Convergance of evidence.

[HansHill]

Yet you are the same person who said:

I thought it was clear, what I was saying. I know that Green rebuts Rudolf, because of the evidence that homicidal gassings happened. I cannot make it any clearer or succinct than that. If you still do not understand, then I cannot help you, due to your inability to get to grips with evidencing.

Nessie: Green rebuts Rudolf
HH: Why does Green rebut Rudolf?
Nessie: Because the gassings took place

Seems it's actually you who chooses to seek convergence when it suits, and when it doesn't, to offer tripe like the above.

[Nessie]

Yet you are the same person who said:

I thought it was clear, what I was saying. I know that Green rebuts Rudolf, because of the evidence that homicidal gassings happened. I cannot make it any clearer or succinct than that. If you still do not understand, then I cannot help you, due to your inability to get to grips with evidencing.

Nessie: Green rebuts Rudolf
HH: Why does Green rebut Rudolf?
Nessie: Because the gassings took place

Seems it's actually you who chooses to seek convergence when it suits, and when it doesn't, to offer tripe like the above.

The offered tripe, is yours. The actual argument I make, which you are unable to counter, so you make up tripe, is;

Nessie: Green rebuts Rudolf
HH: Why does Green rebut Rudolf?
Nessie: Because the convergence of corroborating evidence proves the gassings took place, so Green must be correct.

[HansHill]

[Nessie]

Your inability to respond, is due to my version being accurate, logical and evidentially sound. You cannot counter, so you try to laugh this exchange off, but sooner or later, you come back and misrepresent my actual argument. Straw man arguments are one of the various logical flaws you rely on.

[Nazgul]

[Stubble]

[Archie]

Your inability to respond, is due to my version being accurate, logical and evidentially sound. You cannot counter, so you try to laugh this exchange off, but sooner or later, you come back and misrepresent my actual argument. Straw man arguments are one of the various logical flaws you rely on.

"I don't have a clue about Rudolf's arguments but he has to be wrong because I already made up my mind."

Nessie, you can't arbitrarily declare your conclusion to be set in stone and then use that as a lazy inb4 against any potential counterargument. A basic concept of scientific inquiry is that conclusions are, in principle, open to revision pending further knowledge and understanding.

There are different ways of outlining the basic method used for scientific inquiry. The scientific community and philosophers of science generally agree on the following classification of method components. These methodological elements and organization of procedures tend to be more characteristic of experimental sciences than social sciences. Nonetheless, the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below. The scientific method is an iterative, cyclical process through which information is continually revised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What you advocate is the precise opposite of an "iterative, cyclical process through which information is continually revised."

[Nessie]

Your inability to respond, is due to my version being accurate, logical and evidentially sound. You cannot counter, so you try to laugh this exchange off, but sooner or later, you come back and misrepresent my actual argument. Straw man arguments are one of the various logical flaws you rely on.

"I don't have a clue about Rudolf's arguments but he has to be wrong because I already made up my mind."

Nessie, you can't arbitrarily declare your conclusion to be set in stone and then use that as a lazy inb4 against any potential counterargument. A basic concept of scientific inquiry is that conclusions are, in principle, open to revision pending further knowledge and understanding.

My conclusion is not arbitrary. It is based on evidence. Green states the chemistry proves gassings did take place inside the Kremas. Rudolf states the chemistry proves gassings did not take place. To settle that dispute, I then look to the evidence of what took place inside the Kremas. I follow the evidence.

What is wrong with that?

There are different ways of outlining the basic method used for scientific inquiry. The scientific community and philosophers of science generally agree on the following classification of method components. These methodological elements and organization of procedures tend to be more characteristic of experimental sciences than social sciences. Nonetheless, the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below. The scientific method is an iterative, cyclical process through which information is continually revised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What you advocate is the precise opposite of an "iterative, cyclical process through which information is continually revised."

Both Rudolf and Green have formulated hypotheses, but no testing has taken place. The Leichenkellers have not been recreated and subjected to repeated gassings in conditions replicating the mass gassings. The scientific method you have referenced has not taken place.

That is why I advocate a logical, evidence based approach to determining who is correct. Gather evidence to prove what happened inside the Kremas. If it is gassings, Green is correct, if it is something else, such as mass showering, corpse storage or bomb shelters, Rudolf is correct. If it is that other revisionist suggestion of delousing chamber, then both Green and Rudolf are wrong.

[HansHill]

Both Rudolf and Green have formulated hypotheses, but no testing has taken place. The Leichenkellers have not been recreated and subjected to repeated gassings in conditions replicating the mass gassings. The scientific method you have referenced has not taken place.

Finally something tangible from you. Let's investigate these hypotheses from both Rudolf and Dr Green.

Rudolf: The known and predictable behaviour of iron when exposed to HcN over prolonged periods is that it will produce long-term stable residues such as Prussian Blue. The known environment of the gas chambers meets the conditions for these residues to have formed.

Dr Green: The environment does not meet the conditions for these residues to have formed, as explained by the pH levels were not sufficient to support the formation of Prussian Blue, due to the measurements taken by Markeiwiz & et in 1993.

Anything to add about these hypotheses before we proceed further? Note, i am asking you about their hypotheses and if you wish to change either of these hypotheses as I have steelmanned them then please cite their words exactly. Otherwise I will take these as the hypotheses you said were formed.

[Nessie]

Both Rudolf and Green have formulated hypotheses, but no testing has taken place. The Leichenkellers have not been recreated and subjected to repeated gassings in conditions replicating the mass gassings. The scientific method you have referenced has not taken place.

Finally something tangible from you. Let's investigate these hypotheses from both Rudolf and Dr Green.

Rudolf: The known and predictable behaviour of iron when exposed to HcN over prolonged periods is that it will produce long-term stable residues such as Prussian Blue. The known environment of the gas chambers meets the conditions for these residues to have formed.

Dr Green: The environment does not meet the conditions for these residues to have formed, as explained by the pH levels were not sufficient to support the formation of Prussian Blue, due to the measurements taken by Markeiwiz & et in 1993.

Anything to add about these hypotheses before we proceed further? Note, i am asking you about their hypotheses and if you wish to change either of these hypotheses as I have steelmanned them then please cite their words exactly. Otherwise I will take these as the hypotheses you said were formed.

My version would be;

Rudolf: The known and predictable behaviour of iron when exposed to HcN over prolonged periods is that it will produce long-term stable residues such as Prussian Blue. The known environment of the gas chambers meets the conditions for these residues to have formed.

Dr Green: The environment does not meet the conditions for these residues to have formed, as explained by the pH levels were not sufficient to support the formation of Prussian Blue, due to the time of exposure of gassings compared to delousing, washing and painting the walls between gassings and conditions after gassings stopped.

Only Krema I's Leichenkeller and part of Krema II can be accessed for testing. Markiewicz proves the use of Zyklon B within the Leichenkellers and also the Krema buildings in general, as there were positive tests for the ruins. Robel proved the vent, recovered from the ruins of Krema II, had also come into contact with Zyklon B.

[HansHill]

My version would be;

Rudolf: The known and predictable behaviour of iron when exposed to HcN over prolonged periods is that it will produce long-term stable residues such as Prussian Blue. The known environment of the gas chambers meets the conditions for these residues to have formed.

Dr Green: The environment does not meet the conditions for these residues to have formed, as explained by the pH levels were not sufficient to support the formation of Prussian Blue, due to the time of exposure of gassings compared to delousing, washing and painting the walls between gassings and conditions after gassings stopped.

Only Krema I's Leichenkeller and part of Krema II can be accessed for testing. Markiewicz proves the use of Zyklon B within the Leichenkellers and also the Krema buildings in general, as there were positive tests for the ruins. Robel proved the vent, recovered from the ruins of Krema II, had also come into contact with Zyklon B.

The bolded sentence doesn't make sense, unless you are suggesting Dr Green's position declares that the exposure times affected the pH of the material in any way, which is incredibly stupid. Since you are materially changing my steelman of Dr Green's hypothesis please write something coherent and if this is not possible in your own words, cite from his own words.

[Nessie]

My version would be;

Rudolf: The known and predictable behaviour of iron when exposed to HcN over prolonged periods is that it will produce long-term stable residues such as Prussian Blue. The known environment of the gas chambers meets the conditions for these residues to have formed.

Dr Green: The environment does not meet the conditions for these residues to have formed, as explained by the pH levels were not sufficient to support the formation of Prussian Blue, due to the time of exposure of gassings compared to delousing, washing and painting the walls between gassings and conditions after gassings stopped.

Only Krema I's Leichenkeller and part of Krema II can be accessed for testing. Markiewicz proves the use of Zyklon B within the Leichenkellers and also the Krema buildings in general, as there were positive tests for the ruins. Robel proved the vent, recovered from the ruins of Krema II, had also come into contact with Zyklon B.

The bolded sentence doesn't make sense, unless you are suggesting Dr Green's position declares that the exposure times affected the pH of the material in any way, which is incredibly stupid. Since you are materially changing my steelman of Dr Green's hypothesis please write something coherent and if this is not possible in your own words, cite from his own words.

Green stated;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... affweb.pdf

"I show that a) the principle behind the argument made by the defense valid b) Rudolf's
comparison between Prussian blue staining in the delousing chambers with residues in the gas chamber
is invalid, c) there is evidence that much of the Prussian blue staining is in fact superficial, d) that even if
Rudolf were completely correct about his criticism, his argument fails to show that the gas chambers were
not exposed to HCN."

"Robert Jan van Pelt estimates that 350,000 people were killed in morgue 1. At 2000 people
per gassing, that leads to 175 gassings, or approximately 117 hours of exposure (not all of which are at
the maximum exposure because of the decrease owing to ventilation). In contrast, delousing chamber
BW5a had a minimum of 450 gassings of approximately 16 hours each for a total of 7200 hours most of
which was at the full concentration."

"The first factor is important because whatever the cyanide ion concentration was immediately
after a gassing, it would have been greatly reduced by the washing of the chambers with water."

"For the reasons discussed above it is extremely unlikely that aqueous phase concentrations of
cyanide in the gas chambers would have been great enough to produce iron blue through Rudolf's
mechanism. The walls were washed with water, which would have greatly reduced the cyanide ion
concentration. Additionally, the fact that gassings were short and infrequent compared to delousings
means that the equilibrium value of the concentration of cyanide ions in solution was never established.
In the delousings by contrast the concentrations no doubt were much closer to the equilibrium values. If
Rudolf is correct about the mechanism of iron blue formation, it is no surprise that there is a difference in
blue staining between the gas chambers and the delousing chambers despite the fact that both have
been shown to have been exposed to HCN."

Now, I am not a chemist. Are you? All I can do is quote Green, to summarise his reasoning as to why there are differences between delousing and gassing and why gassing produces less residue.

[HansHill]

Green stated;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... affweb.pdf

"I show that a) the principle behind the argument made by the defense valid b) Rudolf's
comparison between Prussian blue staining in the delousing chambers with residues in the gas chamber
is invalid, c) there is evidence that much of the Prussian blue staining is in fact superficial, d) that even if
Rudolf were completely correct about his criticism, his argument fails to show that the gas chambers were
not exposed to HCN."

"Robert Jan van Pelt estimates that 350,000 people were killed in morgue 1. At 2000 people
per gassing, that leads to 175 gassings, or approximately 117 hours of exposure (not all of which are at
the maximum exposure because of the decrease owing to ventilation). In contrast, delousing chamber
BW5a had a minimum of 450 gassings of approximately 16 hours each for a total of 7200 hours most of
which was at the full concentration."

"The first factor is important because whatever the cyanide ion concentration was immediately
after a gassing, it would have been greatly reduced by the washing of the chambers with water."

"For the reasons discussed above it is extremely unlikely that aqueous phase concentrations of
cyanide in the gas chambers would have been great enough to produce iron blue through Rudolf's
mechanism. The walls were washed with water, which would have greatly reduced the cyanide ion
concentration. Additionally, the fact that gassings were short and infrequent compared to delousings
means that the equilibrium value of the concentration of cyanide ions in solution was never established.
In the delousings by contrast the concentrations no doubt were much closer to the equilibrium values. If
Rudolf is correct about the mechanism of iron blue formation, it is no surprise that there is a difference in
blue staining between the gas chambers and the delousing chambers despite the fact that both have
been shown to have been exposed to HCN."

Now, I am not a chemist. Are you? All I can do is quote Green, to summarise his reasoning as to why there are differences between delousing and gassing and why gassing produces less residue.

You hypothesised above, in the bold sentence, about the pH not being conducive to the formation of Prussian Blue due to the exposure time. The arguments you posted from Green do not address pH, but they address exposure time and water content. This means you are changing what his hypothesis is, primarily because I don't think you understand it.

Re-write again what you think Dr Green's hypothesis is, since you don't think my steelman is reflective.

[Nessie]

Green stated;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... affweb.pdf

"I show that a) the principle behind the argument made by the defense valid b) Rudolf's
comparison between Prussian blue staining in the delousing chambers with residues in the gas chamber
is invalid, c) there is evidence that much of the Prussian blue staining is in fact superficial, d) that even if
Rudolf were completely correct about his criticism, his argument fails to show that the gas chambers were
not exposed to HCN."

"Robert Jan van Pelt estimates that 350,000 people were killed in morgue 1. At 2000 people
per gassing, that leads to 175 gassings, or approximately 117 hours of exposure (not all of which are at
the maximum exposure because of the decrease owing to ventilation). In contrast, delousing chamber
BW5a had a minimum of 450 gassings of approximately 16 hours each for a total of 7200 hours most of
which was at the full concentration."

"The first factor is important because whatever the cyanide ion concentration was immediately
after a gassing, it would have been greatly reduced by the washing of the chambers with water."

"For the reasons discussed above it is extremely unlikely that aqueous phase concentrations of
cyanide in the gas chambers would have been great enough to produce iron blue through Rudolf's
mechanism. The walls were washed with water, which would have greatly reduced the cyanide ion
concentration. Additionally, the fact that gassings were short and infrequent compared to delousings
means that the equilibrium value of the concentration of cyanide ions in solution was never established.
In the delousings by contrast the concentrations no doubt were much closer to the equilibrium values. If
Rudolf is correct about the mechanism of iron blue formation, it is no surprise that there is a difference in
blue staining between the gas chambers and the delousing chambers despite the fact that both have
been shown to have been exposed to HCN."

Now, I am not a chemist. Are you? All I can do is quote Green, to summarise his reasoning as to why there are differences between delousing and gassing and why gassing produces less residue.

You hypothesised above, in the bold sentence, about the pH not being conducive to the formation of Prussian Blue due to the exposure time. The arguments you posted from Green do not address pH, but they address exposure time and water content. This means you are changing what his hypothesis is, primarily because I don't think you understand it.

Re-write again what you think Dr Green's hypothesis is, since you don't think my steelman is reflective.

You are correct, that I do not understand the chemistry. I am not convinced you do either, have you any relevant qualifications? I do not do what so many revisionists do, and pontificate over subjects I have no qualifications or relevant experience to cast judgement on. Hence, I have nothing in particular to say about pH levels, but I can say that from what Green states, he has a good case the residue of traces of Zyklon B, is consistent with homicidal gassings.

I have quoted Green's explanations of what his hypothesis is. Your supposed steelman misses out what I have quoted.

[HansHill]

You are correct, that I do not understand the chemistry. I am not convinced you do either, have you any relevant qualifications? I do not do what so many revisionists do, and pontificate over subjects I have no qualifications or relevant experience to cast judgement on. Hence, I have nothing in particular to say about pH levels, but I can say that from what Green states, he has a good case the residue of traces of Zyklon B, is consistent with homicidal gassings.

I have quoted Green's explanations of what his hypothesis is. Your supposed steelman misses out what I have quoted.

I'm not telling you my qualifications, but just assume i don't have any; it's easier that way.

Hence, I have nothing in particular to say about pH levels

Then why did you write:

My version would be;

Rudolf: The known and predictable behaviour of iron when exposed to HcN over prolonged periods is that it will produce long-term stable residues such as Prussian Blue. The known environment of the gas chambers meets the conditions for these residues to have formed.

Dr Green: The environment does not meet the conditions for these residues to have formed, as explained by the pH levels were not sufficient to support the formation of Prussian Blue, due to the time of exposure of gassings compared to delousing, washing and painting the walls between gassings and conditions after gassings stopped.

You understand how this comes across, right?