Flaws and Limitations in Chemistry of Auschwitz

[Stubble]

And none of this applies to Majdanek either, correct?

It seems like these two arguments about the event only apply to two of the alleged homicidal gas chambers.

Much time is spent on these 2 particulars however.

I mark that as odd.

[HansHill]

Absolutely.

I regard them as a sort of Deus Ex Machina plot device to explain away the lack of residues. They of course are not needed in the other locations, because they cannot be examined for PB (well Krema I can but then that isn't original so....) in the case of Auschwitz, and for Majdanek, the alleged gas was CO.

[Stubble]

Don't they claim both CO and HCN at Majdanek in (1) of the (2) remaining alleged gas chambers out of the original (8) (the other allegations having been retracted)?

[Nessie]

Add to that reports of painting of the gas chambers, the speed at which they were ventilated and demolition & exposure to the elements. Plus, there were 8 gas chambers, Block 11, Krema I, the two farmhouses and Kremas II to V. Each had differences and similarities and there is much unknown, such as how often was each one used and what did the walls of the demolished buildings look like, inside, after they had been used for a period of time?

The usage of the gas chambers was different to the usage of the delousing chambers, and it is agreed by all, that the residue level of the gas chambers is lower than the delousing chambers. But, that one, single, solitary piece of evidence, is not, on its own, capable of proving there were no gas chambers. It is scientifically and evidentially wrong, to try and use one piece of evidence, as proof.

Reported for obfuscation, lying, strawmanning and wandering off topic. This thread is about Germar Rudolf's book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz". Germar Rudolf in his Conclusion section, contains a conclusion for Chemistry, and a conclusion for Non-Chemistry such as the infrastructure, documentation, blueprints, and, delivery mechanisms, so stop lying he bases his conclusions on one thing.

Since you seemingly didn't know this, we can only conclude that you are not familiar with the book or know what is in it, just like Confused Jew.

The copy I have has, in the conclusions, a section 9.3, "On Construction Technology".

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... auschwitz/

He does not present any evidence, instead he argues that,

1 - there is no reference to executions in the gas chambers, in any camp document
2 - the Kremas have no way to introduce pellets, as described by the witnesses
3 - the execution times are too short, compared to witness claims
4 - ventilation of II and III, would have taken hours, compared to witness claims
5 - it was not possible to vent Kremas IV and V and the two bunkers and remove corpses without gas masks.

He argues that since the witnesses contradict the science and are inconsistent with documents, they must be lying. He uses a sophisticated argument from incredulity, dressed up as a scientific study, to argue, rather than evidence, gassings did not happen.

Evidence to prove gassings did not happen, would come from,

1 - eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas and bunkers, who describe what they were used for, which was not gassings. For example, eyewitnesses who describe working in the Leichenkeller, for months on end, in 1943-4, taking in corpses, storing and cremating them. Or, the conversion of the Leichenkeller to a bomb shelter and being inside during air raids.

2 - camp documents that clearly show the Kremas were purely used as crematoriums, or converted to bomb shelters. For example, documents recording how many corpses the Kremas received each day, where they came from and were cremated. Or construction work being completed, to make the Leichenkeller into an air raid shelter.

3 - circumstantial evidence, such as those selected not to work, being evidenced as leaving the camp. For example, eyewitnesses speaking about not having to work and leaving with children and the elderly, to go to another camp, or documents recording how many were selected not to work and where they went.

That no document references execution by gassings, does not therefore mean there were no such executions. Plenty of documents reference a "special" action, that needed to be kept secret, that involved infirm prisoners, Jews and Hungarians.

The Kremas did have ways to introduce pellets, and it does not matter that Rudolf does not believe that evidence.

It does not matter that he cannot believe the execution and ventilation times. His opinion is not evidence.

The only evidence he presents, was the low levels of HCN he found during testing. He has no corroborating evidence to show actual usage, that was not gassing. Despite all his access to the camp and archives, he cannot even say what the various buildings were actually used for.

[Nessie]

How about forced air extraction?

That apply to any other alleged execution site that used Zyklon-B as the instrument? Or is that novel as well?

Testimony from Topf & Sons engineer Schultze;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61650

"The ventilation installation provided for a ten-times air exchange; it served to suck out the gas that had collected and pump in fresh air. The pipes of the ventilation, which I personally constructed for the gas chamber, were immured in the walls of the chamber."

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... auschwitz/

"Herr Schultze called and informed us as follows: The aeration blower no.
450 for the gas cellar [Gaskeller] cannot be found there [i.e. at Auschwitz],
although it is said to have been shipped by us.”

[HansHill]

.

This is why you are considered a metaphorical punchbag (no offense). Your bizarre and brazen inability and outright refusal to apply critical thinking to the claims as presented makes you a thoroughly non-serious person

When a claim is made "I was gassed!" and the refutation is that it cannot happen as described, this serves as evidence to refute the original claim. Germar Rudolf has documented some of those in the Chemistry Of Auschwitz (the topic of this thread), and you have dishonestly discounted these refutations as "not counting" because they don't meet your bizarre criteria for appropriate evidence. In what world would unreliable testimony outweigh physical evidence (no holes)?

When Rudolf describes why the holes could not have been original, you discount this because an unreliable person said it was there (!) and then say Rudolf only uses one piece of evidence to deny the existence of gas chambers.

In summary: you are a very fun metaphorical punchbag and with Confused Jew gone, you are back to being the least serious person on Codoh!

[Nessie]

.

This is why you are considered a metaphorical punchbag (no offense). Your bizarre and brazen inability and outright refusal to apply critical thinking to the claims as presented makes you a thoroughly non-serious person

I constantly explain my reasoning, in terms of evidencing and logic. How I apply them, is as taught at university and in the police. For you to suggest I am somehow doing something wrong, is to suggest the way history and crimes are normally investigated, are wrong!

When a claim is made "I was gassed!" and the refutation is that it cannot happen as described, this serves as evidence to refute the original claim.

The issue is the refutation. I use evidence, you use argument, which is where you go wrong. The way you investigate the gassing claims, is flawed and not how history, or a criminal allegation, is investigated. You think, despite constant explanations about the argument from incredulity and witness evidencing, that if you cannot work out how gassings were possible, from the way it was described, then the witness is lying and it cannot have happened. A historian or criminal investigator would determine the truthfulness of the claim by gathering evidence to determine if the claim is corroborated or not by other evidence. They understand that because of the way people remember, forget, recollect and recall, if they describe something in a way that is not possible, that is not evidence to prove it was not possible and did not happen.

Germar Rudolf has documented some of those in the Chemistry Of Auschwitz (the topic of this thread), and you have dishonestly discounted these refutations as "not counting" because they don't meet your bizarre criteria for appropriate evidence. In what world would unreliable testimony outweigh physical evidence (no holes)?

There are holes. There is physical and photographic evidence of holes, plus numerous witness descriptions. Rudolf choses to just dismiss that evidence.

When Rudolf describes why the holes could not have been original, you discount this because an unreliable person said it was there (!) and then say Rudolf only uses one piece of evidence to deny the existence of gas chambers.

I do not regard Rudolf as reliable. You should admit he is biased and his agenda is to deny gassings. He does that by dismissing evidence he does not want to believe, such as the evidence for the holes. If he was serious, he would find evidence that there were no holes in the Krema roofs in 1943-4, from an eyewitness, photograph or other form of contemporaneous evidence. Or, find an expert witness, someone who knows about poured concrete and construction, who examines the ruins and can show evidence that no holes have ever been cut. Bear in mind that opinion, will still just be an opinion.

In summary: you are a very fun metaphorical punchbag and with Confused Jew gone, you are back to being the least serious person on Codoh!

So you think, but by thinking that, you are claiming that all historians and criminal investigators have been getting it wrong, forever.

[HansHill]

if you cannot work out how gassings were possible, from the way it was described

>Make a claim
>The process doesn't make sense
>"It's revisionists fault for it not making sense"

This is you.

[Nessie]

if you cannot work out how gassings were possible, from the way it was described

>Make a claim
>The process doesn't make sense
>"It's revisionists fault for it not making sense"

This is you.

>Make a claim.
>The claim is corroborated by other evidence.
>The claim is proved.

That is me, and all historians and criminal investigators.

>Make a claim.
>The process doesn't make sense
>The claim is disproven.

Only Holocaust so-called revisionists work that way.

[HansHill]

...
>The process doesn't make sense
...

Thank you Nessie, you can go back to your debate with Keen now.

[Nessie]

...
>The process doesn't make sense
...

Thank you Nessie, you can go back to your debate with Keen now.

That the process doesn't make sense, to Rudolf, you or other so-called revisionists, is not enough to prove the process did not happen.