Dr. Green's Claim Of Zyklon-B Pellet Withdrawal

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:31 am)

I don't have a copy of Rudolf's affidavit. If the parts which Green quotes are correct, then Rudolf seemed at times a little careless with the selection of his words. If crossexamined by a sharp lawyer in a court room he may very well be driven into a corner.

Based on a table from Dupont, Green assumes that an HCN concentration of 300 ppm is sufficient to kill a person in a short time, maybe within 10 minutes. Dupont probably arrived at this value through extrapolations from tests with animals.
The US execution gas chamber people must have been aware of the Dupont values too. So why go to a gas density of 3200. ppm, ten timess as high? Especially since apparently the duration of the killing process itself seems to be the same in both cases, about 10 minutes?

The only reason for this high gas concentration in US gas chambers I can think of is to spread the poison gas to at least 300 ppm as quickly as possible within the gas chamber, i.e. to the nostrils of the condemmed,.

The production of HCN gas (or any other gas) will produce at the point of production an overpressure, which according to the laws of nature attempts to equalize by spreading throughout the space in question. The more gas is produced, the higher the overpressure and the faster the spreading of the poison gas. This is in my opinion the reason to go to a 3200 ppm gas concentration: To get the execution over with as quick as possible.

The alleged gas chamber in Birkenau, morgue 1 of Krema II, faces two additional problems:

First it is much larger than a US gas chamber and therefore requires much more HCN gas than the 3200 ppm of US gas chambers produced at the points of insertion in order to spread as quickly as possible to the furthest corner.

Secondly the HCN gas is produced from Zyklon B which is a rather slow procedure if compared with the procedure in US gas chambers.

The resulting gas concentration would be rather high after all HCN is discharged from the Zyklon B. Rudolf estimates, if I remember correctly, a gas density ten times as high as in fumigation chambers, which in turn could certainly lead to blue staining of the walls.

fge


PS. I think that Dr. Green's points should not be taken lightly. Most Holocaust believers will argue along his lines. Also the tone in his affidavit seems to be less aggressive than we are normally used to. May be this is because his affidavit was to be submitted to a British court. :D

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:04 pm)

I'm sure, however, in this case, it is Green's non-words that speak more loudly.

The state execution of a citizen in the US is no light matter. It is a highly legalistic event. In fact, the highest. Therefore, members of an execution committee would cover all ends in case of a problem. This explains the reason for the huge 3200ppm dose for a prisoner. The idea is a quick and certain death in order to involve as little legal exposure as possible.

This is where Green exposes himself. Because of this legal potential, state execution committees are very precise and record as much as possible in order to cover themselves. There is no US execution committee that would possibly have executed someone without recording the exact cyanide dosage used. Because of this legalistic scenario you can bet each and every state chemist who prepares a cyanide dose for execution records the exact amount in his papers.

This means that Green's contention that executions are too random to use realiably for reference is completely bogus. It's obvious that state executions are some of the most reliable and documented cyanide events.

"Sailor", I'm confused why you interpret this obvious evasion on Green's behalf the way you do? It isn't Irving's defense that fears being cornered, it's Green! Green obviously avoids this pool of cyanide gassing data because it would only help weaken his evidence over the morgue gassings...

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:20 pm)

Temporary on hold wrote:"Sailor", I'm confused why you interpret this obvious evasion on Green's behalf the way you do? It isn't Irving's defense that fears being cornered, it's Green! Green obviously avoids this pool of cyanide gassing data because it would only help weaken his evidence over the morgue gassings...

