"Hannover" Hargis, the coward, threatens when he is safe

Yesterday, I posted this message to the Cesspit moderator Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis, demanding satisfaction, in a man-to-man discussion at one of three places of his choice or by means of an apology, for his having called me «a pathetic and desparate liar».

Read more!


Of course I made sure that he took notice of it immediately, by sending him the following e-mail:

Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Guadalupe Salcedo" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: A message to Jonni "Hannover" Hargis
To: jhargis@library.ucla.edu , hannover@flashmail.com

Hi Mr. Hargis,

Just so you don’t miss it:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/message-to-jonnie-hannover-hargis.html

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessage?topicID=161.topic

If you should choose alternative # 3, please let me know by return mail.

Roberto Muehlenkamp

If I received a message like that – and I’m sure my fellow contributors and our readers think the same – I would go to this blog, to the RODOH forum or to both, and either try to justify my statements towards the person I attacked, or humbly apologize for them. Or I would at the very least invite the sender to a man-to-man discussion on my own forum. That’s what an upright man is expected to do.

Of course Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis is not an upright man. He is not only a filthy liar, but also a fathomless coward who, upon receiving such a message, will do exactly what, according to the German poet Goethe whose name is used as a handle by one of the Cesspit’s posters, a coward tends to do: utter threats and throw manure from where he feels safe, i.e. his discussion forum from which I was banned after seeing a number of my posts deleted on account of their inconvenient contents.

Hargis does this in a way that is characteristic of his hysteria, cowardice and lack of intelligence, by digging out old threads from the former CODOH discussion forum where I was supposedly beaten in discussion and letting loose some of his bullshit rhetoric about how my supposed defeat again showed that «science» prevails over «‘holocaust’ lies», etc. Nothing we haven’t seen before.

Today he has, after changing their titles, reactivated two threads that were last posted on more than three years ago, which I shall hereinafter call Thread 1 and Thread 2. Both refer to threads of the former CODOH discussion forum on which I was allegedly "debunked" or "shredded", the thread "Claimed cremation patent / 3.5 kg of coke" in the case of Thread 1 and the thread "Gassings" in the case of Thread 2.

Let us now look at how I was "debunked" on the former thread and "shredded" on the latter. If you read the threads as shown under the links provided by "Hannover", it looks like I bowed to my "Revisionist" opponents’ superior arguments and withdrew from the discussion, which is what "Hannover" would like his readers to believe. Of course that’s not how it was, and "Hannover" knows it very well. What happened in both cases was that my responses to my opponent’s latest posts were withheld by the moderator, and thus the discussion was "won" for the "Revisionist" side by silencing the opposition. Fortunately I have kept records of my censored posts, which I will show hereafter.

On the former CODOH forum's thread "Claimed cremation patent / 3.5 kg of coke", referred to in Thread 1, the following message of mine, posted in response to message # 3 by "Cat Scan" (= Ralph Marquardt, one of the more reasonable and knowledgeable "Revisionists", a far cry from the sorry Mr. Hargis from whose equally sorry forum he is conspicuously and understandably absent), never saw the light of day:

1. The crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau were not typical cremation ovens, but heavy-duty industrial ovens designed to run continuously, using the heat energy produced by the burning of previous bodies to keep the oven hot for the next bodies. After they were fired with coke to their proper operating temperature, they required little or no extra fuel to operate. A considerable but well-documented technical achievement. The cremation unit that one muffle was supposed to handle in a given time was a weight unit, which means that one or several persons adding up to that weight unit could be put into each muffle simultaneously without increasing the cremation time. Unlike in crematoria ovens used for civilian purposes, there was no need to wait for one body to have cremated completely. The practice actually was to put the next body or bodies in the muffle before the cremation process of the previous was complete.

2. The patent application was for multi-muffle ovens similar to those supplied for Auschwitz-Birkenau and working according to the same principles, the outstanding features of the patent being:
i) the method of employing fat corpses to speed up the rate at which corpses could be burned and
ii) the fact that no fuel was required after the initial pre-heating period, because of the amount of heat generated by the burning corpses.
This was how the manufacturers described their own product in a patent application. The use of the ovens, as described by eyewitness Henryk Tauber, coincides with this description:
"<…>
The corpses of ... wasted people with no fat burned rapidly in the side muffles and slowly in the center one. Conversely the corpses of people gassed on arrival, not being wasted, burned better in the center muffle. During the incineration of such corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat.
<…>"
Tauber also mentioned that when a “fat” body "was charged into a hot furnace, fat immediately began to flow into the ash bin, where it caught fire and started the combustion of the body." Similar descriptions of the burning process were made by Filip Müller and camp commander Rudolf Höß.
The fire thus actually needed no tending of its own, in accordance with the description in the patent application, external fuel supply (coke) being required only to heat up the oven.

3. Several witnesses testified to the placing of two or three bodies at a time in each muffle being not occasional attempts, but standard procedure. Sonderkommando Filip Müller stated that three or four could be incinerated at a time. Sonderkommando Szlama Dragon testified that three bodies were incinerated at a time. Two prisoners who escaped in April 1944, whose report was based on information received from Sonderkommandos, stated that three bodies would be burned at a time. Mieczyslaw Morawa, a worker in the crematoria, testified that tests done on the Birkenau crematoria before they became fully operational showed that three bodies could be simultaneously burned in a period of 40 minutes in each of the 15 ovens in Krema II. He stated that these tests were conducted with a stopwatch by the SS. The latter testimonial suggests that, while multiple burnings may take longer than single burnings (40 minutes vs. 25 minutes, taking the Gusen figures for single burnings), the time taken by the former is by no means the time taken by the latter multiplied by the number of bodies. Morawa’s testimonial also points to the plausibility of the burning speed calculated on the basis of the already mentioned Bauleitung document.

4. As we have seen, the manufacturers’ patent application and the testimonials of surviving crematoria operators mention external heating by coke to have been necessary only at the beginning of the cremation process, never thereafter. There is no evidence that additional external heating was required at the end of the cremation process to complete it – the fuel supplied by the bodies themselves seems to have been enough. Additional external heating at the end of the cremation process may be a concern in crematoria for conventional body disposal in civilian life. It is not a concern with heavy-duty industrial furnaces burning large numbers of bodies on a continuous basis.

5. The scientific data from the British Cremation Society obviously refer to conventional crematoria, not to heavy-duty industrial furnaces. However, they show that even with conventional furnaces, most of the cremation is complete after 30 minutes (the body reduced to the size of a football), which means that the next body or bodies can be introduced before the first has been fully cremated. The instructions for the Topf double muffle furnaces at Gusen envisaged that a body would be added into the oven during the last twenty minutes that it took to fully cremate the corpse that had been previously inserted, and there is evidence that this procedure was applied both at the Gusen and AB crematoria. Add to that the above mentioned practice of introducing several bodies at a time in certain combinations at the AB crematoria, and the average of 15 minutes indicated in the Bauleitung document appears far more compatible with the data from the British Cremation Society than it seems at first glance.

6. I know of no indication that the letter from the Bauleitung dated June 28, 1943 is a forgery. Who is the forger supposed to have been, when and how is the forgery supposed to have been made? The same applies to the information on the fuel efficiency of the triple and eight muffle ovens provided to the Bauleitung by Topf on March 17, 1943, where it is estimated that, if used on a continuous basis, the three muffle ovens of Kremas II and III would each use 2,800 kilograms of coke in a period of twelve hours, whereas the eight muffle ovens of Kremas IV and V would use only 1,120 kilograms of coke in the same period.

7. Adding the fuel consumption of the four crematoria according to Topf’s above mentioned memo (2 x 2,800 + 2 x 1,120 = 7,840 kg) and dividing that figure by the number of people that could be cremated in a twelve hour period according to the Bauleitung letter of June 28, 1943(4,416 ./. 2 = 2,208), which seems to be realistic according to the above, we arrive at an average of 3.5507 kg of coke per body. The result of a remarkable technical achievement by the manufacturers, acknowledged as such by the AB Bauleitung.

This post, according to my records, was first sent on 27.06.2001 at 18:56 hours GMT. When it did not appear on the thread, I sent it again on 28.06.2001 at 09:06 hours GMT. When it again did not appear, I knew what had happened: obviously concerned that my arguments might give my opponent too much trouble, the moderator (possible "Hannover" himself) had retained my post. As our readers may appreciate, this cannot have been due to any personal attacks or other violations of posting guidelines, for the post was soberly worded and contained nothing other than arguments on the subject under discussion.

On the CODOh thread "Gassings", mentioned in Thread 2, I responded to post # 10 by "Cat Scan" as follows:

1. The claim that the walls were washed subsequent to gassings comes from eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses are an acknowledged source of forensic evidence. The only other imaginable source would have been statements from perpetrators.

2. This is what the eyewitnesses stated:

Henry Tauber:
“The water tap was in the corridor and a rubber hose was run from it to wash the floor of the gas chamber...”

Filip Müller
“Normally the concrete floors in the gas chamber as well as in the changing room were damp: today they were carefully dried....”
Nyszili:
“The Sonderkommando squad, outfitted with large rubber boots, lined up around the hill of bodies and flooded it with powerful jets of water. This was necessary because the final act of those who die by drowning or by gas is an involuntary defecation....”

Daniel Bennahmias:
“Once the gas chamber had been cleared, it must be hosed free of all traces of blood and excrement - but mainly blood - and then it must be whitewashed with a quick drying paint. This step is crucial, and it is done each time the gas chamber is emptied, for the dying have scratched and gouged the walls in their death throes. The walls are embedded with blood and bits of flesh, and none on the next transport must suspect that he is walking into anything other than a shower. This takes two or three hours.”

Whether the walls or the ceiling were washed is without importance. What matters is that the hosing of the gas chambers increased the level of humidity in the chambers so much that the equilibrium concentration of CN- ions necessary to the formation of blue staining, if reached at all during the gassings, turned into a concentration too low to allow for the formation of iron blues. According to Alich et al, the formation of Prussian blue from dilutions of iron and iron cyanide took 2 days and addition of as little as 13% water (by volume) caused the complex from which iron blues could form to decompose.

3. The washing of the walls is only one factor inhibiting the reaction that produces iron blues. Others were the comparatively small quantity of HCN not inhaled by the victims and the reduction of pH due to the exhalation of CO2, as explained. Still another conditioning was the suitability of the brickwork to the formation of HCN.

4. The accuracy of Nyiszli’s statement that the bodies and floor were washed immediately after gassing (whether the walls and the ceiling were is irrelevant, see above) have not been questioned by any serious historian or criminal justice authority that I know of. If he had incorrectly observed another detail that doesn’t mean he could not have correctly registered the one in question.

5. As the formation of Prussian blue takes a certain time (two days, according to Alich et al) during which the reaction is susceptible to being hindered by a number of factors, it is irrelevant whether the bodies were taken out of the chamber for burning immediately after gassing. According to Szlama Dragon, who worked in Krema V, the bodies were taken through a corridor to the undressing room and then through another corridor to the crematoria ovens. In the first corridor the hair of the women was cut off, in the second dentists tore out gold teeth. Drawings of the various crematoria show the undressing rooms to have had roughly the same size as the gas chambers, which means that the bodies could be removed from the chambers rather quickly and that lack of storage room was not an impediment. As to Krema II, Prüfer’s letter or 29.01.1943 and Bischoff’’s letter of the same day mention two rooms, the “Leichenkeller 1” which Bischoff carelessly called by its proper name “Vergasungskeller”, and the “Leichenkeller 2”. A drawing of the Krematorium II from the Zentralbauleitung actually shows three “Leichenkeller” ( LK) roughly the same size, plus a rather huge corridor (“Gang”) and an anteroom to LK 1. Another drawing shows LK2 to have been roughly the same size as LK1 and LK3, the anteroom and the area in front of the crematoria ovens together to have been roughly the same size as LK1. which means that bodies could comfortably be stored in the three rooms while awaiting burning even if LK2 was not used for this purpose. Thus the removal of bodies from the gas chambers was not restricted by the cremation capacity.

The above leads us to the conclusion that there is every reason to believe that bodies were moved from the gas chambers long before burning.

6. Cremation didn’t take 1 hour per person, but actually only a quarter of that time, ca. 15 minutes per body, because the bodies were not in coffins and several bodies were introduced simultaneously into each oven, according to the testimonials of various witnesses – a rather plausible practice according to scientific assessments. Mieczyslaw Morawa, a worker in the crematoria, testified that tests done on the Birkenau crematoria before they became fully operational showed that three bodies could be simultaneously burned in a period of 40 minutes in each of the 15 ovens in Krema II. He stated that these tests were conducted with a stopwatch by the SS.

This means that cremation of all the bodies would take no more than 33 hours, 15 hours less than the time required for the formation of Prussian blue according to Alich et al. This in turn means that, even if the bodies were removed from the gas chamber only as fast as they could be burned and the hosing of the chamber was only performed after all bodies were out, the excess moisture created by the hosing would impede the reaction leading to the formation of Prussian blue. As we have seen, it was neither necessary nor practical to take the bodies out of the chamber only at the pace at which they could be immediately burned, which means that the chamber would be clear some time before the last body had been cremated. This in turn leads to the conclusion that, even if hosing took place only after removal of the bodies and not before as Nyszili tells us, it would have occurred only a few hours after the end of the gassing – the time it took to move to bodies to the anteroom of LK1, LK3 and the anteroom of the crematoria ovens in Krema II or via the undressing room to the Krema ovens in Krema V. The procedure in the latter actually makes it seem likely that hosing was performed before and not after removal of the bodies, in accordance with Nyszili’s description, so as to avoid soiling the undressing room.

7. As we have seen, the conditions in the gassing chambers were unfavorable to the formation of Prussian blue not only due to the hosing after the gassings. Another factor was the CO2 exhaled by the victims and the resulting reduction of pH inhibiting the reaction and leading to a greater dilution of the CN- ions at the outset. Another was the fact that, even if the amounts used for both gassing and delousing were roughly equal, most of the gas would be absorbed by the victims in the former case. According to the statements of both perpetrators and surviving witnesses, only those standing next to the introduction columns inhaled a quantity of Zyklon B high enough for immediate death, whereas the others took up to 15 or 20 minutes to die, trying to scramble away from the places where the gas accumulated, climbing on top of each other to reach the higher areas where the gas would arrive last and thus prolong their lives for a few minutes, breathing heavily all the time and thus inhaling high amounts of gas before dying. What gas was left between the bodies would leave the chamber when the doors where opened or be ventilated out. Altogether, the gas not absorbed by the victims would be in contact with the walls for an hour at most, and only such HCN that melted into the moisture during that time would have a chance to from iron blues at all – a reaction inhibited by several factors, as we have seen. In the delousing chambers, conditions for formation of Prussian blue were unequally better. Much less of the gas was absorbed by the insects, which do not inhale, and the rest – i.e. most of the gas introduced – was in contact with the walls for up to 24 hours at a time. Moisture is likely to have been just enough to allow for an equilibrium concentration of CN-, there was no hosing after the gassings, and there was no CO2 to reduce the pH level and thus to inhibit the reaction. Thus it is not surprising that Prussian blue stains formed in the delousing chambers but not in the homicidal gas chambers.

8. The Polish investigators deliberately excluded samples with Prussian blue from their investigation for the reasons explained. Where Prussian blue formed in a building exposed to hydrogen cyanide, it would remain present at high concentration while other compounds of cyanide would gradually weather away. This means that samples with Prussian blue originally exposed to the same amount of HCN as samples without Prussian blue would necessarily contain a much higher concentration of cyanide residues than the latter and that comparing one and the other could therefore provide no telling results as to the extent to which either had been exposed to HCN. An apples and oranges comparison that the Polish investigators cleverly avoided by excluding samples with Prussian blue from their investigations.

9. The samples of the 1990 study were taken from parts of the ruins that had been very much exposed to weathering conditions - rinsed rather thoroughly by a column of water at least 35 m in height, according to the IFRC study – and from which all traces of hydrogen cyanide had consequently disappeared. These samples, however, were inadequate for comparison with samples from the delousing chambers because the latter had been exposed to altogether different conditions – the chambers being intact, the samples had been much less exposed to the weather. For their second experiment, Markiewicz et al accordingly chose to collect samples from such parts of the ruins that had been most sheltered from the weather and where conditions similar to those of the delousing chambers had therefore prevailed. No scientific fraud here, only an improvement of methodology.

10. The samples collected in 1990 had zero values due to the reasons explained above. The samples from buildings used for neither delousing nor gassing had zero values due to other reasons – they had been exposed to HCN only once if at all, during a disinfestation in the course of the 1942 typhus epidemic. Oddly enough, Leuchter falsely attributed the residues he detected in the gassing chambers to that very disinfestation.

