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.

[Wetzelrad]

You do not undersand what I am doing. I am not cherry-picking, I am assessing. What parts of Hoess's testimony are corroborated? What parts are not? What parts are likely accurate and what parts are not? What parts did he say when under duress and what parts did he say when he was not? I am determining how good his memory and how accurate his recollection is.

I understand very well what you are doing. You're systemically discrediting witnesses where they said things that can only be false, then attempting to re-credit them for the things you like and want to be true. It's worthy of the most extreme derision and mockery.

In any other context you would recognize how ridiculous this treatment of witnesses is. It is as if to say, "All the witnesses disagree on how many UFOs landed, what the aliens looked like, what they said, and whether or not they left rayguns behind, but they all corroborate each other that there were aliens so it must be true!"

It is not cherry-picking, to dismiss what is likely mistaken, or inaccurate, or even made up, over what is likely accurate.

It is cherrypicking because your determination for the likelihood of what is inaccurate is whether or not it's needed for the prebuilt narrative of German villainy. You think or pretend to think that gassing occurred, so you cherrypick the narrow fact that numerous witnesses claimed gassing occurred while discrediting them on nearly everything else. What you are doing is definitionally cherrypicking.

Hoess's testimony is indeed inconsistent in the detail. Studies have found that the more witnesses are repeatedly interviewed, or otherwise give evidence, then the more inconsistencies creep in. Hoess was under immense pressure, and that was not just because, at times, he was beaten up. He was the Commandant, he knew he was likely to face execution and that, due to overwhelming evidence for mass murder at the camp, he was going to be found guilty. It would actually be remarkable, if he had not got things wrong.

As I said, his stories were loaded with errors and contradictions. Yet he was commandant during the critical period and he was an eyewitness to the alleged gassings. If anyone should know what happened, with the greatest clarity, it should have been him, but he didn't. He had to make things up. Why? You suggest he was under pressure, but in ordinary criminal justice criminals deny or downplay their crimes. Höss instead manufactured details to sell his own guilt and that of his brothers in arms. He even increased his own victim number by millions more than what is said today to be possible. Obviously then the pressure you are alluding to was pressure to incriminate himself, coming from the prosecutors or investigators. This is highly discrediting for his testimony as a whole and for the broader handling of postwar justice.

But you still use Höss as evidence of gassing, as does Hilberg repeatedly in his book. Again, this is you cherrypicking what you like from him and disregarding all the facts that make his testimony not credible.

Like all so-called revisionists, you have zero experience of taking witness statements and you have done nothing to learn about witness behaviour.

I guess you mean to say that no revisionist has ever seen a police arrest video, or an interrogation, or a court proceeding. As if this is some hidden truth you and only you could be privy to. As if no one has ever seen a court drama or detective story. Or for that matter a news program or a political speech.

"Taking witness statements" is the foundation of human social behavior. We all have extensive experience in our daily lives both with people who make mistakes and people who intentionally lie. We all know how to tell the difference. Only in the case of this one historical event do you trust the group of people who get everything wrong and fabricate ridiculous stories.

The reasons why the multiple eyewitnesses to the gassings give different descriptions are;

- there were 8 gas chambers, most of which operated differently. Ask an eyewitness to a gassing at Krema I and another at Krema II, how long did the gassing take, and you get two different answers.

So far we have not been finding contradictions between different locations, but we certainly could if you want to.

The benefit of asserting the existence of so many different gas chambers is that the narrative-keepers get to arbitrarily assign witnesses to them as they find convenient. A good example of this process is André Lettich. He described a gas chamber two kilometers from Birkenau, so obviously he could not have been referring to any known gas chamber. He also did not know the word "bunker" or "little red house" or "little white house", but it is to those locations that Lettich's account has been interpreted to refer. He also described the process wrongly, e.g. ventilation through windows which was effectively instantaneous. Therefore Lettich was ignorant of the basic name, location, and details of these gas chambers despite claiming to work at one. If he ever did see a gas chamber, it couldn't have been the bunkers. But the narrative-keepers are content to force this square peg through a round hole. Rational beings are not obliged to agree.

You suggest that the reason Lettich may have been so wrong is because he was describing a different gassing location. Which location was 2 kilometers outside camp and had instantaneous ventilation?

- experiments have found that people are poor and inconsistent when estimating how long a task took. Ask two people how long the same task took, like cremation times, and you will likely get two different answers.
- people remember different details, hence some will remember the Kula columns and others will not. That could be because only Kremas II and III had them, so a witness to Krema IV, will not recollect a column inside the gas chamber, because there was none.

I'm not going to keep reiterating what you've already been shown. Even within the accepted narrative, the witnesses as a category exaggerated the numbers. This demonstrates their intent to deceive. You don't have one single witness that you agree with on the details.

- people forget and make mistakes. A witness will think of a metal door on a delousing chamber and mistakenly apply it to the gas chambers, when asked to describe what they saw, 25 years after they left the camp.

Höss claimed there were iron doors plural in 1946, not 1970.

Also the delousing chambers to a great extent had exactly the same doors as the morgues and other buildings.

- all the witnesses had different experiences. One witness, who was caught out by a pocket of gas, will remember it vividly, but another, who never had that problem, will not.

Why would a pocket of gas be a rare experience? If bodies were consistently piled up in death, in the mass numbers and descriptions claimed by witnesses, then pockets of gas underneath them should have been something they experienced repeatedly. We're talking about people who supposedly did this as a job every day. They removed bodies for what must have been hundreds or thousands of hours total, but you think some of them never experienced a pocket of gas trapped under the supposed piles of bodies?

What date did Schultze last see inside Krema II? Were the columns installed by then? Could he have just made a mistake and remembered the chambers, when they were still empty?

He saw it around the time it was first being used for gassings, specifically in the context of testing the ventilation system. The columns had to be installed. Mattogno references Henryk Tauber's testimony as additional proof that they were already installed before this date. (Auschwitz Engineers in Moscow, p.69)

Did he give the official cremation time, as per the original design, rather than what the Sonderkommandos were doing, which was speeding the process up?

Cremation ovens don't speed up, lol.

Why do you expect him to remember dates so well? No one can! We are all notoriously bad at remembering.

What's interesting is that if you read through his interrogations in order you can see that the questioners fed him documents and information to help him massage his story into something that closer fit the dates he was actually documented to be there.

Your puzzlement, is due to you not bothering to learn about witness memory, or ability to recollect.

I'm not puzzled. You are unwilling to contemplate the possibility that any Holocaust witness ever might have committed an act of deception in support of the narrative. I don't share that defect.

Historians look at the total testimony, in conjunction with the other evidence. They then highlight what is corroborated. For example, 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas, no matter their job, state they were used for gassings. There are documents recording the construction of gas chambers, so the witnesses are corroborated and the gas chambers are proven. That the witness vary in their descriptions of how the gas chambers worked, is to be expected. They do not contradict on the main event, gassings, they can contradict on the details, such as whether there was a column inside the chamber, but that variation often comes with a simple explanantion.

You are making the alien truther argument. But don't let me stop you. I like when you post this.

My explanation is based on multiple studies of witness behaviour, memory, recollection and estimation. Your explanation is based on your desire to write off 100% of the witnesses as liars.

Has any witness ever committed a lie, in your judgement? Who?

[Hektor]

You do not undersand what I am doing. I am not cherry-picking, I am assessing. What parts of Hoess's testimony are corroborated? What parts are not? What parts are likely accurate and what parts are not? What parts did he say when under duress and what parts did he say when he was not? I am determining how good his memory and how accurate his recollection is.

I understand very well what you are doing. You're systemically discrediting witnesses where they said things that can only be false, then attempting to re-credit them for the things you like and want to be true. It's worthy of the most extreme derision and mockery.

In any other context you would recognize how ridiculous this treatment of witnesses is. It is as if to say, "All the witnesses disagree on how many UFOs landed, what the aliens looked like, what they said, and whether or not they left rayguns behind, but they all corroborate each other that there were aliens so it must be true!"
....

Actually, testimonies of people that claim to have had extraterrestrial experiences are remarkably congruent on many details.... There seem to have been plenty more of this as well....

[Wetzelrad]

Actually, testimonies of people that claim to have had extraterrestrial experiences are remarkably congruent on many details.... There seem to have been plenty more of this as well....

Even better, I suppose.

But my point is not just to make the obvious ET comparison but to demonstrate the major fallacy in Nessie's favorite argument. Witnesses agreeing on a "main event" can easily be the result of a shared delusion or deception. We don't need to search in vain for opposing witnesses who would admit there was no alien visit. Perhaps none of them would ever admit to that. The witnesses' claims and other information we have is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of how plausible the main event is.

[Nessie]

You do not undersand what I am doing. I am not cherry-picking, I am assessing. What parts of Hoess's testimony are corroborated? What parts are not? What parts are likely accurate and what parts are not? What parts did he say when under duress and what parts did he say when he was not? I am determining how good his memory and how accurate his recollection is.

I understand very well what you are doing. You're systemically discrediting witnesses where they said things that can only be false, then attempting to re-credit them for the things you like and want to be true. It's worthy of the most extreme derision and mockery.

Anyone, with any training, or experience of dealing with witnesses, who has common sense, knows not to expect witnesses to get everything right and that they will be accurate about somethings and inaccurate about others. I credit a witness when they are corroborated to be accurate and discredit when they are found to be inaccurate.

In any other context you would recognize how ridiculous this treatment of witnesses is.

What is ridiculous, is how wrong you are about witnesses.

It is as if to say, "All the witnesses disagree on how many UFOs landed, what the aliens looked like, what they said, and whether or not they left rayguns behind, but they all corroborate each other that there were aliens so it must be true!"

If aliens did land, do you think that every witness would agree how many landed, what they looked like, what they said and what they left behind? Or, do you think you would get mutiple, varying accounts?

As for assessing the truthfulness of multiple witnesses claiming aliens landed, that would be done by looking for evidence from other sources, to prove that aliens landed.

It is not cherry-picking, to dismiss what is likely mistaken, or inaccurate, or even made up, over what is likely accurate.

It is cherrypicking because your determination for the likelihood of what is inaccurate is whether or not it's needed for the prebuilt narrative of German villainy. You think or pretend to think that gassing occurred, so you cherrypick the narrow fact that numerous witnesses claimed gassing occurred while discrediting them on nearly everything else. What you are doing is definitionally cherrypicking.

I am not cherry-picking, because I take into account all of the evidence. All the AR camp workers, say people died inside chambers. There is 100% agreement on that. Those who worked at the chambers and saw their operation, say that the deaths were due to asphyxiation from engine exhaust fumes. They are 100% in agreement amongst them. There is variation on the fuel used. There is also variation with those who worked inside the camp, but not at the chambers. They agree on deaths inside the chamber, but the claims on how the deaths occur include the use of chlorine, steam and electrocution.

It is not cherrypicking, to assess those who worked at the chambers, to be the most accurate and knoweldgeable, and to then use their engine claim, over the claims about chlorine etc. The claim about chlorine is still part of the evidence, but the gas used is inaccurate.

Hoess's testimony is indeed inconsistent in the detail. Studies have found that the more witnesses are repeatedly interviewed, or otherwise give evidence, then the more inconsistencies creep in. Hoess was under immense pressure, and that was not just because, at times, he was beaten up. He was the Commandant, he knew he was likely to face execution and that, due to overwhelming evidence for mass murder at the camp, he was going to be found guilty. It would actually be remarkable, if he had not got things wrong.

As I said, his stories were loaded with errors and contradictions.

You exaggerate how error ridden and contradictory the testimony is. You concentrate on the details and ignore that there is no error or contradiction about the main processes. Every single witness who worked at Birkenau agrees that mass transports arrived at Birkenau, a election process took place, those needed to work were tattooed, registered and given a uniform. Those not needed for work, were sent to the Kremas, never to be seen again. Those who worked inside the Kremas are in 100% agreement that people were told to undress, they were going for showers, they would be gassed and cremated.

Yet he was commandant during the critical period and he was an eyewitness to the alleged gassings. If anyone should know what happened, with the greatest clarity, it should have been him, but he didn't. He had to make things up. Why? You suggest he was under pressure, but in ordinary criminal justice criminals deny or downplay their crimes. Höss instead manufactured details to sell his own guilt and that of his brothers in arms. He even increased his own victim number by millions more than what is said today to be possible. Obviously then the pressure you are alluding to was pressure to incriminate himself, coming from the prosecutors or investigators. This is highly discrediting for his testimony as a whole and for the broader handling of postwar justice.

But you still use Höss as evidence of gassing, as does Hilberg repeatedly in his book. Again, this is you cherrypicking what you like from him and disregarding all the facts that make his testimony not credible.

He is accurate about and does not contradict the main processes. He is corroborated about that. It is in the detail, that he fails and becomes unreliable and lacks credibility. It is clear he is suffering some sort of mental breakdown, as the enormity of his crimes are exposed and that he will be held responsible. It is not cherry-picking to assess what he is correct about and what he is not, as all of his evidence remains on record. Like the AR camp witness who claimed chlorine was used to gas people, when it was engine exhaust, the mistake is there for all to see. You try to use those mistakes, to prove lying, which fails, as a mistake is not a lie.

Like all so-called revisionists, you have zero experience of taking witness statements and you have done nothing to learn about witness behaviour.

I guess you mean to say that no revisionist has ever seen a police arrest video, or an interrogation, or a court proceeding. As if this is some hidden truth you and only you could be privy to. As if no one has ever seen a court drama or detective story. Or for that matter a news program or a political speech.

"Taking witness statements" is the foundation of human social behavior. We all have extensive experience in our daily lives both with people who make mistakes and people who intentionally lie. We all know how to tell the difference. Only in the case of this one historical event do you trust the group of people who get everything wrong and fabricate ridiculous stories.

Then why do so-called revisionists make so many mistakes when assessing witnesses and claim lies, when they cannot prove lying?

The reasons why the multiple eyewitnesses to the gassings give different descriptions are;

- there were 8 gas chambers, most of which operated differently. Ask an eyewitness to a gassing at Krema I and another at Krema II, how long did the gassing take, and you get two different answers.

So far we have not been finding contradictions between different locations, but we certainly could if you want to.

You are dodging my point about how many different answers you would get, if you asked multiple people how long something took. You are doing that, because you know that if you asked 10 people, you would quite probably get 10 different answers.

The benefit of asserting the existence of so many different gas chambers is that the narrative-keepers get to arbitrarily assign witnesses to them as they find convenient. A good example of this process is André Lettich. He described a gas chamber two kilometers from Birkenau, so obviously he could not have been referring to any known gas chamber. He also did not know the word "bunker" or "little red house" or "little white house", but it is to those locations that Lettich's account has been interpreted to refer. He also described the process wrongly, e.g. ventilation through windows which was effectively instantaneous. Therefore Lettich was ignorant of the basic name, location, and details of these gas chambers despite claiming to work at one. If he ever did see a gas chamber, it couldn't have been the bunkers. But the narrative-keepers are content to force this square peg through a round hole. Rational beings are not obliged to agree.

Your source;

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... andre/652/

I have not read his testimony, but the descriptions you claim prove he lied, do not prove he lied. He is correct about gas chambers outside the main perimeter, that the widows were used for venting. That he called it a cottage, when historians referred to them as farm houses, bunkers and asigned colours to them, is not significant. He is clearly describing a building like the remaining foundations shows, of a small, single story house.

You suggest that the reason Lettich may have been so wrong is because he was describing a different gassing location. Which location was 2 kilometers outside camp and had instantaneous ventilation?

He is clearly describing one of the farm house/bunker gas chambers. I would expect his description to vary from another who describes the same building, let alone a different building.

- experiments have found that people are poor and inconsistent when estimating how long a task took. Ask two people how long the same task took, like cremation times, and you will likely get two different answers.
- people remember different details, hence some will remember the Kula columns and others will not. That could be because only Kremas II and III had them, so a witness to Krema IV, will not recollect a column inside the gas chamber, because there was none.

I'm not going to keep reiterating what you've already been shown. Even within the accepted narrative, the witnesses as a category exaggerated the numbers. This demonstrates their intent to deceive. You don't have one single witness that you agree with on the details.

I would again point out that 100% of the witnesses, including Lettich, agree on the main process, of selected people being told they were getting showered and then they were gassed and the corpse cremated. The variation on details, is not as significant as you suggest it is.

- people forget and make mistakes. A witness will think of a metal door on a delousing chamber and mistakenly apply it to the gas chambers, when asked to describe what they saw, 25 years after they left the camp.

Höss claimed there were iron doors plural in 1946, not 1970.

Also the delousing chambers to a great extent had exactly the same doors as the morgues and other buildings.

They were wooden, metal reinforced doors. There may have been iron doors used in Krema I, when it was converted to use as an air raid shelter. Hoess has been established as unreliable on the details.

- all the witnesses had different experiences. One witness, who was caught out by a pocket of gas, will remember it vividly, but another, who never had that problem, will not.

Why would a pocket of gas be a rare experience? If bodies were consistently piled up in death, in the mass numbers and descriptions claimed by witnesses, then pockets of gas underneath them should have been something they experienced repeatedly. We're talking about people who supposedly did this as a job every day. They removed bodies for what must have been hundreds or thousands of hours total, but you think some of them never experienced a pocket of gas trapped under the supposed piles of bodies?

Some will recollect it and others will not. That you do not understand that, is down to your lack of knowledge and desire to disbelieve.

What date did Schultze last see inside Krema II? Were the columns installed by then? Could he have just made a mistake and remembered the chambers, when they were still empty?

He saw it around the time it was first being used for gassings, specifically in the context of testing the ventilation system. The columns had to be installed. Mattogno references Henryk Tauber's testimony as additional proof that they were already installed before this date. (Auschwitz Engineers in Moscow, p.69)

He just chose, for an unknown reason, not to mention the columns. Witnesses do that, they miss out details all of the time.

Did he give the official cremation time, as per the original design, rather than what the Sonderkommandos were doing, which was speeding the process up?

Cremation ovens don't speed up, lol.

They do when corpses are removed before they are fully cremated, to then be rendered, compared to leaving them in longer, to cremate to ash.

Why do you expect him to remember dates so well? No one can! We are all notoriously bad at remembering.

What's interesting is that if you read through his interrogations in order you can see that the questioners fed him documents and information to help him massage his story into something that closer fit the dates he was actually documented to be there.

It is quite normal, when a witness makes a likely mistake over a date, for the interviewer to show them a document with a different date, to ask why they are different.

Your puzzlement, is due to you not bothering to learn about witness memory, or ability to recollect.

I'm not puzzled. You are unwilling to contemplate the possibility that any Holocaust witness ever might have committed an act of deception in support of the narrative. I don't share that defect.

The process historians, criminal investigators and I use, of checking, verifying and corroboration, is to catch out lies and identify mistakes. You do not have such a process and claim everything is a lie, when it could clearly be a mistake.

Historians look at the total testimony, in conjunction with the other evidence. They then highlight what is corroborated. For example, 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas, no matter their job, state they were used for gassings. There are documents recording the construction of gas chambers, so the witnesses are corroborated and the gas chambers are proven. That the witness vary in their descriptions of how the gas chambers worked, is to be expected. They do not contradict on the main event, gassings, they can contradict on the details, such as whether there was a column inside the chamber, but that variation often comes with a simple explanantion.

You are making the alien truther argument. But don't let me stop you. I like when you post this.

You are confused, as the witnesses to gassings are corroborated by other no witness evidence, whereas alien truthers are not. Plus, aliens cannot get to earth, but the Germans can build gas chambers.

My explanation is based on multiple studies of witness behaviour, memory, recollection and estimation. Your explanation is based on your desire to write off 100% of the witnesses as liars.

Has any witness ever committed a lie, in your judgement? Who?

The most common lie, as such, is the deception where witnesses suggest they saw something, but they were in fact told about it. Vrba is a good example of that. There may well be some witnesses, who back with the original investigations, were ditched due to lying, so we only know about the ones assessed to be truthful.

[HansHill]

Actually, testimonies of people that claim to have had extraterrestrial experiences are remarkably congruent on many details.... There seem to have been plenty more of this as well....

This is an excellent point, and shows a much stronger degree of convergence of evidence than Holocaust activists would care to admit.