The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 1:54 am Nick, if it wouldn't be a bother, could you post a list of confirmed nazi mass graves so I can consider scale and scope? Perhaps on your blog?

Big strides towards this are on Yad Vashem Untold Stories (for the 1941 borders of the USSR) and in USHMM Encyclopedia vol II (thus also postwar Poland) plus more in vol IV for POW camps, since those also had Nazi mass graves. Untold Stories identifies not just a town/community but strives to identify all the killing sites around it, so they have counted 2700 specific sites for just over 1200 towns, and there are still towns being added.

If we are not going to quibble over 'The Big Ones', I can deal with that. I'd still like to know where the Rhinehart jews ended up, but, that can be my cross to bear I suppose if you are 'tired of talking about it over and over for 20 years'.

Personally, I read much of your last post as simple bluster. I suppose that's because I'm a 'nazi loving hitlerite fascist holocaust denier'. Still, I can't help but feel the last post was light on source and high on verbosity.

You can read things however you want; it was just a forum post making some summarising points. I still alluded to a lot of studies and sources, and mentioned several.

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence Sir. If it is out there, please do, show me. I read the other materials that you have recommended in the past. They have been a slog, but, I have read them. To this point, what has been provided has left me, unconvinced.

I can understand that from your point of view this may seem exasperating, especially given how long you've been at this. Regardless, I would think correcting a misunderstanding on my end would be in your interest.

To be very clear, I don't think I'm being unreasonable. I want to see some actual evidence. What I find are things like the forensic investigation at Auschwitz unavailable. I'd like very much to see the bore studies and the photographs of the floors of the LK's at Krema III from when they removed the rubble. I want to see if there are any anchors in the floor on LK 1 of Krema III. Any mark, anything.

If there are lots of Huge Mass Graves containing on the neighborhood of 2,000,000 souls, and they have been geophysically located, I'd like to know man.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 1:06 am ....

Nessie raised the question of 'expertise' in this thread; it's a misplaced point, since essentially none of the revisionists have qualifications of relevance, or prior experience with the issues being debated. Germar Rudolf is the only real exception, and his interpretations were contradicted by other trained chemists.

....

I have raised the point about revisionist lack of relevant training and expertise, on a regular basis, in numerous threads. For example, in this thread, "The revisionist treatment of the witness evidence, is particularly badly flawed, as it fails to take into account all the scientific knowledge and understanding of witness behaviour, hearsay, memory, recall and estimations."
Revisionists are overconfident in their abilities, believing, in a way I find arrogant, that if they cannot work out how the gas chambers constructed in the Birkenau Kremas could have functioned, from the evidence available, therefore there were no gas chambers. When a witness estimates the size of the gas chambers, how many people were gassed each time and how long it took, multiple studies prove that the estimations will be a range of figures, with some wildly wrong. Those studies, which fall into the scientific field of psychology, are ignored and instead, the revisionists declare it is evidence the gassings were impossible, therefore they cannot have happened.

I also raised the point about Rudolf being the exception. "The closest to a technical debate, is the one between chemists over the presence of PB and HCN levels". I have been heavily criticised for first refusing to debate the chemistry of the gas chambers, then relenting and participating with the caveat that no one really knows what they are talking about and how the debate was flawed. When I raised the valid point that the gas chambers may have started to show signs of Prussian Blue staining, but we will never know, since they were demolished, it was ridiculed. To me, that is a sign of the confidence the revisionists have in their understanding and knowledge, a confidence that is not back by relevant qualifications and training. Any appeal that they show some humility and accept that their lack of expertise means they are even more likely to make mistakes than the experts, falls on deaf ears.

The revisionists here are so invested in and impressed by their physical arguments that mass gassings, cremations and graves cannot have happened, that no amount of evidence or argument will shift them. The reason I persevere is to show visitors to the forum, that the posters here are wrong and why that is.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 1:06 am Rudolf's arguments, and Leuchter's before him, about Prussian Blue do not convince in the slightest, not just because neither demonstrated why Prussian Blue would necessarily form or persist in the ruins and buildings they examined 40-45 years after the events. Mainly because the reported homicidal gassings lasted a much shorter time than prolonged use of Zyklon B in delousing chambers, which explains the visible-to-the-naked-eye difference between blue-stained buildings and those without.

I really wasn't expecting this. If anything, I was expecting an argument based on pH values. At least the pH was measured by the Poles, giving you hard evidence to point to. Rather than speculation. But we'll persist anyway.

Arguing exposure time is a roundabout way to argue the kinetics were unfavourable to PB formation, for obvious reasons. It is in effect saying the HcN particles had insufficient time to interface with the building materials. Given that much has been done to model the porosity, permeability and diffusion properties of these materials as well as the kinetic mobility of HcN which can be readily comparable to that of water vapour, kindly point me to the Orthodox argument you find most compelling that 100's of cumulative hours of HcN exposure is insufficient for Prussian Blue formation.

viewtopic.php?t=502

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 12:59 pm

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 1:06 am Rudolf's arguments, and Leuchter's before him, about Prussian Blue do not convince in the slightest, not just because neither demonstrated why Prussian Blue would necessarily form or persist in the ruins and buildings they examined 40-45 years after the events. Mainly because the reported homicidal gassings lasted a much shorter time than prolonged use of Zyklon B in delousing chambers, which explains the visible-to-the-naked-eye difference between blue-stained buildings and those without.

I really wasn't expecting this. If anything, I was expecting an argument based on pH values. At least the pH was measured by the Poles, giving you hard evidence to point to. Rather than speculation. But we'll persist anyway.

Arguing exposure time is a roundabout way to argue the kinetics were unfavourable to PB formation, for obvious reasons. It is in effect saying the HcN particles had insufficient time to interface with the building materials. Given that much has been done to model the porosity, permeability and diffusion properties of these materials as well as the kinetic mobility of HcN which can be readily comparable to that of water vapour, kindly point me to the Orthodox argument you find most compelling that 100's of cumulative hours of HcN exposure is insufficient for Prussian Blue formation.

viewtopic.php?t=502

Exposure time plus ventilation for Kremas II and III, along with CO2 being exhaled, urine and faeces being excreted washing down the chambers, plus several whitewashes, then exposure to the elements through cracks and holes over 40+ years; all of the latter points applying to the otherwise basically levelled Kremas IV and V and Bunkers. Krema I never saw 'hundreds of cumulative hours' of HCN exposure.

The historical data is sufficient to model probable cases for exposure time, since we have a good idea of the incoming transports and can add in registered inmate selections, while also knowing reasonably well about shutdowns and reactivations. I've not seen this done by anyone, least of all Germar Rudolf, who should really present such data (applying best/middle/worst case scenarios) and then show that PB necessarily forms past a certain point, while allowing for the kinetics, changes to PH balance and direct effects on the outgassed HCN from ventilation or lack thereof, CO2 exhalation, excreta, washing, repainting, the effects of postwar exposure, etc.

A delousing chamber would not have had those extra factors while also being operated for longer; this speaks directly to the outgassing debate with Rich Green, where Rudolf came across to me as overegging his case rather than best/middle/worst casing things. The described sequence revolves around circa half an hour of outgassing Zyklon B pellets before ventilation was switched on or doors were opened to naturally ventilate, followed logically by dousing the pellets to neutralise them, so total outgassing time was a matter of a few hours per cycle, versus much longer for a delousing chamber.



The PB argument isn't compelling also for the usual reasons: the KZs including Auschwitz were a largely closed system for Jews, with only rare cases of deportees or inmates being transferred out of it en masse (e.g. the Cosel selections for the Organisation Schmelt camps in 1942, which were all absorbed into the KZ system in 1943-44), and a rather demonstrable expansion of the system in 1944, when Auschwitz was at its peak for receiving transports and was sending deportees selected for work across the Reich.

The registered inmates who vanish statistically from Auschwitz camp strengths and records, otherwise identified and sourced as killed in internal camp selections in 1942-44, add a further conundrum for revisionism, since these were generally sick and exhausted prisoners, and don't show up elsewhere in the system, despite transfers between KZs of sick prisoners of non-Jewish origin being practiced at various moments. Those were bookended in between actual exits from the system, transfers of sick KZ inmates to T4 centres in 1941-2 and again in 1944, which are well-documented, plus the 'return transports' of Jews who had been sent to camps in the Reich then were returned to Auschwitz when deemed weakened or sick, up to October 1944. After this, sick prisoners were frequently sent to sub-camps, sectors of main camps or to Bergen-Belsen, to die off 'naturally'.

These are the historical problems that need solving if one doesn't want to accept the conventional understanding. No technical arguments of any kind can even vaguely point in the right direction of how they might be solved; advancing them is therefore something of a dead end, when one would need to find historical solutions anyway.

Kremas II & III were occupied buildings Nick. You can't 'just open the doors' and let natural ventilation happen. They were occupied buildings.

You can't properly vent LK-1 in half an hour either.

You are also still left with were the pellets shot around the room falling down a ramp? Dumped at the bottom of the columns? Or dropped into a retractable wire basket? Your eyewitness all disagree on this point. One would think if someone had the job of sweeping the pellets up or not they could remember if that had occurred or not, but no, you have a whole bunch of people saying mutually exclusive things.

Furthermore, none of this with the short exposure time applies to Krema I, located next to the Kommandant's house, the canteen and the camp hospital.

This could go much further, for example, we could look at, and perhaps include in your exposure time, the execution time. To reach an execution time of on the order of 5 minutes, you are talking about a crap ton of product. Then what do you do with the still gassings pellets?

There are already so many threads for this, I simply didn't want to let those ludicrous musings stand unopposed.

I will say that your last paragraph seems to me to be on point, mostly. I'd argue that if you want to build a mountain by hand, you have to start with one grain of sand, and that for it to be understood that there exists a problem one first must expose that problem, which has been done. At this point, a parallel history needs to be constructed. One which can be honed by critique and eventually form the backbone of a history that rests in congruence with reality as it occurred. So much of what is pawned off as historical truth with regard to the events commonly referred to as the holocaust is demonstrably false, and to show children pictures of mass graves full of the victims of allied bombings (basically), attrition from overpopulation and from epidemics as proof of a German campaign of extermination is dishonest to such a degree that it to this day leaves me shaken that I was fed such bare faced lies.

Ultimately, in our disagreement, at its core, I can't show you the living, and you can't show me the dead. In my defense, human remains are significantly easier to find after 80 years than a footprint..

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 7:15 pm
Exposure time plus ventilation for Kremas II and III, along with CO2 being exhaled, urine and faeces being excreted washing down the chambers, plus several whitewashes, then exposure to the elements through cracks and holes over 40+ years; all of the latter points applying to the otherwise basically levelled Kremas IV and V and Bunkers. Krema I never saw 'hundreds of cumulative hours' of HCN exposure.

This feels underwhelming. There is an embedded contradiction in this paragraph I'll address in a moment. But the real issue is the embedded assumption that exposure time somehow ceases when the last Jew dies, or the pellets are extracted, or the ventilation begins (you can choose whichever is more preferable, it doesn't matter, because neither is the case). The HcN Material interface continues long after whichever moment you have chosen.

I have demonstrated the permeability + porosity + diffusion properties of the materials in question. These three propertied = absorption rate. The reason why your argument is underwhelming, is you have forgotten the key feature of the HcN molecules immediately after a gassing, what I call the Matrix effect:



No amount of ventilation will prevent this interface. You are betting the farm on this interface being a surface level phenomenon but I've already shown this is not the case.

You've slipped in the hosing down argument, which humourously will only increase ad&absorption for any future gassing.

The embedded contradiction I mentioned earlier is that you've slipped in "exposure to the elements" as a post-reaction phenomenon that will explain its erosion. But Dr Terry, you are arguing it never formed in the first place. How can it erode if it never formed? Schroedingers Residues!

[/quote]

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 8:12 pm The embedded contradiction I mentioned earlier is that you've slipped in "exposure to the elements" as a post-reaction phenomenon that will explain its erosion. But Dr Terry, you are arguing it never formed in the first place. How can it erode if it never formed? Schroedings Residues!

The issue isn't just whether PB forms, but also explaining the levels of cyanide concentrations in the 1980s-1990s samples. There are glaring discrepancies between the samples from delousing chambers in Leuchter's and Rudolf's samples, and the levels for the crematoria: about two orders of magnitude for what look like 'proper' samples. The different uses and environmental conditions of delousing chambers vs homicidal gas chambers likely explains nearly all of this, and it also explains why PB didn't form in the 1940s, but exposure to the elements over 40 years likely explains some of why non-iron cyanide concentrations have lowered over that time.

SanityCheck wrote:...

Ok, so for digestion purposes, here's a summary of SC's responses on each of the points from the OP regarding physical evidence:

1. FeCN levels or crematoria use/maintenance at Birkenau:
Fully addressed FeCN (Prussian Blue/cyanide traces): Dismissed Rudolf/Leuchter via short exposure times, ventilation, washing/whitewashing, excreta/CO₂ effects, & 40+ yrs exposure to elements; contrasts delousing chambers; notes Polish 1945 traces corroborate use.
Partially addressed crematoria (capacity/multiple bodies; docs/testimonies/T4 parallels); minimal on maintenance.

2. Grave volumes or contents at major camps:
Partially addressed (Belzec focus: Kola's bore-probe volumes sufficient w/ decomposition/child skew; rejects rev. m³/corpse assumptions; AR camps/Aktion 1005 exhumed graves; general non-exhumed graves via Yad Vashem/USHMM; no Birkenau/Auschwitz graves detail, as direct cremation).

3. Fuel needs/evidence at major camps:
Directly addressed: AR camps self-supplied wood locally; Chelmno docs/forestry memoir; Birkenau forest kommandos (1942-43/44); rejects rev. exaggerations (e.g., bodyweight/fuel ratios); cites Dresden/Klooga pyres & Aktion 1005 as proofs of feasibility.

Thank you, Dr. Terry, for your attempt here. I think it's important.

As HansHill already points out (and is better suited to address), your dismissal of Rudolf's FeCN/Birkenau work based on claimed limitations of exposure simply do not hold up. Rudolf has modeled this comprehensively to the extent that all available evidence allows, and it aligns to support the expectation of considerable FeCN formation, similar to that found in delousing chambers. Exposure to elements is a trivial matter given the stability of FeCN, and samples were also taken in unweathered (or less weathered; e.g., ceiling) areas.

For you to debate Rudolf's methodology, findings, and conclusions is of course unproductive. You would [hopefully] recognize you are not qualified to do so and that you would be 'smoked' in any debate against Rudolf, on any aspect of his scientific findings. What makes much more sense, on your part, is for you to point to any academic/scientist who is up for the challenge.

Your partial addressing of Birkenau crematoria is not very helpful, either. You don't mention the utter lack of refractory brick maintenance corresponding to alleged scale of operation, exacerbated by air photos which reflect a surprising lack of expected ongoing, constant cremation.

Your claim of overlapping cremations does not help your case at all. Exterminationists lean heavily into this concept, hoping that conserving some of the exothermic energy of a prior corpse (in burning a latter/subsequent corpse) can explain away the "hard cap" on coke throughput (about 33.3 kg/hr, see: viewtopic.php?p=7395#p7395). But it simply does not. Given constraints regarding the upper heating value (UHV) of corpses, particularly very lean corpses (which would by far be the most prevalent for most Jews cremated at Birkenau), and once accounting for efficiency reductions in such a process (problems of timing; multiple-corpse impact on gas flow, draft, and heat supply) and standard efficiency limitations (thermal losses common to all of the crematoria), you are facing at most a ~10-15% reduction in the time required to cremate each corpse with such 'overlapping'. This is because:

• Most corpses are extremely lean (years of deprivation) by the time they reach Birkenau's crematoria, making a maximum ~40,000 kcal available exothermically per corpse, with exceptions for those less lean Jewish populations (e.g. Hungarian Jews, perhaps with up to ~90,000 or so kcal per corpse available exothermically).
• What is available exothermically does not equate to what can actually serve to meet endothermic demand of a subsequent corpse -- the question of efficiency reduces this considerably, with the Birkenau furnaces having only about 54% thermal efficiency (see TCFOA, p. 364).
• This means that only at most about 30,000 - 40,000 kcal of exothermic energy of a prior corpse could be made available to meet the endothermic demand of a subsequent corpse

This is a massive problem for you, since energy requirements per corpses are (see TCFOA, section 10.4):

• Normal corpse: 327,800 kcal
• Average corpse: 247,630 kcal
• Lean corpse: 206,100 kcal

Thus, overall, the estimate that overlapping corpses in cremation reduces cremation time by about 10-15% (~35,000 kcal / ~230,000 kcal = ~15%) holds, especially factoring in efficiency losses caused by multi-corpse arrangements themselves (e.g. airflow).

Unless you wish to take the view that Jews across Europe were actually very well-fed by Germany throughout the war prior to gassing and cremation at Birkenau (i.e. in the range of daily ~3,000+ calorie diets, thus entailing very high body fat), there is no way to reconcile your view that overlapping of corpses could suffice to explain massive cremation time reductions per corpse (and even this would be a stretch).

As for your position on Kola's drills as reflective of how many corpses are actually underneath either Belzec or Sobibor, let it suffice to point out that Kola initially documented a densely-filled corpse grave in Graves 1 and 2 at Sobibor -- however both of these graves were later excavated by Mazurek et al and were found to be mostly empty (entirely so for Grave 1, and mostly so for Grave 2 [EDIT: also true for grave 7]), discussed here: viewtopic.php?t=628

Just to put my neck out (that is, adding some falsifiability in the form of risk/precision), here is my most careful interpretation of how many corpses are actually reflected by the best-known evidence of Sobibor excavations:

(range goes from what I consider "reasonable minimum" to "reasonable maximum"):

Grave 1: 2 - 10 (near-empty)
Grave 2: 150 - 1,200
Grave 3: 300 - 2,500
Grave 4: 1,200 - 7,000
Grave 5: 500 - 2,500
Grave 6: 550 - 3,800
Grave 7: 0 - 0 (empty)
TOTAL: 2,702 - 17,010

This is my attempt at an objective assessment based on grave descriptions.

I would challenge you, Dr. Terry, to rationalize a higher value than the upper range for the graves (1-7) which I have noted above, for Sobibor, based on the combined findings and interpretations of Kola and Mazurek's team. The volume and density needed for anything near the order of magnitude claimed per the 'Holocaust' is not present.

The bottom-line is that Kola's reconnoissance was never meant as an excavation -- and the excavations of AR camps (e.g. Judge Lukasciewicz, Mazurek et al., Sturdy-Colls) repeatedly demonstrate patterns of only sparse, scattered remains (and an abundance of evidence for economic operations; e.g. buried property/junk).

Back to the matter of cremations, you're mind-bogglingly out-of-date by suggesting the following:

SanityCheck wrote:...where [Mattogno] repeats a figure of 250kg/corpse whenever he feels like it...

Mattogno's estimate of 250kg/corpse was likely far too low, as evidenced in a far more comprehensive study published as of 2018, which Mattogno had not yet accounted for:

https://codoh.com/library/document/expe ... cremation/

Discussed here:

https://codoh.com/library/document/open ... revisited/

These findings (also supported by recent discussions about Indian funeral pyres) shift the per-corpse-requirement to upwards of 400kg+.

Your point about children contributing to volume reduction are another unfortunate excuse, barely a drop in the bucket. If I am recalling correctly from earlier research into this, about 25% of Jews sent to Reinhard camps would have been children. Children on average (factoring infant to adolescent) are about 50% the size of adults. This means you can at most reduce your expected volume by ~12%, even if it's assumed Mattogno didn't already factor this into his assessment (unlikely). You are grasping straws, here.

Regarding fuel/wood, you claim wood was self-supplied (somehow, some way -- but totally unevidenced). You seem to think that 'some burning happened' counts as specific or converging evidence of 'hundreds of thousands of corpses cremated'. What we know for certain is that garbage/rubbish was being burned frequently at these sites (per the documented economic operation and witness statements), and that corpses should have also ended up at these sites under a revisionist framework (ghetto transports already being sent this way, with plenty of diseased corpses from ghettos which themselves lacked cremation facilities) fits well-within reason. The scale is paramount, here. What you are claiming is a biblical-scale event of mass murder and subsequent mass pyres and cremation.

You're in a huge pickle here, Dr. Terry (for Treblinka, alone):

~350 kg wood x 800,000 corpses = 280 million kg of wood

This amounts to the largest burning operation of any kind, anywhere, ever (and by orders of magnitude). Where did this wood come from? This is not explained by, "I dunno, probably came from locally."

Nor does this explain why we have so few witness statements from the thousands of Polish residents and others surrounding these camps (not even post-war), when you allege there should have been non-stop foul/acrid smoke blowing into their windows for months/years at a time as they ate dinner with their families, with a relentless mushroom-cloud-of-death clearly as the culprit, just a few miles from their homes and local businesses. See: viewtopic.php?p=20087#p20087

Now, back to the matter of falsifiability: you seem to believe that we could find evidence reflecting millions of corpses buried under the AR camps. OK, well then entertain me: how exactly could we conceivably (in-practice) prove your theory as false?

We both know this isn't possible. Beyond the laws/policies preventing this, the camps have 'monuments' installed over them which now prevent further excavation from ever occurring again. This means your view is not falsifiable, which means it isn't legitimate/scientific.

Altogether, while I respect and acknowledge your effort in tackling the physical evidence debate to the extent you have shown here, your position flounders, and there is no one else in your camp still around (and qualified?) to salvage it.

'Fangers, in the witness testimony doesn't it say that a special 'brush commando' went and gathered up a few faggots and brought them back? I don't think a couple small bundles of brush is gonna do it. Probably need more than a handful of twigs and leaves.

Then again, there's a witness that said they didn't use coke in the Kremas at Auschwitz. Apparently a rolled up newspaper and some twigs 'just to start cremation' was sufficient. See those sneaky nazis had figured out how to trigger 'self sustaining cremations'. I suppose by using witches, as they will burn on their own.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Feb 09, 2026 2:33 am 'Fangers, in the witness testimony doesn't it say that a special 'brush commando' went and gathered up a few faggots and brought them back? I don't think a couple small bundles of brush is gonna do it. Probably need more than a handful of twigs and leaves.

Yes, that would be the 'Waldkommando'. This was the official story until revisionists did the math, such that now exterminationists are left scrambling to explain why we have a shocking lack of any records supporting mass fuel/wood shipments, despite the extraordinary scale alleged.

Wait, they get to just make new shit up on the fly? No, god damit, they have to go find supporting testimony from their damn stars...

I call bullshit on this 'build your own holocaust' method of history. They have to use the brick and mortar they have on hand, can't go ordering new shit 80 years later because it's stupid and doesn't work.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Feb 09, 2026 2:43 am Wait, they get to just make new shit up on the fly? No, god damit, they have to go find supporting testimony from their damn stars...

I call bullshit on this 'build your own holocaust' method of history. They have to use the brick and mortar they have on hand, can't go ordering new shit 80 years later because it's stupid and doesn't work.

There is clearly a lot of history and evidence you don't know about. That does not make it "new shit".

Fact is, the scientific theory about HCN levels and PB Sanity Check is supporting, is backed by the historical evidence of how the Kremas were used. So-called revisionism has had 80 plus years to produce an evidenced revised use of the Kremas and it has failed, meaning the scientific theory you support, from Rudolf, is contradicted or at least not supported by the evidence.

When you say "a rolled up newspaper and some twigs 'just to start cremation' was sufficient" you are distorting the evidence, in a way that is designed to support your argument from incredulity. When you say "You can't properly vent LK-1 in half an hour either." you are correct, as the witnesses described having to wear gas masks as there was still gas within the chamber. The Topf & Sons engineer responsible for the ventilation was confident it worked and that you do not believe him, nor the other witnesses and think, somehow, Germans could not get LK-1 to vent, it not evidence to prove there were no gassings.

Your claim here is plain wrong, "Ultimately, in our disagreement, at its core, I can't show you the living, and you can't show me the dead. In my defense, human remains are significantly easier to find after 80 years than a footprint.". Historians and archaeologists can show you where the dead ended up. How the Nazis disposed of remains at the different camps and massacre sites, is evidenced by numerous, corroborating sources. When they cremated remains and dumped that into rivers, or mixed it into the ground in a haphazard way, they were deliberately making them difficult to find. Historians can also track the living, made easier by the Nazis not destroying many transport, ghetto and camp records. The living also leave a lot of witness evidence. Despite that, so-called revisionism cannot provide a new chronological narrative, that has millions of Jews in the camps and ghettos in 1944 and liberated in 1945, which is what would have happened if the millions of arrested Jews had been kept alive.

So, your ignorance and distortion of the historical narrative, your reliance on an illogical argument and your inability to provide an evidence revised history, all explain why you are wrong. Neither Sanity Check, nor anyone else who participates here, avoids the "Physical Evidence Question". That you are not convinced by our answers is not evidence to prove mass gassings did not happen.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 09, 2026 7:41 am .

Reported. This thread is about Dr Terry's statements & conclusions addressing the physical evidence as presented by Revisionists.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 9:07 pm
The issue isn't just whether PB forms, but also explaining the levels of cyanide concentrations in the 1980s-1990s samples. There are glaring discrepancies between the samples from delousing chambers in Leuchter's and Rudolf's samples, and the levels for the crematoria: about two orders of magnitude for what look like 'proper' samples. The different uses and environmental conditions of delousing chambers vs homicidal gas chambers likely explains nearly all of this, and it also explains why PB didn't form in the 1940s, but exposure to the elements over 40 years likely explains some of why non-iron cyanide concentrations have lowered over that time.

We are losing focus here.


"The different uses and environmental conditions of delousing chambers vs homicidal gas chambers likely explains nearly all of this, and it also explains why PB didn't form in the 1940s"

What different uses and environmental conditions? I've already addressed exposure time and you haven't made a substantive point around environmental conditions except to mention (white)washing, and then when prompted pH levels.

"but exposure to the elements over 40 years likely explains some of why non-iron cyanide concentrations have lowered over that time"

I agree, but this ironically explains why the Markiewicz methodology is unsound. Non-iron bound cyanide is non-stable (ie highly volatile) and that's why using it's marker as a fingerprint into the past is insufficient. This is why we test exclusively for Prussian Blue, as it is the only demonstrably long-term-stable compound we can point to as our fingerprint into the past.