No one to debate?

[forasanerworld]

The notion of refusing to debate so as to avoid 'giving credence to deniers' has perhaps no more famous (infamous) proponent than Deborah Lipstadt who refused a platform with David Irving.

(Note to Nessie Irving is not an ACADEMICALLY trained historian, but once had such an authoritative profile that professors, who were accademically trained histiruans, told their students that they would fail unless they quoted him), so confident were her defence lawyers of her ability to put her foot in her mouth that the refused her to even speak once in Irving's libel case against her.

However, what is there to debate, exterminationists, in their endless contortions, have already proven the truth of the glassing story' by the inevitable consistency if truth, even though it was unintentional, it's simple as follows.

Varying explanations for the presence, it absence, of blue stains on walls.

1 presence of stains inside a gas chamber', proof of heavy use and lots of people gassed
2 absence of stains, proof that only low dose was used and penetration is shallow and not permanent
3 absence of stains in exposed areas, proof that stains wash off when exposed to the weather and
4 presence of stains on the OUTSIDE wall of a gas chamber', proof that mattresses had been stood against the wall after fumigation

Apply Occam's Razor of simplicity to this nonsense, hydrocyanic acid residue penetrates deeply into wall material and indeed right through brick walls and remains resistant to deterioration even after eighty years.

[Nessie]

The notion of refusing to debate so as to avoid 'giving credence to deniers' has perhaps no more famous (infamous) proponent than Deborah Lipstadt who refused a platform with David Irving.

(Note to Nessie Irving is not an ACADEMICALLY trained historian, but once had such an authoritative profile that professors, who were accademically trained histiruans, told their students that they would fail unless they quoted him), so confident were her defence lawyers of her ability to put her foot in her mouth that the refused her to even speak once in Irving's libel case against her.

David Baddiel's documentary "Confronting Holocaust Denial" goes into detail about the pro and cons of open debate with Holocaust deniers. I am obviously pro, though also understand why more public people like Lipstadt think it counter productive and a waste of their time.

However, what is there to debate, exterminationists, in their endless contortions, have already proven the truth of the glassing story' by the inevitable consistency if truth, even though it was unintentional, it's simple as follows.

Varying explanations for the presence, it absence, of blue stains on walls.

1 presence of stains inside a gas chamber', proof of heavy use and lots of people gassed

That claim would come from someone who does not understand evidencing and what is required to prove a claim. The presence of the Prussian blue stains associated with Zyklon B, inside a room, merely proves the use of and exposure to Zyklon B within the room. That alone does not prove the room was a homicidal gas chamber.

2 absence of stains, proof that only low dose was used and penetration is shallow and not permanent

It is not proof, it is suggestive of a low level of exposure.

3 absence of stains in exposed areas, proof that stains wash off when exposed to the weather

No, it can also be evidence of no exposure.

4 presence of stains on the OUTSIDE wall of a gas chamber', proof that mattresses had been stood against the wall after fumigation

No, it may be indicative that happened, but additional evidence is needed to prove that is the case.

Apply Occam's Razor of simplicity to this nonsense, hydrocyanic acid residue penetrates deeply into wall material and indeed right through brick walls and remains resistant to deterioration even after eighty years.

Rather than apply Occam's Razor, the best result would be achieved through experimentation, and the exposure of Zyklon B to plaster, concrete, brick and the materials used in the Kremas and delousing chambers, to see what exposure levels are actually required to leave staining and how that is affected by washing or exposure to the elements. Anything not based on experimentation, is educated guess work at best.

[Nazgul]

Rather than apply Occam's Razor, the best result would be achieved through experimentation, and the exposure of Zyklon B to plaster, concrete, brick and the materials used in the Kremas and delousing chambers, to see what exposure levels are actually required to leave staining and how that is affected by washing or exposure to the elements. Anything not based on experimentation, is educated guess work at best.

You obviously have not read Germars book.

[TlsMS93]

Rather than apply Occam's Razor, the best result would be achieved through experimentation, and the exposure of Zyklon B to plaster, concrete, brick and the materials used in the Kremas and delousing chambers, to see what exposure levels are actually required to leave staining and how that is affected by washing or exposure to the elements. Anything not based on experimentation, is educated guess work at best.

You obviously have not read Germars book.

They will claim that the amount of cyanide to kill people is infinitely smaller than that to kill lice and this is to justify the low residue of Prussian Blue in the masonry of the Kremas but Majdanek refutes this if there was a gas chamber there it left massive residue in the masonry, this having a much lower number of victims. Occam's Razor, was a disinfection room for clothes and the Kremas morgue attached to the crematorium.

[Nessie]

Rather than apply Occam's Razor, the best result would be achieved through experimentation, and the exposure of Zyklon B to plaster, concrete, brick and the materials used in the Kremas and delousing chambers, to see what exposure levels are actually required to leave staining and how that is affected by washing or exposure to the elements. Anything not based on experimentation, is educated guess work at best.

You obviously have not read Germars book.

They will claim that the amount of cyanide to kill people is infinitely smaller than that to kill lice and this is to justify the low residue of Prussian Blue in the masonry of the Kremas but Majdanek refutes this if there was a gas chamber there it left massive residue in the masonry, this having a much lower number of victims. Occam's Razor, was a disinfection room for clothes and the Kremas morgue attached to the crematorium.

In 1943-4, the Liechenkellers in Kremas II, III, IV and V all operated both for delousing clothing and as morgues? How does that work? Where are your witnesses to that happening?

[TlsMS93]

I expressed myself badly. Majdanek was for disinfecting clothes. Kremas were morgues

The proof is that they would have to store cadavers somewhere, the open air would not be

[Nessie]

I expressed myself badly. Majdanek was for disinfecting clothes. Kremas were morgues

OK. Disinfection chambers can also be used to gas people, which was reported at various camps such as Stutthof.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... as-chamber

The proof is that they would have to store cadavers somewhere, the open air would not be

You have an odd standard of proof. Normally, proof would come from evidence such as witnesses who speak to working in the morgue, or documents that record bodies stored there. Since you don't have evidence, you try to argue they had to be used for storage, but your argument is flawed, because the corpses could go straight to the ovens for cremation. There is also evidence to prove outdoor cremations, so again, no need to store corpses.

[TlsMS93]

Take the testimony of the Sonderkommando Tauber, including articles in Codoh, as an example and see the inconsistencies. Talking about the testimony of a Kremas employee is useless when exposed to scrutiny.

[Nessie]

Take the testimony of the Sonderkommando Tauber, including articles in Codoh, as an example and see the inconsistencies. Talking about the testimony of a Kremas employee is useless when exposed to scrutiny.

What inconsistencies? How do any inconsistencies fit with how people remember and recollect past events? How do they prove lying as you allege? How does your scrutiny fit with scientific studies of witness behaviour?