Convergance of evidence.

[bombsaway]

One can speculate about why, but I think the answer is they just didn't care enough. How prominent was the Jewish Holocaust in Soviet consciousness up until the dissolution of the USSR?

at calling hilberg an outlier, he invented Holocaust studies more or less

Thank for reinforcing your ignorance for everyone.

Hilberg's numbers were indeed on the low end.

Hilberg estimates that the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz is probably closer to 1 million, rather than the 4 million commonly cited--2.5 million Jewish victims and 1.5 million others.

You are evidently really impressed that Hilberg was capable of basic arithmetic and that he realized the by camp totals should sum up to the total. But that isn't impressive at all and it's quite damning that so many others failed to do this.

Do you really think that's how hilberg et al calculated Auschwitz deaths?

[Archie]

The 'convergence of evidence' for l
LK-1 and Kremas II and III currently rests on holes that dont exist through columns that were never there in a room that doesn't have any detectable cyanide residue above background...

Muh 1,000,000 is just as flawed as muh 4,000,000.

I don't care about your convergence of bullshit.

'Muh outdoor pyres'...

You have 1 photo series from 1 day after Krema IV was damaged and a memorandum about the need to dispose of buried remains that contaminated the water supply.

Yes, there were at least 2 outside open air corpse disposals. That's not 'muh evil nazis used outdoor open air cremation to dispose of gassing victims'.

There are of course many other details, but yes, Hilberg was the first to revise the death count, because the 4,000,000 number was absolutely retarded.

I will give Hilberg a tiny bit of credit for using some common sense and coming up with numbers that at least had some internal consistency.

One thing to remember is that the Soviets had a somewhat different narrative than what developed among Jews in Israel and in the West. Their story was that the Germans were exterminating not only Jews but lots of Gentiles as well. Hilberg had enough sense to realize that 4M at Auschwitz was absurd and impossible, especially if you are talking about Jews. If we are talking Jews, there were only 3M in Poland and they already claim like half of those were killed at the AR camps. The 4M always included a large number of Gentiles, but even assuming half were Jews is still way too high, i.e., it's not not possible given the demographics and deportation figures.

[HansHill]

Do you really think that's how hilberg et al calculated Auschwitz deaths?

How did Bronowski calculate his 4,000,000? (Bronowski was a mathematician btw)

[Stubble]

The 'convergence of evidence' for l
LK-1 and Kremas II and III currently rests on holes that dont exist through columns that were never there in a room that doesn't have any detectable cyanide residue above background...

Muh 1,000,000 is just as flawed as muh 4,000,000.

I don't care about your convergence of bullshit.

'Muh outdoor pyres'...

You have 1 photo series from 1 day after Krema IV was damaged and a memorandum about the need to dispose of buried remains that contaminated the water supply.

Yes, there were at least 2 outside open air corpse disposals. That's not 'muh evil nazis used outdoor open air cremation to dispose of gassing victims'.

There are of course many other details, but yes, Hilberg was the first to revise the death count, because the 4,000,000 number was absolutely retarded.

I will give Hilberg a tiny bit of credit for using some common sense and coming up with numbers that at least had some internal consistency.

One thing to remember is that the Soviets had a somewhat different narrative than what developed among Jews in Israel and in the West. Their story was that the Germans were exterminating not only Jews but lots of Gentiles as well. Hilberg had enough sense to realize that 4M at Auschwitz was absurd and impossible, especially if you are talking about Jews. If we are talking Jews, there were only 3M in Poland and they already claim like half of those were killed at the AR camps. The 4M always included a large number of Gentiles, but even assuming half were Jews is still way too high, i.e., it's not not possible given the demographics and deportation figures.

I'm not trying to take anything away from anybody. I've read him. It is interesting to see what was edited over time, and in my opinion, somewhat revealing.

Ultimately I just want the raw, naked, unvarnished truth.

I know what is said to have happened didn't. I want to know what did.

