Majdanek this and that

[Booze]

At one time the Majdanek State Museum used this photo to claim the window in the B41 L room (Room with blue stains) was not there when the Germans occupied the camp.

Did they abandon that claim? If so why?

[Fred Ziffel]

a museum rep is all I have. It came from the leader of archives at Majdanek, the guy behind the camera in the recent video.
I get it, the USHMM and the Majdanek staff indicated different stories on other subjects at the camp back when they would talk with me. There is a contact at their website, ask them and see what reply you get, I would be interested.

this guy told me

[Booze]

My question was useless, sorry about that.
After rereading the museum's article on the gas chambers it's clear what their answer is going to be.

Jean-Claude Pressac, who analyzed the use of gas chambers at Majdanek, claims that the most significant argument determining whether the so-called makeshift gas chamber was used for killing people is finding out whether a window, visible today in that room, existed there during the camp’s operations. Indeed, this window is not visible on a photograph of the bathhouse taken in 1942. Most likely it was added after the war, during the initial repair work, when the bathhouse barracks were connected to the bunker and the entire structure covered with a common roof.

[Fred Ziffel]

Let's sing a song in front of the Majdanek Gas chambers

[Booze]

They used to sing in the undressing room.
But now it's not a gas chamber, so those videos have disappeared.

[Fred Ziffel]

Here is a photo never seen by me at least of inside the B1 gas chamber. I found it on Mr. Hunts video on Treblinka.
If you look inside and to the left it shows wall shared with "A" Chamber. (Sorry My Mistake, not Cell 14)
Nothing super exciting but it shows:
-Where the pipe enters the room
-No blue staining
-No pipe on the south wall

Just a photo to add to the collection. With the barrier at the doorway, visitors are not allowed to enter and this area remained unseen
The more I think about it, if the Soviets really thought this room was a homicidal gas chamber that gassed many people, why is it there so few photos to prove it was a gas chamber? There are very very few photos of these two rooms

[Fred Ziffel]

I got into one of those conversations with a moron on X about cremation ovens.
I posted a case study or comparison if you like from the Gusen camp
it mentions Mattogno as the source of the piece, The moron then asked Grok if Mattogno is a reputable revisionist and of course it came back as he is not a trusted source blah blah blah. We all know how bias this Grok can be in regard to the Holobunga

then I got to thinking....
I will ask Grok about how often the refractory lining of both heat treating ovens (I have worked with these ovens in my career) and cremation ovens have to change out. However, I will not write anything in the question that or give any hint about the Holocaust or Auschwitz or whatever.
Seems Grok supports Mattogno's work in regard to these bricks and you can see in the attached

My question is would I be breaking any X rule and get banned if I submit these attachment? Anyone wish to let me know?
this post will come as two posting since I have to attach 6 images
see attached continue in next post

[Fred Ziffel]

this posting shows end of Grok response file name "dd"
then
the second attach is posted to show "Downtime" when replacing according to Grok. Downtime in other attachment got cut off
then
Shows my question to Grok, (Sorry about the bad grammar in my question)

[Stubble]

Content generated by Grok is by definition property of 'X' and it should not violate any policy to post such generated content so long as you offer critique or opinion (fair use). (My apologies, reading Wetzelrad's post, it is clear the output belongs to you, I learned something today, that's for sure. My bad).

Should you get suspended, I would recommend you appeal. An appeal should sort the issue out.

Depending on where you live, 'X' may have specific guidelines and policies about what can be said and shared online. Examples of this would be countries in the EU and Brazil for example.

I'm not a legal expert, and this does not constitute legal advice, it is simply one man's opinion on the matter.

Best of luck Fred.

[Wetzelrad]

I got into one of those conversations with a moron on X about cremation ovens.
I posted a case study or comparison if you like from the Gusen camp
it mentions Mattogno as the source of the piece, The moron then asked Grok if Mattogno is a reputable revisionist and of course it came back as he is not a trusted source blah blah blah.

So he's denying primary source documents. This is where the term "denier" actually does apply. Totally baseless, ignorant, motivated reasoning. It isn't as if Mattogno is accused of fabricating documents.

My question is would I be breaking any X rule and get banned if I submit these attachment? Anyone wish to let me know?

You mean, if you include them in your ppt? I've never heard of anything like that. Possibly if someone started to get rich selling a book written by Grok, or something like that, then they might consider taking legal action to get their slice of the pie. I think you are very much in the clear. Their website is clear about it:

Who owns the inputs to and outputs from Grok?
You own the Inputs and Outputs.
You are free to use Grok’s Outputs (including generated images) from your conversations as you wish, including for commercial use. You own Grok’s Outputs and you grant xAI certain use rights pursuant to xAI’s Consumer Terms. We do ask that you attribute the generated work to Grok as provided in xAI’s Brand Guidelines available on xAI’s legal website.

With that said, I don't think AI is very authoritative by itself. To give it more authority, ask it to include a short list of the sources that it is summarizing. Then make sure those sources exist.

[Fred Ziffel]

Sincere Thank you gentlemen for your inputs
I ask this because when I cut and pasted the Grok response to a Word document, I got nothing but garble

I feel that if I used some language that does not have keywords to the Holobunga I would get a more unbiased response.
I too do not put a lot of stock in Grok, but at least know I can turn the tables on the moron.

[Fred Ziffel]

Video out just today
I wish to focus attention of the emotions oozing from this video from US school teachers. There is nothing much to learn in this video. It is amazing to see how the BS from the Majdanek Museum can have an effect, and cloud people's abilities to think critically instead of emotionally.
So, if interested, see video before it is taken down

Link:

[Cowboy]

Video out just today

MdnekYT.png (86.38 KiB) Viewed 502 times

This might be your comment, but none the less it is very good that these videos are getting fact checked in the comments. The goal is always about spreading the truth so others can see and begin to question for themselves.

[Fred Ziffel]

This is just a small matter

First, I will say that reading comprehension is certainly a valuable skill. I am not sure just how many times I read the passage in yellow and blue highlight attachment and thought about it and not notice this. Until yesterday

The Polish Soviet Commision investigating the goings on at Majdanek even states "or in the ceiling" Basically this commission, (a group that was looking for ANTHING that points to homicidal gas chamber) says there were no holes in the ceiling so therefore the room was not a Zyklon B gas chamber. There absolutely were no holes and never were any holes in this ceiling and thus not a Zyklon GC.

It would be nice to have a sit down with the staff at Majdanek, USHMM and Yad Vashem and debate this. My guess is if the GCs go away at Majdanek, no one will visit the camp. People come to see the Gas Chambers

The takeaway here is we can use the commission's own statement to support the "No homicidal Gas Chamber" argument here
see attached

[Wetzelrad]

You know, your discovery (or whosever's) of the blue stain in Majdanek cell 14 is probably more consequential than anyone has given it credit for.



Most important is that it tells us one accidental exposure was enough to cause blue staining. This puts it in the same category as the two churches that developed blue stains after replastering and disinfestation, which Rudolf has built chemical arguments around. Strong supporting evidence for him.

It also may have some bearing on matters like exposure time, concentration, proximity, and diffusion. Imagine that the room had a door which was left closed for hours or even days before the Zyklon leak was discovered. It would then be somewhat surprising that the Iron Blue formed only in the corner. On the other hand, if the doorway was open to fresh air, it would tell us that Iron Blue can form even when it is being drawn away by diffusion. I'm speculating, but there could be something useful here.

One other thing. We know that fresh plaster is one of the important factors in Iron Blue formation, so it's possible that this leak is more likely to have occurred under German control rather than under the Soviets.