Lupaukseni mukaisesti palaan nyt tähän uuniasiaan, johon P de G
nyyssietiketin ja normaalien käytöstapojen vastaisesti kieltäytyi
vastaamasta tässä ketjussa ja vaati minua kopsaamaan tekstin jo ennestään
ylipitkään viestiin. Jonka P de sitten omalla vastauksellaan kasvatti peräti
120 KB kokoiseksi, alkoi jo koneestakin teho loppua, kun sitten siihen
yritin vastata. Joten siirsin takaisin tähän asianomaiseen ketjuun.
X X X CLIP P de G X X X
Post by TJT2x x x clip x x x
Thus, the 46 muffles in the cremation ovens of Birkenau could have
cremated a maximum of (46 × 3,000 =) 138,000 bodies. After that,
they would have had to be dismantled in order to replace the
firebrick.
lmeisesti et aio lukea antamaani linkkiä Zimmermanin kirjoittamaan
artikkeliin. No, ei se mitään. Lainataan sitä tarpeen mukaan.
Mattogno on lukenut puolestani. Toki minäkin sen lukaisin. Vaan miksi
ylipäätään linkität ja copypastailet jotain Zimmermania, kun puheenaiheena
oli yksinkertainen laskelma?? Asiallinen keskustelija olisi omin sanoin,
lyhyesti ja ytimekkäästi, osoittantu missä kohtaa Mattognon laskelma menee
pieleen!!!
Tästä luvusta puuttuvat Auschwitz I:n kuusi uunia. Yhteensä uuneja
oli siis 52.
...that Krema I, with its six muffles, ceased activity in July 1943. That
is why the number of available ovens in 1944 was 38.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/
Ja katsotaanpas sitä KOKONAISUUTTA, jota minä muka en sinun melestäsi
ymmärrä, vaikka tässäkin taas oiva esimerkki että sinä olet ottanut yhden
sivun ollenkaan perehtymättä tapahtumakokonaisuuteen ja aikajärjestykseen:
1. Mattogno kirjoitti yli 500 sivuisen kirjan, jossa viitteenä 270
dokumenttia ja 360 valokuvaa.
2. Aiheesta laitettiin lyhyt referaatti nettiin.
3. Idolisi Zimmerman ilmeisesti luki vain kyseisen referaatin ja luuli sitä
lopulliseksi versioksi.
4. Zimmerman kirjoitti tuon linkittämäsi tekstin.
5. C.M. kirjoitti lyhyen vastineen, jossa on 40 kohtaa sisältävä numeroitu
lista, jossa CM paljastaa Zimmermanin valehtelevan ja sekoilevan oikein
urakalla.
6. Ystäväsi(?) Zimmerman kirjoitti vastineen, jossa myönsi muutaman
virheensä, esitti naurettavampia tekosyitä kuin Pauliina Viitamies
ylinopeudelleen, ja jatkoi eräiden sekoilujensa puolustelua ja uusien
valheiden tehtailua.
7. C.M. kirjoitti perusteellisen vastineen, jossa nuijii Zimmermanin
lyttyyn.
Sivu jolta löysin linkit CM:n vastineisiin
The International Auschwitz Controversy
A Review By Germar Rudolf
http://codoh.com/library/document/1746/
CM:n alustava vastaus
John C. Zimmerman and
"Body Disposal at Auschwitz":
Preliminary Observations by
CARLO MATTOGNO
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/jcz.html
CM:n perusteellinen vastaus Zimmermanin vastineeseen
CARLO MATTOGNO
Supplementary Response to John C. Zimmerman on his
"BODY DISPOSAL AT AUSCHWITZ"
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Risposta-new-eng.html
"One of the reasons deniers need to make this argument is that they
must find a justification for building so many ovens. This argument
also involves the amount of bodies these new ovens could dispose of in
a 24 hour period. A report from the Bauleitung in June 1943, after all
of the new ovens became operational for at least some period, placed
the cremation capacity of all 52 ovens at 4756 per day. [20] Deniers
have not totally agreed among themselves on this issue, but Butz and
Mattogno place the cremation capacity at about 1000 per day, or 30,000
per month. [21] Mattogno claimed the maximum cremation capacity of the
six original ovens was 120 per day, [22] even though he was familiar
with evidence from another concentration camp that showed a Topf
double muffle oven could burn 52 per day or 26 per muffle. [23]"
Miten tuo on olevinaan esittämäni laskelman vastine??
Eli saksalaiset itse arvioivat 52 uunin kapasiteetiksi 4756 ruumista
per päivä.
Nyt täytyy myöntää, että minulla on pieni kieliongelma, uuni on englanniksi
oven, ja tuolla on myös sana muffle, jolle en nyt löytänyt kunnollista
käännöstä, ja muffleja oli siis useita per uuni, eri uunityypeissä eri
määrä. Vaan etpä näytä sinäkään sitä osaavan kääntää, koska uuneista puhut,
vaikka ammatiksesi käännöstyötä teet?? Käytän siis jatkossa sanoja oven ja
muffle, jotta ei mene asiat sekaisin.
"In August 1942, during the worst period of the typhus epidemic, the
Auschwitz-Birkenau camp had 21,451 male prisoners. [24] The
information on the female population is missing. However, it is known that
the
female population was about 8200 in December 1942. [25] This means,
according to denier calculations, that the camp authorities were
building enough crematorium capacity in the summer of 1942 to
incinerate the entire population of the camp in a month. According to
the Bauleitung, this was enough capacity to cremate the camp's
population in about a week. Even if it is assumed that the
Bauleitung's
Ja siinä taas pitkä pätkä english tekstiä, joka ei näytä suoraan liittyvän
puheena olevaan laskelmaan.
number of 4756 per day was too high, the question arises as to why the
camp authorities thought it necessary to have such a high cremation
capacity. The highest amount of prisoners registered in the camp was
in the summer of 1944 when the total reached slightly more than 92,000.
[26]
It is easy to see why deniers are dependent on blaming typhus as the
reason for the crematoria building. Without hundreds of thousands of
such deaths, there would not be any justification for such a huge
building campaign. There can be no doubt that typhus was a major
problem for the camp authorities in the summer of 1942. Nearly all of
the memoirs on Auschwitz mention the disease. The question is how many
people were actually dying from typhus."
Eli revisionistien mukaan Auschwitzin johto halusi jostain syystä
rakennuttaa jumalattoman määrän uusia uuneja. Määrän, jossa olisi
voitu hävittää koko leirin silloinen vankimäärä viikossa. Mistä
moinen tarve? Revisionistit väittävät, että syynä oli
pilkkukuume-epidemia, mutta uunit tilattiin ennen epidemiaa. Olisiko
uusien uunien tilauksella
jotain toisia syitä?
Kysymyksesi perustuvat virheellisiin lukuihin ja virheelliseen logiikkaan,
C.M. on vastannut näihin.
Post by TJT2impossible in technological respects as well.
x x x clop x x x
http://codoh.com/library/document/921
Zimmerman käsittelee nämä väitteet ja osoittaa vahvasti Mattognon ja
kumppaneiden valehtelun ja vääristelyn lepäävän tyhjän päällä.
Kannattaa lukea koko artikkeli.
Ja kannattaa myös lukea artikkeliin kirjoitetut vastineet. Katsotaanpas kuka
valehtelee:
1. Zimmerman writes that Mattogno (snip)
This is false. I never wrote such a thing; not in that booklet nor
elsewhere.
2. Our professor claims that "Mattogno simply had no explanation for the
presence of this smoke (p. 41)."
This is also false; anyone may read my "explanation" on page 43 of my book
My Banned Holocaust Interview. [8]
3. Regarding the photographic note which Zimmerman reports in microscopic
format in his article, Zimmerman declares that "it is possible to see 14
Sonderkommandos in uniform" (p. 45).
This too is false. The photograph in question, shows only 8 persons (almost
certainly prisoners) standing, and a 9th [person] on the left, who is
probably a guard. As I have explained in My Banned Holocaust Interview (pp.
41-44), this photograph doesn't only NOT demonstrate, but refutes the story
of mass cremation of "gassed". (snip)
4. Still, Zimmerman writes that "Mattogno never addressed this photo" (p.
46), to which I respond once again: See My Banned Holocaust Interview (pp.
41- 44).
5.. He furthermore declares that
"Mattogno had also assured his readers that Red and White Bunkers were not
found in any German documents and that they had "been created by postwar
witness"" (p. 42).
Here our very virtuous professor falsifies my affirmation. I have in fact
textually written:
"Before examining Jean-Claud Pressac's statements on Bunkers 1 and 2, it is
well to specify that this designation (like those of "red house" and "white
house") is not found either in the German documents or in the reports of the
clandestine resistance movement of the period at Auschwitz; it has been
created by postwar eyewitnesses". [9]
I referred to names, while Zimmerman declares that I referred to things.
6. On the same page, our professor of integrity again falsifies my
assertions, claiming that:
"He [Mark Van Alstine] has identified three burning pits in the area of the
White Bunker (Mattogno states that there were four)".
In reality I referred to traces of four mass graves filled with soil located
approximately 200 meters west of area BIII of Birkenau. I did not speak of
"burning pits", nor of open graves, nor of graves "in the area of the White
Bunker"; these are simply Zimmerman deceptions.
Kohta 7 liian pitkä copypastattavaksi.
8. To this falsehood, Zimmerman then also adds another deception, writing:
"In 1887 Dr Hugo Erichsen, one of the world's leading experts in body
disposal in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, wrote of the Belgian
government's efforts along these lines in a battle in 1814. The individual
charged with body disposal was named Creteur."
In reality, Zimmerman presents the same source - the affirmations of
Créteur - as if they were two different sources ! This also shows our poor
professor making a rather stupid historical chronological blunder: the fact
is of course that the Créteur activities occurred at the time of the
Franco-Prussian War: 1871, not in 1814 !
And if that is not enough, we have Zimmerman referencing Créteur - this
alleged world expert of cremation - who, according to Zimmerman, was
declaring that the cadavers of the soldiers were "saturated with kerosene"
(p. 44), which is false, because Créteur speaks only of "mineral oil". So
here is our Professor Zimmerman relying upon a world "expert" who is
incapable of distinguishing mineral oil from kerosene !
9. Conclusions which Zimmerman draws from things such as the above, are just
the beginning of classic examples of his crass ignorance of subject-matter
while assailing me :
"Deniers like Mattogno would have people believe that the Germans of World
War II were incapable of replicating the achievements of an early 19th
century European country" (p. 45).
My response to that is that if Professor Zimmerman had made a serious
research in this regard, he would have known that the scope of the
disinfestation in the battlegrounds never had been the cremation of the
cadavers, but only the more or less complete carbonization of their soft
tissue in an attempt to ward off the onset of epidemics. Therefore this
concerns completely different problems. If he wanted, our professor could
fill a gap in his ignorance by reading Chapter X of Part One of my work
cited at the beginning of this article.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.fi/2014/03/mattognos-deceptions-on-nazi-policy.html
Eipäs siirrellä maalitolppia, aihe on laskelma uunien suorituskyvystä.
Idolisi ei näytä edes osaavan erottaa krematoriota ja ihan muuta aluetta:
His "error" regarding the Aktenvermerk of 16 June 1944: "I thought that the
reference to BA I and II was to Birkenau Kremas I and II, known in most
literature as Krema II and III" (p.37). Therefore, our "expert" on
Auschwitz has confused Bauabschnitte, construction sectors in the Birkenau
camp, with the crematoria!
Kohdasta 10 lyhyt pätkä, kun ovat vähän turhan pitkiä kokonaan
copypastettavaksi
Naturally Zimmerman does not mention the documents which I referenced in
this cited passage because they refute in a very categorical manner his
thermotechnical fantasies.
ja kohdasta 11 vähän pitempi pätkä
Well, first of all Zimmerman falsifies the date of that document, which is a
letter from the "Leiter der Zentralbauleitung" (Bischoff) to the "Deutsche
Ausrüstungswerke" Auschwitz dated 13 January 1943. [14] To this
falsification Zimmerman then adds an interpretation which is not only
absolutely unfounded, but decidedly ridiculous: the "5 accommodations for
prisoners"[15]mentioned in this letter were supposed to have been the
alleged "undressing barracks"of the alleged homicidal bunkers. The
foundation for this interpretation is the simple presence of the number "5"
in the two cited documents and the affirmation of Höss!
Moreover, Zimmerman here furnishes another proof of his ignorance of
documents, because "in the Bauleitung memo of July 15, 1942" it is clearly
specified that one of the "5 Baracken für Sonderbehandlung u. Unterbringung
von Häftlingen" was meant for the village of Bor, a little settlement
located about 4 km south of Birkenau:
"4 Stück Baracken der Häftllinge in Birkenau 1 Stk. Baracken zur
Unterbringung v. Häftl. in Bor".[16]
So maybe in Bor there was a branch office of the alleged gassing Bunker of
Birkenau?
Niin, oliko sillä väitetyllä kaasutusbunkkerilla haarakonttori jossain 4 km
päässä olevassa kylässä, kuten tuo idolisi Z tuntuu väittävän, vaikka ei
ilmeisesti itsekään ymmärrä mitä väittää...!? Ja näitä kohtia on siis 39 kpl
jo tässä alustavassa vastauksessa, en viitsi kopsata tuon enempää kun ei
suoraan liity siihen laskelmaan, vaan yhteenvetoa
1. Zimmerman ei osaa ollenkaan saksaa, vaan toistelee
holocaustiuskonveljiensä ja uskonsisariensa englanninkielisiä käännöksiä,
ymmärtämättä että niissä on toisinaan käännösvirheitä.
2. Zimmerman luulee (useammin kuin kerran) yhtä dokumenttia kahdeksi eri
dokumentiksi.
3. Zimmerman valehtelee oikein urakalla siitä, mitä C.M. ja muut
revisionistit ovat sanoneet, ja siitä mihin he muka ovat jättäneet
vastaamatta.
4. Zimmerman tuntuu olevan tekniikan ja yleensäkin fysiikan, luonnontieteen,
suhteen pösilö.
juutalaisia kuoli siis reippaasti alle 160 000, ja hekin lähinnä
luonnollisiin kuolinsyihin, joten väitteet 6 miljoonan ihmisen
murhasta, The Holocaustista, ovat siis täyttä satua. Meillä
"uusnatseilla" ei siis ole mitään ongelmaa, teillä holocaustisatuun
uskovilla sen sijaan on sellainen "pieni" ongelma että teidän pitäisi
kumota luonnonlait, logiikka, matematiikka...
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/
Lue itse ajatuksella VASTINEET tuohon roskaasi.
SNIPattu monta ruudullista tekstiä.
stated that there was a "gas chamber" [Gaskammer] in Krema IV. [77] "
Lisäksi esimerkiksi, kun unkarilaiset juutalaiset kuljetettiin
kaasutettavaksi kesällä 1944 uunien lisäksi ruumiita poltettiin
ulkoilmassa.
Tätäkin on käsitelty perusteellisesti Mattognon vastineissa, mutta eipäs
siirrellä maalitolppia, PUHE OLI UUNIEN SUORITUSKYVYSTÄ. Et ole vielä
sanonut omaa näkemystäsi MISTÄÄN niihin liittyvästä asiasta, vaan olet
kovasti hyökännyt Mattognoa vastaan yrittämällä leimata hänet valehtelijaksi
copypastaamalla ja linkittämällä idolisi Zimmermanin tekstiä. Eikö sinulla
ole mitään omaa ajattelua?? Jos on, vastaapas seuraaviin kysymyksiin:
1. Kuinka nopeasti niissä Ausvitsin muffleissa pystyttiin polttamaan
ruumiita, siis polttoaika minuuteissa per ruumis??
2. Montako mufflea siellä oli yhteensä??
3. Millä aikavalillä kukin oven oli käytössä??
4. Montako ruumista krematorioissa poltettiin yhteensä Ausvitsin koko
toiminta-aikana??
5. Kuinka paljon ja mitä polttoainetta ruumiiden polttamiseen käytettiin??
SIIS VASTAA OMIN SANOIN, KERRO OMA HENK KOHT NÄKEMYKSESI, ja mieluummin
lyhyesti ja ytimekkäästi.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.fi/2014/10/rebuttal-of-mattogno-on-auschwitz-part.html#more
Onko sinulla tarkoitus yrittääkään debattia itse asiasta vai luuletko
osallistuvasi johonkin ad hominem kilpailuun?? Minä keskustelisin mieluummin
itse asioista, mutta toki voin nolata idolisi sinun tyylilläsikin, voitto
kuin voitto... ja ihan randomina clippejä, ime tuosta:
x x x
In reality Kurt Prüfer stated the very opposite of what Zimmerman attributed
to him by means of a despicable manipulation.
x x
These three statements alone constitute a radical refutation of Zimmerman's
thermotechnical fantasies.
x x
These surgical omissions are unequivocal proof of Zimmerman's complete and
deliberate deceptiveness.
x x
Now, when it does not suit him, Zimmerman rejects the affirmations of
Pressac because they are not documented, as in the case of the Birkenau
camp's expansion to hold 200,000 detainees ("however, Pressac did not cite a
source," p.27), but when it suits him he accepts Pressac's assertions
without any source even when they are patently false!
x x
Here Zimmerman gives another demonstration of his bad faith, deliberately
misrepresenting what I wrote in the article The "Gasprüfer" of Auschwitz,
which was published on the web on 18 February 1998
x x
Therefore our professor lies knowing that he lies.
x x
Now Zimmerman, instead of discussing my analysis of the document, instead of
explaining the serious bureaucratic anomalies which it presents, limits
himself to quoting my conclusions out of context in order to make his
readers believe that the correction of which I spoke referred to the
cremation capacity.
x x
Zimmerman's "real problem" is that he, like all dilettanti, is incapable of
critically analyzing a document; he accepts everything blindly and
opportunistically, and pretends that the problems which the document gives
rise to, do not exist. Not only that; he has the impudence to reprove the
person who discovers them, who understands their importance and searches to
resolve them.
x x
Naturally in his response, our most honest professor passes over this
crucial objection in silence and continues unperturbed with his speculative
fantasies.
x x
Zimmerman, in his crass thermotechnical ignorance, rejects these elementary
facts, but since the documents confirm that...
x x
The soundness of my conclusions is confirmed by two other documents.
x x
The Zimmerman hypothesis is therefore senseless.
x x
Well then, I state and confirm that Zimmerman is not only "unable to read"
this document, but also that due to his total incompetence, he has
understood nothing of this document.
x x
But the essential reason why Zimmerman's hypothesis is false is to be found
in the combustion capacity of the furnace grills.
x x
The problem with Zimmerman, as with all naïve and incompetent dilettanti, is
that not having any awareness of the history and technology of cremation, he
is necessarily incapable of an organic view of the argument. Now it is just
such an organic view that in the end can only weaken his thermotechnical
fantasies and validate my own scientific conclusions.
x x
In conclusion, based on documentary evidence, Zimmerman's hypothesis of an
average cremation time of 25.2 minutes is unfounded. And technically?
Technically such an hypothesis is senseless: according to engineer Kessler's
experiments on cremation. Even the phase during which water evaporated from
the cadaver required on average 28 minutes in an optimum coke-operated oven!
x x
At this point, the document turns against Zimmerman's interpretation
nullifying his hypothesis.
x x
Already from this, one infers that the Bauleitung did not trust the
marvelous longevity of the refractors in the Gusen oven that Zimmerman
wishes to attribute to them.
x x
With this "basic criticism" Zimmerman does no more than - once again - draw
attention to his crass ignorance. This poor naïve person does not know that
the electric oven, by diffusing uniformly the heat which it assured, had a
longer life than that of coke ovens because its refractory masonry was
subjected to less stress.
x x
The true "dilemma" is Zimmerman's: If it was possible to cremate one cadaver
in 15 minutes with 3.5 kg of coke, how are we to explain that the Gusen oven
consumed a minimum quantity of coke at least 9 times more? If it was so
simple to save 92% of the fuel at a time when Germany could not afford to
waste anything, much less its coke (and if it was so simple to save 75% of
the cremation time), how is it that at Gusen this miraculous "multiple"
cremation could not be realized? Why is it that for each cremation about 27
kg of coke was thrown away?
x x
Zimmerman knows this article well since he cites it in note 14 of Body
Disposal. Here then is a brilliant example of opportunistic misuse of the
sources. Finding himself faced with two contradictory accounts of one
document, he was totally uninterested in the original document, and has
obviously chosen the version that is most convenient for him!
x x
Zimmerman trims this passage in such a way that "it is possible," becomes a
certainty. To prevent the reader from confirming this, he cites neither the
page nor the title of my booklet, which he simply calls "the 1996 tract"
x x
By transforming the "repair of 30 oven doors" into "production of four
pieces of firehooks for 30 ovens" our professor falsifies the document's
text, which is the Auftrag Nr.1600 of 1 June 1944, cited above by me.
Another example of Zimmerman's deliberate deceit. Even though he has access
to the documents which prove that the crematoria were undergoing repairs, he
not only fails to mention this, but falsifies the documents in order to
prove the contrary!
x x x clop x x x
ja johtopäätös
x x x clip2 x x x
Conclusion
The fact that American Holocaust institutions, in spite of their enormous
financial resources, have been reduced to placing their trust in naïve
dilettanti like Zimmerman and Keren as the best "specialists" on cremation,
is proof of the inexorable collapse of "Holocaust" history.
x x x clop x x x
--
--TJT--
The truth is now called hate, but I'll defend it anyway.