Archive/File: people/h/hunt.bob hunt.0195
Last-Modified: 1995/02/06

Article 20872 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: To HMazal@aol.com re David Cole
Date: 3 Jan 1995 00:59:49 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 5
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eap4m$pbl@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ead1j$n6k@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>I would like to think that there is a considerable difference between
>historical research methodology and investigative reporting. 

Normally there should be.  But the incidence of people being denied access
to archives regarding this subject seems to be growing. 


Article 20884 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 3 Jan 1995 09:11:33 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 58
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eblul$r2u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eaik5$4lr@access4.digex.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>You seem to have expressed some doubt, for reasons you have not
>explained, that the HCN gas could disperse from the Zyklon pellets to
>reach the lethal 300ppm concentration in 10-15 minutes.  Am I reading you
>correctly?

Yes, except the reason for doubting this has been gone into in several
previous posts.

>You had also expressed some concern (again for unexplained reasons)
>that residual HCN gas could move from a gassed corpse to congregate
around
>a cigarette smoker to reach an explosive or flammable concentration
within
>the time it took to smoke a cigarette, which (though I haven't timed this
>exactly) seems to be less than 10 minutes.

It wouldn't have to "congregate around the smoker", a more likely scenario
would involve the cigarette being held close to the gas source between
puffs, but the issue of cigarette smoking disappeared entirely for two
reasons.  First, I accepted inputs from several sources that the workers
and observers would have been wearing gas masks, thus smoking would not
have been possible.  Second, I also accepted an explanation that came from
yourself, namely that the smoking story is probably apocryphal.  Neither
of these change the fact that the residual gas concentrations would
definitely be in the flammable region in some areas.  It's flammable at
any concentration, which is a pretty irrelevant point according to past
discussion.

>There seems to be some small inconsistency in the nature of the two
>concerns.  The first worries that the dispersion is too slow.  The second
>worries that it may be too fast.

This is the kind of frustrating response I referred to in my post.  There
is no inconsistency in the way I described these two situations, but
there's a glaring inconsistency in the way you state things.  As you say,
the first "worry" is that the dispersion rate is too slow.  But the second
case assumes that the gas reached lethal levels or higher (since the
concern is residual gas on corpses) so any concern about that gas
dispersing would be that it was also slow, not too fast as you state.  (As
in the What's on My Shoe Law - The longer the stuff is hanging around, the
more likely you are to get some on you.)  You have it backward, and use
your inverted statement to say that I am inconsistent.  Sounds to me more
like you are confused.  You aren't the first to operate and comment at
length about a physical process you are not envisioning properly.

>Then again, the flammable concentration of HCN is over 180
>times higher than the lethal concentration.  According to the Merck
>citation from the Leuchter FAQ, the explosive concentration is 56,000ppm.

Please note the discrepancy caused by interchanging flammable and
explosive.  The gas is flammable at lethal levels, and open flames at that
point would simply discolor a bit as they rapidly consumed the gas.  It
becomes potentially explosive at the high concentrations you mention. 
Again, past discussions have rendered this aspect as little more than an
observation.  Comments that I have said it means the stuff is too
dangerous to be practically used are the thoughts and words of others,
mainly Barry Shein.  I never said any such thing.  So much for another
non-inconsistency based on this non-inconsistency.


Article 20894 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 3 Jan 1995 13:01:33 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ec3dt$s1e@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ebscf$npl@access4.digex.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Well, I did make the following unstated assumptions: a) that the
>corpse would be lying on the ground; b) that this occurred outside, and
c)
>that people would be either sitting or standing in order to smoke. 
>Therefore the gas would have to go from the corpse to the cigarette to
>create the problem. 

The description I was referring to had the workers sitting on a pile of
bodies, eating their lunches and smoking.  Believe my initial comment was
that in addition to being gruesome in the extreme, such a scenario would
also be dangerous because of residual gas.  However, I think there is
agreement that the description referred to is not an accurate one.  That's
a reasonable assumption to me, too, and I don't need any hard references
to support it.  It makes sense.

It also occurs to me that an inconsistency is at the heart of this thread
of discussion.  That inconsistency is in the original description which
seems to say that the gas evaporates and permeates a space quickly and
then disappears even more quickly.  Thus came questions about dispersion
rates, and those have yet to be answered.  All other discussion in this
area has been in response to side issues raised, not all of them relevant.
 It isn't hard to lose track of what has transpired, especially if you did
not follow it all.


Article 20901 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Devil Cave Bitches I'm here...
Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:09:35 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 14
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ec7df$sdf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Devil Cave Bitches including Devil Cave Bitches B Scott,
>Les, and Sylvie, and all other perpetrators of hatred and human
>indignities...
>
> The Holy Alliance with followings of the respective FOI,
>AI, NOI, AN and other secular organizations have been monitoring
>you.  Be warned...
>
>Guerilla #187
>j-MAK

Does this have anything to do with the Hacking Blond Fraulein?  Or is it
an insult directed at my wife?  (Who fortunately never reads this stuff. 
I hope.)


Article 20903 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!hookup!olivea!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Remarks from another planet
Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:23:00 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 5
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ec86k$sgg@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Sorry we're not half as stupid as you had hoped or
>needed.

Well, I had no expectations in that regard, Barry, but you don't
disappoint in any case.


Article 20905 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re:  Remarks from another planet
Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:33:14 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 24
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ec8pq$shs@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eaua0$c6f@access3.digex.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Maybe.  But more likely he would dismiss the Holocaust
revisionsists/deniers
>as charlatans in the same good-natured way he has dismissed proponents of

>ESP, UFOs, astrology and other such groundless pursuits.

Thanks for the anecdote, and you could be quite right in your surmise. 
Please keep in mind, however, that I was referring to everyone in this
discussion, not a portion of the participants.  I presume that Feynman
might even endorse the activities of some here, though the allusion was to
advice he might give to anyone with a problem about efficiently reaching
conclusions.  In the lecture series that he intended to be a new base for
introducing physics to students (and it turned out to be just that) he
decided as an afterthought to devote several hours to the general
mechanics of problem solving.  Which is to say that after he realized the
extent of the knowledge he was trying to impart, he saw the need for
approaching it in an organized and efficient manner, hence the digression
back to generic basics.  Several people here have tried to organize a
systematic method of debate, to no avail.  I applaud their efforts and
hope that someone will accomplish that, lest we all continue to thrash
about interminably.  Excuse me, all except for the self-satisfied people
at various extremes of opinion who routinely question why there are any
questions at all, as the truth of their own position is as clear as can be
and obviates the need for discussion, let alone debate.


Article 20906 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Unintended Irony of the Year
Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:35:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 5
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ec8tc$si4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <02JAN95.02229951.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Keith Morrison |   So, if they can make Super Mario Brothers and
>t08o@unb.ca    |   Streetfighter and maybe Doom, when will we see
>                   a film based on Windows Strip Poker?

Catch a Richard Gere movie.


Article 20907 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re:  Circular reasoning and "faster acting gasses"
Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:37:02 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 5
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ec90u$sie@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3dkfkr$nds@news.xs4all.nl>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Do you really want to volunteer ?
>What a noble New Year's resolution !

My earlier message appears not to have made it through.  At any rate, lay
off the nitrous oxide, it makes any old dumb thing seem funny. :-)


Article 20934 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.ingr.com!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 4 Jan 1995 02:23:01 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 12
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3edicl$50c@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ec0kn$2pm@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>I don't know about you, but expossure of ONE MINUNTE of 450-300ppm HCN
will
>  cause you to die right on the spot. ONE MINUTE=60 seconds that's all.
>  If you like to experiement with it please come and I will preform the
test.
>  How can you compare bytl acetate with HCN?

No argument on your first statement.  Thanks, but no thanks on the second.
 As for the third, I didn't compare butyl acetate with HCN, DuPont chose
the comparison to give an indication of volatility.
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 20936 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.ingr.com!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 4 Jan 1995 02:30:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 15
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ediqd$522@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <03JAN95.17958170.0109@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>As long as nobody stands in the door or the vent
>without a gas mask _immediately_ upon opening the chamber, there
>should be no serious problem with high concentrations of the gas
>being present.

What you say is probably true for the empty space in the enclosed area. 
Problems with residual gas would come from its tendency to permeate
crevices, cavities and other areas where it would disperse less rapidly
(such as hair).

If the gas turns out to be sufficiently volatile, the rest of your
argument will be correct.  If it turns out to be somewhat slow, then the
inconsistency exists.
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 20937 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 4 Jan 1995 02:34:05 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 14
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3edj1d$52q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ecmip$4sd@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>In regards to the flamibility issue: how many of you get unduly
>worried when someone lights a cigaret at a gas station?  People
>shouldn't do it, but most of us don't start running for shelter
>when it happens. HCN will kill you before you have to worry
>about an explosion hazard.

The entire discussion about the explosive possibilities had mostly to do
with a description of people sitting on a pile of corpses smoking
cigarettes.  A number of people have indicated that the standard wearing
of gas masks would make the smoking part inaccurate, and further, there
appears to be consensus that the story is apocryphal.  There is no longer
an issue to argue here so far as I know.
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 20938 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 4 Jan 1995 02:38:55 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 19
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3edjaf$540@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ecqvs$4uv@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Our smoking pal,
>who has somehow not dropped dead from this gas while sitting on the 
>bodies, lowers his cigarette so it is close to the corpse and is startled
>by a sudden  and a small flame that lasts only an instant and
>then is gone.  If any explosion occured at all.

I agree completely with your description.  A similar but less detailed
scenario was laid out in an earlier post.

Much of what has passed for controversy on this particular point is the
result of some hard and highly inaccurate refutations that were thrown at
the claim that there might be some danger involved in the situation. 
Countering some of these resulted in an unfortunate digression whose
importance has been blown far out of proportion.  It was a minor point to
start with, and is pretty much a non-point now.

Thank you for your concise and informed comments.
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 20939 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re:  Remarks from another planet
Date: 4 Jan 1995 02:42:56 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 7
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3edji0$554@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eck4k$36@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Just in case you're not aware of it, Feynman is dead. He passed away
>in 1988. I write this as you mention him in present tense.

Thank you for the info.  I was aware that he had died of cancer, and not
aware that I slipped into the present tense.  He died far too young.
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 20946 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Facts vs. stupidity (was HCN dispersion rate)
Date: 4 Jan 1995 04:15:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 89
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3edovq$5md@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ed096$est@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>If these are the curves he was talking about earlier, they are not for
>HCN.  You'd be better advised to get your hands on a copy of the
"Matheson
>Gas Data Book"

The curves referred to here, and earlier, include vapor pressure data
across a wide range of temperature.  They are part of the latest
information brochure on HCN published by E.I. DuPont, the only
manufacturer of the chemical for resale in the United States.  A copy of
that brochure has been mailed to Rich Green, but I thank you in any case
for the further reference, it sounds like a good one.

>It also says that contact with 100 ppm HCN causes "instantaneous
collapse"
>and that symptoms of poisoning occur at 18-36 ppm.

It's a minor point, but I believe that the DuPont literature, which is
first and foremost concerned with safety, indicates that 100 to 200 ppm
can be tolerated for up to a half hour by most people.  At 50ppm,
discomfort and symptoms may result, but it can be continuously tolerated
by an average person.

>(As a side note, I point out that the
>flammability limits of HCN in air are 6%-41% by volume, i.e. there isn't
>enough HCN in the air at Doubting Thomas's favorite temperature of
>0 deg C for it to burn.)

The figure of 6% to 41% describes the explosive range, not the flammable. 
The stuff will burn in an open flame at any concentration or temperature
that allows it to exist in the gaseous state.  You do have me curious
though, as to where a preference for 0 deg C was expressed.

>All you
>need is Fick's Law of Diffusion, which says that the rate of diffusion
>depends only on the gradient of the concentration and the "Diffusion
>Coefficient" (which, for the trivia-minded, is 0.173 cm^2/sec for HCN at
>STP according to some random compendium I looked at -- the Diffusion 
>Coefficient is temperature-dependent).

If you have the name of that random compendium, it would be useful.

>Now you're probably wondering why I don't just go ahead and work it out. 
>The first reason is, naturally enough, that I am too lazy.  But the
>main reason is that this whole discussion is fundamentally silly.

I have the same opinion about some other subjects, and occasionally
express them, much to the dislike of those who take them more seriously
than I do.  You are quite welcome to your opinion, and no offense taken.

>Thus, if we say that the
>amount of time it took to kill all of the lice was 150-300 minutes, then
>an estimate of 15-20 minutes for the human gas chambers is obviously
>in the right ballpark.

The minimum pesticide time given in the Degesch manual is 6 hours at any
temperature.  At low temperatures (do not recall the threshold, perhaps 10
or 15 deg C) the time is extended to 32 hours.

>That 15-20 minutes might not have been an
>exaggeration is further suggested by a gruesome note in the Matheson
>Gas Data Book:  in cases of HCN poisoning, breathing can stop completely
>while the heart is still beating.  In the context of "how to save
>someone who has been poisoned by HCN" it means that they might *look*
>dead but still be alive -- but in the case of Auschwitz, I am sorry
>to say, it could very well mean that people were removed from the
>gas chambers to the crematoria while still technically alive.

Wish I could have referred to this while fending off scorn directed to my
comment that if people were removed from lethal gas levels quickly, some
of them might revive.  If breathing stopped very quickly on exposure to
minimum lethal concentrations, the internal levels of HCN could well be
low enough to be overcome by natural body defenses.  As you say, just a
gruesome note.

>In any case, Mr. "Doubting Thomas" in once again making a big deal
>out of what about five minutes' thought will show is a complete
>non-issue.

Can't agree with you on either count here.  I'm not making nearly such a
big deal of it as are some people who appear to be offended by the
inquiry, and 5 minutes to resolve the question is an obviously more
unlikely time than the times being questioned.

Rest assured that in most cases of facts vs. stupidity, facts win.  In
which case, you need invest none of the energy which you indicate you do
not have, and your position will be confirmed, if it is based on fact. 
Same goes for me, except I'll invest some time in this one.
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 20953 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 4 Jan 1995 11:32:47 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 19
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eeijf$6u2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <04JAN95.05388143.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Yes, gas might get trapped in "pockets" in hair,
>body cavities, whatever (and since HCN is so reactive, it's a big
>maybe it will stay HCN for long, but for the moment we'll assume the
>gas stays mostly inert in said places).

Referring again to the Degesch manual on Zyklon-B, one of the reasons HCN
is such a good fumigant is that it penetrates into any and all cavities
and porous materials and tends to stay there.  It is also, per Degesch,
relatively inert as a gas so the absorbed or adsorbed HCN will retain its
active killing power.  It is the liquid state that reacts quickly with
various other materials.  They warn that in ventilating, it is most
important to allow time for the residual gas to exit the pockets, crevices
and porous materials.  A single corpse might not retain much, but a pile
of bodies would be quite likely to.  Most of the accounts I have seen tend
to emphasize bodies being in stacks or piles.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 20957 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 4 Jan 1995 12:43:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 139
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eemne$7cg@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <04JAN95.05652225.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Not to flame you or anything, indeed it is a nice break from Doyal
>and Hoffie^2, but I can see where people are complaining about you
>not answering a question.  Frankly, I usually have to read any post
>of yours twice to figure out exactly what the hell you are saying.

No problem, thanks for the input.  My normal writing style is more direct.
 What you see here is, I suppose, a defensive mode brought on by the
tendency of some participants to jump on any perceived mistake, however
incidental it might be, and harp on same.  Mike Stein still mentions the
fact that I did not respond to his request to define "realistic" for him
as if that were somehow evasiveness on my part.  Continuing the self
analysis, some of the technique of dancing around a subject probably
results from publishing a small newspaper in a remote community for the
past several years.  When I write about some near psychotic hill dweller
firing his guns in the neighborhood again, it has to be done with a
certain indirectness.  I'll try to be more to the point in future posts,
but I am what I am what I am.  Oh yes, last but not least is the matter of
responding to another pretentious twit.  That can be done with gutter talk
or more agile pretentious twit talk with insults interwoven.  I prefer the
latter, but that's strictly a personal thing.

>>Much of what has passed for controversy on this particular point is the
>>result of some hard and highly inaccurate refutations that were thrown
at
>>the claim that there might be some danger involved in the situation.
>>Countering some of these resulted in an unfortunate digression whose
>>importance has been blown far out of proportion.  It was a minor point
to
>>start with, and is pretty much a non-point now.
>
>You know, I consider myself a fairly well read sorta guy and I must
>say that you do use a very literate form of writing, that, among
>other things, sounds really pretentious, IMHO.
>
>The above-quoted paragraph is an example.  Basically, you're saying
>that you were mistaken, right?  About the explosion hazard.  And the
>dangers of residual gas.  And the required exposure time.  And the
>toxicity of Zyklon-B.  And if it will work at 0 centigrade.  As far
>as I can determine from responses to your questions, any question
>about the efficiency of HCN to kill fast and easy with not too many
>problems during clean-up seem to have been answered.

Like most people, I don't like to make mistakes, especially public ones. 
When I do, I tend to correct them as quickly as possible.  In some cases
it would be easier to dismiss a confusing side issue as a mistake and go
on with things.  I am reluctant to do that both for personal reasons, and
the fact that it lends stones to some who don't agree with anything I do. 
i.e. - "The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.  Look at all these
past mistakes (listing of trivials).

The "above quoted paragraph" addressed one issue only, that of residual
gas in piles of corpses.  However, I believe it will clarify things if I
respond to all the issues you mention.

(1)  The explosion hazard exists, certainly in any chamber, and possibly
in a freshly opened inadequately ventilated chamber.  This is noted with
no conclusions drawn.  I don't see any reason to say it doesn't exist when
it does, whether or not it proves to have any bearing on the discussion. 
HCN is flammable.  It can be explosive under the right conditions.  Note
made.  I don't think there ever was any real controversy here, and I have
not used the fact of its flammability to question anything but the now
discredited cigarette story.  My advice to anyone would still be not to
enter an enclosure that was just filled with HCN gas and light a
cigarette.  I think you might agree that this is as sound as advising
someone not to light a cigarette when walking into a building where they
can smell gasoline or natural gas fumes.

