Archive/File: people/h/hunt.bob hunt.0295



Article 21963 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.globalx.net!pagesat.net!warp10.smartdocs.com!news.rain.org!news5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!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: Mein Kampf
Date: 1 Feb 1995 12:21:55 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gofvj$kb2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Lawrence Mau writes:

>I could understand a intellectual debate over whether X amount of
>people were put to death in the Concentration camps.  And I could
>understand possibly some people questioning the method of those
>deaths.  But to read those, who would claim that none of this
>occurred, simply escapes me.

As it would escape any rational person.  There is a strong trend underway
in this country (and the world?) to label anyone who poses questions in
the areas you reference with the most extreme positional description -
Nazi gets flung about a good deal, but I believe the current respectable
choice is *denier*.  People who choose to investigate even minor technical
aspects of this historical happening will, in my experience, eventually
find themselves stuck in a position of having to defend against a steady
stream of groundless accusations and inferences about their supposed
extremist views and motivations.  The usual result of that sort of
reception is that the inquirer decides that it isn't worth the abuse and
possible unwarranted tarring, and gives up the quest.  I think that's the
aim of some of the labelers, and I don't say that with any attribution of
motive, good or bad.  The posts in this forum lead me to believe that the
majority of posters are absolutely sincere, and believe that their actions
further a good cause.



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

"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 21975 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!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: 1 Feb 1995 11:43:00 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 14
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3godmk$jvd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Golux writes:

>I think anyone who promotes the belief that the "soap story" is a single
>rumor, long since proved false and reprehensible in its repetition, is
>participating in a self-defeating propaganda campaign

My references have been to the story as it appears in the media, not in
this forum.  The media references are brief and undetailed, and as such
can be legitimately viewed as a single story.

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

"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 21976 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: 1 Feb 1995 12:08:09 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 77
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gof5p$k7s@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3gn68h$63p@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Rich Green writes:

>What logically is different between taking the
>preponderance of testimony of scientists and the preponderance
>of testimony of eye-witnesses.

The main difference is the ability of a sufficiently capable skeptic to
physically duplicate the results for himself in the case of scientific
claims.  That alternative doesn't always practically exist, but
duplication of results is a cornerstone of the scientific method that has
no counterpart I can think of in, say, a court of law.  As for my faith in
the methods of science, you might recall my quote of Feynman's opinion
about that.  Of course it is tainted by personal biases, especially at the
cutting edges.

>Why do you believe me that Fick's
>Law has anything to do with Diffusion?  Maybe Fourier and Laplace
>are liars.  Do you believe that the earth revolves around the
>sun and not vice versa?  Why?  Can you prove it from first
>priciples or are you just trusting the establishment.

Faith.  If I have no specific reason to doubt a commonly accepted
scientific fact, I'll take it as correct as a matter of faith and
convenience.  If I have some reason to doubt its truth and the methods to
do so are within my capabilities, I will try to prove or disprove it
myself.  In the examples you give, I do not believe myself capable of
either proving or disproving much about Fourier or Laplace.  As for the
earth revolving about the sun, if I had a reason to doubt that, it can be
proven by methods within my capabilities or the capabilities of any
average person.

>>>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.
>
>In that case I agree except that I don't see the relevance of the phase
>change. Even so, at -20 degrees C, colder
>than we will ever have to worry about, what is the vapor pressure
>of HCN on the graph that we have?  How many ppm is that?  What
>does that work out to using my model?  Isn't Mr. Schultz's point
>still valid.

The phase change has no relevance except to underscore the dependence of
evaporation rate on temperature.  Vapor pressure is a prediction of
conditions at an equilibrium state.  Vapor pressure figures say nothing
about how long it takes to reach that state.  The two factors involved in
reaching it are evaporation and diffusion.  You have addressed the
diffusion part.  It seems to me that Mr. Schultz is confusing vapor
pressure with evaporation, but perhaps the misunderstanding is my own.

>I would like to see a reasonable design for such an experiment.
>I have no problem with tabling this discussion.  I would suggest,
>however, that the preponderance of evidence leads to one conclusion.
>Until such time that you present a working experiment that shows
>otherwise, I claim that our best guess (and yes yours too, however
>grudgingly) is that 15 minutes is a reasonable time. 
>
>Rich
>
>PS If this discussion is in fact tabled for some time, I will probably
>fade out of checking this newsgroup regularly.  If the discussion
>returns after a hiatus, I'd appreciate an e-mail from someone telling
>me to check it again.

Good suggestion.  As for the conclusion, I agree, and not grudgingly, that
your calculations have shown that a lethal amount can disperse to a
distance of 5 meters from the source in a time of 15 minutes.  I will
repeat that no one has offered any figures whatsoever about the volatility
or evaporation rate, and that includes Mr. Mazal.  If I have anything of
substance to offer in the future, I will certainly notify you of same via
email.  Thank you for your most able assistance in the inquiry.

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

"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 21978 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: Is this worthwhile?
Date: 1 Feb 1995 12:27:16 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 20
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3gog9k$kck@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3gmtl5$9o7@newsreader.wustl.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Lance Martin Finney writes:

>I've been lurking on this group for about a week now, and I'm getting 
>a little tired of it.  From the perspective of the revisionists, the 
>"exterminationists" have been completely fooled and won't acceptt
>intellectual challenge.  To the majority, the "anti-semites" are 
>mindless cretins who are following hate.  
> Why does this venue for discussion exist?  It seems tahat no
>one is willing to listen to the other, except to pick holes.  Why 
>does this group exist?

Good observations and good questions.  I'm going to dwell on your post for
a few days and respond at greater length.  In the meantime I'll just say
that this is a verbal equivalent of a King of the Hill game.  Your cogent
question is, why?

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

"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 22018 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.duke.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reasonable Doubts and Doubtinge Thomases
Date: 5 Feb 1995 18:59:00 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h3oo4$r9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3gt974$561@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Richard Schultz writes:

>In addition, you have consistently refused to address the most serious
>objections to your speculation.  For example, you have yet to answer the
>most basic question, except as given below:  why are you bothering?  What
>difference would it make if the Zyklon-B took 25 instead of 15 minutes to
>kill people?  If the answer is "none" (which is why most historians don't
>care enough about it to perform your little experiment, and as I 
>believe Danny Keren has pointed out, the bottleneck in the extermination
>process was not the rate of killing but the ability to dispose of the
>bodies anyway), then one can reasonably question why you brought up the 
>issue in the first place.  If the answer is not "none", then your failure
>to provide one implies that there is perhaps some reason why you will
>not answer the question

I not only have not consistently refused to answer the question about
relative times, I have on several occasions stated that a time difference
such as you state (10 minutes versus 25) would be meaningless.  I don't
expect you to read every post here and thus will not exercise that tired
crap I get about being dishonest because I didn't see some particular
item.  Believe the most common reference I used was that a time difference
of less than an order of magnitude would not be useful.

As to why it was brought up in the first place, I'll recap under another
subject heading.

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

"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 22023 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.sprintlink.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: Reasonable Doubts and Doubtinge Thomases
Date: 5 Feb 1995 19:02:26 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 45
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h3oui$111@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3gt974$561@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Richard Schultz writes:

>Another example of a serious objection to your hypothesis that you do
>not answer is that the "evaporation rate" is not a significnat problem,
>both for purely physical reasons (e.g. in the regime of turbulent 
>diffusion, given the high vapor pressure of even solid HCN, diffusion
>will be faster than evaporation), for intuitively obvious reasons (if
>Zyklon-B hadn't worked

Well now there's an interesting statement.  You seem to be supportive of
my hypothesis at the same time you bash it.  The main issue I have been
addressing for the past few weeks is that if diffusion is faster than
evaporation (as you state above) then evaporation is indeed the rate
limiter of the process, and no one has any idea what the evaporation rate
is.

>I find it interesting that you ignored the information that I presented
>about the vapor pressure of solid HCN until prodded to do so.  (And
>why was my providing the vapor pressure data not "anything of
substance"?)
>Despite my having repeated the questions numerous times, you have yet to
>provide any substantive response to the central issues outlined above.

Richard, some of your posts are reasonably presented and others would make
a statue grit its teeth and move on.  When you drip too heavily with the
sarcasm, I move on to other things.

>I know you get miffed when people say negative things about you

Looks like I'm not the only one.

>Believe me, I would much rather that
>there was such an explanation and that I have somehow mistakenly been
>led to an incorrect conclusion.  If that were the case, I would gladly
>acknowledge my mistake with apologies.  But to be honest, I think that
>such a case is, well, a low-probability event.

Well, don't hock the silverware or call the bookie yet, but there's been
no conclusion to the question of HCN dispersion rates.  And that's a high
probability assessment.

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

"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 22025 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reasonable Doubts and Doubtinge Thomases
Date: 5 Feb 1995 19:03:36 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h3p0o$12u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3guarc$3d44@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Donald Moffitt writes:

>Doubting Thomas, with typical disingenuousness, supposes that his motives

>are none of anyone's business but his own while posting his Socratic 
>queries to a audience of as many as 3.2 million computers and, 
>potentially, of 32 million human users.

Thanks for the compliment, but someone earlier referred to my methods as
sophistry.  They weren't quite correct,  but it's a lot closer description
than Socratic.  No comment on the rest of your, uh, analysis?

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

"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 22026 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.Direct.CA!hookup!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Evaporation vs Diffusion...is anybody home?
Date: 5 Feb 1995 19:04:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 6
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h3p2m$14g@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3gt32c$h94@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

If anyone needs it, I have a copy of the Degesch manual, in English.

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

"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 22043 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.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: Evaporation vs Diffusion...is anybody home?
Date: 7 Feb 1995 18:42:42 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 22
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h90hi$6eh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3h72ek$qff@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

>Mr. Hunt (DbtgThomas) writes:
>
>>If anyone needs it, I have a copy of the Degesch manual, in English.
>
>Anybody, presumably does not include me, but just in case: 
>
>Harry W. Mazal
>14542 Brookhollow #238,
>San Antonio, TX 78232
>
>would be grateful for a copy.
>
>Harry W. Mazal in San Antonio, Texas

I'll put a copy in the mail to you in a couple of days.  Hope it will be
useful.


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

"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 22044 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.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: 7 Feb 1995 18:54:23 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 37
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h917f$6kv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3h72i6$5ve@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Rich Green writes:

>> The problem in the just-add-more approach is that both the basket and
the
>>column provide definite limits to the evaporation rate.  A pile of
pellets
>>will outgas only in proportion to its outer unobstructed surface area. 
So
>>dumping a bunch in a basket will have diminishing returns.  
>
>You are confusing diffusion with evaporation.  What matters for
>evaporation is the surface area of the droplets of HCN within the
>Zyklon-B.  Once the HCN is in the gas phase, it's diffusion that's
>the issue.  I believe that diffusion is no longer an issue.
>
>>Placing the
>>emitting mass in a column will further limit outgassing because the air
>>concentration within the column will quickly rise to the vapor pressure
>>and suppress evaporation.  
>
>Wait a minute here.  Think about what you are saying!
>Vapor Pressure = Rate of Evaporation/Rate of Condensation.
>Once you reach vapor pressure the game's over  (Unfortunately,
>it's not a game.).

I'm not confusing evaporation and diffusion, although perhaps I describe
it poorly.  If you put some HCN in a closed container, it will evaporate
until its vapor pressure is reached.  At that time, condensation rate
equals evaporation rate and there is not net evaporation.  The same thing
occurs in a pile of pellets.  Within the pile, full or near full vapor
pressure will be achieved.  Evaporation will thus occur primarily or only
at the outer surfaces of the pile.  Same reasoning for inside the columns.

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

"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 22052 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.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: 7 Feb 1995 19:02:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h91m0$6nr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy writes:

>Having arrived at that point, you declare victory and excorciate
>everyone for having gotten upset with you long ago.

Jamie, you earlier predicted that I would at some point *declare victory*,
which was a silliness contradicted by my own statements.  Now you state
that I have declared *victory*.  That is utter B.S. from your own
misplaced expectations.  I asked a question about gas dynamics, a question
that I don't know the answer to.  How then can an answer to the question
be either a defeat or victory?  There is no contest here.  I think there
is a possibility that the gas evaporates slowly at low temperatures.  I
invite any and every interested party to confirm or deny or better yet to
quantify that.  Whatever the true outcome is, it will answer my question
and be entirely acceptable to me.  I'm sorry that this doesn't fit your
image of some sort of morality duel, but that's just not what it's about. 
If you expect to find something, and those expectations are deeply rooted
in your thinking, you will find it - whether it exists or not.

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

"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 22057 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.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: 6 Feb 1995 17:40:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 108
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h68ga$jtc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3h3pcv$1g1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Some months ago I came across a post from Danny Keren that quoted a
description of 250 to 300 people being gassed to death in a camp somewhere
in Northeastern Europe in the autumn at an early stage in the war.  The
quote said that the people were placed in a building, the doors shut and
that Zyklon-B was poured in roof openings, cascading over their heads.  In
10 to 15 minutes, the building was opened to reveal 250 to 300 bodies in a
heap.

There were a number of things about the description which  sounded odd or
incomplete, and I posted questions about them.  These included the short
time period for outgassing, dispersion, death and ventilation;  how the
danger of residual fumes was handled;  how the observers could see pellets
cascading down over heads; and one or two more items of lesser interest
and importance.

Response to the questions was immediate and, for the most part, hostile. 
Over a period of several months, all of the questions were more or less
put to rest by the few useful bits of information in the barrage of words
being thrown at the effort.  From the beginning, the responses were heavy
with digressions, a pattern that has continued to the present and
escalated considerably in the past three weeks or so.  The digressions
ranged from misinterpretations of what was being sought, to blind-alley
rantings about a subject already settled and dismissed, to rambling
discussions about my motives for asking, to rather pervasive attempts to
generalize into some all-encompassing matter what started out as a very
specific inquiry about a single account.

Recently there has been a flurry (frenzy is a better description) of
responses from people obviously allied in an effort to discredit a
questioner they neither know nor understand, and to dispose of a question
by shouting repeatedly that it has been answered when in fact it plainly
has not.  (The question is: How fast does HCN evaporate at various
temperatures?)

It's been a bit of a downer to watch this mob action to shout down a
legitimate inquiry of distinctly minor importance.  It was always obvious
that there is, despite protestations to the contrary, little if any
objectivity here.  Emotion and labeling are the orders of the day as the
guys in white hats go forth to utterly destroy the guys in black hats, and
woe be unto any who dare to claim a shade in between or to (gasp!) adopt
the unspeakable position of NOT WEARING A HAT!!!  The effrontery and
unacceptability of the latter is obvious to anyone, goes the argument, and
leads to a logical explanation (as one amusing post recounted to me in all
seriousness) of why it is perfectly valid to refer to people as idiots,
liars, and worse, and why they shouldn't then take offense at the
characterization (because the end justifies the means?).  You can do this,
goes the rationale, whenever they continue to support positions that have
been proven to be false.  In other words, when they don't agree with you. 
That's valid since your position is, after all, the unassailable absolute
truth even if it's about a poorly documented happening in a war zone fifty
years ago and encompasses a huge area of detail.  The average person is
lucky to be able to be that sure about what they did last week, but on
this one subject we all can be absolutely certain, and further, we must.

