On consistency of revisionists vs holohoaxers

[Nessie]

It is likely he did not expect to lose the war, so the future of the buildings was to be crematoriums, in a Birkenau that was also planned to be expanded, with the addition of "Mexico".

If they did not expect to lose, the feeble postulate proposed of Nazis not defending the extermination claims at the time is asinine.

He did not expect to lose the war, in 1942, as the planning began. He would have known it was inevitable in 1944, when they were at their busiest with the Hungarian and Lodz ghetto arrivals.

[Keen]

It is likely he did not expect to lose the war, so the future of the buildings was to be crematoriums, in a Birkenau that was also planned to be expanded, with the addition of "Mexico".

If they did not expect to lose, the feeble postulate proposed of Nazis not defending the extermination claims at the time is asinine.

He did not expect to lose the war, in 1942, as the planning began. He would have known it was inevitable in 1944, when they were at their busiest with the Hungarian and Lodz ghetto arrivals.

Nessie:

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves, as they knew that is impossible.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps and Chelmno.

Mass graves are proven.

By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

Nessie, of the 100 alleged "scientifically proven huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II, how many have actually been proven to exist, currently contain at least an iota of human remains and that you can literally point to.

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

Please submit your answer here:

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=421

[Archie]

......

Archie, you regularly accuse me of repetition, when it is you would repeatedly make claims that I have to repeatedly counter. I make the counter, you go quiet, then you make the claim again.

I have written about the significance of consensus before and explained its importance. Fact is, there is a consensus that the Kremas have a lower residue than the delousing chambers, and no one can form a consensus as to why that is.

So-called revisionists, some of whom are aware that the flaws and limitations of the evidence from chemical testing, and know it is not enough to prove anything, then fail to form a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for. Historians, on the other hand, have an evidenced consensus as to what took place.

Please don't go quiet on this counter to your claim, deal with it.

As a rule, if I feel that I have already made my point adequately and would merely be reiterating what I have already said, I leave my earlier posts to stand and don't bother replying. Unnecessary replies clutter up the thread with no benefit. If the post is self-evidently idiotic (like yours above) I often won't bother replying since I trust intelligent readers to figure it out themselves.

The revisionists-can't-agree-and-are-therefore-wrong argument has been addressed. I linked to an entire thread debunking that foolishness. Nick wouldn't even back you up on that one. Plus, if I were to reply, you would just reply back, and it would never end. It's rather ridiculous to complain about people "going silent" on you when you refuse to give anyone else the last word. There's only one guy I can think of who would be willing to have an endless back-and-forth with you (Keen) and that's the one guy you refuse to talk to.

I have not used that can't agree, therefore they are wrong argument. I have argued that where there is no agreement, that is a sign that none of the suggestions are well enough evidenced, for a consensus to form. I am arguing about the quality and quantity of evidence. Rather than say and therefore they are wrong, it would be accurate to say and therefore they do not know.

As far as this thread is concerned, this is probably the worst possible topic you could have picked to use this argument in. You stepped on rake there. Your side is notoriously contradictory on this topic. It's because they are grasping at straws. They've just been floating different, contradictory arguments for over 35 years, hoping one will work. This is called working backwards from your conclusion.

Historians work forwards, gathering evidence, to find out what happened. Chemists have gathered evidence pertaining to the Kremas, but cannot agree, due to a lack of evidence. The evidence that is missing, is primarily experimental, such as exposing plaster covered brick work to HCN for 30 minutes, 2 or 3 times a day, for a period of about a year, to see what residue is left.

The result is that you are trying to come to a definitive conclusion, based on a lack of scientific evidence, that is contradicted by the historical evidence of usage.

Can you cite for me a single revisionist who disagrees with the idea that the LKs were morgues and were used for corpse storage?

[Nessie]

...

The result is that you are trying to come to a definitive conclusion, based on a lack of scientific evidence, that is contradicted by the historical evidence of usage.

Can you cite for me a single revisionist who disagrees with the idea that the LKs were morgues and were used for corpse storage?
[/quote]

Butz - air raid shelters
Crowell - showers
Mattogno - flips between showers, delousing, corpse stores and air raid shelters, without providing a chronology
Deniers on X - mostly delousing without noticing the support Rudolf and Leuchter have.

[Wetzelrad]

Can you cite for me a single revisionist who disagrees with the idea that the LKs were morgues and were used for corpse storage?

Butz - air raid shelters
Crowell - showers
Mattogno - flips between showers, delousing, corpse stores and air raid shelters, without providing a chronology
Deniers on X - mostly delousing without noticing the support Rudolf and Leuchter have.

Butz wrote "LK1 and LK2 were simple concrete morgues in which bodies were simply laid on the floor." (p.471)
Crowell wrote "no architectural drawing described these spaces as anything other than morgues." (p.171)
Mattogno as you admit refers to them as morgues but entertains the possibility of secondary functions like showers based on irrefutable documentation.
Users on X (like myself) refer to them as morgues, as that is the correct label taken from the construction plans.

You don't have a single example. Why are you on this website if you just lie constantly?

[Nessie]

Can you cite for me a single revisionist who disagrees with the idea that the LKs were morgues and were used for corpse storage?

Butz - air raid shelters
Crowell - showers
Mattogno - flips between showers, delousing, corpse stores and air raid shelters, without providing a chronology
Deniers on X - mostly delousing without noticing the support Rudolf and Leuchter have.

Butz wrote "LK1 and LK2 were simple concrete morgues in which bodies were simply laid on the floor." (p.471)
Crowell wrote "no architectural drawing described these spaces as anything other than morgues." (p.171)
Mattogno as you admit refers to them as morgues but entertains the possibility of secondary functions like showers based on irrefutable documentation.
Users on X (like myself) refer to them as morgues, as that is the correct label taken from the construction plans.

You don't have a single example. Why are you on this website if you just lie constantly?

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... -shelters/

"In 1997, Arthur Butz, a professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University and a Holocaust denier, claimed that Cremas/Gas Chambers 2 and 3 in Birkenau were “ideal for adaptation as air raid shelters…there was no better choice at Auschwitz.”

https://ihr.org/journal/v20n2p17_crowell-html

"The Basement Showers of Crematorium III
Samuel Crowell
Well before the Second World War ended, the claim that the Nazis lured their victims into gas chambers under the pretense that they were entering showers was widely reported in the press. This linkage of showers and gassing is probably one reason why Allied soldiers, finding naked bodies in the camps, simply assumed that these were gassing victims, although we now know that typhus victims were stripped after death in order to burn the clothing and destroy the typhus-bearing lice."

Like Mattogno, they are vague on chronology and they do flip flop between various uses.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Why are you [Nessie] on this website if you just lie constantly?

That is precisely the mission. To give some kind of contradiction — no matter how weak or transparently false — of anything and everything written here that debunks or weakens any part of the compulsory, legally protected, holyH narrative. The intention is to bury the facts in endless wrangling — what Archie just referred to as ‘clutter’

I'm surprised anyone still engages with her. Her role is similar to that of the tar-baby in the tales of Brer Rabbit.

[Archie]

Can you cite for me a single revisionist who disagrees with the idea that the LKs were morgues and were used for corpse storage?

Butz - air raid shelters
Crowell - showers
Mattogno - flips between showers, delousing, corpse stores and air raid shelters, without providing a chronology
Deniers on X - mostly delousing without noticing the support Rudolf and Leuchter have.

Okay, thank you for confirming that you have no clue what's going on. None of these authors satisfy my request. You have failed to produce even one example because there aren't any. You even tried to cheat by broadening the field to all X users which would include a bunch of clueless casuals and you failed to supply an example even from there.

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... -shelters/

"In 1997, Arthur Butz, a professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University and a Holocaust denier, claimed that Cremas/Gas Chambers 2 and 3 in Birkenau were “ideal for adaptation as air raid shelters…there was no better choice at Auschwitz.”

Your confusion (dishonesty?) here is that you are making the false assumption that the air raid shelter hypothesis would preclude any other usage. From Wilhelm Staeglich,

At that time, gas-tight doors were not uncommon, since every cellar had to double as an air raid shelter. The peepholes in these doors were a source of light and a means of observing the outside.

Note he says every cellar had to double as an air raid shelter, i.e., it would be a secondary usage.

Butz NEVER argued that the cellars were exclusively air raid shelters and your claim that he did is a distortion. He accepted that they were morgues, first and foremost.

https://ihr.org/journal/v20n2p17_crowell-html

"The Basement Showers of Crematorium III
Samuel Crowell
Well before the Second World War ended, the claim that the Nazis lured their victims into gas chambers under the pretense that they were entering showers was widely reported in the press. This linkage of showers and gassing is probably one reason why Allied soldiers, finding naked bodies in the camps, simply assumed that these were gassing victims, although we now know that typhus victims were stripped after death in order to burn the clothing and destroy the typhus-bearing lice."

Like Mattogno, they are vague on chronology and they do flip flop between various uses.

There were plans (not implemented) to add 100 hot water showers in the Kremas. There were 14 showerheads listed on an inventory for Krema III. Again, having a few showers somewhere in a large crematorium building does not mean corpses could not be stored in the cellars. False assumption on your part. Pressac assumed, with no proof, that the 14 showerheads were fake, but 14 fake showerheads to fool 2,000 gassing victims does not make much sense. The most rational conclusion is that these were real showers which again is not mutually exclusive with the morgue usage.

The whole air raid shelter debate has evidently sailed over your head. There was never any disagreement among revisionists over the fact that the cellars were morgues. The open question is over the secondary usages related to the gas-tight features for which there is not enough documentation to give a dispositive answer.

[Nessie]

Can you cite for me a single revisionist who disagrees with the idea that the LKs were morgues and were used for corpse storage?

Butz - air raid shelters
Crowell - showers
Mattogno - flips between showers, delousing, corpse stores and air raid shelters, without providing a chronology
Deniers on X - mostly delousing without noticing the support Rudolf and Leuchter have.

Okay, thank you for confirming that you have no clue what's going on. None of these authors satisfy my request. You have failed to produce even one example because there aren't any. You even tried to cheat by broadening the field to all X users which would include a bunch of clueless casuals and you failed to supply an example even from there.

So-called revisionists are proven to be inconsistent, with no consensus about usage.

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... -shelters/

"In 1997, Arthur Butz, a professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University and a Holocaust denier, claimed that Cremas/Gas Chambers 2 and 3 in Birkenau were “ideal for adaptation as air raid shelters…there was no better choice at Auschwitz.”

Your confusion (dishonesty?) here is that you are making the false assumption that the air raid shelter hypothesis would preclude any other usage.

No, I understand chronology. A Leichenkeller cannot be a shower, delousing chamber and corpse store at the same time. It could double as an air raid shelter, as it did when it was being used for gassings.

From Wilhelm Staeglich,

At that time, gas-tight doors were not uncommon, since every cellar had to double as an air raid shelter. The peepholes in these doors were a source of light and a means of observing the outside.

Note he says every cellar had to double as an air raid shelter, i.e., it would be a secondary usage.

Butz NEVER argued that the cellars were exclusively air raid shelters and your claim that he did is a distortion. He accepted that they were morgues, first and foremost.

But, he also argued air raid shelter and, crucially, he never produced a chronology of usage, with evidence to prove the use.

https://ihr.org/journal/v20n2p17_crowell-html

"The Basement Showers of Crematorium III
Samuel Crowell
Well before the Second World War ended, the claim that the Nazis lured their victims into gas chambers under the pretense that they were entering showers was widely reported in the press. This linkage of showers and gassing is probably one reason why Allied soldiers, finding naked bodies in the camps, simply assumed that these were gassing victims, although we now know that typhus victims were stripped after death in order to burn the clothing and destroy the typhus-bearing lice."

Like Mattogno, they are vague on chronology and they do flip flop between various uses.

There were plans (not implemented) to add 100 hot water showers in the Kremas. There were 14 showerheads listed on an inventory for Krema III. Again, having a few showers somewhere in a large crematorium building does not mean corpses could not be stored in the cellars. False assumption on your part. Pressac assumed, with no proof, that the 14 showerheads were fake, but 14 fake showerheads to fool 2,000 gassing victims does not make much sense. The most rational conclusion is that these were real showers which again is not mutually exclusive with the morgue usage.

You are struggling to produce a history for each building, so you fail at the primary task of any investigation.

The whole air raid shelter debate has evidently sailed over your head. There was never any disagreement among revisionists over the fact that the cellars were morgues. The open question is over the secondary usages related to the gas-tight features for which there is not enough documentation to give a dispositive answer.

You admit so-called revisionists cannot agree amongst themselves, as to what the Kremas were used for, hence they produce multiple suggestions and cannot reach a consensus, even over the most popular of corpse store. Though, if you spent time on X, you see the most popular is delousing chamber!

Historians, on the other hand, can produce dates, evidence and a chronological history.