testers were requested to allegedly verify increased ventilation capacity. Finally RM omitted to somehow explain it.
Contracts had already been signed, design had already been done and construction was already under way or had even been completed, changing things would have meant breaching contracts and becoming liable towards the contractors. I don’t know how it is in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, but in the real world one cannot just cancel a contract after realizing that one doesn’t need the ordered products or works anymore.
Another RM´s nonsense as usual. The mighty SS just "feared" to change or cancel contract, oh my god, of course nonsense, documents prove that they had no problem to simply change projects or even abandon them completely, here is RM especially ridiculous. Just imagine how the Himmler, Third Reich and the SS are robbed of money during extermination preparation only because SS has no guts to simply cancel or change project, just absurd. His nonsense if of course refuted even by his own source Pressac "Yet, to save money, it was decided that in good weather the victims could undress outdoors (as they did in the summer of 1944)." (as usual, no source for these claims), so they saved money with this alleged procedure but on the other hand according to RM, they wasted thousands because they didn´t want to cancel or change contract, simply nonsense. Finally RM proved how wrong he is again, even according to him, decisions about what will become gas chamber was made at the end of 1942 as he used Pressac, or at the latest in January 1943 as explicitly stated by RM in previous comments, but as proven even by Pressac, ventilation work and installation of ventilation system is dated after January 1943, RM again refuted using simply orthodox sources again. Invoices crowns this silly attempt from RM and moved it to memory hole.

RM contradicted himself when he made an impression with claimng that faster Zyklon B would be expensive for using instead of cheaper slower Zyklon B and that this could some reason for not to use it, but in this case the SS allegedly didn´t want to change or cancel contract so they just wasted money for something what they didn´t need and they didn´t care about wasted money, his contradictions are neverending. That´s not all, according to Pressac, they installed ventilation systems of L2 in both krematoria, but they didn´t install motors as already shown, so they simply wasted thousands of RM for something what they didn´t need even when they knew for some 4 months that they don´t need it. As shown, Pressac is wrong about not installed motors.
What’s the poet trying to tell us here? As I said before, improving a room’s ventilation capacity doesn’t necessarily imply an intended homicidal use of that room, but an intended homicidal use of a room may be an explanation of why that room’s ventilation capacity was increased if the room was otherwise suited for the purpose, as was the case with the LK. If increased capacity for the LK2 had been ordered before the SS realized it wasn’t needed, tough luck. Pacta sunt servanda. And as concerns the LK1, there are documents proving that the devices mentioned in the invoices are not those that were actually installed, as we have seen.
Here RM again completely dodged to adress my comment when I wanted to see his explanation why the Germans planned and used better or the similar ventilation capacity in other rooms where no gassing happened according to narrative as I said in my comment, not only in L2. What is more absurd, he again repeated his previous claim about increased capacity so he completely ignored that no matter if the capacity was increased or not, the ventilation in these rooms was still similar or even better than in alleged gas chamber as proved by invoices where (as RM already know) - are ventilators with lower capacity.
Invoices always describe the delivered equipment correctly when this serves "Revisionist" arguments, even when there are many good reasons why equipment descriptions in invoices should be mistaken.
Then RM is trying to make an impression that revisionists usually claims about documents that are wrong or something similar and that these invoices are some exceptions where revisionists claims that are correct, this is of course classic exmaple of false dishonest strategy, this is not true, in fact RM and the others are the one who systematically distort documents with their claims about alleged code words, using non-existing allegedly lost or destroyed documents, ignoring later documents and using the earlier one to support the latter despite the newer documents and other absurd nonsenses.

Finally, RM did for what I waited whole the time, according to him - invoices are propably mistaken! And problem solved! What a desperated statement. Invoices from firm which delivered and installed the ventilation system prove what they used, and RM must simply deal with it and his desperate attempts to prove capacity with using older documents cannot change it, already adressed above.

Here I can demonstrate clear dishonest approach and double standard of these peoples, leaving aside that not even one single document prove extermination, I can use documents from period when the Germans planned to evacuate and to move Jews to Madagascar, this plan is known and accepted by historians, so if RM don´t use double standard, according to him the jungles of Madagascar should be full Jews. Do somebody expect that he will accept this use of older documents? Hardly. This guy is just unbelieveable and his "time travelling" ridiculous.
Post number and link?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 17#p276217" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I expect usual "quote it because I do not see it"
What comments exactly?

You see, my dear friend, you have two options here.

a) Claim that the term "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" was introduced into the inventory by a forger. Thereby you saddle yourself with the burden of proving such forgery, which should be rather difficult if one considers that the forger never made use of the document but left it buried in the Bauleitung archives in case Mr. Pressac discovered it decades later. You will also admit that you consider the term "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" to be incriminating.

b) Claim that the term "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" was introduced into the inventory by the inventory’s purported author (some guy from the Bauleitung) and that the inventory is an authentic document never manipulated, but the "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" was an innocuous device that had no sinister application. In that case, you’ll have to show that there were objects, other than the wire mesh columns in the underground gas chambers, that could appropriately be called a "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" and were used for whatever purpose in a Leichenkeller.

c) Continue beating about the bush and dodging questions (e.g. by the usual reference to "comments" I’m supposed to have ignored) as becomes the cowardly charlatan you have amply shown yourself to be.

So which is it going to be, Bob?

a), b) or c)
Here RM answered my question with question as usual, he does it all the time and instead of answer he simply produced another batch of claims. He also speaks about some burden of proof, he simply ignores that he is the one who must provide by who and when this entry had been added when asked because I did not say anything about forgery, he is using it as evidence, he should knows that date and I asked him , simple.

Finally, despite my all effort in this thread in latest weeks, RM is still not able to spell Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung correctly when even Nessie finally realized it. Did RM ever saw document he is using as an evidence? No surprise he do not know date when he is not even able to reproduce it correctly. Everybody do mistakes, me too and RM even didn´t find them so far as I see, but he do this flaw from the beginning no matter how many times I corrected him in discreet way. This can be hardly coincidence.
A lie, unless we are to assume that Bob honestly considers his pathetic arguments to be refutation
In the other words, chemists are pathetic, up to date documents are pathetic, only RM is plane. In fact, these arguments are not completely mine of course, but from real experts mentioned above and simply no matter how many times he will accuse Irmscher, Lambrecht, Rudolf, Peters or even Green (who used Irmscher) he will be the one who is making fool from himself.
Definitely a lie, for I explained in detail how I arrived at what he calls my "chemical fantasies", i.e. what evidence, calculations and other considerations they are based on. And that is all I have to do. It’s not for me to demonstrate that my evidence, calculations and other considerations are accurate and pertinent, it is for who challenges them to demonstrate that they are wrong.
Here RM again ignored my refutation and still repeats that I did not showed how wrong he is, repetitive as usual. Hi alleged "detailed" explanation is only illusion as shown above.

Again, one of the many absurd claims from RM, so listen readers - when you make some claim, in not up to you to demonstrate that is valid, oh no, the others must demonstrate that is wrong. Silly? Ridiculous? Absurd? Of course, but not for RM. With this approach you can just say anything you want, no matter how absurd or unfounded your claim is, the others must prove that is wrong, till this time, RM simply consider it as valid until proven wrong! This guy cannot be serious. Is of course worth of note that this guy wants from me still some demonstrations about my claims no matter how evident are even without demonstration, but this rule is completely omitted in connection with him!
Actually my usual reply when being referred to "Revisionist" scripture is that I’ll look it up when I have time, IIRC. But I may have provided other replies in a given context (quote with link, please). And Mattogno, Rudolf and other "Revisionists" demonstrably produce a lot of garbage. The former is one of my favorite targets, actually.
So this is much better excuse according to RM, ridiculous. Allegedly lots of garbage from revisionists, hm, what we have here is ismply attempt to accuse them from something what is connected with RM, he simply throws some accusation to cover own flaws.

Here RM also wants direct quote with link, he simply ignored again that i already quoted him in my comment which he adressed, so gain extra for RM his quoted citation :

"I have better things to read than Mattogno's/Rudolf´s {!#%@}."

The only thing not genuine in this quote is "Rudolf", I added it because of RM´s later comments/ad homines about Rudolf´s, so if RM is offended and don´t agree that I added Rudolf´s name to this quote, I will greatly apologize, but I really doubt that he will be offended. :lol:

Here another one when I provided source, simply no interest all from him, he reads only suitable articles:

"Thanks, I prefer reading the guy who showed by Rudolf as a charlatan, for instance here."
Not that I have a particular talent for making "Revisionist" true believers freak out, it’s just that these folks boil even at low temperatures. Like Zyklon B.
His ego is still raising and he believes that he "boiled" someone. I skipped most of his accusations from lying, he simply didn´t bother to present evidence. RM actually proved with his insults and ad hominems that he is the one who is "boiling" almost from the beginning to somehow fill up his comments when they lacks arguments.
Any idea, by the way, why (according to Bischoff’s letter to Topf & Söhne of 11 March 1943) the "ventilator no. 450 with 3.5 hp motor" for "the Corpse Cellar 1" was the one "needed the most urgently"?
Here RM again repeated false date adressed above, again - letter is not from 11 March 1943, but from 11 February 1943, this trick was very very naive. Is this really coincidence? Is this again only mistake? I doubt it.

Regarding the urgency, RM simply stopped using "common sense" or in better words - he actually never began to use it, otherwise the explanation is really simple, they needed it urgently because they wanted to use hygenic facilites/krematoria as soon as possible especially when the whole project was already delayed and they wanted to use it for purposes for which they actually planned them and built them and "wasted" so much money and effort to complete it.
Stop lying, Bob. Everyone of your "points" is duly addressed, while I'm not sure if I can say the same of you regarding my points. You may not like my arguments because they don't fit your bubble, but that doesn't mean I didn't respond or react to your "points".
The terrible true is, that I actually like your "arguments", because you made yourself completely fool looking publicly on this forum with your claims especially about chemistry, your only luck is that this forum has only a few visitors, if you actually bother about your public activity of course. What is more absurd, this wasn´t needed at all.
If the introduction holes in Krema II and Krema I could not be positively identified, this wouldn't mean they didn't exist. Evidence to the contrary would make such conclusion rather nonsensical.
Here RM with his semantic strategy, this is not true, the introduction holes simply don´t exist and not that cannot be identified positively, this makes impression, that are there, but they are not there, especially hole 3.
If you could prove that there were never any introduction holes in Krema II and Krema I, this would mean a major inaccuracy in testimonies describing introduction of Zyklon B through such holes. The evidence to homicidal gassing in those facilities (if not by introducing the Zyklon B through introduction holes in the roof) would still be conclusive.
I will repeat it again:

Roberto Muehlenkamp April 4, 2012

If you could prove that there were never any introduction holes in Krema II and Krema I, this would mean a major inaccuracy in testimonies describing introduction of Zyklon B through such holes. The evidence to homicidal gassing in those facilities (if not by introducing the Zyklon B through introduction holes in the roof) would still be conclusive.


One of the biggest nonsene which I ever heard during time of my interest in this issue, you just surpassed even the biggest jerks (apologizes to readers for this insult), this statement is exactly what I predicted some time ago on this forum, that even without the holes, some silly attempt from silly peoples to simply ignore it will be made and then these holocaust defenders would act as if nothing has happened. Congratulation Mr. Roberto Muehlenkamp for the first price for this statement, you finally proved without even slightest doubt that you are true hradcore unbreakable fanatical believer no matter what is proved to you, and is really waste of time to debate with you.

Can I challenge some other "believer" here to express opinion about this statement from this user?
Now, let's go further and assume that you can disprove all evidence that there were homicidal gassings in these two buildings. You would still have the gas chambers of Kremas III/IV and IV/V and the "Bunkers" to contend with.
Oh yes, RM really goes further with his statements, he simply ignores that witnesses for these alleged other gassing sites are the liars previously "hypotetically" proven to be liars. He ignores that not "two" buildings (KI-II), but three since Krema II and III are identical and most of the witnesses as well. Here is of course RM again ridiculous with claiming, that if these alleged gassing sites are proven to be lies, that peoples would still believe in the othe sites with gas chamber which are proapbly even more absurd. For example, he ignores, that without Krema II-III will be much more absurd to kill more than 400 000 Hungary Jews and alleged victims of Krema II and III in the remaining sites. He simply ignores that whole story and gassing sites are connected together, at least in Auschwitz.
Let's further assume that you can disprove all evidence to homicidal gassing at these other facilities. You will stil have to explain what, other than murder, is supposed to have happened to hundreds of thousands of people known to have been transported to Auschwitz-Birkenau but not known to have been taken anywhere else from there. Bar an evidence-backed alternative explanation (e.g. that they all died of typhus or the plague without your heroes being at fault), the unavoidable conclusion would be that they were murdered in some way. Maybe not by gassing, but what the heck, murder is murder.
Finally, RM decided to use the latest attempt, just last bastion used everytime when defender of holocaust is refuted, "where are these peoples?" - I already participated in this discussion here, and no interest anymore, this is so long discussion without seeing light at the end of the tunnel (especially with RM´s demonstrated approach) that not interested, I am content with the fact, that gassing nonsense is refuted by revisionists as the other nonsenses already dumped to memory hole.
And of course you wouldn't have dealt with any of the evidence to mass murder by gassing with engine exhaust at Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka.
Here is RM again funny with claim that without Auschwitz = no problem, this is of course false, with this fact, the suspicion and interest in these even more absurd camps would be larger. I suspect that in this case the archives would be completely opened with all documents and I am only curious what next is dumped in archives about these camps with vast activity since we have only a few documents at this time and whole story is as usual based on self-styled witnesses.
And that's only the mass gassing aspect of your heroes' crimes during World War II, which accounted for at most half of their Jewish victims and about a quarter of the total number of people (Jews and non-Jews) that they murdered.
Here is RM again funny with his 12 million claim, in fact, RM is even worse than Simon Wiesenthal who made up number of 11 millions victims (6+5), because SW made up 5 million victims from the air, today even the believers doubt six million figure and self-styled expert RM has no problem to simply made another 7 millions of non-Jews victims. This guy is definitely not serious and he is definitely a troll who likes response in connection with his controversial claims, exactly like he does on his controvery blog.

Here is method used by Wiesenthal for made up 5 millions of never-existing victims, yes, is it that easy:

"Wiesenthal "threw out" the figure of "11 million who were murdered in the Holocaust -- six million Jews and five million non-Jews," said the Yad Vashem official. When asked why he gave these figures, Wiesenthal replied: "The gentiles will not pay attention if we do not mention their victims, too." Wiesenthal "chose 'five million (gentiles)' because he wanted a 'diplomatic' number, one that told of a large number of gentile victims but in no way was larger than that of Jews ..."

David Sinai, "News We Doubt You've Seen," The Jewish Press (Brooklyn, NY), Dec. 23, 1988. Based on report in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Dec. 16, 1988.

What Deborah Lipstadt said about made up 5 million figure?:

"When Israeli historians Yehuda Bauer and Yisrael Gutman challenged Wiesenthal on this point, he admitted that he had invented the figure of eleven million victims in order to stimulate interest in the Holocaust among non-Jews. He chose five million because it was almost, but not quite, as large as six million. "

(Edit) - I forgot this nice quote:

"However, inventions such as the figure of "eleven million" would be unjustifiable even if there were no Holocaust deniers."

http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com/publ ... of-history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But RM? He is real macho, he simply made up another 2 millions for total of 7 millions of allegedly murdered peoples and I guess he will again copy-paste his previously posted link to his article about proving these victims. What is bad for him, it looks like that nobody really bothers, at least Deborah Lipstadt, Yehuda Bauer or Yisrael Gutman seems to be not interested at all and their books still somehow lacks these seven millions , I guess that they wait to see his article, RM should sent it to them.

Is RM going to say that Deborah Lipstadt is a charlatan? :lol:

As shown, Invent such a figure is really easy when you do it in connection with holy holocaust.
That reasoning is also hard to understand. Let's assume you can prove that holes were tampered with at some time after demolition of the crematoria, as you claim. So what? Would this mean there were never any introduction holes, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary? I don't think so.
Let´s assume, in the other words, RM again tries to make an impression that holes are genuine, very silly attempt thanks to documented tampering already provided in previous comments and even admited by Mazal´s team which RM used as source when they admited that hole 7 which they omitted for introduction purpose was made by someone for unknown reasons after liberation, RM simply didn´t bother to read report he used here in his effort to prove their existence.
I hope for you that you didn't update any of your comments after I had responded to it, for that would be highly dishonest. If you should have done so, please identify the update.
Here RM ignores that I updated my comment some four hours before he responded to this comment. RM also ignores that I clearly marked my two edits with word "edit" to make clear what is edited, and in fact, only the first edit is worth of note, the seond is neglible and only clarification. And I did not change anything, in fact I only added one paragraph with question during my first edit.

So if RM wants to see my edit, just simple use word "edit" in your search column, simple.



Well, thanks to RM´s statement emphasied above, is clear that further debate is pointless, in the future RM should have to inform his opponents about it before joining debate, then I would not waste even single second with him.
Last edited by Bob on Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:13 am

Nessie wrote:There are signs of holes in both roofs. The real question should be "who put them there and when?"

The CODOH has a very good thread showing signs of tampering with teh evidence

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4848" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Good, Nessie again proved that he ignored when I personally already provided him with evidence, that holes are tampered to make them looks more believeable, and now, after all these weeks, he discovered America, this is just absurd.
A poster Mythos then states "And of course both of these holes were added after the war (as you all propably know)" but I would like to see evidence of that.
Same as above.
The same is true for Krema I

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitz ... tz08A.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitz ... tz08D.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here Nessie ignores that holes are allegedly chiseled on the same place as originally before allegedly filled during air-raid conversion, so what we have here is another flaw from Nessie and holes are on the correct location according to authorities and even confirmed by Mazal´s team.
So we have holes galore and trying to say there are none is a nonsense. So again, the correct question is "who put them there and when?"

Unless that can be precisely established the physical evidence is tainted and cannot be relied upon as Bob would like. No holes no holocaust was always a very odd claim when there are holes there.
Here Nessie ignores that nobody ever claimed that there are no holes in Krema II, but that there are no introduction holes, I pointed this three times or four times during our debate in previous weeks, but now, he has just no problem to repeat it again! 96 more to go, hurry, Mr. Muehlenakmp has 92.
Yes Bob, I have repeated myself, but that is because you are dodging this very important issue.
Actually I adressed every of your claim, you dodged just everything for obvious reasons, not existing introduction holes are the strongest proof about this lie. And alleged holes in Krema I are proof about how the liars proved themsleves to be liars when they chiseled them in completely wrong locations with claiming that are genuine, such an arrangement of these holes is simply nonsense evident to at least somehow intelligent being as I showed and is just ridiculous how the arrangement is surprisingly almost ok in connection with wrong dimensions of the room not used for alleged gassings.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:03 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:There are signs of holes in both roofs. The real question should be "who put them there and when?"

The CODOH has a very good thread showing signs of tampering with teh evidence

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4848" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Good, Nessie again proved that he ignored when I personally already provided him with evidence, that holes are tampered to make them looks more believeable, and now, after all these weeks, he discovered America, this is just absurd.

I have been asking who did that, a question you keep dodging.
A poster Mythos then states "And of course both of these holes were added after the war (as you all propably know)" but I would like to see evidence of that.
Same as above.

Who subsequently tampered with the holes and when? That is the question you keep dodging.
The same is true for Krema I

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitz ... tz08A.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitz ... tz08D.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here Nessie ignores that holes are allegedly chiseled on the same place as originally before allegedly filled during air-raid conversion, so what we have here is another flaw from Nessie and holes are on the correct location according to authorities and even confirmed by Mazal´s team.

Right so we are getting somewhere, the Nazis chiseled the holes, then filled them in to make an air raid shelter and then after the war they were reopened.

The "no holes no holocaust" clearly now does not apply to Krema I as we have an admission they were there and put there by the Nazis.

So we have holes galore and trying to say there are none is a nonsense. So again, the correct question is "who put them there and when?"

Unless that can be precisely established the physical evidence is tainted and cannot be relied upon as Bob would like. No holes no holocaust was always a very odd claim when there are holes there.
Here Nessie ignores that nobody ever claimed that there are no holes in Krema II, but that there are no introduction holes, I pointed this three times or four times during our debate in previous weeks, but now, he has just no problem to repeat it again! 96 more to go, hurry, Mr. Muehlenakmp has 92.

Er, "nobody ever claimed that there are no holes in Krema II". Are you sure? What has happened to "no holes no holocaust"? Roberto, we have a break through, an admission by Bob that there were holes in the roof of Krema II. But apparently they are not introduction holes. Bob please prove it was not possible to drop Zyklon B through the holes in the roof of Krema II.
Yes Bob, I have repeated myself, but that is because you are dodging this very important issue.
Actually I adressed every of your claim, you dodged just everything for obvious reasons, not existing introduction holes are the strongest proof about this lie. And alleged holes in Krema I are proof about how the liars proved themsleves to be liars when they chiseled them in completely wrong locations with claiming that are genuine, such an arrangement of these holes is simply nonsense evident to at least somehow intelligent being as I showed and is just ridiculous how the arrangement is surprisingly almost ok in connection with wrong dimensions of the room not used for alleged gassings.

What is the difference between a hole and an induction hole?

If the liars chiseled holes in the wrong place on Krema I there will be signs of both the actual holes and the liar ones. Please show me both sets of holes.


Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:24 pm

There is something really really weird with this user, otherwise such a responds and understanding to written text of other users are simply not possible, he has even no problem to accuse me from dodging what is of course lie as usual from this user.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:36 pm

Very simple questions for Bob

Who first put the holes in the roof of Krema I and when?

Who first put the holes in the roof of Krema II and when?

Stop dodging, the answers will be simple. If you do not know or are not sure just say so.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:46 pm

Nessie´s comment provoked me again for rich answer, he is really good in this with his comments, so for last time I will repeat myself extra for him in this thread.

Some basic info again - Holes in KI were chiseled by authorities after the war when they established museum in Auschwitz allegedly based on original holes which of course never existed as even proven by the liars themselves who falsely chiseled them using wrong dimensions of original room not used during alleged gassing, these holes confirmed as genuine even by the so-called "forensic" report of Mazal team. If these holes are false, it logically means that there should be visible traces of genuine introduction holes if ever existed, but as can everybody see today, not even slightest traces of alleged sealed second set of introdcution holes since holes in concrete couldn´t be simply eradicated without a trace as even visible today with visible sealed/closed small round ventilation ducts from former air raid shelter conversion (calm down Nessie if you are going to claim that ventilation ducts are these openings). In fact, nobody is not even able to tell how many of the holes the Germans allegedly used (allegedly - 1,2,3,4,5 or 6) let alone to be able to locate them when they never existed.Something wrong with user Nessie, i informed him about this several times in last several weeks and he even accused me again from dodging, in fact he is only ignorant.

Again basic info - Hole 1 chiseled to get an access under the roof during Polish or Soviet investigation since during 40´s no possibility to walk through the concrete walls/roofs (oh wait, this is still not possible, right?), no hole mentioned on the roof by investigators despite their detailed findings and reports, photographed in 1945 and thus we have proof that was smaller. No shape, visible iron rebars, thanks to several photos is proven to be enlraged and squared. Hole 7, the second visible hole chiseled by someone for unknown reasons and admitted by all that this was never introduction holes and was made after the war, iron reinforcing goes through the hole and covers it, thanks to photos again proven that iron rods slowly removed as the time went by and whole hole enlarged and squared. The rest of the "holes" are simply cracks, just cracks caused by explosion without any shape or even with supporting pillars sticking out of the cracks as the roof fell on them, roof is full of the carcks/holes, explosion and demolishing work of roof produced cracks and holes in concrete, big surprise for peoples like Nessie who seriously believes that some building can be demolished without single crack, just bizzare. But this user has no problem to scream - "Some holes are there, look, gassing happened! No holes no holocaust is nonsense!" No surprise that Hans or Nessie refused to show them on provided photos because they in fact knew very well what they see and have not enough courage to claim publicly to that these are the alleged square introduction openings for Zyklon B. Something wrong with user Nessie again, i informed him about this several times in last several weeks, provided photos, sources, quotes and he even accused me again from dodging, in fact he is only ignorant, again.

Nessie - I really warn you, stop with this absurd game when you present yourself in this way and begin to write like normal intelligent human being who is able to at least read comments properly and is able to remeber it for at least a few hours or days or is at least able to use google to find basic info about who and when made holes in Krema I, you do not need revisionists for this information. I was so much patient with you more than two months because you do this from the beginning. I mean, you really don´t feel like being completely slow or somehow weird? For example you really don´t have clue where is difference between the holes and introduction holes in krematorium II? Just "hole" is simply every hole you can imagine, introduction hole in Krema II (or in better words - opening) for introduction of Zyklon B is specifically designed and specifically looking hole with some parameters, shape, dimensions, placing, characteristic. Is this too hard for you to understand to this essential difference between hole and specific hole on specific place? "No holes, no holocaust" Is simplified motto from prof. Robert Faurisoon which of course suppose that peoples knew at least basic knowledge about this subject, because this motto cannot be consisted from thousands of words and sources to inform everybody what is going on, this would be absurd, you must of course read books, articles, and other publication about this subject. So stop with your silly comments and with your game when you present yourself in this absurd way.

Is someone interested to see real dishonest dodger who cover own dodging with spreading accusation on the opponent who as proven by his comments don´t dodge? No problem, here again.

1.Nessie claim ,that holes are tampered, I agree and I even claimed it from the beginning, does he realized that he admited himself with his excuse why he cannot show them that the only two visible holes are tampered and thus he himself admited that they are false since no need to tamper original holes? Why he refused to explain it?

2.Why he refused to show even the tampered holes when I requested it? Is he too embarrassed to show tampered holes, or simple cracks or even the empty location of alleged hole 3 saying to my own eyes that what i see are alleged introduction openings for Zyklon B? Or he is too embarrassed to show again already presented stuff refuted in previous comments and threads especially in Hans´s thread who refused to adress it?

3.Why he refused to show even location of hole 3 and hole 2 no matter if hole 3 is allegedly under rubble to allow me to investigate location during my visit of Auschwitz camp and to verify these claims? Is he afraid as user Hans that mainly the hole 3 never existed in any form even in today roof and is not under rubble? Is he afraid as user Hans who even completely dodged to answer at least my last question what would be his position if I would prove him that hole 3 don´t exist at all?

4.Why he refused to explain wrong arrangement of allegedly genuine locations of holes in Krema I as provided to him in my comment?

5.Why he refused to show me the traces of correct genuine set of introduction holes in today original ceiling of alleged gas chamber in krematorium I if museum authorities and Mazal did "mistake" when they wrongly identified holes chiseled after war as genuine?

Do someone think that these questions will be answered? Really? Then sits and see what will happen and how Nessie will refuse to answer this essential issue which is the main instrument which makes gassing possible. Of course not for Muehlenkamp who proved with own quote that he don´t care if holes existed or not, magical gassings happened anyway and thus he ruined any chance that there could be some reason why to spend more time in debate with him and who even admitted that without the gas chambers in Auschwitz still no problem, the peoples were allegedly "somehow" murdered and eradicated, but how? Silence.............just gold good silence................

I expect only two possibilties,

- A - I will be supplied with previously refuted claims mainly presented by user Hans Here who refused to present counter arguments or answer questions from me as requested by me and in this case I will be forced to repeat myself again and whole ridiculous cycle of repetitions will start again. But in this case no more repeating from me, just no more.

- B - I will be supplied with the endless excuses with usual evasions about why he/they are not able to provide what I requested even when I answered their comments and points, I just expect classic dodging of even the basic requests.

In an attempt to somehow cover it, i expect again some accusations as usual way how to deal with the situation when the arguments are missing.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:43 pm

Bob wrote:Nessie´s comment provoked me again for rich answer, he is really good in this with his comments, so for last time I will repeat myself extra for him in this thread.

Some basic info again - Holes in KI were chiseled by authorities after the war when they established museum in Auschwitz allegedly based on original holes which of course never existed as even proven by the liars themselves who falsely chiseled them using wrong dimensions of original room not used during alleged gassing, these holes confirmed as genuine even by the so-called "forensic" report of Mazal team. If these holes are false, it logically means that there should be visible traces of genuine introduction holes if ever existed, but as can everybody see today, not even slightest traces of alleged sealed second set of introdcution holes since holes in concrete couldn´t be simply eradicated without a trace as even visible today with visible sealed/closed small round ventilation ducts from former air raid shelter conversion (calm down Nessie if you are going to claim that ventilation ducts are these openings). In fact, nobody is not even able to tell how many of the holes the Germans allegedly used (allegedly - 1,2,3,4,5 or 6) let alone to be able to locate them when they never existed.Something wrong with user Nessie, i informed him about this several times in last several weeks and he even accused me again from dodging, in fact he is only ignorant.

No not ignorant, just trying to explain that you rely on physical evidence that is disputed, has been altered and tampered with. Krema I is just yet another example of that, with its various holes on the roof.

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitz ... tz08A.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You have vaguely attributed introduction holes to "authorities after the war". Have you evidence of no holes on the roof during the war, prior to conversion to an air raid shelter? (I am not including the chimney above the oven or the red brick ones, one of which is not above what is attributed to being the gas chamber)

Again basic info - Hole 1 chiseled to get an access under the roof during Polish or Soviet investigation since during 40´s no possibility to walk through the concrete walls/roofs (oh wait, this is still not possible, right?), no hole mentioned on the roof by investigators despite their detailed findings and reports, photographed in 1945 and thus we have proof that was smaller. No shape, visible iron rebars, thanks to several photos is proven to be enlraged and squared. Hole 7, the second visible hole chiseled by someone for unknown reasons and admitted by all that this was never introduction holes and was made after the war, iron reinforcing goes through the hole and covers it, thanks to photos again proven that iron rods slowly removed as the time went by and whole hole enlarged and squared. The rest of the "holes" are simply cracks, just cracks caused by explosion without any shape or even with supporting pillars sticking out of the cracks as the roof fell on them, roof is full of the carcks/holes, explosion and demolishing work of roof produced cracks and holes in concrete, big surprise for peoples like Nessie who seriously believes that some building can be demolished without single crack, just bizzare. But this user has no problem to scream - "Some holes are there, look, gassing happened! No holes no holocaust is nonsense!" No surprise that Hans or Nessie refused to show them on provided photos because they in fact knew very well what they see and have not enough courage to claim publicly to that these are the alleged square introduction openings for Zyklon B. Something wrong with user Nessie again, i informed him about this several times in last several weeks, provided photos, sources, quotes and he even accused me again from dodging, in fact he is only ignorant, again.

