The CODOH Revisionist Forum

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

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 2:53 pm 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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 4:30 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 2:53 pm 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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 4:06 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:40 pm 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?

curioussoul wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 10:44 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 4:06 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:40 pm 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.

Numar Patru wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 3:59 am 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.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 10:44 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 4:06 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:40 pm 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.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 4:26 am ...
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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 9:01 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 4:26 am ...
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.

If the evidence from witnesses, documents, and circumstances points one way and the physical/scientific evidence points another, the witnesses and documents are wrong/false and the circumstances have been misinterpreted.

The science trumps all.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 10:20 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 9:01 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 4:26 am ...
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.

If the evidence from witnesses, documents, and circumstances points one way and the physical/scientific evidence points another, the witnesses and documents are wrong/false and the circumstances have been misinterpreted.

The science trumps all.

That assumes the science is correct. In this case, the scientific findings have been presented by someone who admits they may be wrong, who lists further work that is needed, who has only been able to complete minimal experimentation and whose results are disputed by two other scientists. If you could be honest, you would admit that makes Rudolf's science weak.

When a weak claim is contradicted by all the evidence, including 100% of the witnesses and multiple documents that specifically record the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas, then that evidence trumps the weak science.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 9:12 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 10:20 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 9:01 am

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.

If the evidence from witnesses, documents, and circumstances points one way and the physical/scientific evidence points another, the witnesses and documents are wrong/false and the circumstances have been misinterpreted.

The science trumps all.

That assumes the science is correct. In this case, the scientific findings have been presented by someone who admits they may be wrong, who lists further work that is needed, who has only been able to complete minimal experimentation and whose results are disputed by two other scientists. If you could be honest, you would admit that makes Rudolf's science weak.

When a weak claim is contradicted by all the evidence, including 100% of the witnesses and multiple documents that specifically record the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas, then that evidence trumps the weak science.

It seems you have not read many scientific papers, then, Nessie. Most of any standing will have a section on "Limitations" where acknowledgements are given in this regard. Rudolf's acknowledgement of limitations were specific and not general so as to invalidate his general findings and conclusions on this matter. What is clear is that there is very low (non-incriminating) iron-cyanide in the alleged 'homicidal chambers' and a whole lot of it in the delousing chambers. This has hardly been addressed at all by exterminationists, let alone explained or refuted.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 11:51 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 9:12 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 10:20 pm

If the evidence from witnesses, documents, and circumstances points one way and the physical/scientific evidence points another, the witnesses and documents are wrong/false and the circumstances have been misinterpreted.

The science trumps all.

That assumes the science is correct. In this case, the scientific findings have been presented by someone who admits they may be wrong, who lists further work that is needed, who has only been able to complete minimal experimentation and whose results are disputed by two other scientists. If you could be honest, you would admit that makes Rudolf's science weak.

When a weak claim is contradicted by all the evidence, including 100% of the witnesses and multiple documents that specifically record the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas, then that evidence trumps the weak science.

It seems you have not read many scientific papers, then, Nessie. Most of any standing will have a section on "Limitations" where acknowledgements are given in this regard. Rudolf's acknowledgement of limitations were specific and not general so as to invalidate his general findings and conclusions on this matter. What is clear is that there is very low (non-incriminating) iron-cyanide in the alleged 'homicidal chambers' and a whole lot of it in the delousing chambers. This has hardly been addressed at all by exterminationists, let alone explained or refuted.

Yermàn et al conducted experiments with cremations of euthanized pigs that are similar to humans, which demonstrate the impossibility of open-air cremations on pyres in relation to what witnesses claim happened in the Reinhardt camps.

For Nessie, all of this is invalid and without effect in the eyes of witnesses. This attachment to witnesses is inconsistent with the treatment Jews give to Christians who risked their lives to testify to what they saw, but they want us to give them an aura of sanctity for their statements.

Witnesses said that the Ziklon B in AB had color and rose from the floor to the ceiling, which is why the bodies piled up to escape it. They got this wrong, and they got the color left by the dead after the process wrong, they got the number of bodies per muffle wrong, and they got the cremation time wrong.

It's very simple. No Prussian Blue, no gassings, no holes, no Holocaust, no bullets on the wall of death, no shootings.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 11:51 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 9:12 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 10:20 pm

If the evidence from witnesses, documents, and circumstances points one way and the physical/scientific evidence points another, the witnesses and documents are wrong/false and the circumstances have been misinterpreted.

The science trumps all.

That assumes the science is correct. In this case, the scientific findings have been presented by someone who admits they may be wrong, who lists further work that is needed, who has only been able to complete minimal experimentation and whose results are disputed by two other scientists. If you could be honest, you would admit that makes Rudolf's science weak.

When a weak claim is contradicted by all the evidence, including 100% of the witnesses and multiple documents that specifically record the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas, then that evidence trumps the weak science.

It seems you have not read many scientific papers, then, Nessie. Most of any standing will have a section on "Limitations" where acknowledgements are given in this regard. Rudolf's acknowledgement of limitations were specific and not general so as to invalidate his general findings and conclusions on this matter.

You are trying to side step that he acknowledges he could be wrong and what additional experimentation is needed. When all the evidence and other opinion states he is wrong, then it is more than likely he is wrong.

What is clear is that there is very low (non-incriminating) iron-cyanide in the alleged 'homicidal chambers' and a whole lot of it in the delousing chambers. This has hardly been addressed at all by exterminationists, let alone explained or refuted.

Wrong. Explanations have been provided to explain the lower than a delousing chamber levels of reside; time of exposure, amount of gas used, cleaning and painting and exposure to the elements after the Krema was blown up.

I merely ask you to accept Rudolf is wrong. You expect me to accept Markiewicz and Green and all the evidence that gassings happened, is wrong. My case is far stronger than yours.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 1:37 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 11:51 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 9:12 am

That assumes the science is correct. In this case, the scientific findings have been presented by someone who admits they may be wrong, who lists further work that is needed, who has only been able to complete minimal experimentation and whose results are disputed by two other scientists. If you could be honest, you would admit that makes Rudolf's science weak.

When a weak claim is contradicted by all the evidence, including 100% of the witnesses and multiple documents that specifically record the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas, then that evidence trumps the weak science.

It seems you have not read many scientific papers, then, Nessie. Most of any standing will have a section on "Limitations" where acknowledgements are given in this regard. Rudolf's acknowledgement of limitations were specific and not general so as to invalidate his general findings and conclusions on this matter.

You are trying to side step that he acknowledges he could be wrong and what additional experimentation is needed. When all the evidence and other opinion states he is wrong, then it is more than likely he is wrong.

What is clear is that there is very low (non-incriminating) iron-cyanide in the alleged 'homicidal chambers' and a whole lot of it in the delousing chambers. This has hardly been addressed at all by exterminationists, let alone explained or refuted.

Wrong. Explanations have been provided to explain the lower than a delousing chamber levels of reside; time of exposure, amount of gas used, cleaning and painting and exposure to the elements after the Krema was blown up.

I merely ask you to accept Rudolf is wrong. You expect me to accept Markiewicz and Green and all the evidence that gassings happened, is wrong. My case is far stronger than yours.

Again, that he acknowledges the possibility that he could be wrong is indicative of honesty and good scientific method. This stands in sharp contrast to the dishonesty and poor method of the Holocaust side who insist that the Holocaust is self-evident and can't be debated.

Do YOU admit that YOU could be wrong?

Re: Markiewicz, you have still failed to explain the main point raised in the OP.

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:43 pm Please note that after over 100 posts, nobody has provided any justification for Markiewicz's approach of excluding 99.9% of the total cyanide, nor has anyone explained where all that Prussian blue came from if (supposedly) not from Zyklon.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 3:49 pm ....

Again, that he acknowledges the possibility that he could be wrong is indicative of honesty and good scientific method. This stands in sharp contrast to the dishonesty and poor method of the Holocaust side who insist that the Holocaust is self-evident and can't be debated.

Do YOU admit that YOU could be wrong?

For me to be wrong, then Green, Markiewicz and all the evidence that gas chambers were constructed inside the Kremas and gassings took place, is somehow wrong. So, it is highly unlikely I am wrong. To prove me wrong, you need evidence directly pertaining to the operation of the Kremas in 1943-4, that proves another process took place, that did not involve gassing people.

Re: Markiewicz, you have still failed to explain the main point raised in the OP.

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:43 pm Please note that after over 100 posts, nobody has provided any justification for Markiewicz's approach of excluding 99.9% of the total cyanide, nor has anyone explained where all that Prussian blue came from if (supposedly) not from Zyklon.

How many times do I need to remind you that since I am not a chemist, I cannot reliably comment on and explain his approach. Unlike you, I don't think it is credible to argue outwith my field of expertise. I can only quote his reasoning (bold my highlighting);

"The undertaking of chemical analysis had to be preceded by careful consideration. The revisionists focussed their attention almost exclusively on Prussian blue, which is of intense dark-blue colour and characterized by exceptional fastness. This dye occurs, especially in the form of stains, on the outer bricks of the walls of the former bath/delousing house in the area of the Birkenau camp. It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place. Brick, unlike other building materials, very feebly absorbs hydrogen cyanide, it sometimes does not even absorb it at all. Besides, iron occurring in it is at the third oxidation state, whereas bivalent iron ions are indispensable for the formation of the [Fe(CN)6]-4 ion, which is the precursor of Prussian blue. This ion is, besides, sensitive to the sunlight.

J. Bailer (1) writes in the collective work "Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit" that the formation of Prussian blue in bricks is simply improbable; however, he takes into consideration the possibility that the walls of the delousing room were coated with this dye as a paint. It should be added that this blue coloration does not appear on the walls of all the delousing rooms.

We decided therefore to determine the cyanide ions using a method that does not induce the breakdown of the composed ferrum cyanide complex (this is the blue under discussion) and which fact we had tested before on an appropriate standard sample."