Gassing Vans Revisited

[Scott Smith]

Hi Roberto,

Here's the expanded Holtz-Elliott graph--not that you haven't seen it before.

http://www.skalman.nu/upload/hetestchart.gif

The point is that for your CO2 thesis to work you still have to have a hefty LOAD on the engine. So how do you provide that, exactly? And consistently...

But then if I understand your other points correctly--are you now saying that diesel engines were NOT the mass-murder weapon?


As far as the safety of Holzgas, well, yes, with hundreds of thousands of drivers using them every day the SS would be foolish to use such a dangerous technology to kill people.


The reason they are dangerous is the carbon monoxide gas can build-up in the back of a furniture van if you intend to ride in the back--better allow some ventilation and make sure the pipes don't leak, as the original memo probably said before Allied agents forged it. Secondly, you definitely don't want to run a Holzgas vehicle inside a garage or a closed space, whether the engine is running or not. Not so tough to figure out, but people who operated these vehicles had to have special driver's licenses, which meant everbody, because these were the only kind allowed for civilian and even nontactical use.

This is my favorite Holzgas-mobile.

[Roberto]

Hi Roberto,

Here's the expanded Holtz-Elliott graph--not that you haven't seen it before.

http://www.skalman.nu/upload/hetestchart.gif

The point is that for your CO2 thesis to work you still have to have a hefty LOAD on the engine. So how do you provide that, exactly? And consistently...

Why does keep Smith keep mumbling about load when I used the Holtz & Elliot experiment without load for my calculations based on Richard Miller’s considerations?

But then if I understand your other points correctly--are you now saying that diesel engines were NOT the mass-murder weapon?

Is that supposed to be "comic relief", has poor Smith finally snapped (not that he was ever far away from it, you see), or is he just so dumb as to still haven’t understood that I don’t give a damn about whether it was diesel engines, gasoline engines or some other device?

As far as the safety of Holzgas, well, yes, with hundreds of thousands of drivers using them every day the SS would be foolish to use such a dangerous technology to kill people.

I suggest you take that up with your guru Berg, Smith. It was he who emphasized how dangerous those devices were for their users.

The reason they are dangerous is the carbon monoxide gas can build-up in the back of a furniture van if you intend to ride in the back--better allow some ventilation and make sure the pipes don't leak, as the original memo probably said before Allied agents forged it.

Blah, blah, blah. Can you offer any evidence to the forgery that your articles of faith require you to believe in? If not, better keep that crap to yourself.

Secondly, you definitely don't want to run a Holzgas vehicle inside a garage or a closed space, whether the engine is running or not. Not so tough to figure out, but people who operated these vehicles had to have special driver's licenses, which meant everbody, because these were the only kind allowed for civilian and even nontactical use.

As I said, take that up with your guru Berg, whose writings seem to suggest that producer gas vehicles carried the risk of producing fatal intoxication under any circumstances, even in the open.

[Scott Smith]

Hi Roberto,

Here's the expanded Holtz-Elliott graph--not that you haven't seen it before.

http://www.skalman.nu/upload/hetestchart.gif

The point is that for your CO2 thesis to work you still have to have a hefty LOAD on the engine. So how do you provide that, exactly? And consistently...

Why does keep Smith keep mumbling about load when I used the Holtz & Elliot experiment without load for my calculations based on Richard Miller’s considerations?

Well, in a no-load-condition you are still pumping in 17% fresh oxygen (almost normal) and the CO2 will never rise above 2.7 percent, regardless of how many people are crammed in there, unless you turn off the engine!

Besides, I've already calculated that I didn't think the people would survive longer than an hour with the motor switched OFF. So what is the point of the engine legend? Greuelpropaganda, perhaps? Makes you wonder about the mass-murder story itself (at least for those who can think outside of the box).

But then if I understand your other points correctly--are you now saying that diesel engines were NOT the mass-murder weapon?

Is that supposed to be "comic relief", has poor Smith finally snapped (not that he was ever far away from it, you see), or is he just so dumb as to still haven’t understood that I don’t give a damn about whether it was diesel engines, gasoline engines or some other device?

Then you won't object to calling the story "murder by Death Ray" or "Nazi Flying Saucer abductions," will you...

As far as the safety of Holzgas, well, yes, with hundreds of thousands of drivers using them every day the SS would be foolish to use such a dangerous technology to kill people.

I suggest you take that up with your guru Berg, Smith. It was he who emphasized how dangerous those devices were for their users.

Well, yes, it is dangerous, like any combustible fuel or any vehicle from Go-Peds to the Space Shuttle. I mean, you might run yourself over if you forget to set the parking brake on your Kübelwagen or pull into a garage with the Holzgas generator still smouldering. And don't play with matches when you pump gasoline. Oops.

The reason they are dangerous is the carbon monoxide gas can build-up in the back of a furniture van if you intend to ride in the back--better allow some ventilation and make sure the pipes don't leak, as the original memo probably said before Allied agents forged it.

Blah, blah, blah. Can you offer any evidence to the forgery that your articles of faith require you to believe in? If not, better keep that crap to yourself.

Just Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is probably the correct one (unless political-correctness gets in the way). Those noble Allies and their lying ways. It's rather like Junior Bush and Saddam's nonexistent weapons-of-mass-destruction, huh Roberto. But attention-spans are so short nowadays that everyone has already forgotten about that so they won't need to forge anything to fool most of the people, most of the time. I'm still expecting some sort of an attempt at memorable Greuelpropaganda from the Administration, however. As the saying goes, the first casualty of war is the truth.

Secondly, you definitely don't want to run a Holzgas vehicle inside a garage or a closed space, whether the engine is running or not. Not so tough to figure out, but people who operated these vehicles had to have special driver's licenses, which meant everbody, because these were the only kind allowed for civilian and even nontactical use.

As I said, take that up with your guru Berg, whose writings seem to suggest that producer gas vehicles carried the risk of producing fatal intoxication under any circumstances, even in the open.

That's why you need a special license to drive one. You have to be made aware of the specific dangers. It's a lot like getting a license to ride a motorcycle. They have their dangers over standard vehicles but people still ride them. Don't they...

[Roberto]

Hi Roberto,

Here's the expanded Holtz-Elliott graph--not that you haven't seen it before.

http://www.skalman.nu/upload/hetestchart.gif

The point is that for your CO2 thesis to work you still have to have a hefty LOAD on the engine. So how do you provide that, exactly? And consistently...

Why does keep Smith keep mumbling about load when I used the Holtz & Elliot experiment without load for my calculations based on Richard Miller’s considerations?

Well, in a no-load-condition you are still pumping in 17% fresh oxygen (almost normal) and the CO2 will never rise above 2.7 percent, regardless of how many people are crammed in there, unless you turn off the engine!

If I understood Miller correctly, CO2 is fatal above 7 % regardless of the oxygen content of the atmosphere, i.e. even with an oxygen content that by itself would be more than sufficient to ensure survival, his "CO2 narcosis" would occur. Which means that Smith’s objection is meaningless. And he seems to be aware of it, as his ensuing recourse to staple slogans shows.

Besides, I've already calculated that I didn't think the people would survive longer than an hour with the motor switched OFF.

Assuming that the chambers were sealed airtight, which wouldn’t have been so easy to bring about and entailed the inconvenience of overpressure building up (which to avoid the gas vans had outlets, according to Just’s letter to Rauff, remember?).

So what is the point of the engine legend?

Why "legend", Smith? Because it doesn’t fit into your bubble? Better keep that rubbish to yourself, for while there may be some uncertainty about the type of engine, all defendants’ depositions and eyewitness testimonials, independent of each other, coincide in that the killing device was an huge engine from a motor vehicle.

Greuelpropaganda, perhaps?

How about applying your "Occam’s Razor" theory as due and fishing for the most simple explanation - time? With up to 15,000 people to handle every day, according to depositions before West German courts, it certainly made a difference to the killers whether it took half an hour or an hour (assuming your calculations are even correct, see above) for death to come about. Even a time gain of 10 to 15 minutes per gassing would have been significant.

Makes you wonder about the mass-murder story itself (at least for those who can think outside of the box).

If takes a truly faithful mind to "wonder about the mass murder story itself" on account of imbecile "why did they do it this way when I would have done it that way" considerations. But if you’re such a friend of wondering, Smith, and as you now question "the mass murder story itself", let me again suggest that you start wondering about my good old questions:

1. Court experts and historians who have assessed the documentary evidence concluded that all pertinent documents – correspondence among officials as well as train schedules, timetables and other transportation documents – clearly point to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka as the final destinations. There is not a single document, however detailed, that even hints at the Jews taken to these camps going any further. Why would this be so if the camps were “transit camps” en route to the occupied territories of the Soviet Union?

2. The rail line leading to Treblinka was a sidetrack of the line going from Warsaw to Bialystok in Northeast Poland. Bialystok was the closest point to the Soviet Union, anyone from Treblinka being resettled in the Soviet occupied territory had to pass through there. Yet a German railroad table for Bialystok shows Jews being taken from there to Treblinka, with the empty cars returning to Bialystok. In other words, they were being moved away from the Soviet territories by being sent to Treblinka. Why was this so?

3. The resettlement of ca. 1.5 million people in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union would have been a complex operation, requiring hundreds if not thousands of German officials to carry it out and at least as many people involved in building projects. Yet no one has ever come forward to testify about such a resettlement, even though this would have made an ideal defense at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and subsequent trials. Former high-ranking transportation specialists in Germany during the war did not offer Soviet resettlement as a defense in post-war trials, even though they denied having known the real purpose of the train transport. No war crimes defendant actually offered resettlement as a defense, even those who denied knowledge of the genocide. Why was this so?

4. As becomes apparent from a number of documents regarding the “economic aspects” of “Operation Reinhard” (alternatively spelled “Reinhardt” or “Reinhart”, I’ll use the “Reinhard” spelling for convenience in the following), the Jews taken to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka were stripped of all their belongings there, including their clothing. Why would that have been done if they were going to be resettled – unless “resettlement” was to be to a place where they would need no clothing anymore?

5. Why would the Nazis, concerned as they were about preserving their own resources and robbing the Jews of everything they had, have invested large sums of money – far more than the costs of the killing operation, which are exactly known from Globocnik’s correspondence with Himmler – into a resettlement project? Or are the Jews supposed to have been simply shoved across the border and left there to die of starvation, exposure and disease? If so, wouldn’t that be similar to the way Stalin got rid of the “kulaks” and no less a crime than the mass killing at the extermination camps?

6. Why were there so many dead bodies at Treblinka in October of 1942 that they could not be sufficiently buried, thus creating a stench that befouled the air as far as Ostrow, 20 kilometers away, which led the local Wehrmacht commander to raise an official complaint about that stench?

7. How many whole bodies, and how many bodies reduced to ashes and other partial remains, fit into pits 7.5 meters deep in the burial area more than 20,000 square meters long and wide that was found after the war by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland? Was there room enough for, say, the 713,555 Jews from the General Government taken to Treblinka until 31.12.1942, according to the Höfle memorandum, or was there not?

But then if I understand your other points correctly--are you now saying that diesel engines were NOT the mass-murder weapon?

Is that supposed to be "comic relief", has poor Smith finally snapped (not that he was ever far away from it, you see), or is he just so dumb as to still haven’t understood that I don’t give a damn about whether it was diesel engines, gasoline engines or some other device?

Then you won't object to calling the story "murder by Death Ray" or "Nazi Flying Saucer abductions," will you...

Death Rays and Flying Saucers don’t exist. Engines, carbon monoxide bottles and cyanide crystals do. Among these latter possibilities, it doesn’t really matter which was applied, and if any similar method had been a contender it wouldn’t make a difference either.

As far as the safety of Holzgas, well, yes, with hundreds of thousands of drivers using them every day the SS would be foolish to use such a dangerous technology to kill people.

I suggest you take that up with your guru Berg, Smith. It was he who emphasized how dangerous those devices were for their users.

Well, yes, it is dangerous, like any combustible fuel or any vehicle from Go-Peds to the Space Shuttle. I mean, you might run yourself over if you forget to set the parking brake on your Kübelwagen or pull into a garage with the Holzgas generator still smouldering. And don't play with matches when you pump gasoline. Oops.

Desperately trying to correct a statement made by your Master Keeper of the Faith, Smith?

I’d say you dedicate your energies to more fruitful endeavours (like trying to answer my above questions), for even if you can prove wrong what your guru said about the dangers associated to producer gas vehicles for the users, this wouldn’t make his "why did they do it this way when I would have done it that way" – argument any less silly.

The reason they are dangerous is the carbon monoxide gas can build-up in the back of a furniture van if you intend to ride in the back--better allow some ventilation and make sure the pipes don't leak, as the original memo probably said before Allied agents forged it.

Blah, blah, blah. Can you offer any evidence to the forgery that your articles of faith require you to believe in? If not, better keep that crap to yourself.

Just Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is probably the correct one (unless political-correctness gets in the way). Those noble Allies and their lying ways.

Assuming you can demonstrate that they lied and forged evidence on other occasions related to Nazi crimes, and that there is not enough corroborating evidence in this particular case to make document forgery the least probable of possibilities, maybe. Unfortunately for you true believers, it’s the other way round. And even if it were not, the burden of proving that a document was tampered with would still be on you. And believe me, by the standards of criminal justice and historiography this takes a lot more than mumbling "I don’t trust these guys because I think they were out to discredit my beloved Führer".

It's rather like Junior Bush and Saddam's nonexistent weapons-of-mass-destruction, huh Roberto.

No, it’s not, my confused friend of far-fetched parallels. In our case there’s a convergence of independent evidence assessed by historians and mostly West German courts. I still have to see something remotely approaching this regarding the devices you mentioned.

But attention-spans are so short nowadays that everyone has already forgotten about that so they won't need to forge anything to fool most of the people, most of the time. I'm still expecting some sort of an attempt at memorable Greuelpropaganda from the Administration, however. As the saying goes, the first casualty of war is the truth.

Poor Smith, living under a government prone to sinister conspiracies that, so his confused mind tells him independently of whether there are substantial indications in this direction or not, would go as far as forging evidence (from which he furthermore audaciously concludes that it's predecessors were also up to such tricks 60 years ago). And it seems he even works for that government, the only outlet for his frustration being the displays of fathomless imbecility he disgraces this forum with.

Secondly, you definitely don't want to run a Holzgas vehicle inside a garage or a closed space, whether the engine is running or not. Not so tough to figure out, but people who operated these vehicles had to have special driver's licenses, which meant everbody, because these were the only kind allowed for civilian and even nontactical use.

As I said, take that up with your guru Berg, whose writings seem to suggest that producer gas vehicles carried the risk of producing fatal intoxication under any circumstances, even in the open.

That's why you need a special license to drive one. You have to be made aware of the specific dangers. It's a lot like getting a license to ride a motorcycle. They have their dangers over standard vehicles but people still ride them. Don't they...

As I said above, don’t waste your energy trying to disprove your guru’s statements about the risks associated to producer gas vehicles from a user point of view, for even if you prove him wrong all you’ll have is a "
“why did they do it this way when I would have done it that way" argument, irrelevant and silly especially as there’s conclusive evidence that the supposedly "stupid" method was the one applied, with the results addressed in those above questions of mine you have never been able to answer.

I know you hate these questions and will get furiously offensive on account of them, but I have to ask them again: Why do you keep doing this to yourself, Smith? Why do you keep playing this forum’s clown and whipping boy, exposing the fallacies of your articles of faith and turning yourself into an ever more sorry joke? What do you expect to achieve, buddy? Who do you expect to hit, other than yourself?

[Scott Smith]

Hi Roberto,

I don't get what is so hard to understand about this. The Holzgas technology carried dangers and so everyone who drove one of the half-million of these vehicles had to have a license to make sure that he understood those dangers in order to be safe for himself and his passengers. This was ubiquitous technology in wartime Germany and was even intended to be used after the war, according to Uncle Adolf, himself.

"Vehicles of this kind will retain their special significance after the war as well; for given the trend towards increasing motorization, we will never have a surplus of liquid fuel and will always be dependent on imports. The additional domestic fuels thus benefit our own national economy."

A. Hitler, July 15, 1940, quoted from W. Ostwald, Generator-Jahrbuch, 1942, J. Kasper & Co., Berlin 1943, p. 79.

Berg's point, which you studiously don't seem to understand, is that everybody KNEW about the producer-gas technology and for the SS not to have known about it is simply absurd.



Producer-gas was an obvious source of deadly carbon monoxide, Roberto. Obvious to everybody! This is a significant point in the study of technological and organizational history. Things happen (or don't happen) for complex reasons, as every social historian would understand. However, the evolution of events tends to follow "appropriate" or simple lines before the theater of the absurd; it's just more likely that way. But how do you know that flying-saucers and death-rays don't exist? Science fiction knows only the limits of the imagination.

What all this means is that those terrible SS men were either incredibly stupid and dreadfully incompetent in technical matters, or - and this is far more likely - the Diesel gas chamber story is totally false.

http://www.codoh.com/found/fndieselgc.html

The Nazi government took pains to ensure that everybody knew about the toxic properties of producer gas to reduce accidents:

"Safety Guidelines for Producer Gas Vehicles"

dated November 28, 1942.

The gas from the gas producing facility contains up to 35% carbon monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide can be fatal at concentrations as low as 0.1% when inhaled. For this reason - especially while starting the fire or during refilling - there is a danger of poisoning!

Start and refill the gas producer only out-of-doors! Do not linger unnecessarily near the blower discharge. Do not let engines run in garages.

Responsibilities of the supervisor and driver:

All persons who work with producer gas generators are required to learn and conform to the necessary procedures for a safe and orderly operation. The manufacturer’s operating instructions must be strictly followed and kept available within the vehicle. Furthermore, these safety guidelines must also be kept with the vehicle documents for each producer gas vehicle. […emphasis as in original]"

http://www.codoh.com/found/fndieselgc.html

E. Hafer, Die gesetzliche Regulung des Generatoren- und Festkraftstoff-Einsatzes im Grossdeutschen Reich (The Laws Regulating the Use of Generators and Solid Fuels in the Greater German Reich), (Berlin: J. Kasper & Co., 1943),

W. Ostwald, Generator-Jahrbuch--1942 (Generator Yearbook--1942), (Berlin: J. Kasper & Co., 1943),

ATZ Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift (ATZ Automobile Technical Journal), especially Heft 18 (September 1940) and Heft 18 (September 1941).

http://www.codoh.org/revisionist/tr02patdiesel.html

I know you hate these questions and will get furiously offensive on account of them, but I have to ask them again: Why do you keep doing this to yourself, Smith? Why do you keep playing this forum’s clown and whipping boy, exposing the fallacies of your articles of faith and turning yourself into an ever more sorry joke? What do you expect to achieve, buddy? Who do you expect to hit, other than yourself?

Oh, you say that Roberto. But when I come home from a hard day at the Ministry of Enlightenment, I find Corty waiting for me pecking on my keyboard. I look into his eyes and he is so excited to see me. He hops and flaps around. Clucking and scratching, he cant wait to bounce onto my shoulder and help me surf the forum. The things he tells me...

[Roberto]

Smith should have read my post before hitting the keyboard.

I’d say you dedicate your energies to more fruitful endeavours (like trying to answer my above questions), for even if you can prove wrong what your guru said about the dangers associated to producer gas vehicles for the users, this wouldn’t make his "why did they do it this way when I would have done it that way" – argument any less silly.

[…]

As I said above, don’t waste your energy trying to disprove your guru’s statements about the risks associated to producer gas vehicles from a user point of view, for even if you prove him wrong all you’ll have is a "why did they do it this way when I would have done it that way" argument, irrelevant and silly especially as there’s conclusive evidence that the supposedly "stupid" method was the one applied, with the results addressed in those above questions of mine you have never been able to answer. […]

I think the degree of my interest in Smith's ramblings about how great a murder weapon producer gas vehicles would have been and how little the killers themselves would have had to fear from them (provided they followed the instructions and didn't "linger unnecessarily near the blower discharge") is clearly expressed in the above passages.

But instead of making a however futile attempt to answer the relevant questions related to the issue at hand, which I asked him for the umpteenth time, poor Smith keeps desperately trying to undo Berg’s shot in his already lame foot, as if a demonstration that producer gas vehicles would not have been so dangerous for the users if employed as killing devices would get him anything other than an imbecile "why did they do it this way when I would have done it that way" - stance.

Just who do you expect to care for this crap of yours, Smith?

And just who do you expect to read the puerile utterances at the end of your post and not look upon you as a sorry, frustrated [appropriate but insulting term removed, as requested by David] ?

[witness]

Roberto wrote

Just who do you expect to care for this crap of yours, Smith?

The very relevant inquiry IMHO.

[David Thompson]

Roberto -- Please keep this conversation civil and avoid abusive personal remarks. There is no need for that sort of tone. Your arguments do the job well, and the insults detract from the points you're making.

[Roberto]

Roberto -- Please keep this conversation civil and avoid abusive personal remarks. There is no need for that sort of tone. Your arguments do the job well, and the insults detract from the points you're making.

Sorry, David.

I was trying some shock therapy on Smith, but I agree with you and accordingly removed the insult.

Have a nice evening.

[Billy Bishop]

Just who do you expect to care for this crap of yours, Smith?

I am following this thread. I've read every argument, and it seems that both sides have valid points. Although I am leaning towards Roberto....

[David Thompson]

Thanks, Roberto. I'm off for a short vacation (see sticky) and I didn't want the other moderators, who are watching over the H & WC section in my absence, to think that everyone has drawn their tomahawks and scalping knives around here -- especially not on the first day I'm gone.

[Scott Smith]

Oh darn, I didn't even get to see the offending comment. (Been too busy playing with Corty. He says "cheep cheep" = Hi!)

But David, have a good vacation. We'll miss you but don't hurry back.

Hi Roberto,

Here's the expanded Holtz-Elliott graph--not that you haven't seen it before.

http://www.skalman.nu/upload/hetestchart.gif

The point is that for your CO2 thesis to work you still have to have a hefty LOAD on the engine. So how do you provide that, exactly? And consistently...

Why does keep Smith keep mumbling about load when I used the Holtz & Elliot experiment without load for my calculations based on Richard Miller’s considerations?

Well, in a no-load-condition you are still pumping in 17% fresh oxygen (almost normal) and the CO2 will never rise above 2.7 percent, regardless of how many people are crammed in there, unless you turn off the engine!

If I understood Miller correctly, CO2 is fatal above 7 % regardless of the oxygen content of the atmosphere, i.e. even with an oxygen content that by itself would be more than sufficient to ensure survival, his "CO2 narcosis" would occur. Which means that Smith’s objection is meaningless. And he seems to be aware of it, as his ensuing recourse to staple slogans shows.

Well, assuming this theory is correct, if you look at the graph again, you don't get 7% CO2 until the engine is loaded to about 55-60%. That is roughly test B-16 in the graph.

http://www.skalman.nu/upload/hetestchart.gif

If we scale up to an engine the size of the diesel from a Russian tank, it means we have to dump 226 mechanical kilowatts somewhere. That is a hell of a dummy-load!

Btw, my thesis is not that there is a "Hoax." In other words, as far as I'm concerned, just because professional shuckmeisters have pontificated atrocity-propaganda does not mean that nothing bad ever happened.

But surely the truth requires a fair degree of skepticism.

Now, this Holzgas generator would have made an ideal technology for mass-murder; they were cheap, available everywhere, and only required wood scraps for fuel. Yet the Nazis allegedly bottled carbon monoxide and used expensive delousing insecticide. Go figure.

[Roberto]

Just who do you expect to care for this crap of yours, Smith?

I am following this thread. I've read every argument, and it seems that both sides have valid points. Although I am leaning towards Roberto....

Well, then I still have some work to do, for my purpose is not to convince you that a device requiring extreme safety precautions (which Smith kindly volunteered to detail) in order not to be dangerous to the users themselves might not have been the ideal murder weapon Smith claims it to be, but to make you see that Smith's "I don't think they killed them as becomes apparent from the evidence because I would have killed them better" is not a "valid point", but plain idiocy.

[Roberto]

Oh darn, I didn't even get to see the offending comment. (Been too busy playing with Corty. He says "cheep cheep" = Hi!)

Let's hope Smith's fantasy creature has more brains than its keeper.

Hi Roberto,

Here's the expanded Holtz-Elliott graph--not that you haven't seen it before.

http://www.skalman.nu/upload/hetestchart.gif

The point is that for your CO2 thesis to work you still have to have a hefty LOAD on the engine. So how do you provide that, exactly? And consistently...

Why does keep Smith keep mumbling about load when I used the Holtz & Elliot experiment without load for my calculations based on Richard Miller’s considerations?

Well, in a no-load-condition you are still pumping in 17% fresh oxygen (almost normal) and the CO2 will never rise above 2.7 percent, regardless of how many people are crammed in there, unless you turn off the engine!

If I understood Miller correctly, CO2 is fatal above 7 % regardless of the oxygen content of the atmosphere, i.e. even with an oxygen content that by itself would be more than sufficient to ensure survival, his "CO2 narcosis" would occur. Which means that Smith’s objection is meaningless. And he seems to be aware of it, as his ensuing recourse to staple slogans shows.

Well, assuming this theory is correct, if you look at the graph again, you don't get 7% CO2 until the engine is loaded to about 55-60%. That is roughly test B-16 in the graph.

Which would be no sweat either, whatever Smith means by "55-60 %", apart from the fact that the same effect could be obtained by increasing the fuel supply and/or restricting the air intake. And assuming, of course, that the victims produced no CO2 at all themselves. According to my calculations based on Miller's parameters, most of the CO2 would be produced by the victims themselves, and the additional CO2 contained in the exhaust of an idle 70 bhp diesel engine would merely shorten the time until the 7 % threshold was reached.

If we scale up to an engine the size of the diesel from a Russian tank, it means we have to dump 226 mechanical kilowatts somewhere. That is a hell of a dummy-load!

Which Smith - assuming his above mumbling is not just another load of crap - obviously still hasn't learned where to stick. Given that even if he had a point regarding the load this would only lead us to the conclusion that the gassing engine is more likely to have been a gasoline engine and one or the other witness probably confused it with an electricity generator or some other device, Smith should know better by now than to keep trying to make a mouse into an elephant.

Btw, my thesis is not that there is a "Hoax." In other words, as far as I'm concerned, just because professional shuckmeisters have pontificated atrocity-propaganda does not mean that nothing bad ever happened.

Any "professional shuckmeister" Smith can show us to have accorded the findings of criminal justice in regard to the killing device more than a perfunctory notice ? It seems to me that "Revisionist" propagandists are bitching about a paper dragon of their own making, as they usually do.

But surely the truth requires a fair degree of skepticism.

Yeah, sure. "I doubt they killed their victims as becomes apparent from the independent and coincident depositions of defendants and eyewitnesses, because I would have killed them better" - that's what Smith calls "skepticism".

Now, this Holzgas generator would have made an ideal technology for mass-murder; they were cheap, available everywhere, and only required wood scraps for fuel. Yet the Nazis allegedly bottled carbon monoxide and used expensive delousing insecticide. Go figure.

Just like I said above.

Never mind the conclusive and coincident evidence that bottled carbon monoxide was used until the killers realized that engine exhaust would do the job as well, never mind the equally conclusive and coincident evidence that on other occasions they adopted the not exactly unpractical solution of using a few extra cans of their highly lethal (and hardly "expensive") standard insecticide - Smith expects us to believe that the possibility of a "better" killing solution (assuming "his" solution, requiring the strict safety precautions he kindly volunteered to detail, would have been as advantageous as he claims it to be) means not that the killers could have done "better" (which would be the logical conclusion), but that they didn't kill at all (which would correspond to his articles of faith).

Whoever among our readers considers this to be a "valid point", please speak up.

[jeff]

good god roberto your soooooooooo boring!