Flaws and Limitations in Chemistry of Auschwitz

[HansHill]

Then what is your issue?

>Cnfused Jew makes false statement from ignorance
>Codoh spends collectively ~9 pages correcting his rubbish, culminating with Hektor correcting him just above
>You have an issue with this somehow

[Nessie]

Then what is your issue?

>Cnfused Jew makes false statement from ignorance
>Codoh spends collectively ~9 pages correcting his rubbish, culminating with Hektor correcting him just above
>You have an issue with this somehow

You are as bad, if not worse at evidencing than CJ. Archie evens censors when I correct you.

[HansHill]

Then what is your issue?

>Cnfused Jew makes false statement from ignorance
>Codoh spends collectively ~9 pages correcting his rubbish, culminating with Hektor correcting him just above
>You have an issue with this somehow

You are as bad, if not worse at evidencing than CJ. Archie evens censors when I correct you.

As a layman it is possible I have made some mistakes somewhere. Please indicate these mistakes to me by quoting my own posts. Be specific, indicate clearly why it is wrong to the best of your ability (lol).

Caveat - if you cannot do this, I will ask the mods to remove your garbage because it will be just that; garbage.

[Archie]

Then what is your issue?

>Cnfused Jew makes false statement from ignorance
>Codoh spends collectively ~9 pages correcting his rubbish, culminating with Hektor correcting him just above
>You have an issue with this somehow

You are as bad, if not worse at evidencing than CJ. Archie evens censors when I correct you.

Nice try, Nessie. The Junk folder is public and everyone can peruse these supposedly genius comments of yours that were "censored." I assure you nobody is reading those posts except perhaps to have a laugh.

Think about it from my perspective, Nessie. In the forum rules, one of the guidelines is to strive for a high signal to noise ratio. Do you think you have been abiding by that guideline? Do you feel the numerous posts you have made in the chemistry threads have made a meaningful contribution to the topic?

Let's take this junked post for example, which I'm sure you regard as absolutely brilliant. Let's dissect your masterpiece.

Its hilarious that the most recent exchange is between two people who:

Person A) refuses to read the material and
Person B) has admitted he doesn't understand the science behind it

Everyone else in the thread has commented adeptly, and demonstrated adequate understanding of the material in question.

You don't understand the science, and you are wrong. Despite what you think, gassings in chambers, most of which were then destroyed, does not leave Prussian blue staining, that we know of and it leaves lower levels of residue, than delousing. The evidence of usage, of both gas and delousing chambers, proves that residues are lower in the former.

"You don't understand the science, and you are wrong."

This is unsupported disagreement. If you are going to come in hot like this you damn well better be able to back it up.

"gassings ... does (sic) not leave Prussian blue staining, that we know of (?) and it leaves lower levels of residue, than delousing."

This is not an argument. You are simply stating a conclusion without support. This is the very thing we are debating. You are simply taking the conclusion for granted/begging the question.

"The evidence of usage, of both gas and delousing chambers, proves that residues are lower in the former."

When you talk about "evidence of usage" what you really mean is that you think don't think the chemistry matters because the testimonies "evidence" that these were homicidal gas chambers. If that is your position, fine, but in that case you should bow out of the chemistry threads. Just make one comment where you explain why you think the chemical tests are not necessary or relevant and then move on to other threads the deal with the testimonial evidence.

You have made many posts in the chemistry threads and have persistently evaded discussing all of the core points.

"Germar has a perfunctory point at the end where he admits that it is possible he could be wrong and that his work is subject to revision and correction, as is ALL science, as a matter of principle. Therefore, let's assume that he's wrong!"

"I don't understand chemistry at all so I will just mindlessly defer to the Holocaust experts."

"You guys are not professional chemists so you are not allowed to discuss any of this."

"We can ignore this chemistry stuff because the 'usage' has already been 'evidenced' via testimonies."

"Revisionists are doodooheads!"

The above is slight parody (which you will reflexively dismiss as "straw-manning") but it is really not far off from what you post.

[Nessie]

HansHill requests;

As a layman it is possible I have made some mistakes somewhere. Please indicate these mistakes to me by quoting my own posts. Be specific, indicate clearly why it is wrong to the best of your ability (lol).

His very first post in this topic;

...

Hence, the mass gassings with hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) in the supposed
homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz cannot have taken place as claimed by
witnesses.

Emphasis mine. The reason the underlined part is important, is because Rudolf spends many chapters analysing the non-chemical aspects of the claims such as the introduction mechanism, the remnants of the holes, ventilation facilities, blueprints and construction orders etc.

Therefore the Chemistry findings are one of many contributing findings as to why the gassings did not happen as claimed...

That argument is logically and evidentially flawed.

Logically, it does not follow, that because gassings allegedly cannot have happened as claimed, therefore there were no gassings. That form of argument is called a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. It could be that the witnesses were just poor at remembering and recalling what they saw, creating a false impression that gassings cannot have happened as claimed. Or, as Rudolf admits in his book, he may be wrong, with his analysis of the evidence regarding the holes, vents etc. It is not as if witnesses are describing something that we know to be physically impossible. The Nazis built plenty of gas chambers, many with wooden doors and unsophisticated ventilation, to delouse clothing. Altering a room inside a crematorium to use it for gassing, is not exactly rocket science, and it was well within the design and construction capabilities of the Nazis, who were the most advanced rocket makers at that time. Just because a witness does not describe how they think something worked, in a way that is convincing, is not evidence to prove what they describe did not happen.

The evidential flaw, is that so-called revisionists cannot evidence the usage of the Kremas, during specific dates, to be different from gassings. When they try, they fall apart into disagreement, with various competing hypothesis, none of which are convincing enough for so-called revisionism to reach a consensus. History is not about what did not happen, it is about what did. That Rudolf, with all of his access to evidence, cannot prove a usage different to the one described by the eyewitnesses, he has failed. When German engineers explain how the gas chambers worked, their evidence is far greater than Rudolf's opinion. Evidentially, Rudolf is a complete failure.

I have explained those flaws, repeatedly, but you are so wedded to your argument, that you cannot accept it is flawed.

[HansHill]

His very first post in this topic;

Low IQ attempt, but I'm not sure what I was expecting TBH. That post specifically was directed at Confused Jew's strawman where he stated:

The biggest issue is that Rudolf assumes that the amount of cyanide found in a wall sample can directly tell us whether mass gassings happened.

I then replied that Germar Rudolf does not assume that cyanide "found in a wall" or not found as the case may be, can tell us about the occurrence of gas chambers, but rather uses this as one supporting pillar to arrive at his conclusions about the claims as presented. I know you don't understand this because it requires nuance but everyone else here does.

My reply to Confused Jew in this context was accurate, as it explains why Confused Jew's strawman of Rudolf's position was indeed a strawman. You are free to try again i guess.

[Nessie]

Then what is your issue?

>Cnfused Jew makes false statement from ignorance
>Codoh spends collectively ~9 pages correcting his rubbish, culminating with Hektor correcting him just above
>You have an issue with this somehow

You are as bad, if not worse at evidencing than CJ. Archie evens censors when I correct you.

Nice try, Nessie. The Junk folder is public and everyone can peruse these supposedly genius comments of yours that were "censored." I assure you nobody is reading those posts except perhaps to have a laugh.

Think about it from my perspective, Nessie. In the forum rules, one of the guidelines is to strive for a high signal to noise ratio. Do you think you have been abiding by that guideline? Do you feel the numerous posts you have made in the chemistry threads have made a meaningful contribution to the topic?

Yes, as methodology is important. How you investigate, is crucial to the accuracy of the investigation. If the way the investigation is conducted is flawed, then any result is also flawed.

Let's take this junked post for example, which I'm sure you regard as absolutely brilliant. Let's dissect your masterpiece.

Its hilarious that the most recent exchange is between two people who:

Person A) refuses to read the material and
Person B) has admitted he doesn't understand the science behind it

Everyone else in the thread has commented adeptly, and demonstrated adequate understanding of the material in question.

You don't understand the science, and you are wrong. Despite what you think, gassings in chambers, most of which were then destroyed, does not leave Prussian blue staining, that we know of and it leaves lower levels of residue, than delousing. The evidence of usage, of both gas and delousing chambers, proves that residues are lower in the former.

"You don't understand the science, and you are wrong."

This is unsupported disagreement. If you are going to come in hot like this you damn well better be able to back it up.

The back up, are the reasons why PB has not been found and residues are lower than in delousing chambers. Washing, painting, exposure to the elements, shorter exposure times, faster ventilation, are all reasons why the gas chambers are different from the delousing chambers. So-called revisionists think they understand the science better than anyone else, and that their conclusion about the science must be correct. But, the evidence of usage is against them.

"gassings ... does (sic) not leave Prussian blue staining, that we know of (?) and it leaves lower levels of residue, than delousing."

This is not an argument. You are simply stating a conclusion without support. This is the very thing we are debating. You are simply taking the conclusion for granted/begging the question.

The support is the evidence that the Leichenkellers were converted and used as gas chambers.

"The evidence of usage, of both gas and delousing chambers, proves that residues are lower in the former."

When you talk about "evidence of usage" what you really mean is that you think don't think the chemistry matters because the testimonies "evidence" that these were homicidal gas chambers. If that is your position, fine, but in that case you should bow out of the chemistry threads. Just make one comment where you explain why you think the chemical tests are not necessary or relevant and then move on to other threads the deal with the testimonial evidence.

The evidence of usage, beats your opinion on usage. When there is evidence to prove gas chambers, that beats your opinion there cannot have been gas chambers.

You have made many posts in the chemistry threads and have persistently evaded discussing all of the core points.

"Germar has a perfunctory point at the end where he admits that it is possible he could be wrong and that his work is subject to revision and correction, as is ALL science, as a matter of principle. Therefore, let's assume that he's wrong!"

"I don't understand chemistry at all so I will just mindlessly defer to the Holocaust experts."

"You guys are not professional chemists so you are not allowed to discuss any of this."

"We can ignore this chemistry stuff because the 'usage' has already been 'evidenced' via testimonies."

"Revisionists are doodooheads!"

The above is slight parody (which you will reflexively dismiss as "straw-manning") but it is really not far off from what you post.

That Rudolf and you cannot work out how the gas chambers could have functioned, based on eyewitness descriptions and the documentary and surviving physical evidence, does not therefore mean there were no gas chambers. You arrogantly think that unless you can work out the science, to your satisfaction, gassings cannot have taken place. Your opinion is contadicted by the evidence.

[HansHill]

That Rudolf and you cannot work out...

Except nobody can work it out, genius. Not Jan Markiewicz, not Josef Bailer, not Richard Green, and certainly not you (!) What you are left with, is a set of ridiculous claims, that cannot be supported or explained by the natural sciences.

You arrogantly think

The arrogance is yours alone, to think you can get away with inexplicable claims.

[Nessie]

That Rudolf and you cannot work out...

Except nobody can work it out, genius. Not Jan Markiewicz, not Josef Bailer, not Richard Green, and certainly not you (!) What you are left with, is a set of ridiculous claims, that cannot be supported or explained by the natural sciences.

Markiewicz etc do believe they have worked it out. They have given rational reasons why the residues are lower than are found in the delousing chambers. Plus, they are backed by the evidence of usage.

You arrogantly think

The arrogance is yours alone, to think you can get away with inexplicable claims.

Inexplicable to you, but that logically does not mean, therefore, no gas chambers. It is called the argument from incredulity, which has been explained to you time and time again. Just because you find the workings of the gas chambers, based on the evidence we have, inexplicable, does not therefore mean gassings did not happen.

[Wetzelrad]

You made that up. No historian claims traces of the use of Zyklon B, is proof of homicidal gassing.

FWIW, Nessie is actually right on this point, so credit where it is due.

No, this is absolutely not true. Try this historian whose blabber was accepted in a court of law, for example:

Hence Markiewicz’s results positively demonstrate that the alleged gas chambers were used to kill people.

The Case for Auschwitz by Robert Jan van Pelt, p.495

[Nessie]

You made that up. No historian claims traces of the use of Zyklon B, is proof of homicidal gassing.

FWIW, Nessie is actually right on this point, so credit where it is due.

No, this is absolutely not true. Try this historian whose blabber was accepted in a court of law, for example:

Hence Markiewicz’s results positively demonstrate that the alleged gas chambers were used to kill people.

The Case for Auschwitz by Robert Jan van Pelt, p.495

Can you link to that, so I can see the context? He does not use the word prove. Instead, he is rating the evidence of traces being found, as an important and compelling piece of the evidence.

[HansHill]

No, this is absolutely not true. Try this historian whose blabber was accepted in a court of law, for example:

Hence Markiewicz’s results positively demonstrate that the alleged gas chambers were used to kill people.

The Case for Auschwitz by Robert Jan van Pelt, p.495

Thank you for the correction Wetzelrad. This is shockingly sloppy from Van Pelt.

[HansHill]

Markiewicz etc do believe they have worked it out. They have given rational reasons why the residues are lower than are found in the delousing chambers. Plus, they are backed by the evidence of usage.

By "Markiewicz etc" I assume you mean the list of names I put forth. So to embarrass you further:

1) Markiewicz point blank admits he does not understand Prussian Blue formation and cannot account for it.
2) Bailer opines it is paint.
3) Green opines it may be from a mop.

Neither of these three men have a satisfactory accounting for the discrepancy in residues. Archie has already warned you about posting on things you don't understand, get your act together you slop merchant.

[Hektor]

Markiewicz etc do believe they have worked it out. They have given rational reasons why the residues are lower than are found in the delousing chambers. Plus, they are backed by the evidence of usage.

By "Markiewicz etc" I assume you mean the list of names I put forth. So to embarrass you further:

1) Markiewicz point blank admits he does not understand Prussian Blue formation and cannot account for it.
2) Bailer opines it is paint.
3) Green opines it may be from a mop.

Neither of these three men have a satisfactory accounting for the discrepancy in residues. Archie has already warned you about posting on things you don't understand, get your act together you slop merchant.

But they all insist that any miniscule detection of -CN in the crematoria must be from homicidal gassings, even if that's below detection limits?!