By holes I do not mean cracks, I mean holes, the holes that you accept are there. Your claim that I think a "building can be demolished without a single crack" is bizzare, it is another one of your bizzare made up claims where you think up the weird and wonderful and then attribute it to me. Strawman. You do now seem to be getting my point that by blowing the building up and reducing the roof to this

http://www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20jpg/KII/K2-053.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20jpg/KII/K2-055.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

means that being precise about holes, their size, location, whether they were even there at all has to be based on guess work. Yet you confidently state no holes, from this evidence

http://www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20jpg/KII/K2-034.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20jpg/KII/K2-091.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

where there are more than just cracks. Are you saying that damage was caused by an explosion? Or has there been an explosion and tampering? Do you know? How can you be sure of your conclusions from such badly tainted evidence?

Nessie - I really warn you, stop with this absurd game when you present yourself in this way and begin to write like normal intelligent human being who is able to at least read comments properly and is able to remeber it for at least a few hours or days or is at least able to use google to find basic info about who and when made holes in Krema I, you do not need revisionists for this information. I was so much patient with you more than two months because you do this from the beginning. I mean, you really don´t feel like being completely slow or somehow weird? For example you really don´t have clue where is difference between the holes and introduction holes in krematorium II? Just "hole" is simply every hole you can imagine, introduction hole in Krema II (or in better words - opening) for introduction of Zyklon B is specifically designed and specifically looking hole with some parameters, shape, dimensions, placing, characteristic. Is this too hard for you to understand to this essential difference between hole and specific hole on specific place? "No holes, no holocaust" Is simplified motto from prof. Robert Faurisoon which of course suppose that peoples knew at least basic knowledge about this subject, because this motto cannot be consisted from thousands of words and sources to inform everybody what is going on, this would be absurd, you must of course read books, articles, and other publication about this subject. So stop with your silly comments and with your game when you present yourself in this absurd way.

You are again missing the point. You agree there are holes in the roofs but you say with all confidence they are not induction holes. You conclude that from either heavily altered, or badly damaged roofs. I say your confidence is flawed as the evidence is flawed. Do you understand that?

Is someone interested to see real dishonest dodger who cover own dodging with spreading accusation on the opponent who as proven by his comments don´t dodge? No problem, here again.

1.Nessie claim ,that holes are tampered, I agree and I even claimed it from the beginning, does he realized that he admited himself with his excuse why he cannot show them that the only two visible holes are tampered and thus he himself admited that they are false since no need to tamper original holes? Why he refused to explain it?

I do not really follow what you are saying there. We agree there is tampering of the holes. All I ask is for you to say who did the tampering and when.

2.Why he refused to show even the tampered holes when I requested it? Is he too embarrassed to show tampered holes, or simple cracks or even the empty location of alleged hole 3 saying to my own eyes that what i see are alleged introduction openings for Zyklon B? Or he is too embarrassed to show again already presented stuff refuted in previous comments and threads especially in Hans´s thread who refused to adress it?

There are lots of images of the roof and holes here

http://www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20jpg/Au ... 20Page.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Somehow you are able to conclude with certainty from all of that wreakage of a roof that there were no holes that could have been used to introduce Zyklon B in 1943/44. But you happily say that from the same evidence those who say there were induction holes are wrong. I say neither side can be conclusive from the physical evidence alone.

3.Why he refused to show even location of hole 3 and hole 2 no matter if hole 3 is allegedly under rubble to allow me to investigate location during my visit of Auschwitz camp and to verify these claims? Is he afraid as user Hans that mainly the hole 3 never existed in any form even in today roof and is not under rubble? Is he afraid as user Hans who even completely dodged to answer at least my last question what would be his position if I would prove him that hole 3 don´t exist at all?

Those who say they can show the locations of the holes have to be approximate due to the destruction of the roof. Hole 3 is the most approximate of all according to Keren, McCarthy and Mazal. Please, prove hole 3 never existed. If you prove hole 3 never existed my position will return back to when I did have serious doubts as to whether people were gassed at Krema II. But I will wonder about holes 1,2 and 4. Again, my position is that neither side can show exclusively from the physical evidence as it is now that there were or were not holes in the roof. That poses more problems for you than it does the believer side as you rely on the phyiscal evidence far more than the believers do.

4.Why he refused to explain wrong arrangement of allegedly genuine locations of holes in Krema I as provided to him in my comment?

How do you get a wrong arrangement from the evidence of the holes that are there now and the conflicting witnesses? In other words, is there a deffinite right arrangement? I say the answer is no as the evidence has been tampered with.

5.Why he refused to show me the traces of correct genuine set of introduction holes in today original ceiling of alleged gas chamber in krematorium I if museum authorities and Mazal did "mistake" when they wrongly identified holes chiseled after war as genuine?

Again, I am not really following that. You had said the holes you say were made after the war were in the wrong place. I took that to mean there were other holes which were in the right place. I asked you where those holes were. I now think that you mean there were no holes at all and the only holes now are made up ones introduced after the war. Is that correct?

Do someone think that these questions will be answered? Really? Then sits and see what will happen and how Nessie will refuse to answer this essential issue which is the main instrument which makes gassing possible. Of course not for Muehlenkamp who proved with own quote that he don´t care if holes existed or not, magical gassings happened anyway and thus he ruined any chance that there could be some reason why to spend more time in debate with him and who even admitted that without the gas chambers in Auschwitz still no problem, the peoples were allegedly "somehow" murdered and eradicated, but how? Silence.............just gold good silence................

Well you got answers

I expect only two possibilties,

- A - I will be supplied with previously refuted claims mainly presented by user Hans Here who refused to present counter arguments or answer questions from me as requested by me and in this case I will be forced to repeat myself again and whole ridiculous cycle of repetitions will start again. But in this case no more repeating from me, just no more.

- B - I will be supplied with the endless excuses with usual evasions about why he/they are not able to provide what I requested even when I answered their comments and points, I just expect classic dodging of even the basic requests.

In an attempt to somehow cover it, i expect again some accusations as usual way how to deal with the situation when the arguments are missing.

Or - C - the point that on such badly damaged, tainted and tampered with evidence you cannot be certain you are correct either.


Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:36 pm

As I predicted.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:56 pm

Bob wrote:As I predicted.

Nope, not even close. My far more accurate prediction is that you continue to dodge the issue that you are reliant on tainted evidence.

Here is an Andrew Allan on CODOH admitting the Nazis destroyed the Kremas.

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvdest.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but asking why the gas chambers were left in tact. Well that is not a very accurate description is it. Krema I was altered to be an air raid shelter and check out more pictures of Leichekeller I at Krema II here

http://vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-3.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from Mattogno's 'No Holes No Gas Chamber(s)' article. Yet Allan states "Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II was/is almost entirely complete, with its floor and walls untouched"

No it is not. The Nazis destroyed the evidence as best they could and now deniers are basing a whole host of claims on such destroyed evidence, which some think is almost intact.
Last edited by Nessie on Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:48 pm

Again as I predicted, accusations as usual and another batch of nonsenses to provoke me again write another refutation.

I missed only one prediction - "my answers will be dodged with answers"

No holes, simple no gassings possible, another defender of holocaust who failed to simply show them, good to know it. I am finished with this user, just no more, enough is enough.

Prediction - more accusations are on the way.....

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:22 am

But Bob, there are holes in what remains of the roof. They approximately match the train photo's positions of the small chimney like structures. Approximately is as good as it gets because the Nazis blew the Leichenkeller up. The holes and the train photo also match the reconnaisance photos showing darker patches on the roof. Those three pieces of evidence go together to say that there were holes on the roof and add in the witnesses and those holes were used to introduce Zyklon B.

You on the other hand show a blown up roof and from that supposedly 'prove' there were no holes there in 1943/4. That is not very convincing at all.

But as I said, prove no hole 3 and I will revise my present stance.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:36 pm

Nessie wrote:But as I said, prove no hole 3 and I will revise my present stance.
Oh Jeez, he provoked me again, I just can stop in adressing his comments, my fault. Ok, this sentence is interesting and worth of reaction.

Leaving aside that Nessie already said that no gassing happened in Krema II, so I really dont know about what position he is talking about and leaving aside that he is the one who must prove the existence and not that I must prove nonexistence, here are photos showing that hole 3 dont exist exist, and the only cracks and holes visible on photo are not considered as introdcution holes for obvious reasons, they are again without shape and with iron reinforcing crossing them and thes cracks and holes are ignored as introduction holes.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2870.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2871.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://bp0.blogger.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R7s ... G_2872.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-31-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So where is the hole 3? Simply dont exist in any form. Under rubble? Where is the rubble covering the hole 3? Show me the magic rubble covering it.

In fact, I suspect Nessie that he actually dont know what I am talking about, and he has no clue about the numbers of holes, their location and etc. so with saying "hole 3" he in fact dont know what is going on, exactly like Hans who was also not able to recognize location and he even needed from me to draw him possible location in which he or his source believes and then he refused to show it anyway with saying - you marked it yourself - just ridiculous.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:36 pm

I believed that gassings took place at Krema II. Then partly because of your evidence, but also from my own reading on the subject I really started to doubt that there were gassings. I have subsequently shifted position again and that is because of you Bob.

You have given me a really hard time (and others) about witness evidence and its relaiblity. You have made it quite clear in your mind that physical evidence trumps witness evidence. You do not accept potential reasonable and understandable witness mistakes such as the use of diesel engines to gas people. Your other nonsense about missing persons and the thread about revsionism and anti-semitism further confirmed that you are not able to handle evidence that conflicts with your view and instead convolute it, twist it and dismiss it. That made me doubt your ability to deal fairly and properly with evidence. So I revisited early posts and arguments by you to re-assess what you had said.

Now that is more so again after you had a go at Hans about his positioning of the holes and criticism he was unable to show exactly where the holes are. Yet he is having to work from the blown up remains of a building. As, if fact are you and the other revisionist/deniers.

Do you understand that the physical evidence as destroyed by the Nazis has rendered it unreliable? Yet you are totally reliant on it. You ask to be shown holes from destroyed remains. That is like me asking for evidence of a point and you know a book that has the evidence in it, but then find I have put the book through a shredder. I then say to you have failed to evidence your point and so you are wrong. But we both know if I had not put the book through the shredder, we would have the answer.

So no I cannot show you the remains of hole 3 from that pile of rubble and concrete. The Nazis put it through 'the shredder'. But that does not mean it was not there before.

Prove to me that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 was complete in 1942/43.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:33 pm

Sorry for the late reply, but it was nice Good Friday outside ... :D

Part 1 - Zyklon B Evaporation
Bob wrote:
Show me the statements in which what you claim is "clearly visible" is supposed to be "clearly visible". With links to the respective posts, please. If you can’t show me such statements but persist in your accusations, then those accusations are made against better knowledge, and thus appropriately called lies.

Ignoring an argument is one thing (also called dodging), refuting an argument with a counterargument is another. Please show me where I failed to address any of your arguments, instead of refuting it with a counter-argument.
Here RM wants from me to search whole thread and then he will write again the same refuted claims or "you have shown nothing". RM should read comments again, where is problem.
In other words, Bob is running away from substantiating his accusation that I failed to address any of his arguments instead of refuting it with a counter-argument.
Bob wrote:I am talking about proving your chemical claims because at this time are refuted by chemical research shown here and not with some absurd and wrong assumptions, but real with data from chemists and with sources.
Ah, the chemists again. Still waiting for one that would refute Peters’ statement about the out-gassing time at 20 degrees centigrade and thus my conclusions derived from that out-gassing time and from comparing it with the out-gassing time at 15º centigrade recorded by Irmscher. Maybe Mr. Lambrecht will help, let’s see.
Bob wrote:
I have no problem with accepting that an assumption or conclusion of mine is wrong when it is shown to be wrong.
Propably the most false statement so far.
No, it’s just that bigmouth Bob hasn’t yet gone very far in proving me wrong.
Bob wrote:
Actually the "ridiculous excuse" is a perfectly sound explanation. When the 2004 debate ended with the non-“Revisionist” team's last reply, interest in the issues discussed therein waned – at least among people who are not as obsessed with the mechanics of killing at Auschwitz-Birkenau as the likes of Bob seem to be.


RM still didn´t explain why he never contacted chemists to support his fantasies before or during or right after the "2004 debate."
Actually I have. Bob, on the other hand, still hasn’t explained why I should have contacted chemists to support my "fantasies" after the debate for which my calculations were made had ended without my "fantasies" having been refuted. Bob shouldn’t project his pathological obsession with certain issues onto his opponent.
Bob wrote:
Of course not, as it’s for my esteemed opponent to demonstrate that he did show something – in this case that and why my considerations about out-gassing times in a room at least as hot as human body temperature, derived from Peters’ information about out-gassing times at a temperature that in all probability was 20º C and from Irmscher’s information about out-gassing times at colder temperatures, is supposed to be wrong.
Again request to demonstrate something what had been demonstrated several times and everytime ignored, he just enjoy how his opponent is all the time forced to repeat self.
No, I’m just waiting for a better argument than the feeble crap about Peters not having said what part of the Zyklon B exactly had evaporated after 30 minutes and what temperature he meant by Zimmertemperatur, which was the mainstay of Bob’s argument so far.
Bob wrote:Again - no temperature stated by Peters, no information about exactly how much o HCN evaporated.
… and still is, apparently. :mrgreen:
Bob wrote:RM didn´t show how he arrived to his "human body temperature" his Tauber will be adressed below.
Tauber’s description suggests human body temperature at the very least, actually. So does Böck’s description of the gassing he witnessed in one of the "bunkers" on a winter night.
Bob wrote:But what is the most ridiculous? His (Peters) manual is from 1933, but we are of course speaking about Zyklon B during WW2 and as already pointed out to RM, the evaporation rate from 20´s - 40´s are really different, 10m vs. 120m. Wolfagang Lambrecht provided in mentioned article that evaporation rate was 30m for year 1933 using literature as sources, so some four times lower than in 40´s. But for RM? No problem to use this fatal flaw in his claims.

I expect usual dodging and ignoring of these information.
Actually I’m glad to see that Bob has produced (or is about to produce) the kind of argument I requested when I wrote the following:
The information that Zyklon B used during WW2 had a slower evaporation rate, if accurate, only has some relevance if evaporation slowed in relation to the time mentioned by Peters on page 64 of his 1933 paper. Does this Lambrecht fellow (who I hope is not another of Rudolf’s alter egos) provide any evidence that the evaporation time of Zyklon B used in World War II was considerably lower than the evaporation time of Zyklon B used at the time of Peters’ article? If so, let’s see that evidence.
(I meant to say "higher" instead of "lower", of course.)
Bob wrote:
Readers may want to count how often I quoted this text from the 2004 debate:
No need, I will count for them how many times you repeated your flawed text no matter how many times has been refuted, see below.
Actually it is only now that Bob may be about to refute my calculations, depending on what this Lambrecht fellow has got to show for his claim that Zyklon B used in World War II had a considerably longer evaporation time than Zyklon B used in 1933.
Bob wrote:
This text includes a direct eyewitness’s testimony whereby "It was very hot in the gas chamber and so suffocating as to be unbearable." Assuming that the temperature in the chamber corresponded to human body temperature may even be conservative, considering this description.
In the other words, RM defined what means when somebody says "it was very hot" and this is finally his "proof" that temperature was 37C or even more. How can I take this guy seriously? For me is very hot some 22C-23C when I forgot to take care about my heater, but for what reason should be RM´s invented temperature more relevant than mine? Tauber never said temperature and thus we do not know what "it was very hot" meant for Tauber and we even don´t have anybody else with temperature statement, but RM have no problem to invent own and use it for his calculation, simply absurd unscientific approach.
22C-23C is what I would call nicely warm. Can Bob do no better than squeal that "Tauber never said temperature"? He should take into consideration that Tauber didn’t just say "very hot" but added that it was "so suffocating as to be unbearable", suggesting a temperature that would make a sauna seem pleasant by comparison. And with hundreds of people having been packed into that room, it’s no surprise that it was that way, whether or not the room was additionally pre-heated before a gassing.
Bob wrote:Tauber said

"After the people had been pushed into the gas chamber and were shut in there and before the ‘Cyklon’ was poured in, the air from the chamber was removed; in fact, the ventilation of the chamber could be used for that purpose.”

Leaving aside that ventilation worked using aeration/de- aeration principle and Tauber, the main star, even didn´t know how ventilation worked after all these months in gas chamber, here Tauber excluded that previously warmed air could be used for gassings and RM simply ignores it too in his already flawed calculations, what is worse, I already provided this quote earlier so he knows it.
Bob may have provided this quote before, but as the air from the chamber was obviously not removed before the Zyklon B was poured in (Tauber was mistaken in this respect, one of his very few technical observation mistakes according to Pressac, IIRC), warmed air (from cumulated body heat and perhaps additional heating) was available for speeding up evaporation during the gassing process. IIRC several eyewitnesses testified that the SS waited for a while after filling the chambers before they poured in the Zyklon, the obvious purpose of this procedure being to attain a certain temperature inside the gas chamber.
Bob wrote:
Actually there are no data about evaporation speed at a temperature of 30 degrees centigrade. Irmscher’s tables show temperatures ranging from -18 bis -19° C to +15° C. What Bob’s chemists did was to estimate the evaporation speed at higher temperatures on the basis of these data. But they estimated wrong. They didn’t duly take into consideration what Peters wrote on page 64 of his manual, as translated by Ulrich Rösler:
Here again, self-styled "chemist" RM who simply decided that chemists are wrong and he is correct, but he has no evidence, chemists have as shown. Here is RM again proven to be liar, I already provided him with article from Wolfgang Lambrecht, so he must knew that Lambrecht used Peters information and publication from 1933 to inform us that Zyklon B in 1933 was faster thanks to different carrier and technology. So despite better knowledge, RM lied as usual or he simply didn´t bother to read provided source, take your pick.
The "provided source" being something from someone associated with Rudolf (and accordingly of dubious accuracy), I didn’t bother to read it yet. I only became interested in Mr. Lambrecht when my hysterical friend mentioned that according to Lambrecht evaporation time of Zyklon used during World War II was higher than evaporation time in the 1930s.
Bob wrote:Is the last statement from RM correct? Of course not, in Rudolf Report, I counted 8 footnotes to Gerhard Peters´s works (manual including) and several other publications/articles from him and Wolfgang Lambrecht cooperated with him as well, they of course know what he wrote as proven.
Mentioning Peters and duly taking into consideration what Peters wrote on page 64 of his manual are not the same thing. Bob missed the word "duly".
Bob wrote:RM still insist on his invented data falsely attributed to Peters,
No, I insist on data based on a reasonable and substantiated understanding of what Peters wrote.
Bob wrote:he simply ignores that nobody can ever define what he meant and nobody has right to scream "my assumption is correct", the only way how to determine what he meant is to compare his research and research of the others and available data, this had been done, and this simply refute RM´s false assumptions or Rossler´s claim adopted by RM, because RM´s assumptions are in contradiction with later articles and publications from chemists Irmscher, Rudolf, Lambrecht and Green who accepted Irmscher´s research and data later used by chemists Lambrecht and Rudolf for 30C temperature.
I’m aware that Dr. Green accepted Irmscher’s research, but I didn’t know that Dr. Green accepted Rudolf’s extrapolations for higher temperatures. In Chemistry is not the Science he wrote the following:
How fast could a lethal concentration be reached? We first review some relevant literature on the topic. The Holocaust History Project has three technical papers that address this question. All three were written in the context of the use of Zyklon B for delousing. The first work is a 70 page monograph by Gerhard Peters of the Degesch company that was published in 1933. [31] This document has not yet been transcribed or translated. The second work is a 1941 paper by Peters and Rasch. [32] This document has been transcribed and translated. The third paper is a 1942 paper by Irmscher that has also been transcribed and translated. [33]

The Chemistry of Auschwitz quotes portions of Peters' first paper that were translated by Dr. Ulrich Roessler. These portions indicate that the poison began to evaporate "with great vehemence" as soon as the tins were poured out, and that "the greatest part, nearly all" of the Zyklon B evaporated within 30 minutes.

In the second paper Rasch and Peters investigated the speed of evaporation of Zyklon at colder temperatures as well as its efficacy on insects at colder temperatures. The latter topic concerns us only in that it is worthwhile to note that delousing took much longer than homicide. Rasch and Peters found that:

The experiments, carried out in both directions yielded the unequivocal corroboration of the opinion grounded in practical observation over many years, that the efficiency of prussic acid and the suitability of the Zyklon procedure encompasses a temperature range that with certainty reaches at least 10° below zero.

They found furthermore that:

1. In all cases, the essential part of the disengagement of the gas is complete after one or at most two hours. (A control of the residues at the applicable times confirmed their complete degassing.) The evaporation of the prussic acid was therefore not significantly delayed by the low temperature.

An inspection of their data shows that concentrations begin to drop after 2 hours, which confirms their claim.

In the 1942 paper Irmscher continued the study of evaporation rate as a function of temperature. Irmscher specifies which solid supports were used for his studies (cardboard and Erco, a gypsum product) and provides a higher time resolution on the evaporation process. Irmscher studied evaporation at temperatures ranging from -18°C or -19°C up to 15°C. Excluding the lowest temperature results, Irmscher's results are in the same ballpark as those of Rasch and Peters for the most part. At -6°C, 0°C, and +15°C, Irmscher finds that within two hours 84.1%, 90.7%, 96.8% of the HCN, respectively, evaporates for the Erco support. The corresponding values for the cardboard support are 73.0%, 85.7%, 96.4% respectively. [34] The small discrepancies between these latter two papers most likely owe to differences in the support material and/or differences in humidity. Irmscher's results for -18°C show that evaporation slows substantially at this temperature.

We now examine the question of how fast a lethal concentration can be built up. In the discussion above we cited sources that put the amount of Zyklon used in the gas chambers at between 5 and 20 g/m3. These values correspond to 4500 and 18,100 ppmv respectively. Inspection of illustration 1 of the Irmscher paper shows that about 10% of the Zyklon evaporates within a period of about 5 to 15 minutes even at the coldest temperatures he studied. Irmscher did his studies at temperatures ranging from -18°C and 15°C. The gas chambers are likely to have been much warmer than the warmest temperature he studied. Human body temperature, for example, is 37°C. Even at the cold temperatures studied by Irmscher, lethal concentrations would have been reached in a few minutes (450-1810 ppmv)! Besides showing that it is not unreasonable to expect Zyklon B to kill quickly, these results also demonstrate the assumptions made about concentration in the article "Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues" were adequate. (See Appendix 1 of that article.)


Could Bob please point out the relevant parts?
Bob wrote:If RM dont agree, where the hell is problem to contact some chemist to show me correct evaporation for 30C using Irmscher´s data instead of claiming that real chemists are wrong without any piece of evidence.
I’ll bring this discussion to Dr. Green’s attention, see if he has something to add. As to the "claiming that real chemists are wrong without any piece of evidence" crap, the piece of evidence is what Peters’ wrote in 1933. However loudly Bob hollers, 60 % evaporation at 30º Celsius is impossible even if Peters meant to say that just over 50% evaporated at a much lower temperature that can reasonably be assumed to have been 20º Celsius, also considering that already at an even lower temperature (15º C) somewhere between 45 % and 50 % (according to Irmscher’s graphs) had evaporated after half an hour. Unless, of course, the Zyklon B used in 1933 was different from the Zyklon B used in 1942, as Lambrecht apparently claims. But Irmscher’s curves for 15º Celsius suggest otherwise.
Bob wrote:
Rösler is correct in understanding that "the greatest part" is not just 51 %, it rather following from both the expression der grösste Teil and from its context, as a German would understand it, that the overwhelming majority of the HCN would have evaporated after half an hour. Rösler’s assumption that Peters’ expression Zimmertemperatur (room temperature) refers to a temperature of about 20º centigrade is also realistic, as I demonstrated in an earlier post on hand of the German Wikipedia article about Raumtemperatur. 20 degrees centigrade is still somewhat below the boiling point of HCN, which is 25.6 degrees Celsius. What Rudolf is trying to tell his readers is that only 60 % of the HCN would evaporate within half an hour at a temperature well above the boiling point. Considering Peters’ above-quoted remark, this would be a preposterous claim even if Peters had meant just over 50 % when writing that der grösste Teil of the HCN would evaporate within half an hour at a temperature 10 degrees lower and below the boiling point of HCN. As Peters certainly didn’t mean just over 50 %, Rudolf’s claim is just plain ridiculous.

Actually Peters spoke of Zimmertemperatur (room temperature), as Bob well knows. The German Wikipedia article about Raumtemperatur tells us that guideline values for room temperature in German-speaking areas are about 17º C for habitation buildings, office buildings and schools, 22 º C for hospitals, nurseries and public baths, 18º C for workshops or sports installations, 16º C for stores, that room temperature shouldn’t exceed 25º-26º C at high outside temperatures and that for calculating necessary heating performance for habitation rooms a room temperature of 20-21º C is often used. So it’s reasonable to assume that when Peters wrote Zimmertemperatur, he meant a temperature around 20º C.

Actually Peters’ said that der grösste Teil, the greatest part, of the HCN would have developed after half and hour. It is not an invention but quite a reasonable understanding that der grösste Teil doesn’t mean just over 50 % but much more than that. But even if it were just over 50 %, Bob’s "other chemists" would be BS when they claim that a mere 60 % of the HCN would have evaporated at 30º centigrade (well above the boiling point) after half an hour.

However loudly my hysterical friend hollers what a bad fellow I am, the fact remains that the evaporation times at body temperature heat that I consider take into account Peters’ information more properly than the idiotic claims of Messrs. Lambrecht and/or Rudolf whereby only 60 % of the HCN evaporates at a temperature of 30 º Celsius. As I pointed out, this would be idiotic even if Peters’ expression der grösste Teil had only meant just over 50 % evaporating at about 20 º Celsius. What is one to think of chemists who produce such nonsense?

This rubbish is of course based on the assumption that Rudolf’s is correct when claiming that only 60 % of the HCN evaporate within half an hour at a temperature of 30 º Celsius. As I have pointed out several times, Peters’ information on page 64 of his 1933 paper shows Rudolf’s extrapolation to be a load of BS and would do so even if Peters’ had meant to say that just over 50 % of the HCN evaporated within half an hour at a temperature of about 20º centigrade. A big leap in evaporation speed probably occurred when boiling point was reached, at 25.6º Celsius.

Irmscher showed how fast HCN evaporates at 15 º Celsius. Peters’ statement, as reasonably understood and however much Bob kicks and screams, suggests that HCN evaporates much faster at a temperature of 20 º Celsius, closer to but still below the boiling point of HCN. I assumed that, as suggested by comparing Irmscher’s and Peters’ data, a temperature increase from 15º C to 20 º C increased evaporation speed and gas concentration by about 70 %, in a simplified model in which "the greatest part", correctly interpreted as meaning "nearly all", was considered to be "all". The inaccuracy in this model is evened out (if not more than evened out), however, by assuming a no more than equal increase in evaporation speed (even though the actual increase would be much higher) when the temperature goes up from 20º C (5.6 º below the boiling point of HCN) to 36-37º Celsius (well above the boiling point of HCN).

Another lie, for in the case in question I have explained several times why Bob's chemists cannot be right about evaporation times at 30 º centigrade, even under the unlikely assumption that what Peters’ meant by "the greatest part" was just over 50 %.
This is simply the same repertoir as in previous parts and comments, I connected his repetitive false claims to one long quote and if I counted correctly, he repeated the same nonsense five
times + one piece exclusivelly about temperature.
Is that supposed to be an argument? I call it hollow bitching at best.
Bob wrote:I already adressed all of these
Very feebly so, and I’m being generous.
Bob wrote: and I will provide even more below.
Let’s see.
Bob wrote:RM of course still ignore that not only Rudolf would be wrong, but Irmscher, Lambrecht and Green too if his claims about Peters alleged data (20C and 80%+) would be correct, this is simply nonsense, I already adressed it, here again:

"this would be in contradiction with Irmscher who stated that only some 45% evaporated after half an hour using 15C temperature and this is in accordance with Rudolf and Lambrecht who was even generous and said "approximately 50%" and this is propably accepted even by Green becuase he used Irmscher´s research. So one can only wonder how is possible that around 80% stated by RM (and falsely attributed to Peters) or "nearly all of the HCN" (as stated by translator Rossler) could evaporate after half an hour using 20C (i.e. only 5C more) as he claims. Is obvious that not that all of these chemists are wrong or contradicting or Peters some stupid amateur, oh no, only RM is off as usual with his fantasies and inventions attributed to Peters who never said this. I already said that he is wrong, RM ignored it."

This is of course not about Rudolf as RM is trying to say, but in this case, everybody is wrong, only self-styled "chemist" RM and translator Rossler are correct when they falsely attributed non-existing data to quote from Gerhard Peters which is even dated 1933.
Why are Irmscher’s data supposed to contradict my understanding of what Peters wrote in 1933? This doesn’t seem to be the opinion of Dr. Green, who wrote that
Excluding the lowest temperature results, Irmscher's results are in the same ballpark as those of Rasch and Peters for the most part.
Bob wrote:
Here’s what I wrote in connection with Irmscher’s study:

How fast this concentration would develop depended on the ambient temperature. In another part of their present submission, our opponents refer to a table featured under http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/Image19.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on Rudolf’s website, which corresponds to the right part of “Illustration 1” of R. Irmscher’s 1942 article Nochmals: “Die Einsatzfähigkeit der Blausäure bei tiefen Temperaturen”, digitalized on the THHP website under http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... f/p036.gif and translated on the same site under http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 036.htm.en

This curve, which shows the evaporation of Zyklon B from Erco carrier material at temperatures of – 18º C, - 6º C, 0º C and 15º C, makes clear that, even at the lowest of the temperatures considered, about 10% of the Zyklon evaporates within a period of about 5 to 15 minutes, the lower of these periods being roughly where the curve reaches the 10 % mark regarding the highest temperature, i.e. 15º C. This would mean that, at a temperature of 15º C, the concentration of Zyklon B in the gas chamber would after 5 minutes have reached 1.19 g/m³ or 1.395 g/m³, depending on whether it is referred to the gas chamber’s total volume or to the “free volume” calculated by Rudolf – 3.6 to 4.2 times the lethal concentration.


What’s supposed to be wrong in what I wrote?

Here’s how I used Irmscher’s research, once again:

Where’s the "ridiculous" part supposed to be?

What’s supposed to be false about this?
Well, this is called "jumping", RM simply ignores that we are dealing with his essential claim about evaporation characteristic and not about concentrations, so why he jumped to different subject, where RM used Irmscher paper for his evaporation fantasy in this provided quote, because i don´t see even single word about his alleged evaporation times 28%-100% during 5-15/20m period.
I compared the evaporation time at 20º C according to my reading of Peters 1933 with the evaporation time at 15º C according to Irmscher 1942:
At a temperature of 20º centigrade, evaporation would have occurred much faster, according to a monograph published in 1933 by Gerhard Peters of the Degesh company, translated by Dr. Ulrich Roessler and quoted in Dr. Green’s online article The Chemistry of Auschwitz http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/a ... chemistry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Peters, as quoted by Green, wrote that the poison began to evaporate "with great vehemence" as soon as the tins were poured out, and that "the greatest part, nearly all" of the Zyklon B evaporated within 30 minutes at an ambient temperature of 20º centigrade. Assuming that the evaporation progressed linearly over time – which is unlikely, if only because the amount subject to “vehement” evaporation would be higher at the outset and thus more gas would be released at the beginning of the process – this means that roughly one-sixth of the substance would have evaporated after five minutes, making for a concentration of 1.98 g/m³ or 2.33 g/m³ - 6 or 7 times the lethal concentration.
Then I figured what would happen if the temperature was as high as it must have been in the gas chambers:
However, an ambient temperature of 20º Celsius, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide (25.6 º degrees Celsius, according to the Merck Index, quoted by Dr. Green) is also likely to have been a rarity in the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau. For these chambers were full of human bodies and human body temperature is 37°C, far above the boiling point of Zyklon B. The temperature inside the gas chamber, as we already pointed out, is likely to have been like in a sauna even at low outside temperatures, and it is thus described by several witnesses, e.g. Henryk Tauber:
[…]It was very hot in the gas chamber and so suffocating as to be unbearable.[…]
Source of quote: http://www.mazal.org/archive/documents/ ... uber07.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If an increase in temperature from 15º C to 20º C, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide, cut the evaporation time and accordingly increased the gas concentration after 5 minutes’ evaporation by almost 70 %, it seems reasonable to assume that, at a far higher temperature well above the boiling point, the concentration after 5 minutes would be higher by at least the same factor – 3.31 g/m³ or 3,88 g/m³, 10 to almost 12 times the lethal concentration.

This, in turn, would correspond to roughly 28 % of the concentration after full out-gassing (11.9 g/m³ or 13.95 g/m³), or roughly 1.7 kg of evaporated Zyklon B.
My essential argument, based on the comparison between evaporation time at 15º C according to Irmscher 1942 and evaporation time at 20º C according to Peters 1933, is highlighted in red letters in the above quote.

[Skip irrelevant remark]
Bob wrote:
Actually one wonders why a temperature increase of 5 degrees, to a temperature not so far below the boiling point of HCN, shouldn’t have greatly increased evaporation speed. And it’s interesting to know that almost half the Zyklon B evaporated after half an hour at a temperature of only 15º C. As I said before, Bob’s chemists would already be full of {!#%@} if Peters had meant just over 50 % when he wrote der grösste Teil. The evaporation speed at a temperature 5 degrees lower further supports the argument that he must have meant a lot more than just over 50 %.

However furiously my hysterical friend stomps his feat, the fact remains that my reading of Peters’ statement is realistic and that if anyone failed to duly take Peters’ finds into consideration, it is the charlatan chemists that Bob makes so much of. Claiming that only 60 % of the HCN would have evaporated at a temperature of 30 º C, well above the boiling point of HCN, would be ridiculous even if by der grösste Teil Peters had meant just over 50 %.
Again "chemist" RM who is trying to convice not educated readers that only 5C difference between 15C-20C temperature can magically evaporate more than 30-35% of HCN or "nearly all HCN" with ignoring research from several chemists presented here which refute this nonsense when the difference between 0C-15C using Irmscher´s graph is only 8% and difference between -18C and +15C is 27%.
That doesn’t exclude a leap in evaporation speed if temperature gets closer to the boiling point, sorry.
Bob wrote:RM is really ridiculous with his attempt, but despite his effort, between 15C-20C no miracle, no magic. This miracle is possible only using previous faster Zyklon B product not used during WW2 for alleged gassings, Peters wrote this in 1933, but RM simply don´t care, he wants to violate laws of nature and chemistry.
The only relevant part of this blah-blah is the claim that Zyklon B used in 1942 evaporated more slowly than Zyklon B used in 1933, so let’s see what evidence Bob has got for that.
Bob wrote:There are only a few possibilities:

1. In 1933 Peters speaks about different Zyklon B as accepted by chemists and proven by original patent even mentioned by Rossler - own source of RM, and as confirmed by later research of later Zyklon B product from Irmscher, Rudolf, Lambrecht and Green. Everything shown here.

2. in 1933 he speaks about the same Zyklon B as allegedly used for gassings during WW2, but in this case the data attributed to him from translator Rossler and RM are false, because later research prove that such an evaporation is wrong and in contradiction with later research, so they must be of course much different, i. e. lower. For this possibility is of course needed to somehow cosntruct a time machine to obtain Zyklon B from 40´s.
Let’s stick with possibility 1, for if the Zyklon B used in 1942 was the same as in 1933, the "later research" of Bob’s chemists would be crap even in the improbable case that Peters meant to say “just over 50 %” when he wrote “der grösste Teil“. I would expect Bob’s chemist to have realized this problem and thus tried to make out that the Zyklon B used in Irmscher’s 1942 experiments evaporated more slowly than the Zyklon B mentioned in Peter’s 1933 article.
Bob wrote:
I didn’t ignore that information, actually. Reckoning that Peters’ time might not apply in case of a thicker layering, I asked Bob for data about just how much evaporation would be slowed down.

Depending on the amount of Zyklon B used and the length and width of the columns, there might have been considerable spreading in a vertical direction, actually. The pellets would be surrounded by air on all sides except at the columns’ bottom. And while it is quite possible that the arrangement of the pellets made evaporation slower than in Peters’ scenario, such considerations are meaningless without quantification. IIRC I asked Bob to quantify the reduction in evaporation speed that he claims. I don’t remember having received an answer.
Here is really ridiculous how RM wants data but he himself has no problem to invent them or refuse to present own data when i request them, this rule is of course applied only to his opponents.
Another of Bob’s lies. Reasonable assumptions are not inventions, and I don’t remember having refused to "present own data". Can Bob show me an example of such refusal instead of just bitching around, or will his answer again be "read the thread"?
Bob wrote:I only wonder for what reason would Irmscher or Peters or the others would do such a ridiculous and dangerous experiment with such a dangerous agent like HCN only to see what will happen if the pellets are accumulated in heaps when they already knew that Zyklon B can be efficiently used only in spreaded form as they expressed it. Well, evaporation would be slowed down so much that Peters and the others consdired as important to inform about this important fact their readers, RM ignores it.
I don’t. I just want to know how much "so much" is.
Bob wrote:Pellets in movable coulmn were accumulated in 15cm x 15cm alleged column, so accumulated and not spreaded on the floor in 1/2 or 1cm layer, but at least some 50% or propably more would be simply dumped inside heap of pellets, RM still ignores it, he is blind.
No, I just want to know how much evaporation would be slowed in Bob’s scenario. And how he arrived at the "at least some 50% or propably more" pellets that would "be simply dumped inside heap of pellets".
Bob wrote:
Actually I’m aware that the column structure might have somewhat hindered the spreading of the gas, but again, such considerations are worthless without quantification. And before we get to what influence the mesh might have had on evaporation speed, we need to establish a baseline of evaporation speed under the conditions in Peters’ scenario at the high temperatures reported to have been present in the gas chambers.
RM wants some quantification, hm, ok, I will do my best to provide as much correct and simple calculation as possible.

Kula again.

"The third part of the column was movable. It was an empty column made of a thin zinc lamina with a square section of about 150 mm. At the top it terminated in a cone and below in a flat square base. Angle irons of sheet metal were welded onto a thin bar of sheet metal at a distance of about 25 mm from the edge of this column. On these angle irons a thin net was stretched with square mesh of about 1 mm. This net ended at the base of the cone and from there toward the upper extension of the net ran a framework of sheet metal along the full height to the vertex of the cone."

Mesh/hole - 1mm
Wire - 1,5 mm (fair 50% reduction because according to Kula, wire is thin, so not 3 mm as previously)
Side - 150 mm
Height - 700mm (I am using Pressac´s sketch)
Area of one side - 150 x 700 = 105,000 mm²
Total area of all four sides - 4 x 105 000 = 420,000 mm²
Total area of column - 420, 000 + (150 x 150 x 2) = 465,000 mm²
Area occupied by horizontal wires - 1,5 x 150 = 225 x 280 = 63,000 mm²
Area occupied by vertical wires - 1,5 x 1 = 1,5 x 280 = 420 x 60 = 25,200 mm²
Total area occupied by wires - 63,000 + 25,200 = 88,200 mm²
Area occupied by holes - 60 x 280 = 16,800 mm²
Area occupied by (wires + holes) - 88,200 + 16,800 = 105,000 mm²
Total area of all four sides (wires + holes) - 105,000 x 4 = 420,000 mm²
Total area of column (wires + holes + floor + top) - 420,000 + (150 x 150 x 2) = 465,000 mm²

Total covered area of column - (88,200 x 4) + (150 x 150) = 375,300 mm²
Total free area of column - (16,800 x 4) + (150 x 150) = 89,700 mm²
Total area (covered + free) - 375,300 + 89,700 = 465,000 mm²

Total Area of four sides
Covered - 88,200 / 1050 = 84%
Free - 16,800 / 1050 = 16%

Total area of column
Covered - 375,300 / 4650 = 80,7%
Free - 89,700 / 4650 =19,3%

What this caclculation means? That this technical nonsense described by its manufacturer Kula prevent mobility of gas thanks to very dense mesh which occupies some 84% of entire area of all four sides and only 16% free for gas escape, and whole column is covered in 80% and only 20% of entire area is left for evaporated gas. In my calculation, I did not take into consideration area occupied by irons and etc. need for construction of this column, so covered area should be higher. I also did not take into consideration that column has been alegedly placed in top part so the top part could be used for evaporation too and not only sides of the column, I also did not take into consideration that if the column was longer, there must be supporting horizontal irons as described by Kula, and this again reduce free area significantly. Plainly speaking - I was generous as much as possible in my calculation, but as can be seen, even with this approach, the result is devastating. That´s not all, since the pellets are accumulated in this technical nonsense, I guess that only maybe some 50% (and I am very generous again) of all pellets are exposed to air and can evaporate in "normal" way, the rest is simply dumped inside and covered by other pellets, then also the humidity is problem as mentioned by chemists of course and I even didn´t pointed out that the bodies of victims are also obstacles preventing mobility of gas throuh the room especially if the alleged victims were immediately dead in the vicinity of the column as RM claims and thus blocked column and reduced even more free area.

But that´s not all folks. There were allegedly also two other nets with wire mesh which surrounded this movable column with pellets inside. Kula again:

“Among other things made in the locksmith’s workshop were the fake showers intended for the gas chambers, as well as the columns of wire netting for introducing the contents of cans of Zyklon into the gas chambers. This column had a height of 3 meters with a square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm. Such a column was constituted of three nets, one inside the other. The outside net was made of 3 mm iron wire stretched over angle irons measuring 50 mm x 10 mm. These angle irons were found all over the net and the upper and lower parts were linked by an angle iron of the same type. The mesh of the nets was square, measuring 45 mm. The second net was constructed in the same way and was inserted into the interior of the first at a distance of about 150 mm. The mesh of this net was square and measured about 25 mm. Both nets on angle irons were connected by an iron bar."

Mesh/hole - 25mm
Wire - 3mm
Side - 400 mm (As RM admitted)
Height - 3000 mm
Angle irons - as I understood it, 50mm is one side (100mm total, accepted by Pressac, 1989, p. 487) and 10mm is thickness. I will not take into consideration "there were all over the net" to be again very generous, and I will use only the four of them which were placed in every corner.

I will not waste time with the same calculation, everybody can check it self, I counted it quickly with some margin of error, and the wires/irons reduce total area of all four sides of this column with some next 18%, in the other words, the gas which was able to escape third column was again blocked in second net by next 18% covered area, the first net is also reduction, but only some 6% I guess.

This can be summarized in short, leaving aside all problems mentioned above and how I was generous, the gas can escape from third column using some 16% free area, then it can escape second net using some 82% area, then in first net using some 94% area and then finally can reach poor victims.
Thanks for these laborious calculations, whose accuracy I may check later. For now let’s assume that they are correct. Now all you have to tell us is what impact these hindrances would have on the time in which gas concentration required to kill the victims within, say, 15 to 20 minutes, built up inside the gas chamber. 15-20 minutes is more or less what becomes apparent from the testimonies of the witnesses quoted below.
Commandant Höss: "The process could be observed through the peep hole in the door. Those who were standing next to the air shaft were killed immediately. I can state that about one-third died immediately. The remainder staggered about and began to scream and struggle for air. The screaming, however, soon changed to gasping and in a few moments everyone lay still. After twenty minutes at the most, no movement could be detected. The time required for the gas to take effect varied according to weather conditions and depended on whether it was damp or dry, cold or warm. It also depended on the quality of the gas, which was never exactly the same, and on the composition of the transports, which might contain a high proportion of healthy Jews, or the old and sick, or children. The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to the distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the small children died quicker than those who were healthy or young."

Miklos Nyiszli: "(…)The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead... In order to be certain of their business the two gas-butchers waited another five minutes. Then they lighted cigarettes and drove off in their car. They had just killed 3,000 innocents.... Twenty minutes later the electric ventilators were set going in order to evacuate the gas."
Bob wrote:But RM? He claims that he is aware, really? I doubt it because where are these data in his flawed calculations, I guess he simpy lied and never realized it.
I guess one has to be a "Revisionist" loony to lie without realizing it. If the column structure was such a hindrance to gas concentration buildup speed inside the chamber as to make gassing impracticable or unnecessarily delay it, I would expect one of Bob’s chemists to have provided some calculations about the delay in gas concentration buildup resulting from this structure. If they didn’t, I would conclude that they didn’t consider the delay to be significant enough to make a fuss about.
Bob wrote:What is worse, his own main star, Henryk Tauber or also Josef Erber spoke about not mesh column, but about can operated by some wire or what, so this is even worse that nonsense from Kula, in this case only top part is used for evaporation and thus only the upper layer of pellets is exposed to air and for "efficient" evaporation, and gas can escape only through top open part, the rest is simply dumped inside and covered.
I wouldn’t expect Tauber and Erber to have had as accurate an idea of the device as the man who put it together, so Bob’s hollering is irrelevant. It’s amazing, on the other hand, how similarly the device was described by three witnesses who knew nothing about each other’s testimonies.
Bob wrote:I expect another falsification and alteration of this alleged device to somehow "solve" this big problem, enlarging of mesh, thinner wire and similar things, which will eradicate the last original pieces left from Kula´s testimony, and we can name it deposition of RM, deposition of Hans, testimony of Robert Jan Van Pelt and etc. I would like to note, that till this time, nobody claimed that deposition about third column is wrong, mistaken, different and etc. If I remembered it correctly, the only objection was about possible height.
Reasonable considerations aren’t falsifications just because Bob doesn’t like them, and unless Bob can demonstrate a significant delay in gas concentration buildup resulting from the column structure, not compensated by what advantages this structure may have had, there is no problem at all.
Bob wrote:
Same for humidity, etc. Humidity, if I understand Irmscher correctly, slows evaporation when it settles on the pellets. There wouldn’t have been much time for this to happen in the steaming-hot gas chambers if the baseline evaporation time was the one I assumed, or even if it was a little longer than that (say, half an hour).
Here RM again ignores humidity problem mentioned by chemists and what is worse, he based this quote on his wrong previous assumptions above.
Irmscher wrote the following:
Allerdings konnte bei dieser Versuchsanordnung nicht den Verhältnissen Rechnung getragen werden, die sich ergeben, wenn besonders hohe Raumfeuchtigkeit vorliegt und dadurch an der Verdunstungsfläche Wasseranreicherung bzw. Schneebildung durch die Verdampfungskälte auftritt, die die Verdunstungsgeschwindigkeit noch erheblich herabzumindern vermag.
THHP translation:
In any event the calculation of relationships could not be made using this procedure in cases in which the humidity in the room is high thereby depositing upon the evaporating surfaces water or snow (depending upon the temperature) which significantly diminish the rate of evaporation.
What part of the above am I supposed to have ignored?
Bob wrote:
If I remember correctly, I only referred to the patent quote in connection with the information about ambient temperature contained therein (20º C, IIRC) and never claimed that "nearly all gas" could evaporate within ten minutes at a temperature of 20º C. So what dishonest Bob is doing here is called setting up a straw man, pinning onto me an argument I never made in order to ridicule it. The information that Zyklon B used during WW2 had a slower evaporation rate, if accurate, only has some relevance if evaporation slowed in relation to the time mentioned by Peters on page 64 of his 1933 paper. Does this Lambrecht fellow (who I hope is not another of Rudolf’s alter egos) provide any evidence that the evaporation time of Zyklon B used in World War II was considerably lower than the evaporation time of Zyklon B used at the time of Peters’ article? If so, let’s see that evidence.
Here RM is claiming that he used it only because of temperature and he simply ignores that Rossler didn´t provide any source for patent or for temperature, no problem for me, because I already know that Zyklon B in earlier days was different, I only wanted to point out how RM ignores non-existing sources in his Rossler quote, but he wants to see them from his opponent.
Nonsense insofar as my conclusions about what Peters’ Zimmertemperatur means are based on this information and I therefore don’t need Rösler for the temperature, which makes the issue of his "non-existing sources" irrelevant. IIRC I requested the source to confirm the accusation against Rösler, by the way.
Bob wrote:Is good to notice again how RM used "if accurate" to make an impression that different characteristics of earlier Zyklon B products/carriers are maybe false and he of course at this case ignores even his flawed source, translator Rossler who mentioned original patent, because then one can only wonder how Rossler arrived to his "more than 90%/nearly all evaporation during 10min and 20C in original patent" if he didn´t base it on earlier Zyklon B product patent with faster evaporation. Because as we already know from Irmscher and the others, more than 90% during 10m/20C in 40´s is utter nonsense and using 15C temperature only some 19% evaporate in 10m, so according to RM again some magic and only 5C difference produced another 70+% percent?
What are you talking about, my friend? Irmscher’s paper doesn’t exclude the evaporation of most of the Zyklon B at a temperature of 20º Celsius. It shows that somewhere between 45 % and 50 % are gone after half an hour already at 15º Celsius. It’s hardly appropriate to project the progress of evaporation time between -18/19º Celsius and + 15º Celsius to the progress of evaporation times at temperatures above + 15 º Celsius. For it’s probable that evaporation accelerates more strongly the closer the temperature gets to the boiling point.
Bob wrote:Hardly, this must becuase of different Zyklon B product.
That must be so only because, if it was not a different Zyklon B product, Rudolf and Lambrecht have a problem. As they obviously realized.

I skip some of Bob’s fish-wife bitching to get to the part where he provides Lambrecht’s evidence that the Zyklon B used by Irmscher in 1942 was different from the Zyklon B used by Peters in 1933, which is what matters here
Bob wrote:Chemist Lambrecht also spoke about Peters in his article of course and used several works from him, manual including, he pointed out what i already said about his 1933 manual quote and different Zyklon B product:

Größere Abdampfzeiten als die 1933 von Peters genannten wurden offensichtlich in den Jahren danach erreicht, wahrscheinlich durch beständige Erhöhung des Gipsanteiles am Trägermaterial zur Erhöhung der Lagerstabilität (und – nebenbei bemerkt – auch zur Preissenkung des Trägermaterials), da das Hydratwasser des Gipses die Blausäure fester bindet als das Diagrieß-Produkt. Für das Erco-Produkt des Jahres 1942 gibt R. Irmscher für 15°C und niedrige Luftfeuchtigkeit eine Verdampfungsgraphik an, die in Grafik 1 wiedergegeben ist. Bei hohen Luftfeuchtigkeiten kann sich diese Verdunstung erheblich verzögern, da die verdunstende Blausäure der Umgebungsluft erhebliche Mengen Wärme entzieht und somit Luftfeuchtigkeit am Träger auskondensiert, die wiederum die Blausäure bindet.[12]

[12]R. Irmscher, »Nochmals: "Die Einsatzfähigkeit der Blausäure bei tiefen Temperaturen"«, Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung, 1942, 34. Jg., S. 36.


Part about patent and fast 10m evaporation, about different carrier materials and of course about Peters and his 1933 manual with delayed evaporation but still much faster than in 40´s and about not know carrier material from Peters:

Die Verdunstung des Giftgases HCN (Blausäure) vom Träger erfolgt je nach Trägermaterial recht unterschiedlich. Mitte der zwanziger Jahre bestand das Trägermaterial von Zyklon B fast komplett aus Kieselgur, das der Patentanmeldung zur Folge die Blausäure innerhalb von zehn Minuten fast ganz abgab.[10] G. Peters gab Anfang der dreißiger Jahre für eine Freisetzung des größten Teils der adsorbierten Blausäure eine halbe Stunde an, bei einer Verteilung des Präparates von 0,5 bis 1 cm Schichtdicke, [17] wobei nicht klar ist, aus welchem Material genau der Träger besteht.

[10]Patentschrift Nr. 438818 (D 41941 IV/451, 27.12.1926), dankenswerterweise von C. Mattogno zur Verfügung gestellt. Danach gab damals das Präparat innerhalb von 10 Minuten praktisch alle Blausäure ab.

[17]G. Peters, Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung, aaO. (Anm. 8), S. 64f. Dies wurde von G. Rudolf in R. Kammerer, A. Solms, Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell, London 1993, (erhältlich bei VHO, Postbus 46, B-2600 Berchem 1, Belgien) S. 59, irrtümlich falsch zitiert.
It’s interesting to see that this patent, according to which out-gassing occurred within 10 minutes, existed indeed (i.e. Rösler didn’t invent it). It’s also interesting that Lambrecht apparently shares mine and Rösler’s understanding of what "der größte Teil" means. What I don’t see is his evidence that Zyklon B used in 1942 had longer evaporation times than Zyklon B used in 1933. He assumes that this was so ("offensichtlich") and gives what he considers a probable ("wahrscheinlich") reason for this, assumed changes in the carrier material used. In other words, he is speculating in order to overcome the problem that Peters’ 1933 data present for Bob’s chemists.

Irmscher provided data for evaporation from cardboard disks and from erco cubes. Both carriers were already in use in the 1930s, as Peters wrote on page 61 of his paper:
Bewährt haben sich bis jetzt dreierlei poröse Materialien, nämlich gebrannte Kieselgur in körniger Form ("Diagrieß"), ein besonders voluminös hergestelltes Gipsprodukt in Würfelform ("Erco") und ein äußerst saugfähiges und chemisch einwandfreies Holzfasermaterial in Scheibenform.
My translation:
So far three types of porous materials have proven their merit, namely burned diatomaceous earth in granulated form ("Diagrieß"), an gypsum product in cube form manufactured in a particularly voluminous manner ("Erco") and an extremely absorbing and chemically flawless wood fiber material in disk form.
If, as Lambrecht claims, there were considerable differences in evaporation speed according to carrier material, one would have expected Peters to have pointed this out. If he did not, he must have considered that there was no significant carrier-dependent difference in evaporation speed. Irmscher made his 1942 experiments with wood disks and Erco cubes, stating that these were "the two most often used carrier materials in the implementation of prussic acid gassing". In other words, the granulated diatomaceous earth type of carrier (which according to the patent released all of the gas within 10 minutes at a certain temperature, presumably room temperature) had not yet disappeared from circulation in 1942.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:37 pm

Now, what carrier material was used at Auschwitz-Birkenau? In The Chemistry of Auschwitz, Dr. Green writes the following (emphasis added):
The agent of mass gassing at Auschwitz-Birkenau was Zyklon-B, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and a warning agent impregnated into a solid support. According to Kogon the solid support was diatomite and the appearance of Zyklon-B was of gray-blue pellets. 11 In the instructions for the use of Zyklon B, published by its manufacturer, Degesch, three possible solid supports are mentioned: "Wood fibre discs, a reddish brown granular mass (diagriess -- Dia gravel) or small blue cubes (Erco) are used as carriers."


Looks like they used the granulated diatomaceous earth carrier that Dr. Green calls "dia gravel". If they so did, this renders moot Lambrecht’s speculations about longer out-gassing times due to more gypsum in the carrier material, which only apply to the Erco cubes type of carrier.
Bob wrote:As also pointed out by Rudolf, Zyklon B product also depends on stabilizer required by German law.
So?
Bob wrote:Of course, whole bibliography used for article is much larger than one Peters´s quote used by RM. But I expect RM´s usual nonsensecial rhetoric or nonsenses about how the sources are invented or fakes, Lambrecht liar and so on, because otherwise I really wonder how he wants to dig up himself from this absurd critical situation when I again proved his major fatal flaws ruining his chemical fantasies which are based exclusively on one quote from Peters proven to be completely "mistaken" by RM.

Finally, RM proved that he didn´t read article as I already said, otherwise he would knows all of these facts.
Blah, blah, blah. What I’ve seen of Lambert in Bob’s quotes contains no evidence that the Zyklon B they used at Auschwitz-Birkenau released its gas more slowly than the Zyklon B mentioned in Peters’ 1933 article. And if, as Dr. Green’s above-quoted text suggests, the Zyklon B used at AB was the dia gravel carrier variant, Lambrecht even shot himself in the foot by claiming that this was the type with the lowest gas release speed.
Bob wrote:
"slower" Zyklon B was the standard issue in 1942/43 (I wonder what for) and did the job, there was no point in ordering custom-made (and thus much more expensive) "faster" Zyklon B.
In the other words, the Germans allegedly ignored that they can use Zyklon B with 12 times faster "outgassing" time for "complete" evaporation and they for some reason propably wanted to have homicidal gassings as long as possible and of course also complicated as possible. It is like to dig up hole with spoon instead of shovel, will the spoon do the job? Of course, but only idiot would use spoon and not shovel. Of course, no problem for RM as usual.
Only an idiot would order a "shovel" for a job he can do with the "spoons" he has on store anyway, actually. If the dia gravel carrier type was used at Auschwitz, they had the one that out-gassed fastest according to Lambrecht anyway. And the Erco and disc carriers were not that much slower if you consider how long it took for most of the gas to leave the carrier.
Bob wrote:Here RM also wonder about for what purpose is Zyklon B slower in 40´s, this again prove that he didn´t read article about history of Zyklon B from Lambrecht even when I provided it otherwise he would knows that this is because of safety for those who spreaded pellets, for lower price of carrier material or because of storage purposes.
Funny that Peters apparently considered all three carrier materials to be equally suitable as concerns safety and transportability, and that Irmscher’s article suggests an interest in a product that would outgas more quickly (which is why he demonstrated how quickly Zyklon B could develop even at lower outside temperatures). How does Lambrecht match these facts with his speculation – bereft of evidence, judging by Bob’s quotes – that the carrier material was deliberately modified so as to slow down evaporation?
Bob wrote:RM also argue with expensive material, in the other words, Germans wasted some 500 millions dollars for building Auschwitz complex, but had no money for faster Zyklon B to achieve extermination purpose of one of the biggest and most expensive part, Birkenau - alleged extermination camp. They propably ran out of money when they purchased and installed expensive modern short-wave delousing device (world’s first technological predecessor to the microwave ovens) for saving lives or they maybe ran out of money when they pruchased books to local library. In fact 1kg can of Zyklon B costed 5RM so one can only wonder for what price the faster Zyklon B would have to be to make some troubles to Germans who used it for alleged extermination. Only little comparison, for hot-air delousing unit used to save lives, they wasted 4,960.40 RM. According to Jakob Lewinski prisoners received up to 150RM scrip per week for their labor, so apparently no money left for faster Zyklon B, oh yes, good nonsense, and some argument about expensive Zyklon B is false as usual.
The argument is not that they had no money, but that they didn’t have a reason to spent extra money on a type of Zyklon B that was no longer on sale (and would thus have to be custom-manufactured and accordingly more expensive than the standard product) if the standard product met their requirements. The argument is theoretical, however, because all three carrier types of Zyklon B were still available in 1942, and evidence suggests that at AB they used the carrier type that (at least according to the original patent application and Mr. Lambrecht) provided for the fastest out-gassing.
Bob wrote:Why RM still make claims which can be so easily refuted?
Why does Bob refute claims he would like me to have made, instead of the claims I actually made?
Bob wrote:
Unlike my hollering friend I have no beliefs and neither need any, but I also saw no reason to question the accuracy of Rössler’s citation. However, I’ll be glad to change my mind about Rössler’s accuracy if Bob should provide me a link to the source mentioned by Rössler and I shouldn’t find therein the statement that Rössler attributes to Rudolf.
Here RM again proved that he accepts everything what suits him, so he has no problem with non existing quote from Rudolf and he apparently do not need to see some original or source for it, criteria for accepting has been met - it must suit my belief.
One wonders what part of my above-quoted statement – especially the second period – Bob failed to understand when repeating his self-projecting blather.
Bob wrote:RM also proved that he really didn´t bother to verify it and inform me if he found it or not, on the other hand - I did and searched, provided source Tübingen 1994 is known revisionist publication Dissecting the Holocaust but I had no luck to find anything about how "evaporation characteristic in patent for Zyklon B is exaggerated like in every patent" as Rossler claimed about Rudolf who apparently didn´t say this, so at this time, Rossler is also liar, good source for RM anyway.
As announced in the second sentence of my above-quoted statement, I’ll check the source provided when I have access to it, see if Rössler actually misquoted Rudolf as claimed. Meanwhile, I understand Bob’s hysterical tirade as an assertion that Rudolf does not claim the evaporation time stated in the patent to be exaggerated. Am I understanding correctly?
Bob wrote:
Actually it is based on looking at what Irmscher and Peters wrote plus some common sense, which is good enough.
Actually this is wrong since Irmscher don´t support this evaporation at all as shown here.
No, that’s where Peters and common sense came in. Comparing Irmscher’s data about evaporation time at 15º C with Peters’ statement about evaporation time at presumably 20º Celsius, extrapolation from there to 37º C or more, as explained above.
Bob wrote:Peters also adressed above.
Peters’ statement on page 64 of his 1933 paper is a problem that "Revisionists" haven’t solved yet, unless Mr. Lambrecht came up with something better than what Bob quoted to make his case for a slower out-gassing Erco-carrier product in 1942. And even that won’t help if they used the dia gravel carrier type at AB, as they apparently did according to Kogon et al (cited by Dr. Green).

