Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 3:11 pm
You are correct, that I do not understand the chemistry. I am not convinced you do either, have you any relevant qualifications? I do not do what so many revisionists do, and pontificate over subjects I have no qualifications or relevant experience to cast judgement on. Hence, I have nothing in particular to say about pH levels, but I can say that from what Green states, he has a good case the residue of traces of Zyklon B, is consistent with homicidal gassings.
I have quoted Green's explanations of what his hypothesis is. Your supposed steelman misses out what I have quoted.
I'm not telling you my qualifications, but just assume i don't have any; it's easier that way.
OK, so you cannot authoritatively comment on the argument Green and other chemists are making.
Hence, I have nothing in particular to say about pH levels
Then why did you write:
My version would be;
Rudolf: The known and predictable behaviour of iron when exposed to HcN over prolonged periods is that it will produce long-term stable residues such as Prussian Blue. The known environment of the gas chambers meets the conditions for these residues to have formed.
Dr Green: The environment does not meet the conditions for these residues to have formed, as explained by the pH levels were not sufficient to support the formation of Prussian Blue, due to the time of exposure of gassings compared to delousing, washing and painting the walls between gassings and conditions after gassings stopped.
You understand how this comes across, right?
Yes, it comes across as my understanding of the chemistry, in relation to the other evidence. Unlike you, I do not think each piece of evidence should be able, in isolation, be able to prove anything. It is far more likely and better practice, to use evidence from multiple different sources, as proof.
OK, so you cannot authoritatively comment on the argument Green and other chemists are making.
I haven't "authoritatively commented" on Dr Green's work (whatever that means), i have asked you about 5 times were I to count, to give me what you think Dr Green's hypothesis is. You have blathered and pissed around with incoherent waffle like the pH values not supporting Prussian Blue due to the exposure times, and when questioned on WTF that nonsense means, you completely and utterly fall apart? Would you like another go?
Yes, it comes across as my understanding of the chemistry, in relation to the other evidence. Unlike you, I do not think each piece of evidence should be able, in isolation, be able to prove anything. It is far more likely and better practice, to use evidence from multiple different sources, as proof.
Are you retracting the pH part of your answer, then?
OK, so you cannot authoritatively comment on the argument Green and other chemists are making.
I haven't "authoritatively commented" on Dr Green's work (whatever that means), i have asked you about 5 times were I to count, to give me what you think Dr Green's hypothesis is. You have blathered and pissed around with incoherent waffle like the pH values not supporting Prussian Blue due to the exposure times, and when questioned on WTF that nonsense means, you completely and utterly fall apart? Would you like another go?
Yes, it comes across as my understanding of the chemistry, in relation to the other evidence. Unlike you, I do not think each piece of evidence should be able, in isolation, be able to prove anything. It is far more likely and better practice, to use evidence from multiple different sources, as proof.
Are you retracting the pH part of your answer, then?
Since neither of us understand the chemistry, is there any point to such a debate?
How about we discuss how the rest of the evidence supports Green and not Rudolf?
Oh, of course, you run away from that!
Re: Convergance of evidence.
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 8:19 am
by HansHill
Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 3:41 am
Since neither of us understand the chemistry, is there any point to such a debate?
How about we discuss how the rest of the evidence supports Green and not Rudolf?
Oh, of course, you run away from that!
Since you said Green rebuts Rudolf, then yes there is indeed a point to the debate. Again, i have not "authoritatively commented" on Dr Green's work, i don't even know what that means tbh - but rather i have for perhaps 5 or 6 times now, asked you to give me what you think Dr Green's hypothesis is. I gave you mine, which you then rejected and made a feeble attempt inserting babble about pH levels, which i assume you are now retracting. So, for the last time - please give me what you think Dr Green's hypothesis is.
Re: Convergance of evidence.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 3:22 pm
by Eye of Zyclone
Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 8:06 am
This is worthy of its own thread;
HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 3:43 pm
For all newcomers: If it weren't obvious enough, but when our good friend Nessie says things like the above, what he means are things like:
- "Evidence from eyewitnesses" = wild claims which often contradict each other and are not supported by the physical evidence
- "documentary" = Inventory sheets from Krema II saying "mesh device" as the murder weapon
- "physical" = Lidar findings of human remains and craters at known transit camps like Treblinka
- "circumstantial" = nobody claimed there wasnt gassings, therefore there were
Nessie also conveniently begins from the position that gassings did occur, and the """""""evidence""""""" listed above is self-evident and therefore anything contradicting this is a logical fallacy.
Welcome to Codoh, you're going to see alot of this!
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.
HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 3:43 pm
For all newcomers: If it weren't obvious enough, but when our good friend Nessie says things like the above, what he means are things like:
- "Evidence from eyewitnesses" = wild claims which often contradict each other and are not supported by the physical evidence
- "documentary" = Inventory sheets from Krema II saying "mesh device" as the murder weapon
- "physical" = Lidar findings of human remains and craters at known transit camps like Treblinka
- "circumstantial" = nobody claimed there wasnt gassings, therefore there were
Yes - his rebuttal to this would be, these are not eyewitnesses from inside the chambers, and these statements don't reconstruct a chronology of events therefore all of this is a fallacy. Or something.
I'm sure he'll be along shortly to correct my "strawmanning" him, and tell you why your citations above don't count!
Yes - his rebuttal to this would be, these are not eyewitnesses from inside the chambers, and these statements don't reconstruct a chronology of events therefore all of this is a fallacy. Or something.
I'm sure he'll be along shortly to correct my "strawmanning" him, and tell you why your citations above don't count!
I don't think he's coming back. Bombsaway and he have been awful quiet lately. Same with Sanitary Check, Numar Patru etc.
Yes - his rebuttal to this would be, these are not eyewitnesses from inside the chambers, and these statements don't reconstruct a chronology of events therefore all of this is a fallacy. Or something.
I'm sure he'll be along shortly to correct my "strawmanning" him, and tell you why your citations above don't count!
I don't think he's coming back. Bombsaway and he have been awful quiet lately. Same with Sanitary Check, Numar Patru etc.
I'll be honest, the forum isn't really 'hopping'.
I check back from time to time, but it's just an obvious point that revisionists feel like they're on the precipice overturning the current world order (which would happen if they could convince the rest of the world that they were right about most things), whereas my self and others regard this kind of revisionism as a fringe movement full of highly deluded people. The appeal to talking to you guys is to have a dance with the 'crazies' so to speak, it's not nearly as pressing especially if one has other things going on in their lives. But if I was a revisionist like you I would be much more excited by the topic, it's huge and legitimately world shattering.
I believe I had some science homework to do which I may embark on at some point but I'm busy and it's no so exciting for me, the non-science history side I enjoy much more. So for now I'll wait until for your positive evidence about what happened with the missing Jews (so far you've produced nothing right?)
Yes - his rebuttal to this would be, these are not eyewitnesses from inside the chambers, and these statements don't reconstruct a chronology of events therefore all of this is a fallacy. Or something.
I'm sure he'll be along shortly to correct my "strawmanning" him, and tell you why your citations above don't count!
I don't think he's coming back. Bombsaway and he have been awful quiet lately. Same with Sanitary Check, Numar Patru etc.
I'll be honest, the forum isn't really 'hopping'.
I check back from time to time, but it's just an obvious point that revisionists feel like they're on the precipice overturning the current world order (which would happen if they could convince the rest of the world that they were right about most things), whereas my self and others regard this kind of revisionism as a fringe movement full of highly deluded people. The appeal to talking to you guys is to have a dance with the 'crazies' so to speak, it's not nearly as pressing especially if one has other things going on in their lives. But if I was a revisionist like you I would be much more excited by the topic, it's huge and legitimately world shattering.
I believe I had some science homework to do which I may embark on at some point but I'm busy and it's no so exciting for me, the non-science history side I enjoy much more. So for now I'll wait until for your positive evidence about what happened with the missing Jews (so far you've produced nothing right?)
I wouldn't say nothing.
For example, I've made headway with Hungarian jews. I've found them going to recovery camps and I found 1,600 of them that were released from Belsen and taken to Palestine.
I've also been digging into demographics.
I can't find 6,000,000 that could have been killed man.
Of course, that's for another thread.
I'm glad to see you are still posting.
So far as the Kremas go, I think Mattogno's books are the gold standard on that. I don't think you need to model the ovens for throughput when you have the test tables, showing unburned coke, thus providing the max throughput. That should be patent.
So far as the 'convergence of evidence' goes, when the explanation for the planning and execution of the operation relies on an explanation that revolves around telepathy, color me skeptical.
Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 6:19 pm
I don't think he's coming back. Bombsaway and he have been awful quiet lately. Same with Sanitary Check, Numar Patru etc.
I'll be honest, the forum isn't really 'hopping'.
I check back from time to time, but it's just an obvious point that revisionists feel like they're on the precipice overturning the current world order (which would happen if they could convince the rest of the world that they were right about most things), whereas my self and others regard this kind of revisionism as a fringe movement full of highly deluded people. The appeal to talking to you guys is to have a dance with the 'crazies' so to speak, it's not nearly as pressing especially if one has other things going on in their lives. But if I was a revisionist like you I would be much more excited by the topic, it's huge and legitimately world shattering.
I believe I had some science homework to do which I may embark on at some point but I'm busy and it's no so exciting for me, the non-science history side I enjoy much more. So for now I'll wait until for your positive evidence about what happened with the missing Jews (so far you've produced nothing right?)
I wouldn't say nothing.
For example, I've made headway with Hungarian jews. I've found them going to recovery camps and I found 1,600 of them that were released from Belsen and taken to Palestine.
I've also been digging into demographics.
I can't find 6,000,000 that could have been killed man.
Of course, that's for another thread.
I'm glad to see you are still posting.
So far as the Kremas go, I think Mattogno's books are the gold standard on that. I don't think you need to model the ovens for throughput when you have the test tables, showing unburned coke, thus providing the max throughput. That should be patent.
So far as the 'convergence of evidence' goes, when the explanation for the planning and execution of the operation relies on an explanation that revolves around telepathy, color me skeptical.
I think the science is still up for debate, even from a revisionist point of view. Germar Rudolf said
Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust "rigorously". We have several circumstantial evidences which, especially together with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken place. But on the chemical argument no absolute certainty can be built.
If it was just as simple as absolutely impossible that there was enough fuel and heat capacity to burn multiple bodies as outlined in German documents than this would disprove a major element of the Holocaust, and all those discussion of details witness statements and the FG report would be irrelevant. You have proven impossibility, just focus on that. But the argument isn't even singled out by Mattogno as major in his book, it's kind of nestled within a vast array of arguments.
Re the Hungarian Jews all you've found is things that mainstream historians have already written about. Find out what happened to the Reinhardt Jews, there were 1.5 million of them so you there should be at least some answers. Of the many hundreds of groups and trains that went east, we don't know what happened to a single one of them?
Your statement about telepathy is typical zaniness, you think that I believe the Nazis had telepathic powers? Otherwise what's the point of such a comment? The question of the role of the bureaucracy and decentralized nature of the killing is well described by Hilberg (relying on evidence), you should evaluate that, instead of focusing on terminology used once lol.
Re: Convergance of evidence.
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2025 12:57 am
by Stubble
You were the one that started me on the Hungarian jews Bombsaway. Of note, if non working Hungarian jews were gassed on arrival, who went to the recovery camps...
I fully intend to find the Reinhardt jews.
They are on the list.
The reason I brought up telepathy is because that is what has been asserted by historians. A 'great meeting of minds'.
If your stance is that that is silly, good on ya. The mainstream consensus appears to be that it was all conducted in the absence of planning and orders, 'by some kind of telepathy'.
These aren't my words.
There is witnesses testimony about what happened when more than one body was put on a litter and shoved into the muffle, the furnace wouldn't deal with it. That was just 2 bodies. Everybody just shrugs that off and says that somewhere between 4-8 bodies were cremated simultaneously.
For the record, when the death toll was said to be 4 million, this ridiculousness had to be asserted. With the death toll where it is today, assuming 30 minutes per body and 100% operation during 'up time', 24/7, it is just doable in the timeframe .I've worked out the numbers.
It assumes 24/7 operation 100% of the operational days.
Of note, it would have taken 3 days to cremate the bodies from 1 gassing at Kremas II and III. There were never multiple gassings...where would they have stored the dead?
For the record, when the death toll was said to be 4 million, this ridiculousness had to be asserted. With the death toll where it is today, assuming 30 minutes per body and 100% operation during 'up time', 24/7, it is just doable in the timeframe .I've worked out the numbers.
I almost get the sense that you are bad faith with a comment like this. If I believed that 4 million were killed at Auschwitz, 1.5 million at Reinhardt, 1.5 million through shootings, then the death toll is already at 7 million. If it's not what I believe (or any serious historian, starting with Retilinger in the 40s, nor any witness, why do you bring it up or run calculations?
Are you really so ignorant about the mainstream treatment of this figure?
Re: Convergance of evidence.
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2025 1:31 am
by TlsMS93
For me, the fact that there was no Prussian Blue in the alleged slaughterhouses and the absence of documentation of the delivery of sufficient timber for the alleged Reinhardt operation is enough to exonerate the Germans.
For the record, when the death toll was said to be 4 million, this ridiculousness had to be asserted. With the death toll where it is today, assuming 30 minutes per body and 100% operation during 'up time', 24/7, it is just doable in the timeframe .I've worked out the numbers.
I almost get the sense that you are bad faith with a comment like this. If I believed that 4 million were killed at Auschwitz, 1.5 million at Reinhardt, 1.5 million through shootings, then the death toll is already at 7 million. If it's not what I believe (or any serious historian, starting with Retilinger in the 40s, nor any witness, why do you bring it up or run calculations?
Are you really so ignorant about the mainstream treatment of this figure?
Because I wanted to know if it was possible to cremate 1,100,000 bodies in the Kremas in the time allotted. Given 0 downtime, 30 minutes per body and 1 body per muffle, you can just get it done inside the window.
Gotta start some place.
Of course, then your run into the fuel problem, the refractory problem, the inevitable downtime etc.
It isn't bad faith, I assure you, it is something I ran, to see it it violated the laws of physics.
If you assume 100% of the operational time was available, and it was 30 minutes per body, and you could run the equipment with no maintenance, cleaning or refit, then when you put pen to paper, you can just get to the mainstream claim for Auschwitz today.
