Only to those unable to think outside the box of their IHR/Codoh creed, whose Faith is obviously so strong that even their woeful inability to explain away the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence and to account for the fate of those they contend were not killed at a place that was obviously their final destination does not detract them from it.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
On the diesel issue I have answered all of these questions before. Were you not paying attention? Xanthro wanted me to try the exhaust gas on myself for a half-hour. I suggested he experiment with stray dogs and cats from the pound instead. But I said I would for a cool million--as long as the engine wasn't loaded. Why don't you get your Believer buddies to raise the money instead of sending it to Israel tax-free to blow-up Palestinian homes?
I have another suggestion: Why doesn’t the Reverend get his fellow True Believers from the IHR and Codoh together so that we may lock them tightly in a garage and experiment Ovidius’ 500 bhp diesel engine on them under various conditions, including restriction of the air intake, increase of the fuel supply or both? Will we get pink or blue bodies at the end, I wonder?
It would be nice to have some scientific loading and gas data on the T-34 engine itself. Ovidius' results were inconclusive because he was not able to keep a load on the motor, but the CO never rose.
Where are Ovidius’ results? Never saw them. Anyway, why would there have to be a load?
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
If you block the air-intake on a large diesel engine it will derate as for altitude until it cannot get enough air to compress for ignition, and then it will misfire--but not for lack of oxygen, as there is still excess, and thus no carbon monoxide.
Your volunteers better pray that this misfiring will occur within less then half an hour, while they still have something other than exhaust to breathe.
This will not increase the CO and the people will suffocate fast enough with the engine OFF.
Yeah, replacing the existing atmosphere with oxygen-poor exhaust fumes will not hasten suffocation. In the Reverend’s silly dream world, perhaps. As to CO, is the Reverend ignoring the empirical observations suggesting that what did not result in a lethal CO content with Pattle & Stretch’s engine might very well lead to a lethal concentration of CO with a huge engine?
If the engine is not loaded it will contain (and add) more oxygen than there will be in a packed gaschamber with people breathing.
Hollow humbug. The less air there is to burn the fuel, the more CO and the less oxygen the exhaust will contain, and the fuel-air ratio can be influenced by restricting the air intake, increasing the fuel supply or doing both.
The misfiring is cause by cold ignition, not lack of oxygen.
How about putting the restriction into place
after the engine is running? And how long would it take for the engine to misfire, assuming that this is not just another of the Reverend’s hoaxes? More or less than half an hour, Reverend? If more, no sweat.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
The only way you can raise the fuel-air ratio sufficiently for carbon monoxide is with a heavy LOAD (see chart).
Which shows nothing at all. The table below is far more illustrative.
It's the same data. Not until the load maxes-out does the CO increase. You cannot have high fuel-air ratios without a load to work against.
Says the Reverend, who hasn’t yet been able to demonstrate what would have happened if the amount of fuel used in Holtz & Elliot’s experiment B69 (29.63lbs/hr) had been used at level B13 instead of the amount of fuel actually used (04.56lbs/hr). The fuel-air ration wouldn’t be 6.5 times higher because the engine would also turn much faster and take in more air. But is there anything wrong with assuming that it would be 3 times higher, the equivalent of experiment B16, with O2 at 09.26%, i.e. approaching the survival minimum of 8 %? And what if then the air intake were restricted? Just how much would it have to be restricted for O2 going below 8 %? How much more for O2 reaching near zero level and CO going above 0.4 %, the concentration lethal for human beings?
Quote:
On what basis, I wonder, considering that the quack has never been able to explain why restriction of the air intake, increase of the fuel supply or a combination of both (with less than the full measure of each) would not have resulted in sufficiently toxic exhaust with a huge engine.
Well, Marshall and Hurn did do some experiments along the line of exhaust-gas-recirculation for the U.S. Bureau of Mines. But blocking the intake will basically make the motor quit before you can elevate the CO.
Again the “motor quit” – crap. The question again is: If so, how long would it take?
Medojurgen has not been able to show differently.
It is not for Medorjurgen to show anything. It is for the great technician to show what, if anything, is wrong with Medorjurgen’s reasoning (which happens to coincide with that of Stein, McCarthy, Berg’s engineer colleague and our fellow poster Michael Mills). The “diesel-would-not-work” contention is Smith's baby. So let’s see what he’s got to show for it.
The Pattle experiments clearly showed the limitations of this technique, with only marginal results.
The Pattle experiments showed that this technique led to far more toxic exhaust than any loading, the limitations in terms of toxicity being related to the specific characteristics of the engine, especially its size.
To then say that results would be better in getting higher CO with a bigger engine is pure fantasy.
No, Mr. Ostrich. It results from empirical observation, comparison of the toxicity of Pattle & Stretch’s 6 bhp engine, Holtz & Elliot’s 40 bhp and 70 bhp engines and Elliot & Davis’ 150 bhp engine under similar loads and fuel-air ratios. The picture that emerges is that the bigger the engine is, the dirtier the exhaust can be expected to be. Dismissing such empirical observation as “pure fantasy” without an explanation is a highly unscientific approach on the part of someone who prides himself on being a scientist.
Gas-data and load has already been shown to illustrate this from Holtz and Elliott, and it required a heavy load.
Dead wrong. The fact that Holtz & Elliot happened to make their fuel increase experiments under load doesn’t mean that load is a must in order to bring up the fuel-air ratio and hence the toxicity of the exhaust. Holtz & Elliot’s own statements suggest that the increase of the fuel supply was the key factor in this respect:
Although Fig. 2 presents data on exhaust-gas composition at fuel-air ratios on the rich side, such conditions of operation are not normal and were obtained in these tests by changing the adjustment on the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel pump of engine B. After this change the fuel injected at full throttle was increased by approximately 60 per cent.
Emphasis is mine.
Elliott and Davis used a bigger engine but they unfortunately do not show us the loading data. In their tests they do mention that the engine is loaded.
The interesting feature of Elliot & Davis’ experiments in comparison to those of Holtz & Elliot is that their 150 bhp engine produces
far more toxic exhaust than Holtz & Elliot’s 70 bhp “B” engine at
the same fuel-air ratio. How that fuel-air ratio was achieved in Elliot & Davis’ experiments – whether by loading or by restriction of the air intake / increase of the fuel supply or by a combination of methods – is not the subject of my contention.
Perhaps Medorjurgen can demonstrate for us his special technique of getting a large diesel engine to crank-out sufficient CO without a load. Ovidius couldn't do it.
Ovidius apparently didn’t even try, and Medorjurgen is doing nothing other than observing and putting his common sense to work. Empirical observation and elementary logic tell him that if the composition of the exhaust is a function of how much fuel goes into the engine and how much air it takes in to burn the fuel, influencing either or both of these parameters will have an effect on the fuel-air ratio and thus the toxicity of the exhaust. And the great technician has not yet been able to explain what is wrong with this thinking. Poor show.
Quote:
Assuming that you were 100 % right about the diesels, what would that most probably mean?
First, it means almost zero proof about gassings at Treblinka and probably Belzec.
Apart from the depositions of dozens of perpetrators, survivors and outsiders, a vast array of documentary evidence and, especially in the case of Belzec, also very conclusive physical evidence corroborating the eyewitness and documentary evidence. Keep dreaming, Reverend.
No murder-weapon no murders.
This statement is so imbecile that is hurts. To understand the utter absurdity thereof, we must only figure what the situation would be like if
none of the witnesses had said anything about the type of the engine. An big engine, period. Type? I don’t know, I’m no technician. Would we then have evidence to the murder weapon, Reverend, or would we not? Answer: Of course we would, even though we might not know the details about it. The situation would be no different if the murder weapon had been described with an inaccuracy in regard to one of its characteristics, assuming that using a diesel rather than a gasoline engine for gassing would really be problematic. So the best that the Reverend can hope to demonstrate is that there are
unresolved uncertainties in regard to certain details of the murder weapon. Which is not exactly the same as “no murder weapon”, is it, Reverend?
Secondly, it shows that the courts did not care about the murder-weapon at all because they had an apriori belief in the murders and proof was not necessary.
Blah, blah, blah. The task of the courts was to establish whether a crime had been committed, the extent thereof and the identity of the criminals as well as their participation therein and their guilt. Could the Reverend please explain for which of these essential findings of fact it would have been of interest for the court to know the exact nature and specifics of the murder weapon?
An often asked but never answered question, and yet the Reverend keeps firing away his beaten articles of faith. There are times when I really feel sorry for the fellow, and this is one of them.
Revisionists like Fritz Berg have raised good questions
Rather silly questions that are of no relevance whatsoever to the essential findings of fact, I would say. That’s how criminal justice authorities and historians obviously see it as well. Only propaganda hoaxers apparently see it differently, or at least they pretend to.
and thus the assumptions are seriously disputed.
A statement of wishful thinking that sounds rather desperate. Even if Berg et al were 100 % right in their technical considerations, this would only mean that the notion of certain details of the murder weapon are wrong. It would not mean that there was no murder weapon, let alone that the mass murder that becomes apparent from conclusive and coincident documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence did not occur. Better get used to the idea, Reverend.
Third, that many of these stories are simply lies and atrocity propaganda.
What’s that, Reverend?
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, once again? Your squealing is getting notably weaker, my friend.
Quote:
That the 713,555 Jews who, according to the Höfle memorandum, disappeared from the face of the earth behind the gates of Treblinka until 31.12.1942, were not killed there, even though these is no evidence to their having been taken anywhere else from that place, dozens of survivors, perpetrators and outsiders described the killing process in great and coincident detail, a Wehrmacht officer raised an official complaint about the unbearable stench of corpses emanating from the camp and the area and volume of the camp’s burial zone corresponds to hundreds of thousands of dead bodies?
This is alleged but not supported by any physical evidence, and with no meaningful quantification.
More hollow mumbling. Why “alleged”, Reverend? Can you explain what became of those 713,555 people? Do you have any indication that the confessing perpetrators and testifying survivors and outsiders, whose independent statements coincided with each other in all essential details, were for some reason cooking up some fantasy? Or that the document referring to the complaint of the Wehrmacht commander of Ostrow about the unbearable stench of corpses emanating from Treblinka and befouling the air for miles around is a forgery?
As to the physical evidence and the alleged absence of “meaninful quantification”, whatever it is that the Reverend would accept as “meaningful”: Have you already calculated how many whole dead bodies could be buried in pits 7.5 meters deep in a burial area more then 20,000 square meters long and wide? And how many would fit into the respective burial space as ashes and other partial remains?
I'm not disputing some body-disposal at the venue and even murder. How much I do not know.
How silly that sounds, considering that the documentary evidence alone provides a clear indication of the order of magnitude and even
the exact number of Jews transported to Treblinka from the General Government until 31.12.1942.
I don't carry apriori beliefs to the problem--that so many historians have shows their ideological blinders.
Why, Reverend, are we expected to belief that your nonsensical dismissal of all evidence is not a clear indication of apriori beliefs and ideological blinders? Just how stupid do you expect this forum’s audience to be?
Quote:
Or that the gassing engine which killed most of them may have been inaccurately described or understood as having been a diesel engine and was actually a gasoline engine burning diesel fuel or gasoline?
That gives us no more detail than any of the other claims: town-gas, carbon monoxide, steam, chlorine, high-pressure, low-pressure, electrocution, Death Rays, insecticide.
Who needs detail, Reverend? All we need to know is that is was an engine. An engine, at least if it’s a gasoline engine running on diesel fuel or gasoline, is a highly plausible murder weapon, isn’t it? And something obviously killed those hundreds of thousands whom dozens of people saw being killed, who disappeared from the face of the earth without there being another accounting for their fate than their having been killed, whose dead bodies stank to high heaven while the camp was in operation and whose remains were found all over an area of more than 20,000 square meters buried to a depth of 7.5 meters, don’t you think so, my friend? What exactly that something was is not so important to know. For historiography and criminal justice, it is sufficient to know that it was gunfire and the exhaust of a huge engine. Better get used to the idea, Reverend.
Quote:
Try thinking outside the box of your quackery, Reverend. Just once.
Where's the mass-grave at Treblinka, Roberto? Not even an attempt to pound stakes in and call it a modern forensic investigation, like at the other Reinhardt camps.