Chronology of the Holocaust

[Nessie]

....

So it's the cost issues that make the idea of T4 gassings deeply implausible to you? Is it the technical difficulty of conducting gassings? Be specific

No, it's that the entire contrived narrative is incomprehensible, unnecessary and ridiculous.

/shrug

Stubble, please explain the logic that because you find gassings unbelievable, therefore they did not happen.

[HansHill]

Stubble, please explain the logic that because you find gassings unbelievable, therefore they did not happen.

This can't be a real question? Nessie: If things are not believable, they by definition fail to meet our expectations of sitting "beyond reasonable doubt", and are therefore regarded with suspicion and attract criticism.

https://legaldictionary.net/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/

[HansHill]

Sure, I'll respond to this post in a few days. Until then I would ask that people don't move forward too far in the chronology

In the meantime I might check out the links I provided previously and here's a book https://oceanofpdf.com/authors/michael- ... -download/

BA - I've already said in this thread that CO gassings under the T4 programme are at least plausible, if not very practical. If you want to discuss it with me in Stubble's absence, then by all means.

I'm interested in how you get from T4 gassings to AR gassings of a completely different method.

[Nessie]

Stubble, please explain the logic that because you find gassings unbelievable, therefore they did not happen.

This can't be a real question?

It is the question I have to ask the most, because revisionists dodge it the most, since their incredulity is what their denial is based on. They find the Holocaust too incredible to believe, so they argue it cannot have happened.

Nessie: If things are not believable, they by definition fail to meet our expectations of sitting "beyond reasonable doubt", and are therefore regarded with suspicion and attract criticism.

https://legaldictionary.net/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/

So, you are saying that it did not happen. How is your disbelief it happened, proof that it did not happen?

[Nessie]

Sure, I'll respond to this post in a few days. Until then I would ask that people don't move forward too far in the chronology

In the meantime I might check out the links I provided previously and here's a book https://oceanofpdf.com/authors/michael- ... -download/

BA - I've already said in this thread that CO gassings under the T4 programme are at least plausible, if not very practical. If you want to discuss it with me in Stubble's absence, then by all means.

I'm interested in how you get from T4 gassings to AR gassings of a completely different method.

Is your acceptance T4 gassings are plausible, evidence to prove those gassings happened?

[bombsaway]

Sure, I'll respond to this post in a few days. Until then I would ask that people don't move forward too far in the chronology

In the meantime I might check out the links I provided previously and here's a book https://oceanofpdf.com/authors/michael- ... -download/

BA - I've already said in this thread that CO gassings under the T4 programme are at least plausible, if not very practical. If you want to discuss it with me in Stubble's absence, then by all means.

I'm interested in how you get from T4 gassings to AR gassings of a completely different method.

Something being "not practical" makes it implausible. Remember the evidence too. It isn't just speculation on the part of historians, there is a large body of documentary and witness evidence pointing to T4 related gassings. By questioning whether these occurred you are in a sense asserting a conspiracy to fabricate this evidence.

Personally I see no reason to doubt the T4 gassings, given the evidence we have. New evidence could surface, or evidence of a conspiracy, but that doesn't exist, so why have strong doubts?

[Stubble]

....

So it's the cost issues that make the idea of T4 gassings deeply implausible to you? Is it the technical difficulty of conducting gassings? Be specific

No, it's that the entire contrived narrative is incomprehensible, unnecessary and ridiculous.

/shrug

Stubble, please explain the logic that because you find gassings unbelievable, therefore they did not happen.

Nessie, is your grip on reality really so tenuous as to think my opinion about an event would actually, really and truly have an effect on it's occurring or not occurring?

The only other time I've run into this argument it was associated with string theory and I'm reasonably sure the other party 'didn't get it'.

Come now, please be generous and give me some time for reflection.

[HansHill]

Something being "not practical" makes it implausible

You people are utterly mindbroken. This is a ridiculous statement, and I'm wondering if you've made a typo here or have been drinking heavily, but I'll address it anyway.

Impracticality =/= implausibility

Example: I am a postman, it's impractical for me to complete my rounds by bicycle. However, this is not implausible, because this is exactly what I used to do when I started, additionally, several postmen who retire will do their last round via bicycle to commemorate their career. Therefore, one would not find it implausible to look out their window and see a postman delivering their post by bicycle.

Remember the evidence too. It isn't just speculation on the part of historians, there is a large body of documentary and witness evidence pointing to T4 related gassings. By questioning whether these occurred you are in a sense asserting a conspiracy to fabricate this evidence.

Personally I see no reason to doubt the T4 gassings, given the evidence we have. New evidence could surface, or evidence of a conspiracy, but that doesn't exist, so why have strong doubts?

Emphasis mine. What on earth is your strategy here, i'm eager to get to the next part and so i've addressed that this is plausible - as we know CO is fatal, CO can be administered by tank via tube & breathing apparatus to a restrained patient, and at scale so please hurry up and get to the next stage of your argument and stop dillydallying, this is farcical

====

For what it's worth, the part that I've included in italics above is why there are question marks about this method, as none of this has been demonstrated as having been performed under T4.

[HansHill]

Is your acceptance T4 gassings are plausible, evidence to prove those gassings happened?

No, in isolation the plausibility of a claim does nothing to prove it as evidence. Example, it's plausible that you drive a Mercedes, however that plausibility is not evidence.

[bombsaway]

Something being "not practical" makes it implausible

You people are utterly mindbroken. This is a ridiculous statement, and I'm wondering if you've made a typo here or have been drinking heavily, but I'll address it anyway.

Impracticality =/= implausibility

Example: I am a postman, it's impractical for me to complete my rounds by bicycle. However, this is not implausible, because this is exactly what I used to do when I started, additionally, several postmen who retire will do their last round via bicycle to commemorate their career. Therefore, one would not find it implausible to look out their window and see a postman delivering their post by bicycle.

Remember the evidence too. It isn't just speculation on the part of historians, there is a large body of documentary and witness evidence pointing to T4 related gassings. By questioning whether these occurred you are in a sense asserting a conspiracy to fabricate this evidence.

Personally I see no reason to doubt the T4 gassings, given the evidence we have. New evidence could surface, or evidence of a conspiracy, but that doesn't exist, so why have strong doubts?

Emphasis mine. What on earth is your strategy here, i'm eager to get to the next part and so i've addressed that this is plausible - as we know CO is fatal, CO can be administered by tank via tube & breathing apparatus to a restrained patient, and at scale so please hurry up and get to the next stage of your argument and stop dillydallying, this is farcical

====

For what it's worth, the part that I've included in italics above is why there are question marks about this method, as none of this has been demonstrated as having been performed under T4.

So your contention is the witnesses are lying about CO being administered in chambers, rather what actually happened was CO was administered by mask? Or tell me what you think happened based on best reading of the data and evidence.

[HansHill]

So your contention is the witnesses are lying about CO being administered in chambers, rather what actually happened was CO was administered by mask? Or tell me what you think happened based on best reading of the data and evidence.

Where did I say they were lying? Are you getting confused who you're replying to? I'm the one who agrees T4 happened, and that CO (and for what it's worth, CO2) are plausible contenders for the murder weapon. I can also agree to some 5-digit number of patients terminated, although 70,000 personally feels a little high to me given the USA approved 8,500 (only managing to perform 5,000 - source https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley ... /jgs.17925 - admittedly this is only covering a subset of all states but you see my point about scale)

Can you please stop pissing around about CO in this pathetic attempt at a Socratic dialogue and get to the point we are all most interested in: how you transcribe the Aktion T4 to Aktion AR.

[bombsaway]

So your contention is the witnesses are lying about CO being administered in chambers, rather what actually happened was CO was administered by mask? Or tell me what you think happened based on best reading of the data and evidence.

Where did I say they were lying? Are you getting confused who you're replying to? I'm the one who agrees T4 happened, and that CO (and for what it's worth, CO2) are plausible contenders for the murder weapon. I can also agree to some 5-digit number of patients terminated, although 70,000 personally feels a little high to me given the USA approved 8,500 (only managing to perform 5,000 - source https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley ... /jgs.17925 - admittedly this is only covering a subset of all states but you see my point about scale)

Can you please stop pissing around about CO in this pathetic attempt at a Socratic dialogue and get to the point we are all most interested in: how you transcribe the Aktion T4 to Aktion AR.

I'm not willing to move past this without Stubble who I want to give some more time and who I originally started this thread with.

If the witnesses are not lying then that means gassings were conducted as they described, in gas chambers replete with fake showerheads for deceptive purposes etc

I think you're the one dancing around this, the evidence is pretty clear. Do you have reason to doubt it? What do you think happened? This is the most important question, which you avoided answering.

[HansHill]

I'm not willing to move past this without Stubble who I want to give some more time and who I originally started this thread with.

Then you should have just said that earlier when I offered to continue the conversation rather than wasting both of our time.

If the witnesses are not lying then that means gassings were conducted as they described, in gas chambers replete with fake showerheads for deceptive purposes etc

I think you're the one dancing around this, the evidence is pretty clear. Do you have reason to doubt it? What do you think happened? This is the most important question, which you avoided answering.

Emphasis mine. You are a despicable debater and I'm this close to leaving this thread because of your antics. For the last time: I am open to this being a possibility and am here to discuss it. Please tell me more about the gassing technology you posit was used in T4 and specifically, how it was transposed to AR. If you also want to comment on why my theory of CO administered via tank under T4 is not possible, then go ahead.

[Archie]

Something being "not practical" makes it implausible

You people are utterly mindbroken. This is a ridiculous statement, and I'm wondering if you've made a typo here or have been drinking heavily, but I'll address it anyway.

Impracticality =/= implausibility

Example: I am a postman, it's impractical for me to complete my rounds by bicycle. However, this is not implausible, because this is exactly what I used to do when I started, additionally, several postmen who retire will do their last round via bicycle to commemorate their career. Therefore, one would not find it implausible to look out their window and see a postman delivering their post by bicycle.

Remember the evidence too. It isn't just speculation on the part of historians, there is a large body of documentary and witness evidence pointing to T4 related gassings. By questioning whether these occurred you are in a sense asserting a conspiracy to fabricate this evidence.

Personally I see no reason to doubt the T4 gassings, given the evidence we have. New evidence could surface, or evidence of a conspiracy, but that doesn't exist, so why have strong doubts?

Emphasis mine. What on earth is your strategy here, i'm eager to get to the next part and so i've addressed that this is plausible - as we know CO is fatal, CO can be administered by tank via tube & breathing apparatus to a restrained patient, and at scale so please hurry up and get to the next stage of your argument and stop dillydallying, this is farcical

====

For what it's worth, the part that I've included in italics above is why there are question marks about this method, as none of this has been demonstrated as having been performed under T4.

So your contention is the witnesses are lying about CO being administered in chambers, rather what actually happened was CO was administered by mask? Or tell me what you think happened based on best reading of the data and evidence.

Speaking only for myself,

1) A chamber for mass gassing requires non-trivial engineering (which we don't have evidence for and which Brack was unable to credibly explain).
2) In the context of euthanasia, luring invalids and lunatics into a fake shower to gas them as a group makes very little sense. The ruse element would be unnecessary, nor would there be any reason to bother moving a bedridden person into a big gas chamber.
3) ALL of the euthanasia gas chamber testimony was collected AFTER the fake shower/gas chamber story had been thoroughly established. NMT I was after the WRB report, after the IMT, after Hoess. The established gas chamber story could have served as a template for the euthanasia gas chamber stories (even though the details didn't make sense in that context).

For these reasons, I remain unconvinced on the euthanasia gas chambers.

[Stubble]

Don't hold on my account, it has been said there is a wisdom in a multitude of council, although some interpret that to mean, by deception thou shalt do war.

If we as a group are to explore this topic, then as a group should we so engage.

I seem to recall on the first page that being your sentiment.

So far as a dive in to this between you and I only, I didn't think that was so much what this thread was, surely I'm not mistaken.

In going over the minutia, such as it is, we needn't worry about not being able to pick up the shovel and turn it over again.

While I have been checking the thread from time to time, I am currently striking other irons. I have elected to free my mind from entertaining this bit of history for a bit. That should not hamper discourse however, I would think.

Some food for thought, when we do get to the Operation Reinhardt Camps, we will be discussing 'vapor lock', 'air fuel ratio', 'carbon monoxide output', 'cubic feet per minute', 'square footage' etc.

You seem to think the act of killing with a compressed gas or with an engine is so simple and easy as to allow all the technicals to be dismissed out of hand.

I say this because of statements like 'I see no problem with hanging a couple of cylinders off of a door'.

Killing isn't something so simple as easy as to require absolutely no consideration to how it is to be carried out.