Junk Folder for Derails

[Nessie]

"on their own"

Wrong.

No residues, plus no holes, plus no Kula Columns, plus impossible throughput, plus impossible cremation rates = very bad news for Nessie.

My condolences.

There is evidence of holes from photos of the roof, eyewitnesses and in the physical remains and for the Kula columns from eyewitnesses and a document.

That you think the process was impossible, is the argument from incredulity.

There are various explanations as to why the residue, where it can be measured, is lower than the delousing chambers. The only way to prove which chemist is correct, is to look for evidence of usage. The evidence is that the chambers were used for homicidal gassings. So-called revisionists fall apart into total disagreement, when they try to revise that history.

[Archie]

"on their own"

Wrong.

No residues, plus no holes, plus no Kula Columns, plus impossible throughput, plus impossible cremation rates = very bad news for Nessie.

My condolences.

There is evidence of holes from photos of the roof, eyewitnesses and in the physical remains and for the Kula columns from eyewitnesses and a document.

That you think the process was impossible, is the argument from incredulity.

There are various explanations as to why the residue, where it can be measured, is lower than the delousing chambers. The only way to prove which chemist is correct, is to look for evidence of usage. The evidence is that the chambers were used for homicidal gassings. So-called revisionists fall apart into total disagreement, when they try to revise that history.

Nessie, stop posting in the chemistry threads if you don't have anything to add about the chemical evidence.

If you want to believe in the Holocaust despite the chemical evidence on the basis of other evidence that you feel is stronger, that is okay, but you can make those points in the appropriate threads.

[Nessie]

There is a fitness YouTuber who is always bragging about his PhD. A critic found his dissertation and went through it and did an hour long demolition of it. Many people don't realize how much "PhD level" work is absolute dogshit. Academics talk about their "peer review," but the reality is that there is often little quality control because NOBODY READS THIS STUFF, including seemingly the doctoral advisors and the dissertation committees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elLI9PRn1gQ

From the comments,

That applies to certain supposedly qualified Holocaust revisionists.

[Keen]

Kola reported finding what he called a waxy fat mass at the bottom of the boreholes.

Kola alleged that he found fat at the bottom of the alleged "huge mass graves."

The boreholes also prove that the graves are a combination of such decomposed corpses and cremated remains.

"Proves"???



Nessie,

List all of the Belzec graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 2 human beings: __?__.

Now let's watch Nessie RUN!

[Keen]

Kolas finds corroborate the pyres, because of the large areas of disturbed ground contained ash and cremated remains. Of course, it is not as much as you think it should be, but you are programmed to disbelieve. I would just point out that it one of the largest mass grave sites ever found.

An unsubstantiated allegation does not corroborate anything.

the large areas of disturbed ground contained ash and cremated remains.

The alleged disturbed ground allegedly contained cremated remains.

When is someone going to show us the proof that Kola actually discovered what he alleged he discovered?

[Keen]

Grave 11 consists of only ONE positive borehole which Kola extrapolated to a 9x5x1.9 grave (80 cu meters). Implicitly, we are being asked to assume this grave once had over 1,600 bodies in it.

About this alleged "ONE positive borehole" in alleged "grave #11."

Would you show us the evidence that has led you to believe that "grave #11" even exists?

Would you show us the evidence that has let you to believe that there actually was a "positive borehole" taken out of alleged "grave #11"?

[Nessie]

Kola's borehole study is the evidence. Pretending it is not evidence, is merely to deflect from the complete lack of evidence that comes from the so-called revisionist side. Denying that Kola's study and report is evidence, is why so-called revisionism is really denial.

[Keen]

Kola's borehole study is the evidence. Pretending it is not evidence, is merely to deflect from the complete lack of evidence that comes from the so-called revisionist side. Denying that Kola's study and report is evidence, is why so-called revisionism is really denial.

The freak Roberto Muehlenkamp:

As I learned from Yoram Haimi of the Sobibor Archaeological Project, the reason why Prof. Kola has not yet published a detailed and illustrated report about his 2001 findings is that he wasn’t paid by the Polish government entity that commissioned his work in 2001. So Prof. Kola is sitting on his findings, so to say, until this problem is solved – which I hope will happen in a near future.

Kola alleged that he discovered 40 "huge mass graves" at Belzec (33) and Sobibor (7).

1 - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; If 40 mass graves contained the bones and teeth of 850,000 people - then each grave would contain, on average, the remains of 21,250 people - ??

2 - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; 21,250 x 32 = 680,000 - ??

3 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within Kola's 40 alleged Belzec & Sobibor mass graves: _?_.

4 - Of the 40 Belzec & Sobibor "huge mass graves" allegedly discovered by Kola; list all of the ones that you can conclusively prove actually exist and currently contain at least an iota of human remains: _?_.

5 - Of the 40 Belzec & Sobibor "huge mass graves" allegedly discovered by Kola; list all of the ones that you can conclusively prove actually exist and currently contain the remains of at least 2 human beings: _?_.

6 - Of the 40 Belzec & Sobibor "huge mass graves" allegedly discovered by Kola; list all of the ones that you can conclusively prove actually exist and currently contain the remains of at least 22 human beings: _?_.

7 - Of the 40 Belzec & Sobibor "huge mass graves" allegedly discovered by Kola; the one that you can conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: _?_.

Now let's watch Nessie run!

[Nessie]

....

Now let's watch Nessie run!

You are the one who runs from debate. Instead, you want me to answer your questions, no matter how vacuous they are, abuse and bully. Debate me, you coward.

[TlsMS93]

Kola's borehole study is the evidence.

That has not been peer reviewed.

[Archie]

Kola reported finding what he called a waxy fat mass at the bottom of the boreholes.

Kola alleged that he found fat at the bottom of the alleged "huge mass graves."

The boreholes also prove that the graves are a combination of such decomposed corpses and cremated remains.

"Proves"???



Nessie,

List all of the Belzec graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 2 human beings: __?__.

Now let's watch Nessie RUN!

Keen,

Do not bump threads with mere repetitions of prior points.

Do not post multiple times in succession for emphasis.

If people don't want to talk to you, do not continue to pester them.

[Nessie]

Cherry picking and ignoring evidence, is a major investigatory flaw, amongst so-called revisionists. Evidence cannot be correctly analysed, by ignoring much of it. To conclude the Kremas were not used for gassings, purely on some scientific opinion, whilst ignoring all the corroborating evidence as to actual usage, is unscientific. The science of gassings, was different to that of delousing, in terms of levels and time of exposure, plus other factors such as weathering apply. To expect gassings and delousing to produce the same result, in terms of residue left, when the process was different, is clearly wrong.

[ConfusedJew]

Cherry picking and ignoring evidence, is a major investigatory flaw, amongst so-called revisionists. Evidence cannot be correctly analysed, by ignoring much of it. To conclude the Kremas were not used for gassings, purely on some scientific opinion, whilst ignoring all the corroborating evidence as to actual usage, is unscientific. The science of gassings, was different to that of delousing, in terms of levels and time of exposure, plus other factors such as weathering apply. To expect gassings and delousing to produce the same result, in terms of residue left, when the process was different, is clearly wrong.

Yes this is it exactly. I see the evidence, I am just looking at the whole thing and the evidence in favor outweighs the cherrypicked blemishes like 1,000,000. Some of the shit that they say is factually inaccurate, although less than most people would think. The issue is that it is 99.9% misleading or misrepresented or exaggerated.

[Nessie]

Its hilarious that the most recent exchange is between two people who:

Person A) refuses to read the material and
Person B) has admitted he doesn't understand the science behind it

Everyone else in the thread has commented adeptly, and demonstrated adequate understanding of the material in question.

You don't understand the science, and you are wrong. Despite what you think, gassings in chambers, most of which were then destroyed, does not leave Prussian blue staining, that we know of and it leaves lower levels of residue, than delousing. The evidence of usage, of both gas and delousing chambers, proves that residues are lower in the former.

[Nessie]

You don't understand the science, and you are wrong. Despite what you think, gassings in chambers, most of which were then destroyed, does not leave Prussian blue staining, that we know of and it leaves lower levels of residue, than delousing. The evidence of usage, of both gas and delousing chambers, proves that residues are lower in the former.

Dr Green and Mr Rudolf do an excellent job of explaining their positions just fine, Nessie. If you notice a mistake in any of my posts, please be specific, address it, and correct me.

**Edit** I'm actually going to report this post, because he said that I'm wrong about something. As per the forum rules, I am requesting that Nessie explains to the best of his ability (!) what part specifically of my post is wrong. If he cannot do so, i suggest his input from any chemistry threads is removed.

I explained where and how you went wrong, but my post has been removed.