The Prevarications of Markiewicz (Prussian Blue)

[Stubble]

Kindly the primary sources if you please. I'd like to review the primary documents in question not someone's interpretation of them.

[Nessie]

Kindly the primary sources if you please. I'd like to review the primary documents in question not someone's interpretation of them.

Kindly click on the link provided that takes you to the webpage, and then click on the blue link to each document within the list. I am not here to spoon-feed you 104 original documents.

[Stubble]

Kindly the primary sources if you please. I'd like to review the primary documents in question not someone's interpretation of them.

Kindly click on the link provided that takes you to the webpage, and then click on the blue link to each document within the list. I am not here to spoon-feed you 104 original documents.

Ah, thank you. I see them now. I had missed them in opinion and links to further opinions in the first few links. Dig far enough and you run into the pertinent material.

I'll keep looking over it. One thing to mention is that in a 3 muffle cremation oven, the fact that you can cremate 3 bodies at the same time and that works out to 15 minutes per body when you apply it to scale doesn't add hours to the day or decrease the runtime of the oven to 15 minutes. The 15 minutes per body is a misnomer. 24 hour runtime, 1 hour per cycle, 3 bodies per oven, you know. Not 72 hours per day, 15 minutes per body, 5 bodies per muffle, 4,000,000 bodies. It looks like a lot of the bad math has been addressed over time.

I'll dig deeper into the letter from the engineer saying 'just cram more bodies in this hole for one body'. That's insane. It is printed on paper in black and white, and totally insane.

The material you have provided here give me much to chew on. I'll try to give it some time in the near future. The holidays are here, and I've got all that stuff to deal with, as you do too.

Thank you for taking the time to put the post together, and I appreciate it.

[curioussoul]

Nessie logic

"Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong."

"Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

Hilarious

Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf.

You're missing the point. They would have to find a scientifically defensible position to refute Rudolf. They have been unable to scientifically defend their hypotheses, meaning you'd have to find some other way to refute the empirical, scientific evidence Rudolf has presented. Surely you'd agree with that?

[Numar Patru]

Nessie logic

"Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong."

"Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

Hilarious

Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf.

You're missing the point. They would have to find a scientifically defensible position to refute Rudolf. They have been unable to scientifically defend their hypotheses, meaning you'd have to find some other way to refute the empirical, scientific evidence Rudolf has presented. Surely you'd agree with that?

So here’s a little inside baseball for y’all.

When Irving lost his suit against Lipstadt, he had the right to appeal the verdict, but there was also the opportunity for both sides to submit new evidence.

Irving indicated his intention to appeal. Rudolf provided a report for Irving, and given the rules or disclosure, that report was given to Lipstadt. In response, Green wrote a report that, according to him, refuted Rudolf. Rudolf was of course shown that report, and he stated his intention to respond further to Green’s report.

But before that report could be provided, Irving withdrew his appeal. One might take from that Irving’s lack of confidence in Rudolf.

[Callafangers]

But before that report could be provided, Irving withdrew his appeal. One might take from that Irving’s lack of confidence in Rudolf.

This is a bizarre way to deflect from exterminationism's lack of a scientifically defensible position. Court cases are complex, strategies and decisions go far beyond simply what can be proven scientifically versus what cannot. Moreover, had Irving known Rudolf's work would ultimately go undefeated for two-and-a-half decades after this court case was finished, he (Irving) might have made better use of it.

The bottom-line is that the science favors Rudolf's position and Markiewicz and Green have been demolished -- none of their theses are even remotely salvageable, here.

[Nessie]

Nessie logic

"Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong."

"Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

Hilarious

Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf.

You're missing the point. They would have to find a scientifically defensible position to refute Rudolf. They have been unable to scientifically defend their hypotheses, meaning you'd have to find some other way to refute the empirical, scientific evidence Rudolf has presented. Surely you'd agree with that?

I do not agree that you, nor any other revisionist, with no chemistry qualifications, is credible enough to be able to say with any certainty, that one side is correct. It is merely your biased opinion, that Rudolf has the best position. You want to believe that no gassings took place, so of course you will support Rudolf.

[Nessie]

...
The bottom-line is that the science favors Rudolf's position and Markiewicz and Green have been demolished -- none of their theses are even remotely salvageable, here.

The evidence from witnesses, documents and circumstances directly pertaining to the operation of the Kremas in 1943-4, is that they were used for homicidal gassings. There is no evidence to support other revisionist theories about delousing (which Rudolf would dispute), showering, corpse storage or bomb shelters.