Pekka de Groot wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 06:52:35 +0200, "TJT2"
> <bible.i...@otsasuonio.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> x x x clip x x x
>> The system described by the witnesses (particularly by M. Zurawski)
>> is nothing other than the so-called Feist apparatus, an oven for
>> burning carcasses of animals which have died of infectious diseases.
>> It was developed by veterinarian Georg Feist in the second half of
>> the nineteenth century. A book on cremation from the turn of the
>> century explains its structure and operation with the aid of a
>> drawing (de Cristoforis 1890, pp. 125-128; see document 11):
> Savonmaan ruskeapaita on hyvä, ja aloittaa tuolta:
>
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.se/2010/12/mattogno-on-chemno-cremation-part-1.html
Hakusalla "Feist" selain löytää kolme osumaa, siis kolme kohtaa... Joissa
yhdessäkään ei ole mitään vastinetta Mattognon laskelmiin eikä muihinkaan
argumentteihin!!! Ekassa kohdassa näyttää olevan lähinnä lyhyt
(vääristelevä) referaatti M:n tekstistä
x x x clip x x x
Mattogno reproduces without comment Judge Bednarz's description of the 1st
phase cremation devices in the Central Commission's report[56] and a more
detailed description from a later book authored by Bednarz, which besides
the two crematorium ovens with chimneys mentions enormous fireplaces
(focolari) on which the accumulated corpses (which presumably means those
extracted from the mass graves) were cremated.[57] He then focuses on the
detailed descriptions of the 2nd phase cremation devices in the Central
Commission's report (quoted above) and in Bednarz's book, which adds the
details that 12 corpses were placed in the bottom layer, that the fire was
lit from below and no gasoline or other flammable substance was poured on
the corpses, and that the corpses burned in more or less 20 minutes[58].
Mattogno argues that these devices resemble a nineteenth century contraption
for incinerating animal carcasses known as the Feist apparatus, in order to
claim that the installed cremation capacity would have been insufficient for
the purposes of Chelmno extermination camp.[59] The capacity issue shall be
discussed in the following blogs.
x x x clop x x x
ja seuraavassa kappaleessa nuo plagiaristibloggariystäväsi hyppäävätkin jo
M:n kirjan seuraavaan lukuun "The next pages of Mattogno's book[60] are
dedicated to "contradictions regarding the activity of the crematory
furnaces""
Luku 9.3. Contradictions Surrounding the Activity of the Crematoria alkaa
vasta sivun 90 alareunassa, minä copypastasin sivut 86 - 89, tai jos
tarkkoja ollaan, sivu 88 viimeinen täysi, luku päättyy heti sivun 89
yläreynassa, ja sivulla 89 on sitten
"9.2. The Oven's Capacity and Wood Requirement"
jota en siis copypastannut aloitusviestiini, joten pistän nyt tähän kun on
niin lyhyt että jopa JiiHoo saattaa jaksaa lukea
x x x clip2 x x x
The data calculated in the previous chapter - the cremation of 90
bodies in 24 hours with a consumption of 7,750 kg of coal - are valid
for corpses with an average weight of 60 kg, which is that of the alleged
victims of gassing (see Graf/Kues/Mattogno 2010, pp. 130-133.). As we
have seen, the calorific value of coal varies from 7,300 to 8,000 kcal/kg,
so the average value is 7,650 kcal/kg; freshly cut wood has a calorific
value of 2,000 kcal/kg (ibid., pp. 142f.), equivalent to about
(2,000ũ7,650Ũ100=) 26% of that of 1 kg of coal.
Hence, cremating a body of about 60 kg requires (550ũ6ũ0.26=)
some 350 kg of fresh wood. Thus, in order to cremate the minimum
number of alleged victims - about 152,000 bodies (see chapter 11)77 -
(152,000Ũ350 ) 53 million kg or 53 thousand metric tons of wood
would have been required. In the woods around Chelmno we can assume
a timber production of about 200 tons per hectare, as in the region
of Lublin (ibid., p. 144). Therefore 53 thousand tons of wood would
have required the logging of about (53,000ũ200=) 265 hectares of forest.
In chapter 10 we will see what consequences follow from this data.
x x x clop2 x x x
Seuraavassa osumassa on sitten jotain vänkytystä olisi savupiippu tiilestä,
ja kolmas samaan kappaleeseen, lauseessa saivarrellaan että vain muistutti
Feistin aparaattia. Sydänystäväsi eivät siis yritäkään vastata Mattognon
laskelmiin omilla laskelmillaan, vaan sivuuttavat sekä ne että muut M:n
oleelliset argumentit. Eikun hetkinen, tuollahan on toinen ja kolmaskin osa,
joihin et vaivautunut antamaan suoraa linkkiä, joten herää kysymys oletko
itsekään lukenut?? Näyttää olevan viittauksia Sobiboriin jne, ja TECOARissa
on vastineet. TECOARhan on monta vuotta tuoreempi teos. Ja tässä
23-c.pdf:ssäkin on "First U.S. edition by THE BARNES REVIEW: November 2011"
kun taas tuolla ystäviesi blogssa "December 31, 2010" joten osavatkos
ystäväsi italiaa, vai mihin versioon he ovat tuon "vastineen" kirjoittaneet?
--
--TJT--