Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 3:36 am
Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 03, 2025 7:19 am
Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Wed Dec 03, 2025 2:58 am
Yes, and quite correctly, because the supposed eyewitnesses claim the room was clear of gas long before it was physically possible. They often claimed that the gassing room was ventilated for just a few minutes instead of the requisite one to two hours. For example Rudolf Höss claimed the ventilation was only turned on when the doors were opened for bodies to be removed, which would obviously have poisoned all the laborers and himself.
You have cherry-picked one eyewitness, what about the rest? What about eyewitnesses describing having to wear gas masks to clear the chambers and pockets of gas being trapped between the corpses? When you cherry-pick only certain witnesses and you take their claims about how long something took literally, you mislead yourself. You need to take into account how they will forget or get details wrong.
If you want to say that I've cherrypicked Rudolf Höss, arguably the most important witness for the Holocaust, fine. An explanation has to be given for why you cherrypick the parts of Höss that you like but ignore when he contradicts your theory.
You do not undersand what I am doing. I am not cherry-picking, I am assessing. What parts of Hoess's testimony are corroborated? What parts are not? What parts are likely accurate and what parts are not? What parts did he say when under duress and what parts did he say when he was not? I am determining how good his memory and how accurate his recollection is.
It is not cherry-picking, to dismiss what is likely mistaken, or inaccurate, or even made up, over what is likely accurate.
Höss said they "did not need" or use gas masks, and the wooden door to LK1 was "iron doors" plural, and that Zyklon immediately "numbed" or "anaesthetized" its victims. His various interrogations, affidavits, and testimonies are just loaded with errors and contradictions like these.
Hoess's testimony is indeed inconsistent in the detail. Studies have found that the more witnesses are repeatedly interviewed, or otherwise give evidence, then the more inconsistencies creep in. Hoess was under immense pressure, and that was not just because, at times, he was beaten up. He was the Commandant, he knew he was likely to face execution and that, due to overwhelming evidence for mass murder at the camp, he was going to be found guilty. It would actually be remarkable, if he had not got things wrong.
Likewise for other witnesses. If gas masks were used, why did the majority of eyewitnesses not mention gas masks? Or pockets of gas? Why did the majority of eyewitnesses not mention Kula's Zyklon insertion columns, but instead described Zyklon thrown, dropped, or emitted through shower heads? Why did the majority of eyewitnesses make up cremation times and procedures totally out of step with reality and each other? Where is the eyewitness that in your judgement gave an accurate time for ventilation? I'm not sure I've seen one.
Like all so-called revisionists, you have zero experience of taking witness statements and you have done nothing to learn about witness behaviour. The reasons why the multiple eyewitnesses to the gassings give different descriptions are;
- there were 8 gas chambers, most of which operated differently. Ask an eyewitness to a gassing at Krema I and another at Krema II, how long did the gassing take, and you get two different answers.
- experiments have found that people are poor and inconsistent when estimating how long a task took. Ask two people how long the same task took, like cremation times, and you will likely get two different answers.
- people remember different details, hence some will remember the Kula columns and others will not. That could be because only Kremas II and III had them, so a witness to Krema IV, will not recollect a column inside the gas chamber, because there was none.
- people forget and make mistakes. A witness will think of a metal door on a delousing chamber and mistakenly apply it to the gas chambers, when asked to describe what they saw, 25 years after they left the camp.
- all the witnesses had different experiences. One witness, who was caught out by a pocket of gas, will remember it vividly, but another, who never had that problem, will not.
That is all perfectly normal behaviour from witnesses, that you know nothing about.
This problem includes Karl Schultze by the way. Schultze described LK1 as "completely empty inside", i.e. no Kula columns. He said cremation took place at a rate of 1 body/muffle/hour. He made a number of errors around dates, one of which would have had him put the Crema II ventilation system "into operation" long after the first gassings are alleged to have occurred there. You have to ignore all of this to mold what was obviously a false confession into the shape of the orthodox gassing theory.
What date did Schultze last see inside Krema II? Were the columns installed by then? Could he have just made a mistake and remembered the chambers, when they were still empty? Did he give the official cremation time, as per the original design, rather than what the Sonderkommandos were doing, which was speeding the process up? Why do you expect him to remember dates so well? No one can! We are all notoriously bad at remembering.
Your puzzlement, is due to you not bothering to learn about witness memory, or ability to recollect.
The gassing theory is built on isolated quotes from separate witnesses, read without consideration for their full statements, i.e. actual cherrypicking. The above contradictions are what appear when we begin reading their statements in full and comparing them, i.e. the opposite of cherrypicking. Cherrypicking is a requisite part of the gassing theory because none of the witnesses' stories hold up individually.
Historians look at the total testimony, in conjunction with the other evidence. They then highlight what is corroborated. For example, 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas, no matter their job, state they were used for gassings. There are documents recording the construction of gas chambers, so the witnesses are corroborated and the gas chambers are proven. That the witness vary in their descriptions of how the gas chambers worked, is to be expected. They do not contradict on the main event, gassings, they can contradict on the details, such as whether there was a column inside the chamber, but that variation often comes with a simple explanantion.
Also, my explanation for those contradictions is simple: they were lying. Your explanation is convoluted and illogical.
My explanation is based on multiple studies of witness behaviour, memory, recollection and estimation. Your explanation is based on your desire to write off 100% of the witnesses as liars.
Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 03, 2025 10:27 am
What about how Block 11, Krema I, the two farm house bunker and Krema IV and V gas chambers were vented?
Indeed. Not a single one of these supposed gas chambers had a ventilation system built to-purpose. The consensus for Crematoria IV and V is that they were ventilated naturally, without fans. Pretty strange that this crucial feature was missing in what should have been the most well-developed gas chambers in the camp.
That we do not know how they vented, does not mean therefore they were not gas chambers. It is an evidential gap, to be expected when the Nazis were destroying evidence, rather than leaving buildings intact, which is what they did, for the majority of the camp.
Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 03, 2025 4:01 pm
People who think that gas came out of the shower heads, do so because they are not familiar with the evidence. They have either got their information from an inaccurate source, or they have conflated gassings with gas chambers made to look like showers and incorrectly put 2 and 2 together. Or, they have watched a dishonest denier video on X.
To the contrary,
you should familiarize
yourself with the evidence:
- Kraj, August 29, 1942: "... unfortunately emit gas instead of water."
- Polish underground, December 1942: "... the showers distribute poison gas instead of water."
- Fraternité, May 1944: "... instead of showers of warm water... they received a spray of toxic gas"
- Sofia Schafranov: "... shower heads, which emitted poison gas instead of water."
- Ada Bimko: "... I noticed two pipes which I was told contained the gas."
- Rudolf Höss: "... instead of water, we turned on poison gas."
- Alfred Wetzler: "... the shower heads were emitting minute crystals instead of water."
That is a mix of hearsay rumour and eyewitness evidence, which you need to learn to differentiate between. That is not cherry-picking, it is learning how to assess evidence, to see what is the most accurate. Hoess will have known that the chambers were made to look like showers and confuse people into thinking they would be showered. The rest are repeating rumour and providing hearsay descriptions, second or third hand, about the showering deception. That means they all corroborate on the main event and prove the gas chambers were made to look like showers.