Archie wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 4:13 pm
The Ai is just pulling lots of old arguments from random websites and CJ is copy-pasting it all without knowing any of the context. That's why his arguments are confused and contradictory. This is what happens when you have a guy that hadn't heard of any of this until ten minutes before he started posting about it and who thinks Ai can make up for his complete ignorance.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 6:13 am
I've done the research with ChatGPT and then I edit and modify it to make it easier to read to match your level of reading comprehension.
What kind of condescending, childish shit is this?
Archie wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 4:51 pm
Here is Hilberg, 1961 edition, page 570.
The amounts [of Zyklon] were not large, but they were noticeable. Almost the whole of the Auschwitz supply was needed for the gassing of people; very little was used for fumigation.
Then in 1989, Pressac, sensing the problem with this narrative post-Leuchter, says the complete opposite, that something like 95% of the Zyklon was for ordinary, hygienic purposes.
Checking now, that passage from Hilberg remained unchanged in the 1985 edition. By 2003 it had changed, p.955:
The amounts required by Auschwitz were not large, but they were noticeable. At various times sizable portions of these deliveries were used for gassing people.
The rest of the paragraph was left unchanged. Amusingly, the citation was also left unchanged except that the 2003 edition adds Hoess as a source. Are we supposed to believe that Hilberg's understanding of Zyklon usage changed without any new supporting evidence? No, he obviously revised his statement in reaction to either the Zundel trials or Pressac's book. Add this to the list of wins for revisionism.
Nessie wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 3:12 pm
I do not think anyone understands the science. Even the trained chemists cannot agree.
Let's test this. Nessie - do Johannes Meeussen and Tim Mansfeldt et al understand the science of observing, measuring and explaining the Prussian Blue phenomenon in the soil at city gas plants? If no, why not?
I don't know. I am not a chemist.
If yes, what does this mean for your side to not understand the same phenomenon at Birkenau?
That the evidence of usage supports "my side", suggests that "my side" has a better understanding than "your side".
Guys, I am definitely going to come back to this. Going through the documents at that level will require a lot of work that I don't have the time to do right now but it is on my to do list.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 3:10 pm
Guys, I am definitely going to come back to this. Going through the documents at that level will require a lot of work that I don't have the time to do right now but it is on my to do list.
Cross-posting from another thread, for completeness!
HansHill wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 8:13 am
At least confused jew had the wherewithal and dignity to realise he was being trounced on the chemistry, and took the reasonable decision to hit the books and hopefully come back with something better in future. This probably is due to high reasoning skills and IQ, and I'm looking forward to sparring with him when / if he offers up something of note.
It's not that I've been trounced. I just need to get into the weeds on this, somebody has send me a long source that I need to analyze and I'm super busy. Google Notebook LM might be a new tool that can allow me to get to the crux of the chemical controversy but I don't have time to learn new software right now and it would take me way too long to do it without it.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 12:55 am
It's not that I've been trounced. I just need to get into the weeds on this, somebody has send me a long source that I need to analyze and I'm super busy. Google Notebook LM might be a new tool that can allow me to get to the crux of the chemical controversy but I don't have time to learn new software right now and it would take me way too long to do it without it.
You have to learn the chemistry at a lower advanced level; this means at least 102 Uni chemistry. Unless you know basic chemistry the topic is really not accessible intellectually.
Omnia transibunt. Oblivione erimus imperia surgent et cadunt, sed gloria Romae aeterna est!
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 12:55 am
It's not that I've been trounced. I just need to get into the weeds on this, somebody has send me a long source that I need to analyze and I'm super busy. Google Notebook LM might be a new tool that can allow me to get to the crux of the chemical controversy but I don't have time to learn new software right now and it would take me way too long to do it without it.
You have to learn the chemistry at a lower advanced level; this means at least 102 Uni chemistry. Unless you know basic chemistry the topic is really not accessible intellectually.
I caution against being so prescriptive - for the exact reason that (i assume will be made further down the page as soon as i post this) that anybody without this Chemistry 102 qualitatively cannot be expected to possibly understand this material and therefore is not only wrong to draw conclusions, but holds no merit in discussing it, let alone drawing conclusions from it. I know that is not the point you are making, but I assume it will be made shortly, we'll see.
This is at polar odds of Germar Rudolf and Dr Green's exact mission - to present this information and the surrounding arguments to a layman in terms they can understand, with the chemistry firmly and accurately cited for the curious mind to revise and study in his own time.
This is at polar odds of Germar Rudolf and Dr Green's exact mission - to present this information and the surrounding arguments to a layman in terms they can understand, with the chemistry firmly and accurately cited for the curious mind to revise and study in his own time.
That layman approach does not therefore mean a layman can accurately assess who is correct, Green or Rudolf. There is a simple, reliable way to determine who is correct, which you reject, because it produces the result you do not want.
Nazgul wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 9:44 am
You have to learn the chemistry at a lower advanced level; this means at least 102 Uni chemistry. Unless you know basic chemistry the topic is really not accessible intellectually.
LLMs now have PhD level intelligence across many fields, including chemistry, and can explain very complicated things to you simply. I have basic chemistry level knowledge, admittedly with some gaps, but I can learn very quickly especially with this new technology.
Yes, that explains it.
The "truth" is of little use to you. I doubt if you would recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit the sporan.