[Skip some irrelevant blather.]
Bob wrote:
That was for reasons unrelated to my confidence in the accuracy of my calculations, as I have explained. And for all his bigmouthed hollering, Bob has come no closer to demonstrating that my calculations are unrealistic. In order to prove my calculations wrong, he would have to demonstrate not only that my understanding of Peters’ statement is mistaken, but that Peters himself was wrong when stating that at room temperature the greatest part of the HCN would evaporate within half an hour.
As shown, you are completely off with Peters and it will be fun to see how you are going to solve your critical position.
Actually my friend Bob is in a critical position here, for unless he can show me something better from Lambrecht than he has so far, Peters’ statement still stands in the way of his fantasies. And I haven’t even considered the possibility that the dia gravel carriers apparently used at AB released the gas as fast as claimed in the patent, which Rudolf considers realistic if I understood Bob’s rambling against Rössler correctly.
Bob wrote:
Bob obviously doesn’t know what "circular reasoning" means. He should look up the term.
In an effort to produce at least "something" he claims that i do not know what this means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... +reasoning" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/ ... cular.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RM simply considered his premise about how is developed 28% evaporation in 5 min. as valid and thus his "argument" conclusion about 100% evaporation in 15-20m is essentialy the same nonsense as his premise.
That would be a mistaken conclusion based on a mistaken assumption, but not circular reasoning. However, we’ll need some evidence for slower 1942 evaporation times from Mr. Lambrecht for my assumption to be mistaken, plus evidence that at AB they used those Erco carriers that (as Lambrecht speculates) out-gassed more slowly due to more gypsum in the carrier material, and not the dia gravel carriers that out-gassed within 10 minutes according to the patent application.
Bob wrote:
All this furious rant just to attack my having assumed a linear progression of HCN out-gassing from Zyklon B pellets at ambient temperatures corresponding to human body temperature? I must have really rattled poor Bobby’s cage.

To be sure, linear progression is a simplified model, but I’d say it’s as good as assuming that the out-gassing would proceed in exactly the same stages at 37º Celsius or more (well above the boiling point of HCN) as it did at 15º Celsius (well below the boiling point of HCN). The data about evaporation at 15º Celsius are interesting, however, in that they show that almost half the gas evaporates within half an hour, almost 80 % evaporates within an hour and a relatively small residue of 23 % takes another 1 ½ hours to evaporate (with half an hour for the last 3-4 % to go). The amount evaporated is 2.6 times higher after 15 minutes than after 5 minutes, 4.5 times higher after 30 minutes, 7.7 times higher after an hour. Applying this model to our body temperature scenario, we would have 28 % evaporated after 5 minutes, (2.6 x 28 =) 72.8 % evaporated after 15 minutes and 126 % evaporated within half an hour, meaning that the difference between 72.8 % and 100 % would be gone some time within the second quarter of an hour. I can live with that.
This guy is simple unbelieveable, here RM again ignores that evaporation from carrier simply don´t work like he wants as shown in previous comments using research of chemists, this is utter nonsense proved by Irmscher and accepted by chemists Green, Rudolf, Lambrecht, evaporation simply don´t work using his silly "model" - doubled time = doubled evaporation. RM still ignores it and act as if nothing has happened.
Apparently my hysterical friend didn’t notice that my above calculation consists in extrapolating total evaporation time from my calculated 28 % after 5 minutes on the basis of Irmscher’s data for 15º Celsius, and not based on my simplified model of linear progression.
Bob wrote:Another demonstration, using -18C temeprature and using RM´s "methodology" of doubled time/doubled evaporation, the pellets should be outgassed in less then 2 hours, but what Irmscher said about this?:

" 5 " (hours) 84.0% - the rest in next two hours (also thanks to snow and dampness) and RM simply ignores his fatal nonsense he used for evaporation rate calculation.

RM still uses not proven assumptions to support the latter, just ridiculous.
The progress of evaporation at -18ºC is not the same as at +15ºC, just like the progress of evaporation at +15ºC is not the same as at 20ºC or at 37ºC. So in the absence of experimental data about the evaporation progress at the higher temperature, a linear progression model is as good as any.
Bob wrote:
I have no problem at all with being an amateur in matters of chemistry, but that doesn’t keep me from using my common sense, which I have found to be often good enough to refute the "scientific" rubbish of erudite charlatans who hope that people will not dare cross them or take them at first value because of the superior technical knowledge they dishonestly use to further their ideological aims. As to Rudolf, it’s as true that he is a PhD chemist as it is true that he’s a charlatan, both propositions not being mutually exclusive. Shall we look at some examples of Rudolf’s demonstrated charlatanism, Bob?
Just speechless, these chemists with all these sources, studies, diplomas, research, tests and years of experiences are charlatans, only RM is plane. His ego is just eight wonder of the world.
I didn’t call Dr. Green a charlatan. As to Rudolf, he’s a charlatan of the worst sort – one that uses his "sources, studies, diplomas, research, tests and years of experiences" to take people for a ride in support of an ideological agenda.
Bob wrote:
Nowhere, and he didn’t claim otherwise. He reasonably assumed that der grösste Teil was what the context suggests and the average German reader would understand it as being – not just over 50 %, but almost all of it. And he reasonably assumed that Zimmertemperatur means about 20º C

BS. It becomes clear from Rössler’s text what is translation of Peters’ text and what is a) his reasonable understanding of what der grösste Teil means (Bob kindly provided further corroboration by pointing out that at 15º Celsius almost half the HCN is gone after half an hour, which allows for concluding that well over half must have gone after half an hour at 20º C) and b) his reasonable assumption that Zimmertemperatur means 20º C.
Nowhere, good.

The rest already adressed many times and above in this comment.
If by "adressed" you mean making a fuss without providing better arguments, that’s correct.
Bob wrote:
What has been pointed out above several times is that Bob’s chemists would be full of it with their claim that only 60 % of the HCN are gone at 30º Celsius even if Peters’ der grösste Teil had meant just over 50 % and not the overwhelming majority or almost all of the HCN.
Well, I am sorry to tell you, but at this time you are the one who is "full of it" :lol:
Not as long as Rudolf and Lambrecht haven’t solved their problem with Peters’ statement on page 64 of his 1933 paper. And from what you have shown me of Lambrecht so far, they haven’t.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:07 pm

Part 2 - Ventilation motors and capacity
Bob wrote:
There is no "time paradox". It just happens that Pressac’s mention of a 8,000 m³/h device with a 3.5 hp motor was made in connection with a map dated March 1942. The documents showing that the installed device indeed had a 3.5 hp motor (and thus a capacity of 8,000 m³/h, because for a device with a capacity of 4,800 m³/h a 2 hp motor would have been enough) are contemporary to the invoices that Mattogno and his admirers make so much of.
Here RM ignores own quote which I adressed, not Pressac´s, so again "time paradox" quote:

"The 4,800 m³/h device mentioned in the invoices (Feb and May 1943) had a 2 hp motor. However, according to a plan submitted by Topf in mid-march 1942, the power of the motor had been increased to 3.5 hp."

Can he finally explain how they increased capacity of devices listed in invoices dated 1943 already in plan from 1942? Because this is nonsense.
The point is that there was a plan in March 1942 providing for a ventilation device with a 3.5 hp motor and an extraction/ventilation capacity of 8,000 m³/h. Independently of whether and when it was implemented, this plan allows for linking this motor power to this extraction/ventilation capacity. So when in later documents about the ventilation in LK1 a 3.5 hp motor is mentioned, it stands to reason that this motor corresponds to a 8,000 m³/h device.
Bob wrote:Pressac was not so ridiculous as RM to say this nonsense, in fact, on page 36 of German edition of Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, he listed devices with "old" capacity, source for this Document from 4 November 1941 and on the page 46, he listed devices with his "new" capacity and with source Plan dated 10 March 1942. So no time paradox. But RM used invoices from 1943 and then plan from 1942. As proven, this is not about Pressac.
The point is that the "new" capacity devices listed by Pressac on the basis of the Plan dated 10 March 1942 are also mentioned in documents issued at about the same time as Bob’s invoices, documents pertaining to the finished or about-to-be-finished LK1 and therefore reliable evidence about the type of ventilation equipment installed in the LK1.
Bob wrote:
My argument is that there are three documents showing that the extraction/ventilation device installed in the gas chambers was not the 4,800 m³/h device with a 2 hp motor mentioned in the invoices, but the 8,000 m³/h with a 3.5 hp motor corresponding to the earlier Topf plan. These documents are the following:

1. A Bauleitung drawing on a scale 1:200, no. 2197 of 19 March 1943 prepared for the transfer of Crematorium II on 31 March 1943 (Moscow Central Archives,dossier 502-2-54), shown on pages 138/139 of my Portuguese translation of Pressac's Crematoria. The inscriptions near the symbols of the ventilation motors for the airing and extraction of Corpse Cellar 1 read "2.6 kW" - the equivalent of 3.5 hp.

2. A page of the inventory attached to the transfer deed of Crematorium III and containing the mention of two 2.6 kW = 3.5 hp motors.

3. Bischoff’s letter to Topf & Söhne dated 11 March, the pertinent parts of which translate as follows (emphases added):

So there can be no doubt that the ventilator installed in Corpse Cellar I of both crematoria had a 3.5 hp motor.

This, in turn, means that it was a device with a capacity of 8,000 m³/h and not one with a capacity of 4,800 m³/h, for there was never such a thing as a 4,800 m³/h device with a 3.5 hp motor. A 4,800 m³/h device needed no more than a 2 hp motor. Even for 6,000 m³/h a 2 hp motor would still have been more than sufficient, so the increase must have been somewhat beyond that to require a 75 % increase of motor power output, from 2 to 3.5 hp.

So invoices as "the most relevant and up to date" documents when it comes to determining what type of equipment was installed in the LK1 1, according to Bob. Never mind that there is a drawing prepared for the transfer of Crematorium II on 31 March 1943, which shows that the ventilators had 3.5 hp motors and not 2 hp motors as stated in the invoices. Never mind that an inventory attached to the transfer deed of Crematorium III also mentions 3.5 hp motors, and not 2 hp motors like the invoices. Never mind that Bischoff on 11 March 1943 raised hell because "one ventilator no. 450 with 3.5 hp motor is again missing, of all things the ventilator for the Corpse Cellar 1, which is the one needed the most urgently". Invoices always describe the delivered equipment correctly when this serves "Revisionist" arguments, even when there are many good reasons why equipment descriptions in invoices should be mistaken. But the dumb designers who made the transfer deed drawings couldn’t tell a 2 hp motor from a 3.5 hp motor, and bumbling Bischoff raised hell about a device with a 3.5 hp motor even though the device only had a 2 hp motor. In "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, what matters is not what evidence is most conclusive, but what evidence best serves "Revisionist" articles of faith.

Another lie, unless Bob is so benighted as to genuinely believe that invoices are stronger evidence of what type of equipment was installed in a building than transfer deed plans or inventories and angry letters to contractors demanding a specific type of equipment.
1. RM ignores Pressac´s quote from his 1989 book in which he reproduced this plan.

"Drawing 2197 provides a very fair inventory of Krematorium II, except for certain modifications made later. It lacks precision regarding the different ventilation systems of the building and their associated motors. Lastly, there is no mention of equipment specifically associated with gassing (gas-tight doors, dummy showers, and Zyklon-B introduction columns and chimneys). However, the inventory sheets are more eloquent on this subject, or more “indiscreet”, depending on the point of view, and specifically mention this equipment necessary for large-scale gassings. Despite their lack of “criminal traces” the three versions of this drawing, and in particular 2197(r), form the essential complement to the inventories. "


So it lacks precision about ventilation systems and motors. It lacks gas tight doors, dummy showers, columns, chimneys, but no problem for RM or Pressac, they simply ignores this fact when they wants to use plan as proof for their current problem. Despite Pressac´s quote about inventory list - no alleged dummy showers in inventory list of Krema II. No devices in inventory list of Krema III, he lied. Also, there is no mention of motor for L2 in this plan, but as Pressac wrote in his book, ventilation system for L2 in KII was installed from 14-28 March, for L2 of KIII was installed between 11-22 April. Does it means that the Nazis wasted money for nonsensical installation of ventilation system to both LK2 of Krematoria even when they knew for months that they do not need it and they didn´t bother to install motors as Pressac claims (repeated in Gutman/Berenbaum (ed) 1994. p. 233) because of missing motors in plan? Of course not, this only means that this plan does not reflect real and actual state of Krematoria as demonstrated several times with other plans and is really absurd to rely on this document when we actually have invoices for installed devices as proven by invoices for this fact.
So a Bauleitung drawing on a scale 1:200, no. 2197 of 19 March 1943, prepared for the transfer of Crematorium II on 31 March 1943, is supposed not to reflect the real and actual state of the Krematorium, just because of some coulda-should-woulda considerations by Mr. Bob?

Precise or not, the drawing stated that the LK1 was to have 2.6 kW = 3.5 hp motors for the Belüftung (ventilation) and the Entlüftung (air extraction). On this page of Pressac’s book, you see a "Recapitulatory table of motor powers" for the various rooms of Kremas II and III", based on available drawings and correspondence. If Bob is claiming that the values stated therein are incorrect, he should be able to provide plans showing the correct values. Or are we asked to believe that these plans never existed or got lost?
Bob wrote:2. Is interesting how he uses page of inventory from Krema III to prove something in Krema II, when I tried this previously, Hans, one of the RM´s companion complained about it, of course this is allowed only for "chosen" users, RM and Hans can, but I can´t.
Whether or not the LK of Krema II and Krema III were identical in every respect, is there any reason why their LK1 should have had different ventilation devices with different motors?
Bob wrote:Is also good to note how RM simply ignores that there are no wire devices mentioned in this attached page, but will he allow me to say that this prove something? Of course not, because at this case he would say some absurd excuse as usual, but as visible, we have two inventory pages attached to transfer deed of Krema III, but not even one of them contain alleged wire devices, allegedly important device for alleged homicidal gassings.
So Bob may argue that the LK 1 of Krema III didn’t have those wire mesh introduction devices he runs away from explaining, unless there is eyewitness evidence to the contrary. If there is eyewitness evidence to the contrary, a likelier explanation is that the Krema III inventory was not complete (the same almost happened in the Krema II inventory, where mention of the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung was added by hand).
Bob wrote:Is RM able to provide date of these entries to this attached page to show that reflect actual state?
Don’t know, but if the document was attached to the transfer deed, it was certainly meant to show the contents of the building on the date of transfer.
Bob wrote:3. Document from Bischoff, here is RM especially ridiculous because this Document is dated 11 February 1943 and not 11 March as he falsely claims propably to make an impression that this document is newer than invoice from 22 February, but invoices are dated 22 February 1943 and 27 May 1943, so RM again used older document to prove the latter with ignoring up to date invoices as I already pointed out and he even lied about the date. He simply ignored it and again repeated it, he is either ignorant or he don´t know calendar. What is worse, he already quoted this date correctly before and knew dates of invoices, so what we have here is simple lie, because he claimed false information despite better knowledge. Or I am to strict and he did only mistake? Who knows.
Simple mistake, my friend. Lying I leave to you. It doesn’t really matter that the letter is dated 11 February 1943 and not 11 March 1943. What matters is that, as I pointed out, this letter states that "a No. 450 blower with a 3.5 HP motor is still missing, and it is precisely this blower destined for the C-cellar I for which our need is the most urgent". A blower with a 3.5 HP motor is a blower with a capacity of 8,000 m³/hour, and Bischoff is literally yelling for it. Are we asked to believe that Topf & Söhne dared to not give him what he wanted?

[Skip irrelevant bitching.]
Bob wrote:
Witness dodging Bobby making a big fuss about what are minor issues at best and indulging in some fish-wife bitching while ignoring my key argument, which is that

a) at least three documents made around the time of the Kremas’ completion and handover show that the LK1 rooms of Krema II and Krema III had extraction/ventilation devices powered by 3.5 hp motors, and
b) extraction/ventilation devices powered by 3.5 hp motors can only have been devices with an extraction/ventilation capacity of 8,000 m³/h, never devices with a capacity of merely 4,800 m³/h.

Instead of boring our audience with more of your phony embittered ranting, please show me what "Revisionists" are supposed to have refused these arguments, exact quote or link and page number. I’m curious.
RM ignored exposed nonsense from him about how invoices maybe don´t belongs to Kremas but to some mysterious buildings, he refused to adress it.
Was that even my argument, or did I just quote someone else in passing? I provide several explanations for why the equipment description in the invoices differs from the equipment description in the plans and in Bischoff’s letter, none of which is that the invoices belong to buildings other than the Kremas.
Bob wrote:The rest adressed above and I again connected the same claims to one quote.
Addressed how?

With drawings showing that the power of the ventilation motors installed in the LK1 of Kremas II and III was not 3.5 hp as becomes apparent from the drawings I mentioned?

With an explanation why Bischoff made a fuss about getting a device with a 3.5 hp motor for the LK1 of Krema II when he only wanted a device with a 2 hp motor?

With evidence that Topf & Söhne did not comply with Bischoff’s furious demand?

That would be "addressed".

[Skip some more of Bob’s "RM is such a bad fellow" bitching.
Bob wrote:
I can’t tell what Pressac does as I don’t have the German edition of his book, but my approach is based on the three 1943 documents mentioned above, which show that the ventilation devices installed in the LK1 had 3.5 hp motors, which in turn means that they were not 4,800 m3/hour devices but 8,000 m3/hour devices.
Here, RM even didn´t bother to request some quote or note from book, he is propably feared that I am correct about Pressac,
No, it’s just irrelevant to my argument.
Bob wrote:so here it is for readers:
I hope there are any.
Bob wrote:Nachdem die Bauleitung von Auschwitz vom SS-RSHA grünes Licht für den Bau des Krematoriums III bekommen hatte, bestellte sie am 25. September bei der Topf offiziell fünf Dreimuffelöfen und drei Saugzüge (von denen jeder einen Rauchausstoß von 40 000 hatte) zu einem Preis von 53 702 RM, sowie die entsprechenden Lüftungen (gleiches Modell und gleiche Leistungsstärke wie beim Krematorium II) zu einem Preis von 7795 RM. [184]"

Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, p. 74

[184]ZAM, 502-1-327, Rechnungen der Topf vom 27. Mai 1943, Nr. 728 uber die funf Ofen des Kr. III und Nr. 729 über die Lüftungen.


What this means? That Pressac knew invoice, knew date, knew content, he even listed the same devices on the page 36 using different source, knew models, knew performance, used it as source for ventilation installation, but still claimed wrong capacity. At least to my knowledge, invoice for Krema II was unknown to him.

Capacity based on invoices is admitted even by Green, one of the source for Pelt or RM, albeit reluctantly:

"John Zimmerman has recently researched, 502-1-327, a Topf bill dated May 27, 1943, which may refer to crematorium II (however, the first page in his copy is missing so he cannot yet be sure); it may indicate that the 4800 cu m/hour figure is correct."

This is of course dishonest and false as i already pointed out earlier, Pressac and mainly Mattogno provided both of these documents some six years before Zimmerman allegedly "recently researched" one of them , he simply avoided to admit that "denier" demolished him about such a basic issue. This of course did not prevent Pelt from using 8000 capacity anyway when he used Green as srouce, propably his older article "Chemistry is not the science" which contains this flaw.
The "flaw" is not necessarily a flaw, and even if it were it would be irrelevant to Dr. Green’s argument as he made his ventilation performance calculations assuming a capacity of 4,800 m³ per hour.
Bob wrote:Only RM here still claims this nonsense about wrong capacity using outdated documents or planned capacity despite what his own source admitted some 11 years ago in connection with the invoices, such a silly approach can be done only on some internet forums by unknown peoples which are not historians or "authorities", so they are not responsible or critically examined publicly at all, and they can spread nonsenses to not educated peoples.
Instead of this silly patronizing, how about explaining why Bischoff emphatically insisted on "a No. 450 blower with a 3.5 HP motor", pointing out that "it is still missing, and it is precisely this blower destined for the C-cellar I for which our need is the most urgent"?

And why – despite the compliant reply of Topf & Söhne to this demand, and despite the fact that 3.5 hp motors are shown in documents pertaining to the handover of the buildings, one should assume that Bischoff didn’t get exactly what he demanded?
Bob wrote:
You forgot the context of your Pressac quote, my friend:

Did Pressac say anywhere that the capacity increase planned in March 1942 was meant to "compensate wrong disposition of ventilation system not originally anticipated for gas chamber"?

Again, did Pressac claim that the changes projected in March 1942 were meant "to compensate wrong deposition of ventilation ducts in L1"?
Here again RM dodged my comment and answered with question as usual.
How is my answer supposed to dodge your comment?
Bob wrote:
Whereas Bob conveniently ignores the documentary evidence whereby the LK1 received a 8,000 m3/hour device with a 3.5 hp motor, I don’t ignore the invoices. On the contrary, I provided a number of possible explanations for why their contents differ from what, according to more conclusive evidence, was actually installed in the LK1:
Oh yes, I see his explanations, for example his another invention about "invoices listing the better motors" but of course, such an invoices don´t exist, simply another absurdity to use as explanation something what don´t exist and nobody ever saw it, RM ´s method, but propably parroted from Pelt who uses this too as I already shown.
Is that lame bitching supposed to be an argument against these possible explanations?
Why, now, would the above-mentioned invoices then mention not these larger devices, but their smaller predecessors?

Several possible explanations come to mind, especially when one has done business as a public works contractor.

One is that Topf & Soehne couldn't overcome their difficulties with the manufacture of the specific motors requested and the ZBL eventually clenched their teeth and accepted what they could get.

Another is that the invoices referred to the equipment ordered pursuant to the original quotation of 04.11.1941, whereas "upgradings" ordered after - the only difference between the ventilation system circulating 8,000 m3/hour and the one circulating 4,800 m3/hour was the motor, 3.5 hp instead of 2 hp, as the turbine remained the same - were billed in separate invoices.

Yet another possibility is that the ZBL, angry as it was at the delays in equipment delivery, penalized the supplier by requiring him to charge only the price of lesser equipment for the better one he had eventually delivered, and that the company put the former equipment's description in the invoice in order to avoid further complications (like being accused of hiding taxable revenues due to the equipment being invoiced below its market price) or because engineer Pruefer wanted to avoid being @#%$-canned by his superiors.

Both invoices actually contain some features, which can be interpreted as pointing to either of the latter two possibilities. In both of these exactly identical invoices, for instance, the equipment for item "B.", which has the same designation as item "A." ("extraction device for the B-room") is described in much less detail than the latter. While invoice no. 171 refers to Topf's budget offer of 04.11.1941, mentioned by Pressac, invoice no. 729 of 27.5.43 refers to a budget offer of 04.12.42 - exactly one year after the other budget offer, a strange coincidence. This invoice also mentions "your letter of 12.10.42 regarding your order of 5.10.42", even though the budget offer is stated to have been made on 04.11.1942. An order before receipt of a budget offer?
You’ll have to do better, my friend.
Bob wrote:To crown it, he even accused me from ignoring documents.
As Bob had previously been babbling about his invoices alone, the accusation was spot-on. Even now the best he can do is baselessly claim that the Bauleitung drawing of 19.3.1943 doesn’t show the building’s actual state as concerns the power of the motors (there must have been another document between that date and the handover on 31.3.1943 that mysteriously got lost, or then nobody cared to sign transfer deeds with the wrong equipment descriptions), make a fuss about the other drawing showing 3.5 hp motors in LK1 being from Krema III, and ignoring Bischoff’s insistent demand for a 3.5 hp motor urgently needed for LK1 (the best he could come up with was making a fuss about my having misstated the date of the document, as if it mattered whether it had been dated 11 February or 11 March 1943).
Bob wrote:
Bob accused me of being "silent about wrong deposition of ventilation system". The "wrong disposition" was due to LK1 having originally meant to be a morgue, which I not only didn’t call in question but expressly stated in this discussion, meaning that the "silent about" thing is crap.


How many years I need to wait to finally see that RM is not silent about it and somehow solved this issue? Where he used this in his calculations or previous comments to prove no silency about this issue?
Here I’m at loss about what the poet is trying to tell me. Does anybody understand what he means?
Bob wrote:
On that page, Pressac discusses a hypothetical scenario based on an exaggerated assumption about gas chamber occupation (3,000 people) and explains how Bob’s heroes would have solved this hypothetical problem. So what was Bob’s point supposed to be?
Firstly, Pressac even cannot count, 3000 peoples in 210 square meters are not 13,3 per square meter but 14,28, RM didn´t bother to verify it. Secondly, RM ignores witnesses and even his favorite one, Henryk Tauber, this is one of the many information selectively omitted by him, because Tauber spoke even about 4000 gassed peoples in 210 square room, and range of witnesses is from some 1000 to 4000, with average 2000 peoples (adopted by Pressac - Gutman/Berenbaum (ed), 1994, p. 224), some 9,5 peoples on one quare meter, so this scenario is of course not hypotetical but real and RM is simply lying and he rely on naivity of readers.
Sorry, but what am I supposed to be "lying" about? I just summarized Pressac’s argument.
Bob wrote:Dead bodies would block openings along the floor and one can only wonder how they extracted air from this magic chamber. Here I expect usual nonsense like "they died in way that dead bodies did not blocked openings" as he already did previously in different topic, this would be of course laughable.
Depends on how many openings there were. If there were only a handful of openings throughout the room, there’s a good chance that the victims wouldn’t usually come to lie right in front of them.
Bob wrote:Did I pointed out that these openings were the way how to breath air so in fact the victims could use them for breathing?
Assuming that they thought of that in mindless death panic, and that air came out of the openings while the gassing was under way.
Bob wrote:RM is of course able to solve all these issues in his usual way and also tells me what is correct number of gassed victims per batch because he for sure knows it better than his witnesses or Pressac, I am really curious about his number which would pose no problems and no opening would be blocked to avoid ventilation calculations from being completely flawed again.
Take this:
Zyklon B at Auschwitz-Birkenau was used mainly for two purposes, delousing and murder. The eyewitness testimony to murder by poison is overwhelming. 22 Pressac reconstructs a gassing that took place March 13, 1943:

That same night, 1,492 women, children, and old people, selected from a convoy of 2,000 Jews from the Krakow ghetto, were killed in the new crematorium. Six kilos of Zyklon B were poured into the stacks that opened into the four grillework columns implanted between the pillars that supported the ceiling. Within five minutes, all the victims had succumbed. The aeration (8,000 cu m an hour) and deaeration system (same strength) were then started up and, after 15 to 20 minutes, the atmosphere, which had been practically renewed every three to four minutes, was sufficiently pure so that members of the Sonderkommando could enter the stiflingly hot gas chamber. During this first gassing [in the new Krema II gas chamber], the Sonderkommandos wore gas masks as a precaution. The bodies were untangled and dragged to the goods elevator. Hair was clipped, gold teeth pulled out, wedding rings and jewels removed. 23
Show me how these 1,492 victims blocked the ventilation openings.
Bob wrote:I expected if RM will be silent about another contradiction from Pressac when he tried to explain how they allegedly unblocked some openings to allow ventilation, and as i expected it, he is silent, because he didn´t want discredit own source. Pressac nad his opening quote:

"1. Open wide the doors giving basement access through the north yard and those of the undressing room, whose ventilation system working at full power would prevent the basement being contaminated:"

But as we already know, in his 1993 book, he informed us about not installed motors ("nicht installiert") of alleged undressing room of both Kremas, what is worse, he provided us with plan with missing motors already in his 1989 book as already pointed out, so did he knew it already in 1989? Anyway, what we have here is contradiction of his explanation mentioned above, and alleged "ventilation working at full power" could hardly work without motors as he claimed explicitly in 1993 and as he maybe knew from the same plan already in 1989. He contradicted himself, simple.
If so, bad for Pressac, but it doesn’t mean that the bodies necessarily blocked all openings and that, it that problem should have arisen, it couldn’t have been solved by Sonderkommando folks wearing gas masks clearing the ventilation openings. The rest of Pressac’s solution proposal:
Before putting on their gas masks, the SS would have then ordered two to four members of the Sonderkommando to put on masks, open the gas chamber door and drag bodies out into the vestibule until several of the air extraction orifices had been cleared. Then the gas-tight door would have been closed again, the ventilation restarted, and to improve its efficiency all that was required was to open the Zyklon-B introduction covers, but not until that moment. After verifying by means of a gas detector that there was no longer any danger of hydrocyanic acid intoxication outside the gas chamber, operations would have resumed their “normal” course.
2. Once the gas chamber had been emptied, a squad of fitters or bricklayers would have fixed at the end of the chamber, in the southeast corner a steel duct of about 20 cm diameter and 2 meters high or built a brick chimney of about the same dimensions connecting with or protecting one of the lower air extraction orifices and enabling it to take in warm contaminated air from above. The time taken for the “repair” would not have been longer than an afternoon. Such an incident would not have interrupted the “operation” of the Krematorium. As the documents we possess at present make no mention of such work we can assume for the moment that the case of the “3000” never occurred, the number of victims from a convoy always being less than this.
remains pertinent even if the undressing room ventilators were not working. All they had to do to prevent contamination of the building was to close the gas-tight doors after the gas-mask-wearing SK folks had entered. And they didn’t have to drag bodies blocking the ventilation openings into the vestibule to clear the blocked openings. Just drag them sufficiently far away from the openings for the same to work again.

Why was the air extraction of LK2 not equipped with a motor, by the way? Wasn’t it supposed to be a morgue, in "Revisionist" scripture?
Bob wrote:Oh yes, these peoples are the ones who informed us about "the most proven fact", just ridiculous, no wonder that this "fact" needs laws for protection.
The evidence is still what it is, even if Pressac made some mistakes in using it. And "Revisionist" attempts to explain away the evidence are still pathetic, far more than Pressac’s mistakes they make a fuss about.
Bob wrote:
Actually what Pressac wrote was not that the SS didn’t know what room would be used as a gas chamber. His assumption is that they originally intended to use both rooms as gas chambers, until they realized that this would produce too many corpses for the crematoria to handle within the required time.
Here RM simply ignored my comment, as usual.
Which of them?
Bob wrote:Here is more information about this nonsense, Pressac in Gutman/Berenbaum 1994, p. 225:

"It was decided to transform morgue 1 of crematorium II into a gas chamber.[...]For crematoria II and III, the choice of Leichenkeller 1 (ventilated) as a gas chamber was obvious. The SS also planned to use the two remaining morgues as gas chambers, wrongly imaging that the high yield anticipated for the five triple-muffle furnaces would allow a staggered operation."

Is obvious that this is propably almost the same article included in this book from 1994 as Pressac wrote in 1993, but he enhanced his story ad absurdum with adding one more moruge as future gas chamber.

So the SS wanted to use all three morgues as a gas chambers no matter that L3 was intended and planned not only as classic morgue, but as reception for dead bodies where the bodies would be recorded and not stored as Pressac informed us in 1989 and of course with corresponding air extraction matching this function. But the SS somehow planned to use it as a gas chamber too! That´s not all, total area of these "future" gas chambers was some 670 m² as Pressac informed us (before alteration of L3), using accepted figure of 10 people per m² from Pressac, we can arrive to 6700 peoples gassed at once in three gas chambers, which means that the Nazis thought that some 446 peoples can be gassed and then processed in every of the 15 muffles every day, some 18 peoples eradicated every hour and 3,3 peoples every minute and 1 human eradicated every 18 seconds using 24h continuous operation of every muffle and they allegedly even thought that this could be achieved continuously! This is still not all, for these victims, they had one simple ridiculous elevator even proven (thanks to documentary evidence) to worked poorly, used to accomplish this herculean task to transport some 402,000 Kg or 402 tons of human bodies (60Kg per body as assumed by Pelt, Case for Auschwitz, p. 472), according to Pelt (who failed to produce any evidence and no document exist about later actually increased performance of 300Kg elevator), elevator was later allegedly enhanced and could handle 25 bodies whose transportation would take let say. some ten minutes. So 1,6 body for every muffle, and these 25 bodies would burn only some 7,5 minutes - plainly speaking, the Germans allegedly assumed that human bodies will simply burn faster than they were able to supply to ovens leaving aside alleged teeth/hair and etc. removal procedure before cremation!

This is debunking of alleged intention of Germans to use two or even three morgues as a gas chambers with using no sources or evidence from RM or Pressac, do really someone believes that this nonsense from Pressac or RM is true and the German engineers and especially the engineers from Topf und Sohne would ever think about such an utter nonsense? Even without L3, whole area is still some 600 m² and whole story still absurd nonsense.
Who said that they planned to use all the gas chambers simultaneously? The idea, according to Pressac, was to use them alternately, presumably depending on the strength of transports. If LK1 had an area of 210 m² and LK2 an area of (600-210 = 390 m²), the maximum number gassed at one would have been 3,900 people, not 6,700. 260 per muffle and not 446. Second, who said that they expected to dispose of these bodies within 24 hours? Even the memorandum of 28 June 1943 speaks of "only" 1,440 bodies in Kremas II and III per day, i.e. 60 per hour or 4 per muffle per hour, so disposing of 3,900 bodies within 24 hours can never have been their expectation. They may have expected to handle up to 3,900 bodies within 2 or 3 days, and then realized that cremation capacity fell short of these expectations. Or then the explanation for their having installed air extraction (but not aeration, IIRC) in the LK2 is simply related to its originally intended use as a morgue.
Bob wrote:What we have here is simply another invented nonsense violating laws of nature, thermodynamic, common sense, logic and basic intelligence. The engineers of course knew what is possible to achieve with ovens/muffles especially when they used them previously.
Had they used the ovens of Kremas II and III previously on a continuous basis with multiple charges and extraction of remains before they had completely turned to ashes? I didn’t know that.
Bob wrote: No wonder that Pressac didn´t provide even single piece of source for this nonsense story in his both books and RM as well. I Hope that RM is not going to claim some nonsense like that that they transported bodies using stairs, chimneys or through every possible hole using some commando of supermans. Or is RM going to say that they assumed that this mass of bodies would lay in basement for weeks when they wanted allegedly use two/three chambers? I hope not, just no more rubbish please.
Rubbish I leave to my opponent. Plausible explanations have been provided, see above.
Bob wrote:
I guess this is supposed to mean that Pressac changed a certain argument of his after realizing that there was evidence contradicting that argument, which is what one would expect an honest researcher to do. On what page of what book can I find this claim of Pressac’s that conversion of the LK1 to a gas chamber started in June 1942, by the way?
Here RM and his another invention, Pressac of course never stated that his earlier claim about criminal change is wrong, really ridiculous, of ocurse if RM don´t have some secret Pressac´s statement where he corrected himself and abandoned this criminal trace.
Rubbish. If Pressac dated the beginning of conversion of the morgues to gas chambers to November 1942 in his later book, he was implicitly abandoning assumptions implying an earlier start of such preparation, whether or not he expressly stated this.
Bob wrote:Known "criminal trace" from 18 June 1942 as shown in 1989 p. 286. Another listed alleged "criminal trace" no 11. is from 14 May 1942, reducing of L3 and later eliminated, but it looks like he consider only elimination as criminal trace and is dated to December.
Thanks for the info.
Bob wrote:By the way, can RM firstly read basic publications before joining debate? Thanks.
I read Pressac’s book about the crematoria a long time ago, also parts of Technique and the Van Pelt report. Anything else you can recommend, "Revisionist" propaganda aside?
Bob wrote:
Lousy logic. Improving a room’s ventilation capacity doesn’t necessarily imply an intended homicidal use of that room, but an intended homicidal use of a room may be an explanation of why that room’s ventilation capacity was increased if the room was otherwise suited for the purpose, as was the case with the LK.
In the other words, increased capacity does not imply homicidal use (what a statement!), but homicidal use may be explanation for increased capacity. I agree, just lousy logic and even contradicting.
Not at all, actually. The operative term is "necessarily". Increased ventilation capacity may but need not imply homicidal use.
Bob wrote:RM again ignored Pressac who said that gas testers were requested to allegedly verify increased ventilation capacity. Finally RM omitted to somehow explain it.
In response to what argument of yours should I have addressed and explained the gas testers mentioned by Pressac? I’m beginning to get the impression that your "ignored this, omitted that" rubbish is just rhetoric meant to mislead our readers.
Bob wrote:
Contracts had already been signed, design had already been done and construction was already under way or had even been completed, changing things would have meant breaching contracts and becoming liable towards the contractors. I don’t know how it is in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, but in the real world one cannot just cancel a contract after realizing that one doesn’t need the ordered products or works anymore.
Another RM´s nonsense as usual. The mighty SS just "feared" to change or cancel contract, oh my god, of course nonsense, documents prove that they had no problem to simply change projects or even abandon them completely, here is RM especially ridiculous.
I’m not talking about design changes or abandoning certain design variants, as my straw-man toting friend well knows. I’m talking about termination for employer’s convenience of a contract already signed with a contractor, according to which the contractor has already done the design, procurement and manufacture of equipment to be installed. Under any law I know such termination will oblige the employer to indemnify the contractor. Termination for employer’s convenience may also damage the relationship between employer and contractor, causing contractor to lose interest in business with employer. Where a contractor is as necessary as Topf & Söhne were to the SS at Auschwitz, one shouldn’t risk losing it as a business partner.
Bob wrote:Just imagine how the Himmler, Third Reich and the SS are robbed of money during extermination preparation only because SS has no guts to simply cancel or change project, just absurd.
Bob is either very stupid or knows very well that this is not what I’m talking about.
Bob wrote:His nonsense if of course refuted even by his own source Pressac "Yet, to save money, it was decided that in good weather the victims could undress outdoors (as they did in the summer of 1944)." (as usual, no source for these claims), so they saved money with this alleged procedure but on the other hand according to RM, they wasted thousands because they didn´t want to cancel or change contract, simply nonsense.
One doesn’t save money by canceling a contract for convenience, on the contrary. And the contract for those ventilation devices couldn’t be changed unless those devices were needed at some other place.
Bob wrote:Finally RM proved how wrong he is again, even according to him, decisions about what will become gas chamber was made at the end of 1942 as he used Pressac, or at the latest in January 1943 as explicitly stated by RM in previous comments, but as proven even by Pressac, ventilation work and installation of ventilation system is dated after January 1943, RM again refuted using simply orthodox sources again.
How exactly would the start of work on ventilation system in January 1943 contradict the notion that a decision to use morgues as gas chambers was taken in November 1942? The ventilation system had been designed in a certain way, and there may have been too little time to change the design, so the Bauleitung decided to proceed with the approved design for the morgues even though it was not the most suitable for a gas chamber.
Bob wrote:Invoices crowns this silly attempt from RM and moved it to memory hole.
Invoices don’t change the fact that Bischoff emphatically insisted in a device with a 3.5 hp motor on 11 February 1942 and that all drawings showing the LK1 in their state at transfer date (i.e. the "as built" drawings) show 3.5 hp motors.
Bob wrote:RM contradicted himself when he made an impression with claimng that faster Zyklon B would be expensive for using instead of cheaper slower Zyklon B and that this could some reason for not to use it, but in this case the SS allegedly didn´t want to change or cancel contract so they just wasted money for something what they didn´t need and they didn´t care about wasted money, his contradictions are neverending.
BS. My argument (which as we have seen above is theoretical if they used the faster out-gassing dia gravel carrier types, which Irmscher’s paper shows to have still been on the market at that time even though the other carrier types were more commonly used) was that there was no point in spending additional money on a more expensive custom-made product (assuming that the faster out-gassing Zyklon B was no longer being manufactured) when the standard product served the requirements.

And while one may be able to just cancel a contract for convenience without indemnifying the contractor in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, that was never so in the real world. Not even in Nazi Germany.
Bob wrote:That´s not all, according to Pressac, they installed ventilation systems of L2 in both krematoria, but they didn´t install motors as already shown, so they simply wasted thousands of RM for something what they didn´t need even when they knew for some 4 months that they don´t need it.
Wrong. They accepted products they had ordered when they thought they needed them so as to avoid indemnifying and alienating the contractor, but decided to leave the motors uninstalled to save work and/or expense, perhaps reckoning that the motors might some day be needed for some other application.
Bob wrote:As shown, Pressac is wrong about not installed motors.
Oh, so they did install the motors, after all? Great, this means that Pressac’s conjectures about the measures that might have been adopted in case the ventilation openings were blocked are wholly sound and Bob made a big fuss about nothing.
Bob wrote:
What’s the poet trying to tell us here? As I said before, improving a room’s ventilation capacity doesn’t necessarily imply an intended homicidal use of that room, but an intended homicidal use of a room may be an explanation of why that room’s ventilation capacity was increased if the room was otherwise suited for the purpose, as was the case with the LK. If increased capacity for the LK2 had been ordered before the SS realized it wasn’t needed, tough luck. Pacta sunt servanda. And as concerns the LK1, there are documents proving that the devices mentioned in the invoices are not those that were actually installed, as we have seen.
Here RM again completely dodged to adress my comment when I wanted to see his explanation why the Germans planned and used better or the similar ventilation capacity in other rooms where no gassing happened according to narrative as I said in my comment, not only in L2.
The explanation is implicit in my above comments, smart-ass: because they wanted better ventilation in those rooms for whatever purpose.
Bob wrote: What is more absurd, he again repeated his previous claim about increased capacity so he completely ignored that no matter if the capacity was increased or not, the ventilation in these rooms was still similar or even better than in alleged gas chamber as proved by invoices where (as RM already know) - are ventilators with lower capacity.
Yep, the LK2 had a higher extraction capacity than the LK1 (though no ventilation, IIRC). That must have been because bigger rooms needed a larger extraction capacity and thus a larger extraction capacity was considered, either when planning these rooms as morgues or later when it was considered to turn them into gas chambers. And if those LK2 had really become morgues as originally intended, the extraction device would have served a purpose. It only became unnecessary because the room was eventually used as an undressing room, meaning that the SS had wasted money on extractors for a facility that didn’t need them because it was not put to its originally intended use, like so many employers in the world waste money due to similar design changes, making contractors happy. Why are the SS supposed to have had an undressing room larger (moreover one larger than the supposed morgue) next to the supposed morgue, by the way?
Bob wrote:
Invoices always describe the delivered equipment correctly when this serves "Revisionist" arguments, even when there are many good reasons why equipment descriptions in invoices should be mistaken.
Then RM is trying to make an impression that revisionists usually claims about documents that are wrong or something similar and that these invoices are some exceptions where revisionists claims that are correct, this is of course classic exmaple of false dishonest strategy, this is not true, in fact RM and the others are the one who systematically distort documents with their claims about alleged code words, using non-existing allegedly lost or destroyed documents, ignoring later documents and using the earlier one to support the latter despite the newer documents and other absurd nonsenses.
A crie de cœur that is as amusing as it is self-projecting. If one wants to know what equipments were installed in a building one looks at the "as built" drawings and not at the invoices, especially if there’s a document showing that the employer wanted and insisted in specifically the kind of equipment that is shown in the "as built" drawings, and not in the kind of equipment that is later mentioned in the invoices.
Bob wrote: Finally, RM did for what I waited whole the time, according to him - invoices are propably mistaken! And problem solved! What a desperated statement. Invoices from firm which delivered and installed the ventilation system prove what they used, and RM must simply deal with it and his desperate attempts to prove capacity with using older documents cannot change it, already adressed above.
However often and furiously Bob stomps his feet, there are good reasons why the equipment described in the invoices was not the equipment delivered, and the "older" documents happen to be "as built" documents supposed to show the building as it was or would be upon handover, besides a letter so emphatically insisting on a specific type of equipment that it beggars belief to assume that the contractor would have dared to deliver anything other than what Bischoff was literally yelling for.
Bob wrote:Here I can demonstrate clear dishonest approach and double standard of these peoples, leaving aside that not even one single document prove extermination, I can use documents from period when the Germans planned to evacuate and to move Jews to Madagascar, this plan is known and accepted by historians, so if RM don´t use double standard, according to him the jungles of Madagascar should be full Jews. Do somebody expect that he will accept this use of older documents? Hardly. This guy is just unbelieveable and his "time travelling" ridiculous.
Here we have as piss-poor an attempt at analogy as I have ever seen. We are not talking about preliminary design documents here, not even about performance design documents. We are talking about documents pertaining to the buildings’ handover documentation, drawings showing how the building looked like and what it had when handed over to the employer. And these drawings happen to show the very type of motors that the employer emphatically and specifically demanded in his letter of 11 February 1943, to which the contractor gave a compliant reply. So there can be no room for doubt that these were the equipments installed, even if for some reason other equipments are described in invoices.
Bob wrote:
Post number and link?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 17#p276217" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I expect usual "quote it because I do not see it"
No, I’ll look it up at my leisure.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:20 pm

Part 3 - Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung (and some more on parts 1 and 2)
Bob wrote:
What comments exactly?

You see, my dear friend, you have two options here.

a) Claim that the term "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" was introduced into the inventory by a forger. Thereby you saddle yourself with the burden of proving such forgery, which should be rather difficult if one considers that the forger never made use of the document but left it buried in the Bauleitung archives in case Mr. Pressac discovered it decades later. You will also admit that you consider the term "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" to be incriminating.

b) Claim that the term "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" was introduced into the inventory by the inventory’s purported author (some guy from the Bauleitung) and that the inventory is an authentic document never manipulated, but the "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" was an innocuous device that had no sinister application. In that case, you’ll have to show that there were objects, other than the wire mesh columns in the underground gas chambers, that could appropriately be called a "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" and were used for whatever purpose in a Leichenkeller.

c) Continue beating about the bush and dodging questions (e.g. by the usual reference to "comments" I’m supposed to have ignored) as becomes the cowardly charlatan you have amply shown yourself to be.

So which is it going to be, Bob?

a), b) or c)
Here RM answered my question with question as usual, he does it all the time and instead of answer he simply produced another batch of claims. He also speaks about some burden of proof, he simply ignores that he is the one who must provide by who and when this entry had been added when asked because I did not say anything about forgery, he is using it as evidence, he should knows that date and I asked him , simple.
Bob is making completely irrelevant demands here. For it doesn’t matter a damn thing who exactly introduced the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung into the inventory (some guy from the Bauleitung in charge of making the inventory it must have been) or when exactly the term was inserted (it must have been on 31 March 1943 at the latest). And it’s obvious why he’s doing that: he has no alternative explanation for this device, whose designation matches only the wire mesh columns described by witnesses as having been used to introduce Zyklon B in the underground gas chambers, and wants to avoid admitting that and thus also admitting that the inventory (which he considers authentic) corroborates those eyewitness descriptions.
Bob wrote:Finally, despite my all effort in this thread in latest weeks, RM is still not able to spell Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung correctly when even Nessie finally realized it. Did RM ever saw document he is using as an evidence? No surprise he do not know date when he is not even able to reproduce it correctly. Everybody do mistakes, me too and RM even didn´t find them so far as I see, but he do this flaw from the beginning no matter how many times I corrected him in discreet way. This can be hardly coincidence.
Actually it’s hard to see from the handwriting in the inventory whether it reads Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung or Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrrichtung. It’s also irrelevant, as there’s no difference in meaning between one and the other term. But it’s interesting to what levels of silliness Bob allows his cowardice and dishonesty to drag him: he refuses to answer my questions on grounds of, among other irrelevant pretexts, and alleged (and completely irrelevant) misspelling of the term! OK, then let’s repeat the question with the spelling Bob considers correct:

You see, my dear friend, you have two options here.

a) Claim that the term "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung" was introduced into the inventory by a forger. Thereby you saddle yourself with the burden of proving such forgery, which should be rather difficult if one considers that the forger never made use of the document but left it buried in the Bauleitung archives in case Mr. Pressac discovered it decades later. You will also admit that you consider the term "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" to be incriminating.

b) Claim that the term "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung" was introduced into the inventory by the inventory’s purported author (some guy from the Bauleitung, presumably on or before 31 March 1943) and that the inventory is an authentic document never manipulated, but the "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung" was an innocuous device that had no sinister application. In that case, you’ll have to show that there were objects, other than the wire mesh columns in the underground gas chambers, that could appropriately be called a "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" and were used for whatever purpose in a Leichenkeller.

c) Continue beating about the bush and dodging questions (e.g. by the usual reference to "comments" I’m supposed to have ignored) as becomes the cowardly charlatan you have amply shown yourself to be.

So which is it going to be, Bob?

a), b) or c)
Bob wrote:
A lie, unless we are to assume that Bob honestly considers his pathetic arguments to be refutation
In the other words, chemists are pathetic,
If their names are Rudolf or Lambrecht, certainly so.
Bob wrote: up to date documents are pathetic,
Invoices at odds with "as built" handover documents and the employer’s emphatic demand for the equipment mentioned in such documents certainly are.
Bob wrote: only RM is plane.
No, Dr. Green and his sources are also OK.
Bob wrote: In fact, these arguments are not completely mine of course, but from real experts mentioned above and simply no matter how many times he will accuse Irmscher, Lambrecht, Rudolf, Peters or even Green (who used Irmscher) he will be the one who is making fool from himself.
Nothing against Irmscher and Peters, and Dr. Green didn’t use Irmscher’s study to ridiculously claim that only 60 % of HCN would outgas at a temperature well above the boiling point. Only charlatans Lambrecht and Rudolf did that.
Bob wrote:
Definitely a lie, for I explained in detail how I arrived at what he calls my "chemical fantasies", i.e. what evidence, calculations and other considerations they are based on. And that is all I have to do. It’s not for me to demonstrate that my evidence, calculations and other considerations are accurate and pertinent, it is for who challenges them to demonstrate that they are wrong.
Here RM again ignored my refutation and still repeats that I did not showed how wrong he is, repetitive as usual. Hi alleged "detailed" explanation is only illusion as shown above.
"Refutation" has not been ignored but refuted, and Bob better show me some evidence produced by Mr. Lambrecht whereby the Zyklon B used at the time of Peters’ 1933 article out-gassed more quickly than the Zyklon B used by Irmscher in his 1942 experiments due to there being more gypsum in the Erco carriers. Plus evidence that at AB they used Zyklon B from Erco cubes and not from dia gravel. Then he can claim to have refuted my explanation.
Bob wrote:Again, one of the many absurd claims from RM, so listen readers - when you make some claim, in not up to you to demonstrate that is valid, oh no, the others must demonstrate that is wrong. Silly? Ridiculous? Absurd? Of course, but not for RM. With this approach you can just say anything you want, no matter how absurd or unfounded your claim is, the others must prove that is wrong, till this time, RM simply consider it as valid until proven wrong! This guy cannot be serious. Is of course worth of note that this guy wants from me still some demonstrations about my claims no matter how evident are even without demonstration, but this rule is completely omitted in connection with him!
More dishonest blah, blah, blah. As Bob well knows, I didn’t just make a claim but provided a substantiated and evidence-backed calculation, explaining every step of the way what evidence I considered and what reasoning led me to arrive at my results. So it’s Bob’s job now to demonstrate that the evidence I used is mistaken or that I misunderstood or misapplied it, that my calculations are incorrect or that my reasoning is unsound. Bob knows that, for he has bent over backwards trying to prove wrong my calculations and considerations. And he still hasn’t succeeded.
Bob wrote:
Actually my usual reply when being referred to "Revisionist" scripture is that I’ll look it up when I have time, IIRC. But I may have provided other replies in a given context (quote with link, please). And Mattogno, Rudolf and other "Revisionists" demonstrably produce a lot of garbage. The former is one of my favorite targets, actually.
So this is much better excuse according to RM, ridiculous. Allegedly lots of garbage from revisionists, hm, what we have here is ismply attempt to accuse them from something what is connected with RM, he simply throws some accusation to cover own flaws.
When you’re through with your confused babbling, read the Mattogno threads on HC. If this guy is the best "Revisionism" has got, what can one say about the rest?
Bob wrote:Here RM also wants direct quote with link, he simply ignored again that i already quoted him in my comment which he adressed, so gain extra for RM his quoted citation :

"I have better things to read than Mattogno's/Rudolf´s {!#%@}."

The only thing not genuine in this quote is "Rudolf", I added it because of RM´s later comments/ad homines about Rudolf´s, so if RM is offended and don´t agree that I added Rudolf´s name to this quote, I will greatly apologize, but I really doubt that he will be offended. :lol:

Here another one when I provided source, simply no interest all from him, he reads only suitable articles:

"Thanks, I prefer reading the guy who showed by Rudolf as a charlatan, for instance here."
Thanks for letting our readers see once more what I think of Mr. Rudolf. It’s also what I think of Mr. … what was you name again?
Bob wrote:
Not that I have a particular talent for making "Revisionist" true believers freak out, it’s just that these folks boil even at low temperatures. Like Zyklon B.
His ego is still raising and he believes that he "boiled" someone. I skipped most of his accusations from lying, he simply didn´t bother to present evidence. RM actually proved with his insults and ad hominems that he is the one who is "boiling" almost from the beginning to somehow fill up his comments when they lacks arguments.
The fact alone that Bobby felt compelled to reply to this remark belies his claim that he’s cool as a cucumber and shows that I got him right where I wanted him. And it’s funny how he mumbles that I didn’t present any evidence in support of my remarks that he lied (must have been because I considered it obvious and clear for all to see, unless he’s lying again) and mendaciously accuses me of using "insults and ad hominems" for lack of arguments (which I never do, though sometimes my arguments are accompanied with expressions of whole-hearted contempt for my opponent) right thereafter.
Bob wrote:
Any idea, by the way, why (according to Bischoff’s letter to Topf & Söhne of 11 March 1943) the "ventilator no. 450 with 3.5 hp motor" for "the Corpse Cellar 1" was the one "needed the most urgently"?
Here RM again repeated false date adressed above, again - letter is not from 11 March 1943, but from 11 February 1943, this trick was very very naive. Is this really coincidence? Is this again only mistake? I doubt it.
No trick at all, actually. Just a plain mistake. It doesn’t matter whether the date is 11 February or 11 March 1943, what matters is Bischoff’s emphatic insistence in a ventilation device with a 3.5 hp motor.
Bob wrote:Regarding the urgency, RM simply stopped using "common sense" or in better words - he actually never began to use it, otherwise the explanation is really simple, they needed it urgently because they wanted to use hygenic facilites/krematoria as soon as possible especially when the whole project was already delayed and they wanted to use it for purposes for which they actually planned them and built them and "wasted" so much money and effort to complete it.
Interesting explanation, except that the other item mentioned in Bischoff’s letter (the motor for the air extractor in LK 2) doesn't seem to have been urgent. How come the "ventilator no. 450 with 3.5 hp motor" for "the Corpse Cellar 1" was "needed the most urgently" but the extractor motor for LK 2 was not?
Bob wrote:
Stop lying, Bob. Everyone of your "points" is duly addressed, while I'm not sure if I can say the same of you regarding my points. You may not like my arguments because they don't fit your bubble, but that doesn't mean I didn't respond or react to your "points".
The terrible true is, that I actually like your "arguments", because you made yourself completely fool looking publicly on this forum with your claims especially about chemistry, your only luck is that this forum has only a few visitors, if you actually bother about your public activity of course.
I’ll let our few visitors decide who made a fool of himself here. Bobby may feel in need of reassuring himself with victory dances, I don’t.
Bob wrote:What is more absurd, this wasn´t needed at all.
What, this discussion? Quite the contrary, it may even have been a pleasant re-encounter with an old acquaintance. You don’t happen to be the fellow who used to post as “jetblast” on the RODOH forum, Bob? I’m asking because he was also pointing the finger at his opponent with mendacious "completely ignored", "omitted" "dodged" etc. rhetoric all the time. Or is that standard practice among "Revisionist" blabbermouths?

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:34 pm

Part 4 - Holes in "Revisionist" logic
Bob wrote:
If the introduction holes in Krema II and Krema I could not be positively identified, this wouldn't mean they didn't exist. Evidence to the contrary would make such conclusion rather nonsensical.
Here RM with his semantic strategy, this is not true, the introduction holes simply don´t exist and not that cannot be identified positively, this makes impression, that are there, but they are not there, especially hole 3.


So Bob would like to believe, but I still have to see him disprove physical and photographic evidence to the contrary.
Bob wrote:
If you could prove that there were never any introduction holes in Krema II and Krema I, this would mean a major inaccuracy in testimonies describing introduction of Zyklon B through such holes. The evidence to homicidal gassing in those facilities (if not by introducing the Zyklon B through introduction holes in the roof) would still be conclusive.
I will repeat it again:

Roberto Muehlenkamp April 4, 2012

If you could prove that there were never any introduction holes in Krema II and Krema I, this would mean a major inaccuracy in testimonies describing introduction of Zyklon B through such holes. The evidence to homicidal gassing in those facilities (if not by introducing the Zyklon B through introduction holes in the roof) would still be conclusive.


One of the biggest nonsene which I ever heard during time of my interest in this issue, you just surpassed even the biggest jerks (apologizes to readers for this insult), this statement is exactly what I predicted some time ago on this forum, that even without the holes, some silly attempt from silly peoples to simply ignore it will be made and then these holocaust defenders would act as if nothing has happened. Congratulation Mr. Roberto Muehlenkamp for the first price for this statement, you finally proved without even slightest doubt that you are true hradcore unbreakable fanatical believer no matter what is proved to you, and is really waste of time to debate with you.

Can I challenge some other "believer" here to express opinion about this statement from this user?
Quote the hysteric he is, our friend Bob. And readers may note that, for all his derisive patronizing, he doesn’t explain why my reasoning is supposed to be wrong. For it isn’t. If it could be proven that there were never any introduction holes in Krema II and Krema III, it would mean that the gas was introduced in some other manner, that witnesses who spoke of introduction holes in the roof were mistaken or embellished that part of their account, and that the Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung must have been some unexplainable but innocuous device used for nobody knows what. But we would still have the Vergasungskeller letter and other incriminating documents, plus independent eyewitness descriptions of the aspect of the gassed victims, their extraction from the gas chambers and their cremation, plus many other witnesses who saw people taken to the crematoria and never come back, plus SS-men like Kaduk and Baretzki who casually talked about gassing at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, plus the 1945 Report of the Institute for Forensic Expertise in Krakow, which would leave no room for doubt that people were killed by gassing in Kremas II and III, even if the gas was not introduced through holes in the roof. So my statement is perfectly logical. And contrary to what my mendacious friend tries to make believe in a later post, I don’t consider it irrelevant whether there were holes or not or the evidence regarding the holes irrelevant. My point here is that "no holes, no gassing in Kremas II and III" is a nonsensical proposition.
Bob wrote:
Now, let's go further and assume that you can disprove all evidence that there were homicidal gassings in these two buildings. You would still have the gas chambers of Kremas III/IV and IV/V and the "Bunkers" to contend with.
Oh yes, RM really goes further with his statements, he simply ignores that witnesses for these alleged other gassing sites are the liars previously "hypotetically" proven to be liars. He ignores that not "two" buildings (KI-II), but three since Krema II and III are identical and most of the witnesses as well.
Apart from the fact that there were witnesses to gassings in Kremas III/IV and IV/V and/or the "Bunkers" who did not witness gas introduction in Kremas I/II and II/III, and that there is other incriminating evidence pertaining to the former buildings alone, the witnesses who described procedures in all facilities wouldn’t necessarily have been wrong in everything they described even if they had been wrong about the holes. Even if they had lied about the holes, other parts of their accounts – regarding Kremas III/IV and IV/V and the "Bunkers", and even regarding Kremas I/II and II/III – might well have been correct
Bob wrote: Here is of course RM again ridiculous with claiming, that if these alleged gassing sites are proven to be lies, that peoples would still believe in the othe sites with gas chamber which are proapbly even more absurd.
Actually what utterly absurd and illogical is to claim that gassings in Kremas III/IV and IV/V and the "Bunkers" would be disproved by disproving gassings in Kremas I/II and II/III. Bob may have heard of Fritjof Meyer, who claimed that there was no gassing in the Kremas but considers evidence to gassing in the Bunkers conclusive. IIRC this is also the position of Michael Mills, one of the more intelligent "Revisionists".
Bob wrote:For example, he ignores, that without Krema II-III will be much more absurd to kill more than 400 000 Hungary Jews and alleged victims of Krema II and III in the remaining sites. He simply ignores that whole story and gassing sites are connected together, at least in Auschwitz.
I simply ignore nothing, Mr. "he simply ignores". No gassing in Kremas I/II and II/III might mean less gassings in total, but it wouldn’t mean no gassings at all.
Bob wrote:
Let's further assume that you can disprove all evidence to homicidal gassing at these other facilities. You will stil have to explain what, other than murder, is supposed to have happened to hundreds of thousands of people known to have been transported to Auschwitz-Birkenau but not known to have been taken anywhere else from there. Bar an evidence-backed alternative explanation (e.g. that they all died of typhus or the plague without your heroes being at fault), the unavoidable conclusion would be that they were murdered in some way. Maybe not by gassing, but what the heck, murder is murder.
Finally, RM decided to use the latest attempt, just last bastion used everytime when defender of holocaust is refuted, "where are these peoples?" - I already participated in this discussion here, and no interest anymore, this is so long discussion without seeing light at the end of the tunnel (especially with RM´s demonstrated approach) that not interested,
I can understand that Bob is not interested in being confronted with the sad fact that "Revisionists" can’t provide a shred of evidence supporting an explanation other than mass murder for the fates of the hundreds of thousands who disappeared at AB and other camps, even though they should be wading in such evidence. It must be so awfully embarrassing for them that they prefer to dodge the subject.
Bob wrote:I am content with the fact, that gassing nonsense is refuted by revisionists as the other nonsenses already dumped to memory hole.
The delusional nature of Bobby’s "refutation" beliefs aside, it’s interesting to know that he would be content with proving that the hundreds of thousands murdered at AB were not murdered by gassing. Murder apparently looks not so bad in his eyes if it’s not done with poison gas. Or am I misunderstanding you, my friend?
Bob wrote:
And of course you wouldn't have dealt with any of the evidence to mass murder by gassing with engine exhaust at Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka.
Here is RM again funny with claim that without Auschwitz = no problem, this is of course false, with this fact, the suspicion and interest in these even more absurd camps would be larger.
Suspicion and interest wouldn’t change the fact that Bobby and his coreligionists would have a lot of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence regarding these camps to disprove, again without being able to provide a shred of evidence in support of a transit camp/resettlement scenario – even though they should be wading in such evidence if that scenario were realistic, how embarrassing.
Bob wrote:I suspect that in this case the archives would be completely opened with all documents and I am only curious what next is dumped in archives about these camps with vast activity since we have only a few documents at this time and whole story is as usual based on self-styled witnesses.
Yeah, evidence that would vindicate the "Revisionist" case is hidden in unopened archives, according to Mr. conspiraloon. And the many eyewitnesses who would have seen and transported and guarded and accommodated and fed and put to work and returned these deportees are probably also locked in those unopened archives, right? Not to mention the deportees themselves (over 1.4 million in 1942 alone), who must have been abducted by flying saucers or eaten by the bad Russians, or then they scattered throughout the world with neither immigration authorities nor anybody else noticing, and changed their names and hid their Jewish origins and even renounced to compensation claims against the German Federal Republic so as not to call in question the story that they had been murdered at Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór or Treblinka. Do you live in this world, Bobby?
Bob wrote:
And that's only the mass gassing aspect of your heroes' crimes during World War II, which accounted for at most half of their Jewish victims and about a quarter of the total number of people (Jews and non-Jews) that they murdered.
Here is RM again funny with his 12 million claim, in fact, RM is even worse than Simon Wiesenthal who made up number of 11 millions victims (6+5), because SW made up 5 million victims from the air, today even the believers doubt six million figure and self-styled expert RM has no problem to simply made another 7 millions of non-Jews victims. This guy is definitely not serious and he is definitely a troll who likes response in connection with his controversial claims, exactly like he does on his controvery blog.

Here is method used by Wiesenthal for made up 5 millions of never-existing victims, yes, is it that easy:

"Wiesenthal "threw out" the figure of "11 million who were murdered in the Holocaust -- six million Jews and five million non-Jews," said the Yad Vashem official. When asked why he gave these figures, Wiesenthal replied: "The gentiles will not pay attention if we do not mention their victims, too." Wiesenthal "chose 'five million (gentiles)' because he wanted a 'diplomatic' number, one that told of a large number of gentile victims but in no way was larger than that of Jews ..."

David Sinai, "News We Doubt You've Seen," The Jewish Press (Brooklyn, NY), Dec. 23, 1988. Based on report in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Dec. 16, 1988.

What Deborah Lipstadt said about made up 5 million figure?:

"When Israeli historians Yehuda Bauer and Yisrael Gutman challenged Wiesenthal on this point, he admitted that he had invented the figure of eleven million victims in order to stimulate interest in the Holocaust among non-Jews. He chose five million because it was almost, but not quite, as large as six million. "

(Edit) - I forgot this nice quote:

"However, inventions such as the figure of "eleven million" would be unjustifiable even if there were no Holocaust deniers."

http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com/publ ... of-history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But RM? He is real macho, he simply made up another 2 millions for total of 7 millions of allegedly murdered peoples and I guess he will again copy-paste his previously posted link to his article about proving these victims. What is bad for him, it looks like that nobody really bothers, at least Deborah Lipstadt, Yehuda Bauer or Yisrael Gutman seems to be not interested at all and their books still somehow lacks these seven millions , I guess that they wait to see his article, RM should sent it to them.

Is RM going to say that Deborah Lipstadt is a charlatan? :lol:

As shown, Invent such a figure is really easy when you do it in connection with holy holocaust.
Thank you for this magnificent display of utter ignorance and imbecility, my dear friend.

Now that you have finished showing the deplorable effect that reading only "Revisionist" toilet paper has on a human brain, I suggest you start educating yourself about the feats of your Nazi heroes. I recommend the work of German historian Dieter Pohl, who examines every complex of Nazi genocide and mass murder (mentally handicapped, prisoners of war, Jews, non-Jewish civilians) and estimates a total of 12 to 14 million victims of Nazi mass crimes (thereof 5.6-5.7 million Jews), not including the victims of the siege of Leningrad. Or his American colleague Timothy Snyder, who counts about 10 million Nazi murder victims in what he calls the "Bloodlands", about half of them non-Jews. Or my own study in the blogs 5 million non-Jewish victims? (Part 1) and 5 million non-Jewish victims? (Part 2), where I demonstrate, country by country, that the number of non-Jews murdered by your Nazi heroes was way higher than the 5 million that Wiesenthal sucked out of his fingers. I also have lots of pictures of Jewish and non-Jewish victims of your heroes’ crimes for you to look at (no, they are usually not gassing victims but people shot, hanged or starved to death – sorry about that). You’ll find the links on the HC Reference thread Pictures of German Occupation in the USSR
Bob wrote:
That reasoning is also hard to understand. Let's assume you can prove that holes were tampered with at some time after demolition of the crematoria, as you claim. So what? Would this mean there were never any introduction holes, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary? I don't think so.
Let´s assume, in the other words, RM again tries to make an impression that holes are genuine, very silly attempt thanks to documented tampering already provided in previous comments and even admited by Mazal´s team which RM used as source when they admited that hole 7 which they omitted for introduction purpose was made by someone for unknown reasons after liberation, RM simply didn´t bother to read report he used here in his effort to prove their existence.
Did anyone understand what our confused friend is trying to tell us here? I didn’t, but from the little I managed to gather it seems that he didn’t understand my argument, so I’ll try to explain it again:

If holes were tampered with, that means just that.

It doesn’t mean that the holes tampered with, or other holes, were not the Zyklon B introduction holes.

Therefore, demonstrating that this and that hole was tampered with gets you nowhere. The most you can argue is that subsequent tampering makes it impossible to determine whether or not a certain hole was a Zyklon B introduction hole. But if I understand Mazal et al correctly, the tampering they encountered didn’t prevent them from identifying the original introduction holes.
Bob wrote:
I hope for you that you didn't update any of your comments after I had responded to it, for that would be highly dishonest. If you should have done so, please identify the update.
Here RM ignores that I updated my comment some four hours before he responded to this comment. RM also ignores that I clearly marked my two edits with word "edit" to make clear what is edited, and in fact, only the first edit is worth of note, the seond is neglible and only clarification. And I did not change anything, in fact I only added one paragraph with question during my first edit.

So if RM wants to see my edit, just simple use word "edit" in your search column, simple.
No, Mr. "RM ignores that", I’ll skip this junk for today. It's time for my evening exercise.
Bob wrote:Well, thanks to RM´s statement emphasied above, is clear that further debate is pointless, in the future RM should have to inform his opponents about it before joining debate, then I would not waste even single second with him.
Actually that’s what babbling bigmouthed Bobby should do. He will rarely encounter opponents who have my saintly patience.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:59 pm

RM again repeated the same repertoir of claims and to make it looks less ridiculous, he again used everytime "reasonable assumptions/considerations" which is of course false as proven above. Most of my points he simply answered with questions instead of answering them with answer. Since I already said why is irrelevant to debate with him and I already refuted him, i will only expose his flaws in connection with his understanding to comments, using of sources, misrepresentations and etc.
I compared the evaporation time at 20º C according to my reading of Peters 1933 with the evaporation time at 15º C according to Irmscher 1942:
Yep here he himself pointed out his nonsense - "comparing Zyklon B from 1933 with Zyklon B from 1942" despite source proving their difference which he ingored.
The "provided source" being something from someone associated with Rudolf (and accordingly of dubious accuracy)
Here RM ignores that provided soruce is based on rich bibliography from chemists and manual from 1933 included too, here is this guy claming that article from Lambrecht is dubious, invented or what even when is using the same and also of course much larger literature.

I didn’t bother to read it yet.

RM didn´t bother to read it, but he already know that article is dubious! Such a nonsense is unbelieveable.
RM wrote:
Bob wrote:Here RM is claiming that he used it only because of temperature and he simply ignores that Rossler didn´t provide any source for patent or for temperature, no problem for me, because I already know that Zyklon B in earlier days was different, I only wanted to point out how RM ignores non-existing sources in his Rossler quote, but he wants to see them from his opponent.
Nonsense insofar as my conclusions about what Peters’ Zimmertemperatur means are based on this information and I therefore don’t need Rösler for the temperature, which makes the issue of his "non-existing sources" irrelevant. IIRC I requested the source to confirm the accusation against Rösler, by the way.
Here RM ignores that Rossler really didn´t use any source for patent or for temperature, here is Rossler´s quote again:

"The original patent for Zyklon-B specifies that nearly ALL HCN (more than 90% apparently) will be emitted within 10min, at normal temperatures (20 degree C)!"

So what we have here? RM´s another lie or totally distorted comment, he simply used "Zimmertemperatur" word from completely different quote of Peters for claiming, that alleged 20C in alleged patent is this "Zimmertemperatur". This is of course lie, word "Zimmertemperatur" is from different quote and from Peters who didn´t say even word about some patent, and quote above is from translator Rossler and not releated to Peters, but RM didn´t bother, he simply connected two different quotes from different peoples together! So where we see sources for patent and temperature in Rossler´s quote? Nowhere of course, no source for patent or temperature.
Let’s stick with possibility 1, for if the Zyklon B used in 1942 was the same as in 1933
But what I stated as possibility 1?

"1. In 1933 Peters speaks about different Zyklon B as accepted by chemists and proven by original patent even mentioned by Rossler - own source of RM, and as confirmed by later research of later Zyklon B product from Irmscher, Rudolf, Lambrecht and Green. Everything shown here."

I stated completely the opposite! But RM again no problem to write "Let’s stick with possibility 1" but instead of my "In 1933 Peters speaks about different Zyklon B" he simply ignored my quote and said "the Zyklon B used in 1942 was the same as in 1933".

Just unbelieveable how my text is distorted in RM´s brain and he really see only what he wants!
It’s interesting to see that this patent, according to which out-gassing occurred within 10 minutes, existed indeed (i.e. Rösler didn’t invent it).
Here RM makes an impression that i claimed something like this and that Roslser maybe invented it, but this is of course false, I said "that Rossler didn´t provide any source for patent or for temperature, no problem for me, because I already know that Zyklon B in earlier days was different, I only wanted to point out how RM ignores non-existing sources in his Rossler quote, but he wants to see them from his opponent."

Just another dishonest strategy and not only that I am using sources for my claims to support them, here I actually provided source for RM who has no clue about it and I myself (in better words, revisionists) proved existence of such a source for patent.
In other words, the granulated diatomaceous earth type of carrier (which according to the patent released all of the gas within 10 minutes at a certain temperature, presumably room temperature) had not yet disappeared from circulation in 1942.

Looks like they used the granulated diatomaceous earth carrier that Dr. Green calls "dia gravel"

And if, as Dr. Green’s above-quoted text suggests, the Zyklon B used at AB was the dia gravel carrier variant

If the dia gravel carrier type was used at Auschwitz, they had the one that out-gassed fastest according to Lambrecht anyway.
Actually what we have here is another ridiculous invention, after i informed RM about faster Zyklon B, the issue he had no clue about, he picked it from the other Zyklon B products also mentioned by Green and began to claim that they used it, this guy is just fascinating :lol: What is more funny? He himself proved that his calculations are worng, no matter if they used faster (as RM miraculously began to claim ) or slower Zyklon B, in both cases, his calculations are flawed, since fastest Zyklon B evaporated nearly all in 10m using 20C (as Rossler claims), but in Muehlenkamp´s calculation, only 56% outgassed in 10m with using 37C or more. Plainly speaking, his claculations are wrong no matter what Zyklon B he used, what is actually hilarious is that he refuted his calculations himself when he started to claim that they maybe allegedly used Zyklon B with characteristics as described in original patent! This guy has really no problem with inventions. And what is the most hilarious? He even began to use Lambrecht (allegedly dubious source) as support for his new invention! :lol:

I refuted his fantasies using research of chemist for Zyklon B used during 40´s, and RM took care about refutation of his claculation for faster Zyklon B, he saved me some time.
RM wrote:
Bob wrote:2. Is interesting how he uses page of inventory from Krema III to prove something in Krema II, when I tried this previously, Hans, one of the RM´s companion complained about it, of course this is allowed only for "chosen" users, RM and Hans can, but I can´t
Whether or not the LK of Krema II and Krema III were identical in every respect, is there any reason why their LK1 should have had different ventilation devices with different motors?
Here again RM used his usual strategy, to simply ignore my comment, my points, and he speaks about completely different issue he invented in his head, because where somebody see something about devices, ventilation and etc. in my quote? Of course nowhere, this quote is only about how RM used document from KIII to prove something in KII, but as previously mentioned, this was not allowed to me from his companion and source - user Hans, who also did this same thing - used something from KIII to prove something in KII despite his previous complains about this in connection with me. Did he explain this nonsense and double standard? No, because he can´t, so he speaks about something completely different! He do this all the time.
Don’t know, but if the document was attached to the transfer deed, it was certainly meant to show the contents of the building on the date of transfer.
So he don´t know date, he simply don´t know date but no problem for him to use not dated document when is of course crucial to know it! He simply don´t bother because it suit his belief and he ignored my arguments.
Simple mistake, my friend. Lying I leave to you.
Did he aplogized for his "mistake"? Of course not, this is too much for his ego.
Was that even my argument, or did I just quote someone else in passing?
Oh yes, here he again refused to admit his nonsense, that invoices maybe list devices and ventilation work in some mysterious buildings and not in Kremas. He began to claim, that argument was not from him and that he propably didn´t mean it seriously or what! :lol: Here he has some true in this, he parroted this nonsense from Green. He propably started to dodge this nonsense, when I quoted even Pressac who used one of the invoice for ventilation system of Krema III, so apparently not for unknown mysterious building at all.
The "flaw" is not necessarily a flaw, and even if it were it would be irrelevant to Dr. Green’s argument as he made his ventilation performance calculations assuming a capacity of 4,800 m³ per hour.
Do you see this short quote? RM simply dodged to admit that Pressac knew invoice with all these information as i proved even when RM himself requested to demonstrate it by me! And what is his reaction when I proved this lie about capacity from Pressac despite his better knowledge when he was silent about devices in invoice?

"No, it’s just irrelevant to my argument."

So my proof that Presac lied is irrelevant to argument of RM who claimed that Pressac didn´t lie. :lol:

RM ignored that Pelt used wrong capacity, what is flaw, he ignored that Green obviously admitted (albeit reluctantly) that invoice is correct and not that capacity was 8000 despite the existence of invoices, he accepted it, he was simply not so ridiculous to claim, that ventilation was 8,000 m³ per hour and invoice is irrelevant. On the other hand, Green used different strategy how to dodge this major flaw, he said:

“Regarding the performance of the ventilation system, it simply does not matter. Even with Mattogno's assumptions, our conclusions are still valid.”

Yep, he obviously accepted it, but with saying that real capacity of ventilation system (4800) simply does not matter when he used wrong capacity (8000) for his calculations! No matter what is capacity, it simply does not matter, his calculations and claims are somehow still valid or what and no changes, interesting :lol:

Poor RM uses different strategy, ignoring of invoices with claiming that correct capacity is 8000 m³ per hour.
Is that lame bitching supposed to be an argument against these possible explanations?
When I pointed out that RM uses invented nonexisting documents which nobody ever saw as his explanation, he ignored it, for him is this "detail" simply "bitching" and he even repeated these invetions as "argument" again :lol:
Sorry, but what am I supposed to be "lying" about? I just summarized Pressac’s argument.
Do you see it again? When I refuted his nonsense about allegedly hypothetical scenario, he dodged it with saying that he only repeated Pressac and thus he is innocent! As shown in this short reply, he completely dodged to admit that scenario is not hypothetical and Pressac´s math very bad.
Depends on how many openings there were. If there were only a handful of openings throughout the room, there’s a good chance that the victims wouldn’t usually come to lie right in front of them.
Dear readers, he is again lying to you again, Pressac:

Perforated galvanized covering one of the upper (fresh air inlet) ventilation holes of Leichenkeller I of Krematorium II or III dimensions: 7 x 13 cm. Leichenkeller 1 of Kr II had 50 of these

This alleged cover from alleged gas chamber of course means that the same number is used for lower duct when the both ducts are of the same capacity and thus supposed to work at least in the same way of performance (at least to my knowledge, I never saw number mentioned by Pressac for lower openings of L1 in K II, so the same number is logical assumption). So not only "handful", but lot of them, 50 on each of the long walls, 25 for lower and 25 for upper duct. Is interesting how Pressac contradicted himself, firstly, the plates were allegedly 7 x 18 based on alleged order/final document for covers and protection grills, but found cover was allegedly only 7 x 13.

What is worse with this RM? He even didn´t realize that with using only a "handful" number of openings as he claimed, the good ventilation would be hardly possible of course, he simply didn´t bother about this because he needed to somehow "solve" current problem. And as shown, he completely ignored to explain it.
Assuming that they thought of that in mindless death panic, and that air came out of the openings while the gassing was under way.
Another absurd "methodology" of his common sense, victims would not use the only possibility how to breath air and they would wait to be gassed! Another lie from him, ventilation ducts were in permanent contact with air to allow blowers ventilate the room. I guess he will simply invent something what was used to block ventilation ducts during gassings.
Show me how these 1,492 victims blocked the ventilation openings.
What we have here, this source of RM simply stated as source name of book and pages "183-245" to simply let readers to search for quote.This quote is in fact on page 232 and i assume that this source of RM simply didn´t know the correct page or they didn´t read book, so they quoted whole chapter from Pressac as they propably found information somewhere on the internet or what, ridiculous.

Number of victims, main source for RM, Henryk Tauber stated in his deposition to Soviets that 4000 people from Cracow were gassed on 15 March as first batch in KII. Rudolf Vrba claimed as first gassing beginning of January 1943 (Krema II far from complete) in his book with death toll of 3000 as he allegedly counted trucks (he said this under oath during Zundel trial), previously in his report he stated 8000 victims in March as first gassing during inauguration of new krematorium II. Danuta Czech in his book finally stated 1492 allegedly gassed peoples from Cracow, but not for 13 March as RM said with his flawed source, but for 14 March, and not for any of the crematoria, she simply didnt said any single word about it, pure invention from RM and his sources. Finally Pressac in 1989 used number 8000, but changed it freely to about 1500 and stated also as a date of gassing 14 March and not 13 March as in 1994 and he even reproduced pages from Danuta Czech which stated number to 1492 as we already know. In 1994, he again did another flaw with bad quoted sources and he also omitted all numbers stated by witnesses or by report and opicked up the lowest one from the date closest to Tauber´s. That is how these shysters arrived to their numbers - contradictions, wrong numbers, badly quoted sources and so on, ridiculous. As we also know, Pressac used bad ventilation capacity.

Finally RM selectively picked the lowest number from the all in connection with blocked openings problem and is silent about the others, as usual.
If so, bad for Pressac, but it doesn’t mean that the bodies necessarily blocked all openings and that, it that problem should have arisen, it couldn’t have been solved by Sonderkommando folks wearing gas masks clearing the ventilation openings. The rest of Pressac’s solution proposal:

remains pertinent even if the undressing room ventilators were not working. All they had to do to prevent contamination of the building was to close the gas-tight doors after the gas-mask-wearing SK folks had entered. And they didn’t have to drag bodies blocking the ventilation openings into the vestibule to clear the blocked openings. Just drag them sufficiently far away from the openings for the same to work again.
"If so", in the other words, RM see proofs, but didn´t accept it as proven, he used "if so" to make an impression that proofs are maybe wrong.

The rest is so stupid that it really don´t need any comment, but is worth of note that not even one single witnesses ever described something about unblocking of ventilation openings or something like that and not even one witness ever described working in gas chamber during gassings at least to my knowledge - such a nonsense is surpassed only by liars like Moshe Peer who allegedly survived six gassings, so we see here another invention and very dumb one.
Why was the air extraction of LK2 not equipped with a motor, by the way? Wasn’t it supposed to be a morgue, in "Revisionist" scripture?
Again RM who see only what he wants to see, so he completely ignored that motors were installed as I already pointed out.
How exactly would the start of work on ventilation system in January 1943 contradict the notion that a decision to use morgues as gas chambers was taken in November 1942?
Another terrible understanding of comments, again misrepresentation as usual. Did I said that work on installation of ventilation system started in January 1943? Of course not, RM again invented it!

I clearly said "ventilation work and installation of ventilation system is dated after January 1943" (allegeldy the lastest date for decision what room will serve as gas chamber according to RM) and previously I said even the precise dates "but as Pressac wrote in his book, ventilation system for L2 in KII was installed from 14-28 March, for L2 of KIII was installed between 11-22 April"

So poor RM again totally omitted point of my comment and adressed completely different one, because I stated by using orthodox sources, that ventilation in LK2 KII was installed more than 4 months after the decision about what room will serve as gas chamber has been made according to Pressac in 1994, and 1,5 month after the latest date from RM, did he explained why they installed it when they did not need it? Of course not, because he cant, thus he completely misrepresent me to dodge it.

What is worse again, RM ignored all criminal traces dated before 29 of January 1943, if he claims that this date is the one for this decision and not before this date.
Oh, so they did install the motors, after all? Great, this means that Pressac’s conjectures about the measures that might have been adopted in case the ventilation openings were blocked are wholly sound and Bob made a big fuss about nothing.
This one is especially ridiculous, when the revisionist evidence suits his position, he has no problem to accept it :lol: and he simply ignores that his orthodox source speaks about the opposite and is proven to be contradicting.
A crie de cœur that is as amusing as it is self-projecting. If one wants to know what equipments were installed in a building one looks at the "as built" drawings and not at the invoices ...
What a fantastic statement again! What this means? Simply that gas chambers never existed, because when ones look at drawings, we have normal construction of crematoria with morgues even explictily stated in plans (Leichenkeller - morgue), well done RM. :lol: I expect another nonsensical damage control.
And it’s obvious why he’s doing that: he has no alternative explanation for this device
Here RM again see only what he wants to see, and he completely ignored my explanation provided six days ago even he himslef already quoted this specific post with explanation included!
Actually it’s hard to see from the handwriting in the inventory whether it reads Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung or Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrrichtung. It’s also irrelevant, as there’s no difference in meaning between one and the other term.

and alleged (and completely irrelevant) misspelling of the term!
Again RM and his excuses, of course he can´t read it when he used flawed h-h.org project with his bad sources, here is the better version of this document.:
Image

RM calls wrongly interpreted documents as "irrelevant", simply ridiculous and he even said "alleged" misspelling. :lol:
No, Dr. Green and his sources are also OK.
But as RM proved, not for claims refuting his nonsenses about evaporation or ventilation capacity, he simply ignored them. :lol:
No trick at all, actually. Just a plain mistake. It doesn’t matter whether the date is 11 February or 11 March 1943, what matters is Bischoff’s emphatic insistence in a ventilation device with a 3.5 hp motor.
Oh yes, again the same "mistake". :lol: It doesn’t matter? Of course it does matter! Because the dates are crucial, what a nice damage control again.
Interesting explanation, except that the other item mentioned in Bischoff’s letter (the motor for the air extractor in LK 2) doesn't seem to have been urgent. How come the "ventilator no. 450 with 3.5 hp motor" for "the Corpse Cellar 1" was "needed the most urgently" but the extractor motor for LK 2 was not?
Here he again ignored opponent´s comment as usual, i also provided quotes from Pressac who said that LK1 was morgue used for the worst bodies in state of decompostition and for their storage, so is of course urgent to have the blowers installed as soon as possible to be able to use this room for such a bodies and for the purpose for why the crematoria were constructed. Incredible ignorance.
What, this discussion? Quite the contrary, it may even have been a pleasant re-encounter with an old acquaintance. You don’t happen to be the fellow who used to post as “jetblast” on the RODOH forum, Bob?
Because of his exposed fails and lacks of arguments, he again resorted to somehow discredit me with making an accusation about how i am some user from RODOH or what, this is really desperate.

Edit by Bob - why he is still doing this and why he spreads accusations, insults and ad homines all the time? Maybe because of the reasons described above, maybe because of these reason described by Muehlenkamp himself HERE, which prove that he is the one who is the only dubious person and not the revisionists as he claims. He has my sympathy for his bad state, especially for his delicate "delay" problem, but this cannot be an excuse for what he is doing.

Edit2 - if somebody noticed name of the page then - nope, I am not this "Dr. Bob."
So Bob would like to believe, but I still have to see him disprove physical and photographic evidence to the contrary.
After all my arguments, he simply agian repeated already refuted report, his favorite strategy, he simply ingored everything and has no problem to repeat it again.
Now that you have finished showing the deplorable effect that reading only "Revisionist" toilet paper has on a human brain
Do yo usee it? Deborah Lipstadt and her article and quotes about invented 11 million figure is "revisionist toilet paper" :lol:


Well, that is propably all and as i said i only wanted to expose his "methodology" this time and his using of sources, lies, misrepresentation, ignorance and etc. Simply don´t believe him readers, you must read books, follow his claims and verify them all the time because he is really dishonest. This approach should have to be applied everytime no matter who is the opponent of course.

I am finished with this user and because I am not used to kick to cadavers, thanks for his "effort" and rest in peace Mr. Roberto Meuehlenkamp. ;)
Last edited by Bob on Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:08 pm

Nessie wrote:I believed that gassings took place at Krema II. Then partly because of your evidence, but also from my own reading on the subject I really started to doubt that there were gassings. I have subsequently shifted position again and that is because of you Bob.

You have given me a really hard time (and others) about witness evidence and its relaiblity. You have made it quite clear in your mind that physical evidence trumps witness evidence. You do not accept potential reasonable and understandable witness mistakes such as the use of diesel engines to gas people. Your other nonsense about missing persons and the thread about revsionism and anti-semitism further confirmed that you are not able to handle evidence that conflicts with your view and instead convolute it, twist it and dismiss it. That made me doubt your ability to deal fairly and properly with evidence. So I revisited early posts and arguments by you to re-assess what you had said.

Now that is more so again after you had a go at Hans about his positioning of the holes and criticism he was unable to show exactly where the holes are. Yet he is having to work from the blown up remains of a building. As, if fact are you and the other revisionist/deniers.

Do you understand that the physical evidence as destroyed by the Nazis has rendered it unreliable? Yet you are totally reliant on it. You ask to be shown holes from destroyed remains. That is like me asking for evidence of a point and you know a book that has the evidence in it, but then find I have put the book through a shredder. I then say to you have failed to evidence your point and so you are wrong. But we both know if I had not put the book through the shredder, we would have the answer.

So no I cannot show you the remains of hole 3 from that pile of rubble and concrete. The Nazis put it through 'the shredder'. But that does not mean it was not there before.

Prove to me that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 was complete in 1942/43.
Leaving aside another group of false claims, the only relevant fact is that he completely dodged my comment, again as usual.

Here is worth of note his approach, he abandoned his postion about "no gassing happened in krematorium II" not because of evidence or proofs, but because of Bob! :lol: Is this absurd? Of course, but not for believers. According to him gassings "happened, not happened, happened.....97 more to go.

I am finished with him, he will dodge all the time no matter how many times i am trying to debate with him, so end of debate, is pointless, i am not here to answer every points of my opponents (even the basic ones) who dodge my points everytime.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:30 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:I believed that gassings took place at Krema II. Then partly because of your evidence, but also from my own reading on the subject I really started to doubt that there were gassings. I have subsequently shifted position again and that is because of you Bob.

You have given me a really hard time (and others) about witness evidence and its relaiblity. You have made it quite clear in your mind that physical evidence trumps witness evidence. You do not accept potential reasonable and understandable witness mistakes such as the use of diesel engines to gas people. Your other nonsense about missing persons and the thread about revsionism and anti-semitism further confirmed that you are not able to handle evidence that conflicts with your view and instead convolute it, twist it and dismiss it. That made me doubt your ability to deal fairly and properly with evidence. So I revisited early posts and arguments by you to re-assess what you had said.

Now that is more so again after you had a go at Hans about his positioning of the holes and criticism he was unable to show exactly where the holes are. Yet he is having to work from the blown up remains of a building. As, if fact are you and the other revisionist/deniers.

Do you understand that the physical evidence as destroyed by the Nazis has rendered it unreliable? Yet you are totally reliant on it. You ask to be shown holes from destroyed remains. That is like me asking for evidence of a point and you know a book that has the evidence in it, but then find I have put the book through a shredder. I then say to you have failed to evidence your point and so you are wrong. But we both know if I had not put the book through the shredder, we would have the answer.

So no I cannot show you the remains of hole 3 from that pile of rubble and concrete. The Nazis put it through 'the shredder'. But that does not mean it was not there before.

Prove to me that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 was complete in 1942/43.
Leaving aside another group of false claims, the only relevant fact is that he completely dodged my comment, again as usual.

Your points are answered and I have made no false claims.

Here is worth of note his approach, he abandoned his postion about "no gassing happened in krematorium II" not because of evidence or proofs, but because of Bob! :lol: Is this absurd? Of course, but not for believers. According to him gassings "happened, not happened, happened.....97 more to go.

You are very full of yourself. It was because of the evidence you provided compared to the believers evidence that I began to doubt gassings at Krema II. Now I have more information about how you treat evidence, especially ditching evidence which does not fit your argument, such as witness testimony and how you say physical evidence is all, but ignore the fact it has been tampered with, I have not unreasonably changed my mind about the evidence you have presented.

I am finished with him, he will dodge all the time no matter how many times i am trying to debate with him, so end of debate, is pointless, i am not here to answer every points of my opponents (even the basic ones) who dodge my points everytime.

Your points are answered. The real issue is that you are dodging issues about your prime piece of evidence, the roof of Leichenkeller I. That seriously weakens your case.
Bob, do you agree or disagree that it would have been better for the roof of Leichenkeller I to have been left intact by the Nazis?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Hans » Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:24 pm

Here is my take on the crematorium 2 transfer inventory. The transfer inventory of crematorium 2 of 31 March 1943 lists four “wire mesh slide in devices” and “wooden covers” for the Leichenkeller 2 (undressing room). There are three correlations of the devices with the gas columns:

a) material correlation: both the gas columns and the devices mentioned in the document were made of wire mesh

b) numerical correlation: both the gas columns and devices mentioned in the document were four

c ) locational correlation: both the gas columns and the devices mentioned in the document were located in the basement of crematorium 2

On the other hand, there are two problems:

d) locational contradiction: the gas columns were located in the gas chamber, whereas the devices are mentioned for the undressing room

e) Functional contradiction: The mobile part in gas columns was moved down by gravity, whereas the devices mentioned in the document seems to have been be pushed by some extra force.

The first problem can be easily resolved. The gas chamber and undressing room are placed in a list after each other and designated as morgue 1 and 2. This already allows for some speculation that the entry in question may have been switched between the two basements. The probability that such mistake occurred gets greatly enhanced by the fact that the previous entry in the document, the number taps, was in fact switched between the gas chamber and the undressing room. Since the clerk who filled out the document thought that the line for the gas chamber was actually the undressing room and vice versa, when he entered the number taps, there is considerable likelihood that, as he went on to fill in the wire mesh slide in devices and the wooden covers, he did not notice his mistake and continued to switch the entries between the basements.

The second problem was resolved by Roberto, who brought forward the argument that the wire mesh slide may not describe its function but the layout and construction principle, which is a sound explanation. Thus, the most likely interpretation of the document is that wire mesh slide in devices were the gas introduction columns of the gas chamber in crematorium 2, but switched between the lines and so falsely attributed to the undressing room.

The wooden covers were apparently only a temporary solution and later replaced by more robust concrete covers according to testimonial evidence.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:46 pm

Poor Bob, my previous posts must have made him freak out completely, judging by his reaction – a tirade of furious, rather incoherent and also not exactly honest ad hominem bitching. All my hysterical friend can offer is bad Roberto this, bad Roberto that, with another of his somewhat-less-than-convincing victory dances at the end. So let’s have some fun with this pathetic spectacle, shall we?
Bob wrote:RM again repeated the same repertoir of claims and to make it looks less ridiculous, he again used everytime "reasonable assumptions/considerations" which is of course false as proven above.
Actually it’s not the same repertoire of claims at all. For instance, I addressed Bob’s claim that Lambrecht had proven the 1942 Zyklon B to be different from the 1933 Zyklon B, and demonstrated that all that Lambrecht has got to offer (according to the quote provided by Bob, and apparently there’s nothing better in the whole article, otherwise Bob would have triumphantly pointed it out) are speculations. As to the "false as proven above" rubbish, Bob seems to suffer from severe delusions of adequacy.
Bob wrote:Most of my points he simply answered with questions instead of answering them with answer.
A question can also contain an answer, and I would like my accuser to either substantiate or withdraw his accusation.
Bob wrote:Since I already said why is irrelevant to debate with him and I already refuted him, i will only expose his flaws in connection with his understanding to comments, using of sources, misrepresentations and etc.
Read: "since I have no more arguments to respond to my opponent’s arguments, I will make a last desperate attempt to discredit my opponent in the eyes of our readers (who I hope haven’t read my opponent’s posts) by making a big bloody dishonest fuss about what a bad fellow he is”. Who do you think you’re fooling, Bob? I figured you out long ago, and so, I presume, have those of our readers who read our posts.
Bob wrote:
I compared the evaporation time at 20º C according to my reading of Peters 1933 with the evaporation time at 15º C according to Irmscher 1942:
Yep here he himself pointed out his nonsense - "comparing Zyklon B from 1933 with Zyklon B from 1942" despite source proving their difference which he ingored.
As I pointed out in post 176, Bob’s source Lambrecht provides no evidence that 1942 Zyklon B out-gassed more slowly than Zyklon B in 1933. In the quote from Lambrecht’s piece provided by Bob, the chemist merely muses that (my translation and emphases) "longer evaporation times than those mentioned by Peters in 1933 were obviously reached in the years thereafter, probably due to a constant increase of the carrier material’s gypsum part to increase storage stability (and – as a side note – also to reduce the carrier material’s price), as the gypsum’s hydration water binds prussic acid more strongly than the dia gravel product". Conjecture, speculation, but no evidence that out-gassing times in 1942 were slower than in 1933. Even if Lambrecht’s conjectures were accurate, on the other hand, they would apply only to one out of three types of carrier material that were available in 1942 – not the dia gravel, not the wood-fiber disks, but only the "Erco" gypsum product.

So no, there is no "source proving their difference" as Bob claims. From what Bob has shown so far, there is only a souce claiming but not proving a difference.
Bob wrote:
The "provided source" being something from someone associated with Rudolf (and accordingly of dubious accuracy)
Here RM ignores that provided soruce is based on rich bibliography from chemists and manual from 1933 included too, here is this guy claming that article from Lambrecht is dubious, invented or what even when is using the same and also of course much larger literature.

I didn’t bother to read it yet.

RM didn´t bother to read it, but he already know that article is dubious! Such a nonsense is unbelieveable.
They guy is associated with Rudolf and Mattogno and writes in support of Rudolf’s falsehoods, which is enough to make him seem dubious. Of course he has many footnotes and a rich bibliography. That’s one of the trappings whereby "Revisionist" charlatans try to impress their readers and give themselves and image of serious researchers. It means nothing, of course, if the sources are distorted or otherwise improperly used. A first-semester chemistry student can put together a bibliography of chemistry books dealing with the properties of prussic acid and related issues, big deal.
Bob wrote:
Here RM is claiming that he used it only because of temperature and he simply ignores that Rossler didn´t provide any source for patent or for temperature, no problem for me, because I already know that Zyklon B in earlier days was different, I only wanted to point out how RM ignores non-existing sources in his Rossler quote, but he wants to see them from his opponent.

Nonsense insofar as my conclusions about what Peters’ Zimmertemperatur means are based on this information and I therefore don’t need Rösler for the temperature, which makes the issue of his "non-existing sources" irrelevant. IIRC I requested the source to confirm the accusation against Rösler, by the way.
Here RM ignores that Rossler really didn´t use any source for patent or for temperature, here is Rossler´s quote again:

"The original patent for Zyklon-B specifies that nearly ALL HCN (more than 90% apparently) will be emitted within 10min, at normal temperatures (20 degree C)!"

So what we have here? RM´s another lie or totally distorted comment, he simply used "Zimmertemperatur" word from completely different quote of Peters for claiming, that alleged 20C in alleged patent is this "Zimmertemperatur". This is of course lie, word "Zimmertemperatur" is from different quote and from Peters who didn´t say even word about some patent, and quote above is from translator Rossler and not releated to Peters, but RM didn´t bother, he simply connected two different quotes from different peoples together! So where we see sources for patent and temperature in Rossler´s quote? Nowhere of course, no source for patent or temperature.
Why does Bob continue rambling about Rössler after I clearly told him that I don’t need Rössler to assume that Peters was talking about out-gassing at a temperature of 20º Celsius?

The term Zimmertemperatur comes from Peters, not from Rössler. Peters 1933, page 64:
In der Regel wird das Material in einer Schichtdicke von ½ bis 1 cm ausgestreut, wonach der größte Teil der Blausäure bei Zimmertemperatur bereits nach einer halben Stunde entwickelt ist.
I assume that "Zimmertemperatur" means about 20º Celsius, not because Rösler said so after translating Peters’ statement or in connection with the original patent application, but on hand of the following information on the Wikipedia page Raumtemperatur:
Die mit der Raum-Solltemperatur verbundenen Werte liegen im deutschsprachigen Raum je nach Norm bei 17 °C[4] (17–18 °C)[5] für Wohngebäude, Bürogebäude, Schulen; 22 °C[4] (17–18 °C)[5] für Krankenhäuser, Pflegeheime, öffentliche Bäder; 18 °C[4] (17–19 °C)[5] für Betriebsstätten oder Sportstätten; 16 °C (15–17 °C)[5] für Lager.[6] Bei hohen Außentemperaturen soll die Raumtemperatur einen Wert von etwa 25°–26 °C nicht überschreiten (siehe Hitzefrei). Für die Berechnungen der benötigten Heizleistung für Wohnräume wird in vielen Fällen eine Raumtemperatur von 20–21 °C herangezogen.
The above text – as I’m pointing out not for the first time – informs us that in German-speaking areas the temperatures that a room should have, depending on the norm, are the following: 17º C (or 17-18º C) for habitation buildings, offices and schools, 22º C (or 17-18º C) for hospitals, nurseries and pubic baths; 18º C (or 17-19º C) for workshops/factory halls and sports installations; 16º C (or 15-17º C) for storage rooms. At high outside temperatures room temperature should not exceed 25-26º C (if it does, workers or pupils at school in Germany may get hitzefrei, i.e. leave due to (excess) heat). For calculation of required heating performance for habitation rooms a room temperature of 20-21º C is often used.

Given this information, I consider it reasonable to assume that when Mr. Peters wrote Zimmertemperatur he meant a temperature of 20º C. If Rössler made the same assumption I agree with Rössler, but my source supporting this assumption is not Rössler. And I very clearly said so in the paragraph quoted by Bob (emphasis added):
Nonsense insofar as my conclusions about what Peters’ Zimmertemperatur means are based on this information and I therefore don’t need Rösler for the temperature, which makes the issue of his "non-existing sources" irrelevant. IIRC I requested the source to confirm the accusation against Rösler, by the way.


The embedded link in the above quote leads, guess where, to the Wikipedia page Raumtemperatur, where I found the above-mentioned information on the basis of which I accepted Rösler’s 20º for Zimmertemperatur as a reasonable assumption.

In other words, Bob is misrepresenting my argument rather obviously and rather stupidly. And as he again accused me of indulging in what seems to be one of his favorite pastimes (lying), I would again like to know the name of the spineless cowards who calls his opponent a liar without identifying himself.

As concerns the patent, Bob’s own source Lambrecht expressly mentions it:
Die Verdunstung des Giftgases HCN (Blausäure) vom Träger erfolgt je nach Trägermaterial recht unterschiedlich. Mitte der zwanziger Jahre bestand das Trägermaterial von Zyklon B fast komplett aus Kieselgur, das der Patentanmeldung zur Folge die Blausäure innerhalb von zehn Minuten fast ganz abgab.[10]
[10]Patentschrift Nr. 438818 (D 41941 IV/451, 27.12.1926), dankenswerterweise von C. Mattogno zur Verfügung gestellt. Danach gab damals das Präparat innerhalb von 10 Minuten praktisch alle Blausäure ab.
So according to patent application nº 438818 (D 41941 IV/451, 27.12.1926), kindly made available to Lambrecht by Mattogno, hydrogen cyanide absorbed by dia gravel as carrier material out-gasses almost completely after 10 minutes. Lambrecht doesn’t tell us at what temperature this happens according to the patent application, but it seems reasonable to assume that Zimmertemperatur, i.e. room temperature, was the marker stated in the patent application.
Bob wrote:
Let’s stick with possibility 1, for if the Zyklon B used in 1942 was the same as in 1933
But what I stated as possibility 1?

"1. In 1933 Peters speaks about different Zyklon B as accepted by chemists and proven by original patent even mentioned by Rossler - own source of RM, and as confirmed by later research of later Zyklon B product from Irmscher, Rudolf, Lambrecht and Green. Everything shown here."

I stated completely the opposite! But RM again no problem to write "Let’s stick with possibility 1" but instead of my "In 1933 Peters speaks about different Zyklon B" he simply ignored my quote and said "the Zyklon B used in 1942 was the same as in 1933".

Just unbelieveable how my text is distorted in RM´s brain and he really see only what he wants!
What is unbelievable is how Bob makes a fuss about absolutely nothing by quoting only the first part of my sentence:
Let’s stick with possibility 1, for if the Zyklon B used in 1942 was the same as in 1933, the "later research" of Bob’s chemists would be crap even in the improbable case that Peters meant to say “just over 50 %” when he wrote “der grösste Teil“. I would expect Bob’s chemist to have realized this problem and thus tried to make out that the Zyklon B used in Irmscher’s 1942 experiments evaporated more slowly than the Zyklon B mentioned in Peter’s 1933 article.
I’m proposing to examine possibility 1 because, if Peters does not speak about different Zyklon B contrary to what Bob claims, then Bob’s chemists have an unsolved problem. Further below in my post I demonstrate that Bob’s source Lambrecht provides no evidence that the Zyklon B used by Irmscher in 1942 was different from the one referred to by Peters in 1933, but merely speculates that this was so. What I’m certainly not doing, as the context of my statement clearly shows, is turning Bob’s statement around as he hysterically claims. Bob’s feeling compelled to raise such mendacious and ridiculous accusations shows the degree of his despair and frustration.
Bob wrote:
It’s interesting to see that this patent, according to which out-gassing occurred within 10 minutes, existed indeed (i.e. Rösler didn’t invent it).
Here RM makes an impression that i claimed something like this and that Roslser maybe invented it, but this is of course false, I said "that Rossler didn´t provide any source for patent or for temperature, no problem for me, because I already know that Zyklon B in earlier days was different, I only wanted to point out how RM ignores non-existing sources in his Rossler quote, but he wants to see them from his opponent."
Quite the hysterical whiner, isn’t he? I may have remembered only the "Rössler didn’t provide any source for patent" part of the Bob’s convoluted babbling, or otherwise misunderstood his statement, which wasn’t exactly difficult considering Bob’s "RM ignores non-existing sources in his Rossler quote" - foot-stomping at the end of his patronizing. Obviously projecting his own tactics, desperate Bobby infers ill intention where there was a misunderstanding or mistaken recollection of his earlier statement at worst.
Bob wrote: Just another dishonest strategy and not only that I am using sources for my claims to support them, here I actually provided source for RM who has no clue about it and I myself (in better words, revisionists) proved existence of such a source for patent.
"Revisionists" (more specifically Mattogno) provided the source of the original patent application, bravo! That was one of the rare useful things my friend Charlie does on occasion, and he usually shoots "Revisionism" in the foot when he does.
Bob wrote:
In other words, the granulated diatomaceous earth type of carrier (which according to the patent released all of the gas within 10 minutes at a certain temperature, presumably room temperature) had not yet disappeared from circulation in 1942.

Looks like they used the granulated diatomaceous earth carrier that Dr. Green calls "dia gravel"

And if, as Dr. Green’s above-quoted text suggests, the Zyklon B used at AB was the dia gravel carrier variant

If the dia gravel carrier type was used at Auschwitz, they had the one that out-gassed fastest according to Lambrecht anyway.
Actually what we have here is another ridiculous invention, after i informed RM about faster Zyklon B, the issue he had no clue about, he picked it from the other Zyklon B products also mentioned by Green and began to claim that they used it, this guy is just fascinating :lol:
Actually what got me onto the text from Dr. Green was Lambrecht’s claim that HCN out-gassed faster from the dia gravel carrier than from the Erco carrier, so I thought it interesting to find out what type of carrier they used at AB. So Bob can console himself that it was not he who shot "Revisionism" in the foot with his "faster Zyklon B" blather. It was Lambrecht’s remark that made me seek and find evidence to the type of carrier material used at AB, which seems to have been the carrier material least convenient to "Revisionist" out-gassing claims.
Bob wrote: What is more funny? He himself proved that his calculations are worng, no matter if they used faster (as RM miraculously began to claim ) or slower Zyklon B, in both cases, his calculations are flawed, since fastest Zyklon B evaporated nearly all in 10m using 20C (as Rossler claims), but in Muehlenkamp´s calculation, only 56% outgassed in 10m with using 37C or more. Plainly speaking, his claculations are wrong no matter what Zyklon B he used, what is actually hilarious is that he refuted his calculations himself when he started to claim that they maybe allegedly used Zyklon B with characteristics as described in original patent! This guy has really no problem with inventions. And what is the most hilarious? He even began to use Lambrecht (allegedly dubious source) as support for his new invention! :lol:
What is actually funny is how Bob is going bananas about having shot himself in the foot with the sources he provided. If they used Zyklon B with dia gravel carrier material at AB, and if this material out-gassed as quickly, this means that my evaporation speed calculations based on Irmscher 1942 and Peters 1933, which Bob decried as wildly exaggerated throughout our discussion, are actually very conservative. The Zyklon B used at Auschwitz-Birkenau, according to a source that Bob kindly brought my way (Mr. Lambrecht) may have out-gassed far more quickly than I estimated. In his frantic attempt to demonstrate that I had estimated a far too high evaporation speed of Zyklon B in an AB gas chamber, Bob the genius ended up demonstrating that my estimate may even be on the low and conservative side. He must be carpet-biting mad with himself now, the poor fellow. No wonder his above accusatory babbling comes across as so confused.
Bob wrote:I refuted his fantasies using research of chemist for Zyklon B used during 40´s, and RM took care about refutation of his claculation for faster Zyklon B, he saved me some time.
I can understand Bob’s trying to put a bright face on his blunder, but the fact is that, far from refuting my "fantasies", he demonstrated (or helped me demonstrate) that my evaporation speed calculations were rather conservative, thus shooting himself and "Revisionism" in the foot.
Bob wrote:
RM wrote:
Bob wrote:2. Is interesting how he uses page of inventory from Krema III to prove something in Krema II, when I tried this previously, Hans, one of the RM´s companion complained about it, of course this is allowed only for "chosen" users, RM and Hans can, but I can´t
Whether or not the LK of Krema II and Krema III were identical in every respect, is there any reason why their LK1 should have had different ventilation devices with different motors?
Here again RM used his usual strategy, to simply ignore my comment, my points, and he speaks about completely different issue he invented in his head, because where somebody see something about devices, ventilation and etc. in my quote? Of course nowhere, this quote is only about how RM used document from KIII to prove something in KII, but as previously mentioned, this was not allowed to me from his companion and source - user Hans, who also did this same thing - used something from KIII to prove something in KII despite his previous complains about this in connection with me. Did he explain this nonsense and double standard? No, because he can´t, so he speaks about something completely different! He do this all the time.
More hysterical nonsense. First of all, when Bob is talking to Hans he’s talking to Hans, and when he’s talking to me he’s talking to me. I have nothing to do with Hans’ arguments, and he has nothing to do with mine. Second, I assumed in my answer that Hans’ criticism was due to the fact that the LK of Krema II and III were not identical in every respect. I argued that, while it may be sometimes inappropriate to conclude from what was in Krema III on what was in Krema II and vice versa, I wouldn’t expect this to apply to the ventilation devices and motors, for there was no reason why these should be of different types in either Krema. Bob is increasingly coming across not only as a ridiculous cry-baby whiner, but also as someone who has the mentality and thought processes of a fish wife.
Bob wrote:
Don’t know, but if the document was attached to the transfer deed, it was certainly meant to show the contents of the building on the date of transfer.
So he don´t know date, he simply don´t know date but no problem for him to use not dated document when is of course crucial to know it! He simply don´t bother because it suit his belief and he ignored my arguments.
Poor Bob, his hollering is becoming more pathetic by the minute. The document in question is obviously an inventory showing what Krema III had on the day it was handed over to the Bauleitung after completion. The document is shown on page 376 of Pressac’s Technique, where it is identified as follows:
Document 38:
[Page 22 of BW 30/43, Film No.1597/17].
Inventory of the equipment of Krematorium Ill signed by SS Major Bischoff.

Krematorium. KGL. 30a. Dachgeschoss. Häftlingsr. Bodenraum. Maschinenraum /
Krematorium. POW 30a. Roof space.
Prisoners’ room. Loft. Machine room.
Elektro Motoren 2.5, - 2.6. - 5.6. 1.1 KW /
Electric motors of 2.5, 2.6. 5.6 and 1.1 kW

Bob wrote:
Simple mistake, my friend. Lying I leave to you.
Did he aplogized for his "mistake"? Of course not, this is too much for his ego.
I don’t consider Bob worth an apology, given his behavior.
Bob wrote:
Was that even my argument, or did I just quote someone else in passing?
Oh yes, here he again refused to admit his nonsense, that invoices maybe list devices and ventilation work in some mysterious buildings and not in Kremas. He began to claim, that argument was not from him and that he propably didn´t mean it seriously or what! :lol: Here he has some true in this, he parroted this nonsense from Green. He propably started to dodge this nonsense, when I quoted even Pressac who used one of the invoice for ventilation system of Krema III, so apparently not for unknown mysterious building at all.
This is my case for a 8,000 m³ per hour ventilation/extraction system in LK1 of Krema II, red highlight around the minor remark that Bob is making a wildly overblown fuss about:
So, who is right, Pressac or Mattogno? Contrary to what our opponents would like to believe, Dr. Green did not make a definite statement in either direction. His caution in jumping to conclusions is quite appropriate, for while Topf invoice no. 729 of 27.05.1943 (as well as another invoice scanned in on Germar Rudolf's website, no. 171 of 22.02.1943) clearly mention a device with a 4,800 m3/h capacity, they contain no information on what building the device belonged to. Even more so, there is conclusive documentary evidence that the ventilation system installed at the "Corpse Cellar 1" rooms of Birkenau crematoria II and III was actually the one with the larger 3.5 hp motor capable of circulating 8,000 hp per hour.

This becomes apparent from a Bauleitung drawing on a scale 1:200, no. 2197 of 19 March 1943 prepared for the transfer of Crematorium II on 31 March 1943 (Moscow Central Archives,dossier 502-2-54), shown on pages 138/139 of our Portuguese translation of Pressac's Crematoria. The inscriptions near the symbols of the ventilation motors for the airing and extraction of Corpse Cellar 1 read "2.6 kW" - the equivalent of 3.5 hp.

Further evidence that the larger system was installed in the symmetrical crematoria II and III of Birkenau is contained in a page of the inventory attached to the transfer deed of Crematorium III, scanned in under http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... entory.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and containing the mention of two 2.6 kW = 3.5 hp motors.

Even much more explicit is a letter written by SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Bischoff, head of the ZBL, to Topf & Soehne on 11 February 1943, a facsimile of which can be viewed under http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... lation.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bischoff was visibly pissed off because his contractor was badly behind schedule with his equipment for Crematorium III, and he minced no words in expressing his dissatisfaction. We translated the following passages from the letter:
Quote:
________________________________________
[...]The Central Construction Office expects that by keeping the deadline in regard to this installation you will make up for the unpleasantness caused by the non-fulfillment of promises and several counterfactual letters regarding the supply of the ovens for the concentration camp's Crematorium II. Thus you wrote on 21.01.1943 that all the materials for the airing and extraction installation would be shipped on 22.01.1943. When the wagon arrived, however, these parts were missing, so that your fitter Messing could not continue. On the phone your Mr. Pruefer said that all materials had been sent. When we claimed again another gentleman told us that the remaining materials were not yet ready. At the end the finished materials had allegedly been kept in store. Now we receive a freight letter with shipment notification of 06.02.1943. After checking the same and talking to your fitter we find out that one ventilator no. 450 with 3.5 hp motor is again missing, of all things the ventilator for the Corpse Cellar 1, which is the one needed the most urgently Furthermore 1 motor 7.5 hp for the extraction system no. 550 for Corpse Cellar II.

For this reason we again sent you a telegram: "Send immediately equipment not mentioned in shipment notification of 06.02.43, namely ventilator 450 with 3.5 hp motor for Corpse Cellar I and motor 7.5 hp for the extraction device no. 550 of Corpse Cellar II, for otherwise installation cannot be commissioned. Answer by wire."
Due to this negligence on your part the Central Construction Office is having the greatest difficulties. You are therefore requested to immediately send the missing materials by express freight, so that the installation can finally be concluded. [all emphases are ours, all underlinings are Bischoff's; in Nizkor's reproduction of the document the sentence about the Corpse Cellar II is underlined - it was underlined by Pressac, as he himself writes on the same page ("passage souligné en rouge"); in the original it is not underlined (see van Pelt, "The Case for Auschwitz", pp. 450, 451)]
________________________________________
We think this letter is worth adding to our list of exhibits as # 110.

The ZBL had obviously ordered, and Bischoff insisted in receiving, the turbine no. 450 with a 3.5 hp motor and an air circulation capacity of 8,000 m3/hour. He considered this equipment, which was needed for Corpse Cellar I, to be of the utmost urgency.

Why such urgency, dear opponents? What crucial things could have been going on that required the immediate arrival of a ventilation turbine no. 450 with a 3.5 hp motor?

Why was Bischoff so particular about the output of the motor?


And last but not least, is it reasonable to expect that Topf & Soehne dared not to give him what he wanted?

Of course not. In a letter scanned in under http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... lation.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the proxies of Topf & Soehne meekly replied, stating that they had dispatched one no. 450 turbine on 08.11.42 and another no. 450 turbine, a wooden turbine (why wooden, dear opponents?) on 25.01.1943. It also becomes apparent from the reply that Topf & Soehne had problems with the manufacture of the motors ordered by the ZBL, for they stated that they couldn't immediately ship the 7.5 hp motor for the ventilation of Corpse Cellar 2 and would provisionally send a 10 hp motor instead.

So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that, whatever is stated in the invoices our opponents make so much of - assuming they refer to the Birkenau crematoria -, Pressac was right in concluding that the "Corpse Cellar 1" rooms of Crematoria II and III, i.e. the homicidal gas chambers, received an airing/extraction device with a turbine no. 450 and a 3.5 bhp motor, capable of circulating 8,000 cubic meters per hour?

Why, now, would the above-mentioned invoices then mention not these larger devices, but their smaller predecessors?

Several possible explanations come to mind, especially when one has done business as a public works contractor.

One is that Topf & Soehne couldn't overcome their difficulties with the manufacture of the specific motors requested and the ZBL eventually clenched their teeth and accepted what they could get.

Another is that the invoices referred to the equipment ordered pursuant to the original quotation of 04.11.1941, whereas "upgradings" ordered after - the only difference between the ventilation system circulating 8,000 m3/hour and the one circulating 4,800 m3/hour was the motor, 3.5 hp instead of 2 hp, as the turbine remained the same - were billed in separate invoices.

Yet another possibility is that the ZBL, angry as it was at the delays in equipment delivery, penalized the supplier by requiring him to charge only the price of lesser equipment for the better one he had eventually delivered, and that the company put the former equipment's description in the invoice in order to avoid further complications (like being accused of hiding taxable revenues due to the equipment being invoiced below its market price) or because engineer Pruefer wanted to avoid being @#%$-canned by his superiors.

Both invoices actually contain some features, which can be interpreted as pointing to either of the latter two possibilities. In both of these exactly identical invoices, for instance, the equipment for item "B.", which has the same designation as item "A." ("extraction device for the B-room") is described in much less detail than the latter. While invoice no. 171 refers to Topf's budget offer of 04.11.1941, mentioned by Pressac, invoice no. 729 of 27.5.43 refers to a budget offer of 04.12.42 - exactly one year after the other budget offer, a strange coincidence. This invoice also mentions "your letter of 12.10.42 regarding your order of 5.10.42", even though the budget offer is stated to have been made on 04.11.1942. An order before receipt of a budget offer?

In summary, it can be said that, while the above-mentioned invoices pose a mystery inviting speculation in either direction, there are good reasons to assume, on the basis of more explicit documentary evidence, that not the equipment mentioned in these invoices, but the higher-performance equipment mentioned in documents attached to the transfer deed and angrily claimed by Bischoff was installed in the "Corpse Cellar 1" rooms of Birkenau Creamtoria II and III. Bischoff's letter to Topf of 11 February 1943 speaks volumes. While it doesn't support the notion that the enhancement of ventilation capacity was guided by homicidal intent from the very start, it shows that this enhancement, together with the fact that "Corpse Cellar I" alone had both an airing and an extraction device, led the SS to prefer this room over "Corpse Cellar 2" or an alternate use of both cellars when they prepared the buildings for homicidal gassing, and was seen by them as an essential factor (Bischoff: "of all things the ventilator for the Corpse Cellar 1, which is the one needed most urgently") to ensure the success of this endeavor.
Bob wrote:
The "flaw" is not necessarily a flaw, and even if it were it would be irrelevant to Dr. Green’s argument as he made his ventilation performance calculations assuming a capacity of 4,800 m³ per hour.
Do you see this short quote? RM simply dodged to admit that Pressac knew invoice with all these information as i proved even when RM himself requested to demonstrate it by me! And what is his reaction when I proved this lie about capacity from Pressac despite his better knowledge when he was silent about devices in invoice?

"No, it’s just irrelevant to my argument."

So my proof that Presac lied is irrelevant to argument of RM who claimed that Pressac didn´t lie. :lol:
Let’s look at the context of my "No, it’s just irrelevant to my argument" - remark From post # 178, emphases added:
RM wrote:
Bob wrote:
I can’t tell what Pressac does as I don’t have the German edition of his book, but my approach is based on the three 1943 documents mentioned above, which show that the ventilation devices installed in the LK1 had 3.5 hp motors, which in turn means that they were not 4,800 m3/hour devices but 8,000 m3/hour devices.
Here, RM even didn´t bother to request some quote or note from book, he is propably feared that I am correct about Pressac,
No, it’s just irrelevant to my argument.
Now Bob claims that I requested backup he earlier accused me of not having bothered to request. So which of them is it, Bob? Can’t you keep your stories straight?
Bob wrote:RM ignored that Pelt used wrong capacity, what is flaw, he ignored that Green obviously admitted (albeit reluctantly) that invoice is correct and not that capacity was 8000 despite the existence of invoices, he accepted it, he was simply not so ridiculous to claim, that ventilation was 8,000 m³ per hour and invoice is irrelevant. On the other hand, Green used different strategy how to dodge this major flaw, he said:

“Regarding the performance of the ventilation system, it simply does not matter. Even with Mattogno's assumptions, our conclusions are still valid.”

Yep, he obviously accepted it, but with saying that real capacity of ventilation system (4800) simply does not matter when he used wrong capacity (8000) for his calculations! No matter what is capacity, it simply does not matter, his calculations and claims are somehow still valid or what and no changes, interesting :lol:

Poor RM uses different strategy, ignoring of invoices with claiming that correct capacity is 8000 m³ per hour.
Actually I’m not ignoring the invoices, as lying Bob well knows, but explaining in detail why the equipments described therein differ from those mentioned in "as built" documents and Bischoff’s letter of 11 February 1942, which I consider the more reliable documentation as concerns the equipment actually installed. And yes, while Dr. Green didn’t care to pursue the issue any further because he proved Rudolf wrong with calculations based on 4,800 m³ per hour (if Bob claims that Dr. Green made his calculations based on 8,000 m³ per hour, he is invited to prove it with quotes from Green’s writings), I maintain there’s good evidence that the capacity was 8,000 m³ per hour, whatever the invoices say. Out of arguments against my case, the best that Bob can do is make a fuss about my case differing from Dr. Green’s position. Pathetic.
Bob wrote:
Is that lame bitching supposed to be an argument against these possible explanations?
When I pointed out that RM uses invented nonexisting documents which nobody ever saw as his explanation, he ignored it, for him is this "detail" simply "bitching" and he even repeated these invetions as "argument" again :lol:
Bob is invited to identify the invented "nonexisting documents which nobody ever saw" that he’s babbling about. Bar such explanation, I’ll assume that his either lying or hallucinating. I hope he doesn’t mean the three documents that make my case for a 8000 m³ per hour ventilation/extraction capacity in LK1 of Krema II (and III), for that would be too stupid a lie.
Bob wrote:
Sorry, but what am I supposed to be "lying" about? I just summarized Pressac’s argument.
Do you see it again? When I refuted his nonsense about allegedly hypothetical scenario, he dodged it with saying that he only repeated Pressac and thus he is innocent! As shown in this short reply, he completely dodged to admit that scenario is not hypothetical and Pressac´s math very bad.
I’m probably not the only one here who finds it ever harder to understand Bob’s confused slobbering, so let’s just recall my pertinent remark and the context in which it was made. From post # 157:
RM wrote:
Bob wrote:
What exactly did Pressac say about "blocked ventilation openings"?
In the other words, RM don´t know Pressac´s basic book from 1989 and its p. 377.
On that page, Pressac discusses a hypothetical scenario based on an exaggerated assumption about gas chamber occupation (3,000 people) and explains how Bob’s heroes would have solved this hypothetical problem. So what was Bob’s point supposed to be?
Where’s the lie supposed to be, Bob? What exactly am I supposed to have stated against better knowledge? Try explaining your tortuous reasoning in a manner that doesn’t make you look like an incoherent moron.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:54 pm

Bob wrote:
Depends on how many openings there were. If there were only a handful of openings throughout the room, there’s a good chance that the victims wouldn’t usually come to lie right in front of them.
Dear readers, he is again lying to you again,
Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself, Bob?

I’m clearly not making any statement about the number of ventilation openings, just reasoning that the risk of blocking depended on the number of ventilation openings and would be reduced if that number was small.

Ah, and if you want our dear readers not to see you as a spineless coward besides an at best somewhat confused specimen, I suggest you identify the person who persistently and baselessly accuses me of lying.
Bob wrote:Pressac:

Perforated galvanized covering one of the upper (fresh air inlet) ventilation holes of Leichenkeller I of Krematorium II or III dimensions: 7 x 13 cm. Leichenkeller 1 of Kr II had 50 of these

This alleged cover from alleged gas chamber of course means that the same number is used for lower duct when the both ducts are of the same capacity and thus supposed to work at least in the same way of performance (at least to my knowledge, I never saw number mentioned by Pressac for lower openings of L1 in K II, so the same number is logical assumption). So not only "handful", but lot of them, 50 on each of the long walls, 25 for lower and 25 for upper duct. Is interesting how Pressac contradicted himself, firstly, the plates were allegedly 7 x 18 based on alleged order/final document for covers and protection grills, but found cover was allegedly only 7 x 13.
So I’m supposed to be lying about a number of lower openings stated neither by me nor by Pressac because Bob makes the "logical assumption" about the number of lower openings based on the number of upper opening covers stated by Pressac? You're either a very confused or a very dishonest fellow, my friend - or both.

Bob’s reasoning is also not a necessary assumption. There may well have been a higher number of relatively small inlet openings on top versus a relatively small number of larger extraction openings below. What is more, Bob "forgot" to tell us on what page his of Technique Pressac quote is to be found. It is on page 487 (emphasis added):
Perforated galvanized covering one of the upper (fresh air inlet) ventilation holes of Leichenkeller I of Krematorium II or III dimensions: 7 x 13 cm. Leichenkeller 1 of Kr II had 50 of these (metalworking shop order no. 83 of 18/2/43, completed on 15/ 3/43), and that of Kr III 95 (metalworklng shop order no. 192 of 15/3/43, completed on 22/3/43). They were simply fixed by four nails across the rectangular openings cut in the wooden conduits through which fresh air arrived. Kept in the PMO “Reserve Stocks”, in block 25.
We see that Pressac concluded on the number from a metalworking shop order dated 15.3.1943. The number of coverings ordered is not necessarily equal to the number of openings, of course. These may have been not very resistant parts that needed to be regularly replaced, so the order may have included a number of spares right away.
Bob wrote:What is worse with this RM? He even didn´t realize that with using only a "handful" number of openings as he claimed, the good ventilation would be hardly possible of course, he simply didn´t bother about this because he needed to somehow "solve" current problem. And as shown, he completely ignored to explain it.
Why would good ventilation require the same number and size on inlet openings as of extraction openings? Because Bob says so, or for any reason worth considering?

Show me proof that de-aeration was done through the same number of openings as aeration, and not through a smaller number of larger openings. Not "logical assumption". Evidence.
Bob wrote:
Assuming that they thought of that in mindless death panic, and that air came out of the openings while the gassing was under way.
Another absurd "methodology" of his common sense, victims would not use the only possibility how to breath air and they would wait to be gassed!
Would panicking victims not exactly familiar with the room even notice that these openings existed when they panicked upon introduction of the gas, let alone realize what they were there for? For an emotional hysteric Bob has extraordinarily high expectations about the capacity of human beings to keep their heads and think rationally in a situation of mortal danger.
Bob wrote:Another lie from him, ventilation ducts were in permanent contact with air to allow blowers ventilate the room. I guess he will simply invent something what was used to block ventilation ducts during gassings.
If the de-aeration ducts were in permanent contact with air (evidence?), I didn’t know that. I never claimed to be an expert familiar with all details of AB ventilation/extraction, so the "lie" accusation is just more of Bob’s bitching fish-wife silliness. And, if he should insist on calling me names under cover of anonymity, further evidence of his spineless cowardice.
Bob wrote:
Show me how these 1,492 victims blocked the ventilation openings.
What we have here, this source of RM simply stated as source name of book and pages "183-245" to simply let readers to search for quote.This quote is in fact on page 232 and i assume that this source of RM simply didn´t know the correct page or they didn´t read book, so they quoted whole chapter from Pressac as they propably found information somewhere on the internet or what, ridiculous.

Number of victims, main source for RM, Henryk Tauber stated in his deposition to Soviets that 4000 people from Cracow were gassed on 15 March as first batch in KII. Rudolf Vrba claimed as first gassing beginning of January 1943 (Krema II far from complete) in his book with death toll of 3000 as he allegedly counted trucks (he said this under oath during Zundel trial), previously in his report he stated 8000 victims in March as first gassing during inauguration of new krematorium II. Danuta Czech in his book finally stated 1492 allegedly gassed peoples from Cracow, but not for 13 March as RM said with his flawed source, but for 14 March, and not for any of the crematoria, she simply didnt said any single word about it, pure invention from RM and his sources. Finally Pressac in 1989 used number 8000, but changed it freely to about 1500 and stated also as a date of gassing 14 March and not 13 March as in 1994 and he even reproduced pages from Danuta Czech which stated number to 1492 as we already know. In 1994, he again did another flaw with bad quoted sources and he also omitted all numbers stated by witnesses or by report and opicked up the lowest one from the date closest to Tauber´s. That is how these shysters arrived to their numbers - contradictions, wrong numbers, badly quoted sources and so on, ridiculous. As we also know, Pressac used bad ventilation capacity.
Where is all this blather supposed to get us? Are we here to discuss the rights and wrongs of Mr. Pressac or whosoever, or are we here to determine whether a blocking of the de-aeration vents by the victims’ bodies was or could have been a major hindrance to proper ventilation after gassing?

On page 489 of Technique, Pressac links Tauber’s description of a gassing in mid-March 1943 to data from the Kalendarium about the transport from the Cracow ghetto:
We did not burn any corpses, simply keeping the fires going in order to keep the furnaces hot. About mid-March 1943,

[on 14th, when out of an RSHA transport of 2000 Jews from the Cracow ghetto, 494 were selected for work in the camp and the others were gassed]

one evening after work, Haupscharführer [Master-Sergeant) Hirsch. in charge of the Krematorien at thin tine, came and ordered its to stay in the crematorium because there was some work for us. At nightfall, trucks arrived carrying people of both sexes and all ages. Among them there were old men, women, and many children.


On page 494 of Technique, Pressac shows
Two photographs of the same can of Zyklon-B, kept in the PMO "Reserve stocks" in block 25, with a content of 1600 g. corrected to 1500 g of hydrocyanic acid, delivered by Tesch & Stalabenow, main distributor for the East Reich. Four of these cans or 6 kilograms of HCN, were used to kill 1000 to 1500 people in the Leichenkeller 1 / gas chambers of Krematorien II and III.
The entry in Danuta Czech’s Kalendarium reads as follows:
13 marzo Con un trasporto del RSHA sono giunti 2.000 uomini, donne e bambini ebrei provenienti dal ghetto B di Cracovia. Dopo la selezione, 484 uomini, che ricevono i numeri da 107990 a 108409 e da 108467 a 108530, e 24 donne, che ricevono I numeri da 38307 a 38330, sono internati nel campo come detenuti. Gli altri detenuti, circa 1.492, sono uccisi nella camera a gas del Crematorio II1.
She expressly mentions Krematorium II as the place where the 1492 arrivals were gassed, apparently making the link to Tauber’s testimony like Pressac does. The transport probably arrived on the night of 13 to 14 March 1943, and the gassing was probably completed in the early morning hours of the latter day.

According to Rudolf Höss, the gas chambers of Kremas II and III could take in up to 3,000 people each, but this occupation was never reached as the individual transports were never that large ("Die Vergasungsräume faßten je 3000 Menschen, diese Zahlen wurden aber nie erreicht, da die einzelnen Transporte ja nie so stark waren.").

In other words, the gas chambers were never filled to capacity, according to the commandant himself.
Bob wrote:Finally RM selectively picked the lowest number from the all in connection with blocked openings problem and is silent about the others, as usual.
This would imply that I was aware of higher numbers, documented not by eyewitness testimonies (eyewitnesses tend to get numbers wrong, especially exaggerate them) but on Danuta Czech’s Kalendarium. I frankly picked what I had closest at hand and didn’t try to find the highest number of people gassed at one time according to the Kalendarium, but Bob is free to do that: pick the highest number he can find that is borne out by documentary evidence (comparing documented number of arrivals with documented number of selected inmates) for the period after the crematoria started gassing operation, and show me on hand of that highest number that the de-aeration orifices would have been blocked.
Bob wrote:
If so, bad for Pressac, but it doesn’t mean that the bodies necessarily blocked all openings and that, it that problem should have arisen, it couldn’t have been solved by Sonderkommando folks wearing gas masks clearing the ventilation openings. The rest of Pressac’s solution proposal:

remains pertinent even if the undressing room ventilators were not working. All they had to do to prevent contamination of the building was to close the gas-tight doors after the gas-mask-wearing SK folks had entered. And they didn’t have to drag bodies blocking the ventilation openings into the vestibule to clear the blocked openings. Just drag them sufficiently far away from the openings for the same to work again.
"If so", in the other words, RM see proofs, but didn´t accept it as proven, he used "if so" to make an impression that proofs are maybe wrong.
So, is it proven that the motors were not installed? IIRC Bob told us exactly the opposite a few lines later.
Bob wrote:The rest is so stupid that it really don´t need any comment, but is worth of note that not even one single witnesses ever described something about unblocking of ventilation openings or something like that and not even one witness ever described working in gas chamber during gassings at least to my knowledge - such a nonsense is surpassed only by liars like Moshe Peer who allegedly survived six gassings, so we see here another invention and very dumb one.
Blah, blah, blah. If no witness ever mentioned having to unblock de-aeration vents, this means that such was never necessary, as simple as that. Pressac, Technique page 377:
As the documents we possess at present make no mention of such work we can assume for the moment that the case of the “3000” never occurred, the number of victims from a convoy always being less than this.
As was expressly stated by Rudolf Höss, see above. But I’m still looking forward to Bob picking out the maximum occupation of one Krematorium LK1 according to the Kalendarium and showing me that, with such occupation, the de-aeration openings (all of them) would have been blocked in such a way as to hinder de-aeration.

As to the mentioned witness who supposedly claimed to have survived six gassings, big deal. He should be relied on only if and insofar as corroborated by evidence independent of him, and he has nothing to do with this discussion. Bob apparently likes to digress.
Bob wrote:
Why was the air extraction of LK2 not equipped with a motor, by the way? Wasn’t it supposed to be a morgue, in "Revisionist" scripture?
Again RM who see only what he wants to see, so he completely ignored that motors were installed as I already pointed out.
… meaning that Pressac’s remedy scenario on page 377 for the case of blocking is completely sound, as I said before. What’s the evidence that the motors were installed, by the way? And what were they used for in the undressing room?
Bob wrote:
How exactly would the start of work on ventilation system in January 1943 contradict the notion that a decision to use morgues as gas chambers was taken in November 1942?
Another terrible understanding of comments, again misrepresentation as usual. Did I said that work on installation of ventilation system started in January 1943? Of course not, RM again invented it!
No, it's just that Bob didn’t express himself clearly enough, once again. He has this problem bringing across what he means to say in the English language.
Bob wrote:I clearly said "ventilation work and installation of ventilation system is dated after January 1943" (allegeldy the lastest date for decision what room will serve as gas chamber according to RM) and previously I said even the precise dates "but as Pressac wrote in his book, ventilation system for L2 in KII was installed from 14-28 March, for L2 of KIII was installed between 11-22 April"

So poor RM again totally omitted point of my comment and adressed completely different one, because I stated by using orthodox sources, that ventilation in LK2 KII was installed more than 4 months after the decision about what room will serve as gas chamber has been made according to Pressac in 1994, and 1,5 month after the latest date from RM, did he explained why they installed it when they did not need it?
Small things really worry the small minds of small people. The decision that LK1 would be the gas chamber must have been taken by the time of Bischoff’s letter of 29 January 1943 at the latest, to be sure. Why were the ventilation systems in LK2 installed after that day, Bob asks? No idea, but there are several possible explanations, the likeliest being that the contracts for supplying and installing these equipments had already been signed and the design had already been done and the equipments had already been procured, so canceling the contracts would not have saved the Bauleitung any money as they would have had to indemnify the contractor due to termination for employer’s convenience. IIRC we have been there before, and Bob is either ignoring my explanation or didn’t understand it.
Bob wrote:Of course not, because he cant, thus he completely misrepresent me to dodge it.
Stop whining, Bobby. Unlike you and other "Revisionist" charlatans, I’m not in the habit of misrepresenting my opponent’s arguments. But when a confused opponent like you furthermore is not able to express his arguments clearly in the English language, it may happen that I misunderstand what he’s trying to tell me.
Bob wrote:What is worse again, RM ignored all criminal traces dated before 29 of January 1943, if he claims that this date is the one for this decision and not before this date.
Are we talking about the date before it was decided to use the LK (one or both of them) as homicidal gas chambers (let’s assume that was November 1942), or about the unknown date when it was decided to use only the LK1 as homicidal gas chambers? Please tell me, Mr. "RM ignored this and that", what criminal traces I’m supposed to have "ignored" in either case.
Bob wrote:
Oh, so they did install the motors, after all? Great, this means that Pressac’s conjectures about the measures that might have been adopted in case the ventilation openings were blocked are wholly sound and Bob made a big fuss about nothing.
This one is especially ridiculous, when the revisionist evidence suits his position, he has no problem to accept it :lol: and he simply ignores that his orthodox source speaks about the opposite and is proven to be contradicting.
Frankly I couldn’t care less whether the motors were installed or not. If they were not, Pressac’s blocking remedy scenario would not be wholly sound, but most of it would still be workable, as I explained. No other consequence. If the motors were installed, Pressac’s blocking remedy scenario (which is theoretical anyway as the gas chambers were never filled to capacity and blocking of the de-aeration openings never occurred) would be wholly sound. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bob wrote:
A crie de cœur that is as amusing as it is self-projecting. If one wants to know what equipments were installed in a building one looks at the "as built" drawings and not at the invoices ...
What a fantastic statement again! What this means? Simply that gas chambers never existed, because when ones look at drawings, we have normal construction of crematoria with morgues even explictily stated in plans (Leichenkeller - morgue), well done RM. :lol: I expect another nonsensical damage control.
Except, of course, that there’s other and very conclusive evidence that the gas chambers existed and were put to use. If we had only invoices for gassing facilities but no such facilities showed in "as built" drawings, and if there was no evidence such as many eyewitness testimonies, forensic examinations, the Vergasungskeller document and other documents, Bob’s analogy might be appropriate. As it is, all it does is show another hole in Bob’s logic.
Bob wrote:
And it’s obvious why he’s doing that: he has no alternative explanation for this device
Here RM again see only what he wants to see, and he completely ignored my explanation provided six days ago even he himslef already quoted this specific post with explanation included!
Why, now I’m definitely curious. I must have missed that very interesting post in which Bob explained what exactly (other than a wire mesh column used to introduce Zyklon B into underground gas chambers) a Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung was and what such Vorrichtung was used for in a Leichenkeller. Please provide the link to that very interesting explanation and forgive me for my having missed it, my dear friend.
Bob wrote:
Actually it’s hard to see from the handwriting in the inventory whether it reads Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung or Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrrichtung. It’s also irrelevant, as there’s no difference in meaning between one and the other term.

and alleged (and completely irrelevant) misspelling of the term!
Again RM and his excuses, of course he can´t read it when he used flawed h-h.org project with his bad sources, here is the better version of this document.:
Image

RM calls wrongly interpreted documents as "irrelevant", simply ridiculous and he even said "alleged" misspelling. :lol:
Congratulations on your "better" sources, which allow you to see the “e” between “schieb” and “vorrichtung” in the handwritten Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung. Now, could you please explain what is the difference between a Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung and a Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung? As a native speaker of the German language, I see no difference at all. And when you have shown the difference, I hope you will also explain what kind of device or contraption at AB, other than the wire mesh columns described by eyewitnesses, could possibly have corresponded to the designation Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung. And what that device or contraption would have been used for in a Leichenkeller.
Bob wrote:
No, Dr. Green and his sources are also OK.
But as RM proved, not for claims refuting his nonsenses about evaporation or ventilation capacity, he simply ignored them. :lol:
Nowhere do Dr. Green and his sources refute my evaporation time calculations and my conclusions about ventilation capacity based on solid documentary evidence, sorry. Your only chance for a refutation regarding evaporation time would have been evidence provided by Mr. Lambrecht that Zyklon B in 1942 out-gassed more slowly than Zyklon B in 1933. But all that Dr. Lambrecht provided was a) speculations about longer out-gassing times with the 1942 Erco carrier and b) references to the original patent application suggesting that, if they used the dia gravel carrier type of Zyklon B at Auschwitz-Birkenau (which, as we know from Irmscher’s paper, was still available in 1942, even if it was not the most commonly used), my evaporation time calculations, which you claimed were completely unrealistic, are actually rather conservative and evaporation in the AB gas chambers was actually much faster than I assumed. As concerns ventilation, Dr. Green simply didn’t care to further examine the issue whether ventilation/extraction capacity was 8,000 m³/hour or 4,800 m³/hour because he had refuted Rudolf’s claims about ventilation times based on the lower value. But that doesn’t mean he would reject evidence like Bischoff’s letter of 11.02.1943 and the "as built" drawing of Krema II dated 19.03.1943, which clearly point to 8,000 m³/hour devices with 3.5 hp motors.
Bob wrote:
No trick at all, actually. Just a plain mistake. It doesn’t matter whether the date is 11 February or 11 March 1943, what matters is Bischoff’s emphatic insistence in a ventilation device with a 3.5 hp motor.
Oh yes, again the same "mistake". :lol: It doesn’t matter? Of course it does matter! Because the dates are crucial, what a nice damage control again.
No, my friend, the dates are not crucial. What is crucial is that a) Bischoff yelled for a ventilation device with a 3.5 hp motor and b) a device with a 3.5 hp motor is shown in the drawing of 19.03.1943, meaning that Bischoff got what he wanted.
Bob wrote:
Interesting explanation, except that the other item mentioned in Bischoff’s letter (the motor for the air extractor in LK 2) doesn't seem to have been urgent. How come the "ventilator no. 450 with 3.5 hp motor" for "the Corpse Cellar 1" was "needed the most urgently" but the extractor motor for LK 2 was not?
Here he again ignored opponent´s comment as usual, i also provided quotes from Pressac who said that LK1 was morgue used for the worst bodies in state of decompostition and for their storage, so is of course urgent to have the blowers installed as soon as possible to be able to use this room for such a bodies and for the purpose for why the crematoria were constructed. Incredible ignorance.
Ah, so the ventilation for LK1 was more urgent because LK1 was to take the smelly bodies whereas LK2 was for the fresher ones. Please show me (again, if you already so did) where Pressac suggested this.
Bob wrote:
What, this discussion? Quite the contrary, it may even have been a pleasant re-encounter with an old acquaintance. You don’t happen to be the fellow who used to post as “jetblast” on the RODOH forum, Bob?
Because of his exposed fails and lacks of arguments, he again resorted to somehow discredit me with making an accusation about how i am some user from RODOH or what, this is really desperate.
Actually just a curiosity question, Bobby. And you should try to do without those somewhat-less-than-convincing victory dances, which smack of either dishonesty or delusions of adequacy.
Bob wrote:Edit by Bob - why he is still doing this and why he spreads accusations, insults and ad homines all the time? Maybe because of the reasons described above, maybe because of these reason described by Muehlenkamp himself HERE, which prove that he is the one who is the only dubious person and not the revisionists as he claims. He has my sympathy for his bad state, especially for his delicate "delay" problem, but this cannot be an excuse for what he is doing.
Thanks a lot, my dear friend, for showing that you have the character of a cockroach. For one needs to have the character of a cockroach to use a reported disease as an argument against an opponent. It is the lowliest kind of ad hominem one can think of (thus another reason why your whining about "accusations, insults and ad homines" is deeply hypocritical). And apart from the fact that the disease was reported in 1999 and has long been controlled, you should have informed yourself about its characteristics. Depression makes you feel bad, but it doesn’t make you delusional and hence of "dubious" reliability. It has affected strong personalities without depriving them of their capacity to act and function and make down-to-earth decisions, even if they were feeling miserable all the time. A delusional state is rather suggested by the breakdowns in logic and common sense that characterize "Revisionist" argumentation. And assuming such delusional state and a problem with their thought processes is giving "Revisionists" the benefit of doubt, actually. The alternative is to consider them a bunch of rotten liars who know very well how hollow their claims and conjectures are but try to push them through nevertheless for the sake of an ideological agenda.

So which of them are you, Bobby?

A delusional, unintelligent sucker who falls for and parrots the rubbish of Rudolf, Mattogno and others?

Or a liar who knows as well as I do that "Revisionism" is a big fat hoax?

I have nothing against revisionists, by the way. I just don’t like those Hitler-kissing hate propagandists who falsely pretent to be revisionists.
Bob wrote:Edit2 - if somebody noticed name of the page then - nope, I am not this "Dr. Bob."
Of course not. You are a self-projecting charlatan (or a deluded fool at best) and a spineless coward who insults people from safe anonymity, and on top of that you have now also shown that you have no more sense of decency than a cockroach. In other words, you are another of those utterly contemptible creatures that abound in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land.
Bob wrote:
So Bob would like to believe, but I still have to see him disprove physical and photographic evidence to the contrary.
After all my arguments, he simply agian repeated already refuted report, his favorite strategy, he simply ingored everything and has no problem to repeat it again.
What arguments do you mean? The "Kula’s column was wider than the holes found by Keren et al" mantra, the “holes were tampered with" mantra, or something that would serve to prove the authors of the report wrong?
Bob wrote:
Now that you have finished showing the deplorable effect that reading only "Revisionist" toilet paper has on a human brain
Do yo usee it? Deborah Lipstadt and her article and quotes about invented 11 million figure is "revisionist toilet paper" :lol:
Deborah Lipstadt is not one of my favorite authors (I haven’t read any of her books and little else from her, actually), and if she promotes the "invented 11 million figure" (six million Jews plus Wiesenthal’s unsubstantiated five million non-Jews), I strongly recommend that she read Peter Novick’s The Holocaust in American Life and my blogs 5 million non-Jewish victims? (Part 1) and 5 million non-Jewish victims? (Part 2).
Bob wrote:Well, that is propably all and as i said i only wanted to expose his "methodology" this time and his using of sources, lies, misrepresentation, ignorance and etc. Simply don´t believe him readers, you must read books, follow his claims and verify them all the time because he is really dishonest.
If the goal of your bitching was to expose my dishonesty, I’d say you not only failed most disastrously but also exposed yourself as another example of the mixture of confusion and mendacity that characterizes "Revisionists". But I’lll let our readers reach their own conclusions.
Bob wrote:This approach should have to be applied everytime no matter who is the opponent of course.
And especially when the opponent is a "Revisionist". Hitler’s willing defense attorneys will try to sell you any evidence distortion or pseudo-scientific nonsense they think they can get away with.
Bob wrote:I am finished with this user and because I am not used to kick to cadavers, thanks for his "effort" and rest in peace Mr. Roberto Meuehlenkamp. ;)
And when they run out of arguments, they usually leave the scene with victory dances like the above, emulating the gentleman known as Baghdad Bob.