Exterminationist tactics - a brief analysis

[HansHill]

It is only your opinion that the science favours revisionists. In Rudolf's opinion, he is correct. In Markiewicz and Green's opinion, he is wrong. It is wrong to treat the issue as purely a scientific one. There is evidence as to what took place inside the Leichenkeller. When that evidence favours one sides opinion and not the other, then it makes sense to go with the opinion that the evidence supports. Rudolf's opinion on the science, as he admits, may be wrong and the evidence of what happened proves he is wrong. The evidence favours the opinion of Markiewicz and Green, over the opinion of Rudolf.

Mods please feel free to delete, or move this to another section if you feel this is not in the spirit of debate, or unfairly singling one poster out, i would understand that.

That being said, i do feel this passage from Nessie, in one paragraph, is a valuable insight into the mindset and tactics of the exterminationists.

You will note he is downplaying the results obtained by Rudolf via two ways. Firstly, where he says "there is evidence as to what took place inside the Leichenkeller", what he means is bunk eyewitness tales, black propaganda, compelled compliance via lawfare, and Holocaust Inc's infinite propaganda machine's retelling of the same old story again and again. Nessie
is not alone here, and has taken a leaf from Green's book (which Rudolf was quick to stamp out in his very first rebuttal). Stated another way, they are starting from the premise of "gassings happened, so look how I can work backwards from that point and seek to mould X or Y further experiments to my worldview, discarding anything inconvenient along the way".

There is so much wrong with this approach. Imagine discarding our understanding of gravity because I saw my uncle flying one day, therefore we know gravity can't exist, therefore the Newtonian equations must be wrong.

Secondly, he is downplaying the conclusivity of the findings because Rudolf correctly notes there could potentially be further, as yet unknown, factors that have not presented themselves to date. With this position, Rudolf is effectively saying "should we learn any more about the properties or processes of HcN, we should review my findings in light of those new understandings".
This is absolutely a credible and scientific approach to a) understanding the natural world and b) drawing conclusions from those current understandings. Not to be held hostage by future unknowns.

His line: "It is wrong to treat the issue as purely a scientific one" tells us much about not only the current mindset of Holocaust Inc, but also it's history. We are in this exact predicament precisely because of this approach. The over-reliance on fallible and bunk eyewitness testimony, overtly emotional arguments detached from reality, ideologues promoting worldviews for political capital and ethnic exploitation, and the very discarding of reason & inquiry, are all present in this simple paragraph, it felt too compelling not to document for analysis.

[Archie]

Mods please feel free to delete, or move this to another section if you feel this is not in the spirit of debate, or unfairly singling one poster out, i would understand that.

This is fine. You are focusing on the substance of the arguments rather than making an ad hominem attack.

That being said, i do feel this passage from Nessie, in one paragraph, is a valuable insight into the mindset and tactics of the exterminationists.

In fairness to the exterminationists, Nessie is NOT representative of orthodoxy or the better studied anti-revisionists. Many of his arguments are idiosyncratic (not in a good way) and are unique to him.

His MO is to repeat very circular, very generic talking points that conveniently exempt him from having to engage with the substance of any of our arguments. Anything technical, he says it doesn't matter because 1) the Holocaust is proved, 2) it doesn't matter if we "can't work out" how it happened, 3) "experts" disagree. Any sort of witness critique can be dismissed out of hand because mistakes are "normal."

[Nessie]

It is only your opinion that the science favours revisionists. In Rudolf's opinion, he is correct. In Markiewicz and Green's opinion, he is wrong. It is wrong to treat the issue as purely a scientific one. There is evidence as to what took place inside the Leichenkeller. When that evidence favours one sides opinion and not the other, then it makes sense to go with the opinion that the evidence supports. Rudolf's opinion on the science, as he admits, may be wrong and the evidence of what happened proves he is wrong. The evidence favours the opinion of Markiewicz and Green, over the opinion of Rudolf.

Mods please feel free to delete, or move this to another section if you feel this is not in the spirit of debate, or unfairly singling one poster out, i would understand that.

That being said, i do feel this passage from Nessie, in one paragraph, is a valuable insight into the mindset and tactics of the exterminationists.

