Flaws and Limitations in Chemistry of Auschwitz

[Nessie]

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?!

That is because homicidal gassings are proven to have happened. So-called revisionists cannot even agree on, let alone prove, what the buildings were used for.

[Hektor]

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?!

That is because homicidal gassings are proven to have happened. So-called revisionists cannot even agree on, let alone prove, what the buildings were used for.

You have it the wrong way around.

And well, if one is open for options one doesn't insist that only one option can be true.


What that means is that Exterminationists operate like a cult, while Revisionists don't.

[Nessie]

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?!

That is because homicidal gassings are proven to have happened. So-called revisionists cannot even agree on, let alone prove, what the buildings were used for.

You have it the wrong way around.

And well, if one is open for options one doesn't insist that only one option can be true.


What that means is that Exterminationists operate like a cult, while Revisionists don't.

Historians have a well evidenced usage for the Kremas, that they have reached a consensus on. So-called revisionists don't.

[HansHill]

Are you genuinely representing the reasons why those chemists reason why there is no PB to be seen?

Nessie - Do you know what you are talking about? Have you read Germar Rudolf's book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" that is the topic of this thread? Do you know that these statements from these men are addressed in that book (alongside their citations), and Mr Rudolf's refutations?

I never thought to ask you this before, and just assumed you were a simpleton (no offense). Have you read this material? Because now i think you haven't, and this would explain a lot.

[Callafangers]

Nessie - Do you know what you are talking about? Have you read Germar Rudolf's book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" that is the topic of this thread? Do you know that these statements from these men are addressed in that book (alongside their citations), and Mr Rudolf's refutations?

I never thought to ask you this before, and just assumed you were a simpleton (no offense). Have you read this material? Because now i think you haven't, and this would explain a lot.

This would be very concerning, considering how often Nessie talks about "the evidence".

[Hektor]

Nessie - Do you know what you are talking about? Have you read Germar Rudolf's book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" that is the topic of this thread? Do you know that these statements from these men are addressed in that book (alongside their citations), and Mr Rudolf's refutations?

I never thought to ask you this before, and just assumed you were a simpleton (no offense). Have you read this material? Because now i think you haven't, and this would explain a lot.

This would be very concerning, considering how often Nessie talks about "the evidence".

It's a form of circular reasoning he engages in. Why must we believe the Holocaust? Because the historical record tells us so. If you then ask for evidence they either hint at historians supportive of the Holocaust narrative or throw you little bones that are suggestive that there must have been something like the Holocaust. The meaning of Holocaust is of course quite moldable... It means anything from 'NS being antisemitic'.... to 'extermination of six million jews using gas chamber.... If you dispute the industrial extermination charge, based on evidence being either fishy and having a clear atrocity propaganda motive, then they make as if you also 'deny Nazi-antisemitism, deportations, internment etc.'.

Revisionist works arguing and explaining their point of view are however ignored. Also why the exterminationist thesis about the crematoria is actually baseless and flawed. And well, it isn't only the absence of Prussian blue that is a problem... The facilities are unsuitable and the procedures is nonsensical.... While single gassings can't be disproven in their absolute, the industrial gassing thesis must be rejected as nonsensical hogwash. Which exterminationists are however not willing to do, because that would demolish their house of cards and they would be the ones that were spreading anti-German propaganda lies in order to perpetuate the Myth of Jewish victimhood.

[Nessie]

Are you genuinely representing the reasons why those chemists reason why there is no PB to be seen?

Nessie - Do you know what you are talking about? Have you read Germar Rudolf's book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" that is the topic of this thread? Do you know that these statements from these men are addressed in that book (alongside their citations), and Mr Rudolf's refutations?

I never thought to ask you this before, and just assumed you were a simpleton (no offense). Have you read this material? Because now i think you haven't, and this would explain a lot.

I have read the various reports being discussed. Why did you miss out reasons such as time of exposure, ventilation, washing, painting and exposure to the elements as reasons why delousing chambers have a different level of residue to the gas chambers? Have you read the reports?

[Nessie]

Nessie - Do you know what you are talking about? Have you read Germar Rudolf's book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" that is the topic of this thread? Do you know that these statements from these men are addressed in that book (alongside their citations), and Mr Rudolf's refutations?

I never thought to ask you this before, and just assumed you were a simpleton (no offense). Have you read this material? Because now i think you haven't, and this would explain a lot.

This would be very concerning, considering how often Nessie talks about "the evidence".

It's a form of circular reasoning he engages in. Why must we believe the Holocaust? Because the historical record tells us so. If you then ask for evidence they either hint at historians supportive of the Holocaust narrative or throw you little bones that are suggestive that there must have been something like the Holocaust. The meaning of Holocaust is of course quite moldable... It means anything from 'NS being antisemitic'.... to 'extermination of six million jews using gas chamber.... If you dispute the industrial extermination charge, based on evidence being either fishy and having a clear atrocity propaganda motive, then they make as if you also 'deny Nazi-antisemitism, deportations, internment etc.'.

That is a misrepresentation of how history is investigated. Evidence was gathered to determine what happened. That is something you cannot do. You pretend there is little evidence, when in fact there is a lot. You do that to deflect from your lack of evidence.

Revisionist works arguing and explaining their point of view are however ignored.

That is because they lack evidence and the arguments they use are logically flawed.

Also why the exterminationist thesis about the crematoria is actually baseless and flawed. And well, it isn't only the absence of Prussian blue that is a problem... The facilities are unsuitable and the procedures is nonsensical.... While single gassings can't be disproven in their absolute, the industrial gassing thesis must be rejected as nonsensical hogwash. Which exterminationists are however not willing to do, because that would demolish their house of cards and they would be the ones that were spreading anti-German propaganda lies in order to perpetuate the Myth of Jewish victimhood.

The history of the Kremas has been determined by corroborating evidence from multiple sources. Your argument that the Kremas were unsuitable and the process nonsensical, is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

[HansHill]

I have read the various reports being discussed.

Then why did you not understand the three mens' positions i told you above? Why did you default to asking me, rather than a) knowing for yourself (since you claim to have read it) or b) quickly ctrl+f in the document for "Markiewicz", "Bailer", and "Green" respectively to find out for yourself? You understand how you look utterly foolish and moronic when you do things like this?

Why did you miss out reasons such as time of exposure, ventilation, washing, painting and exposure to the elements as reasons why delousing chambers have a different level of residue to the gas chambers? Have you read the reports?

Exposure times is dealt with by Germar Rudolf in his book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" (the topic of this thread) in section 7.3.1.3.2

Ventilation is dealt with by Germar Rudolf in his book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" (the topic of this thread) in the same section as above, section 7.3.1.3.2 but more importantly in sections 7.3.2.2.1 - 7.3.2.2.3

Washing is dealt with by Germar Rudolf in his book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" (the topic of this thread) in section 7.2 and 8.4.7

The paint hypothesis is dealt with by Germar Rudolf in his book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" (the topic of this thread) in section 8.4.1

Exposure to the elements is dealt with by Germar Rudolf in his book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" (the topic of this thread) in section 6.6 and 6.7

But you would know all of this if you read the book, wouldn't you Nessie? Why is it then, you come charging into a discussion about a book you clearly have not demonstrated any familiarity, let alone mastery, over? Do you see why you are considered a joke around here?

Archie is right about you, you come into these threads without any knowledge, contribute nothing, and end up looking like a fool. But please Nessie, continue to poke at any of these items listed above. I woould be more than willing to explain any of the above AGAIN to any of the newcomers or lurkers, and make you look like a muppet as many times as you demand.

[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

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.

Reported. Citation already provided. The argument has been presented and supported more than adequately.

The user is clearly intending to be disruptive, needlessly argumentative, and obfuscating.

[Archie]

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?!

That is because homicidal gassings are proven to have happened. So-called revisionists cannot even agree on, let alone prove, what the buildings were used for.

You have it the wrong way around.

And well, if one is open for options one doesn't insist that only one option can be true.

What that means is that Exterminationists operate like a cult, while Revisionists don't.

This talking point of Nessie's was refuted here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=406

It's particularly funny Nessie is criticizing revisionists for lack of consistency on this specific topic seeing as the arguments of the Holocaust apologists have been all over the map on this, as pointed out by Wetzelrad in this post:

Holocaust Believers have claimed that the reason there are Iron Blue cyanide stains in delousing chambers but not in the gas chamber morgues is because:

• Dynamite destroyed them. (JC Pressac)
• The exposure time "per day" was 1/100th as long. (Pressac, with less extreme claims by others)
• They weathered away. (Pressac, Jan Markiewicz et al, Werner Wegner)
• The walls were neutral pH. (Richard Green)
• Cyanide-soaked clothing created the stains. (Green)
• The blue stains are actually paint. (Josef Bailer, also parroted by Markiewicz et al)
• The walls were sealed against it. (bombsaway, also implied by Wegner)

This cannot be called consistent. This looks like grasping at straws, or, more graciously, it is rampant speculation to find a hypothesis that fits the facts. That same ethos is applied by every Holocaust historian in interpreting documents and witness accounts. Revisionists can hardly be blamed for engaging in their own speculation. And yet it's only revisionists who have had their work criminalized.

[Hektor]

...

This talking point of Nessie's was refuted here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=406

It's particularly funny Nessie is criticizing revisionists for lack of consistency on this specific topic seeing as the arguments of the Holocaust apologists have been all over the map on this, as pointed out by Wetzelrad in this post:

....

They got no problem contradicting themselves, whenever it suits them. It always boils down to the same tropes:
1. The Nazis were Antisemites (muddying the waters).
2. Holocaust starts with Legislation on Jews, deportation, imprisonment, etc.
3. Showing Allied atrocity propaganda reels.
4. The testimony and confessions.
5. All those movies and books about that subject.
6. Where did they go, if they were not gassed?
7. Underlying theme is the persecution and demonization of Holocaust Denial.

[Archie]

Are you genuinely representing the reasons why those chemists reason why there is no PB to be seen?

Nessie - Do you know what you are talking about? Have you read Germar Rudolf's book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" that is the topic of this thread? Do you know that these statements from these men are addressed in that book (alongside their citations), and Mr Rudolf's refutations?

I never thought to ask you this before, and just assumed you were a simpleton (no offense). Have you read this material? Because now i think you haven't, and this would explain a lot.

I have read the various reports being discussed. Why did you miss out reasons such as time of exposure, ventilation, washing, painting and exposure to the elements as reasons why delousing chambers have a different level of residue to the gas chambers? Have you read the reports?

I don't believe you. But if you really have read everything and have so little to show for it that is truly embarrassing.

Archie is right about you, you come into these threads without any knowledge, contribute nothing, and end up looking like a fool. But please Nessie, continue to poke at any of these items listed above. I woould be more than willing to explain any of the above AGAIN to any of the newcomers or lurkers, and make you look like a muppet as many times as you demand.

I have been interacting with him for like five years at this point. I've been hearing the same handful of arguments he always makes that have been debunked a million times. He just repeats these zombie arguments endlessly. He has an obsession with fighting revisionism and he has evolved an approach that essentially maximizes disruption/post volume with as little effort as possible. He has a few go-to arguments which are so generic and circular that they can be applied to any topic without having to argue any specifics (which would involve, you know, actually knowing the material and engaging seriously with the arguments).

"Studies show that witnesses are not every accurate" - this is his generic counter to ANY critique of testimonies. No need to even read the testimony! This is his inb4 for ANY potential witness error.

"Argument from incredulity" - this generic counter can be used to side-step ANY critique of the story since "trying to work out" if the story makes sense or not is apparently not allowed.

Etc.

He repeats these arguments (talking points) over and over, the same stuff regardless of the specifics of the topic. His arguments get blown out of the water. He doesn't care. He'll just keep replying. He simply buries the counterpoints in endless low-effort replies. The key to the whole thing is that Nessie seems to have either no self-awareness or has no sense of embarrassment. If I ever got owned even once as bad as Nessie does on a daily basis, I would be horrified. But somehow Nessie just powers through it and pretends like he's winning.

[Nessie]

That is because homicidal gassings are proven to have happened. So-called revisionists cannot even agree on, let alone prove, what the buildings were used for.

You have it the wrong way around.

And well, if one is open for options one doesn't insist that only one option can be true.

What that means is that Exterminationists operate like a cult, while Revisionists don't.

This talking point of Nessie's was refuted here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=406

It's particularly funny Nessie is criticizing revisionists for lack of consistency on this specific topic seeing as the arguments of the Holocaust apologists have been all over the map on this, as pointed out by Wetzelrad in this post:

Holocaust Believers have claimed that the reason there are Iron Blue cyanide stains in delousing chambers but not in the gas chamber morgues is because:

• Dynamite destroyed them. (JC Pressac)
• The exposure time "per day" was 1/100th as long. (Pressac, with less extreme claims by others)
• They weathered away. (Pressac, Jan Markiewicz et al, Werner Wegner)
• The walls were neutral pH. (Richard Green)
• Cyanide-soaked clothing created the stains. (Green)
• The blue stains are actually paint. (Josef Bailer, also parroted by Markiewicz et al)
• The walls were sealed against it. (bombsaway, also implied by Wegner)

This cannot be called consistent. This looks like grasping at straws, or, more graciously, it is rampant speculation to find a hypothesis that fits the facts. That same ethos is applied by every Holocaust historian in interpreting documents and witness accounts. Revisionists can hardly be blamed for engaging in their own speculation. And yet it's only revisionists who have had their work criminalized.

All that shows, is that no one is absolutely sure about the conditions inside the gas chambers and why residues are lower than found in the delousing chambers. Chemists and the rest of us can hypothesis till the cows come home. Either way, not knowing, does not prove there were no gas chambers. You can pretend all you like that you know for sure, but you don't. No one does.

[Nessie]

.... I've been hearing the same handful of arguments he always makes that have been debunked a million times.

You have not debunked my points about your reliance on logically flawed arguments, flawed methodology and inability to evidence what happened.

He just repeats these zombie arguments endlessly. He has an obsession with fighting revisionism and he has evolved an approach that essentially maximizes disruption/post volume with as little effort as possible. He has a few go-to arguments which are so generic and circular that they can be applied to any topic without having to argue any specifics (which would involve, you know, actually knowing the material and engaging seriously with the arguments).

"Studies show that witnesses are not every accurate" - this is his generic counter to ANY critique of testimonies. No need to even read the testimony! This is his inb4 for ANY potential witness error.

The way so-called revisionists deal with witness evidence, is contrary to all the numerous studies into how people remember and recollect what they saw.

"Argument from incredulity" - this generic counter can be used to side-step ANY critique of the story since "trying to work out" if the story makes sense or not is apparently not allowed.

What you are not allowed to do, logically, is critique the story and then declare it to be false, because you cannot work out how it was possible, or cannot believe it to be true.

He repeats these arguments (talking points) over and over, the same stuff regardless of the specifics of the topic. His arguments get blown out of the water. He doesn't care. He'll just keep replying. He simply buries the counterpoints in endless low-effort replies. The key to the whole thing is that Nessie seems to have either no self-awareness or has no sense of embarrassment. If I ever got owned even once as bad as Nessie does on a daily basis, I would be horrified. But somehow Nessie just powers through it and pretends like he's winning.

I am repetitious, because you are. You are not "owning" me. You are making the same evidential and logical errors, time and time again.

Just because Germar Rudolf cannot work out why the residues in what can be tested, of the gas chambers, is lower than delousing chambers and lower than he thinks it would be if mass gassing had taken place, does not prove mass gassings did not happen.