Documents

Green Richard 4

In article [email protected], [email protected]
DvdThomas said:

>Thanks–I had almost forgotten that I am really Erhlich. Gord McFee can
>attest to this.–DT/E6

No, you’re Bradley Smith 🙂 . Can’t you keep anything straight? We need a
program. As Mr. Ehrlich (NOT Ruth Summer and NOT Gordon McFee) reminds
us, “you can’t tell your players without a program.”

Regards,

Rich Green

Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!
nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!news.math.psu.edu!
news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!
news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!
rahul.net!a2i!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!
newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!
not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Return of the Prodigal Poster – Faustian Follies?
Date: 29 Jun 1996 13:23:01 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“Remember the days of yore,
“Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you.”
-Deuteronomy 32:7

From [email protected] Mon Jul 1 09:07:48 PDT 1996
Article: 47330 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!news.his.com!
news.walltech.com!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!
viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!
news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The Program
Date: 29 Jun 1996 13:31:02 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

McFee = McVay
McVay = Finstein
Green != Graves
Ehrlich != Sommer
Ehrlich != Thomas
Thomas = Hunt
Hunt = Agathist
Hunt ?= Smith
Ostrov = McCarthy
Gannon = Maynard
Les’s RH = Sylvie
Widmann = ?
Huber != Huber
Morrison = Morriglu_the_Crook_smoking marijuana in Microsoft Basement
Morrison != Morris
Lewis != McVay
Curtis != Stein
WASPnot = HistoryNOT
WASPnot = Kaus
Kaus = WACKYWATCH
Greenley != Green

—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“Remember the days of yore,
“Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you.”
-Deuteronomy 32:7

From [email protected] Mon Jul 1 11:59:38 PDT 1996
Article: 47391 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!
news.serv.net!news.alt.net!news1.alt.net!news.exodus.net!ddsw1!
news.mcs.net!in-news.erinet.com!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.iag.net!
news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!
news.inc.net!news.us.world.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!
viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!
news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Color of Zyklon: Call Me Zyklon Blue
Date: 25 Jun 1996 21:31:09 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
DvdThomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>M. Giwer wrote:

>an experiment to determine HCN evaporation rates. There are three

>difficulties in doing this, none of them really major:

Mr. Hunt, I’m surprised that you haven’t conducted this “simple”
experiment yet.

>(1) Obtain some pure HCN (or stabilized, with 1% or so additive to
>prevent polymerization explosions).

Not hard.

>(2) Conduct the experiment safely.

Somewhat difficult.

(2a) Conduct the experiment legally.

Extremely difficult.

>(3) Monitor diffusion accurately if done in a known volume chamber.

How big is your chamber? How will you evacuate it.

>As a starting point, I would suggest placing a measured amount of HCN
>liquid in a shallow dish whose area has been measured, doing so in some
>remote location where the fumes will dissipate harmlessly (downwind!).

Not an unreasonable idea, if done legally.

>Then simply stand upwind and measure the time it takes to evaporate,

Stand upwind with a gas mask, or how will you uncover the HCN?

>noting of course the ambient temperature, and perhaps measuring the
>temperature of the HCN with a simple Fluke thermocouple sensor since it
>will tend to cool as evaporation takes place.
>
>The next phase would consist of making ersatz Zyklon with readily
>available diatomaceous earth pellets and repeating the experiment with the
> container placed on top of a digital scale in order to monitor weight
>loss and thereby evaporation. You would put a known amount of HCN in the
>pellets, and it wouldn’t matter whether or not the HCN content was
>maximized since the intent is to measure rate.

It’s important to get the right size pellets.

>It gets harder to do this in a known volume (to include diffusion),
>primarily because of the need to use some moderately expensive
>concentration monitoring instruments and sensors at several locations
>within the chamber. And to construct a chamber, for that matter. Quite
>doable though, and for less than $5,000 according to my calculations.

Well your price is getting more reasonable than last time, but I don’t
believe you can do it that cheaply. Your other experiments might be
doable.

Regards,

Rich Green
—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“Remember the days of yore,
“Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you.”
-Deuteronomy 32:7

From [email protected] Mon Jul 1 11:59:39 PDT 1996
Article: 47392 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.alt.net!
news1.alt.net!news.exodus.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!in-news.erinet.com!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.iag.net!
news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!
news.inc.net!news.us.world.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!viper.inow.com!
newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Color of Zyklon: Call Me Zyklon Blue
Date: 25 Jun 1996 21:20:18 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Van Alstine <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,

[email protected]

>I have personally contacted American Cyanamid in the past and inquired of
>them technical information about Cyclon. As helpful as my contact at
>American Cyanamid was- and he _was_ quite helpful and sincere -he could
>not find any reference to Cyclon in whatever references he had access to.
>Evidently American Cyanimid ceased production of Cyclon some time ago.

Did you ask about cyanosil?

From [email protected] Mon Jul 1 20:42:54 PDT 1996
Article: 47574 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!

hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!news4.agis.net!agis

!ns2.mainstreet.net!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!

newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nizkor/JDL ready for “battle” against evil Christians
Date: 1 Jul 1996 17:25:23 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The JDL is no ally of mine.
>>>>What does this thread have to do with the historicity of the holocaust?
>>>>Oh, I get it: it’s another way to bash Jews. Some Jews are terrorists,
>>>>therefore all Jews are terrorists.
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Rich Green
>>>
>>> The JDL is plugged on Nizkor, accomodated a link, under
>>>”anti-racist resources”. Nizkor is a Holocasut promotional page. The
>>>rest of your raving gets nothing. And I don’t believe you have a
>>>problem with the JDL. Its obvious your ethnocentrically insane. Thats
>>>why you ask what the post had to do with the Holocaust, without
>>>recognizing it yourself, which was obvious.
>>
>>Mr. Moran’s evidnece that I don’t have a problem with the JDL is…
>>Oh I forgot, some Jews are terrorists, therefore all Jews are
>>terrorists. By the way, thanks for confirming that it has nothing to do
>>with the Holocaust and is just another way to bash Jews.
>
> “Confirming it”? What and where would that be?

Mr. Moran writes above:

Its obvious your ethnocentrically insane. Thats why you ask what
the post had to do with the Holocaust, without recognizing it
yourself, which was obvious.

and confirms that the prupose of his post was to bash Jews as I stated.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 2 06:55:30 PDT 1996
Article: 47637 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!

usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!parc!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Deborah Lipstadt: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?
Date: 29 Jun 1996 12:53:05 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(PMccutc103) writes:
>
>>There is a difference between saying “I’m not going to marry/be friends
>>with/like people of a different race/religion/political perspective” and
>>saying “I’m going to put people of a different race/religion/political
>>perspective to death.” I personally believe in being friends with people
>>of different races, religions, and political perspectives because I think
>>that doing so enriches my life. But I believe that I have the _right_,
>>stupid as it might be, to say that I’m not going to marry or be friends
>>with (say) a Jewsih person or a black person. I don’t have the right to
>>kill such a person.
>
>You should _never_ judge an individual. Someone of a different race,
>ethnicity, or religion might be a true companion in some aspect of your
>life odyssey. And you should never allow your love life to be dictated by
>anything other than desire and companionship. There is a divinity that
>shapes our ends, and the beginnings of the future.

I agree with Mr. Ehrlich here, and I disagree with Lipstadt if she
actually said the quote that was attributed to her. Nonetheless, I also
agree with pmccutc103 (I lost the name) that such preferences are not to
be compared with genocide. Likewise, if Lipstadt does indeed hold the
view attributed to her, it is not logically inconsistent for her also to
condemn genocide and believe in equality under the law.

Regards,

From [email protected] Tue Jul 2 06:55:31 PDT 1996
Article: 47639 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!

usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!parc!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nyiszli’s Memoirs of Auschwitz
Date: 29 Jun 1996 12:58:55 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>26. Each crematorium had fifteen ovens, and there were four in all.
>>>Several thousand could be cremated in a single day.
>>>
>>>[This is incorrect]
>>
>>You mean because there were 52 ovens rather than 60 or that several
>>thousand is too high? What do you place the correct numbers at?
>>
>>>DEFINITION OF ZYKLON (Chapter 18, p. 111)
>>>
>>>In a footnote, it is asserted that the name *Cyclone* comes from the
>>>chemical composition of _Cy_anide, _c_h_lo_rine, and _n_itrogen.
>>>According to Dr. Nyiszli, there were two types of Zykon: A and B.
>>><quote>Type A was a disinfectant, Type B was used to exterminate millions.
>>>(translator’s note).
>>>
>>>[This is the source of Hilberg’s now famous footnote]
>>
>>Except that Hilberg lists several types of Zyklon as I posted earlier
>>(B-E). Also, the name derivation seems strange. I haven’t heard of chlorine
>>or nitrogen being in Zyklon; perhaps, the irritant is a compound of
>>chlorine, but it certainly isn’t Cl2. There is nitrogen in cyanide
>>(CN), but the nitrogen seems strange. Is this note from a translator or
>>is it part of the testimony.
>>
> This guy is planning on becoming a professor in the American
>education system. Considering ‘Assertive Action’ he could very well
>join the ranks of those other mal thinkers that are already there.
> He hasn’t “heard of chlorine or nitrogen being in Zyklon B” but
>if there is, the chlorine “certainly isn’t C12” and if there is
>Nitrogen it “seems strange”.

Please, Mr. Moran, do educate us about what form the Chlorine in
Zyklon-B is in and also how much nitrogen (not counting the CN) was in
Zyklon-B.

I’ll ignore your ad hominem attack and hope that you can demonstrate my
“mal” thinking through logical refutation.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 2 10:17:23 PDT 1996
Article: 47678 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!

gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!parc!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nyiszli’s Memoirs of Auschwitz
Date: 29 Jun 1996 13:02:52 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:
>
> Holocaust eyewitness testimonies are like Holocaust photographs,
>they do more to undo the story than to support it.

Mr. Moran is incorrect here. While I have noted some parts of this
testimony that I find inconsistent, one should not expect every witness
to be omniscient. Witnesses make factual errors on details that does
not mean the overall picture is wrong.

Mr. Moran, have you ever witnessed a speech by President Clinton?
What color tie was he wearing?

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 2 17:20:39 PDT 1996
Article: 47795 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!

newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!fnnews.fnal.gov!unixhub!

news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.yugoslavia,alt.current-events.bosnia
Subject: Re: Serbian Atrocity Denial (was: SHOULD NATO BOMB DAYTON, OHIO!?)
Date: 2 Jul 1996 11:50:38 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]on.ca> <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:

47795 soc.culture.yugoslavia:38284 alt.current-events.bosnia:10976

In article <[email protected]>,
Marko Tesla <[email protected]> wrote:

>: What is your opinion about
>: what happened at Srebrenica?

>When?

After it was taken over by Serb Nationalists.

>:Was there a massacre of Bosnian Muslim
>: civilians or not?

>No. There may have been a lynching of the 1992 murderers.

How many of these “murderers” were “lynched.” What is your evidence
that the specific people “lynched” were guilty of murder.

>Were the number killed in the range of 2000-8000 or
>: not?

>NO

How many Bosnian Muslims were killed?

>: >The pre-war population of Srebrenica and area was a bit less than five
>: >thousand.
>
>: Can your provide a source that I can check for this assertion?
>
>Find an atlas printed before the war. My atlas was printed in “SLOVENIA”
>in 1988, and used the Croatian Names for months when describing
>percipitation. therefor its unlikely that it was intended for Serb nationalist
>consumption.

Please provide a full reference to this atlas. The 1991 census for
Srebrenic shows:

Population: 40,769 6.8% Croation, 75.0% Muslim, 13.1% Serbian 5.1%
other. My source is:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~tervio/bihdata.html

>: >In june of 1992 Serbs were removed (through murder or ethnic
>: >cleansing)
>
>: How many Serbs were ethnically cleansed?
>I can not give an absolute numberm, therefor i will not speculate.
>
>How many were murdered?

>I can give you the numbers for the village of Cemernica but i can not
>give exact numbers for the other surrounding subburbs of Srebrenica.

> On the second of June 1992 hostilities against bosnian Serbs began
>through the destruction of Cemerenica. 32 civilians were murdered before
>the village was ignited.
>
>between the second of june and the 21 of june the “defenders of
>srebrenica” went on a burning spree of largely Serb villages
>
>on the 21 of june the remaining five Serb villages (Dvorista, Ducici,
>Polimac, Gornji Ratkovici and Donji Ratkovici) around srebrenica were
>attacked and soon after burned. The Multi National government and Army of
>the internationaly recognized state of Bosnia Hercegovinia allowed no one
>to remain. <hey Dick…did you ever even hear of Polimac aint it kind of
>silly to have a chat about a place that you heard about on the boob tube,
>without even knowing the poulation or the names of the outlying villages
>Glory to a Stanford education and the folks at cnn.>

My name is not Dick and I never watch television. Please refrain from
ad hominem attacks.

>The complete list of Serb Villages (around Srebrenica alone) that were
>cleansed of their Serbian population are as follows.
>Crkvine
>Opaci
>Orahovica
>Bibici Blagor
>Takija
>Podrid
>Postolje
>Crni vrh
>Spat
>Karon (sp?)
>Dvorista
>Ducici
>Polinci
>Gornji Ratkovici
>Donji Ratkovici
>polimac
>
>What is your source for this claim?
>
>Most of it came from a document cosigned by John Kennedy (a member of the
>conservatives in the UK) and presented to the british government in 1993
>all can be confirmed by the ICRC and maybe (if
>enough time passed and they are feeling a little honest) the UNHCR. If
>the destruction of all theese people intrests you, maybe you should look
>into it.

Please give me a source for these documents. Please tell me which ICRC
document confirms this. Please tell me which UNHCR document confirms
this.

>: >sudenly Bosnian Muslims began falling out of pear and plum
>: >trees and this area that had much less than five thousand people now had
>: >about 28,000 8 thousand were murdered and another 19,500 were cleansed.
>
>: How many Bosnian Muslims (including refugees) do you believe were living
>: in Srebrenica just before it fell to the Bosnian Serb Nationalists?
>
>1, Srebrenica was not a tent city like Gorazde or Tuzla
>2, Much of the area could not be inhabited because of war time destruction.
>3, People left for Tuzla before srebrenica became surounded
>4 Anybody who tells you that the town could handle more than 3-4 thousand
>people durring a war must have been mixing some bad LSD at the Stanford chem
>labs

Please provide a source for this information rather than engaging in ad
hominem attacks.

>5 any Serb that wished to reside in Srebrenica must have been a nationalist?
>intresting theory

I have said no such thing. Please address the issues and do not put
words in my mouth.

>: What is your information based on?
>Certanly not something i watched before Jerry Springer came on.

I don’t know what you’re taliking about. I don’t own a television.
Sorry.

>
>: How many Bosnian Muslims are living
>: in Srebrenica now?
>
>to find the result please mulitiply the number of Serbs living in
>Sarajevo by the number of Serbs living in Mostar
>and then square the result by the number of Serbs
>residing in Dalmatia, Kordun, western Salvonia, Lika, Banija and Baranja
>and for good measure Glamoc. Cleansing is not a kindly thing and people
>no longer wish to live with one and other.

So you agree that there are presently very few Muslims living in
Srebrenica. Perhaps, you can explain the presence of mass graves
reported by the Christian Science Monitor. Perhaps you can explain
where the 3000 missing people the ICRC is looking for are residing.

>btw what is your opinion of what
>happend in Pakrac?

We are discussing whether or not there was a massacre of Bosnian Muslims
after the fall of Srebrenica.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 2 18:31:20 PDT 1996
Article: 47812 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!

op.net!en.com!news.his.com!news.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!

nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!

nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!

viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!

not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Program
Date: 1 Jul 1996 23:11:32 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>> McFee = McVay
>> McVay = Finstein
>> Green != Graves
>> Ehrlich != Sommer
>> Ehrlich != Thomas
>> Thomas = Hunt
>> Hunt = Agathist
>> Hunt ?= Smith
>> Ostrov = McCarthy
>> Gannon = Maynard
>> Les’s RH = Sylvie
>> Widmann = ?
>> Huber != Huber
>> Morrison = Morriglu_the_Crook_smoking marijuana in Microsoft Basement
>> Morrison != Morris
>> Lewis != McVay
>> Curtis != Stein
>> WASPnot = HistoryNOT
>> WASPnot = Kaus
>> Kaus = WACKYWATCH
>> Greenley != Green
>>
>I’m devastated! Especially after our old buddy from RAHOWA identified ME
>as a male college student in Boston pretending to be a “chic from Ohio.”

Mea Culpa!

Scwartz != Shein != Cyberknight

From [email protected] Thu Jul 4 11:53:20 PDT 1996
Article: 48252 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!

news.sover.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!

news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!

enews.sgi.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!

a2i!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!

news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Clarification requested
Date: 3 Jul 1996 14:52:21 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>: [email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>: >People die from carelessness with HF check out sci.chem, if you don’t
>: >believe me. HCN is very dangerous; it would be irresponsible of me to
>: >advocate that you handle pure HCN in the manner you suggest.
>
>: At this point it would be irresponsible for anyone to listen to you
>: without independent verification.
>
>Could someone please explain to me in what sense the last sentence above
>is not a “personal attack”? If it is a personal attack, could someone
>please explain to me on what basis Myshkin feels that it’s okay to respond
>to personal attacks on him with hundred-line junk posts, but objects to
>a procmail shell that sends back his email unread? Just curious.

Silence from Ehrlich-Hunt camp noted.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu Jul 4 13:42:38 PDT 1996
Article: 48275 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!

tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!fnnews.fnal.gov!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.yugoslavia,alt.current-events.bosnia
Subject: Re: Atrocity Denial
Date: 4 Jul 1996 12:10:33 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 334
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:

48275 soc.culture.yugoslavia:38296 alt.current-events.bosnia:10979

In article <[email protected]>,
Marko Tesla <[email protected]> wrote:

>: So do I understand you to agree to the reports given by these bus
>: drivers?

>Absolutley. As a matter of fact, I stopped attending church and began the
>Cult of Unbiased Croatian Busdrivers (forced Into commiting attrocities
>and naturaly overcome by their consciences but unable to stop their
>pointing fingers) of Canada.

Mr. Tesla, why is it that you cannot answer yes or no without such
sarcasm? Is it the case that you believe these bus drivers were lying?
Yes or no?

>: >: What is your evidence
>: >: that the specific people “lynched” were guilty of murder.
>: >
>: >I ‘m afraid i did not attend this particular lynching
>
>: Then why did you assert so confidently that only murderers were killed?
>
>Specificaly How MR Green did I assert (confidently or otherwise that only
>murderers were killed). As far as i’m concerned ‘There May have been’ is’nt
>very confident.

Mr. Tesla, I asked you:

“Was there a massacre of Bosnian Muslim civilians or not?”

To which you responded:

“No. There may have been a lynching of the 1992 murderers.”

I understood you to be asserting that innocent civilians were not killed
when Srebrenica fell to the forces of Karadzic, Mladic et al. Are you
no retracting this statement and acknowledging that innocent people were
killed?

>
>: >: How many Bosnian Muslims were killed?
>: >
>: >Civilains or soldiers? Killed or murdered? where and when?
>: >If you were talking about civilians murdered, one is one too many.
>: >If you were talking about the number of soldiers Killed count nt the ones
>: >that were marched into the paths of machineguns and mortars and did not
>: >survive
>
>: I am talking about the massacre of unarmed people at the fall of
>: Srebrenica by followers of Mladic Karadzic and co.

>I see… when did you convict them? Is Rich Green an alias for Judge
>Goldstone and his Vapid Reaction War Crimes Tribunal and Traveling Circus.

I don’t understand your question, Mr. Tesla. Surely, you know that I do
not have the power to convict anyone of murder. Surely, you know that
not even the War Crimes Tribunal is very likely to get the opportunity
to try the accused.

>:You seem to wish to
>: evade the question. Why is that?
>
>The above STATEMENT is not a question. You seem to have difficulty
>wording the question. Why is that ?

Was there a massacre of Bosnian Muslims after the fall of Srebrenica?

>: >Sorry MR Green, I thought we were on friendly terms, you did after all stop
>: >calling me a holocaust denier (or their Kind) and i might have gotten a
>: >little too friendly.

>: We are not friends. I still consider your activity to be the equivalent
>: of Holocaust denial.

>Pal If you want holocaust denial try visiting the Federation Of Bosnia
>Hercegovina.

Mr. Tesla, I am not your pal; I would appreciate it if you addressed me
as Mr. Green.

>I thank you for your consideration (dispassionate or otherwise).
>
>: >: Please give me a source for these documents. Please tell me which ICRC
>: >: document confirms this.
>
>: >I’m afraid I can’t cite the specific document and naturaly lack of
>: >evidence is evidence itself so please feel free to dismiss
>: >all of the deaths as yet another Chetnik Fabrication which is natuarly
>: >part of their evil ploy to take over the whole of the world and two thirds
>: >of mars (despite the fact that Mars is rightfully Bosnian)
>: >
>: > Or
>: >You can contact the ICRC, Request info on The Movement of reffuges in
>: >1992 and find out for all of us. Mr Green I hope you discover that not a
>: >single Serb (moslem or Croat) suffered in Srebrenica and there was no war
>: >for that matter. The pleasure i find in proving a point is nothing
>: >compared to the suffering that occured (on all sides) in Srebrenica. If
>: >it is easier to believe that only bosnian muslims were murdered in this
>: >city go ahead

>: I have said nothing of the sort. Your tactic of putting words in my
>: mouth is intellectually dishonest in my opinion. I have simply asked
>: you to document your assertions that the ICRC agrees with you. I have
>: looked at a lot of material from the ICRC and it is not easy to sort
>: through without specific references.

>Who said finding the truth would be easy. My question to you is are you
>willing to do it? or are you confident enough to disregard the possibilty
>of this Information.

I am quite interested in the truth, and I am quite willing to accept the
ICRC as an objective source. Since you apparently know what the truth
is, you must have seen evidence. If you wish to convince me of the
truth, certainly you ought to be willing to provide your source for it.
I’m afraid Mr. Tesla, that your word is not good enough for me. If
there is any basis to your claim that the ICRC supports your position,
please provide evidence.

>: >Please tell me which UNHCR document confirms this.
>
>: >After getting a tiny bit of insight into the UN, I doubt the possibility of
>: >the Unhcr confirming it, at this point. (in my previous post i did say if
>: >they are feeling a little Honest)
>
>: In other words, you made a claim that the UNHCR agreed with you without
>: having any evidence.
>
>Who is placing words in peoples mouths?…. I made the claim that the
>Unfit Nations High Omission of Reffugees would concour If the powers
>that be were feeling a little honest

In other words, you used the name of the UNHCR in order to make a claim
for which you had no support.

>: >What was the insult?

>: Number 4. How many people do you claim were living in Srebrenica just
>: prior to its fall.

>1,000,000,000,000, and two croatian busdrivers.

Why is it Mr. Tesla that you cannot answer a direct question without
sarcasm? How many people do you claim were living in Srebrenica just
prior to its fall?

>: >No Mr. Green, (can i call you Rich?) You said that the city fell to Serb
>: >nationalists. What is your evidence that the specific people were
>: >nationalists? why did the city “fall” to the serbs? are the serbs that
>: >live in Bosnia occupiers? Is it Your oppinion that Serbs no longer
>: >deserve to live in their homes because i can’t cite a specific document
>: >and because a few of them allegedly comitted terible and unGodly crimes.
>
>: I specify Serb Nationalists specifically because I do not believe that
>: all Serbs are guilty of these crimes.

>Oh only Serbian nationalists, well I’m a nationalist my grandmothers a
>nationalist when will The Great Goldstone `Udba’ indict us?

Your point is well-taken. Not all Serb-Nationalists are guilty of these
crimes. However, those that knew and said nothing bear some of the
blame even if they are not indictable.

>: I think Serb Nationalist is an
>: appropriate term for Karadzic, Mladic, and cohorts.
>
>I agree
>
>: I have never said
>: that Serbs no longer deserve to live in their homes.
>
>You said that the city fell to Serb nationalists when in my oppinion It was
>theirs just as much as it was anbody elses. Durring wars Cities tend to fall
>to Ocupiers (i have no specific document to back me up on this one but
>please try and use your imagination) It is difficult for me to imagine that
>paris could fall to the french (despite French actions towards
>collaborators).

So you admit to your intellectual dishonesty? It will be noted that I
made no claim about who deserves to live in which homes. I merely
referred to the fact that Srebrenica was under BiH control and fell to
the control of “the Republic Sprska,” or do you wish to deny that?

>If a Monkey could realize that a city can’t fall to the people who live
>in it, and in this case who founded it ( i have no proof that a monkey
>could) than you can see how your statements implied that Srebrenica was
>not Serbian.

I made no reference to the ethnic makeup of Srebrenica. Putting words
in my mouth was intellectually dishonest. I believe that _all_ the
residents of Srebrenica and surroundings ought to be able to return home.
>:Why is it that you
>: need to construct such straw men?

>Why is it that you construct such straw Serbian nationalists?

Do you deny the existence of Serbian Nationalists now? Yes or no?
Please spare me your sarcasm.

>: Could it be that you don’t want to
>: address the specific issue that started this thread: whether or not
>: there was a massacre of Bosnian Muslims by Serb Nationalists when the
>: city of Srebrenica fell?
>
>If my memory serves me correctly (yea i like reading Gogol) the specific
>issue that started this thread was wether or not the Us should Bomb
>Dayton because GM strikers did not want to negotiate in good faith. It
>seems to me that this issue shifted.

In my reply to that post I asked the poster what had happened in
Srebrenica? Your reply to me was specifically addressed to Srebrenica.

>This Is My oppinion on the Subject of Srebrenica
>
>1, Srebrenica fell on hard times, but did not fall to one of ‘Bosnia’s’
>nationalities
>
>2, There was a massive Casualty Rate Umongst Combatants (Heard Silidzic
> reffer to this shortly before the LIBERATION)
>
>3, It has been alleged that there was a massacre of Muslim Civilians
>
>4, It has not been Proven In any court (fair or otherwise) that Karadzic
> and or Mladic were connected to this alleged Massacre and anyone who
> is democraticaly minded can not claim that they are untill a fair
> trial proves their guilt

Anyone who believes in the first amendment will permit me to claim
whatever I like. Karadzic and Mladic have been indicted by the Tribunal.
As you know they will probably never be tried. If they are tried,
they can count on receiving a much fairer trial than those who you
claim were “lynched.”

>5, It is unlikely that Either Mladic of Karadzic will recieve a fair trial
> untill the second comming.

On that much we agree.

>6, Western agencies claim that Mass graves containing the remains of
> up to eight thousand murdered Civilians have been found. some how the
> bodies have not been produced despite ample Time, Intrest and resources

CS Monitor reported finding the remains of bodies. The US State
Department claimed that there were mass graves.

>7, If there was a massacre, It may have been the work of BIh agents
> who had a fondness of crying Serbian wolf or Yugo Comunists who have a
> History of killing civilians

If you are making such a claim, please provide evidence.

>8, Karadzic and Mladic are niether yugo comunists or Bih agents
>
>9, Dead Muslim soldiers may have been burried enmass

>Mr Green, It is my opinion that many people base there opinions on
>disinformation they gathered from the Television. It is also my opinion
>that the opinions of these people often coincide with your opinions on
>events in Srebrenica.

Mr. Tesla, your opinion and $1.20 will get you a cup of coffee. I am
not interested in your opinion. I am interested in whether you have any
evidence that I should not believe the US State Department, the CS
Monitor, The UN Tribunal, AP and Reuters. If you can provide some
reason why I should take your word above theirs, I am all ears. So far,
all that you have done is to engage in unsupported assertions, ad
hominem attacks, intellectual dishonesty, and unbridled sarcasm. I’m
sure that man as well-informed as you claim to be can do better.

>: >: So you agree that there are presently very few Muslims living in
>: >: Srebrenica. Perhaps, you can explain the presence of mass graves
>: >: reported by the Christian Science Monitor.
>
>: >Yea that was remarkable Journalism. Where are the bones of eight thousand
>: >people mr Green. last winter we heard they may pop up with the spring
>: >thaw, maybe the croatian bus drivers carted them off.
>
>: Is it your claim that the mass graves reported by the CS Monitor do not
>: exist? Why should I take your word over theirs?
>
>I asked you where the bones of eight thousand people are. why are you
>avoiding this question? i did not ask you to take my word over the Anti
>Christ monomania delusion of events in Srebrenica

I freely admit that I have never seen such graves and that I am relying
entirely on the word of reputable news organizations, US Government
agencies, and international organizations.

Why must you make fun of the names of any organization that disagrees
with you? If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were merely engaging
in argumentum ad hominem because you have no evidence of misconduct by
these organizations.

>and at this point I would not expect a holocaust denier to do so.

Mr. Tesla, are you calling me a Holocaust denier? It’s strange that you
would do so when you cannot quote me as denying a single atrocity.

>: Why should I take your word over the ICRC’s?

>Because I have gotten by on my good looks and charm 🙂 I did’nt ask you to
>take my word over anybodies. you asked if i could produce the wearabouts
>of 3,000 missing people and I attempted to explain that the Icrc may have
>been disinformed.

Mr. Tesla, do you have any evidence that the ICRC was disinformed?

>: On the contrary the world talked quite a bit about the Krajina,

>Yes, after breaking news of Jerry Garcia’s death a bit of attention is
>all the people of krajina warrented.

The fact that people are more interested in OJ Simpson than they are
about BH or Rwanda proves absolutely nothing about any anti-Serb media
bias that you may be insinuating.

>:was there a massacre of Bosnian Muslims
>: by the Serb Nationalists during the fall of Srebrenica or not?
>
>No

If you want anyone to believe you, you will have to do better, Mr. Tesla.

Sincerely,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu Jul 4 19:54:53 PDT 1996
Article: 48338 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!

news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!news.sprintlink.net!

news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-6.sprintlink.net!nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed1.aimnet.com!

newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!

not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No surprise
Date: 4 Jul 1996 10:23:48 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>, Henry Ayre <[email protected]> wrote:
>Michael P. Stein wrote:
><snip>
>> And blank lines have appeared many times in my posts.
>>
>
>
>Indeed, the most profound statements emanating from Michael are to be
>found in the blank lines. Ignore the lines with typing in them, they are
>hopelessly garbled. H. Ayre.

Perhaps, Mr. Ayre is prepared to do what Matt Giwer cannot and prove
that combustion of corpses is not exothermic. I expect he’ll have
trouble because he would be proving something that’s untrue, but let’s
give him a chance, shall we?

Regards,

From [email protected] Fri Jul 5 06:39:12 PDT 1996
Article: 48395 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!agate!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-stock.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed1.aimnet.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Well designed mass gassing chambers
Date: 4 Jul 1996 10:19:17 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Richard James Green <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]s.aol.com>,

>Then you are naive about the motivations of many of your compatriots.
>
>Mr. Ehrlich,
>
>Do you think that Greg Raven cares about the truth?
>Do you think that the Hubers care about the truth?
>Do you think Matt Giwer or Tom Moran care about the truth?
>Do you care about it?
>Why are you here?
>
>Regards,
>
>Rich Green

Silence noted. Why is Mr. Ehrlich afraid to answer these questions?

Regards,

From [email protected] Fri Jul 5 06:39:13 PDT 1996
Article: 48396 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!tezcat.com!

news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed1.aimnet.com!

newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: I think Germans have an evil gene.
Date: 4 Jul 1996 12:28:29 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Mary Kravits <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You started two world wars and still you claim to be human. Your people
>are barbaric and should be caged like the animals you are. Because of
>your evil you should be made to serve man as slaves for a thousand
>years,Jews should get first crack.
>

So Nazis can pretend to be Jews. No one is fooled.

From [email protected] Fri Jul 5 06:39:14 PDT 1996
Article: 48429 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!

newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!

nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed1.aimnet.com!newshub.internex.net!

newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Program
Date: 4 Jul 1996 17:46:31 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Laura Finsten <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>(Richard J. Green) said:
>
>Is this deliberate, or another misspelling of my name? I’m seriously
>thinking about converting to avoid the errors.
>

Sorry, the Illuminati took bag my ZDR, you know.

Regards,

From [email protected] Wed Jul 10 06:53:16 PDT 1996
Article: 49373 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!

noc.van.hookup.net!news.jumppoint.com!n2van.istar!van.istar!

west.istar!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!newspump.sol.net!

newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!

not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nyiszli’s Memoirs of Auschwitz
Date: 9 Jul 1996 23:12:14 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Van Alstine <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>Hilberg seems to concur:
>
> TESTA sold Zyklon in different concentrations. Invoices
> presented to municipal or industrial clients for fumigations
> of buildings were printed with headings C, D, E, and F, each
> denoting a category of potency and price. As explained in a
> letter to the Ostland, strength E was required for the
> eradication of specially resistant vermin, such as cockroaches,
> or for gassings in wooden barracks. The “normal” preparation
> D was used to exterminate lice, mice, or rats in large,
> well-built structures containing furniture. Human organisms
> in gas chambers were killed using Zyklon B.
>
>[Hilberg, (1985), p.888]
>
>—————————————————————————
>
>BTW, my edition (copyright 1967) of _Destruction_ does not seem to have
>this…. Was this taken from a later (1985?) edition of _Destruction_ or
>from another of Hilberg’s works?

Yes, it’s from the 1985 version p. 889. Also, it is not a footnote; it
is in the main text. It has the following footnote to it:

84. Ho”ss, _Kommandant, p. 159. The same preparation was used for the
delousing of clothes. _Ibid._ Most documents relating to the shipment
of the gas [sic] to camps simply state Zyklon. See, however, 1944
correspondance with B designation in documents NI-9909 and NI-9913.

Regards,

From [email protected] Wed Jul 10 12:39:51 PDT 1996
Article: 49464 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mauving right along
Date: 9 Jul 1996 10:14:33 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!news-e2a.gnn.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news1.tacoma.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:

>One of the reasons I posted the information so fast when I found it was
>because there had been so many messages over the past several weeks on
>this seemingly minor issue. But when I pointed out that a witness said
>*mauve* I was promptly asked, what difference does it make?
>
>There is a commitment to *blue* on this board, just as there is a
>commitment to *ERCO cubes*, but I haven’t the slightest idea why. I have
>already suggested that *blue* would be an obvious color choice for someone
>who had never seen the stuff or for someone who was easily suggestible
>(because of *Blausauere*).

Mr. Ehrlich, ERCO was one of three supports used for zyklon. What color
is ERCO in Mr. Ehrlich’s opinion?

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Sat Jul 13 11:00:58 PDT 1996
Article: 49958 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!zeppelin.eos.home.net!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust revisionism (was :Re: German hegemony )
Date: 12 Jul 1996 12:48:26 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Jamie McCarthy <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
>> [email protected] (Alec Grynspan) wrote:
>>
>> > Hint: Hydrogen has a lower molecular weight. It rises.
>>
>> Hint: You are out of your depth but your fellow holohuggers will not
>> tell you that.
>
>Hydrogen, when mixed with the atmosphere as it usually is, does not
>rise. If gases followed that rule, then the lower atmosphere would be
>composed mostly of oxygen (molecular weight 32) and the upper atmosphere
>mostly of nitrogen (28).

Mr. McCarthy is correct to point out Mr. Grynspan’s error here. It’s
worth pointing our that hydrogen and helium can be confusing examples.
They mix as other gases do, but as they can reach escape velocity; they
are constantly being depleted from the upper atmosphere and since
diffusion and eddy diffusivity will replenish them, both tend to
disappear from the atmosphere. As noted, the moleculr weight of HCN is
irrelevent to whether it rises (unless it’s in a balloon).

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Mon Jul 15 07:12:56 PDT 1996
Article: 50384 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust revisionism (was :Re: German hegemony )
Date: 13 Jul 1996 10:23:12 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>, Alec Grynspan <[email protected]> wrote:
><*[*] [*] [[email protected]] [All] [ALT.REVISIONISM] +>

>Here’s the second clue. Chlorine doesn’t rise.
…

>The molecular weight and whether it rises or falls is significant –
>just not as obvious as all that.

Rising and falling will be governed by the temperature of the air parcel
in the absence of mixing. The molecular mass is truly not relevent.
The ratio of Krypton to Neon in the atmosphere has been measured to be
constant to as high as ER2’s can fly.

Molecular mass has an effect on diffusion, BUT diffusion is negligible
compared to the eddy diffusivity and turbulence is mass independent to
a first approximation.

The reason HCN is not a hazard to neighboring areas is that it is
quickly dilluted.

Regards,

From [email protected] Mon Jul 15 19:32:06 PDT 1996
Article: 50490 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.jumppoint.com!n2van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust revisionism (was :Re: German hegemony )
Date: 15 Jul 1996 11:26:31 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>, Alec Grynspan <[email protected]> wrote:
><*[*] [*] [[email protected]] [All] [ALT.REVISIONISM] +>
><+[Holocaust revisionism (was :Re: German hegemony )] [Sat 13 Jul 96
>13:23][Sun 14 Jul 96 05:44][0]*>
>
> rSE> Molecular mass has an effect on diffusion, BUT diffusion is
> rSE> negligible compared to the eddy diffusivity and turbulence is
> rSE> mass independent to a first approximation.
>
>It’s the action of the gas *PRIOR TO MIXING* that is of concern
>here.

Prior to mixing, it’s still a liquid. Once it evaporates it’s mixed.
See below.

>During WWI chlorine was an effective poison gas because its high
>molecular weight caused it to fall near the ground and form a film.
>It could only be used on windless days because even a small wind
>would disperse it in the way you mentioned.

Harry Mazal posted an excerpt from a book that claimed just this,
however, I think the reasoning fails unless the chlorine is expanded
>from a high pressure so that it cools. See below.

>The disaster at Bhopal was similar. A very high molecular weight
>kept it near the ground. Diffusion and dispersion caused a
>still-toxic miasma above the film of gas. It was high enough in
>weight that it would hold together for a while even if there was a
>slight breeze.
>
>When you go near an oil refinery or large storage area (or even a
>not-so-large one), you will smell the “oil” smell. Those are
>fractions with a molecular weight higher than air. The lighter
>fractions drift up and are dispersed rapidly.

These are aerosols: quite a different story.

>Du Pont’s best car paints, literally shipped by pipe from the Ajax
>Du Pont plant to the adjacent Oshawa GM plant in one case, would put
>11 gallons of solvents into the air for every gallon that ended up
>on the car. The venting consisted of large blowers blasting it into
>the atmosphere and effectively mixing it before the settling effect
>could occur. Oxidation and UV destroyed the stuff quickly.

Again aerosols.

>The same holds true for HCN. It doesn’t fall – it has a tendency to
>rise.
>
>IOW – even if simply released at ground level and not mechanically
>dispersed, it would (while still unmixed) rise. This would enhance
>the rate of mixing. Goodbye HCN danger!
>
>Combined with the fact that it was blasted into the atmosphere by
>the blowers, HCN would be heavily diluted by the time it got
>anywhere else. It’s dangerous in enclosed areas, not open ones.
>
>That same “rise” tendency explains some of the statements made by
>thw witnesses. The stuff is sprinkled in, hits the ground and
>evaporates out of its carrier. It then rises inside the closed
>container of the chamber and kills as it builds up from the ground.

Your reasoning simply isn’t very good here.

First of all consider that the parcel of air containing HCN is not
likely to be more than a few parts per thousand by volume of HCN.
The density of the air parcel is largely governed by the density of
air.

Suppose that this parcel with HCN did rise. As it rose it would expand due
to the lower pressure. As it expands, it cools approximately adiabatically.
As it cools it becomes denser. At that point one needs to know the
lapse rate at the locale in question to know at what altitude the parcel
would stop.

Turbulent diffusion is really very fast, even over such a small area.
Consider the fact that NOx and CO from car exhaust don’t kill you when
you’re standing outside near a tail pipe. In the exhaust itself the
concentrations are enough to kill you.

From [email protected] Tue Jul 16 02:18:52 PDT 1996
Article: 50591 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!bertha.pyramid.com!olivea!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.PBI.net!news4.agis.net!agis!ns2.mainstreet.net!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: TEST 4 [2/2]
Date: 15 Jul 1996 11:10:06 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Jeffrey
><[email protected]> writes:
>
>>
>>”In early March 1943, a group totalling 500 men of the strongest
>>prisoners
>>of war were selected in the prisoner of war camp no. 126 in Smolensk in
>>order, it was stated, to send them to construction work. Not one of
>>these
>>prisoners of war ever returned to the camp.”
>>
>>
>
>This is a transcript of the phony Soviet report from the Soviet Special
>Commission that *proved* that the Germans killed the Polish Officers at
>Katyn. It is similar in content to the USSR Special Commissions that
>proved the goings on at Majdanek and Auschwitz. All three reports, as
>well as others, were given judicial notice by the IMT.

Is it Mr. Ehrlich’s position that there was no gassing at A-B? At
Majdanek? Which parts of the Soviet reports from these locations does
Mr. Ehrlich regard as false and why?

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 16 02:18:53 PDT 1996
Article: 50605 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german,alt.revisionism,talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: Holocaust revisionism
Date: 15 Jul 1996 11:31:37 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.german:79781 alt.revisionism:50605 talk.politics.european-union:4919

In article <[email protected]>,
Stefan Schneider <[email protected]> wrote:

>I admit to have missed calculating the HCN masses corresponding to the ppm
>by volume values given by Mr. Kreiberg/Lueftl. Of course, your calculation
>is right. But as it is the only correct part of Mr. Kreibergs posting and
>nobody – considering Murphie’s law – can be supposed to do _all_ wrong
>I’d say it was a minor fault on my side. Besides, it’s another
>contradiction in Mr. Lueftl’s paper, which I’d strongly recommend for
>first year chemistry students to show them the most idiotic faults that
>can happen to a chemist.

That’s a great idea; although I worry that some students who haven’t
come into contact with these idiots might find it offensive to use the
tragedy of so many deaths as a chemistry problem.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 16 03:09:28 PDT 1996
Article: 50620 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.jumppoint.com!n2van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another word on Dachau
Date: 15 Jul 1996 11:07:23 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

Silence from Mr. Ehrlich: why is that?

In article <[email protected]>,
Richard J. Green <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>(Richard J. Green) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>>>(Richard J. Green) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No one in this newsgroup to my knowledge has claimed that gassings
>>”such
>>>>>as those at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps” occurred at Dachau.
>>>>>What has been asserted is that experimental gassings _may_ have taken
>>>>>place at Dachau.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Rich Green
>>>>
>>>>I will go along with that assertion. But why *may*? In other words, why
>>>>bring up Dachau at all? My thinking is because there were assertions in
>>>>1945 or thereabouts that gassings took place but that these assertions
>>>>have been dropped. It seems no one wants to state clearly that there
>>were
>>>>any propaganda lies told about Germany in WW2. I find it hard to
>>believe
>>>>that there were _none_.
>>>
>>>The reason, Mr. Ehrlich, is that we are interested in the truth here. No
>>>one has stated that there were no propaganda lies about Germany. It’s
>>>just that the existence and possible use of a gas chamber at Dachau
>>>wasn’t one of them. The RIF soap story probably was one (although I’m
>>>not clear whether it was propaganda or just rumor). Why is Mr. Ehrlich
>>>so eager to show propaganda lies? Couldn’t it be the case the previous
>>>assertions were merely in error?
>
>>Using the atrocity propaganda from WW1 as a known control, I would expect
>>that some of the atrocities alleged against Germans in WW2 would also be
>>false.
>
>Quote one person from this group who has said otherwise, please.
>
>>The problem is that — as I have noted before — there is an
>>unwillingness to grant this point in any explicit fashion on any point.
>
>I have not seen evidence of deliberate false atrocity stories.
>Undoubtedly, they exist. On each point, however, one must look at where
>the evidence leads.
>
>
>>Similarly, as with the soap story — which you brought up — there seems
>>an unwillingness to admit the rather obvious problems with Mazur’s
>>testimony (and he was the sole *eyewitness*.)
>
>As you know there are two soap stories. No one on this group has
>claimed that there is truth to the RIF story. What exactly are the
>obvious problems with Mazur’s testimony?
>
>>>As far as bringing up Dachau, it was _your “side”_, i.e. the
>>>distortionists, who brought it up, Mr. Ehrlich. Either you or Matt
>>>Giwer claimed that there was no gas chamber at Dachau. It would be
>>>dishonest not to correct that claim when there is evidence for such a
>>>chamber and some claims that it _may_ have been used. This is not about
>>>propaganda value, Mr. Ehrlich, this is about truth and those who
>>>willfully distort it.
>
>>Actually, I think it was Richard Widmann who brought the matter up with
>>appropriate quotes from Martin Broszat and Simon Wiesenthal. I don’t
>>think it is willful distortion to point out that there is not unanimity on
>>this topic. Indeed, I would also like to know what specific evidence you
>>consider so decisive for _your_ position versus that taken by Broszat and
>>Wiesenthal.
>
>And what do you claim is my position?
>
>>And while we are on the subject, I would like someone to tell me more
>>about the Dachau gas chamber. Was it designed as a CO or Zyklon chamber?
>>If the latter, perhaps the construction far enough along for useful
>>comparisons to the A-B chambers. Or perhaps was it designed in some other
>>way for some other gases.
>
>I don’t know what it was designed for. I understand that it was to be
>used for experimentation with combat gases at one point. Perhaps, Mr.
>Van Alstine or Dr. Keren can help here.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rich Green
>
>–
>—————————————————————————-
>Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
>[email protected] Stanford University
>http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
> “Remember the days of yore,
> “Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you.”
> -Deuteronomy 32:7

From [email protected] Tue Jul 16 08:46:49 PDT 1996
Article: 50660 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.jumppoint.com!n2van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Suing is for sissies
Date: 15 Jul 1996 22:40:59 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

It’s good to see Mr. Moran object to Mr. Giwer’s empty threats.

Regards,

From [email protected] Wed Jul 17 10:59:48 PDT 1996
Article: 51005 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!news.his.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: TEST 4 [2/2]
Date: 16 Jul 1996 20:29:13 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Richard J. Green) writes:
>
>>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Jeffrey
>>><[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>”In early March 1943, a group totalling 500 men of the strongest
>>>>prisoners
>>>>of war were selected in the prisoner of war camp no. 126 in Smolensk in
>>>>order, it was stated, to send them to construction work. Not one of
>>>>these
>>>>prisoners of war ever returned to the camp.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is a transcript of the phony Soviet report from the Soviet Special
>>>Commission that *proved* that the Germans killed the Polish Officers at
>>>Katyn. It is similar in content to the USSR Special Commissions that
>>>proved the goings on at Majdanek and Auschwitz. All three reports, as
>>>well as others, were given judicial notice by the IMT.
>>
>>Is it Mr. Ehrlich’s position that there was no gassing at A-B? At
>>Majdanek? Which parts of the Soviet reports from these locations does
>>Mr. Ehrlich regard as false and why?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Rich Green
>
>I have already stated innumerable times that I accept that lethal gassings
>occurred. So much for that. Which parts of the Soviet reports from
>Majdanek and Auschwitz does Mr. Green regard as true and why? Btw, you
>are aware that two of the signatories to the phony Katyn Forest report
>also signed the Auschwitz report, and a third signatory to the Auschwitz
>report was the renowned *scientist* Trofim Lysenko. I am sure that Mr.
>Green’s scientific training has led him through the ideas of that
>well-known charlatan at one point or another, if only for entertainment.
>
>

Mr. Ehrlich dodges the question. I asked him whether lethal gassings
occurred at A-B and Majdanek and he responds that lethal gassings
occurred. Did they occur at Majdanek? At A-B?
—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“Remember the days of yore,
“Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you.”
-Deuteronomy 32:7

From [email protected] Wed Jul 17 19:34:44 PDT 1996
Article: 51096 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nyiszli’s Memoirs of Auschwitz
Date: 16 Jul 1996 13:16:07 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Miloslav Bilik <[email protected]> wrote:

>Despite the maintenance of O2 the subject has often a grayish
>complexion, an **is cyanosed** (if someone read pink colourness, see
>an eye doctor). The result is a death in 10 to 15 minutes without
>rapid cure.

Hmm. The DuPont MSDS that I justy posted says that sometimes the
patient is cyanotic and sometimes the patient has a healthy looking
pinkish color. Does your source only give cyanosis?

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Jul 19 19:11:16 PDT 1996
Article: 51506 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another word on Dachau
Date: 19 Jul 1996 11:41:47 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

[posted; e-mailed to jamie McCarthy in hopes that he can start an
archive of lies by Mr. Ehrlich]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Richard J. Green) writes:
>
>>
>>>After war, the Soviets made the charge at Nuremberg. They claimed that
>>>Dr. Spanner of the Danzig Institute was making soap at the Institute,
>that
>>>he carved his recipe, which he got from some people in the countryside,
>>>onto a wooden plaque and had it posted on the wall of the basement.
>>>Nobody else at the Institute knew anything about it. About 25 kilos of
>>>this soap was prepared, which Dr. Spanner supposedly used for his
>laundry
>>>and also to wash himself. In addition, there were vats of human skin
>that
>>>were being tanned for handbags and such. The source for all this was
>the
>>>affidavit of Mazur. I would love to have all of Mazur’s
>>>affidavit/testimony posted.
>>
>>Yes, please do post this testimony. I would like to see why you claim
>>there are obvious problems with Mazur’s testimony.
>>
>
>I just did. You are telling me that you believe what I just posted. That
>settles that! As for the testimony, I don’t have it, perhaps you could
>ask Nizkor to post it. It should have come towards the end of February,
>1946. Naturally, Nuremberg historians do not reference this particular
>affidavit/testimony very often(!), so I can’t be more specific than that.

Mr. Ehrlich, you are not being quite straightforward here. Please quote
where I said that I believed anything that you posted. You did not post
any comments on Mazur’s testimony itself. You have claimed that there
are obvious problems with it, but have not referenced it. You have made
a claim without any evidence to support it.

>Not only do you believe everything I just posted, you also believe that
>there is nothing surprising about the fact that Dr. Spanner was unmolested
>for the rest of his life, not even being subjected to
>institutionalization. OK.

Mr. Ehrlich: you are a liar. Not surprising with the company you keep.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Jul 19 19:11:16 PDT 1996
Article: 51507 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 19 Jul 1996 11:49:21 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mr.Green constantly harps on “control” samples taken from
>barracks that never were fumigated. Okay. No CN compounds found. The
>samples were taken from inside, which are protected from the rain,
>which is a solution of many compounds, more so than pure water, and
>the footings and rubble of any “cremas” would have been exposed. A
>real control on the tests would have been to take samples from local
>ground and measure that against any levels from the remains of any
>”cremas”. Mr.Green has never, in all the times he has mustered the
>”control” samples from the barracks, related how they would be
>relevant to any conclusion.

Mr. Moran has developed a hypothesis that rain is the source of cyanides
found _inside_ the ruins of the gas chambers. Yet, he cannot explain
why cyanides were not found anywhere other than where they are known to
have been used. He cannot explain why the rain would contain cyanides
as he has not identified a source. He has not told us what the
concentration of cyanides in the rain at A-B is. In other words, he is
making a hypothesis based on nothing.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Jul 19 21:37:26 PDT 1996
Article: 51526 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!tezcat.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-chi-8.sprintlink.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 19 Jul 1996 12:01:41 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Why were there no measureable traces in other buildings?
>>
>>Mr. Ehrlich, you claim that lethal gassings occurred. Where do you
>>claim they occurred if not in the chambers that indicated by responsible
>>historians?
>
>Rich, I will answer you here, and answer Mark also, who is much more
>*argumentative* elsewhere. I believe that over a half dozen locations
>have been spotted for gassings at AB.

Please name those half dozen locations. Please specify which ones you
think weren’t used.

>Unlike most revisionists, I don’t find a gassing thesis impossible.
>Moreover, I have reservations based on my lack of knowledge about the nuts
>and bolts of extermination procedures to pronounce all witness testimonies
>invalid. Furthermore, the concept of _some_ gassing fits into my thesis
>of extermination for those who are economically not useful, or *useless
>mouths* or whatever euphemism you want to use for murder. Moreover, such
>a concept fits into what I know about the conduct of other totalitarian
>regimes.

Your theory is not interesting. What’s interesting is the historical
evidence. If you have evidence to disprove the generally accepted view
of historians, that is interesting.

>However, the real question in my mind is a thesis of immediate
>extermination within the camp system versus shootings in the field. I
>have severe reservations about the first part. Reasons: (a) appears to
>contradict other witness testimony, (b) traces of cyanide compounds at
>Kremas are, to my unscientifically trained eye, too low — specifically,
>topping out at 7.9 mg per kg. OTOH, the traces at the delousing
>facilities are hundreds if not thousands of times higher.

They had better be. That is evidence that the chambers were *NOT*
delousing chambers. Also, you seem to be trusting the numbers of
Leuchter and Rudolf.

>(c) *dumbing
>down* the traces at the delousing chambers by excluding Prussian Blue
>means not only excluding any *blue paint* (never proved) but also any
>visible traces of cyanide compounds. As a non-chemist, I am not convinced
>by this approach.

The point of excluding Prussian blue is that no one seems to understand
how it formed. Of course, if one included Prussian blue, the levels
would be higher. The point is that neither you nor your ally, Mr.
Moran, has an alternate hypothesis that adequately explains the presence
of HCN only in the places where zyklon is known to have been used.

>(d) the mass graves at the several locations,
>triangulated with the mass graves from the Hamburg firestorm, and the
>Katyn Forest, where the numbers are known, does not correlate with the
>area of the mass graves at the Aktion Reinhardt sites and the claimed mass
>murders that occurred therein, (e) it has been generally conceded that
>numerical totals are going to be the weakest element of witness testimony,
>(f) the Wannsee minutes specifically address the labor aspect of the Final
>Solution, (g) numerous subsequent documents point to labor requirements as
>well as the demand to bring the death rates down for labor purposes.
>
>For these reasons I have doubted, and continue to doubt, the scale of
>exterminations by gas that the standard approach maintains. I cannot
>prove this. Then, if things proceed according to form, I will be accused
>of saying *BISS*, the implication being that if I can’t prove my
>reservations then I am compelled to accept your thesis. But If I cannot
>dispute the standard version comprehensively, I can still register my
>doubts. And that is what I do.

You can’t point to any problems with the mainstream view of what
happened, but you doubt anyway. In another thread you have shown that
you are willing to argue dishonestly. In other words, you are a denier
like all the rest.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Sat Jul 20 09:15:40 PDT 1996
Article: 51578 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 19 Jul 1996 11:45:25 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mr.Green, why don’t you post the names of some of your school
>mates in the chemistry dept. and we can ask them for a second opinion?

Mr. Moran,

Why don’t you address the issues I raised or admit that you are babbling
about a topic that you do not understand.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Sun Jul 21 19:06:40 PDT 1996
Article: 51938 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.csu.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nyiszli’s Memoirs of Auschwitz
Date: 21 Jul 1996 09:53:18 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:

>The foregoing therefore must remain unchanged. Nyiszli is wrong about the
>suffocating cough.

You don’t know that. You don’t for instance know that a lachrymogen
wasn’t used in this specific case.

>Nyiszli is wrong about the blue coloration.

You certainly don’t know this to be the case. Cyanosis is often a
symptom of HCN poisoning according to DuPont nd usually a symptom
according to Dr. Bilik’s source.

>Nyszli claims the carrier material was mauve. OTOH, the conventionalists have
>staked their hate-fighting reputations on the blueness of Zyklon,

That’s a blatant misrepresentation.

>so mauve must be blue.

That’t a misrepresentation.

>Matt has fairly well exploded the cobalt theory on this
>elsewhere, i.e., blue to pink, stop for cup of coffee at mauve.

How has Mr. Giwer exploded this hypothesis? I don’t read his posts as
they never contain rational argument. Prove me wrong by providing a
rational argument that a cobalt compound could not have made the silica
gel appear mauve.

>Nyiszli is wrong when he says the material falls in a clump on the floor.
>He is wrong about the dimensions of the undressing cellar. He is wrong
>about the dimensions of the gas chamber. He is wrong about the number of
>elevators (actually, dumbwaiters). He is wrong about the pushcarts (any
>Russian reader should note the cognates here carefully) that go into the
>ovens. He is wrong about the number of ovens.

You seem to be correct about these errors.

>He doesn’t say a word
>about the induction columns.
>
>He states the bodies were in severe distress and messy. He is directly
>contradicted by Hoess.

Did Hoess witness the same gassings?

>But we know that.

You’re picking up the habits of your intellectual idol.

Regards,

From [email protected] Sun Jul 21 19:06:41 PDT 1996
Article: 51939 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mauving right along
Date: 21 Jul 1996 10:04:58 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Richard J. Green) writes:
>
>>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I do not see how this follows. The kieselguhr or ERCO or whatever
>>>probably acquires the HCN when that gas is in a liquid state (I don’t
>know
>>>the method, but I am rather sure of this). Then it is sealed in a tin.
>>>The pellets will therefore be wet with condensed HCN. When the tin is
>>>opened, they will immediately begin to dry out and gas out. Is this not
>>>right?
>>
>>To answer this question satisfactorily may require some more research.
>>My assumption was that the change in color of the indicator would have
>>been due to hydrogen bonding of the water. If that’s the case, HCN
>>would not turn the indicator pink. It’s possible and perhaps even
>>likely that the indicator works by coordination chemistry of a
>>transition metal. When ligands are replaced by water the color changes
>>(due to a shift in the HOMO-LUMO gap). HCN or CN could indeed act as a
>>ligand to some transition metal. It’s not clear to me what the effect
>>on color would be (it depends on what happens to the HOMO-LUMO gap).
>>This issue may be worth pursuing.
>
>I can follow you here, and I assume the transition metal functions in a
>manner similar to the cobalt derivative Matt cited elsewhere.

Yes.

>>
>>>Second, how are the pellets accumulating moisture exactly?
>>
>>Silica gel is hygroscopic; HCN and water are miscible. Even with the
>>best precautions, it is often difficult to keep moisture out of such
>>materials.
>
>I can still follow you. Except is the absorption _bound_ to take place?

In a humid environment, yes.

>Obviously, in the case that we are examining we can expect a great deal of
>humidity, and thus moisture available to be absorbed. The problem, as I
>see it, is that too much humidity would condense the HCN?

What do you mean condense HCN? HCN is a liquid. It may cause violent
polymerization which would be the reason for wanting an indicator in the
first place. What I have in mind is that they would have tried to keep
moisture out, but that such efforts would not always be 100% effective.

…

>>>Third, it has already been established that there were no added agents.
>
>>
>>Who established that? What is your source for this information?
>>
>>> So why is this relevant at all?
>>
>>If you can prove that no indicator was present, it’s not relevant.
>
>I think we are talking about two different things. I have in mind the
>apparent formic acid agent that was added as a warning stuff (the
>*lachrymogen*). It has been generally conceded that most ZB that ended up
>in the KZ system lacked this ingredient. You are thinking of something in
>the substance to register moisture, either of HCN or H2O. I think. So
>there may be no disagreement on this one, because I don’t know.

I agree that the lachrymogen was removed for (some, most, all?) of the
zyklon-B used for murder. As you say, the presence or absence of an
indicator has not been established (atleast on this newsgroup as far as
I am aware).

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Mon Jul 22 09:01:29 PDT 1996
Article: 52058 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 21 Jul 1996 09:56:42 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (tom
>moran) writes:
>
>>>How would Mr. Moran recommend proving that? They were detecting
>>>cyanides in solution, Mr. Moran!
>>>
>>>The reactions:
>>>
>>>2H2O => OH- + H3O+
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>HCN.H2O => CN- + H3O+
>>>
>>>will control the relation between HCN and CN- in solution no matter
>>>which you start with n’est-ce pas?
>>
>> No relevance given. Mr.Green’s practice of introducing some
>>chemical equations to give his stuff a sense of authority.
>>>
>
>Wait until Mr. Green demonstrates that potassium, nickel, and iron can
>make a very dangerous weapon — especially for OJ.

Perhaps Mr. Ehrlich would like to explain to us how it is possible to
differentiate between HCN and CN- ions in aqueous solution without
taking into account these reactions?

Regards,

From [email protected] Mon Jul 22 13:04:12 PDT 1996
Article: 52225 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!mr.net!sgigate.sgi.com!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Is the Holocaust Unique?
Date: 21 Jul 1996 18:48:49 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

Hello all,

A plug for a new book:

_Is the Holocaust Unique?: Perspectives on Comparative Genocide_
edited by Alan S. Rosenbaum, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, (1996).

The book has chapter on various historical events such as the Armenian
Genocide, the slave trade, the genocide of Native Americans etc. The
writers of the chapters have diverse viewpoints.

My mother wrote the chapter entitled, “Stalinist Terror and the Question
of Genocide: the Great Famine.”

Regards,

From [email protected] Tue Jul 23 07:05:04 PDT 1996
Article: 52396 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 22 Jul 1996 15:04:08 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]U> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (tom
>>>moran) writes:
>>>
>>>>>How would Mr. Moran recommend proving that? They were detecting
>>>>>cyanides in solution, Mr. Moran!
>>>>>
>>>>>The reactions:
>>>>>
>>>>>2H2O => OH- + H3O+
>>>>>
>>>>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>HCN.H2O => CN- + H3O+
>>>>>
>>>>>will control the relation between HCN and CN- in solution no matter
>>>>>which you start with n’est-ce pas?
>>>>
>>>> No relevance given. Mr.Green’s practice of introducing some
>>>>chemical equations to give his stuff a sense of authority.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Wait until Mr. Green demonstrates that potassium, nickel, and iron can
>>>make a very dangerous weapon — especially for OJ.
>>
>>Perhaps Mr. Ehrlich would like to explain to us how it is possible to
>>differentiate between HCN and CN- ions in aqueous solution without
>>taking into account these reactions?
>
> The only book I could find in the library that dealt with cyanide
>exclusively, was one by a Connell, spelling uncertain, which focued on
>explaining various methods that could be used to detect certain kinds
>of cyanide compounds. It was basically written in respect to mining
>operations, which use cyanide to leach metals from crushed ore.
>
> There are a number of ways of detecting the types and
>concentrations of cyanide compounds.
>
> Whatever Mr.Green is proposing here, whether it be correct or
>incorrect, is irrelevant. Mr.green’s practice is to put these ‘Hah
>hah, what about this’ type of thing up for consideration and yet fails
>to show a relevance that was and has been solicited in this very
>thread.

Green stands pat. Moran made a statement about the relation between HCN
and cyanide ions. He didn’t understand that in solution the two are
intimately connected. Moran was babbling about something he didn’t
understand.

Regards,

Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 23 07:05:05 PDT 1996
Article: 52425 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!BellSouth!newshost.cyberramp.net!news4.agis.net!agis!ns2.mainstreet.net!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Is the Holocaust Unique?
Date: 22 Jul 1996 11:57:26 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]d.EDU>
References: <> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:

>One thing I would like to say about this book is that I’m
>disappointed in the tone of several of the scholars. It is quite
>apparent that several of them actually detest one another, and it
>comes through in their essays. I would not invite Steven T. Katz
>and David E. Stannard to the same party; Stannard also did not
>have kind things to say about Yehuda Bauer.

Indeed, it is quite clear that some of the contributors are not very
fond of one another.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 23 13:15:20 PDT 1996
Article: 52530 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust revisionism (was :Re: German hegemony )
Date: 22 Jul 1996 12:52:13 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 206
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>, Alec Grynspan <[email protected]> wrote:
>Richard J. Green wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are confusing effusion with a graviational effect. The mean-free
>> path in air is about 100 nm.
>
>…
>>
>> How much does this velocity change due to the influence of gravity
>> before the molecule travels 100 nm and gets slammed into by another
>> molecule going at Crms?
>>
>
>Under the conditions that I’m talking about, effusion is not yet of
>consequence.
>
>The outgassing of HCN creates an almost pure cloud of the gas around the
>carrier. The molecules of HCN will meet only other such molecules except
>at the boundary.

The outgassing will create a concentration profile related to a complementary
error function (see below for an approximate treatment. Turbulent diffusion
will be the dominant effect.

>The pressure of outgassing would force some of the gas to move up the
>pipe as a unit. If the volume of the pipe were within the right range,
>this would cause it to become filled with essentially pure HCN, which
>would rise. As the gas left the top of the open pipe it would mix
>rapidly with the air and diffuse.

Whether or not the HCN (which would not be nearly pure!) would depend
on the density of the gas in question. This density will be dictated by
the temperature of the gas. As the HCN rose, it would expand and cool.
It’s density will be mostly a function of temperature.

>The range of pipe size where the molecular weight would contribute to
>this effect is narrow. A larger pipe would actually entrain air and only
>natural convection and outgassing pressure would be significant. A
>smaller pipe would have the outgassing pressure as the major cause of
>the rise, in which case even ether would climb the pipe as a unit – to
>fall as soon as it leaves the pipe end.
>
>BTW – the chlorine used in WW1 could travel for a few hundred yards. Its
>temperature at the release point was inconsequential.

pV=nRT; you cannot convince me for a second that temperature is not
important. the Cl2 was presumably pressurized and cooled as it
expanded. Chlorine is so much heavier than air that a parcel containing
mostly chlorine will be certainly be denser; it won’t take very long,
however, for turbulence to dilute it enough that temperature will be
more important. In the case of HCN, mass is inconsequential almost
immediately.

The mean free path in air is about 100 nm.

The root mean square speed of a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is
(3kT/m)^1/2, where m= molecular mass in kg. ;so

m = M/(1000*6.022*10^23).

c=(3000RT/M)^1/2 = (7,483,000/M)^1/2

So the rms speed of N2 is: 512 m/s
HCN is: 526 m/s
O2 is: 483 m/s

In order to show a significant gravitational effect due to mass, you
need to show that these velocities are significantly affected by gravity
before a the molecule in question gets slammed into by another.
You have all the information you need.

———-

As for the concetration profile, I repost an earlier post:

Here is somewhat of a solution to the diffusion question assuming
that diffusion is rate-limiting compared to evaporation.

I find 1829 ppm at 0 degrees C, 5 meters, and fifteen minutes.

For pure HCN this assumption would be valid; I don’t know enough
about Zyklon-B (Jamie McCarthy pointed out to me that if Zyklon-B
doesn’t give off gas fast enough, one could simply add more; this
argument is clearly valid). Because turbulent diffusion is what counts and
because it does not depend on the molecule to first order,
I think it is safe to say that zyklon-B could have been used
to do what it was used to do even if there are some errors
in my calculation. I welcome any corrections.

One can neglect the effects of molecular diffusion compared to turbulent
diffusion (see below). In fact if it were only for molecular diffusion, one
could light a fire in a room and never smell it. It is turbulent diffusion
that counts. Turbulence is not a closed problem. However, if one uses
something called K theory which assumes an average turbulence the math
between turbulent diffusion and molecular diffusion is identical.

The problem is that it’s hard to know what to use for K. One can
use K=(sigma^2)x/2u where sigma is a characteristic length that one
estimates depending on the Pasquil stability class of the
atmosphere. I have assumed a stable atmosphere of class E which
should give an underestimate. u is the mean velocity of the
turbulent flow. As far as I know there is no way to know what
that would be without measuring it in situ. I use u=.1 m/s. x is the
distance. Note that K does not to first-order depend on the nature of the
molecule. That means that there is nothing special about the gas being HCN
to figure times.

In Turbulent Diffusion one uses K, the eddy diffusivity instead of D,
the diffusion coefficient.

Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion:

dP/dt=D*Laplacian(P)

P is the partial pressure of HCN
D is the diffusion coefficient

In one dimension assuming one (therefore an underestimate)
wall gives boundary conditions:

P=VP at x=0 for t>0
P=0 at x>0 for t=0

By the method of Laplace Transforms:

P=VP*erfc(x/(2sqrt(Dt)))

Where erfc is the complementary error function (erfc(x)=1-erf(x)).
In the case of Turbulent diffusion replace D with K. K is
independent of the molecule and estimated based on the Pasquil
stability class of the atmosphere. People argue about how to calculate
it; my calculation is below.

Richard Schultz gives us:

VP=258.1 Torr = 0.339 atm.
Mixing Ratio in ppm is defined as (volume of pollutant*10^6/volume air)
So VP= 339,000 ppm. (Richard Schultz calculated 14,000 ppm, but
I suspect he is using the liquid phase definition which is mass
ratio.)

D= 1.73 * 10^(-5)
I take x=5 m.

The result is that the contribution from molecular diffusion is
P=339000*erfc(20) which is essentially zero
(less than one molecule). If it were molecular
diffusion that counted you could not kill lice even in several
hours.

Now let’s calculate the contribution from turbulent diffusion.
First let’s calculate sigma using the Pasquill-Gifford formula
for a class E atmosphere (see Seinfeld). sigma=0.105(x)^.894=0.443

So K=(.443^2)(.1)/(2x)=0.0018
P=339000*erfc(5/2.54)=339000(.0053)=1829 ppm

I am certainly capable of making math mistakes and I welcome others to
build on this calculation. There is no good way of estimating K really,
and even K. It does not, however depend on the molecule to first order.
That means that it should disperse at the rate of perfume for instance.

I believe that if evaporation is fast enough that diffusion is.
If evaporation is not fast enough, one could add more zyklon-B or
increase its surface are.

Rich

_________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

Abromowitz and Stegun, “Handbook of Mathematical Functions”
New York: Dover 1972

Atkins,”Physical Chemistry”
New York: W.H. Freeman 1986

Crank, “The Mathematics of Diffusion”
Oxford: Clarendon 1964

Csanady “Turbulent Diffusion in the Environment”
Boston: D. Reidel

Gradshteyn and Ryzhik, “Table of Integrals, Series, and Products”
San Diego: Academic (Harcourt B &J) 1994

McQuarrie, “Statistical Mechanics”
New York: Harper & Row 1976

Seinfeld, “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution”
New York: Wiley and Sons 1986

From [email protected] Tue Jul 23 18:21:09 PDT 1996
Article: 52586 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 23 Jul 1996 10:14:03 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>Moran from previous post.
>
>>> Whatever Mr.Green is proposing here, whether it be correct or
>>>incorrect, is irrelevant. Mr.green’s practice is to put these ‘Hah
>>>hah, what about this’ type of thing up for consideration and yet fails
>>>to show a relevance that was and has been solicited in this very
>>>thread.
>
>Mr.Green:
>
>>Green stands pat. Moran made a statement about the relation between HCN
>>and cyanide ions. He didn’t understand that in solution the two are
>>intimately connected. Moran was babbling about something he didn’t
>>understand.
>
>Moran:
>
> Still no relevance to the study. No relevance to show that any
>cyanide compounds found at Auschwitz today originated from HCN. No
>relevance to the “local binding” the report mentions, which itself
>doesn’t make any connection to anything to show the extremely minute
>amount of cyanide compounds originated from HCN.
>
> “Intimately connected” Mr.Green says? Now what?
>
> The only thing conclusive from the report is that they found
>cyanide compounds in subterrainian situations, in Prussian blue stains
>and that higher traces seemed to concentrate in highly localized
>conditions, to which the report did not offer any theory or reason.

The reason why cyanides were found in the homicidal gas chambers is
obvious. The relevence of the equations that I posted, which has been
understood by now by all thinking people, is that Mr. Moran’s insistence
that they detect HCN and nnot cyanide ions makes no sense. If you put
HCN in aqueous solution, you get cyanide ions. If you put cyanide ions,
in aqueous solution, you get HCN. How much of each is determined mostly
by the pH of the solution.

Mr. Moran’s inabability to grasp this simple point is evidence that he
ought not to babble about chemistry since he doesn’t understand it.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 23 18:21:10 PDT 1996
Article: 52616 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mauving right along
Date: 23 Jul 1996 10:18:30 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Richard J. Green ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>: It’s possible and perhaps even
>: likely that the indicator works by coordination chemistry of a
>: transition metal. When ligands are replaced by water the color changes
>: (due to a shift in the HOMO-LUMO gap). HCN or CN could indeed act as a
>: ligand to some transition metal. It’s not clear to me what the effect
>: on color would be (it depends on what happens to the HOMO-LUMO gap).
>: This issue may be worth pursuing.
>
>CN- is a much “stronger field” ligand than water, and increases the
>band gap significantly. The lowest energy electronic transition
>of [Co(H2O)6]3+, for example, is at 606 nm, while the same transition
>in [Co(CN)6]3- is actually in the UV. (BTW, the band gap as a function
>of ligand is fairly independent of the central ion, and the order of
>the ligands is known as the “spectrochemical series.”) What the actual
>color change (if any) on exposing CoCl2 (or CoCl2.6H2O) to CN would
>be, I don’t know off the top of my head, though.

What do you think about HCN acting as a ligand (e.g. [Co(HCN)6]3+)?
In the absence of water, I would be surprised if the HCN dissociated.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 23 20:24:07 PDT 1996
Article: 52586 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 23 Jul 1996 10:14:03 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

Mr. Moran’s inabability to grasp this simple point is evidence that he
ought not to babble about chemistry since he doesn’t understand it.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 23 20:24:08 PDT 1996
Article: 52616 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mauving right along
Date: 23 Jul 1996 10:18:30 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

What do you think about HCN acting as a ligand (e.g. [Co(HCN)6]3+)?
In the absence of water, I would be surprised if the HCN dissociated.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Tue Jul 23 21:56:09 PDT 1996
Article: 52670 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!tezcat.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-chi-8.sprintlink.net!fozzie.mercury.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.bright.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust revisionism (was :Re: German hegemony )
Date: 23 Jul 1996 10:35:37 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>, Alec Grynspan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Not within that pipe. In fact you’ve verified that it would have a
>very narrow range of size by presenting the concentration profile
>cross-section equation. Smaller than a certain size – the pressure
>of the gas pushes any air out. Larger – there’s entrainment.
>
>I remember that it was important to determine that size for various
>reasons, mostly to prevent the back-pressure that would result if
>the pipe was too small and the entrainment if too large.
>
>It’s not my line of work, so you have a definite advantage over me.
>I was exposed to it from an engineering standpoint and that
>second-hand.
>
>Note that the *ONLY* condition that allows HCN to remain undispersed
>is that special pipe.

See section 14.5, “Plume Rise,” in _the Atmospheric Chemistry and
Physics of Air Pollution_, J.H. Seinfeld, Wiley and Sons, New York
(1986).

>Come to think of it, the chilling effect from evaporation would be
>enough to make it *DENSER* than air!

True.

>I apologize for missing this. The conditions that I was thinking of
>applied to compounds which were warmer than the air!
>
>HCN’s lower molecular weight may have been a red herring after all
>(ducking and bowing and hoping that my abject surrender doesn’t get
>too many brays of laughter).

No laughter from me. The issues are not as simple as they seem at first
sight.

> rSE> not important. the Cl2 was presumably pressurized and cooled as
> rSE> it expanded. Chlorine is so much heavier than air that a parcel
> rSE> containing mostly chlorine will be certainly be denser; it won’t
> rSE> take very long, however, for turbulence to dilute it enough that
>
>In this I feel that you’ve forgotten a key factor (mainly because I
>forgot to mention it). The gas fell into TRENCHES and was only used
>when there was no wind. There was virtually no turbulence. Wheteher
>the temperature was lower or not when it left the tank, it was not
>much different 100 yards away. Even as it diluted, it would tend to
>stay in those trenches for quite a distance. Any turbulence would
>simply have made the entire trench a death trap, because it would
>remain toxic even if the mixing filled the trench volume.

I agree that chlorine gas is an effective chemical weapon. What I’m
disagreeing with is why it’s effective. Even low turbulence will cause
quite rapid mixing and it will be the density of the cloud that
matters.

>I don’t know too much about it other than it had a range enough to
>make it a vicious terror weapon.

No arguments from me on that one.

>Of course (using a Giwerism), you aren’t a (choose any combo)
>lawyer, historian, nuclear engineer, doctor of medicine or galactic
>overseer, so your calculations are useless!

You forgot that I’m an “alleged” chemist and harasser who uses
deception. Since Giwer doesn’t have a ZOG decoder ring, he doesn’t
understand what I’m _really_ saying.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Wed Jul 24 07:10:16 PDT 1996
Article: 52745 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust revisionism (was :Re: German hegemony )
Date: 23 Jul 1996 10:20:55 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Michael P. Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> And remember we have even been informed that the tearing agent was
>>removed. Of course those who said it failed to note the date was years
>>earlier.
>
> Wrong AGAIN, Matt. The indicator was removed in 1944. The Kremas
^^^^^^^^^
>commenced operation in 1943. Tell us again about “years earlier?”

Don’t you mean that the lachrymogen was removed?

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Wed Jul 24 14:52:03 PDT 1996
Article: 52900 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!daily-planet.execpc.com!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!uwm.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A Silence You Almost Can Hear
Date: 23 Jul 1996 22:17:35 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

>> [email protected] (Rich Graves) writes:
>
>> >
>> > Further you have not been asked to do anything that would have
>> >taken more than 15 minutes. Compare that to the effort expended by
>> >Richard Green when the Zundel site had a minor problem.
>>
>> The name’s Graves, seee http://www.stanford.edu/~ajg/project.html.
>> Actually, as I recall, Rich Green’s initial reaction was rather strong in
>> the other direction, so there is *something* to what Mr. Coons is saying.
>> But not much. Nizkor (at the time, Hilary) actually took less time to
>> respond to my guest book entry about my plans to mirror the ZSite than
>> Ingrid took to respond to my direct email asking if I could do so.

My problem was not with Zundel’s right to express himself using his own
financial resources, however, I was guilty of misunderstanding Rich
Graves’ interest in putting the material up.

Regards,

From [email protected] Wed Jul 24 21:55:58 PDT 1996
Article: 52947 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!news.cais.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mauving right along
Date: 24 Jul 1996 16:13:33 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Richard James Green) writes:
>
>>
>>[posted and e-mailed to Ehrlich606 so that he doesn’t miss it.]
>>
>>There is nothing necessarily inconsistent about reports that Zykon-B is
>>blue and that it is mauve. In my lab we use silica gel with an
>>indicator as a dessicant. When the silica gel is completely dry, it is
>>blue. When it becomes wet, it is pink. When the dessicant just starts
>>to go bad, it has a purplish color; one might even say mauve.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Rich Green
>
>Gad, this is an old message. But as I indicated, I thought it was an
>intelligent obvservation, and I repeat that. I don’t agree with the
>implication, nevertheless it is an intelligent observation.

Which implication do you disagree with? All that I have claimed is that
there is nothing necessarily inconsistent about the color claims noted
above. Are you arguing that they are necessarily inconsistent?
—
———————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“Remember the days of yore,
“Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you.”
-Deuteronomy 32:7

From [email protected] Fri Jul 26 05:08:51 PDT 1996
Article: 53302 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 25 Jul 1996 13:52:05 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:
>>
>>This is entirely plausible. As Deborah Lipstadt writes, <quote>After
>>fumigation, gas would be trapped in all sorts of nooks and crannies.
>>Consequently mattresses, pillows, upholstered furniture, and similar items
>>had to be shaken or beaten for at least an hour in the open air.<end
>>quote> *Denying the Holocaust*, p. 224
>
> This would show why it would be necessary for a product like
>Zyklon B to be designed for graduated, extended release from the
>pellets. HCN being lighter than air, and purposely used for that
>reason, would tend to stay in the air until it was ‘captured’ by some
>material or taken on by the targeted pest. If it was released all at
>once, it would tend to have less chances of reaching any nooks or
>crannies, having adhered to surfaces and substances before it had the
>chance.
> I believe there is a post out here right now that mentions
>something about a hot air introduction system for Zyklon B into
>fumigation chambers. If this is true, then we can assume that the
>product would have the properties of slow release and the evaporation
>was assisted with hot air for faster release when using a confined
>area like a fumigation chamber. Hot air would also increase the
>kinetic activity of the molecules in the air that would make
>penetration into materials more thorough.

More “revisionist science.” Perhaps, Mr. Moran could explain the
relevence of the molecular mass of HCN to whether air with a few parts
per thousand of HCN rises or falls. Mr. Moran does Nitrogen rise
abobove oxygen? N2 is mass 28, O2 is mass 32 and HCN is mass 27.
Think about it, or open a book for a change.

Regards,

Rich Green

—
———————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“Remember the days of yore,
“Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you.”
-Deuteronomy 32:7

From [email protected] Sun Jul 28 07:11:14 PDT 1996
Article: 53835 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 27 Jul 1996 16:26:04 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>Moran responding to a flurry of chemical equations Mr.Green posted:
>
> “Again for Mr.Green with his little imputs but no relevance
>stated. For the fourth time in this thread I will ask Mr.Green for the
>relevance. Mr.Green, do you have a continuation to show what relevance
>there is to the topic of cyanide traces at Auschwitz today and its
>evaporation rate with your above?”
>
>Mr.Green’s response to the request for him to show the relevance:
>
> “Mr. Moran made an argument that makes no sense whatsoever and I
>pointed it out. If the topic is irrelevent, that’s the fault of Mr.
>Moran for making an empty and irrelevent argument. I was merely
>pointing out the emptiness.”
>
>Regards,
>Rich Green
>
> The most Moran can make out of Mr.Green’s statement here is, he
>is saying he posted something “that makes no sense whatsoever”, that
>it was “empty and irrelevant”, in order to show Moran’s “emptiness”.

Mr. Moran snipped the context. It is clear to any thinking person thart
my comments were appropriate to the claim made by Mr. Moran. That Mr.
Moan’s claims are both empty of truth and irrelevent to the historicity
of the holocaust is irrelevent does not hise the fact that he was
babbling about things he does not understand.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Sun Jul 28 07:11:14 PDT 1996
Article: 53886 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hitler Praises Jews
Date: 27 Jul 1996 21:29:45 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
><quote>The same Hitler who had issued ruthless orders for the execution of
>the Soviet commissars was by no means as hostile as Goebbels desired
>toward western Europe’s more cultivated Jews. He heard Hitler speak
>warmly of both the composer Gustav Mahler and the producer Max Reinhardt
>(Max Goldmann), and concede that in their performances the Jews were often
>*not bad.*<end quote> p. 369
>
>Source: Irving, David, *Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich* Focal
>Point: 1996;
>US Distributor: IHR, PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 Fx: 714 631 0981
>(copied from back flyleaf)
>
>COMMENT: definitely hard to believe, keyed to a Goebbel’s Diary entry of
>12/22/1940.
>Max Reinhardt was _very_ important in the German theater: he co-founded
>the Salzburg Festival.

22 December 1940 (Sunday)

…

We discuss issues affecting the theatre. The Fu”hrer is very
interested. He explains such phenomena as Mahler or Max Reinhardt,
whose abilities and achievements he does not deny. The Jew can
often be quite successful when it comes to mimicry.

_The Goebbel’s Diaries 1939-1941_, translated by Fred Taylor, p. 214,
Putnam and Sons, New York (1983).

My Comment: Irving seems to interpret this comment as more complimentary
than would be expected. Perhaps, Irving is a fan of mimicry.

Regards,

Rich Green
—
———————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“Remember the days of yore,
“Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you.”
-Deuteronomy 32:7

From [email protected] Sun Jul 28 07:17:29 PDT 1996
Article: 53835 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Post your forensic studies here
Date: 27 Jul 1996 16:26:04 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Sun Jul 28 07:17:30 PDT 1996
Article: 53886 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hitler Praises Jews
Date: 27 Jul 1996 21:29:45 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

22 December 1940 (Sunday)

…

_The Goebbel’s Diaries 1939-1941_, translated by Fred Taylor, p. 214,
Putnam and Sons, New York (1983).

My Comment: Irving seems to interpret this comment as more complimentary
than would be expected. Perhaps, Irving is a fan of mimicry.

Regards,

From [email protected] Mon Jul 29 14:08:00 PDT 1996
Article: 54209 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mauving right along
Date: 29 Jul 1996 10:29:05 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> All right. But since the argument now goes that there are gas masks as
>>> well as induction tubes (actually, I gather prisms that contain the
>>> pellets, lowered by wire into the tube), and that the prisms are
>>>removed,
>>> we don’t have an problem here anymore.
>>
>>The was never a _real_ problem in the first place!
>
>Of course there was. There was a major problem until Pressac wrote his
>book. And of course, there have evidently been problems since, as Pressac
>has revised the book several times, and it is still not possible to obtain
>the book mainstream. Or perhaps you want to claim it is at Waldenbooks.

Most good libraries have Pressac’s book. I know that Stanford has it.
The only problem prior to Pressac’s book is that no one thought it worth
their time to probe in depth the half-truths of the deniers since any
reasonable person could see them for half-truths.

>The “problem” was, as
>>is typical, with the deniers. It was a problem of distortion, deceit, and
>>turning a blind eye to the evidence. In other words, the usual denier
>>antics.
>
>As with all conventionalist ripostes, it is a problem of distortion, rabid
>appeals to emotion, and cliche ad hominems.

Please point out didstortions on the part of “conventionalists.” So far
you have failed to do that. I can only conclude that you are engaging
in argumentum ad hominem.

…

>According to Pressac, who is making this up as he goes along. What is the
>proof that they are mistaken?

Is Ehrlich accusing Pressac of fabrication? I assume he has good
evidence for this claim.

Regards,

From [email protected] Mon Jul 29 21:05:40 PDT 1996
Article: 54233 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mauving right along
Date: 29 Jul 1996 10:12:07 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:

>The other reason why this becomes an issue is because of the relatively
>low (top out at 7.9 mg/kg) of cyanide compounds in Krema II, especially
>when compared to the delousing chambers. The argument here is also that
>the induction and extraction of gas was done promptly, the gas was
>ventilated quickly, and therefore the cyanide compounds are low. I don’t
>find that impossible in theory.

These numbers are not reliable, and you ought to know why by now.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Wed Jul 31 13:59:42 PDT 1996
Article: 54614 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]tanford.EDU (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: That Lipstadt quote on Nizkor’s home page…
Date: 30 Jul 1996 19:12:50 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Jamie McCarthy <[email protected]> wrote:

>Lipstadt may be implying that, since the public is unarmed against these
>lies, the lies should be kept from the public. I don’t know. I can’t
>presume to speak for Lipstadt.

To my knowlege Lipstadt has never argued for censorship in the 1st
amendment sense. She has pointed out, correctly, that college
newspapers are under no obligation to print advertisements they know to
be untrue.

Regards,

Rich Green

The Aktion Reinhard Death Camps

Auschwitz Birkenau

Bergen-Belsen

Buchenwald

Chelmno

Dachau

Maidanek (Majdanek)

Mauthausen

Nordhausen

Belzec

Treblinka

Mittelbau Dora

Gusen

Westerbork

Matthias Giwer

John Hron

Ken McVay

Steve Thomas

Fairview Technologies

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood: Islamic Extremists and the…

The Heritage Front

The Anti-Defamation League

Green Richard 4

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials