In article [email protected],
Ehrlich606 wrote:
>>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.
>
>Read the tone of MVA’s address throughout, as well as his comments towards
>me.
You labeled all “conventionalists” with distortions. That is an ad
hominem.
>>Is Ehrlich accusing Pressac of fabrication? I assume he has good
>>evidence for this claim.
>
>Until I see _proof_ for the paragraph where Pressac argues for the fan
>kicking in after 5 minutes, other than his orotund description of fan
>motors in the roof of the Krema, I will be forced to conclude that he is
>making it up. I note that you snipped it out.
Yes, I snipped it for brevity, anyone can go find the original post.
It’s fair to ask what Pressac’s source is. It’s not fair to accuse him
of fabrication if you can’t demonstrate it.
Regards,
Rich Green
From [email protected] Sat Aug 3 07:04:30 PDT 1996
Article: 54967 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.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: 30 Jul 1996 18:59:24 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[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 Aug 5 07:05:23 PDT 1996
Article: 55396 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!
pull-feed.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: Mauving right along
Date: 4 Aug 1996 14:16:15 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 wrote:
>>Mr. Ehrlich clearly accused Pressac of fabrication.
>>
>>Mr. Van Alstine clearly showed that Pressac was not guilty of
>>fabrication.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Rich Green
>
>I said *According to Pressac who is making this up as he goes along* which
>means that he is claiming facts about the time the fans were turned on
>that are not facts. There is no factual justification for saying that
>this happened. There is only Pressac’s opinion. In this sense, *making
>it up* refers to the argument, not to whatever
>documentary/physical/factual elements constitute it. It is therefore not
>fabrication in the normal sense of the word, and you know that.
Actually, I seem to be having some difficulty with reading comprehension
in the above paragraph. It sounded like Mr. Ehrlich was saying that
Pressac was “making it up.” Now it sounds as if he is saying that
Pressac made a reasoned inference based upon evidence. He seems to want
to make a distinction between fabrication and “making
it up as he [Pressac] goes along.” It seems to me that this is an
exercise in a mental activity that is unlikely to conceive progeny.
If Mr. Ehrlich’s claim is now that Pressac made an inference based upon
“documentary/physical/factual elements,” I would say that “making it up as he
goes along” is a rather immoderate characterization.
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] Wed Aug 7 13:28:18 PDT 1996
Article: 55658 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
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: Hitler praiser Reinhardt and Mahler?
Date: 6 Aug 1996 10:42:46 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 wrote:
>BTW, I just checked the 1995 Langenscheidt’s dictionary because I wanted
>to know a few words. As I did, I checked *ausrotten* on the fly. The
>entry for *ausrotten* lists the _following_ definitions: Pull up (as in
>plants), wipe out, and stamp out, as figurative expressions. Then the
>noun, *Ausrottung*, gives stamping out as its primary definition, and
>finally genocide as a figurative definition. *Extermination* was nowhere
>to be seen.
Mr. Ehrlich has fallen a long way when all he has left is a second-rate
explanation of “Ausrottung.” Perhaps, he ought to look at some of the
excellent work done on this word, some by native German speakers, on
this very newsgroup.
Why do deniers always repeat the same arguments like a broken record?
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] Fri Aug 16 07:52:21 PDT 1996
Article: 57671 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!
news.dra.com!news.starnet.net!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!
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: The Saugervermoegens [sic!] of Zyklon Carriers
Date: 15 Aug 1996 10:39:53 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
In article <[email protected]>,
Nele Abels wrote:
…
>acid as prior warning which has a higher [? Dampftension]
Could the word be surface tension?
>[Ehrlich writes:]
…
>>2) Silicagel forms a paste with prussic acid. How could it have been used?
>
>If Mr. Ehrlich had translated the text correctly, he would have found out
>that exactly because of this quality it is dismissed as a suitable material.
>It has not been used, as the text precisely says, at least not in its
>conventional form.
Actually, Mr. Ehrlich may have a point here. It may be that other
sources have made an error here. If Peters is correct, ERCO is not
silica gel _in its conventional form_. That means that it is either
silica gel in a different form or not silica gel.
>>3) Erco is defined as a gypsum product. That correspondends to the color
>>picture of Zyklon at Nizkor, by the way. But Rudolf says that gypsum has
>>a slower release time than straigh *diagreiss*. Someone else will have to
>>figure it out.
>
>Mildly interesting, but this remark has nothing to do with this text. The
>author only gives Erco, Diagriess and the wood-fibre material as possible
>carrier materials without comparing them amongst each other. By no means
>does the text collide with Rudolf’s statement.
Actually, this may be an interesting lead.
I’ve been away for awhile due to some recent discoveries not of this
world.
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 Aug 19 16:06:28 PDT 1996
Article: 58210 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!
in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!mr.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!
news.PBI.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 Saugervermoegens [sic!] of Zyklon Carriers
Date: 18 Aug 1996 11:59:49 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
In article <[email protected]>,
Nele Abels wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>>>acid as prior warning which has a higher [? Dampftension]
>
>>Could the word be surface tension?
>
>No, that would be “Oberflaechenspannung”.
Thanks.
>>>>2) Silicagel forms a paste with prussic acid. How could it have been used?
>
>>>If Mr. Ehrlich had translated the text correctly, he would have found out
>>>that exactly because of this quality it is dismissed as a suitable material.
>>>It has not been used, as the text precisely says, at least not in its
>>>conventional form.
>
>>Actually, Mr. Ehrlich may have a point here. It may be that other
>>sources have made an error here. If Peters is correct, ERCO is not
>>silica gel _in its conventional form_. That means that it is either
>>silica gel in a different form or not silica gel.
>
>As a non-scientist, I have no understanding of the nature of Erco and silicagel. But I can
>say that Peters does not imply any connection between these two products. In the passage
>questioned above by Mr. Ehrlich, Peters dismisses a couple of products as unsuitable,
>amongst them Silicagel in its _conventional form_. He does not say that Erco derives from
>Silicagel.
Yes, I understand that, but that means that you agree with Mr. Ehrlich’s
point. All of our sources up till now have identified ERCO as silica
gel.
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 Aug 20 22:43:25 PDT 1996
Article: 58596 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!
news.cstone.net!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: The Saugervermoegens [sic!] of Zyklon Carriers
Date: 20 Aug 1996 12:19:41 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
In article <[email protected]>,
Nele Abels wrote:
>No, I don’t. The problems Mr. Ehrlich pointed out with the use of
>Silicagel can be found in the text, that is true. But his point is to
>establish a contradiction in the text by claiming that Silicagel has been
>used for Zyklon B nevertheless. This is not true, as it can be found in
>the correctly translated source. That Peters differentiates between
>Silicagel and Erco is of no consequence for Mr. Ehrlich’s point, especially
>because Mr. Ehrlich himself wasn’t aware of a potential connection
>between these two materials, as you will find out when re-reading his comments.
You may have missed some of the history of this discussion. Most of us
(Mr. Van Alstein, Dr. Keren, Mr. Mazal and me) have been under the
impression that ERCO was silica gel (I believe Pressac asserts this.).
Mr. Ehrlich has shown that we were probably wrong.
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 Aug 25 18:24:03 PDT 1996
Article: 59893 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.erols.net!agate!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!
not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Required Amount Of Zyklon (Re: I am still waiting)
Date: 25 Aug 1996 12:49:47 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
In article <[email protected]>,
Richard Widmann wrote:
>”Table 1 shows the principal findings of the materials samples
>analyses. The first part of the table shows samples from the
>”alleged gas chambers.” The second part shows samples from the
>delousing chambers. The third part shows the analysis results for
>samples associated with neither the “gas chambers” nor the
>delousing chambers. By means of control smaples, Rudolf has shown
>that — depending on the type of material — analytical values
>under 10 mg/kg are unreliable, and should be entered as null
>values.
What was Rudolf’s method of detection and how did he calibrate it?
Why didn’t he discriminate against Prussian blue? Does he have an
explanation for its presence?
>The conclusion which follows is that the levels of cyanide
>in the alleged “gas chambers” are so low as to be comparable to any
>other building selected at random, that is: no detectable trace
>residues. In contrast to these findings, cyanide levels in the
>delousing chambers range between 1,000 and 10,000 mg/kg, which
>means that the walls consist 0.1 to 1% of cyanides.”
Not true, other buildings selected at random were not found to have
cyanide traces. This report has been debunked.
The Crackow team has demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal
gas chambers above background levels. Deniers have no explanation for the
presence of HCN in a facility built after the typhoid epidemic.
If the barracks in which they measured no HCN were never fumigated, why did
they measure a higher level in the homicidal gas chambers?
If the barracks were fumigated, why did they measure a higher level in the
homicidal gas chambers?
It should be noted that the researchers used a calibrated method and that
they discriminated against Prussian blue whose origin is not clear.
Leuchter and Rudolf did not do so.
ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca/pub/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report
—
———————————————————————-
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 Aug 26 15:00:52 PDT 1996
Article: 60120 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.ott.hookup.net!hookup!
chi-news.cic.net!newspump.sol.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!news.uoregon.edu!tera.mcom.com!
news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Required Amount Of Zyklon (Re: I am still waiting)
Date: 26 Aug 1996 10:05:13 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
In article <[email protected]>,
Brian Harmon wrote:
>Daniel Keren wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] (Richard Widmann) writes:
>>
>> # The importance of these calculations is really in regard to
>> # the Cyanide concentrations found during the various samples
>> # and chemical analysis that were conducted.
>>
>> I thought we’ve been through this, many times.
>
>[Dr. Keren’s reply snipped]
>
>> Because of that, the walls of the homicidal gas chambers
>> were exposed to the gas for a much shorter time than
>> those of the delousing chambers.
>
>It’s also worth pointing out that on Pressac’s _Techniques
>and Operation of the Auschwitz Gas Chambers_ mentions that
>the delousing gassings were done more often.
>
>[Pressac, _Techniques… p 53]
>
>So, not only were the delousing periods longer in time, they
>also occurred with greater frequency.
>
>btw, isn’t this the same Rudolph who tried to make prussian
>blue to ‘prove’ that if cyanide was used in the gas chambers
>it would be present?
Indeed! And is it the same Rudolf that misled the Fresenius
Institute by implying that the samples he needed were related to work at
the Max Planck institute by using Institute notepaper? Is this the same
Rudolf who the Max Planck Institute has denied supporting in such
research?
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
