Grok denies the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

[Nessie]

scale of the evidence.

There you have it gentlemen. The quality, veracity, accuracy, accountability, plausibility, or possibility of the claims don't matter; only their "scale" (ie how many times they get repeated).

Thank you Nessie, looks like i'm done with you here, and i'm sure i'll see you in a future thread.

By scale, I do not just mean volume, I also mean in terms of quality, veracity, accuracy, accountability, plausibility and possibility. Grok could only deny the gas chambers for so long, before it accepted they are evidenced and none of the other hypothesised uses of the Kremas are.

[Hektor]

....
-You can't explain why 10 air exchanges is incriminating
-You can't explain why the non-gas chamber rooms also have 10 air exchanges or why LK2 had a bigger ventilation fan than LK1

Schultze was correct in his statements about the air exchanges (which we can calculate independently) but the reality is that the ventilation system was designed and calibrated for use as a morgue. He spun it as being for the "gas chamber" only because that was the only interpretation his Russian interrogators would accept. That system was not designed for use as a Zyklon gas chamber. No chance.

For some strange reason exterminationists think that ventilation systems can only be used in homicidal gas chambers. They also ignore the enormous ventilation requirements a ventilation system would have, if it was indeed a homicidal gas chamber...

Well, obviously morgues will also need some ventilation system, even a good one.

That is a typical logically flawed argument. It is a straw man, a made up, false accusation. Indeed, it is a lie, as you know there is not one single historian who you can prove, who thinks that only gas chambers need ventilation systems.

Now that was a classic own goal. If they don't believe that "only gas chambers need ventilation systems",they still think that mentioning or pointing to the ventilation will persuade gullible folks into assuming exactly that. In other words the ventilation doesn't proof the exterminationist position at all, but exterminationists point to it, as they think others will believe that.

[Nessie]

For some strange reason exterminationists think that ventilation systems can only be used in homicidal gas chambers. They also ignore the enormous ventilation requirements a ventilation system would have, if it was indeed a homicidal gas chamber...

Well, obviously morgues will also need some ventilation system, even a good one.

That is a typical logically flawed argument. It is a straw man, a made up, false accusation. Indeed, it is a lie, as you know there is not one single historian who you can prove, who thinks that only gas chambers need ventilation systems.

Now that was a classic own goal. If they don't believe that "only gas chambers need ventilation systems",they still think that mentioning or pointing to the ventilation will persuade gullible folks into assuming exactly that. In other words the ventilation doesn't proof the exterminationist position at all, but exterminationists point to it, as they think others will believe that.

"They" do not exist. It is one of your straw man inventions. No historian thinks or uses the ventilation system as evidence to prove the Kremas were converted to use as gas chambers.

[Nessie]

[...]

A 10 ACH for the gas chambers, as described by Karl Schultze, the man who designed it, worked. I know that, because of all of the corroborating evidence it worked and was used to gas people, 1943-4.

You can illogically argue it was not possible, based on what ever calculations you want to make, or believe, all you want. Since it is evidenced and proven to have happened, then logically, it was possible. I call you a so-called revisionist, because you cannot evidentially revise what Krema II was used for, 1943-4. You cannot provide witnesses, documents or anything else to prove, say, it was used to store corpses, or for people to take a shower and provide dates and a chronology of use for the building. Instead, you attempt to revise the history, by denying gassings by arguing that you think they were impossible as described. That is not how history is revised.

Sadly, you will not learn, so you are doomed to keep on making the same, repeated mistake, time and time again. Grok, thankfully, is a smart and quick learner and should not make that mistake again.

You're still dodging.

...

It is you who is dodging;

1 - how is your incredulity about the ventilation system, evidence to prove no gassings took place?
2 - why are you fine with not being able to produce a revised history of the use of the Kremas 1943-4?

[Archie]

This is really an amazing comment.

[...]

A 10 ACH for the gas chambers, as described by Karl Schultze, the man who designed it, worked. I know that, because of all of the corroborating evidence it worked and was used to gas people, 1943-4.

You can illogically argue it was not possible, based on what ever calculations you want to make, or believe, all you want. Since it is evidenced and proven to have happened, then logically, it was possible. I call you a so-called revisionist, because you cannot evidentially revise what Krema II was used for, 1943-4. You cannot provide witnesses, documents or anything else to prove, say, it was used to store corpses, or for people to take a shower and provide dates and a chronology of use for the building. Instead, you attempt to revise the history, by denying gassings by arguing that you think they were impossible as described. That is not how history is revised.

