How do you know what the Krema walls looked like?

[Nessie]

Only Krema I is intact, but it was heavily modified in 1944, to be used as an air raid shelter. It was clearly painted and had plaster repairs, since it was converted back to show the Leichenkeller.

I agree it's been repaired, but where was it painted? Can you point to where in the picture you think these hypothetical blue stains were covered up?

You can see black and white paint on the far and right hand wall. The black paint is lower down the wall. Clearly the walls, which are partly exposed brick, unpainted and painted plaster, have been worked on. My point is that some of the plaster may have started to show signs of Prussian blue, when the room was used for gassings.

[fireofice]

You fill many gaps with hypothesis. Indeed, your entire history of the Holocaust, is one big gap, where you cannot evidence what happened to millions of Jews in 1944 and 1945.

You don't fill it with nonsense, which is what the holocaust is. Even if we haven't "evidenced what happened to them" we can evidence what didn't happen to them: being holocausted. Your hypothesis will have to take the well evidenced fact that they weren't holocausted into account.

[Nessie]

...

The Soviets are understood to have demolished one wall too many in Krema 1, as indicated here

It was the Poles, not the Soviets. Poland and the SU were two different countries after 1945. The Poles were in charge of preservation of A-B.

For Nessie's """""theory""""" to hold, and since this wall would have been directly exposed to HcN, this means the Soviets in demolishing this wall either encountered blue staining, or didn't. Nessie must now explain to us for his theory to hold, why the Allies obfuscated or otherwise interfered with the only evidence to substantiate his """"""""theory"""""""""

Three of the four walls of the Leichenkeller are left and none appear to show any signs of Prussian blue. Because it was demolished, we will not know if it was showing on that wall. The existing walls have tested positive for exposure to HCN.

You still cannot counter my point that it is not possible to claim, with any certainty, that no wall, of Kremas I to V, or the bunker/farmhouse gas chambers, ever showed any sign of Prussian blue.

[Nessie]

You fill many gaps with hypothesis. Indeed, your entire history of the Holocaust, is one big gap, where you cannot evidence what happened to millions of Jews in 1944 and 1945.

You don't fill it with nonsense, which is what the holocaust is. Even if we haven't "evidenced what happened to them" we can evidence what didn't happen to them: being holocausted. Your hypothesis will have to take the well evidenced fact that they weren't holocausted into account.

You cannot evidence what did not happen. You are presenting argument as if it is evidence. To evidence the Kremas were never used as gas chambers, you need witnesses, documents, forensics etc, to prove they were not used for gassings. You have no such evidence. Instead, you argue the witnesses all lied, that documents referring to the construction of gas chambers do not mean gas chambers were constructed and then you all fall apart trying to argue what the actual usage was.

[HansHill]

You still cannot counter my point that...

Welcome back Nessie

[Wetzelrad]

You can see black and white paint on the far and right hand wall. The black paint is lower down the wall. Clearly the walls, which are partly exposed brick, unpainted and painted plaster, have been worked on. My point is that some of the plaster may have started to show signs of Prussian blue, when the room was used for gassings.

That hypothesis doesn't make sense. The black paint or whatever it is makes a narrow band around walls. There is no reason Prussian Blue would form only in that band. Nor is there any sign of blue through the heavily chipped paint.

photo of Auschwitz I gas chamber doorways, 2011.jpg (297.71 KiB) Viewed 62 times

The black band actually ends in all the places where the Germans and the Soviets modified the room, which indicates its age. Therefore the paint may predate 1939.

But let's say you're right. If the Museum was willing to destroy walls and carve out holes and a new doorway, very substantial changes to the building, why wouldn't they remove the bit of paint or plaster hiding these blue stains? In more recent times, why wouldn't someone with the museum point out that the Nazis covered up these blue stains to hide their homicidal use? Why wouldn't Markiewicz or some other scientist find them to easily destroy Leuchter and Rudolf and everyone else who has argued on the basis that there are no blue stains there?

"Holocaust of the Gaps" is accurate. We are looking at a building which is not stained blue, for which numerous experts have justified their exclusion of testing for Prussian Blue, yet you're convinced it could be there. How did this invisible Prussian Blue escape everyone but you?

[Nessie]

You can see black and white paint on the far and right hand wall. The black paint is lower down the wall. Clearly the walls, which are partly exposed brick, unpainted and painted plaster, have been worked on. My point is that some of the plaster may have started to show signs of Prussian blue, when the room was used for gassings.

That hypothesis doesn't make sense. The black paint or whatever it is makes a narrow band around walls. There is no reason Prussian Blue would form only in that band.

This photo of the Majdanek chamber shows it can form in a band round the bottom of a wall, leaving further up clear.

Nor is there any sign of blue through the heavily chipped paint.

True, but maybe only faint signs ever appeared.

photo of Auschwitz I gas chamber doorways, 2011.jpg


The black band actually ends in all the places where the Germans and the Soviets modified the room, which indicates its age. Therefore the paint may predate 1939.

Maybe the black paint means no Prussian blue will be obvious?

But let's say you're right. If the Museum was willing to destroy walls and carve out holes and a new doorway, very substantial changes to the building, why wouldn't they remove the bit of paint or plaster hiding these blue stains? In more recent times, why wouldn't someone with the museum point out that the Nazis covered up these blue stains to hide their homicidal use? Why wouldn't Markiewicz or some other scientist find them to easily destroy Leuchter and Rudolf and everyone else who has argued on the basis that there are no blue stains there?

"Holocaust of the Gaps" is accurate. We are looking at a building which is not stained blue, for which numerous experts have justified their exclusion of testing for Prussian Blue, yet you're convinced it could be there. How did this invisible Prussian Blue escape everyone but you?

How do you know, that at no time, did even the faintest traces of Prussian blue start to form on any part of the Krema I Leichenkeller wall, that, because the traces were faint and because of all the modifications, is now no longer visible at all?

The answer is you do not know. There are gaps in our knowledge, that you cannot fill, but claim to be able to, as you try to argue the buildings were never used for gassings. You argue, because you cannot evidence usage.

[Wetzelrad]

This photo of the Majdanek chamber shows it can form in a band round the bottom of a wall, leaving further up clear.

Don't be dishonest about this. You know those stains follow the pipe, either because what was in the pipe facilitated the reaction or because the plaster along the pipe was more conducive to PB formation. HCN doesn't just randomly create stripes.

How do you know, that at no time, did even the faintest traces of Prussian blue start to form on any part of the Krema I Leichenkeller wall, that, because the traces were faint and because of all the modifications, is now no longer visible at all?

The answer is you do not know. There are gaps in our knowledge, that you cannot fill, but claim to be able to, as you try to argue the buildings were never used for gassings. You argue, because you cannot evidence usage.

We live in reality. As such we should concern ourselves only with things that are real, like those things which can be observed. Perhaps you are a mythological creature unconcerned with such things.

It is not me that argues from absence. The Holocaust's strongest defenders, including chemical experts, have chosen to argue that there is no PB in Krema I, giving a litany of reasons why it doesn't need to be present. Are all of these experts wrong, and you right? It wouldn't bother me at all.

[Wetzelrad]

Maybe the black paint means no Prussian blue will be obvious?

This is a multilevel hypothetical.

Maybe the paint was applied some time after gassings but before the room was converted to an air raid shelter.
Maybe the Prussian Blue formed but only in a very narrow band along some of the walls in a way that is not obvious.
Maybe the paint also obscures that Prussian Blue enough that no one can see it today.
And maybe, despite being chipped all over, it chipped in just the right spots not to expose the blue underneath.

The conventional understanding seems rather more likely, doesn't it?

[Nessie]

This photo of the Majdanek chamber shows it can form in a band round the bottom of a wall, leaving further up clear.

Don't be dishonest about this. You know those stains follow the pipe, either because what was in the pipe facilitated the reaction or because the plaster along the pipe was more conducive to PB formation. HCN doesn't just randomly create stripes.

Its formation is not even and consistent. Hence, the small part of Krema II that can be accessed, apparently not exhibiting staining, is not evidence to prove there was no staining there. You are hypothesising why there is staining lower down on that wall.

How do you know, that at no time, did even the faintest traces of Prussian blue start to form on any part of the Krema I Leichenkeller wall, that, because the traces were faint and because of all the modifications, is now no longer visible at all?

The answer is you do not know. There are gaps in our knowledge, that you cannot fill, but claim to be able to, as you try to argue the buildings were never used for gassings. You argue, because you cannot evidence usage.

We live in reality. As such we should concern ourselves only with things that are real, like those things which can be observed. Perhaps you are a mythological creature unconcerned with such things.

You are unconcerned about the complete lack of evidence of millions of Jews, arrested by the Nazis, 1939-44, being kept in camps and ghettos in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

It is not me that argues from absence. The Holocaust's strongest defenders, including chemical experts, have chosen to argue that there is no PB in Krema I, giving a litany of reasons why it doesn't need to be present. Are all of these experts wrong, and you right? It wouldn't bother me at all.

The point is that you rely on argument, rather than evidence. You cannot evidence usage of Krema I in 1941-2, or Kremas II to V in 1943-4. You argue they were not used for homicidal gassings.

[Nessie]

Maybe the black paint means no Prussian blue will be obvious?

This is a multilevel hypothetical.

Maybe the paint was applied some time after gassings but before the room was converted to an air raid shelter.
Maybe the Prussian Blue formed but only in a very narrow band along some of the walls in a way that is not obvious.
Maybe the paint also obscures that Prussian Blue enough that no one can see it today.
And maybe, despite being chipped all over, it chipped in just the right spots not to expose the blue underneath.

The conventional understanding seems rather more likely, doesn't it?

There are many reasons why there are no obvious signs of Prussian blue staining in the rooms evidenced to have been used for gassings. Number 1 is Nazi destruction or modification of those rooms. Those reasons provide reasonable doubt about Rudolf and Leuchter's claims that those places cannot have been used for gassings.

The evidence is that they were used for gassings.

[Archie]

This whole thread is textbook "Holocaust of the gaps."

You fill many gaps with hypothesis. Indeed, your entire history of the Holocaust, is one big gap, where you cannot evidence what happened to millions of Jews in 1944 and 1945.

"Maybe there was imaginary Prussian blue on the walls that have been destroyed. So let's assume there was."

Strawman misrepresentation. You do not want to admit that I may well be correct, and that Prussian blue did start to form on the walls of one, or more of the gas chambers.

He also seems to think Krema II and III were completely vaporized? No idea where he got this completely wrong idea.

Another misrepresentation. The Leichenkeller of Krema II has very limited access and there is no access for Krema III, to see inside and what the walls looked like.

You have claimed many times that conclusions should be based only on pure "evidence" and that arguments and chains of reasoning should NOT be employed.

Here is you from less than two weeks ago.

Pressac did not use inference, or argument. He used evidence.

Nessie, do you realize that when you say this sort of thing that you sound like a complete fool? But thank you for exposing your grotesque ignorance so that readers know to discount all of your opinions.

Everyone uses "inference" and "argument."
"Argument" and "evidence" are not mutually exclusive.

Arguments are necessary for interpreting and giving meaning to the available data. In a situation where the evidence is so obvious that it speaks for itself, perhaps you could say that argument would be so trivial that it goes without saying, but that's obviously not the situation we are in here. Moreover, you are completely distorting Pressac who cautions against exactly what you are doing which is being too hasty in assuming that e.g. Vergasungskeller must refer to a homicidal gas chamber. Pressac calls all these things TRACES because he acknowledges that there must be some interpretation to arrive at the final conclusion. To say he presents pure evidence and makes no arguments is just idiotic.

Yet here in this thread, we see Mr. Evidence himself trying to say we should assume there was imaginary Prussian blue. Lol.

Revisionists look at hard evidence. Nessie relies on his own baseless speculations.

[Nessie]

This whole thread is textbook "Holocaust of the gaps."

You fill many gaps with hypothesis. Indeed, your entire history of the Holocaust, is one big gap, where you cannot evidence what happened to millions of Jews in 1944 and 1945.

"Maybe there was imaginary Prussian blue on the walls that have been destroyed. So let's assume there was."

Strawman misrepresentation. You do not want to admit that I may well be correct, and that Prussian blue did start to form on the walls of one, or more of the gas chambers.

He also seems to think Krema II and III were completely vaporized? No idea where he got this completely wrong idea.

Another misrepresentation. The Leichenkeller of Krema II has very limited access and there is no access for Krema III, to see inside and what the walls looked like.

You have claimed many times that conclusions should be based only on pure "evidence" and that arguments and chains of reasoning should NOT be employed.

Here is you from less than two weeks ago.

Pressac did not use inference, or argument. He used evidence.

Nessie, do you realize that when you say this sort of thing that you sound like a complete fool? But thank you for exposing your grotesque ignorance so that readers know to discount all of your opinions.

You have quote mined to produce a distorted strawman version of my argument. I have never said that argument and reason should NOT be employed. Instead, I argue they should not be used in place of evidence, but you cannot cope with that, so you produce your strawman distortion.

When just over a hundred witnesses say that the various Kremas and some other buildings were used for homicidal gassings, there is no need for interpretation or reasoning. When camp construction office documents record the construction of undressing rooms, gas chambers and multiple corpse cremation ovens inside the Kremas, then there is minimal interpretation and reasoning needed, to determine what was happening. The circumstantial evidence of mass transports, arrivals, selections and theft and sorting of property needs more interpretation and reasoning. The forensic evidence needs the most interpretation and reasoning, since it produces a counterintuative result, ie, low residues of the use of Zyklon B.

Pressac saw the evidence and he realised it barely needed any reasoning or intepretation, hence his switch from gassing sceptic to believer.

Everyone uses "inference" and "argument."
"Argument" and "evidence" are not mutually exclusive.

Because you cannot evidence what happened, and you have very little evidence to support your beliefs, you have to apply a lot of inference and argument, to reach your conclusion of no gassings. Hence, you want to emphasise inference and argument, as if you can infer and argue no gas chambers, rather than evidence no gas chambers.

Arguments are necessary for interpreting and giving meaning to the available data. In a situation where the evidence is so obvious that it speaks for itself, perhaps you could say that argument would be so trivial that it goes without saying, but that's obviously not the situation we are in here.

Yes it is, since 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas state they were used for gassings and they are corroborated by documentary, forensic and circumstantial evidence. You have zero eyewitness evidence and you cannot agree with your fellow so-called revisionists as to what did happen inside the Kremas.

Moreover, you are completely distorting Pressac who cautions against exactly what you are doing which is being too hasty in assuming that e.g. Vergasungskeller must refer to a homicidal gas chamber. Pressac calls all these things TRACES because he acknowledges that there must be some interpretation to arrive at the final conclusion. To say he presents pure evidence and makes no arguments is just idiotic.

Yet here in this thread, we see Mr. Evidence himself trying to say we should assume there was imaginary Prussian blue. Lol.

Revisionists look at hard evidence. Nessie relies on his own baseless speculations.

On its own, a document recording a Vergasungskeller, evidences something was likely gassed, but EVIDENCE, rather than argument or reasoning, will most reliably determine if gassings took place and what was gassed. One document is a trace. Many documents, along with a lot of witnesses and circumstantial evidence, is a case. Historians can evidence a case for gassings. So-called revisionists cannot evidence a case for something else taking place. That is why you need to emphasise the use of interpretation and reasoning.

I have not said that you should assume there was Prussian blue, that is yet another strawman from you. I am saying that you cannot rule out that in the multiple rooms where gassings are evidenced to have taken place, Prussian blue never started to form, even faintly, somewhere in that room.

[HansHill]

I have not said that you should assume there was Prussian blue, that is yet another strawman from you. I am saying that you cannot rule out that in the multiple rooms where gassings are evidenced to have taken place, Prussian blue never started to form, even faintly, somewhere in that room.

*claimed.

Fixed that for you. But anyway - if there was indeed Prussian Blue on the inside of those walls at Krema I, it would have been seen when the post-war renovations were carried out.

You cannot reconcile this little doozey in your theory. Additionally, what it this fetishization of "accessing" Krema II? The bricks are still there genius, go nuts.

[Archie]

I have never said that argument and reason should NOT be employed. Instead, I argue they should not be used in place of evidence, but you cannot cope with that, so you produce your strawman distortion.

Literally what you are doing in this thread.

Nessie, I would suggest that you abandon this dog of an argument. You tried something new. It's didn't work out. It happens. Time to move on. There's a reason that nobody else on your side makes this argument. The more typical approach is to give excuses for why there is no Prussian blue. If you argue that there might have been Prussian blue, that is not only highly dubious, you are implicitly admitting that lack of Prussian blue would be a problem.