There were several posts, I think mostly from Barry Shein, that claimed I
said that the flammability was an important issue and that it made the use
of Zyklon-B impractical.  My response then was the same as now - I have
never said any such thing.

(2)  The dangers of breathing residual gas are a reality accepted by
several others, who politely informed me that gas masks were standard
equipment for just that reason.  Makes perfect sense to me, since my
beginning comment was that workers moving bodies without breathing
protection were at grave risk.  Barry Shein said it didn't matter because
they were expendable and easily replaced.  We had an exchange on the
impracticality of supervising a work detail that way for any length of
time (morale, availability of people strong enought to move a corpse, and
so on) and then numerous people brought up the gas masks, which were not
mentioned in the account of a gassing operation that started this thread. 
I accepted these inputs at face value, not demanding references, for two
reasons.  First, it makes perfect sense.  Second, the information came
from sources that I deem to be honest, if somewhat biased, and they
assured me that the references existed.  Good enough.  End of argument.  I
now stand informed, not corrected, and that last distinction should be of
importance only to me.

(3)  The required exposure time has not been resolved.  That is why the
dispersion rate of the gas is of interest.  I question whether 10 to 15
minutes is sufficient time when Zyklon-B is the gas emitting medium.  The
material was made to be scattered throughout large buildings by fumigation
workers walking through same (with masks).  That fact and the extended
times recommended for fumigation are enough to make one at least suspect
that the material is designed to avoid a too rapid release of the gas as a
safety measure.  The physical nature of the porous pellets reinforces this
idea, but it is still just a guess.  I intend to check it out and publish
the results, whatever they may be.  Perhaps someone else will be able to
do that before I can.  It may turn out that my guess is wrong, but that
hasn't been determined yet.

(4)  The toxicity of HCN is another non-issue.  Some people tried to
back-track from the recommended delousing concentrations in order to prove
that dispersion times were irrelevant.  The arguments given did not and do
not hold up, and much side discussion of toxicity resulted which had and
has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion about dispersion.  HCN is
very toxic to living organisms, that is not in dispute.  However, HCN has
to reach toxic levels in the air around said organisms and it doesn't do
this magically or instantly, like in the movies.  The real world is built
of interacting dynamics, each with its own time factors.

(5)  The matter of cold temperatures, be it 0 deg C or whatever, is still
an important factor because temperature has a pronounced effect on
evaporation and dispersion rates.  At 0 deg C, for instance, Degesch
recommends extending fumigation times from 6 hours to 32 hours.  Cold has
little or nothing to do with the killing efficiency of HCN once it is
within an organism, but it has much to do with the time required for the
evaporating HCN to reach killing levels in the atmosphere, and to stay
there instead of condensing out on cold surfaces.  Toxicity and dispersion
rates are two quite different things that are often mentioned as if they
were the same phenomenon.

(6)  The dispersion rate question has been dismissed by some, but it has
not been answered, even in a partial way.  The reason for this is that an
accurate theoretical model will be damned hard to construct, despite a few
dismissive claims to the contrary.  What I will do in response to your
post is outline what I think those problems are and propose how an answer
can be obtained.  It may well be that a reduced scale physical experiment
is required.  That's doable, but it's also a huge pain in the ass.

I hope this clears up any confusing parts in my post.  If it doesn't, let
me know and I'll take another swing at it.  And thank you for not pointing
out the confusing nature of my text by saying that I am an incoherent
idiot.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 20973 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of HCN at low temperature (was: Re: Facts vs Stupidity)
Date: 4 Jan 1995 17:22:28 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 41
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ef734$9dc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eetoc$2d3@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Now imagine those lice placed in a cold chamber, say 5 deg C.  They
>have not had time to acclimate to the sudden temperature drop, so,
>like all good little lice, they shut themselves down until they either
>get warmed up or manage somehow to acclimate so they can move to a
>warmer environment.  They are not moving, oxygen requirements drop, 
>thus does respiration and thus absorption of HCN.  Now DbtgThomas has
>said that a low temperatures, it required 32 hours to ensure delousing.
>That's about five times as long as at warmer temperatures, say 25 deg C.
>It is entirely concievable that this is due to to a metabolic rate
>5 times slower, well within what is capable in the metazoans, even
>endothermic beasties like mammals that need to keep pushing energy to
>retain some body heat.
>
>The reason I suggest this is because the company producing the Zyklon-B,
>when issuing instructions for the proper methods of delousing, would
>not need to state *why* you needed longer, only that you do.  Without
>any additional evidence, as I have repeatedly said, it is just as likely
>the diminished effectiveness of the gas was due to the lice and not
>any property of the gas itself.

Cannot resist observing that this is nit-picking on an elegant level.  You
make a very good argument, and I cannot disagree with your conclusions. 
It may well be that the increase of 6 to 32 hours is primarily to
accomodate the physical changes in the animal that you describe, and thus
the stated differences do not indicate a multi-hour change in the
evaporation rate of HCN.

That being said, the issue of cold affecting volatility remains as a
physical or chemical fact.  What hasn't been determined is whether this is
an important factor in the far shorter times being discussed (10 to 30
minutes).

As the irrelevancies are weeded out by exchanges like this, what remains
will be useful for future discussions.  Thus, if some other fool raises
the same questions that I have, it will be a simpler matter to sort out
what is what the second time around.  That, I think, is what we should be
doing here.  And are, sometimes.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 20974 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of HCN at low temperature (was: Re: Facts vs Stupidity)
Date: 4 Jan 1995 17:26:33 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 145
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ef7ap$9f1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eetoc$2d3@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

I'm replying to Keith Morrison's post under this subject heading because
the original keeps coming an going on the AOL listing.

Regarding the toxicity levels of HCN, let me simply quote what the DuPont
literature says.

From the brochure "Hydrogen Cyanide - Properties, Uses, Storage and
Handling", by E.I. DuPont, #195071/A (4/91):

*************
    HCN Exposure Limits - The U.S. Department of Labor (OSHA) has ruled
than at employee's exposure to HCN shall not exceed 4.7 ppm HCN (5mg/m3),
average for 15 minutes.  It also cautions that since hydrogen cyanide may
penetrate the skin, control of vapor inhalation alone may not be
sufficient to prevent absorption of an excessive dose.(5)  The American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends a
10ppm limit instantaneous ceiling value with a similar skin notation.(6) 
Du Pont's experience and continued review of literature and data published
worldwide does not support the need to reduce exposure limits below 10 ppm
HCN, 8 hour average, or 5 ppm HCN, 12 hour average, with ceiling
limitations.  DuPont does not have people working for prolonged periods
under conditions approaching our upper limits because we can
design/operate to avoid prolonged exposure.
   .....................
 
    Effects of Exposure to HCN Vapor - The following toxicity data show
the "Reported Human Response to Various Concentrations of HCN Vapor" (the
reference is "Occupational Exposure to Hydrogen Cyanide and Cyanide
Salts," NIOSH Criteria Document, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and
Welfare, 1976)

    2-5 ppm        Odor threshold
    4.7 ppm         OSHA exposure limit, 15 minute time weighted
average(8)
    20-40 ppm    Slight symptoms after several hours
    45-54 ppm    Tolerated for 1/2 hour to 1 hour without significant
                          immediate or delayed effects.
  100-200 ppm   Fatal within 1.2 hour to 1 hour
      300 ppm       Rapidly fatal (if no treatment)

    These numbers should be considered reasonable estimates, not exact,
since effects vary for different people, and data are not exact.  Also,
heavy breathing from physical work will increase cyanide intake and reduce
the time for symptoms to show.
*************

>>The figure of 6% to 41% describes the explosive range, not the
flammable.
>>The stuff will burn in an open flame at any concentration or temperature
>>that allows it to exist in the gaseous state.  You do have me curious
>>though, as to where a preference for 0 deg C was expressed.
>>
>
>Not true.  Try to burn 100% HCN.  I dare you.  Sort of hard without
>oxygen, isn't it...

You mentioned your association with fire fighting.  My son is a member of
the local volunteer department and I have noted in some of his texts the
fire enabling triangle with which you are undoubtedly familiar - heat,
fuel and oxygen are all required to have fire.  Remove any one and there
is no fire.  Note above that I say the HCN will burn "in an open flame" at
any concentration.  The open flame assumes a self supporting combustion
from an outside source.  If you threw a bucket of liquid HCN on a match,
the match would likely go out, since you simultaneously removed oxygen and
heat via a massive amount of cold fuel.  Ditto if you repeated the
experiment with a bucket of gasoline.  Try it with saturated vapors of
either, or bring the match to the fluid, however, and a fireworks show
will ensue.  The following quote is from the DuPont brochure:

*************
    Flammability and Fire Fighting - Hydrogen cyanide is extremely
flammable and can be ignited by open flame, hot surface, or spark.
.......... If HCN is escaping and burning, it is usually best left to burn
while the container is cooled with water.
*************

>As for the 0 deg C it came from your objection a while back that HCN
>(or Zyklon-B) might not be volatile enough at that temperature to
>kill people in 15 minutes or whatever. 

I don't recall zeroing in on zero, but that's not important.  What I said
then and say now is that at low temperatures the volatility of HCN
decreases.  At some temperature (what temperature?) the volatility will
become low enough that the time required for a lethal amount to evaporate
into the air will become too long for practical use.  Another quote from
DuPont (page 14):

*************
    Outside closed containers, HCN is likely to form flammable mixtures
because of its high volatility;  however, the cooling effect of
vaporization frequently causes HCN freezing and yellow, solid HCN, even in
warm weather.
*************

>>The minimum pesticide time given in the Degesch manual is 6 hours at any
>>temperature.  At low temperatures (do not recall the threshold, perhaps
10
>>or 15 deg C) the time is extended to 32 hours.
>>
>
>Might that not be because arthropods (ie, lice) tend to slow their
>metabolism when they are cold, thus decreasing the effectiveness of
>a respiratory poison, rather than the temperature affecting the gas?
>If this is the case, and I'm just speculating it to be true, then
>there would probably be no significant change in effectiveness on an
>endothermic organism with a constant metabolic rate.

What you say could well be a significant factor in the recommended times. 
I don't recall that Degesch gave an explanation.

>>If breathing stopped very quickly on exposure to
>>minimum lethal concentrations, the internal levels of HCN could well be
>>low enough to be overcome by natural body defenses.  As you say, just a
>>gruesome note.
>
>Just a note, but there are no "natural body defences" against HCN.
>Toxic effects continue and stop only when no more HCN introduced
>into the bloodstream.  Low levels of HCN exposure only mean that the
>number of cells that die are not sufficient to cause of the death of
>organism.  Over time, however, if low level exposure continues so
>that more critical cells die than are being created, death will occur.

From DuPont (page 8):

*************
    2.  The half-life of cyanide in the body is estimated at 20-90
minutes.  The body routinely destroys cyanides from foods, cigarette
smoke, etc., so cyanide is not a cumulative poison.  In case of accidental
cyanide intake, normal body action quickly begins cyanide destruction.
*************

Any cells that die will do so because of oxygen deprivation, not because
of direct effects of the cyanide.  Brain cells would be the quickest to
go, but death via that route would be an extended affair.  I also think
that for that level of damage to be occurring, the person would be at best
in a  semi-conscious state.

Thanks for the opportunity to exchange information in a civil manner.




-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21021 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of HCN at low temperature (was: Re: Facts vs S
Date: 5 Jan 1995 11:45:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 78
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eh7n2$gaf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <05JAN95.03301650.0038@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>>*************
>>    Outside closed containers, HCN is likely to form flammable mixtures
>>because of its high volatility;  however, the cooling effect of
>>vaporization frequently causes HCN freezing and yellow, solid HCN, even
in
>>warm weather.
>>*************
>
>Big whoop.  I've seen ice form on the nozzle of of a CO2 fire
>extinguisher in the middle of a fire.  Any pressurized gas released
>suddenly will cool, but ice formation will only take up a tiny
>percentage of the released gas, most moving along on its happy way.
>And this is release from a high-pressure container.  The cooling
>that takes place is in proportion to the amount of gas released per
>unit time and the pressure of said gas.  In the case of gas
>chambers, we are not talking about release from high-pressure
>cylinders but athmospheric pressure evaporation, which will not cool
>the gas to any great degree.  You are comparing apples and oranges.

Please note that the DuPont quote states clearly that it is describing the
action of liquid HCN "Outside closed containers".  HCN is never stored
under any appreciable pressure anyway, as it increases the chances of
polymerization.  What is being referred to here is the effect of the loss
of heat from the liquid due to its partial evaporation.  If heat is not
applied externally to the liquid, then the liquid becomes colder as a
portion evaporates.  There's a figure describing this for liquids that is
called heat of vaporization.  So what's being compared is all oranges.  Or
almonds.  Whatever.

>And my argument still stands.  The probability of the gas being at
>the correct concentration for *sustained self-combustion* in an open
>environment even given some gas trapped in the bodies is still very
>low.

I believe we already agree on this point.  Please not again my words
preceding the comment just quoted:

>>Note above that I say the HCN will burn "in an open flame" at
>>any concentration.  The open flame assumes a self supporting combustion
>>from an outside source.



>Actually, letting it burn is not a comment on the explosiveness,
>combustion or whatever.  It is, in fact, an accepted technique to
>eliminate a dangerous substance until the source can be sealed.
>I've seen it in fertilizer fires, for example, where firefighters
>will actively encourage a really hot fire to try and eliminate most
>of the chemicals.
>
>As for cooling the container, this is also not related to any
>quality of the HCN.  Rather, it is related to the danger of a BLEVE
>(Boiling Liquid, Evaporating Vapour Explosion) caused by pressure
>build up inside the container as the heated gas tries to expand.
>Water in a sealed container will BLEVE, as will any other liquid or
>gas.

Well, I agree with most of what you say here, except the part about
letting it burn having nothing to do with explosiveness or combustion. 
The reason for quoting the description was to verify your observation that
high concentrations are not explosive, and simultaneously verify mine that
high concentrations are indeed flammable.  The cooling comments that you
refer to are simply part of the paragraph which was quoted in its entirety
rather than piece-meal.  I don't think they have any great significance
either, but generally try not to pull single sentences out of context
unless the other stuff goes on to an entirely different subject.  If the
remarks have relevance it would only be to indicate that HCN fires are not
that uncommon.

I don't think we have any substantial disagreements here.  One thing to
clarify at this point is that I am describing general properties of HCN,
not related to any specific use.  If it needs to be repeated, I dropped
the cigarette story because of corrective comments from others some time
ago.  I quit smoking, as it were.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21022 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Remarks from another planet
Date: 5 Jan 1995 12:06:18 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 27
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eh8ua$gfi@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>If you can't, and I don't believe you can, then by your own standards you
>are contemptible.

I believe by my own standards, which you quote, that would be
"self-satisfied".  Barry is a good example of what I was talking about.  A
high percentage of his posts consist of vulgar attacks on the supposed
motives of the questioner, with frequent admonishments to stop the hateful
foolishness (or worse, i.e. - "fuck you, etc.").  I don't tend to store
his posts, but perhaps you have some on file to refer to.  If not, simply
read them over a period of time.  If you can't see it after that, then I
can't demonstrate it to you.

I typically do not and will not respond to edicts sent to me saying that,
"If you don't do this thing that I'm telling you to do, then you are a
(pick an insulting term)".  Others have not responded to my few attempts
to do the same thing, and I think on reflection that they are justified in
ignoring the silly demands.  I can offer something out for your
consideration, but it is a total waste of effort in this disembodied
debate to then demand that you accept or even consider it.  That's up to
you.  My recourse, and yours, is to direct efforts toward communicating
with people who appear to want to share ideas, and avoid wasting time
barking with those who are totally wrapped up in defending their position,
come what may.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21023 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Remarks from another planet
Date: 5 Jan 1995 12:09:23 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 10
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eh943$ggc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Plus, I think you may be projecting a little when you accuse me of
>being emotional.

 The comment about strident emotional responses was not directed to you. 
I have found you to be one of the more reasonable and open-minded
participants in this discussion.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21026 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 5 Jan 1995 12:15:29 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 11
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eh9fh$gi9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eh3k4$s0j@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

Sir, I can understand how inquiries into almost any aspect of this subject
can be upsetting to many people, but please consider the following.  I am
far from the first or only person to read the descriptions of
concentration camp activities and be very puzzled by some of the technical
details.  The use of Zyklon-B has been called into question for years. 
Might it not be useful to simply address the questions, answer them, and
set the matter to rest for good?

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21051 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 6 Jan 1995 11:17:42 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 78
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ejqf6$p3n@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ejhfk$fes@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>True, you are not the first. However:
>
>1) The large majority of people who claim they are are "puzzled"
>   by the eyewitness testimonies are die-hard Nazis, racists, and
>   Hitler admirers (like those posting here - Raven, Kleim, Gannon,
>   Berg...). It makes one wonder.

I don't know where your experience in this matter lies, but mine has been
with ordinary people, none of whom fit the categories you list.  If one
begins to wonder about everyone, the wonder is defined as paranoia.

>2) I have still not seen you, or anyone else, demonstrate any 
>   contradiction or any problem with the large majority of the
>   eyewitness accounts of the gassings in the Nazi death camps.
>   Some are inaccurate, for sure - out of so many testimonies, some
>   will not be accurate; some will get the duration of time and/or
>   the number of the people gassed wrong. What does this prove?

I haven't read a large majority of what I understand to be several hundred
or thousand accounts, and at the moment am only addressing one.  What does
this prove?  Only that this one account has some technical details that
sound odd to me and perhaps to some other people.  What will it prove if
these suspicions are confirmed?  Only that the one account is not
accurate.  Now my turn for a question.  What's wrong with that?  Is there
some reason to want to retain false or incorrect evidence in any
situation?

># The use of Zyklon-B has been called into question for years. 
>
>Maybe it has, but no one so far demonstrated any problem with the
>use of Zyklon-B for gassing. No one conducted any experiments to
>try and prove that there would have been a problem with using 
>Zyklon-B.

You are correct on both counts.

>Some people have made speculations, which to me at least
>seem incredibly stupid, about alleged "difficulties" with using
>Zyklon-B, but they presented no proof and no logical argument.

The speculation is very simple.  Does Zyklon-B outgas rapidly enough to
have been used in the manner described?  All other considerations are of
minor importance.  Yes, it's flammable but so is gasoline, and the latter
is commonly used for a variety of things without even moderate problems. 
Yes, the residual fumes can be deadly, but that can be worked around with
proper precautions.  Thus far only questions have been presented, and some
of them have been answered with logical argument.  Others remain to be
answered in the same manner.  At that stage, proof of something will have
been obtained.  One is not required to have the answer in order to
identify or propose a problem.

># Might it not be useful to simply address the questions, answer 
># them, and set the matter to rest for good?
>
>Sure. What exactly are the questions? Do we have anything except
>wild speculations this time? More than "it seems to me", etc?

The major remaining question is the evaporation rate.  I agree with the
rest of what you say with the exception of one word.  There is nothing
"wild" about the question, but that seems to describe the reactions it
sometimes produces.

This illustrates something that has been discussed with others, and
dismissed as untrue by most.  Namely that you can come into this forum
with a reasonable, unemotional question, in this case one that can be
answered without ambiguity or surmise, and meet strident opposition for
simply asking the question without any associated conjecture.  Not so,
they tell me.  People here are reasonable, open-minded, and only
interested in defending the truth against the lies and twisted logic of
evil people.  Well, if you can't ask something as mundane as "how fast
does this liquid evaporate" without direct or implied condemnation of
yourself, your morals, and your supposed nefarious intentions, I do have
to question again just how open-minded and truth seeking this discussion
group really is.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21069 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Old Nonsense Again (was: Re: What is "Holocaust denial")
Date: 6 Jan 1995 18:36:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 8
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ekk53$rv7@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ekdbe$i26@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Much of the cyanic compounds withered
>   away during those 40 years.

Whither withered?

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21070 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Identifying and Combatting Disinformation
Date: 6 Jan 1995 18:40:01 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 19
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ekkch$rvq@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Anyone have their own techniques for spotting and combatting
>disinformation?

Use your head.  Take little for granted.

>I think that the idea that our government would be complicit, not just in
>the killing, but in this very cynical effort to lie about it, and hide
>about it, and pretend it didn't happen, and attack those who find out
that
>it did happen, is in many ways almost worse. It is something that, as a
>democracy, we can't really allow to happen. 
>
> - Investigative Journalist Robert Parry on the Iran Contra conspiracy

Some things never change.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21095 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 6 Jan 1995 18:52:04 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 59
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ekl34$s2p@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ekbvi$gj1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Are you saying that the Holocaust deniers on this list are 
>"ordinary people"? Practically all of them are die-hard Nazis
>and racists. They say they admire Hitler, they say Jews are
>inferior, they say they hope all the Jews will be exterminated.
>
>Re your question: I've never met any Holocaust denier except
>for on the net. Most people I know hardly heard of Holocaust
>denial, and those who do regard the deniers as crackpots. I
>guess we move in different circles.

I wasn't even referring to the net, let alone your list.  "My experience"
as in "my life", and my life damned sure isn't here.  The people I refer
to offered no views on Hitler and if anything are in admiration of the
accomplishments of Jewish people against rather stiff odds.

I think that the circles we move in are not as dissimilar as the vibes we
project.  Just a guess.

># I haven't read a large majority of what I understand to be several
># hundred or thousand accounts, and at the moment am only addressing
># one.  
>
>Why?

Testing the waters.  And finding that questioning only a part of one
account turns out to be a formidable undertaking.  Why, indeed.

>What will it prove if
># these suspicions are confirmed?  Only that the one account is not
># accurate.  Now my turn for a question.  What's wrong with that?  Is
there
># some reason to want to retain false or incorrect evidence in any
># situation?
>
>No, I just don't think this evidence is false. Maybe it wasn't 15 
>minutes, maybe it was 20 minutes. Suppose this is the case. So what?
>Is this really important?

Then (a) we have a difference of opinion, (b) I am not arguing about 5
minutes out of 20, if there isn't an order of magnitude difference then it
isn't worth pursuing, and (c) I have no idea if it's important and that
isn't the point.  The point is to impose some degree of rigor where very
little has been employed.

># The speculation is very simple. Does Zyklon-B outgas rapidly enough to
># have been used in the manner described?  
>
>Ok. I take it that this is your most important question? Is that
>agreed? 
>
># The major remaining question is the evaporation rate.  
>
>Ok, I am trying to get the relevant information.

Agreed, and thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21104 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Can they muzzle your modem?  (re: offensive speech on net)
Date: 6 Jan 1995 17:27:59 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 26
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ekg5f$rb5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ek7t1$b23@nic.umass.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>:   The use of the Internet by white-supremacists, 
>:   Holocaust deniers, gay bashers and other elements 
>:   of the extreme right is matter of concern to human 
>:   rights agencies.
>:
>:   Harvey Goldberg
>
>Personally, I support the ability of you hate-mongers to the same full 
>use of the Internet as everyone else.  The Bill Of Rights guarantees 
>freedom of speech and besides, and besides, I'd rather have you guys out 
>in the open (where you can fit in my rifle scope).  ;)

You damned near got a knee-jerk reaction from me on this one.  I've been
getting near the boiling point over a series of "you can't ask/say/think
that, you hatemonger you" messages and then to encounter yours, reading
the last paragraph first, goddamit enough is enough you shallow
pat-phrased safe-position do-nothing do-gooder lookitme,ain'tIcute
blank-brained juvenile gutless smirking smart-mouthed.......Oh...  ;).  I
see.  Read the whole thing now.  Once again does geek language save the
day.  Right on, friend!

You were referring to Harvey, of course?  ;;;;

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21111 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: same crap
Date: 7 Jan 1995 09:45:36 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 17
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3em9eg$4u7@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>I was not discussing the article, Boris. I was discussing your post.
(Here
>he goes, changing the subject again. Wriggle, wriggle.) When you
attempted
>to change the point of your original statement from a _question_ being
>"probably negative" to the _article_ being "negative", I called you on
it.
>Changing the subject of the discussion, however subtly, is an old trick,
>and you've been caught red-handed. Tough.

Came across this old thread once again in the listing.  If the author of
the above is trying to honestly communicate with someone then he hides it
very well.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21118 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
In-Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com's message of 8 Jan 1995 20:57:12 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <3ek7r3$et5@decaxp.harvard.edu> <3eq55o$l45@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 03:05:32 GMT
Lines: 57


From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
>I am not on any team, or in any aisle, and I do not have a position on the
>holocaust beyond a suspicion that *some* of the allegations on record are
>inaccurate and purposely slanted to cast the German people in general in a
>bestial light.  That last comment typically draws responses that, "You
>won't find anyone in this forum who condemns the German people across the
>board."  Well that may be true, but my interest in this aspect certainly
>extends beyond this forum, and there are many people in the world who do
>not make a distinction between Nazis and Germans.  Am I going to change
>anything in that regard?  Probably not.  But I will raise a voice in
>objection.

Is the problem that some attribute everything Nazis did to all
Germans, or that you suspect some allegations are not fair to the
Nazis?

I find the above somewhat confused in that regard. Certainly it would
be unfair, for example, to blame all football players for what OJ
Simpson did (or is accused of.) But I don't think the way to
straighten that out would be to try to get OJ Simpson falsely
acquitted, even if it did shed a bad light on football players by
association.

At any rate, and perhaps more constructively, could you tie the above
back to the two issues that seem to have occupied the vast majority of
your posts here? Those would be the issue of the practical efficacy of
HCN in mass murder as described at places such as Auschwitz and
Birkenau, and the issue of Himmler's Posner Speech.

Besides the fact that I believe those specific matters are lost causes
as far as shedding any doubt, they're both as well established as
anything we know about that era which means quite firmly where other
events might yield some room for argument, I don't see how they can
possibly relate to the above comments. Himmler was Himmler, he was a
murderous thug at the very top of the Nazi leadership.

Auschwitz-Birkenau et al were SS facilities of murder purposely set up
outside of Germany proper, in Poland, and manned by pretty much select
troops whose blind loyalty could be relied upon. And even then the
diaries and memos spoke of "morale" problems among those troops,
Rausch, I believe it was, refers to Auschwitz as "anus mundi", the
asshole of the world, a classicist reference to Hell proper. I believe
that was from Dante'? From the words surrounding that text I don't
believe he was being flippant.

Certainly there are issues which would serve your stated interest
better? Issues which might well reflect (or, if examined, cease to
reflect) on the population as a whole. I don't see how examining, for
months now, the efficacy of HCN or what exactly Himmler meant by the
word "ausrotten" in a speech help that cause at all.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 21130 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 9 Jan 1995 13:42:28 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 22
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3es02k$re8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eqkum$1d1i@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>I have been following this thread with some interest, and it seems to me
a rather 
>extraordinary, even disingenuous, conclusion that you still doubt whether
it would be 
>technically possible to gas a room full of people in 10, 15, or 20
minutes (I forget 
>the original point of contention).  It seems to have been established
that Zyklon B 
>evaporates rapidly at low temperatures and is fatal to mammals in low
concentrations 
>in a short period of time.  What part of the picture is missing?

If anything at all was established about the evaporation rate of the HCN
contained in Zyklon-B, then I surely missed it.  Can you reference figures
or a post?

What I find extraordinary are the superlatives commonly used to describe
what does not exist.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21148 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 9 Jan 1995 13:55:48 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 32
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3es0rk$rge@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eqb9i$m80@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>mammals are very much more sensitive to poisoning by HCN
>than the organisms referred to by Degesch. The lower a concentration is
>required for killing an organism, the less time that is required to
>disperse a lethal dose.

What you say is true.  I'd like to note that the concentrations required
to kill insects have never been raised by myself, as they don't have
anything to do with the main question, i.e. - how long does it take a
given amount of Zyklon-B at some specified temperature to release a lethal
level of 300 parts per million in an enclosure of specified volume?  The
insect killing levels (16,000 ppm?) have been raised repeatedly by others
who I don't believe fully understood the original question.

>I will research dispersability and comparative
>toxicity of HCN and publish it here in a day or so. I believe that you
>will find this information to be compatible with the 15-20 minute figure
>that has been mentioned. 
>
>Once this information is posted -- one hopes to a high degree of accuracy
>-- what will you do with it?

That depends on what the figures are and whether their derivation is
correctly structured.  I presume that you will include full details of
your derivation.  If you can provide accurate answers, I will extend
hearty thanks.  If you can do this in 2 or 3 days,  you will have my
sincere admiration as well as thanks.  It is not a simple problem.  (To
repeat, and perhaps save you time and effort, the relative toxicity levels
are of no interest because they are not applicable to the question.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21196 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Remarks from another planet
Date: 7 Jan 1995 22:25:57 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 125
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3enm05$bk2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>You express astonishment that people are irritated with you

Astonishment?  Hardly.  It's difficult to be astonished by daily
recurrence of the same thing.

>For example, you stated, "The speculation is very simple.  Does
>Zyklon-B outgas rapidly enough to have been used in the manner
>described?"  But this is not speculation.  This is a question. 
>What do you speculate or hypothesize to be the truth of the matter
>and how do you reach such a position?

The speculation has been covered in several earlier posts, and at some
point I must presume that the continuing responses are being read by
people who have followed the thread.  At any rate, I would think that it
would be easily inferred from the statement.  I suspect that it does not. 
If I had to bet on it, I'd give it 50-50.

>I wonder if you couch your words and narrow your inquiry to
>the point of irrelevance because you have an aversion to being
>found wrong.

Well of course I do.  Don't you?  But there are other reasons.  One is
that when walking through a pack of snapping dogs, you are well advised to
tuck all appendages in.  The inquiry has also narrowed as irrelevant
issues raised both by myself and others has been weeded out by discussion
and exchanges of information, sans invective.  Sorry I couldn't pose the
problem so completely up front as to have given an answer at that time as
well.

>As you have probably observed, the Holocaust deniers on this
>very newsgroup claim that the Holocaust "myth" can be toppled by
>bringing into question (though not necessarily refuting) small
>details in a single individual's eyewitness testimony.  And along
>you come questioning small details.

Nitpicking doesn't seem to confine itself to any particular group so far
as I can see.  When I got into this discussion, my initial posts went to
some length to state that I would confine myself to narrow, technical
issues.  I commented at that time that a lot of non-technical types were
wasting a lot of words discussing things they didn't understand.  My
suggestion then, and now, is that if you have a chemical question, ask a
chemist for advice, and so on.  In the process of discussing the technical
issues and scanning posts in this disorganized format, I have begun to
comment on other items that catch my eye.  The sometimes violent responses
this produces are alternately irritating and funny, but always
interesting.

>Deniers tend to nitpick because they cannot construct an
>alternative scenario to what happened during World War II and
>because they cannot describe the supposed Holocaust "hoax"; and
>here you are seeming to nitpick.  OF COURSE people will be
>suspicious of your intent, all the more so if you steadfastly stick
>to the line that you are simply engaged in innocent questioning.

I am not interested in labels, or groups, or the methods of others except
as they affect my own efforts.  As for the OF COURSE characterization of
suspicion, I agree, and tend to call that paranoia.  It's rampant here.  I
don't know what your motives are.  I don't care.  I appreciate anything
you wish to offer to the discussion that furthers a consensus amongst the
participants.

>In general, I think you would do better (i.e. have more
>credibility) by being less circumspect.  Right now you come off as
>patronizing, as if you are the only one going about this business
>in an objective and rigorous manner.

Thanks for the suggestion, Keith Morrison and others have offered the same
advice.  There is a steady tendency here to seize on the slightest kinds
of mistakes in a post and label the author as an idiot, liar, what have
you.  You come close to that in your discussion of speculation, but at
least you do it in a civil manner.  My manner is only occasionally
rigorous, and not always objective.  If I am patronizing about anything on
a regular basis, it is the vulgar ranting that passes for substantive
input in some quarters.

>And you come off as dishonest, as if you don't have beliefs and
>biases behind the questions you ask, how you ask them, and how you
>deal with others' responses.

I have a number of personal shortcomings to deal with in life, but
dishonesty is not one of them.

If some of the methods and language puzzle you, consider the following. 
How difficult is it in this discussion to keep a subject alive and moving
somewhere for more than a few days or weeks?  It doesn't happen often.  I
feel fortunate to have brought the simple matter of the evaporation rate
of a gas this far.  To have held a larger topic together in this climate
is quite beyond my desires or capabilities.

>Of course, in stating your beliefs in such a polarized environment,
>you run the risk of being dismissed by one group or the other
>(deniers or archivists).  But as it stands now, I don't know that
>you are very compelling to either one.

Just so, and that's life.  I did not suppose that this effort would be a
popularity contest.  My questions are intended to elicit information for
my own benefit.  If others get something from the process, so much the
better, but I don't fancy myself having influence with any group at any
time.  I am not a joiner because I neither lead nor follow worth a shit.

>I think most people would have more respect for you if you put your
>questions and doubts in context -- do you think the Nazis killed
>people with HCN in gas chambers?  How long do you think it took? Is
>it likely that the outgassing/evaporation problems prevented the
>murder of people in 15-20 minutes?  What relevance does this have,
>if any, to overall Holocaust history?

I don't know the answers to the questions you pose, and would rather not
speculate until I learn a little more about the subject.  In no way do I
present myself as any sort of expert on historical matters.  I am seeking
an answer to a question that will say something about the times involved. 
Where that leads will depend on the what that answer is.  If it is
reasonably short, then the eyewitness accounts are bolstered, and there is
ready ammunition to shoot down future questions about the use of Zyklon-B.
 If it is long, then some of the eyewitness accounts must be called into
question.  That's as far as my prognostication extends at the moment.

Thank you for a civil post that contains what appears to me to be well
meant advice.  I'm sorry if I cannot yet drop the defensive trappings that
the combative nature of this forum has led me to adopt, and hope that my
responses give little or no offense.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21201 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 7 Jan 1995 22:32:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 20
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3enmbs$bmb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ekkj1$t5c@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Either the melting point of HCN is rather high, which I doubt even 
>though I do not happen to have a chem reference right at hand,
>
>*or the HCN was vapourizing so rapidly it was cooling some of the liquid*
>*HCN below its freezing point.                                          *
>
>Now, if it could manage to do that, that indicates it evaporates pretty
>darn fast.

Your description of why it cools and then freezes is entirely correct. 
The freezing point is about -10 C, give or take a few degrees.  The "heat
of vaporization" I referred to in an earlier post is a measure of how much
heat the liquid has to supply in order to convert part of itself to a
vapor.  You are also correct about HCN being highly volatile - DuPont
compares it to butyl acetate, which comes somewhere near your comparison
of acetone.  Now, all I'd like to find out is, how volatile?

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21228 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 8 Jan 1995 20:57:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 45
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eq55o$l45@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ek7r3$et5@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Well, it starts with a technical details and ends up with huge long and 
>boring ranting about the Jews and their..................B**S etc.
>Mind you it's has been here for a long time, some stayed and some left.

I follow what you're saying, but I don't think it's necessary to then rush
to categorize newcomers who don't fit neatly into the categories that you
have identified as the most common.  Do that and you'll drive off
independent participants quickly, leaving a highly polarized forum more
interested in casting curses back and forth than in anything else.

> I have dealt in the past with few speculators who are not willing to 
>test HCN and really rest their case. Odd though some of them came to 
>their senses and stop speculating on such 
>scientific questions where the answers are easy and available everywhere 
>there is a chemistry lab. Please dont try to compare HCN with gasoline.
>You are comparing a bullets to missiles!  or bikes to airplanes!

It is looking more like I might have to manufacture some HCN, or even some
ersatz Zyklon-B to get answers.  The model for the dispersion question
will be a difficult construct.  The only comparison to gasoline had to do
with the questions regarding flammability.

>Namely, you can lurk and watch while the teams play and then you could 
>ask either one of the teams your burning questions. I never knew on which

>isle you have been, nor do I understand your position on the holocaust.
>Could be brief and tell us where you stand.

I am not on any team, or in any aisle, and I do not have a position on the
holocaust beyond a suspicion that *some* of the allegations on record are
inaccurate and purposely slanted to cast the German people in general in a
bestial light.  That last comment typically draws responses that, "You
won't find anyone in this forum who condemns the German people across the
board."  Well that may be true, but my interest in this aspect certainly
extends beyond this forum, and there are many people in the world who do
not make a distinction between Nazis and Germans.  Am I going to change
anything in that regard?  Probably not.  But I will raise a voice in
objection.

Thanks for your questions.  Please feel free to pass on any other
information or queries that are of interest.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21238 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Prouty and Lane disturb me too
Date: 10 Jan 1995 02:40:41 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 11
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3etdlp$5c3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3et29m$gie@anshar.shadow.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

This is not in reply to any message, just a clumsy but effective way to
get a new post to stay contiguous in the listings.

For a disturbed bunch, you all show a remarkable degree of rationality. 
Sounds as if you've gotten past some growing pains, a transition this
group could benefit from.  Good for you and damn glad to see somebody do
it on a contentious issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21245 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 10 Jan 1995 03:19:36 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 65
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3etfuo$5ki@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3esm7c$12qq@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>The evaporation rate itself had not yet 
>been established in any of the posts still accessible to my newsreader. 
But I
>also don't think that it ever will be to your satisfaction

Whatever is established should only become so after open examination of
verifiable and repeatable procedures that can objectively and
independently confirm the results.  My satisfaction will come from
participating in reaching a conclusion that I understand and can agree
with, or give a logical explanation as to why not.  It will thus be an
antecedent to the conclusion, whatever that may be, and not a shaping
factor.  Which is a real wordy way of saying that I will put up or shut up
when it comes to sticking to the concrete, so don't get overly concerned
about my intransigence.  There's stubborn and there's resolute, and I'll
stick with the one that involves a thought process.

>But who knows?
>Perhaps you will manufacture your ersatz Zyklon B, release it in a
chamber at
>just above its freezing point of -10C, and find that it reaches 300 ppm
with
>enough time to spare to kill any mammal that might have been in the
chamber.
>Perhaps you will conduct your experiment and find that the gas also
disperses
>to safe levels almost immediately that the chamber is opened.  But if all
that 
>happens, will you come back here and say that it is technically possible
to 
>gas a room full of people in 10-20 minutes using Zyklon B?  Or will you
come
>back and tell us that your results are no good because your Zyklon B was 
>ersatz?

Yeah, and maybe the bad guy'll get the girl, but probably not.  That's the
benefit of dealing with the technical in an open forum - opinion can  be
removed from outcome.  I would certainly say exactly what I observed.  I
am familiar with cooked data, and despise it.  Of all the sorry games we
humans play, lying to ourselves has got to be one of the dumbest.  Your
presumption that I am emotionally attached to a given outcome is just
that.

On a more concrete note, no, a small scale test that showed what you
describe would almost close the issue for me.  I think results obtained
without exhaustive simulation can still  indicate a clear range of
possible outcome.  There's either a big difference in the time spans being
questioned and those measured, or there isn't.  I'll quantify a range that
I think should be acceptable, and do that as part of describing how it
appears to me that the question can be resolved.  Which is to say,
describe in detail what is needed to do a suitable experiment to determine
HCN evaporation and dispersion rates under various defined conditions. 
Those descriptions will be offered for review and comment and, it is
hoped, improvement.  Anyone who wants to do an actual experiment based on
their own methods, please, is entirely welcome to do so, but in no way
encouraged.  Have to start thinking about the liability disclaimers
somewhere in here.

>At any rate, I apologize for suggesting that you were being disingenuous.
>If you really need more convincing, carry on.

Thanks.  I think.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21257 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: speech control efforts
Date: 10 Jan 1995 11:49:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 35
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eudpv$1lr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eso7r$4u6@math.UCR.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>i wouldn't be surprised if in the end i'm actually pretty close to a
>free speech absolutist.  it's just that i think that a lot of the
>people who consider themselves free speech absolutists would actually
>find their philosophical resolve melting a bit if they took a close
>look at some of the disturbing borderline cases that have occurred and
>that are likely to occur with greater frequency in the future.

There is no such thing as partial free speech.  You either have free
speech or you don't.  This whole thing has come about because the
politeness police (read "liberal twits") are just too pained, too wounded
at the idea that people on occasion will get their feelings hurt when
exchanging ideas with others.  Idiots have written books that gain a wide
audience by positing that words wound as surely as blows, and that in a
civilized society both must then be controlled.

But let us not stop at speech.  My feelings are hurt by having to wear
less than up to the minute fashions, and driving an older car.  Well
dressed and hot wheeled people should therefore either stay home, or share
with me.  Come to think of it, the condition of my old shack hurts my
feelings too.  Maybe I'll just move in with you, comrade.

What nonsense.  I say blast every sacred cow you can find with a double
load of open debate and the clear light of day.  They'll bellow for a
while and then maybe this foolishness will be over.

The U.S., and perhaps Canada and Mexico, have governments that are
presently and justifiably held in contempt by the majority of the
governed.  I believe that any overt attempts by governments to limit basic
freedoms such as free speech will be met with resistance at whatever level
is required to throw off the yoke.  As has been said recently in this
forum, "Don't tread on us."

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21267 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Remarks from another planet
Date: 10 Jan 1995 15:44:40 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 83
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3eurjo$3ca@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3escri$gke@access1.digex.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>From your posts I infer 
>that you are perturbed by everyone getting irritated with you.

Everyone?  I've never thought that, never said that, and am quite sure
that's not the case.

>Perhaps 
>you are doing something that irritates everyone.

Well, apparently you at any rate.

>your unbelieveable claim that you are innocently pursuing a narrow 
>technical question

That's called focus.  Believe it or not.

>your slavish adherence to your self-applied nickname of Doubting Thomas 
>which has walled you in to a two-dimensional role of questioning things 
>without supplying hypotheses or explanations of why such investigations 
>have any significance. 

That is your interpretation.  I had to come up with a screen name to be
able to use the online service.  I chose a whimsical one that does refer
to one of my personality traits and have since largely ignored it except
to observe to someone else that it seems to irritate some people, which
struck me as both odd and amusing and still does and is reason in itself
to retain the name.  But I'm not much on labels.

>You're staring 
>at a computer screen. What are you afraid of -- that the words will jump 
>off the screen and bite you?  Or that your feelings will be hurt?  You 
>acknowledge later in your post (below) that you this is not a popularity 
>contest (good thing for you!  Sorry, couldn't resist).  So lose the 
>feigned resentment or outrage or whatever it is. 

Let me see if I've got this straight.  You're lecturing me on the benefits
of retaining an impersonal approach to the disembodied voices which appear
as words on my screen and yours, and you are doing this in the midst of
your second lengthy post attempting to discuss the personality of one of
the screen voices.

>So if the little detail about the time it takes for HCN to have killed 
>people in a given situation turns out to be different than the eyewitness

>estimated, that does not bring the Holocaust into question?

It would bring the estimation into question for sure.  Beyond that, I
don't know.

>But you do come off as being dishonest.

That's your perception, and you're welcome to it.  If you'd like to bring
up a specific now or anytime, feel free to do so.

>Er, given they way everyone rolls their eyes

"Everyone" again.  Sheesh.  Are you part of the ubiquitous "we", or simply
the self-appointed spokesman for "everyone"?  I guess that condescending
to pretension is one way of meeting in the middle.

>Well you've got a strange way of doing research for yourself -- in a 
>public forum that is laced with contention.

Where else can you discuss this question in an open manner?

>Ultimately, of course, this pigeon-holes you as a 
>sort of knee-jerk loner, who won't even trade in his doubting role for 
>a conclusion (and possible identification with one of the groups -- oh 
>no!) in the black-and-white ausrotten discussion.

Well, I'm glad to see you agree with me that there are two ways to view
the ausrotten discussion.

To conclude on a serious note, I think that perhaps you see things in more
of a black and white way than I do, which is fine.  Conduct your affairs
as you wish, and so will I.  And try to judge my comments on their merits,
not mine.  I went along with discussing my motivations as a matter of
courtesy, but the subject is boring and it's getting hard to remain
courteous.  No mas, por favor.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education." - Wilson
Mizner


Article 21277 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Prouty and Lane disturb me too
Date: 10 Jan 1995 17:56:14 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 25
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ev3ae$4id@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Btw - got email today from someone saying the Liberty Lobby is 
>anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic. Can someone explain the difference, if 
>there is one, to me?

As best I understand it, anti-Semitic refers to negative attitudes toward
Semitic peoples, which includes but is not limited to Jews (also
Palestinians?), whereas antisemitic refers to negative attitudes toward
Jews only.  The term anti-Zionist refers to negative attitudes toward
Zionism, which I think is a belief that God has ordained the existence of
the state of Israel in its historic and biblical location, and that the
Jews of the world must once again all gather there before the Messiah can
come to lead Israel (and the world?) to a position of safety,
righteousness and strength.  Some separate the religious aspects of
Zionism from the political.  It has been a long time since I discussed
either, and my facts may be a bit rusty in places.

It is extremely common to see anti-Zionists labeled antisemitics (as with
Vanessa Redgrave).  I have never seen anyone referred to as anti-Semitic. 
Maybe the Turks?

There are undoubtedly a number of people in this group who can and will
correct any errors in this explanation.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21288 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Prouty and Lane disturb me too
In-Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com's message of 10 Jan 1995 17:56:14 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <3ev3ae$4id@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 00:59:49 GMT
Lines: 52


From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
>>Btw - got email today from someone saying the Liberty Lobby is 
>>anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic. Can someone explain the difference, if 
>>there is one, to me?
>
>As best I understand it, anti-Semitic refers to negative attitudes toward
>Semitic peoples, which includes but is not limited to Jews (also
>Palestinians?), whereas antisemitic refers to negative attitudes toward
>Jews only.

Um, where do you come up with this stuff? Have you tried a dictionary,
for starters? On what basis do you say blah-blah refers to blah-blah?
Anything? Common usage? Quotes? Usage in the media? What?

I've never seen this hyphen vs no-hyphen vs capitalization of the S
distinction in my life.

>It is extremely common to see anti-Zionists labeled antisemitics (as with
>Vanessa Redgrave).

And the reasons are all over the map.

There are quite a few people, we've seen it here, who use
"anti-zionist" or more often use "zionist" in a challenging way, when
they simply mean jewish. They talk of "zionist control of the media",
do you think they're referring to zionism, a movement to create and
support a Jewish homeland? No, I don't think so. It's a code word, a
way for them to not quite say "jewish" which is what they mean. What
about the expression "Zionist Occupation Government" used by white
supremacists and their ilk. Do you think they're referring to
"zionism" as it's used in the dictionary? I don't think so, I think we
all know what they're trying to say.

So there are indeed people who use the phrase zionist or anti-zionist
and are just plain old anti-jewish.

And there are indeed people who use the phrase and simply mean they
oppose the specific political movement surrounding the state of
Israel.

And there are indeed people who will call both, or either,
anti-semites, and sometimes that's wrong.

etc.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 21301 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 10 Jan 1995 22:51:13 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 9
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3evkjh$7rc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3euuek$b3l@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Only a small portion of the HCN had to 
>evaporate in order to kill the people inside the gas chambers. 
>15-20 minutes or so were enough.

Has someone obtained new information or made a calculation that supports
this?

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21302 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 11 Jan 1995 08:13:14 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 15
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f0lha$aua@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3eur5m$4hg@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>What an example of baloney sliced thin with a dull knife, Greg!  Love 
>the straw man, too:  "When people talk about mass homicidal gassings 
>that last only a few minutes".  Who are these "People"?  I don't know of 
>any infomred historians who make such claims--do you?

I don't know that they're historians, but I've had a few posts directed to
me that indicated two minutes.  A couple of them were invitations for me
to try it in a closed space with the poster inserting Zyklon-B, so I
didn't presume those to be from full professors, maybe not even grad
students.  However, he's probably referring to the account that started
this inquiry, which gave a total time (including ventilation) of 10 to 15
minutes, with an inferred 5 minutes or so included.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21303 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 11 Jan 1995 08:21:26 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 17
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f0m0m$av4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>>be continuing to gas off as the "gas chamber" doors were thrown open for
>>the workmen to enter ... an extremely dangerous situation.
>
>"Workmen"?!
>
>Raven slyly tries to mislead again.
>
>He is of course referring to the *prisoners*, also sentenced to death,
>who wore gas masks etc. and removed the bodies ("Sonderkommando").

What is either sly or misleading about this?  I don't think anyone makes a
case that the Germans privatized the operation of the camps, so workmen
would obviously refer to either staff or prisoners, most likely the
latter.  In this case, assuredly the latter.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21307 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 11 Jan 1995 15:19:26 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 31
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f1ege$duv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f10m4$7o7@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Oh wait--you mean you weren't joking?  You mean you sincerely wanted me 
>to get all hot and bothered because you got E-mail from some joker who 
>asked you to spend time in a room filled with HCN gas.

I didn't say email.  They have been in posts, and I believe one of them
was an early post in this thread, something that people who have followed
it might well have noted, and both of them made strong (and ridiculous)
points or claims that 2 minutes was sufficient.

>If you think that posting a claim 
>by an unnamed cliament that gassings took as minimal a time as two 
>minutes in any way supports Greg's claim that gas chambers did not exist 
>you'd better stand in line for a seat on the booby train, buddy.

Now that's a hell of a stretch, and as politely stated as it is logically
derived.  Don't know if this qualifies you for hot and bothered, but I'd
go along with confused.

You know, I just finished a discussion with someone who asked why I got
irritated at posts or why other's posts irritated me.  My reply was that
the irritation isn't as pervasive as he supposed, and I might have added
that I tend to respond in kind up to a point.  If someone is sarcastic
with me, I'll dish that back.  If they are courteous, so is my reply, no
matter how much I may disagree with the content of the post.

If you want to trade smart-assed barbs, that's OK, but I don't think
either of us are good enough at it to be entertaining, so why waste time
and space?

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21314 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 11 Jan 1995 18:14:36 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 21
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f1oos$fm5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>What is misleading is the implicit assumption that the Nazis would have
>been concerned if their workmen had been killed by the fumes.  That's an
>assumption that is perfectly valid for most "workmen."  It's not valid
>for the Sonderkommando, since the Sonderkommando were under sentence of
>death

There are assumptions at work here, but not implicit ones.  I don't see
anything in the remarks that indicates Nazi concern.  He was simply
pointing out a procedural difficulty - if the workers (whatever their
status or source) drop dead in the middle of the job, you'd have to get
new ones.  Now we covered that in an earlier exchange and seemed to agree
between several people that they would have been wearing gas masks. 
Probably not everyone participated in that thread.

>Do you now understand, Mr. Hunt?

Haughty isn't your style, Mr. McCarthy.  You are too straight and sincere
for that affectation, and it just doesn't fit you well.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21315 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A Lurker Responds
Date: 11 Jan 1995 18:20:39 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 15
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f1p47$fnn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f0alg$hif@Island.amtsgi.bc.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>I believe that one of the reasons holocausts happen is because when we
>allow our hate to have full reign we can collect a lot of diverse human
>beings under one convenient label ( kike, chug, etc.), assign hateful
>qualities to that label and...quite virtuously... exterminate them as
>vermin.
>So the crime is initiated at the stage where we tell ourselves that it
>is ok to hate, carte blanc, a whole group or race of people.

I agree with you about the nefarious uses to which labels can be put -
such as to condemn the "deniers" you go on to excoriate.  After all,
there's no better way to fight hate than with officially sanctioned hate,
eh?

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21346 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 12 Jan 1995 11:28:39 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 26
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f3lbn$n9d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f2l5r$l2r@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>I acknowledge receipt of your E-Mail. I try to keep E-mail correspondence
>to a minimum, and would appreciate your re-posting it here.

Sorry for any confusion the email may have caused, it was a courtesy
message to inform you of a posting.  In other words, the email you
received is a copy of what was posted publicly.  AOL allows you to copy
the author of the message you are replying to by clicking a box, and that
probably is reflected in the gobbledeygook in the message routing
description.  However, that stuff is Greek to me too, so I'll try to
remember to state at the end of messages that they are copies of a
posting.

>If, however, one places 75 grams of HCN in the four corners of the
>chamber, it should take, at least in theory,  1/4X to arrive at a 
uniform
>dispersal.

I would be surprised if the relationship were this linear.  Your example
is in the right direction but the time reduction is probably not that
large.  As I said earlier, the dispersion model is not a simple one. 
Thanks for the comments.

(Copy of post sent via email.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21347 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A Lurker Responds
Date: 12 Jan 1995 11:43:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 42
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f3m7q$nc1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Presumably, then, you also object to the terms "exterminationist" and
>"Holohoaxer" which are used by various deniers and self-proclaimed
>"revisionists" to label those of us who refute their illogic and
>misinformation.  Am I right?

You are absolutely right.  There is nothing about what you are doing that
merits derision or scorn, let alone hateful names.  And I do not buy the
argument that, "Well, they called me names first!"  One of my favorite
responses to that is, "Does that mean you bark at dogs?"

By the way, I would imagine that they think they are refuting your illogic
and misinformation too.  The thing to remember is that both sides are for
the most part telling the truth.  As they see it.  One important purpose
of discussions like alt.revisionism is to separate fact from opinion and
bias.

>However, most of the "refuters" do not dismiss posters out of hand
because
>of the denier or revisionist labels.  Most of the posts are directed at
>pointing out logical or factual errors, with the occasional digression
>into whether such errors were accidental or deliberate.
>
>Can you say the same about the deniers' posts?

At the moment, I have read about 300 of the 1800 postings still appearing
on my server's listing.  A great many of these have been in threads where
I was the only maverick, or nearly so, so my exposure to the two sides is
somewhat skewed in the favor of your position.  At the moment I have
nearly a dozen undoubtedly contentious posts to read that will surely
attack my comments about the unnecessary severity of the criticism of a
post by Greg Raven.  Perhaps it would be interesting to cruise a little in
other areas and find some polar opposite targets of opportunity and see
what their response to criticism might be.  I'll copy you if anything
results.  As stated to someone else recently, cage rattling can be
interesting.

Thank you for your comments.

(Courtesy copy sent via email.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21348 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A Lurker Responds
Date: 12 Jan 1995 11:58:42 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 60
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f3n42$nf9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f2bqh$8bp@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>In article <3f1p47$fnn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>DbtgThomas  wrote:
>>
>>I agree with you about the nefarious uses to which labels can be put -
>>such as to condemn the "deniers" you go on to excoriate.  After all,
>>there's no better way to fight hate than with officially sanctioned
hate,
>>eh?
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" -
Vroomfondel
>
>This post leads me to believe that I was naive to think Mr. Hall might
>not be a denier.  Interesting that he puts denier in quotes.  Does
>he deny that there are people on this net who deny the holocaust?

I am not a "denier" nor an "archivist" nor any of the other pet names
people hurl at one another in this forum.  I dislike intensely the use of
labels, and try like hell not to fall into that mode myself.  If you read
my posts, you will note that I use sentence descriptions to identify
certain ideological groups, and there is a general absence of these
one-word verbal corrals.  When I do have to use one, any one, I typically
place it in quotes.  Not for the usual purpose of indicating to the world
that I think it's phony, but in the sense that one might use a napkin to
pick up something the dog deposited on the floor.

>Does he deny that most of them are Nazis?

I would not have the slightest idea who is or is not a Nazi, nor do I
care.  I have seen a few posts (not recently) that openly espoused
national socialism, and would have little reason for disagreeing with
someone who chooses a label for themselves.

>Does he deny that Nazism is an ideology of hate?

That certainly appeared to have been a strong element amongst its
practicioners, but as an example, I'm not so sure the brutes and murderers
who ran Russia for decades became brutes and murderers because of some
edict to that effect contained in the doctrines of communism.  The way
totalitarian states are run often has little to do with their ostensible
operating philosophies.  Having said that, let me further say that my
knowledge of either of these systems is minimal and I take no position at
the moment except to say that I'm glad I don't live under either, and I
certainly do not defend either.

>Mr. Hall, if I am to continue engaging you in discussion, I'm going
>to need to hear you take a position on these issues.
>
>Regards to those who do not deny then holocaust,,
>
>Rich

Then regards to you, too, Rich.  By the way, it's Hunt, not Hall, but I've
been called worse.  Recently.

(Posted and emailed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21357 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Remarks from another planet
Date: 12 Jan 1995 17:02:24 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 58
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f48tg$pl9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f1oqm$li9@access1.digex.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>That's it!  Just narrow your focus to individual words I use instead of 
>the point I was making.  Gosh, there sure is a tendency around here to 
>seize on the slightest mistakes, er, at least that's what I recall 
>someone else around here complaining about.

Excuse me, sir, but I am simply and rightly taking exception to your
mischaracterization.  If I respond to your point while it is still
burdened by this innacuracy, then I lend the misstatement validity.  If I
were seizing on a mistake in the manner you refer to and I have
criticized, my response might have gone something like this:

(IMAGINARY POST)  *Sigh*  Another wet behind the ears zealot who can't get
his act together and wants to tell me how to organize mine.  I think that
the blind hatred you and your kind are consumed with is leading you to try
to cloud the legitimate discussion of issues by constant discussion of
irrelevant minutiae.  Is your sick ranting the best the Hola-hoaxers can
offer?  I think it is, and I also think that I don't care to waste my time
trying to communicate with you.  Buzz-off hate-monger, or you'll end up in
our kill files anyway.  (THIS PARAGRAPH WAS WRITTEN TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT
AND DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS ON THE SUBJECTS MENTIONED-B. Hunt)

But it didn't, because I think speech of that ilk is boorish, dumb and
time wasting.

Let me address what I think your corrected point is, which is why do I get
irritated at some posts and why do I sometimes irritate others.  It is
because I will respond to sarcasm with sarcasm, and to gutter invective
with condescension.  Courteous posts are responded to courteously.

You gave a mental description of my attitude as standing with arms crossed
in a classic defensive posture, chin out-thrust,  defiantly refusing to
join any group.  That's good, insightful imagery and comes close to
hitting the mark.  Let me add my own perception to it.  I much prefer the
posture you describe to another common one I see here (not from you),
which is instead of crossed arms, one middle finger is lifted in the
universal salute, the other is picking the nose, while the mouth utters a
steady stream of invective, half-baked analyses, unfounded allegations and
hollow claims of some ill-defined victory.  Sorry, I wouldn't join that
kind of group if they were paving the road to heaven.

>As for me, think I'll mosey on over to 
>alt.blacks.were.never.slaves.in.america and question whether the use of 
>the word "nigger" by whites was really meant in a derogatory manner in
all 
>cases, and whether the alleged number of Africans supposedly loaded onto 
>presumed slave ships wouldn't actually have destabilized the ships and 
>made them unseaworthy.

Don't know the technical name for this ploy, but you are using a laughably
trivial comparison to trivialize the subject I am investigating.  A more
valid  analogy might be for you to wander off a cliff, er, I mean on over
to alt.southern culture and investigate whether some of the horror stories
of brutality in Uncle Tom's Cabin are even possible, let alone likely to
have taken place.  You might find that the book mentioned does not present
a realistic picture of the conditions of slavery in the South.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21364 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 12 Jan 1995 15:53:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 12
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f44s1$p3i@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f3pv0$a32@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>I've noticed that the discussion has subtly shifted from diffusion
>rate to evaporation rate.  Perhaps those who are uncertain should
>better define their area of uncertainty.

The two phenomena have been referred to almost interchangeably at times. 
It would seem to me that consideration of both will be required to arrive
at a time figure.

(Posted and emailed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21365 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 12 Jan 1995 19:07:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 26
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f4g8a$qqm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>He was simply
>>pointing out a procedural difficulty - if the workers (whatever their
>>status or source) drop dead in the middle of the job, you'd have to get
>>new ones.
>
>They had tens of thousands of them available at any moment!
>
>Does anyone think dragging dead bodies out of a gas chamber is highly
>skilled labor?

This is a minor, and perhaps even a moot point.  I completely agree with
you that the labor pool was large, and that the concern for their welfare
was non-existent.  But concern for a work crew's welfare and concern for
your own ass if you don't get the job accomplished on time are two
different matters.  If you were in charge of a work crew of say, 5 people,
doing any sort of manual labor, would you not view it as a serious problem
if one or two of them disappeared every couple of hours?  How are you
going to explain to your superior why you're not out doing what you were
told to do and why the hell isn't it done already?  This isn't deep stuff,
it's just common sense.  Even one worker per shift dropping dead would be
a problem.  Insurmountable?  Of course not.  But a problem?  Of course.

(Posted and emailed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21366 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 12 Jan 1995 19:16:37 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f4gp5$qtl@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f4324$626@access4.digex.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Just as you have demanded people quote your articles when they claim
>you said something, I'd like to see you provide the quote which backs up
>your claim.  Are you absolutely sure you did not misunderstand, and that
>the claim advanced was that it would have taken about two minutes from
>onset of exposure to death, not two minutes for the entire gassing
process
>from start to finish (including ventilation)? 

One was a silly veiled threat, and the other was from someone who was
obviously feeling some personal pain over the issue.  I did not and do not
take either seriously, only point out that they both were somewhat
insistent that 2 minutes was more than enough time (for evaporation,
dispersion and death).  I do not reply to posts like the first, and would
not reply in the second situation unless I could say something placating. 
I'll look back and see if I can locate them, they were both in the past 30
days or thereabouts.

If I presume to quote someone by name and verbatim, I should be held
accountable for producing evidence to back up the quote, as should
everyone else.  But I do not accompany all the items I assimilate with
footnotes, and neither do you.  If the point is crucial, back it up.  If
not, then extend some modicum of trust simply to enable a coherent
conversation.  I have yet to ask anyone to back up the assertion of gas
masks being worn because (a) it is logical, and (b) I have no cause to
doubt them.

(Posted and emailed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21368 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: NYT: A Lesson for Mr. Gingrich
Date: 12 Jan 1995 19:22:41 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 15
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f4h4h$qvj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f3efl$d1r@access4.digex.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Can anyone provide more information on Mrs. Jeffery's statements and 
>actions with regard to the incident in question?

I think her position has been exagerrated considerably, just from the
outraged tone of the brief statements she has made.  She has said that she
will issue a detailed explanation of her actions and a debunking of the
allegations, but has not given a date for that.

This has the trappings of the kind of thought police activity that sends
chills down your spine.  How does it go? - First you're barred from
participation in public activities, and then they come for you in the
night.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21370 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 12 Jan 1995 18:28:23 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 10
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f4dun$qdk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f1pus$o83@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Touche on the smart-assed barbs, Mr. Thomas.  My consternation got the 
>better of me when I wrote that reply to you.  Now will YOU concede that 
>just because someone somewhere misunderstood how long it takes for 
>Zyklon-B to kill a human, that doesn't lend truth to Raven's contention 
>that no one was ever killed in a homicidal gas chamber during WWII?

Yes, if that is indeed Mr. Raven's contention.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21374 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
In-Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com's message of 12 Jan 1995 19:07:38 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <3f4g8a$qqm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 04:19:35 GMT
Lines: 72


From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas) [responding to me]
>>They had tens of thousands of them available at any moment!
>>
>>Does anyone think dragging dead bodies out of a gas chamber is highly
>>skilled labor?
>
>This is a minor, and perhaps even a moot point.  I completely agree with
>you that the labor pool was large, and that the concern for their welfare
>was non-existent.  But concern for a work crew's welfare and concern for
>your own ass if you don't get the job accomplished on time are two
>different matters.  If you were in charge of a work crew of say, 5 people,
>doing any sort of manual labor, would you not view it as a serious problem
>if one or two of them disappeared every couple of hours?  How are you
>going to explain to your superior why you're not out doing what you were
>told to do and why the hell isn't it done already?  This isn't deep stuff,
>it's just common sense.  Even one worker per shift dropping dead would be
>a problem.  Insurmountable?  Of course not.  But a problem?  Of course.

I think you're slipping back into applying criteria one might use for
sane conditions to an insane situation.

Why would they be economical in their use of slave labor?  Except
inasmuch as the number of people who can work simultaneously in the
same space is perhaps some limitation. But this isn't capitalism where
you don't use ten to do a job that five could do. Use twenty, they're
free, if some drop dead at some rate bring an extra five around to
wait in the ready, let them pick scraps or whatever, etc. It doesn't
cost anything, really. How difficult, how long would it take, to get
several fresh hands in? They had around 50,000 right outside, a few
shouts and five minutes maybe? I dunno, couldn't've been too hard.

This isn't particularly germaine to a concentration camp, militaries
do the same thing, busy work, make work, labor is basically free so
who cares, everyone shoulder to shoulder, bend down and pick up every
scrap of paper etc you see, go! Yeah, that's surely more efficient
than two guys with some rakes or whatever. Who cares about efficiency?

Now, that's a worthwhile point as we have military running this death
operation, so no doubt they understand that if you have lots of idle
hands and want a job done bring along as many as you can get away with
(whatever the criteria might be for too much, but it won't be the
hourly cost of all that labor.)

That is the impression I get of a lot of the work that went on around
the concentration camps, not just that directly dealing in death. They
had thousands of people on hills clearing rocks or whatever, much more
efficient to use one bulldozer, *except* when the labor is basically
free but bulldozers are relatively hard to come by. Someone else paid
for the food, what little of it there was and of what bad
quality. This wasn't capitalism.

So I don't see why you would say of course this was a problem. My
reaction is you're resisting wrapping your mind around the situation.

You've got on the order of 50,000 or more prisoners, potentially idle,
at any given moment. You need to carry 200 dead at a shot out of a gas
chamber? Hey, how many head you need? Take double, they're cheap. Etc.

I suspect if you take this out of the context of the specific
situation, unloading a gas chamber, and just think in terms of forced
prison labor in general you'll see what I'm saying is reasonable. Even
on a rock gang someone gets heat stroke or whatever, not drop dead but
becomes useless for a while if not the rest of the day. Doesn't tend
to improve work conditions, they just bring a few extra along. That's
the relevant sort of context, not normal work conditions.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 21375 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: NYT: A Lesson for Mr. Gingrich
In-Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com's message of 12 Jan 1995 19:22:41 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <3f3efl$d1r@access4.digex.net> <3f4h4h$qvj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 04:35:35 GMT
Lines: 47


From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
>This has the trappings of the kind of thought police activity that sends
>chills down your spine.  How does it go? - First you're barred from
>participation in public activities, and then they come for you in the
>night.

Although I'm not at all convinced any of this is "justified", the
firing in general, in some grand sense I suspect we're just watching
politics as usual in Washington.

Probably a tit-for-tat, if I had to make a wild speculation the
conservatives shot down a few of Clinton's cabinet over sheer
ideological disagreement recently, like Jocelyn Elders (it wasn't just
the most recent statement), maybe Dee-Dee Myers, and possibly now
Warren Christopher, so probably someone on the democratic staff dug
around looking for a skeleton and found this and launched it just
right (in a manner of speaking) to hit a mark. Around and around it
goes. I suppose it's better than if they were actually occupied making
more laws etc., it's not like any of them will starve.

Color me cynical, I think the power shake up in Washington is now
entering its ritual sacrifice of each others' family members stage.

What next? Well, presidential veto after presidential veto. Tax cuts
at the federal level by the repubs being immediately met by tax raises
at the state level to match (hey, don't want all that money burning a
hole in your pocket, and they *did* cut some program in your state
right?  You didn't really expect your politicos to react by actually
spending less money did you? You fool!) Then the cuts start
threatening individual republicans own pork-barrels, so we get
defections and so much for the supposed majority, so they woo those
they see as "conservative" democrats, and we suddenly discover all
these "liberal" republicans we never knew existed forming their own
noisy small coalition, which of course changes lots of stuff about the
game plan (give and take ya know) to form majority blocs on votes, on
anything. So screw parties it all goes back to the senior
congresscritters as per usual. And by then it's time for another big
election and we get a new board to play with.

We've been here before people, tho perhaps it's been a while for some.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 21376 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 12 Jan 1995 18:59:37 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 21
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f4fp9$qnk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>That's my problem, the kind of junk you post here.

And the above is my problem with your posts.  You regularly fling out
insulting comments without justification.  The posts I referred to are
real.  They, and the point I made with the referral, are not important. 
It isn't worth the time to search for them, and I wouldn't do it in any
case to respond to a post with the tone you take.

You have made civil posts to me before, and I have responded to them in a
civil manner.  If you really want answers to your questions, then just
present the questions please, and save your summary judgements until such
time as you have facts to base them on.

Note also, please, that I do not refer to your posts as junk.  Some of
them contain substantive material in addition to their burden of
bad-mouthing.

(Posted and emailed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21380 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!alterdial.uu.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
In-Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com's message of 11 Jan 1995 08:13:14 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <3eur5m$4hg@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3f0lha$aua@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 04:16:13 GMT
Lines: 37


>I don't know that they're historians, but I've had a few posts directed to
>me that indicated two minutes.

Two minutes of what? Can you share these posts etc? Why the vague
reference to them? This is innuendo and hearsay. Would you be
convinced if I presented you with something like the above?

No, not in the slightest.

>A couple of them were invitations for me
>to try it in a closed space with the poster inserting Zyklon-B,

Ok, I see, hard historical evidence...

>However, he's probably referring to the account that started
>this inquiry, which gave a total time (including ventilation) of 10 to 15
>minutes, with an inferred 5 minutes or so included.

Probably?

Which account was that?

I don't remember any historical accounts ever appearing here that
suggested Doubtingthomas lock himself in a closet with Zyklon-B. I'd
be very interested in seeing such material.

That's my problem, the kind of junk you post here. You'd get livid if
anyone ever handed you all these "probablies" and vague references to
unnamed materials like this stuff. And you'd be right.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 21388 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
In-Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com's message of 11 Jan 1995 18:14:36 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
	<3f1oos$fm5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 08:12:32 GMT
Lines: 43


From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
>There are assumptions at work here, but not implicit ones.  I don't see
>anything in the remarks that indicates Nazi concern.  He was simply
>pointing out a procedural difficulty - if the workers (whatever their
>status or source) drop dead in the middle of the job, you'd have to get
>new ones.

They had tens of thousands of them available at any moment!

Does anyone think dragging dead bodies out of a gas chamber is highly
skilled labor?

> Now we covered that in an earlier exchange and seemed to agree
>between several people that they would have been wearing gas masks. 

Fair enough.

I sometimes think the real problem, and it's perfectly understandable,
that most people have with this subject is the sheer brutality of what
went on.

I have no problem believing that if one of the Sonderkommando dropped
dead while pulling bodies out of the gas chamber it would mean exactly
two things: A) Ooops, one more body to drag out and B) Go fetch me
another prisoner to help with this.

Let's put it another way: How many of the Sonderkommando survived the
camps? I don't have a source, but I bet not many.

I mean, if most of them died in the camps would you accept they were
pretty expendable? Just wondering. I'm not sure if there's any source
on that, I've never run into one. For one thing any Sonderkommando who
did survive would've gone to any length to hide what they'd been
doing, it's not something someone would willingly testify to. So the
question, for the moment, is rhetorical. But I'll keep my eye out for
anything about this.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 21395 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!hookup!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A Lurker Responds
Date: 12 Jan 1995 18:08:28 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 49
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f4cpc$q7l@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f3vfh$a24@jabba.cybernetics.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

This may be a near repeat of an earlier post.  Went partly off-line in the
middle of sending it.

>According to dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas):
>>The thing to remember is that both sides are for the most part telling
>>the truth.  As they see it.
>
>You don't know that.  You're just guessing.  And I don't buy it.

Fair enough on all counts.  But the thing I can't see is why someone would
enter into a public debate and present a case based on what they know to
be lies.  That would seem to be an awfully low percentage way to
accomplish anything, and it would take a near idiot not to realize that. 
Now, you can make a case that a number of people here are near idiots, but
that would seem to me to be just a gratifying overstatement.  Apart from
whatever the actual case may be, I was also referring to the exhibited
tendency of some to brand what are obviously only the opinions of others
as lies.  You may disagree with something someone says, and they may prove
to be dead wrong, but that still doesn't make it a lie unless they are
saying things they don't really believe themselves.  Isolated mistakes
aren't lies either.  Yet I have seen repeated statements of the utter
worthlessness of a technical evaluation by Leuchter because of lies he is
alleged to have made on two occasions, one in some courtroom.  That's a
ridiculous reason to dismiss technical data, which should be subjected to
verification before being trashed.

>For example, I cannot explain Ross Vicksell's evasive behavior as
anything
>but an attempt to avoid scrutiny of arguments he knows are empty.  His
>writing conveys an intelligence that simply does not admit of being
fooled
>by denier propaganda.

Seems to me that he was pretty clear a number of times about stating that
his intent is to encourage debate, not participate.  Some people seem to
have a hard time believing that.  Some people seem to have a hard time
believing anything.  He might also be desirous of avoiding the semantic
swamps filled with ever-expanding detail regarding the unverifiable that
sometimes pass for debate here.  I know that last one motivates me to
curtail comments on occasion.

>By the way: What is your name?

Bob Hunt.  Thanks for your comments.

(Posted and emailed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21396 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 12 Jan 1995 18:17:31 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 21
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f4dab$qan@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f1gnn$o3v@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Mr Hunt, I am curious as to the title and subject matter of the
>documentation you have from DuPont in reference to HCN.

It is titled "HYDROGEN CYANIDE - Properties, Uses, Storage and Handling". 
It is 32 pages long and covers all the aspects you mention, plus on-site
considerations of handling, storage, safety, first-aid, and so on.  DuPont
will not deliver the product to a facility until they have inspected and
licensed it.  The booklet is to acquaint users with the dangers and
properties of the material, and to encourage them to work with DuPont
during the plant construction stage to insure they meet the safety
criteria.  No license, no HCN, no exceptions.

They also publish a 13 page Material Safety Data Sheet, #1130CR.

If you'd like a copy of these, give me a mailing address and I'll send
them to you.  It's too much to fax or type in here.

(Posted and emailed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21398 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
In-Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com's message of 12 Jan 1995 18:59:37 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <3f4fp9$qnk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 04:22:42 GMT
Lines: 24


From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas) [responding to me]
>>That's my problem, the kind of junk you post here.
>
>And the above is my problem with your posts.

I somehow suspect I did not post just that one line, so who can follow
this? So why bother responding?

As I remember I was complaining that your own post was not barely of a
quality you seem to want from others, it was devoid of reference, made
vague allusions to some post that claimed two minutes in the gas
chamber, some other testimony that wasn't identified, etc.

That was my point, if someone else had responded with the same level
of post you wouldn't be very happy either. And you seem to complain a
bit, perhaps sometimes justified, about this sort of thing so I
thought it might be worthwhile holding a mirror up once in a while.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 21417 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 13 Jan 1995 10:41:23 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 10
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f66v3$52l@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>So I don't see why you would say of course this was a problem. My
>reaction is you're resisting wrapping your mind around the situation.

I was resisting telling my common sense to take a hike.  But common sense
can be defined as choosing the most productive or efficient response to
changing conditions.  In that respect, I agree with you totally.  No
argument.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21420 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What a revisionist and HCN/[Hydrogen Cyande]
Date: 13 Jan 1995 10:56:58 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 20
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f67sa$576@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

Barry, if you can't understand the put-off inherent in having my comments
referred to not as wrong, or mistaken, or confusing, but as junk, then I'm
not sure I can explain to you why it is a sufficient reason for me to
ignore a post.  It just is, that's all.  It's the verbal equivalent of
swinging at somebody.  Did you ever see a fight end up with the loser
having a sudden deep and true conversion of opinion and then reaching out
with enthusiasm to embrace the viewpoints of the guy who just kicked his
ass?  I don't think so.  The winner may get lip service, but it will be
from an opponent whose anger has turned to hate, and where's the benefit
in that to anyone?  The ignorant one (whichever that may be) is still
ignorant, and the supposed victor now has to worry about another person
lying in ambush for him.  It doesn't work in life, and it doesn't work in
debate.  The only legitimate time to fight is to protect yourself from
direct harm, or, arguably, to punish some vile wrong.  The first situation
cannot occur in a computer discussion group, and the second seems to be
spotted behind every bush, and peeking in at the windows when in fact it
isn't there.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21436 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: English Seduction
Date: 13 Jan 1995 14:55:04 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 4
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f6lqo$6rk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

Gin, a new Jag and a convenient flat seem to work smashingly.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21444 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another Developmentally Disabled Minute (was Re: historian)
Date: 13 Jan 1995 17:28:46 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 12
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f6uqu$82a@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Thank you, Chris, for another Developmentally Disabled Minute!
>
>Chris Burian attends the largest institution for the developmentally
>disabled in the State of Illinois. (They even let *me* in.) UIUC
>(Universal Idiots, Urbana-Champaign) gives every one of their special
>children internet access!

I am about as politically incorrect as you can get and still be let
indoors, but the above is not funny, it's tasteless.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21445 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: NYT: A Lesson for Mr. Gingrich
Date: 13 Jan 1995 17:43:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 35
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f6vlt$86s@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f6836$d4@access1.digex.net>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>The unwarranted (though fleeting) media frenzy notwithstanding, she 
>did, according to the person who Emailed me, say some rather
eyebrow-raising 
>things:
>
> The selection of only two problem areas, Germany and Armenia, leaves
> out many of which are more recent.  I'm thinking of the U.S.S.R.,
> Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Ethiopia, among others.  My impression 
> is that the program, based as it is on the resource book, "The
> Holocaust and Human Behavior", may be appropriate for a limited
> religious audience but not for wider distribution.
>
>Aside from her curiously listing only those countries where Communists 
>were responsible for the carnage but not El Salvador, Chile, Guatamala, 
>or other countries where right-wing dictatorships were responsible, her 
>statement that the program "may be appropriate for a limited religious 
>audience but not for wider distribution" is pretty stupid.  Even if Jews 
>were the only victims of the Holocaust, learning about the Holocaust 
>would still be important outside of the Jewish "audience".

The distinction that hits me is not the politics but the magnitudes.  The
collective deaths in the three examples you give could be tucked into a
small corner of any one of the four she mentioned.  A recent quote from a
top Russian general underscores that point.  He said that he admired what
Pinochet did in Chile, because he managed to turn their faltering economy
around and only killed 3,000 people in doing so.  In Russia, he added,
3,000 could disappear overnight in the process of deciding what to do,
without any furor or anything being accomplished.

On your second point,  I think she is referring to what appears to be a
reluctance on the part of a few vocal groups to "share the spotlight" as
it were.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21446 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!boulder!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: NYT: A Lesson for Mr. Gingrich
Date: 13 Jan 1995 17:46:16 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 17
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f6vro$87p@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f6e7r$h44@pipe4.pipeline.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Although it is true that everything in the universe is connected one way
>or another, no *readable* historian focusing on the Holocaust would find
it
>necessary or even desirable to link it with everything similar that has
>ever occurred in history. Quite the contrary. The more you talk about
>Guatemala in a study of the Holocaust, the less you are going to be able
to
>focus on the Holocaust.

My impression was that the text was supposed to approach its subject
generally and that she objected to what she saw as a focus on one or two
examples of a much more common happening than the examples would indicate.
 However, this is just speculation.  As you say, it would be nice to see
the text before making pronouncements about it.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21451 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another Developmentally Disabled Minute (was Re: historian)
Date: 14 Jan 1995 02:54:20 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 13
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f7vvc$e0u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f6spt$b87@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>The Net is a dangerous place to send naive students.  You may as well
send
>them to the nearest laundromat to learn about quantum mechanics.  They
might
>get lucky, but they're more likely to return as members of a new church.
> -- Vernon Schryver 

You know, if you wade through the muck long enough, steadily cracking the
exoskelotons of bottom feeding invertebrates, you'll occasionally find a
pearl.  Well said.  Calcite and rhyolite indeed!

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21452 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another Developmentally Disabled Minute (was Re: historian)
Date: 14 Jan 1995 02:57:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 9
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f8051$e1c@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>What does the Ku Klux Klan
>mentality/viewpoint/world view have to do with context for the
>Holocaust?

I'm not sure yet what the context of the text was, or was supposed to be. 
It's hard to draw this kind of conclusion without a bit more substance.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21454 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another Developmentally Disabled Minute (was Re: historian)
Date: 14 Jan 1995 03:13:34 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 19
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f813e$e4u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>What does the Ku Klux Klan
>mentality/viewpoint/world view have to do with context for the
>Holocaust?

Assuming for the moment that the context of the book was supposed to be as
described above, why do people study things like this?  To understand
them?  What understanding can be imparted by simply saying, "This
unspeakably evil thing happened, so contemplate it and the details of it
and then contemplate them again?  Well, why did it happen?  Because these
guys were evil, that's why.  Evil, huh. How'd they get that way?  Why'd
they get that way?  How could a people come to that?  Don't ask, hater! 
They just were!  Don't discuss any aspects of their society in that period
in any but narrow and negative ways that will mask whatever social dynamic
was ocurring.

That's not a sufficient way to understand a mistake, let alone a horror.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21456 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another Developmentally Disabled Minute (was Re: historian)
Date: 14 Jan 1995 03:16:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 7
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f818c$e5e@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3f7lvi$m6g@math.UCR.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>something tells me dbtgthomas isn't very familiar with lenore levine.

You're right, and I'm starting to get too tight-assed and sanctimonious of
late.  I await retribution with grateful anticipation.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21460 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: speech control efforts
Date: 14 Jan 1995 09:04:57 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 31
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3f8lm9$f4g@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3euroa$4m0@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>The "right to free speech" however, does have righteous limitiations (in 
>my opinion).  Harrassment, obscenities and slander do not constitute 
>"free" speech (again, IMO).  They should be limited in public forums 
>(not private ones).  
>
>How should those elements be policed?  Uh--That's a REAL sticky issue 
>and to tell you the truth, I don't have a opinion on that yet....

They should be policed in the same way they have been thus far.  If
someone slanders you, ignore it or file a civil suit for damages.  If
someone harrasses you, seek police assistance or a restraining order if it
is bonified harrassment.  If someone uses obscene speech, you can ask them
to shut up, leave, or get used to it.  There is no viable legal redress
for obscenity because it is impossible to clearly define and it gives no
harm.  People aren't given offense, they have to take it.  And if you are
offended, so what?  That's reason to bring in the cops?  Sorry, your
personal feelings are your business, not that of the state.  The
harrassment thing is getting twisted way out of proportion in Canada.  It
turns out to be anything that hurts someone's feelings when you get it
right down to basics.

I respect your right to voice your opinion, and mean no disrespect when I
say that it is well meant opinions like that quoted above that are
beginning to enable serious movement toward speech control.  There is no
such thing as partial free speech.  There are laws to control creating a
disturbance in a theater, whether it is caused by someone shouting fire or
lighting a small one.  The punishment meted out is for the disturbance
created, not what caused it.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21483 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 17 Jan 1995 13:22:47 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fh1tn$j1v@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ffulo$sdd@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>{ explanation of a $500,000 experiment deleted (I ought to know;
>  I do expensive experiments myself)}

What I described can be done for less than $5,000, assuming you do not
have to purchase things such as an environmental chamber.  The most
expensive part of it then is the HCN monitors, price unknown at this time.

>It seems that you are now limiting your uncertainty to the evaporation
>rate.  Is that true or false?

My comment was that the most difficult thing to determine (by calculation)
would be the evaporation rate.  How can I limit concern to a single part
of the process?

>Is it not clear that two pellets of equal surface area will give off
>HCN twice as fast as one?  Must you not now admit that it is
>possible that a gassing would take 15 minutes?

You lost me on that one.  Are you saying that the calculations you did on
dispersion settle the matter?

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21484 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 18 Jan 1995 02:01:16 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 82
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fiebs$rjm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fh9m6$2nm@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>If I made any mistakes in my calculation, I would be grateful to
>have them pointed out.  If I did not, I suggest that only the
>rate of evaporation from zyklon-B is unknown.
>
>Suppose one pellet gives of 500 ug of gas per minute.  Then two pellets
>give off 1000 ug per minute and so on.  Clearly, you can add enough
>pellets to keep the concentration in the immediate vicinity of the
>pellets at the vapor pressure of HCN.

The vapor pressure of HCN, but at what temperature?  Evaporation of HCN
removes heat from the liquid, enough to freeze a liquid source even in
warm weather.  The frozen HCN will of course quickly remelt and continue
evaporating, reaching some equilibrium condition, steady or oscillating. 
The result, whatever the case, is that the evaporation rate will be slowed
by a significant amount.  This is an important factor in determining how
long it takes for a given amount to be dispersed into the available
volume.

>>My comment was that the most difficult thing to determine (by
calculation)
>>would be the evaporation rate.  How can I limit concern to a single part
>>of the process?
>>
>I am trying to get you to rigidly define your area of uncertainty.

And I am trying to communicate with you about solving a technical problem.
 You're making what appear to be significant contributions toward that
goal.  I don't think we're there yet, I don't have any quarrel with your
comments, and look forward to getting an answer whatever it may be.  You
seem to be trying to close the inquiry a little prematurely.

>Following State and local laws will be expensive.

Would be.

>If you want monitors with time resolution they will cost 1-2 K each.

The time resolution is provided by a recorder, which simultaneously
gathers other pertinent info, such as temperature.  Depending on the
technology, it may be possible to build a sensor, or use a purchased
sensor without the analyzer.  The interface needs of analytical sensors
are well defined and not excessively complex as to preclude good
jury-rigged interfaces.

>How will you time the release of the HCN reliably?

By flat-bed strip chart or data-logger recording the HCN analyzer/sensor
outputs as described above.

>How much will it cost?  You will need to fabricate a chamber (5-10 K
>right there).  You will need a method to pump it out and dispose
>of the gas safely e.g.  If your chamber is 10m by 7m, you will
>spend a fortune on pumps.

The chamber would be much smaller, on the order of a 4 or 5 foot cube.  If
done in a sufficiently isolated outdoor location, gas dispersion can be
accomplished both safely and legally by simply opening the chamber top and
perhaps a bottom vent.

>After you do all that, how will you know if it replicates the
>turbulence of an actual gas chamber.

That's really hard to duplicate, but I think sufficient direction will be
given by the simple dispersion model.  I am not seeking to seize on small
discrepancies.  If the time isn't significantly slower than 10 or 15
minutes, then I think the outcome may be settled.

>Please examine these
>arguments carefully and honestly.  You assured us you would be the
>first to admit when the question is cleared up.

I'm pretty sure I'll be the first to admit when I think I understand the
situation, unless someone else can figure out how to do that for me.  As
for me doing it for others, that presents a dual problem - to a lot of
people it's already settled, and in polar opposite ways - and it would be
more than presumptuous to speak for the understanding of others in
something this detailed and technical.  So perhaps what is needed is to
agree to agree.  To do our best to find honest and complete answers to the
questions posed.  Sounds OK to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21520 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!caen!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 18 Jan 1995 13:36:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 54
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fjn3m$1vf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fikq7$sh9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>How relevant is it if the sense of smell is a good, bad or indifferent
>indicator of concentration?

I am assuming that there is a concentration gradient between the source of
the gas and the first nose it reaches.  If that nose activates at 1 ppm,
then it is not a reliable indicator of how long it takes to reach 300 ppm.

In an earlier post, I stated that chemical test strips could be used to
indicate concentrations of HCN and that was quickly jumped on as not
having sufficient resolution (a rough differentiation of 100 ppm changes
appears to be possible from the descriptions).  I can't disagree that it's
a rather crude indicator method, and it seems that the nose would be
somewhat less accurate.

>Are you now willing to accept that it is possible to have used Zyklon-B
in
>a gas chamber to kill people within the 15-20 minute time-scale that was
>brought up? Or do you have a formula that disproves the one postulated by
>Mr. Green?

We're attempting to calculate the behavior of a substance in a defined
setting, and the model is not a simple one.  As you state elsewhere to
Rich Green, you are still wading through his calculations.  I have not
even started same.  I passed on a comment to him that the evaporation rate
is certainly a vital link in the chain, and may be the rate limiter.

I appreciate your efforts and am attempting to do this in a spirit of
honest investigation and discovery.  Yet there's a snide edge to your
posts that seems to indicate something like, "Have you been put in your
place yet, boy?"  Further, there's a rush to arrive at that sneer point.

This particular problem can absolutely be solved to every honest person's
satisfaction.  You are contributing to that end, and I thank you.  I
believe that I am also contributing, if by no other way than posing a
question that has bothered many people, and perhaps cast doubts where none
should be (and, I might add, sticking with that question through some
pretty stiff invective).  It is not enough for myself and a great many
others to simply say, hey, it happened.  Don't ask how, because the
question is rude and your motives must be nefarious for you to even ask. 
A strong and consistent criticism of a portion of the witness accounts has
been that they don't seem to make technical sense in a lot of cases.  What
better way to dispel that criticism than to work out the technical details
one by one, and to do so in a complete way that is not vulnerable to later
challenge for being hasty or vague?  Would it be better to simply raise
the middle finger and tell questioners to bug off?  That's been done for a
long time, and it doesn't seem to have worked too well.

As for my intentions, I am not with you and I am not against you.  I speak
for myself, or in this case, ask for myself.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21521 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!caen!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 18 Jan 1995 13:43:07 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 31
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fjnfr$21a@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fibmk$14ck@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>  I wonder if there is any way to simulate this experiment on a computer
and save
>you lots of money.
>
> If Boeing can do most of the testing of a new jet airplane in a
simulation,
>would a computer simulation of this experiment be satisfactory?

It's a bit difficult to model because it involves something of little
commercial or practical interest and there is little or no background work
to build on.  However, Rich Green and Harry Mazal have been working on
what appear to be viable calculations of the diffusion rates.

>I see from another post that Zyklon B is still being manufactured under a

>different name.  Perhaps the manufacturer can provide enough information
on its
>product for a suitable model.

That would be very useful.  However, getting a corporation anywhere to
stick its nose into a controversial (and non-profitable) area is
difficult.  Getting a corporation to do that in countrys where the wrong
combination of words can render comments into serious criminal violations
would seem to be nigh on to impossible.  But I think Danny Keren was going
to try that with Degesch.  Interesting that they still use HCN in Europe,
it hasn't been used in the U.S. for quite a few years.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21530 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!caen!uwm.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 18 Jan 1995 14:03:07 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 52
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fjolb$26k@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fim2r$sk0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>>If your case is true and righteous, then get off your collective
>sanctimonious >asses and demonstrate that.  Don't sit back throwing lame
>invective that >wouldn't even lend credit to the average bureaucracy of
>any given age.
>
>I suppose that when one is confronted with an unimpeacheable  scientific
>answer such as that posted by Mr. Green, and one has no way to dispute
the
>postulation, one will attempt to confuse the issue with condescending
>dialogue. 
>
>Sorry, Mr. DbtgThomas. The numbers are out there for you to disprove --
if
>you can -- or manfully accept.

Mr. Mazal, you still don't get it.  Or more accurately, you don't get me. 
The comments above were not directed to Mr. Green or to anyone else who is
making a good and honest effort to arrive at a conclusion.  They were
directed to the participants whose main contribution is to ask how anyone
could ask something like this and why don't they just shut up and go away
and leave us in peace and comfort with our tidy preconceptions.

There is thus no connection between Mr. Green's excellent efforts and the
non-efforts of the non-contributors I was condescending to.

And I'll finish by repeating something said many times before that seems
to get lost in the haze of detail (and preconceptions).  An accurate and
understandable answer to the technical question posed is what is
acceptable to me, and manliness hasn't a damned thing to do with that.  It
doesn't take courage to face the truth unless you've built your world
around lies.  I have not, and I also generally avoid emotional involvement
with technical matters.  That's part of their attraction to me.  They
aren't usually fuzzy and undefinable.  By following the rules and using
your brain, you can arrive at elegant solutions to wonderfully complicated
puzzles.  That's fun.  That's why I make my living working on technical
equipment and problems.

I made a supposition about the evaporation and dispersion rates of HCN,
defined the question, and openly invited those with expertise and academic
connections to participate in finding an answer, to prove or disprove the
supposition.  That seems pretty above-board to me.  If you have any
suggestions about how it can be conducted in a more efficient, or honest,
or understandable manner, I'm open.  If you know something about my
motivations that I don't, well, I'm open to that too.  But in the same
spirit that most of those allusions are offered in, if you have nothing
substantive to offer in that direction, would you kindly drop it?  I'd
appreciate the consideration and will certainly respond in kind.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21531 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!caen!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 18 Jan 1995 14:06:45 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 20
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fjos5$27h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fj5oc$200q@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>To get down to the nitty-gritty here, last I heard, there was plenty of 
>evidence that Zyklon B was used to kill a great many people within 15 
>minutes or so.  If  the containers were mislabeled, then some ofter 
>chemical must have been used to accomplish it.  What was it?  Where is 
>the evidence that it was *not* Zyklon B?  If God  were to put a gun to my

>head, and tell me that if i gave the wrong answer to the question, "Was 
>Zyklon B used to kill Jews?",  He would pull the trigger, what would 
>happen?   I would say yes, and I would  walk out of the room alive.  Not 
>sure what Doubting Thomas would say.  :>)  Maybe he'd express doubts 
>about the muzzle velocity;  who knows but he?

Sounds like one of those situations where you'd have to be there.  Don't
think the muzzle velocity would enter my mind, so to speak, but I would be
interested in seeing God's badge and a warrant.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21540 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 19 Jan 1995 12:51:04 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 20
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fm8q8$e0n@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fjvum$89l@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>I'm not sure I see why you do not see that the evaporation rate
>is a moot point.  To me that means the uncertainty should come
>down to possible flaws in the diffusion argument/calculation.

At 15 or 20 degrees C lower than we're discussing, the evaporation rate
will be at or near zero because that's the freezing point of HCN.  The
evaporation rate will decrease in some fashion as the temperature falls,
and I doubt that it does this in a ramp fashion.  At some point, the
solution of "just add more" becomes highly impractical, not only because
of the amounts involved, but because the technique would clearly leave a
considerable amount of active residue to deal with.  If you have to add a
ten times overage in order to get the needed 10% release, the other 90%
will still be outgassing for some time.  Evaporation rate is less
difficult to determine experimentally than is the diffusion rate, and I
think it might be a good first effort.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21541 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 19 Jan 1995 12:56:39 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fm94n$e28@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fkvfi$9ph@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>He instead clouds the issue by bringing in evaporation
>rates, which were not an issue in his initial postulation.

This is quite simply not the case.  The thread is by now a fairly old one,
and has gone through several name changes.  I saved a good portion of the
earlier posts, and evaporation has been not only a consistent issue, it
has  been the main one.  The entire process of evaporation and diffusion
has been referred to as dispersion.  Perhaps that causes some confusion. 
I have stated elsewhere that I have no argument with Rich Green's numbers
at this time, but that they also represent only a partial answer.  And I
believe his figures are for a temperature of 0 C, not 26 or higher.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21543 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 19 Jan 1995 12:59:49 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 14
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fm9al$e2v@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fkvvu$9st@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>>I'm not sure I see why you do not see that the evaporation rate
>>is a moot point.  To me that means the uncertainty should come
>>down to possible flaws in the diffusion argument/calculation.
>
>Quite so.  If he can prove your calculation is wrong, he will have to
>establish what the right calculation is!   As for evaporation  it is, as
>you say, irrelevant.

No, no, and no, respectively.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21553 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 17 Jan 1995 13:25:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 9
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fh23e$j2q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ffego$e9d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Someone had suggested the perfume (as a perfectly
>valid model) but, if memory serves me rightly, DbtgThomas refused to
>accept the model as valid.

What I said was that sense of smell was not a good indicator of
concentration since it (smell) is active at very low levels.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel


Article 21564 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Remarks from another planet
Date: 18 Jan 1995 17:33:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fk4vi$3vs@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fjdfl$47t8@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>>Regardless of Hitlers opinion the wars of aggression waged by the 
>socalled 
>>are well documented.

I might be mistaken, having looked at this thread early and then ignoring
it for a while, but didn't it start out with someone's referral to the SS
as an elite military group?  I think it did, and then various people began
to discuss moral character and other totally irrelevant issues.  The
mission of the military is to wage war, whether defensive or offensive. 
Reduced to its basics, this means that the mission of the military is to
kill the enemy, whoever or whatever that may be.  In this country, elite
military units would include SEALS, Recon, Special Forces, airborne units
and the Marines.  All share the traits of harsh discipline coupled with
emphasis on physical conditioning and development of killing skills, or
the warrior code, if you will.

Despite occasional comments to the contrary posted here by children of
people who are old enough to have faced German troops in the field, the
average German soldier was an exemplary fighter, and the SS was more than
that.  It is no compliment to observe that they were highly skilled and
efficient killers, and thus deserving of the description of an elite
military unit.  If you're judging the fighting merits of pit-bulls (a
breed I personally despise), certain measures of excellence and admiration
which apply to the normal world simply have no place.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21588 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!unbc.edu!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!news1.fonorola.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ms. Jeffrey recants
Date: 20 Jan 1995 15:55:19 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 10
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fp7vn$roh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>She's very sorry about what she did 
>eight years ago, and presumably will never do it again.

You mean she'll never voice an honest opinion again?  Then the woman
should be declared a member of Congress by default.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21598 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!canada!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!news1.fonorola.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:22:30 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 13
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fp2hm$quh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fnk7s$m95@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>I hope that you will soon find the time. Please note that today is
January
>20, 1995.

Harry, if I were retired, I'd have more time on my hands for side
endeavors, but thanks much for your non-snide repetition of the date that
appears in the heading of your message, on this morning's paper, on my
calendar, on the computer's clock screen and a few other places.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21599 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!canada!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!news1.fonorola.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Eyewitness Testimony - YES or NO? (was: Re: The torture of
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:28:13 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 12
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fp2sd$r0a@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fmmal$luk@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Yes or no?
>
>Yes or No?
>
>YES or NO?

Yes and no?

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21600 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!canada!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!news1.fonorola.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: L.A. Times on Newt and Jeffrey
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:51:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 31
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fp477$r6q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

These three letters appeared in the Jan. 20 edition of the L.A. Times and
show an interesting range of views on the subject.

**Re "Gingrich Fires House Historian Over Nazi Flap," Jan. 10:
    Newt Gingrich hires protege Christina Jeffrey as House historian (for
85,000 taxpayer dollars a year) and gets her husband to be his "personal
chronicler" for free?  The most troubling aspect of the Jeffrey hiring was
not her controversial statements, but the personal benefit Gingrich was to
gain in this sweetheart, two-for-one deal at taxpayer expense.  If I
volunteer to be a personal stamp-licker for Newt, can my mom get hired as
the House postmaster? - Richard Kraft, Los Angeles

**How on Earth is it possible to teach about the Holocaust without
explaining the "Nazi point of view," as Jeffrey recommended?  Her comments
weren't indicative of "anti-Semitism," (sic) they were indicative of
common sense.  Perhaps the Republican's new contract with America should
include the addendum "Display common sense, get fired." - Michael Dare,
Hollywood

**As the child of a Holocaust survivor, I grew up without grandparents,
aunts, uncles and cousins.  Why?  Because they were shot, gassed and
cremated by the Nazis.  The Nazis made soap, lamp shades, and perpetrated
other atrocities on Jews and others.  As far as I am concerned, the Nazis
have no point of view.  I am stunned and outraged with Jeffrey's belief
that any history program on the Holocaust is biased and unbalanced unless
it presents the "Nazi point of view." - Michael J. Gurfinkel, Los Angeles

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21601 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!canada!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!news1.fonorola.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Anti-German Bigot Seeks Ban on Internet Bigotry
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:56:24 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 12
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fp4h8$r8i@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>The Rabbi speaks of "safeguarding our kids from the purveyors of hate."
>I usually resent people who seek to advance restrictions on all citizens
>by pointing to children and saying "we must protect them!"  However, I
>doubt Rabbi Cooper is saying that.

I think Rabbi Cooper is saying exactly that.  Regardless of his position,
I support anyone who opposes censorship in any form.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21632 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!decwrl!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Can they muzzle your modem?  (re: offensive speech on net)
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:33:07 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 13
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fp35j$r1q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fmf0h$i7a@ionews.io.org>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Well, what's the threat level?  You have to take that into account.

Indeed.  I understand that the Canadian government, working with the
mayor's office in New York, is at this moment drafting a threat level
evaluation form that citizens can keep by their bedsides and demand, under
penalty of law, that any would-be armed intruders fill it out immediately
so that the level of threat they pose can be accurately determined and an
appropriate response then used.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21633 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!decwrl!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Future Holocaust Museum Head Says Revisionism is Abuse of Freedom
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:38:41 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 18
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fp3g1$r3j@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>You can't
>tell deliberate lies about someone without getting in trouble.

Perhaps, but what you are describing here is the essence of our elective
form of government in the U.S.  Without deliberate lies, there would be no
Congress, no State Department, and damned little of the executive branch. 
Perhaps you're on to something!

>I believe that the consequences of libel against a group should be equal
>to the consequences of libel against an individual.

I might be wrong, but I think it already is.  Whether it is or not, it
does not justify mandatory gags when in the presence of sacred cattle.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21635 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!unbc.edu!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!news1.fonorola.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Vicksell Comedy Show (was: Re: The torture o
Date: 21 Jan 1995 20:14:55 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 55
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fsbif$eal@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fs44h$34u@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

># Sigh! I do believe if I told you I had a sixteen year old cat 
># you guys would demand to see the birth certificate.  
>
>It's quite funny, really, to see Vicksell whining like this.
>
>Vicksell says that practically everybody who was in the Nazi
>camps during WW2 is a liar. Why is he then surprised if
>people suspect he's a liar?

Your description of whining has a rather nasal sound to it.  Vicksell
makes a valid point in a mildly sarcastic way.  I've never seen him make
the statement you attribute to him, but even if he had, what logical chasm
must be crossed to reach your conclusion.  Does not compute.

>I repeat my question:
>Are eyewitness testimonies valid or not? YES or NO?

Eyewitness accounts are often inaccurate, and in some cases, almost sure
to be biased.  People who feel sorely and wrongly put upon will almost
routinely embellish their accounts of the actions of those who wronged
them, something courts often take into account.  Do you recall the
eyewitnesss testimonies in the Reginald Denny beating?  Several black
witnesses stated that he was driving through the riot with his window
down, calling people "nigger" as he went.  Others said that he tried to
run people down with his truck.  Some of these statements were
discredited, and others discounted.  In my one brief encounter with our
justice system (fighting a traffic ticket) I was utterly astounded to hear
the officer who wrote the citation get on the stand and lie through his
pearly white teeth about what I had absolutely not done.  The reason he
did this was because in his eyes I was the bad guy and needed to be
punished, so a little addition or two to insure the proper outcome was not
only OK, but probably in his eyes morally correct.  After I cooled off
(and beat the thing on appeal) I realized that this is just standard human
nature.  On reflection, I must admit to having done similar things myself.

>Why does the source he quotes say "it was impossible to stop
>Hoess from talking"?

One possibility is that babbling is a common side effect of mental trauma.

I can't speak for the case of Hoess, but it is my understanding that it is
now generally accepted that terrific abuses were used to extract
statements from the prisoners on trial at Nuremberg.  A number of
reputable participants and witnesses have said so in the years since. 
This isn't unusual, given the place and time.  It isn't even unusual now,
given places.  Israeli police/military officials recently made a request
(or sued?) to be able to continue to use "moderate physical pressure" when
interrogating Arab prisoners.  The list of what they considered acceptable
procedure would horrify people if it happened in this country.  And we're
talking 1995, not 1945.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21636 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!unbc.edu!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!news1.fonorola.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 21 Jan 1995 20:22:17 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fsc09$edb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fqbva$kbe@news.xs4all.nl>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>The experimental set-up would be the following:
>
>In front of one of the cameras which are on the net we construct a
chamber
>of the required dimensions.
>
>As this has only to be gas-tight at more ore less athmosperic pressure,
this can be
>constructed of simple material like thick plastic sheeting over a light
framework.
>This has the added advantage of transparency to ensure accurate
observation.
>
>In the chamber we place a thermometer to check on temperature.
>
>Into the chamber we introduce a measured quantity of HCN, either pure or
bound to
>an agent like in Zyklon. We further insert mr. D. Thomas. The order of
insertion can
>be discussed.

Danny, this is the second time you have made this vile and tasteless
attempt at what I guess you perceive as humor.  I do not make jokes which
include threatening someone, and neither should you, regardless of the
ridiculous nature in which it is done.  Grow up.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21637 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!unbc.edu!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!news1.fonorola.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Remarks from another planet
Date: 21 Jan 1995 20:36:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fscri$ehh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fq053$h31@blackice.winternet.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>On the other hand, Third Army -- and, in particular, the 4th Armored 
>Division, a division largely run by a cadre of professionals but manned
by 
>"non-elite" draftees -- managed to kick the shit out of the German
troops, SS 
>and "average", wherever and whenever they found them. 

The division my father was in, I think it was the 34th, was in continuous
combat longer than any other American unit in the war.  They fought the
Germans tooth and nail all the way up the Italian peninsula, and while
they roundly defeated their outnumbered and ill-supplied foe, they did not
always manage to kick shit out of them in every engagement.  He has
expressed his respect on more than one occasion for the tenacity and
fighting ability of the German soldier, and thanks God for the logistical
edge the U.S. forces enjoyed.  The same could be said of the Japanese,
although they were more likely to be looked on as slightly non-human
because of their willingness to fight to the death en masse.  Both German
and Japanese cultures included strong and ancient cults of the warrior, so
this should come as no surprise.  It says nothing whatsoever about their
morals, it only says that they were formidable foes to face in battle. 
Which was the original point about "elite". The Third Army clearly earned
that distinction as well, both from their own countrymen and the foe they
killed in huge numbers.  An elite unit does not have to consist of
professionals.  The Third Army didn't and neither did the Marine Corps.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21683 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Weber caught in soft soap job
Date: 22 Jan 1995 11:41:27 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 40
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fu1rn$kb0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3ftu16$q6h@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>"The universally accepted story that  corpses were      
>used to make soap and fertilizer is finally refuted by the   
>Ludwigsburg Central Authority for Investigation of Nazi      
>Crimes.  The Authority has found after considerable          
>research that only one experiment was made, with "a few      
>corpses from a concentration camp.  When it proved           
>impractical the idea was apparently abandoned."              
>                                                             
>     In other words, there WAS an experimental effort to     
>produce soap from human remains according to Gitta Sereny    
>and (more importantly) the Ludwigsburg Central Authority     
>for Investigation of Nazi Crimes--AND MARK WEBER KNEW ABOUT IT ALL THE 
>TIME, BUT LIED ABOUT IT.

I'm commenting on this because a recent letter to the editor in the L.A.
Times underscores the currency and pervasiveness of the soap story, which
is still accepted as gospel by a great many people.  Those who know better
seem to have the attitude of so what.  The Germans were so evil, what
difference does a minor embellishment to their real deeds make?  I don't
believe that falsely attributing such a depraved act to any group is
minor, I think it is the essence of bigotry.  Bigotry stems from hatred,
and you can't excuse it by saying that it's OK to hate someone else
because they hate.  Hatred is always blind, unreasoning and dangerous,
even more so when it's cloaked in robes of sanctimony because then the
hater has the wrath and sanction of righteousness to justify any and all
actions.  At any rate, two comments on the above:

(1)  Making soap or fertilizer from a human corpse is a sick idea, but
hardly impractical.  The soap process depends on fat content, so it might
be inefficient, but not so with fertilizer.  The basis for the Ludwigsburg
comment is thus difficult to see.  Perhaps it's based on faulty
information.

(2)  Where is the lie you refer to?  With that kind of reasoning you could
claim that cold fusion was achieved in the 1980's.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21706 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.duke.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 23 Jan 1995 01:03:06 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 10
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fvgqq$5f@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fvdri$snp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>You are, of course, free to call
>me what you wish, but it would be boorish not to accept my wishes.

In this case, your wish is my command.  The use of the familiar
appellation stemmed from peevishness, not friendship.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21708 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The torture of Rudolf Hoess
Date: 23 Jan 1995 01:10:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fvh84$7s@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>You don't seem to understand the point, Ross.
>
>You're claiming that Hoess was tortured. But your reasons for
>believing this DO NOT meet that standards that you claim to have for
>evidence.

I know you didn't invent this tactic, but it's not clever, it's childish. 
If you want to talk about Hoess, talk about Hoess.  If you want to talk
about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, then do that.  Don't
pretend to do one so you can use the other as a club.  This kind of
transparent attempt at sanctimonious sandbagging goes nowhere.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21709 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Future Holocaust Museum Head Says Revisionism is Abuse of Fr
Date: 23 Jan 1995 01:12:18 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 10
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fvhc2$8m@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Schindlers list is *not* libel, because of one absolutely crucial
>fact. It's *true*. Truth is, and always has been, an *absolute*
>defense against charges of Libel.

The movie is, like many movies, riddled with inaccuracies.  Absolutely.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21712 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.duke.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More Soap?
Date: 23 Jan 1995 01:15:55 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 11
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3fvhir$9q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fuc32$5ss4@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Why don't you ask the wannabe Hitler groupies here 
> why they have such a hard time dropping it?

Possibly because it seems to be getting a qualified defense from some
quarters, while others say nothing about it except to link it to a
supposed position of total denial.  Lots of lather, but no soap.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Know how to Contradict. An affected doubt is the subtlest picklock that
curiosity can use to find out what it wants to know." - Baltasar Gracian


Article 21739 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 23 Jan 1995 15:23:48 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3g138k$5ca@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fvgau$t8i@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>Mr. Rich states:
>
>>The freezing point of HCN is 13.2 degrees C.  At 13.2 degrees C the
>>vapor pressure of HCN is 19 kPa = 180,000 ppm.
>
>>If all the HCN were to freeze the concentration at 5m and 15 min.
>>would be:
>
>>(180,000/339,000)*1797 ppm = 954 ppm
>
>>Rich
>
>
>Touche!

Au contraire!

Mr. Green also states, in his original calculation of diffusion rate, that
it is based on the assumption that evaporation is not the rate limiter. 
Nothing whatsoever has been presented to support this assumption, which
means that the numbers obtained thus far are themselves an assumption. 
Perhaps a useful one, but an assumption nonetheless.  A certain mass of
liquid has to go from that state to the gaseous, and that doesn't happen
instantaneously.  Minor note which I am sure is a typo, the freezing point
is minus 13.2 degrees C.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Faith keeps many doubts in her pay.  If I could not doubt, I should not
believe." - Henry David Thoreau


Article 21744 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!unbc.edu!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!news1.fonorola.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Vicksell Comedy Show (was: Re: The torture o
Date: 24 Jan 1995 15:09:50 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 17
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3g3mqe$g3d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>> You really don't come of as someone who is even slightly
>> objective about this debate.  [...]  Who the hell do you
>> think you're fooling?
>
>Well, he managed to fool me for a few months.
>
>Granted, I'm more trusting and open-minded than most.

If the reasoning you're using lately is indicative of an open-mind, then I
would suggest that you close the door before anything else of importance
escapes. :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------

"All I want of you is a little seevility, and that of the commonest
goddamndest kind." - Mate of a New Bedford whaler to his ill-humored
captain.


Article 21835 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Boone,Daniel-half Indian offspring
Date: 30 Jan 1995 13:40:04 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gjbq4$r4o@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3gh8n9$i6m@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

>Please, there are many issues besides the holocaust that revisionism
needs
>to attend to. For example, I can find NO info on the half Indian children
>of D. Boone that I KNOW existed. It is a legend that has come down in my
>family for years, we were comanded by my paternal grandmother, (born
Clyda
>Kindel) to NEVER forget that we were descended from D. Boone and one of
>his squaw "wives". Her father's name was Albert Boone Kindel. D. Boone
was
>one of the only frontiersmen to give his 1/2 Indian offspring his name.
>THE HISTORY BOOKS HATE THAT HE SCREWED AROUND, O.K.? !!!   I actually
need
>REAL info and if any one can help me I would be ever so grateful.  THANX

This is indeed one of those sad oversights in the historical record that
stems from prejudices both at the time and today.  Fortunately, I can
help.  All Boone's Indian offspring hung around his 200 acre place, sowing
intermittent crops and reaping little but trouble.  They were all given to
drink and finally set out to make their own as a simple matter of
economics, and also to avoid getting lost every time they tried to come
back from town drunk.  Their considerable success in producing a cheap
wine with great intoxicating powers eventually led to a commercial
venture, which is still known today as Boone's Farm.  Tastes just as bad
as it ever did, but still gets the job done.  Step up and claim your
birthright.  Front me 10%.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by
love-this is the eternal law." - The Pali Canon 1:5


Article 21836 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Weber caught in soft soap job
Date: 30 Jan 1995 13:53:29 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gjcj9$r8q@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Michael Philips writes:

>So "bigotry stems from hatred" but it "may or may not involve
>hatred."  Seems clear enough to me (!?).  I just love it when you
>wall yourself in like this.

People who hate often exhibit bigotry, but hate isn't the only source and
isn't necessarily a factor in all cases of bigotry.  That's not too hard
to follow.

>You even criticized the L.A. Times letter-writer who
>lost her family to the Holocaust as being bigoted (and her letter
>was a "depraved act") because she mentioned the soap story.

You make pretzels for a living?  You sure can twist things.  The words
"depraved act" referred to the making of soap from human bodies, not the
letter, and I don't recall making any reference to the letter writer aside
from quoting the letter and mentioning its contents.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by
love-this is the eternal law." - The Pali Canon 1:5


Article 21846 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More Soap?ffensive speech on net)
Date: 30 Jan 1995 13:15:48 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 21
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gjack$qto@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

The Second Golux in the World writes:

>Isn't it a little bit of a stretch to extrapolate from the single letter
>to the editor (of the LA Times?) you quoted here to "continued reference
>in the media"?

My observation wasn't extrapolated from the letter (which was posted in
regard to the Jeffrey affair, and only coincidentally contained comments
about human soap), but you are correct in saying it would be a stretch if
it were.  The observation stems from a lifetime of reading and
encountering said story at regular intervals.  It and a few like it evoke
strong mental images that stay active in your memory for a long time.  I
believe that is why they persist, because they are highly effective in
creating an aura of rank evil.  Thanks for your courteous tone.  That's an
increasingly scarce commodity of late.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"All I want of you is a little seevility, and that of the commonest
goddamndest kind." - Mate of a New Bedford whaler to his ill-humored
captain.


Article 21847 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Purpose of Group?
Date: 30 Jan 1995 13:23:54 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 11
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gjarq$qvr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <020339Z30011995@anon.penet.fi>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

>What exactly is the purpose of this group?

Self-aggrandizement, exercise of pseudo-intellectualism, enjoying the
vicarious pleasures of sanitized hate, promoting causes at any cost, and
masquerading as open-minded.  This is an equal-opportunity description.


-----------------------------------------------------------

"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by
love-this is the eternal law." - The Pali Canon 1:5


Article 21853 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!canada!vortex.netbistro.com!fonorola!globeandmail.ca!uunorth!lethe!geac!uunet.ca!uunet.ca!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An experiment to determine HCN dispersion rate
Date: 23 Jan 1995 15:38:18 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 41
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3g143q$5gg@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3fvfit$t40@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)

>He might do well to purchase Pressac's book and save many of us the
tedium
>of quoting from it.

Sir, something tells me that this exercise is anything but tedium for you,
but whatever the case, please do not bore yourself on my account.

>In previous communications, Mr. Green  published a mathematical model
that
>substantially answers the question of dispersion of HCN in an enclosure
>the size of a gas chamber.  It is now up to Mr. DbtgThomas to prove the
>model as substantially wrong or to accept it.

Mr. Green established a dispersion model based on the assumption that
evaporation was not the limiting factor.  That assumption is not based on
any calculations or references.  It is a pure assumption, and, therefore,
so are the results until that assumption is confirmed.

>"Prussic acid may not be brought into contact with an open flame, glowing
>wires, etc., because then it burns up slowly and loses all its
>effectiveness." (HWM: So much for any danger of explosion at lethal
dosage
>levels)

This old horse was put to pasture some time ago.  It hasn't been a point
of contention for months, if indeed it ever was.

>Zyklon-B deposited in a chamber with a
>temparature of 26 degrees farenheit

I haven't gone over Rich Green's calculations, as you indicated that you
were doing, but I did note on quick read that he seemed to have made them
for a temperature of 0 degrees C, not 26 degrees (which is higher than the
boiling point of HCN).

Thanks much for your comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Faith keeps many doubts in her pay.  If I could not doubt, I should not
believe." - Henry David Thoreau


Article 21895 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 31 Jan 1995 04:19:39 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 47
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gkvbb$shm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3gj5tl$djl@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Richard Schultz writes:

>I have been puzzled from the start about just what the point of your 
>argument is.  As far as I can tell, you do not dispute that the gas
chambers
>were heated, or that people were packed into them as tightly as possible,
>or that even if they weren't heated the body heat of the people inside
would
>have raised the temperature well above our "for the sake of argument"
figure
>of zero degrees Celsius, or that the amount of HCN in the atmosphere
could
>be raised by adding more Zyklon-B to the chamber, or that the Nazis had
the
>means to introduce and remove excess amounts of Zyklon-B, or that the 
>symptoms of HCN poisoning are such that people could have been removed
from
>the gas chambers while still alive and taken for dead.  As far as I can
>tell, you have not provided any evidence for your assertion that the 
>estimates of the witnesses to the gassings as to how long the gassings
took
>were wildly inaccurate; you have not provided any valid counterarguments
>to the evidence that the estimates were not inaccurate; and you have not
>explained what difference it would make if they were inaccurate.  And you
>wonder why people question your motivations.

Thanks for the detailed rundown.  I've been getting a lot of things
wrongly attributed to me of late.

I have not discussed and do not have an opinion on heating.  That would
become material only if cold evaporation figures do not jibe.  Body heat
in a short time span would be fairly unimportant.  Adding excess Zyklon-B
would work as you say, but has some practical limits.  I indeed have not
provided evidence to support my assumption- that's what this thread is
aiming toward, to confirm or deny the assumption.  I have not seen any
arguments that the estimates were not inaccurate.  It is difficult to
refute the non-existent.  And to borrow a phrase from Danny Keren, I no
longer give a rat's butt about questions regarding my motivations.  In
fact, I have the same feeling about everyone's motivations-that's their
business, not mine.

By the way, it was Mr. Mittleman who used the Scheiss quote.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by
love-this is the eternal law." - The Pali Canon 1:5


Article 21897 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 31 Jan 1995 04:21:07 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 50
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gkve3$sj1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3gjb4u$5t@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Rich Green writes:

>I think it's been established that noen of the experiments that you've
>proposed are practical.

I don't agree.  I think your estimation of practicality is skewed by
working with first class equipment and methods.  Valid results can be
obtained with some rather simple equipment and procedures.

>>As with all legitimate scientific inquiry, you publish your results
along
>>with sufficient details to allow others to duplicate the experiment and
>>thereby confirm or deny your claims.  If no one can duplicate it, it is
>>dismissed from further consideration, just like cold fusion.
>>
>
>In other words you compile eye-witness testimonies from a bunch
>of independent sources and one believes what the preponderance of
>the folks conclude.

I see where you're going with the verbiage, but it's a pretty far stretch
to categorize independent duplication of an experiment *eye-witness
testimonies*.  There is some literal truth in the statement, but it is so
far from common useage as to flirt with being misleading.

>In your note to Richard Schultz you bet him that the evaporation rate
>is not linear.  Linear with respect to what?

Temperature.  Especially across the phase change.

>That means as you have already agreed that one can add
>enough Zyklon-B to have an effect in 15 minutes.

Theoretically, yes.  I covered this in some detail in an earlier reply to
one of your posts.

Allow me to repeat where I see the matter standing.  You have developed a
diffusion model which I have no reason at this time to question.  No one
knows beans about the evaporation rate.  Evaporation will probably have to
be approached empirically.  I will do that, but not immediately.  It
presents moderate difficulties and takes time that I do not have to spare
right now.  I don't see anything pressing about it, and it's fine with me
if the discussion is shelved for the time being, or until someone does
offer something of substance.  As for pressing me to agree that we have
agreed, no we haven't, but I'm sure that in time we will.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by
love-this is the eternal law." - The Pali Canon 1:5


Article 21902 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.bluesky.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The torture of Rudolf Hoess
Date: 31 Jan 1995 16:24:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 13
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gm9qm$7fg@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy writes:

>Thank you in advance for relieving my ignorance on this matter.

Sorry that I can't offer you any relief.  Substituting of name-calling and
discussions about procedure and nit-picking over incidentals for actual
discussion of a subject is fairly widespread and appears to be an equal
opportunity malady.  Can't say that I don't get it sometimes.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by
love-this is the eternal law." - The Pali Canon 1:5


Article 21913 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More Soap?ffensive speech on net)
Date: 31 Jan 1995 17:19:17 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 32
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gmd15$8uu@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

The Only Golux in the World (there couldn't be two like this) writes:

>And in this lifetime of reading and encountering the "soap story" at
>regular (?) intervals, you never encountered or read the Danzig/Stutthof
>experimental soap testimony?

You've been watching too much Perry Mason, or maybe the O.J. trial.  The
soap story I refer to is the casual undetailed mention of it periodically
in news stories, letters to the editor, introductions to documentary films
about the war, encyclopedia entries, works of fiction posing as history
and so on.  This is a simple description of a simple event-a falsehood has
found its way into the popular imagination and is generally accepted as a
truth.  No amount of railing about nebulous experiments, or nit-picking of
my verbiage alters that plain, inescapable fact.  Yet you seem to have a
hard time accepting it.  Or is it just an excuse to throw stones at
somebody who irritates you?

>In your own way, you
>demonize the "Archivists" (for want of a better word) by suggesting that
>they libel the Nazis.

And that's about as twisted an interpretation (there are better words, but
I don't want to stoop to using them) as you could possibly make of my
position.  I think anyone who promotes the belief that the German nation
used human bodies to make soap is participating in a self-defeating
propaganda campaign that the British started in World War I, long before
there were either Nazis or what you call archivists.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by
love-this is the eternal law." - The Pali Canon 1:5


Article 21922 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 1797 ppm, my HCN estimate
Date: 31 Jan 1995 17:32:57 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 58
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gmdqp$96v@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3glal6$him@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Richard Schultz writes:

>>I have not discussed and do not have an opinion on heating.  That would
>>become material only if cold evaporation figures do not jibe.  
>
>And the "cold evaporation figures" do jibe anyway. 

Dja vu, again.  No one has offered any figures refarding evaporation
rates.

>>Body heat in a short time span would be fairly unimportant.  
>
>Obviously you have never been on a subway train during rush hour. 

A subway train during rush ten minutes starting from ambient temperature
would be quite another matter.

>>Adding excess Zyklon-B would work as you say, but has some practical
limits.  
>
>You have not shown what those "practical limits" are, nor have you
responded
>in any substantive way to the people who have argued that there were
actually
>not any practical limits.

This has been addressed several times.  Read some of the posts from the
past few weeks.

>>I indeed have not
>>provided evidence to support my assumption- that's what this thread is
>>aiming toward, to confirm or deny the assumption.  I have not seen any
>>arguments that the estimates were not inaccurate.  
>
>You have provided as much evidence for your assumption as you have for
>the assumption that people from the future removed the people from the
>gas chambers to a save haven in the far future and replaced their 
>bodies with those of plane crash victims.

You go to some torturous lengths to duplicate the effect of the word
*not*. 

>As I said, your motivations are fairly obvious.  Not that I care.

Tell me, just what are my motivations, O Great Karnak?

>I
>would be more interested in your addressing the substantive issue that
>I raised, namely that I provided you with figures for the vapor pressure
>of solid HCN, and they seem to make your position even more untenable
>than it had been previously, which I would not have thought possible.

Thanks for the figures.  They still say nothing about evaporation rate.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by
love-this is the eternal law." - The Pali Canon 1:5

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor