Review of Auschwitz Forensically Examined By John Wear ∙ April 4, 2019

[Stubble]

https://codoh.com/library/document/revi ... #_ednref22

An article providing a great depth for debate covering a wide range of problems with the orthodox narrative concerning the Auschwitz Complexes. Read and discuss?

[Archie]

Auschwitz Forensically Examined is like a much shorter, more readable version of Chemistry of Auschwitz.

According to the ARMREG catalog, this will soon be a series.
https://armreg.co.uk/wp-content/uploads ... reg-UK.pdf

We are working on Volume 53 of our prestigious Holocaust Handbooks, which will be a monograph on the Auschwitz-Monowitz forced-labor camp. Furthermore, Cyrus Cox is in the process of creating a series of [Camp]: Forensically Examined, using his book Auschwitz: Forensically Examined as a pattern, so people do not have to read huge academic treatises to get an understanding of the features of the most common camps, and revisionist arguments about them.

I've always assumed "Cyrus Cox" was a pseudonym for Germar Rudolf.

[Stubble]

It is an EXCELLENT article. Concise in nature and broad in depth. The smith that hammered out this work is truly a master of the written word. Nothing is either spared, nor superlative.

I would buy the writer a beer.

I was looking for a thread topic broad enough to provide the more specific and specialized topics room to stand for themselves without the distractions and diversions of the various other topics.

It is so incredibly easy to derail a thread, something I have keyed in on over the course of my brief tenure here.

This thread isn't so specialized and in the future, I intend to either start a new thread or redirect the diversion here, to keep the forum tidy and free of undue clutter.

Hopefully this is in the spirit of the board, and I thank everyone involved in keeping this machine oiled and running for their efforts and for providing an opportunity for others and myself to speak freely about this topic.

Truly thank you.

[Hektor]

https://codoh.com/library/document/revi ... #_ednref22

An article providing a great depth for debate covering a wide range of problems with the orthodox narrative concerning the Auschwitz Complexes. Read and discuss?

Concerning the Auschwitz Complexes, it starts with them not even defining what they mean or leaving people in the dark that except the main camps, there were plenty of other camps, residences as well as industrial sites in the area....

[Nessie]

Given the choice between people who cannot work out how gassings and cremations were possible and people who have gathered sufficient evidence to prove that gassings and cremations took place, I go with the latter.

[Stubble]

Given the choice between people who cannot work out how gassings and cremations were possible and people who have gathered sufficient evidence to prove that gassings and cremations took place, I go with the latter.

That's wonderful Nessie, good for you.

Did you, read the article? Do you, have anything to say about the article? Or did you just drop this post in this thread, completely unrelated to it, without, reading the article?

Please, please make an effort to stay on topic and to address the topic of a thread when you post.

If you have an opinion or critique of the article, that's fine. This kind of non sequitur that you have thrown out here is just clutter.

[Nessie]

Given the choice between people who cannot work out how gassings and cremations were possible and people who have gathered sufficient evidence to prove that gassings and cremations took place, I go with the latter.

That's wonderful Nessie, good for you.

Did you, read the article? Do you, have anything to say about the article? Or did you just drop this post in this thread, completely unrelated to it, without, reading the article?

Please, please make an effort to stay on topic and to address the topic of a thread when you post.

If you have an opinion or critique of the article, that's find. This kind of non sequitur that you have thrown out here is just clutter.

I have read the article and I am pointing out why its conclusion is flawed. The documentary, physical and witness evidence for the gassings and cremations, beats opinion on the technicalities of the gassings and cremations.

Debating gassings and cremations is, or is not possible, is being conducted against a background of a lot of evidence it happened. It is about as worthwhile having a debate about the possibility of Egyptians constructing pyramids, whilst standing next to a pyramid. It is about as worthwhile as me, with no ventilation engineering experience, debating you, a ventilation engineer, about a ventilation system that you know would not work, but you are being asked to assume it would.

You want to restrict debate on the article, into the technicalities it discusses. I think a broader debate is needed, whereby the argument the article puts forward, is critically examined.

[Stubble]

Given the choice between people who cannot work out how gassings and cremations were possible and people who have gathered sufficient evidence to prove that gassings and cremations took place, I go with the latter.

That's wonderful Nessie, good for you.

Did you, read the article? Do you, have anything to say about the article? Or did you just drop this post in this thread, completely unrelated to it, without, reading the article?

Please, please make an effort to stay on topic and to address the topic of a thread when you post.

If you have an opinion or critique of the article, that's find. This kind of non sequitur that you have thrown out here is just clutter.

I have read the article and I am pointing out why its conclusion is flawed. The documentary, physical and witness evidence for the gassings and cremations, beats opinion on the technicalities of the gassings and cremations.

Debating gassings and cremations is, or is not possible, is being conducted against a background of a lot of evidence it happened. It is about as worthwhile having a debate about the possibility of Egyptians constructing pyramids, whilst standing next to a pyramid. It is about as worthwhile as me, with no ventilation engineering experience, debating you, a ventilation engineer, about a ventilation system that you know would not work, but you are being asked to assume it would.

You want to restrict debate on the article, into the technicalities it discusses. I think a broader debate is needed, whereby the argument the article puts forward, is critically examined.

This is off topic, but, I feel a clarification is in order, I was an HVAC-R technician and I designed air conditioning systems, ventilation systems and refrigeration systems for various applications. I did both residential and commercial work for about a decade. From there, I moved into a factory setting and became a hydrostatic tester, cnc machine operator and metallurgical lab technician. Then I was moved into the thread engineering department and made a company representative and field liaison. I also worked for a few years in the agricultural sector specifically working on dairies. I worked with milking equipment, waste handling systems, and all of the other various equipment concerned with the dairy industry.

I have worn many hats.

I only used my degree and did HVAC-R work for around a decade.

So far as discussion around the feasibility of homicidal gassings, it is a core issue with the events often described as 'The Holocaust'.

Recently I learned that a test was done where 3 men went into a chamber with 1kg of zyklon b for an hour. The zyklon didn't offgas because the temperature was too low. I will link a video concerning the video as I cannot find source.

https://odysee.com/@montysthinkingoutsi ... -30-2024:5

Seems like hydrogen cyanide does indeed remain a liquid between 8°f and 80°f.

/shrug

Not being specialized in a field should not be used as an excuse to set ones brain on the shelf and blindly believe something wholly absurd.

Closer to the original;

https://ia601401.us.archive.org/32/item ... humans.mp4

[Nessie]

....

So far as discussion around the feasibility of homicidal gassings, it is a core issue with the events often described as 'The Holocaust'.

Denying the technical feasibility of something that is evidenced to have happened (gassings), in favour of something undetermined and not evidenced to have happened (delousing, corpse storage, air raid shelter, showering), is evidentially and logically flawed.

It is as productive a discussion as claiming Egyptians could not have constructed the pyramids, whilst standing next to a pyramid.

...

Not being specialized in a field should not be used as an excuse to set ones brain on the shelf and blindly believe something wholly absurd.

...

Anyone who discusses something outwith their training and experience, should be self-aware enough to know that males them prone to making mistakes, or not understanding the topic under discussion. They should be cautious about coming to definitive conclusions, and double check any conclusion they come to is correct.

What is more absurd? Believing in something that was physically possible to achieve and is evidenced to have happened. Or believing it did not happen, contrary to the evidence and without being able to evidence what did happen, based on personal incredulity it was possible. You say the former is more absurd, I say the latter. I say you should be more self-aware that you are working outwith your field of expertise and so you are more likely to be wrong. You say that does not matter.

[Stubble]

I don't think that comparison is fair. It is more like looking at a ford pinto or AMC gremlin that the owner says has 500hp and expressing doubt.

Sure, it is possible, but, I'm going to have to see under the hood.

[Nessie]

I don't think that comparison is fair. It is more like looking at a ford pinto or AMC gremlin that the owner says has 500hp and expressing doubt.

Sure, it is possible, but, I'm going to have to see under the hood.

I agree that hundreds of thousands being gassed and cremated in a few years, or even a matter of months, in the various death camps, is an incredible claim, like a Pinto with 500hp. When the owner of the Pinto has the mechanical ability to modify or fit an engine to produce 500hp and when, rather than let you see it, they smash it to pieces and hide as much as possible, you appear to have a problem. But, there is testimony from others who say it performed as if it had 500hp, there is surviving physical evidence that proves the engine was modified and the owner admits he modified it and it could produce 500hp, then you have evidence to prove the Pinto had 500hp.

What you are doing is claiming all the witnesses and the owner have lied and the surviving physical evidence is of a 100hp engine, despite you having no mechanical training. You are making opinionated assertions, that are contrary to the evidence.