Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf on Treblinka gassings

Mattogno makes his first blunder by proclaiming that the time in which death from CO occurs is directly proportionate to the percentage of CO. He is simply taking Berg’s word for it, and of course, Berg can’t back his claim up. You’d think that “Revisionists” out of all people would be very careful to give evidence for their assertions.

M&G then proceed to tell us that “a diesel engine cannot continually run at full load, since it would soon break down due to the accumulation of solid compounds on the cylinder words.”
But what’s really important here is what “soon” means. We need to know in how much time would the engine really be ruined. I have read Berg’s essay in which he claims that the accumulation of solid compounds could possibly ruin the engine cylinders in “minutes”, but, in true denier fashion, he can’t give any evidence for his assertion. “Soon” isn’t good enough, and it’s likely that M&G sucked this out of their fingers.

M&G then tell their readers that “During a homicidal gassing, the oxygen content of the air must be so low that the victims suffocate from lack of oxygen, i.e., at a level of approximately 9%.” But there is actually no magical number below which death occurs. What is clear however is that the less oxygen there is, the faster death comes. After this, M&G say: “This is attained by producing an air-fuel ratio of 25:1, which is reached at about 3/4 of full load.” This is an incorrect claim because not every engine has the same point of stoichiometry (the fuel-air ratio were there is just enough air to burn all the fuel).

After this, Mattogno refers us to the Pattle et al experiments and what Berg said about them:

"In the animal experiment previously described with a real CO concentration of 0.22%/vol., which was already established before the test animals were even introduced and which, because of the reduced oxygen content of 11.4%/vol., corresponded to an effective CO concentration of (0.22×21÷ 11.4=) 0.4%/vol., it still took more than three hours to kill all of the test animals. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable and even quite conservative to say that in a similar gassing attempt with humans and with only a gradually increasing CO concentration, the majority of people in the alleged gas chamber would still be alive after one or even two hours. Such a result would have been an utter fiasco."

Of course, this is simply proof that M&G didn’t even bother to read the Patte et al experiments or bothered to research on what people have argued on the subject. Had M&G researched more, they would have realized that the anti-denial thesis is that toxic exhaust can be reached with a combination of air-intake restriction and fuel-supply increase. And Pattle et al didn’t do this. In their most lethal experiments (“d” experiments), the air-intake was restricted but there was no increase of the fuel-supply. From the literature I’ve read and the research I’ve seen, this can be done by rotating the fuel-pump plunger so that it injects more fuel per stroke. This alone is enough to render the Pattle et al experiments (when used to “prove” that a combination of air-intake restriction and fuel-supply increase isn’t enough to make toxic exhaust) irrelevant. But there’s more. Later in their book, M&G mathematically show that 465 occupants in an airtight 4 x 8 room would use up the remaining oxygen in the room in about 25 minutes, if my memory serves me correctly. But, in the Pattle et al experiments, the animals weren’t stuffed in the chamber to such an extent that they could not move. We have already seen what a big difference the number of occupants per chamber makes. No doubt it would take a much longer time for the animals in the Pattle et al experiments to die. Aside from that, the Pattle et al engine was a small bhp engine. Not comparable to the huge engines used to gas people at the Aktion Reinhard camps. Berg and others may try to fool us that engine size doesn’t make much of a difference, but if we turn to the Holtz-Elliot experiments, one of the sources which Berg repeatedly cites from, we find:

Despite such low concentration of carbon monoxide it was observed that the concentration of this gas was affected not only by fuel-air ratio but also by engine design and to a slight extent by factors that varied with engine speed.

The Significance of Diesel-Exhaust Gas Analysis by John C. Holtz and M. A. ElliottTransactions of the ASME, 1941, 63, pp. 97-105

The above renders the Pattle et al experiments irrelevant.

After this, Mattogno tells about the producer-gas generators:

But that would not even have been the 'best' source of CO available during World War II: Due to a lack of gasoline, the German government passed laws that made it compulsory to equip all diesel-driven vehicles with producer gas generators, which generate a gas with up to 35% of CO from wood or coke.

But, unsurprisingly, Mattogno doesn’t tell us all of the story. According to the Merck index, CO has a flammability range between 12 and 75%, indicating that these producer gas generators would produce not only dangerous amounts of CO, but the CO gas coming from these producer gas generators would come in concentrations high enough that it would become flammable. FP Berg even admitted this in an alt.revisionism post in the 1990s: (see http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ftp.py?people/b/berg.friedrich/gas-generators-available)

As an alternative which they were required, by law, to know was extremely deadly, the Germans had producer gas generators--18% to 35% CO--on hundreds of thousands of trucks. Those generators were extremely dangerous--everyone had to know that because gas leaks were not only toxic but also highly explosive! When the engines were shutoff, the generators would keep on generating until the internal fire could be extinguished.

All emphases are mine.
So, we conclude that the reason why producer=gas generators weren’t used is because they leaked highly toxic and flammable CO gas, which would be a great risk for anyone using them to murder anyone on a regular basis.

Then M&G say:

It is thus more than justified when Berg concludes:[315]

"How absurd to believe anyone with even a minimum of technical understanding would even try to use the exhaust from [diesel engines] for murder, when the [producer gas] fuel itself was a thousand times more lethal!"

First of all, it has been shown that the gassing engines used to kill victims at the Aktion Reinhard camps were not diesel engine; they were gasoline engines. This renders the entire diesel issue irrelevant.Second of all, M&G and FPB are indulging in “coulda woulda shoulda”, i.e., History is the way you want it to be. This is an utter negation of Historiography. M&G and FPB simply can’t grasp the concept that the fact that there were better methods of performing something doesn’t contradict the fact that it occurred (according to eyewitness testimony, etc).

Moe about the previously mentioned "revisionist" dillemma

Another problem which came to my realization long ago (but I was too lazy to make a post!) is that following: Why would morgues, air-raid shelters whatever have F-A-K-E showers?

Deniers are forced to find an alternative for the gas chambers in Birkenau to explain away the presence of the gas-tight doors. Samuel Crowell tried to make his point by making a thesis thaat the gas chambers were in reality bombshelters. But Mattogno debunked the bombshelter thesis.(link)

Mattogno should also subject his own thesis about the Birkenau gas chambers to the same type of scrutiny which he applied to S. Crowell's thesis.

Because it is quite amazing that Mattogno can't see the erroneous points in his thesis. For one, according to eyewitness testimony, inventory lists, and other evidence, we know that F-A-K-E showerheads were installed in the chamber. Can Mattogno or any other denier explain to me what fake showerheads are going to be doing in a morgue or whatever?

Another problem is that Mattogno's theory (as well as the other denier's theories regarding morgues, air-raid shelters etc in Birkenau) is that his theory has no evidence to support it! This is the elephant in the room, so to say.

The fact that Mattogno is reduced to accepting theories without evidence to support it while he makes utterances about there somehow not being enough evidence for other things goes to show how desperately Mattogno is glued to his "revisionist" faith. It also exposes his hypocritical double standard in evidence.

Almost all of the denier theories regarding alternatives for the gas-tight doors in the corpse cellars of Birkenau are easily reduced to rubbish (not that they were any better than rubbish in the first place) by the inescapable fact that there is no evidence at all to suppot their conclusion.

A couple Gems from Butz's book

I was skimming Butz's "Hoax of The Twentieth Century" and came across this little gem from ae 216:

"Hundreds of trained staff members were dispatched to Europe and employed
there to gather 'evidence' for extermination and related crimes..."

Ya just gotta laugh.
What evidence is there for this conspiracy?

It gets worse.
Here's another one from Butz, page 287:

"It is most unfortunate that Himmler was a 'suicide' while in British
captivity, because had he been a defendant at the IMT, his situation would have
been such that he would have told the true story(being fully informed and not in
a position to shift responsibility to someone else), and books such as the
present book would not be necessary, because the major material could be read in
the IMT trial transcript. But then, you see, it was not within the bounds of
political possibility that Himmler live to talk at the IMT."

How boring, especially the silly conspiracy theory at the end. Does Butz really expect us to be stupid enough to believe that the Allies or whoever were actually in charge of whether Himmler lived or not?
This is also fascinating: So all of the high-ranking Nazi officials (e.g., Hans Frank) who testified in post-war trials somehow had no way of testifying about this alleged mass resettlement program of millions (which would've made the perfect defense) but Heinrich Himmler did?

Now that's what I call reasonable logic! The above is an example of how Butz is a conspiraloon.

Remember folks - this is some of the best arguments that we'll find in the world or "Revisionism". Astounding, isn't it?

The Denier of the Week is...

It's Friday, and you know that that means: It's time to hand out the denier of the week award!
(This type of post will be done every friday)

I had some trouble choosing this week's denier of the week because there were many to pick from. But, what made me know who I would pick with no doubt is the fact that this certain denier censored me.

The Denier Of The Week is........






Denierbud!

This denier is known for his movie that he made about Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec. He lives in San Fransisco. I have been arguing with denierbud ever since the beginning of August 2006.

His denier ramblings have been utterly demolished by the Holocaust Controversies team, me, lokulotes, and others. (look at youtube comments)

Denierbud has been kindly asked to debate in a place other than youtube, because there are space constraints and comment limits.
But no, he doesn't want to address the Holocaust Controversies rebuttals because (get ready to laugh) their rebuttals include slight insults.

Yes, Denierbud is on the level of "academical journals" (lol), as he unbelievebly said in a comment.
Yeah, why should he stand for little insults such as "Ugly voice"? I mean seriously, how can one expect to be insulted when debating on the HOLOCAUST.

It's amazing, I know. He won't link to the HC rebuttals because they call him "ugly voice" and "troglodyte" or something like that. I doubt denierbud is truly that sensitive. In my opinion, he read the HC rebuttals and was so mercilessly fisked that he didn't want his followers to see the humiliating demolition of his arguments. And he uses the small insults used by the HC team as an excuse to not link to them and to not reply.

One huge characteristic of Denierbud is that he is pro-censorship. The fact that he has almost blocked EVERYBODY who provided opposition speaks volumes of him.

One day ago, denierbud blocked me, because my comments were "agitating". I made a new profile and alerted him that it was me and that he should set guidelines. I also dropped comments with that profile on his videos that had no insults at all!

Yet, denierbud blocked my new profile and deleted my new comments.
One of them said something to the effect of:

"Denierbud, try to be more specific. The AR camps were transit camps. Ok, in that case you should be able to answer the following questions easily.
Why is there not ONE single eyewitness testimony regarding this huge supposed resettlment of the Jews? Were were these Jews housed? From what food supply were they fed? What were the transport routes?"


I log on one day later, and that comment, together with all my other comments, are gone.

Of course, one minute after he blocks every type of opposition and erases inconvenient comments, he cries about the jailed deniers in Germany.
Denierbud also blocked comments with URL's that lead to the HC rebuttals.

He tricks gullible audiences to this day with his despicable movie.