11. The higher the concentration of HCN to which a wall was exposed for a longer period of time, the more HCN is likely to remain after 45 or 50 years under given conditions. The key finding made by Markewiecz et al in their 1994 experiment was that the samples taken from the ruins of the homicidal gas chambers showed concentrations of CN- ions not much lower than those samples from delousing facilities that were exposed to similar if somewhat but not much more favorable conditions of weathering – those without Prussian blue. It being undisputed that the delousing facilities were exposed to high amounts of HCN over a longer period of time, this means that the homicidal gas chambers were exposed to equally high or not much lower amounts. Exposure to HCN on one or two occasions would not have led to such concentrations – to argue this calls for an explanation why, then, the samples from the delousing chambers showed CN- concentrations not much higher than those from the gassing chambers. If the gassing chambers had been exposed to the same quantities of HCN as the delousing chambers for a similar period of time (i.e. up to 24 hours in a row) they would have shown even more similar concentrations of HCN but no blue stains, due to the reasons explained above. As it was, the gassing chambers, unlike the delousing chambers, were never exposed to massive concentrations of cyanides for over 24 hours a day – we have seen that the gas remained in the chambers for about an hour during and after the gassings. This, together with the somewhat stronger exposure to weathering of even the most sheltered parts of the ruins, explains why the residues found in the gassing chambers were not as high as those found in such parts of the delousing chambers exposed to similar conditions before and after.

12. So the situation we have is that the barely detectable traces of cyanides in the homicidal gas chambers are in the order of magnitude of the also barely detectable traces found in those parts of the delousing chambers without blue stains. This means that the gassing chambers were exposed to similar quantities of HCN as the delousing chambers – quantities compatible with the knowledge drawn from other conclusive evidence that over one million people were gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The above-quoted message was posted on the "Gassings" thread on 26.06.2001 at 19:46 hours GMT.

It was retained by the moderator and again posted on 27.06.2001 at 08:54 hours GMT.

It was again retained by the moderator and again posted on 27.06.2001 at 15:24 hours GMT.

It was once more retained by the moderator and posted a last time on 28.06.2001 at 09:12 hours GMT.

After the fourth attempt, I decided that either Mr. Marquardt (who was also a moderator of this CODOH forum for some time) didn’t want to discuss the issue with me any further, or then another moderator of the same forum (possible "Hannover") had decided to disallow my message. Again, the obvious reason for this, considering the quality of my arguments and the absence of any guidelines violations therein, was that someone on that forum’s moderating board had realized that my post would give the "Revisionist" side much trouble, and that if I continued in the discussion the same might (horrors!) end with the last word in a discussion on a "Revisionist" forum belonging to a critic of "Revisionism". Although the forum was hosted by an organization that calls itself the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust", the censoring moderator obviously decided to sacrifice the open debate and free speech that his host promised to making believe that "Revisionism" had once again triumphed over whatever those true believers call the elementary reason and logic that keeps their opponents from adhering to their articles of faith. Needless to say, I didn’t bother to respond to "Karl" on the thread in question after this censorship experience. I didn’t have the time to work for the ether.

Such censorship, contrary as it is to the proclaimed goals and principles of CODOH, was applied against me not once but on several occasions before and after the one mentioned above, about which I may tell our audience in the future. This makes poor Mr. Hargis’ attempts to exhibit threads from the former CODOH discussion forum as showpieces of "Revisionist" triumph seem rather grotesque, and suggests that the fellow, apart from being a miserable coward and an altogether disgusting character, also possesses a somewhat limited intelligence. Whoever besides myself has opposed "Revisionism" on the former CODOH discussion forum and/or the current Cesspit, like my fellow contributors Andrew Mathis and Sergey Romanov, knows that the "Revisionist" keepers of the Faith can prevail in a discussion against knowledgeable opponents only by stifling them through censorship and eventual banning. Without deleting inconvenient opposition posts and/or banning the "offenders", no such forum would remain a realm of "Revisionist" gospel for very long – an intolerable situation for the followers of a quasi-religious sectarian movement. Accordingly, censorship on the Cesspit has reached levels that make Jonni "Hannover" Hargis the chief subject and main joke of the RODOH Forum’s Memory Hole section.

The challenge stated in my message to Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis remains standing, and as the fellow reacted in the expected miserable manner, I hereby add another:

Let’s continue discussing the issues of the threads on which you claim I was "debunked" or "shredded", Mr. Hargis. RODOH or your Cesspit, you choose. In the former case I look forward to your posting there, in the latter to an e-mail from you informing me that my account has been reactivated or I that can open an account under my Christian name or as "Cortagravatas" and post there without being subject to your cowardly censorship.

Be a man once in your lifetime, Mr. Hargis.

This RODOH thread links to the present article.