A. Professor Beiglboeck, yes.
Q. You said that Dr. Beiglboeck didn't want to conduct these experiments at the Dachau concentration camp. Did he tell you why he had misgivings for not wanting to conduct these experiments at the Dachau concentration camp?
A. That was even in a letter which has been mentioned before, that he didn't like to carry out these experiments in the concentration camp; I gathered that from his mentality.
Q. Why didn't he like to do that, do you know? Was it because it was a criminal act or something? What was his objection to it?
A. I can't read his mind as well as that but I don't think that he liked the concentration camps. He didn't like working there.
Q. What was your rank, doctor?
A. Oberstabsarzt.
Q. In the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, in the Luftwaffe.
Q. When did you join the Party?
A. I was an active officer; I was not in the Party.
Q. You never joined the Nazi Party?
A. No.
Q. Yet you were an officer in the Luftwaffe?
A. I was an officer in the Luftwaffe, yes.
Q. How do you spell your last name, doctor?
A. J-ä-g-e-r.
Q. Did you ever hear of the experiments conducted for the decontamination of water?
A. Yes, I heard about that. Of course, the decontamination.
Q. What did you hear about it?
A. Not the removing of salt, but the decontamination?
Q. That is right.
A. Decontamination?
Q. Yes, what did you hear about that?
A. Nothing especially, only what everybody knew, that is a filter to remove bacteria from water.
Q. Did you ever year of experiments conducted by the "Reichsanstalt"?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You never heard of that?
A. What "Reichsanstalt"?
Q. "Reichsanstalt" is a German word. I will have to ask the interpreter to read it. It is spelled Wasser and Luftgau.
A. No, I never heard of that.
Q. If your name appears in a document concerning experiments conducted on 150 human beings to determine the value of certain decontamination agents in the decontamination of water, would you be inclined to think that that was another Dr. Jaeger?
A. Yes, I think that must have been somebody else.
MR. HARDY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination by counsel for defendant Beiglboeck. There being no further questions to be propounded to the witness, the witness Jaeger will be excused.
The defendant Becker-Freyseng will resume the witness stand.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG - Resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Dr. Becker, the direct examination and the cross examination have been so exhaustive that I do not believe I shall have to ask many more questions. However, I want to clarify first of all one question to you that Dr. Hardy broached this morning, the question of the so-called "Super-Referents". Did you actually, among the Referents, of whom there were twenty-five in the Medical Inspectorate, have a position that put you above the other Referents?
A. I took this statement of Mr. Hardy as a captatio benevolentiae, and I don't think he meant anything of that nature by it. At least I was one of twenty-four Referents.
I did not have the highest military rank among them. There were some lieutenant colonels there. There were some older men there. There were experienced university professors. I did not have any particularly high position.
Q. Now, according to the evidence put in during this trial it would seem as if the research work in general occupied a very pre-eminent position within the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. It would seem as if the whole office concerned itself with research. Now just what was the actual situation; what importance did research occupy within the entire work of the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate?
A. I am unfortunately unable to tell you what percentage of the correspondence of the office referred to research, but I can point out one thing. First of all, my Referat was one out of twenty-four, and within my Referat research formed only a part of my work, perhaps twenty percent, fifteen percent, certainly no more. Of course, it was a very important part of my work, but the other parts were just as important.
Q. Then if I understand you correctly, you say that your work with research and research assignments was only a fractional part of all the work involved in the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate?
A. Of the whole office, yes, certainly.
Q. Now, witness, please turn once again to Document NO-306. This is Exhibit No. 296 and is in Prosecution Document Book No. 12, on page 77. Unfortunately I do not have the English page - it is page 74 in the English document book. We have already discussed this document three times. Mr. Hardy brought it up twice and I must unfortunately refer to it again. But I have only one question, witness. Mr. Hardy concluded from this document, which is a letter of 9 June 1943 from Professor Rose to Professor Haagen. The last sentence reads:
"It will take some time until '2-F' produces its new research order, as Anthony is on a duty trip for several weeks." Mr. Hardy interpreted this sentence to mean that this research assignment was put to one side because the man was not present who issued the orders in research assignments.
Now in one sentence, witness, can you tell us why this research assignment was put aside while Professor Anthony was absent on an official trip?
A. That is very simple. Because the Referent was not there who had to do the technical final work on the assignment, and because it was not an urgent matter that had to be settled overnight and it was not given to me, and because even as assistant Referent I had so much to do that I didn't look for any additional work. I don't think anybody does. And so the matter was left until Anthony came back.
Q. Now, regarding the question of research assignments, which we have been kicking around long enough, now one more question, witness. You said in cross examination that the scientist applies to your office and you dictated the research assignment. I believe that is rather a telescoping of what took place, but please tell us just exactly how an application for a research assignment was handled in the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate.
A. I shall try to answer this question very briefly. For the sake of simplicity let us assume that it is an aviation medicine assignment. The application from Professor John Doe, whom Mr. Hardy mentioned this morning, came first of all to the Chief of Staff, who decided whether this letter would be submitted to the Chief of the Medical Service or sent direct to the department chief, and he made some notation in the margin - either "please consult", or "can be granted", or "inquire of such and such a person" - then the letter came to the department chief, who also signed it and put a note in the margin for me, and then I got the letter and saw what my two superiors had already said about it. I either reported to the department chief about it, since it was an aviation medicine assignment. I might have suggested that Professor Strughold or someone else be consulted, and if the department chief approved the application I took the documents over to the budget Referent, who was responsible for finances. I got his approval, and he also signed it, and after I had all of this together I dictated to my stenographer the draft of a. research assignment which I submitted to my department chief, and he alone, or together with me, gave it to the Chief of Staff and the Chief of the Medical Service for signature.
Q. In other words, you did not actually dictate something which would be in the nature of an order, but your work was of a purely technical nature, was it not?
A. Yes, I believe I have explained that sufficiently. I was never a research dictator.
Q. Mr. Hardy, who has flattered you in certain ways here, has also charged you with being in charge of the aviation medicine research institutes. Now, after what Dr. Weltz has testified here, I do not believe we have to go into that any further, but like Mr. Hardy I should like to ask a hypothetical question. If the Referent had been in charge of the aviation medicine research (of course they were not), would that have been a military subordination in the sense of subordinate or superior in the military sense?
A. I can answer this question only by leading it ad absurdum. The heads of our aviation medicine institutes were: Professor Strughold with the rank of colonel. The office was that of a brigadier general. Professor Weltz had the rank of lieutenant colonel, and the office had the rank of colonel. Professor Buechner, head of the Institute for Aviation Medical pathology, also held the rank of lieutenant colonel, and the office was also that of a colonel. Professor Knothe, commander of the Training Section at Jueterbog, was first a major and at the end lieutenant colonel. That was also a colonel's position. Only the head of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Hamburg was a Stabsarzt (captain). I don't think it is customary for any army in the world to have all colonels under the command of a captain, and I am convinced that if I had tried to give orders in the military sense to Oberstarzt Professor Strughold or Oberfeldarzt Professor Weltz - all old enough to be my father - they would have been quite astonished.
Q That then answers my hypothetical, question. Now, I believe that we do not need to enter into any further discussions of the infamous file note # 55, and the Referat numbers. I think they are clear enough. Moreover, an affidavit is going to be put in regarding this matter later. We do not have to discuss your position in the Referat any longer. Now one question regarding the low-pressure chamber. You know, Witness, that the mobile low-pressure chamber used by the DVL at Adlershof and taken to Dachau and used there in the course of the experiments has played a large role here. I don't know whether it was brought out that this low-pressure chamber was made subordinate to the Referat for Aviation Medicine.
A You again are putting a unit under me which was never under me. I must object to that. I couldn't give any orders to the man in charge of a mobile low-pressure chamber unit.
Q I wasn't referring to when the unit was made subordinate to you, but when the low-pressure chamber itself was put under the Referat for Aviation Medicine?
A That was at the end of July or the beginning of August 1942, when this motorized low-pressure chamber unit was taken over by Stabsarzt Kellerman and his crew.
Q This then was after the conclusion of the Dachau experiments for rescue from high altitude?
AAccording to what I have heard here, these experiments were completed at the end of June at the latest.
Q Something else in this matter, witness. You said in cressexamination that when the mobile low-pressure chamber units were used you said that "we saw to it that these motorized low-pressure chambers were used." Now, please explain the use of this word "we", so that we can avoid the impression that you were some sort of a super-Referent?
A That is an inaccuracy committed by everyone when speaking of his office. The low-pressure chambers were dealt with in my Referat. Orders were issued by my department chief or the Chief of Staff.
Q Regarding the high-altitude experiments, Witness, I have only one question. Since Mr. Hardy has asked you in cross-examination about Dr. Kottenhoff, tell me, how long was Dr. Kottenhoff in your Referat?
A I have already said that in the summer of 1944 Dr. Kottenhof was there for a very brief time. He had just given up one position and was waiting to be assigned again, and in the meantime presumably nobody know what to do with him, and for perhaps a week or two or three weeks, perhaps less, he was in Berlin and was in the office of the Chief of the Medical Services, and since he was interested in Aviation Medicine, he was in my Referat as a guest, I might say, for a few days.
Q Now, Witness, one question regarding the freezing experiments. You said in regard to this as well as altitude, that Professor Hippke carried out a great deal of the work in this field on his own initiative and did so without informing the competent Referent of this. Now, the question arises, could Hippke do this -- did he have any knowledge in the field of aviation medicine so that he could reach autonomous decisions?
A Professor Hippke had not conducted any aviation medical research himself but had taken an intensive interest in aviation medicine, and, no doubt, had knowledge in this field which was far above the normal average of a doctor.
Q Then, if I understand you correctly, you mean to say that fundamental questions of this sort he could decide without consulting a specialist.
A Doubtless.
Q Then, witness, please take up the freezing document book. First of all, Document NO-268, page 140 in the German version of the document book on freezing. It is a letter of 19 February 1943, from the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, to the Reichsfuehrer-SS, signed by Hippke. On this document there is the famous file note 55 and then in parentheses the registry number 211B. You said in cross-examination, Witness, that this document was not worked on by you.
Mr. Hardy asked you a few things about this letter, but regarding the question of the freezing experiments I should like to ask you a few more questions, Witness. How does it happen that despite the fact that you say you are not a specialist in freezing matters, you could make a perfectly clear, understandable statement about these freezing problems? Could you make these statements from specialized experience in the field of cold, or on the basis of experience of a purely general nature that you had as a scientist, research worker, and experimenter.
A I never performed any cold experiment either on animals or on myself or on another human being. I, of course, read some papers on the subject, but the statement which I have made here refer generally to a careful study of the document and to my general medical training.
Q Then you made statements on the basis of purely general information which you had as a doctor, supported by a study of the documents and by information on research in general?
A Yes, that is right.
Q On page 22 of the document book on freezing, document NO 286, Exhibit 88, there is a word which Mr. Hardy put to you -- Document NO 286 -- a letter to the Reichsfuehrer-SS from the Reich Air Minister, 8 October 1942. Do you have the document?
A That is the one you were just talking about? Yes, I have it.
Q In this document please turn to the last paragraph on the first page, where Anthony writes: "The research records and an extensive report will be presented to the Reichsfuehrer-SS by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher."
Mr. Hardy contended that the extensive report mentioned here is the report that Professor Holzloehner gave in Nurnberg. May I ask you whether this opinion of Mr. Hardy is correct, or just what is the report here mentioned?
AAs far as I remember, in the answer which I gave Mr. Hardy I said that one of the next documents shows that what Holzloehner said at the Nurnberg meeting was the part of this report which could be made public as top secret. According to what I know today, this extensive report was the one which Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, and Rascher signed. It was sent by Rascher to Himmler as top secret with a personal letter, and was certainly not what Professor Holzloehner about three weeks later told the people assembled at Nurnberg.
Q In your direct examination you have already stated that this extensive report, so far as you know, did not go to the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, and that, at any rate, yon never saw the report in the office.
A That's what I said, yes.
Q Now, the last question regarding the freezing experiments, Witness. Very surprisingly, the Prosecutor stated here for the first time, that the method of rapid rewarming was not introduced into practice in the German Wehrmacht. This statement surprised me greatly, since I found no document to this effect, nor did I hear anything orally to that effect. Now tell us, witness, was this method actually introduced in the German Wehrmacht, and if so, when?
A My positive knowledge about this introduction is as follows: First of all, I know that in the course of the winter of 1942-1943, instructions for medical officers were issued advocating almost ordering, quick rewarming as the only method for treatment after freezing. Secondly, every German soldier in the East or the North received a memorandum an his pay book about what to do for cold and treatment of frozen persons. Also, I knew that the Medical Sea Distress Stations, in their motor boats, life boats, had arrangements for using the hot water which comes out of the motor after cooling the moror, for the treatment of frozen persons. But I believe that can be proved by an affidavit from a sea distress doctor.
Q Then the final question on cold, which you can answer with one sentence, Witness. In your direct examination you said that rapid rewarming had been discussed at great length, and then Mr. Hardy brought the discovery of a Russian doctor from the year 1880, I believe, to your attention and asked you why these experiments by Holzloehner at Dachau were necessary in view of that. Can you say something to that?
A These experiments -- specifically Holzloehner's experiments -on quick rewarming, where, in Holzloehner's own words, no experimental subject suffered any hard or was endangered, were necessary because in spite of the experiments of the Russian Doctor, Lepezinsky in 1880, and in spite of numerous animal experiments, and in spite of some isolated observations in practice, no one could decide against slow rewarming, which had been used for thousands of years for freezing, and to change around completely and do exactly the opposite -- do exactly what had always been considered the greatest danger -- that is, quick rewarming.
Q Mr. President, I have a few questions regarding the next subject, but I think this would be a good time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours 29 May 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 May 1947, 0930 hours, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of American and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that all the defendants are present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the defendants are all present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
BECKER-FREYSENG - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. TIPP
Q Dr. Becker, yesterday we concluded our discussion of the freezing problem. The next charge of the prosecution against you is the typhus experiments. However, I believe that this problem has been discussed already at such great length, along with its file number, etc., that we need not concern ourselves with it. I believe that we can leave that well to the decision of the Tribunal.
I come now to the next charge against you; namely, that sea water problem, and here I have a question to put to you. In the direct examination you explained what part of the responsibility you are willing to accept for the sea water experiments and explained this again to Mr. Hardy in the cross examination. Nevertheless, Mr. Hardy continued to speak of your complete responsibility for the sea water experiments. Will you please, in order to clarify this point, again state to what extent you feel yourself responsible for these experiments on the basis of your official position?
A I think my responsibility for these experiments lies in the fact of my giving my department chief the necessary documentation and data in order for him to arrive at decisions regarding the necessity of these experiments and regarding the conditions under which they were to be carried out. Further, regarding the qualifications and personality of the man conducting the experiments Professor Beiglboeck. I believe those are the three points with which I was actively concerned and I was then, and still am, ready to accept the responsibility to that extent.
Q That then is the responsibility which you, in your position as referent, had to bear and you took this responsibility within the office, wis-a-vis your superior at that time?
A Yes.
Q And thus do not take the full responsibility for those experiments -- for the carrying out of them?
A I believe I can refer to what my chief at that time, Professor Schroeder himself, said here in the stand.
Q Witness, another matter in the sea water problem. In the direct and cross examination you explained that the Berkatit method, if used in practice, you considered to be very dangerous. However, experiments with Berkatit you considered to be absolutely without danger. This might be an important point in the decision regarding this matter and I want to ask you what the difference is between the use of Berkatit, on the one hand, in practice and, on the other, in experiments?
A Berkatit is a chemical which conceals the salt content of sea water and seems to make at least a potable liquid of sea water. In this way the person suffering from shipwreck is induced to drink a certain amount of this water and thus hopes to allay his thirst. However, since Berkatit does not change or lessen the salt content of sea water the thirst is not allayed, but subsequently becomes all the more severe. Thus, the man will again drink sea water, probably this time will drink more of it, and so gradually this will increase.
He will drink more and more, become more and more thirsty, and in consequence, lose more body water. Above all, because single doses of more than 300 cc bring about diarrhea and, in this way, one can foresee without being a great prophet that a serious condition will develop. That is what happens when Berkatit is actually used in practice. In an experiment, I can determine exactly the total amount of the water treated with Berkatit, that is to be consumed in one day by the experimental subject. I can determine how much he has to drink in any single dose, and the decisive factor is that the experiment can, at any moment, be interrupted for medical reasons.
Q Then, if I understood you correctly, you see the danger in practice in the fact that a man in a serious case of sea distress -shipwreck -- will drink too much sea water mixed with Berkatit? That will be dangerous to him, whereas, in the experiment, the amount that he consumes is determined by the physician and kept within proper limits.
A It can so be summarized, yes.
Q. Another question in this matter, Mr. Hardy asked you whether you agreed that a person could die from drinking sea water and you then answered briefly and precisely. "You can die of anything". Perhaps, however, the deduction could be drawn from this statement that you counted on the cases of fatality in the sea water experiment? Perhaps you could elucidate your statement, "You can die of anything."
A. At that time I was referring in my thought to a passage in my direct examination when I explained that the toxic effects of any substance depend on the dose in which that substance is consumed. That is a most primitive rule of toxicology and I simply wanted to say in that statement of mine that you can kill a person by feeding him sea water if you want to but, of course, you can also feed him pure oxygen if you want to, or too much sugar or any other substance and you can arrange it that it will be dangerous if you wish to.
Q. Then, you meant, that in general it depends on the amount of the substance consumed and you say that any substance which is consumed in too great doses can be fatal?
A. Yes.
Q. But you didn't want to say that such doses were used in the experiments as could lead to death?
A. That is right. I wanted to say exactly the opposite namely, that in the experiment the doses were such that it was a certainty that deaths would not occur.
Q. Then, in conclusion, witness, a last question? The prosecutor repeatedly asked you about documents regarding which he assumed that they must have reached the Medical Inspectorate and must be in the files there. For example, the concluding reports by Hozloehner, Rascher and Finke re garding the freezing experiments, you denied that you had ever seen this report and a large number of others.
Therefore, I should like to ask you, do you know what happened to the files of the Chief Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe?
A.- Our registry office was in Harzburg in the Harz Mountains whence it was transferred in February from Berlin, whereas I stayed in Berlin until the middle of April and then, with the rest of this small staff of mine, went to the Tyrol where at the end of May we were taken prisoners.
Q.- Now, what happened to these Harzburg files and the registry office of the Medical Inspector?
A.- In the first half of April the office was taken by American troops? In this eay the files certainly fell into American hands since later when I was at the Aero-Medical Center in Heidelberg, I received a number of these files to be worked on by me for the Aero-Medical Center.
Q.- Witness, among the documents put in evidence in this trial have you seen any documents that originated from the files of the Medical Inspectorate, that is, used for the prosecution.
A.- No.
Dr. TIPP: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions to be propounded to this witness by any defense counsel?
BY DR. SAUTER (Defense counsel for the defendant Ruff and appearing also for defendant Romberg):
Q.- Witness, yesterday and the day before you want into the experiments with the low-pressure chamber at great length. However, a few points must yet be clarified in this matter. You said yesterday -- or maybe it was the day before yesterday -- that when these experiments began with the low pressure chamber in Dachau in 1942 they had been preceded by other experiments which were also to clarify the problem for rescue from great altitudes -- experiments by Dr. Lutz, you said, Dr. Clamann and Dr. Benzinger.
These experiments, you said, were carried out above 12,000 motors and there were reports on them but you weren't able to say whether these reports on the preceding experiments were already available at the time of the Dachau experiment or not. I should like to take my point of departure from these statements of yours and ask a few questions. You mentioned the names of Doctors Lutz, Clamann and Benzinger.
A.- I believe there was a little linguinistic misunderstanding here. I do not remember having mentioned Dr. Lutz in this connection. At any rate, I was thinking of the name Luft, who worked with Clamann on these problems. However, these experiments of Luft were made in 1942 and 1943. Clamann had worked on this subject before alone.
Q. - Then let me ask you something regarding this. In these experiments with Dr. Luft arc you thinking of the experiments which are carried cut by the experimenter with white mice, instead of people.
A.- Those are the experiments that Lutz carried out. Ho carried them out with white mice.
Q.- But the experiments you were thinking of were different experiments?
A.- The luft experiments took certainly place after the Dachau experiments.
Q.- And what about the Lutz experiments? Were they before the Dachau experiments, and when I say Dachau experiments I an referring to the experiments Dr. Romberg carried out on Dr. Ruff's authority. Now the Lutz experi ments were white mice instead of experimental persons.
Were they before or after the Dachau experiments?
A.- I can't answer that from my own precise knowledge but only on the basis of the documents and from the documents it can be seen that apparently these two experimental series were carried cut more or less simultaneously. I believe that Romber mentions in his report that the studies of Lutz were concluded only after his work.
Q.- This is document 402, I believe, the concluding report by Doctors Ruff and Romberg which came out after the experiments were concluded and in this report there is mentioned, if you remember, the fact that through Lutz's experiment the problem of rescue from great heights had not been solved yet. Do you remember that passage in the concluding report of Ruff and Romberg?
A.- That is certainly so. I can remember the Lutz report to some extent.
Q.- Dr. Becker, is it still your opinion today that Lutz's experiments with white mice did not solve yet, the problem of rescue from great altitudes? Is that still your personal opinion as an expert and specialist?
A.- That is not only my personal opinion but the opinion of scientists in general.
Q.- Do you remember that after this report of Dr. Lutz's it was so ascertained through further experiments, particularly through Ruff's and Romberg's experiments, that the conclusions and results to which Lutz had come were actually wrong-namely, in the following respect. In this report which you just mentioned Dr. Lutz -- and I am asking you if this is so -- comes to the conclusion that rescue from great altitudes is possible only up to the altitude of 15,000 meters to which it is true, Dr. Lutz adds. "So far as that can be ascertained from animal experiments."
Then other experiments went to much greater heights and it was seen that rescue was possible from those heights also. Is that correct?
A.- Yes. I can corroborate that because in 1944 I, as a referent, concerned myself with this problem but I must correct you to this extent. Lutz's conclusions reached with hie white mice were certainly correct. However, there is a difference between a white mouse and a human being in such small animals arc very narrow channels and thus present different conditions for absorbing and taking care of air pressure or pressure in general and are thus different from what results in cases of larger air passages such as are found in human beings.
Q.- Then I think you are trying to say, Dr. Becker, that Dr. Lutz's experiments did not solve the problem of rescue from great altitudes -- at least did not solve it for human beings. Is that so?
A. Yes. that opinion is correct.
Q. Now, how about the experiments carried on by the other two men I mentioned previously, namely, Drs. Clamann and Benzinger. In your opinion, was the problem of rescue from great altitudes solved completely by the experiments of Drs. Clamann and Benzinger, or was the problem not yet solved by these experiments in the spring of 1942?
A. Let me refer to what Ruff explained from the witness stand regarding this whole problem, and say that within the framework of this problem as a whole there were two main questions. One question was, how does a man stand explosive decompression at all if he is in a pressure cabin in a ballon or in an airplane? There is in thie chamber, first of all, a pressure of 3,000 or 8,000 meters, let us say. The airplane, however, is at an altitude of 15,000 or 20,000 meters, and suddenly the cabin is burst. Now, the first question is, what happens to the human being when all of a sudden this explosive decompression takes place? Clamann and Benzinger concerned themselves with this problem of explosive decompression. Today I cannot say without documentation just at what date the various reports that they issued on this problem came out; but even on the assumption that these experiments were concluded before Ruff's and Romberg's experiments began, the second main problem or question would still not have been solved, namely, how a human being, when he has survived explosive decompression, can be brought down from a great altitude to lower altitudes and what happens to him. And this second question was, so far as I know, the problem which formed the basis for Ruffs and Romberg's work.
Q. The, Dr. Becker, in order to state this perfectly clearly, you say -- and if I err, please correct me -- there are two problems to be solved. One is the problem of explosive de-compression, namely, the problem resulting when the pressure cabin in an airplane bursts at a great altitude; and this fact is simulated in the experiment. Thus, the experiment is designed to discover how a human being reacts to this sudden reduction in pressure. That is the problem of explosive decompression.