I was sidestepping the topic some and was thinking of his statement with regards to the ventilation of the morgues, not the quantity of Zyklon B used. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Rudolf said in his affidavit:

"The performance of the ventilation systems of the Crematoria II and III reveals that morgue
1, the alleged 'gas chamber', was never intended to be used as a homicidal 'gas chamber':

1. All morgues in Birkenau had ventilation systems with some ten air exchanges per hour,
which was to be expected, as it this [sic] was required by the German war-time law for
underground morgues (5-10 air exchanges per hour). [Rudolf's footnote 22]

2. A comparison between the performance of the alleged 'gas chamber' and that of the
alleged victim's undressing room reveals that there is nothing sinister about the ventilation
of morgue 1 ('gas chamber'), as its performance is even lower than that of the undressing
room:
morgue 1 ('gas chamber'): 9.94 exchanges per hour
morgue 2 ('undressing cellar'): 10.35 exchanges per hour

3. War-time literature recommended some seventy air exchanges per hour for professional
delousing chambers, which is seven times more powerful than that attained by the systems
of the crematorium morgues. This recommended standard must be expected for
'professional' homicidal 'gas chambers' as well. [Rudolf's note 23] Whereas the ventilation
system of a morgue simply has to exchange bad smelling air, but non-hazardous gases,
the ventilation system of a gas chamber, be it for homicidal or delousing purposes, needs
to remove even minimal traces of highly lethal gases, which in the case of hydrogen
cyanide, persistently adheres to moist surfaces. Although it is possible to temporarily
operate a makeshift delousing chamber with a less powerful ventilation system, it should be
obvious that a homicidal mass gassing facility working uninterruptedly for many months
could not operate on a makeshift basis. The moisture involved, the densely packed bodies,
as well as the necessity to quickly clear the chamber for the next batch would require
enormously powerful fans."


In my opinion morgue 1 can certainly be use as a homicidal gas chamber with a ventilation system sized for a morgue with only 10 air exchanges per hour.. It just takes a little longer to clear the place of the HCN gas. Maybe up to 2 hours.

Maybe Rudolf should have said that the ventilation system was not suitable for the clearing of HCN as alleged, as reported by the "eye witnesses". For example Hoess, who said that after 30 minutes gassing the door was opened, the ventialation was started and the bodies were immediately dragged out by the "Sonderkommando". Go figure!

Rudolf's reference to over 70 air changes per hour in point 3 is actually for the special 10 m3 circulation type fumigation chambers manufactured by Degesch. http://www.codoh.com/graphics/gaschmbr.gif
This chamber functions with heated Zyklon B, I think at 30ºC, a very short gassing time and which permits entering the chamber without gas masks after only 15 minutes ventilation. Both Rudolf and Mattogno list the sources from where they got this info about 70 air exchanges.

I don't think that the 70 air exchanges were applicable for the morgue.

fge

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:35 pm)

Sailor:

I'd like to look in to the ventilation specifics separately. May I ask if you know where the ventilation of highly explosive cyanide gas exited the duct coming from morgue I? Perhaps it can be investigated if the concentration exiting that duct near the crematoria was within Dupont flammability ranges?


I find it hard to believe Green wasn't taken apart by some of these able revisionists. As I have discussed in this thread, Green's flaws are visible even to someone like myself who has only read revisionism and not investigated it on the technical level. If you look on the internet, there is no link showing any refutation of his statement in the Irving Trial.


To show how immediately destroyable Green can be to even a lay person just look at his Prussian blue logic. Hannover provided us a statement from Nuremberg telling how apparent the "highly-penetrative" power of cyanide gas was in the camp structures. Yet Green asserts the exact opposite in his report to the Court. He says Leuchter's laboratory advises that cyanide will only penetrate 10 microns into brick and mortar. In fact he takes a cracked brick from Auschwitz and shows how the Prussian blue only penetrated on the surface.

Though we've already covered this, Green ignores how Prussian blue seepage managed to penetrate the plaster layer and go all the way through to the outside wall. We can reject his claim that liquid cyanide-soaked materials leaned against the outside wall caused the stains there. This ridiculous claim alone makes Green un-credible.

But to get back to my point, even a lay person can cut right through Green's deceptive technique. Green claims that the alleged 10 micron penetration caused Leuchter's samples to contain too much inert material. He claims Leuchter took thumb-sized thickness samples making the first 10 microns dilute too much when the entire sample was pulverized by the lab for testing. However, any average person would then see that the other samples from the delousing chamber would also have been equally diluted. In other words, Leuchter took thick samples from those walls. The delousing chamber samples proved to have HUGE concentrations of cyanide residue. By Green's own logic, therefore, the delousing chamber samples should have read lower than accurate because they were also too thick. But they didn't!

Green hedges again to get around this. This is where his theory for the differing rates of exposure between the delousing and 'gas' chambers is critical to his passing off his excuse making. Remember, Green is adamant about the maximum 10 micron penetration of cyanide into the chamber materials. He blatantly contradicts himself by alleging low penetration in the 'gas chambers' but high penetration in the delousing chambers. In fact, his sample brick for showing only 10 microns penetration comes from the delousing chamber wall. (It has to because there is no staining on any 'gas chamber' wall)


To sum it all up, Green's Prussian blue reasoning is visibly bogus because he can't claim a 10 micron penetration for cyanide into brick or mortar and still make his improper sample claim. Think about this. If cyanide only penetrates 10 microns into chamber surfaces, then it would only penetrate 10 microns into delousing chamber wall surfaces. If Leuchter's samples from the 'gas chamber' were invalid because he took too thick a sample, that means the HUGE concentrations found in the delousing chamber samples were also too low. Leuchter took the same thickness samples there. Therefore, by Green's own logic this sample would also have been too thick for the claimed 10 micron deposit. Since this diluted sample from the delousing chamber wall registered a thousand times more cyanide, that would mean its real concentration in a 'valid' sample would have been much higher. If there was too much inert material ground into the sample from the gas chamber, then there would also have been too much ground in from the delousing chamber sample. We can see from this that Green has pushed Leuchter's readings in the direction he wants without acknowledging how that also pushes the entire scale over on the far end.


Forgive me, I know this detail is tedious, but this subject has a myraid of tangents that when properly arranged completely reveal the disingenuousness of gas chamber legendry. So where we are now is Green trying to cover two opposite extremes he can't quite seem to make excuses for. Hence in the case of Prussian blue we have several blatantly preposterous explanations originating from this dilemma. The first being liquid cyanide-soaked materials being responsible for the stains on the outside walls of the delousing chambers. Even Nuremberg remarked that this was an example of the extreme penetration power of Zyklon upon first sight. Next is the 10 micron penetration claim - even though Green was looking at stains on the outside of the wall. Yes, perhaps cyanide condensation was limited to 10 microns staining on surfaces it reached, but the proper context is that it was capable of penetrating deeply into structures to do so. Finally, we have the pellet removal claim. A claim that obviously originates from the need to make the forensics fit the stories rather than the reverse.

There are several more I can't remember offhand. I believe Green can be thoroughly discounted because of this. How any British court allowed such obviously contrived evidence to weigh against Irving is hard to imagine...

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:56 pm)

With the knowledge of what was written above you can better understand Green's methods and their motivation.

We now understand why Green needed to invent the crazy proposition that liquid cyanide was sloshed around and somehow ended up on the outside wall of the delousing chamber where Leuchter's photographs show a mosaic of dark blue Prussian blue patterning on the brick wall. When Nuremberg saw this their immediate comment was that cyanide displayed obvious penetrative powers. Green went so far as to question whether cyanide was even responsible for the stains, yet, when he needs to account for the Prussian blue on the outside wall, the first thing he rushes to is cyanide.

Let's get right to the point. Green is lying. This whole emphasis on cyanide only penetrating 10 microns into wall surface materials is to avoid the fact that the Prussian blue on the outside portion of the wall is pure evidence of the high ability of Zyklon-B to penetrate materials. His report can now be properly seen as an excuse-making venture trying to get around this.

