The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/s/stein.michael/1997/stein-swiger-diesel

From!mstein  Mon Jan  6 01:01:35 1997
Received: by (Smail3.1.29.1 #8)
	id m0vhAw2-000HOnC; Mon, 6 Jan 97 01:01 PST
Received: from by ; 6 JAN 97 01:01:09 PDT
Received: (from mstein@localhost)
          by (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id CAA26521; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 02:45:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 02:45:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael P. Stein" 
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Nikzor's Mike Stein (fwd)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
In-Reply-To: <5aqa8r$>
References: <>
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Status: RO

Mr. Swiger:

    Copy of my response to your post.  If you choose to reply, please
reply publicly. 

------- start of forwarded message -------
From: (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nikzor's Mike Stein
Date: 6 Jan 1997 02:40:11 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <5aqa8r$>
References: <>
Xref: alt.revisionism:140615

In article <>,
Cliff Swiger ( wrote:

> Nikzor's Mike Stein, a "Talmud-thumping.....JOO" as he calls himself,
> claims to have publicized a great revelation and rebuttal to Friedrich
> Paul Berg's "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth within a Myth." But what
> actually appears in this harangue is nothing more than disagreement
> over minor technical data as regards the chemical reactions involved
> with Diesel combustion engines. 

    I'm sure Mr. Swiger would like people to think that this is all I did. 
Alas, he unaccountably failed to produce quotes from my work and show how
his characterization is true.

    To tell you the truth, I don't recall making a single claim about the
chemical reactions.  What I did was reproduce information taken from
technical papers describing the composition of exhaust gas from a diesel
engine under different conditions, and point out some things contained in
those papers that Friedrich Berg failed to mention.  I don't claim to have
a clue as to the exact chemical reactions that went on inside the
cylinders to produce that exhaust.

    The results are what they are.  Mr. Swiger's calling them a "harangue" 
will not magically change the results.  Since he did not cite any specific
material from my paper which was erroneous and demonstrate why it was
erroneous, I guess people will have to go read it for themselves and see
if they agree or not. 

> Certainly, in technical research, one is going to encounter extremes
> in data. But, industry attempts to establish standards, which are
> averages, for design parameters and operation, in effect, smoothing
> out the spikes. Standards, curves and tables do not represent 100%
> predictable data.  They do, however, establish a mean (average) by
> which engineers, designers, et al, can make professional decisions.

    Except that in this case, all the research is founded on the notion
that one is trying to make the best use of the engine for its legitimate
purpose.  Such research tells us precisely _nothing_ about what _can_ be
done if one intends to use the engine for an illegitimate purpose.  It is
(at the very least) a gross logical error to take averages and use them as
the basis for a claim that any large deviations from those averages are

> I may make the statement that Earth's gravitational acceleration is
> 9.806 meters/second squared and be called a liar. 9.806 meters/second
> squared is an AVERAGE value that is commonly used in scientific
> calculations. But, in reality, I am a liar due to the fact that the
> effect of Earth's instananeous gravitational acceleration on a body is
> dependent upon that body's distance from the center of the Earth.
> Nonetheless, I'm a liar. This is Mike Stein's tactic.

    Once again, Mr. Swiger makes very loud and derisive claims about what
I wrote, but does not bother to back up his claims with any quotes.  How
_very_ curious.  Well, all I can say to anyone else reading this exchange
is: you'll just have to read what I actually wrote - all of it - and
decide for yourselves if Mr. Swiger is characterizing it honestly or not.
Once again, the URL is

Follow the links to the second part and then to the appendix.  Feel free
to ask me any questions about anything - my mailbox is open.  Make up your
own minds as to the accuracy of what I wrote, and the truth of Mr. 
Swiger's assertions about what I wrote.  That's all I can ask. 

> Ironically, Stein admits the following in his diatribe against Berg as

    More rhetoric.  Mr. Swiger negatively characterizes what I wrote as a
"diatribe," and the word "admit" is frequently found in "revisionist" 
writing to convey the connotation that truth was only dragged out of
someone due to the irrefutable brilliant work of the revisionists.  Lots
of emotionally-loaded rhetoric, but when, oh when, will Mr. Swiger get
down to the technical facts here? 

> relates to the alleged Diesel "gas chambers." "They probably did die
> from asphyxiation, with other contributing factors." Has Berg not
> proven his point then??

    I'm afraid not.  Berg's point was that the use of diesels to kill by
_any_ means (within the time frame described by witnesses) was so
difficult as to allow us to conclude that it must be a myth.  First, I
showed that even high CO was not difficult at all - Berg's own technical
references described the very simple method used, namely misadjusting the
fuel feed.  But Berg also pooh-poohed the idea that asphyxiation could
have been the cause of death.  Read his paper.  Read my paper. 

> Stein then spins off in another direction on
> his "Holocoaster of Hoaxes" by suggesting that the "executioners" did
> not understand that Diesel exhaust was not the primary contributor to
> the death of the victims but the end result was the same so they
> continued with the process................ Yet another crass and
> mundane remark from a Holocaust mythologist!

    "Crass" and "mundane" are more loaded words delivering opinions about
the character of my writing, and "Holocaust mythologist" is a pure
personal attack.  Unfortunately they don't give much help in answering the
question: is what I wrote "true" or "false?"  Why is Mr. Swiger having
such _enormous_ difficulty tackling that issue?  When is Mr. Swiger going
to stop handwaving and actually get down to the nitty-gritty here? 

> The same type who would
> try to convince us that those savvy Germans designed crematoria in
> circa 1940, that operated exponentially more efficient than even the
> most state of the art, yet were so ignorant as to carry out a plan of
> genocide by use of Diesel exhaust which Stein himself admits would
> have been an ignorance in science.

    I addressed this point in my paper.  The Germans were not a hive mind
like the Borg from "Star Trek."  Not every German knew the same as every
other German.  The idea that all of this was the result of a highly
coordinated diabolical "master plan" drawn up by evil genius mad
scientists down to the very last technical detail is a strawman.  The
progress from shooting to gas vans to engine exhaust to Zyklon suggests to
me that the whole process was developed experimentally.  An ignorant
person is quite capable of trying something that is less than optimal but
still works. 

    Mr. Swiger is once again making a psychological argument here, not a
technical one.  And he still fails to quote anything I wrote, or any
documented references, to show where I went wrong.  Why is that, do you
suppose?  Well, once again all I can say is: read for yourself what I
wrote, and see if you think Mr. Swiger is telling the truth about it.  And
once again, that URL is:

Read both parts plus the appendix.  If you haven't got a web browser,
email me and I can send a copy to you in email.


Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.
------- end of forwarded message -------

From!mstein  Mon Jan  6 06:02:41 1997
Received: by (Smail3.1.29.1 #8)
	id m0vhFdM-000MYqC; Mon, 6 Jan 97 06:02 PST
Received: from by ; 6 JAN 97 06:02:08 PDT
Received: (from mstein@localhost)
          by (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA15749; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:03:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:03:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael P. Stein" 
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Message to Ken McMouth (fwd)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.german
In-Reply-To: <5ar0ii$>
References: <>
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Status: RO

Mr. Swiger:

    This is a copy of a public post; if you wish to reply, please do so

------- start of forwarded message -------
From: (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.german
Subject: Re: Message to Ken McMouth
Followup-To: soc.culture.german
Date: 6 Jan 1997 09:00:50 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <5ar0ii$>
References: <>
Xref: alt.revisionism:140670 soc.culture.german:119042

In article <>,
Cliff Swiger ( wrote:

>Cliff Swiger (I) wrote>>By examining the "eyewitness" testimony, and
>analyzing the engineering data with respect to Diesel combustion
>engines, researchers soon debunked the Diesel deaths as dramatic
>droll. With their backs against.......<<

>>>Thank you, Mr. Swiger, for once again offering us this particular
>piece of claptrap. I have not yet seen any research which
>"debunked" the diesel gas chambers, although Friedrich Berg tried
>real hard before turning tail and bravely running away.<<

>I think the fact is you cannot "understand" carburation and ignition
>theory.  This is your problem.  I want to mention here a particular
>portion of Berg's treatise on Diesel engines and then I want you to
>realize just how ignorant you appear to those who understand
>engineering sciences.
>"That Figure 3 and Figure 5 are indeed typical of all Diesel engines
>over the last 50 years is attested to by the fact that these
>particular curves have been referred to and are still being referred
>to in countless journals and books on Diesel emissions to this very

    There's a bit of trickery involved in the above claim.  The _shape_ of
the curve may well be the same.  But for the purposes of this discussion,
the position of the curve along the Y-axis (percentage of various
compounds in the exhaust) is very important.  And we see that the position
of the curve is _not_ the same for all diesel engines: 

       Let's turn to that other reference that has given Mr. Berg a bit 
   of confusion, the paper by Holtz and Elliot in the 1941 Transactions 
   of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 63, Feb. 1941, 
   pp. 97-105.  On page 98, we find exactly the same graph referred to 
   in Berg's note 22.  But on page 99, we find some very interesting 
   numbers - some of the raw data used to generate the graph. 

       Engines A and B in the paper are four-cylinder four-stroke 
   engines. Engine B is rated at a maximum 70 brake horsepower; it has a 
   displacement of 226 cubic inches and maximum RPM of 2600. 

       Remember these crucial words from Berg's paper: "At full load, 
   which corresponds to a fuel/air ratio of 0.055, the oxygen 
   concentration in the exhaust of any Diesel is 4%."  It has already 
   been noted he is on very shaky ground in claiming this was true for
   "any" diesel, when it's clear that this graph was generated from these 
   two _specific_ engines.  But is he right about the rest? 

       Experiment B-12 ran the engine at 1400 RPM at a fuel/air ratio of 
   0.056 (one thousandth more than Berg's 0.55, but one hopes he won't 
   argue that the extra thousandth makes a difference).  Oxygen was 
   3.44%.  The difference between 3.44 and 4 doesn't look like much, but 
   in percentage terms, it's a difference of 14%.

       Is he right about full load?  Well, it depends on what he means 
   by "full load."  If he is talking about maximum rated torque at the 
   given RPM, yes.  But if he's talking about full power output, no.  
   Experiment B-12 was run with a net output of 37.8 HP.

       Is he right about "any diesel?"  Turn to the discusson by H. E. 
   Degler, University of Texas professor of mechanical engineering, on 
   p. 104: 

          "Engine manufacturers and operators have been increasing 
      jacket-water temperatures in recent years, some as high as 212 F at 
      atmospheric pressure, thus taking advantage of the latent-heat 
      cooling effect in addition to the sensible-heat removal.  These 
      higher temperatures will reduce the "chilling effect of direct 
      oxidation reactions," as mentioned by the authors, and assure 
      lower CO, decrease aldehydes, and reduce the free carbon in the
      engine exhaust.

   So it seems there are some other considerations which affect exhaust 
   gas composition.  Without more information on exactly what kind of 
   engine was used, there's no way of knowing if Soviet diesels used 
   those higher water temperatures.  Yet from two engines Berg thinks he 
   knows what's true for "any diesel." 

>Can this penetrate your Zionist clogged cranium?  Now you can crow
>about all the Diesel "gas chambers" you want. Although NONE have ever
>been produced, what Berg did here was placate your nonsense that they
>did and then show you how it would not have made any difference based
>upon Diesel combustion analysis.

    Perhaps Prof. Degler's comment that an increase in jacket water
temperature reduces CO will penetrate Mr. Swiger's Nazi-clogged cranium. 
Remember this is from a 1941 paper which says it was a recent development
in America - but who knows about Russia?  So Berg's assumption about the
_position_ of the curve for "any diesel" is indeed invalid, even if the
_shape_ is the same.

    Or will Mr. Swiger now tell us that Prof. Degler (U. Texas, Mechanical
Engineering) was a Zionist stooge who was ignorant of engineering sciences
and didn't understand carburation and ignition theory as well as Swiger

    The Holtz-Elliot paper, by the way, generated the original graph
copied in the 1950 Elliot-Davis paper Berg used as a source for his own
work.  However, Berg apparently did not see fit to look up the earlier
work, and so did not take Prof. Degler's comments into account when making
his claim about "any diesel."  Sloppy research.

>>>After reading your particular version of Berg's silliness, perhaps
>some here will enjoy reading the response to Berg's paper - which,
>I must point out, uses Berg's own data to demonstrate his errors,
>which were legion. The report may be found at this
>Oh I'll check it out, thanks. If its like all the other "rebuttals"
>one finds at this sideshow, I doubt anyone will be impressed.

    The above rebuttal, of course, contained the excerpt above with
Degler's comment about the recent design change.  Does Mr. Swiger still
wish to assert that the curve _position_ (as opposed to curve shape) is
typical of ALL diesel engines, even ones with the lower jacket water

    I don't pretend to understand carburation and ignition theory the way
Mr. Swiger claims to - or the way Prof. Degler did.  But one thing I _do_
understand: when the data conflicts with the theory, it isn't the data
that needs revising. 

    Followups set to alt.revisionism.
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.
------- end of forwarded message -------

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.