You will note he is downplaying the results obtained by Rudolf via two ways. Firstly, where he says "there is evidence as to what took place inside the Leichenkeller", what he means is bunk eyewitness tales, black propaganda, compelled compliance via lawfare, and Holocaust Inc's infinite propaganda machine's retelling of the same old story again and again. Nessie
is not alone here, and has taken a leaf from Green's book (which Rudolf was quick to stamp out in his very first rebuttal). Stated another way, they are starting from the premise of "gassings happened, so look how I can work backwards from that point and seek to mould X or Y further experiments to my worldview, discarding anything inconvenient along the way".

There is so much wrong with this approach. Imagine discarding our understanding of gravity because I saw my uncle flying one day, therefore we know gravity can't exist, therefore the Newtonian equations must be wrong.

Secondly, he is downplaying the conclusivity of the findings because Rudolf correctly notes there could potentially be further, as yet unknown, factors that have not presented themselves to date. With this position, Rudolf is effectively saying "should we learn any more about the properties or processes of HcN, we should review my findings in light of those new understandings".
This is absolutely a credible and scientific approach to a) understanding the natural world and b) drawing conclusions from those current understandings. Not to be held hostage by future unknowns.

Exactly, Rudolf admits he may be wrong, so revisionists are wrong to state with certainty, he is correct, therefore no gassings, but what really happened cannot be evidenced.

His line: "It is wrong to treat the issue as purely a scientific one" tells us much about not only the current mindset of Holocaust Inc, but also it's history. We are in this exact predicament precisely because of this approach. The over-reliance on fallible and bunk eyewitness testimony, overtly emotional arguments detached from reality, ideologues promoting worldviews for political capital and ethnic exploitation, and the very discarding of reason & inquiry, are all present in this simple paragraph, it felt too compelling not to document for analysis.

Rudolf makes a logically flawed claim, as explained here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2226#p2226

It is wrong to ignore all the other evidence for gassings, in favour of a theory, which, as you admit, the author admits may be wrong. One theory does not overrule all the other evidence. You degrade eyewitness evidence to the point that 0% is useable, which is unrealistic and improbable. When Nazis, SS and civilian, along with civilian Poles and Jews from multiple countries all agree on what took place at Birkenau, that is strong, corroborating, witness evidence. They are corroborated by documents, physical and circumstantial evidence. Everything you do is aimed at downplaying the sheer volume of evidence for gassings, to support your belief that something unknown, that cannot be evidenced, happened instead.

[Nessie]

Mods please feel free to delete, or move this to another section if you feel this is not in the spirit of debate, or unfairly singling one poster out, i would understand that.

This is fine. You are focusing on the substance of the arguments rather than making an ad hominem attack.

That being said, i do feel this passage from Nessie, in one paragraph, is a valuable insight into the mindset and tactics of the exterminationists.

In fairness to the exterminationists, Nessie is NOT representative of orthodoxy or the better studied anti-revisionists. Many of his arguments are idiosyncratic (not in a good way) and are unique to him.

I see plenty of others pointing out the logical flaws in revisionist arguments.

His MO is to repeat very circular, very generic talking points that conveniently exempt him from having to engage with the substance of any of our arguments.

On the contrary, more than anyone else, I engage with the actual substance of the arguments you make.

You want to argue history, as you line up your excuses for dismissing 100% of the eyewitnesses to gassings as liars and fail to find a single witness who was there, who you believe. Inconvenient documents are dismissed as faked, or strange, unevidenced interpretations applied, or code words reinterpreted whilst criticising the claim they are code words. With no relevant training, archaeological evidence is examined and dismissed. You cannot even produce an evidenced, chronological history of events that comes to a conclusion.

It gets repetitive, because you keep on repeatedly relying on the same old, logically flawed arguments.

Anything technical, he says it doesn't matter because 1) the Holocaust is proved, 2) it doesn't matter if we "can't work out" how it happened, 3) "experts" disagree. Any sort of witness critique can be dismissed out of hand because mistakes are "normal."

1) The Holocaust is proved, by witness, documentary, physical, forensic, archaeological and circumstantial evidence. Revisionists cannot evidence the alternative of millions of Jews alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945, which, if it had happened, would have left a lot of evidence and a lot of people and countries, in whose interest it would be to promote that evidence.

2) It does indeed not matter that you are not satisfied with descriptions of gassings, cremations and mass graves. Your opinion on the technicalities of such, have no evidential value. Since you cannot evidence what happened, you rely on arguments about those technicalities, using an obviously logically flawed line of reasoning.

3) Who are the "experts" and what do they disagree on? Historians and archaeologists are in universal agreement. Revisionists are all over the place, with the Kremas being used to store corpses, delouse clothes, shower people and act as bomb shelters and the AR camps as transit, hygiene, customs and property sorting centres.

4) Revisionist treatment of the witness evidence ignores decades of scientific study and experimentation into memory and recollection. They allege the Nazis were cowards, who sheepishly lied that they had committed horrific crimes and that millions of Jews, from every single European country have lied they saw gassings, or lied by omission and kept quiet that they were not gassed and saw out the war in a secret Nazi camp.

[Archie]

I see plenty of others pointing out the logical flaws in revisionist arguments.

Not really. You are the only one who does it as an excuse to avoid actual debate. For instance, on the chemisty, most would try to dispute some of the actual points, try to summarize the arguments of Green, etc. None of that is necessary with your approach where you assume your conclusion and then say anyone who disagrees with you is doing fallacies, etc.

On the contrary, more than anyone else, I engage with the actual substance of the arguments you make.

You want to argue history, as you line up your excuses for dismissing 100% of the eyewitnesses to gassings as liars and fail to find a single witness who was there, who you believe. Inconvenient documents are dismissed as faked, or strange, unevidenced interpretations applied, or code words reinterpreted whilst criticising the claim they are code words. With no relevant training, archaeological evidence is examined and dismissed. You cannot even produce an evidenced, chronological history of events that comes to a conclusion.

It gets repetitive, because you keep on repeatedly relying on the same old, logically flawed arguments.

You do not address the substance of the arguments. You ignore what is being argued and fall back on generic rules that you made up or that you have heard somewhere and are applying inappropriately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy,[2] the fallacist's fallacy,[3] and the bad reasons fallacy.[4]

And it is all the worse with you since most of your fallacy identifications are incorrect, i.e, you have lots and lots of false positives. It's a "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" situation. When you try to engage in the debate on a substantive level, you lose, so instead you make these generic, all-purpose arguments.

1) The Holocaust is proved, by witness, documentary, physical, forensic, archaeological and circumstantial evidence. Revisionists cannot evidence the alternative of millions of Jews alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945, which, if it had happened, would have left a lot of evidence and a lot of people and countries, in whose interest it would be to promote that evidence.

2) It does indeed not matter that you are not satisfied with descriptions of gassings, cremations and mass graves. Your opinion on the technicalities of such, have no evidential value. Since you cannot evidence what happened, you rely on arguments about those technicalities, using an obviously logically flawed line of reasoning.

3) Who are the "experts" and what do they disagree on? Historians and archaeologists are in universal agreement. Revisionists are all over the place, with the Kremas being used to store corpses, delouse clothes, shower people and act as bomb shelters and the AR camps as transit, hygiene, customs and property sorting centres.

4) Revisionist treatment of the witness evidence ignores decades of scientific study and experimentation into memory and recollection. They allege the Nazis were cowards, who sheepishly lied that they had committed horrific crimes and that millions of Jews, from every single European country have lied they saw gassings, or lied by omission and kept quiet that they were not gassed and saw out the war in a secret Nazi camp.

The whole point of what we are doing here is to analyze all of this supposed proof for the Holocaust. And that is what your style of "debate" is designed to avoid.

I want to highlight this part,

It does indeed not matter that you are not satisfied with descriptions of gassings, cremations and mass graves. Your opinion on the technicalities of such, have no evidential value. Since you cannot evidence what happened, you rely on arguments about those technicalities, using an obviously logically flawed line of reasoning.

-It has nothing to do with "me." If NO ONE ON EARTH can explain it satisfactorily this is indeed good reason to doubt it.

-Note that he always personalizes it "your opinion" etc. He fails to distinguish between a random, unsupported statement of opinion and an informed "opinion" or conclusion based on extensive research and data.

400 page book full of detailed technical arguments - "That's just like, your opinion, man."

You could dismiss ANY book with this bogus logic.

-He says the findings have "no evidential value." This guy talks about evidence all the time and he doesn't know what evidence is. The walls ARE evidence. Chemical results from those walls ARE evidence. The technical specifications of the buildings ARE evidence. What sort of fans the LKs had IS evidence. Everything that might have some influence on the conclusion is evidence. No only is this evidence, it is some of the most objective evidence that we have. He wants us to ignore hard evidence in favor of Jews telling stories.

[Nessie]

I see plenty of others pointing out the logical flaws in revisionist arguments.

Not really. You are the only one who does it as an excuse to avoid actual debate. For instance, on the chemisty, most would try to dispute some of the actual points, try to summarize the arguments of Green, etc. None of that is necessary with your approach where you assume your conclusion and then say anyone who disagrees with you is doing fallacies, etc.

There is no end to your misrepresentation of my argument. I do not debate the chemistry, because I am not a chemist. I see others who are not chemists, debating the chemistry, as if somehow, they know what they are talking about! I also see revisionists debating witnesses, archaeology and other evidence, as if they know what they are talking about.

It is fine to not be an expert and discuss something, but when a non-expert challenges an expert, then they need to be self-aware enough to know that the chances are that they are wrong.

On the contrary, more than anyone else, I engage with the actual substance of the arguments you make.

You want to argue history, as you line up your excuses for dismissing 100% of the eyewitnesses to gassings as liars and fail to find a single witness who was there, who you believe. Inconvenient documents are dismissed as faked, or strange, unevidenced interpretations applied, or code words reinterpreted whilst criticising the claim they are code words. With no relevant training, archaeological evidence is examined and dismissed. You cannot even produce an evidenced, chronological history of events that comes to a conclusion.

It gets repetitive, because you keep on repeatedly relying on the same old, logically flawed arguments.

You do not address the substance of the arguments. You ignore what is being argued and fall back on generic rules that you made up or that you have heard somewhere and are applying inappropriately.

I address the substance of the arguments, by pointing out they are logically flawed, they are not back up by the historical evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy,[2] the fallacist's fallacy,[3] and the bad reasons fallacy.[4]

And it is all the worse with you since most of your fallacy identifications are incorrect, i.e, you have lots and lots of false positives. It's a "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" situation. When you try to engage in the debate on a substantive level, you lose, so instead you make these generic, all-purpose arguments.

You say that and then quote me contradicting you. I have not argued that merely because revisionists use logically flawed arguments, therefore they are wrong. I have argued that they are wring because they use logically flawed arguments AND the evidence contradicts them AND they cannot evidence what they are alleging happened.

1) The Holocaust is proved, by witness, documentary, physical, forensic, archaeological and circumstantial evidence. Revisionists cannot evidence the alternative of millions of Jews alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945, which, if it had happened, would have left a lot of evidence and a lot of people and countries, in whose interest it would be to promote that evidence.

2) It does indeed not matter that you are not satisfied with descriptions of gassings, cremations and mass graves. Your opinion on the technicalities of such, have no evidential value. Since you cannot evidence what happened, you rely on arguments about those technicalities, using an obviously logically flawed line of reasoning.

3) Who are the "experts" and what do they disagree on? Historians and archaeologists are in universal agreement. Revisionists are all over the place, with the Kremas being used to store corpses, delouse clothes, shower people and act as bomb shelters and the AR camps as transit, hygiene, customs and property sorting centres.

4) Revisionist treatment of the witness evidence ignores decades of scientific study and experimentation into memory and recollection. They allege the Nazis were cowards, who sheepishly lied that they had committed horrific crimes and that millions of Jews, from every single European country have lied they saw gassings, or lied by omission and kept quiet that they were not gassed and saw out the war in a secret Nazi camp.

The whole point of what we are doing is to analyze precisely that all of this supposed proof for the Holocaust. And that is what you style of "debate" is designed to avoid.

I know you want to analyse the evidence that "supposedly" proves the Holocaust. What you want to avoid, is debate over your method of analysis. You do not want to hear that it is wrong.

This goes back to what I said above, and revisionist inexperience. When you analyse witness testimony, you bring no expertise whatsoever to the debate. You completely ignore all the science and experimentation that witness evidence, memory and recollection has been subjected to and declare 100% of witnesses to gassing lies. That conclusion is proven to be faulty and I explain why that is. You then bizarrely demand that we debate the witness evidence, whilst you use your faulty analysis!

I want to highlight this part,

It does indeed not matter that you are not satisfied with descriptions of gassings, cremations and mass graves. Your opinion on the technicalities of such, have no evidential value. Since you cannot evidence what happened, you rely on arguments about those technicalities, using an obviously logically flawed line of reasoning.

-It has nothing to do with "me." If NO ONE ON EARTH can explain it satisfactorily this is indeed good reason to doubt it.

It has everything to do with you, as it is you who thinks that no one on earth can provide a satisfactory explanation. You are joined by others, revisionists, who also think your way. It is what you base your Holocaust denial argument on, your belief that because you think no can provide a satisfactory explanation, therefore it did not happen. You assume that it is impossible to provide a satisfactory explanation. I, and many others, are satisfied with the explanation. We do not then arrogantly then claim, therefore gassings happened. We believe gassings happened, because of the evidence they happened.

-Note that he always personalizes it "your opinion" etc. He fails to distinguish between a random, unsupported statement of opinion and an informed "opinion" or conclusion based on extensive research and data.

400 page book full of detailed technical arguments - "That's just like, your opinion, man."

You could dismiss ANY book with this bogus logic.

Rudolf supports his scientific opinion with some experimentation and arguments, but, he is not supported by the historical evidence. Markiewicz and Green's scientific opinion is also supported by the historical evidence.

-He says the findings have "no evidential value." This guy talks about evidence all the time and he doesn't know what evidence is. The walls ARE evidence. Chemical results from those walls ARE evidence. The technical specifications of the buildings ARE evidence. What sort of fans the LKs had IS evidence. Everything that might have some influence on the conclusion is evidence. No only is this evidence, it is some of the most objective evidence that we have.

It is evidence that mass gassings, which lasted for minutes, not hours, in rooms packed full of people, that are ventilated and the walls are washed and at times painted, does not leave as much residue as some may think it should and nowhere near as much as was found in delousing chambers.

He wants us to ignore hard evidence in favor of Jews telling stories.

You reveal your bias, agenda and that you are happy to misrepresent and minimise the volume of evidence for gassings, which does not just come from Jewish witness testimony.

[TlsMS93]

If there were Prussian blue in Kremas I, they would use it as evidence. Since they don't think so, they try to create excuses. In other words, they want to make any defense impossible. If there were massive deliveries of coal to AB, they would use this fact as proof that they could cremate millions of people. Since there isn't, they create excuses about bodies starting to cremate other bodies, collecting fat to maintain the cremations, and other oddities that, if it were possible, the Indians would have developed long before.

The evidence that camps that are said to have no gas chambers received quantities of Ziklon B equal to those of AB means nothing to them. The requests to build more morgues to store corpses not being met because there were enough in the crematoriums means nothing. The gassing of 2,000 people day and night by Krema, when it would take a week for the muffles to work non-stop, means nothing. The lack of renovation of the refractory bricks in Kremas as a limiting factor in deaths means nothing.

Debating on these bases of selecting documents that suit me, distorting what they do not say and disregarding documents that go against the thesis is not possible.

[Archie]

If there were Prussian blue in Kremas I, they would use it as evidence.

Yes, an excellent point. If it were there, they would be dining out on that to no end. It's not there so they are in damage control mode. Let's not overthink this: Lack of Prussian blue is evidence against the Holocaust. I wouldn't say it's 100% by itself, but it obviously doesn't help their case. All they can argue is that it is not impossible for their story to still be true (under contrived assumptions).

[Nessie]

If there were Prussian blue in Kremas I, they would use it as evidence...

If there had been a hoax, there would be Prussian blue in the Kremas. The lack of residue is an example of where a hoax would fall apart, especially one on the scale alleged, because the likelihood of mistakes is endless.

Instead, the alleged hoax does not fall apart due to the lack of Prussian blue, because the evidence of gassings remains the only evidenced function for the Leichenkellers and the lack can be explained.

If I was going to hoax gassings, documents would have been found at A-B recording how many people were being gassed each day and reports of issues with the ovens so that outdoor cremations had to take place. Revisionists would have disputed those documents, claiming they are fakes.

[borjastick]

They have a play book which is very easy to see right through. Us revisionists will say I want to bring attention to A,B or C and the the Holocaust Liars immediately say 'But really you should be looking at X,Y and Z'. They practice diversion, obfuscation and misinformation tactics.

As an aside I have been re-watching The West Wing which in my opinion is an amazing, perhaps the best ever, political drama on tv. It is now over 25 years old and shows how politics in the US has changed.

The other night I was watching an episode in series 5 where two of the main characters are playing basketball. One says to the other 'Germany 1938, millions of jews fleeing the gas chambers'. This is pure and deliberate misinformation and lies and it reached millions of viewers.

This is what they do and we are not buying it.

[HansHill]

If there were Prussian blue in Kremas I, they would use it as evidence...

If there had been a hoax, there would be Prussian blue in the Kremas. The lack of residue is an example of where a hoax would fall apart, especially one on the scale alleged, because the likelihood of mistakes is endless.

You've inadvertently confirmed to us here, in front of everybdoy, just how important the presence or absence of Prussian Blue is. It would be hilarious if you go back and edit this reply now!

You're right - the very first thing a competent hoaxter would do is fabricate the existence of Prussian Blue, because it's presence would be the exact evidence needed. Revisionists are very fortunate that the hoaxters, instead were incredibly unscientific, shortsighted, and would rather focus their attention on the deranged propaganda they chose to focus on such as shrunken heads, soap, steam and electrocution plates!

[Nessie]

If there were Prussian blue in Kremas I, they would use it as evidence...

If there had been a hoax, there would be Prussian blue in the Kremas. The lack of residue is an example of where a hoax would fall apart, especially one on the scale alleged, because the likelihood of mistakes is endless.

You've inadvertently confirmed to us here, in front of everybdoy, just how important the presence or absence of Prussian Blue is. It would be hilarious if you go back and edit this reply now!

That there are no Prussian blue stains inside the surviving remains of the Leichenkeller, is indicative that there has been no attempt to hoax, since a hoaxer would ensure the walls were bright blue. The hoaxer in this case, would have needed to be the Nazis, who had control over the building until they blew it up, making any attempt to add staining to the walls impossible. They were keen to ensure as little evidence of gassings survived as possible. It was in their interests to ensure the Leichenkeller walls showed as little signs of the use of Zyklon B as possible. The lack of staining fits with the Nazis covering up their criminal activity inside the Kremas. The ventilation, exposure times, washing and painting worked.

You're right - the very first thing a competent hoaxter would do is fabricate the existence of Prussian Blue, because it's presence would be the exact evidence needed. Revisionists are very fortunate that the hoaxters, instead were incredibly unscientific, shortsighted, and would rather focus their attention on the deranged propaganda they chose to focus on such as shrunken heads, soap, steam and electrocution plates!

That level of incompetence, is one of the many reasons a hoax on the scale alleged, is impossible. Despite all those cock-ups and false claims, revisionists still cannot find evidence to prove no mass gassings and resettlement took place instead.

[TlsMS93]

It was in their interests to ensure the Leichenkeller walls showed as little signs of the use of Zyklon B as possible. The lack of staining fits with the Nazis covering up their criminal activity inside the Kremas. The ventilation, exposure times, washing and painting worked.

Look at the absurdity that you are hanging yourself with it.

So the Nazis covered up the evidence of Prussian blue in the Kremas with the ventilation, washing and painting system, so why demolish them? Leave them intact like they left Krema I. Piper has already told Cole that the walls of Krema I were not plastered or painted and I already told you this and you ignored it, then they complain that we revisionists are the ones who do not have a coherent history to present.

[HansHill]

That there are no Prussian blue stains inside the surviving remains of the Leichenkeller, is indicative that there has been no attempt to hoax, since a hoaxer would ensure the walls were bright blue.

Wrong again. That there are no Prussian Blue deposits indicates only one thing - that there was no chemical reaction in this location to cause Prussian Blue deposits. That's all it indicates. And if you extrapolate from that, that means an absence of HcN ever being present in the quantities and frequency claimed.

That level of incompetence, is one of the many reasons a hoax on the scale alleged, is impossible. Despite all those cock-ups and false claims, revisionists still cannot find evidence to prove no mass gassings and resettlement took place instead.

Wrong yet again. The level of incompetence that you are correctly seeing, means that the hoax is extremely incompetent, full of "cock ups and false claims" to quote yourself. Revisionists are simply wading through the cock-ups,

[Stubble]

Nessie has a point. If the hoaxers wanted to prove criminal usage, they would plant evidence in the form of Prussian Blue in the cellars.

I'll say that would have been significantly easier for them to do if there was a roof.

I'll also point out that the importance of Prussian Blue wasn't exactly understood when Auschwitz was captured.

Nessie has another point. He's not interested in the dead bodies. He doesn't want to talk about their prevalence or absence. He is interested in the location of the living bodies.

Pointing to the census and pointing out people with family members who weren't gassed in gas chambers at Auschwitz and were later reunited isn't sufficient.

Nessie wants to know where the resettled jews went. Sanity Check says resettlement is a euphemism for burn pit.

The challenge from the orthodoxy seems to be, find the jews. Personally I feel that is our challenge as revisionists. Find the missing jews.