Convergance of evidence.

[HansHill]

I have been explaining this to you for some time now, but you drag the conversation on, pretending I have not.

Both sides of the debate have called out your repeated misuse of this fallacy.

Rudolf states that the lack of residue means that there cannot have been mass gassings. Green and others disagree and explain why there is a lack of residue, due to the differences in usage between mass gassings and delousing.

Do you care to finally give me some of those arguments, after 6 pages of asking? You've had all of Passover to think about it!

You repeatedly dodge that Green and others have evidence of usage on their side, that backs up their chemistry.

For the Nth time - Green's arguments should stand independent of other evidence, thats the point of Green's work.

[Hektor]

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)

They did not calculate. The method seems to be guessing. But I presume they got some figures somewhere and then concocted up a figure that sounds plausible to a gullible audience. Note that the figures don't correspond with any death record although Holocaustians like to assert that their narrative is 'well documented'...

[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)

They did not calculate. The method seems to be guessing. But I presume they got some figures somewhere and then concocted up a figure that sounds plausible to a gullible audience. Note that the figures don't correspond with any death record although Holocaustians like to assert that their narrative is 'well documented'...

Exactly. Bombsaway either missed my question, or didn't have the cajones to answer because he knew it was a bad look for him. I don't care either way.

In a thread about convergence of evidence, we see that nothing at all converges with anything else, and everything is a disjointed mess.

"b-b-but we've updated our figures"

Not good enough. These scumbags with an axe to grind knowingly and purposely decided to blast this poison directly into the boomer and Gen-X consciousness for nothing other than demoralisation

[bombsaway]

Well, if you are correct, 'Ze Germans' found them, murdered them, and blew their remains into the wind, or threw their remains into the river, or used their remains as fertilizer.

Another point of bias/delusion ... we discussed the remains found at Belzec/Chelmno and your best argument was that it didn't necessarily mean so many hundreds of thousands were killed and buried there, not that the amount of remains was necessarily too small.

You're not being honest with yourself.

Not exactly, I said the grave space was incongruent with the claim of hundreds of thousands.

There is no doubt people died during ww2. There is no doubt that some of those persons were jews. There is no doubt that some of those jews died in captivity, in transit or by executions.

Our main point of divergence revolves around the executions, mainly with regard to scope and method.

You claim a convergence of evidence for a campaign of ethnic extermination. I find that claim dubious and I find the cited documentation suspect.

In light of the lack of corroborative physical evidence, I conclude, not without merit, that the holocaust as we know it is a result of atrocity propaganda.

I am bias, but, I am not delusional or dishonest.

I think we are talking about the ashes. I talked about the grave space with Archie and gave rationale about why with body compression there was enough space there.

Indeed your argument hinges on the evidence being suspect (documents forged, witnesses coerced). Yet you have no evidence of that happening, only circumstantial (the Soviets saying 4,000,000 dead is not evidence they would coerce witnesses into lying about the Holocaust, even Katyn isn't)

[bombsaway]

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

They did not calculate. The method seems to be guessing. But I presume they got some figures somewhere and then concocted up a figure that sounds plausible to a gullible audience. Note that the figures don't correspond with any death record although Holocaustians like to assert that their narrative is 'well documented'...

Exactly. Bombsaway either missed my question, or didn't have the cajones to answer because he knew it was a bad look for him. I don't care either way.

I already said it was due to tracking the amount coming through documented transports, that then disappeared in terms of paper trail.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=7657#p7657

[Stubble]

Another point of bias/delusion ... we discussed the remains found at Belzec/Chelmno and your best argument was that it didn't necessarily mean so many hundreds of thousands were killed and buried there, not that the amount of remains was necessarily too small.

You're not being honest with yourself.

Not exactly, I said the grave space was incongruent with the claim of hundreds of thousands.

There is no doubt people died during ww2. There is no doubt that some of those persons were jews. There is no doubt that some of those jews died in captivity, in transit or by executions.

Our main point of divergence revolves around the executions, mainly with regard to scope and method.

You claim a convergence of evidence for a campaign of ethnic extermination. I find that claim dubious and I find the cited documentation suspect.

In light of the lack of corroborative physical evidence, I conclude, not without merit, that the holocaust as we know it is a result of atrocity propaganda.

I am bias, but, I am not delusional or dishonest.

I think we are talking about the ashes. I talked about the grave space with Archie and gave rationale about why with body compression there was enough space there.

Indeed your argument hinges on the evidence being suspect (documents forged, witnesses coerced). Yet you have no evidence of that happening, only circumstantial (the Soviets saying 4,000,000 dead is not evidence they would coerce witnesses into lying about the Holocaust, even Katyn isn't)

Not even necessarily forged, some are misread, others are misconstrued. Ultimately, the translations are presented in the most incriminating way possible, sometimes with the simple twisting of words, the entire statement being given sinister context where none exists.

I'm still working on a psywar post with regard to the holocaust. In the meantime, I will leave you with this Dean Ierbod video again.

[bombsaway]

Not exactly, I said the grave space was incongruent with the claim of hundreds of thousands.

There is no doubt people died during ww2. There is no doubt that some of those persons were jews. There is no doubt that some of those jews died in captivity, in transit or by executions.

Our main point of divergence revolves around the executions, mainly with regard to scope and method.

You claim a convergence of evidence for a campaign of ethnic extermination. I find that claim dubious and I find the cited documentation suspect.

In light of the lack of corroborative physical evidence, I conclude, not without merit, that the holocaust as we know it is a result of atrocity propaganda.

I am bias, but, I am not delusional or dishonest.

I think we are talking about the ashes. I talked about the grave space with Archie and gave rationale about why with body compression there was enough space there.

Indeed your argument hinges on the evidence being suspect (documents forged, witnesses coerced). Yet you have no evidence of that happening, only circumstantial (the Soviets saying 4,000,000 dead is not evidence they would coerce witnesses into lying about the Holocaust, even Katyn isn't)

Not even necessarily forged, some are misread, others are misconstrued. Ultimately, the translations are presented in the most incriminating way possible, sometimes with the simple twisting of words, the entire statement being given sinister context where none exists.

I'm still working on a psywar post with regard to the holocaust. In the meantime, I will leave you with this Dean Ierbod video again.

What's a document that I've held up as important evidence that I've misconstrued/misread or has been mistranslated?

[Stubble]

Wannsee for one.

[bombsaway]

Wannsee for one.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=7201#p7201

"I never claimed there was explicit indication of genocide."

Bias to a certain degree (this is subjective) is delusion.

[SanityCheck]

Mr Check, was the holocaust 'preplanned'? Or was it an 'ad hoc' operation? These ideas are mutually exclusive after all.

On the contrary, a 'preplanned' operation can well result in ad hoc improvisations when it is implemented. Military task forces are quite typical.

'ad hoc' refers more to improvisation than whether something has been deliberately decided or not, and improvisation is typically done using ready to hand components or personnel redirected to the task at hand. 'ad hoc' doesn't necessarily mean decentralised or unauthorised.

Operation Dragoon, the Allied invasion of southern France, dated back to 1942 in its conception and had a prior codename, Anvil. It was meant at some points to coincide with Operation Overlord, the cross-channel invasion of Normany, but resource constraints, mainly the availability of landing craft, prevented this. Plans and discussions of plans dated back two years, but might have been cancelled - since many plans are not implemented or become overtaken by events.

The airborne forces for Dragoon did not come under the command of an existing airborne division but mixed US and British paratroopers into the 1st Airborne Task Force. This was a classic example of an ad hoc formation and it was disbanded on 23 November 1944, having only been formed on 11 July 1944.

Organisationally, the extermination of European Jews was carried out by institutions and units which had been formed for other purposes, such as the RSHA, KL Auschwitz or the police battalions, alongside others which were improvised, such as the SS-Sonderkommandos in the Reinhardt camps. Most of it could be run through war-formed SS-Police commands. But when many were formed, e.g. SSPF Lublin in 1939, there was as yet no indication they would carry out a Final Solution of the Jewish question of the kind carried out in 1942-3 (in this region).

Another question, if you would kindly entertain it. Did the orthodox version of events truly arrive via 'some form of telepathy'?

Of course not. That is a denier caricature of a remark by Raul Hilberg on the Wannsee conference. Consensus agrees that a decision at higher level (Hitler and Himmler) had been taken before Wannsee.

The conference was a meeting of state secretaries (deputy ministers or chief civil servants) to be briefed by Heydrich, the head of the RSHA. Hilberg's 'incredible meeting of minds' remark isn't even a good interpretation of the policy differences hashed out at Wannsee, since there were two further conferences which failed to resolve some of the issues raised at Wannsee, especially the fate of Mischlinge.

Policy consensus can indeed emerge in a 'meeting of minds' way, I've seen plenty of meeting minutes from the German records where ideas were floated without a decision being taken, then the decision was implemented shortly afterwards. Or indeed where different subordinate agencies and units all come to the same conclusion at the same time independently, then everyone acts on the independently formed consensus.

In other cases the minutes of meetings don't capture the private discussions of the principals (in any bureaucracy or government), or have been edited and sanitised (as was the case with the Wannsee conference protocol).

The actual shape of the Final Solution as it was implemented across Europe from July 1942 (i.e. when western Europe was integrated, and when transports were directed to Auschwitz) was not yet clear at the time of Wannsee.

Christian Gerlach observed in 2016: “In December 1941 and January 1942 neither Himmler nor Heydrich and Eichmann had a workable plan for exterminating Europe’s Jews, and if they didn’t have one then nobody did.” .

The concept of the 'destruction of the Jewish race on Europe' was by December 1941 the intention announced by Hitler, after being repeated numerous times in 1941 as something that would happen in the event of a world war. The rhetorical slogan did not imply a precise understanding of how this might come about - it could just as easily result from deporting Jews to wastelands to starve and freeze to deaths as from shooting them or gassing them. It could involve working some Jews to death which was stated at Wannsee then carried out in various camps - but the Wannsee protocol did not mention doing so in Konzentrationslager. That was Himmler's twist, ordered a few days after Wannsee. Maybe Himmler disrupted Heydrich's fine tuned plan but that was his prerogative, he was Heydrich's superior.

[Eye of Zyclone]

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.

Assessing the validity of evidence, especially of palpable evidence, is of course the first step in any research work after collecting data. What would be the point of debating ad nauseam on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin before knowing if angels even exist.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't worship and unconditionally take at face value so-called eyewitness testimonies like you do if I brought you a few Arabs claiming that they've seen Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian prisoners' asses with broomsticks.

In war, truth is the first casualty. No matter what contemporary sources like "Curveball" (Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi) and the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States in 1990 (Nayirah al-Sabah) claimed, what they claimed was a lie. Every time.

Lies that launched a war

Curveball (informant)

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, known by the Defense Intelligence Agency cryptonym "Curveball",[1] is a German-French citizen who defected from Iraq in 1999, claiming that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories as part of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program.[2]

Curveball's story began in November 1999 when Alwan, then in his early 30s, arrived at Munich's Franz Josef Strauss Airport with a tourist visa. Upon entering the country he applied for political asylum because he had embezzled Iraqi government money and faced prison or worse if sent home. The German refugee system sent him to Zirndorf, a refugee center near Nuremberg.[10]

After he arrived at the refugee center he changed his story. Alwan's new story included that after he had graduated at the top of his chemical engineering class at Baghdad University in 1994,[11] he worked for "Dr. Germ," British-trained microbiologist Rihab Rashid Taha to lead a team that built mobile labs to produce lethal biological WMD.[11]

As an incentive to keep supplying information to German intelligence, Curveball had been granted asylum, as he had applied earlier in 1999 and failed.[16] He had enough money that he did not have to work. He gave many hours of testimony about Iraq's WMD program and in particular its mobile weapons laboratories. Despite CIA technicians and weapon experts finding major flaws and inconsistencies with the designs and systems he asserted the military was developing, this information made it to the American government and although there were wide doubts and questions about the claimed informant's reliability and background, assertions attributed to Curveball claiming that Iraq was creating biological agents in mobile weapons laboratories to elude inspectors appeared in more than 112 United States government reports between January 2000 and September 2001.[17] His assertions eventually made it into United States Secretary of State Colin Powell's address on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations detailing Iraq's weapons programs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

Nayirah Kuwaiti girl testimony


Nayirah Episode of 60 Minutes


How False Testimony and a Massive U.S. Propaganda Machine Bolstered George H.W. Bush’s War on Iraq

[Stubble]

On the contrary, a 'preplanned' operation can well result in ad hoc improvisations when it is implemented. Military task forces are quite typical...

I appreciate you taking the time to pen your response Mr Check. You raise some valid points.

I could counter the first point by referring to the supposed nature and criticality of the operation lending it to a specialized nature requiring a preplanned operation rather than an ad hoc one. That's ultimately conjectural however.

With the rhetoric, I don't interpret it as genocidal. This is part of the crux of our disagreement on this particular facet of this event.

With the 'meeting of the minds' bit...I will look for the source for the 'some form of telepathy' statement. I believe that one too comes from your side of the fence. I'll try to nail it down. I really do need to collate and index my stuff with some sort of system. Currently it is all just crammed on to micro sd cards rather haphazardly. A couple of years ago I began to archive literally everything as I watched TPTB go after lbry and everything else. They are still cracking down, but, they haven't wiped the entire internet yet...

If I have made an error or am under a misconception regarding the 'telepathy' 'meeting of the minds' bit, I apologize. It was my understanding that in the absence of any order, this was the mainline view.

[Nessie]

Revisionists need to stop confidently asserting that they know better than the experts, as they, with no relevant training or experience, critique historians, archaeologists and forensic scientists.

If these supposed experts are so smart and we revisionists are so dumb then they should be able to mop the floor with us really easily, on the merits. So let's see it.

You are the only person on the forum who tries to rely on credentials. Your credentials aren't impressive and your boasts are embarrassing.

It is easy to mop the floor with revisionism, revisionists just lack the self awareness to realise that. I rely on evidence and how history and crime is normally investigated. I just point out my relevant training, as I explain where you have gone wrong. You are so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole, you are lost.

I would add that historians have reached a consensus as to what happened inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas, based on contemporaneous evidence, that reaches a logical, chronological conclusion. So-called revisionists cannot do that. Instead, they disagree about what took place, fail to evidence what did and cannot reach a conclusion.

[Nessie]

I have been explaining this to you for some time now, but you drag the conversation on, pretending I have not.

Both sides of the debate have called out your repeated misuse of this fallacy.

What fallacy are you referring to? Explaining my position regarding the chemistry argument is not a fallacy.

Rudolf states that the lack of residue means that there cannot have been mass gassings. Green and others disagree and explain why there is a lack of residue, due to the differences in usage between mass gassings and delousing.

Do you care to finally give me some of those arguments, after 6 pages of asking? You've had all of Passover to think about it!

I have repeatedly explained that I find Green's arguments about the difference in usage between a delousing chamber and homicidal gassings, time of exposure, washing walls etc, convincing. I would expect there to be no discolouration and less residue in the chamber that uses less Zyklon B, for shorter periods of time and is washed afterwards. I would expect that in many different situations, where something is exposed to something else. It is common sense that the lower the exposure, and washing, the less the residue.

You repeatedly dodge that Green and others have evidence of usage on their side, that backs up their chemistry.

For the Nth time - Green's arguments should stand independent of other evidence, thats the point of Green's work.

History and criminal acts are never proven by a stand alone forensic analysis. At most, all Green can do is prove the residue is roughly consistent with the described usage of the Kremas as gas chambers. He cannot prove they were used for homicidal gassings. You are revealing your ignorance of evidencing, thinking that a chemical analysis should be able to prove homicidal mass gassings.

All Rudolf has done is theorise that the residue is too low for homicidal gassings to have happened. Evidentially, he has not proved they did not happen. He admits he may be wrong at the end of his report and he follows up with a chapter on additional work he thinks is needed to be done. If more chemists studied the Krema remains, conducted analysis and experiments were run, that replicated conditions inside the chambers and repeatedly, they concluded that homicidal mass gassings did not take place, then revisionist would have a case. Scientists know that one claim on its own is never enough to prove something. Since other chemists disagree with Rudolf, that weakens his claim.

You are so bound to denying gassings took place, that you would never agree with a chemist who disagreed with Rudolf.

[Nessie]

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.

Assessing the validity of evidence, especially of palpable evidence, is of course the first step in any research work after collecting data. What would be the point of debating ad nauseam on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin before knowing if angels even exist.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't worship and unconditionally take at face value so-called eyewitness testimonies like you do if I brought you a few Arabs claiming that they've seen Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian prisoners' asses with broomsticks.

...

You have dodged my point that your opinion on how Germans would describe a mesh column used to insert, contain and retrieve Zyklon B pellets from a gas chamber, has no evidential value.

All the people who have claimed to have witnessed mass gassings, cremations and pyres have had their claims checked, by ensuring there is evidence they were at the camps at the relevant times and that their claims are corroborated. Transport records, witnesses identifying each other and specialist knowledge are ways to verify witness presence. Revisionists pretend that the witnesses wildly diverge in their stories, but that is not true. Those who saw what happened, as opposed to hearsay, are consistent in their testimony, with widespread agreement.

When revisionists try to evidence what happened, they fall apart. TII is variously claimed to have been a transit camp, hygiene station, property sorting centre and customs post! The A-B Kremas are claimed to have been for mass showering, delousing chambers, corpse stores and bomb shelters! That has happened because none of the revisionists have any relevant experience invstigating history, or criminality and they do not really know what they are doing. The result is not revisionism, it is denial. They deny mass gassings took place and then fail to follow on to an evidenced, logical conclusion.