It is very difficult to parse the truth from the lies however, certainly 80 years after the fact.

[TlsMS93]

The Jews say that gentiles will be saved if they follow the 7 laws of Noah. However, even if you follow them and do not believe that these laws were given to Moses by God and that he passed them on to the Jewish sages, it will be of no use. So how can you accept that it was God who gave them to Moses and he passed them on to the sages? There is the Holocaust. It is not enough to accept that there is no way to explain where they went. No, you have to accept that they were destroyed without fuel, wood, logistics, without contaminating the walls of the gas chambers.

[bombsaway]

Ultimately I just want the raw, naked, unvarnished truth.

I know what is said to have happened didn't. I want to know what did.

It is very difficult to parse the truth from the lies however, certainly 80 years after the fact.

This supposes that the information (truth) is actually out there, with eg the question of what happened to the Jews deported into Russia. Revisionists assert they were maintained there, but actually what you see is the ghettos there being emptied and most of the inhabitants killed. You guys would love to have convergence of evidence, instead you have a divergence. With every group of Jews you find there, all you see is mass killing with only a small minority escaping or being used for labor.

[Stubble]

Ultimately I just want the raw, naked, unvarnished truth.

I know what is said to have happened didn't. I want to know what did.

It is very difficult to parse the truth from the lies however, certainly 80 years after the fact.

This supposes that the information (truth) is actually out there, with eg the question of what happened to the Jews deported into Russia. Revisionists assert they were maintained there, but actually what you see is the ghettos there being emptied and most of the inhabitants killed. You guys would love to have convergence of evidence, instead you have a divergence. With every group of Jews you find there, all you see is mass killing with only a small minority escaping or being used for labor.

Again, you don't like the answer 'jews went where jews are'.

So far as their support, they appear to have been supported in a series of concentration and labor camps in the east. Some of these camps produced munitions, all of these camps had labor requirements.

Now, with the emptying of the ghettos, after uprisings began (Warsaw comes to mind) this less secure means of separation was dismantled and these jews were put into the camp system.

Nazgul has a map of these camps, and work is being done to flesh out what happened both in them and to them.

I believe you are aware of this.

I have no doubt that partisans were shot coming out of the ghetto system and going into the camp system in the Aktion Reinhardt camps. I believe this operation was targeted in nature and limited in scope, not an attempt to 'exterminate' 'the jews'. Of course, this is my opinion. I need to evidence my position and I need to be able to articulate 'where'd they go'.

I understand that.

In my defense, if the orthodox narrative held up to even the slightest scrutiny, I wouldn't feel compelled to make such an effort. Any time I look at any piece of the orthodox narrative, it falls apart under scrutiny. If the narrative were the truth, it wouldn't do that.

You simply brush off the fact that the 'convergence of evidence' is nothing but consensus. You make light of the 4,000,000 figure at Auschwitz and shout 'but Hilberg!'. The 4,000,000 figure was not a mistake, and neither was the soap or lampshades hoax. These were lies. These were lies, and they were institutionalized. This was done as a form of atrocity propaganda.

The whole thing, from end to end is rife with atrocity propaganda. 'German cannibals in Berlin', 'shrunken heads', 'nazi medical experiments'...it just goes on and on and on and on. There have to be at least 6,000,000 different lies.

[bombsaway]

Ultimately I just want the raw, naked, unvarnished truth.

I know what is said to have happened didn't. I want to know what did.

It is very difficult to parse the truth from the lies however, certainly 80 years after the fact.

This supposes that the information (truth) is actually out there, with eg the question of what happened to the Jews deported into Russia. Revisionists assert they were maintained there, but actually what you see is the ghettos there being emptied and most of the inhabitants killed. You guys would love to have convergence of evidence, instead you have a divergence. With every group of Jews you find there, all you see is mass killing with only a small minority escaping or being used for labor.

Again, you don't like the answer 'jews went where jews are'.

So far as their support, they appear to have been supported in a series of concentration and labor camps in the east. Some of these camps produced munitions, all of these camps had labor requirements.

Now, with the emptying of the ghettos, after uprisings began (Warsaw comes to mind) this less secure means of separation was dismantled and these jews were put into the camp system.

Nazgul has a map of these camps, and work is being done to flesh out what happened both in them and to them.

I believe you are aware of this.

I have no doubt that partisans were shot coming out of the ghetto system and going into the camp system in the Aktion Reinhardt camps. I believe this operation was targeted in nature and limited in scope, not an attempt to 'exterminate' 'the jews'. Of course, this is my opinion. I need to evidence my position and I need to be able to articulate 'where'd they go'.

I understand that.

In my defense, if the orthodox narrative held up to even the slightest scrutiny, I would feel compelled to make such an effort. Any time I look at any piece of the orthodox narrative, it falls apart under scrutiny. If the narrative were the truth, it wouldn't do that.

You simply brush off the fact that the 'convergence of evidence' is nothing but consensus. You make light of the 4,000,000 figure at Auschwitz and shout 'but Hilberg!'. The 4,000,000 figure was not a mistake, and neither was the soap or lampshades hoax. These were lies. These were lies, and they were institutionalized. This was done as a form of atrocity propaganda.

The whole thing, from end to end is rife with atrocity propaganda. 'German cannibals in Berlin', 'shrunken heads', 'nazi medical experiments'...it just goes on and on and on and on. There have to be at least 6,000,000 different lies.

When I say ghettos there, I mean the ghettos in Russia. I don't think you can find a single example of a group of deported or native Jews being maintained there, but this is the revisionist assertion.

'jews went where jews are' is indeed the best you can come up with, a total non-answer to this precise question of what happened to those deported into Russia. Look at Nazgul's map and you'll see few or none of his ghettos or camps are in Russia, elsewhere (like in Poland) records indicate the population dropped precipitously.

The convergence of evidence is not consensus but something you can see when you examine (for example) the evidence of what happened to the Jews in Russia. You see them being mass slaughtered, everywhere you look. The fact that you see this happening also points away from the revisionist narrative that they were maintained there, hence my characterization 'divergence of evidence'

[Nessie]

Since neither of us understand the chemistry, is there any point to such a debate?


How about we discuss how the rest of the evidence supports Green and not Rudolf?

Oh, of course, you run away from that!

Since you said Green rebuts Rudolf, then yes there is indeed a point to the debate. Again, i have not "authoritatively commented" on Dr Green's work, i don't even know what that means tbh - but rather i have for perhaps 5 or 6 times now, asked you to give me what you think Dr Green's hypothesis is. I gave you mine, which you then rejected and made a feeble attempt inserting babble about pH levels, which i assume you are now retracting. So, for the last time - please give me what you think Dr Green's hypothesis is.

I do not fully understand the chemistry behind Green (or Rudolf's) reasoning. I know Green is correct, because there is evidence mass gassings took place.

[Nessie]

For me, the fact that there was no Prussian Blue in the alleged slaughterhouses and the absence of documentation of the delivery of sufficient timber for the alleged Reinhardt operation is enough to exonerate the Germans.

For me, the fact that there is forensic testing that finds traces of the use of Zyklon B at the alleged gas chambers and there is SS camp staff testimony about arranging wood deliveries from Polish sawmills, is enough to convict the Nazis.

Or, do you think so little evidence is insufficient to make any definitive conclusion?

[Nessie]

This is worthy of its own thread;

A Drahtnetzeinschießvorrichtung couldn't possibly be a wire mesh column for the introduction of Zyklon B in a gas chamber because it's a male word and a column for the introduction of Zyklon B (i.e. a hollow device to be filled with Zyklon B pellets) would have been named after a female word. So the Drahtnetzeinschießvorrichtung in that inventory sheet was a wire mesh stretcher for the introduction of dead bodies in crematory ovens or just a botched documentary forgery made by someone with little knowledge of the German language.

...

Your opinion on what word the Germans would use, has no evidential value. Evidence comes from contemporaneous sources, such as witnesses who worked inside the Kremas.

[HansHill]

I do not fully understand the chemistry behind Green (or Rudolf's) reasoning. I know Green is correct, because there is evidence mass gassings took place.

Thank you for this honest concession, now let me explain to everyone what this concession means to the debate.

Nessie here has just admirably conceded to not fully understanding the Green / Rudolf exchanges, which I note with admiration for his honesty. Unfortunately for Nessie and his argument however, he has just confirmed to us all in writing what I think all of us have long suspected.

Dr Green was addressing his articles to a lay audience. He makes this abundantly clear throughout. The entire premise of his writing these exchanges with Rudolf is to explain these concepts to the non-specialist, general public at large, so they can walk away with a full grasp of his reasoning. That was his intention.

As such, there is nothing in these exchanges that require anything more than the basic critical thinking and modest comprehension skills, which Dr Green demands of his readers. This is also the case with Rudolf, and can be extended to all of his other publications, too. You will note, that Rudolf takes the additional step of siphoning his technical workings to distinct chapters called "Excursus" where he invites specialists to digest his technical data, without impeding the generalist.

Nessie's honest concession to not understanding these basic core arguments, while refreshing and admirable, perfectly explains what we have all witnessed across time in his various struggles to grasp basic things. We know he misunderstands Rudolf's argument, now he has confirmed in writing. None of this is meant to be offensive to Nessie of course.

Anyway, I will be re-posting this concession from Nessie in future threads whenever I see him posting something stupid.

[Nessie]

I do not fully understand the chemistry behind Green (or Rudolf's) reasoning. I know Green is correct, because there is evidence mass gassings took place.

Thank you for this honest concession, now let me explain to everyone what this concession means to the debate.

Nessie here has just admirably conceded to not fully understanding the Green / Rudolf exchanges, which I note with admiration for his honesty. Unfortunately for Nessie and his argument however, he has just confirmed to us all in writing what I think all of us have long suspected.

Dr Green was addressing his articles to a lay audience. He makes this abundantly clear throughout. The entire premise of his writing these exchanges with Rudolf is to explain these concepts to the non-specialist, general public at large, so they can walk away with a full grasp of his reasoning. That was his intention.

As such, there is nothing in these exchanges that require anything more than the basic critical thinking and modest comprehension skills, which Dr Green demands of his readers. This is also the case with Rudolf, and can be extended to all of his other publications, too. You will note, that Rudolf takes the additional step of siphoning his technical workings to distinct chapters called "Excursus" where he invites specialists to digest his technical data, without impeding the generalist.

Nessie's honest concession to not understanding these basic core arguments, while refreshing and admirable, perfectly explains what we have all witnessed across time in his various struggles to grasp basic things. We know he misunderstands Rudolf's argument, now he has confirmed in writing. None of this is meant to be offensive to Nessie of course.

Anyway, I will be re-posting this concession from Nessie in future threads whenever I see him posting something stupid.

An intelligent, knowledgeable person, knows where their knowledge is lacking. Revisionists are over confident and suffer from Dunning Kruger, they lack the competence to know when their knowledge is lacking.

AI overview "The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where individuals with low competence in a specific area overestimate their abilities, while highly competent individuals may underestimate their skills. This bias stems from a lack of self-awareness, as individuals with limited knowledge may not recognize the extent of their own ignorance."

I do understand the general arguments Green and Rudolf make. I get why Green states there are impact factors, such as washing the walls and the time of exposure variations, that explain the lack of residue. I cannot go into the chemical formulas and pH levels with any great knowledge. Neither can HansHill, but his over confidence will not stop him.

As a result, he will misrepresent what I have said at every opportunity, as he cannot counter my actual words. You will see that, when he never links to or quotes me, when he discusses what I have said.

The fact remains, I am evidentially and logically correct, that Green wins over Rudolf, because mass gassings are evidenced to have happened.

[Nazgul]

The fact remains, I am evidentially and logically correct, that Green wins over Rudolf, because mass gassings are evidenced to have happened.

What has this got to do with convergence of evidence. You are not relying on convergence but a mere belief that the testimonies are truthful.

[Stubble]

This supposes that the information (truth) is actually out there, with eg the question of what happened to the Jews deported into Russia. Revisionists assert they were maintained there, but actually what you see is the ghettos there being emptied and most of the inhabitants killed. You guys would love to have convergence of evidence, instead you have a divergence. With every group of Jews you find there, all you see is mass killing with only a small minority escaping or being used for labor.

Again, you don't like the answer 'jews went where jews are'.

So far as their support, they appear to have been supported in a series of concentration and labor camps in the east. Some of these camps produced munitions, all of these camps had labor requirements.

Now, with the emptying of the ghettos, after uprisings began (Warsaw comes to mind) this less secure means of separation was dismantled and these jews were put into the camp system.

Nazgul has a map of these camps, and work is being done to flesh out what happened both in them and to them.

I believe you are aware of this.

I have no doubt that partisans were shot coming out of the ghetto system and going into the camp system in the Aktion Reinhardt camps. I believe this operation was targeted in nature and limited in scope, not an attempt to 'exterminate' 'the jews'. Of course, this is my opinion. I need to evidence my position and I need to be able to articulate 'where'd they go'.

I understand that.

In my defense, if the orthodox narrative held up to even the slightest scrutiny, I would feel compelled to make such an effort. Any time I look at any piece of the orthodox narrative, it falls apart under scrutiny. If the narrative were the truth, it wouldn't do that.

You simply brush off the fact that the 'convergence of evidence' is nothing but consensus. You make light of the 4,000,000 figure at Auschwitz and shout 'but Hilberg!'. The 4,000,000 figure was not a mistake, and neither was the soap or lampshades hoax. These were lies. These were lies, and they were institutionalized. This was done as a form of atrocity propaganda.

The whole thing, from end to end is rife with atrocity propaganda. 'German cannibals in Berlin', 'shrunken heads', 'nazi medical experiments'...it just goes on and on and on and on. There have to be at least 6,000,000 different lies.

When I say ghettos there, I mean the ghettos in Russia. I don't think you can find a single example of a group of deported or native Jews being maintained there, but this is the revisionist assertion.

'jews went where jews are' is indeed the best you can come up with, a total non-answer to this precise question of what happened to those deported into Russia. Look at Nazgul's map and you'll see few or none of his ghettos or camps are in Russia, elsewhere (like in Poland) records indicate the population dropped precipitously.

The convergence of evidence is not consensus but something you can see when you examine (for example) the evidence of what happened to the Jews in Russia. You see them being mass slaughtered, everywhere you look. The fact that you see this happening also points away from the revisionist narrative that they were maintained there, hence my characterization 'divergence of evidence'

My eye is slowly turning back to the east. I had been looking at the 'holocaust of bullets' before ruminating on the refugee reports. From the 'chronology of the holocaust' thread, it became apparent to me that this particular bit of ww2 history needed careful examination.

I have only so many hours Bombsaway, I cannot diligently research and give care to all of these matters simultaneously.

My first focus was of course Auschwitz. From there I have been told to go and read many things (like a series of encyclopedias from USHMM for example). This takes time.

I can't help but notice you completely ignored the 4,000,000 in your response. I reiterate, this was not a mistake, it was atrocity propaganda. I also reiterate that the 'convergence of evidence' with regard to the holocaust is a 'convergence of consensus'. I again point at majdanek as an example of atrocity propaganda vs the truth with regard to the history of the holocaust. Now you have 2 examples, Auschwitz, where it was etched into stone '4,000,000' and now majdanek with its eyesore monument full of sand and ashes, and maybe some cremains.

I will find these missing jews. I will find them, and I will document them.