Addressing now some specifics that have been ignored in the vitriol of
recent days (excerpts from Harry Mazal's posts would make good subtitles
for the old People's Court films from Berlin in 1944) I'd like to comment
on the expedient of "if it don't evaporate fast enough, just add more"
method.  I commented earlier that this has practical limitations and have
been deemed to be a lout and worse for not enumerating same, even though I
believe it's another digression from the main question.  Whatever.

As Rich Green mentioned in one of his posts, surface area is a vital
consideration in determining evaporation rate.  If baskets were used to
insert the Zyklon-B, it may be reasonably assumed that they were of
moderate size in order to fit into the roof openings and the hollow
columns described by Annie Alpert.  Forget for the moment that neither
baskets nor columns apply to the single account which started this thread.
 The problem in the just-add-more approach is that both the basket and the
column provide definite limits to the evaporation rate.  A pile of pellets
will outgas only in proportion to its outer unobstructed surface area.  So
dumping a bunch in a basket will have diminishing returns.  Placing the
emitting mass in a column will further limit outgassing because the air
concentration within the column will quickly rise to the vapor pressure
and suppress evaporation.  The effective surface area will then be reduced
to the size of the vents in the column, and their location (height) will
be an important factor.  Outweighing both these considerations, in my
mind, is what on earth do you do with the 50%, 90% or whatever portion
that is unused and still actively emitting poison gas when removed? 
Further, why would you engage in a method that required dealing with this?
 And comments like, "They did, that's all!", do not constitute an answer.

A reasonable appearing (though to my knowledge, unconfirmed) derivation of
the diffusion rate of HCN has been provided by Rich Green.  No one has
addressed the subject of evaporation rates of the substance with any
quantitative information, and for good reason.  The question is difficult
to answer with calculations.  It may be that literature exists based on
empirical observations, or that experiments are the only way to tell. 
Whichever the case, an answer does exist that can be verified by
independent parties.  The answer does not have to fit any of my
preconceptions for two reasons:  first, I have no preconceptions and,
second, that it be a straight answer is my only qualifier for the result. 
Now, where in hell is the offense in that?  If reasonable inquiry is
deemed a crime, count me a criminal right now.

I do not feel there is any benefit in continuing discussion of this matter
until and unless someone has something of substance to offer.  To that
end, I consider the matter tabled, awaiting serious effort directed to
obtaining an answer, something that may not come in the short term.  In
the interim, I draw utterly no conclusions from what has thus far been
discussed about the dispersion dynamics of HCN and any matters that may
relate to.  In this case, the dynamics of the discussion, and their
import, far outweigh that of the subject matter.

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

"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 22058 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.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: 6 Feb 1995 17:45:59 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 19
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h68r7$jvf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3h5hcl$6lc@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

>DbtgThomas (dbtgthomas@aol.com) wrote:
>: Rich Green writes:
>
>: >Any questions?
>
>: Only one.  What is the evaporation rate of HCN at various temperatures.

>: That's been my only question for some time now.
>
>
> There are literally X10 rates when considering various temps.

I'd sure settle for a graph and a detailed derivation.  Heck, even an
undetailed derivation would be better than what's available now.

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

"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 22102 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!tinman.dev.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!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: 7 Feb 1995 19:23:11 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 59
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3h92tf$71u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3h86hn$o73@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Danny Keren writes:

>Look - I used to think you're just pretending to be stupid,
>but it seems you *are* stupid, or that you have some kind
>of a mental block when it comes to Nazi crimes, which you're
>obviously doing your best to whitewash and minimize - not
>only re the gassings, but in respect to other things (atrocities
>in Buchenwald, Himmler's speech).

