The CODOH Revisionist Forum

bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 2:01 am

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:49 am This letter mentions a request for 10 gas detectors but does not say for which buildings. Were they all for Krema II? It could be to anticipate a chemical war. In any case, how could the extermination continue with this problem unresolved since it was causing poisoning of personnel? If there were protective masks, this request for detectors is ineffective, as is the poisoning. We have a circular problem here.

It's only a problem if you believe the Nazis would have been devoted to the well being of the Jewish slave laborers they were using to clear the gas chambers of Jews they had killed in a program of mass genocide. Within the mainstream framework, the issue was a reduction in the effectiveness of the Jewish SK due to some being poisoned.

fireofice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 8:09 am It's possible I am misremembering exactly what Rudolf argued, I'm not going to go back and check right now. Regardless, there did need a significant amount of Zyklon B in the room to the point where it would have been comparable to the HCN in the delousing chambers for the story to be true. And no, I'm not going to read your AI slop. But looking through the sources, it looks like Rudolf is using a different standard, which is how much to kill a room full of people whereas the literature you're citing is based on safety protocols. This has already been explained to you.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:28 pm It did not solve the circular problem that I mentioned. There is no reason to ask for a gas detector if there is a protective mask and if the request was not met, extermination would be unfeasible.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:17 pm No, it is not feasible because successive gassings would not have occurred. I repeat, Tauber claims that the victims destroyed the electrical and ventilation systems, so successive gassings are not feasible.

Now, for those who assume that these were mere morgues with crematoriums attached, they see no problem in the lack of protective masks for the Sonderkommandos or in this request for a gas detector.

fireofice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:19 pm Bombsaway is baffled on why it takes more to kill a room full of people with people consciously trying to survive longer by holding their breath rather than one animal.

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The maximum oxygen consumption reduction a normal, untrained person could achieve under optimal conditions depends on their ability to lower their metabolic rate. Here’s a breakdown:

Factors Affecting Oxygen Consumption
Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR):

At rest, a normal person consumes about 0.2-0.25 liters of oxygen per minute (~300-360 ml/min).
This consumption is driven by basic bodily functions (e.g., breathing, circulation, maintaining body temperature).
Relaxation and Minimal Movement:

By remaining motionless and deeply relaxed, metabolic demands can be reduced to the basal level (~0.15-0.2 liters/min).
Cooling the Body:

Lowering body temperature (within safe limits) reduces metabolic activity, as the body requires less energy for thermoregulation.
In optimal, cool conditions, oxygen consumption could drop further.
Breathing Control:

Techniques like controlled slow breathing or intermittent breath-holding reduce the rate of oxygen exchange and delay the onset of hypoxia.
Estimated Oxygen Reduction for a Normal Person
Under optimal conditions, a normal person might reduce oxygen consumption as follows:

Baseline (relaxed, no movement): ~0.2 liters/min.
With extreme relaxation and cooling: ~0.15 liters/min.
With controlled breathing (e.g., periodic breath-holding): ~0.1-0.15 liters/min.
This represents a potential reduction of 40-50% from normal resting oxygen consumption.

Practical Limits
While it’s theoretically possible to reduce oxygen consumption further:

Normal individuals lack the training and adaptations needed for extreme reductions (e.g., diving reflex in free divers).
Untrained people will experience discomfort from rising CO 2 , levels before achieving substantial oxygen savings.

Conclusion
For a normal, untrained person in optimal conditions (cool environment, deep relaxation, minimal activity), oxygen consumption could be reduced by 40-50%, from ~0.25 liters/min to as low as 0.1-0.15 liters/min. This would modestly extend survival in an oxygen-limited environment. However, survival would still ultimately be limited by CO2 toxicity rather than oxygen depletion.

fireofice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:00 pm I have no idea how accurate any of that AI slop is. ChatGPT is not some infallible thing and you can't use that in substitute for evidence.

https://promptyes.com/blog/confidently-incorrect/

It doesn't have to be the case that "all" would hold their breath. Just one has to. They have to kill all of them after all!

Also I never claimed it explained all the difference. The main difference is that it takes more to kill lots of people than 1 animal. Bombsaway is still confused on why these aren't comparable.

I. Man has a susceptibility to HCN similar to that of the resistant goat or monkey.
2. Only in the mouse are LCtSO values available at various exposure times from 0.5
to 30 minutes. These values allow estimation of the LCtSO as related to exposure time. The values
for mice were multiplied by 4 to obtain LCt50 estimates for man at each time interval. These
derived LCt5O's are comparable to available corresponding values for the goat, thus placing man
near the goat in sensitivity to HCN.
3. The LCt5O for HCN in man increases with exposure time in a manner similar to
that determined experimentally in animals.
K 4. The dose-response distribution found at a given exposure would apply over the
exposure range of 0.5 to 30 minutes.
5. Since all experimental values are for inactive animals, resting breathing rates
must be used. The resting rate for man iN assumed to be 10 liters per minute.
S6. The frequency of death for man (1%, 16%, 30%, 50%, 84%, and 99%) is similar
to that for the resistant goat.
The LCtS0 values for man, shown in table 6, were derived by using the frequency of
deaths in a population of goats as a model to derive corresponding percentages of deaths in a
population of men whose LCt50's were those established as explained in assumption 2, above.

fireofice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:15 pm So this whole back and forth is just going to be bombsaway not understanding that it takes more to kill more people than one? OK I'm done here.

Talmage and Rodgers suggested that human beings are roughly only half as sensitive as monkeys to hydrogen-cyanide-gas exposure due to our slower
breathing (smaller breathing volume per body mass; Talmage/Rodgers 2002, p. 214). The above concentrations could therefore be doubled.

fireofice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:10 am Another thing bombsaway left out is this:

Talmage and Rodgers suggested that human beings are roughly only half as sensitive as monkeys to hydrogen-cyanide-gas exposure due to our slower
breathing (smaller breathing volume per body mass; Talmage/Rodgers 2002, p. 214). The above concentrations could therefore be doubled.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 2-tcoa.pdf

So he's completely ignoring that Rudolf gives reasons for not going with the McNamera numbers anyway.

Also notice bombsaway has not given any reasons for rejecting Rudolf's calculations or what is wrong with them. He has just asserted his opinion. OK cool opinion bro.

Based on relative respiration rates, the uptake of HCN by the monkey is more rapid than that of humans. The monkey is an appropriate model for extrapolation to humans because, compared with rodents, the respiratory systems of monkeys and humans are more similar in gross anatomy, the amount and distribution of types of respiratory epithelium, and airflow pattern. Because the monkey is an appropriate model for humans but is potentially more susceptible to the action of cyanide based on relative respiration rates, an interspecies UF of 2 was applied.

bombsaway wrote:UF stands for uncertainty factor. They're not saying monkeys consume 2x as much oxygen or whatever Rudolph, this is another super basic mistake on Rudolf's part, that discredits him in my view.

fireofice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:43 am

bombsaway wrote:UF stands for uncertainty factor. They're not saying monkeys consume 2x as much oxygen or whatever Rudolph, this is another super basic mistake on Rudolf's part, that discredits him in my view.

Strawman. He never said he based it on the uncertainty factor.