The way he presents his 10 micron claim is also less than honest. He quotes the laboratory Leuchter used as a credible source for this claim. The idea being to show how Leuchter concealed facts that even his lab admits. However, this is done in order to suggest a false scenario. Green imparts the notion that cyanide will only penetrate 10 microns into any wall surface it come in contact with. The reader is then left with the impression that the wall plaster of morgue I and the delousing chamber would therefore have only accumulated a 10 micron dusting of cyanide residue. This is important to Green because it helps him discount the gas chamber forensics. However, when the real forensic of cyanide showing penetration capable of reaching all the way through and out to the outside wall surface is acknowledged, we then see that this 10 micron claim isn't accurately descriptive of what actually occurred. With Green the Prussian blue on the outside had to be from liquid cyanide contact because otherwise it would be proof of deep penetration.

Why Green needs to do this is because he needs to keep all possibilities of any cyanide penetration in the gas chamber from happening. His delousing chamber deception is now carried over to the 'gas chamber'. This bogus 10 micron precedent is now applied over there where it would be easier to wash-down, weather away, and cover-up. However, we see above that this isn't exactly the whole story forensics-wise. We can therefore expect that the 'gas chamber' cyanide would have repeated the same pattern.


Here is where Green turns on the high-science to lose these conflicts in complexity. His tactic is to dismiss the example of the delousing chambers all together. Whether there were valid samples or not, or high concentrations or not doesn't matter. He can eliminate this example by trying to make a case that it isn't relevant due to different scientific conditions existing between the two structures. If there were huge concentrations in the delousing chamber it doesn't matter because he is now focusing solely on the 'gas chamber'.

This area is best left to someone of Rudolf's competency. I think we have done an adequate job here of showing the manipulation Green employs in order to set up his believer science. We can see that Green needs to deny the obvious to avoid recognizing the penetrative power of cyanide. The final manipulation being the removal of still-outgassing pellets from the chamber in order to avoid the obvious penetration that would have occurred if he hadn't...

Fugazi
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 6:12 am

Postby Fugazi » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:29 am)

Sailor wrote:In my opinion morgue 1 can certainly be use as a homicidal gas chamber with a ventilation system sized for a morgue with only 10 air exchanges per hour.. It just takes a little longer to clear the place of the HCN gas. Maybe up to 2 hours.

Maybe Rudolf should have said that the ventilation system was not suitable for the clearing of HCN as alleged, as reported by the "eye witnesses".



This is an important point.

Franciszek Piper, in his reply to Fritjof Meyer's Osteuropa article, wrote something along the lines of there being no need to investigate how the morgue could have operated as a gas chamber, because any room that you can shut people in without a source of ventilation can be used as a gas chamber, just by herding them in and slinging some Zyklon B in after them.

That's absolutely correct, as far as it goes, so revisionists have to be careful to keep the discussion focussed on proof of the Holocaust resting on it being possible to use those morgues as gas chambers *as described by the supposed eye-witnesses*, because the eyewitnesses are the only "evidence" the morgues were ever used as gas chambers. If their stories are infeasible, the fact that you could theoretically use the morgue as a gas chamber doesn't count for anything.

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:11 pm)

If you read Green's report you would see he goes to lengths to explain the lack of adequate ventilation in Morgue I. He uses hypothetical models to show that no matter what concentration was used, the existing ventilator duct in Morgue I would have made the room safe to enter after 20-30 minutes.

This topic is worthy of a separate post so I'll just remark that the lack of rooftop Zyklon-B portals in the blueprint (and ruins) speaks enough - as does the large ventilation capacity of the delousing chamber where cyanide was intended vs the regular room ventilation in Morgue I. Green scoffs at Rudolf's assertion that the close proximity of the intake and outlet ducts in the Morgue would have decreased the ventilation rate. However, if you read his report, he never explains why?


Where Green really suffers is when the background information on Zyklon-B is all collected and processed. What makes Green's version collapse is when all accounts of Zyklon-B gassing and methods are analyzed collectively.

When eye-witness gas chamber accounts are all taken together we see that the majority never mention any mesh introduction columns or pellet removal. The majority of accounts tell of pellets either being poured through the roof openings directly on to the floor or through side openings. As we can see, these majority cases occurred in places shown to have either inadequate or no ventilation. Therefore their Zyklon pellets would have to have outgassed for the full duration.

This majority sample of ALL gas chambers would then have cyanide trace levels other than those Green supports in his report. The real measure of Green's veracity then would be whether those chambers had high levels of cyanide at least greater than that found in Morgue I.

We know that the pellets could not have been removed from these chambers because of the bodies falling on them. Eye-witness accounts say the chambers were tightly-packed therefore the bodies would have landed on top of the outgassing pellets. Even if the victims managed to spread away from the pile of pellets on the floor, they still would have gassed heavily in that spot on the concrete. We can dismiss any stories of Sonderkommandos wading in over piles of bodies to remove pellets in these majority cases.

Without this critical removal Green depends on we can therefore assume Zyklon outgassed sufficiently for high concentration exposures well-above Green's model in the majority of chambers. Not only does this make the accounts not work but it also requires much higher concentrations of residual cyanide in chambers that don't show any...

Secret Anne X
Member
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:12 pm

Postby Secret Anne X » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:57 pm)

Something that never comes up with this idea of pellet removal. Very simple! Why bother?

Before the Leuchter Report no one ever said that the pellets were removed. It was only after the Leuchter Report that Pressac started the idea that the pellets were removed in some kind of tin can inside of the wire mesh thingies!

I'd like to see _one_ statement concerning pellet removal before that point.

The pellets had to be removed to get rid of cyanide concentrations and keep the famous timeline.

But there is no reason why the pellets would be to be removed at all!
In fact it just makes the whole process more difficult!

Imagine you are an SS man (I guess there were two) and you have just poured 2 1 kg cans of Zyklon into each one of the four openings in the celing (we will pretend exist). You and your buddy are wearing your gas masks, breathing hard, you lift up the concrete or wooden or glass or iron or plastic lid, open up two cans, pour them in, replace the lid, move on to the next little chimney.

In about 10 minutes, you will have given the full "dose" to ensure quick death. But now what?

You turn around go back to the first little chimney, take off the lid, slowly lift up -- by wire -- the little can carrying the Zyklon, and empty it into a bucket.

That will take another 10-15 minutes.

Then you and your partner are standing there on the roof of the morgue with a bucket full of gravel giving off huge amounts of HCN. What do you do? Put it in the back of the Red Cross ambulance and drive away? Where?

Go to the "Zyklon B Graveyard" where you will pour out the HCN laden gravel and let it outgas for the next three hours?

WHATEVER FOR?

Even if 2000 people were being gassed each day, it would still take at least 2 days to cremate these people, even if we take the optimal cremation times in the document that even Fritjof Meyer agrees is forged. (In real life, it would take about a week, I guess.) So what's the problem with just letting the pellets gas out, which will only take 3-5 hours, tops?

The problem of course is that in retrospect it makes the witnesses unreliable. And therefore this idiotic idea of pellet removal got started!

It's just unbelievably stupid!

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:33 pm)

I think Gauss estimated 50 minutes or so for outgassing. Maybe it would be longer when concentrated in the mesh device bucket.


Green scores some points when he references articles about modern funeral homes getting in legal trouble for cremating multiple bodies at once. This was after Gauss had gone to lengths to show how no funeral home would ever consider it. Some unscrupulous homes burned something like 15 bodies at once.

The trouble with these so-called exposures by gas chamber advocates is they fail to return to answer all the forensics. Because Green catches a modern example of mass cremation doesn't necessarily mean it directly responds to that of the crematoria.

If we overlap this case of illegal mass cremation in modern funeral homes with Mattogno's examination we find that several factors don't match. Green asserts that the unscrupulous homes burned mass bodies because it was more efficient, however, he does so without any data to show why. I assume the crematory oven Green cites was a modern gas-fueled one. Perhaps the mass cremation in this case was more efficient, but maybe it was mostly more convenient to the cremation workers. This oven most likely had an unlimited natural gas supply. However, as Mattogno shows us, this was not the case at Auschwitz.

Some of the more critical variables Green fails to cover are time and fuel supply. He suggests that mass cremation by the modern funeral homes was necessarily more efficient so therefore mass cremation at Auschwitz would be equally so. But this isn't true according to the methods and equipment between the two. I assume the greater energy demand of 15 corpses in the modern home was matched by a modern thermostat and gas burner regulator. Not so in the Topf & Son ovens at Auschwitz.

The cheating modern funeral home didn't have the same time or capacity restraints as Auschwitz either. If multiple bodies were put into the Topf & Son ovens the extra heat required to compensate would have to come from the coke supply used as the fuel source. Extra bodies would also take more time. You'll see believers trying to tweak this, but Mattogno holds true. Physical mass is a constant in this formula. More bodies = more time = more fuel. That doesn't change.

Another factor left completely unaddressed by Green is the loss of ideal cremation temperatures in the T & S ovens when multiple corpses are introduced. The modern oven probably made up for this by modern temperature regulation. The T & S brick/coke oven would have lost thermal medium and dropped below proper cremation heat levels. At best we would have lost any chance at meeting the legend rates needed to match the numbers claimed.

If we take Green at his own word 3000 persons were gassed per day after selection from the trains. When the entire legend is examined all together we find the critical variables don't meet the claimed rates. Even if they managed 5 corpses at a time the coke supply wouldn't have nearly met the rates. Nor would the time needed if we observe Mattogno's deftly-calculated cremation parameters. Left out with Green is the fact that the T & S ovens would still have needed more time to cremate multiple bodies due to its flat-rate burning capabilities.

The best measure of Green's claim vs the ovens would be Rudolf's display of an allied air-photo of the Auschwitz crematory chimney on a fly-over. The photo shows no smoke or heat coming from the chimney at a time claimed to be the height of the gassing period. Rudolf commented that this chimney would necessarily have needed to be smoking in order to meet the claimed victim rate of that period. When confronted by this believers claimed the allies had filtered-out the smoke in order to get a better picture. Rudolf countered that a shadow would still have been seen if that were the case...

Secret Anne X
Member
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:12 pm

Postby Secret Anne X » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:01 pm)

Hi,

You might have 90% outgassing in 50 minutes, but no way complete. The limits were 3 hours for 100%, under favorable humidity. Humidity prolongs the process. And so would piling the pellets on top of each other. It's a little like leaving a pile of wet laundry on your machine. The stuff in the middle can be wet for days.

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:29 pm)

I think we've established that the low exposure rates needed by gas chamber legend advocates would have left convulsing bodies in the corners as the high ventilators claimed to be pumping air into the room would have prolonged the agonizing, slow blood delivery of cyanide. Unless, of course, we honor the make-it-up-as-you-go-along mesh introduction device drawn-up by NIZKOR - or the pellet removal in a bucket attached to a string model that only surfaced to history after Leuchter.

I'd like to see the EXACT cremation figures for a Topf & Son oven for 4 or 5 corpses. Coke fuel use included. Green deals with this by saying eye-witness accounts contradicted Gauss. However he doesn't answer how this overcame forensic constants like fuel-use and time...


Finally, Green contends that mostly women, children and the elderly were gassed after selection because they served no use for labor. I find it hard to believe that Germans would have stripped young and teenage children and mixed them in with naked adults...

I believe the ruins of Morgue I's roof are enough. No German engineer would have built a Zyklon-B portal addition and left the rebar in such a sloppy state; the present holes don't match claimed locations on alleged allied air-photos; I believe there are only 2 holes there now; and the roof's blast fissures don't originate from the holes as required by structural stress physics...

Goethe
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:41 am

Postby Goethe » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:45 pm)

Does anyone know how much Green was paid to write this unbelievably duplicitous work? One has to wonder since those who testified on behalf of Lipstadt were paid ca. $100,000 - $250,000, if I'm not mistaken. You can bet that Green was paid a pretty penny. It's simply outrageous that some people can get away this.

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:34 pm)

I don't know what Green was paid. It's obvious that the target wasn't the intrinsic value of Green's scientific information but the value of a court decision against "holocaust deniers." Persons who dislike revisionism need only point to the 'court-proven' Irving case.


After wondering why Irving would leave so many obviously flawed examples untouched I came to the conclusion that he was waiting to lower the boom on them with one case of evidence. I suspect his strategy was to let them get the better hand with their large collection of 'facts' and then take it all down at once with this example.

If you look at the actual trial this appears to be the case. At the very end Irving asked the defense (Van Pelt I believe) to go to Birkenau and view the roof remains there. The defense declined saying it would be an offense to the memory of the dead. (The idea being revisionism wasn't worth the insult)

I believe we can conduct a fair and honest carry-through on this site of what Irving intended. Green and his defense can be brought down very simply. Irving had a good plan. First we look at Hannover's NIZKOR diagram of the mesh introduction chute. We will look specifically at the fine and sharp corners built into the roof-adjoining edges. A very professional job!

Next we will go to Birkenau as Irving requested and look at the roof remains there. I am looking at these remains in Gauss's book. The so-called opening for the mesh device is very roughly-made with crumbled edges and uneven borders. Hardly anything like that presented in the NIZKOR diagram. Most telling is the bent-back re-bar around this opening. In NIZKOR's diagram we see a very professional construction job around the opening. One where it is obvious that no sloppy re-bar would be left half bent-back and sticking up in the way.

Lastly, I believe there are only 2 openings present in the remains. Allied air-photos claimed at least 4. These holes appear to be roughly-hacked by the Soviets after the war.

Again, Green said "the remains were too fragmented to be of any use." Is it surprising they declined to go?

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:02 pm)

RICHARD J. GREEN, PHD.

In addition to the fact that Rudolf is again illegitimately assuming that what holds true for the
delousing chambers must hold true for the gas chambers, there is nothing obvious about his conclusion.
Rather the discoloration on the outside of walls, ought to make one consider what possible processes
could have taken place outside of the delousing chambers. For example, is it possible that materials that
had been soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN were leaned against the outside of the buildings?
Not
enough is known, but it is premature to conclude that the staining on the outside of buildings owes its
origins to processes that took place within those buildings. [Emphasis added.]

http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf

In my opinion the idea of using aqueous HCN is absurd but it may be possible that mattresses were laid on the side of the building after fumigation, in which case they would still be releasing HCN, which would come in contact with the walls.

That the blue staining occurs with greater ease than Green would like to admit does not help the Exterminationist case since none was found in the morgues of Kremas II and III, nor hot-spots in the ruins.


"Fig. 60: Exterior southwest wall of the Zyklon B disinfestation wing of BW 5b in the Birkenau camp. (© Karl Philipp)"

Image
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/6.html


Notice that in this picture of the staining on the outside wall at Stutthof below, the blue staining is more uniform and near the top. Obviously it was not caused by the airing out of gassed mattresses leaned against the wall, and no rack of venting blankets or clothing would be that tall either.


"Fig. 66: Zyklon B disinfestation chamber in Stutthof camp, east side, exterior. (© Carlo Mattogno)"

Image
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/6.html

:D
Last edited by Scott on Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:28 pm)

It should be easy for the Auschwitz Museum to have a test done to check whether the formation of prussian blue occurred from the inside of the building to the outside. In this case the bricks would be stained blue throughout.

Question: Why don't they have this done? Of what are they scared?


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests