Why does SanityCheck evade the Physical Evidence Question?

[Stubble]

No, Germar did not 'run away'...

It is hilarious to me how far apart our interpretation of Green's article are. You score that as a win?

Holy hell.

[bombsaway]

No, Germar did not 'run away'...

It is hilarious to me how far apart our interpretation of Green's article are. You score that as a win?

Holy hell.

I'll be honest with you. I don't even care enough to have read any of the chemistry stuff in this debate. I think Rudolf is a foolish person, which is clear to me in his treatment of the documentary record, which is the part of history I like (and thus am more willing to talk to you guys about it)

Has Rudolf ever directly responded to 'Chemistry is Not the Science'? I assume so, at least something. Can you link me to that?

[Stubble]

I'll be honest with you. I don't even care enough to have read any of the chemistry stuff in this debate. I think Rudolf is a foolish person, which is clear to me in his treatment of the documentary record, which is the part of history I like (and thus am more willing to talk to you guys about it)

Has Rudolf ever directly responded to 'Chemistry is Not the Science'? I assume so, at least something. Can you link me to that?

I really can't, I just can't...

Here is Rudolf on the documentary record...

FFS

[bombsaway]

I actually agree BA to some extent. Good science is by definition falsifiable, we are all mature enough and capable enough to understand this. Flat earthers have a field day with this, when they prattle on about the “theory” of gravity being just a theory lol.

The point I will make here is, while the mature position must always be that science by necessity cannot be “rigorous” in the sense you seem to demand, it is eminently more “rigorous” than ridiculous claims about exotic murder weapons and fantastical throughput.

Science can at least stand on merit in this case, which is more than can be said about these ridiculous claims.

I'm not demanding anything. Rigorous is Rudolf's word, not mine.

In 1993, "to make a little extra money on the side," [5] Germar Rudolf wrote his "Rudolf Report." He was working on a graduate degree in chemistry at the time, and indeed the heart of the Report is its claims about the chemistry of the gas chambers. At the time of its authorship and in subsequent revisions, Rudolf did nothing to discourage the overemphasis which chemical analysis has enjoyed in the denial movement. In the conclusion to that Report, he summarized as follows:

The mass gassing procedures reported by legally interrogated witnesses, stated in the cited judgement, and described in scientific and literary publications, are, regardless of which building in Auschwitz, irreconcilable with the laws of natural science.

Die von den gerichtlich vernommenen Zeugen bekundeten, im zitierten Urteil festgestellten und in wissenschaftlichen und literarischen Veröffentlichungen beschriebenen Vorgänge der Massenvergasungen, in welchen Gebäuden in Auschwitz auch immer, sind mit naturwissenschaftlichen Gesetzen unvereinbar.

Specifically regarding the issue of Prussian blue and other cyanide compounds, his summary stated:

On chemical-physical grounds, the attested mass gassings with prussic acid in the alleged "gas chambers" in Auschwitz could not have taken place.

Aus chemisch-physikalischen Gründen können die bezeugten Massenvergasungen mit Blausäure in den angeblichen 'Gaskammern' in Auschwitz nicht stattgefunden haben.

[bombsaway]

I'll be honest with you. I don't even care enough to have read any of the chemistry stuff in this debate. I think Rudolf is a foolish person, which is clear to me in his treatment of the documentary record, which is the part of history I like (and thus am more willing to talk to you guys about it)

Has Rudolf ever directly responded to 'Chemistry is Not the Science'? I assume so, at least something. Can you link me to that?

I really can't, I just can't...

Here is Rudolf on the documentary record...

FFS

It seems we can't even have reasonable discussion anymore. Sad. I have to say I find your mission to find the missing Jews to be kind of beautiful, like Fitzcarraldo's dream of transporting a steamboat over the mountains.

[HansHill]

Yes? And?

A challenge to this position requires something to the contrary. I am a bit surprised by your posts above that you haven’t actually read the Rudolf / Green exchanges. I am currently away from my notes but a very quick review of the attempted vectors for challenges on Rudolf’s position summarised / expanded / leveraged by Green are:

Paint
pH
Concentration
Exposure time
CO2 / Carbonation

Any one of these could be perfectly acceptable “challenge vectors” to Rudolf’s position. The problem for you is that all of this has been addressed categorically and soundly by Rudolf. So we’ve been waiting ~20 years since Green went silent on this, for something else.

[Stubble]

I'll be honest with you. I don't even care enough to have read any of the chemistry stuff in this debate. I think Rudolf is a foolish person, which is clear to me in his treatment of the documentary record, which is the part of history I like (and thus am more willing to talk to you guys about it)

Has Rudolf ever directly responded to 'Chemistry is Not the Science'? I assume so, at least something. Can you link me to that?

I really can't, I just can't...

Here is Rudolf on the documentary record...

FFS

It seems we can't even have reasonable discussion anymore. Sad. I have to say I find your mission to find the missing Jews to be kind of beautiful, like Fitzcarraldo's dream of transporting a steamboat over the mountains.

Me too, although I consider it more quixotic. Tilting at windmills.

The most beautiful thing about it is, I keep finding jews. I already don't have enough missing Hungarian jews for a quarter million of them to have been 'gassed at Auschwitz' and that's just using mainstream sources. It doesn't account for the jews transported from Auschwitz to recovery camps. You know, the ones who spent months in the infirmary?

I know, I know, you say the only reason they didn't gas those kids was because they were going to get better. And yet, Nick alludes to having the name of a 4 year old gassed at Treblinka II because obviously a 4 year old couldn't die in transit. Of course, being as embarrassed as I am that children died during ww2, I didn't press the issue on that.

[bombsaway]

Yes? And?

A challenge to this position requires something to the contrary. I am a bit surprised by your posts above that you haven’t actually read the Rudolf / Green exchanges. I am currently away from my notes but a very quick review of the attempted vectors for challenges on Rudolf’s position summarised / expanded / leveraged by Green are:

Paint
pH
Concentration
Exposure time
CO2 / Carbonation

Any one of these could be perfectly acceptable “challenge vectors” to Rudolf’s position. The problem for you is that all of this has been addressed categorically and soundly by Rudolf. So we’ve been waiting ~20 years since Green went silent on this, for something else.

What isn't rigorous about this though? What does that actually mean? This is the nature of the concession he made.

[bombsaway]

The most beautiful thing about it is, I keep finding jews.

But not the Jews you really need.

[Stubble]

Look, people died in ww2 Bombsaway. Some of my blood is consigned to the last embrace of mother earth as a result of that war. Every death is a tragedy, the 6,000,000 is a symbolic number and the result of nebulous statistics.

Regardless, if you are going to tell me that there was a German policy of extermination of those of the jewish faith, you are gonna have to show me where, because it wasn't along the Bug river and it didn't happen in homicidal gas chambers. Or murder vans.

The evidence doesn't fit the claim.

Much time is spent on Kula's columns and desiel vs gasoline, but, ultimately, it is for naught, because, it isn't just the murder weapon that is missing, it is the victims. You can't even tell me who died. We are passed 80 years removed from the event and yet even still you can't even tell me who is missing, you just point at a chart and say, 'my god, it's millions'...

[bombsaway]

Regardless, if you are going to tell me that there was a German policy of extermination of those of the jewish faith, you are gonna have to show me where, because it wasn't along the Bug river and it didn't happen in homicidal gas chambers. Or murder vans.

The evidence doesn't fit the claim.

Merely repeating this - that the evidence shows or proves that nothing bad happened - is quite pointless, given that you haven't demonstrated this to be true.

[Stubble]

Have we come back to the start of the circle again already?

On the map of Treblinka II, show me where they buried the population of Seattle.

I'll wait.

[bombsaway]

Have we come back to the start of the circle again already?

On the map of Treblinka II, show me where they buried the population of Seattle.

I'll wait.

Why don't you go look through that thread again. You're basing the claims of limited burial areas off witness recollection, as if they would be able to perfectly assess areas on a map, years after the fact. You are a buffoon, a sad and beautiful buffoon.

[Stubble]

And, you know, GPR/LIDAR, limited excavations and the 13 Apostles.

How about Sobibor then, where did they bury a quarter of a million people? The graves that have human remains have mostly bodies, buried in a manner that appears consistent with SOP. there are some scattered cremains, but nothing close to the claim. Same with grave space. Fangers has an excellent breakdown in his thread.

Maybe Belzec is different?

I know you've already seen this link, I don't know if you have listened to it, but, it bears repeating and it has a catchy hook;

https://odysee.com/@UncleSvenAgain:3/BelzecCase:9

[bombsaway]

And, you know, GPR/LIDAR, limited excavations and the 13 Apostles.

How about Sobibor then, where did they bury a quarter of a million people? The graves that have human remains have mostly bodies, buried in a manner that appears consistent with SOP. there are some scattered cremains, but nothing close to the claim. Same with grave space. Fangers has an excellent breakdown in his thread.

Maybe Belzec is different?

I know you've already seen this link, I don't know if you have listened to it, but, it bears repeating and it has a catchy hook;

https://odysee.com/@UncleSvenAgain:3/BelzecCase:9

it never ends with you. It's a loop de loop of inanity. You brought up maps, now we're moving on. I've addressed these before, but we'll just end up talking about maps again soon enough.