Faurisson's technical ERRORS!

This is the place for your questions, propositions, formal debate topics, etc. but they do have to be approved by the Moderator before they will be published visibly, and must not address opponents disrespectfully, if at all. The subjects have to be simple or straightforward and kept on topic.

Moderators: Budu Svanidze, been-there

Post Reply
User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8967
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Faurisson's technical ERRORS!

Post by been-there »

.
A critique by Fritz Berg of Faurrison's gaschamber challenge.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When Robert Faurisson, a leading holocaust revisionist, issued his almost-famous, nine-word challenge: "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber" in 1992 and 1993, he should have added a few more words to the "challenge" itself.
He might have said: "Show me or draw me a Nazi Gas Chamber that was actually used for mass murder."

That would have been fifteen words, but it would have been clearer, and it would have excluded gas chambers that had only been used for fumigation.
Instead, Faurisson added more than two pages of convoluted text with four footnotes which have left everyone totally confused. Faurisson seems to agree, however, with Fred Leuchter that mass gassings are "impossible."

The 1993 version of Faurisson's challenge from the IHR specifically excludes Zyklon-B delousing or fumigation gas chambers as any answer to his "Challenge."
But why? Was he specifically aiming at me and my essay from 1986: "The German Delousing Chambers"
The reasons given here are ludicrous and false, especially footnote 3.

Footnote 3 from the "Challenge" essay above:
3. A Zyklon B delousing gas chamber could not have been used as a homicidal gas chamber. The first can be operated relatively easily, while the second is necessarily very complicated. The conceptual difference between the two lies in the relative ease of ridding the fabric and clothes of HCN gas after the delousing, as opposed to the extreme difficulty of removing gas from the skin, mucous membranes, and bodily fluids of a corpse. In the first case, the HCN gas is removed by blowing in a large amount of hot air, which causes most of it to evaporate. Then the fabric and the clothes are beaten for some time outdoors to discharge the remaining gas. In the second case, heating or beating the corpses would not be possible. An authentic homicidal gas chamber, of the kind used in the United States to execute convicted criminals, is extremely complicated.
To execute even a single person is so complicated that one can scarcely imagine the appalling sophistication the Nazi gas chambers would have required to execute not just one victim, but hundreds or even thousands at a time. Such gas chambers would have become veritable baths of poison, impossible to drain. Nobody, even wearing a gas mask, could have ever survived entering such oceans of hydrocyanic acid and making the physical effort of removing the corpses, and clean up for the next batch.
Already the first sentence should make everyone scratch their heads. Can anyone really believe that the standard 10m3 DEGESCH gas chambers -- see below -- of which there were literally hundreds operating in German camps (four at Dachau) would not have been just as effective as any American gas execution chambers at killing several prisoners at a time?
During the forced-air venting of any of the well-designed German gas chambers, how long would any "such oceans of hydrocyanic acid" have lasted before being dispersed and blown out and up the "ventpipe," and far away?

Image
This is the famous photo with actual operating times give on the door itself. Most important to note is that this was a real gas chamber, potentially homicidal -- but never used to murder anyone, as admitted widely today.

Image

Image
Although the gas generating apparatus is lower in this schematic than in the previous photo--this is not a significant change at all.

Image

In such a gas chamber, if a solid chair were bolted to the floor and a prisoner were strapped-in, and the release of cyanide from a can of Zyklon-B was initiated as in any fumigation cycle with continuous forced-air blowing (Kreislauf) through the entire chamber -- would the prisoner be any less dead than in any American gas execution chamber? And, almost as quickly, if not more quickly? Would the venting of the chamber as during a typical fumigation cycle have been much longer than about half-an-hour? If so, why?

If several chairs, perhaps six, had been bolted to the floor -- could one have gassed as many as six prisoners at the same time? If not, why not? And, if the gas chamber had been much larger (hundreds of cubic meters in volume) like any of the widely used railroad fumigation chambers that I have shown since the 1980's, why would they have NOT worked also and on a much larger scale? Of course, they would have worked perfectly well also.

Here is Faurisson's essay about the Baltimore gas execution protocol with its 47 steps: http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/198 ... state.html. Please note that the final step is, according to Faurisson, vastly more complicated than anything suggested by the checklist itself. Faurisson augmented the "check sheet" with the following "remarks" of his own:
Remarks on this document
I visited this gas chamber in September 1979 and had its operation explained to me. The prison officials told me that “gassing a man is very complicated, because it’s dangerous”. Today’s gas chambers do not differ essentially from the gas chambers developed in 1936-1938 after years of trial and error. The first Americans who had the idea of ​​this manner of execution had thought that nothing would be easier and more humane than lulling their condemned prisoners to sleep with a gas that would eventually kill them. It was when they sought to put their idea into action that they realised the formidable difficulties of such an execution. The first one took place in 1924 and presented such dangers for those in the immediate vicinity that the idea of gassing was nearly abandoned. The document above is a simple check sheet for forty-seven steps. Some of these are elementary but others are quite delicate.
Here, for example, is what the forty-seventh and final step (emptying the chamber, removing the body) entails: the physician and two assistants must enter the chamber wearing gas masks, rubber aprons, rubber gloves; the physician tussles the dead man’s hair in order to disperse as much as possible the hydrogen cyanide molecules that the ammonia fumes and the adjustable ventilator system have not been able to neutralise; the two assistants must wash the body with a spray hose; they must take great care in doing this work; they must, in particular, wash out the mouth and all other openings of the body, and must especially not overlook the folds of the arms and legs.
Indeed, gassing someone nearby without gassing oneself is no soft job. Most likely the tales of gassings at Auschwitz were, originally, nothing but ghastly prison rumours.

Based on what? Nothing like what he talks about here is suggested, even remotely, by anything on the Baltimore execution "Check Sheet" itself. Why not? How could they have possibly skipped that?
Also, nothing like that is suggested, even remotely, by anything in the so-called "Leuchter Report." So where did such enormously important information come from?

The last item on the "Check Sheet" merely says: "Empty Chamber (Body Removed)." That does not seem so "formidable" at all, folks! Surely, if Faurisson were correct, that final step would have in itself required at least seven more steps to avoid C-A-T-A-S-T-R-O-P-H-E -- totally innocent people might have been killed -- and so easily.
Surely, one would have had additional check sheet items for "1) gas masks, 2) rubber aprons, and 3) rubber gloves" just to be sure they were actually nearby when the corpse was removed -- during this "formidable" process.
Additional steps would have been 1) the physician tussles the dead man’s hair ..., 2) wash the [entire naked?] body with a spray hose..., 3) wash out the mouth and all other openings of the body..., and 4) wash out the folds of the arms and legs. Could anyone with a good conscience have possibly skipped any of those essential steps?

Cyanide penetrates porous objects such as brick easily because of the small size of the HCN molecule. Once inside a brick, the cyanide gas may condense if the brick temperture is below the boiling point of cyanide which is 78.6 degrees Fahrenheit. But if the brick is warmed to more than the boiling point, condensation cannot possibly occur. And then, if fresh air is blown through the brick -- the HCN will leave the brick also.

With a human corpse the situation is similar except that corpse of any recently killed person is about 20 degrees above the boiling point of cyanide just from the normal body temperature of any human being. So, a freshly "gassed" human corpse is actually self-venting to a great extent just from body temperature which drops only slowly after death.
This is all explained in my essay: "NAZI Railroad Delousing Tunnels for Public Health, or Mass Murder!" http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
It is all the more reason to totally reject Faurisson's fantasy.

Faurisson's [mistakes] are used by a worldwide gang -- especially at CODOH, even as far away as Australia -- to falsely insist that the almost routine venting of any would-be homicidal fumigation chambers with corpses would have been "practically impossible."
Faurisson concocted a BIG pack of really BIG [errors] --and [many] gobbled it up as if it came from Heaven.

Friedrich Paul Berg


Learn everything at: http://www.nazigassings.com


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests