More remedial education for Nessie

[Archie]

Replying to this here.

[...]

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?

Re: #1

The ventilation system being obviously for a morgue and not for a gas chamber suggests the room was not used for homicidal gassings, and that conclusion is bolstered by much additional data.

First of all, let's restate the actual arguments, not your distortions.

-LK1 had a ventilation system calibrated for 10 air exchanges per hour (under normal conditions). We know this because the documentation has survived.
-German technical literature at the time recommended ventilation for morgues of 5 air exchanges, or 10 air exchanges for intensive use (which certainly applied at Auschwitz).
-German technical literature at the time recommended ventilation for a Zyklon B gas chamber of 72 air exchanges.
-The ventilation for LK1 was similar to that of the other rooms in the crematorium which are not alleged to have been used for gassings.
-Many additional related points, see these threads for more
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=162
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=157
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=134
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=315

You are free to disagree with me, but you cannot dismiss my arguments simply by muttering "argument from incredulity." THAT is actually fallacious because you are dismissing my arguments without addressing them in any way.

Let me help you out here a little bit. Here are some actual valid ways you could try to counter these points.

-Review the German technical literature and to see if you can challenge the 5-10 exchanges for morgues and 72 exchanges for gas chambers.
-Attempt to make the technical argument that the recommended 72 exchanges is overly conservative and that in practice 10 exchanges would be sufficient for the job. You claimed earlier 10 exchanges would clear all the gas in 30 minutes, but you relied on random HVAC webpages which assume normal use and you failed to account for the room being full of bodies, the exhaust being blocked, the short circuit, etc.
-Reconcile whatever your estimate is for ventilation time (30 minutes is obviously wrong) with the testimonies such as that of Hoess who claims they went in immediately without gas masks.

There's also the other argument you have made, that because we have witness testimony to gassings, we know it gassings happened, and so we don't need to worry about technical points. The problem with this argument is that you are assuming that the testimonies are accurate and reliable which is the very thing we are debating. This is the same infamous argument they made against Faurisson in Le Monde. You can attempt this, just know that it will open you up to ridicule. It is exactly the sort of old school mentality that was repeatedly criticized by Pressac, and it goes against the standard hierarchy of evidence which considers testimonial evidence one of the weaker forms of evidence. And if you have multiple pieces of technical evidence going against you, like the blueprints, the ventilation, the lack of Prussian blue, and every time you say we can discard technical considerations because we must have faith in the testimonies, it starts to sound a bit desperate.

Please start making REAL ARGUMENTS that address the points that have been made.

Re #2

A couple of preliminary points here.

1) How full of a history do we need? Do you demand this for every single room in every camp? Because such documentation simply does not exist. We cannot know exactly what happened during every second for several years in all these rooms. But we have a good idea of what many of these rooms/facilities were most likely used for.

2) You really should apply some Bayesian reasoning here. Suppose we have a facility called "Bath and Disinfection" like at Majdanek. We also know hygiene was a major cause for concern in the camps and we know inmates were shaved, showered, deloused, etc. Is it not a reasonable default hypothesis that this facility was, oh, wild guess, for bathing and disinfecting? Similarly, I can't prove that people were taking shits in the latrine, but since we know humans must shit and we know that's what latrines are for it is perfectly reasonable to assume people took shits in the latrine. Do I have this in 4K video? No. Can I prove shits were taken? No. Does it matter? No. Does lack of documentation prove a million people were murdered in the latrine? No.

I would also distinguish between mundane and extraordinary claims of usage. We do not need to prove that people showered in Bath & Disinfection I & II. This is the presumptive mundane usage regardless of whether such showers are "documented." However, if you are claiming thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions were executed via technical means, this is an extraordinary claim and we should demand proof commensurate with that claim.

3) Revisionists do have an account of why the crematoria were built and what they were used for. Plans were made in the summer of 1942 while the camp was under quarantine due to a typhus epidemic. Registered deaths at that time were high. There were also plans to significantly expand the size of the camp. The blueprints show these were designed as morgues, not as mass gassing facilities. The registered deaths are sufficient to explain the construction of crematoria. This matches perfectly with what Himmler said in April 1945, and Himmler was the man who ordered the project and hence is the person best in position to know the purpose.

There are many witnesses like Nyiszli who claim gas chambers, but these testimonies are of uniformly incoherent and of poor quality.

[Keen]

You're still dodging.

If people are being put in quarantine for dodging, then why isn't Callafangers here?

[Nessie]

Replying to this here.

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?

Re: #1

The ventilation system being obviously for a morgue and not for a gas chamber suggests the room was not used for homicidal gassings, and that conclusion is bolstered by much additional data.

First of all, let's restate the actual arguments, not your distortions.

-LK1 had a ventilation system calibrated for 10 air exchanges per hour (under normal conditions). We know this because the documentation has survived.
-German technical literature at the time recommended ventilation for morgues of 5 air exchanges, or 10 air exchanges for intensive use (which certainly applied at Auschwitz).
-German technical literature at the time recommended ventilation for a Zyklon B gas chamber of 72 air exchanges.
-The ventilation for LK1 was similar to that of the other rooms in the crematorium which are not alleged to have been used for gassings.
-Many additional related points, see these threads for more
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=162
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=157
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=134
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=315

You are free to disagree with me, but you cannot dismiss my arguments simply by muttering "argument from incredulity." THAT is actually fallacious because you are dismissing my arguments without addressing them in any way.

That the 10 ACH is also consistent with the normal function of a mortuary, does not therefore mean the Leichenkeller was not used for gassings. I am addressing your argument. I am pointing out that just because you cannot work out how or why the Topf & Sons used 10 ACH, rather than 72, does not therefore mean there was no gas chamber.

Let me help you out here a little bit. Here are some actual valid ways you could try to counter these points.

-Review the German technical literature and to see if you can challenge the 5-10 exchanges for morgues and 72 exchanges for gas chambers.

They may have used 10, because it was quicker and it did enough to vent the room, so that Jews, wearing gas masks could be used to clear them. It would not matter if a Jew died.

-Attempt to make the technical argument that the recommended 72 exchanges is overly conservative and that in practice 10 exchanges would be sufficient for the job. You claimed earlier 10 exchanges would clear all the gas in 30 minutes, but you relied on random HVAC webpages which assume normal use and you failed to account for the room being full of bodies, the exhaust being blocked, the short circuit, etc.

Meaning I have found evidence 10 ACH would be sufficient and, I have evidence of usage, unlike you, which is that gas masks were needed, SS staff had to stay clear and gas would still be found inside the chambers, whilst they were being cleared.

-Reconcile whatever your estimate is for ventilation time (30 minutes is obviously wrong) with the testimonies such as that of Hoess who claims they went in immediately without gas masks.

Multiple scientific studies of witnesses, which you ignore, prove that people are poor at estimating how long a task took, hence, 30 minutes was a mistake. There were 8 gas chambers, Hoess may have seen one, where the chamber was fully vented and it was safe to enter, without a gas mask. It may have been after the accident, that resulted in his order for all staff to stay clear and wear gas masks, so he was shown a gassing, where gas masks were not needed. He may have made a mistake, and be remembering an occasion outwith a gassing, he saw people entering the chamber, without masks. There are all sorts of reasonable explanations.

For all your claims about technicality and scientific possibility, it is very odd that you refuse to apply science to the witnesses themselves, and all those studies about memory, recollection and estimation. Why is that?

There's also the other argument you have made, that because we have witness testimony to gassings, we know it gassings happened, and so we don't need to worry about technical points. The problem with this argument is that you are assuming that the testimonies are accurate and reliable which is the very thing we are debating.

The genuine problem with that argument of yours, is that you made it up. Straw man. I have repeatedly said that technicality is important. It has to be established that the Nazis were capable of, and had the opportunity, to build operational gas chambers and gas people. It is an absolute fact, that German engineering and design capabilities, were up to the job and inside the camps, they had the opportunity.

Again, your claim that I assume testimonies are accurate and reliable, is made up. Straw man. |I have repeatedly told you how the testimonies are assessed, to check on their accuracy and reliability. CORROBORATION. How can you still not understand that? For example, a witness states a task takes 25 minutes, but a document records it was timed at 45 minutes, then the witness is corroborated about the task taking place, but they are not reliable about the time. I predict you will gloss over and forget that example.

This is the same infamous argument they made against Faurisson in Le Monde. You can attempt this, just know that it will open you up to ridicule. It is exactly the sort of old school mentality that was repeatedly criticized by Pressac, and it goes against the standard hierarchy of evidence which considers testimonial evidence one of the weaker forms of evidence. And if you have multiple pieces of technical evidence going against you, like the blueprints, the ventilation, the lack of Prussian blue, and every time you say we can discard technical considerations because we must have faith in the testimonies, it starts to sound a bit desperate.

Testimonial evidence is weak when it comes to detail, but it is strong when it comes to narrative. Evidence, such as a blueprint, is strong in its detail, but weak as it provides no narrative. The technical evidence, such as blueprints support the witness narrative. For example, witnesses state that buildings designed as crematoriums (corroborated by the blueprints), were then converted for use for gassings (corroborated by the document about a gassing cellar).

That you cannot work out to your satisfaction, how the vents could have coped, and why there is no apparent PB, is NOT EVIDENCE, to prove there was no gas chamber.

Please start making REAL ARGUMENTS that address the points that have been made.

Stop straw manning me and start to follow my points, beginning with learning about the science of witnesses.

Re #2

A couple of preliminary points here.

1) How full of a history do we need? Do you demand this for every single room in every camp? Because such documentation simply does not exist. We cannot know exactly what happened during every second for several years in all these rooms. But we have a good idea of what many of these rooms/facilities were most likely used for.

For you to revise what took place inside the Kremas, you cannot just suggest alternatives, you have to prove usage. You need eyewitnesses who worked there, along with evidence such as documents to corroborate them and show how accurate and reliable they are. Otherwise, you are a denier, as all you do is deny that they were used for gassings.

2) You really should apply some Bayesian reasoning here. Suppose we have a facility called "Bath and Disinfection" like at Majdanek. We also know hygiene was a major cause for concern in the camps and we know inmates were shaved, showered, deloused, etc. Is it not a reasonable default hypothesis that this facility was, oh, wild guess, for bathing and disinfecting? Similarly, I can't prove that people were taking shits in the latrine, but since we know humans must shit and we know that's what latrines are for it is perfectly reasonable to assume people took shits in the latrine. Do I have this in 4K video? No. Can I prove shits were taken? No. Does it matter? No. Does lack of documentation prove a million people were murdered in the latrine? No.

I would also distinguish between mundane and extraordinary claims of usage. We do not need to prove that people showered in Bath & Disinfection I & II. This is the presumptive mundane usage regardless of whether such showers are "documented." However, if you are claiming thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions were executed via technical means, this is an extraordinary claim and we should demand proof commensurate with that claim.

A thorough criminal or historical investigation, evidence is gathered to determine what took place. You are pleading for an exemption, whereby you want to assume usage based on face value, without bothering to check. When it comes to a criminal allegation, especially a serious one, yes it DOES MATTER. If a blueprint records a room as a corpse store, but there is evidence it was used for a criminal act, then NO, you CANNOT assume it was a corpse store, because of ONE document.

3) Revisionists do have an account of why the crematoria were built and what they were used for. Plans were made in the summer of 1942 while the camp was under quarantine due to a typhus epidemic. Registered deaths at that time were high. There were also plans to significantly expand the size of the camp. The blueprints show these were designed as morgues, not as mass gassing facilities. The registered deaths are sufficient to explain the construction of crematoria. This matches perfectly with what Himmler said in April 1945, and Himmler was the man who ordered the project and hence is the person best in position to know the purpose.

So-called revisionists have multiple accounts of what the Kremas were used for. You have cherry-picked they were used as designed, to store corpses and cope with epidemics. Others say they were used for showering due to documents about hygiene and shower fittings, as bomb shelters due to the documents about gas tight doors, as delousing chambers due to the documents about gas chambers and as corpse stores due to documents about corpses. None of you can produce actual evidence of usage, or even agree and reach a consensus, since all of your suggestions are so poorly evidenced. Those multiple competing, often contradictory accounts go up against an evidenced chronological narrative, that can prove, often on a daily basis, what was happening inside the Kremas. You fail at the basic task, of constructing an evidenced narrative.

There are many witnesses like Nyiszli who claim gas chambers, but these testimonies are of uniformly incoherent and of poor quality.

The way you assess witnesses, is of very poor quality, as it ignores the multiple scientific studies of witness evidence. Your approach is biased, as you have predetermined that you not believe any of the witnesses. The eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas, are consistent and corroborate and their truthfulness has been proven and most are pretty accurate, with expected issues, such as estimating how long tasks took.

[Keen]

For all your claims about technicality and scientific possibility, it is very odd that you refuse to apply science to the witnesses themselves