Think what you wish about my intelligence or lack of it, Danny, but keep
your Nazi whitewashing remarks to yourself, please.  The interpretation of
that remark is that I have dared to question claims and methods of
discussion that you think are fine.  In other words, we disagree and since
you have an obsessive hatred of something then I must be grouped with that
which you hate.  Balderdash.  There were incredible cruelties visited upon
innocent human beings by some of the people who governed Germany in the
1930's and 1940's.  I condemn those actions not just on general moral
grounds but on one of my own obsessions which is a generalized version of
yours - a strong and abiding aversion to people who abuse.  That applies
to murderers (Nazi and otherwise), child beaters, animal torturers, and a
long list of sickies who get off on inflicting pain.

># and I posted questions about them.  These included the short
># time period for outgassing, dispersion, death and ventilation;  
>
>Quantify this. You're just spewing nonsense. Give figures,
>facts, numbers, not idiotic speculations. 

Deja vu again.  This is what the whole discussion on HCN has been about. 
The numbers have been posted many times.

># how the observers could see pellets cascading down over heads; 
>
>Look at how clever blithering Thomas is. The "observer" was the
>person pouring the Zyklon-B in. The heads of the people were
>perhaps a feet below him. He knew very well where they stood.

You're covering ground that's already been covered.  I did not get the
impression that the observer was the pourer.  If I read the short post
wrong, that makes me about as clever as your description of me.

>Why all this nonsense about baskets and columns? Columns were used
>in Kremas II and III, not in Krema I. 

As I said in the post, Annie Alpert brought up the baskets and columns,
neither of which applied to the description that started this thread.

Your invective level has its ups and downs, and if I may say so with as
much courtesy as possible, it's on an up right now and it's really
tiresome.  You are fairly well spoken and don't need the boorish verbiage
to get your points across- why burden your logic and your readers with it?
 It isn't having any special effect on me, and I don't think it encourages
respect for the rest of what you have to say.


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

"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 22232 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Atom bomb revisionism
Date: 17 Feb 1995 17:11:09 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 50
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3i36tt$7gn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3i0rpr$32q@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Thomas Hamilton writes:

>3) The third lie is that Japan was "attempting to surrender" before
Hiroshima,
>and that the US refused to accept surrender on the same terms [retention
of
>the emperor] that it ultimately did accept after Nagasaki.  Alperovitz
>hinted at this in his book, but this lie  seems to have taken on a life
of its 
>own recently.  Advocates of this view often cite wartime speculations by
>US officials.  Any examination of the many available Japanese sources
reveals
>this not to be true.

I have no access to the records mentioned, but here's an interesting
letter from a recent edition of the L.A. Times.

USE OF ATOM BOMB

During the past few months, in your articles about Japanese objections to
the proposed U.S. postage stamp commemoration of the atomic bomb, in your
articles about the cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibit, and in a number
of letters to the editor, the same theme is repeated again and again:  the
use of the atomic bomb saved the lives of many Americans who might
otherwise have been forced to stage a ground invasion of Japan.

Is it too much to ask that after all this erroneous reporting, after
decades of this myth being perpetuated, that the simple contrary facts be
given?  Namely, that the Japanese tried to surrender before the atom bombs
were dropped.  This is explicity documented in, among other places,
hearings before the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, June 25, 1951, pages 3113-4.

The Japanese request, which was ignored by the United States, apparently
contained only one condition:  That the emperor system be retained, and as
matters eventually turned out, the emperor system was maintained anyway.

Bill Blum
Los Angeles


As an irrelevant side note, a story in some Eastern paper here in the U.S.
gave an example of political correctness standing on its head when it ran
a comment about the removal of the "Enola homosexual exhibit" from the
Washington museum.

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

"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 22233 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Atom bomb revisionism
Date: 17 Feb 1995 17:11:16 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 9
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3i36u4$7gr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3i114p$qr@pipe2.pipeline.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

>Actually, using methods adopted by the Endloesung deniers, I already have
>shown that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki never occurred.

Jeez, try to take a walk in the fresh air and you hit the same old shit.

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

"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 22234 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Atom bomb revisionism
Date: 17 Feb 1995 17:21:35 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3i37hf$7kr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3hritu$fnr@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Keith Morrison writes:

>Nowdays, even freefall bombs are precision guided compared to your WW2
>ordinance.  Back then, it just seemed like the only thing to do by the
>people in charge.

Thanks for your comments.  One clarification of the role played by folks
like LeMay and Harris.  They were aware of and approved as a method of war
the practice of bombing civilian targets.  Many of the Allied politicians
and a number of their military leaders distanced themselves from things
like Dresden and Tokyo.  To borrow your term, they turned the other way
when the quasi-monsters did this job.

The Canadian military comedies you describe remind one, of course, of our
own Tailhook.  What every country obviously needs is a cadre of refined
gentlemen to act as their sanctioned killers, not a bunch of testosterone
soaked beasts, right?  Maybe we should geld them all as a precondition to
flight training.

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

"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 22236 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Atom bomb revisionism
Date: 17 Feb 1995 17:36:09 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 20
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3i38cp$7q3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3hs2qe$beo@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Rich Green writes:

>BTW I believe that discussions about the ethics of these events is
>truly revisionism as opposed to the denial practised by the Nazis
>on this newsgroup.

A reasonable comment.  One thing that I have observed here is a dearth of
what one could honestly call denial, and a blizzard of denial accusations.
 I am beginning to have that thrown at me without a single thing to
support the scurrilous crap except the emotions of the accusers.  I don't
deny the existence of any significant historical event in modern times
because most parts of the world are accessible to a great many people who
independently confirm various happenings.  Conversely, I doubt that there
is a single historical event of any magnitude or complexity which has
entered the accepted record free from errors and bias.

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

"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 22237 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Is the Holocaust a Unique form of Genocide?
Date: 17 Feb 1995 17:37:45 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 12
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3i38fp$7qi@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Golux writes:

>One thing that does separate the Holocaust from other genocides and
>attempted genocides is the concerted and determined effort from some
>quarters to deny that it ever happened.

You might want to check with the Armenians on this one.

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

"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 22238 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Bomber Command
Date: 17 Feb 1995 17:44:02 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 18
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3i38ri$7ti@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3i0ve5$qp7@pipe2.pipeline.com>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Donald Moffitt writes:

>Unconditional surrender.  The Allies insisted on it because they knew
that
>anything less would encourage the Nazis afterward to revive the old lie
>that Germany lost the war only because it was tricked by the
International
>Joosh Conspiracy.

That's a pretty bizarre theory, assuming you are offering it seriously.  I
thought it was done (to both Germany and Japan) to avail the Allies of the
opportunity to dismantle their warmaking capabilities, something that
would have been impossible with a brief occupation or no occupation.

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

"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 22239 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!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: Atom bomb revisionism
Date: 17 Feb 1995 17:26:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 25
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3i37r3$7nu@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3hs2qe$beo@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Rich Green writes:

>>The fire bombings of Tokyo (as in Dresden) killed more civilians than
>>either atomic bomb.  
>
>Are you sure about your numbers?  Can anyone help?  What I read was:
>
>Hiroshima  140,000
>Dresden  135,000
>Nagasaki  70,000

I'm not sure about the numbers and am not sure that anyone is.  The
Dresden estimates appearing in recent news stories ranged from 35,000 (AP)
to 135,000 or 200,000 (Reuters).  Dresden was jammed with displaced and
wounded people (not to mention Allied prisoners) because it was thought to
be safe from attack since there was no industry or military installation
of significance there.  Several sources have estimated the population at
the time of the attack(s) to have exceeded 300,000.  Due to the intensity
of the huge fire, an accurate body count was impossible and I do not think
there was any serious attempt to make one.

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

"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