Sadly, you will not learn, so you are doomed to keep on making the same, repeated mistake, time and time again. Grok, thankfully, is a smart and quick learner and should not make that mistake again.

You're still dodging.

The issue is, the we approach evidence, especially witness evidence, differently.

-You can't explain why 10 air exchanges is incriminating
-You can't explain why the non-gas chamber rooms also have 10 air exchanges or why LK2 had a bigger ventilation fan than LK1

You are looking for details, that you can puzzle over, to support your illogical argument from incredulity. That is why you need such explanations and when you don't get them, you feel vindicated.

I do not see 10 ACH as being incriminating, I merely see it as a detail, within far more important evidence, that of an important eyewitness, the engineer who designed the ventilation system. Unlike you, because I take into account how witnesses behave when recollecting, I don't need, or expect him, to be spot on accurate and have everything explainable. Schultze could say it wad 5 ACH, or 22, it does not matter, because, in 1946, he was recollecting, to the Soviets, what he remembered about a design from 1943. He may have just said what is the normal ACH for a corpse store, during his interview and then later thought, hold on, I was wrong, it was designed to be 15. So, what? The detail is not incriminating or essential, as I do not expect witnesses to be spot on and for everything to make sense to me.

So-called revisionists need his testimony to make sense, to you, before you are prepared to believe it and in the case of the mass killings during the Holocaust, you are biased and have decided not to believe anything. You apply an artificial test, that 100% of the eyewitnesses are designed to fail. You will never find an eyewitness, who worked inside a Krema, who you will believe.

Historians, journalists etc, need his testimony to be corroborated and, since they are not looking to support personal beliefs, and, crutially, they understand witnesses better than so-called revisionsts, they do not need the testimony to make perfect sense. They all know, since they have dealt with and learned about witnesses, they often don't make sense. That is absolutely normal. They do not need an explanation as to why the ACH was 10 times and the same in rooms adjacent to the gas chambers. What is important to them, is that a German engineer from Topf & Sons, who is proven to have been working on and been to the Kremas, states it had a gas chamber and he knew it was to be used on people.

Schultze was correct in his statements about the air exchanges (which we can calculate independently) but the reality is that the ventilation system was designed and calibrated for use as a morgue. He spun it as being for the "gas chamber" only because that was the only interpretation his Russian interrogators would accept. That system was not designed for use as a Zyklon gas chamber. No chance.

He did not spin it. He is corroborated, by an absolute ton of evidence, starting with 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas. He is also corroborated by documents that record the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas and the circumstantial evidence around their usage, 1943-4. You would not normally dismiss that level, consistency and amount of evidence. But, since you are really a Holocaust denier, you will on this occasion and you will keep on making the same mistakes about the witnesses, repeatedly.

Grok will not, or I hope it will not. I hope it will realise that Rudolf's tactic is to find excuses to dismiss Schultze as lying. If he cannot get Schultze for an unexpected ACH, then he will get him for being interrogated by the Soviets, likely ignoring he has already been interrogated by the Americans. Rudolf, remarkably, despite his access to Auschwitz and its archives, could not produce an evidenced, chronological history of what happened at the Kremas, 1943-4. Therefore, as an investigator, he fails.

Nessie has now conceded the entire issue, admitting that the ventilation is not incriminating, yet he continues to cite it like it's proof. He says we don't need to bother looking at the hard evidence--the technical documents, the calculations, the German literature on morgue ventilation. None of that matters. Mere "details"! It doesn't matter than the room labeled morgue on the blueprints and which is documented to have been used for corpse storage also had a ventilation system typical for a morgue. We can ignore all of this because the Topf engineers signed statements after the war saying it was a gas chamber. That settles it. That they were in Soviet custody and that the Soviet had already publicly committed themselves to the legend of the Auschwitz gas chambers is of no importance, according to Nessie. Because we all know that confessions made to Stalinist "investigative" commissions are notoriously reliable

[Stubble]

Another thing ignored is that this applies to 2 out of 6 claimed 'homicidal gas chambers' at the Auschwitz complexes (Auschwitz Main Camp and Auschwitz Birkenau).

The air exchange rate and argument about it are moot because it applies 33% of the alleged 'Homicidal Gas Chambers'...

/shrug

What gets trotted out is 'we know homicidal gassings happened, because they happened'...

It's rather circular, but, argument around them, for the exterminationists, always falls apart and ultimately appears to devolve into 'we know it happened because it happened'.

[Archie]

....
-You can't explain why 10 air exchanges is incriminating
-You can't explain why the non-gas chamber rooms also have 10 air exchanges or why LK2 had a bigger ventilation fan than LK1

Schultze was correct in his statements about the air exchanges (which we can calculate independently) but the reality is that the ventilation system was designed and calibrated for use as a morgue. He spun it as being for the "gas chamber" only because that was the only interpretation his Russian interrogators would accept. That system was not designed for use as a Zyklon gas chamber. No chance.

For some strange reason exterminationists think that ventilation systems can only be used in homicidal gas chambers. They also ignore the enormous ventilation requirements a ventilation system would have, if it was indeed a homicidal gas chamber...

Well, obviously morgues will also need some ventilation system, even a good one.

That is a typical logically flawed argument. It is a straw man, a made up, false accusation. Indeed, it is a lie, as you know there is not one single historian who you can prove, who thinks that only gas chambers need ventilation systems.

As a rule, H historians refuse to address technical points like ventilation. They don't pay attention to this sort of thing. The witnesses say there were gassings, so there were. End of discussion. No need to check any of it for technical plausibility.

Pressac is the exception here, and curiously, in his book, he pretty much concedes the ventilation was not designed for a homicidal gas chamber.

Among anti-revisionists (which is mostly an online thing) I have definitely heard people claim or strongly imply that ventilation is incriminating. Here in this thread you have finally and reluctantly admitted that a ventilation of 10 air exchanges per hour is not incriminating, but many of your prior comments have sure sounded like you were saying this was incriminating. How many times have you brought up the Topf engineers and the 10 air exchanges? I've lost count. I'm sure you will accuse me of "strawmanning" you and will claim you weren't arguing what it seems you were arguing, but at some point you it's on for failing to state your argument with adequate precision. (Really what is going on is that you are modifying your talking points after getting blown out of the water).

Here is one old comment of yours.

That pesky thing called evidence, which bizarrely deniers like to ignore, tells us, from the krema engineers themselves, plus documents found at the camp, that ventilation systems were installed. That is all we need to know. We do not need to know how they worked. Evidence beats opinion.

Another

Just because some revisionists, with no relevant expertise, think that an ACH of 10 is too low, does not make it so. That is the argument from incredulity. Fact is, an ACH of 10 will clear a well ventilated space of 99% + airborne contaminants in 35 minutes and the expert in the system, the witness Schultze, states that was enough, using the forced air ventilation he designed. Schultze is corroborated by other witnesses who worked at the Kremas, some of whom report still having to use gas masks when entering the chambers, so maybe the system did not work quite as well as he thought. But, evidentially, the ventilated gas chambers are proven to have operated, therefore revisionist doubts are moot.

I have heard various anti-revisionists cite the ventilation as proof. I recall that Myles Power guy emphasizing this in his videos. They do this because it's a technical point and they bank on the fact that most casual revisionists will not be prepared to respond to it.

[Nessie]

This is really an amazing comment.

You're still dodging.

The issue is, the we approach evidence, especially witness evidence, differently.

-You can't explain why 10 air exchanges is incriminating
-You can't explain why the non-gas chamber rooms also have 10 air exchanges or why LK2 had a bigger ventilation fan than LK1

You are looking for details, that you can puzzle over, to support your illogical argument from incredulity. That is why you need such explanations and when you don't get them, you feel vindicated.

I do not see 10 ACH as being incriminating, I merely see it as a detail, within far more important evidence, that of an important eyewitness, the engineer who designed the ventilation system. Unlike you, because I take into account how witnesses behave when recollecting, I don't need, or expect him, to be spot on accurate and have everything explainable. Schultze could say it wad 5 ACH, or 22, it does not matter, because, in 1946, he was recollecting, to the Soviets, what he remembered about a design from 1943. He may have just said what is the normal ACH for a corpse store, during his interview and then later thought, hold on, I was wrong, it was designed to be 15. So, what? The detail is not incriminating or essential, as I do not expect witnesses to be spot on and for everything to make sense to me.

So-called revisionists need his testimony to make sense, to you, before you are prepared to believe it and in the case of the mass killings during the Holocaust, you are biased and have decided not to believe anything. You apply an artificial test, that 100% of the eyewitnesses are designed to fail. You will never find an eyewitness, who worked inside a Krema, who you will believe.

Historians, journalists etc, need his testimony to be corroborated and, since they are not looking to support personal beliefs, and, crutially, they understand witnesses better than so-called revisionsts, they do not need the testimony to make perfect sense. They all know, since they have dealt with and learned about witnesses, they often don't make sense. That is absolutely normal. They do not need an explanation as to why the ACH was 10 times and the same in rooms adjacent to the gas chambers. What is important to them, is that a German engineer from Topf & Sons, who is proven to have been working on and been to the Kremas, states it had a gas chamber and he knew it was to be used on people.

Schultze was correct in his statements about the air exchanges (which we can calculate independently) but the reality is that the ventilation system was designed and calibrated for use as a morgue. He spun it as being for the "gas chamber" only because that was the only interpretation his Russian interrogators would accept. That system was not designed for use as a Zyklon gas chamber. No chance.

He did not spin it. He is corroborated, by an absolute ton of evidence, starting with 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas. He is also corroborated by documents that record the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas and the circumstantial evidence around their usage, 1943-4. You would not normally dismiss that level, consistency and amount of evidence. But, since you are really a Holocaust denier, you will on this occasion and you will keep on making the same mistakes about the witnesses, repeatedly.

Grok will not, or I hope it will not. I hope it will realise that Rudolf's tactic is to find excuses to dismiss Schultze as lying. If he cannot get Schultze for an unexpected ACH, then he will get him for being interrogated by the Soviets, likely ignoring he has already been interrogated by the Americans. Rudolf, remarkably, despite his access to Auschwitz and its archives, could not produce an evidenced, chronological history of what happened at the Kremas, 1943-4. Therefore, as an investigator, he fails.

Nessie has now conceded the entire issue, admitting that the ventilation is not incriminating, yet he continues to cite it like it's proof.

No, I do not. I have clearly stated it is a detail, that is part of eyewitness testimony.

He says we don't need to bother looking at the hard evidence--the technical documents, the calculations, the German literature on morgue ventilation. None of that matters.

Again, you are wrong. Of course you need to look at the "hard evidence". Witnesses claim the gas chambers had a ventilation system, so is there evidence to corroborate that? The answer is yes, there is.

The technicalities of how the system worked, is not evidentially important.

Mere "details"! It doesn't matter than the room labeled morgue on the blueprints and which is documented to have been used for corpse storage also had a ventilation system typical for a morgue.

It does matter! How often are you going to straw man? Of course there has to be an explanation as to why a room labelled morgue on a blueprint, ended up being used as a gas chamber and even more importantly, its use as a gas chamber has to be evidenced.

You say it was "documented to have been used for corpse storage", which suggests there is evidence corpses were being stored there, 1943-4. That is wrong. You have no such evidence, and the actual evidence, is the usage was gas chamber.

We can ignore all of this..

Sorry, but you come over as petulant. We cannot ignore the issues you raise. The problem is, the way you investigate the issues is wrong.

... because the Topf engineers signed statements after the war saying it was a gas chamber. That settles it.

Again, wrong, that is a misrepresentation! It is because the SS camp staff, the Topf & Sons engineers and Jewish Sonderkommandos, who are corroborated by documentary, physical and circumstantial evidence, said it was a gas chamber, that settles it.

That they were in Soviet custody and that the Soviet had already publicly committed themselves to the legend of the Auschwitz gas chambers is of no importance, according to Nessie. Because we all know that confessions made to Stalinist "investigative" commissions are notoriously reliable

The Topf & Sons engineers were originally arrested by the Americans. It was the Polish who did more to publicise and commit to the use of gas chambers, than the Soviets. Stalin was not in the slightest bit interested in Jewish suffering.

What you ignore is that it did not matter who confessions were made to, whether that was a Swedish diplomat, a Dutch Nazi, British interrogators, journalists during secretly taped interviews, Nazis admitted to mass murders taking place.

There is overwhelming corroborating evidence to prove mass murder, by shooting and gassing, and you use a deeply flawed, biased, unique to the Holocaust, way of assessing the evidence.

[Nessie]

Another thing ignored is that this applies to 2 out of 6 claimed 'homicidal gas chambers' at the Auschwitz complexes (Auschwitz Main Camp and Auschwitz Birkenau).

The air exchange rate and argument about it are moot because it applies 33% of the alleged 'Homicidal Gas Chambers'...

/shrug

What gets trotted out is 'we know homicidal gassings happened, because they happened'...

It's rather circular, but, argument around them, for the exterminationists, always falls apart and ultimately appears to devolve into 'we know it happened because it happened'.

Another misrepresentation. We know it happened, because it is evidenced to have happened.

[Nessie]

For some strange reason exterminationists think that ventilation systems can only be used in homicidal gas chambers. They also ignore the enormous ventilation requirements a ventilation system would have, if it was indeed a homicidal gas chamber...

Well, obviously morgues will also need some ventilation system, even a good one.

That is a typical logically flawed argument. It is a straw man, a made up, false accusation. Indeed, it is a lie, as you know there is not one single historian who you can prove, who thinks that only gas chambers need ventilation systems.

As a rule, H historians refuse to address technical points like ventilation. They don't pay attention to this sort of thing. The witnesses say there were gassings, so there were. End of discussion. No need to check any of it for technical plausibility.

Again, you are wrong. Technical possibility is important. German engineering in the 1940s, was technically capable of designing and building a ventilated gas chamber.

Pressac is the exception here, and curiously, in his book, he pretty much concedes the ventilation was not designed for a homicidal gas chamber.

He is different from historians, in that he is more interested in the technical details and working out how the gas chambers functioned.

Among anti-revisionists (which is mostly an online thing) I have definitely heard people claim or strongly imply that ventilation is incriminating. Here in this thread you have finally and reluctantly admitted that a ventilation of 10 air exchanges per hour is not incriminating, but many of your prior comments have sure sounded like you were saying this was incriminating. How many times have you brought up the Topf engineers and the 10 air exchanges? I've lost count. I'm sure you will accuse me of "strawmanning" you and will claim you weren't arguing what it seems you were arguing, but at some point you it's on for failing to state your argument with adequate precision. (Really what is going on is that you are modifying your talking points after getting blown out of the water).

That just shows, you do not understand my explanations about evidencing. I have never said that the ventilation system, at 10 ACH, is incriminating and evidences gassings. As for people online implying it does evidence gassings, I would suggest that those are comments in response to what I have seen from deniers online, who have claimed there was no ventilation. They get corrected and shown evidence of the ventilation system.

Here is one old comment of yours.

That pesky thing called evidence, which bizarrely deniers like to ignore, tells us, from the krema engineers themselves, plus documents found at the camp, that ventilation systems were installed. That is all we need to know. We do not need to know how they worked. Evidence beats opinion.

The context there, is that there is corroborating evidence, from the engineers and documents, that they ventilated the gas chambers.

Another

Just because some revisionists, with no relevant expertise, think that an ACH of 10 is too low, does not make it so. That is the argument from incredulity. Fact is, an ACH of 10 will clear a well ventilated space of 99% + airborne contaminants in 35 minutes and the expert in the system, the witness Schultze, states that was enough, using the forced air ventilation he designed. Schultze is corroborated by other witnesses who worked at the Kremas, some of whom report still having to use gas masks when entering the chambers, so maybe the system did not work quite as well as he thought. But, evidentially, the ventilated gas chambers are proven to have operated, therefore revisionist doubts are moot.

I am not arguing that the evidence of ventilation, is proof of gassings. I am arguing that just because you do not believe the ventilation system, as described by the German engineer who installed it could work, does not evidence there was no gas chamber.

I have heard various anti-revisionists cite the ventilation as proof. I recall that Myles Power guy emphasizing this in his videos. They do this because it's a technical point and they bank on the fact that most casual revisionists will not be prepared to respond to it.

I do not believe that anyone has claimed ventilation is proof, since it is such a ridiculous claim to make. You have persistently misrepresented, straw manned what I have said and based on that, I say you are misrepresenting what "that Myles Power guy" said.