If now rapid decompression takes place, bubbles of gas form in the blood more rapidly than the gas can be cast off by the lungs, and numerous capillary emboli result. These then cause pain in local regions, either by direct or mechanical force, or by cutting off the local blood supply. There may be more or loss general pain involving two or three or all of the extremities and sometimes severe abdominal pain with prostration, which in rare cases results in unconsciousness, collapse, and death. These symptoms are due to the presence of spinal cord or brain lesions - the results of the gas emboli in the blood vessels of the central nervous system. Vertigo with deafness and labyrinth hemorrhage are sometimes present and probably point to embolism in the labyrinth. Dypsnea in the sense of constriction in the chest are also sometimes present but not always fatal. The most successful treatment is that of recompression with gradual decompression carried on in a mechanical air lock. This is now required by law in some countries. Prophylactic measures are carried out by careful examination of the workmen and the elimination of these unfitted for work in compressed air. Predisposing factors are youth or too advanced age, alcoholism, organic disease, or fatness. New men should be given short shifts and workmen should be carefully supervised. Fatigue is also a factor. Certain countries and states already have laws regulating shifts and providing for gradual decompression gaged according to pressure undergone, which are the chief preventive measures."
Now, can it not be said in view of that that air embolism can have other causes, but caisson disease is always due to air embolism?
A. First of all, since you spoke a little too fast the translation was somewhat fragmentated. The first part you read corroborates what I said a little while ago. In your other dictionary you read that caisson disease arrises through the increase in pressure.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, it appears to the Tribunal that these rather complicated and technical translations may not make the matter clear to the witness. I think these definitions as read by counsel should be carefully translated into.
German and with the English volumes be submitted to counsel for the defense, so that he may study them and make his answers more intelligent and more satisfactory to all concerned.
MR. HARDY: I will do that a later date, Your Honor. At this time I merely wanted to point out that it is consistently in most dictionaries a synonomous term.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that. We understand your position, but the question is whether or not the witness, having had these translations read to him only, whether he thoroughly understands the definition and is competent to discuss them. That could be done at a later time with those carefully made translations, with the English dictionaries for examination by defense counsel, should be furnished to the defense who may be allowed to consider them and discuss them later.
Q. Professor Ruff,this report which is document NO-402 -- when did you and Romberg and Rascher write that report?
A. I didn't write this report at all. The report was written by Rascher and Romberg. I simply signed it.
Q. When did you receive the report, to sign it?
A. When was it finished?
Q. Well, what date? Can you tell me that? Do you know off-hand? The report is dated 28 July 1942.
A. The date is as you said it -- the date is on the report.
Q. Then in other words, Ruff and Romberg wrote this report and then submitted it to you. Did you at any time offer any suggestions for this report?
A. Rascher and Romberg wrote this report and gave it to me to be countersigned.
Q. Well, did you have any corrections or anything to say about the report, or did you first of all see a draft of the report and then have an opportunity to correct it?
A. It is possible, but I can't tell you that in detail today. But, I have already said in my direct examination that through my countersignature I took responsibility for the scientific deductions set forth in this report. That is the meaning of my signature.
Q. And even after having heard of the deaths at Dachau you were still willing to associate your name with Rascher on this report?
A. We had to issue a report oh these experiments in some form or another. We had to report on what had been done there. That this report was signed by the two workers that worked on the experiments is of course quite understandable, and moreover it was regular procedure that the leader of the institute would have to put his name to it also. The fact that I knew Rascher had carried out experiments and had deaths did nothing to change this.
Q. Well, now as a result of this work, Dr. Romberg received a medal, didn't he -- the War Merit Cross, I believe?
A. After he visited Himmler in the Fuehrer's Headquarters, a few weeks or months later, he received the War Merit Cross, Second Class.
Q. Did you also receive one?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Who recommended Romberg for the War Merit Cross? Did you recommend him?
A. No.
Q. Well, who recommended him?
A. I have seen from the documents that that on Rascher's suggestion, at least, I think that's to be found in a document; namely, Sievers made this recommendation. I am not sure of that, but that seems to be my recollection.
Q. It could have been Rascher, however, that recommended him, couldn't it?
A. I can't tell you.
Q. However, you were not recommended for the War Merit Cross to Himmler -- just Romberg -- is that right?
A. No, I was not suggested for that decoration. There was no reason to either, because if any one was to be suggested for a decoration because of this experimentation it certainly wouldn't have been I because I didn't carry out these experiments. I was simply the Chief of the Institute.
Q. Well, suppose you had not sent this low pressure chamber to Dachau how would they have carried out the experiments?
A. I don't understand that question.
Q. Well, if they didn't have a low pressure chamber in Dachau then there wouldn't have been any low pressure experiments in Dachau obviously.
Q. The low pressure chamber came from your institute?
A. The low pressure chamber was the property of the Medical Inspectorate and, on Hippke's approval, was sent to Dachau.
Q. And it was Professor Weltz that requested that the low pressure chamber be brought to Dachau?
A. I didn't know that.
Q. I'm asking you that.
A. I repeat, I knew nothing to the effect that Prof. Weltz had asked that the low pressure chamber be taken to Dachau.
Q. Nell, it actually was your low pressure chamber, assigned to your institute, wasn't it. owned by the Luftwaffe?
A. No, that was not a low pressure chamber of our institute. It had just come from the firm and was to be used in the Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt. It was to be equipped with the inter-com system and so forth. It was not actually assigned to our institute for use, but just so we could make these alterations in it.
Q. Well, who was it assigned to? Was it a new one that had just been built?
A. It was a new chamber that had just been manufactured by the firm, and which was sent to us at the institute because we, on the orders of the Medical Inspectorate, were to put in the inter-com system and the oxygen system. We, in this case, means the Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt, which had the experts and technicians who usually put this same sort of equipment in air planes.
Q. Well now in summation, how did you happen to become involved in these experiments at Dachau?
A. In my direct examination and in my cross-examination by you this morning I said several times that in 1941, about December, Professor Weltz visited me in Berlin in my institute.
Q. Well, had it not been for Professor Weltz' visit you would not have gone to Dachau, is that right?
A. That's possible yea.
Q. No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions of this witness by defense counsel in connection with the cross-examination?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, it was my intention to ask the defendant Ruff a number of questions to clarify the question of embolism, since the question has been pursued so stubbornly by the prosecution; however, I shall wait to see what clarification of this point the prosecution later submits and, for my part, I shall make the necessary counter-clarifications and submit them to the Tribunal in writing. I believe that would be better, than if we should here discuss a problem about which lawyers, in effect, cannot take any attitude. However, I should like to point out one thing. This morning the question, so far as I appraised it, was not whether the word"embolism" could be translated by such and such a word, or whether it meant this or that, but what struck me as important was that the principal question that in a document where the word "embolism" is not found the word "embolism" is added, and chat the German translation is given to us with the usual certification that it is a verbatim copy. To that I objected today. I shall not make any further statements on this subject, but shall simply ask the witness Ruff one or two further questions.
MR. HARDY: I went to clarify to the Tribunal this ambiguity that Dr. Sauter is trying to more or less imply that we stuck the word "Air-Embolism" in a document to create a confusion.
I have checked up with the Translation Division and the translator apparently at that time - she isn't here at this time - but the Chief told me that the Translation Division, when they come across such a word and they nave two meanings or another meaning, that they put in parenthesis an alternative meaning, and this here is just another meaning or another translation for the word in German. That's how the confusion arose. It was not put in to confuse the Bench or to create an interference as Dr. Sauter is trying to put forth here.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, when that expression appears it has appeared in several of the documents - and when that appears should not that fact be made apparent to the Tribunal?
MR. HARDY: Yes, it should, Your Honor. But, at this particular time, it was not made apparent to me either, Your Honor, and I obviously went along the same course, but not intentionally.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER:Dr. Ruff, at the end of the cross-examination you were asked by the prosecutor about your responsibility for the defendant Dr. Romberg.
You were shown Romberg's affidavit of 1 November 1946, #6. This is in Document Book #2. #3 reads:
"I witnessed the death of three of Dr. Rascher's human experimental subjects during the experiments. The first death occurred in the latter part of April. On this particular occasion I was studying the electrocaoriograph of the human experimental subject then being tested. After the death of this human experimental subject I raised objections to Rascher and also informed Ruff concerning the matter.
Thereafter two other deaths occured on different days in May."
You were asked whether this Romberg was your co-worker and whether you were his superior, and you answered these questions in the affirmative. You were then asked if you were responsible for what Romberg did and you also answered that in the affirmative. Now, tell me what your point of view previously was end what your point of view now is with regard to this question: Dr. Romberg received a very precise working program from you regarding what he was to do with Rascher. Outside of this work program, Dr. Rascher carried on experiments of his own behind your back. Now, in the experiments that took place according to the program nothing happened, but in Rascher's own experiments something, did. Now, I want to ask you, in view of what you were charged with this morning, is it your point of view that you responsibility for your co-worker, Dr. Romberg, regarding the Dachau experiments - speaking now entirely in general- extends so far that you would consider yourself responsible for any possible cooperation by Romberg in Rascher's own experiments, or is it your point of view that you knew nothing of these matters, that you didn't approve these matters, and that, accordingly, you are not responsible for what Romberg did in that field? Now, please think about that and answer.
A. Dr. Sauter, I believe that is a question which I, as a physician, can answer only with great difficulty. I believe that is a purely legal question. I personally do not feel myself responsible which I neither requested, nor approved or knew of, but, that however, is my personal opinion and I believe the question is a purely legal problem.
Q. But, in your personal opinion, it is a matter of course to you that you are not responsible for what Romberg did under those circumstances?
A. Yes, that is my personal opinion.
Q. Now, in this question or responsibility I should like to bring up something else, Dr. Ruff. You signed the one report officially which Romberg and Rascher drew up. You co-signed this report, and you told us this morning that you thus undertook a certain responsibility for this report. I believe you said that you took the responsibility for this report. I believe you said that you took the responsibility for the scientific evaluation of the results of those experiments.
A. I said that I thereby undertook the responsibility for the scientific conclusions that were drawn from the experiments described in the report, the theories that the two workers pursued when they drew their conclusions from the experiments. I said that I agreed with those theories and, to that extent, also personally take over the responsibility for that.
Q In other words, you undertake the responsibility for the correct evaluation?
A Yes.
Q I ask you this because you were the chief of an Institution. Is it your point of view that by cosigning this report, which two other researchers worked out, you thus take the responsibility for the experiments themselves? In other words that by co-signing this report you take co-responsibility for the experiments, for any irregularities that might have taken place during the experiments, or any harm that might have been done?
A I don't know, but I don't believe that my signature to this report can be construed as my taking responsibility for the experiments. Every scientist knows who reads such a report, if the chief of the Institution has co-signed, every scientist knows that the Chief of the Institution was not present at each experiment and himself carried out the experiments. That is a matter of course.
Q Now, a last question. It was previously said that Dr. Romberg had received the War Merit Cross, 2d Class. The Judges probably have no idea what sort of a decoration this is. It could be a very high decoration or could be a very low one. Please tell me, is it correct that this is the lowest class of decoration that exists in Germany, the very lowest decoration one could receive?
A That is true as of the year 1942, yes.
DR. SAUTER: No further questions.
DR. WILLE: Wille for Weltz.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q Dr. Ruff, you said on a question from the Prosecutor that without a visit from Professor Weltz to you in Berlin it was inconceivable to you that the Dachau experiments would have taken place; I believe to have understood the meaning of your answer, but I don't want a false picture to be created here. Now, let me ask you, you will agree with me that it was a matter of your own decision that on Dr. Weltz' suggestion you arranged that the experiments in Dachau should be carried out?
A I have described already several times how these experiments came to be carried out. Dr. Weltz was not my superior. He visited me as chief of the Munich Institute in my institute. We discussed scientific questions and came to speak of the question of rescue from great altitudes, and on this occasion Dr. Weltz suggested that the second half of these experiments should be carried out at Dachau in cooperation with Rascher. I believe that this clarifies the question you asked.
DR. WILLE: But it was very important to me that I should hear this once again in view of the question the Prosecutor put to you.
DR. VORWERK: Vorwerd for Romberg. I have two or three questions. BY DR. VORWERK:
Q Do you believe, Dr. Ruff, that during the time the chamber was in Dachau, Romberg undertook other experiments than those on the question of rescue from great altitudes?
A I consider that to be out of the question.
Q May I assume that it is your firm conviction that during his stay in Dachau Romberg only took part in experiments which concerned themselves with rescue from high altitudes?
A I assume that to be practically certain.
Q Dr. Ruff, can you tell me who issued Romberg authority for his travel orders when Romberg went to Dachau?
A When an offician trip was to be undertaken the person who wanted to carry out this official trip filled out the travel orders, then I signed them for my Institute, and then they went to the management of the Experimental Institute for Aviation and they approved the trip.
Q In this case then so far as the Institute was concerned these travel orders bore your signature and then were passed on?
A Yes.
DR. WEISGERBER: Weisgerber for Sievers.
Your Honor, I should like to ask one or two questions concerning the relations between huff and Sievers.
Q The Prosecutor has repeatedly pictured Sievers as a person responsible for the execution of a number of experiments such as are here the subject of the charge. Among these experiments are included the experiments here designated as high altitude experiments, the planning and execution of which arc known to you. Now, I should like to find cut the following: Did Sievers have anything to do with the planning and execution of the experiments which were carried out in Dachau so far as you know?
A I know nothing of that. So far as I can recall I never heard Sievers name only after the experiments were concluded, roughly at the time when this report, Document 402 was compiled in Berlin. Therefore I had not heard the name Sievers at all so far as I can recollect. In my opinion he can have had nothing to do with the planning of those experiments and certainly not with the carrying cut of them.
Q Did Sievers have anything to do with making the low pressure chamber available?
A No, certainly not.
Q Do you know whether Sievers had anything to do with the choice of Dr. Rascher as the person in charge of the experiments?
A I never heard anything to that effect, nor can I imagine that that may have been so.
Q Did Sievers have anything to do with the evaluation of the notes that were taken during the experiments or with the preparation of the reports on the experiments?
A This report that is to be found in Document 402 here was compiled in my Institute in Berlin on the basis of the minutes of the experiments. Now, Sievers was certainly not present when the evaluation of these notes was undertaken, because until I reached Nurnberg here I did not know Sievers at all. Consequently, he could not have been in my institute, in Berlin.
Q I again then would conclude that the high altitude experiments were carried out without Sievers having to appear at all?
A I have no reason to assume the contrary.
DR. WEISGERBER: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to this witness?
The Witness Ruff may be excused from the stand and resume his place.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there arc a number of documents which I should like to submit to you which have so far not been submitted. The first, I have an affidavit contained in Document Book Ruff, Document # 3, to be found on page 10 to 11. This will receive Exhibit No. 12. This is an affidavit made by a certain Adolf Voss -- who from the year 1937 until 1944 had worked with Dr. Ruff with some interruptions, and for that reason is well acquainted with his personality and the entire situation. I should like to ask you to take notice of the contents of that affidavit and I shall only read the last and the one before the last paragraph on page 2 of the document.
I quote. Dr. Wieshofer was a collaborator of Dr. Ruff:
"Dr. Wieshofer, who was a very close friend of mine, told me in 1942 or 1943 that experiments were carried out at Dachau behind Dr. Ruff's back and without his consent. Dr. Wieshofer was very indignant about it but he himself had no detailed information on the subject.
"I have always known and esteemed Dr. Ruff as an upright and decent man. Dr. Ruff proved to be an excellent and careful physician when carrying out experiments with me in low pressure chambers. I never felt that any experiment was badly prepared, scientifically or technically, considering the seriousness of the situation. I cannot imagine that Dr. Ruff risked human lives in Dachau in a frivolous and unscrupulous manner, when making experiments in aviation medicine."
So, for the quotation. I ask you to take notice of the rest of the contents. This affidavit is signed in the proper manner and certified.
As the next document I should like to submit Exhibit No. 13, Document No. 7, which is the document to be found on pages 24 to 26 in Document Book Ruff. This is an affidavit by a certain Dr. Hans Georg Clamann. This witness was an Oberregierungsmedizinalrat at the Aviation hedical Research Institute and therefore a high medical official in the Luftwaffe. I also ask you to take notice of the contents of that affidavit. The witness mentions that he always held Dr. Ruff's character in high esteem and says that he only heard the best about him in his capacity as a human being as well as a scientist. From the affidavit itself I should like to read the following paragraph and I quote:
"As far as the investigations carried out in Berlin by Dr. Siegfried Ruff are known to me, the overwhelming majority were carried out by him and his collaborators as self-experiments.
"Further volunteers were recruited for experiments only because the number of his collaborators was no longer sufficient owing to the urgency of the investigations.
"Dr. Ruff showed a high sense of responsibility in the investigation and, never demanded more of his colleagues than of himself.
"In view of this experience, it appears to me to be out of the question that Dr. Ruff should have carried out experiments which constituted crimes against humanity."
This affidavit, which I just read, is certified in the proper manner.
The next document will receive Exhibit No. 14, Ruff Exhibit No. 14, and it is to be found in Document Book Ruff as No. 10 on pages 35 on. It is an affidavit made by the university lecturer Dr. Otto Gauer, dated 23 January 1947. This affidavit too is sworn to and certified in the proper manner. I attach particular importance to this affidavit because its author, Dr. Otto Gauer, was not only a collaborator of Dr. Ruff for a long period of years but also because this Dr. Otto Gauer is now in the United States active in the same capacity as a researcher as before in Germany. For that reason Dr. Gauer has a very particular expert knowledge of the matters involved here. In the first part of his affidavit the witness describes the defendant Ruff's personality and I shall not read all that in detail. This is as brilliant a characterization of Dr. Ruff's character as was made by all the ether witnesses.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, might I ask counsel that this notation on the back by Dr. Marx has to do with the authenticity of the signature of the affiant, if it was made at the same time, or later here in Nuernberg. There is no jurat on this document; it merely contains the name .of Dr. Marx, who says, "The authenticity of the signature appears to be correct." Does that happen to be a jurat, or what might it be?
DR. SAUTER: May I clarify that point, Mr. President? Counsel Dr. Marx, as you know, is representing a defendant here. Dr. Marx at that time, with my approval, went to Heidelberg and there took this affidavit from Dr. Gauer, which I had arranged for with Dr. Gauer previously. Dr. Marx, if I am not mistaken, had simultaneously obtained an affidavit for the purpose of his own client, which I do not know. Naturally, I did not make this special trip to Heidelberg, but asked Dr. Marx to obtain this affidavit for me.
MR. HARDY: Granted, Your Honor, the defense counsel has authority of the Tribunal to administer an oath and to certify a signature, but I merely want to know if Dr. Marx certified that the signature was correct and saw Dr. Gauer sign it.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Marx went to Heidelberg for that very purpose. He went there in order to obtain an affidavit for his client and for me from Dr. Gauer. That is the reason why neither I nor any other notary could make this certification, but Dr. Marx who was present when the signature was given.
MR. HARDY: I have no objection to this document. I only wanted to know if it was executed in Heidelberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The jurat signed by Dr. Manx contains no date, no place, nor does it contain a. certificate that the witness was sworn. It simply says, "The authenticity of the above signature is hereby certified." As counsel says, no place, no date or any affidavit delivered.
DR. SAUTER: This deficiency of form, which obviously is due to a mistake by Dr. Marx, I shall rectify in the future and I shall see to it that the date and place of this certificate are added by Dr. Marx.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel may proceed with the document now.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, inasmuch as Dr. Sauter is willing to testify that Dr. Marx signed this affidavit in Heidelberg and it is merely a mistake in form, I will not protest it and it won't be necessary for him to do that work.
THE PRESIDENT: The counsel for the defendant may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much.
This witness, endowed with special qualifications, Dr. Gauer states in this affidavit, which he made immediately before his departure for the United States, a number of matters referring to the personality of Dr. Ruff. I shall skip the first part since it entirely conforms with statements made in the other affidavits, referring to Dr. Ruff's character. I shall quote from page 3, the center of the Page. This is to be found on page 37 of the German document book volume:
"In many dozens of experiments I had the opportunity to learn with what extreme caution and sense of responsibility Ruff carried out the experiments. His supreme principle was never in any way to endanger the experimental subject. I never experienced an experiment in which Ruff carried on the strain longer than was necessary for the solution of a certain problem. In Ruff's published work (Aviation Medicine 3, 225, (1939)), Monography of German Aviation Medicine (in print), there are frequent references to the fact that he refrained from adding to the strain after a certain problem had been solved. Experiments with very great strain and experiments of which the consequences could not be immediately foreseen Ruff carried out on himself first, on principle. It is also characteristic that Ruff, after a rebuilding of the experimental installation on the large human centrifuge always insisted on serving as an experimental subject himself for the first test. This attitude created unlimited confidence in Ruff among his employees and among most of his closest collaborators, who always placed themselves at his disposal for psychically and physical extraordinarily exacting experiments. It '-as due to Ruff's experience and caution that out of all of his numerous experimental flights and dangerous experiments, as far as I know, not one serious accident occurred. To sum up, it can therefore be stated that Ruff is a highly qualified scientist, who is distinguished by a particular sense of responsibility.
"With regard to the experiments carried out in Dachau, which are the basis of the indictment against Ruff, I think it highly improbable, for purely objective as well and as for personal reasons, that any initiative came from Ruff in this respect, but I presume that it came from the technical side (Technical Office, REM). As far as I know, high altitude experiments were too far on the margin of his real field of interests. His whole attention, as has already been stated, was centered on the problems of high speed flying and catapault installations, the building of which he had to accomplish in the face of everincreasing difficulties, I presume that Ruff was called to these Dachau experiments because he was the medical scientist who was best acquainted with the development of the stratosphere and rocket aircraft.
As the whole problem of rescue from stratosphere aircraft was a very special science, a short explanation is given, as far as seems necessary to judge the experiments on which the indictment is based.
"The problem of rescue from stratosphere aircraft.
"Importance was attached in Germany much earlier than in other countries to the development of rocket propelled aircraft, which can fly at heights of between 10 and 20 km. Therefore the rescue of aircrews during accidents at such a great height became an urgent aviation medicine problem. These problems, which first became urgent with the development of the Me 163 rocket fighter, retain a great practical importance also for the future, insofar as the development of long distance aircraft for passenger and goods transport will probably culminate in the construction of large stratosphere planes in the not too distant future.
"In stratosphere planes the crew is in an airtight cabin, the so-called pressure body in which the atmospheric conditions necessary for like, such as normal atmospheric pressure, normal temperature and oxygen concentration, are artificially maintained. Outside the cabin the atmospheric pressure is so low, that is, the air so thin, that no human being could live. If the wall of the cabin is damaged, the artificially maintained pressure bursts away, and the crew finds itself with lightening speed in a vacuum corresponding to the altitude of the flight. AngloSaxon aviation medicine created for this process the very pertinent expression "Explosive Decompression". In this way the crew is exposed to double danger.
"Firstly, owing to the sudden decrease in pressure the gas-filled cavities of the body expand with lightening speed. Theoretically, there is a danger that the tissues may tear and other mechanically conditioned disturbances may occur; also the emergence of gas bubbles from the body fluids is to be feared, which may cause circulation disorders, paralysis symptoms and necrosis.
"Secondly, the acute lack of oxygen caused by the cabin being no longer air tight, effects after the socalled reserve interval, high altitude sickness, which finally, if the lack of oxygen continues for too long leads to death by paralysis of the respiratory and circulation centers. Rescue from the stratosphere is only possible by immediate descent into lower, non-dangerous air layers. The question arises here whether the speed of the pilot's descent with an open parachute or the speed of the body falling unimpeded with a closed parachute is sufficient to enable the crew to pass sufficiently rapidly through the danger sphere and to reach the non-dangerous air layers.
The aviation physician whose task it is to clarify the problem of rescue from great heights, has therefore two questions to answer;
"Firstly, are human beings able to endure explosive decompression?
"Secondly, if so, is there a possibility of surviving the lack of oxygen after leaving the 'plane'?
"The first question has been ackled since 1939 in different institutes by self-experiments."
Now there follow a number of tables which I merely ask you to read and I continue reading the affidavit after these tables and I quote again:
"The results were favorable. In particular, the most modern investigation by H.M. Sweeney showed that the resistance of the human body is unexpectedly high against the action of explosive decompression.
"In contract to the numerous investigations on explosive decompression, the only report about which I know on the subject of rescue from altitudes above 12,000 is the DVL report by Romberg and Rascher which forms the basis of the indictment. The enormous experimental expenditure which was made to clarify the effect of decompression on the human body, and which involved a considerable risk for the experimental subject, only has a real practical sense if the second question finds a real practical solution. If we do not wish to stop half way, corresponding experiments are categorically aided by the above named result."
I shall skip the next paragraph. The witness said, as it was stated before, that animal experimentation is insufficient, and on page 7 you have the results of the experiments he made, and I quote: